IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KH, TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC.,
`TOSHIBA AMERICAN INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., AND
`TOSHIBA CORPORATON
`
`Petitioner
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-01075
`Patent 6,853,142
`__________________
`
`
`ZOND LLC’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Overview Of Magnetron Sputtering Systems. ...............................................................9
`
`The ’142 patent: Dr. Chistyakov invents a new apparatus containing an
`ionization source to generate weakly ionized plasma, an electrical pulse
`applied to the weakly ionized plasma to create strongly ionized plasma and a
`gas line to supply feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma to diffuse the
`strongly-ionized plasma, and allow additional power to be absorbed by the
`strongly ionized plasma. ..............................................................................................11
`
`C.
`
`The Petitioner Mischaracterized The File History. ......................................................15
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW ..............18
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS. .............................................................19
`
`A.
`
`The construction of “weakly ionized plasma” and “strongly ionized plasma.” ..........20
`
`V. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONER PREVAILING
`AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’142 PATENT. ..............................................22
`
`A.
`
`The Petition failed to demonstrate any motivation to combine. ..................................23
`
`1.
`
`Scope and content of prior art. ...............................................................................26
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Lantsman – U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (Ex. 1004)..............................................26
`
`Mozgrin – D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-
`Stationary Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research,
`Plasma Physics Reports, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (Ex. 1003). ........27
`
`c.
`
`Wang – U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 (Exhibit 1005)..........................................29
`
`2.
`
`The Petitioner Fails To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To
`Combine The DC Power System Without Pulses Of Lantsman With The
`Pulsed Power System Of Either Mozgrin or Wang. ..............................................32
`
`B.
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate how the alleged combinations teach every
`element of the challenged claims. ................................................................................37
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The cited references do not teach “a gas line that supplies feed gas to the
`strongly-ionized plasma, the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized
`plasma, thereby allowing additional power from the pulsed power supply
`to be absorbed by the strongly ionized plasma,” as recited in independent
`claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claim 10. .....................................38
`
`The cited references do not teach a “the gas line supplies additional feed
`gas that exchanges the weakly-ionized plasma while applying the
`electrical pulse across,” as recited in claim 3 and as similarly recited in
`claim 12. .................................................................................................................41
`
`The cited references do not teach a “a power supply that supplies power to
`the weakly-ionized plasma though an electrical pulse applied across the
`weakly-ionized plasma,” and “the power supply generates a constant
`power,” as required by dependent claim 4. ............................................................44
`
`C.
`
`The Petition Failed to Identify Any Compelling Rationale for Adopting
`Redundant Grounds of Rejection Under Both Mozgrin and Wang. ............................48
`
`D.
`
`The Petition failed to set forth a proper obviousness analysis. ....................................54
`
`VI. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`The Petitioner has represented in a motion for joinder that this petition
`
`“is identical to the Intel IPR 2014-00494 in all substantive respects, includes
`
`identical exhibits, and relies upon the same expert declarant.” Accordingly,
`
`based upon that representation, the Patent Owner opposes review on the same
`
`basis presented in opposition to Intel’s request no. IPR2014-00494, which is
`
`repeated below:
`
`The Board should deny the present request for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,853,142 (“the ’142 patent”) because there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail at trial with respect to at least one
`
`claim of the ’142 patent.1
`
`Indeed, there are five different and independent groups of reasons why
`
`the Petitioner cannot prevail. First, the references that are primarily relied
`
`upon by the Petitioner (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang) were already considered by
`
`the Examiner and overcome during the prosecution of the application that led
`
`to the issuance of the ’142 patent. These references were considered by 6
`
`
`1 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`different examiners and overcome during the prosecution of 9 other patents
`
`that are related to the ’142 patent over nearly a 10 year period.2
`
`Second, the Petitioner’s obviousness rejections are all predicated on the
`
`false assumption that a skilled artisan could have achieved the combination of
`
`i) an ionization source generating a weakly-ionized plasma from feed gas, ii)
`
`an electrical pulse having a magnitude and a rise-time that is sufficient to
`
`increase the density of the weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma, and iii) a gas line supplying feed gas to diffuse the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma to thereby allow additional power from the pulsed power
`
`supply to be absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma, as required by
`
`independent claim 1 of the ’142 patent by combining the teachings of either
`
`Mozgrin or Wang and Lantsman.3 But these three references disclose very
`
`
`2 Examiners Douglas Owens, Tung X. Le, Rodney McDonald, Wilson Lee,
`
`Don Wong, and Tuyet T. Vo allowed U.S. Patents 7,147,759, 7,808,184,
`
`7,811,421, 8,125,155, 6,853,142, 7,604,716, 6,896,775, 6,896,773, 6,805,779,
`
`and 6,806,652 over Mozgrin and Wang over nearly a decade from the time
`
`that the application for the ‘759 patent was filed on 9/30/2002 to the time that
`
`the ‘155 patent issued on 2/28/2012.
`
`3 Petition at pp. 14-60.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`different structures and processes. Mozgrin teaches two different “[d]ischarge
`
`device configurations: (a) planar magnetron and (b) shaped-electrode
`
`configuration.”4 Mozgrin further discloses a “square voltage pulse application
`
`to the gap.”5 Wang discloses that a “target 14 is powered by narrow pulses of
`
`negative DC power supplied from a pulsed DC power supply 80, as illustrated
`
`in FIG. 1.”6 Lantsman did not describe a pulsed power supply; it instead
`
`discloses two DC power supplies: “DC power supply 10,”7 and “secondary
`
`DC power supply 32.”8 Lantsman makes no mention of generating strongly
`
`ionized plasma.9
`
`And the Petitioner sets forth no evidence that the structure and process
`
`of either Mozgrin or Wang would produce the particular apparatus for
`
`generating strongly-ionized plasma having an ionization source, an electrical
`
`pulse and feed gas to diffuse the strongly-ionized plasma, as recited in
`
`
`4 Mozgrin, Ex. 1003 at Fig. 1 caption.
`
`5 Id. at p. 402, col. 2, ¶ 2.
`
`6 Wang, Ex. 1005, col. 5, ll. 18-22.
`
`7 Lantsman, Ex. 1004 at col, 4, l. 11.
`
`8 Id. at col. 4, l. 11.
`
`9 See e.g., id. at col. 4.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`independent claim 1 of the ’142 patent if either were somehow modified by a
`
`structure that does not even apply an electrical pulse or generate strongly-
`
`ionized plasma, like the structure disclosed in Lantsman.10 That is, the
`
`Petitioner did not show that a “skilled artisan would have been motivated to
`
`combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed
`
`invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation
`
`of success in doing so.”11 The Board has consistently declined to institute
`
`proposed grounds of rejections in IPR proceedings when the Petition fails to
`
`identify any objective evidence such as experimental data, tending to establish
`
`that two different structures or processes can be combined.12 Here, the
`
`Petitioner did not set forth any such objective evidence.13 For this additional
`
`reason, there is not a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail at
`
`trial with respect to at least one claim of the ’142 patent.
`
`
`10 See e.g., Petition, pp. 14-60.
`
`11 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`12 Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Decision Not To
`
`Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103).
`
`13 See e.g., Petition, pp. 14-60.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Third, the prior art in each of the Petitioner’s proposed grounds of
`
`rejections are missing one or more limitations recited in the claims of the ’142
`
`patent such as i) “a gas line that supplies feed gas to the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma, the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma, thereby allowing
`
`additional power from the pulsed power supply to be absorbed by the strongly
`
`ionized plasma,” ii) “the gas line supplies additional feed gas that exchanges
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma while applying the electrical pulse across,” and iii)
`
`“the power supply generates a constant power.”
`
`Fourth, Petitioner neglected to follow the legal framework for an
`
`obviousness analysis set forth long ago by the Supreme Court. 14 That
`
`framework requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter
`
`and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. The Board has previously
`
`warned that failure to identify differences between the cited art and the claims
`
`is a basis for denying a petition:
`
`
`14 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); see
`
`also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007) (“While the sequence
`
`of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham]
`
`factors define the controlling inquiry.”)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`A petitioner who does not state the differences between
`
`a challenged claim and the prior art, and relies instead on the
`
`Patent Owner and the Board to determine those differences based
`
`on the rest of the submission in the petition risks having the
`
`corresponding ground of obviousness not included for trial for
`
`failing to adequately state a claim for relief. 15
`
`The Petitioner ignored the Board’s warning by failing to identify the
`
`differences between the challenged claim and the prior art. That is, the
`
`Petitioner failed to identify the claim limitations that it believed are missing
`
`from the primary references (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang) and are instead taught
`
`by the secondary references (i.e., Lantsman).16 Rather, Petitioner argued that
`
`the claim limitations are taught by “the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`Lantsman,” or “the combination of Wang and Lantsman,” leaving the Board
`
`to figure out whether the primary or secondary reference teaches the claim
`
`limitation.17 Under this circumstance, it would be “inappropriate for the Board
`
`
`15 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CBM-2012-00003, paper 7 at 2 – 3.
`
`16 See e.g., Petition, pp. 18-60.
`
`17 Id. at pp. 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 49, 50-53, and 57.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`to take the side of the Petitioner to salvage an inadequately expressed ground
`
`…”18 On this additional basis, inter partes review should be denied.
`
`Fifth, the Petition contains many redundant grounds of rejection.
`
`Indeed, the Petitioner proposed two or more grounds of rejections for every
`
`challenged claim and did not set forth a compelling reason for why the Board
`
`should institute this proceeding on multiple, redundant grounds.19
`
`In brief, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition for the four groups of reasons summarized in the
`
`table below:
`
`Grounds
`
`All
`
`Reasons For Not Instituting a Proceeding
`
`The references that are primarily relied upon by the
`
`Petitioner (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang) were already
`
`considered by the Examiner and overcome during
`
`the prosecution of the application that led to the
`
`issuance of the ’142 patent.
`
`All
`
`The Petitioner failed to show that a skilled artisan
`
`would have had a reasonable chance of success of
`
`
`18 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CBM-2012-00003, paper 8 at 14.
`
`19 Petition, pp. 14-60.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`achieving the claimed apparatus for generating
`
`strongly-ionized plasma having an ionization
`
`source, an electrical pulse and feed gas to diffuse the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma by combining the
`
`Lantsman structure that does not have an electrical
`
`pulse and does not generate strongly-ionized plasma
`
`with either the planar magnetron or shaped-
`
`electrode pulsed systems of Mozgrin or the small
`
`magnetron pulsed system of Wang.
`
`All
`
`The prior art, either alone or in combination, would
`
`not have taught all the claim limitations of
`
`independent claims 1 and 10 to a skilled artisan at
`
`the time of the invention.
`
`All
`
`The Petitioner failed to identify differences between
`
`the primary references (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang)
`
`and the claimed invention in the proposed
`
`obviousness rejections.
`
`Grounds I, or II and III Ground I using Mozgrin as a primary reference are
`
`redundant with Grounds II and III using Wang as a
`
`primary reference and Petitioner did not set forth a
`
`compelling reason for why the Board should
`
`institute this proceeding on multiple, redundant
`
`grounds.
`
`
`
`For these reasons as expressed more fully below, the Board should deny the
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview Of Magnetron Sputtering Systems.
`
`Sputtering systems generate and direct ions from plasma “to a target
`
`surface where the ions physically sputter target material atoms.”20 Then,
`
`“[T]he target material atoms ballistically flow to a substrate where they deposit
`
`as a film of target material.21 “The plasma is replenished by electron-ion pairs
`
`formed by the collision of neutral molecules with secondary electrons
`
`generated at the target surface.”22
`
`A planar magnetron sputtering system is one type of sputtering system.23
`
`“Magnetron sputtering systems use magnetic fields that are shaped to trap and
`
`to concentrate secondary electrons, which are produced by ion bombardment
`
`of the target surface.”24 “The trapped electrons enhance the efficiency of the
`
`
`20 Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 9-11.
`
`21 Id. at col. 1, ll. 11-13.
`
`22Id. at col. 1, ll. 32-34.
`
`23 Id. at 1, ll. 36-54.
`
`24 Id. at col. 1, ll. 36-38.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`discharge and reduce the energy dissipated by electrons arriving at the
`
`substrate.”
`
`But prior art planar magnetron sputtering systems experienced “non-
`
`uniform erosion or wear of the target that results in poor target utilization.”25
`
`To address these problems, researchers increased the applied power and later
`
`pulsed the applied power.26 But increasing the power increased “the
`
`probability of establishing an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc)
`
`in the process chamber.”27 And “very large power pulses can still result in
`
`undesirable electrical discharges and undesirable target heating regardless of
`
`their duration.”28
`
`
`25 Id. at col. 2, ll. 57-59.
`
`26 Id. at col. 1, l. 60 to col. 2, l. 9.
`
`27 Id. at col. 2, ll. 63-67.
`
`28 Id. at col. 3, ll. 7-9.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`B. The ’142 patent: Dr. Chistyakov invents a new apparatus containing
`an ionization source to generate weakly ionized plasma, an electrical
`pulse applied to the weakly ionized plasma to create strongly ionized
`plasma and a gas line to supply feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma
`to diffuse the strongly-ionized plasma, and allow additional power to
`be absorbed by the strongly ionized plasma.
`
`To overcome the problems of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented an
`
`apparatus containing an ionization source to generate weakly ionized plasma,
`
`an electrical pulse applied to the weakly ionized plasma to create strongly
`
`ionized plasma and a gas line to supply feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`to diffuse the strongly-ionized plasma, and allow additional power to be
`
`absorbed by the strongly ionized plasma as recited in independent claim 1 and
`
`as illustrated in Fig. 2A of the ’142 patent, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`
`
`As illustrated by FIG. 2A, Dr. Chistyakov’s apparatus includes either a
`
`pulsed power supply 202 or a direct current (DC) power supply (not shown) as
`
`a component in an ionization source that generates a weakly ionized plasma
`
`232, an anode 216, a cathode 204, a pulsed power supply 202 that applies a
`
`high power pulse between the cathode 204 and the anode 216, and gas lines
`
`224 providing feed gas 226 from a feed gas source. “The anode 216 is
`
`positioned so as to form a gap 220 between the anode 216 and the cathode 204
`
`that is sufficient to allow current to flow through a region 222 between the
`
`anode 216 and the cathode 204.”29 “The gap 220 and the total volume of the
`
`region 222 are parameters in the ionization process.”30 “In one embodiment,
`
`the pulsed power supply 202 is a component in an ionization source that
`
`generates a weakly ionized plasma 232.”31 “In another embodiment, a direct
`
`current (DC) power supply (not shown) is used in an ionization source to
`
`generate and maintain the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma 232.”32
`
`
`29 Id. at col. 4, ll. 34-37.
`
`30 Id. at col. 4, ll. 40-41.
`
`31 Id. at col. 5, ll. 5-7.
`
`32 Id. at col. 5, ll. 45-48.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`“Forming the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma 232 substantially
`
`eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown condition in the
`
`chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the cathode 204 and the
`
`anode 216.”33 In addition, “the high-power pulses generate a highly-ionized or
`
`a strongly-ionized plasma 238 from the weakly-ionized plasma 232.”34
`
`In one embodiment, additional feed gas is supplied to exchange the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma while applying the electrical pulse:
`
`Directly injecting the feed gas 226 between the cathode 204 and
`
`the anode 216 can increase the flow rate of the feed gas 226. This
`
`causes a rapid volume exchange in the region 222 between the
`
`cathode 204 and the anode 216, which permits a high-power pulse
`
`having a longer duration to be applied across the gap 220. The
`
`longer duration high-power pulse results in the formation of a
`
`higher density plasma.35
`
`Moreover, “[i]n one embodiment, the strongly-ionized plasma 238 is
`
`transported through the region 222 by a rapid volume exchange of feed gas
`
`226. As the feed gas 226 moves through the region 222, it interacts with the
`
`
`33 Id. at col. 6, ll. 20-25.
`
`34 Id. at col. 7, ll. 23-25.
`
`35 Id. at col. 4, l. 64 – col. 5, l. 3.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`moving strongly-ionized plasma 238 and also becomes strongly ionized from
`
`the applied high-power electrical pulse.36 This technique of supplying feed gas
`
`to the strongly-ionized plasma diffuses the strongly-ionized plasma, and
`
`thereby allows additional power from the pulsed power supply to be absorbed
`
`by the strongly ionized plasma:
`
`Transporting the strongly-ionized plasma 238 through the region
`
`222 by a rapid volume exchange of the feed gas 226 increases the
`
`level and the duration of the power that can be applied to the 10
`
`strongly-ionized plasma 238 and, thus, generates a higher density
`
`strongly-ionized plasma in the region 234.37
`
`Thus, Dr. Chistyakov accomplished his breakthrough of generating a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma while reducing the probability of electrical breakdown
`
`by inventing a particular apparatus and method comprising an ionization
`
`source for generating weakly-ionized plasma, a pulsed power supply for
`
`applying an electrical pulse to the weakly-ionized plasma to generate a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma, and a gas line for supplying feed gas to diffuse the
`
`strongly ionized plasma to allow the plasma to absorb additional power.
`
`
`36 Id. at col. 9, l. 66 – col. 10, l. 4.
`
`37 Id. at col. 10, ll. 6-11.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`C. The Petitioner Mischaracterized The File History.
`
`The Petitioner alleged that the claims of the ‘142 patent were allowed
`
`solely because the Applicant (i.e., now the Patent Owner) “amended every
`
`independent claim to require ‘the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the
`
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber’ or
`
`similar limitations.”38 But this allegation is not true because the Applicant
`
`amended the claims to include additional limitations beyond those mentioned
`
`by the Petitioner including a limitation specifying that a power supply
`
`“supplies power to the weakly-ionized plasma through an electrical pulse …
`
`the electrical pulse having a magnitude and a rise-time that is sufficient to
`
`increase the density of the weakly-ionized plasma.”39 The Applicant also
`
`added a limitation specifying that a “gas line supplies feed gas to the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma, the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma, thereby
`
`allowing additional power from the pulsed power supply to be absorbed by the
`
`strongly ionized plasma.”40 That is, the claims of the ‘142 patent were allowed
`
`
`38 Petition, p. 7.
`
`39 Exhibit 1008, Response to Office Action, March 8, 2004, p. 2 of 14.
`
`40 Id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`because of many claim limitations and not just because of the single limitation
`
`identified by the Petitioner.
`
`In addition, the Petitioner also mischaracterized the file history of
`
`another patent that is related to the ‘142 patent, U.S. Patent 7,147,759, by
`
`alleging that the Patent Owner was wrong in stating that “Mozgrin does not
`
`teach ‘without forming an arc.’”41 But this allegation is just not true for two
`
`main reasons. First, the Examiner stated that he allowed the ’759 patent —
`
`not just because of the arc limitation — but because of the combination of
`
`many claim limitations:
`
`Applicant's arguments filed May 2, 2006 have been fully
`
`considered and are deemed persuasive. Specifically, Claims 1-50
`
`are allowable over the prior art of record because … the applied
`
`prior art applied in the previous office action does not teach the
`
`claimed apparatus or method wherein an ionization source
`
`generates a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the anode and
`
`cathode assembly and a power supply generating a voltage pulse
`
`that produces an electric field between the cathode assembly and
`
`the anode, the power supply being configured to generate the
`
`voltage pulse with an amplitude and a rise time that increases an
`
`excitation rate of ground state atoms that are present in the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to create a multi-step ionization process
`
`41 Petition, pp. 17-18.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`that generates a strongly-ionized plasma, from the weakly ionized
`
`plasma, the multi-step ionization process comprising exciting the
`
`ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizing
`
`the excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma without
`
`forming an arc discharge.42
`
`Second, the Patent Owner (i.e., the Applicant at that time), did not argue, as
`
`alleged by the Petitioner, that the claims were allowable solely because of the
`
`“without forming an arc” limitation; it instead argued, inter alia, that “there is
`
`no description in Mozgrin of a multi-step ionization process that first excites
`
`ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizes the excited
`
`atoms without forming an arc discharge.”43 That is, the Patent Owner argued
`
`that Mozgrin did not teach avoidance of an arc discharge during a particular
`
`process: the multi-step ionization process. In other words, the Petitioner
`
`mischaracterized the Patent Owner’s argument to the Examiner by truncating
`
`it and quoting only a small portion of it in the Petition.
`
`
`42 IPR2014-00447, Exhibit 1415, Notice of Allowance, September 29, 2006, pp.
`
`2-3.
`
`43 IPR2014-00447, Exhibit 1413, Response to Office Action, May 2, 2006, p.
`
`13 (emphasis omitted).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`Moreover, contrary to Petitioner’s allegation, the Patent Owner did not
`
`mischaracterize Mozgrin because Mozgrin does not, in fact, teach that there is
`
`no arcing during the multi-stage ionization process (e.g., while ionizing the
`
`excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma).44 That is, Mozgrin does not
`
`teach the avoidance of all arcing during execution of the particular process that
`
`is identified in the claim.45
`
`
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`REVIEW
`
`Confusingly, the Petition contains multiple, redundant grounds of
`
`rejection based on the same combination of references. In particular, for every
`
`ground of rejection using Mozgrin as a primary reference, there is a
`
`corresponding redundant ground using Wang as a primary reference. For the
`
`Board’s convenience below is a summary of claim rejections proposed by the
`
`Petitioner:
`
`
`44 IPR2014-00447, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper No. 11, §
`
`V.C.2.
`
`45 Id.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`1. Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 15, 17-20 and 42: obvious in view of the
`
`combination of Mozgrin and Lantsman (Ground I);
`
`2. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20 and 42: obvious in view of the
`
`combination of Wang and Lantsman (Ground II); and
`
`3. Claims 8, 17 and 18: obvious in view of the combination of
`
`Wang, Lantsman and Mozgrin (Ground III).
`
`
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS.
`
`Under the Board’s rules, any unexpired claim “shall be given its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.”46 Under that construction, claim terms are to be given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.47 The customary meaning
`
`applies unless the specification reveals a special definition given to the claim
`
`
`46 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`47 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc);
`
`Research in Motion v. Wi-Lan, Case IPR2013-00126, Paper 10 at 7 (P.T.A.B.
`
`June 20, 2013).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`term by the patentee, in which case the inventor’s lexicography governs.48 Any
`
`term not construed below should be given its ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner Zond
`
`proposes the following claim constructions for the purposes of this inter partes
`
`review proceeding.
`
`A. The construction of “weakly ionized plasma” and “strongly ionized
`plasma”
`
`The Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the claim terms “strongly
`
`ionized plasma,” and “weakly ionized plasma” are wrong because they are not
`
`the broadest reasonable constructions consistent with the specification. In
`
`particular, the Petitioner’s proposed construction of “strongly ionized plasma”
`
`as a “higher density plasma” is wrong because the proposed construction reads
`
`the claim term “ionized” out of the claim. That is, the Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is incomplete because it does not
`
`specify what the term “density” refers to.
`
`
`48 See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (“[T]he specification may reveal a special
`
`definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning
`
`that it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography
`
`governs.”).
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01075
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`
`The proper construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is “a plasma with
`
`a relatively high peak density of ions.” This proposed construction specifies
`
`that the term “density” ref