Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
`Entered: November 17, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 11
`
`Entered: November 17, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, “GlobalFoundries”) 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.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The standard for
`
`instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`
`provides:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`conclude that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that GlobalFoundries would prevail in
`
`challenging claims 1–4, 10–15, 17, 18, 24–27, and 29 as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an
`
`inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 1–4, 10–15, 17, 18, 24–27,
`
`and 29 of the ’779 patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`GlobalFoundries indicates 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.). Pet. 1 (citing Ex. 1013).
`
`GlobalFoundries also identifies other petitions for inter partes review that
`
`are related to this proceeding. Id.
`
`
`
`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 (e.g., ground state argon atoms) to metastable atom
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`source 204 that generates excited or metastable atoms 218 from ground state
`
`atoms 208. Id. at 4:26–42. Plasma 202 is generated from excited or
`
`metastable atoms 218 in process chamber 230. Id. at 5:25–34.
`
`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 760 ʹ. 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
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 18 are the only independent
`
`claims. 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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative:
`
`1. A plasma generator that generates a plasma with a
`multi-step ionization process, the plasma generator comprising:
`
`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, 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1003, “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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”).
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1, 4, 10–15, 17, 18,
`24–27, and 29
`
`1, 4, 10–15, 17, 18,
`24–27, and 29
`
`
`
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley1
`
`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). 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
`
`
`
`1 Pinsley is omitted inadvertently from the statement of this asserted ground
`of unpatentability, although included in the substantive analysis. Pet. 40, 48.
`Therefore, we treat the statement 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.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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).
`
`We construe the claim terms below in accordance with the above-
`
`stated principles.
`
`
`
`1. “excited atoms”
`
`Claim 1 recites “the excited atom source generating excited atoms
`
`from the ground state atoms.” Dr. Uwe Kortshagen testifies that “[i]f all of
`
`an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said
`
`to be in the ‘ground state,’” and that “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.’” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–24 (emphases added). In the
`
`context of the Specification of the ’779 patent, we therefore construe the
`
`claim term “excited atoms” broadly, but reasonably as “atoms that have one
`
`or more electrons in a state that is higher than its lowest possible state.”
`
`
`
`2. “metastable atoms”
`
`Claim 18 recites “the metastable atom source generating metastable
`
`atoms from the ground state atoms.” GlobalFoundries submits that the claim
`
`term “metastable atoms” is defined in the Specification of the ’779 patent as
`
`“excited atoms having energy levels from which dipole radiation is
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`theoretically forbidden.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:22–25). In that regard,
`
`Dr. Kortshagen further explains 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.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:22–25). According to
`
`Dr. Kortshagen, “generating excited atoms means also generating metastable
`
`atoms” because when generating excited atoms, multiple levels of excited
`
`states are formed, and some of the lowest states are metastable. Id. (citing
`
`Exs. 1011–1012).2 The Specification also provides that all noble gases,
`
`including argon, have metastable states. Ex. 1001, 7:37–39.
`
`Given the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “metastable
`
`atoms,” consistent with the Specification, as “excited atoms having energy
`
`levels from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden,” and observe
`
`that exciting noble gas atoms would generate metastable atoms.
`
`
`
`3. “multi-step ionization process”
`
`
`
`Claim 1 recites “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
`
`
`
`2 J. Vlček, A Collisional-Radiative Model Applicable to Argon Discharges
`Over a Wide Range of Conditions. I: Formulation and Basic Data, 22 J.
`PHYS. D: APPL. PHYS. 623–631 (1989) (Ex. 1011).
`
`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, 22 J. PHYS. D: APPL.
`PHYS. 632–643 (1989) (Ex. 1012).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`portion of the excited atoms in the volume of excited atoms is ionized,
`
`thereby generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process.”
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that the claim term “multi-step ionization
`
`process” is defined in the Specification of the ’779 patent as “an ionization
`
`process whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.” Pet. 17
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 6:60–63) (emphasis added by GlobalFoundries).
`
`Indeed, the Specification expressly provides:
`
`The term “multi-step ionization process” is defined herein to
`mean an ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at least
`two distinct steps. However, the term “multi-step ionization
`process” as defined herein may or may not include exciting
`ground state atoms to a metastable state. For example, one
`multi-step ionization process according to the present invention
`includes a first step where atoms are excited from a ground
`state to a metastable state and a second step where atoms in the
`metastable state are ionized. Another multi-step ionization
`process according to the present invention includes a first step
`where atoms are excited from a ground state to an excited state
`and a second step where atoms in the excited state are ionized.
`The
`term “multi-step
`ionization process” also
`includes
`ionization processes with three or more steps.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:60–7:9 (emphases added).
`
`We observe that the Specification sets forth a definition for the claim
`
`term “multi-step ionization” with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Further, that definition is
`
`consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, as would be
`
`understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. As such, in the context of
`
`the Specification, we construe the claim term “multi-step ionization” as “an
`
`ionization process having at least two distinct steps.”
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`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;
`
`(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).
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art 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 asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`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 rationales for
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`combining the references. Id. GlobalFoundries also proffers a Declaration
`
`of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1002) to support its contentions. Id.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond counters that the combination of
`
`the cited prior art does not disclose every claim limitation. Prelim. Resp.
`
`41–44. Zond also argues that GlobalFoundries has not articulated a
`
`sufficient rationale to combine the technical disclosures of Iwamura and
`
`Angelbeck. Id. at 35–36.
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`
`claims 1–4, 10–15, 17, 18, 24–27, and 29 are unpatentable over the
`
`combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley. Our discussion focuses
`
`on the deficiencies alleged by Zond as to the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`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, Abs., 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 treatment 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., argon) through a
`
`pre-excitation unit that includes ultraviolet lamp 24, and a first plasma
`
`generation unit that includes electrodes 26 (an excited atom source).
`
`Ex. 1007, 6:67–7:17, 49. Ultraviolet lamp 24 causes photoionization, raising
`
`the excitation level of the gas—in other words, generating excited atoms
`
`from ground state atoms. Id. at 7:55–60. Thereafter, a plasma is generated
`
`from the gas, with a raised excitation level, 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. Id. at 8:32–37. Consequently, the uniformity of the plasma
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`density as well as the yield of the treatment of semiconductor wafer can be
`
`improved. Id. at 8:41–46.
`
`
`
`Ionizing excited atoms and generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization
`process
`
`Claim 1 recites “an 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.” Claim 18 recites similar limitations.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond counters that the combination of
`
`cited prior art references does not teach or suggest the “ionization” and
`
`“multi-step ionization process” claim features. Prelim. Resp. 41–44. In
`
`particular, Zond alleges that those claim features require more than
`
`pre-exciting the gas and activating the gas, and “Iwamura makes no mention
`
`of ionization.” Id. at 42, 44.
`
`However, obviousness is not an ipsissimis verbis test. Rather, a prima
`
`facie case of obviousness is established when the prior art, itself, would
`
`appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). 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. “A person of ordinary skill is
`
`also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`The Specification of the ’779 patent indicates that “plasma is a
`
`collection of charged particles that move in random directions.” Ex. 1001,
`
`1:7–9 (emphases added). As discussed above, the Specification of the ’779
`
`patent defines the claim term “a multi-step ionization process” as “an
`
`ionization process whereby ions are ionized in at least two distinct steps.”
`
`Id. at 6:60–7:9 (emphases added). The Specification also provides that a
`
`multi-step ionization process includes: (1) a first step where atoms are
`
`excited from a ground state to an excited state; and (2) a second step where
`
`atoms in the excited state are ionized, generating ions from the excited
`
`atoms. Id. The term “ionization” ordinarily is understood as a “process by
`
`which an atom or molecule receives enough energy (by collision with
`
`electrons, photons, etc.) to split it into one or more free electrons and a
`
`positive ion” (emphasis added).3
`
`As GlobalFoundries indicates in its Petition, Iwamura discloses a
`
`plasma treatment apparatus that generates a plasma with a multi-step
`
`ionization process. Pet. 40–46, 53. For the first step, Iwamura’s
`
`pre-excitation unit raises the excitation level of the gas—i.e., generating
`
`excited atoms from ground state atoms—using microwaves or ultraviolet
`
`radiation that causes photoionization. Ex. 1007, 7:55–60, 9:46–48, Figs. 1,
`
`2. For the second step, Iwamura’s plasma treatment apparatus includes a
`
`
`
`3 See THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS TERMS 589
`(7th ed.) (2000) (Ex. 3001) (defining “ionization” as “(B) The process by
`which an atom or molecule receives enough energy (by collision with
`electrons, photons, etc.) to split it into one or more free electrons and a
`positive ion. Ionization is a special case of charging.”).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`pair of electrodes that generates a plasma, which includes a collection of
`
`ions and free electrons. Id. at 7:61–63, 8:32–46, Figs. 1, 2. Therefore, we
`
`are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
`
`the electrodes and power supply generate the ions and free electrons by
`
`ionizing the excited atoms.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
`
`has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck,
`
`and Pinsley, teaches or suggests the “ionization” and “multi-step ionization
`
`process” claim features—“an 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.”
`
`
`
`An excited atom source that generates a magnetic field for trapping electrons
`
`
`
`Claim 1 recites “the excited atom source comprising a magnet that
`
`generates a magnetic field for substantially trapping electrons proximate to
`
`the ground state atoms.” Claim 18 recites a similar limitation.
`
`In its Petition, GlobalFoundries takes the position that Iwamura’s
`
`disclosure regarding the pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit
`
`teaches or suggests an excited atom source that generates excited atoms from
`
`the ground state atoms. Pet. 47–48 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 125), 54.
`
`GlobalFoundries acknowledges that Iwamura does not disclose a magnet for
`
`generating a magnetic field in the plasma treatment apparatus. Id.
`
`Nevertheless, GlobalFoundries maintains that it was well known in the art at
`
`the time of the invention to use a magnet for generating a magnetic field in a
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`plasma apparatus for trapping electrons, as evidenced by Angelbeck and
`
`Pinsley. Id. at 48–49 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:36–41, 2:18–20, 2:50–51, 2:66–67,
`
`Fig. 1; Ex. 1005, 2:43–60). Dr. Kortshagen testifies that it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Angelbeck’s transverse
`
`magnetic field with Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and first plasma
`
`generation unit (excited atom source or metastable atom source)—which are
`
`located proximate to the ground state atoms source, gas supply 20—for
`
`trapping electrons, to increase the efficiency of excitation. Ex. 1002 ¶ 129.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond counters that the combination of
`
`the cited prior art references does not teach or suggest the “magnetic field”
`
`claim limitations. Prelim. Resp. 42–43. In particular, Zond argues that
`
`Iwamura does not have a magnet, and Angelbeck does not trap electrons
`
`near ground state atoms. Id.
`
`Zond’s arguments, however, do not address what is taught or
`
`suggested by the combination of cited prior art references. Nonobviousness
`
`cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here,
`
`the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination
`
`of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the
`
`test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a
`
`whole, would have suggested the patentees’ invention to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, GlobalFoundries relies upon the
`
`combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley, to teach or suggest the
`
`“magnetic field” claim limitations. Pet. 47–50. As such, we are not
`
`persuaded by Zond’s arguments attacking the references separately.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`In addition, Zond does not dispute that it was well known in the art at
`
`the time of the invention to use a magnet in a plasma apparatus for trapping
`
`electrons. Indeed, the admitted prior art, Figure 1 of the ’779 patent,
`
`describes magnet 130 that generates magnetic field 132 to trap electrons.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:13–15. As GlobalFoundries points out, Pinsley and Angelbeck
`
`confirm that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
`
`applying a transverse magnetic field in a plasma apparatus would trap
`
`electrons. Pet. 26–27, 48–49 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 2:43–60; Ex. 1006,
`
`1:36–41, 2:18–20, 2:50–51, 2:66–67, Fig. 1).
`
`Notably, Pinsley discloses a plasma generating apparatus having a
`
`magnetic field for trapping electrons. Ex. 1005, 1:51–54, 2:43–47.
`
`Pinsley’s sole Figure, reproduced below, illustrates a plasma generating
`
`apparatus with magnets.
`
`
`
`As shown in Pinsley’s sole Figure, conduit 10 includes anode 18 and
`
`cathode 19, for establishing an electric discharge plasma, as well as magnets
`
`24 and 26, for generating a magnetic field. Id. at 2:27–42. According to
`
`Pinsley, “the interaction between the current and the magnetic field will
`
`result in an upstream force as indicated by the force vector 32.” Id. at 2:43–
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`45. “This force is exerted upon the electrons, and tends to maintain the
`
`electrons in an area between the anode and cathode,” trapping the electrons.
`
`Id. at 2:45–47 (emphasis added).
`
`More importantly, Angelbeck discloses applying a transverse
`
`magnetic field in a plasma generating apparatus for creating a high density
`
`of excited atoms. Ex. 1006, 1:36–41, 2:18–20, 2:29–33. Figure 1 of
`
`Angelbeck, reproduced below, illustrates a plasma generating apparatus with
`
`a magnet.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Angelbeck, the current-excited discharge
`
`passed through the gas within tube 10 creates a plasma in which the atoms
`
`are ionized and electrons are freed. Id. at 2:55–57. Transverse magnetic
`
`field B is applied by a magnet with pole pieces 24 and 26 for trapping
`
`electrons to the tube walls. Id. at 2:45–54, 2:57–59. According to
`
`Angelbeck, such a transverse magnetic field creates a high density of excited
`
`atoms and increases the efficiency of excitation. Id. at 1:36–41 (“It has been
`
`found that a transverse magnetic field applied to a DC discharge gas laser
`
`increases the electron temperature and hence the efficiency of excitation
`
`. . . .”), 2:18–20 (“A high gas pressure P is advantageous . . . for creating a
`
`high density of excited atoms in the laser.”), 2:29–33 (“This invention . . .
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`produces the same temperature at a higher pressure by applying a transverse
`
`magnetic field.”).
`
`On the present record, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony
`
`(Ex. 1002 ¶ 129) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to combine Angelbeck’s transverse magnetic field with Iwamura’s
`
`pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit (excited atom source or
`
`metastable atom source)—which are located proximate to the ground state
`
`atoms source, gas supply 20—for trapping electrons, to increase the
`
`efficiency of excitation, as Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony is consistent with the
`
`prior art references cited by GlobalFoundries. Given the evidence before us,
`
`we conclude that GlobalFoundries has demonstrated sufficiently that the
`
`combination of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley, would have suggested the
`
`“magnetic field” limitations.
`
`
`
`Reasons to combine the prior art refernces
`
`
`
`Zond further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`
`been dissuaded from using a gas laser of Pinsley or Angelbeck to achieve the
`
`claimed plasma generation apparatus of the ’779 patent because the high
`
`energy atoms are not maintained in that state in a gas laser and instead, are
`
`used to create light.” Prelim. Resp. 29–30, 42–43. In particular, Zond
`
`alleges that the “excited atoms in Angelbeck’s laser, however, must return to
`
`their ground state to release energy so that the laser will operate according to
`
`its intended purpose: to emit light.” Id. at 36, 42. Zond further argues
`
`GlobalFoundries fails “to provide experimental data or other objective
`
`evidence indicating that the structure and process of Iwamura would produce
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`the particular plasma generator of the ’779 patent.” Id. at 36.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we are not persuaded by Zond’s
`
`arguments. “It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based
`
`on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`
`substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)
`
`(noting that the criterion for obviousness is not whether the references can
`
`be combined physically, but whether the claimed invention is rendered
`
`obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole)). In that regard, one
`
`with ordinary skill in the art is not compelled to follow blindly the teaching
`
`of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent
`
`judgment. Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21 (A person with ordinary skill
`
`in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in
`
`many cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
`
`like pieces of a puzzle.”).
`
`We are cognizant that if the proposed modification or combination of
`
`the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art
`
`invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not
`
`sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. See In re Ratti, 270 F.2d
`
`810, 813 (CCPA 1959); cf. In re Umbarger, 407 F.2d 425, 430–31 (CCPA
`
`1969) (finding Ratti inapplicable where the modified apparatus will operate
`
`“on the same principles as before”). Zond’s arguments, however, fail to
`
`recognize that “the prior art invention being modified” in the combination
`
`here is Iwamura’s plasma treatment apparatus for generating a stable plasma
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`with a multi-step ionization process to treat a semiconductor wafer, and not
`
`Angelbeck’s apparatus. In fact, GlobalFoundries relies upon Angelbeck
`
`only for the technical disclosure of using a transverse magnetic field in a
`
`plasma generating apparatus for trapping electrons. Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1002
`
`¶ 129 (“It would have been obvious to combine Angelbeck’s transverse
`
`magnetic field with Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit or the
`
`combination of the pre-excitation unit with the first plasma generation
`
`unit.”)).
`
`Moreover, Zond has not explained adequately why using a magnet to
`
`generate a transverse magnetic field in Iwamura’s plasma treatment
`
`apparatus would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill, or why one
`
`with ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in combining the technical disclosures. Indeed, as discussed above,
`
`Angelbeck discloses applying a transverse magnetic field in a plasma
`
`generating apparatus would create a high density of excited atoms and
`
`increases the efficiency of excitation. Ex. 1006, 1:36–41, 2:18–20, 2:29–33.
`
`As confirmed by Pinsley, such transverse magnetic field would trap
`
`electrons. Ex. 1005, 2:43–60. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`recognized that combining Angelbeck’s transverse magnetic field with
`
`Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit would trap
`
`electrons proximate to the ground state atoms, inside Iwamura’s gas supply
`
`pipe—specifically, in the regions where the pre-excitation unit and first
`
`plasma generation unit are located.
`
`Given the evidence before us, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that it
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01073
`Patent 6,805,779 B2
`
`
`Angelbeck’s transverse magnetic field with Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit
`
`and first plasma generation unit for trapping electrons, in order to increase
`
`the efficiency of excitation. Ex. 1002 ¶ 129. We credit Dr. Kortshagen’s
`
`testimony, as it is consistent with the prior art disclosures.
`
`On this record, we determine that the Petition and supporting evidence
`
`demonstrate sufficiently that combining the technical di
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
