`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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. KG, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS,
`INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION
`SYSTEMS, INC., AND TOSHIBA CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PAR TES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,808,184
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-5 AND 11-15
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices .......................................................................................... .. 1
`A. Real Party-in—Interest .................................................................................. .. 1
`B. Related Matters ........................................................................................... .. l
`C.
`Counsel ....................................................................................................... .. 1
`D.
`Service Information .................................................................................... .. 2
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing ............................................................. .. 2
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................... .. 3
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ................................................. .. 3
`B. Grounds for Challenge ................................................................................ .. 4
`IV. Brief Description of Technology ................................................................... .. 4
`A.
`Plasma ......................................................................................................... .. 4
`B.
`Ions and Excited Atoms .............................................................................. .. 6
`V. Overview of the ‘I84 Patent............................................................................ .. 7
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘ 184 Patent..................................... .. 7
`B.
`Prosecution History..................................................................................... .. 8
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ............................................. .. 8
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art ........................................................................... .. 8
`B. Overview of Mozgrin.................................................................................. .. 9
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev ......................................................................... .. 11
`D. Overview of Wang .................................................................................... .. 12
`VII.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................... .. 13
`A.
`“Strongly-ionized plasma” and “weakly—ionized plasma” ....................... .. 14
`VIII.
`Specific Ground for Petition ..................................................................... .. 15
`A. Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in view of
`the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev.................................................. .. 15
`1.
`Independent claim 1 ............................................................................... .. 16
`2.
`Independent claim 11 ............................................................................. .. 27
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`3. Dependent claims 2, 4, 5 and 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in View of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev.................................................... .. 30
`B. Ground II: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in View of
`the combination of Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis ....................................... .. 34
`1.
`Independent claim 1 ............................................................................... .. 35
`2.
`Independent claim 11 ............................................................................. .. 38
`3. Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 14 and 15 ................................................ .. 39
`C. Ground 111: Claim 3 and 13 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Wang ....................................................................... 40
`D. Ground IV: Claim 3 and 13 are obvious in View of the combination of
`Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis and Wang................................................................... 41
`E. Ground V: Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are obvious in view of the combination
`of Wang and Kudryavtsev ................................................................................... 43
`1.
`Independent claim 1 ............................................................................... .. 43
`2.
`Independent claim 11 ............................................................................. .. 52
`3. Dependent claims 2-5 and 12-15 are obvious in view of the combination
`of Wang and Kudryavtsev ............................................................................... 53
`IX. Conclusion ................................................................................................... .. 60
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re ICONHealth & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`iii
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`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. KG, Toshiba America
`
`Electronic Components, Inc., Toshiba America Inc., Toshiba America Information
`
`Systems, Inc., and Toshiba Corporation (collectively, “Petitioner”) are the real
`
`parties—in—interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184 (‘"184 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts. See List of Related
`
`Litigations (Ex. 1024). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter
`
`Partes review in several patents that name the same alleged inventor. The below-
`
`listed claims of the ’ 184 Patent are presently the subject of four substantially
`
`identical petitions for inter partes review with Case Nos. IPR2014-00455,
`
`IPR2014-00799, IPR2014-00855, and IPR2014—0O995. Petitioner plans to seek
`
`joinder with IPR2014-00455.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel
`
`LEAD COUNSEL: David M. Tennant (Reg. No. 48,362).
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL: Brian M. Berliner (Reg. No. 34549), Ryan K.
`
`
`
`Yagura (Reg. No. 47191), Xin-Yi Zhou (Reg. No. 63366), John Feldhaus (Reg.
`
`No. 28,822), Pavan Agarwal (Reg. No. 40,888), Mike Houston (Reg. No. 58,486),
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`and Robinson Vu (Reg. No. 60,211).
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served on the following. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`I,
`
`rBrian M. Berliner, Ryan O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 S. Hope St., Los Angele,
`
`K. Yagura, Xin-Yi Zhou CA 90071; bberliner@omm.com; ryagura@omm.com;
`
`Vzhou@omm.com
`
`John Feldhaus, Pavan
`
`'i‘
`
`Foley & Lardner LLP, 3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600,
`
`Agarwal, Mike Houston Washington, D.C. 20007; jfeldhaus@foley.com;
`
`pagarwa1@foley.com; mhouston@foley.com
`
`David M. Tennant
`
`i-White & Case LLP 701 Thirteenth Street, NW,
`
`Washington, DC 20005; dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`Robinson Vu
`
`——|
`Baker Botts LLP, One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana Street
`
`Houston, Texas 77002; robinson.vu@bakerbotts.com
`
`l
`
`.1
`
`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
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`claims 1-5 and 11-15 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 1-5 and 11-15 of the ’184 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:]
`
`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. 1003)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`2.
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35,
`
`January 1983 (“KudryaVtsev” (Ex. 1004)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,4133 82 (“Wang” (Ex. 1005)), which is prior art under
`
`102(a) and (e).
`
`4.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High—Current Low—Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`
`1 The ’ 184 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has chosen to use the pre—AIA statutory framework to refer
`
`to the prior art.
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering Physics
`
`Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1006), which is prior art under l02(b).
`
`Exhibit 1006 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis,
`
`attached as Exhibit 1007. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at
`
`the Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1008.
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-5 and 11-15 of the ’ 184 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of
`
`Dr. Richard DeVito (“DeVito Decl.” (Ex. 1002)) filed herewith,2 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.3 See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 3l4(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Plasma
`
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms. DeVito
`
`
`2 Dr. DeVito has been retained by Petitioner. The declaration at Ex. 1002 is a copy
`
`of Dr. DeVito’s declaration filed in IPR20l4-00455, discussed above.
`
`3 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 1-5 and 11-15 of the
`
`’l84 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining claims of the ‘I84 Patent
`
`in a separate petition.
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Decl. 1] 20 (Ex. 1002). 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.4 DeVito Decl. ‘ll 20 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Plasma had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘184 Patent was filed. DeVito Decl. 1] 21 (Ex. 1002). 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). DeVito Decl. 11 21 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Ions in
`
`the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of target
`
`material. DeVito Decl. 1] 21 (Ex. 1002). The ejected target material then forms a
`
`film on the substrate. DeVito Decl. 1] 21 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`DeVito Decl. 11 22 (Ex. 1002). Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive
`
`release of droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate. DeVito Decl. 11
`
`22 (Ex. 1002). The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was known long before
`
`4 The term “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. DeVito Decl. 11 20, n.l (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the ‘l84 patent was filed. DeVito Decl. ‘H 22 (Ex. 1002).
`
`B.
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. DeVito Decl. ‘H 23 (Ex.
`
`1002). Each electron has an associated energy state. DeVito Decl. 1] 23 (Ex.
`
`1002). If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the
`
`atom is said to be in the “ground state.” DeVito Decl. ll 23 (Ex. 1002).
`
`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.”
`
`DeVito Decl. 1] 24 (Ex. 1002). Excited atoms are electrically neutral— they have
`
`equal numbers of electrons and protons. DeVito Decl. {l 24 (Ex. 1002).
`
`A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an
`
`excited atom. DeVito Decl. 1] 25 (Ex. 1002). For example, the ‘ 184 Patent uses
`
`the following equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from
`
`a ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘184 Patent at 10:40 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar+e' -9 Ar* +e'
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. DeVito Decl. 1] 26 (Ex. 1002). A collision between a free, high energy,
`
`electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. DeVito Decl. 1] 26
`
`(Ex. 1002). For example, the ‘l84 Patent uses the following equation to describe
`
`production of an argon ion, Ar+, from an excited argon atom, Ar*. See ‘ 184 Patent
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`at 10:42 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar* + e" 9 Ar+ + 2e"
`
`Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759 (the “’759 Patent”) (Ex. 1013), which names the
`
`same inventor and is owned by a common assignee, uses the following equation to
`
`describe production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See
`
`‘759 Patent at 3258 (Ex. 1013).
`
`Ar + e" 9 Ar+ + 2e’
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ’184 Patent was filed. DeVito Decl. 11 28 (Ex. 1002).
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘184 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘184 Patent
`
`The ‘184 Patent describes generating a plasma by applying a voltage pulse
`
`in a manner that allegedly avoids arcing.
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ‘ 184 Patent are directed to methods that
`
`supply a feed gas and apply a voltage pulse between an anode and a cathode
`
`assembly. The voltage pulse increases an ionization rate and forms a so-called
`
`“strongly-ionized plasma.” The strongly—ionized plasma is generated “without
`
`forming an arc.”
`
`The dependent claims are directed to further operational details, such as
`
`moving a magnet, characteristics of the voltage pulse, processes that occur during
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the generation of a voltage pulse, and the type of power supply used.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`In the first substantive office action, the only rejection was a nonstatutory
`
`obviousness—type double patenting over U.S. Patent No. 7,095,179 in View of U.S.
`
`Patent No 5,746,693. See 12/O8/09 Office Action (Ex. 1009). The Patent Owner
`
`traversed the double patenting rejection by filing a terminal disclaimer. See
`
`O6/03/ 10 Response and accompanying Terminal Disclaimer (Ex. 1010). The
`
`claims were then allowed. See 06/28/10 Notice of Allowance (Ex. 1011).
`
`In the Notice of Allowability, the Examiner noted that the prior art of record
`
`failed to disclose “the voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled amplitude
`
`and a controlled rise time that increase an ionization rate so that a rapid increase in
`
`electron density...” and “the voltage pulse having at least one of a controlled
`
`amplitude and a controlled rise time that shifts an electron energy distribution in
`
`the plasma to higher energies that increase an ionization rate so as to result in a
`
`rapid increase in electron density.” O6/28/ 10 Notice of Allowance at 2 (Ex. 1011).
`
`However, as will be explained in detail below, and contrary to the
`
`Examiner’s reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches those and
`
`all other limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`or non—obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘I84 Patent. DeVito Decl. 1] 34 (Ex.
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1002).
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Mozgrins
`
`Mozgrin teaches forming a strongly—ionized plasma “without forming an
`
`arc.” Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`U.V
`500- 1000
`
`
`
`0
`
`15 - 225
`
`1000 -1800 I, A
`
`Fig. 7. Generalized ampere-voltaic characteristic CVC of
`quasi-stationary discharge.
`
`As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, 1] 2 (“Part
`
`1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage).” (emphasis added)) (EX. 1003). DeVito Decl. ‘H 37 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, 1] 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`5 Mozgrin is art of record for the ‘184 Patent. However, Mozgrin was not
`
`substantively applied during prosecution of the ‘ 184 Patent.
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(regime 2). . .” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1003). DeVito Decl. 1] 38 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Application of a high Voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`region 1 to 2. DeVito Decl. 1] 38 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is
`
`useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, fil 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized
`
`by an intense cathode sputtering. . .”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, 1] 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3). . .” (emphasis added))
`
`(Ex. 1003). DeVito Decl. 1] 39 (Ex. 1002). Increasing the current applied to the
`
`“high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition to
`
`region 3. DeVito Decl. ‘ll 39 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is
`
`useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col,
`
`1] 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful
`
`Hence, it can
`
`enhance the efficiency of ionic etching. . .”) (Ex. 1003). See also DeVito Decl. 1] 39
`
`(Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “are discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ll 3
`
`(“. . .part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-Voltage are discharge...”
`
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1003). DeVito Decl. 1] 40 (Ex. 1002). Further increasing
`
`the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the “arc
`
`discharge” region 4. DeVito Decl. 1] 40 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`10
`
`
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. DeVito Decl. 1] 41 (Ex.
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1002).
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsevé
`
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. 1] 1 (Ex. 1004). In particular,
`
`Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via different
`
`processes. DeVito Decl. 1] 42 (Ex. 1002). 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. 1004). See also DeVito Decl. 1] 42 (Ex. 1002). The second
`
`process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise ionization. See,
`
`e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1004). See also DeVito Decl. 1] 42 (Ex.
`
`1002). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can
`
`be the dominant ionization process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex.
`
`1004). See also DeVito Decl. 1] 42 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin took into account the
`
`teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing his experiments. Mozgrin at 401, 1]
`
`spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the unit, we took into account the
`
`dependences which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev]...”) (Ex. 1003). See also
`
`DeVito Decl. 1] 42 (Ex. 1002).
`
`6 Kudryavtsev is art of record for the ‘I84 Patent. However, Kudryavtsev was not
`
`substantively applied during prosecution of the ‘ 184 Patent.
`
`11
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Wang7
`
`Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode (24),
`
`a cathode (14), a magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown in Fig.
`
`7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55; 7:56-
`
`8:12 (Ex. 1005). Fig. 6 (annotated and reproduced below) shows a graph of the
`
`power Wang applies to the plasma. The lower power level, P3, is generated by the
`
`DC power supply 100 (shown in Fig. 7) and the higher power level, Pp, is
`
`generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1005); see also
`
`DeVito Decl. ‘ll 43 (Ex. 1002). Wang’s lower power level, PB, maintains the
`
`plasma after ignition and application of the higher power level, Pp, raises the
`
`density of the plasma. Wang at 7: 17-31 (“The background power level, P3, is
`
`chosen to exceed the minimum power necessary to support a plasma....
`
`[T]he
`
`application of the high peak power, Pp, quickly causes the already existing plasma
`
`to spread and increases the density of the plasma.’’) (Ex. 1005). DeVito Decl. 11 43
`
`(Ex. 1002). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a
`
`commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device. DeVito Decl. 11 43 (Ex. 1002).
`
`7 Wang is art of record for the ‘184 Patent. However, Wang was not substantively
`
`applied during prosecution of the ‘ 184 Patent.
`
`12
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Possible
`are
`
`I
`n
`
`u
`I
`
`: lgnltlon :
`I
`I
`
`No arcing
`
`"stronglydonlzed plasma"
`
`
`
`' 6
`
`"weakIy- onlzed plasma“
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim in Inter Partes Review is given the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Any claim term which lacks a definition in the specification is therefore
`
`also given a broad interpretation.8 In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d
`
`1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The following discussion proposes constructions of
`
`and support therefore of those terms. Any claim terms not included in the
`
`following discussion are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the specification as commonly understood by those of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. Moreover, should the Patent Owner, in order to avoid the prior art, contend
`
`8 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`the governing regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.l00(b). Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`pursue different constructions in a district court, where a different standard is
`
`applicable.
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`that the claim has a construction different from its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the
`
`claims to expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A.
`
`“Strongly-ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`All challenged claims require generation of a “strongly—ionized plasma.”
`
`Additionally, some of the dependent claims further require the creation of a
`
`“weakly—ionized plasma” before generating the “strongly—ionized plasma.” See
`
`Claims 4 and 14.
`
`These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. DeVito Decl. 11 46 (Ex. 1002).
`
`With reference to Fig. 4, the ‘l84 Patent describes forming a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma by application of the low power stage 258 and then forming a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma by application of higher voltage and power.
`
`‘ 184 Patent at 7:29-
`
`46; 8:41-60 (Ex. 1001). The ‘I84 Patent also provides exemplary densities for the
`
`weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasmas. See ‘ 184 Patent at 7: 14-17
`
`(“Weakly—ionized plasmas are generally plasmas having plasma densities that are
`
`less than about 1012 — 1013 cm'3 and strongly-ionized plasmas are generally plasmas
`
`having plasma densities that are greater than about 1012-1013 cm'3.”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`Thus, the proposed construction for “weakly—ionized plasma” is “a lower
`
`14
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`density plasma.” Likewise, the proposed construction for “strongly—ionized
`
`plasma” is “a higher density plasma.”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the position the Patent
`
`Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner, when
`
`faced with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent
`
`application, argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not
`
`just in view of the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly—ionised plasma’ in the
`
`claims indicates a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-
`
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1017).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUND FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.l04(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the DeVito Decl. W 49- 154 (Ex. 1002), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 1-5 and 11-15 of the 184 Patent, and
`
`how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in
`A.
`View of the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`The claim chart that Intel Corporation (“Intel”) served on Feb. 11, 2014 in
`
`its litigation involving Intel and the Patent Owner, showing that claims 1, 2, 4, 5
`
`and 11, 12, 14 and 15 are obvious in View of the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`Kudryavtsev, are being submitted hereto as Exhibit 1019 (Ex. 1019). Mr. DeVito
`
`15
`
`
`
`has reviewed the claim chart and agrees with it. See DeVito Decl. 1] 51 (Ex. 1002).
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`a)
`
`The preamble
`
`Claim 1 begins, “[a] method of generating a strongly-ionized plasma.” The
`
`densities in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are summarized below.
`
`0 Region 1: 109 -10” cm3.9
`
`0 Region 2: exceeding 2x10” cm'3.'°
`
`0 Region 3:
`
`l.5xl0'5cm'3.”
`
`Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`DeVito Decl. 1] 53 (Ex. 1002). The density in those regions matches the exemplary
`
`density given for a strongly-ionized plasma in the ‘184 Patent.
`
`‘ 184 Patent at 7:14-
`
`l7 (“[S]trongly—ionized plasmas are generally plasmas having plasma densities that
`
`9 Mozgrin at 401, right col, 112 (“For pre-ionization
`
`the initial plasma density in
`
`the 109- 10“ cm'3 range”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`10 Mozgrin at 409, left col, 1] 4 (“The implementation of the high—current
`
`magnetron discharge (regime 2) in sputtering
`
`plasma density (exceeding
`
`2x10” cm"3).”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`1' Mozgrin at 409, left col, 115 (“The high—current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is
`
`useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas rz,-2 l.5xl015cm'3. . .”).
`
`(Ex. 1003).
`
`16
`
`
`
`are greater than about 10”-10” cm'3.”) (Ex. 1001). See also DeVito Decl. 11 53
`
`(Ex. 1002). Accordingly, Mozgrin teaches the preamble. DeVito Decl. 1] 53 (Ex.
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1002).
`
`b)
`
`Limitation ((1)
`
`Limitation (a) of claim 1 reads, “supplying feed gas proximate to an anode
`
`and a cathode assembly.”
`
`In the commonly owned, and previously filed, ‘759 Patent, the Patent Owner
`
`admitted that this limitation was known. ‘759 Patent at 3:19-21 [describing prior
`
`art Fig. I] (“A feed gas source 109. . .is introduced into the vacuum chamber. . .”);
`
`3:23-24 (“The magnetron sputtering apparatus 100 also includes a cathode
`
`assembly 114...”); 3:40-41 (“An anode 130 is positioned in the vacuum chamber
`
`104 proximate to the cathode assembly 114.”) (Ex. 1013). See also DeVito Decl. 11
`
`54 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin’s Fig. 1 also shows anode “2” and cathode “1.” DeVito Decl. 1] 55
`
`(Ex. 1002). Mozgrin discloses filling the space between the anode and cathode
`
`with a feed gas such as Argon. Mozgrin at 401, left col, 1] 4 (“. . .the discharge gap
`
`which was filled up with either neutral or pre-ionized gas”); 400, right col, 1] 3
`
`(“We investigated the discharge regimes in various gas mixtures at 10'3 — 10
`
`torr. . .”); 402, 11 spanning left and right cols (“We studied the high—current
`
`discharge in wide ranges of discharge current. . .and operating pressure. . .using
`
`17
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Various gases (Ar, N2, SF6, and H2) or their mixtures of various composition. . .”);
`
`401, left col, 1 1 (“The [plasma] discharge. . .was adjacent to the cathode.”) (EX.
`
`1003). See also DeVito Decl. 11 55 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin also discloses that its
`
`cathode includes a sputtering target. DeVito Decl. 11 55 (Ex. 1002). Specifically,
`
`Mozgrin discusses sputtering that occurs in Region 2. Mozgrin at 403, right col.,
`
`114 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an intense cathode sputtering. . ..”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`See also DeVito Decl. 11 55 (EX. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin therefore teaches limitation (a). DeVito Decl. 11 56 (Ex. 1002).
`
`c)
`
`Limitation (b)
`
`“generating a Voltage pulse between the anode and
`(1)
`the cathode assembly”
`
`Mozgrin generates the voltage pulse shown in Fig. 3(b). Mozgrin at 402,
`
`Fig. 3 caption (“Fig. 3. Oscillograms of (a) current and (b) voltage. . .”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`See also DeVito Decl. 11 57 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin applies that Voltage pulse
`
`between Mozgrin’s anode and cathode. Mozgrin at 401, left col, 1 4 (“It was
`
`possible to form the high-current quasi-stationary regime by applying a square
`
`voltage pulse to the discharge gap which was filled up with either neutral or pre-
`
`ionized gas.”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1003). See also DeVito Decl. 11 57 (Ex.
`
`1002). Mozgrin therefore teaches “generating a Voltage pulse between the anode
`
`and the cathode assembly” as required by limitation (b) of claim 1. DeVito Decl. 11
`
`57 (Ex. 1002).
`
`18
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“the Voltage pulse having at least one of a
`(2)
`controlled amplitude and a controlled rise time”
`
`Fig 3(b) of Mozgrin, which shows Mozgrin’s voltage pulse, is copied below.
`
`(b)
`
`1
`
`2a 2b
`
`3
`
`The voltage pulse in Mozgrin’s region 2a has a rise time that is controlled to
`
`be within 5 — 60 us. Mozgrin at 401, right col, 1] 1 (“[t]he power supply was able
`
`to deliver square voltage and current pulses with [rise] times (leading edge) of 5 —
`
`60 us ....”) (Ex. 1003). See also DeVito Decl. 1] 59 (Ex. 1002).
`
`The voltage pulse in Mozgrin’s region 2a also has a controlled amplitude.
`
`DeVito Decl. 1] 60 (Ex. 1002). Table l of Mozgrin shows the parameters,
`
`including voltage, used in Mozgrin’s region 2. Mozgrin at 406, right col, 1] 2
`
`(“Table 1 presents parameter ranges corresponding to regime 2.”) (Ex. 1003). As
`
`shown in Mozgrin’s Table 1, the voltage in region 2 was controlled in a series of
`
`experiments to be in sub-ranges of 260-1 100 Volts (eg, in one experiment being
`
`controlled to 260-990 Volts). Mozgrin at 406, Table 1 (EX. 1003). See also
`
`DeVito Decl. 1] 60 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Therefore, Mozgrin teaches controlling both the rise time and the amplitude
`
`19
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,808,184
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of its voltage pulse as required by this portion of limitation (b) of claim 1. DeVito
`
`Decl.1l 61 (Ex. 1002).
`
`“that increases an ionization rate so that a rapid
`(3)
`increase in electron density and formation of a strongly-
`ionized plasma occurs”
`
`In the Section above regarding the preamble of claim 1, the plasma densities
`
`in Mozgrin’s regions 1-3 are provided and it was explained that the plasmas in
`
`Mozgrin’s regions 2 and 3 are “strongly—ionized plasmas,” because their densities
`
`are greater than the density obtained in region 1 and because they match