`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`DOCKET NO: 0107131.00272US5
`‘759 PATENT
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 7,147,759, CLAIM 40
`
`INVENTOR: ROMAN CHISTYAKOV
`
`
`
`FILED: SEP. 30, 2002
`
` ISSUED: DEC. 12, 2006
`
`TITLE: HIGH-POWER PULSED MAGNETRON SPUTTERING
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`DECLARATION OF UWE KORTSHAGEN, PH.D., REGARDING
`CLAIM 40 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,147,759
`
`I, Uwe Kortshagen, declare as follows:
`
`
`
`1. My name is Uwe Kortshagen.
`
`2.
`
`I received my Diploma in Physics from the University of Bochum in
`
`Germany in 1988. I received my Ph.D. in Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1991 and my Habilitation in Experimental Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1995.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`GILLETTE 1402
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`3.
`
`I am a Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University
`
`of Minnesota. I have been the Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at
`
`the University of Minnesota since July 2008. I have been a Professor at the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota since August
`
`2003. Between August 1999 and August 2003, I was an Associate Professor at the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota. Between July
`
`1996 and August 1999, I was an Assistant Professor at the Mechanical Engineering
`
`Department at the University of Minnesota. Between April 1996 and July 1996, I
`
`was a Lecturer at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of
`
`Bochum, Germany. Between August 2006 and June 2008, I was the Director of
`
`Graduate Studies at the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of
`
`Minnesota.
`
`4.
`
`I have taught courses on Introduction to Plasma Technology and
`
`Advanced Plasma Technology. These courses include significant amounts of
`
`material on plasma technology. In addition, I have taught a Special Topics class
`
`on Plasma Nanotechnology.
`
`5.
`
`Plasma processes for advanced technological applications has been
`
`the primary area of my professional research for over 30 years. Most of my Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`students go on to work on plasmas either in academia or the semiconductor
`
`industry.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached as Appendix A.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, claims, and file history of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759 (the “‘759 patent”) (Ex. 1401). I understand that the ‘759
`
`patent was filed on September 30, 2002. I understand that, for purposes
`
`determining whether a publication will qualify as prior art, the earliest date that the
`
`’759 patent could be entitled to is September 30, 2002.
`
`8.
`
`I have reviewed the following publications:
`
` 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. 1403)).
`
` A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1),
`
`pp. 30-35, January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1404)).
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1405)).
`
`9.
`
`I have read and understood each of the above publications. The
`
`disclosure of each of these publications provides sufficient information for
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`someone to make and use the plasma generation and sputtering processes that are
`
`described in the above publications.
`
`10.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the ‘759 patent application was filed. In my
`
`opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘759 patent would have found
`
`the ‘759 invalid.
`
`11.
`
`I have been retained by Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) as
`
`an expert in the field of plasma technology. I am being compensated at my normal
`
`consulting rate of $350/hour for my time. My compensation is not dependent on
`
`and in no way affects the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`12.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’759 patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’759 patent.
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`13.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my invalidity analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the
`
`prior art, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of the claim terms as
`
`they would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that some claim limitations can be presented in “means
`
`plus function” format. I understand that when a means plus function format is
`
`present in a claim term of challenged claim, the Board will interpret the claim term
`
`using a statutory construction (under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)) and the Board will
`
`determine the function recited in the claim and identify any structure disclosed in
`
`the specification for performing the recited function and equivalent structure as the
`
`meaning of the limitation of the claim.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
` the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
` the scope and content of the prior art;
`
` what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
` whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
` whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
` whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
` whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
` whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`C.
`Plasma
`22.
`
` A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`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.1
`
`23.
`
` Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for
`
`decades before the ‘759 patent was filed. 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
`
`
`1 The term “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.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`operation). Ions in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small
`
`amount of target material. The ejected target material then forms a film on the
`
`substrate.
`
`24. Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive release of droplets from the
`
`target that can splatter on the substrate. The need to avoid arcing while sputtering
`
`was known long before the ‘759 patent was filed.
`
`D.
`Ions and excited atoms
`25. Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Each electron
`
`has an associated energy state. If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest
`
`possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the “ground state.”
`
`26. 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.” Excited atoms are electrically neutral—they have equal numbers of
`
`electrons and protons. A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground
`
`state atom to an excited atom. For example, the ‘759 Patent uses the following
`
`equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state
`
`argon atom, Ar. See ‘759 Patent at 9:40 (Ex. 1401).
`
`Ar + e- Ar* + e-
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`27. An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of
`
`its electrons. A collision between a free, high energy, electron and a ground state
`
`or excited atom can create an ion. For example, the ‘759 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 ‘759 Patent at 3:58 and 9:42 (Ex.
`
`1401).
`
`Ar + e- Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e- Ar+ + 2e-
`
`28. The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long
`
`before the ‘759 patent was filed.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘759 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘759 Patent
`29. The ‘759 Patent describes a two-stage sputtering technique in which a
`
`so called strongly-ionized plasma is generated from a weakly-ionized plasma in a
`
`manner that avoids arcing.
`
`30. More specifically, the claims of the ‘759 Patent are directed to an
`
`ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas. A
`
`power supply then applies a specific, high-voltage pulse to the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma. The voltage pulse induces a “multi-
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`step ionization process” in which ground state atoms transition to an excited state
`
`before becoming ionized. The strongly-ionized plasma is generated “without
`
`forming an arc discharge.”
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`1.
`The Patent Owner mischaracterized the prior art Mozgrin
`reference
`
`31.
`
`I understand that during prosecution, the Patent Owner asserted that
`
`Mozgrin failed to teach the “without forming an arc discharge” limitation.
`
`However, that assertion is incorrect. Mozgrin teaches all limitations of the
`
`challenged claims – including “without forming an arc discharge.” Mozgrin
`
`discusses arcs but does so in the context of providing a recipe for avoiding them.
`
`2.
`Addition of the “without forming an arc” limitation resulted in
`allowance
`
`32.
`
`I understand that before the Patent Owner narrowed the claims to
`
`require “without forming an arc discharge,” it unsuccessfully argued, three
`
`separate times, that other limitations such as “multi-step ionization” made the
`
`claims allowable over Mozgrin. 06/14/04 Resp at 12 (Ex. 1407); 02/24/05 Resp at
`
`15 (Ex. 1409); and 10/27/05 RCE at 14 (Ex. 1411). I understand that the Examiner
`
`was not persuaded by those arguments, correctly noted that Mozgrin teaches multi-
`
`step ionization, and consistently rejected the claims over Mozgrin even after they
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`had been amended to require “multi-step ionization.” 01/11/06 Office Action at 12
`
`(“…Mozgrin does teach a power supply that generates a pulse that allows the
`
`plasma to go through a multi-step ionization.”) (Ex. 1412). See also 08/30/04
`
`Office Action (Ex. 1408) and 05/27/05 Office Action (Ex. 1410).
`
`33.
`
`I understand that in an amendment dated May 2, 2006, although the
`
`Patent Owner repeated its previously unsuccessful multi-step ionization argument,
`
`the only substantive difference was addition of the limitation “without forming an
`
`arc discharge,” and the argument that Mozgrin did not teach that limitation.
`
`05/02/06 Resp. at 2, 5, 7 and 13-16 (Ex. 1413). After that amendment and
`
`argument, the Examiner allowed the challenged claims.2 10/11/2006 Allowance at
`
`2-3 (Ex. 1415).
`
`34. However, as will be explained in detail below, and contrary to the
`
`Patent Owner’s argument, Mozgrin’s provides a recipe for avoiding arcing.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the prior art
`
`
`2 I understand that after “without forming an arc discharge” was added to the
`
`claims, the only remaining rejection, double patenting, was addressed by a terminal
`
`disclaimer. 08/28/2006 Response at 2-3 (Ex. 1414).
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`35. As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing
`
`new or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘759 Patent.
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin3
`36. Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc
`
`discharge.”
`
`1.
`
`Summary
`
`37. Fig 7. of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage
`
`characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`38. As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`
`
`
`3 As noted in the prosecution history section, I understand that the Patent Office
`
`used Mozgrin to reject claims that eventually issued in the ‘759 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`39. 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).”) (Ex. 1403).
`
`40. Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin
`
`at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)…”) (Ex. 1403). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma
`
`causes the transition from region 1 to 2. 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. 1403).
`
`41. Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (Ex. 1403).
`
`Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2)
`
`causes the plasma to transition to region 3. 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. 1403).
`
`42. Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”) (Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`1403). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4.4
`
`43. Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering
`
`and etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it.
`
`2. Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs
`
`44. As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7 (copied above), if voltage is steadily
`
`applied, and current is allowed to grow, the plasma will eventually transition to the
`
`arc discharge (Mozgrin’s region 4). However, if the current is limited, the plasma
`
`will remain in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching).
`
`45. Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including
`
`the arc discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. But Mozgrin’s
`
`
`4 As one of ordinary skill would understand, the oscillogram shown in Mozgrin’s
`
`Fig. 3 when taken as a whole corresponds to region 3 on Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7,
`
`i.e., Fig. 3 represents currents and voltages used to reach stable operation in region
`
`3. Further, as one of ordinary skill would understand, an oscillogram
`
`corresponding to region 2 on Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7 (i.e., stable operation in
`
`region 2) would have a different shape, e.g., the voltage would not drop as low as
`
`shown in Fig. 3b and the current would be lower than what is shown in Fig. 3a.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`discussion of arcing does not mean that arcing is inevitable. Rather, Mozgrin’s
`
`explanation of the conditions under which arcing occurs provides a recipe for
`
`avoiding arcs. 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.”) (Ex. 1403). One of ordinary skill would understand that the arc
`
`discharge region should be avoided during an industrial application, such as
`
`sputtering. For example, Plasma 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 ‘759 Patent was filed, states that “…arcs… are a
`
`problem…” Manos at 231 (Ex. 1406).
`
`46. One of ordinary skill would further understand that Mozgrin’s arc
`
`region can be avoided by limiting the current as shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7. See,
`
`e.g., Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 1 (“A further increase in the discharge currents
`
`caused the discharges to transit to the arc regimes…”); 404, left col, ¶ 4 (“The
`
`parameters of the shaped-electrode discharge transit to regime 3, as well as the
`
`condition of its transit to arc regime 4, could be well determined for every given
`
`set of the discharge parameters.”); and 406, right col, ¶ 3 (“Moreover, pre-
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`ionization was not necessary; however, in this case, the probability of discharge
`
`transferring to the arc mode increased.”) (Ex. 1403).
`
`47. 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.
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`48. Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a
`
`plasma with voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1404).
`
`In particular, Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via
`
`different processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state
`
`atoms are converted directly to ions. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex.
`
`1404). The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls
`
`stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1404).
`
`Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can be the
`
`dominant ionization process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1404).
`
`Mozgrin took into account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing his
`
`experiments. Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the unit,
`
`we took into account the dependences which had been obtained in
`
`[Kudryavtsev]…”) (Ex. 1403).
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`49. Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ‘759
`
`Patent.
`
`D. Overview of Wang5
`50. 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. 1405). 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. 1405). 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. 1405). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a
`
`commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device.
`
`
`5 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`51.
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation. The following discussion proposes constructions of and support
`
`therefore of those terms. I have been informed and understand that 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. 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, I have been informed and understand that the
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly
`
`correspond to its contentions in this proceeding.
`
`52.
`
`I have interpreted some claim terms which use the language “means
`
`for” with a function identified in the same manner I understand the Board will use
`
`to determine the meaning of the means plus function claim. In the attached petition
`
`the function of the limitation is identified, the structure disclosed in the
`
`specification for performing the function (and equivalents) is identified. I have
`
`identified the function and the corresponding structure in the prior art during my
`
`invalidity analysis.
`
`A.
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`53. 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. With reference
`
`to Fig. 4, the ‘759 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. ‘759
`
`Patent at 10:22-29; 10:66-11:4 (Ex. 1401). The ‘759 Patent also provides
`
`exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasmas. See
`
`‘759 Patent at claim 32 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`plasma is less than about 1012 cm˗3”); claim 33 (“wherein the peak plasma density
`
`of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1101).
`
`54. Therefore, I have used the following constructions:
`
` “weakly-ionized plasma” means “a lower density plasma” and
`
` “strongly-ionized plasma” means “a higher density plasma.”
`
`55. The constructions proposed above are 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. 1416).
`
`B.
`“multi-step ionization process”
`56. A multi-step ionization process produces ions using at least two steps:
`
`(a) convert ground state atoms (or molecules) to excited atoms (or molecules); and
`
`(b) convert excited atoms (or molecules) to ions. The ‘759 Patent and its file
`
`history clearly describe this aspect of a “multi-step ionization process”: “[T]he
`
`term ‘multi-step’ ionization as used in the present application refers to an
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`ionization process that requires ground state atoms and molecules to transition
`
`from the ground state to at least one intermediate excited state before being fully
`
`ionized.” See 05/02/06 Resp. at 11 (Ex. 1413). See also ‘759 patent at 9:37-51
`
`(Ex. 1401).
`
`57. Also, I understand that during prosecution the Patent Owner argued
`
`that multi-step ionization processes must produce a statistically significant amount
`
`of ions by this two-step process. 02/24/05 Resp. at 16 (Ex. 1409) (“However, the
`
`Applicant submits that the ions in the [prior art] pre-ionized plasma are generated
`
`by direction ionization and any ions that are generated by a multi-step ionization
`
`process will be statistically insignificant.”). See also, e.g., 02/24/05 Resp. at 13,
`
`14, 16, 17 (Ex. 1409); and 10/27/05 Resp. at 11, 12, 13, 15 (Ex. 1411).
`
`58. Therefore, I have used the following construction: “multi-step
`
`ionization process” means “an ionization process in which a statistically significant
`
`portion of the ions are produced by exciting ground state atoms or molecules and
`
`then ionizing the excited atoms or molecules.”
`
`C.
`“means for ionizing a feed gas …”
`59. Claim 40 recites “means for ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma proximate to a sputtering target.” The claimed function is:
`
`“generating a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to a sputtering target.” The ‘759
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure: a power supply
`
`(e.g., 456), generating the voltage, current and power values shown in Fig. 5 (e.g.,
`
`between t1 – t2 and t6 – t7), that is electrically coupled to an anode (e.g., 238),a
`
`cathode assembly (e.g., 216), and/or an electrode (e.g., 452, 452’, 452”) wherein
`
`the anode, cathode assembly, and/or electrode are arranged relative to a sputtering
`
`target as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 7, 9A-9C, 10 and 11 and as described in the text of
`
`the ‘759 Patent at 4:57-65, 6:53-7:8, 8:40-46, 11:39-12:6, 12:39-46, 15:7-15,
`
`15:35-44, 17:19-18:15, 18:35-49, and 18:58-19:30 (Ex. 1401).6
`
`D.
`“means for generating a magnetic field…”
`60. Claim 40 recites “means for generating a magnetic field proximate to
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma...” The claimed function is: “generating a magnetic
`
`field proximate to the weakly-ionized plasma, the magnetic field substantially
`
`
`6
`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 ‘759 Patent, 7:9-13 (Ex. 1401). The “means for
`
`ionizing…” cannot be construed to include any techniques that lack corresponding
`
`structure in the specification.
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`trapping electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the sputtering
`
`target.” The ‘759 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure:
`
`magnet assembly 252 arranged as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 6A-6D, 7, 10 and 11 and as
`
`described in the text of the ‘759 Patent at 5:58-6:21, 8:46-50, 12:62-14:65, and
`
`15:29-33 (Ex. 1401).
`
`E.
`“means for applying a voltage pulse …”
`61. Claim 40 recites “means for applying a voltage pulse to the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma….” The claimed function is: “applying a voltage pulse to the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma, an amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen
`
`to increase an excitation rate of ground state atoms that are present in the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma to create a multi-step ionization process that generates a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma, the multi-step ionization process
`
`comprising exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then
`
`ionizing the excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma, without forming an arc
`
`discharge, to ions that sputter target material from the sputtering target.”
`
`62. The ‘759 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding
`
`structure: a pulsed DC power supply (e.g., 234), generating the voltage, current and
`
`power values shown in Fig. 5 (e.g., between t2 – t4), electrically coupled to an
`
`anode (e.g., 238) and cathode assembly (e.g., 216), wherein the anode and cathode
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration
`‘759 Patent, Claim 40
`
`assembly are arranged as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 7, 10, and 11 and as described in the
`
`text of the ‘759 Patent at 5:6-49, 8:51-10:6, 12:7-38, 12:47-54, 15:54-16:12 and
`
`19:31-38 (Ex. 1401).
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR REJECTION
`63. The below sections demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claim 40 of the ‘759 Patent, and how those claims are
`
`rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`64.
`
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim charts submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Exs. 1417-1418), showing
`
`that each limitation in the foregoing claims is taught in the art. I understand these
`
`claim charts were submitted in an ongoing litigation involving the Petitioner and
`
`the Patent Owner. Those charts present in summary form the analysis below and I
`
`agree with them.
`
`A. Ground I: Claim 40 is obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`65.
`
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim chart submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Ex. 1417), showing that
`
`claim 40 is obvious in view of the combination of