Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS
`ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO.
`KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC &
`CO. KH, TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC., TOSHIBA AMERICAN
`INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., AND TOSHIBA
`CORPORATON
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2014-01037
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’s PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ....................................................................................5
`
`A. Overview of Sputtering Systems .....................................................................................5
`
`B. The ‘421 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved Sputtering Source. ................7
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS ........................................13
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) ...................................13
`
`A. Construction of “Weakly Ionized Plasma” and “Strongly Ionized Plasma” ...........13
`
`V. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF PREVAILING. ..............................................................................................................15
`
`A. All Grounds Rely on Claim Charts Submitted in Violation of Rules
`42.24(a)(i) and 42.6(a)(3) .....................................................................................15
`
`B. Defects in Ground I: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 1, 2, 8,
`10 - 13, 15, 16, 34, 38, 39, 43, and 46 - 48 Are Anticipated by Mozgrin ...............17
`
`1. Overview of Mozgrin ..........................................................................................18
`
`2. Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that Mozgrin Expressly
`or Inherently Teaches Each and Every Aspect of the Challenged
`Claims. ..................................................................................................................20
`
`a. Mozgrin Does Not Teach a Sputtering Source Comprising a Cathode
`Assembly Having a Sputtering Target Positioned Adjacent to an
`Anode. .............................................................................................................20
`
`b. Mozgrin Does Not Describe the Claimed Pulse for Creating a Weak
`Plasma and Then a Strongly-Ionized Plasma From the Weak. .................22
`
`c. Mozgrin Does Not Teach The Claimed Generation of a Pulse whose
`Amplitude and Rise Time Are Chosen to Increase Ion Density
`Without Arcing ...............................................................................................24
`
`d. Conclusion: Petitioner Has Not Shown a Reasonable Likelihood of
`Success on Any Claim Challenged in Ground I. .........................................26
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`C. Defects In Ground II: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A Reasonable
`Likelihood That Claims 1, 2, 8, 10 - 13, 16, 17, 22-25, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43,
`and 46 - 48 Are Anticipated by Wang ......................................................................26
`
`a. Wang Does Not Show the Claimed Pulse for Creating a Weak
`Plasma and Then a Strongly-Ionized Plasma From the Weak
`Without Arcing...............................................................................................27
`
`b. Wang Does Not Teach The Claimed Generation of a Pulse Whose
`Rise Time Is Chosen to Increase Ion Density Without Arcing. .................28
`
`D. Petitioner’s Grounds Based Upon Obviousness..........................................................29
`
`1. Petition’s Grounds III and IV Fail to Follow the Proper Legal
`Framework For an Obviousness Analysis. ........................................................30
`
`2. Defects In Ground III: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A Reasonable
`Likelihood That Independent Claim 17 and its Dependent Claims 22 – 25,
`27 – 30, 33 and 42 Are Obvious Over Mozgrin and Lantsman under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) ...........................................................................................................31
`
`3. Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of success on any
`Claim in Ground III for the Same Reasons Recited in Opposition to
`Ground I. ..............................................................................................................31
`
`4. Defects In Ground IV: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate A Reasonable
`Likelihood That Dependent Claims 15, 27 and 38 Are Obvious Over
`Wang and Mozgrin under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .........................................................33
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Petitioner has represented in a motion to joinder that this petition
`
`“is identical to the Intel IRP no. IRP2014-00468 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.
`
`IRP2014-00468, which is reproduced below:
`
`The present petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421
`
`(“the ‘421 patent”) relies primarily on two prior art references, Mozgrin1 and
`
`Wang2 that were already considered by the Patent Office3 and offers no
`
`persuasive reasons why the Board should reach a different conclusion here.
`
`The claims are directed to a sputtering source for sputtering material
`
`from a sputter target, and a method for high deposition rate sputtering. The
`
`claimed source and method generate a voltage pulse for creating the ions
`
`needed for sputtering, wherein the pulse’s shape is chosen or adjusted to create
`
`
`1 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin.
`
`2 Ex. 1004, Wang patent No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”).
`
`3 Ex. 1001, ‘421 Patent, list of cited references cited.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`a weakly ionized plasma and then a strongly ionized plasma from the weak,
`
`but without arcing. The Petition first argues that Mozgrin anticipates such
`
`claims, even though it is a research paper that does not describe a sputter
`
`source for sputtering material from a target, and never discloses any
`
`experiments that teach the particular type of pulse technique claimed.
`
`The Petition next cites to Wang. Wang at least describes sputtering from
`
`a target, but as Petitioner acknowledges, “Wang teaches that arcing may occur
`
`during ignition” of the plasma.4 This is blatantly at odds with the claimed
`
`requirement that the generated pulse “create a weakly ionized plasma …
`
`without an occurrence of arcing.” The Petition tries to diminish the
`
`significance of this shortcoming by citing to Wang’s observation that “the
`
`initial plasma ignition needs to be performed only once.”5 But this changes
`
`nothing in an anticipation analysis.
`
`Furthermore, when the Petition resorts to its backup obviousness
`
`theories using these same references, it never cures the shortcomings of the
`
`references. In fact, it does not address these shortcoming or any differences
`
`between the claims and the art, as required by the Supreme Court for a proper
`
`
`4 Petition at 36.
`
`5 Petition at page 36, quoting Ex. 1004, Wang.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`obviousness analysis. It also relies upon several claim charts filed in violation
`
`of rules §42.24(a)(i) and §42.6.6
`
`Lastly, the Petitioner tries to convince the Board that Zond
`
`misrepresented Mozgrin’s teachings during prosecution of Zond’s U.S. patent
`
`number 7,147,759 (“the ‘759 Patent”).7 A mere glance at the record reveals to
`
`the contrary: In the alleged misrepresentation, Zond argued that Mozgrin does
`
`not teach a process in which “ground state atoms” are excited to form “excited
`
`atoms,” and then the excited atoms are “ionizing without forming an arc.”8
`
`On the basis of this assertion, the Petitioner accuses Zond of wrongly asserting
`
`that “Mozgrin does not teach ‘without forming an arc.’”9 The Patent Owner
`
`(i.e., the Applicant at that time), never argued, as alleged by the Petitioner, that
`
`the claims were allowable solely because of the “without forming an arc”
`
`
`6 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007) (“[T]he [Graham] factors
`
`define the controlling inquiry”); Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CMB-
`
`2012-00003, paper 7 at 2 – 3.
`
`7 Petition at p. 18., Ex. 1007, ‘759 Patent.
`
`8 Ex. 1021, Response of May 2, p. 13 – 16.
`
`9 Petition at p. 18.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`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.”10 That is, the Patent Owner argued that Mozgrin did not teach
`
`avoidance of an arc discharge during a particular process that was the subject
`
`of the ‘759 patent: a 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.
`
` In short, the Petition does not precisely state the relief requested11 and
`
`fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable.12 On the basis of the record presented in the present Petition,
`
`review should be denied.
`
`
`10 Exhibit 1313, Response to Office Action, May 2, 2006, p. 13 (emphasis
`
`omitted).
`
`11 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`12 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`II. Technology Background
`
`A. Overview of Sputtering Systems
`
`Sputtering is a known technique for depositing a thin film of material on
`
`a substrate. Sputtering systems include a cathode assembly 114 that includes a
`
`sputtering target 116 made of a material that is desired for the thin film:
`
`Fig. 2
`
`Fig. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`The sputtering source bombards the target surface 156 with ions to dislodge
`
`atoms, causing them to deposit on the substrate in a thin film.13 Positive ions
`
`154 are driven into the surface 156 of the sputtering target 116 by an electric
`
`field at an angle of incidence and with sufficient energy to knock atoms 160,
`
`170 from the target.14 The dislodged atoms “flow to a substrate where they
`
`deposit as a film of target material.”15
`
`
`13 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col 1, lines 15 – 22.
`
`14 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 5, lines 20 - 30.
`
`15 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 1, lines 20 – 21.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`To create ions for sputtering, a voltage source applies an electric field to
`
`a gas that frees some electrons from their gas molecules to form a gaseous
`
`mixture of electrons, positively charged molecules and neutral gas molecules,
`
`i.e., a “plasma.” The density of ions produced depends, inter alia, upon the
`
`strength of the applied electric field.
`
`The rate at which material sputters from the target increases with the
`
`density of ions in the plasma.16 One known way to increase the plasma density
`
`is to strengthen the ionizing electric field. But this can induce high currents
`
`that generate undesirable heating and damage to the target, as well as electrical
`
`arcing that “corrupts the sputtering process.”17 One known solution to this
`
`problem is to apply the strong electric field in short bursts that temporarily
`
`provide the desired field strength, but at a lower average power to reduce the
`
`undesirable effects.18 However, such high power pulses “can still result in
`
`undesirable electric discharges and undesirable target heating.”19 The ‘421
`
`
`16 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col 3, lines 3 – 7.
`
`17 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col 3, lines 20 – 29.
`
`18 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col 3,lines 30 - 35.
`
`19 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col 3, lines 36 - 38.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`patent describes an improved pulsed system for generating a strongly ionized
`
`plasma for use in sputtering material from a sputter target, but without arcing.
`
`B. The ‘421 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved
`Sputtering Source.
`
`To overcome the problems of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented a
`
`magnetically enhanced sputtering source having a particular structure of an
`
`anode, cathode, ionization source, magnet and power supply generating a
`
`particular type of voltage pulse to perform a multi-step ionization process
`
`without forming an arc discharge as illustrated in Fig. 4 of the ‘421 patent,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`As illustrated by Fig. 4, Dr. Chistyakov’s magnetically enhanced sputtering
`
`source includes an anode 238 and a cathode assembly 216 having a sputtering
`
`target 220 made of the material to be sputtered that is positioned inside the
`
`cathode 218.20 The anode 238 is positioned adjacent to the cathode assembly
`
`“so as to form a gap 244 between the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216
`
`that is sufficient to allow current to flow through a region 245 between the
`
`anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216.”21 The gap 244 and the total volume
`
`of region 245 are parameters in the ionization process.”22 The “cathode
`
`assembly 216 includes a cathode 218 and a sputtering target 220 composed of
`
`target material.”23
`
`“[T]he pulsed power supply 234 is a component in an ionization source
`
`that generates the weakly-ionized plasma.”24 “The pulsed power supply
`
`applies a voltage pulse between the cathode assembly 216 and the anode
`
`
`20 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 6, line 46 – col. 7, line 6.
`
`21 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 7, lines 30 - 31.
`
`22 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 7, lines 35 - 38.
`
`23 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 6, lines 47 - 49.
`
`24 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 13 - 15.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`238.”25 “The amplitude and shape of the voltage pulse are such that a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma is generated in the region 246 between the anode 238 and the
`
`cathode assembly 216.”26 “The peak plasma density of the pre-ionized plasma
`
`depends on the properties of the specific plasma processing system.”27
`
`The ‘421 patent describes techniques for controlling a voltage pulse to
`
`form a strongly ionized plasma that yields the desired sputtering from a
`
`sputtering target, but without arcing. The ‘421 patent proposes that if the
`
`shape of a pulse is chosen correctly, the density of ions generated by the pulse
`
`can be increased to a desired level but in a controlled manner that avoids
`
`arcing.28
`
`The patent describes several systems. In one, a shaped pulse creates a
`
`weakly ionized plasma and then transitions it into a strongly ionized
`
`condition.29 In the other system, a continuous DC power source generates and
`
`
`25 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 16 - 17.
`
`26 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 18 - 21.
`
`27 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 27 - 29.
`
`28 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 18 – 21; col. 16, lines 60 – 64.
`
`29 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col.8, lines 13 – 37.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`maintains a weakly ionized plasma,30 and a shaped pulse is superimposed to
`
`transition the existing weak plasma into a strongly ionized state.
`
`The first version is described in connection with the pulsed power supply
`
`234 shown in fig. 4. The pulsed supply 234 generates a pulse for creating a
`
`weakly ionized plasma:
`
`In one embodiment, the pulsed power supply 234 is a component
`
`of an ionization source that generates the weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`The pulsed power supply applies a voltage pulse between the
`
`cathode assembly 216 and the anode 238. In one embodiment, the
`
`pulsed power supply 234 applies a negative voltage pulse to the
`
`cathode assembly 216. The amplitude and shape of the voltage
`
`pulse are such that a weakly-ionized plasma is generated in the
`
`region 246 between the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216.31
`
`After the weakly–ionized plasma is formed, the pulsed power supply 234
`
`increases power to transition the weakly ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma:
`
`Once the weakly-ionized plasma is formed, high-power pulses are
`
`then generated between the cathode assembly 216 and the anode
`
`238. In one embodiment, the pulsed power supply 234 generates
`
`the high-power pulses. The desired power level of the high-power
`
`
`30 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 45 – 48.
`
`31 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 8, lines 13 – 22.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`pulse depends on several factors including the desired deposition
`
`rate, the density of the pre-ionized plasma, and the volume of the
`
`plasma, for example.32
`
`The patent explains that “the shape and duration of the leading edge 356 and
`
`the trailing edge 358 of the high-power pulse 354 is chosen so as to sustain the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma 262 while controlling the rate of ionization of the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma 268.33
`
`
`
`With regard to the second version referred to above, the ‘421 patent
`
`mentions that the weakly ionized plasma can instead be generated with a
`
`“direct current (DC) power supply” not shown in the patent’s figures:
`
`In one embodiment, a direct current (DC) power supply (not
`
`shown) is used to generate and maintain the weakly-ionized or
`
`pre-ionized plasma. In this embodiment, the DC power supply is
`
`adapted to generate a voltage that is large enough to ignite the pre-
`
`ionized plasma.34
`
`However, the claims of the ‘421 patent are directed to the technique wherein a
`
`pulse first ignites a weakly ionized plasma without arcing, and then increases
`
`the ion density into a strongly ionized plasma. The amplitude, rise time and
`
`
`32 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 9, lines 29 – 36.
`
`33 Ex. 1001, col. 16, lines 60 – 64.
`
`34 Ex. 1001, col. 8, lines 45 – 48.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`duration of the pulse are chosen to create a weakly ionized plasma and then
`
`transition it into a strongly-ionized plasma without arcing.35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35 Ex. 1001, col. 8, lines 18 – 21; col. 9, lines 16 – 19; col. 16, lines 60 – 64.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`III. Summary of Petitioner’s Proposed Grounds
`
`For the Board’s convenience, here is a summary of the Petition’s proposed
`
`claim rejections:
`
`Ground
`I
`
`II
`
`III
`
`IV
`
`Claims
`1, 2, 8, 10 – 13, 15, 16, 34,
`38, 39, 43, and 46 – 48.
`1, 2, 8, 10 – 13, 16, 17, 22
`– 25, 28 – 30, 33, 34. 39,
`42, 43 and 46 – 48.
`17, 22 – 25, 27 – 30, 33,
`and 42.
`15, 27 and 38
`
`Alleged Basis
`102(b)
`
`Art
`
`Mozgrin
`
`102(b)
`
`Wang
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Mozrin and Lantsman
`
`Wang and Mozgrin
`
`IV. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`
`Pursuant to Rule §42.104(b)(3), the Petitioner “must identify [] how the
`
`claim is to be construed” for purposes of comparing the challenged claim the
`
`cited art. The present Petition construes only the claimed phrases “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma.” For all other claim language it
`
`offers no explicit construction, leaving the reader to infer the Petitioner’s
`
`“interpretation” from its allegations that the claimed features are taught by the
`
`prior art.
`
`A. 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
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`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 ‘421 patent which indicates that a strongly ionized plasma
`
`is also referred to as a “high-density plasma.”36 In addition, the proposed
`
`construction is consistent with the specification of the ‘759 patent that refers to
`
`“strongly ionized plasma [as] having a large ion density.”37 The term
`
`‘strongly-ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak density of ions.
`
`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
`
`
`36 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 12, lines 11 - 12.
`
`37 Ex. 1007, ‘759 patent, col. 10, lines. 4-5.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`particular, the specification of the ‘421 patent says that “a weakly ionized
`
`plasma [has] a relatively low-level of ionization”38 Furthermore, the
`
`specification of a related patent number 6,806,652 (“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.”
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing.
`
`A. All Grounds Rely on Claim Charts Submitted in Violation of
`Rules 42.24(a)(i) and 42.6(a)(3)
`
`
`
` The Petition attaches four sets of claim charts as exhibits 1017 – 1020,
`
`thereby exceeding the page limits of rule 42.24(a)(i) by nearly 40 pages.
`
`Petitioner incorporates each chart into its petition with a single sentence,
`
`asserting that its expert witness, Dr. Kortshagen, “has reviewed the claim chart
`
`and agrees with it.”39 But this technique violates rule 42.6(a)(3)’s prohibition
`
`against incorporating documents by reference.
`
`
`38 Ex. 1001, ‘421 patent, col. 9, lines 24 – 25.
`
`39 Petition at 13, 32, 49, 55.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner mentions that these claim charts were served on the Patent
`
`Owner in a related litigation, apparently in the hope that this will provide an
`
`exception to the rule.40 The Patent Office Trial Guide advises:
`
`Claim charts submitted as part of a petition … count towards
`
`applicable page limits …. A claim chart from another proceeding
`
`that is submitted as an exhibit however, will not count towards
`
`page limits. 41
`
`However, the trial guide’s reference to claim charts from other proceedings
`
`should not be construed to include charts exchanged between litigants. If
`
`claim charts exchanged in a related litigation can be attached to a petition
`
`without counting against page limits, then rules 42.24(a)(i) and 42.6(a)(3) will
`
`be rendered meaningless when the challenged patent is in litigation: Under
`
`this procedure, litigants would be allowed to supplement their IPR petitions
`
`with any number of claims charts of any size, so long as they first serve them
`
`on opposing counsel.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, review should be denied on all grounds that rely upon
`
`evidence and arguments presented in such claim charts submitted in violation
`
`of rules 42.24(a)(i) and 42.6(a)(3).
`
`
`40 Petition at 15, 34, 39, 41, and 43.
`
`41 Trial Guide at 48764.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`B. Defects in Ground I: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That
`Claims 1, 2, 8, 10 - 13, 15, 16, 34, 38, 39, 43, and 46 - 48 Are
`Anticipated by Mozgrin
`
`The Petitioner alleges in ground I that a prior art reference by Mozgrin42
`
`anticipates sixteen claims of the ‘421 patent.43 As mentioned before, Mozgrin
`
`was already considered by the Examiner before he allowed the claims.44
`
`Since Ground I is premised on a claim chart that was submitted in
`
`violation of rules 42.24(a)(i) and 42.6(a)(3), review should be denied on that
`
`basis alone. Furthermore, review should also be denied since the Petition fails
`
`to show that Mozgrin teaches each an every element of the claims as required
`
`for anticipation.
`
`Anticipation is a highly technical defense that requires a single prior art
`
`reference to “expressly or inherently describe each and every limitation set
`
`forth in the patent claim.”45 If even one aspect of the claim is missing from
`
`Mozgrin, there is no anticipation and review should be denied.
`
`
`42 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin.
`
`43 Petition at 13 citing Ex. 1017, Mozgrin.
`
`44 Ex. 1001, ‘421 Patent, list of references cited.
`
`45 Trintec Industries, Inc. v. TOP-USA Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 294 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`1. Overview of Mozgrin
`
`Mozgrin summarizes a variety of experiments he made using two
`
`different electrode structures that generated a plasma in the presence of a
`
`magnetic field: 1) a planar electrode structure of Fig. 1(a) and 2) a bell shaped
`
`electrode structure shown in Fig. 1(b).46 The experiments varied many
`
`parameters, including 1) the material used to form the electrodes, 2) the types
`
`of gas between the electrodes, 3) the gas pressure, and 4) the strength of the
`
`magnetic field.
`
`Mozgrin was experimenting to determine the effects of these parameters
`
`and therefore did not describe a sputtering source for sputtering material from
`
`a target. Although Mozgrin mentioned that his plasmas sometimes sputtered
`
`material from his negative electrode,47 he did not conduct experiments with a
`
`cathode assembly having a sputtering target.
`
`Furthermore, in his exhaustive study, Mozgrin conspicuously neglects to
`
`explore the technique described in the ‘421 patent of choosing certain
`
`parameters of a voltage pulse so that the pulse can create a weak plasma and
`
`then transition it to a strong plasma for purposes of sputtering material from a
`
`sputtering target, but without an occurrence of arcing. Instead, Mozgrin used
`
`46 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, p. 401.
`
`47 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, page 403, right col., last par.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`a non-pulsed source to generate a weakly-ionized plasma that he called a “pre-
`
`ionization” state,48 and did not mention choosing the claimed pulse parameters
`
`to achieve this result.
`
`Mozgrin’s voltage power supply system, shown in Fig. 2 below, includes
`
`a “Stationary Discharge Supply Unit” for “pre-ionization” and a pulsed
`
`“High-Voltage Supply Unit.”49
`
`
`
`The “Stationary Supply Unit” is a non-pulsed “direct current” source for
`
`weakly ionizing the gas into a plasma that has an ion density of “between 107 –
`
`109 cm-3 for argon.”50
`
`The High-Voltage Unit generates “square voltage pulses” over the
`
`output of the stationary unit: “[T]he supply unit was made providing square
`
`voltage and current pulses.51
`
`
`48 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, Fig. 2; page 401, left col., pars. 5, 6.
`
`49 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, page 401, right col.
`
`50 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, p. 401, left col.
`
`51 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, p. 401, right col.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Mozgrin Expressly or Inherently Teaches Each and
`Every Aspect of the Challenged Claims.
`Mozgrin is missing at least the following features of the claims
`
`challenged in Ground I.
`
`a. Mozgrin Does Not Teach a Sputtering Source
`Comprising a Cathode Assembly Having a
`Sputtering Target Positioned Adjacent to an
`Anode.
`
`
`All of the apparatus claims challenged in Ground I require a sputtering
`
`source having a cathode assembly with a sputtering target that is positioned
`
`adjacent to an anode. Similarly, all of the challenged method claims recite a
`
`method for high deposition rate sputtering from a sputtering target within a
`
`cathode assembly.
`
`The excerpt from figure 4 of the ‘421 patent shows a sputtering target
`
`220 made of material that is to be sputtered from the target for deposition on
`
`substrate 211:
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petition fails to show that Mozgrin has a sputtering target. This is
`
`no surprise since Mozgrin was describing various experiments with high
`
`current plasmas, but not for the purpose of sputtering material from a target for
`
`deposition. Thus, as shown in the illustration of Mozgrin’s planar electrodes
`
`1, 2, there is no “sputtering target” positioned adjacent to the anode 2:
`
`
`
`Mozgrin mentions that some of his experiments sputtered material from the
`
`cathode 1.52 But this does not render the cathode a “sputtering target” of a
`
`“sputtering source” as claimed, or a sputtering target for purposes of high
`
`deposition rate sputtering as claimed. The sputtering referred to in Mozgin is
`
`undesirable sputtering that erodes and degrades the cathode. There is no
`
`indication that the Mozgrin cathode includes a sputtering target made of a
`
`material intend to be removed by sputtering in a deposition process. Mozgrin
`
`therefore does not describe a sputtering source or method that includes a
`
`sputtering target.
`
`
`52 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin at 403, right col., last par.
`21
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`As a matter of law, such a difference is fatal to the Petition’s anticipation
`
`grounds: As the Federal Circuit has noted when assessing anticipation, “the
`
`difference …. may be minimal and obvious to those of skill in this art.
`
`Nevertheless obviousness is not inherent anticipation. Given the strict identity
`
`required of the test for novelty, on this record no reasonable jury could
`
`conclude that the” prior art expressly or inherently disclosed each claim
`
`element.53
`
`
`
`Since un-patentability based on anticipation requires Mozgrin to
`
`describe “each and every limitation set forth in the patent claim,”54 review on
`
`Ground I should be denied for least this reason.
`
`b. Mozgrin Does Not Describe the Claimed Pulse
`for Creating a Weak Plasma and Then a
`Strongly-Ionized Plasma From the Weak.
`
`All claims challenged in Ground I also require generating a pulse that
`
`“creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from
`
`the weakly ionized plasma” without arcing. For the aspect of the claim that
`
`requires a pulse that “creates a weakly-ionized plasma,” the Petitioner cites to
`
`a non-pulsed source in Mozgrin that creates a “pre-ionized plasma.”
`
`
`53 Trintec Industries, Inc. v. TOP-USA Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 294 (Fed Cir. 2002).
`
`54 Trintec Industries, Inc. v. TOP-USA Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 294 (Fed Cir. 2002).
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`Mozgrin’s weak, “pre-ionized plasma,” is created by a “Stationary
`
`Discharge Supply Unit.”55
`
`Patent No. 7,811,421
`IPR2014-01037
`
`
`
`
`The “Stationary Supply Unit” is a non-pulsed “direct current” source for
`
`forming a plasma that has an ion density of “between 107 – 109 cm-3 fo