U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, 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
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-01066
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,806,652
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 18-34
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`

`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ..................................................................................................1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ...............................................................................................1 
`
`Related Matters ........................................................................................................1 
`
`Counsel ....................................................................................................................2 
`
`Service Information .................................................................................................2 
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .......................................................3 
`
`OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ...............................................................3 
`
`Grounds for Challenge .............................................................................................4 
`
`IV. 
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY .....................................................................5 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Plasma ......................................................................................................................5 
`
`Excited atoms ...........................................................................................................6 
`
`V. 
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’652 PATENT .................................................................................8 
`
`A. 
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’652 Patent ..................................................8 
`
`VI. 
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...............................................................................................11 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................................11 
`
`“transporting the initial plasma and excited atoms proximate to a cathode
`assembly” ...............................................................................................................12 
`
`“super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the cathode assembly” ................13 
`
`VII.  OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES ....................................13 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Summary of the prior art ........................................................................................13 
`
`Overview of Mozgrin .............................................................................................13 
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev ......................................................................................17 
`
`Overview of Fahey .................................................................................................19 
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Overview of Iwamura ............................................................................................20 
`
`E. 
`
`VIII.  SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ..........................................................................20 
`
`A. 
`
`Ground I: Claims 18-30 and 33-34 would have been obvious over Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev, and Fahey.........................................................................................21 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Independent claim 18 ...............................................................................21 
`
`Dependent claims 19-30, 33, and 34 .......................................................32 
`
`Ground II: Claims 31 and 32 would have been obvious over Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Campbell .......................................................................42 
`
`Ground III: Claims 18-30 and 33-34 would have been obvious over the
`references cited for Ground I (Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Fahey) and
`Iwamura .................................................................................................................46 
`
`Ground IV: Claims 31 and 32 would have been obvious over the references
`cited for Ground II (Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Campbell) and
`Iwamura .................................................................................................................48 
`
`Ground V: Claims 18-30 would have been obvious over Mozgrin and
`Iwamura .................................................................................................................48 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Independent claim 18 ...............................................................................48 
`
`Dependent claims 19-30 ...........................................................................53 
`
`Ground VI: Claims 31 and 32 would have been obvious over Mozgrin,
`Iwamura, and Campbell .........................................................................................60 
`
`Ground VII: Claims 33 and 34 would have been obvious over Mozgrin,
`Iwamura, and Fahey ...............................................................................................60 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`IX. 
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................60 
`
`
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases 
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............ 11
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. §103 ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`Rules 
`
`Rule 42.104(a) ............................................................................................................ 2
`Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ............................................................................................... 19
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ....................................................................................... 10, 11
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`iii
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
` Renesas Electronics Corporation, Renesas Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBAL-
`
`FOUNDRIES 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. 6,806,652 (“the ’652 Patent”) (Ex. 1101)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS
`
`(Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc., et al); 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, et al.); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. Gillette, Co.).
`
`Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in several
`
`patents by the same named inventor as the ’652 Patent.
`
`The below-listed claims of the ‘652 Patent are presently the subject of a
`
`substantially identical petition for inter partes review styled Intel Corporation v.
`
`Zond, Inc., which was filed May 29, 2014 and assigned Case No. IPR2014-00843.
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petitioner plans to seek joinder with that inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b).
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: John J. Feldhaus (Reg. No. 28,822)
`
`Backup Counsel: Pavan Agarwal (Reg. No. 40,888), Michael R. Houston
`
`(Reg. No. 58,486), Brian M. Berliner (Reg. No. 34549), Ryan K. Yagura (Reg. No.
`
`47191), Xin-Yi Zhou (Reg. No. 63366), David M. Tennant (Reg. No. 48,362), and
`
`Robinson Vu (Reg. No. 60,211).
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
` John Feldhaus, Pavan
`
`Foley & Lardner LLP, 3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600,
`
`Agarwal, Michael R.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20007; jfeldhaus@foley.com;
`
`Houston
`
`pagarwal@foley.com; mhouston@foley.com
`
`Brian 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
`
`David M. Tennant
`
`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
`
`
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`2
`
`

`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`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)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 18-34 (“Challenged Claims”) of the ’652 Patent.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`A.
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art patents and printed publications
`
`and any others in the Table of Exhibits:1
`
`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. 1103)), which is prior art under
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`2. Wang, U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1104)), which is prior art at
`
`least under §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
`1 The ’652 Patent was issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`
`
`Therefore, Petitioner has chosen to use the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to
`
`the prior art.
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`3
`
`

`
`3. D. W. Fahey, et al., High flux beam source of thermal rare-gas metastable
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`atoms, J. Phys. E; Sci. Insrum., Vol. 13, 1980 (“Fahey” (Ex. 1105)), which is prior
`
`art under § 102(b).
`
`4. A. A. Kudryavtsev, et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), January 1983
`
`(“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1106)), which is prior art under § 102(b).
`
`5.
`
`Iwamura, U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura” (Ex. 1108)), which is prior
`
`art under § 102(b).
`
`6.
`
`Campbell, U.S. Pat. No. 5,429,070 (“Campbell” (Ex. 1114)), which is prior
`
`art under § 102(b).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 18-34 of the ’652 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of
`
`Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D. (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1102))2 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. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`2 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by Petitioner. The declaration at Ex. 1102 is a
`
`copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-00843, discussed above.
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`4
`
`

`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`The ’652 Patent, entitled “High-Density Plasma Source Using Excited
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Atoms,” generally relates to the field of plasma processing. Plasma processing
`
`involves using plasma to modify the chemical and physical properties of the
`
`surface of a material. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Plasma processing had been used in research and industrial applications for
`
`decades before the ’652 Patent was filed. Id. at ¶ 23 (Ex. 1102). 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 operations). Id. Ions in the plasma strike a target
`
`surface causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id. The ejected
`
`target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id.
`
`The use of high-density plasmas and excited atoms in plasma processing was
`
`also well-understood before the filing of the ’652 Patent. Id. at ¶ 24 (Ex. 1102).
`
`For example, as discussed further below, Mozgrin (Ex. 1103) and Kudryavtsev
`
`(Ex. 1106), developed high-density plasma processing techniques using excited
`
`atoms. Id.
`
`Plasma
`
`A.
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1102). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`5
`
`

`
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`as a whole has no overall electrical charge. Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`The “density” of a plasma refers to the number of ions or electrons that are
`
`present in a unit volume, e.g., 1012 ions per cubic centimeter, or 1012 ions cm-3. Id.
`
`at ¶ 26 (Ex. 1102). By way of comparison, there are approximately 1019 atoms in a
`
`cubic centimeter of air at atmospheric pressure and room temperature. Id. (Ex.
`
`1102). The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used
`
`interchangeably because the negatively charged free electrons and positively
`
`charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain
`
`negatively charged ions or clusters. Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`Excited atoms
`
`B.
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27
`
`(Ex. 1102). Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. If all of an atom’s
`
`electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the
`
`“ground state.” Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`If one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state that is higher than its
`
`lowest possible state, but the atom is not ionized, then the atom is said to be an
`
`“excited atom.” Id. at ¶ 28 (Ex. 1102). Excited atoms are electronically neutral –
`
`they have equal numbers of electrons and protons. A ground state atom can be
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`6
`
`

`
`converted to an excited atom as a result of a collision with a low energy free
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`electron (e-). Id. at ¶ 28 (Ex. 1102).
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons, and thus has a positive charge. A collision between a free, high energy
`
`electron and a ground state atom or an excited atom can create an ion. Id. ¶ 29 (Ex.
`
`1102). The ’652 Patent uses the following equations to describe production of an
`
`excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, and then further
`
`conversion of the excited atom to an argon ion, Ar+:
`
`Ar + e- [] Ar* + e-
`
`Ar* + e- [] Ar+ + 2e-
`
`’652 Patent at 14:1-14 (Ex. 1101).3
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ’652 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1102).
`
`
`3 U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759 (Ex. 1107), by the same named inventor, shows these
`
`multi-step ionization equations at 9:38-51. There is a printing error in the ’652
`
`Patent (i.e., with empty boxes replacing arrows), but the equations are shown
`
`correctly in the ’759 Patent.
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’652 PATENT
`A.
`The ’652 Patent, claims 18-34, relate to a method of generating high-density
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’652 Patent
`
`plasma in two stages: (i) generating an initial plasma and excited atoms from a
`
`feed gas, and (ii) “super-ionizing” the initial plasma to generate a high-density
`
`plasma. Claims 18-34 also specify “transporting” the initial plasma with excited
`
`atoms from a first location where they are generated to a separate location where
`
`the high density plasma is generated.
`
`The ’652 Patent has multiple embodiments in which an initial plasma and
`
`excited atoms are created at a first location, and then transported to a second
`
`location where a second power supply provides high power pulses. See, e.g.,
`
`Figure 2 and description at 5:43, et seq.; Figure 12 and description at 25:30 et seq.
`
`(Ex. 1101).
`
`In the FIG. 12 embodiment, the first location is the excited atom source 732b
`
`(annotated in color below), which is powered by a first power supply 731. ’652
`
`Patent at 2:52-55 (Ex. 1101):
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 12 of ’652 Patent (Ex. 1101)
`
`The excited atom source 732b generates an initial plasma and excited atoms.
`
`’652 Patent at 27:15-21 (Ex. 1101) (“The excited atom source 732b generates an
`
`initial plasma and excited atoms including metastable atoms from ground state
`
`atoms supplied by a volume of feed gas 234.”). The excited atom source 732b
`
`directs the initial plasma and excited atoms through a skimmer 736 to an area
`
`proximate cathode 732a. See, e.g., ’652 Patent at 27:18-21 (“A large fraction of
`
`the ions and electrons are trapped in the nozzle chamber 738 while the excited
`
`atoms and the ground state atoms flow through the aperture 737 of the skimmer
`
`736.”) (Ex. 1101). The skimmer is designed to block most of the electrons and
`
`ions, but it allows the ground state and excited atoms to pass through to cathode
`
`section 732a. Id. The excited atom source is configured such that a continued
`
`flow of gas causes the initial plasma and excited atoms to be moved
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“transported”) from the skimmer to the second location proximate to cathode 732a
`
`and anode 706. See ’652 Patent, FIG. 12 (Ex. 1101).
`
`At the second location proximate to cathode 732a and anode 706, a second
`
`power supply 222 generates an electric field that is said to “super-ionize” the
`
`plasma of feed gas generated by the excited atom source. ’652 Patent at 27:15-32
`
`(“After a sufficient volume of excited atoms including metastable atoms is present
`
`proximate to the inner cathode section 732a …, the second power supply 222
`
`generates an electric field (not shown) proximate to the volume of excited atoms
`
`[that] super-ionizes the initial plasma….”) (Ex. 1101). The ’652 Patent defines the
`
`term “super-ionized” as meaning “that at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the
`
`plasma are converted to ions.” ’652 Patent, 5:8-10 (Ex. 1101).4
`
`The excited atom source 732b that generates excited atoms from the feed gas
`
`is distinct and in a separate location from cathode 732a, anode 706, and power
`
`
`4 The “super-ionized” plasma is of the initial plasma generated from the feed gas
`
`and not a plasma of other materials. For example, in a sputtering process, it is
`
`known that systems can get significant ionization of sputtered metal. See, e.g.,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 to Wang at 5:62-65 (“It is anticipated that the copper
`
`ionization fraction using the Torpedo magnetron will be well over 80% at these
`
`high peak powers.”) (Ex. 1104). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 35, Fn. 2 (Ex. 1102).
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`10
`
`

`
`supply 222 that “super-ionize” the plasma. The ’652 Patent explains, for example,
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`that multiple excited atoms sources can be used, in which case they could surround
`
`the separate portion of the system that converts the initial plasma to a super-ionized
`
`high-density plasma: “Skilled artisans will appreciate that multiple excited atom
`
`sources (not shown) can surround the inner cathode section 732a.” ’652 Patent,
`
`25:42-44 (Ex. 1101).
`
`The ’652 patent does not disclose how specifically to generate a super-
`
`ionized plasma other than to raise the energy. For example, in the discussion of
`
`FIG. 12, the ’652 patent merely states that the “electric field super-ionizes the
`
`initial plasma by raising the energy of the initial plasma including the volume of
`
`excited atoms which causes collisions between neutral atoms, electrons, and
`
`excited atoms including metastable atoms in the initial plasma.” ’652 Patent at
`
`27:22-37 (Ex. 1101).
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Introduction
`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
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`11
`
`

`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.5 In re
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 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 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).
`
`B.
`
`“transporting the initial plasma and excited atoms proximate to a
`cathode assembly”
`
`The limitation should be construed as “moving the initial plasma and excited
`
`atoms from where they were generated to a location near a cathode assembly.”
`
`A plain reading of this limitation is that the initial plasma with excited atoms
`
`is generated in one location, and moved to another location near a cathode
`
`assembly where the plasma is super-ionized.
`
`Consistent with the plain meaning, the ’652 Patent describes moving the
`
`initial plasma and excited atoms from where they were generated (e.g., in the gap
`
`212 or the excited atom source 732b) to a location near a cathode assembly (e.g.,
`
`inner cathode 202a or 732a, respectively) using gas exchange system. See, e.g.,
`
`
`5 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.
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`12
`
`

`
`’652 Patent at 8:1-28; 10:8-17; 14:37-43; 17:63-18:9; 21:63-22:8; 27:15-20;
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Figures 2, 3, 5, 6 and 12 (Ex. 1101).
`
`C.
`
` “super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the cathode
`assembly”
`
`Super-ionizing is defined to mean that “at least 75% of the neutral atoms in
`
`the plasma are converted to ions.” ’652 Patent, 5:8-10 (Ex. 1101). Therefore, the
`
`limitation should be construed as “converting at least 75% of the neutral atoms in
`
`the initial plasma into ions near the cathode assembly.”
`
`VII. 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 Zond’s claim. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1102).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin
`Mozgrin discloses a high density plasma source. Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied
`
`below, shows the current-voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma discharge
`
`generated by Mozgrin.
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2 (“Part
`
`1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)…”) (Ex. 1103). Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma
`
`causes the transition from region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶
`
`4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an intense cathode sputtering…”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (Ex. 1103).
`
`Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2)
`
`causes the plasma to transition to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is useful for etching, i.e., removing material
`
`from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge
`
`(regime 3) is useful …. Hence, it can enhance the efficiency of ionic etching…”)
`
`(Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1102).
`
`In Mozgrin’s sputtering region, i.e., region 2, the plasma density exceeded
`
`1013 cm-3. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (“The implementation of the high-current
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`14
`
`

`
`magnetron discharge (regime 2) in sputtering … plasma density (exceeding
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`2x1013 cm-3).”) (Ex. 1103). In Mozgrin’s region 3, the plasma density is even
`
`higher. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime
`
`3) is useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni 
`
`1.5x1015cm3…”) (Ex. 1103). This density in region 3 is three orders of magnitude
`
`greater than what the ’652 Patent describes as “high-density.” ’652 Patent at
`
`10:62-63 (“[T]he peak plasma density of the high-density plasma is greater than
`
`about 1012 cm-3”).
`
`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 will remain in the arc-free regions 2
`
`(sputtering) or 3 (etching). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1102).
`
`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 recipe for avoiding arcs.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1102). Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs can be
`
`avoided. See Mozgrin at 400, left col, ¶ 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron
`
`systems of various geometry showed that discharge regimes which do not transit
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`15
`
`

`
`to arcs can be obtained even at high currents.”) (Ex. 1103). One of ordinary skill
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`would have understood that the arc discharge region should be avoided during an
`
`industrial application, such as sputtering. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1102). 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 ’652 Patent was filed, states that “arcs … are a problem … .”
`
`Manos at 231 (Ex. 1113).
`
`One of ordinary skill would have further understood 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 (“A further increase in the discharge currents
`
`caused the discharges to transit to the arc regimes…”); 404, left col, ¶ 4 (“The
`
`parameters 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, ¶ 3 (“Moreover, pre-
`
`ionization was not necessary; however, in this case, the probability of discharge
`
`transferring to the arc mode increased.”) (Ex. 1103). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`51 (Ex. 1102).
`
`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
`
`Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1102).
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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 (Ex. 1106). 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., id. at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1106). The second
`
`process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise ionization. See,
`
`e.g., id. (Ex. 1106). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step
`
`ionization can be a dominant ionization process. See, e.g., id. (Ex. 1106).
`
`Korsthagen Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Kudryavtsev discusses the mechanism of multi-step ionization with excited
`
`atoms. Referring to the annotated copy of Kudryavtsev’s Fig. 1 copied below,
`
`ionization occurs with an initial “slow stage” (Fig 1a) followed by a “fast stage”
`
`(Fig. 1b).
`
`Kudryavtsev at 31, right col, ¶ 7 (Ex. 1106). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex. 1102).
`
`
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`17
`
`

`
`During the initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`contribution to the generation of plasma ions (see arrow Γ1e colored in green
`
`showing ionization (top line labeled “e”) from the ground state (bottom line
`
`labeled “1”)). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1102). In addition, during the slow
`
`stage, excited atoms are also created within the plasma chamber (see arrow Γ12
`
`colored in blue showing excitation into lowest excited state (middle line labeled
`
`“2”) from the ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Id. (Ex. 1102). Once the
`
`population of excited atoms becomes large enough, fast stage occurs, as shown in
`
`Fig. 1b. As shown, multi-step (or “stepwise”) ionization, which occurs through the
`
`generation of excited atoms (see arrow Γ12 colored in blue), becomes the dominant
`
`ionization process as shown by the thick arrow labeled Γ2e ((colored in red)
`
`showing ionization (top line labeled “e”) from the lowest excited state (middle line
`
`labeled “2”)). See also Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 (Ex. 1106); Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 55
`
`(Ex. 1102). The thin arrows labeled Γ1e show that direct ionization produces ions
`
`at a roughly constant rate in both the slow and fast stages. Id. The thick arrow
`
`labeled Γ2e in Fig. 1b shows that multi-step ionization can produce ions at a much
`
`greater rate than direct ionization. Id. (Ex. 1102).
`
`Kudryavtsev explains the rapid increase in ionization once multi-step
`
`ionization becomes the dominant process as follows: “For nearly stationary n2
`
`[excited atom density] values … there is an explosive increase in ne [plasma
`
`4830-9102-4412.2
`
`18
`
`

`
`density]. The subsequent increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,806,652 -- claims 18-34
`Petition for Inter Partes Review