Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`DOCKET NO: 0107131-00269 US5
`‘779 Patent
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT:
`
`6,805,779, CLAIMS 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 AND 44
`
`INVENTOR: ROMAN CHISTYAKOV
`
`
`
`FILED:
`
`MARCH 21, 2003
`
`ISSUED: OCTOBER 19, 2004
`
`PLASMA GENERATION USING MULTI-STEP IONIZATION
`
`TITLE:
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF UWE KORTSHAGEN, PH.D., REGARDING
`CLAIMS 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 AND 44 of U.S. PATENT NO. 6,805,779
`
`I, Uwe Kortshagen, declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is Uwe Kortshagen.
`
`2.
`
`I received my Diploma in Physics from the University of Bochum in
`
`Germany in 1988. I received my Ph.D. in Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1991 and my Habilitation in Experimental Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1995.
`
`3.
`
`I am a Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University
`
`of Minnesota. I have been the Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at
`
`- 1 -
`
`GILLETTE 1402
`
`
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`DOCKET NO: 0107131-00269 US5
`‘779 Patent
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT:
`
`6,805,779, CLAIMS 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 AND 44
`
`INVENTOR: ROMAN CHISTYAKOV
`
`
`
`FILED:
`
`MARCH 21, 2003
`
`ISSUED: OCTOBER 19, 2004
`
`PLASMA GENERATION USING MULTI-STEP IONIZATION
`
`TITLE:
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF UWE KORTSHAGEN, PH.D., REGARDING
`CLAIMS 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 AND 44 of U.S. PATENT NO. 6,805,779
`
`I, Uwe Kortshagen, declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is Uwe Kortshagen.
`
`2.
`
`I received my Diploma in Physics from the University of Bochum in
`
`Germany in 1988. I received my Ph.D. in Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1991 and my Habilitation in Experimental Physics from University of Bochum in
`
`1995.
`
`3.
`
`I am a Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University
`
`of Minnesota. I have been the Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at
`
`- 1 -
`
`GILLETTE 1402
`
`
`
`the University of Minnesota since July 2008. I have been a Professor at the
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota since August
`
`2003. Between August 1999 and August 2003, I was an Associate Professor at the
`
`Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Minnesota. Between July
`
`1996 and August 1999, I was an Assistant Professor at the Mechanical Engineering
`
`Department at the University of Minnesota. Between April 1996 and July 1996, I
`
`was a Lecturer at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of
`
`Bochum, Germany. Between August 2006 and June 2008, I was the Director of
`
`Graduate Studies at the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of
`
`Minnesota.
`
`4.
`
`I have taught courses on Introduction to Plasma Technology and
`
`Advanced Plasma Technology. These courses include significant amounts of
`
`material on plasma technology. In addition, I have taught a Special Topics class
`
`on Plasma Nanotechnology.
`
`5.
`
`Plasma processes for advanced technological applications has been
`
`the primary area of my professional research for over 30 years. Most of my Ph.D.
`
`students go on to work on plasmas either in academia or the semiconductor
`
`industry.
`
`6.
`
`A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached as Appendix A.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`I have reviewed the specification, claims, and file history of U.S.
`
`7.
`
`Patent No. 6,805,779 (the “‘779 Patent”) (Ex. 1401). I understand that the ‘779
`
`Patent was filed on March 21, 2003. I understand that, for purposes determining
`
`whether a publication will qualify as prior art, the earliest date that the ‘779 Patent
`
`could be entitled to is March 21, 2003.
`
`8.
`
`I have reviewed the following publications:
`
`(cid:120) 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. 1403)).
`
`(cid:120) A. A. Kudryavtsev, et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), January 1983
`
`(“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1404)).
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley” (Ex. 1405)).
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck” (Ex. 1406)).
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura” (Ex. 1407)).
`
`(cid:120) EPO Patent Publication No. EP 0 146 509 (“Gruber” (Ex. 1413)).
`
`(cid:120) PCT Patent Publication No. WO 83/01349 (“Wells” (Ex. 1414)).
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`Of these, I understand that only Mozgrin was of record during prosecution of
`
`the ‘779 Patent.
`
`9.
`
`I have read and understood each of the above publications. The
`
`disclosure of each of these publications provides sufficient information for
`
`someone to make and use the plasma generation and sputtering processes that are
`
`described in the above publications.
`
`10.
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the ‘779 Patent application was filed. In my
`
`opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘779 Patent would have found
`
`the ’779 invalid.
`
`11.
`
`I have been retained by Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) as
`
`an expert in the field of plasma technology. I am being compensated at my normal
`
`consulting rate of $350/hour for my time. My compensation is not dependent on
`
`and in no way affects the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`12.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ‘779 Patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`13.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`14.
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my invalidity analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the
`
`prior art, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of the claim terms as
`
`they would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`16.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`(cid:120) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
`(cid:120) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(cid:120) what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`(cid:120) whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`(cid:120) whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`(cid:120) whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
`(cid:120) whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`(cid:120) whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`(cid:120) whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`A.
`Plasma
`21. A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`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.1
`
`22. 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.
`
`
`
`
`1 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.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`B.
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms
`23. 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 energy state, the atom is said to be in the “ground state.”
`
`24. 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.” 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. 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.
`
`1401). “All noble gases have metastable states.” ‘779 Patent at 7:37 (Ex. 1401).
`
`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. This would be generally known in the field of
`
`plasma physics and sputtering, as indicated for example, in the articles cited at
`
`Exhibits 1411 and 1412. Exhibit 1411 identifies two metastable levels among the
`
`four lowest excited levels of argon. The other two levels are called resonant levels,
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`since they can transition directly to the ground state through emission of dipole
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`radiation. However, when they do so, the radiation can be absorbed by any ground
`
`state atom nearby, which in practice happens with very high efficiency. Hence
`
`even though they are not technically metastable (i.e., spin or dipole forbidden),
`
`they have a high population since for every resonant state that decays into the
`
`ground state, another ground state atom nearby is excited into a resonant state.
`
`Hence the excitation was just passed from one atom to the next, which effectively
`
`extends the life-time of the resonant states. Page 624 of Exhibit 1411 identifies the
`
`levels with n=2 and n=4 as metastable. Table 1 shows that these states are among
`
`the four lowest excited states, and, in fact, the n=2 level has the lowest excitation
`
`energy. The levels with n=3 and n=5 are the resonant levels. Exhibit 1412 shows
`
`experimental results and results of the model presented in Exhibit 1411 for argon.
`
`Table 2 shows that some of the conditions shown are for a high density plasmas (ne
`
`> 1x1012 cm-3), and others are for low density plasmas. Figure 5 and 6 show that
`
`the four lowest excited states, called 4s levels, have at least 100 times higher
`
`density than the next higher excited states, called 4p levels (Compare Table 1 in
`
`Exhibit 1412 or in Exhibit 1411). Figure 9 of Exhibit 1412 compares the 4s, n=2
`
`(metastable) and n=3 (resonant) levels, to some higher states such as 4p, 5p, 5d,
`
`and 7s. It is clear that the population of the 4s lowest excited levels is several
`
`orders of magnitude higher than that of the higher excited levels. Hence if we
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`assume that the vast majority (e.g. > 95%) of all excited atoms are in one of the 4s
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`levels, the metastable 4s levels n=2,4 account for at least 50% of all excited atoms,
`
`with the remainder essentially being accounted for by the resonant 4s states n=3,5.
`
`Thus, as indicated above, generating excited atoms means also generating
`
`metastable atoms.
`
`25. 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. 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 ‘779 Patent at
`
`8:7 (Ex. 1401).
`
`Ar + e- (cid:198) Ar* + e-
`
`26. 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. 1401).
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`Ar + e- (cid:198) Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e- (cid:198) Ar+ + 2e-
`
`27. The production of excited atoms, metastable atoms, and ions was well
`
`understood long before the ‘779 Patent was filed.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘779 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent
`28. 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. For convenience, this section will just use the
`
`term “excited atom source.” In any event, there appears to be no substantial
`
`difference between excited and metastable sources. The ‘779 Patent does not
`
`indicate any particular difference in the operation of an excited atom source when
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`it is a metastable atom source. The specification repeatedly refers to “an excited
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`atom source such as a metastable atom source,” see, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 2:13-14,
`
`17-18, 22-24 (Ex. 1401), 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.” ‘779 Patent at 5:63-65 (Ex. 1401)
`
`29. Admitted prior art FIG. 1 of the ‘779 Patent shows a plasma chamber
`
`consisting of a magnetron sputtering system, without an excited atom source. 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. 1401).
`
`30. 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
`
`magnetic field 132 proximate to the target to trap and concentrate electrons. ‘779
`
`Patent at 2:46-3:18 (Ex. 1401).
`
`31. 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
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`as the chamber 104 of FIG. 1. In fact, a plasma generator according to the present
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`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. 1401).
`
`32. 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.
`
`1401).
`
`
`
`33. Specifically, FIG. 2 shows metastable atom source 204, and FIG. 3
`
`shows metastable atom source 304 (annotated in color above). The metastable
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`atom sources 204 and 304 “generate[] a volume of metastable atoms 218 from [a]
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`volume of ground state atoms. See, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 4:56-58 (Ex. 1401).
`
`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.
`
`34. 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. 1401). 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., ‘779 Patent 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. 1401).
`
`35. The metastable atom sources shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 can be mounted
`
`to 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. 1401).
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`36. 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, 3 ‘779 Patent at 6:60-63
`
`(Ex. 1401).
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`37. 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. 1408).
`
`38. The applicant did not dispute the rejection, but amended the
`
`independent claims at issue here to require that the distinct source further includes
`
`“a magnet that generates a magnetic field for substantially trapping electrons
`
`2 All bold/italics emphasis is added.
`
`3 It would be more accurate to say that ground state atoms are ionized, but this
`
`language is from the ‘779 patent specification.
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`proximate to the ground state atoms.” See 05/06/04 Resp. at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 (Ex.
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`1409). The claims were then allowed.
`
`39. Notwithstanding this difference, the ‘779 Patent does not indicate that
`
`an excited atom source with magnets has any special significance over other ways
`
`for generating excited/metastable atoms. Although the magnet embodiment was
`
`claimed, the specification indicates that there were other ways to generate excited
`
`atoms, and shows multiple embodiments – e.g., FIGS. 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11—without
`
`the magnets that were required for the claims to be allowed. The “magnet” recited
`
`in the claims refers particularly to the embodiments of FIGS. 6, 7, and10, and
`
`specifically to magnets 504a, 504b, 506a and 506b 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; and 16:12-20 (Ex. 1401).
`
`40. European Counterpart. The applicants had also identified these
`
`magnets, located in the separate excited atom source of FIG. 6, as the claimed
`
`magnets in counterpart claims in Europe, which read in part:
`
`characterised [sic] 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. 1410)
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`41. However, as explained in detail below, and contrary to the Examiner’s
`
`reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches using magnets in this
`
`manner, along with the other limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art
`42. As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing
`
`new or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin
`43. 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.
`
`44. 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).”) (Ex. 1403).
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`45. 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. 1403). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma
`
`causes the transition from region 1 to 2. 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. 1403).
`
`46. Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (Ex. 1403).
`
`Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2)
`
`causes the plasma to transition to region 3. 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. 1403).
`
`47. Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3
`
`(“…part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge…”) (Ex.
`
`1403). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4.
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev
`48. 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. 1404).
`
`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.
`
`1404). The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls
`
`stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1404).
`
`Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can be the
`
`dominant ionization process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1404).
`
`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. 1403).
`
`D. Overview of Iwamura
`49.
`Iwamura discloses “a plasma treatment apparatus for treating a
`
`surface of an object….” Iwamura at 2:51-52 (Ex. 1407). “A first plasma
`
`generation unit for preactivating the gas to generate a plasma is positioned
`
`upstream along the flow 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
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`flow path of the gas in the gas supply is also provided. Thus, the first plasma
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`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. 1407).
`
`50.
`
`Iwamura discloses multiple ways for generating excited/metastable
`
`atoms, and discloses the desirability of providing a first excitation step followed by
`
`a further energy providing step, and also claims such a system. Iwamura at 2:1-
`
`50, claim 1 (Ex. 1407).
`
`E. Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck
`51. 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. 1405). 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
`
`force as indicated by the force vector 32. This force is exerted upon the electrons,
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`and tends to maintain the electrons in an area between the anode and cathode.”)
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`(Ex. 1405).
`
`52. 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 maintain the electrons in place would allow excited atoms to be generated
`
`and pass through. 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. 1403).
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`53.
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation. The following discussion proposes constructions of and support
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`therefore of those terms. I have been informed and understand that any claim
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`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.
`
`“multi-step ionization”
`A.
`54. Each of the independent claims in the ‘779 Patent recites the term
`
`“multi-step ionization.” The ‘779 Patent defines this term “to mean an ionization
`
`process whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.”4 ‘779 Patent at
`
`6:60-63 (Ex. 1401). This is consistent with the claim language, FIGS. 2 and 3, and
`
`the specification, which 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. Thus the proposed construction for “multi-
`
`step ionization” is “an ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at least two
`
`distinct steps.”5
`
`
`4 It would be more accurate to say that ground state atoms are ionized, but this
`
`language is from the ‘779 patent specification.
`
`5 It would be more accurate to say that ground state atoms are ionized, but this
`
`language is from the ‘779 patent specification.
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`I understand that this proposed construction is consistent with the
`
`55.
`
`position taken by the Patent Owner in 1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond v. Fujitsu, et
`
`al.), where the Patent Owner construed this term as “an ionization process having
`
`two or more distinct steps.” (Ex. 1415).
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`56. The below sections demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44 of the ‘779 Patent, and
`
`how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 9, 21 and 44 would have been obvious in view
`of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley and Gruber
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1
`a)
`The preamble: “[a] plasma generator that generates a
`plasma with a multi-step ionization process, the plasma
`generator comprising”
`57. Mozgrin teaches a plasma generator that generates plasma using the
`
`power supply shown in Fig 2. The power supply includes a stationary discharge
`
`supply unit,
`
`to generate a
`
`pre-ionized
`
`plasma. Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶ 2 (“For pre-ionization… the initial plasma
`
`density in the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.”)
`
`- 24 -
`
`
`
`Kortshagen Declaration – Ex. 1402
`‘779 Patent, US5, Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38 and 44
`
`
`58. The power supply further includ
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
