`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`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.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`ZOND INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. ________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,805,779
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 AND 46
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`Mandatory Notices...................................................................................... - 1 -
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ....................................................................... - 1 -
`B.
`Related Matters ................................................................................. - 1 -
`C.
`Counsel ............................................................................................. - 2 -
`D.
`Service Information .......................................................................... - 2 -
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ........................................................ - 2 -
`II.
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested............................................ - 3 -
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ....................................... - 3 -
`B.
`Grounds for Challenge ..................................................................... - 3 -
`IV. Brief Description of Technology ................................................................ - 4 -
`A.
`Plasma............................................................................................... - 4 -
`B.
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms ...................................... - 5 -
`V. Overview of the ‘779 Patent ....................................................................... - 7 -
`A.
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent .......................... - 7 -
`B.
`Prosecution History ........................................................................ - 10 -
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ........................................ - 12 -
`A.
`Summary of the Prior Art ............................................................... - 12 -
`B.
`Overview of Mozgrin ..................................................................... - 12 -
`C.
`Overview of Kudryavtsev .............................................................. - 13 -
`D. Overview of Iwamura ..................................................................... - 14 -
`E.
`Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck .............................................. - 15 -
`VII. Claim Construction ................................................................................... - 16 -
`A.
`“multi-step ionization” (claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46) ............ - 16 -
`B.
`“means for generating a magnetic field proximate to a volume of
`ground state atoms to substantially trap electrons proximate to the
`volume of ground state atoms” (claims 41 and 42) ...................... - 17 -
`“means for generating a volume of metastable atoms from the volume
`of ground state atoms” (claims 41 and 42) .................................... - 17 -
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“means for raising an energy of the metastable atoms so that at least a
`portion of the volume of metastable atoms is ionized” (claims 41 and
`42) ................................................................................................... - 18 -
`“means for trapping electrons and ions in the volume of metastable
`atoms” (claim 42) ........................................................................... - 19 -
`VIII. Specific Grounds for Petition ................................................................... - 19 -
`A. Ground I: Claim 41 would have been obvious in view of Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley ............................................................... - 19 -
`1.
`Independent claim 41 ........................................................... - 19 -
`Ground II: Claims 16, 28, 42, 45 and 46 would have been obvious in
`view of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Pinsley and Iwamura ................... - 31 -
`1.
`Dependent claim 42 ............................................................. - 31 -
`2.
`Independent claims 1 and 45 ................................................ - 33 -
`3.
`Independent claim 18 ........................................................... - 38 -
`4.
`Dependent claims 16 and 28 ................................................ - 40 -
`5.
`Independent claim 46 ........................................................... - 40 -
`Ground III: Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, and 45 would have been obvious
`over Iwamura and Angelbeck ........................................................ - 41 -
`1.
`Independent claim 41 ........................................................... - 41 -
`2.
`Independent claims 1 and 45 ................................................ - 52 -
`3.
`Independent claim 18 ........................................................... - 56 -
`4.
`Dependent claims 16, 28 and 42 .......................................... - 57 -
`D. Ground IV: Claims 46 is anticipated by Iwamura ........................ - 58 -
`1.
`Independent claim 46 ........................................................... - 58 -
`IX. Conclusion ................................................................................................ - 59 -
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`Page(s)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ......................................................................................... Cover Page
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................... 16
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .......................................................................... Cover Page, 2, 19
`
`CASE LAW
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............ 16
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Renesas Electronics Corporation, Renesas
`
`Electronics America, Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc.,
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module One LLC & Co. KG,
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG, Toshiba America
`
`Electronic Components, Inc., Toshiba America Inc., Toshiba America Information
`
`Systems, Inc., and Toshiba Corporation (collectively, “Petitioner”) are the real
`
`parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (“‘779 Patent”) (Ex. 1301)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts, 1:13-cv-11570-RGS
`
`(Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-11577-DPW; 1:13-cv-11581-DJC; 1:13-cv-11591-RGS;
`
`1:13-cv-11625-NMG; 1:13-cv-11634-WGY; and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC. Petitioner
`
`is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes review in several patents related1
`
`to the ’716 Patent. The below-listed claims of the ‘716 Patent are presently the
`
`subject of three substantially identical petitions for inter partes review with Case
`
`Nos. IPR2014-00820, IPR2014-00859, and IPR2014-001020. Petitioner plans to
`
`seek joinder with IPR2014-00820.
`
`
`1 The related patents, e.g., name the same alleged inventor.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`C. Counsel
`
`LEAD COUNSEL: Robinson Vu (Reg. No. 60,211).
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL: 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), David M. Tennant (Reg. No. 48,362),
`
`and Brian M. Berliner (Reg. No. 34549).
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be served
`
`on the following. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`Brian M. Berliner, Ryan
`
`bberliner@omm.com; ryagura@omm.com;
`
`K. Yagura, Xin-Yi Zhou
`
`vzhou@omm.com
`
`John Feldhaus, Pavan
`
`jfeldhaus@foley.com; pagarwal@foley.com;
`
`Agarwal, Mike Houston
`
`mhouston@foley.com
`
`David M. Tennant
`
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`Robinson Vu
`
`robinson.vu@bakerbotts.com
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46 of the ‘779 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references, and others listed in the Table of Exhibits, are
`
`pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability explained below, and are each prior art
`
`under 102(b): 2 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. 1303)). 2.
`
`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.
`
`1304)). 3. U.S. Patent No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley” (Ex. 1305)). 4.
`
`U.S. Patent
`
`No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck” (Ex. 1306)). 5. U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886
`
`(“Iwamura” (Ex. 1307)). Of these, only Mozgrin was of record during prosecution.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46 (hereinafter
`
`“challenged claims”) of the ‘779 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`
`
`2 The ’779 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has used the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to the
`
`prior art.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`and 103. 3 This Petition, supported by the declaration of Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D.
`
`(“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1302)) 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).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Plasma
`
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 22 (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. Id. (Ex. 1302). The “density” of a plasma refers
`
`to the number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Id. (Ex.
`
`
`3 The terms “challenged claims” as used herein refers to Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45
`
`and 46 of the ‘779 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate remaining claims of the
`
`‘779 Patent in separate petitions. Moreover, independent claims 1 and 18 are
`
`addressed herein to demonstrate the invalidity of claims that depend from claims 1
`
`and 18. They are addressed in in a separate petition IPR2014-00598.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`1302).4 Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘779 Patent was filed. Id. at ¶ 23 (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). Id. (Ex. 1302). Ions in the plasma strike a target
`
`surface causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id. (Ex. 1302). The
`
`ejected target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1302).
`
`B.
`
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms
`
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Id. at ¶ 24 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. (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.” Id. (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.” Id. at ¶ 25 (Ex. 1302). A metastable atom is a type
`
`of excited atom that is relatively long-lived, because it cannot transition into the
`
`ground state through dipole radiation, i.e., through the emission of electromagnetic
`
`
`4 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. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 22, FN1 (Ex. 1302).
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`radiation. Id. (Ex. 1302). See also ‘779 Patent at 7:22-25 (“The term ‘metastable
`
`atoms’ is defined herein to mean excited atoms having energy levels from which
`
`dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden. Metastable atoms have relatively long
`
`lifetimes compared with other excited atoms.”) (Ex. 1301). “All noble gases have
`
`metastable states.” Id. at 7:37 (Ex. 1301). When generating excited atoms,
`
`multiple levels of excited states are formed. Of these, some of the lowest states are
`
`metastable, and would typically be more common than the higher states, where Dr.
`
`Kortshagen provides additional support with reference to Ex. 1311 and Ex. 1312.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1302). Excited and metastable atoms are electrically
`
`neutral – they have equal numbers of electrons and protons. A collision with a low
`
`energy free electron (e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited or
`
`metastable atom. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 26 (Ex. 1302). For example, the ‘779
`
`Patent uses the following equation to describe production of an excited argon atom,
`
`Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘779 Patent at 8:7 (Ex. 1301).
`
`Ar + e- (cid:1) Ar* + e-
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. A collision between a free, high energy electron and a ground state,
`
`excited, or metastable atom can create an ion. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1302).
`
`For example, the ‘779 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,
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`Ar*. See ‘779 Patent at 3:40 and 8:9 (Ex. 1301).
`
`Ar + e- (cid:1) Ar+ + 2e-
`
`Ar* + e- (cid:1) Ar+ + 2e-
`
`The production of excited atoms, metastable atoms, and ions was well
`
`understood long before the ‘779 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex.
`
`1302).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘779 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent
`
`The ‘779 Patent relates to generating a plasma using a multi-step ionization
`
`process with an excited/metastable atom source that generates excited atoms or
`
`metastable atoms, and then provides the excited/metastable atoms to a plasma
`
`chamber where the plasma is formed, thereby generating a plasma with a “multi-
`
`step ionization” process. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 29 (Ex. 1302). For convenience, this
`
`section will just use the term “excited atom source.” The ‘779 Patent does not
`
`indicate any particular difference in the operation of an excited atom source when
`
`it is a metastable atom source. The specification repeatedly refers to “an excited
`
`atom source such as a metastable atom source,” see, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 2:13-14,
`
`17-18, 22-24 (Ex. 1301), and says that “[i]n some embodiments, the metastable
`
`atom source 204 generates some excited atoms that are in excited states other than
`
`a metastable state.” Id. at 5:63-65 (Ex. 1301)
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`Admitted prior art FIG. 1 of the ‘779 Patent shows a
`
`plasma chamber consisting of a magnetron sputtering
`
`system, without an excited atom source. Kortshagen Decl. ¶
`
`30 (Ex. 1302). It generates plasma through a process that
`
`the patent refers to as a direct ionization process. ‘779
`
`Patent at 3:36-47 (“The ionization process in known plasma sputtering apparatus is
`
`generally referred to as direct ionization…. The collision between the neutral
`
`argon atom and the ionizing electron results in an argon ion (Ar+) and two
`
`electrons.”) (Ex. 1301).
`
`As is generally known, this system has an anode, a cathode assembly 114 for
`
`holding a target material to be sputtered, and a magnet 130 that generates a
`
`magnetic field 132 proximate to the target to trap and concentrate electrons. Id. at
`
`2:46-3:18 (Ex. 1301). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1302).
`
`The alleged invention generally relates to coupling an excited or metastable
`
`atom source to some plasma chamber. ‘779 Patent at 5:27-34 (“The metastable
`
`atom source 204 can be coupled to any type of process chamber, such as the
`
`chamber 104 of FIG. 1. In fact, a plasma generator according to the present
`
`invention can be constructed by coupling a metastable atom source to a
`
`commercially available plasma chamber. Thus, commercially available plasma
`
`generators can be modified to generate a plasma using a multi-step ionization
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`process according to the present invention.”) (Ex. 1301). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 32 (Ex. 1302).
`
`FIGS. 2 and 3 of the ‘779 Patent show such plasma generators “according to
`
`the present invention” that are coupled with separate
`
`metastable atom sources (annotated in color at right).
`
`‘779 Patent at 2:3-11; FIGS. 2 and 3 (Ex. 1301).
`
`Specifically, FIG. 2 shows metastable atom source 204,
`
`and FIG. 3 shows metastable atom source 304 (annotated
`
`in color below). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex. 1302).
`
`The metastable atom sources 204 and 304
`
`“generate[] a volume of metastable atoms 218 from [a]
`
`volume of ground state atoms. See, e.g., ‘779 Patent at
`
`4:56-58 (Ex. 1301). Metastable atoms 218 are transported from the source where
`
`they are generated to the region between the cathode 114/306 and substrate support
`
`136/352, where plasma 202/302 is formed. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex. 1302).
`
`Power supply 222 (also annotated in color above) provides power to the
`
`metastable atom source. See, e.g., ‘779 Patent at 4:60-62 (Ex. 1301). Another
`
`(pulsed) power supply 201 (in FIG. 2) or power supply 316 (in FIG. 3) raises the
`
`energy of the metastable atoms to generate a plasma 202. See, e.g., id. at 11:4-14
`
`(“A power supply 316 is electrically coupled to the volume of metastable atoms
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`218. The power supply 316 can be any type of power supply, such as a pulsed
`
`power supply, a RF power supply, an AC power supply, or a DC power supply. …
`
`The power supply 316 generates an electric field 322 between the cathode 306 and
`
`the anode 308 that raises the energy of the volume of metastable atoms 218 so that
`
`at least a portion of the volume of metastable atoms 218 are ionized, thereby
`
`generating the plasma 302.”) (Ex. 1301). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 35 (Ex.
`
`1302). The metastable atom sources shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 can be mounted to
`
`the inside wall of the chamber 230 (FIG. 3), or on the outside wall (FIG. 2). See,
`
`e.g., ‘779 Patent at 4:31-34 and 9:51-62 (Ex. 1301). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 36 (Ex.
`
`1302). Consistent with the claim language, FIGS. 2 and 3, and the specification,
`
`the “excited atom source” and “metastable atom source” generate the excited
`
`atoms in a source that is distinct from, and coupled to, the components that later
`
`raise the energy of the excited or metastable atoms to generate a plasma with
`
`“multi-step ionization,” a term the ‘779 Patent defines as an ionization process
`
`whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.”5 ‘779 Patent at 6:60-63
`
`(Ex. 1301).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The first substantive office action for the application that led to the ‘779
`
`Patent rejected all independent claims as being anticipated based on prior art that
`
`
`5 All bold/italics emphasis is added.
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`showed a first chamber for generating excited/metastable atoms, and a second
`
`chamber for increasing the energy of the excited atoms, and for generating a
`
`plasma using multi-step ionization. See 02/11/04 Office Action at 2-3 (Ex. 1308).
`
`The applicant did not dispute the rejection, but amended the independent claims at
`
`issue here to require that the distinct source further includes “a magnet that
`
`generates a magnetic field for substantially trapping electrons proximate to the
`
`ground state atoms.” See 05/06/04 Resp. at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 (Ex. 1309). The
`
`claims were then allowed. Notwithstanding this difference, the ‘779 Patent does
`
`not indicate that an excited atom source with magnets has any special significance
`
`over other energy sources for generating excited/metastable. For example, the
`
`‘779 Patent specification indicates that there were approximately twelve (12)
`
`different ways to generate excited atoms – see ‘779 Patent at 19:1-10 (Ex. 1301) -
`
`and shows multiple embodiments – e.g., FIGS. 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11—without the
`
`magnets that were required for the claims to be allowed. The “magnet” of the
`
`source chamber recited in the claims refers particularly to the embodiments of
`
`FIGS. 6, 7 and 10, and specifically to magnets 504a, 504b, 506a and 506b in FIG.
`
`6; magnets 566a-d and 570a-d in FIG. 7; and magnets 712 and 714 in FIG. 10.
`
`‘779 Patent at FIGS. 6 and 7; 14:46-15:4516:12-20 (Ex. 1301).
`
`European Counterpart. The applicant had also identified these magnets,
`
`located in the separate excited atom source of FIG. 6, as the claimed magnets in
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`counterpart claims in Europe. Those claims read in part “characterised [sic] in that
`
`the excited atom source (204) comprises a magnet (504, 506) that is arranged to
`
`generate a magnetic field (508) that traps electrons proximate to the ground state
`
`atoms.” (24 July 2007 Response in EP 1614136) (Ex. 1310). However, as
`
`explained in detail below, and contrary to the Examiner’s reasons for allowance,
`
`the prior art addressed in this Petition teaches using magnets in this manner, along
`
`with the other limitations of the challenged claims. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 42 (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 ‘779 Patent. Id. at ¶ 43 (Ex. 1302).
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin
`
`Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the
`
`current-voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma
`
`discharge generated by Mozgrin. As shown,
`
`Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct
`
`regions. Id. at ¶ 44 (Ex. 1302).
`
`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. 1303). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1302).
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`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. 1303). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1302). Application of a
`
`high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from region 1 to 2. Id.
`
`(Ex. 1302). 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. 1303). See also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1302). Mozgrin calls region 3
`
`“high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5, (“The high-current
`
`diffuse discharge (regime 3)…”) (Ex. 1303). Increasing the current applied to the
`
`“high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition to
`
`region 3. Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1302). 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. 1303). See also Kortshagen Decl.
`
`¶ 47 (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 (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
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`converted directly to ions. See, e.g., id. at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1304). The second
`
`process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise ionization. See,
`
`e.g., id. (Ex. 1304). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-step
`
`ionization can be the dominant ionization process. See, e.g., id. (Ex. 1304).
`
`Mozgrin took into account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing his
`
`experiments. Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the unit,
`
`we took into account the dependences which had been obtained in
`
`[Kudryavtsev]….”) (Ex. 1303). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1302).
`
`D. Overview of Iwamura
`
`Iwamura discloses “a plasma treatment apparatus for treating a surface of an
`
`object….” Iwamura at 2:51-52 (Ex. 1307). “A first plasma generation unit for
`
`preactivating the gas to generate a plasma is positioned upstream along the flow
`
`path of the gas in the gas supply; and a second plasma generation unit for
`
`activating the gas to generate a plasma downstream along the flow path of the gas
`
`in the gas supply is also provided. Thus, the first plasma generation unit
`
`preactivates the gas and the second plasma generation unit activates the gas and
`
`forms activated gas species. Then, the activated gas species formed by the second
`
`plasma generation unit treat the object to be treated.” Iwamura at 2:56-65. (Ex.
`
`1307); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1302). Iwamura discloses multiple
`
`ways for generating excited/metastable atoms, and discloses the desirability of
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`providing a first excitation step followed by a further energy providing step, and
`
`also claims such a system. Iwamura at 2:1-50, claim 1 (Ex. 1307); see also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1302).
`
`E. Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck
`
`Pinsley discloses a gas laser having a magnetic field that is oriented
`
`transversely with respect to the flow of the gases. Pinsley at Abstract (“A flowing
`
`gas laser having an electric discharge plasma with the electric field oriented
`
`transversely with respect to the flow of gases therethrough is provided with a
`
`magnetic field which is oriented transversely with respect to both the flow and the
`
`electric field to overcome the forces of flowing gases thereon.”) (Ex. 1305). The
`
`transverse magnetic field traps electrons. Pinsley at 2:43-47 (“As is known, the
`
`interaction between the current and the magnetic field will result in an upstream
`
`force as indicated by the force vector 32. This force is exerted upon the electrons,
`
`and tends to maintain the electrons in an area between the anode and cathode.”)
`
`(Ex. 1305); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1302). Pinsley does not
`
`specifically use the words “excited atoms,” but one of ordinary skill would
`
`understand that increasing the energy and using a magnetic field to “maintain the
`
`electrons in place would allow excited atoms to be generated and pass through. Id.
`
`at ¶ 52 (Ex. 1302). The Angelbeck patent (with a lead inventor who is also a co-
`
`inventor on the Pinsley patent) makes clear that gas lasers of the type disclosed by
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`Pinsley generate excited atoms as part of their operation. Angelbeck at 1:21-25
`
`(“This invention relates to gas lasers, and particularly to a method and apparatus
`
`for increasing and controlling the light output of a gas laser by applying a
`
`transverse magnetic field to the laser.”); 2:18-20 (“A high gas pressure P is
`
`advantageous, however, for creating a high density of excited atoms in the laser.”)
`
`(Ex. 1303); see also Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1302).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.”6 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation. 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.
`
`A.
`
` “multi-step ionization” (claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46)
`
`Each of the independent claims in the ‘779 Patent recite the term “multi-step
`
`6 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.
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of US 6,805,779 Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, 45 and 46
`
`ionization.” The ‘779 Patent defines this term “to mean an ionization process
`
`whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.” ‘779 Patent at 6:60-63
`
`(Ex. 1301). This is consistent with the claim language, FIGS. 2 and 3, and the
`
`specification, which generate the excited atoms in a source that is distinct from,
`
`and coupled to, the components that later raise the energy of the excited or
`
`metastable atoms to generate a plasma. Thus, the proposed construction for
`
`“multi-step ionization” is “an ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at
`
`least two distinct steps.”
`
`B.
`
`“means for generating a magnetic field proximate to a volume of
`ground state atoms to substantially trap electrons proximate to
`the volume of ground state atoms” (claims 41 and 42)
`
`Claim 41 recites “means for generating a magnetic field proximate to a
`
`volume of ground state atoms to substantially trap electrons proximate to the
`
`volume of ground state atoms.” The claimed function is: “generating a magnetic
`
`field in a volume of ground state atoms separate from the plasma chamber to trap
`
`electrons.” The ‘779 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure
`
`for the “means for generating a magnetic field…” limitation of claim 41: magne