Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`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. 6,806,652
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2014-01000
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’s PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.107(a)
`
`Claims 1 - 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`
`II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................2
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ....................................................................................5
`
`A. The Need for More Uniformly Distributed Plasmas.....................................................5
`
`B. The ‘652 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents a Technique for Generating Super
`Ionized Plasma Having A Uniform Charge Distribution. ........................................7
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS ........................................11
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) ...................................12
`
`A. Construction of “excited atom source that generates an initial plasma and
`excited ions from a volume of feed gas” (Claims 1 - 17) .........................................12
`
`B. Construction of “super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the cathode
`assembly” (All Claims) ..............................................................................................15
`
`C. Construction of “a gas valve that injects feed gas proximate to the cathode
`assembly at a predetermined time” (Claim 13) ........................................................16
`
`VI. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF PREVAILING ON INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1. .....................................................21
`
`A. Defects In Ground I: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A Reasonable
`Likelihood That Claim 1 is Obvious Over Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and
`Fahey. ..........................................................................................................................21
`
`a. Overview of Mozgrin ..........................................................................................22
`
`a. Kudryavtsev .........................................................................................................24
`
`b. Overview of Fahey ..............................................................................................27
`
`c. Differences Between Claim 1 and the Ground I References ................................28
`
`d.
`
`Conclusion: Petitioner Has Not Shown a Reasonable Likelihood of
`Success That Claim 1 is Obvious for the Reasons Asserted in
`Ground I. ........................................................................................................33
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`B. Defects In Ground V: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A Reasonable
`Likelihood That Claim 1 is Obvious Over Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey
`and Iwamura. ..............................................................................................................33
`
`VII. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF PREVAILING ON DEPENDENT CLAIMS ............................................................38
`
`a. Claim 2 .............................................................................................................................38
`
`b. Claim 13. ..........................................................................................................................42
`
`c. Claims 14 - 16. .................................................................................................................48
`
`VIII.
`
`CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The present petition for inter partes review is the second of three petitions
`
`by The Gillette Company that challenge the patentability of every claim of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 (“the ‘652 patent”). These petitions are part of a
`
`campaign to annul ten Zond patents, and every one of hundreds of claims
`
`awarded to Zond. The present petition targets independent claim 1 of the ‘652
`
`patent and its dependent claims 2 - 17.
`
`The ‘652 patent is generally directed to a system and technique for
`
`generating a super-ionized plasma having a high density of ions. The patent
`
`proposes a plasma source in which an exited atom source converts a volume of
`
`feed gas to an initial plasma filled with exited atoms. The plasma/excited
`
`atom mixture is then exposed to a strong electric field designed to super-ionize
`
`the mixture. This technique allows the initial plasma to be created under a first
`
`condition that fills the initial plasma with excited atoms, to facilitate the
`
`creation of a highly dense plasma in the next stage. The mixture, when
`
`exposed to an electric field of the proper strength, generates a super-ionized
`
`plasma. The patent claims various embodiments of this combination of an
`
`excited atom source with a power supply for super-ionizing the excited atoms
`
`from the source.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Summary of Argument
`
`The present petition does not cite to any prior art reference that teaches
`
`the claimed combination of a source of excited atoms (for generating an initial
`
`plasma filled with excite atoms) and a power supply for super-ionizing the
`
`mixture. Instead it weaves together up to four different prior art references in
`
`an attempt to recreate the claims from carefully chosen excerpts. The cited art
`
`shows that sources of excited atoms were know since 1979, but in all the years
`
`since, not one reference wrote down or proposed combining such a source with
`
`a super-ionization stage as recited in the various claims of the ‘652 patent.
`
`Thus, as explained in this statement, the Petitioner inadvertently resorts to
`
`hindsight analysis in the hope of persuading the Board that the claim method
`
`was in fact obvious all along: Using the claims as a schematic, the Petitioner
`
`carefully selects a set of prior art references and assembles them to suit its
`
`objective.
`
`In the embodiment recited in claim 13 for example, a gas valve “injects”
`
`feed gas “at a predetermined time” to a location proximate to the cathode
`
`assembly where the plasma/excited atom mixture is super-ionized. Figure 2A
`
`of the ‘652 patent depicts examples of such a valve 244 that controls the
`
`injection of feed gas via conduit 232 to a location proximate to the cathode
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`assembly where power supply 222 super-ionizes the initial plasma. The valve
`
`is switched by a programmable controller to deliver gas to this site at
`
`predetermined times.1 The claimed valve thus controls gas flow to a conduit
`
`that injects the gas at the specified location, and the valve is controlled to inject
`
`the gas at a “predetermined time.”
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petition gives no weight to the claimed requirement that the value
`
`inject gas to the specified location and “at a predetermined time.” It
`
`essentially argues that any gas valve in a plasma system will necessarily inject
`
`gas at the claimed location at a “predetermined time.” According to the
`
`Petitioner’s “interpretation,” the claim language that specifies the location and
`
`timing of the feed gas injection effectively does not exist in the claim:
`
`According to the Petitioner - if there is a feed gas is a plasma chamber, then it
`
`necessarily was “injected” at the specified location and “at a predetermined
`
`time.”
`
`However, the standard for claim interpretation in these proceedings is
`
`not the “broadest conceivable” interpretation, regardless of whether that
`
`interpretation renders some claim language superfluous.2 It is the broadest
`
`
`1 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 8, lines 14 – 28.
`
`2 Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the claim language and
`
`specification in accordance with the legal cannons of claim construction.3
`
`
`
`The Petition relies on Mozgrin for allegedly teaching the claimed valve
`
`for injecting feed gas at a specified location and at a predetermined time, citing
`
`to Mozgrin’s teaching that “the discharge gas was filled up with either neutral
`
`or pre-ionized gas.”4 This aspect of Mozgrin merely indicates that the space
`
`between the electrodes was “filled,” but makes no mention of any flow of feed
`
`gas during the process, and therefore certainly does not hint of injecting a feed
`
`gas at the claimed location and at a “predetermined time.”
`
`
`
`The Petitioner acknowledges this void in Mozgrin and attempts to fill it
`
`by arguing - “one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`Mozgrin would use a gas line and a gas valve, such as those illustrated in two
`
`additional references, Ohring and Smith, for controlling the flow of gas into
`
`Mozgrin’s chamber.”5 These supplementary references merely show a valve
`
`that allows gas flow into a chamber. But the claim is not directed to any gas
`
`feed into a chamber: It requires the “injection” of feed gas to a specific
`
`
`3 See e.g., In re Rambus, Inc. 753 F.3d 1253, (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`4 Petition at page 44, citing Mozgrin at 401, left col.
`
`5 Petition at pages 44 – 45.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`location (i.e., “proximate to the cathode assembly” were super-ionization
`
`occurs) “at a predetermined time.” Conspicuously missing from the
`
`Petitioner’s assertion is any mention of these claim features. None of the cited
`
`excerpts from Ohring and Smith describe injection of gas to a region where a
`
`mixture of excited atoms and initial plasma is super-ionized. Nor do they
`
`discuss the timing of the injection of such a gas.
`
`As explained more fully below, each of the Petitioner’s grounds fails to
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are un-
`
`patentable, and instead shows that the Petitioner has inadvertently resorted to
`
`highlight in its attempt to annul Zond’s patents in their entirety.
`
`III. Technology Background
`
`A. The Need for More Uniformly Distributed Plasmas
`
`The ‘652 patent explains that for certain plasma applications, such as
`
`plasma etching or plasma sputtering, it is undesirable for the plasma’s ion
`
`concentration to vary significantly from one location to another. For example
`
`if the ion concentration is relatively high in one region, it can cause
`
`corresponding non-uniformities in the target.6 The patent therefore is
`
`directed to an improved method that generates highly dense plasmas with a
`
`more uniform distribution of charged particles.
`
`6 Ex. 1001, ‘652 Patent, col. 4, lines 23 – 30.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`To provide context for understanding the improvements, the ‘652 patent
`
`first describes a prior plasma generation system shown in figure 1 reproduced
`
`below:7
`
`
`
`In this system, a feed gas 110 flows into a chamber 104 at a location that is
`
`remote from the region 105 where the plasma is formed.8 The patent explains
`
`that neutral gas in the region 105 between electrodes 114 and 124 is ionized by
`
`
`7 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 4, lines 8 – 31.
`
`8 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 3, lines 15 – 18.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`applying a voltage across the electrodes 114, 124 to create a plasma. In such
`
`systems, ions tend to concentrate in certain portions of region 105.
`
`The uniformity of the plasma can be improved by increasing the power
`
`applied to the plasma via the voltage across the electrodes, to thereby increase
`
`the ion density and disperse the charged particles.9 However, increasing
`
`plasma density and uniformity in this manner can significantly increase the
`
`risk of an undesirable electrical breakdown and arcing condition.10
`
`The ‘652 patent is therefore directed to an improved technique for
`
`generating a super-ionized plasma with a relatively uniform density of charged
`
`particles, while reducing the risk of arcing at such high charge densities.
`
`B. The ‘652 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents a Technique for
`Generating Super Ionized Plasma Having A Uniform Charge
`Distribution.
`
`The ‘652 patent proposes a combination of features that generate a
`
`super-ionized, uniformly distributed plasma, while mitigating the risk of
`
`arcing. For example, in the system shown in figure 3 below, a feed gas 234 is
`
`directed into a region 214 between electrodes 201b and 210.
`
`
`9 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 4, lines 31 – 32.
`
`10 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 4, lines 32 - 37.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`A voltage from a first power supply 206 generates an electric field 250 across
`
`the feed gas 214 as shown in the enlarged portion shown in figure 2B below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The region 214 is designed to promote excitation of neutral atoms from the
`
`feed gas for transportation into region 252, where the excited atoms are then
`
`ionized by the high power pulses applied to electrodes 202a, 226. To generate
`
`excited atoms in region 214, the size of the gap 212 and the parameters of the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`electric field across the gap are chosen to promote the excitation of atoms in
`
`region 214 for transportation to region 252.11 For example, where the feed gas
`
`is argon (which requires 11.55 electron volts to become excited), the electric
`
`field 150 is adjusted to maximize the excitation rate of argons atoms so that
`
`“the vast majority of ground state feed gas atoms are not directly ionized, but
`
`instead undergo a step-wise ionization process.”12 Thus, the region operates as
`
`a source of excited atoms that generates more than a mere incidental amount
`
`of excited atoms.
`
`The region 214 is shaped to act as a conduit so that the pressure of the
`
`feed gas physically transports the newly formed ions and the excited atoms
`
`through region 214 into an adjacent region 252 where another electrode 202a
`
`resides that is surrounded by a magnetic field generated by magnets 304.13 As
`
`is known in the art, a magnetic field imposes a force on charges that move
`
`through the field. The shape of the magnetic field is chosen so that such forces
`
`trap electrons in the regions 308, where the magnetic field is weak:
`
`
`11 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 13, lines 42 – 47.
`
`12 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 13, lines 42 – 54.
`
`13 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 6, lines 50 – 52; col. 10, lines 10 – 12; col. 14,
`
`lines 37 – 65.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`“[T]he magnetic field 306 traps electrons in the initial plasma. A
`
`large fraction of the electrons are concentrated in the region 308
`
`that corresponds to the weakest area of the magnetic field 306 that
`
`is generated by the magnet assembly 302.”14
`
`Thus, as the transported mixture is injected into the region 310 and its
`
`magnetic field, the concentration of electrons and excited atoms in the region
`
`increases.
`
`A second power supply 222 applies high power pulses to electrode 202a
`
`to thereby launch additional power into the transported mixture in the region
`
`to super-ionize the mixture.15 The patent explains that it takes significantly less
`
`energy to ionize excited atoms than ground states atoms.16 Thus, the excitation
`
`of ground state atoms in region 214, and the transportation of those excited
`
`atoms to region containing electrons trapped by the magnetic field, facilitates
`
`ionization in region and the generation of a super-ionized plasma.17
`
`In short, the disclosed technique generates a super-ionized plasma by
`
`combining a source of excited atoms with a power supply for super-ionization.
`
`
`14 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 16, lines 24 – 30.
`
`15 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 11, lines 54 - 57
`
`16 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 14, lines 15 – 18.
`
`17 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col 14, lines 15 – 65,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`The excited atom source applies an electric field across a volume of feed gas,
`
`wherein the electric field is chosen to partially ionize the feed gas and to
`
`promote the excitation of neutral, ground state gas atoms. The resultant
`
`mixture of ions filled with excited neutral gas atoms is then transported to
`
`another location where a magnetic field traps a high concentration of
`
`electrons, while another electric field applies more power to the mixture, to
`
`thereby ionize the excited atoms and generate a super-ionized plasma.
`
`IV. Summary of Petitioner’s Proposed Grounds
`
`For the Board’s convenience, here is a summary of the Petition’s proposed
`
`claim rejections:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Art
`
`I
`
`II
`
`III
`
`IV
`
`1 – 14, 16, 17
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fahey
`
`5
`
`8 - 10
`
`15
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Vratny
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Lantsman
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Wang
`
`V
`
`1 – 14, 16, 17
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura
`
`VI
`
`5
`
`VII
`
`8 - 10
`
`VIII
`
`15
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, Iwamura, and
`Vratney
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, Iwamura, and
`Lantsman
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, Iwamura, and
`Wang
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`
`V. 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.
`
`A. Construction of “excited atom source that generates an
`initial plasma and excited ions from a volume of feed gas”
`(Claims 1 - 17)
`
`
`
` A
`
` “feed gas,” as its name implies, is a flow of gas. This interpretation is
`
`consistent with the specification, which depicts the feed gas 234 in fig. 2b as a
`
`flowing gas represented by arrows 234:
`
`
`
`The claims thus require ionization and excitation of a gas that is being fed.
`
`
`
`This element says that the plasma and excited atoms are generated
`
`“from a volume of feed gas.” This language specifically requires that both
`
`ionization and excitation occur in the same volume of feed gas. This
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`interpretation is consistent with the specification’s disclosure in the figure
`
`above, wherein a volume of feed gas in region 214 is both ionized and excited
`
`by electric field 250.18
`
`Accordingly, the claimed requirement that the source generate an initial
`
`plasma and excited ions from a volume of feed gas refers to the generation of
`
`both an initial plasma and excited atoms from the same volume of feed gas, wherein a
`
`feed gas is a gas that is flowing.
`
`The claim says that the source generates excited atoms and an initial
`
`plasma. But the claim also specifically names the source as an “excited atom
`
`source,” thereby indicating that the source is specifically designed to generate
`
`significant quantities of excited atoms, as opposed to a plasma source that may
`
`incidentally generate some excited atoms. The example sources shown in the
`
`specification provide context for understanding this element.
`
`
`
`
`18 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 8, line 63 – col. 9, line 5.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`In the example sources shown in figure 2 and 12 below, a voltage from a
`
`first power supply generates an electric field across a volume of feed gas:
`
`
`
`Fig. 2
`
`Fig. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`The volume and the applied voltage are designed to promote excitation of
`
`neutral atoms from the feed gas. To generate excited atoms, the size of the
`
`volume and the parameters of the electric field across the volume are chosen to
`
`promote the excitation of atoms in volume.19 For example, where the feed gas
`
`
`19 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 13, lines 42 – 47.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`is argon (which requires 11.55 electron volts to become excited), the electric
`
`field is adjusted to maximize the excitation rate of argons atoms.20
`
`
`
`Thus, the claimed “excited atom source” is not merely a plasma source
`
`that incidentally yields some excited atoms when generating a plasma, it is a
`
`source that is designed to generate significantly more than an incidental
`
`amount of excited atoms.
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`“An excited atom source for
`generating an initial plasma and
`excited atoms form a volume of
`feed gas”
`
`A source for generating both an
`initial plasma and significantly
`more than an incidental amount of
`excited atoms from the same
`volume of feed gas, wherein a feed
`gas is a gas that is a flowing gas.
`
`
`
`B. Construction of “super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to
`the cathode assembly” (All Claims)
`
`The petitioner proposes that the claimed “super-ionizing the initial plasma
`
`proximate to the cathode assembly” should be construed as - “converting at
`
`least 75% of the neutral atoms in the initial plasma into ions near the cathode
`
`assembly.”
`
`The specification cited in support of this interpretation says - “the ‘term
`
`super-ionized’ is defined herein to mean that at least 75% of the neutral atoms
`
`
`20 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 13, lines 42 – 48.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`in the plasma are converted.” This merely indicates that in a plasma that is
`
`“super-ionized,” 75% of the neutrals in the original feed gas have been
`
`converted to ions in the super-ionized plasma. Thus, the Patent Owner
`
`proposes that the claimed “super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the
`
`cathode assembly” should be construed to mean – ionizing the plasma that is
`
`proximate to the cathode so that at least 75% of the neutrals in the original
`
`feed gas have been converted to ions.
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`“super-ionizing the initial plasma
`proximate to the cathode assembly”
`
`“ionizing the plasma that is
`proximate to the cathode so that at
`least 75% of the neutrals in the
`original feed gas have been
`converted to ions.”
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Construction of “a gas valve that injects feed gas proximate to
`the cathode assembly at a predetermined time” (Claim 13)
`
`Petitioner’s comparison of claim 13 to the prior art gives no apparent
`
`weight to terms “injects feed gas proximate to the cathode assembly” and “at a
`
`predetermined time.” Treating claim terms as superfluous is “ a methodology
`
`of claim construction that [the Federal Circuit] has denounced.”21 The
`
`“broadest reasonable interpretation” standard must be reconciled with this
`
`21 Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`rule: The standard for claim interpretation in these proceedings is not the
`
`“broadest conceivable” interpretation of selected claim terms, regardless of
`
`whether that that interpretation renders other claim language superfluous: It is
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent other claim language,
`
`the specification, and in accordance with the legal cannons of claim
`
`construction.
`
`Claim 13 requires injection of feed gas to the same location where the
`
`claimed electric field super-ionizes the initial plasma, and requires that this
`
`injection occur “at a predetermined time.”
`
`Figure 2A of the ‘652 patent depicts an example of such a valve 244 that
`
`controls the injection of feed gas via conduit 232 to a location proximate to the
`
`cathode assembly where power supply 222 super-ionizes the initial plasma:
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`The patent explains that this valve is switched by a programmable controller to
`
`deliver gas at predetermined times:
`
`In one embodiment, the in-line gas valves 242, 244 are switchable
`
`mass flow controllers (not shown). The switchable mass flow
`
`controllers can be programmed inject the feed gases 234, 236 in a
`
`pulsed manner from the feed gas sources 238, 240, respectively.
`
`For example, the pressure in the gap 212 can be varied and
`
`optimized by pulsing the feed gas 234 that is injected directly into
`
`the gap 212. In one embodiment, the timing of the pulses is
`
`synchronized to the timing of power pulses generated by the first
`
`power supply 206 operated in a pulsed mode. Pulsing the feed
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`gases 234, 236 can also assist in the generation of excited atoms
`
`including metastable atoms in the gap 212. For example, by
`
`pulsing the feed gas 234 in the gap 212, the instantaneous pressure
`
`in the gap is increased while the average pressure in the chamber is
`
`unchanged. 22
`
`The specification thus provides context for understanding the claimed
`
`requirement that the valve inject feed gas to a location that is proximate to the
`
`cathode “at a predetermined time:” The claimed valve is one that delivers gas
`
`to a conduit positioned to inject feed gas to the location specified in the claim –
`
`a region proximate to a cathode assembly where an electric field super-ionizes
`
`the plasma/excited atom mixture. The claimed valve also injects the feed gas
`
`at “a predetermined time.”
`
`Any valve will begin delivering gas when opened. Thus, if the mere
`
`opening of a valve is deemed a delivery of gas at a “predetermined time,” then
`
`the qualifying language – “predetermined time” – is rendered superfluous over
`
`the word valve. The words “at a predetermined time” must have some
`
`meaning beyond the mere opening of any valve. In view of the specification,
`
`the term clearly refers to a valve under program control that delivers gas at a
`
`specific moment that is “predetermined.” Thus, the valve is programed to
`
`
`22 Ex. 1001, ‘652 patent, col. 8, lines 14 – 28.
`19
`
`
`

`
`
`time the injection of feed gas. Accordingly, Patent Owner proposes the
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`following construction:
`
`
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`“a gas valve that injects feed gas
`proximate to the cathode
`assembly at a predetermined
`time”
`
`“a gas valve coupled to a conduit positioned
`to deliver feed gas to a region proximate to a
`cathode assembly where the plasma/excited
`atom mixture is super-ionized, wherein the
`opening of the valve is controlled to time the
`injection of gas into the region.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`VI. Petitioner Has Failed to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing
`on Independent Claim 1.
`
`The Petitioner challenges claim 1 on two grounds shown below:
`
`Ground
`
`Art
`
`I
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fahey
`
`V Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura
`
`We address them in order below.
`
`A. Defects In Ground I: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A
`Reasonable Likelihood That Claim 1 is Obvious Over
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fahey.
`
`
`Ground I alleges that claim 1 is obvious in view of the combination of
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Fahey. We begin by exploring the relevant scope
`
`and content of these references. Even though Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev have
`
`been discussed at length in previous papers, we revisit these references here
`
`with an eye toward the features pertinent to the claims at issue, then address
`
`Fahey.
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`a. Overview of Mozgrin
`
`Mozgrin summarizes a variety of experiments he made using a planar
`
`electrode structure of figure 1(a), and a bell shaped electrode structure shown
`
`in figure 1(b), shown below:23
`
`Planar Electrodes
`
`Shaped Electrodes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mozgrin says that the space between the electrodes was “filled up with either
`
`neutral gas or pre-ionized gas” before a “voltage pulse” was applied.24 This
`
`merely indicates that the space between the electrodes was “filled,” but makes
`
`no mention of any flow of feed gas during the process.
`
`
`23 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, p. 401.
`
`24 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, page 401, left column.
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`To provide the “pre-ionized gas” between the electrodes, Mozgrin
`
`applied DC voltage across the electrodes with “Stationary Discharge Supply
`
`Unit” shown below.25
`
`
`
`The “Stationary Supply Unit” emits a non-pulsed DC voltage to the electrodes
`
`(before the voltage pulse is applied) to pre-ionize the gas that residing between
`
`the electrodes.
`
`Mozgin does not mention any excitation of atoms in the gas as a result
`
`of this voltage from stationary supply unit. Therefore Mozgrin does not teach
`
`or suggest that the DC voltage and the dimensions of the gap between the
`
`electrodes should or could be chosen to promote excitation of the neutral gas
`
`atoms as specified in the claim, or that an excited atom source should be used
`
`to provide a precursor for ionization.
`
`
`
`
`25 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, page 401, right col.
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`a. Kudryavtsev
`
`Petitioner next cites to Kudryavtsev for his discussion of the formation of
`
`excited atoms and ions.26 We discuss Kudryavtsev at length below but the
`
`most important issue for purposes of claim 1 is that Kudryavtsev simply does
`
`not address the formation of excited atoms in a volume of feed gas while that
`
`feed gas is being initially ionized as recited in claim 1. Kudryavtsev does not
`
`consider or discuss the formation of excited atoms and an initial plasma from a
`
`volume of feed gas. His article deals with the reaction of an existing plasma
`
`when an electric field is suddenly applied, and the formation of excited atoms
`
`in a pre-existing plasma as a result of that field.
`
`In figure 6 below, Kudryavtsev’s mathematical model predicts that
`
`different types of ionization will occur in a tube-shaped electrode, depending
`
`on the tube’s radius R, the gas pressure p in the tube, the strength of the
`
`applied electric field E, and the density of ground state argon atoms n1, as
`
`shown in the diagram below:
`
`
`26 Petition at page 21.
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`
`Under the conditions represented by region II of this diagram, direct ionization
`
`predominates (i.e., gas atoms directly ionize without first transitioning to an
`
`excited state); in region III electron density does not increase; and in region I
`
`“step-wise ionization predominates” (i.e., atoms are first excited and then
`
`ionized).27
`
`Kudyavtsev thus teaches that whether such a tube-shaped system will
`
`implement direct ionization or multi-stage ionization will depend on various
`
`factors, including the radius of the electrodes, the gas pressure within the
`
`electrode tube, and the strength of the applied electric field.
`
`To test the accuracy of his equations, Kudryavtsev conducted a variety
`
`of experiments with a device having a pair of electrodes spaced nearly two feet
`
`(52 cm) apart from each other at opposite ends of a narrow tube less than an
`
`
`27 Ex. 1006, Kudryatsev, page 34.
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01000
`
`
`
`inch (2.5 cm) in diameter.28 A gas in the tube was “pre-ionized” by applying a
`
`DC current,” but Kudryavtsev does not describe any details of this process,
`
`such as whether the gas was flowing during ionization.29
`
`A voltage pulse was then delivered to the “pre-ionized” plasma within
`
`the tube circuit. Kudryavtsev does not provide any values for his voltage pulse
`
`and no current values, and never teaches that the proper selection of a voltage
`
`pulse can optimize or promote the number of excited atoms that a