`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, and
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`IPR2014-010831
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00988 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`
`III. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS ................................................................................... 3
`
`A. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`combine Wang and Kudryavtsev. ........................................................................... 3
`
`B. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches choosing an amplitude and rise
`time of a voltage pulse to increase the excitation rate in order to create
`a multi-step ionization process that generates a strongly-ionized plasma
`(Claim 40). ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`C. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches the multi-step ionization process
`of exciting ground state atoms to excited atoms, and then ionizing the
`excited atoms without forming an arc discharge (Claim 40). ....................... 15
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 15
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................... 6
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298 (P.T.A.B.
`November 15, 2103) ............................................................................................ 10
`
`Ex parte Liebich, Appeal 2011-001343 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2013) ........................... 15
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`May 4, 2015
`
`Exhibit
`1401 U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`Description
`
`1402 Kortshagen Declaration
`
`1403 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”)
`
`1404 A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1),
`pp. 30-35, January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev”)
`
`1405 U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”)
`
`1406
`
`1407
`
`1408
`
`1409
`
`1410
`
`1411
`
`1412
`
`Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm, pp. 185-258,
`Academic Press (1989) (“Manos”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Response of June 14, 2004
`(“06/14/04 Response”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Office Action of August 30,
`2004 (“08/30/04 Office Action”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Response of February 24, 2005
`(“02/24/05 Response”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Office Action of May 27,
`2005, (“05/27/05 Office Action”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Request for Continued
`Examination of October 27, 2005 (“10/27/05 RCE”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Office Action of January 11,
`2006 (“01/11/06 Office Action”)
`
`1413
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759,Response of May 2, 2006
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`(“05/02/06 Response”)
`
`1414
`
`1415
`
`1416
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Response of August 28, 2006
`(“08/28/2006 Response”)
`
`File History for U.S. Pat. No. 7,147,759, Notice of Allowance Mailed
`October 11, 2006 (“10/11/2006 Allowance”)
`
`European Patent Application 1560943, Response of April 21, 2008
`(“04/21/08 Response in EP 1560943”)
`
`1417 Claim Chart Based on Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev as used in 1:13-cv-
`11570-RGS (“Claim Chart based on Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev”)
`
`1418 Claim Chart Based on Wang and Kudryavtsev as used in 1:13-cv-
`11570-RGS (“Claim Chart based on Wang and Kudryavtsev”)
`
`1419
`
`List of Related Litigations
`
`1420 Affidavit of Brett C. Rismiller in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission
`
`1421 Declaration of Lawrence J. Overzet, Ph.D. (“Overzet Decl.”)
`1422 U.S. Patent No. 5,247,531 (“Muller-Horsche”)
`1423 Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough Ph.D. for U.S. Patent No.
`6,853,142 (IPRs 2014-00818, 2014-00819, 2014-00821, 2014-00827,
`2014-01098) dated February 26, 2015 (“’142 Dep. Tr.”)
`1424 Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough Ph.D. for U.S. Patent No.
`7,147,759 (IPRs 2014-00781, 2014-00782, 2014-01083, 2014-01086,
`2014-01087) dated February 25, 2015 (“’759 Dep. Tr.”)
`1425 Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough Ph.D. for U.S. Patent No.
`7,808,184 (IPRs 2014-00803, 2014-00799) dated February 11, 2015
`(“’184 Dep. Tr.”)
`1426 Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough Ph.D. for U.S. Patent No.
`8,125,155 (IPRs 2014-00477, 2014-00479) dated February 12, 2015
`(“’155 Dep. Tr.”)
`1427 Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough Ph.D. for U.S. Patent No.
`6,896,775 (IPRs 2014-00578, 2014-00604, 2014-01482, 2014-01494)
`dated February 19, 2015 (“’775 Dep. Tr.”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`Petitioner submits this reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 in response to Patent
`
`Owner Zond’s Response to Petition filed on December 31, 2014 (“Response,”
`
`Paper 23). Zond’s arguments for patentability improperly import nonexistent
`
`limitations from the specification into the claims, mischaracterize the cited prior
`
`art, and rely on trivial limitations that are part of the admitted prior art. The
`
`evidence and arguments in this reply confirm that claim 40 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,147,759 (“the ’759 Patent”) is obvious over the combination of Wang (Ex. 1405)
`
`and Kudryavtsev (Ex. 1404) and thus should be canceled.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The Board construed the term “weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a
`
`relatively low peak density of ions,” and the term “strongly-ionized plasma” as “a
`
`plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.” Institution of Inter Partes
`
`Review at pp. 8-9 (Paper No. 9). These constructions do not specify a plasma
`
`density for either claim term. The Board also construed “multi-step ionization
`
`process” as “an ionization process having at least two distinct steps.” Id. at p. 9
`
`(Paper No. 9). Finally, the Board construed three means-plus-function limitations
`
`recited in claim 40. Id. at 10 (Paper No. 9). The Board’s constructions are listed
`
`below:
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`Structures
`a power supply
`electrically
`connected to a
`cathode, an
`anode, and/or an
`electrode
`a magnet assembly
`having either a
`permanent magnet
`or a current source
`coupled to one or
`more electro-
`magnets
`
`a power supply
`electrically
`connected to a
`cathode, an
`anode, and/or an
`electrode
`
`Limitation
`“means for ionizing a feed
`gas to generate a weakly-
`ionized plasma proximate to a
`sputtering target”
`
`Function
`ionizing a feed gas to
`generate a weakly-ionized
`plasma proximate to a
`sputtering target
`
`“means for generating an
`magnetic field proximate to
`the weakly-ionized plasma,
`the magnetic field
`substantially trapping
`electrons in the weakly-
`ionized plasma proximate to a
`sputtering target”
`“means for applying a voltage
`pulse to the weakly-ionized
`plasma, an amplitude and a
`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 that generates a
`strongly-ionized plasma from
`the weakly-ionized plasma,
`the multi-step ionization
`process comprising exciting
`the ground state atoms to
`generate excited atoms, and
`then ionizing the excited
`atoms within the weakly-
`ionized plasma, without
`forming an arc discharge, to
`ions that sputter target
`material from the sputtering
`target
`
`generating an magnetic field
`proximate to the weakly-
`ionized plasma, the magnetic
`field substantially trapping
`electrons in the weakly-
`ionized plasma proximate to a
`sputtering target
`
`applying a voltage pulse to
`the weakly-ionized plasma,
`an amplitude and a 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 that generates a
`strongly-ionized plasma from
`the weakly-ionized plasma,
`the multi-step ionization
`process comprising exciting
`the ground state atoms to
`generate excited atoms, and
`then ionizing the excited
`atoms within the weakly-
`ionized plasma, without
`forming an arc discharge, to
`ions that sputter target
`material from the sputtering
`target
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`
`
`Zond does not address these claim constructions but Dr. Hartsough does not
`
`dispute them. Hartsough Decl. at ¶ 58 (Ex. 2005). Petitioner and Dr. Overzet
`
`agree with all of the Board’s constructions and apply them in the analysis below.
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 23-31 (Ex. 1421).
`
`III. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
`A. Zond’s Arguments are Based on a Flawed Premise That Ignores
`the Basic Teachings of Kudryavtsev
`
`Neither Zond nor its declarant, Dr. Hartsough, addresses Kudryavtsev’s
`
`teaching that “the effects studied in this work are characteristic of ionization
`
`whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly ionized gas . . .” Kudryavtsev
`
`at p. 34, right col., ¶ 4 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1404). In support of its teaching,
`
`Kudryavtsev clarifies that “[s]pecial experiments were conducted to verify the
`
`unimportance of such factors as the proximity of the shields and grounded objects
`
`or the shape and composition of the electrodes . . . which do not cause appreciable
`
`effects during breakdown of a cold gas.” Id. at p. 33, left col., ¶ 1 (Ex. 1404).
`
`Despite such clear explanations, Zond improperly attempts to tie Kudryavtsev’s
`
`model to the specific dimensions and components of Kudryavtsev’s chamber.
`
`Response at pp. 20-22 (Paper No. 23). Zond’s ill-founded arguments should be
`
`rejected.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`Zond goes further by attempting to limit Kudryavtsev’s model to a “flash
`
`tube” that requires an arc. Response at p. 3 (Paper No. 23). Notably, Zond is
`
`unable to point to any explicit mention of a “flash tube” in Kudryavtsev, because
`
`there is none. Overzet Decl. at ¶32 (Ex. 1421). Zond fails to explain how its
`
`position comports with Kudryavtsev’s teaching that its model predicts “no well-
`
`defined plasma column” (i.e., without formation of an arc-prone condition) when
`
`parameter A is less than 0 (Kudryavtsev, p. 34, left col. ¶ 7 (Ex. 1404)), but instead
`
`focuses on Kudryavtsev’s teachings of conditions to avoid such as a “highly non-
`
`uniform” distribution (i.e. an arc-prone condition) when A is greater than zero (Id.
`
`at p. 34, left col. ¶ 6 (Ex.1404)). Overzet Decl. at ¶¶ 33-37 (Ex. 1421). Again,
`
`Zond’s unsupported position contradicts and mischaracterizes the teachings of
`
`Kudryavtsev and should be dismissed.
`
`Finally, instead of teaching how to build a flash tube using an arc, as Zond
`
`asserts, Kudryavtsev suggests that ionization relaxation is of importance in areas
`
`including excimer lasers excited by pulsed electrical discharges. Overzet Decl. at ¶
`
`32 (Ex. 1421). As was well known and explained in U.S. Patent 5,247,531 to
`
`Muller-Horsche (Ex. 1422), the gas in such lasers was pre-ionized to ensure
`
`homogeneity of the plasma discharge and “to avoid arc discharges.” Overzet Decl.
`
`at ¶ 32 (Ex. 1421). A model designed only to apply to a system involving an arc
`
`discharge would have been of little value to excimer laser designers, whose goal
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`was to avoid arc discharges. Again, Zond’s position is contrary to the express
`
`intent of Kudryavtsev.
`
`Zond Improperly Confounds the Embodiments of Wang.
`
`B.
`Zond’s arguments directed to Wang are flawed, for among other reasons,
`
`because they indiscriminately transition between two different embodiments of
`
`Wang – applying statements directed from one embodiment (Fig. 4) to another
`
`embodiment (Fig. 6). Overzet Decl. at ¶ 49 (Ex. 1421).
`
`
`Wang at Figs 4 and 6 (annotated) (Ex. 1405); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 50 (Ex. 1421).
`
`Wang shows and discusses a system diagram of a magnetron sputter 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 (Ex. 1405); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 50 (Ex. 1421). These two separate
`
`and distinct embodiments are illustrated in the figures reproduced above. Further,
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`Dr. Overzet describes and provides a chart summarizing the difference between
`
`these two embodiments, including the portion cited below. Overzet Decl. at ¶¶ 51-
`
`53 (Ex. 1421).
`
`
`Stages
`
`Power or
`Voltage
`
`Arcing
`
`
`
`Wang embodiment of Fig. 4 Wang embodiment of Fig. 6
`Single stage: A single stage
`Three stages: Separate ignition
`combines ignition and
`stage, weakly ionized plasma stage,
`generation of strongly ionized
`and strongly ionized plasma stage.
`plasma. Wang at Fig. 4.
`Wang at Fig. 6.
`Where chamber impedance
`“Where chamber impedance is
`changes “relatively little,” there is
`changing, the power pulse
`no preference to specify power
`width is preferably specified
`rather than the current or
`pulse over current or voltage pulse.
`voltage pulse widths.” Wang at
`See Wang at 7:49-51.
`5:52-54
`Tendency to arc during
`ignition/generation of strongly
`ionized plasma: See Wang at
`7:1-12.
`
`Arcing is avoided during ignition
`and during generation of strongly
`ionized plasma. See Wang at 7:26-
`28, 47-48.
`
`C. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
`to combine Wang and Kudryavtsev.
`
`Zond makes numerous incorrect arguments as to why a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Wang and Kudryavtsev. See
`
`Response at 25-36 (Paper No. 23). All of these arguments are based on nothing
`
`more than the alleged differences between the physical systems of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev and focus on bodily incorporating their systems. This is not the
`
`proper standard for determining obviousness. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based
`
`on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`
`substitution of elements.”). And Zond’s declarant, Dr. Hartsough, concedes that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how physical differences
`
`(such as pressure, chamber geometry, gap dimensions, magnetic field) would affect
`
`a system and understood how to adjust for such differences. ’142 Dep. Tr. at
`
`75:24-80:2 (Ex. 1423). As further discussed below, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood and been encouraged to combine the teachings of
`
`Wang and Kudryavtsev.
`
`Kudryavtsev is a study of the behavior of plasma, and modeling such
`
`behavior, which is general in its application. Overzet Decl. at ¶ 55 (Ex. 1421).
`
`Kudryavtsev applies its theory to an experimental embodiment, which leads to the
`
`conclusion “from a comparison of the experimental spatial and time dependences
`
`of ne that the model is quite accurate.” Kudryavtsev at Abstract; p. 34, right col.,¶
`
`4 (Ex. 1404); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 55 (Ex. 1421). Kudryavtsev’s theoretical
`
`framework is not intended to be limited in application to any specific type of
`
`apparatus (flash tube or otherwise) within which plasma is subjected to an
`
`electrical pulse. Overzet Decl. at ¶ 55 (Ex. 1421). In fact, while Kudryavtsev may
`
`have utilized a particular experiment to verify the disclosed model and “show[]
`
`that the electron density increases explosively in time,” Kudryavtsev provides
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`general teachings that are applicable “whenever a field is suddenly applied to a
`
`weakly ionized gas.” Kudryavtsev at Abstract; p. 34, right col., ¶ 4 (emphasis
`
`added) (Ex. 1404); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 55 (Ex. 1421).
`
`Like Kudryavtsev, Wang is directed to a plasma reactor with a pulsed power
`
`supply. Wang at Abstract (Ex. 1405); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 56 (Ex. 1421). During
`
`peak power PP, Wang suddenly applies an electric field by way of a “negative
`
`voltage pulse” to “quickly cause[] the already existing [weakly ionized] plasma
`
`to spread and increase[] the density of the plasma.” Wang at 7:29-30; 7:62
`
`(emphasis added) (Ex. 1405); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 56 (Ex. 1421). In view of Wang’s
`
`application, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Kudryavtsev
`
`to understand how plasma would react to a quickly applied voltage pulse, and how
`
`to achieve an explosive increase in electron density (if not already experienced)
`
`while generating strongly ionized plasma, for the benefit of improved sputtering
`
`and manufacturing processing capabilities. Overzet Decl. at ¶ 56 (Ex. 1421).
`
`Whether there are differences in the systems of Wang and Kudryavtsev is
`
`inconsequential. Overzet Decl. at ¶ 57 (Ex. 1421). A person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art still would have known how to apply the teachings of Kudryavtsev to
`
`systems such as Wang’s (i.e., for performing sputtering, irrespective of different
`
`pressures, different dimensions, different sizes, magnets, and/or other feature
`
`differences). Id. (Ex. 1421). Differences in such systems are routine and a person
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would work with such differences on a regular basis, and
`
`would consider it routine to make any necessary changes to accommodate for any
`
`and all such variables. Id. (Ex. 1421). Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand that Kudryavtsev teaches that his model is applicable over a
`
`range of pressures based on Kudryavtsev’s Figure 3. Kudryavtsev at Fig. 3; Eqn.
`
`12; p. 34, left col., ¶¶ 1-2 (Ex. 1404); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 57 (Ex. 1421).
`
`Zond’s declarant, Dr. Hartsough, testified that making such changes to a
`
`sputtering system was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to
`
`the ’759 patent. ’759 Dep. Tr. at 75:24-80:2 (Ex. 1424). In fact, Mozgrin is
`
`evidence that those of ordinary skill in the art not only would, but actually did look
`
`to and apply the teachings of Kudryavtsev to systems similar to Wang’s. Mozgrin
`
`at p. 401, ¶ spanning left and right cols (Ex. 1403); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 58 (Ex.
`
`1421).
`
`Finally, in an effort to circumvent the Board’s explicit statement that
`
`obviousness does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements, Patent
`
`Owner Zond points to the Epistar proceeding as requiring objective evidence
`
`showing that Wang’s sputtering system would succeed if modified by the teachings
`
`of Kudryavtsev. Response at pp. 35-36 (Paper No. 23). The Epistar proceeding
`
`was predicated on a direct substitution of a gallium nitride buffer layer for the
`
`aluminum nitride buffer layer used in the Manabe system’s process. Epistar, et al.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Petition, Paper No. 4 (P.T.A.B.
`
`November 15, 2103). The Epistar proceeding is inapplicable to the instant
`
`proceeding as Petitioners do not advocate substituting any characteristics of
`
`Kudryavtsev’s apparatus into Wang’s sputtering system; on the contrary,
`
`Petitioners maintain that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to
`
`use Wang’s disclosed sputtering system in order to achieve Kudryavtsev’s
`
`explosive ionization increase (if it were not already occurring). Overzet Decl. at ¶
`
`57 (Ex. 1421). As the Board correctly recognized in its Institution Decision,
`
`Petitioners seek to combine Kudryavtsev’s teaching of multi-step ionization
`
`modeling with the Wang system, not actual substitution of Kudryavtsev’s
`
`apparatus. Institution Decision at pp. 21-22 (Paper No. 9)
`
`D. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches means for applying a
`voltage pulse with a chosen amplitude and rise time to increase the
`excitation rate in order to create a multi-step ionization process that
`generates a strongly-ionized plasma (Claim 40).
`
`Zond argues that Wang in view of Kudryavtsev fails to teach this limitation
`
`for two primary reasons. First, Zond argues that the Wang power supply “[i]nstead
`
`of controlling a voltage pulse in the particular way required by the claims, Wang
`
`controls the power pulse.” Response at pp. 38-42 (Paper No. 23). Second, Zond
`
`argues that neither Wang nor Kudryavtsev teach “choosing” an amplitude and rise
`
`time of the pulse to increase the “rate at which [the excitation of ground state
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`atoms] occurs.” Id. at pp. 42-48 (Paper No. 23). These arguments are premised on
`
`an incorrect interpretation of Claim 40 and mischaracterize the prior art. Overzet
`
`Decl. at ¶ 63 (Ex. 1421).
`
`Wang teaches that a magnitude (amplitude) of the voltage pulse at the
`
`power supply is selected and delivered to the reactor chamber during the peak
`
`power pulse PP. Wang at 7:19-22; 7:28-30; 9:30-40 (claim 11), Fig. 7 (Ex. 1405);
`
`Overzet Decl. at ¶ 66 (Ex. 1421). Wang also teaches using a high-pass filter allowing
`
`a specific peak pulse width and rise time. Wang at 7:65-8:1, Fig. 7 (see HPF 104)
`
`(Ex. 1405); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 66(Ex. 1421). Dr. Hartsough concedes that a high-
`
`pass filter “could enable fast rise times.” ’184 Dep. Tr. at 181:9-17 (Ex. 1425).
`
`Like the ’759 Patent, Wang notes that the particular shape of the pulse depends on
`
`the design of the power supply. Wang at 5:25-27 (The “exact shape depends on
`
`the design of the pulsed DC power supply 80, and significant rise times . . . are
`
`expected.”) (Ex. 1405); ’759 Patent at 11:16-19 (“The particular … shape …of
`
`the high-power pulses depend[s] on …the design of the pulsed power supply.”)
`
`(Ex. 1401).
`
`Further, Kudryavtsev teaches that when a voltage pulse is applied to a
`
`weakly ionized gas, the slow and fast stage ionization processes indicated in
`
`Kudryavtsev’s Fig. 1 result. Kudryavtsev at p. 31, right col., ¶¶ 6-7 (Ex. 1404).
`
`During the slow stage, Kudryavtsev explains that the number of ground state atoms
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`excited to the first excited state “increases rapidly” for a relatively slow change in
`
`electron density. Kudryavtsev at p. 31, right col., ¶ 6(Ex. 1404); Overzet Decl. at ¶
`
`64 (Ex. 1421). As the number of excited atoms increases, the electron density
`
`begins to increase as well until it reaches its maximum value equal to the rate of
`
`excitation of the ground state atoms. Id. Since the electron density rises at an ever
`
`increasing rate once steady state conditions have been reached during the fast
`
`stage, ionization builds up explosively to create a strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`Kudryavtsev at p. 31, right col., ¶ 6 (Ex. 1404); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 64 (Ex. 1421).
`
`This is the process recited in Claim 40 as “an amplitude and a 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.”
`
`Zond further argues that “Kudryavtsev discloses that the density of excited
`
`atoms (n2) remains nearly stationary or constant.” Response at p. 46 (Paper No.
`
`23). Zond’s argument, which ignores both the language of Claim 40 and the
`
`teachings of Kudryavtsev, is simply wrong.
`
`First, Claim 40 calls for an increase in excitation rate of ground state atoms
`
`due to the high power voltage pulse. As discussed above, Kudryavtsev’s voltage
`
`pulse causes the number of atoms in the first excited states to increase rapidly
`
`during the first stage of ionization. Kudryavtsev at p. 31, right col., ¶¶ 6-7 (Ex.
`
`1404); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 64 (Ex. 1421). This sudden, rapid increase in the number
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`of excited atoms at the onset of Kudryavtsev’s voltage pulse clearly meets the
`
`requirement for an increase in rate. Zond simply ignores this response to
`
`Kudryavtsev’s pulse.
`
`Second, Zond’s argument is based solely on Kudryavtsev’s explanation of
`
`the second stage of ionization which occurs after the rapid increase in excited
`
`ground state atoms takes place. The second stage occurs after, and as a result of,
`
`the rapid increase in excited atoms in the first stage. Kudryavtsev at p. 31, right
`
`col., ¶ 6 (Ex. 1404); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 43 (Ex. 1421). In the second stage,
`
`equilibrium is reached between the increase in electron density and the excitation
`
`rate of ground state atoms. Kudryavtsev at p. 31, right col., ¶ 6 - p. 32, left col., ¶
`
`1(Ex. 1404); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 43 (Ex. 1421). The number of excited atoms
`
`reaches a maximum and stabilizes, and there is an explosive increase in ionization.
`
`Id. The fact that the excited atom density remains relatively constant in the second
`
`stage is irrelevant since both the first stage and the second stage occur during the
`
`high power pulse. Zond’s selective reading of Kudryavtsev cannot support its
`
`argument.
`
`Zond’s declarant, Dr. Hartsough, and Petitioner’s experts, Dr. Kortshagen and
`
`Dr. Overzet, agree that Wang teaches a weakly and a strongly-ionized plasma. ’155
`
`Dep. Tr. at 140:7-25 (Ex. 1426); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 51 (Ex. 1421); Transcript of
`
`deposition of Dr. Kortshagen, Petitioners’ expert, for the ‘142 patent at 151:25-152:6
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`(Ex. 2011). In Wang, “a very high plasma density is produced during the pulse.”
`
`Wang at Abstract (Ex. 1405); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 68 (Ex. 1421). Wang further notes
`
`that “the application of the high peak power PP instead quickly causes the already
`
`existing plasma to spread and increases the density of the plasma.” Wang at
`
`7:28-30; 5:7-8 (Ex. 1405); Overzet Decl. at ¶ 68 (Ex. 1421). This process increases
`
`the “excitation rate of ground state atoms,” as recited in the claim. Overzet Decl.
`
`at ¶¶ 67-68 (Ex. 1421). Based on these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would therefore recognize that Wang chooses the voltage pulse amplitude,
`
`width, and rise time to increase the excitation rate of the ground state atoms in the
`
`weakly ionized plasma and increase the ionization rate of its strongly-ionized
`
`plasma. Id.at ¶ 68 (Ex. 1421). Either Wang’s system operates in the manner
`
`described by Kudryavtsev (which is most likely) whereby the excitation rate of
`
`ground state atoms is increased followed by a rapid increase in electron density and
`
`an explosive increase in ionization, or it would have been obvious for one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to adjust the parameters of Wang to take advantage of the
`
`explosive ionization increase described by Kudryavtsev. Id.at ¶ 65 (Ex. 1421).
`
`Finally, Zond’s argument conflicts with established law. Zond appears to
`
`argue that Claim 40 not only requires choosing the rise time of the voltage pulse,
`
`but requires choosing such rise time with an intent “to increase an ionization rate
`
`of the excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma.” But the clause “to increase an
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`ionization rate …” states the purpose or intended result of the claim limitation, and
`
`does not limit the claim. In Ex parte Liebich, the Board invalidated a claim
`
`reciting a step requiring data evaluation “to analyze cost.” Ex parte Liebich,
`
`Appeal 2011-001343, *3 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2013). The Board explained that the
`
`“‘to analyze cost’ language merely represents a statement of intended use or
`
`purpose (intended result) of the evaluated data which does not limit the claim.” Id.
`
`at 6. Thus, because the prior art disclosed a data evaluation step, the Board found
`
`the prior art to be anticipatory even when it does not explicitly discuss the recited
`
`purpose of “to analyze cost.” Id. at 7-8. The same analysis applies here—the “to
`
`increase an ionization rate …” language describes a purpose or intended result of
`
`choosing the rise time of the voltage pulse, and therefore does not limit Claim 40.
`
`E. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches means for applying a
`voltage pulse resulting in a multi-step ionization process of exciting
`ground state atoms to excited atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms
`without forming an arc discharge (Claim 40).
`
`Zond argues that “although Wang mentions reducing arcing, it never
`
`indicates that it does not have any arcing while the ground state atoms are excited
`
`to excited atoms and while the excited atoms are ionized, as required by claim
`
`40…” Response at 25 (Paper No. 23). This argument is based on an incorrect
`
`reading of the claim limitation as the Board correctly construed the limitation
`
`“without forming an arc discharge” as requiring reduction or substantial
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`elimination of arcing because it is impossible to completely eliminate arcing and
`
`the ’759 specification discusses the reduction of arcing, not complete elimination.
`
`Overzet Decl. at ¶¶ 70-71 (Ex. 1421).
`
`As a threshold matter, it is noted that Wang in view of Kudryavtsev teaches
`
`the multi-step ionization process. Zond’s declarant Dr. Hartsough concedes that
`
`“you’ve got generation of excited atoms first and then generation of ions from
`
`those excited atoms depicted in [Kudryavtsev’s] figure” and that this “requires to
`
`[sic] distinct collisions.” ‘759 Dep. Tr. at 48:5-14 (Ex. 1424).
`
`Regarding arcing, Zond’s declarant Dr. Hartsough concedes that “Wang at
`
`least significantly reduced arcing.” ’155 Dep. Tr. at 178:5-8 (Ex. 1426); ’184 Dep.
`
`Tr. at 250:4-5 (Ex. 1425). Also, Dr. Hartsough concedes that the claim requires
`
`looking at a single pulse at a time. ’184 Dep. Tr. at 244:7-13 (Ex. 1425). Further,
`
`Dr. Hartsough concedes that Wang will not arc in every instance. ’184 Dep. Tr. at
`
`253:15-24 (Ex. 1425). Further still, Dr. Hartsough concedes that in instances
`
`where Wang does not arc it meets the claim. ’155 Dep. Tr. at 200:19-21 (“If Wang
`
`produces a pulse that doesn’t arc, then Wang meets the ‘does not arc’ part of
`
`that claim. They match.”) (Ex. 1426). Therefore, based on Dr. Hartsough’s
`
`testimony, Wang meets the claim limitation “without forming an arc” since at least
`
`during one pulse it will not arc.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01083
` Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`Wang, recognized that in the waveform of Fig. 4, during the
`
`ignition/generation of strongly ionize