DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`DOCKET NO: 0107131.00275US1
`‘184 PATENT
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 7,808,184, CLAIMS 1-5 AND 11-15
`
`INVENTOR: ROMAN CHISTYAKOV
`
`FILED: APR. 18, 2006
`
`ISSUED: OCT. 5, 2010
`
`TITLE: METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING STRONGLY-
`IONIZED PLASMAS WITH IONIZATIONAL INSTABILITIES
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD DEVITO, REGARDING
`CLAIMS 1-5 AND 11-15 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,808,184
`
`I, Richard DeVito, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`My name is Richard DeVito.
`
`I received my B.S. in Physics from Suffolk University, cum laude in
`
`1982. I received my M.S. in Experimental Solid State Physics from Syracuse
`
`University in 1986.
`
`1
`
`GILLETTE 1002
`
`
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`DOCKET NO: 0107131.00275US1
`‘184 PATENT
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT: 7,808,184, CLAIMS 1-5 AND 11-15
`
`INVENTOR: ROMAN CHISTYAKOV
`
`FILED: APR. 18, 2006
`
`ISSUED: OCT. 5, 2010
`
`TITLE: METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING STRONGLY-
`IONIZED PLASMAS WITH IONIZATIONAL INSTABILITIES
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD DEVITO, REGARDING
`CLAIMS 1-5 AND 11-15 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,808,184
`
`I, Richard DeVito, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`My name is Richard DeVito.
`
`I received my B.S. in Physics from Suffolk University, cum laude in
`
`1982. I received my M.S. in Experimental Solid State Physics from Syracuse
`
`University in 1986.
`
`1
`
`GILLETTE 1002
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`3.
`
`I am the Founder and President of VAECO Inc. I have been the
`
`Director at the “Kostas” Facility for Microfabrication and Nanotechnology at
`
`Northeastern University, since October 2005. Between March 2004 and October
`
`2005, I was a Principal Process Development Fab Engineer at Aegis
`
`Semiconductor. Between October 2003 and March 2004, I was a consultant at
`
`Fluens Corp. I am also a co-founder of Fluens Corp. Between August 2002 and
`
`October 2003, I was a Process Manager at NEXX SYSTEMS. Between 2001 and
`
`2002, I was a Director of thin film processing at UNAXIS CORPORATION.
`
`Between 2000 and 2001, I was a Director of thin film processing at OPNETICS
`
`CORPORATION. Between 1997 and 2000, I was a Sr. Project Engineer at
`
`CORNING/OCA/NETOPTIX. Between 1995 and 1997, I was a Project / Process
`
`Engineer 1995 -1997 at THE GILLETTE COMPANY. Between 1994 and 1995, I
`
`was a Senior Process Engineer at THE GILLETTE COMPANY. Between 1989
`
`and 1994, I was a Senior Physical Scientist at LITTON-ITEK OPTICAL
`
`SYSTEMS. Between 1987 and 1989, I was a Physical Scientist at LITTON-ITEK
`
`OPTICAL SYSTEMS.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached as Appendix A.
`
`For the last fifteen years, the principal focus of my research has been
`
`the use of plasma to deposit thin films.
`
`2
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`6.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, claims, and file history of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,808,184 (the “‘184 patent”) (Ex. 1001). I understand that the ’184
`
`patent was filed on September 30, 2002, and is a continuation of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,095,179, which was filed on February 22, 2004. I understand that, for purposes
`
`determining whether a publication will qualify as prior art, the earliest date that the
`
`‘184 patent could be entitled to is February 22, 2004.
`
`7.
`
`I have reviewed the following publications:
`
`(cid:120) 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. 1003)).
`
`(cid:120) 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. 1004)).
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1005)).
`
`(cid:120) D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering
`
`Physics Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1006). Exhibit 1006 is a
`
`certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis, attached as
`
`3
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`Exhibit 1007. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at the
`
`Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1008.
`
`8.
`
`I have read and understood each of the above publications. The
`
`disclosure of each of these publications provides sufficient information for
`
`someone to make and use the plasma generation and sputtering processes that are
`
`described in the above publications.
`
`9.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the ‘184 patent application was filed. In my
`
`opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘184 patent would have found
`
`the ‘184 invalid.
`
`10.
`
`I have been retained by Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) as
`
`an expert in the field of plasma technology. I am working as an independent
`
`consultant in this matter and am being compensated at my normal consulting rate
`
`of $250.00/hour for my time. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way
`
`affects the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`11.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’184 patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’184 patent.
`
`4
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`12.
`
`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.
`
`13.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`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.
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`B.
`
`15.
`
`Obviousness
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`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.
`
`16.
`
`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:
`
`(cid:120) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
`(cid:120) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(cid:120) what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`17.
`
`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
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
`6
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`(cid:120) whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`(cid:120) whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`(cid:120) 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;
`
`(cid:120) whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`(cid:120) whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`(cid:120) whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`7
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`II.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`20.
`
`Plasma
`
`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
`
`21.
`
`Plasma had been used in research and industrial applications for
`
`decades before the ‘184 Patent was filed. 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). 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.
`
`1 The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used
`
`interchangeably because the negatively charged free electrons and positively
`
`charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain
`
`negatively charged ions or clusters.
`
`8
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`22.
`
`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 ‘184 patent was filed.
`
`B.
`
`23.
`
`Ions and excited atoms
`
`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.”
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to
`
`an excited atom. For example, the ‘184 Patent uses the following equation to
`
`describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon
`
`atom, Ar. See ‘184 Patent at 10:40 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e- (cid:198) Ar* + e-
`
`26.
`
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`or excited atom can create an ion. For example, the ‘184 Patent uses the following
`
`equation to describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from an excited argon atom,
`
`Ar*. See ‘184 Patent at 10:42 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar* + e- (cid:198) Ar+ + 2e-
`
`27.
`
`Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759 (the “’759 Patent”) (Ex. 1013),
`
`which names the same inventor and is owned by a common assignee, uses the
`
`following equation to describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state
`
`argon atom, Ar. See ‘759 Patent at 3:58 (Ex. 1013).
`
`Ar + e- (cid:198) Ar+ + 2e-
`
`28.
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long
`
`before the ’184 Patent was filed.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘184 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`29.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘184 Patent
`
`The ‘184 Patent describes generating a plasma by applying a voltage
`
`pulse in a manner that allegedly avoids arcing.
`
`30.
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ‘184 Patent are directed to
`
`methods that supply a feed gas and apply a voltage pulse between an anode and a
`
`cathode assembly. The voltage pulse increases an ionization rate and forms a so-
`
`10
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`called “strongly-ionized plasma.” The strongly-ionized plasma is generated
`
`“without forming an arc.”
`
`31.
`
`The dependent claims are directed to further operational details, such
`
`as moving a magnet, characteristics of the voltage pulse, processes that occur
`
`during the generation of a voltage pulse, and the type of power supply used.
`
`B.
`
`32.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`In the first substantive office action, the only rejection was a
`
`nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over U.S. Patent No. 7,095,179 in
`
`view of U.S. Patent No 5,746,693. See 12/08/09 Office Action (Ex. 1009). The
`
`Patent Owner traversed the double patenting rejection by filing a terminal
`
`disclaimer. See 06/03/10 Response and accompanying Terminal Disclaimer (Ex.
`
`1010). The claims were then allowed. See 06/28/10 Notice of Allowance (Ex.
`
`1011).
`
`33.
`
`In the Notice of Allowability, the Examiner noted that the prior art of
`
`record failed to disclose “the voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled
`
`amplitude and a controlled rise time that increase an ionization rate so that a rapid
`
`increase in electron density…” and “the voltage pulse having at least one of a
`
`controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time that shifts an electron energy
`
`distribution in the plasma to higher energies that increase an ionization rate so as to
`
`11
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`result in a rapid increase in electron density.” 06/28/10 Notice of Allowance at 2
`
`(Ex. 1011).
`
`34.
`
`However, as will be explained in detail below, and contrary to the
`
`Examiner’s reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches those and
`
`all other limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`Overview of Mozgrin2
`Mozgrin teaches forming a strongly-ionized plasma “without forming
`
`35.
`
`A.
`
`an arc.” Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`36.
`
`As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`2 Mozgrin is art of record for the ‘184 Patent. However, Mozgrin was not
`
`substantively applied during prosecution of the ‘184 Patent.
`
`12
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`37.
`
`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. 1003).
`
`38.
`
`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. 1003). 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. 1003).
`
`39.
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`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. 1003).
`
`40.
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”) (Ex.
`
`13
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`1003). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4.3
`
`41.
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering
`
`and etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it.
`
`B.
`
`42.
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev4
`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. 1004).
`
`In particular, Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via
`
`different processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state
`
`3 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.
`
`4 Kudryavtsev is art of record for the ‘184 Patent. However, Kudryavtsev was not
`
`substantively applied during prosecution of the ‘184 Patent.
`
`14
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`atoms are converted directly to ions. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex.
`
`1004). The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls
`
`stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1004).
`
`Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can be the
`
`dominant ionization process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1004).
`
`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. 1003).
`
`C.
`
`43.
`
`Overview of Wang5
`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. 1005). 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
`
`5 Wang is art of record for the ‘184 Patent. However, Wang was not substantively
`
`applied during prosecution of the ‘184 Patent.
`
`15
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1005). 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. 1005). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a
`
`commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`44.
`
`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
`16
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`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
`
`appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to expressly
`
`correspond to its contentions in this proceeding.
`
`A.
`
`45.
`
`“Strongly-ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`All challenged claims require generation of a “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” Additionally, some of the dependent claims further require the creation
`
`of a “weakly-ionized plasma” before generating the “strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`See Claims 4 and 14.
`
`46.
`
`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 ‘184 Patent describes forming a weakly-ionized plasma by application of the
`
`low power stage 258 and then forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of
`
`higher voltage and power. ‘184 Patent at 7:29-46; 8:41-60 (Ex. 1001). The ‘184
`
`17
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`Patent also provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-
`
`ionized plasmas. See ‘184 Patent at 7:14-17 (“Weakly-ionized plasmas are
`
`generally plasmas having plasma densities that are less than about 1012 – 1013 cm-3
`
`and strongly-ionized plasmas are generally plasmas having plasma densities that
`
`are greater than about 1012-1013 cm-3.”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`47.
`
`Therefore, I have used the following constructions:
`
`(cid:120) “weakly-ionized plasma” means “a lower density plasma” and
`
`(cid:120) “strongly-ionized plasma” means “a higher density plasma.”
`
`48.
`
`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. 1017).
`
`18
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`VI.
`
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR REJECTION
`
`49.
`
`The below sections demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claims 1-5 and 11-15 of the 184 Patent, and how those
`
`claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`50.
`
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim charts submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Exs. 1019-1023), 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.
`
`Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in
`A.
`view of the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`51.
`
`I have further reviewed and understand the claim chart submitted by
`
`Petitioner in the above-captioned inter partes review (Ex. 1019), showing that
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in view of the combination of
`
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev. I understand this claim chart was submitted in an
`
`ongoing litigation involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner. This chart
`
`presents in summary form the analysis below and I agree with it.
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`a)
`
`The preamble
`
`19
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`52.
`
`Claim 1 begins, “[a] method of generating a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`The densities in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are summarized below.
`
`(cid:120) Region 1: 109 – 1011 cm-3.6
`
`(cid:120) Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm-3.7
`
`(cid:120) Region 3: 1.5x1015cm-3.8
`
`53.
`
`Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`The density in those regions matches the exemplary density given for a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma in the ‘184 Patent. ‘184 Patent at 7:14-17 (“[S]trongly-ionized
`
`plasmas are generally plasmas having plasma densities that are greater than about
`
`1012-1013 cm-3.”) (Ex. 1001). Accordingly, Mozgrin teaches the preamble.
`
`6 Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“For pre-ionization … the initial plasma density in
`
`the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`7 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron
`
`discharge (regime 2) in sputtering … plasma density (exceeding 2x1013 cm-3).”)
`
`(Ex. 1003).
`
`8 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is
`
`useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni (cid:35) 1.5x1015cm-3…”).
`
`(Ex. 1003).
`
`20
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`Limitation (a)
`b)
`Limitation (a) of claim 1 reads, “supplying feed gas proximate to an
`
`54.
`
`anode and a cathode assembly.” In the commonly owned, and previously filed,
`
`‘759 Patent, the Patent Owner admitted that this limitation was known. ‘759
`
`Patent at 3:19-21 (“A feed gas source 109…is introduced into the vacuum
`
`chamber…”); 3:23-24 (“The magnetron sputtering apparatus 100 also includes a
`
`cathode assembly 114…”); 3:40-41 (“An anode 130 is positioned in the vacuum
`
`chamber 104 proximate to the cathode assembly 114.”) (Ex. 1013).
`
`55.
`
`Mozgrin’s Fig. 1 also shows anode “2” and cathode “1.” Mozgrin
`
`discloses filling the space between the anode and cathode with a feed gas such as
`
`Argon. Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 4 (“…the discharge gap which was filled up
`
`with either neutral or pre-ionized gas.”); 400, right col, ¶ 3 (“We investigated the
`
`discharge regimes in various gas mixtures at 10-3 – 10 torr…”); 402, ¶ spanning
`
`left and right cols (“We studied the high-current discharge in wide ranges of
`
`discharge current…and operating pressure…using various gases (Ar, N2, SF6, and
`
`H2) or their mixtures of various composition…”); 401, left col, ¶ 1 (“The [plasma]
`
`discharge…was adjacent to the cathode.”) (Ex. 1003). Mozgrin also discloses that
`
`its cathode includes a sputtering target. Specifically, Mozgrin discusses sputtering
`
`that occurs in Region 2. Mozgrin at 403, right col., ¶4 (“Regime 2 was
`
`21
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`characterized by an intense cathode sputtering….”) (Ex. 1003). One of ordinary
`
`skill would understand that the portion of the cathode at which sputtering occurs is
`
`the target.
`
`56.
`
`Mozgrin therefore teaches limitation (a).
`
`c)
`
`Limitation (b)
`(1)
`“generating a voltage pulse between the anode and
`the cathode assembly”
`
`57.
`
`Mozgrin generates the voltage pulse shown in Fig. 3(b). Mozgrin at
`
`402, Fig. 3 caption (“Fig. 3. Oscillograms of (a) current and (b) voltage…”) (Ex.
`
`1003). Mozgrin applies that voltage pulse between Mozgrin’s anode and cathode.
`
`Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 4 (“It was possible to form the high-current quasi-
`
`stationary regime by applying a square voltage pulse to the discharge gap which
`
`was filled up with either neutral or pre-ionized gas.”) (Ex. 1003). Mozgrin
`
`therefore teaches “generating a voltage pulse between the anode and the cathode
`
`assembly” as required by limitation (b) of claim 1.
`
`“the voltage pulse having at least one of a
`(2)
`controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time”
`
`58.
`
`Fig 3(b) of Mozgrin, which shows Mozgrin’s voltage pulse, is copied
`
`below.
`
`22
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`59.
`
`The voltage pulse in Mozgrin’s region 2a has a rise time that is
`
`controlled to be within 5 – 60 μs. Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶ 1 (“[t]he power
`
`supply was able to deliver square voltage and current pulses with [rise] times
`
`(leading edge) of 5 – 60 μs ….”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`60.
`
`The voltage pulse in Mozgrin’s region 2a also has a controlled
`
`amplitude. Table 1 of Mozgrin shows the parameters, including voltage, used in
`
`Mozgrin’s region 2. Mozgrin at 406, right col, ¶ 2 (“Table 1 presents parameter
`
`ranges corresponding to regime 2.”) (Ex. 1003). As shown in Mozgrin’s Table 1,
`
`the voltage in region 2 was controlled in a series of experiments to be in sub-ranges
`
`of 260-1100 Volts (e.g., in one experiment being controlled to 260-990 Volts).
`
`Mozgrin at 406, Table 1 (Ex. 1003).
`
`61.
`
`Therefore, Mozgrin teaches controlling both the rise time and the
`
`amplitude of its voltage pulse as required by this portion of limitation (b) of claim
`
`1.
`
`23
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`“that increases an ionization rate so that a rapid
`(3)
`increase in electron density and formation of a strongly-
`ionized plasma occurs”
`
`62.
`
`In the Section above regarding the preamble of claim 1, the plasma
`
`densities in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are provided and it was explained that the
`
`plasmas in Mozgrin’s regions 2 and 3 are “strongly-ionized plasmas,” because
`
`their densities are greater than the density obtained in region 1 and because they
`
`match the exemplary density for a strongly-ionized plasma given in the ‘184
`
`Patent. Also, Mozgrin’s density increase from 1011 in region 1 to 1013 in region 2
`
`in response to Mozgrin’s pulse shows that Mozgrin generated a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma by “increasing ionization rate” and “rapid increase in electron density” as
`
`required by limitation (b) of claim 1. Such increase in ionization rate and rapid
`
`increase in electron density upon application of a voltage pulse were well known.
`
`For example, Leipold teaches that “[a]pplication of a high voltage pulse causes a
`
`shift in the electron energy distribution function to higher energies. This causes a
`
`temporary increase of the ionization rate and consequently an increase of the
`
`electron density.” (Leipold at Abstract) (Ex. 1018).
`
`63.
`
`Further, the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev teach
`
`generating a strongly-ionized plasma by “increasing ionization rate” and “rapid
`
`increase in electron density” as required by claim 1. As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig.
`
`24
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`3, application of the pulse converts the lower density plasma of region 1 to the
`
`strongly-ionized plasmas of regions 2 and 3. Moreover, Mozgrin explains that its
`
`pulsing was designed in view of Kudryavtsev. Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and
`
`right cols (“The frequency parameters of the pulsed supply unit were chosen…
`
`Designing the [pulsed supply] unit, we took into account the dependencies which
`
`had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev] of ionization relaxation on pre-ionization
`
`parameters, pressure, and pulse voltage amplitude.”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`64.
`
`Like Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev pre-ionized a gas and then applied a
`
`voltage pulse. Kudryavtsev at 32, right col, ¶¶ 5-6 (“The discharge occurred inside
`
`a cylindrical tube… The gas was preionized by applying a dc current…A voltage
`
`pulse…was applied to the tube.”) (Ex. 1004). Under these conditions,
`
`Kudryavtsev observed “… an explosive increase in ne [electron density]. The
`
`subsequent increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate of
`
`excitation [equation omitted], which is several orders of magnitude greater than the
`
`ionization rate during the initial stage.” Kudryavtsev at 31, right col, ¶ 6 (Ex
`
`1004). See also Kudryavtsev at Abstract (“… electron density increases
`
`explosively in time due to accumulation of atoms in the lowest excited states.”)
`
`(Ex. 1004).
`
`25
`
`
`
`DeVito Declaration
`‘184 Patent, Claims 1-5 and 11-15
`
`65.
`
`In a plasma, positively charged ions and negatively charged electrons
`
`are present in roughly equal numbers. Therefore, if the electron density (i.e.,
`
`number of free electrons) increases, the plasma density (i.e., number of ions) also
`
`increases. Further, since Kudryavtsev’s electron and plasma densities increased
`
`explosively, his ionization rate also increased as required by claim 1.
`
`66.
`
`Mozgrin’s ionization rate and electron density increase explosively
`
`just as Kudryavtsev’s, i.e., because Mozgrin designed its pulse in view of
`
`Kudryavtsev and they both apply a pulse under similar conditions. The amplitude
`
`and the rise time that Mozgrin used resulted in an increased ionization rate.
`
`Moreover, i
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
