`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0110198-00200US1
`Filed on behalf of The Gillette Company
`By: Michael A. Diener, Reg. No. 37,122
`Larissa B. Park, Reg. No. 59,051
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email: michael.diener@wilmerhale.com
`larissa.park@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR Trial No. TBD
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,604,716
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-11 AND 33
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................ - 1 -
`A. Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................... - 1 -
`B. Related Matters ......................................................................................... - 1 -
`C. Counsel ..................................................................................................... - 1 -
`D. Service Information .................................................................................. - 1 -
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing .......................................................... - 2 -
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................ - 2 -
`A. Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................... - 2 -
`B. Grounds for Challenge ............................................................................. - 3 -
`IV. Brief Description of Technology ................................................................. - 4 -
`A. Plasma ....................................................................................................... - 4 -
`B.
`Ions and Excited Atoms ........................................................................... - 5 -
`V. Overview of the ‘716 Patent ......................................................................... - 6 -
`A. Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’716 Patent .................................. - 6 -
`B. Prosecution History .................................................................................. - 7 -
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ........................................... - 8 -
`A. Summary of the Prior Art ......................................................................... - 8 -
`B. Overview of Mozgrin ............................................................................... - 8 -
`C. Overview of Wang ................................................................................. - 10 -
`VII. Claim Construction ................................................................................. - 11 -
`A.
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” ..................... - 11 -
`B.
`“means for ionizing a feed gas…” (claim 33) ........................................ - 13 -
`C.
`“means for supplying an electrical pulse…” (claim 33) ........................ - 14 -
`VIII. Specific Grounds for Petition ................................................................. - 15 -
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 33 are anticipated by Mozgrin ........... - 15 -
`1.
`Independent claim 33 is anticipated by Mozgrin ................................ - 15 -
`2.
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Mozgrin .................................. - 26 -
`3. Dependent claims 2-5 and 8-11 are anticipated by Mozgrin .............. - 29 -
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`B. Ground II: Claims 6 and 7 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis .................................................................... - 36 -
`C. Ground III: Claims 1-11 and 33 are anticipated by Wang .................... - 39 -
`1.
`Independent claim 33 is anticipated by Wang .................................... - 39 -
`2.
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Wang ...................................... - 47 -
`3. Dependent claims 2-11 are anticipated by Wang ............................... - 50 -
`IX. Conclusion ................................................................................................. - 59 -
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The Gillette Company (“Petitioner”) is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. ‘7,604,716 (“‘716 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS
`
`(Zond v. The Gillette Company); 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al);
`
`1:13-cv-11581-DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS
`
`(Zond v. SK Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.);
`
`1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu, et al.); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v.
`
`Gillette, Co.).
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘716 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`substantially identical petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v.
`
`Zond, Inc., which was filed March 27, 2014 and assigned Case No.
`
`IPR2014-00520. Petitioner will seek joinder with that inter partes review under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b).
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Michael A. Diener (Reg. No. 37,122)
`
`Backup Counsel: Larissa B. Park (Reg. No. 59,051)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`E-mail: Michael.Diener@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Larissa.Park@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6000
`
`
`
`Fax: 617-526-5000
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-11 and 33 of the ’716 Patent.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`A.
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below: 1
`
`
`1 The ‘716 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has chosen to use the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer
`
`to the prior art.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`1.
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1003)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1004)), which is prior art under
`
`102(a) and (e).
`
`3. D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering Physics
`
`Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1005)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1005 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis,
`
`attached as Exhibit 1006. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at
`
`the Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1007.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-11 and 33 of the ’716 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This Petition, supported by the
`
`declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen2 (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1002)) filed
`
`2 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by The Gillette Company. The attached
`
`declaration at Ex. 1002 is a copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-
`
`00520, discussed above. And, the attached Exhibits are the same and identically
`
`numbered as those in IPR2014-00520.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`herewith, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged claim
`
`is not patentable.3 See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`A.
`Plasma
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1002). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma
`
`as a whole has no overall electrical charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the
`
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Id. (Ex. 1002).4
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘716 patent was filed. Id. at ¶ 23 (Ex. 1002). For example, sputtering is
`
`an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a target material
`
`
`3 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 1-11 and 33 of the
`
`‘716 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining claims of the ‘716 Patent
`
`in separate petitions.
`
`4 The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22, FN1 (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`onto a surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a semiconductor
`
`manufacturing operation). Id. (Ex. 1002). Ions in the plasma strike a target
`
`surface causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id. (Ex. 1002). The
`
`ejected target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering. Id. at
`
`¶ 24 (Ex. 1002). Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive release of
`
`droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1002). The need
`
`to avoid arcing while sputtering was known long before the ‘716 Patent was filed.
`
`Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`B.
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Id. at ¶ 25 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. (Ex. 1002). If all of an atom’s
`
`electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the
`
`“ground state.” Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`On the other hand, if one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state that is
`
`higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to be an “excited atom.”
`
`Id. at ¶ 26 (Ex. 1002). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they have equal
`
`numbers of electrons and protons. Id. (Ex. 1002). A collision with a free electron
`
`(e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited atom. Id. (Ex. 1002). For
`
`example, the ‘716 Patent uses the following equation to describe production of an
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘716 Patent at
`
`9:7 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e- Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1002). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Id. (Ex.
`
`1002). For example, the ‘716 Patent uses the following equations to describe
`
`production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or an excited
`
`argon atom, Ar*. See ‘716 Patent at 2:65 and 9:9 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e- Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e- Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ‘716 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex. 1002).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘716 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’716 Patent
`The ‘716 Patent describes generating a plasma by applying an electrical
`
`pulse in a manner that allegedly reduces the probability of arcing. Id. at ¶ 29 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ‘716 Patent are generally directed to
`
`generating a, so called, “weakly-ionized plasma” and then applying an electrical
`
`pulse to increase the density of that plasma so as to form a “strongly-ionized
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`plasma.” Id. at ¶ 30 (Ex. 1002). The weakly-ionized plasma is claimed to reduce
`
`the probability of forming an electrical breakdown condition. Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`Specific claims are directed to further operational details such as supplying a
`
`feed gas to the plasma, characteristics of the electrical pulse, generating a magnetic
`
`field and the type of power supply used. Id. at ¶ 31 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The ‘716 patent is a continuation of U.S. Pat. App. No. 10/065,629 (now
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,853,142) (Ex. 1008). See ‘716 Patent at Certificate of Correction
`
`(Ex. 1001).
`
`The first substantive office action rejected all independent claims as being
`
`anticipated. See 03/27/08 Office Action at 2 (Ex. 1014). The applicant then
`
`amended every independent claim to require “substantially eliminating the
`
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” and
`
`“without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” or similar
`
`limitations. See 09/24/08 Resp. (Ex. 1015).
`
`Following that amendment, the claims were allowed. The Notice of
`
`Allowance explicitly recites these limitations as the examiner’s reasons for
`
`allowance. 06/11/09 Allowance at 2 (“The closest prior art of record Kouznetsov
`
`WO 98/40532 fails to teach the claimed elements including ‘substantially
`
`eliminating the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`chamber’ and ‘without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`
`chamber.”) (Ex. 1016). However, as explained in detail below, and contrary to the
`
`Examiner’s reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches those and
`
`all other limitations of the challenged claims. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex. 1002).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new
`
`or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘716 Patent. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 35
`
`(Ex. 1002).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin5
`Mozgrin teaches forming a
`
`plasma “without forming an arc
`
`discharge.” Id. at ¶ 36 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied at right,
`
`shows the current-voltage
`
`characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma
`
`discharge. As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2 (“Part
`
`1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`
`5 Mozgrin is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`ionization stage).” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)…” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is
`
`useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized
`
`by an intense cathode sputtering…”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (emphasis added))
`
`(Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1002). Increasing the current applied to
`
`the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition
`
`to region 3. Id. (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is useful for
`
`etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5 (“The
`
`high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful …. Hence, it can enhance the
`
`efficiency of ionic etching…”) (Ex. 1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1002). Further
`
`increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the
`
`“arc discharge” region 4. Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Id. at ¶ 42 (Ex. 1002).
`
`C. Overview of Wang6
`Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode (24),
`
`a cathode (14), a magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown in Fig.
`
`7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55; 7:56-
`
`8:12 (Ex. 1004). Fig. 6 (annotated and reproduced herein) shows a graph of the
`
`power Wang applies to the plasma. The lower power level, PB, is generated by the
`
`DC power supply 100 (shown in Fig. 7) and the higher power level, PP, is
`
`generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1004); see also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1002). Wang’s lower power level, PB, maintains the
`
`plasma after ignition and
`
`application of the higher power level,
`
`PP, raises the density of the plasma.
`
`Wang at 7:17-31 (“The background
`
`
`6 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`power level, PB, is chosen to exceed the minimum power necessary to support a
`
`plasma... [T]he application of the high peak power, PP, quickly causes the already
`
`existing plasma to spread and increases the density of the plasma.”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1002). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin in a
`
`commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device. Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.7 In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
`
`following discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those
`
`terms. Any claim terms not included in the following discussion are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`A.
`The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`
`7 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`the governing regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`pursue different constructions in a district court, where a different standard is
`
`applicable.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`plasma.” These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46
`
`(Ex. 1002). With reference to Fig. 3, the ‘716 Patent describes forming a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 302 and
`
`then goes on to describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of
`
`higher power 304. ‘716 Patent at 11:24-30; 11:66-12:6 (Ex. 1001). The ‘716
`
`Patent also provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-
`
`ionized plasmas. See ‘716 Patent at claim 23 (“wherein a peak plasma density of
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm˗3”); claim 24 (“wherein the
`
`peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about
`
`1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`Thus, the proposed construction for “weakly-ionized plasma” is “a lower
`
`density plasma.” Likewise, the proposed construction for “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma” is “a higher density plasma.”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the position the Patent
`
`Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner, when
`
`faced with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent
`
`application, argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not
`
`just in view of the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly-ionised plasma’ in the
`
`claims indicates a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1017).
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas…” (claim 33)
`
`B.
`Claim 33 recites “means for ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the probability of developing
`
`an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.” The claimed function is:
`
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a weakly-ionized plasma that
`
`substantially eliminates the probability of developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber.”
`
`The ‘716 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure for
`
`the “means for ionizing…” limitation of claim 33: a power supply, generating the
`
`voltage, current and power values shown in Fig. 4 (e.g., between t1 – t2 and t6 – t7),
`
`electrically coupled to cathode (e.g., 204), anode (e.g., 216) and/or an electrode
`
`(e.g., 452, 452’), wherein the cathode, anode and/or electrode are arranged relative
`
`to a sputtering target as shown in Figs. 2A-2D and 6A-6D, and as described in the
`
`text of the ‘716 Patent at 5:1-32, 16:10-25, 17:24-61, 17:62-18:15, and 18:16-27
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(Ex. 1001).8
`
`“means for supplying an electrical pulse…” (claim 33)
`
`C.
`Claim 33 recites “means for supplying an electrical pulse across the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma to transform the weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.”
`
`The claimed function is “supplying an electrical pulse across the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma to transform the weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.”
`
`The ‘716 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure for
`
`the “means for supplying an electrical pulse…” of claim 33: pulsed power supply
`
`(e.g., 202), generating the voltage, current and power values shown in Fig. 4 (e.g.,
`
`between t2 – t4), electrically coupled to a cathode (e.g., 204) and anode (e.g., 216),
`
`wherein the cathode and anode are arranged relative to a sputtering target as shown
`
`in Figs. 2A-2D and 6A-6D, and as described in the text of the ‘716 Patent at 6:52-
`
`8 The ‘759 Patent discloses that “other techniques including UV radiation
`
`techniques, X-ray techniques, electron beam techniques, ion beam techniques, or
`
`ionizing filament techniques” can ionize a gas, but fails to describe any structure
`
`for these “techniques.” See ‘716 Patent, 6:7-15 (Ex. 1001). The “means for
`
`ionizing…” cannot be construed to include any techniques that lack corresponding
`
`structure in the specification.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`7:24, 8:9-19, 11:59-12:6, 13:14-44, 13:52-60, 16:64-18, 18:50-61, and 19:1-11
`
`(Ex. 1001).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1002), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 1-11 and 33 of the ’716 Patent, and
`
`how those claims are rendered anticipated or obvious by the prior art.
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 33 are anticipated by Mozgrin
`The claim chart that Petitioner served on Feb. 11, 2014 in its ongoing
`
`litigation involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner, showing that claims 1-5,
`
`8-11 and 33 are anticipated by Mozgrin, is submitted hereto as Exhibit 1020 (Ex.
`
`1020). Dr. Kortshagen reviewed that chart and agrees with it. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`53 (Ex. 1002).
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 33 is anticipated by Mozgrin
`a)
`Claim 33 begins, “[a]n apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`The preamble
`
`As shown in Fig. 1, Mozgrin teaches generating plasma in “two types of devices: a
`
`planar magnetron and a system with specifically shaped hollow electrodes.”
`
`Mozgrin at Fig. 1; 400, right col, ¶ 4. (Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex.
`
`1002). The densities in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are summarized below.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
` Region 1: 109 – 1011 cm-3.9
`
` Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm-3.10
`
` Region 3: 1.5x1015cm-3.11
`
`Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1002). The density in those regions matches the
`
`exemplary density given for a strongly-ionized plasma in the ‘716 Patent. ‘716
`
`Patent at claim 24 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1001). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`55 (Ex. 1002).
`
`b)
`As explained above in section VII.B, the claimed function of the “means for
`
`“means for ionizing…”: Function
`
`ionizing…” is: “ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`9 Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“For pre-ionization … the initial plasma density in
`
`the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`10 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current
`
`magnetron discharge (regime 2) in sputtering…plasma density (exceeding
`
`2x1013 cm-3).”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`11 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is
`
`useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni 1.5x1015cm-3…”).
`
`(Ex. 1003).
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`that substantially eliminates the probability of developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber.”
`
`(1)
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a
`weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`The ‘716 Patent uses the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “pre-ionized
`
`plasma” synonymously. ‘716 Patent at 5:14-15 (“The weakly-ionized plasma 232
`
`is also referred to as a pre-ionized plasma.”) (Ex. 1001). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin’s power supply (shown in Fig. 2) generates a pre-
`
`ionized plasma in Mozgrin’s region 1. Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶2 (“Figure 3
`
`shows typical voltage and current oscillograms.… Part I in the voltage oscillogram
`
`represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-ionization stage).”) (Ex.
`
`1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Moreover, the density of Mozgrin’s pre-ionized plasma matches the
`
`exemplary density for weakly-ionized plasma given in the ‘716 Patent. ‘716 Patent
`
`at claim 23 (“wherein a peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less
`
`than about 1012 cm˗3”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1001); Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2
`
`(“[f]or pre-ionization, we used a stationary magnetron discharge; … provided the
`
`initial plasma density in the 109 – 1011 cm˗3 range.”) (Ex. 1003) (emphasis added).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin also teaches generating its plasma from feed gasses such as Argon
`
`and Nitrogen. Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 3 (“We investigated the discharge
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`regimes in various gas mixtures at 10-3 – 10 torr…”) (emphasis added); 402, ¶
`
`spanning left and right cols (“We studied the high-current discharge in wide ranges
`
`of discharge current…and operating pressure…using various gases (Ar, N2, SF6,
`
`and H2) or their mixtures of various composition…”) (emphasis added) (Ex.
`
`1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Finally, Mozgrin’s weakly-ionized plasma was generated between the anode
`
`and cathode, both of which reside within a chamber. See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`60 (Ex. 1002). For example, Mozgrin states “[t]he gas from the discharge volume
`
`was pumped out; minimal residual gas pressure was about 8 x 10-6 torr.” Mozgrin
`
`at 401, left col, ¶ 3 (Ex. 1003). That is, Mozgrin pumped the gas out to achieve a
`
`desired base pressure within the chamber. See also Mozgrin at Figs. 1 and 6 (Ex.
`
`1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 60 (Ex. 1002).
`
`(2)
`“that substantially eliminates the probability of
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`chamber”
`
`Mozgrin states “pre-ionization was not necessary; however, in this case, the
`
`probability of discharge transferring to arc mode increased.” Mozgrin at 406, right
`
`col, ¶ 3 (Ex. 1003). Thus, Mozgrin teaches that failing to make the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma increases the probability of arcing and that creation of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma (Mozgrin’s region 1) reduces “the probability of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition proximate to the cathode.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 61 (Ex.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`1002).
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(a) The Patent Owner mischaracterized Mozgrin
`during prosecution of the related U.S. Pat. No.
`7,147,759
`
`The ‘716 Patent (Ex. 1001) and the ’759 Patent (Ex. 1018) name the same
`
`inventor and are owned by a common assignee. Both patents are asserted in
`
`related litigation identified in Section I.B. During prosecution of the ‘759 Patent,
`
`the Patent Owner argued that Mozgrin does not teach “without forming an arc.”
`
`See 05/02/06 Resp. of ‘759 Patent file history at 2, 5, 7 and 13-16 (Ex. 1019).
`
`However, the Patent Owner was wrong. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 62 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin does teach “without forming an arc” as required by the ‘759 Patent as
`
`well as “substantially eliminat[ing] the probability of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber” as required by the ‘716 Patent. Id. (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7, if voltage is steadily applied, and current is
`
`allowed to grow, the plasma will eventually transition to the arc discharge region
`
`(Mozgrin’s region 4). However, if the current is limited, the plasma will remain
`
`in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). Id. at ¶ 63 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including the arc
`
`discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. Id. at ¶ 64 (Ex. 1002).
`
`But Mozgrin’s discussion of arcing does not mean that arcing is inevitable. Id.
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(Ex. 1002). Rather, Mozgrin’s explanation of the conditions under which arcing
`
`occurs provides a recipe for avoiding arcs. Id. (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin explicitly
`
`notes that arcs can be avoided. See Mozgrin at 400, left col, ¶ 3 (“Some
`
`experiments on