IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-01014
`Patent 6,853,142
`__________________
`
`
`
`ZOND LLC’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Overview Of Magnetron Sputtering Systems. ...............................................................7
`
`The ’142 patent: Dr. Chistyakov invents a new apparatus containing an anode;
`a cathode positioned adjacent to the anode to form a gap there between; an
`ionization source for generating weakly-ionized plasma, and a pulsed power
`supply that produces an electric field across the gap to generate excited atoms
`in the weakly-ionized plasma and secondary electrons from the cathode, the
`secondary electrons ionizing the excited atoms, thereby creating the strongly
`ionized plasma. ..............................................................................................................9
`
`C.
`
`The Petitioner Mischaracterized The File History. ......................................................12
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW ..............16
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS. .............................................................17
`
`A.
`
`The construction of “weakly ionized plasma” and “strongly ionized plasma.” ..........18
`
`V. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONER PREVAILING
`AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’142 PATENT. ..............................................19
`
`A.
`
`The Petition failed to demonstrate any motivation to combine. ..................................21
`
`1.
`
`Scope and content of prior art. ...............................................................................23
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Kudryavtsev – 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 (Ex. 1204), .......................23
`
`Mozgrin – 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 (Exhibit
`1203). ...............................................................................................................26
`
`c.
`
`Wang – U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 (Exhibit 1205)..........................................28
`
`2.
`
`The Petitioner Fails To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To
`Combine The Cylindrical Tube System Without A Magnet Of
`Kudryavtsev With Either The Mozgrin or Wang Magnetron System. ..................30
`
`B.
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate how the alleged combinations teach every
`element of the challenged claims. ................................................................................36
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The cited references do not teach that an electric field across the gap is “a
`quasi-static electric field,” as recited in dependent claims 24 and 32. ..................36
`
`The cited references do not teach that “a rise time of the electric field is
`chosen to increase an ionization rate of the excited atoms in the weakly-
`ionized plasma,” as recited in claim 26. ................................................................39
`
`The cited references do not teach that “the strongly ionized plasma is
`substantially uniform proximate to the cathode,” as recited in claims 27
`and 38 and “selecting at least one of a pulse amplitude and a pulse width
`of the electrical pulse in order to cause the strongly-ionized plasma to be
`substantially uniform in an area adjacent to a surface of the cathode,” as
`required by dependent claim 37. ............................................................................41
`
`The cited references do not teach that “a dimension of the gap between the
`anode and the cathode is chosen to increase an ionization rate of the
`excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma,” as required by dependent
`claim 28. .................................................................................................................44
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Failed to Identify Any Compelling Rationale for Adopting
`Redundant Grounds of Rejection Under Both Mozgrin and Wang. ............................47
`
`D.
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Establish That The Mozgrin Thesis Is Prior Art. .................51
`
`VI. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................53
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`The Petitioner has represented in a motion for joinder that this petition
`
`“is identical to the Intel IPR2014-00496 in all substantive respects, includes
`
`identical exhibits, and relies upon the same expert declarant.” Accordingly,
`
`based upon that representation, the Patent Owner opposes review on the same
`
`basis presented in opposition to Intel’s request no. IPR2014-00496, which is
`
`repeated below:
`
`The Board should deny the present request for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,853,142 (“the ’142 patent”) because there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail at trial with respect to at least one
`
`claim of the ’142 patent.1
`
`Indeed, there are six different and independent groups of reasons why
`
`the Petitioner cannot prevail. First, the references that are primarily relied
`
`upon by the Petitioner (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang) were already considered by
`
`the Examiner and overcome during the prosecution of the application that led
`
`to the issuance of the ’142 patent. These references were considered by 6
`
`
`1 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`different examiners and overcome during the prosecution of 9 other patents
`
`that are related to the ’142 patent over nearly a 10 year period.2
`
`Second, all of the Petitioner’s obviousness rejections are predicated on
`
`the false assumption that a skilled artisan could have achieved the combination
`
`of i) an anode; ii) a cathode that is positioned adjacent to the anode and
`
`forming a gap there between; iii) an ionization source generating a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma proximate to the cathode, and iv) a power supply that
`
`generates an electric field across the gap to produce a highly-ionized plasma, as
`
`required by independent claim 21 and as similarly required by independent
`
`claim 31 of the ’142 patent by combining the teachings of Kudryavtsev with
`
`either Mozgrin or Wang.3
`
`
`2 Examiners Douglas Owens, Tung X. Le, Rodney McDonald, Wilson Lee,
`
`Don Wong, and Tuyet T. Vo allowed U.S. Patents 7,147,759, 7,808,184,
`
`7,811,421, 8,125,155, 6,853,142, 7,604,716, 6,896,775, 6,896,773, 6,805,779,
`
`and 6,806,652 over Mozgrin and Wang over nearly a decade from the time
`
`that the application for the ‘759 patent was filed on 9/30/2002 to the time that
`
`the ‘155 patent issued on 2/28/2012.
`
`3 Petition at pp. 14-60.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`But these three references disclose very different structures and
`
`processes. Mozgrin teaches two different “[d]ischarge device configurations:
`
`(a) planar magnetron and (b) shaped-electrode configuration.”4 Mozgrin
`
`further discloses a “square voltage pulse application to the gap.”5 Wang
`
`discloses that a “target 14 is powered by narrow pulses of negative DC power
`
`supplied from a pulsed DC power supply 80, as illustrated in FIG. 1.”6
`
`Kudryavtsev teaches a fourth type of discharge device configuration in which
`
`the “discharge occurred inside a cylindrical tube of diameter 2R = 2.5 cm and
`
`the distance between the electrodes was L = 52 cm.”7 Kudryavtsev’s system
`
`does not even have a magnet or a sputtering source.8
`
`And the Petitioner sets forth no evidence that the structure and process
`
`of either Mozgrin or Wang would produce the particular multi-step ionization
`
`process and apparatus of claims 21 and 31 of the ’142 patent if either were
`
`somehow modified by the teachings of the very different structure and process
`
`
`4 Mozgrin, Exhibit 1203 at Fig. 1 caption.
`
`5 Id. at p. 402, col. 2, ¶ 2.
`
`6 Wang, Exhibit 1205, col. 5, ll. 18-22.
`
`7 Kudryavtsev, Ex. 1204 at 32, right col. ¶5.
`
`8 Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`of Kudryavtsev.9 That is, the Petitioner did not show that a skilled artisan
`
`would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kudravtsev with
`
`Mozgrin or Wang “to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled
`
`artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”10
`
`The Board has consistently declined to institute proposed grounds of rejections
`
`in IPR proceedings when the Petition fails to identify any objective evidence
`
`such as experimental data, tending to establish that two different structures or
`
`processes can be combined.11 Here, the Petitioner did not set forth any such
`
`objective evidence.12 For these additional reasons, there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail at trial with respect to at least one
`
`claim of the ’142 patent.
`
`Third, the prior art in each of the Petitioner’s proposed grounds of
`
`rejections are missing one or more limitations recited in the claims of the ’142
`
`
`9 See e.g., Petition, pp. 14-56.
`
`10 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`11 Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Decision Not To
`
`Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103).
`
`12 See e.g., Petition, pp. 14-56.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`patent such as i) “an electric field across the gap … [is] a quasi-static electric
`
`field,” ii) “a rise time of the electric field is chosen to increase an ionization
`
`rate of the excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma,” iii) “the strongly
`
`ionized plasma is substantially uniform proximate to the cathode,” iv) “a
`
`dimension of the gap between the anode and the cathode is chosen to increase
`
`an ionization rate of the excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma,” and v)
`
`“selecting at least one of a pulse amplitude and a pulse width of the electrical
`
`pulse in order to cause the strongly-ionized plasma to be substantially uniform
`
`in an area adjacent to a surface of the cathode.”
`
`Fourth, the Petition contains many redundant grounds of rejection.
`
`Indeed, the Petitioner proposed two or more grounds of rejections for every
`
`challenged claim and did not set forth a compelling reason for why the Board
`
`should institute this proceeding on multiple, redundant grounds.13
`
`Fifth, the Mozgrin Thesis is not prior art because Petitioner failed to
`
`show that it “has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent
`
`
`13 Petition, pp. 15-60.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art,
`
`exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it."14
`
`In brief, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition for the six groups of reasons summarized in the table
`
`below:
`
`Grounds
`
`All
`
`Reasons For Not Instituting a Proceeding
`
`The references that are primarily relied upon by the
`
`Petitioner (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang) were already
`
`considered by the Examiner and overcome during
`
`the prosecution of the application that led to the
`
`issuance of the ’142 patent.
`
`All
`
`The Petitioner failed to provide any objective
`
`evidence that the elements from Kudryavtsev’s
`
`system, which uses a cylinder without magnets,
`
`would perform in an expected way in Mozgrin’s
`
`planar magnetron system or Wang’s magnetron
`
`system.
`
`All
`
`The prior art, either alone or in combination, would
`
`not have taught all the limitations of the challenged
`
`
`14 In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981) (quoting I.C.E. Corp. v.
`
`Armco Steel Corp., 250 F. Supp. 738, 743, 148 USPQ 537, 540 (SDNY 1966)).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`claims to a skilled artisan at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`Grounds I and II or III Grounds I and II using Mozgrin as a primary
`
`reference are redundant with Ground III using
`
`Wang as a primary reference and Petitioner did not
`
`set forth a compelling reason for why the Board
`
`should institute this proceeding on multiple,
`
`redundant grounds.
`
`Ground II
`
`The Mozgrin Thesis is not prior art.
`
`
`
`For these reasons as expressed more fully below, the Board should deny the
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview Of Magnetron Sputtering Systems.
`
`Sputtering systems generate and direct ions from plasma “to a target
`
`surface where the ions physically sputter target material atoms.”15 Then,
`
`“[T]he target material atoms ballistically flow to a substrate where they deposit
`
`as a film of target material.16 “The plasma is replenished by electron-ion pairs
`
`
`15 Exhibit 1201, col. 1, ll. 9-11.
`
`16 Id. at col. 1, ll. 11-13.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`formed by the collision of neutral molecules with secondary electrons
`
`generated at the target surface.”17
`
`A planar magnetron sputtering system is one type of sputtering system.18
`
`“Magnetron sputtering systems use magnetic fields that are shaped to trap and
`
`to concentrate secondary electrons, which are produced by ion bombardment
`
`of the target surface.”19 “The trapped electrons enhance the efficiency of the
`
`discharge and reduce the energy dissipated by electrons arriving at the
`
`substrate.”
`
`But prior art planar magnetron sputtering systems experienced “non-
`
`uniform erosion or wear of the target that results in poor target utilization.”20
`
`To address these problems, researchers increased the applied power and later
`
`pulsed the applied power.21 But increasing the power increased “the
`
`probability of establishing an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc)
`
`
`17Id. at col. 1, ll. 32-34.
`
`18 Id. at 1, ll. 36-54.
`
`19 Id. at col. 1, ll. 36-38.
`
`20 Id. at col. 2, ll. 57-59.
`
`21 Id. at col. 1, l. 60 to col. 2, l. 9.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`in the process chamber.”22 And “very large power pulses can still result in
`
`undesirable electrical discharges and undesirable target heating regardless of
`
`their duration.”23
`
`B. The ’142 patent: Dr. Chistyakov invents a new apparatus containing
`an anode; a cathode positioned adjacent to the anode to form a gap
`there between; an ionization source for generating weakly-ionized
`plasma, and a pulsed power supply that produces an electric field
`across the gap to generate excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma
`and secondary electrons from the cathode, the secondary electrons
`ionizing the excited atoms, thereby creating the strongly ionized
`plasma.
`
`To overcome the problems of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented an
`
`apparatus containing an anode, a cathode that is positioned adjacent to the
`
`anode and forming a gap there between, an ionization source generating a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the cathode, and a power supply that
`
`generates an electric field across the gap to produce a highly-ionized plasma as
`
`recited in independent claim 21 and as illustrated in Fig. 2A of the ’142 patent,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`22 Id. at col. 2, ll. 63-67.
`
`23 Id. at col. 3, ll. 7-9.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`
`
`
`
`As illustrated by FIG. 2A, Dr. Chistyakov’s apparatus includes either a
`
`pulsed power supply 202 or a direct current (DC) power supply (not shown) as
`
`a component in an ionization source that generates a weakly ionized plasma
`
`232, an anode 216, a cathode 204, a pulsed power supply 202 that applies a
`
`high power pulse between the cathode 204 and the anode 216, and gas lines
`
`224 providing feed gas 226 from a feed gas source. “The anode 216 is
`
`positioned so as to form a gap 220 between the anode 216 and the cathode 204
`
`that is sufficient to allow current to flow through a region 222 between the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`anode 216 and the cathode 204.”24 “The gap 220 and the total volume of the
`
`region 222 are parameters in the ionization process.”25 “In one embodiment,
`
`the pulsed power supply 202 is a component in an ionization source that
`
`generates a weakly ionized plasma 232.”26 “In another embodiment, a direct
`
`current (DC) power supply (not shown) is used in an ionization source to
`
`generate and maintain the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma 232.”27
`
`“Forming the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma 232 substantially
`
`eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown condition in the
`
`chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the cathode 204 and the
`
`anode 216.”28 In addition, “the high-power pulses generate a highly-ionized or
`
`a strongly-ionized plasma 238 from the weakly-ionized plasma 232.”29
`
`In one embodiment, additional feed gas is supplied to exchange the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma while applying the electrical pulse:
`
`
`24 Id. at col. 4, ll. 34-37.
`
`25 Id. at col. 4, ll. 40-41.
`
`26 Id. at col. 5, ll. 5-7.
`
`27 Id. at col. 5, ll. 45-48.
`
`28 Id. at col. 6, ll. 20-25.
`
`29 Id. at col. 7, ll. 23-25.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Directly injecting the feed gas 226 between the cathode 204 and
`
`the anode 216 can increase the flow rate of the feed gas 226. This
`
`causes a rapid volume exchange in the region 222 between the
`
`cathode 204 and the anode 216, which permits a high-power pulse
`
`having a longer duration to be applied across the gap 220. The
`
`longer duration high-power pulse results in the formation of a
`
`higher density plasma.30
`
`Thus, Dr. Chistyakov accomplished his breakthrough of generating a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma while reducing the probability of electrical breakdown
`
`by inventing a particular apparatus and method comprising an anode; a
`
`cathode positioned adjacent to the anode to form a gap there between; an
`
`ionization source for generating weakly-ionized plasma, and a pulsed power
`
`supply that produces an electric field across the gap, the electric field
`
`generating excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma and generating
`
`secondary electrons from the cathode, the secondary electrons ionizing the
`
`excited atoms, thereby creating the strongly ionized plasma.
`
`C. The Petitioner Mischaracterized The File History.
`
`The Petitioner alleged that the claims of the ’142 patent were allowed
`
`solely because the Applicant (i.e., now the Patent Owner) “amended every
`
`independent claim to require ‘the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the
`
`
`30 Id. at col. 4, l. 64 – col. 5, l. 3.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber’ or
`
`similar limitations.”31 But this allegation is not true because the Examiner
`
`identified additional reasons for allowing the claims beyond the one mentioned
`
`by the Petitioner: “The prior art neither discloses nor suggests an ionization
`
`source or a means that generates a weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas …
`
`such as required by claims 1, 22, 43, 44; a step of a method of ionizing a feed
`
`gas to form a weakly-ionized plasma … such as required by claims 10 and
`
`33.”32 Moreover, each of the independent claims of the ‘142 patent contain
`
`many claim limitations beyond the one mentioned by the Petitioner and
`
`therefore, were allowed because of all the claim limitations recited therein.
`
`In addition, the Petitioner also mischaracterized the file history of a
`
`patent that is related to the ’142 patent, U.S. Patent 7,147,759, by alleging that
`
`the Patent Owner was wrong in stating that “Mozgrin does not teach ‘without
`
`forming an arc.’”33 But this allegation is just not true for two main reasons.
`
`
`31 Petition, p. 7.
`
`32 Exhibit 1211, Notice of Allowance, March 29, 2004, p. 2.
`
`33 Petition, p. 19.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`First, the Examiner stated that he allowed the ’759 patent — not just
`
`because of the arc limitation — but because of the combination of many claim
`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`limitations:
`
`Applicant's arguments filed May 2, 2006 have been fully
`
`considered and are deemed persuasive. Specifically, Claims 1-50
`
`are allowable over the prior art of record because … the applied
`
`prior art applied in the previous office action does not teach the
`
`claimed apparatus or method wherein an ionization source
`
`generates a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the anode and
`
`cathode assembly and a power supply generating a voltage pulse
`
`that produces an electric field between the cathode assembly and
`
`the anode, the power supply being configured to generate the
`
`voltage pulse with an amplitude and a rise time that increases an
`
`excitation rate of ground state atoms that are present in the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to create a multi-step ionization process
`
`that generates a strongly-ionized plasma, from the weakly ionized
`
`plasma, the multi-step ionization process comprising exciting the
`
`ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizing
`
`the excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma without
`
`forming an arc discharge.34
`
`
`34 IPR2014-00447, Exhibit 1415, Notice of Allowance, September 29, 2006, pp.
`
`2-3.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Second, the Patent Owner (i.e., the Applicant at that time), did not
`
`argue, as alleged by the Petitioner, that the claims were allowable solely
`
`because of the “without forming an arc” limitation; it instead argued, inter alia,
`
`that “there is no description in Mozgrin of a multi-step ionization process that
`
`first excites ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizes the
`
`excited atoms without forming an arc discharge.”35 That is, the Patent Owner
`
`argued that Mozgrin did not teach avoidance of an arc discharge during a
`
`particular process: the multi-step ionization process. In other words, the
`
`Petitioner mischaracterized the Patent Owner’s argument to the Examiner by
`
`truncating it and quoting only a small portion of it in the Petition.
`
`Moreover, contrary to Petitioner’s allegation, the Patent Owner did not
`
`mischaracterize Mozgrin because Mozgrin does not, in fact, teach that there is
`
`no arcing during the multi-stage ionization process (e.g., while ionizing the
`
`excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma).36 That is, Mozgrin does not
`
`
`35 IPR2014-00447, Exhibit 1413, Response to Office Action, May 2, 2006, p.
`
`13 (emphasis omitted).
`
`36 IPR2014-00447, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper No. 11, §
`
`V.C.2.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`teach the avoidance of all arcing during execution of the particular process that
`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`is identified in the claim.37
`
`
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`REVIEW
`
`Confusingly, the Petition contains multiple, redundant grounds of
`
`rejection based on the same combination of references. In particular, for every
`
`ground of rejection using Mozgrin as a primary reference, there is a
`
`corresponding redundant ground using Wang as a primary reference. For the
`
`Board’s convenience below is a summary of claim rejections proposed by the
`
`Petitioner:
`
`1. Claims 21, 26-28, 31, 37 and 38: obvious in view of the
`
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev (Ground I);
`
`2. Claims 24 and 32: obvious in view of the combination of
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin Thesis (Ground II); and
`
`3. Claims 21, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 37 and 38 are obvious in view of the
`
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev (Ground III).
`
`
`
`
`37 Id.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS.
`
`Under the Board’s rules, any unexpired claim “shall be given its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.”38 Under that construction, claim terms are to be given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.39 The customary meaning
`
`applies unless the specification reveals a special definition given to the claim
`
`term by the patentee, in which case the inventor’s lexicography governs.40 Any
`
`term not construed below should be given its ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner Zond
`
`
`38 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`39 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc);
`
`Research in Motion v. Wi-Lan, Case IPR2013-00126, Paper 10 at 7 (P.T.A.B.
`
`June 20, 2013).
`
`40 See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (“[T]he specification may reveal a special
`
`definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning
`
`that it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography
`
`governs.”).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`proposes the following claim constructions for the purposes of this inter partes
`
`review proceeding.
`
`A. The construction of “weakly ionized plasma” and “strongly ionized
`plasma.”
`
`The Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the claim terms “strongly
`
`ionized plasma,” and “weakly ionized plasma” are wrong because they are not
`
`the broadest reasonable constructions consistent with the specification. In
`
`particular, the Petitioner’s proposed construction of “strongly ionized plasma”
`
`as a “higher density plasma” is wrong because the proposed construction reads
`
`the claim term “ionized” out of the claim. That is, the Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is incomplete because it does not
`
`specify what the term “density” refers to.
`
`The proper construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is “a plasma with
`
`a relatively high peak density of ions.” This proposed construction specifies
`
`that the term “density” refers to ions and therefore, is consistent with the claim
`
`language. Moreover, the proposed construction is also consistent with the
`
`Specification of the ’142 patent which refers to “strongly ionized plasma 238
`
`[as] having a large ion density.”41 In addition, the proposed construction is
`
`
`41 Exhibit 1201, ‘142 patent, col. 9, ll. 43-44.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`also consistent with the Specification of a related patent (i.e., U.S. Patent
`
`6,806,652) which states that “[t]he term ‘high-density plasma’ is also referred
`
`to as a ‘strongly-ionized plasma.’ The terms ‘high-density plasma’ and
`
`‘strongly-ionized plasma’ are defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak plasma density.”42
`
`For similar reasons, the proper construction of the claim term “weakly
`
`ionized plasma” is “a plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions.” In
`
`particular, the Specification of the ‘652 Patent states that “[t]he term ‘weakly-
`
`ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively low peak
`
`plasma density. The peak plasma density of the weakly ionized plasma
`
`depends on the properties of the specific plasma processing system.”43
`
`
`
`V. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONER
`PREVAILING AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’142
`PATENT.
`
`Inter partes review cannot be instituted unless the Board determines that
`
`the Petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one
`
`
`42 U.S. Patent 6,806,652, col. 10, ll. 60-63.
`
`43 Id. at col. 8, ll. 55-52 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.44 Differences between
`
`the challenged claims and the prior art are critical factual inquiries for any
`
`obviousness analysis and must be explicitly set forth by the Petitioner.45 The
`
`bases for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be made explicit.46 Thus, a
`
`Petition seeking to invalidate a patent as obvious must demonstrate that a
`
`“skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled
`
`artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”47
`
`The Petition’s evidence must also address every limitation of every challenged
`
`claim.
`
`Here, the Board should decline to institute an inter partes review because
`
`(i) the Petition failed to demonstrate any motivation to combine Kudryavtsev
`
`with either Mozgrin or Wang, (ii) the Petition failed to demonstrate that the
`
`prior art teaches every element of the challenged claims, (iii) there is a
`
`
`44 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`45 See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
`
`46 MPEP § 2143.
`
`47 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01014
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`substantial amount of redundancy in the Petitioner’s proposed grounds of
`
`obviousness and the Petitioner did not set forth a compel