`
`EXHIBIT 2005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`
` TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD., TSMC
`NORTHAMERICA CORP., GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case Nos. IPR2014-00828, 00829,
`00917, 01073, and 01076
`
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF LARRY D. HARTSOUGH, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Larry Hartsough, Ph.D., hereby declare:
`
`
`
`
`1. I am making this declaration at the request of patent owner Zond, LLC, in the
`
`matter of the Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) of U.S. Patent No. 6,805,779 (the “’779
`
`Patent”), as set forth in the above caption.
`
`2. I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of $300 per
`
`hour. My compensation in no way depends on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3. The list of materials I considered in forming the opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration includes the ’779 patent, the file history of the ’773 patent, the Petitions
`
`for Inter Partes Review and the exhibits, the PTAB’s Institution Decisions, the
`
`transcript of the deposition of the Petitioners’ expert on the ‘779 patent, and the prior
`
`art references discussed below.
`
`I. Education and Professional Background
`
`4. My formal education is as follows. I received a Bachelors of Science degree
`
`in 1965, Master of Science degree in 1967, and Ph.D. in 1971, all in Materials
`
`Science/Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley.
`
`5.
`
`I have worked in the semiconductor industry for approximately 30
`
`years. My experience includes thin film deposition, vacuum system design, and
`
`plasma processing of materials. I made significant contributions to the development
`
`of magnetron sputtering hardware and processes for the metallization of silicon
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`integrated circuits. Since the late 1980’s, I have also been instrumental in the
`
`development of standards for semiconductor fabrication equipment published by the
`
`SEMI trade organization.
`
`6.
`
`From 1971-1974, I was a research metallurgist in the thin film
`
`development lab of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. In 1975 and 1976, I developed
`
`and demonstrated thin film applications and hardware for an in-line system at Airco
`
`Temescal. During my tenure (1977-1981) at Perkin Elmer, Plasma Products
`
`Division, I served in a number of capacities from Senior Staff Scientist, to Manager
`
`of the Advanced Development activity, to Manager of the Applications Laboratory.
`
`In 1981, I co-founded a semiconductor equipment company, Gryphon Products, and
`
`was VP of Engineering during development of the product. From 1984-1988, I was
`
`the Advanced Development Manager for Gryphon, developing new hardware and
`
`process capabilities. During 1988-1990, I was Project Manager at General Signal
`
`Thinfilm on a project to develop and prototype an advanced cluster tool for making
`
`thin films. From 1991-2002, I was Manager of PVD (physical vapor deposition)
`
`Source Engineering for Varian Associates, Thin Film Systems, and then for
`
`Novellus Systems, after they purchased TFS. Since then, I have been consulting full
`
`time doing business as UA Associates, where my consulting work includes product
`
`development projects, film failure analysis, project management, technical
`
`presentations and litigation support.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Throughout my career, I have developed and/or demonstrated
`
`processes and equipment for making thin films, including Al, Ti-W, Ta, and Cu
`
`metallization of silicon wafers, RF sputtering and etching, and both RF and dc
`
`magnetron reactive sputtering, for example SiO2, Al2O3, ITO (Indium-Tin Oxide),
`
`TiN, and TaN. I have been in charge of the development of two sputter deposition
`
`systems from conception to prototype and release to manufacturing. I have also
`
`specialized in the development and improvement of magnetically enhanced sputter
`
`cathodes. I have experience with related technology areas, such as wafer heating,
`
`power supply evaluation, wafer cooling, ion beam sources, wafer handling by
`
`electrostatics, process pressure control, in-situ wafer/process monitoring, cryogenic
`
`pumping, getter pumping, sputter target development, and physical, electrical and
`
`optical properties of thin films.
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of a number of professional organizations including the
`
`American Vacuum Society, Sigma Xi (the Scientific Research Society), and as a
`
`referee for the Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology. I have been a leader in
`
`the development of SEMI Standards for cluster tools and 300mm equipment,
`
`including holding various co-chair positions on various standards task forces. I have
`
`previously served as a member of the US Department of Commerce’s
`
`Semiconductor Technical Advisory Committee.
`
`9.
`
`I have co-authored many papers, reports, and presentations relating to
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`semiconductor processing, equipment, and materials, including the following:
`
`a. P. S. McLeod and L. D. Hartsough, "High-Rate Sputtering of Aluminum
`for Metalization of Integrated Circuits", J. Vac. Sci. Technol., 14 263
`(1977).
`b. D. R. Denison and L. D. Hartsough, "Copper Distribution in Sputtered
`Al/Cu Films", J. Vac. Sci. Technol., 17 1326 (1980).
`c. D. R. Denison and L. D. Hartsough, "Step Coverage in Multiple Pass
`Sputter Deposition" J. Vac. Sci. Technol., A3 686 (1985).
`d. G. C. D’Couto, G. Tkach, K. A. Ashtiani, L. Hartsough, E. Kim, R.
`Mulpuri, D. B. Lee, K. Levy, and M. Fissel; S. Choi, S.-M. Choi, H.-D.
`Lee, and H. –K. Kang, “In situ physical vapor deposition of ionized Ti and
`TiN thin films using hollow cathode magnetron plasma source” J. Vac.
`Sci. Technol. B 19(1) 244 (2001).
`
`My areas of expertise include sputter deposition hardware and processes, thin
`
`film deposition system design and thin film properties. I am a named inventor on
`
`twelve United States patents covering apparatus, methods or processes in the fields
`
`of thin film deposition and etching. A copy of my CV is attached as Attachment A.
`
`II. Summary of Opinions
`
`10.
`
`It is my opinion that none of the claims of the ‘779 patent are obvious.
`
`III. Legal Standards
`
`11. In this section I describe my understanding of certain legal standards. I have
`
`been informed of these legal standards by Zond’s attorneys. I am not an attorney
`
`and I am relying only on instructions from Zond’s attorneys for these legal standards.
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`12. In my opinion, given the disclosure of the ’779 Patent and the disclosure of
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`the prior art references considered here, I consider a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of filing of the ’779 Patent to be someone who holds at least a bachelor
`
`of science degree in physics, material science, or electrical/computer engineering
`
`with at least two years of work experience or equivalent in the field of development
`
`of` plasma-based processing equipment. I met or exceeded the requirements for one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and continue to meet and/or
`
`exceed those requirements.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standards for Anticipation
`
`13. I understand that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if (i) each and
`
`every element and limitation of the claim at issue is found either expressly or
`
`inherently in a single prior art reference, and (ii) the elements and limitations are
`
`arranged in the prior art reference in the same way as recited in the claims at issue.
`
`C. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`
`14. I understand that obviousness must be analyzed from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the invention was made. In
`
`analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to understand the scope of
`
`the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, and the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, the differences between the prior art and the claims.
`
`15.
`
` I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art provides a
`
`reference point from which the prior art and claimed invention should be viewed.
`
`This reference point prevents one from using his or her own insight or hindsight in
`
`deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`17.
`
`I understand
`
`that an obviousness determination
`
`includes
`
`the
`
`consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2)
`
`the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims; and (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`18.
`
`I also understand that a party seeking to invalidate a patent as obvious
`
`must demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
`
`to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention,
`
`and that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so. This is determined at the time the invention was
`
`made. I understand that this temporal requirement prevents the forbidden use of
`
`hindsight. I also understand that rejections for obviousness cannot be sustained by
`
`mere conclusory statements and that the Petitioners must show some reason why a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought to combine particular
`
`available elements of knowledge, as evidenced by the prior art, to reach the claimed
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`invention.” I also understand that the motivation to combine inquiry focuses heavily
`
`on “scope and content of the prior art” and the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art.”
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the obviousness analysis
`
`requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`IV. Background Topics
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Magnetron Sputtering History and Operation
`
`20.
`
`Since the late 1970s, DC magnetron sputtering has become the
`
`preferred method for the deposition of thin metal films for many applications,
`
`including semiconductor devices and protective layers on cutting tools.
`
`21. Several significant advantages of this method over alternatives, such as
`
`thermal evaporation or diode sputter deposition, are higher deposition rate and
`
`improved film structure.
`
`22.
`
` The higher deposition rate is possible because the closed loop
`
`magnetic field of the magnetron traps the secondary electrons (produced when the
`
`inert gas ions bombard the metal target that is attached to the cathode assembly held
`
`at a negative voltage of several hundreds of volts). These electrons gain energy as
`
`they are accelerated across the dark space. Since most of the voltage drop from
`
`anode to cathode occurs in this region, the electrons arrive in the discharge region
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`with more than enough energy to ionize the neutral gas atoms there. The crossed
`
`electric and magnetic fields create a force on the electrons that causes them to
`
`circulate in a path that follows the shape of the magnetic loop and is only a few mm
`
`from the face of the target. The circulating current in this loop is about 10x the
`
`anode-cathode current of the sputtering discharge. It is these electrons that collide
`
`with, and create large numbers of ions of, the inert neutral sputtering gas atoms
`
`(usually argon) that have diffused into this region. The ions are accelerated toward
`
`the target and bombard it with energies that are nearly the full cathode-anode
`
`voltage. As the secondary electrons create an ion, they lose energy and move closer
`
`to the anode. After several ionizing collisions they no longer have enough energy
`
`to create ions. It is the secondary electrons that sustain a normal magnetron
`
`discharge.
`
`23. The magnetron discharge is characterized by higher current and lower
`
`voltage (i.e., lower impedance) compared to a diode discharge. This allows higher
`
`powers to be delivered than would be possible with diode sputtering, because the
`
`drop in yield with lower voltage is more than made up for by the increase in the
`
`number of ions. In DC magnetron sputtering, repeatability of film thickness is
`
`usually achieved by operating the power supply in power control mode and
`
`depositing for a specific time.
`
`24. The sputtered metal atoms are ejected from the target with high
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`velocity, compared to evaporation, which contributes to film adhesion and
`
`microstructure. However, this high velocity means that relatively few of the metal
`
`atoms have a chance to become ionized as they traverse the thin zone of high energy
`
`electrons on their way from the source target to the substrate workpiece (e.g., silicon
`
`wafer or razor blade).
`
`25. As research progressed over the ensuing decades, the advantages of
`
`increasing the ionization of the sputtered atoms became evident. Ions impacting the
`
`growing film improved qualities such as hardness, adhesion and density even
`
`further. Furthermore, the trajectories of the incoming ions could be made more
`
`perpendicular to the substrate surface by application of a negative bias. This allowed
`
`more film to be deposited in the bottom of high aspect ratio holes enabling the
`
`production of semiconductor devices with ever-decreasing geometries.
`
`26. The challenge of increasing the degree of ionization of the sputtered
`
`atoms could be met by increasing the chances that they would encounter an ionizing
`
`collision in the space between target and substrate. This could be achieved by
`
`expanding the high density plasma into that space. Just increasing the DC power to
`
`the magnetron would do this and would increase the power density delivered to the
`
`target, increasing the sputtering rate and the ionization of the sputtered atoms.
`
`However, this approach, if applied steady state, would require large power supplies
`
`and would overheat the target. Therefore, other techniques were developed to meet
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`the challenge.
`
`27. One approach, introduced by Rossnagel and Hopwood1 was to create a
`
`separately sustained plasma in the target-substrate space. Another was to use the
`
`hollow cathode magnetron invention of Helmer.2 Yet another approach was to use
`
`pulsed DC magnetron sputtering to create a short-lived high density magnetron
`
`plasma with enough time between pulses such that the average power delivered over
`
`many pulses did not exceed the steady state power delivery capability of the power
`
`supply or the cooling capacity of the cathode. As the density of the plasma increases
`
`it also expands, at least partially due to reduced trapping of the electrons circulating
`
`with the magnetic field loop. The large circulating current in this loop forms a one-
`
`turn (very high amperage) electromagnet that creates a magnetic field opposing the
`
`magnetic field produced by the magnetron magnets. This reduction in effective
`
`magnetic field allows an increase in width of the sputtering zone and an expansion
`
`of the plasma away from the cathode.
`
`28. However, this pulsed approach is accompanied by several risks. An
`
`abrupt large increase in applied voltage can cause localized instabilities in electric
`
`fields to be large enough to initiate an arc on the cathode, even if a low density
`
`
`1 S.M. Rossnagel and J. Hopwood, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology 12B
`
`(449-453) 1994.
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,482,611.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`magnetron discharge is already present. If the high density plasma is driven to over-
`
`expansion it can essentially form a short between the cathode and anode leading to
`
`a breakdown mode in which no sputtering occurs.
`
`29. There are large changes in plasma impedance during a pulsed DC
`
`magnetron discharge. The more charged particles within it, the more electrically
`
`conducting it becomes. During ignition, the impedance may be in the hundreds of
`
`ohms, dropping to the tens of ohms in the low density mode. In the transition from
`
`a low to a high density plasma, the impedance drops to a few ohms, accompanied by
`
`up to two orders of magnitude increase in current. Depending on power supply
`
`design and control settings, the density of the plasma may increase quite unevenly,
`
`also leading to the possibility of plasma breakdown or arcs, if the transitions are
`
`uncontrolled.
`
`30. Power supplies in the art prior to the ‘779 patent for DC magnetron
`
`sputtering include those that set power for the duration of a deposition step. In power
`
`control mode, the output is controlled until the product of discharge voltage and
`
`current equals the set power. In pulsed power mode, the total energy delivered
`
`during a pulse is controlled.
`
`31. However, such pulsed power systems are prone to arcing upon igniting
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`the plasma, especially when working with high-power pulses.3 Such arcing can
`
`result in the release of undesirable particles in the chamber that can contaminate the
`
`sample, which is especially undesirable in semiconductor processing.4
`
`V. The ’779 Patent
`32. “A plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random
`
`directions.”5 “For example, a plasma can be generated by applying a potential of
`
`several kilovolts between two parallel conducting electrodes in an inert gas
`
`atmosphere (e.g., argon) at a pressure that is between about 10-1 and 10-2 Torr.”6
`
`Plasma is generated for use in sputtering systems, which deposit films on
`
`substrates:
`
`Ions, such as argon ions, are generated and are then drawn out of the
`
`plasma and accelerated across a cathode dark space. The target
`
`surface has a lower potential than the region in which the plasma is
`
`formed. Therefore, the target surface attracts positive ions. Positive
`
`ions move towards the target with a high velocity and then impact the
`
`target and cause atoms to physically dislodge or sputter from the
`
`target surface. The sputtered atoms then propagate to a substrate or
`
`
`3 Ex. 1001, ‘779 patent, col. 4, lines 3-9.
`
`4 Ex. 1001, ‘779 patent, col. 4, lines 16-20.
`
`5 Exhibit 1001, ‘779 patent col. 1, ll. 7-9.
`
`6 Id. at col. 1, ll. 14-16.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`other work piece where they deposit a film of sputtered target
`
`material. 7
`
`33.
`
`Magnets can be used in sputtering systems to increase the deposition
`
`rate:
`
`Magnetron sputtering systems use magnetic fields that are shaped to
`
`trap and concentrate secondary electrons proximate to the target
`
`surface. The magnetic fields increase the density of electrons and,
`
`therefore, increase the plasma density in a region that is proximate to
`
`the target surface. The increased plasma density increases the sputter
`
`deposition rate.8
`
`34. These magnetron sputtering systems, however, have “undesirable non-
`
`uniform erosion of target material.”9 To address these problems, researchers
`
`increased the applied power and later pulsed the applied power.10 But increasing
`
`the power increased “the probability of establishing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition leading to an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the
`
`chamber.”11 And “very large power pulses can still result in undesirable electrical
`
`discharges and undesirable target heating regardless of their duration.”12
`
`
`7 Id. col. 1, ll. 30-42.
`
`8 Id. at col. 1, ll. 50-57.
`
`9 Id. at col. 4, ll. 64-65.
`
`10 Id. at col. 4, ll. 3-20.
`
`11 Id. at col. 4, ll. 7-9.
`
`12 Id. at col. 4, ll. 18-20.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`35.
`
` To overcome the problems of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented
`
`a plasma generator containing (i) a feed gas source comprising ground state
`
`atoms; (ii) an excited atom source that generates excited atoms from the
`
`ground state atoms and has a magnet that traps electrons near the ground state
`
`atoms; (iii) a plasma chamber that confines excited atoms; and (iv) an energy
`
`source that ionizes the confined excited atoms in a multi-step ionization
`
`process as recited in independent claims 1 and 18 and as illustrated in Fig. 2 of
`
`the ’779 patent, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`36. As illustrated by FIG. 2, Dr. Chistyakov’s plasma generation apparatus
`
`includes “an excited atom source that generates excited atoms from ground state
`
`atoms from a feed gas source 206.”13 In one embodiment, “the excited atom source
`
`is a metastable atom source 204.”14 “The feed gas source 206 provides a volume
`
`of ground state atoms 208 to the metastable atom source 204.”15 “The plasma
`
`generator of the present invention can use any type of metastable atom source 204.
`
`Skilled artisans will appreciate that there are many methods of exciting ground
`
`state atoms 208 to a metastable state.”16 In one embodiment, magnets within the
`
`metastable atom source create an electron trap that increases the probability that
`
`they will collide with ground state atoms and generate metastable atoms.17
`
`37. Dr. Chistyakov’s plasma generation apparatus then moves the excited or
`
`metastable atoms toward a chamber:
`
`The plasma chamber 230 confines the volume of metastable atoms
`
`218. In one embodiment, the output of the metastable atom source 204
`
`is positioned so as to direct the volume of metastable atoms 218
`
`towards the cathode assembly 114. In one embodiment, the geometry
`
`
`13 Id. at col. 4, ll. 30-31.
`
`14 Id. at col. 4, ll. 31-34.
`
`15 Id. at col. 4, ll. 34-36.
`
`16 Id. at col. 5, ll. 1-5.
`
`17 Id. at col. 16, ll. 1-5.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`of the plasma chamber 230 and the cathode assembly 114 is chosen so
`
`that the metastable atoms reach the cathode assembly 114 at a time
`
`that is much less than an average transition time of the metastable
`
`atoms to ground state atoms.18
`
`38. The plasma generator also includes a magnet to increase the plasma density
`
`near the cathode:
`
`In one embodiment, a magnet (not shown) is disposed proximate
`
`to the cathode assembly 114. The magnet generates a magnetic
`
`field that traps electrons in the plasma proximate to the cathode
`
`assembly 114 and, therefore, increases the plasma density In (sic)
`
`the region proximate to the cathode assembly 114.19
`
`39. “The plasma generator 200 of FIG. 2 uses a multi-step or stepwise
`
`ionization process to generate the plasma 202.”20 A “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.”21
`
`40. Dr. Chistyakov’s “multi-step ionization process … substantially increases
`
`the rate at which the plasma 202 is formed and therefore, generates a relatively
`
`
`18 Id. at col. 6, ll. 48-56.
`
`19 Id. at col. 6, ll. 34-39.
`
`20 Id. at col. 6, ll. 60-61.
`
`21 Id. at col. 7, ll. 4-7.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`dense plasma.”22 “Once a plasma having the desired characteristics is generated,
`
`the plasma 202 can be used in the processing of the workpiece 138. … In a plasma
`
`sputtering application, ions in the plasma can be used to sputter material from the
`
`target 116. The sputtered material is deposited on the workpiece 138 to form a thin
`
`film.”23
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`
`41. I understand that the Board construed “metastable atoms” as “excited atoms
`
`having energy levels from which dipole radiation is theoretically forbidden.”24 I also
`
`understand that the Board construed the claim term “multi-step ionization” as “an
`
`ionization process having at least two distinct steps.”25
`
`42. I understand that the Board construed the claim term “excited atoms” as
`
`“atoms that have one or more electrons in a state that is higher than its lowest
`
`possible state.”26 I understand that a means plus function "claim [limitation] shall
`
`be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
`
`
`22 Id. at col. 8, ll. 65-67.
`
`23 Id. at col. 9, ll. 42-50.
`
`24 IPR2014-00828, Institution Decision, Paper No. 9, p. 8.
`
`25 Id. at 10.
`
`26 IPR2014-00829, Institution Decision, Paper No. 9, p. 7.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`specification and equivalents thereof."27 I understand that the Board construed the
`
`means plus function limitations appearing in the claims of the ‘779 patent as
`
`follows:28
`
`Recited functions in italics
`
`Corresponding structures
`
`means for generating a
`
`magnets—e.g., magnets
`
`566a-d,
`
`magnetic field proximate to a
`
`570a-d, 712, 714 that generate a
`
`volume of ground state
`
`magnetic field as shown in Figures 7,
`
`atoms to substantially trap
`
`7A, and 10 of the ’779 patent. See Ex.
`
`electrons proximate to the
`
`1301, 16:1–20 (“The magnets 566a-d,
`
`volume of ground state
`
`570a-d create a magnetic field 574 that
`
`atoms (claim 41)
`
`substantially
`
`traps and accelerates
`
`electrons (not shown) in the chamber
`
`554.”), 18:34–41, Figs. 7, 7A, 10.
`
`means for generating a
`
`a metastable atom source—e.g.,
`
`volume of metastable atoms
`
`metastable atom sources 402, 450,
`
`from the volume of ground
`
`500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 735 as shown
`
`state atoms (claim 41)
`
`in Figures 4–11 of the ’779 patent. Ex.
`
`1301, 14:24–26, 14:46–48, 15:46–
`
`67, 16:29–31, 17:27–34, 18:7–16,
`
`19:11–12.
`
`means for raising an energy
`
`a power supply generating an electric
`
`of the metastable atoms so
`
`field between a cathode assembly and
`
`that at least a portion of the
`
`an anode as shown in Figures 2 and 3
`
`
`27 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
`
`28 Id. at 12.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`volume of metastable atoms
`
`of the ’779 patent. Ex. 1301, 8:39–5,
`
`is ionized, thereby
`
`11:4–14.
`
`generating a plasma with a
`
`multistep ionization process
`
`(claim 41)
`
`means for trapping electrons
`
`an
`
`electron
`
`ion/absorber—e.g.,
`
`and ions in the volume of
`
`electron ion/absorbers 536, 618, 664,
`
`metastable atoms (claim 42)
`
`728, 750, 750’, and 750” shown in
`
`Figures 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12A–12C of
`
`the ’779 patent. Pet. 19; Ex. 1301,
`
`14:66–15:9, 16:56–62, 17:35–42,
`
`18:42–67, 19:56–20:32.
`
`
`
`VII. Prior Art
`
`
`a.
`
`Iwamura
`
`43. Iwamura “relates generally to a plasma treatment apparatus and method
`
`which can treat an object with activated gas species formed by a plasma.”29
`
`Iwamura has two plasma generation units:
`
`the first plasma generation unit preactivates the gas and the second
`
`plasma generation unit activates the gas and forms activated gas
`
`
`29 Exhibit 1307, Iwamura, col. 1, ll. 2-5.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`species. Then, the activated gas species formed by the second plasma
`
`generation unit treat the object to be treated.30
`
`Iwamura discloses a preactivation plasma position and an activation plasma
`
`position:
`
`[T]he gas can be activated downstream from the upstream plasma
`
`preactivation position before the complete preactivated state of the gas
`
`is lost. In other words, the gas reaching the downstream plasma
`
`generation position maintains the ionized or near-ionized state formed
`
`by preactivation, i.e., the gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation
`
`level is high, due to the upstream plasma preactivation. Thus, the
`
`generation of a plasma and formulation of activated gas species in the
`
`downstream region is made easier and more uniform and stable.31
`
`Significantly, Iwamura does not mention a magnet, let alone “a magnet that
`
`generates a magnetic field for substantially trapping electrons proximate to the
`
`ground state atoms,” as claimed in the ‘779 patent.
`
`
`
`
`30 Id. at col. 2, l. 61.
`
`31 Id. at col. 2, ll. 32-41.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Pinsley and Angelbeck
`
`44. Pinsley discloses “a gas laser having an electric discharge plasma.”32 Pinsley
`
`discloses “a flow of gases … at total pressure of 25 Torr.”33 Angelbeck “relates to
`
`gas lasers, and particularly to a method and apparatus for increasing and
`
`controlling the light output of a gas laser by applying a transverse magnetic field to
`
`the laser.”34
`
`45. Accordingly, both Pinsley and Angelbeck relate to emission of light from
`
`lasers. Light is emitted from a laser when electrons at a higher state in atoms move
`
`to a lower state, thereby releasing energy. Instead of emitting light from excited
`
`atoms, the invention of the ’779 patent confines the excited atoms after they are
`
`transformed from ground state atoms so that they can later be ionized. That is, a
`
`skilled artisan 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.
`
`VIII. It Would Not Have Been Obvious To Combine Angelbeck’s Gas Laser With
`The Plasma Treatment Apparatus Of Iwamura To Achieve the Claimed
`Invention of the ’779 Patent With A Reasonable Expectation Of Success.
`
`
`32 Exhibit 1305, Pinsley, Abstract.
`
`33 Id. at col 3, ll. 7-9.
`
`34 Exhibit 1306, Anbelbeck, col. 1, ll. 21-25.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`46. It is my opinion that it would not have been obvious to combine
`
`Angelbeck’s gas laser with the plasma treatment apparatus of Iwamura to achieve
`
`the claimed invention of the ’779 patent with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`47.
`
` The Petitioners erroneously concluded that it would have been
`
`obvious to combine Angelbeck’s gas laser with Iwamura’s plasma treatment
`
`apparatus to achieve a plasma generator having (i) a feed gas source comprising
`
`ground state atoms; (ii) an excited atom source that generates excited atoms from
`
`the ground state atoms and has a magnet that traps electrons near the ground state
`
`atoms; (iii) a plasma chamber that confines excited atoms; and (iv) an energy
`
`source that ionizes the confined excited atoms in a multi-step ionization process, as
`
`claimed in the ‘779 patent.35
`
`48. Petitioners’ conclusion is incorrect. The claimed invention of the ’779 patent
`
`confines the excited atoms after they are transformed from ground state atoms so
`
`that they can later be ionized.36 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.37 Accordingly, a skilled artisan
`
`
`35 Petition, pp. 40-60.
`
`36 Exhibit 1301, ‘779 Patent, col. 21, ll. 21-39.
`
`37 Exhibit 1306, Angelbeck, col. 1.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`would have been dissuaded from using the teachings of the gas laser of Angelbeck
`
`to achieve the claimed plasma generation apparatus of the ‘779 patent. Moreover,
`
`the magnetic fields disclosed in Angelbeck are not designed to trap electrons. Rather
`
`their purpose is to either direct electrons to the tube walls or to affect electron
`
`temperature. The Petitioner failed to provide experimental data or other objective
`
`evidence indicating that the structure and process of Iwamura would produce the
`
`particular plasma generator of the ‘779 patent if it were somehow modified by the
`
`teachings of the gas laser of Angelbeck, particularly in light of the clear difference
`
`in the intended purpose of the excited atoms in the ‘779 patent and those in
`
`Angelbeck.
`
`IX. The cited references would not have taught or suggested all the claim
`limitations of any of the claims of the ‘779 patent.
`
`49. It is my opinion that the combinations of prior art asserted by the Petitioners
`
`would not have taught all the claim limitations of any of the claims of the ‘779
`
`patent.
`
`1. The combination of Iwamura and Angelbeck Does Not Teach “an
`excited atom source that receives ground state atoms from the feed
`gas source … the excited atom source generating excited atoms
`from the ground state atoms,” As Recited In Claim 1 And As
`Similarly Recit