`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`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 IPR
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`US. PATENT NO. 7,147,759
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 22-33, 37, 46, 48 AND 50
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`Real Party—in—Interest .................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Related Matters ............................................................................................. l
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Counsel ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`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.
`
`B.
`
`Plasma ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`Ions and excited atoms .................................................................................. 6
`
`V. Overview of the ‘759 Patent .............................................................................. 7
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’759 Patent ....................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History ....................................................................................... 7
`
`l.
`
`The Patent Owner mischaracterized the prior art Mozgrin reference ....... 7
`
`2. Adding the “without forming an arc” limitation resulted in allowance 8
`
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ............................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art ............................................................................. 9
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin .................................................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`Summary .................................................................................................. 10
`
`2. Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs ................................................................ 11
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev ........................................................................... 13
`
`D. Overview of Wang ...................................................................................... 14
`
`VII.
`
`Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“weakly—ionized plasma” and “strongly—ionized plasma” .......................... 16
`
`“multi—step ionization process” ................................................................... 17
`
`VIII.
`
`Specific Grounds for Petition ..................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev .......................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 20 ............................................................................... 19
`
`2. Dependent claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48 and 50 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev...................................................... 29
`
`B. Ground 11: Claims 22-26, 28—31, 37, 46 and 48 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev .............................................................. 39
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 20 ............................................................................... 39
`
`2. Dependent claims 22—26, 28-31, 37, 46 and 48 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev .......................................................... 47
`
`C. Ground 111: Claims 27, 32, 33 and 50 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Wang, Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin .............................................. 54
`
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60
`
`ii
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re ICON Health & 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 7,147,759
`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 US, 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 US. Patent No. 7,147,759 (“’759 Patent”) (Ex. 1301)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts. See List of Related
`
`Litigations (Ex. 1320). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter
`
`Partes review in several patents related to the ’759 Patent.1 The below-listed
`
`claims of the ’759 Patent are presently the subject of four substantially identical
`
`petitions for inter partes review with Case Nos. IPR2014-00446, IPR2014-00782,
`
`IPR2014-00850, and IPR2014—00986. Petitioner plans to seek joinder with
`
`IPR2014-00446.
`
`1 The related patents, e.g., name the same alleged inventor.
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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),
`
`and Robinson Vu (Reg. No. 60,211).
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served on the following. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`[Brian M. Berliner, Ryan
`
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 S. Hope St., Los Angele,
`
`vzhou@omm.com
`
`Foley & Lardner LLP, 3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600,
`
`K. Yagura, Xin-Yi Zhou
`
`CA 90071; bberliner@omm.com; ryagura@omm.com;
`
`John Feldhaus, Pavan
`
`Agarwal, Mike Houston
`
`Washington, DC. 20007; jfeldhaus@foley.com;
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Baker Botts LLP, One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana Street
`
`L
`
`pagarwal@foley.com; mhouston@foley.com
`
`
`David M. Tennant
`
`White & Case LLP 701 Thirteenth Street, NW,
`
`Washington, DC 20005; dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`
`Robinson Vu
`
`Houston, Texas 77002; robinson.vu@bakerbotts.com
`
`II.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`__I
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(l) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 22-332, 37, 46, 48, and 50 ofthe ’759 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below: 3
`
`1.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et a], High—Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationafl
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1303)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`2.
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`
`2 Claims 22—23, which depend from claim 20, recite “applying the electricfield.”
`
`Claim 20 does not recite “an electric field.” Nevertheless, as shown below, the
`
`references relied upon teach “applying an electric field. ...”
`
`3 The ’759 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 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`produced by a pulsed inert—gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35,
`
`January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1304)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`US. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1305)), which is prior art under
`
`102(a) and (e).
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 22—33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 of the
`
`’759 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the
`
`declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1302))4 filed
`
`herewith, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged claim
`
`is not patentable.5 See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Plasma
`
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`4 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by Petitioner. The attached declaration at Ex.
`
`1302 is a copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-00446, discussed
`
`above.
`
`5 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 22—33, 37, 46, 48
`
`and 50 of the ’759 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining claims of
`
`the ’759 Patent in separate petitions.
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ii 21 (Ex. 1302). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma
`
`as a whole has no overall electrical charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the
`
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Kortshagen Decl. 1]
`
`21 (Ex. 1302).6
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ’759 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. 1i 22 (Ex. 1302). 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). Kortshagen Decl. 1] 22 (Ex. 1302). Ions
`
`in the plasma strike a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of target
`
`material. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 22 (Ex. 1302). The ejected target material then
`
`forms a film on the substrate. Kortshagen Decl. 11 22 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. {l 23 (Ex. 1302). Arcing is undesirable because it causes
`
`explosive release of droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate.
`
`6 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. Kortshagen Decl. 11 21 (Ex. 1302).
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 11 23 (Ex. 1302). The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was
`
`known long before the ’759 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ‘ll 23 (Ex. 1302).
`
`B.
`
`Ions and excited atoms
`
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. 11 24
`
`(Ex. 1302). Each electron has an associated energy state. Kortshagen Decl. 11 24
`
`(Ex. 1302). If all of an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state,
`
`the atom is said to be in the “ground state.” Kortshagen Decl. 11 24 (Ex. 1302).
`
`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.”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 11 25 (Ex. 1302). Excited atoms are electrically neutral— they
`
`have equal numbers of electrons and protons. Kortshagen Decl. 11 25 (Ex. 1302).
`
`A collision with a free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited
`
`atom. Kortshagen Decl. 11 25 (Ex. 1302). For example, the ’759 Patent uses the
`
`following equation to describe production of an excited argon atom, Ar*, from a
`
`ground state argon atom, Ar. See ’759 Patent at 9:40 (Ex. 1301).
`
`Ar+e' 9Ar*+e'
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. 11 26 (Ex. 1302). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. 11 26 (Ex. 1302). For example, the ’759 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 ’759 Patent at 3:58 and 9:42 (Ex. 1301).
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ar + e' 9 Ar+ + 2e’
`
`Ar* + e' 9 Ar+ + 2e"
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ’759 patent was filed. Kortshagen Dec]. 11 27 (Ex. 1302).
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘759 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’759 Patent
`
`The ’759 Patent describes a two-stage sputtering technique in which a so
`
`called strongly-ionized plasma is generated from a weakly-ionized plasma in a
`
`manner that avoids arcing.
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ’759 Patent are directed to an ionization
`
`source that generates a weakly—ionized plasma from a feed gas. A power supply
`
`then applies a specific, high—voltage pulse to the weakly—ionized plasma to
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma. The voltage pulse induces a “multi—step
`
`ionization process” in which ground state atoms transition to an excited state
`
`before becoming ionized. The strongly—ionized plasma is generated “without
`
`forming an arc discharge.”
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`1.
`
`The Patent Owner mischaracterized the prior art Mozgrin
`
`reference
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`During prosecution, the Patent Owner asserted that Mozgrin failed to teach
`
`the “without forming an arc discharge” limitation. However, that assertion is
`
`incorrect. Kortshagen Dec]. 11 30 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin teaches all limitations of
`
`the challenged claims — including “withoutforming an arc discharge. ”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 1] 30 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin discusses arcs but does so in the
`
`context ofproviding a recipefor avoiding them. Kortshagen Decl. 11 30 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`Adding the “without forming an arc” limitation resulted in
`2.
`allowance
`
`Before the Patent Owner narrowed the claims to require “without forming an
`
`arc discharge,” it unsuccessfully argued, three separate times, that other limitations
`
`such as “multi-step ionization” made the claims allowable over Mozgrin. 06/14/04
`
`Resp at 12 (Ex. 1307); 02/24/05 Resp at 15 (Ex. 1309); and 10/27/05 RCE at 14
`
`(EX. 1311). The Examiner was not persuaded by those arguments, correctly noted
`
`that Mozgrin teaches multi-step ionization, and consistently rejected the claims
`
`over Mozgrin even after they had been amended to require “multi—step ionization.”
`
`01/11/06 Office Action at 12 (“. . .Mozgrin does teach a power supply that
`
`generates a pulse that allows the plasma to go through a multi-step ionization.”
`
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1312). See also 08/30/04 Office Action (Ex. 1308) and
`
`05/27/05 Office Action (Ex. 1310).
`
`In an amendment dated May 2, 2006, although the Patent Owner repeated its
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`previously unsuccessful multi-step ionization argument, the only substantive
`
`difference was addition of the limitation “without forming an arc discharge,” and
`
`the argument that Mozgrin did not teach that limitation. 05/02/06 Resp. at 2, 5, 7
`
`and 13-16 (Ex. 1313). After that amendment and argument, the Examiner allowed
`
`the challenged claims. 7 10/11/2006 Allowance at 2—3 (Ex. 1315).
`
`However, as will be explained in detail below, and contrary to the Patent
`
`Owner’s argument, Mozgrin ’s provides a recipe for avoiding arcing. Kortshagen
`
`D6011] 33 (Ex. 1302).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art
`
`As explained in detail below, limitation—by—limitation, there is nothing new
`
`or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ’759 Patent. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 34
`
`(Ex. 1302).
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Mozgrin8
`
`Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc discharge.”
`
`7 After “without forming an arc discharge” was added to the claims, the only
`
`remaining rejection, double patenting, was addressed by a terminal disclaimer.
`
`08/28/2006 Response at 2—3 (Ex. 1314).
`
`8 As noted in the prosecution history section, the Patent Office used Mozgrin to
`
`reject claims that eventually issued in the’759 Patent.
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1 .
`
`Summary
`
`Fig 7. of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current—voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`u,v
`500—1000; -------------- —:
`
`f g
`
`i
`1
`70~17o .............. i—-——-—~«-L———-——1
`
`....................
`4
`
`
`15-45
`
`o
`
`'
`
`‘
`
`337225
`
`"7000 fiéoo LA
`
`Fig. 7. Generalized mnpcrc-voltalc 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, 11 2 (“Part
`
`1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage)” (emphasis added)) (EX. 1303). Kortshagen Decl. 11 38 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, 11 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)...” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1303). Kortshagen Decl. ‘11 39 (EX. 1302).
`
`Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. 11 39 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is
`
`useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, 11 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized
`
`by an intense cathode sputtering. . .”) (Ex. 1303).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`col, 1] 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)...” (emphasis added))
`
`(Ex. 1303). Kortshagen Decl. 11 40 (Ex. 1302). Increasing the current applied to
`
`the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition
`
`to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. 11 40 (Ex. 1302). 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. 1303). See also Kortshagen Decl.
`
`11 40 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ‘1] 3
`
`C“. . .part 4 corresponds to the high—current low-voltage arc discharge...”
`
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1303). Kortshagen Decl. 1] 41 (Ex. 1302). Further
`
`increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the
`
`“arc discharge” region 4. Kortshagen Decl. 11 41 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Kortshagen Decl. {I 42 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`2.
`
`Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs
`
`As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7 (copied above), if voltage is steadily applied,
`
`and current is allowed to grow, the plasma will eventually transition to the arc
`
`discharge (Mozgrin’s region 4). However, if the current is limited, the plasma
`
`11
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`will remain in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). Kortshagen
`
`Decl. 1] 43 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including the arc
`
`discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. But Mozgrin ’s discussion
`
`of arcing does not mean that arcing is inevitable. Rather, Mozgrin ’s explanation
`
`of the conditions under which arcing occurs provides a recipefor avoiding arcs.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 11 44 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs can be
`
`avoided. See Mozgrin at 400, left col, 1] 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron
`
`systems of various geometry showed that discharge regimes which do not transit
`
`to arcs can be obtained even at high currents”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1303). One
`
`of ordinary skill would understand that the arc discharge region should be avoided
`
`during an industrial application, such as sputtering. Kortshagen Decl. 11 44 (Ex.
`
`1302). For example, Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm
`
`(“Manos”), a well—known textbook on plasma processing, which was published in
`
`1989, over a decade before the ’759 Patent was filed, states that “. . .arcs. .. are a
`
`problem...” Manos at 231 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1306).
`
`One of ordinary skill would further understand that Mozgrin’s arc region can
`
`be avoided by limiting the current as shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7. See, e. g.,
`
`Mozgrin at 400, right col, 1] 1 (“A further increase in the discharge currents caused
`
`the discharges to transit to the arc regimes. . .”); 404, left col, 1] 4 (“The parameters
`
`12
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of the shaped-electrode discharge transit to regime 3, as well as the condition of its
`
`transit to arc regime 4, could be well determined for every given set of the
`
`discharge parameters”); and 406, right col, 11 3 (“Moreover, pre-ionization was not
`
`necessary; however, in this case, the probability of discharge transferring to the arc
`
`mode increased”) (EX. 1303). See also Kortshagen Dec]. 11 45 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Mozgrin’s determination of conditions that cause transition to the arc regime
`
`is useful because it teaches one of ordinary skill how to avoid arcs. Kortshagen
`
`Dec]. 11 46 (Ex. 1302).
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`voltage pulses. See, e. g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. 1] 1 (Ex. 1304). 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. 1304).
`
`The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise
`
`ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1304). Kudryavtsev notes
`
`that under certain conditions multi—step ionization can be the dominant ionization
`
`process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1304). Mozgrin took into
`
`account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing his experiments. Mozgrin at
`
`401 , 11 spanning left and right 0018. (“Designing the unit, we took into account the
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`dependences which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev] . . .”) (EX. 1303).
`
`Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ’759 Patent.
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Wang9
`
`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. 1305). Fig. 6 (annotated and reproduced below) shows a graph of the
`
`power Wang applies to the plasma. The lower power level, PB, 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. 1305); see also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ‘11 49 (EX. 1302). 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, PB, 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. 1305). Kortshagen Decl.
`
`11 49 (Ex. 1302). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a
`
`commercial, industrial plasma sputtering device. Kortshagen Decl. 11 49 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`9 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Possible
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`FIG , 6
`
`"weaklv- onlzed plasma"
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.10 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 that the claim has a construction
`
`different from its broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate course is for
`
`10 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to pursue different
`
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard is applicable.
`
`15
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its
`
`contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`The challenged claims recite “weakly—ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.”
`
`These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`has a lower density than a strongly—ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. 11 52 (Ex.
`
`1302). With reference to Fig. 4, the ’759 Patth describes forming a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 302 and
`
`then goes on to describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of
`
`higher power 304.
`
`’759 Patent at 10:22—29; 10:66—11:4(EX. 1301). The ’759
`
`Patent also provides exemplary densities for the weakly—ionized and strongly—
`
`ionized plasmas. See ’759 Patent at claim 32 (“wherein the peak plasma density of
`
`the weakly—ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm'3”); claim 33 (“wherein the
`
`peak plasma density of the strongly—ionized plasma isigreater than about
`
`1012 cm‘3”) (Ex. 1301).
`
`Thus, the proposed construction for “weakly-ionized plasma” is “a lower
`
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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. 1316).
`
`B.
`
`“multi-step ionization process”
`
`A multi—step ionization process produces ions using at least two steps: (a)
`
`convert ground state atoms (or molecules) to excited atoms (or molecules); and (b)
`
`convert excited atoms (or molecules) to ions. The ’759 Patent and its file history
`
`clearly describe this aspect of a “multi—step ionization process”: “[T]he term
`
`‘multi-step’ ionization as used in the present application refers to an ionization
`
`process that requires ground state atoms and molecules to transition from the
`
`ground state to at least one intermediate excited state before beingfully ionized.”
`
`See 05/02/06 Resp. at 11 (Ex. 1313) (emphasis added). See also ’759 patent at
`
`9:37-51 (Ex. 1301). See also Kortshagen Decl. fll 55 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Also, during prosecution the Patent Owner argued that multi-step ionization
`
`processes must produce a statistically significant amount of ions by this two-step
`
`process. 02/24/05 Resp. at 16 (Ex. 1309) (“However, the Applicant submits that
`
`17
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the ions in the [prior art] pre—ionized plasma are generated by direction ionization
`
`and any ions that are generated by a multi-step ionization process will be
`
`statistically insignificant”). See also, e.g., 02/24/05 Resp. at 13, 14, 16, 17 (Ex.
`
`1309); and 10/27/05 Resp. at 11, 12, 13, 15 (Ex. 1311) (emphasis added). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 11 56 (Ex. 1302).
`
`The proposed construction for “multi—step ionization process” is “ap
`
`ionization process in which a statistically significant portion of the ions are
`
`produced by exciting ground state atoms or molecules and then ionizing the
`
`excited atoms or molecules.
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Kortshagen Decl. 11 58 (Ex. 1302), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 of the ’759
`
`Patent, and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Claim charts, which were served on the Patent Owner on February 11, 2014
`
`in connection with District Court litigation l:l3—cv-11570-RGS, showing that the
`
`challenged claims are invalid based on the references relied upon in this Petition, is
`
`submitted hereto as Exhibits 1317 — 1319. Dr. Kortshagen has reviewed those
`
`charts and agrees with them. See Kortshagen Decl. 1H] 59, 60, 120, and 170 (Ex.
`
`1302)
`
`18
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ground 1: Claims 22-33, 37, 46, 48, and 50 are obvious in View of
`A.
`the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`A claim chart showing that claims 22—33, 37, 46, 48 and 50 are obvious in
`
`view of the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev, is submitted hereto as
`
`Exhibit 1317 (Ex. 1317).
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 20”
`
`a)
`
`The preamble
`
`The preamble of claim 20 reads, “A method of generating sputtering flux.”
`
`“Flux” refers to material that is sputtered from the target. Kortshagen Decl. 11 61
`
`(Ex. 1302). Mozgrin discloses a sputtering source. Mozgrin at 403, right col, 114
`
`(“Regime 2 was-characterized by intense cathode sputtering. . .”) (emphasis added)
`
`(Ex. 1303). Mozgrin therefore teaches the preamble of claim 20. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. 11 61 (EX. 1302).
`
`b)
`
`Limitation (a)
`
`Limitation (a) of claim20 reads, “ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma proximate to a sputtering target.”
`
`The ’759 Patent uses the terms “weakly—ionized plasma” and “pre-ionized
`
`plasma” synonymously.
`
`’759 Patent at 6:30-32 (“The weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`1] Petitioner establishes invalidity of claim 20 in another petition. Claim 20 is
`
`addressed herein for the purpose of demonstrating invalidity of claims that depend
`
`from claim 20.
`
`19
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`also referred to as a pre-ionized plasma”) (Ex. 1301). Mozgrin’s power supply
`
`(shown in Fig. 2) generates a pre-ionized plasma in Mozgrin’s region 1. Mozgrin
`
`at 402, right col, 112 (“Figure 3 shows typical voltage and current oscillograms....
`
`Part I in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge
`
`(pre—ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1303). Also, the Patent Owner admitted that
`
`Mozgrin discloses a pre-ionized (i.e., a weakly—ionized) plasma. See, e. g.,
`
`02/24/05 Resp. at 16, 11 2 (“[Mozgrin’s] pre-ionization