Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2014-00992
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’s PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ....................................................................................6
`
`A. Overview of Sputtering Systems ...................................................................................6
`
`B. The ‘421 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved Sputtering Source....................8
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS ........................................13
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) ...................................14
`
`A. Construction of “Weakly Ionized Plasma” and “Strongly Ionized Plasma” ...............14
`
`V. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF PREVAILING. ..............................................................................................................16
`
`A. Overview of Challenged Claims. ..............................................................................16
`
`B. All of Petition’s Obviousness Grounds Fail to Follow the Proper Legal
`Framework For an Obviousness Analysis. ..................................................................20
`
`C. All Grounds Rely on Claim Charts Submitted in Violation of Rules
`42.24(a)(i) and 42.6(a)(3) ............................................................................................21
`
`D. Defects in the Challenges to the “Group A” Claims 9, 21, 35.....................................22
`
`1. Defects in Grounds I and III: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That
`Claims 9, 21 and 35 Are Obvious In View of Mozgrin and
`Kudryavtsev............................................................................................... 23
`
`a. Mozgrin Does not Anticipate Parent Claims 1, 34 or Teach the
`Corresponding Elements of Parent Claim 17...................................................24
`
`i. Overview of Mozgrin ...............................................................................24
`
`ii. Mozgrin Does Not Teach a Sputtering Source Comprising a
`Cathode Assembly Having a Sputtering Target Positioned
`Adjacent to an Anode.................................................................................27
`
`iii. Mozgrin Does Not Describe the Claimed Pulse for Creating a
`Weak Plasma and Then a Strongly-Ionized Plasma From the
`Weak. .........................................................................................................30
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`iv. Mozgrin Does Not Teach The Claimed Generation of a Pulse
`whose Amplitude and Rise Time Are Chosen to Increase Ion
`Density Without Arcing .............................................................................32
`
`v. Conclusion: Petitioner Has Not Shown a Reasonable Likelihood of
`Success that Parent Claims are Anticipated by Mozgrin ...........................33
`
`b. The Petition Does Not Show A Reasonable Likelihood That Claims 9,
`21 and 35 Are Obvious in View of Mozgrin Combined with
`Kudryavtsev. ....................................................................................................43
`
`i. General Scope of Kudryavtsev ................................................................35
`
`ii. Incompatibility of Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin and the Absence of
`Motivation to Combine ..............................................................................37
`
`iii. Differences Between Kudryavtsev and the Claims ...................................39
`
`iv. Conclusion: ...............................................................................................43
`
`2. Defects In Ground V: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A Reasonable
`Likelihood That Claims 9, 21, and 35 Are Obvious in View of Wang
`Combined with Kudryavtsev .......................................................................................43
`
`a. Defects in Ground V: Wang Does not Anticipate Parent Claims 1, 17, 34 .... 43
`
`i. Wang Does Not Show the Claimed Pulse for Creating a Weak Plasma and
`Then a Strongly-Ionized Plasma From the Weak Without An Occurrence
`of Arcing ....................................................................................................44
`
`
`ii. Wang Does Not Teach The Claimed Generation of a Pulse Whose Rise
`Time Is Chosen to Increase Ion Density Without Arcing. .........................45
`
`
`iii. Conclusion: Petitioner Has Not Shown a Reasonable Likelihood of
`Success that Parent Claims 1, 21, and 34 are Anticipated by Wang as
`Required By Ground V ..............................................................................46
`
`
`b. Defects In Ground V: The Petition Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood
`that Claims 9 and 35 are Obvious in View of Wang Combined with
`Kudryavtsev .................................................................................................... 47
`
`i. Differences Between Kudryavtsev and the Claims ...................................48
`
`ii. Incompatibilities Between Kudryavtsev and Wang ...................................48
`
`E. Defects in the Challenges to the Group B Claims. ......................................................49
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`
`1. The Petition Fails to Prove that Mozgrin’s Thesis is Prior Art. .................... 52
`
`2. Mozgrin Thesis Does Not Teach the Claimed Invention ............................. 55
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................56
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Petitioner has represented in a motion to joinder that this petition
`
`“is identical to the Intel IRP no. IRP2014-00470 in all substantive respects,
`
`includes identical exhibits, and relies upon the same expert declarant.”
`
`Accordingly, based upon that representation, the Patent Owner opposes
`
`review on the same basis presented in opposition to Intel’s request no.
`
`IRP2014-00470, which is reproduced below:
`
`The present petition is the second of three petitions filed by Intel Inc. for
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421 (“the ‘421 patent”). The first
`
`(IPR 2014-00468) seeks cancellation of all independent claims (1, 17, 34, 46,
`
`47, and 48), and selected dependent claims. This second petition seeks
`
`cancellation of six dependent claims (9, 14, 21, 26, 35, and 37), and a third
`
`petition (IPR 2014- 00474) seeks cancellation of the remainder.
`
`This second petition relies on the same arguments and evidence
`
`presented against the parent claims in IPR 2014-00468, but adds new
`
`arguments and evidence directed to the dependent claims. Therefore, this
`
`second petition should be categorically denied for the exact same reasons given
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`by the Patent Owner in response to IPR 2014-00468, which are repeated here,1
`
`but with some supplementary arguments. Furthermore, as explained below,
`
`the dependent claims specifically addressed in the present petition are even less
`
`likely to be found un-patentable and therefore the Petition does not justify
`
`review.
`
`The present petition cites as its primary prior art, two references,
`
`Mozgrin2 and Wang,3 which were already considered by the Patent Office.4
`
`The Petitioner tries to convince the Board that Zond misrepresented Mozgrin’s
`
`teachings during prosecution of Zond’s U.S. patent number 7,147,759 (“the
`
`‘759 Patent”).5 A mere glance at the record reveals to the contrary: In the
`
`alleged misrepresentation, Zond argued that Mozgrin does not teach a process
`
`in which “ground state atoms” are excited to form “excited atoms,” and then
`
`
`1 Rule §46.6 prohibits incorporation by reference of the Patent Owner’s
`
`response from IPR 2014-000455.
`
`2 Ex. 1203, Mozgrin.
`
`3 Ex. 1204, Wang patent No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”).
`
`4 Ex. 1201, ‘421 Patent, list of cited references cited.
`
`5 Petition at ps. 19 - 20, Ex. 1211, ‘759 Patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`the excited atoms are “ionizing without forming an arc.”6 On the basis of this
`
`assertion, the Petitioner accuses Zond of wrongly asserting that “Mozgrin does
`
`not teach ‘without forming an arc.’”7 The Patent Owner (i.e., the Applicant at
`
`that time), never argued, as alleged by the Petitioner, that the claims were
`
`allowable solely because of the “without forming an arc” limitation; it instead
`
`argued, inter alia, that “there is no description in Mozgrin of a multi-step
`
`ionization process that first excites ground state atoms to generate excited
`
`atoms, and then ionizes the excited atoms without forming an arc discharge.”8
`
`That is, the Patent Owner argued that Mozgrin did not teach avoidance of an
`
`arc discharge during a particular process that was the subject of the ‘759
`
`patent: a multi-step ionization process. In other words, the Petitioner
`
`mischaracterized the Patent Owner’s argument to the Examiner by truncating
`
`it and quoting only a small portion of it in the Petition.
`
`The parent claims to the dependent claim challenged here, are directed
`
`to a sputtering source for sputtering material from a sputter target, and a
`
`method for high deposition rate sputtering. The claimed source and method
`
`generate a voltage pulse for creating the ions needed for sputtering, wherein
`
`6 Ex. 1212, Response of May 2, p. 13 – 16.
`
`7 Petition at p. 18.
`
`8 Ex. 1212, Response to Office Action, May 2, 2006, p. 13 (emphasis omitted).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`the pulse’s shape is chosen or adjusted to create a weakly ionized plasma and
`
`then a strongly ionized plasma from the weak, but without arcing. The
`
`Petition first argues that Mozgrin anticipates these parent claims, even though
`
`Mozgrin is a research paper that does not describe a sputter source for
`
`sputtering material from a target, and never discloses any experiments that
`
`teach choosing or adjusting the pulse amplitude and rise time as claimed.
`
`The Petition next cites to Wang as anticipating the parent claims. Wang
`
`at least describes sputtering from a target, but as Petitioner acknowledges,
`
`“Wang teaches that arcing may occur during ignition” of the plasma.9 This is
`
`blatantly at odds with the claimed requirement that the generated pulse “create
`
`a weakly ionized plasma … without an occurrence of arcing.” The Petition
`
`tries to diminish the significance of this shortcoming by citing to Wang’s
`
`observation that “the initial plasma ignition needs to be performed only
`
`once.”10 But this is irrelevent.
`
`Furthermore, when the Petition resorts to its obviousness theories for the
`
`dependent claims, it never cures the shortcomings of the allegedly anticipatory
`
`references against the parent claims. In fact, it does not address these
`
`
`9 Petition at 36.
`
`10 Petition at page 36, quoting Ex. 1204, Wang.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`shortcomings or explicitly discuss the differences between the claims and the
`
`art, as required by the Supreme Court for a proper obviousness analysis. 11 The
`
`dependent claims further specify the plasma conditions that result from
`
`properly “choosing” or “adjusting” the pulse rise time and amplitude: In these
`
`dependent claims the resulting voltage pulse promotes a multi-step ionization
`
`process that first excites ground state atoms to generate excited atoms and
`
`generates “secondary electrons” from a cathode assembly. These secondary
`
`electrons then ionize the excited atoms to form the strongly ionized plasma.
`
`This later stage causes an “avalanche-like increase in the density” of the
`
`plasma.12 But the amplitude and rise time of the pulse are chosen or adjusted
`
`to promote this type of increase without forming an arc discharge. The
`
`Petition cites to a prior art reference by Kuryavtsev that mentions a type of
`
`multi-step ionization, but Kuryavtsev is not even directed to sputtering and
`
`never mentions the claimed technique of choosing pulse rise time and
`
`
`11 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966);
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007) (“[T]he [Graham] factors
`
`define the controlling inquiry”); Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CMB-
`
`2012-00003, paper 7 at 2 – 3.
`
`12 Ex. 1201, ‘421 Patent, col. 13, line 66.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`amplitude to promote the claimed type of multi-step ionization without an
`
`occurrence of arcing.
`
`In short, the Petition does not precisely state the relief requested13 and
`
`fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable.14 On the basis of the record presented in the present Petition,
`
`review should be denied.
`
`II. Technology Background
`
`The claims are directed to a “sputtering source” having a “sputtering
`
`target” and to a method of high deposition rate sputtering.” Accordingly, we
`
`begin with a brief introduction to sputtering.
`
`A. Overview of Sputtering Systems
`
`Sputtering is a known technique for depositing a thin film of material on
`
`a substrate. Sputtering systems include a cathode assembly 114 that includes a
`
`sputtering target 116 made of a material that is desired for the thin film:
`
`Fig. 2
`
`Fig. 3
`
`
`13 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`14 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The sputtering source bombards the target surface 156 with ions to dislodge
`
`atoms, causing them to deposit on the substrate in a thin film.15 Positive ions
`
`154 are driven into the surface 156 of the sputtering target 116 by an electric
`
`field at an angle of incidence and with sufficient energy to knock atoms 160,
`
`170 from the target.16 The dislodged atoms “flow to a substrate where they
`
`deposit as a film of target material.”17
`
`To create ions for sputtering, a voltage source applies an electric field to
`
`a gas that frees some electrons from their gas molecules to form a gaseous
`
`mixture of electrons, positively charged molecules (i.e., ions) and neutral gas
`
`molecules, i.e., a “plasma.” The density of ions produced depends, inter alia,
`
`upon the strength of the applied electric field.
`
`
`15 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col 1, lines 15 – 22.
`
`16 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 5, lines 20 - 30.
`
`17 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 1, lines 20 – 21.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`
`The rate at which material sputters from the target increases with the
`
`density of ions in the plasma.18 One known way to increase the plasma density
`
`is to strengthen the ionizing electric field. But this can induce high currents
`
`that generate undesirable heating and damage to the target, as well as electrical
`
`arcing that “corrupts the sputtering process.”19 One known solution to this
`
`problem is to apply the strong electric field in short bursts that temporarily
`
`provide the desired field strength, but at a lower average power to reduce the
`
`undesirable effects.20 However, such high power pulses “can still result in
`
`undesirable electric discharges and undesirable target heating.”21 The ‘421
`
`patent describes an improved pulsed system for generating a strongly ionized
`
`plasma for use in sputtering material from a sputter target, but without arcing.
`
`B. The ‘421 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved
`Sputtering Source.
`
`To overcome the problems of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented a
`
`magnetically enhanced sputtering source having a particular structure of an
`
`anode, cathode, ionization source, magnet and power supply generating a
`
`
`18 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col 3, lines 3 – 7.
`
`19 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col 3, lines 20 – 29.
`
`20 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col 3,lines 30 - 35.
`
`21 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col 3, lines 36 - 38.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`particular type of voltage pulse to perform a multi-step ionization process for
`
`sputtering, but without forming an arc discharge as illustrated in Fig. 4 of the
`
`‘421 patent, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As illustrated by Fig. 4, Dr. Chistyakov’s magnetically enhanced sputtering
`
`source includes an anode 238 and a cathode assembly 216 having a sputtering
`
`target 220 made of the material to be sputtered that is positioned inside the
`
`cathode 218.22 The anode 238 is positioned adjacent to the cathode assembly
`
`“so as to form a gap 244 between the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216
`
`
`22 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 6, line 46 – col. 7, line 6.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`that is sufficient to allow current to flow through a region 245 between the
`
`anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216.”23 The gap 244 and the total volume
`
`of region 245 are parameters in the ionization process.”24 The “cathode
`
`assembly 216 includes a cathode 218 and a sputtering target 220 composed of
`
`target material.”25
`
`“[T]he pulsed power supply 234 is a component in an ionization source
`
`that generates the weakly-ionized plasma.”26 “The pulsed power supply
`
`applies a voltage pulse between the cathode assembly 216 and the anode
`
`238.”27 “The amplitude and shape of the voltage pulse are such that a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma is generated in the region 246 between the anode 238 and the
`
`cathode assembly 216.”28 “The peak plasma density of the pre-ionized plasma
`
`depends on the properties of the specific plasma processing system.”29
`
`
`23 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 7, lines 30 - 31.
`
`24 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 7, lines 35 - 38.
`
`25 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 6, lines 47 - 49.
`
`26 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 13 - 15.
`
`27 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 16 - 17.
`
`28 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 18 - 21.
`
`29 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 27 - 29.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`
`The ‘421 patent describes techniques for controlling a voltage pulse to
`
`form a strongly ionized plasma that yields the desired sputtering from a
`
`sputtering target, but without arcing. The ‘421 patent proposes that if the
`
`shape of a pulse is chosen correctly, the density of ions generated by the pulse
`
`can be increased to a desired level but in a controlled manner that avoids
`
`arcing.30
`
`The patent describes several systems. In one, a shaped pulse creates a
`
`weakly ionized plasma and then transitions it into a strongly ionized
`
`condition.31 In the other system, a continuous DC power source generates and
`
`maintains a weakly ionized plasma,32 and a shaped pulse is superimposed to
`
`transition the existing weak plasma into a strongly ionized state.
`
`The first version is described in connection with the pulsed power supply
`
`234 shown in fig. 4. The pulsed supply 234 generates a pulse for creating a
`
`weakly ionized plasma:
`
`In one embodiment, the pulsed power supply 234 is a component
`
`of an ionization source that generates the weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`The pulsed power supply applies a voltage pulse between the
`
`
`30 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 18 – 21; col. 16, lines 60 – 64.
`
`31 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 13 – 37.
`
`32 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 45 – 48.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`
`cathode assembly 216 and the anode 238. In one embodiment, the
`
`pulsed power supply 234 applies a negative voltage pulse to the
`
`cathode assembly 216. The amplitude and shape of the voltage
`
`pulse are such that a weakly-ionized plasma is generated in the
`
`region 246 between the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216.33
`
`After the weakly–ionized plasma is formed, the pulsed power supply 234
`
`increases power to transition the weakly ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma:
`
`Once the weakly-ionized plasma is formed, high-power pulses are
`
`then generated between the cathode assembly 216 and the anode
`
`238. In one embodiment, the pulsed power supply 234 generates
`
`the high-power pulses. The desired power level of the high-power
`
`pulse depends on several factors including the desired deposition
`
`rate, the density of the pre-ionized plasma, and the volume of the
`
`plasma, for example.34
`
`The patent explains that “the shape and duration of the leading edge 356 and
`
`the trailing edge 358 of the high-power pulse 354 is chosen so as to sustain the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma 262 while controlling the rate of ionization of the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma 268.35
`
`
`33 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 13 – 22.
`
`34 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 9, lines 29 – 36.
`
`35 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 16, lines 60 – 64.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`
`
`With regard to the second version referred to above, the ‘421 patent
`
`mentions that the weakly ionized plasma can instead be generated with a
`
`“direct current (DC) power supply” not shown in the patent’s figures:
`
`In one embodiment, a direct current (DC) power supply (not
`
`shown) is used to generate and maintain the weakly-ionized or
`
`pre-ionized plasma. In this embodiment, the DC power supply is
`
`adapted to generate a voltage that is large enough to ignite the pre-
`
`ionized plasma.36
`
`However, the claims of the ‘421 patent are directed to the technique wherein a
`
`pulse first ignites a weakly ionized plasma without arcing, and then increases
`
`the ion density into a strongly ionized plasma. The amplitude, rise time and
`
`duration of the pulse are chosen to create a weakly ionized plasma and then
`
`transition it into a strongly-ionized plasma without arcing.37
`
`III. Summary of Petitioner’s Proposed Grounds
`
`For the Board’s convenience, here is a summary of the Petition’s proposed
`
`claim rejections:
`
`Ground Claims Alleged Basis
`I
`9, 35
`103
`II
`14, 37
`103
`
`36 Ex. 1201, ‘421 Patent, col. 8, lines 45 – 48.
`
`Art
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`Mozgrin and Mozgrin’s Thesis
`
`37 Ex. 1201, ‘421 Patent, col. 8, lines 18 – 21; col. 9, lines 16 – 19; col. 16, lines
`
`60 – 64.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`
`III
`IV
`V
`VI
`
`21
`26
`9, 21, 35
`14, 26, 35
`
`103
`103
`103
`103
`
`Mozgrin, Lantsman and Kudryavtsev
`Mozgrin, Lantsman, and Mozgrin’s Thesis
`Wang and Kudryavtsev
`Wang and Mozgrin’s Thesis
`
`IV. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`
`Pursuant to Rule §42.104(b)(3), the Petitioner “must identify [] how the
`
`claim is to be construed” for purposes of comparing the challenged claim the
`
`cited art. The present Petition construes only the claimed phrases “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma.” For all other claim language it
`
`offers no explicit construction, leaving the reader to infer the Petitioner’s
`
`“interpretation” from its allegations that the claimed features are taught by the
`
`prior art.
`
`A. Construction of “Weakly Ionized Plasma” and “Strongly
`Ionized Plasma”
`
`The Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the claim terms “strongly
`
`ionized plasma,” and “weakly ionized plasma” are wrong because they are not
`
`the broadest reasonable constructions consistent with the specification. In
`
`particular, the Petitioner’s proposed construction of “strongly ionized plasma”
`
`as a “higher density plasma” is wrong because the proposed construction reads
`
`the claim term “ionized” out of the claim. That is, the Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is incomplete because it does not
`
`specify what the term “density” refers to.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`
`The proper construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is “a plasma with
`
`a relatively high peak density of ions.” This proposed construction specifies
`
`that the term “density” refers to ions and therefore, is consistent with the claim
`
`language. Moreover, the proposed construction is also consistent with the
`
`specification of the ‘421 patent which indicates that a strongly ionized plasma
`
`is also referred to as a “high-density plasma.”38 In addition, the proposed
`
`construction is consistent with the specification of the ‘759 patent that refers to
`
`“strongly ionized plasma [as] having a large ion density.”39 The term
`
`‘strongly-ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak density of ions.
`
`For similar reasons, the proper construction of the claim term “weakly
`
`ionized plasma” is “a plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions.” In
`
`particular, the specification of the ‘421 patent says that “a weakly ionized
`
`plasma [has] a relatively low-level of ionization”40 Furthermore, the
`
`specification of a related patent number 6,806,652 (“the ‘652 Patent”) states
`
`that “[t]he term ‘weakly-ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma
`
`
`38 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 12, lines 11 - 12.
`
`39 Ex. 1212, ‘759 patent, col. 10, lines. 4-5.
`
`40 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 9, lines 24 – 25.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`with a relatively low peak plasma density. The peak plasma density of the
`
`weakly ionized plasma depends on the properties of the specific plasma
`
`processing system.”
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing.
`
`
`A. Overview of Challenged Claims.
`
`The challenged claims 9, 21 and 35 (the “Group A” claims) each add the
`
`same feature to their respective parent claims (1, 17, 34) that is generally directed
`
`to choosing or adjusting the claimed voltage pulse parameters so that the pulse,
`
`inter alia, yields a multistage ionization process as seen below:
`
`Claim 9
`The sputtering source of
`claim 1 wherein
`
`the voltage pulse
`generated between the
`anode and the cathode
`assembly excites atoms in
`the weakly-ionized
`plasma and generates
`secondary electrons from
`the cathode assembly, the
`secondary electrons
`ionizing a portion of the
`excited atoms, thereby
`creating the strongly-
`ionized plasma.
`
`
`Claim 21
`The sputtering source of
`claim 17 wherein
`
`the voltage pulse
`generated between the
`anode and the cathode
`assembly excites atoms in
`the weakly-ionized
`plasma and generates
`secondary electrons from
`the cathode assembly, the
`secondary electrons
`ionizing a portion of the
`excited atoms, thereby
`creating the strongly-
`ionized plasma.
`
`Claim 35
`The method of claim 34
`wherein
`
`the applying the voltage
`pulse to the cathode
`assembly generates
`excited atoms in the
`weakly-ionized plasma
`and generates secondary
`electrons from the
`sputtering target, the
`secondary electrons
`ionizing the excited
`atoms, thereby creating
`the strongly-ionized
`plasma.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`These claims are all directed to an improvement over their respective parent
`
`claims, wherein the voltage pulse (which is used to create a weakly ionized
`
`plasma and then transition it to a strongly ionized plasma), has an amplitude
`
`and rise time that is chosen to promote a type of step-wise ionization during
`
`the transition of the plasma from a weakly ionized state to a strongly ionized
`
`state.
`
`In the claimed type of step-wise ionization, neutral atoms in the weakly
`
`ionized plasma are first induced to an “excited state.” The patent also explains
`
`that less energy is required to excite an atom than to directly ionize it from its
`
`ground state:
`
`For example, an argon atom requires an energy of about 11.55 eV
`
`to become excited …. while neutral atoms 270 require about
`
`15.76 eV of energy to ionize.41
`
`The claimed pulse also generates “secondary electrons from the cathode
`
`assembly,” that interact with the excited atoms to ionize them. As the
`
`specification explains, ions in the plasma strike the cathode assembly to cause
`
`“secondary electron emission” from the cathode assembly.42 These secondary
`
`electrons emitted from the cathode interact with the excited atoms to rapidly
`
`
`41 Ex. 1201, ‘421 Patent, col. 13, lines 25 - 36.
`
`42 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 13, lines 36 – 39.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`ionize the excited atoms and thus further increase the ion density near the
`
`cathode surface:
`
`These secondary electrons interact with neutral 270 or excited
`
`atoms 274 in the strongly-ionized plasma 268. This process further
`
`increases the density of ions 272 in the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`268 as the feed gas 256 is replenished.
`
`***
`
`The excited atoms 274 are rapidly ionized by secondary electrons
`
`emitted by the cathode assembly 216. This rapid ionization results
`
`in a strongly-ionized plasma 268 having a large ion density being
`
`formed in the area 264 proximate to the cathode assembly 216.43
`
`
`
`Atoms in an excited state require less energy to ionize than non-excited,
`
`“ground state” atoms.44 As explained in the patent, argon for example requires
`
`15.76 electron volts to ionize, whereas an excited argon atom only requires
`
`about 4 electron volts to ionize. Therefore, excited atoms will ionized at a
`
`much higher rate than ground state atoms:
`
`The excited atoms 274 only require about 4 eV of energy to ionize
`
`while neutral atoms 270 require about 15.76 eV of energy to
`
`
`43 Ex. 1201, ‘421 patent, col. 13, lines 38 – 63.
`
`44 Ex. 1201, ‘421 Patent, col. 13, lines 25 – 30.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`
`
`ionize. Therefore, the excited atoms 274 will ionize at a much
`
`higher rate than the neutral atoms 270.45
`
`The patent teaches this type of multi-step ionization can be promoted by
`
`properly choosing the shape of the voltage pulse:
`
`The parameters of the applied electric field 266 are varied to
`
`determine the optimum condition for a relatively high rate of
`
`excitation of the atoms in the region 245.46
`
`
`
`***
`
`The shape and duration of the leading edge 356 and the trailing
`
`edge 358 of the high-power pulse 354 is chosen so as to sustain the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma 262 while controlling the rate of ionization
`
`of the strongly-ionized plasma 268.47
`
`The Petition challenges these claims in three obviousness grounds (I, III, and
`
`V), which we will address as a group below (the “Group A Claims”).
`
`
`
`The other challenged claims (14, 26, and 37) each add a feature to their
`
`respective parent claims that specifies a numerical range for the claimed pulse
`
`rise time (The “Group B Claims”):
`
`Claim 14
`
`Claim 26
`
`Claim 37
`
`
`45 Ex. 1201, ‘421 Patent, col. 13, lines 25 – 31.
`
`46 Ex. 1201, ‘421 Patent, col. 14, lines 22 – 25.
`
`47 Ex. 1201, ‘421 Patent, col. 16, lines 60 – 64.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`The sputtering source of
`claim 1 wherein the rise
`time of the voltage pulse
`is in the range of
`approximately
`0.01V/.mu.sec to
`1000V/.mu.sec
`
`
`The sputtering source of
`claim 17 wherein the rise
`time of the voltage pulse
`is in the range of
`approximately
`0.01V/.mu.sec to
`1000V/.mu.sec
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-00992
`
`
`The method of claim 34
`wherein the rise time of
`the voltage pulse is in the
`range of approximately
`0.01V/.mu.sec to
`1000V/.mu.sec.
`
`The Petition challenges these claims in three obviousness grounds (II, IV, and
`
`VI), which we will address as “Group B” below.
`
`
`B. All of Petition’s Obviousness Grounds Fail to Follow the Proper
`Legal Framework For an Obviousness Analysis.
`
`The Graham framework requires consideration of the following factors:
`
`(1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and