throbber
Paper 50
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: September 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`AMERICA, INC., 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. KG,
`TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
`INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2014-008181
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-00866, IPR2014-01012, and IPR2014-01075 have been
`joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
`North America Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–10, 12, 15, 17–20, and 42 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’142 Patent”). Paper 1
`(“Pet.”). Patent Owner Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted the instant trial on October 20,
`2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 9 (“Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, we granted the revised Motions for Joinder
`filed by other Petitioners (collectively, “GlobalFoundries”) listed in the
`Caption above, joining Cases IPR2014-00866, IPR2014-01012, and
`IPR2014-01075 with the instant trial (Papers 12–14), and also granted a
`Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to TSMC (Paper 34). Zond filed a
`Response (Paper 26 (“PO Resp.”)), and GlobalFoundries filed a Reply
`(Paper 42 (“Reply”)). Oral hearing2 was held on June 12, 2015, and a
`transcript of the hearing was entered into the record. Paper 49 (“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) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons set forth below, we determine that GlobalFoundries has
`shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 3–10, 12, 15, 17–
`20, and 42 of the ’142 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`
`2 The hearings for this review and the following inter partes reviews were
`consolidated: IPR2014-00807, IPR2014-00808, IPR2014-00819, IPR2014-
`00821, IPR2014-00827, IPR2014-01098, IPR2014-01099, and IPR2014-
`01100.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’142 Patent was asserted in numerous
`
`proceedings in Massachusetts: 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-
`11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11581-DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am.
`Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-
`11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.); 1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond v.
`Fujitsu); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. The Gillette Co.). Pet. 1; Paper 5.
`
`
`B. The ’142 Patent
`
`The ’142 Patent relates to methods and apparatus for generating
`high-density plasma. Ex. 1001, Abs. At the time of the invention,
`sputtering was a well-known technique for depositing films on
`semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:16–24. The ’142 Patent indicates that
`prior art magnetron sputtering systems deposit films having low uniformity
`and poor target utilization (the target material erodes in a non-uniform
`manner). Id. at 3:32–36. To address these problems, the ’142 Patent
`discloses that increasing the power applied between the target and anode can
`increase the uniformity and density in the plasma. Id. at 3:37–44. However,
`increasing the power also “can increase the probability of generating an
`electrical breakdown condition leading to an undesirable electrical discharge
`(an electrical arc) in the chamber 104.” Id.
`According to the ’142 Patent, forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown
`condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
`cathode and anode. Id. at 6:21–30. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`7:23–36. The ’142 Patent also discloses that the provision of the feed gas to
`the plasma allows for homogeneous diffusion of the feed gas in the weakly-
`ionized plasma and allows for the creation of a highly uniform strongly-
`ionized plasma. Id. at 6:31–35.
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 10 are the only independent
`claims. Claims 3–9, 12, 15, 17–20, and 42 depend, directly or indirectly,
`from claims 1 or 10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`1. An apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma in
`a chamber, the apparatus comprising:
`an ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma
`from a feed gas, the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in
`the chamber;
`a power supply that supplies power to the weakly-ionized
`plasma though an electrical pulse applied across the weakly-
`ionized plasma, the 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
`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.
`Ex. 1001, 20:35–52 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Based on the instituted grounds, GlobalFoundries relies upon the
`following prior art references:
`Lantsman
`
`US 6,190,512
`Wang
`
`
`US 6,413,382
`
`
`Feb. 20, 2001
`July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1004)
`(Ex. 1005)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1003) (hereinafter “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`E. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`unpatentability (Dec. 23):
`
`Claim(s)
`1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19,
`20, and 42
`8, 17, and 18
`
`
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Lantsman
`
`§ 103(a) Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`enacting the AIA,”3 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
`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).
`Claim 1 recites “the 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,” with claim 10 reciting a similar
`limitation. During the pre-trial stage of this proceeding, the parties also
`submitted their constructions for the claim terms “a weakly-ionized plasma”
`and “a strongly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 13–14; Prelim. Resp. 20–22. In our
`Decision on Institution, we adopted Zond’s proposed constructions, in light
`of the Specification, as the broadest reasonable interpretation. Dec. 6–7.
`Upon review of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence
`before us, we discern no reason to modify our claim constructions set forth
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the Decision on Institution with respect to these claim terms. Id.
`Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we construe, in light
`of the Specification, the claim term “a weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma
`with a relatively low peak density of ions,” the claim term “a strongly-
`ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`
`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). 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 1259. 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We analyze the asserted grounds of
`unpatentability in accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Claims 1, 3–10, 12, 15, 17–20, and 42—Obviousness over Wang and
`Lantsman, or Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20, and
`42 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`combination of Wang and Lantsman. Pet. 39–57. GlobalFoundries also
`asserts that claims 8, 17, and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as obvious over the combination of Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin. Pet. 57–
`59. As support, GlobalFoundries provides detailed explanations as to how
`each claim limitation is met by the references and rationales for combining
`the references, as well as a declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1002).
`GlobalFoundries also submitted a Declaration of Dr. Overzet (Ex. 1022) to
`support its Reply to Zond’s Patent Owner Response.
`Zond responds that the combinations of prior art do not disclose every
`claim element. PO Resp. 34–54. Zond also argues that there is insufficient
`reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang, Lantsman, and
`Mozgrin. Id. at 19–34. To support its contentions, Zond proffers a
`Declaration of Dr. Larry D. Hartsough (Ex. 2005). Zond does not argue that
`elements of claims 8, 17, and 18 are not taught or suggested by the
`combination of Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin, only that there is insufficient
`reason to combine the references. Id.
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`our discussion with a brief summary of Wang and Lantsman, address their
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combination with Mozgrin with respect to the second ground, and then we
`address the parties’ contentions in turn.
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1005, Abs. Wang also discloses
`a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
`of a power pulsed magnetron sputtering reactor:
`
`
`Fig. 1 of Wang illustrates its magnetron sputtering apparatus.
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24,
`cathode 14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Id. at
`3:57–4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus is capable of creating high
`density plasma in region 42, from argon gas feed 32 through mass flow
`controller 34, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`into positively charged metal ions and also increases the sputtering rate. Id.
`at 4:5–34. Wang further recognizes that, if a large portion of the sputtered
`particles are ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly and
`effectively—the sputtered ions can be accelerated towards a negatively
`charged substrate, coating the bottom and sides of holes that are narrow and
`deep. Id. at 1:24–29.
`Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how the apparatus
`applies a pulsed power to the plasma:
`
`
`Fig. 6 of Wang illustrates a representation of applied pulses.
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
`power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP. Id.
`at 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum power
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
`(e.g., 1kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100 or 1000
`times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak power
`PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the density of
`the plasma. Id. According to Dr. Kortshagen, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`PP. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 125–130; see also Pet. 41–43.
`
`Lantsman
`Lantsman discloses a plasma ignition system for plasma processing
`chambers having primary and secondary power supplies, used to generate a
`plasma current and a process initiation voltage, respectively. Ex. 1004, Abs.
`The primary power supply provides the primary power to electrically drive
`the cathode during the plasma process, and the secondary power supply
`supplies an initial plasma ignition voltage to “pre-ignite” the plasma so that
`when the primary power supply is applied, the system smoothly transitions
`to final plasma development and deposition. Id. at 2:48–51.
`The system is applicable to magnetron and non-magnetron sputtering
`and radio frequency (RF) sputtering systems. Id. at 1:6–8. Lantsman also
`provides that “arcing which can be produced by overvoltages, can cause
`local overheating of the target, leading to evaporation or flaking of target
`material into the processing chamber and causing substrate particle
`contamination and device damage,” and “[t]hus, it is advantageous to avoid
`voltage spikes during processing wherever possible.” Id. at 1:51–59.
`Lantsman also discloses that “at the beginning of processing . . . gas is
`introduced into the chamber” and “[w]hen the plasma process is completed,
`the gas flow is stopped.” Id. at 3:10–13. This is illustrated in Figure 6 of
`Lantsman reproduced below:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 6 of Lantsman illustrates the timing of its processes
`Figure 6 illustrates that the gas flow is initiated, and the gas flow and
`pressure begin to ramp upwards toward normal processing levels for the
`processing stage. Id. at 5:39–42.
`
`
`Rationale to Combine References
`GlobalFoundries asserts that it would have been obvious to have
`combined Wang and Lantsman to render the claims obvious. Pet. 46–49
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 134–145). GlobalFoundries discusses the suggestion of
`continuing to supply the feed gas in the process of Wang, and argues that
`this continuance is likely to occur during that disclosed process, although not
`expressly recited. Pet. 44–46; Ex. 1002 ¶ 133. GlobalFoundries also argues
`that even if Wang does not disclose maintaining the flow of the feed gases,
`“[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to continue to
`exchange the feed gas during Wang’s application of background power and
`high peak power, as taught by Lantsman.” Pet. 47. GlobalFoundries
`submits an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wang and Lantsman because both are directed to sputtering and both
`employ two power supplies, one for pre-ionization and the other for
`deposition. Id. In addition, both Wang and Lantsman are concerned with
`generating plasma while avoiding arcing. Id. GlobalFoundries also cites to
`the testimony of Dr. Kortshagen that the continuous flow of gas would allow
`for diffusion of the strongly-ionized plasma and allow for additional power
`to be absorbed by the plasma. Id. at 47–48; Ex. 1002 ¶ 138.
`Furthermore, GlobalFoundries acknowledges that Wang does not
`disclose explicitly that its magnets can be electro-magnets, or disclose
`specifically the peak plasma densities recited in claims 17 and 18. Pet. 57–
`59. GlobalFoundries argues that it would have been obvious to have used
`the electro-magnet of Mozgrin in the system of Wang and that, given the
`power levels used in Wang, Mozgrin makes clear that Wang’s peak plasma
`densities would have been similar. Id.
`We determine that both Wang and Mozgrin deal with pulse
`magnetron sputtering (Ex. 1005, Abs.; Ex. 1003, 400), and we are
`persuaded that it would have been obvious to have used Mozgrin’s
`electro-magnet in the system of Wang. Dec. 20–21 (citing Pet. 57–
`58). Additionally, given the similar power levels applied in both
`Wang and Mozgrin (Ex. 1005, 7:13–30; Ex. 1003, 401), we are
`persuaded also that the plasma formed in Wang would have similar
`peak plasma density parameters, or that one of ordinary skill in the art
`would have been motivated to use the densities disclosed in Mozgrin
`in the system of Wang. Id.
`The parties’ dispute mainly centers on whether GlobalFoundries has
`articulated a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the art would have combined the prior art teachings. Zond argues that
`GlobalFoundries fails to demonstrate that one with ordinary skill in the art
`would have combined the systems of Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin, and to
`achieve the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success or
`predictable results. PO Resp. 19–34.
`In particular, Zond contends that GlobalFoundries does not take into
`consideration the substantial, fundamental structural differences between the
`systems of Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin—e.g., pressure, chamber
`geometry, gap dimensions, and magnetic fields. Id. at 28–34 (citing e.g.,
`Ex. 1003, 400–409; Ex. 1004, Abstract, 2:49–51, 4:11–37, 5:42–52;
`Ex. 1005, 3:60–61, 5: 18–22; Ex. 2004 5:60–62; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 80–84).
`Additionally, even if a combination was somehow made, Zond contends it
`would differ significantly from the system disclosed in the ’142 Patent. Id.
`In its Reply, GlobalFoundries responds that Zond’s arguments apply
`statements directed to different embodiments of Wang together and attempt
`to physically incorporate Lantsman into Wang. Reply 2–4.
`GlobalFoundries also responds that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have viewed Lantsman’s teachings as applicable to Wang’s system, based on
`the ordinary level of skill in the art and the similarities between Wang and
`Lantsman. Id. Upon consideration of the evidence before us, we are
`persuaded by GlobalFoundries’ contentions.
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s argument that Mozgrin’s,
`Lantsman’s, and Wang’s sputtering apparatuses would have been viewed as
`significantly different, or that one with ordinary skill in the art would not
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of
`the references. Obviousness does not require absolute predictability, only a
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reasonable expectation that the beneficial result will be achieved. In re
`Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`“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); 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 (stating that 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”).
`As Dr. Overzet testifies, Lantsman states that its techniques can be
`applied to any plasma process, including DC magnetron sputtering, where
`Wang is directed to DC magnetron sputtering. Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 66–67 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 6:14–17). Additionally, Dr. Overzet testifies that the different
`processing conditions in Wang and Lantsman are routine variables that
`ordinarily skilled artisans would understand need to be changed to
`accommodate different systems and processing conditions. Id. ¶ 68. In
`addition, Dr. Overzet points out that both Lantsman and Wang “teach two
`stage plasma systems.” Id. Indeed, Lantsman discloses both “limited” and
`“substantial” plasma stages (Ex. 1004, 2:48–51, 4:58–61, 5:6), and Wang
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discloses plasma states that vary with the application of pulses (Ex. 1005,
`7:13–39). As noted above, Wang discloses background power PB of 1 kW
`(falling within the range of 0.01–100 kW, as disclosed in the ’142 Patent, for
`generating a weakly-ionized plasma), and pulse peak power PP of 1 MW
`(falling within the range of 1 kW–10 MW, as disclosed in the ’142 Patent,
`for generating a strongly-ionized plasma). Ex. 1005, 7:19–25; Ex. 1001,
`11:34–38, 12:1–8, Fig. 5. On this record, we credit Dr. Overzet’s testimony
`(Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 66–69) because his explanations are consistent with the prior
`art of record.
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that GlobalFoundries has
`articulated a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill
`in the art would have combined Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin as indicated
`in the Petition, and where that reason is supported by a preponderance of
`evidence.
`
`
`Feed Gas from a Gas Line Diffusing the Strongly-Ionized Plasma
`Claim 1 recites, in part, “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,” with independent claim 10
`reciting similar subject matter.
`Zond argues that Lantsman fails to disclose generating a strongly-
`ionized plasma, or disclose any activity of the feed gas and plasma diffusion.
`PO Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 94). Additionally, Zond argues that
`Wang does not teach “the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`because Wang’s chamber is significantly different in design from that of the
`’142 Patent and the feed gas in Wang “‘could not possibly diffuse the
`strongly ionized plasma because it enters the chamber far from the strongly
`ionized plasma and is directed away from the strongly ionized plasma.’” Id.
`at 36–40 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 94). Also, Zond argues that the only motivation
`to diffuse the strongly-ionized plasma and allow additional power to be
`absorbed comes from the ’142 Patent. Id. at 40–41. We do not find Zond’s
`arguments to be persuasive.
`First, we note that it not essential for Lantsman to disclose a strongly-
`ionized plasma because Wang discloses a strongly-ionized plasma, and the
`specified ground of unpatentability relies on the combination of Lantsman
`and Wang. Second, as GlobalFoundries notes, Dr. Hartsough concedes that
`“the gas will tend to diffuse throughout the whole volume,” including
`areas containing the high-density plasma. Reply 5–6; Ex. 1024, 87:22–88:9,
`88:22–89:2, 92:18–93:7. Additionally, Dr. Overzet testifies that due to
`random thermal motion and the pressure gradient in the reaction chamber,
`Wang’s argon gas will diffuse into the plasma near the target. Ex. 1022
`¶ 77. Lastly, Dr. Hartsough acknowledges that a feed gas was commonly
`used to diffuse a strongly-ionized plasma (Ex. 1024, 32:18–33:5), such that
`ordinarily skilled artisans would have used such a process without resort to
`the disclosure of the ’142 Patent.
`Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
`has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combination of
`Wang and Lantsman would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention the provision of a feed gas to a strongly-
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ionized plasma, to diffuse the plasma and allow for greater absorption of
`power, as required by claims 1 and 10.
`
`
`Electrical Pulse with Magnitude and Rise-Time to Generate Strongly-
`Ionized Plasma
`Claim 1 recites, in part, “the 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,” with claim 10 reciting similar
`subject matter.
`Zond argues that Wang does not teach that the magnitude and the rise
`time of its pulses are sufficient to increase the density of weakly-ionized
`plasma to generate strongly-ionized plasma, as required by independent
`claims 1 and 10 of the ’142 Patent. PO Resp. 41–42. GlobalFoundries
`argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from the
`teachings of Wang, that certain parameters, such as the magnitude or the rise
`time of a voltage pulse, could be chosen to generate a strongly-ionized
`plasma. Reply 9. We agree with GlobalFoundries.
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s arguments. Wang selects pulse
`characteristics and reactors with the goal of “producing a high fraction of
`ionized sputtered particles,” which “has long been exploited in high-density
`plasma.” Ex. 1005, 1:7–8, 30–37. Therefore, we are persuaded that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the parameters of the
`magnitude and the rise time of a voltage pulse could be controlled to achieve
`the desired plasma processes, and that it would have been obvious to select
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the magnitude and the rise time of the electrical pulse, to achieve the goals
`of the cited references.
`In addition, claim 1 is an apparatus claim and claim 10 is a method
`claim. With respect to claim 1, we are persuaded that the claim recites an
`intended use that will not limit the scope of the claim, such that the
`obviousness of claim 1 is based on whether the elements of that claim are
`obvious, not on their intended use. With respect to claim 10, the method
`does not require an optimization of magnitude or rise time to achieve the
`strongly-ionized plasma, but simply that the generated electric pulse achieve
`that plasma state, which Wang does, as discussed above.
`Based on the evidence before us, we are persuaded that
`GlobalFoundries has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the
`combination of Wang and Lantsman renders obvious the supplying an
`electrical pulse having a magnitude and a rise time of the voltage pulses to
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma, per claims 1 and 10.
`
`
`Substantially Uniform Strongly-Ionized Plasma
`Claim 15 recites, in part, “selecting at least one of a pulse amplitude
`and a pulse width of the electrical pulse in order to cause the strongly-
`ionized plasma to be substantially uniform.” Zond argues that
`GlobalFoundries has not shown that Wang discloses that the substantially
`uniform plasma is caused by selecting either the amplitude or width of the
`pulse. PO Resp. 42–43. We do not agree with Zond.
`Zond appears to concede that Wang provides for a uniformity of its
`plasma, if only limited to the area beneath the rotating magnet. Id. at 43.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wang is clear that “[p]referably, the peak power PP is at least 10 times the
`background power PB” (Ex. 1005, 7:19–22), i.e., choosing the pulse
`amplitude, and “the application of the high peak power PP instead quickly
`causes the already existing plasma to spread,” i.e., creating a substantially
`uniform plasma. Id. at 7:28–30. As well, Wang provides that “[t]he choice
`of pulse width τw is dictated by considerations of . . . sputtering process
`conditions . . . for achieving the greatest effect,” where uniformity may
`allow for the greatest effect of the plasma over a target. Id. at 5:43–49.
`Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
`has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combination of
`Wang and Lantsman would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention that the amplitude and pulse width can be
`selected to achieve substantial uniformity of the plasma, as required by
`claim 15.
`
`
`Supplying Feed Gas While Applying Electrical Pulse
`
`Claim 3 recites, in part, that “the gas line supplies additional feed gas
`that exchanges the weakly-ionized plasma while applying the electrical pulse
`across,” with claim 12 reciting similar limitations. Zond argues that
`Lantsman only teaches two DC power supplies, which do not supply pulses,
`and Wang teaches only the application of a background power, PB, which is
`also not a pulse. PO Resp. 43–45. This argument was further elucidated at
`the Oral Hearing, with Zond’s counsel explaining that
`you would also need to apply the pulse while there is
`electrical -- while there is weakly-ionized plasma, while you
`are supplying the additional feed gas. You have to get all three
`20
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00818
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of these things. And the combination of Lantsman and Wang
`at most with the various scenarios that you have identified only
`gets two of the three.
`Tr. 94. Counsel also indicated that claims 3 and 12 directly map to an
`embodiment disclosed in the ’142 Patent (Ex. 1001, 5:5–17) whereby the
`weakly-ionized plasma is formed from pulses from a pulsed power supply
`portion of the ionization source. Tr. 101–103. We are not persuaded by
`Zond’s argu

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