EXHIBIT 2005
`
`EXHIBIT 2005
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`
` TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., TSMC
`NORTHAMERICA CORP., GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case Nos. IPR2014-00828, 00829,
`00917, 01073, and 01076
`
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF LARRY D. HARTSOUGH, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Larry Hartsough, Ph.D., hereby declare:
`
`
`
`
`1. I am making this declaration at the request of patent owner Zond, LLC, in the
`
`matter of the Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (the “’779
`
`Patent”), as set forth in the above caption.
`
`2. I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of $300 per
`
`hour. My compensation in no way depends on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3. The list of materials I considered in forming the opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration includes the ’779 patent, the file history of the ’773 patent, the Petitions
`
`for Inter Partes Review and the exhibits, the PTAB’s Institution Decisions, the
`
`transcript of the deposition of the Petitioners’ expert on the ‘779 patent, and the prior
`
`art references discussed below.
`
`I. Education and Professional Background
`
`4. My formal education is as follows. I received a Bachelors of Science degree
`
`in 1965, Master of Science degree in 1967, and Ph.D. in 1971, all in Materials
`
`Science/Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley.
`
`5.
`
`I have worked in the semiconductor industry for approximately 30
`
`years. My experience includes thin film deposition, vacuum system design, and
`
`plasma processing of materials. I made significant contributions to the development
`
`of magnetron sputtering hardware and processes for the metallization of silicon
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`integrated circuits. Since the late 1980’s, I have also been instrumental in the
`
`development of standards for semiconductor fabrication equipment published by the
`
`SEMI trade organization.
`
`6.
`
`From 1971-1974, I was a research metallurgist in the thin film
`
`development lab of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. In 1975 and 1976, I developed
`
`and demonstrated thin film applications and hardware for an in-line system at Airco
`
`Temescal. During my tenure (1977-1981) at Perkin Elmer, Plasma Products
`
`Division, I served in a number of capacities from Senior Staff Scientist, to Manager
`
`of the Advanced Development activity, to Manager of the Applications Laboratory.
`
`In 1981, I co-founded a semiconductor equipment company, Gryphon Products, and
`
`was VP of Engineering during development of the product. From 1984-1988, I was
`
`the Advanced Development Manager for Gryphon, developing new hardware and
`
`process capabilities. During 1988-1990, I was Project Manager at General Signal
`
`Thinfilm on a project to develop and prototype an advanced cluster tool for making
`
`thin films. From 1991-2002, I was Manager of PVD (physical vapor deposition)
`
`Source Engineering for Varian Associates, Thin Film Systems, and then for
`
`Novellus Systems, after they purchased TFS. Since then, I have been consulting full
`
`time doing business as UA Associates, where my consulting work includes product
`
`development projects, film failure analysis, project management, technical
`
`presentations and litigation support.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Throughout my career, I have developed and/or demonstrated
`
`processes and equipment for making thin films, including Al, Ti-W, Ta, and Cu
`
`metallization of silicon wafers, RF sputtering and etching, and both RF and dc
`
`magnetron reactive sputtering, for example SiO2, Al2O3, ITO (Indium-Tin Oxide),
`
`TiN, and TaN. I have been in charge of the development of two sputter deposition
`
`systems from conception to prototype and release to manufacturing. I have also
`
`specialized in the development and improvement of magnetically enhanced sputter
`
`cathodes. I have experience with related technology areas, such as wafer heating,
`
`power supply evaluation, wafer cooling, ion beam sources, wafer handling by
`
`electrostatics, process pressure control, in-situ wafer/process monitoring, cryogenic
`
`pumping, getter pumping, sputter target development, and physical, electrical and
`
`optical properties of thin films.
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of a number of professional organizations including the
`
`American Vacuum Society, Sigma Xi (the Scientific Research Society), and as a
`
`referee for the Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology. I have been a leader in
`
`the development of SEMI Standards for cluster tools and 300mm equipment,
`
`including holding various co-chair positions on various standards task forces. I have
`
`previously served as a member of the US Department of Commerce’s
`
`Semiconductor Technical Advisory Committee.
`
`9.
`
`I have co-authored many papers, reports, and presentations relating to
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`semiconductor processing, equipment, and materials, including the following:
`
`a. P. S. McLeod and L. D. Hartsough, "High-Rate Sputtering of Aluminum
`for Metalization of Integrated Circuits", J. Vac. Sci. Technol., 14 263
`(1977).
`b. D. R. Denison and L. D. Hartsough, "Copper Distribution in Sputtered
`Al/Cu Films", J. Vac. Sci. Technol., 17 1326 (1980).
`c. D. R. Denison and L. D. Hartsough, "Step Coverage in Multiple Pass
`Sputter Deposition" J. Vac. Sci. Technol., A3 686 (1985).
`d. G. C. D’Couto, G. Tkach, K. A. Ashtiani, L. Hartsough, E. Kim, R.
`Mulpuri, D. B. Lee, K. Levy, and M. Fissel; S. Choi, S.-M. Choi, H.-D.
`Lee, and H. –K. Kang, “In situ physical vapor deposition of ionized Ti and
`TiN thin films using hollow cathode magnetron plasma source” J. Vac.
`Sci. Technol. B 19(1) 244 (2001).
`
`My areas of expertise include sputter deposition hardware and processes, thin
`
`film deposition system design and thin film properties. I am a named inventor on
`
`twelve United States patents covering apparatus, methods or processes in the fields
`
`of thin film deposition and etching. A copy of my CV is attached as Attachment A.
`
`II. Summary of Opinions
`
`10.
`
`It is my opinion that none of the claims of the ‘779 patent are obvious.
`
`III. Legal Standards
`
`11. In this section I describe my understanding of certain legal standards. I have
`
`been informed of these legal standards by Zond’s attorneys. I am not an attorney
`
`and I am relying only on instructions from Zond’s attorneys for these legal standards.
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`12. In my opinion, given the disclosure of the ’779 Patent and the disclosure of
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`the prior art references considered here, I consider a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of filing of the ’779 Patent to be someone who holds at least a bachelor
`
`of science degree in physics, material science, or electrical/computer engineering
`
`with at least two years of work experience or equivalent in the field of development
`
`of` plasma-based processing equipment. I met or exceeded the requirements for one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and continue to meet and/or
`
`exceed those requirements.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standards for Anticipation
`
`13. I understand that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if (i) each and
`
`every element and limitation of the claim at issue is found either expressly or
`
`inherently in a single prior art reference, and (ii) the elements and limitations are
`
`arranged in the prior art reference in the same way as recited in the claims at issue.
`
`C. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`
`14. I understand that obviousness must be analyzed from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the invention was made. In
`
`analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to understand the scope of
`
`the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, and the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, the differences between the prior art and the claims.
`
`15.
`
` I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art provides a
`
`reference point from which the prior art and claimed invention should be viewed.
`
`This reference point prevents one from using his or her own insight or hindsight in
`
`deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`17.
`
`I understand
`
`that an obviousness determination
`
`includes
`
`the
`
`consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2)
`
`the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims; and (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`18.
`
`I also understand that a party seeking to invalidate a patent as obvious
`
`must demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
`
`to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention,
`
`and that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so. This is determined at the time the invention was
`
`made. I understand that this temporal requirement prevents the forbidden use of
`
`hindsight. I also understand that rejections for obviousness cannot be sustained by
`
`mere conclusory statements and that the Petitioners must show some reason why a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought to combine particular
`
`available elements of knowledge, as evidenced by the prior art, to reach the claimed
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`invention.” I also understand that the motivation to combine inquiry focuses heavily
`
`on “scope and content of the prior art” and the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art.”
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the obviousness analysis
`
`requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`IV. Background Topics
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Magnetron Sputtering History and Operation
`
`20.
`
`Since the late 1970s, DC magnetron sputtering has become the
`
`preferred method for the deposition of thin metal films for many applications,
`
`including semiconductor devices and protective layers on cutting tools.
`
`21. Several significant advantages of this method over alternatives, such as
`
`thermal evaporation or diode sputter deposition, are higher deposition rate and
`
`improved film structure.
`
`22.
`
` The higher deposition rate is possible because the closed loop
`
`magnetic field of the magnetron traps the secondary electrons (produced when the
`
`inert gas ions bombard the metal target that is attached to the cathode assembly held
`
`at a negative voltage of several hundreds of volts). These electrons gain energy as
`
`they are accelerated across the dark space. Since most of the voltage drop from
`
`anode to cathode occurs in this region, the electrons arrive in the discharge region
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`with more than enough energy to ionize the neutral gas atoms there. The crossed
`
`electric and magnetic fields create a force on the electrons that causes them to
`
`circulate in a path that follows the shape of the magnetic loop and is only a few mm
`
`from the face of the target. The circulating current in this loop is about 10x the
`
`anode-cathode current of the sputtering discharge. It is these electrons that collide
`
`with, and create large numbers of ions of, the inert neutral sputtering gas atoms
`
`(usually argon) that have diffused into this region. The ions are accelerated toward
`
`the target and bombard it with energies that are nearly the full cathode-anode
`
`voltage. As the secondary electrons create an ion, they lose energy and move closer
`
`to the anode. After several ionizing collisions they no longer have enough energy
`
`to create ions. It is the secondary electrons that sustain a normal magnetron
`
`discharge.
`
`23. The magnetron discharge is characterized by higher current and lower
`
`voltage (i.e., lower impedance) compared to a diode discharge. This allows higher
`
`powers to be delivered than would be possible with diode sputtering, because the
`
`drop in yield with lower voltage is more than made up for by the increase in the
`
`number of ions. In DC magnetron sputtering, repeatability of film thickness is
`
`usually achieved by operating the power supply in power control mode and
`
`depositing for a specific time.
`
`24. The sputtered metal atoms are ejected from the target with high
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`velocity, compared to evaporation, which contributes to film adhesion and
`
`microstructure. However, this high velocity means that relatively few of the metal
`
`atoms have a chance to become ionized as they traverse the thin zone of high energy
`
`electrons on their way from the source target to the substrate workpiece (e.g., silicon
`
`wafer or razor blade).
`
`25. As research progressed over the ensuing decades, the advantages of
`
`increasing the ionization of the sputtered atoms became evident. Ions impacting the
`
`growing film improved qualities such as hardness, adhesion and density even
`
`further. Furthermore, the trajectories of the incoming ions could be made more
`
`perpendicular to the substrate surface by application of a negative bias. This allowed
`
`more film to be deposited in the bottom of high aspect ratio holes enabling the
`
`production of semiconductor devices with ever-decreasing geometries.
`
`26. The challenge of increasing the degree of ionization of the sputtered
`
`atoms could be met by increasing the chances that they would encounter an ionizing
`
`collision in the space between target and substrate. This could be achieved by
`
`expanding the high density plasma into that space. Just increasing the DC power to
`
`the magnetron would do this and would increase the power density delivered to the
`
`target, increasing the sputtering rate and the ionization of the sputtered atoms.
`
`However, this approach, if applied steady state, would require large power supplies
`
`and would overheat the target. Therefore, other techniques were developed to meet
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`the challenge.
`
`27. One approach, introduced by Rossnagel and Hopwood1 was to create a
`
`separately sustained plasma in the target-substrate space. Another was to use the
`
`hollow cathode magnetron invention of Helmer.2 Yet another approach was to use
`
`pulsed DC magnetron sputtering to create a short-lived high density magnetron
`
`plasma with enough time between pulses such that the average power delivered over
`
`many pulses did not exceed the steady state power delivery capability of the power
`
`supply or the cooling capacity of the cathode. As the density of the plasma increases
`
`it also expands, at least partially due to reduced trapping of the electrons circulating
`
`with the magnetic field loop. The large circulating current in this loop forms a one-
`
`turn (very high amperage) electromagnet that creates a magnetic field opposing the
`
`magnetic field produced by the magnetron magnets. This reduction in effective
`
`magnetic field allows an increase in width of the sputtering zone and an expansion
`
`of the plasma away from the cathode.
`
`28. However, this pulsed approach is accompanied by several risks. An
`
`abrupt large increase in applied voltage can cause localized instabilities in electric
`
`fields to be large enough to initiate an arc on the cathode, even if a low density
`
`
`1 S.M. Rossnagel and J. Hopwood, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology 12B
`
`(449-453) 1994.
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,482,611.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`magnetron discharge is already present. If the high density plasma is driven to over-
`
`expansion it can essentially form a short between the cathode and anode leading to
`
`a breakdown mode in which no sputtering occurs.
`
`29. There are large changes in plasma impedance during a pulsed DC
`
`magnetron discharge. The more charged particles within it, the more electrically
`
`conducting it becomes. During ignition, the impedance may be in the hundreds of
`
`ohms, dropping to the tens of ohms in the low density mode. In the transition from
`
`a low to a high density plasma, the impedance drops to a few ohms, accompanied by
`
`up to two orders of magnitude increase in current. Depending on power supply
`
`design and control settings, the density of the plasma may increase quite unevenly,
`
`also leading to the possibility of plasma breakdown or arcs, if the transitions are
`
`uncontrolled.
`
`30. Power supplies in the art prior to the ‘779 patent for DC magnetron
`
`sputtering include those that set power for the duration of a deposition step. In power
`
`control mode, the output is controlled until the product of discharge voltage and
`
`current equals the set power. In pulsed power mode, the total energy delivered
`
`during a pulse is controlled.
`
`31. However, such pulsed power systems are prone to arcing upon igniting
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`the plasma, especially when working with high-power pulses.3 Such arcing can
`
`result in the release of undesirable particles in the chamber that can contaminate the
`
`sample, which is especially undesirable in semiconductor processing.4
`
`V. The ’779 Patent
`32. “A plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random
`
`directions.”5 “For example, a plasma can be generated by applying a potential of
`
`several kilovolts between two parallel conducting electrodes in an inert gas
`
`atmosphere (e.g., argon) at a pressure that is between about 10-1 and 10-2 Torr.”6
`
`Plasma is generated for use in sputtering systems, which deposit films on
`
`substrates:
`
`Ions, such as argon ions, are generated and are then drawn out of the
`
`plasma and accelerated across a cathode dark space. The target
`
`surface has a lower potential than the region in which the plasma is
`
`formed. Therefore, the target surface attracts positive ions. Positive
`
`ions move towards the target with a high velocity and then impact the
`
`target and cause atoms to physically dislodge or sputter from the
`
`target surface. The sputtered atoms then propagate to a substrate or
`
`
`3 Ex. 1001, ‘779 patent, col. 4, lines 3-9.
`
`4 Ex. 1001, ‘779 patent, col. 4, lines 16-20.
`
`5 Exhibit 1001, ‘779 patent col. 1, ll. 7-9.
`
`6 Id. at col. 1, ll. 14-16.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`other work piece where they deposit a film of sputtered target
`
`material. 7
`
`33.
`
`Magnets can be used in sputtering systems to increase the deposition
`
`rate:
`
`Magnetron sputtering systems use magnetic fields that are shaped to
`
`trap and concentrate secondary electrons proximate to the target
`
`surface. The magnetic fields increase the density of electrons and,
`
`therefore, increase the plasma density in a region that is proximate to
`
`the target surface. The increased plasma density increases the sputter
`
`deposition rate.8
`
`34. These magnetron sputtering systems, however, have “undesirable non-
`
`uniform erosion of target material.”9 To address these problems, researchers
`
`increased the applied power and later pulsed the applied power.10 But increasing
`
`the power increased “the probability of establishing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition leading to an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the
`
`chamber.”11 And “very large power pulses can still result in undesirable electrical
`
`discharges and undesirable target heating regardless of their duration.”12
`
`
`7 Id. col. 1, ll. 30-42.
`
`8 Id. at col. 1, ll. 50-57.
`
`9 Id. at col. 4, ll. 64-65.
`
`10 Id. at col. 4, ll. 3-20.
`
`11 Id. at col. 4, ll. 7-9.
`
`12 Id. at col. 4, ll. 18-20.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`35.
`
` To overcome the problems of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented
`
`a plasma generator containing (i) a feed gas source comprising ground state
`
`atoms; (ii) an excited atom source that generates excited atoms from the
`
`ground state atoms and has a magnet that traps electrons near the ground state
`
`atoms; (iii) a plasma chamber that confines excited atoms; and (iv) an energy
`
`source that ionizes the confined excited atoms in a multi-step ionization
`
`process as recited in independent claims 1 and 18 and as illustrated in Fig. 2 of
`
`the ’779 patent, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`36. As illustrated by FIG. 2, Dr. Chistyakov’s plasma generation apparatus
`
`includes “an excited atom source that generates excited atoms from ground state
`
`atoms from a feed gas source 206.”13 In one embodiment, “the excited atom source
`
`is a metastable atom source 204.”14 “The feed gas source 206 provides a volume
`
`of ground state atoms 208 to the metastable atom source 204.”15 “The plasma
`
`generator of the present invention can use any type of metastable atom source 204.
`
`Skilled artisans will appreciate that there are many methods of exciting ground
`
`state atoms 208 to a metastable state.”16 In one embodiment, magnets within the
`
`metastable atom source create an electron trap that increases the probability that
`
`they will collide with ground state atoms and generate metastable atoms.17
`
`37. Dr. Chistyakov’s plasma generation apparatus then moves the excited or
`
`metastable atoms toward a chamber:
`
`The plasma chamber 230 confines the volume of metastable atoms
`
`218. In one embodiment, the output of the metastable atom source 204
`
`is positioned so as to direct the volume of metastable atoms 218
`
`towards the cathode assembly 114. In one embodiment, the geometry
`
`
`13 Id. at col. 4, ll. 30-31.
`
`14 Id. at col. 4, ll. 31-34.
`
`15 Id. at col. 4, ll. 34-36.
`
`16 Id. at col. 5, ll. 1-5.
`
`17 Id. at col. 16, ll. 1-5.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`of the plasma chamber 230 and the cathode assembly 114 is chosen so
`
`that the metastable atoms reach the cathode assembly 114 at a time
`
`that is much less than an average transition time of the metastable
`
`atoms to ground state atoms.18
`
`38. The plasma generator also includes a magnet to increase the plasma density
`
`near the cathode:
`
`In one embodiment, a magnet (not shown) is disposed proximate
`
`to the cathode assembly 114. The magnet generates a magnetic
`
`field that traps electrons in the plasma proximate to the cathode
`
`assembly 114 and, therefore, increases the plasma density In (sic)
`
`the region proximate to the cathode assembly 114.19
`
`39. “The plasma generator 200 of FIG. 2 uses a multi-step or stepwise
`
`ionization process to generate the plasma 202.”20 A “multi-step ionization process
`
`according to the present invention includes a first step where atoms are excited
`
`from a ground state to an excited state and a second step where atoms in the
`
`excited state are ionized.”21
`
`40. Dr. Chistyakov’s “multi-step ionization process … substantially increases
`
`the rate at which the plasma 202 is formed and therefore, generates a relatively
`
`
`18 Id. at col. 6, ll. 48-56.
`
`19 Id. at col. 6, ll. 34-39.
`
`20 Id. at col. 6, ll. 60-61.
`
`21 Id. at col. 7, ll. 4-7.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`dense plasma.”22 “Once a plasma having the desired characteristics is generated,
`
`the plasma 202 can be used in the processing of the workpiece 138. … In a plasma
`
`sputtering application, ions in the plasma can be used to sputter material from the
`
`target 116. The sputtered material is deposited on the workpiece 138 to form a thin
`
`film.”23
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`
`41. I understand that the Board construed “metastable atoms” as “excited atoms
`
`having energy levels from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden.”24 I also
`
`understand that the Board construed the claim term “multi-step ionization” as “an
`
`ionization process having at least two distinct steps.”25
`
`42. I understand that the Board construed the claim term “excited atoms” as
`
`“atoms that have one or more electrons in a state that is higher than its lowest
`
`possible state.”26 I understand that a means plus function "claim [limitation] shall
`
`be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
`
`
`22 Id. at col. 8, ll. 65-67.
`
`23 Id. at col. 9, ll. 42-50.
`
`24 IPR2014-00828, Institution Decision, Paper No. 9, p. 8.
`
`25 Id. at 10.
`
`26 IPR2014-00829, Institution Decision, Paper No. 9, p. 7.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`specification and equivalents thereof."27 I understand that the Board construed the
`
`means plus function limitations appearing in the claims of the ‘779 patent as
`
`follows:28
`
`Recited functions in italics
`
`Corresponding structures
`
`means for generating a
`
`magnets—e.g., magnets
`
`566a-d,
`
`magnetic field proximate to a
`
`570a-d, 712, 714 that generate a
`
`volume of ground state
`
`magnetic field as shown in Figures 7,
`
`atoms to substantially trap
`
`7A, and 10 of the ’779 patent. See Ex.
`
`electrons proximate to the
`
`1301, 16:1–20 (“The magnets 566a-d,
`
`volume of ground state
`
`570a-d create a magnetic field 574 that
`
`atoms (claim 41)
`
`substantially
`
`traps and accelerates
`
`electrons (not shown) in the chamber
`
`554.”), 18:34–41, Figs. 7, 7A, 10.
`
`means for generating a
`
`a metastable atom source—e.g.,
`
`volume of metastable atoms
`
`metastable atom sources 402, 450,
`
`from the volume of ground
`
`500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 735 as shown
`
`state atoms (claim 41)
`
`in Figures 4–11 of the ’779 patent. Ex.
`
`1301, 14:24–26, 14:46–48, 15:46–
`
`67, 16:29–31, 17:27–34, 18:7–16,
`
`19:11–12.
`
`means for raising an energy
`
`a power supply generating an electric
`
`of the metastable atoms so
`
`field between a cathode assembly and
`
`that at least a portion of the
`
`an anode as shown in Figures 2 and 3
`
`
`27 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`28 Id. at 12.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`volume of metastable atoms
`
`of the ’779 patent. Ex. 1301, 8:39–5,
`
`is ionized, thereby
`
`11:4–14.
`
`generating a plasma with a
`
`multistep ionization process
`
`(claim 41)
`
`means for trapping electrons
`
`an
`
`electron
`
`ion/absorber—e.g.,
`
`and ions in the volume of
`
`electron ion/absorbers 536, 618, 664,
`
`metastable atoms (claim 42)
`
`728, 750, 750’, and 750” shown in
`
`Figures 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12A–12C of
`
`the ’779 patent. Pet. 19; Ex. 1301,
`
`14:66–15:9, 16:56–62, 17:35–42,
`
`18:42–67, 19:56–20:32.
`
`
`
`VII. Prior Art
`
`
`a.
`
`Iwamura
`
`43. Iwamura “relates generally to a plasma treatment apparatus and method
`
`which can treat an object with activated gas species formed by a plasma.”29
`
`Iwamura has two plasma generation units:
`
`the first plasma generation unit preactivates the gas and the second
`
`plasma generation unit activates the gas and forms activated gas
`
`
`29 Exhibit 1307, Iwamura, col. 1, ll. 2-5.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`species. Then, the activated gas species formed by the second plasma
`
`generation unit treat the object to be treated.30
`
`Iwamura discloses a preactivation plasma position and an activation plasma
`
`position:
`
`[T]he gas can be activated downstream from the upstream plasma
`
`preactivation position before the complete preactivated state of the gas
`
`is lost. In other words, the gas reaching the downstream plasma
`
`generation position maintains the ionized or near-ionized state formed
`
`by preactivation, i.e., the gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation
`
`level is high, due to the upstream plasma preactivation. Thus, the
`
`generation of a plasma and formulation of activated gas species in the
`
`downstream region is made easier and more uniform and stable.31
`
`Significantly, Iwamura does not mention a magnet, let alone “a magnet that
`
`generates a magnetic field for substantially trapping electrons proximate to the
`
`ground state atoms,” as claimed in the ‘779 patent.
`
`
`
`
`30 Id. at col. 2, l. 61.
`
`31 Id. at col. 2, ll. 32-41.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Pinsley and Angelbeck
`
`44. Pinsley discloses “a gas laser having an electric discharge plasma.”32 Pinsley
`
`discloses “a flow of gases … at total pressure of 25 Torr.”33 Angelbeck “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.”34
`
`45. Accordingly, both Pinsley and Angelbeck relate to emission of light from
`
`lasers. Light is emitted from a laser when electrons at a higher state in atoms move
`
`to a lower state, thereby releasing energy. Instead of emitting light from excited
`
`atoms, the invention of the ’779 patent confines the excited atoms after they are
`
`transformed from ground state atoms so that they can later be ionized. That is, a
`
`skilled artisan would have been dissuaded from using a gas laser of Pinsley or
`
`Angelbeck to achieve the claimed plasma generation apparatus of the ‘779 patent
`
`because the high energy atoms are not maintained in that state in a gas laser and,
`
`instead, are used to create light.
`
`VIII. It Would Not Have Been Obvious To Combine Angelbeck’s Gas Laser With
`The Plasma Treatment Apparatus Of Iwamura To Achieve the Claimed
`Invention of the ’779 Patent With A Reasonable Expectation Of Success.
`
`
`32 Exhibit 1305, Pinsley, Abstract.
`
`33 Id. at col 3, ll. 7-9.
`
`34 Exhibit 1306, Anbelbeck, col. 1, ll. 21-25.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`46. It is my opinion that it would not have been obvious to combine
`
`Angelbeck’s gas laser with the plasma treatment apparatus of Iwamura to achieve
`
`the claimed invention of the ’779 patent with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`47.
`
` The Petitioners erroneously concluded that it would have been
`
`obvious to combine Angelbeck’s gas laser with Iwamura’s plasma treatment
`
`apparatus to achieve a plasma generator having (i) a feed gas source comprising
`
`ground state atoms; (ii) an excited atom source that generates excited atoms from
`
`the ground state atoms and has a magnet that traps electrons near the ground state
`
`atoms; (iii) a plasma chamber that confines excited atoms; and (iv) an energy
`
`source that ionizes the confined excited atoms in a multi-step ionization process, as
`
`claimed in the ‘779 patent.35
`
`48. Petitioners’ conclusion is incorrect. The claimed invention of the ’779 patent
`
`confines the excited atoms after they are transformed from ground state atoms so
`
`that they can later be ionized.36 The excited atoms in Angelbeck’s laser, however,
`
`must return to their ground state to release energy so that the laser will operate
`
`according to its intended purpose: to emit light.37 Accordingly, a skilled artisan
`
`
`35 Petition, pp. 40-60.
`
`36 Exhibit 1301, ‘779 Patent, col. 21, ll. 21-39.
`
`37 Exhibit 1306, Angelbeck, col. 1.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`would have been dissuaded from using the teachings of the gas laser of Angelbeck
`
`to achieve the claimed plasma generation apparatus of the ‘779 patent. Moreover,
`
`the magnetic fields disclosed in Angelbeck are not designed to trap electrons. Rather
`
`their purpose is to either direct electrons to the tube walls or to affect electron
`
`temperature. The Petitioner failed to provide experimental data or other objective
`
`evidence indicating that the structure and process of Iwamura would produce the
`
`particular plasma generator of the ‘779 patent if it were somehow modified by the
`
`teachings of the gas laser of Angelbeck, particularly in light of the clear difference
`
`in the intended purpose of the excited atoms in the ‘779 patent and those in
`
`Angelbeck.
`
`IX. The cited references would not have taught or suggested all the claim
`limitations of any of the claims of the ‘779 patent.
`
`49. It is my opinion that the combinations of prior art asserted by the Petitioners
`
`would not have taught all the claim limitations of any of the claims of the ‘779
`
`patent.
`
`1. The combination of Iwamura and Angelbeck Does Not Teach “an
`excited atom source that receives ground state atoms from the feed
`gas source … the excited atom source generating excited atoms
`from the ground state atoms,” As Recited In Claim 1 And As
`Similarly Recit
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
