U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0110198-00199US3
`Filed on behalf of The Gillette Company
`By: Michael A. Diener, Reg. No. 37,122
`Larissa B. Park, Reg. No. 59,051
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email:
`Michael.Diener@wilmerhale.com
`
`Larissa.Park@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR Trial No. TBD
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,853,142
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 21, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 37 AND 38
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.  Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................ - 1 - 
`A.  Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................... - 1 - 
`B.  Related Matters ......................................................................................... - 1 - 
`C.  Counsel ..................................................................................................... - 1 - 
`D.  Service Information .................................................................................. - 2 - 
`II.  Certification of Grounds for Standing .......................................................... - 2 - 
`III.  Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................ - 2 - 
`A.  Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................... - 2 - 
`B.  Grounds for Challenge ............................................................................. - 4 - 
`IV.  Brief Description of Technology ................................................................. - 4 - 
`A.  Plasma ....................................................................................................... - 4 - 
`B. 
`Ions and excited atoms ............................................................................. - 5 - 
`V.  Overview of the ‘142 patent ......................................................................... - 7 - 
`A.  Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘142 Patent .................................. - 7 - 
`B.  Prosecution History .................................................................................. - 7 - 
`VI.  Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ........................................... - 8 - 
`A.  Summary of the Prior Art ......................................................................... - 8 - 
`B.  Overview of Mozgrin ............................................................................... - 8 - 
`C.  Overview of Kudryavtsev ...................................................................... - 10 - 
`D.  Overview of Wang ................................................................................. - 11 - 
`VII.  Claim Construction ................................................................................. - 12 - 
`A. 
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” ..................... - 13 - 
`VIII.  Specific Grounds for Petition ................................................................. - 15 - 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 21, 26-28, 31, 37 and 38 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev ..................................................... - 15 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 21 .......................................................................... - 15 - 
`2. 
`Independent claim 31 .......................................................................... - 29 - 
`3.  Dependent claims 26-28, 37 and 38 .................................................... - 31 - 
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`B.  Ground II: Claims 24 and 32 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin Thesis ................................................... - 36 - 
`C.  Ground III: Claims 21, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 37 and 38 are obvious in view of
`the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev ................................................... - 39 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 21 .......................................................................... - 39 - 
`2. 
`Independent claim 31 .......................................................................... - 49 - 
`3.  Dependent claims 24, 26-28, 32, 37 and 38 ........................................ - 51 - 
`IX.  Conclusion ................................................................................................. - 56 - 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`iii
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The Gillette Company (“Petitioner”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
`
`Procter & Gamble Co., is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 (“‘142 Patent”) (Ex. 1201)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS
`
`(Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al); 1:13-cv-11581-
`
`DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK
`
`Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.); 1:13-cv-11634-
`
`WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu, et al.); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette,
`
`Co.). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in several
`
`patents related1 to the ‘142 Patent.
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘142 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`substantially identical petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v.
`
`Zond, Inc., which was filed March 13, 2014 and assigned Case No.
`
`IPR2014-00496. Petitioner will seek joinder with that inter partes review under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b).
`
`C. Counsel
`
`
`1 The related patents, e.g., name the same alleged inventor.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Lead Counsel: Michael A. Diener (Reg. No. 37,122)
`
`Backup Counsel: Larissa B. Park (Reg. No. 59,051)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`E-mail: Michael.Diener@wilmerhale.com;
`
`Larissa.Park@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60 State Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6000
`
`
`
`Fax: 617-526-5000
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 21, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 37 and 38 of the ‘142 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below: 2
`
`1.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1203)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`2.
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35,
`
`January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1204)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1205)), which is prior art under
`
`102(a) and (e).
`
`4. 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. 1206)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1206 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis,
`
`attached as Exhibit 1207. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at
`
`the Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1208.
`
`2 The ‘142 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has chosen to use the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer
`
`to the prior art.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 21, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 37 and 38 of
`
`the ‘142 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by
`
`the declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen3 (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1202)) filed
`
`herewith, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged claim
`
`is not patentable.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`A.
`Plasma
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 21 (Ex. 1202). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma
`
`as a whole has no overall electrical charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the
`
`
`3 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by The Gillette Company. The attached
`
`declaration at Ex. 1202 is a copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-
`
`00496, discussed above. The attached Exhibits are the same as those in IPR2014-
`
`00496.
`
`4 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 21, 24, 26-28, 31,
`
`32, 37 and 38 of the ‘142 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining
`
`claims of the ‘142 Patent in separate petitions.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`21 (Ex. 1202).5
`
`Plasma had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘142 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1202). For example,
`
`sputtering is an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a
`
`target material onto a surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a
`
`semiconductor manufacturing operation). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1202). Ions
`
`in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of target
`
`material. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1202). The ejected target material then
`
`forms a film on the substrate. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1202). Arcing is undesirable because it causes
`
`explosive release of droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1202). The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was
`
`known long before the ‘142 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1202).
`
`B.
`Ions and excited atoms
`
`5 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. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 21, FN1 (Ex. 1202).
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24
`
`(Ex. 1202). Each electron has an associated energy state. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24
`
`(Ex. 1202). If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state,
`
`the atom is said to be in the “ground state.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1202).
`
`On the other hand, if one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state that is
`
`higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to be an “excited atom.”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1202). Excited atoms are electrically neutral– they
`
`have equal numbers of electrons and protons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1202).
`
`A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited
`
`atom. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1202). For example, the ‘142 Patent uses the
`
`following equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a
`
`ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘142 Patent at 10:12 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1202). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1202). For example, the ‘142 Patent uses the following equations
`
`to describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or
`
`an excited argon atom, Ar*. See ‘142 Patent at 3:1 and 9:14 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ‘142 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1202).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘142 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘142 Patent
`The ‘142 Patent describes generating a plasma by applying an electrical
`
`pulse in a manner that allegedly reduces the probability of arcing.
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ‘142 Patent are generally directed to
`
`generating a, so called, “weakly-ionized plasma” and then applying an electrical
`
`pulse to increase the density of that plasma so as to form a “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” The weakly-ionized plasma is claimed to reduce the probability of
`
`forming an electrical breakdown condition.
`
`Specific claims are directed to further operational details such as supplying a
`
`feed gas to the plasma, characteristics of the electrical pulse, generating a magnetic
`
`field and the type of power supply used.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The first substantive office action rejected all independent claims as
`
`anticipated. See 10/07/03 Office Action at 3 (Ex. 1209). The applicant then
`
`amended every independent claim to require “the weakly-ionized plasma reducing
`
`the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber”
`
`or similar limitations. See 03/08/04 Resp. (Ex. 1210).
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Following that amendment, the claims were allowed. The Notice of
`
`Allowance explicitly recites these limitations as the examiner’s reasons for
`
`allowance. 03/29/04 Allowance at 2 (“The prior art neither discloses nor suggests
`
`… the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the probability of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber such as required by claims 1, 22, 43, 44…10
`
`and 33.”) (Ex. 1211). However, as 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. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1202).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new
`
`or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘142 Patent. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 32
`
`(Ex. 1202).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin6
`Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc discharge.”
`
`Fig 7. of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`
`6 Mozgrin is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2 (“Part
`
`1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage).” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 36
`
`(Ex. 1202).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)…” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex.
`
`1202). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the
`
`transition from region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex. 1202). 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. 1203).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…” (emphasis added))
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(Ex. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1202). Increasing the current
`
`applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to
`
`transition to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1202). 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. 1203). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”
`
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1202). Further
`
`increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the
`
`“arc discharge” region 4. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex.
`
`1202).
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1204). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1202). In particular, Kudryavtsev describes how
`
`ionization of a plasma can occur via different processes. The first process is direct
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`ionization, in which ground state atoms are converted directly to ions. See, e.g.,
`
`Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1204). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex.
`
`1202). The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls
`
`stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1204). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1202). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions
`
`multi-step ionization can be the dominant ionization process. See, e.g.,
`
`Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1204). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex.
`
`1202). 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. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ‘142 Patent.
`
`D. Overview of Wang7
`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. 1205). 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
`
`7 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1205); see also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1202). 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. 1205). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1202). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and
`
`Kudryavtsev in a commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1202).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.8 In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
`
`following discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those
`
`terms. Any claim terms not included in the following discussion are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent
`
`Owner, in order to avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction
`
`different from its broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate course is for
`
`the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its
`
`contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`A.
`The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45
`
`(Ex. 1202). With reference to Fig. 3, the ‘142 Patent describes forming a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 302 and
`
`8 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`the governing regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`pursue different constructions in a district court, where a different standard is
`
`applicable.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`then goes on to describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of
`
`higher power 304. ‘142 Patent at 11:32-38; 12:9-16 (Ex. 1201). The ‘142 Patent
`
`also provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized
`
`plasmas. See ‘142 Patent at claim 17 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm˗3”); claim 18 (“wherein the peak
`
`plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex.
`
`1201).
`
`Thus, the proposed construction for “weakly-ionized plasma” is “a lower
`
`density plasma.” Likewise, the proposed construction for “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma” is “a higher density plasma.”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the position the Patent
`
`Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner, when
`
`faced with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent
`
`application, argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not
`
`just in view of the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly-ionised plasma’ in the
`
`claims indicates a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-
`
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1218).
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1202), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 21, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 37 and 38 of
`
`the ‘142 Patent, and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 21, 26-28, 31, 37 and 38 are obvious in view of
`the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`The claim chart that Petitioner served on Feb. 11, 2014 in its ongoing
`
`litigation involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner, showing that claims 21,
`
`26-28, 31, 37 and 38 are obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`Kudryavtsev, is submitted hereto as Exhibit 1219 (Ex. 1219). Dr. Kortshagen has
`
`reviewed the claim chart and agrees with it. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1202).
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 21
`a)
`Claim 21 begins, “[a]n apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`The preamble
`
`As shown in Fig. 1, Mozgrin teaches generating plasma in “two types of devices: a
`
`planar magnetron and a system with specifically shaped hollow electrodes.”
`
`Mozgrin at Fig. 1; 400, right col, ¶ 4. (Ex. 1203). The densities in Mozgrin’s
`
`regions 1-3 are summarized below.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
` Region 1: 109 – 1011 cm-3.9
`
` Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm-3.10
`
` Region 3: 1.5x1015cm-3.11
`
`Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1202). The density in those regions matches the
`
`exemplary density given for a strongly-ionized plasma in the ‘142 Patent. ‘142
`
`Patent at claim 18 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is greater than about 1012 cm˗3”) (Ex. 1201). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`52 (Ex. 1202). Mozgrin therefore teaches the preamble. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52
`
`(Ex. 1202).
`
`b)
`
`“an anode” and “a cathode…”
`
`
`9 Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (“For pre-ionization … the initial plasma density in
`
`the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`10 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. 1203).
`
`11 Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is
`
`useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni  1.5x1015cm-3…”).
`
`(Ex. 1203).
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Claim 21 continues, “an anode; a cathode that is positioned adjacent to the
`
`anode and forming a gap there between.”
`
`The ‘142 Patent admits that the claimed anode and cathode assembly were
`
`well known. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex. 1202). For example, the ‘142 Patent
`
`shows in prior art Fig. 1 a “cross-sectional view of a known magnetron sputtering
`
`apparatus 100…” ‘142 Patent at 2:21-22 (Ex. 1201). The known “plasma
`
`generating apparatus 100 also includes a cathode 114.” ‘142 Patent at 2:35-36 (Ex.
`
`1201). Moreover, “[a]n anode 130 is positioned in the vacuum chamber 104
`
`proximate to the cathode 114.” ‘142 Patent at 2:45-46 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Similarly, Mozgrin’s Fig. 1 shows a cathode labeled “1,” that is adjacent to
`
`Mozgrin’s anode “2.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1202). Fig. 1 further shows a
`
`gap that is formed between the anode and cathode. See also Mozgrin at 401, left
`
`col, ¶ 4 (“…applying a square voltage pulse to the discharge gap…”); 401, right
`
`col, ¶2 (“…square voltage was applied to the gap.”) (Ex. 1203). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1202).
`
`c)
`
`“ionization source…”
`(1)
`“an ionization source that generates a weakly-
`ionized plasma proximate to the cathode”
`
`The ‘142 Patent uses the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “pre-ionized
`
`plasma” synonymously. ‘142 Patent at 5:18-19 (“The weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`also referred to as a pre-ionized plasma.”) (Ex. 1201). Mozgrin’s power supply
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(shown in Fig. 2) generates a pre-ionized plasma in Mozgrin’s region 1. Mozgrin
`
`at 402, right col, ¶2 (“Figure 3 shows typical voltage and current oscillograms.…
`
`Part I in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge
`
`(pre-ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Moreover, the density of Mozgrin’s pre-ionized plasma matches the
`
`exemplary density for weakly-ionized plasma given in the ‘142 Patent. ‘142 Patent
`
`at claim 17 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less
`
`than about 1012 cm˗3”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1201); Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2
`
`(“[f]or pre-ionization, we used a stationary magnetron discharge; … provided the
`
`initial plasma density in the 109 – 1011 cm˗3 range.”) (Ex. 1203) (emphasis added).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Finally, Mozgrin’s weakly-ionized plasma is proximate to the cathode “2” as
`
`shown in Mozgrin’s Figs. 1 and 6. Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 1 (“The [plasma]
`
`discharge had an annular shape and was adjacent to the cathode.”) (emphasis
`
`added) (Ex. 1203). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58 (Ex. 1202)
`
`(2)
`“the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown
`condition between the anode and the cathode”
`
`Mozgrin states “pre-ionization was not necessary; however, in this case, the
`
`probability of discharge transferring to arc mode increased.” Mozgrin at 406, right
`
`col, ¶3 (Ex. 1203). Thus, Mozgrin teaches that failing to make the weakly-ionized
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`plasma increases the probability of arcing and that creation of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma (Mozgrin’s region 1) reduces “the probability of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition between the anode and the cathode.” Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59
`
`(Ex. 1202).
`
`(a) The Patent Owner mischaracterized Mozgrin
`during prosecution of the related U.S. Pat. No.
`7,147,759
`
`The ‘142 Patent (Ex. 1201) and the ‘759 Patent (Ex. 1212) name the same
`
`inventor and are owned by a common assignee. Both patents are asserted in
`
`related litigation (Ex. 1222). During prosecution of the ‘759 Patent, the Patent
`
`Owner argued that Mozgrin does not teach “without forming an arc.” See 05/02/06
`
`Resp. of ‘759 Patent file history at 2, 5, 7 and 13-16 (Ex. 1213). However, the
`
`Patent Owner was wrong. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 60 (Ex. 1202). Mozgrin does teach
`
`“without forming an arc” as required by the ‘759 patent as well as “reducing the
`
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition” as required by the
`
`‘142 patent. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 60 (Ex. 1202).
`
`As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig 7, if voltage is steadily applied, and current is
`
`allowed to grow, the plasma will eventually transition to the arc discharge region
`
`(Mozgrin’s region 4). However, if the current is limited, the plasma will remain
`
`in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`61 (Ex. 1202).
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including the arc
`
`discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 62
`
`(Ex. 1202). But Mozgrin’s discussion of arcing does not mean that arcing is
`
`inevitable. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 62 (Ex. 1202). Rather, Mozgrin’s explanation of
`
`the conditions under which arcing occurs provides a recipe for avoiding arcs.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 62 (Ex. 1202). Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs can be
`
`avoided. See Mozgrin at 400, left col, ¶ 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron
`
`systems of various geometry showed that discharge regimes which do not transit
`
`to arcs can be obtained even at high currents.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1203). See
`
`also