Paper 47
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: September 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`AMERICA, INC., 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., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2014-008271
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00865, IPR2014-01015, and IPR2014-01063 have been
`joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: September 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`AMERICA, INC., 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., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2014-008271
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00865, IPR2014-01015, and IPR2014-01063 have been
`joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`North America Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and
`43 of U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 B2 (Ex. 1301, “the ’142 Patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Patent Owner Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted the instant trial on October 20,
`2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 9 (“Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, we granted the revised Motions for Joinder
`filed by other Petitioners (collectively, “GlobalFoundries”) listed in the
`Caption above, joining Cases IPR2014-00865, IPR2014-01015, and
`IPR2014-01063 with the instant trial (Papers 12–14), and also granted a
`Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to TSMC (Paper 32). Zond filed a
`Response (Paper 26 (“PO Resp.”)), and GlobalFoundries filed a Reply
`(Paper 39 (“Reply”)). Oral hearing2 was held on June 12, 2015, and a
`transcript of the hearing was entered into the record. Paper 46 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons set forth below, we determine that GlobalFoundries has
`shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 22, 23, 25, 29, 30,
`33–36, 39, and 43 of the ’142 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a).
`
`
`2 The hearings for this review and the following inter partes reviews were
`consolidated: IPR2014-00807, IPR2014-00808, IPR2014-00818, IPR2014-
`00819, IPR2014-00821, IPR2014-01098, IPR2014-01099, and IPR2014-
`01100.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’142 Patent was asserted in numerous
`
`proceedings in Massachusetts: 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-
`11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11581-DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am.
`Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-
`11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.); 1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond v.
`Fujitsu); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. The Gillette Co.). Pet. 1; Paper 5.
`
`
`B. The ’142 Patent
`
`The ’142 Patent relates to methods and apparatus for generating high-
`density plasma. Ex. 1301, Abs. At the time of the invention, sputtering was
`a well-known technique for depositing films on semiconductor substrates.
`Id. at 1:16–24. The ’142 Patent indicates that prior art magnetron sputtering
`systems deposit films having low uniformity and poor target utilization (the
`target material erodes in a non-uniform manner). Id. at 3:32–36. To address
`these problems, the ’142 Patent discloses that increasing the power applied
`between the target and anode can increase the uniformity and density in the
`plasma. Id. at 3:37–44. However, increasing the power also “can increase
`the probability of generating an electrical breakdown condition leading to an
`undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the chamber 104.” Id.
`According to the ’142 Patent, forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown
`condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
`cathode and anode. Id. at 6:21–30. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`7:23–36. The ’142 Patent also discloses that the provision of the feed gas to
`the plasma allows for homogeneous diffusion of the feed gas in the weakly-
`ionized plasma and allows for the creation of a highly uniform strongly-
`ionized plasma. Id. at 6:31–35.
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, all are dependent and all depend from claim
`21 or 31. Claims 21 and 22, reproduced below, are illustrative:
`21. An apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma,
`the apparatus comprising:
`an anode;
`a cathode that is positioned adjacent to the anode and
`forming a gap there between;
`an ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to the cathode, the weakly-ionized plasma reducing
`the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition
`between the anode and the cathode; and
`a power supply that produces an electric field across the gap,
`the electric field generating excited atoms in the weakly-ionized
`plasma and generating secondary electrons from the cathode,
`the secondary electrons ionizing the excited atoms, thereby
`creating the strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`22. The apparatus of claim 21 wherein the power supply
`generates a constant power.
`Ex. 1301, 21:61–22:11.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Based on the instituted ground, GlobalFoundries relies upon the
`following prior art references:
`Wang
`
`
`US 6,413,382
`
`
`July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1305)
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS.
`TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1304) (hereinafter “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`E. Ground of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following ground of
`unpatentability (Dec. 19):
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and 43 § 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`enacting the AIA,”3 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are
`
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`part of, and read in light of, the specification. United States v. Adams,
`383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966) (“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed
`in the light of the specifications and both are to be read with a view to
`ascertaining the invention.”). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption
`by providing a definition of the term in the specification with “reasonable
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to
`be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`Independent claim 21 recites “the electric field generating excited
`atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma and generating secondary electrons
`from the cathode, the secondary electrons ionizing the excited atoms,
`thereby creating the strongly-ionized plasma,” with independent claim 31
`reciting a similar limitation. During the pre-trial stage of this proceeding,
`the parties submitted their constructions for the claim terms “a weakly-
`ionized plasma” and “a strongly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 13–14; Prelim. Resp.
`17–18. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Zond’s proposed
`constructions, in light of the Specification, as the broadest reasonable
`interpretation. Dec. 6–8.
`Upon review of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence
`before us, we discern no reason to modify our claim constructions set forth
`in the Decision on Institution with respect to these claim terms. Id.
`Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we construe, in light
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the Specification, the claim term “a weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma
`with a relatively low peak density of ions,” the claim term “a strongly-
`ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In
`that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings
`directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
`can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Translogic,
`504 F.3d at 1259. The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
`prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
`Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We analyze the asserted ground of
`unpatentability in accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Claims 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and 43
`Obviousness over Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that claims 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33–36, 39, and
`43 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Pet. 39–57. As support,
`GlobalFoundries provides detailed explanations as to how each claim
`limitation is met by the references and rationales for combining the
`references, as well as a declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1302).
`GlobalFoundries also submitted a Declaration of Dr. Overzet (Ex. 1318) to
`support its Reply to Zond’s Patent Owner Response.
`Zond responds that the combinations of prior art do not disclose every
`claim element. PO Resp. 34–51. Zond also argues that there is insufficient
`reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Id.
`at 18–34. To support its contentions, Zond proffers a Declaration of
`Dr. Larry D. Hartsough (Ex. 2005). Zond does not argue that elements of
`claims 30, 35, 39, or 43 are not taught or suggested by the combination of
`Wang and Kudryavtsev, only that there is insufficient reason to combine the
`references. PO Resp. 34–51.
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`our discussion with a brief summary of Wang and Kudryavtsev, address
`their combination with respect to the instant ground, and then address the
`parties’ contentions about specific claims in turn.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1305, Abs. Wang also discloses
`a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
`of a power pulsed magnetron sputtering reactor:
`
`
`Fig. 1 of Wang illustrates its magnetron sputtering apparatus.
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24,
`cathode 14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Id. at
`3:57–4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus is capable of creating high
`density plasma in region 42, from argon gas feed 32 through mass flow
`controller 34, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles
`into positively charged metal ions and also increases the sputtering rate. Id.
`at 4:5–34. Wang further recognizes that, if a large portion of the sputtered
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`particles are ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly and
`effectively—the sputtered ions can be accelerated towards a negatively
`charged substrate, coating the bottom and sides of holes that are narrow and
`deep. Id. at 1:24–29.
`Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how the apparatus
`applies a pulsed power to the plasma:
`
`
`Fig. 6 of Wang illustrates a representation of applied pulses.
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
`power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP. Id.
`at 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum power
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
`(e.g., 1kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100 or 1000
`times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak power
`PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the density of
`the plasma. Id. According to Dr. Kortshagen, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`PP. Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 125–130; see also Pet. 41–43.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kudryavtsev
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process,
`comprising the steps of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms. Ex. 1304, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev (annotations added) illustrates the atomic
`energy levels during the slow and fast stages of ionization. Annotated
`Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, ionization occurs
`with a “slow stage” (Fig. 1a) followed by a “fast stage” (Fig. 1b). During
`the initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribution to
`the generation of plasma ions (arrow Γ1e showing ionization (top line labeled
`“e”) from the ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Dr. Kortshagen
`explains that Kudryavtsev shows the rapid increase in ionization once multi-
`step ionization becomes the dominant process. Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 70–72; Pet. 22–
`24.
`
`Specifically, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom density] values . . . there
`is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The subsequent
`increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`Ex. 1304, 31 (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also recognizes that “in a
`pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures . . . [i]t is shown
`that the electron density increases explosively in time due to accumulation of
`atoms in the lowest excited states.” Id. at Abs., Fig. 6.
`
`
`Rationale to Combine Wang and Kudryavtsev
`GlobalFoundries asserts that the combination of Wang and
`Kudryavtsev teaches the generation of excited atoms in the weakly-ionized
`plasma. Pet. 45–47 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 127–129). GlobalFoundries also
`contends Kudryavtsev teaches that ionization proceeds in a slow stage
`followed by a fast stage and that excited atoms are produced in both stages,
`such that excited atoms would be produced in Wang’s weakly-ionized
`plasma in response to the applied electrical pulse. Id. at 46–47 (citing
`Ex. 1302 ¶ 127). GlobalFoundries submits that it would have been obvious
`to one with ordinary skill in the art to adjust Wang’s operating parameters
`(e.g., to increase the pulse length of the power and/or the pressure of the gas
`inside the chamber) to trigger a fast stage of ionization. Id. According to
`GlobalFoundries, triggering such a fast stage of ionization in Wang’s
`apparatus would increase plasma density and, thereby, would increase the
`sputtering rate, and reduce the time required to reach a given plasma density.
`Id.
`
`In addition, GlobalFoundries notes that the ’142 Patent admits that
`secondary electrons are produced in a sputtering process by collisions
`between ions and the cathode and those secondary electrons form ions. Id.
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 47–48 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶ 130). As such, GlobalFoundries argues, the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev teaches the generation of excited
`atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma, and the production of secondary
`electrons.
`The parties’ dispute mainly centers on whether GlobalFoundries has
`articulated a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill
`in the art would have combined the prior art teachings. Zond argues that
`GlobalFoundries fails to demonstrate that one with ordinary skill in the art
`would have combined the systems of Wang and Kudryavtsev, to achieve the
`claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success or predictable
`results. PO Resp. 18–34.
`Zond contends that it would not have been obvious how to combine
`Wang and Kudryavtsev, arguing that Wang’s sputtering apparatus differs
`significantly from Kudryavtsev’s experimental apparatus. Id. at 25–34. In
`particular, Zond argues that “Kudryavtsev’s theoretical work is targeted for
`‘emission mechanisms in pulsed gas lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks,
`etc,’” with no magnet, but Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputter
`reactor (id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1304, 34)), that GlobalFoundries’
`characterization of Kudryavtsev is incorrect and cannot serve as a rationale
`to combine (id. at 27–28); and that GlobalFoundries does not take into
`consideration the substantial, fundamental structural differences between the
`systems of Wang and Kudryavtsev—e.g., pressure, chamber geometry, gap
`dimensions, and magnetic fields. Id. at 28–32 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 66, 67,
`89–91; Ex. 1301, 1:19–20, 4:15–17, 5:38–39, Fig. 3; Ex. 1304, 32; Ex. 1305,
`3:60–61, 4:35–37, 7:32–34, 57–61, Fig. 1; Ex. 2004, 14:37–50). Those
`arguments are not persuasive.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
`teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`2012). A person with ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary
`creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many cases . . . will be able to fit the
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550
`U.S. at 420–21.
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s argument that applying
`Kudryavtsev’s model on plasma behavior to Wang’s sputtering apparatus
`would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill, or that one with ordinary
`skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`combining the teachings. Obviousness does not require absolute
`predictability, only a reasonable expectation that the beneficial result will be
`achieved. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`In addition, GlobalFoundries relies on Kudryavtsev for the express
`teaching of excitation of atoms. Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶¶ 127–129;
`Ex. 1304, Abs.). Kudryavtsev states that because “the effects studied in this
`work are characteristic of ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to
`a weakly ionized gas, they must be allowed for when studying emission
`mechanisms in pulsed gas lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks, etc.”
`Ex. 1304, 34 (emphasis added). Wang applies pulses that generate an
`electric field. Ex. 1305, 7:61–63; see Ex. 1302 ¶ 123. Dr. Kortshagen
`testifies that performing a fast stage of ionization (as disclosed by
`Kudryavtsev) in Wang’s apparatus would have been a combination of
`known techniques yielding the predictable results of increasing the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ionization rate and the degree of multi-step ionization. See Ex. 1302
`¶¶ 127–128.
`Zond has not explained persuasively why triggering a fast stage of
`ionization in Wang’s magnetron sputtering apparatus (e.g., resulting in
`excitation of atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma) would have been beyond
`the level of ordinary skill, or why one with ordinary skill in the art would not
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. In
`fact, Mozgrin4 applied Kudryavtsev’s teachings of an “explosive increase”
`in plasma density to a magnetron sputtering system similar to Wang’s.5
`Pet. 21–26; Reply 5–6; Ex. 1303, 401. Mozgrin cites to Kudryavtsev and
`discloses that in “[d]esigning the unit, we took into account the dependences
`which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev] of ionization relaxation on pre-
`ionization parameters, pressure, and pulse voltage amplitude.” Ex. 1303,
`401. This illustrates that one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention was capable of applying the teachings of Kudryavtsev to
`magnetron sputtering systems, such as Wang’s.
`Given the evidence before us, we determine that GlobalFoundries has
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that combining the
`technical disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev would be merely a
`
`
`4 D.V. Mozgrin et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1303).
`5 GlobalFoundries indicates that “Mozgrin is evidence that those of ordinary
`skill in the art not only would, but actually did look to and apply the
`teachings of Kudryavtsev to systems similar to Wang’s.” Reply 6; see also
`Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (indicating the level of ordinary skill in the art
`also is reflected by the prior art of record).
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a
`technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
`same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
`beyond [his or her] skill.”).
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that GlobalFoundries has
`articulated a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill
`in the art would have combined Wang and Kudryavtsev as indicated in the
`Petition, and we are persuaded that GlobalFoundries’ reason to combine
`Wang and Kudryavtsev is supported by a preponderance of evidence.
`
`
`Forming a Gap Between Cathode and Adjacent Anode
`Claim 21 recites, in part, “a cathode that is positioned adjacent to the
`anode and forming a gap there between.” Zond argues that because “Wang
`does not teach that any plasma is positioned between its cathode 14 and
`grounded shield anode 24,” Wang cannot teach the claimed gap. PO Resp.
`36. Zond also argues that the floating shield precludes a finding that the
`cathode is positioned adjacent to the anode, as required by claim 21. Id. at
`36–39. Zond continues that the position taken by Dr. Kortshagen relies on
`improper hindsight by asserting the obviousness of rearranging components
`in Wang and that Dr. Kortshagen took an entirely different position during
`his deposition. Id. at 38–41 (citing Ex. 1302 ¶ 110; Ex. 2011, 130:9–15).
`GlobalFoundries, in response, counters that the testimony of Zond’s
`expert, Dr. Hartsough, is inconsistent. Reply. 6–8. Dr. Hartsough suggests
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that because Wang teaches an intermediate feature, namely the floating
`shield, it does not disclose a gap between the anode and the cathode
`(Ex. 2005 ¶ 128). However, during his deposition testimony (Ex. 1320,
`74:7–76:8), Dr. Hartsough acknowledged that a partially introduced
`electrode between a cathode and an anode would still allow for the cathode
`and anode to meet the meaning of “adjacent,” and have a gap there between.
`Id. The modified figure presented to Dr. Hartsough, Figure 3, is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Modified Fig. 3 from Dr. Hartsough’s Declaration.
`We find that the ’142 Patent provides no specific definition for
`“adjacent.” Additionally, even if we adopt Dr. Hartsough’s definition of
`“adjacent,” we are not persuaded that the partial imposition of the grounding
`shield in Wang renders the cathode and anode non-adjacent in Wang. We
`further concur with GlobalFoundries that Wang discloses an anode and a
`cathode having a gap formed there between, that comports with claim 21.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Based on the evidence before us, we are persuaded that
`GlobalFoundries has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev discloses a cathode that is positioned
`adjacent to the anode and forming a gap there between, per claim 21.
`
`
`Power Supply Generates Constant Power / Voltage and Appling Electric
`Field at Constant Power
`Claim 22 requires that the “power supply generates a constant power,”
`claim 33 requires application of “the electric field at a constant power,”
`claim 23 requires that the “power supply generates a constant voltage,” and
`claim 34 requires that the electric field is applied at constant power.
`GlobalFoundries asserts that “Wang’s pulsed DC power supply 80 (shown in
`Wang’s Figs. 1 and 7) generates a peak level power, PP, which is constant
`for the duration of the pulse τw, as shown in Fig. 6,” and discloses that the
`“pulsed DC power supply 80 produces a train of negative voltage pulses.”
`Pet. 51–52.
`Zond argues that because Wang’s figures are idealized, the actual
`
`power pulse applied in Wang is not constant for the duration of the pulse τw.
`
`PO Resp. 40–42 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 140, 142). Zond also argues that
`because the pulse in Wang is a power pulse, and the current in the sputtering
`system varies with the state of the plasma, the voltage varies with the current
`and is not constant. Id. at 43–46 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 144).
`GlobalFoundries responds that Dr. Hartsough, Zond’s expert,
`concedes that Wang’s power supply generates a constant power and the
`voltage from the power supply would approach a constant value. Reply 9
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(citing Ex. 1321, 152:4–6; Ex. 1305, 7:49–51; Ex. 2005 ¶ 57).
`Dr. Hartsough also concedes that typical power supplies, such as described
`by Wang, operate in the same manner as those disclosed in the ’142 Patent.
`Id. (citing Ex. 1320, 149:17–150:20, with respect to related U.S. Patent No.
`6,896,775 B2, where Fig. 5 of that patent is identical to Fig. 4 of the ’142
`Patent). Based on this, GlobalFoundries counters that Wang teaches
`applying pulses at both constant voltage and constant power, in specific
`regions. Id. at 10–11. We agree with GlobalFoundries.
`As shown in Figure 7 of Wang, pulsed DC power supply 80 produces
`a series of voltage pulses, and portions of the voltage pulses are constant.
`Ex. 1305, 7:57–61. Figure 6 of Wang depicts that portions of the power
`pulses are constant. Moreover, it is clear from Figures 6 and 7 of Wang that
`Wang’s system is designed to maintain both the amplitude of the voltage
`pulses and the amplitude of the power pulses constant during the entire
`process. Based on the evidence in this record, we are persuaded that one
`with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Wang discloses:
`(1) portions of voltage and power are constant, and (2) the amplitude of the
`voltage pulses and the amplitude of the power pulses are constant.
`In addition, Dr. Overzet notes that Figure 4 of the ’142 Patent also is
`idealized. Ex. 1318 ¶ 116. Indeed, the ’142 Patent explicitly states that
`Figures 3, 4, and 7 merely illustrate graphical representations, and not the
`actual shape of the voltage and power pulses. Ex. 1301, 1:65–2:15. As well,
`given that the instant ground purports claims to be obvious, what the
`disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev would have suggested to persons of
`ordinary skill in the art need to be considered, even if, arguendo, the actual
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`results were not as standardized as the representations provided in the
`figures.
`Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
`has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combination of
`Wang and Kudryavtsev would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention a pulsed power supply that generates a
`constant power or constant voltage, as required by claims 22, 23, 33, and 34.
`
`
`Pulsed Electric Field
`Claim 25 recites that “the electric field comprises a pulsed electric
`field.” GlobalFoundries argues that the “[s]uccessive application of those
`voltage pulses [in Wang] produces a pulsed electric field.” Pet. 53. Zond
`argues that the pulses applied in Wang are voltage pulses and cannot
`“possibly teach or suggest a claim limitation requiring a pulsed electric
`field, as required by claim 25.” PO Resp. 46–47 (emphasis in original). We
`do not agree with Zond’s assertions.
`As pointed out by GlobalFoundries, Dr. Hartsough, Zond’s declarant,
`concedes that “if the voltage is pulsed, then the electric field will be pulsed.”
`Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1319, 101:3–6). The testimony of Dr. Overzet provides
`concurrence (Ex. 1318 ¶ 113), as do the laws of physics. Even if conditions
`present in Wang’s system or environment resulted in the applied voltage
`pulses not producing a pulsed electric field, we are persuaded that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have considered the imposition of a pulsed
`electric field to be an obvious outcome of the application of Wang’s voltage
`pulses.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00827
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
`has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combination of
`Wang and Kudryavtsev would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention the application of a pulsed electric field,
`as required by claim 25.
`
`
`Ionization Source is an Electrode Coupled to a DC Power Supply
`Claim 29 recites, in part, that “the ionization source is chosen from the
`group comprising an electrode coupled to a DC power supply.” Zond argues
`that GlobalFoundries’ reliance on cathode 14 of Wang to satisfy the
`electrode limitation of claim 29 (Pet. 53) is misplaced as the ’142 Patent
`makes clear that the electrode is separate and distinct from the anode or
`cathode and is a filament. PO Resp. 47–49. We acknowledge that the
`Specification of the ’142 Patent discloses an
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
