`
`Filed on behalf of GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES
`Dresden Module One LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`Two LLC & CO. KG
`
`By: David M. Tennant, Reg. No. 48,362
`White & Case LLP
`
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 626-3684
`Email: dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`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
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR Case No.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,805,779
`
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27 AND 29
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Mandatory Notices .................................................................................... ..- 1 -
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party—in—Interest...................................................................... ..- 1 —
`
`Related Matters ............................................................................... ..- 1 -
`
`Counsel ........................................................................................... ..- 1 —
`
`Service Information ........................................................................ ..- 1 —
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Certification of Grounds for Standing ...................................................... ..- 2 -
`
`Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested .......................................... ..- 2 -
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ..................................... ..- 2 -
`
`Grounds for Challenge ................................................................... ..- 3 -
`
`IV. Brief Description of Technology .............................................................. ..- 4 —
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plasma ............................................................................................. ..- 4 -
`
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms .................................... ..- 5 —
`
`V.
`
`Overview of the ‘779 Patent ..................................................................... ..- 7 -
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘779 Patent ........................ ..- 7 -
`
`Prosecution History ...................................................................... ..- 11 -
`
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ...................................... ..- 13 -
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art ............................................................. ..- 13 -
`
`Overview of Mozgrin ................................................................... ..- 13 —
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev ............................................................. ..- 14 —
`
`Overview of Iwamura ................................................................... ..- 15 -
`
`Overview of Pinsley and Angelbeck ............................................ ..- 16 -
`
`VII. Claim construction .................................................................................. ..- 17 -
`
`VIII. Specific Grounds for Petition ................................................................. ..- 18 -
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29 would have been
`obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and
`Pinsley .......................................................................................... ..- 18 —
`
`Independent claim 1 ..................................................................... ..- 18 -
`
`Independent claim 18 ................................................................... ..- 32 —
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`
`Ground 11: Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27 and 29 would have been
`obvious in View of the combination of Iwamura and Angelbeck ..- 40 -
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Independent claim 1 ..................................................................... ..- 40 -
`
`Independent claim 18 ................................................................... ..- 53 -
`
`IX.
`
`Conclusion .............................................................................................. ..- 60 —
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`In re ICONHealth & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........ .. 17
`
`FEDERAL STATUES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... .. 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................. .. 3
`
`RULES
`
`Rule 42.22(a)(1) ...................................................................................................... .. 2
`
`Rule 42.104(a) ......................................................................................................... .. 2
`
`Rule 42.104(b)(1)-(2) .............................................................................................. .. 2
`
`Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ............................................................................................ .. 18
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................ .. 17
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................................... .. 18
`
`iii
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`
`One LLC & Co. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module Two LLC & Co.
`
`KG (collectively, “Petitioner”) are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Zond has asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (“‘779 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts. See List of Related
`
`Litigations (Ex. 1013). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes
`
`review in several patents that name the same alleged inventor. The below-listed
`
`claims of the ’779 Patent are presently the subject of two substantially identical
`
`petitions for inter partes review with Case Nos. IPR20l4-00598 and IPR20l4-
`
`00981. Petitioner plans to seek joinder with IPR20l4-00443.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: David M. Tennant (Reg. No. 48,362)
`
`Backup Counsel: Dohm Chankong (Reg. No. 70,524)
`
`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.
`
`David M. Tennant (Reg. No. 48,362)
`
`E-mail:
`
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Post and hand delivery: White & Case LLP
`
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Telephone: (202) 626-3684
`
`Fax: (202) 639-9355
`
`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.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(l) and 42.l04(b)(l)—(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27 and 29 ofthe ‘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 l02(b): I
`
`1.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High—Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`1 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.
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1003)).
`
`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. 1004)).
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,761,836 (“Pinsley” (EX. 1005)).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,514,714 (“Angelbeck” (Ex. 1006)).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura” (Ex. 1007)).
`
`Of these, only Mozgrin was of record during prosecution.
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27 and 29
`
`of the ‘779 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported
`
`by the declaration of Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D. (“Kortshagen Dec1.” (Ex. 1002))
`
`filed herewith,2 demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged
`
`2 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by Petitioner. The declaration at Ex. 1002 is a
`
`copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-00443, discussed above.
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`claim is not patentable.3 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. 11 21 (Ex. 1002). 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. 1002). The “density” of a
`
`plasma refers to the number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume.
`
`Id. (Ex. 1002)?
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘779 Patent was filed. Id. at 11 22 (Ex. 1002). 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
`
`3 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18,
`
`24-27 and 29 of the ‘779 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate remaining claims of
`
`the ‘779 Patent in separate petitions.
`
`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. 11 21, FN.1 (Ex. 1002).
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`manufacturing operation). Id. (Ex. 1002). Ions in the plasma strike a target
`
`surface causing ejection of a small amount of target material.
`
`Ia’. (Ex. 1002). The
`
`ejected target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`B.
`
`Ions, excited atoms, and metastable atoms
`
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. 11 23
`
`(Ex. 1002). Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. (Ex. 1002). 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. 1002).
`
`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 1] 24 (Ex. 1002). 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 radiation. Id. (Ex.
`
`1002). 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. 1001). “All noble gases have metastable states.”
`
`‘779 Patent at 7:37 (Ex. 1001). When generating excited atoms, multiple levels of
`
`excited states are formed. Kortshagen Decl.
`
`24 (Ex. 1002). Of these, some of
`
`the lowest states are metastable, and would typically be more common than the
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`higher states. Id. (Ex. 1002), where Dr. Kortshagen provides additional support
`
`with reference to Ex. 1011 and Ex. 1012.
`
`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. Id. at 11 25 (Ex.
`
`1002). 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. 1001).
`
`Ar+e‘ -9 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. Id. (Ex. 1002). 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, Ar*. See ‘779
`
`Patent at 3:40 and 829 (EX. 1001).
`
`Ar + e" 9 Ar+ + 2e"
`
`Ar* + e" -) Ar+ + 2e"
`
`The production of excited atoms, metastable atoms, and ions was well
`
`understood long before the ‘779 Patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 27 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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/molecule source that generates excited
`
`atoms, or metastable atoms or molecules, and then provides the excited/metastable
`
`atoms or molecules to a plasma chamber where the plasma is fonned, thereby
`
`generating a plasma with a “multi—step ionization” process. For convenience, this
`
`section will just use the term “excited atom source.” In any event, there appears to
`
`be no substantial difference between excited and metastable sources. 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. 1001), 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.” ‘779 Patent at 5:63-65 (Ex. 1001)
`
`Admitted prior art FIG. 1 of the ‘779 Patent shows a plasma chamber
`
`consisting of a magnetron sputtering system, without an excited atom source.
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`:;r.Ix:zr:;4';;w/
`.
`'6 '4 -.4
`‘ \\\\\\\\\\\
`.
`
`I I~7/"',.’zt5«.. 5
`'.g
`/
`
`‘H2
`
`
`
`-.w::L.:L.-u _,.,.1
`FLI-MI‘
`
`
`
`1
`FIG.
`PRIOR ART
`
`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. 1001).
`
`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.
`
`‘779
`
`Patent at 2:46-3:18 (Ex. 1001).
`
`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
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`process according to the present invention”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`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 below).
`
`‘779 Patent at 223-11; FIGS. 2 and 3 (Ex. 1001).
`
`127
`
`PULSED
`POWER
`SUPPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`MET:rSoTaBLE- 204 ..;_.,_.
`g
`' ’ "*5
`
`JET 114
`
`221
`
`:
`116
`
`133
`
`~e
`
`
`
`
`
`:3:
`
`
`E:-.'<= ’//‘ I«.'.r«.¢.»:r-£4//..=.:a=
`
`|::;e,'-\<V:-g_/__,-I5" -._::
`§;fil'"’34"'3%'345_3_s'4 ‘33?3°’
`
`
`
`CTRL. . emu
`METASTABLE
`
`ATOM SOURCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.4
`
`146
`
`2.0
`
`
`
`HG" 2
`
`FIG. 3
`
`*
`
`Specifically, FIG. 2 shows metastable atom source 204, and FIG. 3 shows
`
`metastable atom source 304 (annotated in color above). 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. 1001).
`
`Metastable atoms 218 are transported from the source where they are generated to
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the region between the cathode 114/306 and substrate support 136/352, where
`
`plasma 202/302 is formed.
`
`Power supply 222 (also annotated in color above) provides power to the
`
`metastable atom source. See, e. g., ‘779 Patent at 60-62 (Ex. 1001). 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., ‘779 Patent at
`
`1124-14 (“A power supply 316 is electrically coupled to the volume of metastable
`
`atoms 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. 1001).
`
`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).
`
`‘779
`
`Patent at 4:31-34) (Ex. 1001).
`
`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
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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. 1001).
`
`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
`
`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/ 1 1/04 Office Action at 2-3 (Ex. 1008).
`
`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. 1009). 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 states:
`
`In other embodiments, the ground state atoms 208 are energized to a
`
`metastable state by using an energy source, such as a DC plasma
`
`source, a radio frequency (RF) plasma source, an ultraviolet (UV)
`
`5 All bold/italics emphasis is added.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`radiation source, an X—ray radiation source, an electron beam radiation
`
`source, an ion beam radiation source, an inductively coupled plasma
`
`(ICP) source, a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) source, a
`
`microwave plasma source, an electron cyclotron resonance (ECR)
`
`plasma source, a helicon plasma source, or a magnetron plasma
`
`discharge source. ‘779 Patent at 19:1-10 (Ex. 1001).
`
`In other words, although the magnet embodiment was claimed, the
`
`specification indicates that there were approximately twelve (12) different ways to
`
`generate excited atoms, and shows multiple embodiments — e.g., FIGS. 4, 5, 8, 9,
`
`and 11—wz'thout 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:l2-20 (Ex. 1001).
`
`European Counterpart. The applicants had also identified these magnets,
`
`located in the separate excited atom source of FIG. 6, as the claimed magnets in
`
`counterpart claims in Europe, which 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 tothe ground state atoms.
`
`24 July 2007 Response in EP 1614136 (Ex. 1010).
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`However, as explained in detail below, and contrary to the Examiner’s
`
`reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches using magnets in this
`
`manner, along with the other limitations of the challenged claims. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. fl 42 (Ex. 1002).
`
`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. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 43
`
`(Ex. 1002).
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Mozgrin
`
`Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, shown here, shows
`
`the current-voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of
`
`a plasma discharge generated by Mozgrin. As
`
`O
`
`15 -225
`
`1000-1800 LA
`
`shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four
`
`Fig. '7. Generalized ampere-vollnic characteristic CVC of
`quasi-stationary discharge.
`
`distinct regions.
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, 1] 2 (“Part
`
`1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1003) (emphasis added). See also Kortshagen Decl. 1] 45
`
`(Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`left col, 1] 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2). . .”) (EX. 1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. 1] 46 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Application of a high Voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`region 1 to 2. Id. (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is useful for
`
`sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, 1] 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an
`
`intense cathode sputtering. . .”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, 1] 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3). . .”) (Ex. l003).
`
`Increasing the current applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2)
`
`causes the plasma to transition to region 3. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 47 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is useful for etching, i.e., removing material
`
`from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col, 1] 5 (“The high-current diffuse discharge
`
`(regime 3) is useful
`
`Hence, it can enhance the efficiency of ionic etching. . .”)
`
`(Ex. 1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. 1] 47 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, 1] 3
`
`(“. . .part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge. . .”) (Ex.
`
`1003). Further increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from
`
`region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 48 (Ex. 1002).
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`voltage pulses. See, e. g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. 1] 1 (Ex. 1004). In particular,
`
`Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via different
`
`processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state atoms are
`
`converted directly to ions. See, e. g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1004).
`
`The second process is multi—step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise
`
`ionization. See, e. g., Id. (Ex. 1004). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain
`
`conditions multi—step ionization can be the dominant ionization process. See, e. g.,
`
`Id. (Ex. 1004). Mozgrin took into account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when
`
`designing his experiments. Mozgrin at 401, 1] spanning left and right cols.
`
`(“Designing the unit, we took into account the dependences which had been
`
`obtained in [Kudryavtsev]...”) (Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. 1] 49 (Ex. 1002).
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Iwamura
`
`Iwamura discloses “a plasma treatment apparatus for treating a surface of an
`
`object. . . .” Iwamura at 2:51-52 (Ex. 1007). “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
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`plasma generation unit treat the object to be treated.” Iwamura at 2:56-65. (Ex.
`
`1007); see also Kortshagen Decl. 1] 50 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Iwamura discloses multiple ways for generating excited/metastable atoms,
`
`and discloses the desirability of providing a first excitation step followed by a
`
`further energy providing step, and also claims such a system. Iwamura at 221-50,
`
`claim 1 (Ex. 1007); see also Kortshagen Decl.1l 51 (Ex. 1002).
`
`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. 1005). 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. 1005); see also Kortshagen Decl. 1] 52 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Pinsley does not specifically use the words “excited atoms,” but one of
`
`ordinary skill would understand that increasing the energy and using a magnetic
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`field to maintain the electrons in place would allow excited atoms to be generated
`
`and pass through. Id. at 1] 53 (Ex. 1002). 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 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. 1003); see also Kortshagen Decl. 1] 53 (Ex.
`
`1002). Neither Pinsley nor Angelbeck were of record during the prosecution of the
`
`‘779 Patent.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.6 In re
`
`ICONHealth & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
`
`following discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those
`
`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.
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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. Moreover, should the Patent
`
`Owner, in order to avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction
`
`different from its broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate course is for
`
`the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its
`
`contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Kortshagen Declaration (Ex. 1002), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27 and 29 of
`
`the ‘779 Patent, and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29 would have
`
`been obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev
`
`and Pinsley
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`The preamble: “[a] plasma generator that generates a plasma
`with a multi-step ionization process, the plasma generator
`comprising”
`
`As discussed above in Section VI.B, Mozgrin studies conditions that allow a
`
`high plasma density to be achieved without transitioning into the arc regime.
`
`Mozgrin at Abstract (“Two noncontracted discharge regimes
`
`were studied.
`
`These discharges had much higher cathode current densities than those of other
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`known discharge types. . .. The properties of both discharge types are expected to
`
`open up new fields of application in technology.”). See also Kortshagen Decl. 1] 57
`
`(Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin teaches a plasma generator that generates plasma using the power
`
`supply shown in Fig 2. The power supply includes a stationary discharge supply
`
`
`
`."£tnl1'mL:I.1'y
`_;”.
`
`Ellaclrfirfiu
`supply-' unit
`
`C
`n._
`-
`
`VS
`
`Iligh-vnitngc
`““"‘”’”""‘
`
`unit, to generate a pre-
`
`1on1zed plasma. Mozgrin
`
`at 401, right col, 1] 2 (“For
`
`pre-ionization
`
`the initial plasma density in the 109 — 10“ cm'3 range”)
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 1] 58 (Ex. 1002).
`
`The power supply further includes a high-Voltage supply unit, to deliver
`
`Voltages pulses to the pre—ionized plasma. See Mozgrin at 401, left col, 1] 4
`
`(“. . .applying a square Voltage pulse to the discharge gap which was filled up with
`
`either neutral or pre—ionized gas.”) (Ex. 1003). Mozgrin explains that in
`
`“[d]esigning the [pulsed power supply] unit, we took into account the dependences
`
`which had been obtained in [8] of ionization relaxation on pre-ionization
`
`parameters, pressure, and pulse Voltage amplitude.” Mozgrin at 401, 1] spanning
`
`left and right columns (Ex. 1003). The reference [8] is Kudryavtsev. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. fll 59 (Ex. 1002).
`
`It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to combine Mozgrin
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,805,779
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`with Kudryavtsev. In addition to the fact that Mozgrin itself cites Kudryavtsev and
`
`Mozgrin explicitly notes that its power supply unit was designed in accordance
`
`with Kudryavtsev, Kudryavtsev also states, “[s]ince the effects studied in this
`
`work are characteristic of ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to a
`
`weakly ionized gas, they must be allowed for when studying emission mechanisms
`
`in pulsed gas lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks, etc.” Kudr