U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0110198-00200US2
`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 12 AND 13
`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 
`A.  Service Information ....................................................................................... 2 
`II.  Certification of Grounds for Standing ............................................................... 2 
`III.  Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ................................................. 2 
`A.  Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications .................................................... 3 
`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 .............................................................................. 7 
`A.  Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’716 Patent ....................................... 7 
`B.  Prosecution History ....................................................................................... 7 
`VI.  Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ................................................ 8 
`A.  Summary of the Prior Art .............................................................................. 8 
`B.  Overview of Mozgrin .................................................................................... 9 
`C.  Overview of Wang ...................................................................................... 11 
`VII.  Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 12 
`A. 
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” .......................... 13 
`VIII.  Specific Grounds for Petition ...................................................................... 14 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 12 and 13 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and Lantsman ........................................................................................ 15 
`1. 
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Mozgrin ....................................... 15 
`2.  Dependent claims 12 and 13 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and Lantsman .................................................................................... 25 
`B.  Ground II: Claims 12 and 13 are obvious over Wang in view of Lantsman
`
`33 
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Wang ........................................... 33 
`1. 
`2.  Dependent claims 12 and 13 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang and Lantsman ........................................................................................ 40 
`IX.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 46 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 1101)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS
`
`(Zond v. Intel); 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.). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in several
`
`patents related1 to the ’716 Patent.
`
`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.
`
`IPR2014-00521. 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)
`
`
`1 The related patents, e.g., name the same alleged inventor.
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Backup Counsel: Larissa B. Park (Reg. No. 59,051)
`
`Service Information
`
`A.
`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 12 and 13 of the ’716 Patent.
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`A.
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below: 2
`
`1.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1103)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1104)), which is prior art under
`
`102(a) and (e).
`
`3. U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1105)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 12 and 13 of the ’716 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of
`
`
`2 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.
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Dr. Uwe Kortshagen3 (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1102)) filed 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.4 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. 1102). 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
`
`
`3 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by The Gillette Company. The attached
`
`declaration at Ex. 1102 is a copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-
`
`00521, discussed above. And, the attached Exhibits are the same and identically
`
`numbered as those in IPR2014-00521.
`
`4 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 12 and 13 of the
`
`‘716 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining claims of the ‘716 Patent
`
`in separate petitions.
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`22 (Ex. 1102).5
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘716 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1102). For example,
`
`sputtering is an industrial process that uses plasma to deposit a thin film of a target
`
`material onto a surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a
`
`semiconductor manufacturing operation). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1102). Ions
`
`in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of target
`
`material. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1102). The ejected target material then
`
`forms a film on the substrate. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1102). Arcing is undesirable because it causes
`
`explosive release of droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1102). The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was
`
`known long before the ‘716 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1102).
`
`B.
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`5 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. 1102).
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25
`
`(Ex. 1102). Each electron has an associated energy state. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25
`
`(Ex. 1102). If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state,
`
`the atom is said to be in the “ground state.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1102).
`
`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.”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1102). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they
`
`have equal numbers of electrons and protons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1102).
`
`A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited
`
`atom. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1102). For example, the ‘716 Patent uses the
`
`following equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a
`
`ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘716 Patent at 9:7 (Ex. 1101).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1102). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1102). 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. 1101).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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. 1102).
`
`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. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 29 (Ex. 1102).
`
`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
`
`plasma.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1102). The weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`claimed to reduce the probability of forming an electrical breakdown condition.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1102).
`
`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. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1102).
`
`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. 1106). See ‘716 Patent at Certificate of Correction
`
`(Ex. 1101).
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The first substantive office action rejected all independent claims as
`
`anticipated. See 03/27/08 Office Action at 2 (Ex. 1107). 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. 1108).
`
`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
`
`chamber’ and ‘without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`
`chamber.”) (Ex. 1109). 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. 1102).
`
`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. 1102).
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin6
`Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc discharge.”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 36 (Ex. 1102). Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, 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-
`
`ionization stage).” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1103). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`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. 1103). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`6 Mozgrin is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1102). 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. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40
`
`(Ex. 1102).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (emphasis added))
`
`(Ex. 1103). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1102). Increasing the current applied to
`
`the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition
`
`to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1102). 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. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 41 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”
`
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1103). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1102). Further
`
`increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the
`
`“arc discharge” region 4. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1102).
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`C. Overview of Wang7
`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. 1104). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1102). Fig. 6 (annotated and
`
`reproduced below) 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. 1104); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1102). 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 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. 1104). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1102). Wang applies the
`
`
`7 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`teachings of Mozgrin in a commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1102).
`
`
`
`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.8 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
`
`
`8 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.
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent
`
`Owner, in order to avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction
`
`different from its broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate course is for
`
`the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its
`
`contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`A.
`The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`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. 1102). 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. 1101). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1102). 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. 1101). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46
`
`(Ex. 1102).
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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-
`
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1110).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1102), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 12 and 13 of the ’716 Patent, and
`
`how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A. Ground I: Claims 12 and 13 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Lantsman9
`The claim chart that Petitioner served on Feb. 11, 2014 in its ongoing
`
`litigation involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner, showing that claims 12
`
`and 13 are obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and Lantsman, is
`
`submitted hereto as Exhibit 1116 (Ex. 1116). Dr. Kortshagen reviewed that chart
`
`and agrees with it. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1102).
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Mozgrin
`a)
`Claim 1 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. 1103). The densities in
`
`Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are summarized below.
`
` Region 1: 109 – 1011 cm-3.10
`
`
`9 Petitioner establishes invalidity of claim 1 in another petition. Claim 1 is
`
`addressed herein for the purpose of demonstrating invalidity of claims that depend
`
`from claim 1.
`
`10 Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“For pre-ionization … the initial plasma density
`
`in the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
` Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm-3.11
`
` Region 3: 1.5x1015 cm-3.12
`
`Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex. 1102). 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. 1101). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`54 (Ex. 1102).
`
`b)
`
`Limitation (a)
`(1)
`“an ionization source that generates a weakly-
`ionized plasma from a feed gas contained in a chamber”
`
`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. 1101). See also Kortshagen
`
`
`11 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. 1103).
`
`12 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. 1103).
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1102). 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.
`
`1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1102).
`
`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. 1101); 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. 1103) (emphasis added).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Mozgrin also teaches generating its plasma from feed gasses such as Argon
`
`and Nitrogen. Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 3 (“We investigated the discharge
`
`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.
`
`1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1102).
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Fig. 2 of Mozgrin discloses a power supply in the form of a discharge supply
`
`unit:
`
`
`
`The “discharge supply unit” ionizes a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma and does so with voltage, current and power very similar to those used in
`
`the ‘716 Patent.13 Compare Fig. 4 of the ’716 Patent (Ex. 1101) to Fig. 3(b) of
`
`Mozgrin (Ex. 1103). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1102).
`
`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. 1102). 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. 1103). 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.
`
`1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 60 (Ex. 1102).
`
`
`13 Although Mozgrin’s Fig. 3 does not show power, the Fig. discloses power
`
`because power is the product of voltage and current, both of which are shown.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59, FN9 (Ex. 1102).
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(2)
`“the weakly-ionized plasma substantially
`eliminating 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. 1103). 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.
`
`1102).
`
`(a) The Patent Owner mischaracterized Mozgrin
`during prosecution of the related U.S. Pat. No.
`7,147,759
`
`The ‘716 Patent (Ex. 1101) and the ’759 Patent (Ex. 1111) 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. 1112).
`
`However, the Patent Owner was wrong. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 62 (Ex. 1102).
`
`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
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`breakdown condition in the chamber” as required by the ‘716 Patent. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 62 (Ex. 1102).
`
`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). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 63 (Ex.
`
`1102).
`
`Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including the arc
`
`discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 64
`
`(Ex. 1102). But Mozgrin’s discussion of arcing does not mean that arcing is
`
`inevitable. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 64 (Ex. 1102). Rather, Mozgrin’s explanation of
`
`the conditions under which arcing occurs provides a recipe for avoiding arcs.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 64 (Ex. 1102). Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs can be
`
`avoided. See Mozgrin at 400, left col, ¶ 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron
`
`systems of various geometry showed that discharge regimes which do not transit
`
`to arcs can be obtained even at high currents.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1103). See
`
`also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 64 (Ex. 1102).
`
`One of ordinary skill would have understood that the arc discharge region
`
`should be avoided during plasma generation that is used for applications such as
`
`sputtering or etching. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 65 (Ex. 1102). For example, Plasma
`
`20
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm (“Manos”), a well-known
`
`textbook on plasma processing, which was published in 1989, over a decade before
`
`the ‘716 Patent was filed, states that “arcs…are a problem…” Manos at 231
`
`(emphasis added) (Ex. 1113).
`
`One of ordinary skill would have further understood that Mozgrin’s arc
`
`region can be avoided, such as by generating a weakly-ionized plasma as explained
`
`above. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 66 (Ex. 1102). Mozgrin’s determination of conditions
`
`that cause transition to the arc regime is useful because it teaches one of ordinary
`
`skill how to avoid arcs. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 66 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Specifically, one of ordinary skill reading Mozgrin would have understood
`
`that controlling discharge parameters, such as by generating the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma, causes the plasma to remain in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3
`
`(etching). See Mozgrin at 406, right col, ¶3 (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 67 (Ex. 1102).
`
`c)
`
`Limitation (b)
`(1)
`“power supply that supplies power to the weakly-
`ionized plasma though [sic] an