`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`____________________________________________
`
`IPR Case Nos. IPR2014-00781, 00782, 01083, 01086, 010871
`____________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE J. OVERZET PH.D.
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`
`1 Petitioners for IPR2014-01086 and IPR2014-01087only include
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module One
`LLC & Co. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module Two LLC & CO. KG,
`and the Gillette Company
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`I.
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`RELEVANT LAW .......................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 5
`B.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 6
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-50 ................................................. 8
`II.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`A.
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” ..................10
`B.
`“multi-step ionization process” ...........................................................12
`C.
`“without forming an arc” .....................................................................13
`IV. RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE
`OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-50 .............................................................14
`A. General Discussion ..............................................................................14
`1. Kudryavtsev et al .................................................................................14
`2. Power, Voltage, and Current ...............................................................20
`3. The Two Embodiments of Wang ........................................................24
`4. Combining the Teachings of Wang and Kudryavtsev ........................27
`Independent Claims 1, 20, and 40 .......................................................31
`1. Weakly-Ionized and Strongly-Ionized Plasma in Wang .....................31
`2. Wang Teaches An Amplitude And A Rise-Time To Increase The
`Excitation Rate Of Atoms In The Weakly-Ionized Plasma .....................33
`3. Wang Teaches Without Forming An Arc ...........................................37
`Dependent Claims 2 and 3: Constant Power and Voltage ..................41
`C.
`D. Dependent Claim 6: Choosing a Rise Time of the Voltage Pulse to
`Increase Ionization Rate of the Excited Atoms in Weakly-Ionized
`Plasma..................................................................................................45
`Dependent Claim 11: Substrate Support Temperature Controller ......48
`Dependent Claim 13: Choosing the Volume Between the Anode and
`the Cathode Assembly to Increase the Ionization Rate of the Excited
`Atoms in the Weakly-Ionized Plasma .................................................49
`G. Dependent Claims 22, 26, 30, 31: Uniform Field/Plasma/Impact ......50
`1. Dependent claim 22: uniform electric field ........................................51
`
`E.
`F.
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`2. Dependent claims 9, 26, and 31: uniform plasma ...............................52
`3. Dependent claim 30: uniform target impact ........................................55
`H. Dependent Claims 17, 38, and 39: Exposing the feed gas .................56
`1. Dependent claim 38: electrode emitting electrons ..............................57
`2. Dependent claims 17 and 39: UV source ............................................58
`Dependent Claims 44 and 49: Specific pulse rise time ......................60
`
`I.
`
`
`
`I, Lawrence J. Overzet, declare as follows:
`
`
`
` My name is Lawrence J. Overzet 1.
`
`2.
`
`
`I received my bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. in electrical engineering,
`
`all from the University of Illinois, College of Engineering, Urbana, IL. My
`
`doctoral thesis was titled “Enhancement of the Negative Ion Flux to Surfaces from
`
`Radio Frequency Processing Discharges.”
`
`3.
`
`
`Since graduating in 1988, I have worked as a professor in the
`
`Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Texas at Dallas. My
`
`courses include Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields I and II, and Plasma
`
`Processing Technology; Plasma Science for Materials Processing; and Current
`
`Topics in Plasma Processing.
`
`4.
`
`
`I have over written over 75 articles, presented over 240 presentations
`
`at international symposia, and have 8 patents in various areas of electrical
`
`engineering, most of which being related to plasma science.
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`5.
`
`
`I am a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE), and am a fellow of the American Vacuum Society (AVS) for
`
`my contributions toward understanding pulsed plasmas and the role of negative
`
`ions in plasma processing.
`
`A copy of my resume is provided as Appendix A to this declaration.
`
`I have reviewed the following publications in preparing this
`
`6.
`
`
`7.
`
`
`declaration:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 (the “’759 Patent”) (Ex. 1001; 1101; 1201; 1301;
`
`1401)).
`
`• 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 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1003; 1103;
`
`1203; 1303; 1403)).
`
`• A. A. Kudryavtsev et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35, January
`
`1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1004; 1104; 1204; 1304; 1404)).
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1005; 1105; 1205; 1305; 1405)),
`
`including U.S. Pat. No. 6,306,265 (“Fu” (Ex. 1023; 1223)) and U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,398,929 (“Chiang” (Ex. 2004)) which are both incorporated by reference
`
`by Wang.
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`• Li et al, J. Vac. Sci.Technol. A 18(5), pp. 2333-38, 2000 (“Li” (Ex. 1020;
`
`1220)).
`
`• European Pat. Publication EP 1113088 (“Yamaguchi” (Ex. 1222)).
`
`• U.S. Pat. 5,257,531 (“Müller-Horsche” (Ex. 1021; 1123; 1221; 1329;
`
`1422)).
`
`• D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering
`
`Physics Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1217)).
`
`• I have read and understood each of the above publications and any other
`
`publication cited in this declaration. The disclosure of each of these
`
`publications provides sufficient information for someone to make and use
`
`the plasma generation and sputtering processes that are described in the
`
`above publications.
`
`8.
`
`
`Also, I have reviewed papers in the Inter Partes Review Case Nos.
`
`IPR2014-00781, 00782, 01083, 01086, 01087, including the Petitions and the
`
`accompanying Declarations of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen. As discussed below, I agree
`
`with Dr. Kortshagen’s conclusions as stated in those Declarations. Further, I have
`
`reviewed the Board’s Institution Decisions, Patent Owner’s Responses, and the
`
`accompanying Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`9.
`
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as described below at the time the ’759 Patent application
`
`was filed. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’759 Patent
`
`would have found the ’759 Patent invalid.
`
`10.
`
`
`I have been retained by Petitioners as an expert in the field of plasma
`
`technology. I am working as an independent consultant in this matter and am
`
`being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $500/hour for my time. My
`
`compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`11.
`
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’759 Patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’759 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`12.
`
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`13.
`
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my invalidity analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`prior art, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of the claim terms as
`
`they would be understood by one skilled in the relevant art.
`
`14.
`
`
` I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`15.
`
`
`considered to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a
`
`claim are not found in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the application was filed.
`
`16.
`
`
`I understand the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected by the
`
`prior art of record. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the
`
`’759 Patent would be someone who holds at least a bachelor of science degree in
`
`physics, material science or electrical/computer engineering, chemical engineering,
`
`or mechanical engineering, with two or more years practicing plasma generation
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`methods and using plasma-based processing equipment. I met and/or exceeded
`
`these requirements for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the
`
`’759 Patent.
`
`17.
`
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether
`
`a claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
`• the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
`• the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
`• what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`18.
`
`
`I have been informed and understand that the teachings of two or
`
`more references may be combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if
`
`such a combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art. In determining whether a combination based on either a single reference or
`
`multiple references would have been obvious, it is appropriate to consider, among
`
`other factors:
`
`• whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts
`
`combined in familiar ways, and when combined, would yield predictable
`
`results;
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`• whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could implement a
`
`predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so;
`
`• whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of
`
`known design choices, and would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by those skilled in the art;
`
`• whether a person of ordinary skill would have recognized a reason to
`
`combine known elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
`• whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent; and
`
`• whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`
`19.
`
`
`I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary
`
`creativity, and is not an automaton.
`
`20.
`
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-50
`
`21.
`
`
`I have reviewed the declarations of Dr. Kortshagen provided in the
`
`above-captioned inter partes reviews of the ’759 Patent and I agree with the
`
`findings of Dr. Kortshagen.
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`22.
`
`
`I was unpersuaded by the Patent Owner’s Responses and the
`
`declaration of Dr. Hartsough for reasons I discuss below. Thus, it is my opinion
`
`that every limitation of the plasma generation apparatus and methods described in
`
`claims 1 through 50 of the ’759 Patent are disclosed by the prior art, and are
`
`rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I have been informed and understand that a claim in inter partes
`23.
`
`
`review is given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I have also been informed and understand that any claim
`
`term that lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`
`
` The following discussion proposes constructions of and support for 24.
`
`those terms. I have been informed and understand that any claim terms not
`
`included in the following discussion are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification as commonly understood by those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent Owner, in order to avoid the
`
`prior art, contend that the claim has a construction different from its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, I have been informed and understand that the appropriate
`
`course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to expressly correspond
`
`to its contentions in this proceeding.
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

` “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`A.
` A plasma refers to the combination of electrons, ions, and gas. 25.
`
`
`
`Petitioner had previously proposed that, according to the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” means “a lower density
`
`plasma” and the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma” means “a higher density
`
`plasma.” I understand that the Patent Owner, relying on the specification of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652 (“the ’652 Patent”) proposed similar definitions. The Board,
`
`after noting that there is “no significant difference [] between the parties’
`
`constructions,” stated that “we construe the claim term ‘weakly-ionized plasma’ as
`
`‘a plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions,’ and the claim term ‘strongly-
`
`ionized plasma’ as ‘a plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.’”
`
`IPR2014-00781, Decision at pp. 10-11 (Paper No. 13); IPR2014-00782, Decision
`
`at p. 8 (Paper No. 11); IPR2014-01083, Decision at pp. 8-9 (Paper No. 9);
`
`IPR2014-01086, Decision at pp. 11-12 (Paper No. 11); IPR2014-01087, Decision
`
`at p. 9 (Paper No. 9).
`
`26.
`
`
`I agree with this construction by the Board, and my determination that
`
`the claims of the ’759 Patent are rendered obvious by the prior art applies this
`
`construction. I also understand that Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough do not
`
`dispute this construction.
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

` One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the claims of the
`27.
`
`’759 Patent or these terms in particular (“strongly-ionized plasma” and “weakly-
`
`ionized plasma”) to require any specific or quantified difference in magnitude
`
`between the peak density of ions of the “strongly-ionized plasma” and the
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma.”
`
`
`
` As stated above, I understand that claims are construed in light of the 28.
`
`specification. I do not understand the ’759 Patent specification to require orders of
`
`magnitude difference between the “weakly-ionized” and the “strongly-ionized”
`
`plasma. For example, the ’759 Patent specification states: “the peak plasma
`
`density of the pre-ionized plasma is between about 106 and 1012 cm-3)” and claim
`
`32 recites that “the peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less than
`
`1012 cm-3.” ’759 Patent at 6:32-33; 23:33-35 (claim 32) (claim 17). The ’759 Patent
`
`states that “the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than
`
`about 1012 cm-3.” ’759 Patent at 23:36-38 (claim 33). I have produced Fig. 1 below
`
`to illustrate that these are overlapping ranges without any specific magnitude or
`
`order difference, as described by the specification of the ’759 Patent.
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`FIGURE 1
`
`
`
`
`
` Accordingly, in light of the teachings of the ’759 Patent specification 29.
`
`that weakly-ionized plasma and strongly-ionized plasma can have numerically
`
`overlapping ranges of plasma density, I agree with the Board’s adopted
`
`construction that “‘weakly-ionized plasma’ is ‘a plasma with a relatively low peak
`
`density of ions,’ and that ‘strongly-ionized plasma’ is ‘a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak density of ions.’”
`
` “multi-step ionization process”
`
`B.
` Claim 20 recites: “the multi-step ionization process comprising 30.
`
`
`
`exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizing the
`
`excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma without forming an arc
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`discharge.” The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s construction that a “multi-step
`
`ionization process” is “an ionization process having at least two distinct steps.”
`
`IPR2014-00781, Decision at p. 11 (Paper No. 13); IPR2014-00782, Decision at p.
`
`9 (Paper No. 11); IPR2014-01083, Decision at p. 9 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-01086,
`
`Decision at p. 12 (Paper No. 11); IPR2014-01087, Decision at p. 10 (Paper No. 9).
`
` “without forming an arc”
`
`C.
` As for the phrase “without forming an arc,” the Board noted that the 31.
`
`
`
`specification of the ’759 patent “discloses a process that reduces or substantially
`
`eliminates the possibility of arcing.” IPR2014-00781, Decision at p. 23 (Paper No.
`
`13); IPR2014-00782, Decision at p. 21 (Paper No. 11); IPR2014-01083, Decision
`
`at p. 26 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-01086, Decision at p. 23 (Paper No. 11); IPR2014-
`
`01087, Decision at p. 21 (Paper No. 9) (citing the ’759 patent at 11:54-64, 15:49-
`
`53) (emphasis in original). When I read this claim phrase in light of the
`
`specification, and in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, I do
`
`not understand that the claim requires that every multi-step ionization process
`
`performed by a device be completely free of arcing. There are multiple reasons
`
`why arcing may occur, and while the multi-step ionization process disclosed in the
`
`’759 patent may reduce or substantially eliminate the possibility of arcing, arcing
`
`may still occur during certain instances. I agree with this construction by the
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`Board, and my determination that the claims of the ’759 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art applies this construction.
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING
`THE OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-50
`A. General Discussion
`1. Kudryavtsev et al
`
`
` The Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough appear to me to have a 32.
`
`fundamental misunderstanding of Kudryavtsev. This misunderstanding is
`
`exemplified by Dr. Hartsough’s mistaken belief that Kudryavtsev’s only purpose is
`
`to present “a simplified, analytically-solvable model for the initial stage of an inert
`
`gas pulsed discharge plasma in a flash tube” and is consequently focused on
`
`creating an arc. Hartsough Decl. ¶ 80 (emphasis added). Although Kudryavtsev’s
`
`model can be applied to plasma systems generally, including to flash tubes,
`
`Kudryavtsev does not specifically mention flash tubes. On the other hand,
`
`Kudryavtsev identifies “excimer lasers excited by pulsed electrical discharges” as
`
`an area of current interest to which his work applies. Kudryavtsev at p. 30, left
`
`col. ¶ 1. The pulsed electrical discharges in an excimer laser are the result of
`
`uniform plasma discharges, not arcs. It was common practice to preionize the gas
`
`in a pulsed laser to avoid arc discharges. See, for example, U.S. Pat. 5,257,531
`
`(“Müller-Horsche”), col. 1, ll. 33-37.
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

` Kudryavtsev provides an analytical framework or model that predicts
`33.
`
`the effects of “ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly ionized
`
`gas.” Kudryavtsev, p. 34, right col. ¶ 3. Kudryavtsev’s model identifies conditions
`
`that may result in an arc as well as conditions that avoid arcing.
`
`
`
` An arc condition provides a non-uniform localized region of hot, 34.
`
`strongly-ionized plasma. See Hartsough Decl., ¶ 49. However, and conversely, a
`
`uniform plasma is indicative of a substantially constant degree of ionization
`
`across the electrodes and thus, is indicative of an arc-free condition. In that
`
`regard, Kudryavtsev states that “Experiments (citation omitted) have shown that
`
`ionization occurs uniformly over a cross section of the discharge tube when a
`
`field is applied to a preionized gas …” and that “ionization develops more
`
`uniformly in the bulk, in good agreement with experiment.” Kudryavtsev at p. 34,
`
`right col., ¶¶ 2-3 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
` Kudryavtsev continues to discuss what conditions cause arcing, and 35.
`
`what conditions do not cause arcing when an electric field is suddenly applied to a
`
`pre-ionized gas. Kudryavtsev at p. 34, right col., ¶ 2. Kudryavtsev explains that
`
`the system variable A (Equation 10) predicts whether arcing takes place or not.
`
`When A > 0, Kudryavtsev’s model predicts that the plasma density distribution
`
`will become highly non-uniform at times t ≥ τs (where τs is the duration of the slow
`
`stage). Under these conditions, arcing will occur. Figure 5, below, graphically
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`depicts this situation as a non-uniform spike in the electron density occurs along
`
`the axis and increases monotonically throughout the duration of the pulse.
`
`Kudryavtsev at p. 34, left col., ¶ 6.
`
`
`
` As shown in Fig. 5, above, at time 0, radial distribution ne(r) of the
`36.
`
`plasma density is relatively uniform from r/R = 0 at the center of the chamber to
`
`r/R = 1 at the side of the chamber. The radial profile of the electron density
`
`follows a near Bessel function behavior. The radial profile of the plasma density
`
`begins to constrict at about t = 35 µs and continues to constrict, resulting in a
`
`highly non-uniform and thin plasma column distribution indicative of potential
`
`arcing.
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

` On the other hand, when A < 0, Kudryavtsev’s model predicts that the
`37.
`
`growth of the electron density ne during the slow stage is determined by direct
`
`ionization and “[t]he form of the radial distribution ne(r) will then be similar to the
`
`initial distribution and no well-defined plasma column is produced.” Kudryavtsev
`
`concludes “Our model thus predicts slight deformation of the initial distribution
`
`ne0(r) for A < 0 but substantial deformation when A > 0.” Id. at p. 34, left col., ¶ 6
`
`– right col., ¶ 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`Kudryavtsev’s model predicts that deformation from the relatively uniform plasma
`
`profile (and possible arcing) may occur when A > 0, but a uniform or unconstricted
`
`(arc free) condition exists when A < 0.
`
`
`
` Dr. Hartsough also opines that the voltage drop coinciding with the 38.
`
`current increase in Fig. 2 of Kudryavtsev represents an arc. Hartsough
`
`Declaration, ¶ 89. In my opinion, there simply is not enough information to
`
`conclusively decide that Fig. 2 must depict an arc. A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood that the current and voltage profiles in Fig. 2 of
`
`Kudryavtsev may be consistent with the formation of an arc, but are also consistent
`
`with a high power pulse applied to a weakly ionized plasma for a certain pulse
`
`duration. The drop in voltage and rise in current are, in fact, very similar to the
`
`idealized voltage and current traces presented in Fig. 6 of the ‘759 patent where it
`
`is asserted that no arcing is occurring. More than this, it is my opinion that
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`whether Fig. 2 represents an arc condition or not is irrelevant. The importance of
`
`Kudryavtsev is that his model applies generally to plasma systems that result in an
`
`arc as well as those that do not. Based on Kudryavtsev’s model, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood how to design a system that is arc free and
`
`how to design a system that creates an arc.
`
`
`
` Dr. Hartsough’s declaration includes what I consider to be 39.
`
`inconsistent positions relating to Kudryavtsev’s fast and slow stages. I will explain
`
`where I believe we agree and where we disagree.
`
`
`
` First, I agree with Dr. Hartsough’s explanation that “Kudryavtsev’s 40.
`
`slow growth stage and fast growth stage both refer to stages of their simplified
`
`model after applying a high voltage pulse.” Hartsough decl. par 96. To be clear,
`
`Kudryatsev’s fast and slow stages shown in his Fig. 1, below, are initiated by
`
`applying a voltage pulse of positive polarity to a weakly ionized plasma.
`
`Kudryavtsev, p. 32, right col., ¶¶ 5 and 6.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`41.
`
`
` I also agree with Dr. Hartsough’s explanation that in the slow stage,
`
`“the number of atoms in the first excited states increases rapidly for a relatively
`
`slow change in the electron density.” Hartsough decl., ¶ 96 (citing Kudryavtsev, p.
`
`31, right col. ¶ 7). The only way that happens is if the excitation rate of the excited
`
`state atoms increases due to the voltage pulse.
`
`
`
` Finally, I agree with Dr. Hartsough’s explanation that in the fast stage, 42.
`
`“[t]he rate of ionization then increases with time . . . [f]or nearly stationary n2
`
`values, [equation omitted] so that n2 is changing slowly, there is an explosive
`
`increase in ne.” Id.
`
`43.
`
`
`I do not agree, however, with Dr. Hartsough’s conclusion that “the
`
`stages in Kudryavtsev’s process sharply contrast with those that are disclosed and
`
`claims in the ‘759 patent.” Id. at ¶ 99. In fact, the ‘759 process described by Dr.
`
`Hartsough (Id. at ¶ 98) is the same as the process described by Kudryavtsev as
`
`shown in the chart below:
`
`‘759 Patent
`
`Kudryavtsev
`
`[T]he high-power pulse generates the
`strong electric field 260 in the region
`245 between the cathode assembly 216
`and the anode 238. The strong electric
`field 260 results in collisions that
`generate numerous excited atoms in the
`weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`The gas was preionized by applying a
`dc current. A voltage pulse . . . of
`positive polarity with respect to the
`cathode was applied. Kudryavtsev, p.
`32, right col., ¶ 4-5. In the first stage,
`the number of atoms in the first
`excited states increases rapidly for a
`relatively slow change in the electron
`density. Id. p. 31, right col., ¶ 6.
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`The accumulation of excited atoms in
`the weakly-ionized plasma alters the
`ionization process. Instead of direct
`ionization, the strongly ionized plasma
`is generated by a multi-step ionization
`process having an efficiency that
`increases as the density of excited atoms
`in the weakly ionized plasma increases.
`
`The rate of ionization then increases
`with time. The subsequent increase in
`ne then reaches the maximum value,
`equal to the rate of excitation, which is
`several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the
`initial stage and ionization builds up
`explosively when the external field is
`constant. Id. p. 31, right col., ¶ 6 – p.
`32, left col., ¶ 1.
`
`
`
`
`
` More importantly, Kudryavtsev meets the requirement in claims 1, 20, 44.
`
`and 40 of applying a voltage pulse to the weakly ionized plasm, an amplitude and
`
`rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen to increase an excitation rate of ground
`
`state atoms that are present in the weakly ionized plasma to create a multi-step
`
`ionization process . . . When Kudryavtsev’s voltage pulse is applied to the weakly
`
`ionized gas, the number of ground state atoms excited to the first excited state
`
`“increases rapidly” for a relatively slow change in electron density. Kudryavtsev,
`
`p. 31, right col. ¶ 6. This rapid increase meets the requirement for an increase in
`
`the excitation rate and the parameters of the voltage pulse are chosen to achieve
`
`this effect.
`
`Power, Voltage, and Current
`
`2.
`
`
` The related patents and references, including the ’759 patent and 45.
`
`Kudryavtsev, refer to power supplies, as well as the concepts of power (P), voltage
`
`(V), and current (I). As shown below, Kudryavtsev illustrates the relationship
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`between voltage and current, exactly as shown in the ’759 patent, noting that
`
`voltage leads current by a time ts.
`
`
`
`
`
` Although Kudryavtsev does not show a power pulse, it is understood 46.
`
`that instantaneous power is defined as a product of the voltage and current (P = V ∙
`
`I). Further, and more importantly, the ’759 patent describes the same power
`
`supply operation as Wang. See ’759 Patent at Fig. 5 and Wang at Fig. 6
`
`(reproduced and annotated below).
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`
`
` Although both the ’759 patent and Wang refer to power pulses, both
`47.
`
`teach providing the power pulse in Fig. 5 (’759 patent) and Fig. 6 (Wang) using a
`
`voltage pulse. See ’759 patent 12:55-61; Wang at 7:61-64. Wang further teaches:
`
`“a power supply connected to said target and delivering pulses of power of
`
`negative voltage.” Wang at 8:37-38. The negative voltage pulses are further
`
`illustrated in Fig. 7 of Wang, being output from the pulsed supply 80.
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`48.
`
`
`In short, and as illustrated above, to generate a power pulse, a voltage
`
`pulse with a specific amplitude and rise time is first provided by the power supply.
`
`After a period of time (illustrated as the time between t3 and t4 of the ’759 patent,
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

`and illustrated as time ts in Kudryavtsev) the current and power will pulse with
`
`similar profiles.
`
`The Two Embodiments of Wang
`
`3.
`
`
` As a threshold matter, I note that Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough’s 49.
`
`assertions regarding Wang are flawed because their analysis generally jumps back
`
`and forth between two different embodiments, improperly applying some of
`
`Wang’s statements directed to one embodiment to the other embodiment.
`
`
`
` Wang shows and discusses a system diagram of a magnetron sputter 50.
`
`reactor in Fig. 1, and then in connection with Figs. 4 and 6, shows and discusses
`
`two different embodiments, respectively, of pulsing a target in the reactor of Fig. 1.
`
`See Wang at 3:37-50. These two separate and distinct embodiments are shown by
`
`the figures reproduced below.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01083
`GlobalFoundries 1421
`
`

`

` While both of these embodiments show power pulses PP that can be
`51.
`
`used to form a strongly-ionized plasma, they are quite different in the manner in
`
`which they form the plasma. Specifically, the embodiment in Fig. 4 shows a graph
`
`of the power pulsing from 0 (off) to a peak power PP, while the embodiment in Fig.
`
`6 shows the power pulsing from a background power level PB to the peak power
`
`level PP. Wang’s lower power level of “0” in Fig. 4 terminates the plasma (and
`
`thus, the current) and requires that the plasma be re-ignited for each pulse. Wang at
`
`5:28-29 (“in this embodiment, each pulse 82 needs to ignite the plasma.”). When
`
`plasma is terminated, the corresponding impedance becomes very high. Thus, in
`
`FIG. 4 a condition of near zero current occurs from the ignition of the