throbber
Paper 40
`
`Entered: November 3, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, and
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-010731
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01017 has been joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden
`
`Module One LLC & Co. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module Two
`
`LLC & Co. KG (collectively, “the GlobalFoundries entities”) filed a revised
`
`Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1–4, 10–15, 17, 18, 24–27,
`
`and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 B2 (“the ’779 patent”). Paper 4
`
`(“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary
`
`Response, we instituted the instant trial on November 17, 2014, pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Paper 11 (“Dec.”). Subsequent to institution, we
`
`granted the revised Motion for Joinder filed by The Gillette Company
`
`(“Gillette”), joining Case IPR2014-01017 with the instant trial.2 Paper 14.
`
`Zond filed a Response (Paper 25, “PO Resp.”), and GlobalFoundries filed a
`
`Reply (Paper 29, “Reply”). An oral hearing3 was held on June 15, 2015, and
`
`a transcript of the hearing was entered into the record. Paper 39 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final Written
`
`Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons set forth
`
`below, we determine that GlobalFoundries has shown by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence that claims 1–4, 10–15, 17, 18, 24–27, and 29 of the ’779
`
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`
`2 In this Decision, we refer to the GlobalFoundries entities (the original
`Petitioner) and Gillette as “GlobalFoundries,” for efficiency.
`3 The oral arguments for this review and the following inter partes reviews
`were consolidated: IPR2014-00828, IPR2014-00829, IPR2014-00917, and
`IPR2014-01076.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`The parties indicate that the ’779 patent was asserted in several related
`
`district court proceedings, including Zond, LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices,
`
`Inc., No.1:13-cv-11577-DPW (D. Mass.), and identify other petitions for
`
`inter partes review that are related to this proceeding. Paper 6; Ex. 1013.
`
`
`
`B. The ’779 Patent
`
`The ’779 patent relates to a method and a system for generating a
`
`plasma with a multi-step ionization process. Ex. 1001, Abs. For instance,
`
`Figure 2 of the ’779 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional
`
`view of a plasma generating apparatus:
`
`In the embodiment shown in Figure 2, feed gas source 206 supplies
`
`ground state atoms 208 to metastable atom source 204 that generates
`
`metastable atoms 218 from ground state atoms 208. Id. at 4:26–42. Plasma
`
`202 is generated from metastable atoms 218 in process chamber 230. Id. at
`
`
`
`5:25–34.
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Electrons and ions are formed in metastable atom source 204 along
`
`with excited or metastable atoms 218. Id. at 8:20–23. In another
`
`embodiment, the ions and electrons are separated from excited or metastable
`
`atoms 218 and trapped in an electron/ion absorber before excited or
`
`metastable atoms 218 are injected into plasma chamber 230. Id. at 8:23–26,
`
`18:62–67, Fig. 10. Figure 12B of the ’779 patent illustrates the electron/ion
`
`absorber and is reproduced below:
`
`As shown in Figure 12B, electron/ion absorber 750ʹ includes magnets
`
`776 and 778 that generate magnetic field 780, trapping electrons 772 and
`
`ions 774 in chamber 760ʹ. Id. at 20:9–13. Excited or metastable atoms 768
`
`and ground state atoms 770 then flow through output 754ʹ. Id. at 20:19–21.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1 and 18 are the only independent claims that are involved in
`
`this proceeding. Claims 2–4, 10–15, and 17 depend, directly or indirectly,
`
`from claim 1. Claims 24–27 and 29 each depend directly from claim 18.
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative:
`
`1. A plasma generator that generates a plasma with a
`multi-step ionization process, the plasma generator comprising:
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`a feed gas source comprising ground state atoms;
`
`an excited atom source that receives ground state atoms
`from the feed gas source, the excited atom source comprising a
`magnet that generates a magnetic field for substantially
`trapping electrons proximate to the ground state atoms, the
`excited atom source generating excited atoms from the ground
`state atoms;
`
`a plasma chamber that is coupled to the excited atom
`source, the plasma chamber confining a volume of excited
`atoms generated by the excited atom source; and
`
`an energy source that is coupled to the volume of excited
`atoms confined by the plasma chamber, the energy source
`raising an energy of excited atoms in the volume of excited
`atoms so that at least a portion of the excited atoms in the
`volume of excited atoms is ionized, thereby generating a plasma
`with a multi-step ionization process.
`
`Ex. 1001, 21:10–30 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`GlobalFoundries relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`
`Pinsley
`Angelbeck
`Iwamura
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US 3,761,836
`US 3,514,714
`US 5,753,886
`
`Sept. 25, 1973
`May 26, 1970
`May 19, 1998
`
`(Ex. 1005)
`(Ex. 1006)
`(Ex. 1007)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS, NO. 5, 400–09 (1995) (Ex. 1003, “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS.
`TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (1983) (Ex. 1004, “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`E. Ground of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the ground that claims 1–4,
`
`10–15, 17, 18, 24–27, and 29 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley.4
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`enacting the AIA,”5 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`
`regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are
`
`part of, and read in light of, the specification. United States v. Adams,
`
`383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966) (“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed
`
`in the light of the specifications and both are to be read with a view to
`
`
`
`4 Pinsley was omitted inadvertently from the statement of the asserted
`ground of unpatentability, although included in the corresponding analysis.
`Pet. 40, 53. Therefore, we treated the statement of the asserted ground as
`mere harmless error and presume that GlobalFoundries intended to assert
`that the challenged claims are unpatentable under § 103(a) based on the
`combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley. Dec. 6. Zond addressed
`the ground as including Pinsley. PO Resp. 24–26, 33–38.
`5 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`ascertaining the invention.”). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption
`
`by providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable
`
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to
`
`be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`
`
`“excited atoms,” “metastable atoms,” and “multi-step ionization process”
`
`With the above-stated principles in mind, we construed the following
`
`terms in the Decision on Institution: “excited atoms,” “metastable atoms,”
`
`and “multi-step ionization process.” Dec. 6–9. Subsequent to institution,
`
`neither party challenges any aspect of our claim constructions as to these
`
`terms. PO Resp. 15–17; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 41–42; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 14–19; see
`
`generally Reply. Upon review of the entire record before us, including the
`
`parties’ explanations and supporting evidence concerning these terms, we
`
`discern no reason to change those claim constructions for purposes of this
`
`Final Written Decision. For convenience, those claim constructions from
`
`the Decision on Institution are reproduced below:
`
`Claim Terms
`
`Claim Constructions
`
`“excited atoms”
`(claim 1)
`
`neutral atoms that have one or more electrons in a
`state that is higher than its lowest possible state
`(Dec. 7)
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Claim Terms
`
`Claim Constructions
`
`“metastable atoms”
`(claim 18)
`
`excited atoms having energy levels from which
`dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden (Dec. 7–
`8)
`
`“multi-step ionization
`process” (claim 1)
`
`an ionization process having at least two distinct
`steps (Dec. 8–9)
`
`
`
`“plasma”
`
`For this Final Written Decision, we find it necessary to construe the
`
`claim term “plasma.” Claim 1 recites “[a] plasma generator that generates a
`
`plasma with a multi-step ionization process.” Ex. 1001, 21:9–10.
`
`Dr. Uwe Kortshagen, GlobalFoundries’s expert declarant, testifies that
`
`a plasma is a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms,
`
`and metastable atoms. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–27. Metastable atoms are excited
`
`neutral atoms that are in a metastable state, but have not been ionized.
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:22–8:10. According to the Specification of the ’779 patent, all
`
`excited noble gases (e.g., helium and argon) have metastable states. Id. at
`
`7:37–47. As Dr. Kortshagen explains, when generating excited atoms,
`
`multiple levels of excited states are formed, and, therefore, generating
`
`excited atoms means also generating metastable atoms. Ex. 1002 ¶ 24.
`
`Zond’s expert, Dr. Larry D. Hartsough, also testifies that, in the
`
`context of the ’779 patent, one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention would have understood that a plasma includes charged particles
`
`(ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms,
`
`excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized.
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1017, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term
`
`“plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would
`
`be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the
`
`Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of
`
`charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that
`
`a plasma also includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1001, 1:7–8;
`
`8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully
`
`ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons).
`
`Ex. 1017, 42:9–43:17.
`
`Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma”
`
`as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and
`
`metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.
`
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Translogic,
`
`504 F.3d at 1262. We also recognize that prior art references must be
`
`“considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art.” Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559,
`
`562 (CCPA 1978)); Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259–1262. Notwithstanding
`
`that Dr. Hartsough provides a definition of “a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art” in the context of the ’779 patent,6 we are mindful that the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See
`
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC
`
`Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91
`
`(CCPA 1978).
`
`We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability with the
`
`above-stated principled in mind.
`
`
`
`6 “[A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the ’779
`Patent [is] 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.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 12.
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`C. Obviousness over the Combination of Iwamura,
`Angelbeck, and Pinsley
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that claims 1–4, 10–15, 17, 18, 24–27, and 29
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination
`
`of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley. Pet. 40–60. In support of that asserted
`
`ground of unpatentability, GlobalFoundries provides detailed explanations
`
`as to how each claim limitation is met by the references and articulates
`
`rationales for combining the references. Id. GlobalFoundries also proffers a
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1002) to support its Petition, and a
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1015) to support its Reply.
`
`In its Response, Zond counters that the combination of the cited prior
`
`art does not disclose every claim limitation. PO Resp. 28–49. Zond also
`
`argues that GlobalFoundries has not articulated a sufficient rationale to
`
`combine any of the references. Id. at 20–28. As support, Zond directs our
`
`attention to Dr. Larry D. Hartsough’s Declaration (Ex. 2005).
`
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`
`our discussion below with a brief summary of Iwamura, and then we address
`
`the parties’ contentions in turn.
`
`Iwamura
`
`
`
`Iwamura discloses a plasma treatment apparatus for generating a
`
`stable plasma with a multi-step ionization process, to treat a semiconductor
`
`wafer. Ex. 1007, Abstract, 6:67–7:8. Figure 1 of Iwamura, reproduced
`
`below (with our annotations added), illustrates a plasma treatment apparatus.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Pre-excitation unit
`
`First plasma generation unit
`
`Second plasma generation unit
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Iwamura, plasma chamber 10 is coupled to
`
`the gas supply pipe (shown as items 20a and 20b). Gas supply 20 supplies a
`
`gas capable of plasma discharge (e.g., helium or argon, a noble gas) through
`
`a pre-excitation unit that includes ultraviolet lamp 24, and a first plasma
`
`generation unit that includes electrodes 26. Ex. 1007, 6:67–7:17, 49.
`
`Ultraviolet lamp 24 causes photoionization, raising the excitation level of the
`
`gas and generating excited and metastable atoms from ground state atoms.
`
`Id. at 7:55–60. Thereafter, a plasma is generated from the gas in plasma
`
`region A, between electrodes 26 (the first plasma generation unit), and a
`
`plasma also is generated in plasma region B, between electrodes 30 (the
`
`second plasma generation unit). Id. at 7:61–65, 8:4–9, 8:32–46. According
`
`to Iwamura, because the excitation level of the gas is raised first, a stable
`
`plasma can be generated inside the plasma chamber. Id. at 8:32–37.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Consequently, the uniformity of the plasma density as well as the yield of
`
`the treatment of the semiconductor wafer can be improved. Id. at 8:41–46.
`
`Generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process
`
`Each of independent claims 1 and 18 requires an energy source to
`
`ionize at least a portion of the excited or metastable atoms inside a chamber,
`
`thereby generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process. Ex. 1001,
`
`21:23–29, 22:40–47. As we discussed above in the Claim Construction
`
`Section of this Decision, metastable atoms are excited neutral atoms that are
`
`in a metastable state, but have not been ionized, and all excited noble gases
`
`(such as helium and argon) have metastable states. And we construe the
`
`claim term “a plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms,
`
`excited atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with its ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent. Furthermore, we
`
`construe the claim term “multi-step ionization process” broadly, but
`
`reasonably, as “an ionization process having at least two distinct steps,” in
`
`light of the Specification.
`
`GlobalFoundries takes the position that Iwamura’s second plasma
`
`generation unit is an energy source that ionizes at least a portion of the
`
`excited or metastable atoms inside a chamber, generating a plasma with a
`
`multi-step ionization process. Pet. 40–46, 51–53. As GlobalFoundries
`
`points out, for the first step, Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and/or first
`
`plasma generation unit raise the excitation level of the gas, generating
`
`excited or metastable atoms from ground state atoms. Id.; Ex. 1007, 7:55–
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`60, 9:46–48, Figs. 1, 2. And for the second step, Iwamura’s second plasma
`
`generation unit ionizes at least a portion of the excited or metastable atoms,
`
`generates a plasma inside the chamber. Ex. 1007, 8:32–46, 9:8–12,
`
`Figs. 1, 2.
`
`Zond counters that Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit does not
`
`ionize excited or metastable atoms, as recited in claims 1 and 18 because the
`
`atoms already are ionized before they enter the chamber. PO Resp. 41–44,
`
`47–49. As support, Dr. Hartsough testifies that “the atoms entering
`
`Iwamura’s chamber are not excited or metastable, but rather activated (i.e.,
`
`ionized to a plasma).” Id.; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 71–73 (emphasis added).
`
`Zond’s arguments and Dr. Hartsough’s testimony, however, are
`
`predicated on the premise that the gas is fully ionized, containing no excited
`
`or metastable atoms, before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation
`
`unit inside the chamber. That premise squarely contradicts Iwamura’s
`
`disclosure. Notably, Iwamura explicitly discloses that “the first plasma
`
`generation unit preactivates the gas and the second plasma generation unit
`
`activates the gas and forms activated gas species.” Ex. 1007, 2:61–65
`
`(emphasis added). Iwamura also describes “preactivation” to mean that “the
`
`gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation level is high.” Id. at 2:34–39
`
`(“[T]he 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.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Moreover, if the gas were fully ionized before reaching Iwamura’s
`
`second plasma generation unit, as Zond alleges, there would be no reason to
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`have the second plasma generation unit, much less having a second plasma
`
`generation unit to generate a plasma inside the chamber. On the contrary,
`
`Iwamura explicitly states that “a second plasma generation unit [is] for
`
`activating the gas to generate a plasma downstream along the flow path of
`
`the gas.” Id. at 2:59–61 (emphasis added). Iwamura further discloses that
`
`the gas is activated by the second plasma generation unit—increasing the
`
`density and excitation levels of activated gas species and generating a
`
`plasma—to improve uniformity and treatment rate. Id. at 8:4–46, Fig. 1.
`
`In fact, Dr. Hartsough in his cross-examination testimony acknowledges,
`
`and Dr. Kortshagen confirms, that the gas reaching Iwamura’s second
`
`plasma generation unit includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1017,
`
`42:9–43:17, 74:2–76:4; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 25–33, 89.
`
`Zond’s contention that a plasma does not include a volume of excited
`
`or metastable atoms also is inconsistent with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of the term “plasma”—namely, “a collection of ions, electrons,
`
`ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms.” As discussed
`
`above, both Dr. Kortshagen and Dr. Hartsough agree with that definition.
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–27; Ex. 1017, 42:9–43:17. Furthermore, the Specification of
`
`the ’779 patent discloses that a plasma includes charged particles, excited
`
`atoms, and metastable atoms. Ex. 1001, 8:43–48. More importantly, as the
`
`Specification explains, a volume of excited or metastable atoms is generated
`
`when “a discharge is created in a discharge region” between a pair of
`
`electrodes, similar to Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit, energizing and
`
`ionizing a portion of ground state atoms. Id. at 14:4–14:23 (“Some of the
`
`ground state atoms 208 are directly ionized, which releases ions 424 and
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`electrons 426 into the stream of metastable atoms 218. . . . The metastable
`
`atoms 218, the free ions 424 and electrons 426 then pass through the output
`
`423 of the metastable atom source 402.”) (emphasis added). Therefore, even
`
`in the embodiment in which Iwamura’s first generation unit generates a
`
`plasma, one with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
`
`plasma reaching Iwamura’s second generation unit includes a volume of
`
`excited and metastable atoms.
`
`Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
`
`has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination
`
`of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley, discloses an energy source that raises
`
`“an energy of excited atoms in the volume of excited atoms so that at least a
`
`portion of the excited atoms in the volume of excited is ionized, thereby
`
`generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process,” as recited in
`
`claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 18.
`
`Generating excited or metastable atoms
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 4, and 18 each require an excited or metastable atom source
`
`to generate excited or metastable atoms from the ground state atoms.
`
`Ex. 1001, 21:13–18, 21:38–40, 22:30–35. Dependent claims 11 and 25
`
`further require that the excited or metastable atom source be positioned
`
`outside the plasma chamber. Id. at 21:66–67, 23:7–8.
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and/or the
`
`first plasma generation unit describe an excited or metastable atom source
`
`for generating excited or metastable atoms from ground state atoms, as
`
`recited in the claims at issue. Pet. 40–44, 47–50, 54–57. GlobalFoundries
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`notes that Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit are
`
`located outside of the plasma chamber. Id. at 56–57.
`
`Zond counters that Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit generates a
`
`plasma, and not excited or metastable atoms. PO Resp. 29–33, 46–47. As
`
`support, Dr. Hartsough testifies that “Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit
`
`generates a plasma or ‘activated gas’ per Iwamura’s teaching.” Ex. 2005
`
`¶ 50.
`
`Once again, Zond’s argument and Dr. Hartsough’s testimony are
`
`predicated improperly on the premise that the gas is fully ionized, containing
`
`no excited or metastable atoms, before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma
`
`generation unit. As we discussed above, that premise contradicts Iwamura’s
`
`disclosure and the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “plasma,”
`
`which includes excited and metastable atoms. Both Dr. Kortshagen and
`
`Dr. Hartsough agree with that definition, which also is consistent with the
`
`Specification of the ’779 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–27; Ex. 1017, 42:9–43:17,
`
`74:2–76:4; Ex. 1001, 1:7–8, 8:43–48. Notably, Iwamura explicitly discloses
`
`that the gas reaching the second plasma generation unit “is not yet fully
`
`ionized.” Ex. 1007, 2:34–38 (emphasis added).
`
`Furthermore, we do not share Zond’s view that Dr. Kortshagen’s
`
`cross-examination testimony—plasma density is not equivalent to the
`
`density of excited atoms—supports Zond’s argument that Iwamura’s gas
`
`reaching the second plasma generation unit does not contain excited or
`
`metastable atoms. PO Resp. 32 (citing Ex. 2004, 232:5–9). One of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have appreciated that, in a unit volume of gas
`
`containing charged particles and excited atoms, the plasma density refers to
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`the number of ions or electrons, whereas the density of excited atoms refers
`
`to the number of excited atoms. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21–27. It is irrelevant that the
`
`plasma density is not equivalent to the density of excited atoms, in that
`
`Iwamura’s gas could have more excited atoms than ions or electrons.
`
`Therefore, Dr. Kortshagen’s cross-examination testimony does not
`
`undermine GlobalFoundries’s evidence, showing that Iwamura’s
`
`pre-excitation unit and the first plasma generation unit, either alone or in
`
`combination, generate a volume of excited or metastable atoms (see, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1007, 2:61–65, 2:31–65; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 25–33, 89; Ex. 1017, 42:9–25,
`
`74:2–76:4).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that GlobalFoundries has
`
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley discloses an excited or metastable atom
`
`source for generating excited or metastable atoms from ground state atoms,
`
`as required by claims 1, 4, 11, 18, and 25.
`
`Plasma chamber
`
`Claim 1 recites “a plasma chamber that is coupled to the excited atom
`
`source, the plasma chamber confining a volume of excited atoms generated
`
`by the excited atom source; and an energy source that is coupled to the
`
`volume of excited atoms confined by the plasma chamber.” Ex. 1001,
`
`21:19–24 (emphases added). Claim 18 recites a similar limitation. Id. at
`
`22:36–41.
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that Iwamura discloses a plasma chamber, as
`
`recited in these claims, because “Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and the first
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`plasma generation unit, either alone or in combination meet the excited atom
`
`source, are positioned upstream from, and coupled, to the plasma treatment
`
`chamber.” Pet. 50–51, 55.
`
`Zond counters that Iwamura’s plasma chamber is not coupled to the
`
`excited atom source, because the chamber is not coupled directly to the
`
`pre-excitation unit. PO Resp. 38–43. Zond also argues that Iwamura does
`
`not disclose a chamber confining a volume of excited or metastable atoms
`
`“because in Iwamura’s system, the plasma and not the excited or metastable
`
`atoms enter the plasma chamber.” Id. at 41–43. Dr. Hartsough testifies that
`
`Iwamura does not recite expressly the terms “excited” or “metastable,” but
`
`rather Iwamura discloses that the upstream plasma generation “is generating
`
`an activated (pre-activated) plasma gas, as opposed to an excited gas (i.e.,
`
`excited atom source) as claimed.” Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 64–65, 70.
`
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s arguments and Dr. Hartsough’s
`
`testimony, as they require Iwamura to recite expressly certain claim terms.
`
`An obviousness analysis is not an ipsissimis verbis test. See In re Gleave,
`
`560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). More significantly, Zond’s
`
`arguments and Dr. Hartsough’s testimony, once again, are predicated
`
`improperly on the premise that the gas entering Iwamura’s plasma chamber
`
`is fully ionized, containing no excited or metastable atoms. As discussed
`
`previously, that premise contradicts Iwamura’s disclosure and the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning of the term “plasma,” which contains excited and
`
`metastable atoms. Notably, Iwamura explicitly discloses that the gas
`
`reaching the second plasma generation unit inside the chamber “is not yet
`
`fully ionized.” Ex. 1007, 2:34–39 (emphasis added).
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Zond’s arguments also are not commensurate with the scope of the
`
`claims at issue. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (stating
`
`that a limitation not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
`
`patentability). Zond attempts to import improperly a limitation—directly
`
`coupled—from a preferred embodiment disclosed in the Specification into
`
`the claims. See Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Nothing in the claims at issue
`
`here requires the plasma chamber to be directly coupled to the excited or
`
`metastable atom source. In fact, Dr. Hartsough in his cross-examination
`
`testimony confirms that, in the context of the ’779 patent, the term
`
`“coupling” includes an indirect connection. Ex. 1017, 108:13–109:22.
`
`In any event, even if the claims at issue require a direct coupling,
`
`Zond’s arguments are still unavailing, as they predicate that only Iwamura’s
`
`pre-excitation unit is the excited or metastable atom source. As discussed
`
`above, GlobalFoundries asserts that Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and the
`
`first plasma generation unit, either alone or in combination, disclose the
`
`excited or metastable atom source. Pet. 50–51. Figure 1 of Iwamura clearly
`
`shows that the pre-excitation unit and the first plasma generation unit are
`
`disposed on the wall of gas supply pipe that is coupled to the plasma
`
`chamber. Ex. 1007, 6:67–7:17, Fig. 1. Iwamura also states that “[t]reatment
`
`chamber 10 is in fluid communication with gas supply 20.” Id. at 7:8–27,
`
`Fig. 1. Zond’s expert, Dr. Hartsough, confirms that Iwamura’s first plasma
`
`generation unit, which includes electrodes 26a and 26b as shown in Figure 1
`
`of Iwamura, “is coupled to the chamber.” Ex. 1017, 92:12–13.
`
`We do not agree with Zond’s argument that Dr. Kortshagen’s refusal
`
`to mark the location of the “coupling” on a figure, during cross-examination,
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`undermines GlobalFoundries’s contention. PO Resp. 40–41 (citing
`
`Ex. 2004, 174:24–175:7). In fact, during the same cross-examination,
`
`Dr. Kortshagen already explained with sufficient specificity as to how
`
`Figure 1 of Iwamura shows the pre-excitation unit and first plasma
`
`generation unit are coupled to the plasma chamber:
`
`So if we look at Figure 1 again, for example, and there is a
`plasma chamber, which is number 10, and then if we consider
`the preexcitation unit and the first plasma generation unit A as
`the metastable atom source, that metastable atom sourc

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket