DOCKET NO.: 0110198-00198US3
`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. 6,805,779
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 30-37, 39 AND 40
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`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 .......................................................................... - 1 - 
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ........................................................ - 2 - 
`II. 
`III.  Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................ - 2 - 
`A. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ....................................... - 2 - 
`B. 
`Grounds for Challenge ..................................................................... - 3 - 
`IV.  Brief Description of Technology ................................................................ - 4 - 
`A. 
`Plasma............................................................................................... - 4 - 
`B. 
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms ...................................... - 4 - 
`V.  Overview of the ‘779 Patent ....................................................................... - 6 - 
`A. 
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent .......................... - 6 - 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ........................................................................ - 10 - 
`C. 
`Claims 30 and 40 ............................................................................ - 12 - 
`VI.  Overview of the primary prior art references ........................................... - 14 - 
`A. 
`Summary of the Prior Art ............................................................... - 14 - 
`B. 
`Overview of Mozgrin ..................................................................... - 14 - 
`C. 
`Overview of Kudryavtsev .............................................................. - 16 - 
`D.  Overview of Iwamura ..................................................................... - 16 - 
`E. 
`Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck .............................................. - 17 - 
`VII.  Claim construction .................................................................................... - 18 - 
`A. 
`“multi-step ionization” ................................................................... - 19 - 
`VIII.  Specific Grounds for Petition ................................................................... - 19 - 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 30-33, 35, 37, and 40 would have been obvious in
`view of the combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Pinsley ... - 20 - 
`
`i
`
`

`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Independent claim 30 ........................................................... - 20 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 40 ........................................................... - 32 - 
`2. 
`Ground II: Claims 34, and 39 would have been obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and Wells .......... - 38 - 
`Ground III: Claim 36 would have been obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley, and Lovelock .... - 39 - 
`D.  Ground IV: Claim 30-33, 35, 37, and 40 would have been obvious in
`view of Iwamura and Angelbeck ................................................... - 41 - 
`1. 
`Independent claim 30 ........................................................... - 41 - 
`2. 
`Independent claim 40 ........................................................... - 52 - 
`3. 
`Dependent claims 31-33, 35, and 37 .................................... - 53 - 
`Ground V: Claims 34, and 39 are obvious in view of the combination
`of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Wells ................................................ - 57 - 
`Ground VI: Claim 36 would have been obvious in view of the
`combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck and Lovelock ...................... - 58 - 
`IX.  Conclusion ................................................................................................ - 60 - 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases 
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........... 19
`
`Rules 
`
`Rules 42.104 ....................................................................................................... 2, 20
`
`Rule 42.22(a)(1) ........................................................................................................ 2
`
`Regulations 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..................................................................................... 18 , 19
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`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. 6,805,779 (“‘779 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 has also filed IPR 2014-00598 and IPR 2014-00686 for other claims of
`
`the ‘779 Patent.
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘779 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`substantially identical petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v.
`
`Zond, Inc., which was filed May 16, 2014 and assigned Case No. IPR2014-00765.
`
`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
`Lead Counsel: Michael A. Diener (Registration No. 37,122)
`
`Backup Counsel: Larissa B. Park (Reg. No. 59,051)
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 30-37, 39 and 40 of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`A.
`The following references, and others listed in the Table of Exhibits, are
`
`pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability explained below, and are each prior art
`
`under 102(b):
`
`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)).
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A. A. Kudryavtsev, et al., Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`2.
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), January 1983
`
`(“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1204)).
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley” (Ex. 1205)).
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck” (Ex. 1206)).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura” (Ex. 1207)).
`
`PCT Pat. Pub. No. WO 83/01349 (“Wells” (Ex. 1214)).
`
`European Pat. Pub. No. EP 0 242 028 (“Lovelock” (Ex. 1215)).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 30-37, 39 and 40 of the ‘779 Patent
`
`(“challenged claims”) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This Petition,
`
`supported by the declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen1 (“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. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`1 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-
`
`00765, discussed above. The attached Exhibits are the same as those in IPR2014-
`
`00765.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`A.
`Plasma
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms (including
`
`various excited states). The negatively charged free electrons and positively
`
`charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma as a whole
`
`has no overall electrical charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the number of
`
`ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex.
`
`1202). 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. Id. at (Ex. 1202).
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘779 Patent was filed. For example, sputtering is an industrial process
`
`that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a target material onto a surface called a
`
`substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a semiconductor manufacturing operation).
`
`Ions in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of
`
`target material. The ejected target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id.
`
`at ¶ 23 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms
`
`B.
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Each electron has an
`
`associated energy state. If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`energy state, the atom is said to be in the “ground state.” Id. at ¶ 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.”
`
`Id. at ¶ 25 (Ex. 1202). A metastable atom is a type of excited atom that is
`
`relatively long-lived, because it cannot transition into the ground state through
`
`dipole radiation, i.e., through the emission of electromagnetic radiation. Id. (Ex.
`
`1202). See also ‘779 Patent at 7:22-25 (“The term ‘metastable atoms’ is defined
`
`herein to mean excited atoms having energy levels from which dipole radiation is
`
`theoretically forbidden. Metastable atoms have relatively long lifetimes compared
`
`with other excited atoms.”) (Ex. 1201). “All noble gases have metastable states.”
`
`‘779 Patent at 7:37 (Ex. 1201). When generating excited atoms, multiple levels of
`
`excited states are formed. Of these, some of the lowest states are metastable, and
`
`would typically be more common than the higher states. Dr. Kortshagen provides
`
`additional support with reference to Exs. 1211-12. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex.
`
`1202).
`
`Excited and metastable atoms are electrically neutral – they have equal
`
`numbers of electrons and protons. A collision with a low energy free electron (e-)
`
`can convert a ground state atom to an excited or metastable atom. Id. at ¶ 27 (Ex.
`
`1202). For example, the ‘779 Patent uses the following equation to describe
`
`production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`‘779 Patent at 8:7 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. A collision between a free, high energy electron and a ground state,
`
`excited, or metastable atom can create an ion. For example, the ‘779 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 ‘779 Patent at 3:40 and
`
`8:9 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Ar + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e-  Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms, metastable atoms, and ions was well
`
`understood long before the ‘779 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶¶ 28-29 (Ex.
`
`1202).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘779 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent
`The ‘779 Patent relates to generating a plasma using a multi-step ionization
`
`process with an excited/metastable atom/molecule source that generates excited
`
`atoms, or metastable atoms, or molecules, and then provides the excited/metastable
`
`atoms or molecules to a plasma chamber where the plasma is formed, thereby
`
`generating a plasma with a “multi-step ionization” process. Id. at ¶ 30 (Ex. 1202).
`
`For convenience, this section will just use the term “excited atom source.” In any
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`event, there appears to be no substantial difference between excited and metastable
`
`sources. Id. (Ex. 1202). The ‘779 Patent does not indicate any particular
`
`difference in the operation of an excited atom source when it is a metastable atom
`
`source. Id. (Ex. 1202). The specification repeatedly refers to “an excited atom
`
`source such as a metastable atom source,” see, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 2:13-14, 17-18,
`
`22-24 (Ex. 1201), and says that “[i]n some embodiments, the metastable atom
`
`source 204 generates some excited atoms that are in excited states other than a
`
`metastable state.” Id. at 5:63-65 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Admitted prior art FIG. 1 of the ‘779 Patent shows a plasma chamber
`
`consisting of a magnetron sputtering system, without an excited atom source.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1202). It generates
`
`plasma through a process that the patent refers to as
`
`a direct ionization process. ‘779 Patent at 3:36-47
`
`(“The ionization process in known plasma
`
`sputtering apparatus is generally referred to as direct
`
`ionization…. The collision between the neutral
`
`argon atom and the ionizing electron results in an
`
`argon ion (Ar+) and two electrons.”) (Ex. 1201).
`
`As is generally known, this system has an anode, a cathode assembly 114 for
`
`holding a target material to be sputtered, and a magnet 130 that generates a
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`magnetic field 132 proximate to the target to trap and concentrate electrons. Id. at
`
`2:46-3:18 (Ex. 1201). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 32 (Ex. 1202).
`
`The alleged invention generally relates to coupling an excited or metastable
`
`atom source to some plasma chamber. ‘779 Patent at 5:27-34 (“The metastable
`
`atom source 204 can be coupled to any type of process chamber, such as the
`
`chamber 104 of FIG. 1. In fact, a plasma generator according to the present
`
`invention can be constructed by coupling a metastable atom source to a
`
`commercially available plasma chamber. Thus, commercially available plasma
`
`generators can be modified to generate a plasma using a multi-step ionization
`
`process according to the present invention.”) (Ex. 1201). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex. 1202).
`
`FIGS. 2 and 3 of the ‘779 Patent show such plasma generators “according to
`
`the present invention” that are coupled with separate metastable atom sources
`
`(annotated in color below). ‘779 Patent at 2:3-11; FIGS. 2 and 3 (Ex. 1201).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Specifically, FIG. 2 shows metastable atom source 204, and FIG. 3 shows
`
`metastable atom source 304 (annotated in color above). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 35
`
`(Ex. 1202). The metastable atom sources 204 and 304 “generat[e] a volume of
`
`metastable atoms 218 from [a] volume of ground state atoms. See, e.g., ‘779
`
`Patent at 4:56-58 (Ex. 1201). Metastable atoms 218 are transported from the
`
`source where they are generated to the region between the cathode 114/306 and
`
`substrate support 136/352, where plasma 202/302 is formed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`35 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Power supply 222 (also annotated in color above) provides power to the
`
`metastable atom source. See, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 4:60-62 (Ex. 1201). Another
`
`(pulsed) power supply 201 (in FIG. 2) or power supply 316 (in FIG. 3) raises the
`
`energy of the metastable atoms to generate a plasma 202. See, e.g., id. at 11:4-14
`
`(“A power supply 316 is electrically coupled to the volume of metastable atoms
`
`218. The power supply 316 can be any type of power supply, such as a pulsed
`
`power supply, a RF power supply, an AC power supply, or a DC power supply. …
`
`The power supply 316 generates an electric field 322 between the cathode 306 and
`
`the anode 308 that raises the energy of the volume of metastable atoms 218 so that
`
`at least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms 218 are ionized, thereby
`
`generating the plasma 302.”) (Ex. 1201). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 36 (Ex.
`
`1202). The metastable atom sources shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 can be mounted to
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the inside wall of the chamber 230 (FIG. 3), or on the outside wall (FIG. 2). See,
`
`e.g., ‘779 Patent at 4:31-34 and 9:51-62 (Ex. 1201). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`37 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Consistent with the claim language, FIGS. 2 and 3, and the specification, the
`
`“excited atom source” and “metastable atom source” generate the excited atoms in
`
`a source that is distinct from, and coupled to, the components that later raise the
`
`energy of the excited or metastable atoms to generate a plasma with “multi-step
`
`ionization,” a term the ‘779 Patent defines as “an ionization process whereby ions
`
`are ionized in at least two distinct steps.”2 ‘779 Patent at 6:60-63 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`The first substantive office action for the application that led to the ‘779
`
`Patent rejected all independent claims as being anticipated based on prior art that
`
`showed a first chamber for generating excited/metastable atoms, and a second
`
`chamber for increasing the energy of the excited atoms, and for generating a
`
`plasma using multi-step ionization. See 02/11/04 Office Action at 2-3 (Ex. 1208).
`
`The applicant did not dispute the rejection, but amended the independent
`
`claims at issue here to require that the distinct source further includes “generating a
`
`magnetic field proximate to a volume of ground state atoms [molecules] to
`
`substantially trap electrons proximate to the ground state atoms [molecules].” See
`
`2 All bold/italics emphasis is added.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`05/06/04 Resp. at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 (Ex. 1209). The claims were then allowed.
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding this difference in specifying the use of a magnetic field, the
`
`‘779 Patent does not indicate that an excited atom source with a magnetic field has
`
`any special significance over other ways for generating excited/metastable atoms
`
`or molecules. The specification indicates that there were many ways to generate
`
`excited atoms, and shows multiple embodiments – e.g., FIGS. 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11—
`
`without magnets, although some have coils that could create magnetic fields. The
`
`“magnet” of the source chamber recited in the claims refers particularly to the
`
`embodiments of FIGS. 6, 7 and10, and specifically to magnets 504a, 504b, 506a
`
`and 506b for generating magnetic fields 508a and 508b in FIG. 6; magnets 566a-d
`
`and 570a-d in FIG. 7; and magnets 712 and 714 in FIG. 10. ‘779 Patent at FIGS. 6
`
`and 7; 14:46-15:45; 16:12-20 (Ex. 1201). European Counterpart. The
`
`applicants had also identified these magnets, located in the excited atom source of
`
`FIG. 6, as the claimed magnets in counterpart claims in Europe, and for generating
`
`magnetic fields 508. The claim read in part: “characterised in that the excited
`
`atom source (204) comprises a magnet (504, 506) that is arranged to generate a
`
`magnetic field (508) that traps electrons proximate to the ground state atoms.”
`
`24 July 2007 Response in EP 1614136 (Ex. 1210).
`
`However, as explained in detail below, and contrary to the Examiner’s
`
`reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches using magnets and a
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`magnetic field in this manner, along with the other limitations of the challenged
`
`claims. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1202).
`
`C. Claims 30 and 40
`Claims 30 and 40 are method claims relating to “multi-step ionization,” a
`
`term the ‘779 Patent defines as “an ionization process whereby ions are ionized in
`
`at least two distinct steps.” ‘779 Patent at 6:60-63 (Ex. 1201). The distinct steps
`
`are provided by using a metastable atom (or molecule) source to generate a plasma
`
`with an enhanced level of excited atoms (or molecules), provide them into a
`
`plasma chamber, and then add further energy to create a second high density
`
`plasma from the first initial plasma. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1202).
`
`It is generally known that any plasma of the types described in the ‘779
`
`patent will have a combination of ground state atoms, various excited (neutral)
`
`states including metastable states, ions, and electrons. Id. at ¶ 45 (Ex. 1202).
`
`However, the ‘779 patent describes ways to generate distinct volumes of
`
`metastable atoms using magnetic fields, electron ion absorbers, and other means to
`
`inhibit ions and electrons from flowing with a plasma, and thereby causing a
`
`distinct volume of metastable atoms or molecules to pass to the chamber. See, e.g.,
`
`Figures 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12A-12C (Ex. 1201).
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Figures 2 and 6 show examples where the excited atom source generates a
`
`plasma, blocks out at least some of the ions and electrons, and provides the excited
`
`atoms or molecules to the chamber.
`
`The ‘779 Patent notes that if ground state atoms are introduced between the
`
`anode and cathode of the plasma chamber and energized, those ground state atoms
`
`will be ionized through direct ionization, and not multi-step ionization as claimed
`
`in claims 30 and 40:
`
`Ground state atoms 326 from the feed gas source 328 are injected in
`the region 324 between the anode 308 and the cathode 306. The
`metastable atoms 218 interact with the ground state atoms 326 in the
`region 324 between the anode 308 and the cathode 306. The power
`supply 316 then generates the electric field 322 across the mixture of
`metastable atoms 218 and ground state atoms 326. The electric field
`322 raises the energy of the metastable atoms 218 and ground state
`atoms 326 so that at least a portion of the metastable atoms 218 and
`the ground state atoms 326 are ionized, thereby generating the plasma
`302 with a combination of a direct ionization process and a multi-
`step ionization process. In other embodiments, the feed gas source
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`328 contains a molecular gas.”
`‘779 Patent at 12:52-65 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Accordingly, the magnetic field that is generated is one that is used to hold
`
`the electrons in the metastable atom source to implement the first step of the multi-
`
`step ionization. The volume of metastable atoms or molecules referred to in the
`
`claims refers to generating an enhanced volume compared to what would be
`
`created in any plasma, with many of the ions and electrons filtered out. The
`
`plasma chamber can then be used (along with a different magnetic field shown in
`
`prior art Figure 1 at 132, or Figure 3 at 346 (Ex. 1201) for raising the energy of the
`
`metastable atoms or molecules for the multi-step ionization. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`48 (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 ‘779 Patent. Id. at ¶ 49 (Ex. 1202).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin
`Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge generated by Mozgrin. 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-
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`ionization stage).”3) (Ex. 1203). Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 51 (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)…”) (Ex. 1203). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52
`
`(Ex. 1202). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the
`
`transition from region 1 to 2. Id. 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)…”) (Ex. 1203).
`
`Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2)
`
`causes the plasma to transition to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 53 (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. 1202). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`3 All bold/italic emphases are added.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”) (Ex.
`
`1203). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 54 (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). In particular,
`
`Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via different
`
`processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state atoms are
`
`converted directly to ions. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1204).
`
`The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise
`
`ionization. See, e.g., Id. (Ex. 1204). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain
`
`conditions multi-step ionization can be the dominant ionization process. See, e.g.,
`
`Id. (Ex. 1204). 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). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1202).
`
`D. Overview of Iwamura
`Iwamura discloses “a plasma treatment apparatus for treating a surface of an
`
`object… .” Iwamura at 2:51-52 (Ex. 1207). “A first plasma generation unit for
`
`preactivating the gas to generate a plasma is positioned upstream along the flow
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`path of the gas in the gas supply; and a second plasma generation unit for
`
`activating the gas to generate a plasma downstream along the flow path of the gas
`
`in the gas supply is also provided. Thus, the first plasma generation unit
`
`preactivates the gas and the second plasma generation unit activates the gas and
`
`forms activated gas species. Then, the activated gas species formed by the second
`
`plasma generation unit treat the object to be treated.” Iwamura at 2:56-65. (Ex.
`
`1207); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1202).
`
`
`
`Iwamura discloses multiple ways for generating excited/metastable atoms,
`
`and discloses the desirability of providing a first excitation step followed by a
`
`further energy step, and also claims such a system. Iwamura at 2:1-50, claim 1
`
`(Ex. 1207); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex. 1202).
`
`E. Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck
`
`Pinsley discloses a gas laser having a magnetic field that is oriented
`
`transversely with respect to the flow of the gases. Pinsley at Abstract (“A flowing
`
`gas laser having an electric discharge plasma with the electric field oriented
`
`transversely with respect to the flow of gases therethrough is provided with a
`
`magnetic field which is oriented transversely with respect to both the flow and the
`
`electric field to overcome the forces of flowing gases thereon.”) (Ex. 1205). The
`
`transverse magnetic field traps electrons. Pinsley at 2:43-47 (“As is known, the
`
`interaction between the current and the magnetic field will result in an upstream
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`force as indicated by the force vector 32. This force is exerted upon the electrons,
`
`and tends to maintain the electrons in an area between the anode and cathode.”)
`
`(Ex. 1205); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58 (Ex. 1202).
`
`Pinsley does not specifically use the words “excited atoms,” but one of
`
`ordinary skill would understand that increasing the energy and using a magnetic
`
`field to hold the electrons would generate excited atoms. Id. at ¶ 59 (Ex. 1202)
`
`The Angelbeck patent (with a lead inventor who is also a co-inventor on the
`
`Pinsley patent), makes clear that gas lasers of the type disclosed by Pinsley
`
`generate excited atoms as part of their operation. Angelbeck at 1:21-25 (“This
`
`invention relates to gas lasers, and particularly to a method and apparatus for
`
`increasing and controlling the light output of a gas laser by applying a transverse
`
`magnetic field to the laser.”); 2:18-20 (“A high gas pressure P is advantageous,
`
`however, for creating a high density of excited atoms in the laser.”) (Ex. 1203);
`
`see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1202). Neither Pinsley nor Angelbeck was of
`
`record during the prosecution of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`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
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779 Claims 30-37, 39 and 40
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.4 In re
`
`ICON Health & Fitn