Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 2014-01003
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’s PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.107(a)
`Claims 18 - 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ....................................................................................3
`
`A. The Need for More Uniformly Distributed Plasmas.....................................................3
`
`B. The ‘652 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents a Technique for Generating Super
`Ionized Plasma Having A Uniform Charge Distribution. ........................................5
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS ..........................................9
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) .....................................9
`
`A. Construction of “generating an initial plasma and excited ions from a
`volume of feed as” ......................................................................................................10
`
`B. Construction of “transporting the initial plasma and excited atoms
`proximate to a cathode assembly” ............................................................................11
`
`C. Construction of “super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the cathode
`assembly” ....................................................................................................................12
`
`V. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF PREVAILING ON INDEPENDENT CLAIM 18. ...................................................13
`
`A. Defects In Ground I: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A Reasonable
`Likelihood That 18 is Obvious Over Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fahey. ............14
`
`a. Overview of Mozgrin ..........................................................................................14
`
`b. Kudryavtsev .........................................................................................................16
`
`c. Overview of Fahey ..............................................................................................19
`
`d. Differences Between Claim 18 and the Ground I References .........................21
`
`e.
`
`Conclusion: Petitioner Has Not Shown a Reasonable Likelihood of
`Success That Claim 18 is Obvious for the Reasons Asserted in
`Ground I. ........................................................................................................25
`
`B. Defects In Ground III: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A Reasonable
`Likelihood That Claim 18 is Obvious Over Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey
`and Iwamura. ..............................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`C. Defects In Ground V: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A Reasonable
`Likelihood That Claims 18 is Obvious Over Mozgrin and Iwamura ...................30
`
`VI. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF PREVAILING ON DEPENDENT CLAIMS 31, 32 ................................................33
`
`a. Subject Matter of Claims 31, 32. ....................................................................................33
`
`b. Petitioner’s Grounds Against Claims 31, 32. ................................................................34
`
`c. The Primary References: Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, And Iwamura. .................35
`
`d. The Secondary Reference: Campbell. ...........................................................................38
`
`e. Conclusion. ......................................................................................................................40
`
`VII. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF PREVAILING ON DEPENDENT CLAIMS 33, 34 ................................................40
`
`a. Subject Matter of Claims 33, 34. ....................................................................................40
`
`b. Overview of Petitioner’s Grounds. ................................................................................41
`
`c. The Primary References. .................................................................................................42
`
`d. The Secondary Reference: Fahey. .................................................................................42
`
`e. Conclusion. ......................................................................................................................43
`
`VIII.
`PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING ON DEPENDENT CLAIMS 19 - 30 ...................44
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The present petition for inter partes review is the first 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 18 of the
`
`‘652 patent and its dependent claims 19 - 34.
`
`The ‘652 patent is generally directed to a technique for generating a
`
`super-ionized plasma having a high density of ions. The patent proposes a
`
`method in which a volume of feed gas is converted to an initial plasma that is
`
`filled with exited atoms. The plasma/excited atom mixture is then transported
`
`to a region that is proximate to a cathode assembly, where the plasma is then
`
`super-ionized. This technique allows the initial plasma to be created under a
`
`first condition that seeds the initial plasma with excited atoms, to facilitate the
`
`creation of a highly dense plasma in the next stage. The transportation of this
`
`mixture to another location exposes the mixture to a set of conditions that
`
`generate a super-ionized plasma from the mixture.
`
`This staged process avoids the risk of arcing often associated with the
`
`formation of such dense plasmas. The claims at issue recite this method and
`
`various improvements and applications discussed below.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`The present petition does not cite to any prior art reference that teaches
`
`the claimed methods. Instead it weaves together up to four different prior art
`
`references in an attempt to recreate the claims from carefully chosen excerpts.
`
`The selected references have publication dates that span nearly 20 years. Yet
`
`in all that time, not one reference wrote down or proposed the method
`
`patented by Zond, despite the advantages of doing so. As the Supreme Court
`
`noted long ago:
`
`But it is plain from the evidence, and from the very fact that it was
`
`not sooner adopted and used, that it did not, for years, occur in
`
`this light even to the most skilled persons. It may have been under
`
`their very eyes, they may almost be said to have stumbled over it;
`
`but they certainly failed to see it, to estimate its value and to bring
`
`it to notice. 1
`
`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.
`
`
`1 The Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U.S. 275 (1891).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`II. 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.2 The patent therefore is
`
`directed to an improved method that generates highly dense plasmas with a
`
`more uniform distribution of charged particles.
`
`To provide context for understanding the improvements, the ‘652 patent
`
`first describes a prior plasma generation system shown in figure 1 reproduced
`
`below:3
`
`
`2 Ex. 1101, ‘652 Patent, col. 4, lines 23 – 30.
`
`3 Ex. 1101, ‘652 patent, col. 4, lines 8 – 31.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`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.4 The patent explains
`
`that neutral gas in the region 105 between electrodes 114 and 124 is ionized by
`
`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.5 However, increasing
`
`
`4 Ex.1101, ‘652 patent, col. 3, lines 15 – 18.
`
`5 Ex. 1101, ‘652 patent, col. 4, lines 31 – 32.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`plasma density and uniformity in this manner can significantly increase the
`
`risk of an undesirable electrical breakdown and arcing condition.6
`
`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 2A below, a feed gas 234 is
`
`directed into a region 214 between electrodes 201b and 210.
`
`
`6 Ex. 1101, ‘652 patent, col. 4, lines 32 - 37.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`A voltage from a first power supply 208 generates an electric field 250 across
`
`the feed gas 214 as shown in the enlarged portion of the figure below.
`
`
`
`
`
`The electric field ionizes some of the gas atoms and excites others.
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`through region 214 into an adjacent region 252 where another electrode 202a
`
`resides.7 A second power supply 222 applies high power pulses to electrode
`
`202a to thereby launch additional power into the transported mixture in the
`
`region 252 to super-ionize the mixture.8
`
`Thus, this system initially creates a plasma from the neutral gas at one
`
`location (214), then transports that plasma to a second location (252) for
`
`further ionization by a higher power source.
`
`Furthermore, 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 electric field across the gap are chosen to promote the
`
`excitation of atoms in region 214 for transportation to region 252.9 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
`
`
`7 Ex. 1101, ‘652 patent, col. 6, lines 50 – 52; col. 10, lines 10 – 12; col. 14, lines
`
`37 – 65.
`
`8 Ex. 1101, ‘652 patent, col. 11, lines 54 - 57
`
`9 Ex. 1101, ‘652 patent, col. 13, lines 42 – 47.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`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.”10
`
`The patent explains that it takes significantly less energy to ionize
`
`excited atoms than ground states atoms.11 Thus, the excitation of ground state
`
`atoms in region 214, and the transportation of those excited atoms to region
`
`252, facilitates ionization in region 252 and the generation of a super-ionized
`
`plasma.12
`
`In short, the disclosed technique generates a super-ionized plasma by
`
`first applying 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 an
`
`electric field applies more power to the mixture, to thereby ionize the excited
`
`atoms and generate a super-ionized plasma.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10 Ex. 1101, ‘652 patent, col. 13, lines 42 – 54.
`
`11 Ex. 1101, ‘652 patent, col. 14, lines 15 – 18.
`
`12 Ex. 1101, ‘652 patent, col 14, lines 15 – 65,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Basis
`
`Art
`
`I
`
`II
`
`III
`
`IV
`
`18 – 30, 33 - 34
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fahey
`
`31, 32
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Campbell
`
`18 – 30, 33 - 34
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura
`
`31, 32
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Campbell
`
`V
`
`18 - 30
`
`103 Mozgrin and Iwamura
`
`VI
`
`31, 32
`
`103 Mozgrin, Iwamura and Campbell
`
`VII
`
`33, 34
`
`103 Mozgrin, Iwamura, and Fahey
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Construction of “generating an initial plasma and excited
`ions from a volume of feed as”
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
` 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 claim 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.13 This
`
`interpretation is consistent with the specification’s disclosure in the figure
`
`
`13 See e.g., Insituform Technologies, Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., 99 F.3d 1098, 1105
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996) (the article “a” in the claimed phrase “a cup” suggests that
`
`only one cup is involved).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`above, wherein a volume of feed gas in region 214 is both ionized and excited
`
`by electric field 250.14
`
`Accordingly, the claimed step of generating 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:
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`“generating an initial plasma and
`excited atoms form a volume of
`feed gas”
`
`Generating both an initial plasma
`and excited atoms from the same
`volume of feed gas, wherein a feed
`gas is a gas that is a flowing gas.
`
`
`
`B. Construction of “transporting the initial plasma and excited
`atoms proximate to a cathode assembly”
`
`The petitioner interprets the claimed step of “transporting the initial
`
`plasma and excited atoms” as - “moving the initial plasma and excited
`
`atoms.” This “interpretation” substitutes the word “moving” for the word
`
`“transporting,” but petitioner does not explain why, or explain the intended
`
`difference between the substitute word - “moving” - and the original claim
`
`term – “transporting.”
`
`
`14 Ex. 1101, ‘652 patent, col. 8, line 63 – col. 9, line 5.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner proposes that the claimed step of “transporting the initial
`
`plasma and excited atoms proximate to a cathode assembly” means -
`
`“transporting the initial plasma and excited atoms to a region that is proximate to a
`
`cathode assembly.”
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`“transporting the initial plasma and
`excited atoms proximate to a
`cathode assembly”
`
`“transporting the initial plasma
`and excited atoms to a region that
`is proximate to a cathode
`assembly.”
`
`
`
`C. Construction of “super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to
`the cathode assembly”
`
`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 Petitioner’s proposal renders the claim indistinguishable from
`
`dependent claim 24.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`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.”
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing
`on Independent Claim 18.
`
`The Petitioner challenges claim 18 on three grounds shown below:
`
`Ground
`
`Art
`
`I
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fahey
`
`III Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura
`
`V Mozgrin and Iwamura
`
`We address each ground in order below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`A. Defects In Ground I: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A
`Reasonable Likelihood That 18 is Obvious Over Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev, and Fahey.
`
`
`Ground I alleges that claims 18 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.
`
`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:15
`
`Planar Electrodes
`
`Shaped Electrodes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15 Ex. 1103, Mozgrin, p. 401.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`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.16 This
`
`merely indicates that the space between the electrodes was “filled,” but makes
`
`no mention of any flow of gas during the process, and therefore certainly does
`
`indicate a rate of gas flow in the region between the electrodes that could
`
`transport any matter from the region between the electrodes.
`
`To provide the “pre-ionized gas” between the electrodes, Mozgrin
`
`applied DC voltage across the electrodes with “Stationary Discharge Supply
`
`Unit” shown below.17
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`16 Ex. 1103, Mozgrin, page 401, left column.
`
`17 Ex. 1103, Mozgrin, page 401, right col.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`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. Nor, does Mozgrin make any mention or
`
`suggestion that this pre-ionized plasma could or should be transported to a
`
`different location for further ionization as specified in the claims.
`
`Instead, the pre-ionized gas created by Mozgrin’s DC voltage apparently
`
`remains in the same location when Mozgrin’s High-Voltage component
`
`superimposes the voltage pulse across the electrodes to thereby grow the
`
`density of the pre-ionized gas.18 Thus, Mozgrin’ high voltage component
`
`increases the density of the pre-ionized plasma, while the plasma remains in
`
`the same location where the stationary unit created it.
`
`b. Kudryavtsev
`
`Petitioner next cites to Kudryavtsev for his discussion of the formation of
`
`excited atoms and ions.19 We discuss Kudryavtsev at length below but the
`
`most important issue for purposes of claim 18 is that Kudryavtsev simply does
`
`not address the formation of excited in a volume of feed gas while that feed gas
`
`is being initially ionized as recited in claim 18. Kudryavtsev does not consider
`
`or discuss the formation of excited atoms and an initial plasma from a volume
`
`18 Ex. 1103, Mozgrin, p. 401, right col.
`
`19 Petition at page 21.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`of feed gas. His article deals with the reaction of an existing plasma when “an
`
`additional electric field” is suddenly applied “to the pre-ionized gas”, and the
`
`formation of ions and excited atoms as a result of that applied 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:
`
`
`
`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).20
`
`
`20 Ex. 1106, Kudryatsev, page 34.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`inch (2.5 cm) in diameter.21 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.22
`
`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. In fact, he merely says that he used a “specially
`
`designed electric circuit” for generating pulses, without any teaching of that
`
`design and its relation to the generation of excited atoms.
`
`But more importantly, Kudryatsev’s voltage pulse was delivered to the
`
`“per-ionized” plasma within the same tube where the pre-ionized plasma was
`
`
`21 Ex. 1106, Kudryavtsev, p. 31, right col.
`
`22 Ex. 1106, Kudryavtsev, p. 32, right col..
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`initially formed.23 Thus, Kudryavtsev makes no mention of transporting a
`
`pre-ionized plasma mixed with excited atoms to a different location for
`
`purposes of further ionizing the mixture.
`
`Kudruyavtsev says that whether his tube-shaped system will implement
`
`multi-stage ionization (which includes excited atoms) 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. In the claimed
`
`step at issue, excited atoms are formed from a volume of feed gas at the same
`
`time as an initial plasma is being formed from the same volume of feed gas.
`
`Kudryavtsev does not consider this situation. His analysis deals only with
`
`the reaction of an existing plasma when an electric field is suddenly applied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c. Overview of Fahey
`
`Fahey describes the nozzle shown below for creating a beam of neutral
`
`atoms, some of which are “metastable” atoms:
`
`
`23 Ex. 1106, Kudryavtsev, p. 31, right col.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`Gas flows through tube A and exits out of a nozzle B. The exhaust from the
`
`nozzle is drawn through a skimmer C and into a low-pressure reaction
`
`chamber, whose wall is labeled “vacuum wall” in the figure above.
`
`A voltage is applied across a needle electrode D and the skimmer C to
`
`create “metastable atoms.” Any resultant ions in the gas flow are removed by
`
`a set of parallel plates mounted after the skimmer:
`
`[T]he beam was kept free of charged species by maintaining an
`
`adequate voltage on a set of parallel plates mounted after the
`
`skimmer.24
`
`Thus, Fahey describes a device for generating a beam of “metastable atoms,”
`
`from which all charged particles are removed. The beam is supplied to a
`
`“reaction region” where the characteristics of the particles in the beam are
`
`
`24 Ex. 1105, Fahey, page 382, left col, penultimate paragraph.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`detected.25 Fahey never teaches or suggests transporting a mixture of plasma
`
`and excited atoms to a region proximate to a cathode assembly for super-
`
`ionization as claimed.
`
`d. Differences Between Claim 18 and the Ground I References
`
`Mozgrin does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of steps
`
`wherein an initial plasma (filled with excited atoms) is formed from a “feed
`
`gas,” then transported to another location where the mixture is super-ionized
`
`into a high-density plasma. First of all, Mozgrin does not teach or suggest the
`
`concept of transporting an initial plasma of any type (let alone one filled with
`
`excited atoms) to another location for further ionization. To the contrary, he
`
`describes creating and growing a plasma in the same location, and completely
`
`overlooks the advantages of transporting an initial plasma (filled with excited
`
`atoms) to a different location where the conditions cause the mixture to super-
`
`ionize.
`
`Furthermore, Mozgrin does not mention the step of generating a mixture
`
`of an initial plasma and excited ions as a precursor for super-ionization. In
`
`fact, Mozgrin does not mention excited atoms at all, and does not hint of the
`
`advantages of generating excited atoms for subsequent ionization.
`
`
`25 Ex. 1005, Fahey, section 3, “Beam Diagnostics,” page 382 et. seq.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`
`The Petitioner tries to fill this void in Mozgrin with Kudruavtsev. The
`
`Petitioner first notes that Mozgrin cites to Kudryavtsev. The Petitioner then
`
`argues that Kudryavtsev’s assertion that excited ions can be formed under
`
`certain conditions “would indicate to a person of ordinary skill the desirability
`
`of using a source of excited atoms to further increase the plasma density.”26
`
`The Petitioner conspicuously neglects to cite to any mention in Kudryavtsev of
`
`this desirability. Kudryatsev’s mere mention that excited ions can be formed
`
`under certain conditions does not comment on the desirability of preparing a
`
`plasma filled with excited atoms as a precursor for super-ionization, and
`
`certainly does not suggest the desirability of creating such a precursor in one
`
`location and then transporting it a different location for super-ionization. In
`
`fact, Kudryavtsev does not even talk about the generation of excited atoms in a
`
`volume of feed gas as claimed. Kudryavtsev addresses only the generation of
`
`excited atoms when an electric field is suddenly applied to an existing, pre-
`
`ionized plasma. It does not mention the claimed step of generating an initial
`
`plasma filled with excited atoms from a volume of feed gas.
`
`Furthermore, Kudryavtsev says nothing about transporting an initial
`
`plasma and excited ions to a region proximate to a cathode assembly, while
`
`maintaining the initial plasma and its excited atoms: All plasmas and excited
`
`
`26 Petition, page 24.
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`ions mentioned in Kudryavtsev’s device are formed in the same location –
`
`Kurdyatsev’s tube.
`
` For the transportation aspect of the claimed method, the Petitioner
`
`weaves Fahey into its analysis. Contrary to the Petitioner’s arguments, Fahey
`
`teaches away from the claimed step. As explained above, Fahey describes a
`
`device for generating a beam of “metastable atoms,” from which all charged
`
`particles are removed. The device includes a set of parallel plates mounted
`
`after the skimmer, wherein a voltage is applied across the plates to drive
`
`charged particles out of the beam, and thereby keep the beam “free of charged
`
`species”:
`
`[T]he beam was kept free of charged species by maintaining an
`
`adequate voltage on a set of parallel plates mounted after the
`
`skimmer.27
`
`Thus, the beam emitted by Fahey does not include any charged particles and
`
`therefore is not a plasma as claimed.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, Fahey never teaches that its device can be used to generate
`
`a precursor for subsequent super-ionization. Rather, in Fahey’s device, the
`
`beam is supplied to a “reaction region” where the characteristics of the
`
`
`27 Ex. 1105, Fahey, page 382, left col, penultimate paragraph.
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01003
`
`
`
`particles in the beam are detected.28 Fahey never teaches or suggests that the
`
`beam can be used deliver a plasma/excited atom mixture to a region
`
`proximate to a cathode assembly where the conditions cause the precursor to
`
`super-ionize. In fact, his device has nothing to do with generating a super-
`
`ionized plasma. Fahey was concerned only with generating a beam of
`
`metastable atoms that was devoid of ions, i.e., “free of charged species.”
`
`So where does the Petitioner find the suggestion to modify Fahey’s
`
`device and then combine it with Mozgrin’s device so as to deliver a
`
`plasma/excited atom mixture to the gap between Mozgrin’s electrodes? The
`
`answer is claim 18 of the ‘652 patent. The Petitioner cle