U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0110198-00196 US5
`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 CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR Trial No. TBD
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,147,759
`CHALLENGING CLAIM 40
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`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 Challenged 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 ‘759 Patent .............................................................................. 7 
`A.  Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘759 Patent ....................................... 7 
`B.  Prosecution History ....................................................................................... 7 
`1.  The Patent Owner mischaracterized the prior art Mozgrin reference ........ 7 
`2.  Adding the “without forming an arc” limitation resulted in allowance ..... 8 
`VI.  Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ................................................ 9 
`A.  Summary of the Prior Art .............................................................................. 9 
`B.  Overview of Mozgrin .................................................................................... 9 
`1.  Summary .................................................................................................... 9 
`2.  Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs ................................................................. 11 
`C.  Overview of Kudryavtsev ........................................................................... 13 
`D.  Overview of Wang ...................................................................................... 14 
`VII.  Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 15 
`A. 
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” .......................... 16 
`B. 
`“multi-step ionization process” ................................................................... 17 
`C. 
`“means for ionizing a feed gas …” ............................................................. 18 
`D. 
`“means for generating a magnetic field…” ................................................. 19 
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“means for applying a voltage pulse …” .................................................... 20 
`E. 
`VIII.  Specific Grounds for Petition ...................................................................... 21 
`A.  Ground I: Claim 40 is obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`Kudryavtsev ......................................................................................................... 21 
`1.  The preamble ............................................................................................ 21 
`2.  Limitation (a): “means for ionizing…” .................................................... 22 
`3.  Limitation (b): “means for generating a magnetic field…” ..................... 26 
`4.  Limitation (c): “means for applying a voltage pulse…” .......................... 29 
`B.  Ground II: Claim 40 is obvious in view of the combination of Wang and
`Kudryavtsev ......................................................................................................... 39 
`1.  The preamble ............................................................................................ 40 
`2.  Limitation (a): “means for ionizing…” .................................................... 40 
`3.  Limitation (b): “means for generating a magnetic field…” ..................... 44 
`4.  Limitation (c): “means for applying a voltage pule…” ........................... 46 
`IX.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 55 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`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 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The Gillette Company (“Petitioner”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
`
`Procter & Gamble Co., is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 (“’759 Patent”) (Ex. 1401)
`
`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.) (Ex. 1419). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter
`
`Partes review in several patents related1 to the ’759 Patent.
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘759 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`substantially identical petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v.
`
`Zond, Inc., which was filed February 20, 2014 and assigned Case No.
`
`IPR2014-00447. 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
`
`
`1 The related patents, e.g., name the same alleged inventor.
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Lead Counsel: Michael A. Diener (Reg. No. 37,122)
`
`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 CHALLENGED AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claim 40 of the ’759 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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. 1403)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`2.
`
`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)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1405)), which is prior art under
`
`102(a) and (e).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claim 40 of the ’759 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of
`
`
`2 The ’759 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 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Dr. Uwe Kortshagen3 (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1402)) filed herewith,
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to the challenged claim and that the 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. 1402). 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. 1402 is a copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-
`
`00447, discussed above. The attached Exhibits are the same as those in IPR2014-
`
`00447.
`
`4 The term “challenged claim” as used herein refers to claim 40 of the ‘759 Patent.
`
`Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining claims of the ‘759 Patent in separate
`
`petitions.
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`22 (Ex. 1402).5
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘759 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1402). For example,
`
`sputtering is an industrial process that uses plasmas 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. 1402). Ions
`
`in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of target
`
`material. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1402). The ejected target material then
`
`forms a film on the substrate. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1402). Arcing is undesirable because it causes
`
`explosive release of droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1402). The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was
`
`known long before the ‘759 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1402).
`
`B.
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`5 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. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1402).
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25
`
`(Ex. 1402). Each electron has an associated energy state. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25
`
`(Ex. 1402). 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. 1402).
`
`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. 1402). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they
`
`have equal numbers of electrons and protons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1402).
`
`A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited
`
`atom. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1402). 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-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1402). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1402). 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-
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ‘759 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex. 1402).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘759 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘759 Patent
`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.
`
`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-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
`
`During prosecution, the Patent Owner asserted that Mozgrin failed to teach
`
`the “without forming an arc discharge” limitation. However, that assertion is
`
`incorrect. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1402). Mozgrin teaches all limitations of
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the challenged claims – including “without forming an arc discharge.”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1402). Mozgrin discusses arcs but does so in the
`
`context of providing a recipe for avoiding them. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex.
`
`1402).
`
`2.
`Adding the “without forming an arc” limitation resulted in
`allowance
`
`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). 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 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.”
`
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1412). See also 08/30/04 Office Action (Ex. 1408) and
`
`05/27/05 Office Action (Ex. 1410).
`
`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
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`and 13-16 (Ex. 1413). After that amendment and argument, the Examiner allowed
`
`the challenged claims.6 10/11/2006 Allowance at 2-3 (Ex. 1415).
`
`However, as will be explained in detail below, and contrary to the Patent
`
`Owner’s argument, Mozgrin’s provides a recipe for avoiding arcing. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex. 1402).
`
`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 ‘759 Patent. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 35
`
`(Ex. 1402).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin7
`Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc discharge.”
`
`1.
`
`Summary
`
`Fig 7. of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`
`6 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).
`
`7 As noted in the prosecution history section, the Patent Office used Mozgrin to
`
`reject claims that eventually issued in the’759 Patent.
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`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. 1403). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex.
`
`1402).
`
`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. 1403). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1402). 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).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (emphasis added))
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(Ex. 1403). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1402). Increasing the current applied to
`
`the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition
`
`to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1402). 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). See also Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 41 (Ex. 1402).
`
`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. 1403). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1402). Further
`
`increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the
`
`“arc discharge” region 4. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1402).
`
`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.
`
`1402).
`
`2. Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`will remain in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1402).
`
`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 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.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1402). 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. 1403). One
`
`of ordinary skill would understand that the arc discharge region should be avoided
`
`during an industrial application, such as sputtering. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex.
`
`1402). 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 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1406).
`
`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
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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-ionization was not
`
`necessary; however, in this case, the probability of discharge transferring to the arc
`
`mode increased.”) (Ex. 1403). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1402).
`
`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. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1402).
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`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
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`401, ¶ spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the unit, we took into account the
`
`dependences which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev]…”) (Ex. 1403).
`
`Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ‘759 Patent.
`
`D. Overview of Wang8
`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); see also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1402). 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). Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 50 (Ex. 1402). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a
`
`
`8 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex.
`
`1402).
`
`
`
`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.9 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
`
`
`9 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.
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`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. ¶ 53
`
`(Ex. 1402). 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 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. 1401).
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`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. 1416).
`
`“multi-step ionization process”
`
`B.
`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 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.”
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`See 05/02/06 Resp. at 11 (Ex. 1413) (emphasis added). See also ‘759 Patent at
`
`9:37-51 (Ex. 1401). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Also, 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.”) (emphasis added). 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). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57(Ex. 1402).
`
`The proposed construction for “multi-step ionization process” is “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.
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas …”
`
`C.
`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 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 –
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).10 Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1402).
`
`“means for generating a magnetic field…”
`
`D.
`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 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
`
`
`10
`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.
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 60 (Ex. 1402).
`
`“means for applying a voltage pulse …”
`
`E.
`Claim 40 recites “means for applying a voltage pulse t