`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, and
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`IPR2014-010731
`Patent 6,085779 B2
`
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00828, IPR2014-00829, IPR2014-00917 and IPR2014-01076
`have been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. v
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. ZOND’S FLAWED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PRIOR ART FAIL ......... 2
`
`A. Zond’s interpretation of a “plasma” in Iwamura contradicts both
`Iwamura and the ’779 Patent’s teachings ..................................................... 2
`
`B. Zond mischaracterizes the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck .................. 4
`
`C. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Iwamura
`with Pinsley and Angelbeck ......................................................................... 9
`
`III. CLAIMS 1, 4, 10, 11, 13-15, 18, 24, 25, AND 17 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER THE CITED PRIOR ART ........................................................................... 13
`
`A. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “an excited atom
`source” recited in claim 1, and “a metastable atom source” recited in
`claim 18. ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`B. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “a plasma chamber
`that is coupled to the [excited / metastable] atom source” recited in
`claims 1 and 18. .......................................................................................... 15
`
`C. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “an energy source
`that is coupled to the volume of [excited / metastable] atoms … thereby
`generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process” recited by
`claims 1 and 18. .......................................................................................... 17
`
`D. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “a metastable atom
`source that generates metastable atoms” recited in claim 4. ...................... 18
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`E. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “the [excited /
`metastable] atom source is positioned inside the plasma chamber”
`recited by claims 10 and 24, and “the [excited / metastable] atom
`source is positioned outside the plasma chamber” recited by claims 11
`and 25. ......................................................................................................... 18
`
`F. Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “the energy source
`is chosen from the group comprising [various sources]” recited in
`recited by claim 13, “the energy source comprises a power supply”
`recited by claim 14, and “the power supply is chosen from the group
`comprising [various types of power supplies]” recited by claims 15 and
`27. ............................................................................................................... 19
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 20
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ........... 4
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`April 27, 2015
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (“’779 Patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Kortshagen Decl.”)
`
`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”)
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1),
`pp. 30-35, January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779, Office Action dated
`February 11, 2004 (“02/11/04 Office Action”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779, Response dated May 6, 2004
`(“05/06/04 Response”)
`
`European Patent Application No. 1614136, Response dated July 24,
`2007 (07/24/07 Response in EP 1614136)
`
`J. Vlček, A collisional-radiative model applicable to argon discharges
`over a wide range of conditions. I: Formulation and basic data, J. Phys.
`D: Appl. Phys. 22 (1989) pp. 623-631, Printed in the UK
`
`J. Vlček, A collisional-radiative model applicable to argon discharges
`over a wide range of conditions. II: Application to low-pressure, hollow-
`cathode arc and low-pressure glow discharges, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
`
`v
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`22 (1989) pp. 632-643, Printed in the UK
`
`List of Related Litigations
`
`Affidavit of Mr. Rismiller in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Supp. Kortshagen
`Decl.”)
`
`R. F. Post, Proc. of Second U.N. Int’l. Conf. on the Peaceful Uses of
`Atomic Energy, Vol. 32 at p. 245 (Geneva, 1958) (“Post”)
`
`Dr. Hartsough Deposition Transcript for U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779
`(“Hartsough Depo.”)
`
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In its Decision on Institution (“DI”), the Board recognized that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29 of the ’779
`
`Patent are unpatentable. DI at p. 25 (Paper No. 11).
`
`Of the challenged claims, Zond and Zond’s declarant, Dr. Hartsough, failed
`
`to address individual elements of claims 2, 3, 12, 17, 26, and 29, effectively
`
`conceding that these claim elements are unpatentable with a combination of the
`
`cited references. Of the remaining challenged claims (claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13-15,
`
`18, 24, 25, and 27), Zond’s Patent Owner Response offers flawed interpretations of
`
`the prior art and well-understood technical terms (e.g., plasma), and in some cases
`
`mischaracterizes Petitioner’s argument, in a vain attempt to distinguish the cited
`
`prior art.
`
`The Petition, supported by Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration, clearly
`
`demonstrated why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
`
`teachings of the cited references. In fact, the cross-examination of Dr. Hartsough
`
`demonstrates many areas of agreement between Dr. Kortshagen and Dr. Hartsough
`
`and contrary to the arguments in Zond’s Patent Owner Response. Petitioner
`
`provides a supplemental declaration of Dr. Korthshagen to respond to Zond’s
`
`Patent Owner Response and the declaration by Dr. Hartsough.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`II. ZOND’S FLAWED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PRIOR ART FAIL
`A. Zond’s interpretation of a “plasma” in Iwamura contradicts both
`Iwamura and the ’779 Patent’s teachings
`
`The entirety of Zond’s arguments directed to Iwamura are flawed because
`
`they are predicated upon an interpretation of the term “plasma” as containing only
`
`ions that is contrary to the understanding of persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 20-24 (Ex. 1015). Despite this, Dr. Hartsough, Zond’s
`
`declarant, concedes that the plasma generated by Iwamura’s first plasma
`
`generation unit, or the combination of the preexcitation unit and the first plasma
`
`generation unit, is a plasma that contains excited atoms including metastable
`
`atoms, in addition to ions. 2 Hartsough Depo. at 74:2-76:4 (“Q. So a portion of the
`
`
`2 While Dr. Hartsough concedes that the common usage of the term plasma is a
`
`collection of ions, electrons, and ground state atoms and excited atoms,
`
`(Hartsough Depo., at 42:9-25 (Ex. 1017)), he could not confirm the composition of
`
`the gases within Iwamura’s plasma chamber as he admits he is not a plasma
`
`physicist. Id. at 78:9-12. Indeed, Dr. Hartsough repeatedly admitted this fact
`
`throughout his deposition. See e.g., Id. at 27:11-19, 28:14-18, 42:19-43:3. Instead,
`
`Dr. Hartsough relies exclusively on what the documents state. Id. at 41:18-21.
`
`Dr. Kortshagen, who is a trained plasma physicist and teaches courses on plasma
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`gas species flowing into plasma generation re[gion] A would form a plasma;
`
`correct? A. That’s correct. Q. and that plasma contains ions? A. Yes. … A. It
`
`would contain other species, yes. … Q. Ground state atoms? A. Yes. Q. Excited
`
`atoms? A. Probably. Q. Metastable atoms? A. Quite possibly.”) (emphasis
`
`added) (Ex. 1017).
`
`Consequently, Zond’s arguments that: (1) Iwamura’s first plasma generation
`
`unit “generates plasma (i.e., ions), not excited or metastable atoms”; and (2)
`
`Iwamura’s plasma chamber “is coupled to a plasma source [and] not coupled to the
`
`preexctation unit,” squarely contradicts the teachings of Iwamura, the ’779 Patent,
`
`and Zond’s own declarant. See Patent Owner’s Response (“Response”) at p. 40
`
`(Paper No. 25). As such, Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit, or the
`
`combination of the preexcitation unit and the plasma generation unit, generates
`
`
`
`
`technology, (Kortshagen Decl., Appendix A) (Ex. 1002), confirms that a plasma is
`
`defined as “a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms (including
`
`various excited states)” and that Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit “generates
`
`a plasma comprising a volume of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited
`
`atoms, and metastable atoms, all of which flows into Iwamura’s treatment
`
`chamber.” Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 25-33 (Ex. 1015).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`excited and metastable atoms. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 25-33 (Ex. 1015).
`
`Zond mischaracterizes the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck
`
`B.
`Zond’s arguments that the magnetic field configurations disclosed in Pinsley
`
`and Angelbeck do not “substantially trap” electrons as recited by claims 1 and 18
`
`of the ’779 Patent run afoul of the Federal Circuit’s teachings that “[a] reference
`
`must be considered for everything it teaches” and “the combined teachings of the
`
`prior art as a whole must be considered.” EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc.,
`
`755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphasis added); Response at pp. 33-38
`
`(Paper No. 25).
`
`In its Response, Zond narrowly focuses on a handful of lines from Pinsley
`
`and Angelbeck’s disclosures, failing to take into consideration the teachings of
`
`Pinsley and Angelbeck as a whole to one of ordinary skill in the art. When
`
`properly considered in their entirety, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the magnetic field configurations of Pinsley and Angelbeck to
`
`“substantially trap” electrons in the same manner as the term is used in the ’779
`
`Patent. 3 Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 38-56 (Ex. 1015).
`
`
`3 Neither Zond nor Dr. Hartsough has provided a construction of the term
`
`“substantially trap,” as it is used in the ’779 Patent. Moreover, when questioned,
`
`Dr. Hartsough could not articulate any objective criteria for determining when a
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Regarding Pinsley, Zond argues Pinsley’s magnetic field does not
`
`“substantially trap” electrons because “[electrons] can easily still easily [sic] flow
`
`to the anode.” Response at p. 36 (Paper No. 25). Zond’s argument is flawed for a
`
`number of reasons. First, as conceded by Dr. Hartsough in the context of the ’779
`
`patent teachings, whether or not the “substantially trap[ped]” electrons flow to the
`
`anode is immaterial to the teachings of the ’779 Patent. Hartsough Depo. at
`
`139:20-24 (“Q. So at some point, the electron will flow towards the anode … that’s
`
`illustrated by Figure 7A? A. Well, they can flow to the anode. In fact, most of
`
`them will”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1017).
`
`Second, Zond’s argument is based on the incorrect assumption that the force
`
`created by Pinsley’s transverse magnetic field configuration only to be in a
`
`direction opposite that of the gas flow direction. Response at p. 36 (Paper No. 25).
`
`As explained in detail by Dr. Kortshagen, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`
`
`
`magnetic field configuration would “substantially trap” electrons, only that he will
`
`know it when he sees it. Hartsough Depo., at 138:6-15, 150: 2-151:5 (Ex. 1017).
`
`However, Dr. Hartsough concedes that a magnetic field configuration with
`
`converging magnetic field lines will “substantially trap” electrons. Id. at 123:4-13.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`recognize that, as a matter of the natural laws of physics, Pinsley’s magnetic field
`
`lines are not perfectly straight to generate a force in only one direction, but rather
`
`they are non-uniform and converge near the magnets 24 and 26. Supp. Kortshagen
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 39-42 (Ex. 1015). The effect of the non-uniform, converging, magnetic
`
`field lines will force electrons into an E x B drift motion normal to the anode-
`
`cathode axis, impeding their flow to the anode. Id. at ¶ 47, FN. 5 (“The E x B drift
`
`motion is the dynamic path of an electron when it encounters crossed electric fields
`
`(E) and magnetic fields (B)”).
`
`Pinsley’s non-uniform, converging, magnetic field lines are illustrated by
`
`Dr. Kortshagen in the figures below. Id. at ¶¶ 40-4.
`
`Pinsley, FIGURE (annotated) (Ex. 1005); Korshagen, FIG. 1 (Ex. 1015).
`
`Third, Pinsley’s non-uniform, converging, magnetic field configuration is
`
`similar to that of the embodiment depicted by figure 7A of the ’779 Patent, and
`
`thus “substantially trap[s]” electrons as the term is used in the ’779 Patent. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`¶¶ 43-46. As explained by Dr. Kortshagen, the magnetic field configurations of
`
`Pinsley and the embodiment depicted by figure 7A of the ’779 Patent are
`
`“magnetic mirrors,” which have been utilized by those skilled in the art since the
`
`1950’s and 1960’s to trap electrons. Id. at ¶¶ 44; see e.g., Post at p. 245 (Ex.
`
`1016).
`
`As Dr. Hartsough concedes, converging magnetic field lines will
`
`“substantially trap” electrons. Hartsough Depo. at 123:4-13 (“[A.] So you get –
`
`you get electron trapping because of the configuration that’s shown in Figure 7A,
`
`where the field lines converge at – near both electrodes. They’re getting closer
`
`together, And so you get electron trapping due to the reflection of the electrons …
`
`It’s the magnetic – the convergence of the magnetic field lines that can cause
`
`the electrons to be basically oscillating back and forth inside that trap.”)
`
`(emphasis added) (Ex. 1017). Thus, contrary to Zond’s argument, Pinsley
`
`discloses a magnetic field configuration that will “substantially trap” electrons as
`
`the term is used in the ’779 Patent.
`
`Regarding Angelbeck, Zond argues Angelbeck’s “transverse magnetic field
`
`will result in a force directed across the flow of electrons from cathode to anode
`
`and to the tube walls, where they are removed from the plasma.” Response at pp.
`
`35-36 (Paper No. 25). Zond’s argument, based on two lines taken out of context,
`
`mischaracterizes Angelbeck’s disclosure. Id. at p. 35. While Angelbeck discloses
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`the transverse magnetic field enhances the loss of electrons to the tube walls, this
`
`does not mean that all of the electrons are lost as Zond incorrectly contends.
`
`Angelbeck at 2:33-35 (Ex. 1006); Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 53-55 (Ex. 1015).
`
`Assuming Zond’s argument were true, there would be no plasma in Angelbeck’s
`
`laser tube 10. Id. However, Angelbeck unequivocally states: “[t]he current-
`
`excited discharge passed through the gas within tube 10 creates a plasma in which
`
`the atoms are ionized and the electrons are freed.” Angelbeck at 2:54-56 (Ex.
`
`1006).
`
`Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that as electrons are
`
`lost to the tube walls, the walls become negatively charged. Supp. Kortshagen
`
`Decl., ¶ 54 (Ex. 1015). The negatively charged tube walls oppose the negatively
`
`charged electrons, and as a result, the majority of electrons will be “substantially
`
`trapped” within Angelbeck’s laser tube. Id. Like the magnetic fields of Pinsley
`
`and figure 7A of the ’779 Patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`Angelbeck’s magnetic field lines B will converge as they approach the pole pieces
`
`24 and 26, forming a magnetic mirror. Id. at ¶¶ 50-51.
`
`Thus, as conceded by Dr. Hartsough, converging magnetic field lines will
`
`“substantially trap” electrons, and so Angelbeck “substantially traps” electrons in
`
`the same manner as the embodiment depicted in Pinsley and figures 7 and 7A of
`
`the ’779 Patent. Id. at ¶ 56; Hartsough Depo. at 123:4-13 (Ex. 1017).
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`C. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`Iwamura with Pinsley and Angelbeck
`
`Zond makes numerous arguments as to why a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not combine Iwamura with Pinsley and Angelbeck. Response at pp. 25-
`
`28 (Paper No. 25). All of these arguments are based on nothing more than the
`
`alleged differences between the physical systems of Iwamura and
`
`Pinsley/Angelbeck, and focus on bodily incorporating their systems. This is not
`
`the proper standard for determining obviousness. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
`
`1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness
`
`based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`
`substitution of elements.”). As further discussed below, a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been encouraged to combine the teachings of Pinsley and
`
`Angelbeck with Iwamura.
`
`Both Pinsley and Angelbeck teach the application of a transverse magnetic
`
`field increase the efficiency of exciting atoms. See e.g., Angelbeck at 1:36-41 (Ex.
`
`1006); Pinsley at 2:43-48 (Ex. 1005). One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to apply the transverse magnetic field teachings of Pinsley and
`
`Angelbeck to increase the efficiency of the plasma generating unit of Iwamura as it
`
`was well-known that both gas lasers and plasma generators excite gas atoms in a
`
`similar manner. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶57-61 (Ex. 1015). In fact,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`Krudryavstev teaches that excited atom generation in plasma gas lasers are
`
`analogous fields, and that effects observed in one may be equally applicable to the
`
`other, and vice-versa. Kudryavstev at 30, left col, ¶ 1; 35, right col., ¶ 4 (Ex.
`
`1004).
`
`Zond argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be dissuaded
`
`from combining Pinsley and Angelbeck with Iwamura because the excited gas
`
`atoms in a gas laser “must return to their ground state to release energy … to emit
`
`light,” and that “Petitioner failed to provide experimental data or other objective
`
`evidence indicating that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
`
`the teachings of a laser in Angelbeck or Pinsley with Iwamura’s plasma treatment
`
`system.” Response at pp. 26-27 (Paper No. 25). Such statements are incorrect.
`
`Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 64-67 (Ex. 1015).
`
`First, Pinsley and Angelbeck expressly disclose the application of a
`
`transverse magnetic field improves the efficiency of exciting atoms. Angelbeck at
`
`1:36-41 (Ex. 1006). Whether or not Pinsley and Angelbeck allow the excited
`
`atoms to return to a ground state after excitation is immaterial to the teachings of
`
`Pinsley and Angelbeck of how to increase the efficiency of exciting atoms. See
`
`e.g., Angelbeck at 1:36-41 (Ex. 1006); Pinsley at 2:43-48 (Ex. 1005); Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 64 (Ex. 1015). One of ordinary skill in the art would look to
`
`the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck for how to increase the efficiency of
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`exciting atoms. Id. at ¶¶ 58-61.
`
`Second, as a matter of plasma physics, excited atoms generated by plasma
`
`generators such as Iwamura’s may return to their ground state after being excited
`
`by Iwamura’s first plasma generating unit as they flow through the treatment
`
`chamber 10. Id. at ¶ 65; c.f. Iwamura at 7:60-65 (Ex. 1007); Angelbeck at 2:39-42
`
`(Ex. 1006).
`
`Third, the prior art plasma sputtering apparatus disclosed in the ’779 Patent
`
`itself confirms it was well known in the art at the time of the invention to use a
`
`magnet in a plasma apparatus for trapping electrons to improve the efficiency of
`
`exciting atoms, and provides the very objective evidence Zond claims is absent
`
`from the teachings of the prior art. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 66 (Ex. 1015); ’779
`
`Patent at 3:13-18 (Ex. 1001). Dr. Hartsough concedes that the magnetron
`
`sputtering systems dating back to the mid-1970’s used magnets for trapping
`
`electrons. Hartsough Depo. at 20:13-21:1 (Ex. 1017). Moreover, magnetic mirror
`
`electron-traps, such as the one depicted in figure 7A of the ’779 Patent, have been
`
`known in the art for half a century, since the 1950’s and 1960’s. See e.g., Post at
`
`p. 245 (Ex. 1016).
`
`Finally, Zond improperly attacks the direct substitution of elements of
`
`Pinsley and Angelbeck with Iwamura, and relies on a PTAB decision that is
`
`inapplicable to the present proceedings. Response at p. 25 (Paper No. 25). Zond
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`claims that one skilled in the art would be unable to incorporate Pinsley and
`
`Angelbeck’s teachings of a transverse magnetic field to trap electrons into
`
`Iwamura’s plasma generation apparatus because Pinsley and Angelbeck are gas
`
`lasers while Iwamura is a plasma generator. Id. at 26. This is the same argument
`
`Zond previously made in its Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper No. 9 at
`
`p. 28), and was rejected by the Board in the DI. DI at p. 20 (“It is well-established
`
`that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
`
`does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”) (emphasis
`
`added) (Paper No. 11). As the Board correctly recognized in its DI, Petitioners
`
`seek to combine Pinsley and Angelbeck’s teachings of a transverse magnetic field
`
`with Iwamura’s plasma generation apparatus, not actual substitution of Pinsley and
`
`Angelbeck’s gas laser. Id. at 20-21.
`
`Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply
`
`the transverse magnetic field teachings of Angelbeck and Pinsley to Iwamura’s
`
`first plasma generation unit for the density of electrons in the plasma region A
`
`between first electrodes 26a and 26b, thereby increasing the efficiency of exciting
`
`atoms flowing through plasma region A. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 67 (Ex. 1015).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`III. CLAIMS 1, 4, 10, 11, 13-15, 18, 24, 25, AND 17 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER THE CITED PRIOR ART
`A.
`Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “an excited
`atom source” recited in claim 1, and “a metastable atom source” recited
`in claim 18.
`
`Zond argues that Iwamura does not teach an “excited atom source” or a
`
`“metastable atom source” because “Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit
`
`generates a plasma.” Response at p. 29 (Paper No. 25). As discussed above, this
`
`point has been conceded by Dr. Hartsough. Hartsough Depo. at 74:2-76:4 (“Q. So
`
`a portion of the gas species flowing into plasma generation re[gion] A would form
`
`a plasma; correct? A. That’s correct. Q. and that plasma contains ions? A. Yes.
`
`… A. It would contain other species, yes. … Q. Ground state atoms? A. Yes. Q.
`
`Excited atoms? A. Probably. Q. Metastable atoms? A. Quite possibly.”)
`
`(emphasis added) (Ex. 1017). Moreover, Dr. Hartsough further admits a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “plasma” to include excited
`
`atoms and metastable atoms. Id. at 42:9-15.
`
`Zond additionally argues that the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck and
`
`Pinsley does not teach “the excited atom source comprising a magnet that
`
`generates a magnetic field for substantially trapping electrons proximate to the
`
`ground state atoms.” Response at p. 33 (Paper No. 25). Zond’s first argument,
`
`that Angelbeck’s system produces “a plasma, not excited / metastable atoms as
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`claimed,” is nonsensical. Id. at 34 (emphasis in original); Supp. Kortshagen Decl.,
`
`¶ 80 (Ex. 1015). The claims recite “substantially trapping proximate to the ground
`
`state atoms.” Further, Zond admits excited atoms and ground state atoms are
`
`present in Angelbeck’s laser tube. Response at p. 26 (“The excited atoms in
`
`Angelbeck’s laser … must return to their ground state…”) (Paper No. 25).
`
`Moreover, Angelbeck expressly discloses excited atoms are generated. Angelbeck
`
`at 2:18-20 (Ex. 1006). Thus, as previously explained in section II(B), the magnetic
`
`field B which traverses Angelbeck’s laser tube 10 will “substantially trap”
`
`electrons proximate both ground state atoms and excited atoms. Supp. Korshagen
`
`Decl., ¶ 82 (Ex. 1015).
`
`Zond’s second argument, that “Angelbeck teaches deflecting the electrons
`
`toward the tube walls, which in a flowing feed gas, would have no trapping effect
`
`whatsoever on the electrons,” mischaracterizes Angelbeck’s teachings, as
`
`explained above in section II(B). Response at p. 35 (Paper No. 25); Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 83-85 (Ex. 1015).
`
`Moreover, Zond entirely ignores the teachings of Pinsley. Notably, Pinsley
`
`discloses that the “interaction between the current and the magnetic field will result
`
`in an upstream force … [t]his force is exerted upon the electrons, and tends to
`
`maintain the electrons in an area between the anode and cathode.” Pinsley at
`
`2:43-48 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1005). Thus, Pinsley squarely discredits Zond’s
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`argument. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 86 (Ex. 1015).
`
`Both Pinsley and Angelbeck teach the application of a transverse magnetic
`
`field to “substantially trap” electrons. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 38-56 (Ex.
`
`1015). As discussed at length above in section II(C), one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have been motivated to apply the transverse magnetic field teachings of
`
`Pinsley and Angelbeck to increase the density of electrons in the plasma region A
`
`between the first electrodes 26, thereby increasing the efficiency of exciting atoms
`
`flowing through plasma region A. Id. at ¶ 87. Thus, the combination of Iwamura
`
`with Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches an excited / metastable atom source
`
`“substantially trapping” electrons proximate to ground state atoms as recited by
`
`independent claims 1 and 18. Id.
`
`B.
`Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “a plasma
`chamber that is coupled to the [excited / metastable] atom source”
`recited in claims 1 and 18.
`
`Zond further argues that Iwamura does not teach “a plasma chamber that is
`
`coupled to the [excited / metastable] atom source” because “[o]nly Iwamura’s
`
`preexcitation unit excites, or preexcites the gas” and the “plasma chamber is not
`
`coupled to its pre-excitation unit.” Response at p. 40 (Paper No. 25) (emphasis
`
`added). Zond’s argument hinges upon an incorrect reading of the Petition and the
`
`original declaration of Dr. Kortshagen, which state that Iwamura’s first plasma
`
`generation unit, or the combination of the preexcitation unit and the first
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`plasma generation unit, generates excited atoms and metastable atoms in addition
`
`to ions, and is contrary to the teachings of Iwamura. Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review, p. 50 (Paper No. 2); Kortshagen Decl., ¶¶ 110-116 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Zond’s argument focuses only on Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit as the
`
`source of excited / metastable atoms and concludes that it is not coupled to
`
`Iwamura’s plasma chamber due to the presence of the first plasma generation unit
`
`being disposed between them. Response at pp. 43-44 (Paper No. 27).
`
`Notwithstanding this, Dr. Hartsough concedes Iwamura’s preexcitation unit is
`
`coupled to the plasma chamber as the term “coupled” is used in the ’779 Patent.
`
`Hartsough Depo. at 108:13-109:22 (“Q. You would agree with me that the term
`
`“coupling” includes an indirect connection, as is used in the context of the ’779
`
`patent; correct? A. That’s the way it’s used. Q. So isn’t the preexcitation unit of
`
`Iwamura at least indirectly coupled to the plasma chamber 10? A. Indirectly,
`
`yeah.”) (Ex. 1017). Moreover, Zond conveniently ignores the combination of the
`
`preexcitation unit and the first plasma generation unit functioning as the excited /
`
`metastable atom source. Dr. Hartsough admits that Iwamura’s first plasma
`
`generation unit is coupled to the plasma chamber. Id. at 92:12-13 (“the [first
`
`plasma generation] electrode is coupled to the chamber.”).
`
`As Zond does not dispute that the first plasma generation unit is coupled to
`
`the plasma chamber, the combination of the pre-excitation unit with the first
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01073
` Patent No. 6,085,779
`
`plasma generation unit creates excited and metastable atoms, and is, likewise
`
`coupled to Iwamura’s plasma chamber 10. Supp. Kortshagen Decl., ¶ 75 (Ex.
`
`1015).
`
`C.
`Iwamura in view of Pinsley and Angelbeck teaches “an energy
`source that is coupled to the volume of [excited / metastable] atoms …
`thereby generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process”
`recited by claims 1 and 18.
`
`Zond again argues Iwamura does not teach “an energy source coupled to the
`
`volume of [excited / metastable] atoms” because “the atoms entering Iwamura’s
`
`chambers are not excited, but are instead activated (i.e., a plasma).” Response at
`
`pp. 41-44 (Paper No. 25). As previously explained and as admitted by Dr.
`
`Hartsough, Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit generates excited and
`
`metastable atoms, meeting the first distinct step of the ’779 Patent’s “multi-step
`
`ionization.” Hartsough Depo. at 74:2-76:4 (Ex. 1017); Supp. Kortshagen Decl.,¶¶
`
`88-92 (Ex. 1015). Iwamura further discloses