`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 34
`Entered: July 14, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR, LIMITED, FUJITSU
`SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC., ADVANCED MICRO
`DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
`RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., GLOBAL
`FOUNDRIES 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.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`
`Cases IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805
`(Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`____________
`
`Held: June 8, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`
`BEFORE: KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS,
`JONI Y. CHANG, SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (TOSHIBA):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBINSON VU, ESQ.
`Baker Botts, L.L.P.
`One Shell Plaza
`910 Louisiana Street
`Houston, Texas 77002-4995
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (GLOBAL FOUNDRIES):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID M. TENNANT, ESQ.
`BRETT C. RISMILLER, ESQ.
`White & Case LLP
`701 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (ADVANCE MICRO
`DEVICES):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XIN-YI (VINCENT) ZHOU, ESQ.
`O'Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, California 90071-1899
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER (FUJITSU):
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRUCE J. BARKER, ESQ.
`GREGORY GONSALVES, ESQ.
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Main Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, Massachusetts 01581
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`June 8, 2015, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID L. McCOMBS, ESQ.
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAVAN K. AGARWAL, ESQ.
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20007-5109
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER (RENESAS):
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE CHANG: Good morning. Please be seated.
`Good morning. Thank you for the information this morning. We
`got your email.
`MR. BARKER: Oh, thank you.
`JUDGE CHANG: At this time I would like to have the
`counsel to introduce yourselves and the colleagues, beginning
`with the Petitioner.
`MR. VU: Thank you, Your Honor. My name is
`Robinson Vu with the law firm of Baker Botts, and I represent the
`lead Petitioner, Toshiba.
`JUDGE CHANG: Thank you.
`MR. TENNANT: My name is David Tennant with
`White & Case, I represent Global Foundries, and here with me is
`Brett Rismiller, also with White & Case.
`MR. VU: Your Honor, I apologize, with me I have two
`clients from Toshiba, Mr. Ishibashi and Ms. Yamanaka.
`JUDGE CHANG: Welcome, thank you.
`MR. McCOMBS: David McCombs for Fujitsu, with
`Haynes and Boone. Thank you.
`MR. AGARWAL: Pavan Agarwal with Foley &
`Lardner for the Renesas entities.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`
`MR. ZHOU: Xin-Yi Zhou for Petitioner Advanced
`Micro Devices, I'm with the law firm O'Melveny & Myers.
`JUDGE CHANG: Thank you, very much. And for
`Patent Owner?
`MR. BARKER: Good morning, Your Honor, Bruce
`Barker from Chao, Hadidi, Stark & Barker for the Patent Owner
`Zond.
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Welcome back.
`MR. GONSALVES: My name is Greg Gonsalves also
`for Patent Owner Zond.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay, thank you. This is an oral
`hearing for all cases, IPR2014-00781, 782, 1083, 1086 and 1087,
`involving patent 7,147,759 B2, as well as for the three IPRs
`IPR2014-00800, 802, 805 involving patent 7,811,421. The
`transcript for this consolidated oral hearing will be entered into
`each of the proceedings, and it will be usable for all cases.
`Consistent with our previous order for each involved patent, each
`party has one hour to present its arguments. Petitioner bears the
`burden of proof that the claims at issue are unpatentable;
`therefore, Petitioner will proceed first to present its case as to the
`challenged claims as to the first involved patent. Petitioner may
`reserve rebuttal time, thereafter the Patent Owner will respond to
`the Petitioners' case. After the parties' presentation for the first
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`involved patent, we will take a lunch break, and the hearing will
`resume at 1:30 for the second patent.
`So, at this time, I would like to ask that counsel, do you
`have a copy of the demonstratives for the court reporter and the
`panel?
`
`MR. VU: Yes.
`JUDGE CHANG: Please. Counsel for Petitioner, you
`may start whenever you like.
`MR. VU: Thank you. So, Your Honors, my name
`again is Robinson Vu and I represent lead Petitioner, Toshiba, on
`behalf of the other Petitioners as well.
`JUDGE CHANG: I would like to interrupt you just a
`moment and just double check with my remote judges to see if
`they can hear. Judge Turner, Judge Stephens, can you hear us?
`Hello?
`
`JUDGE STEPHENS: Yes, I can hear you.
`JUDGE TURNER: I can hear you, Judge Chang, I can
`hear the parties. If you can remind the parties also to refer to
`their demonstrative slides, that's also helpful, thank you.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay, that would be great. I don't
`think I can hear Judge Stephens. Can you speak and see if we can
`hear you?
`JUDGE STEPHENS: Yes, can you hear me now?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Oh, yeah, great, thank you very
`
`much.
`
`JUDGE STEPHENS: Thank you.
`JUDGE CHANG: Just speak up any time if you can't
`hear us, I know last time one of our microphones wasn't working
`correctly. So, thank you.
`JUDGE STEPHENS: Yes. Thank you.
`JUDGE CHANG: Sorry for the interruption.
`MR. VU: No problem, thank you, Your Honor.
`So, this is an overview slide 2 of Petitioners' discussion
`today and we're going to start with an overview of the '421 patent,
`the grounds instituted, the overview of the prior art, primarily the
`Wang reference that we're all familiar with, and then we'll discuss
`the actual disputes between the parties as to the independent
`claims and then the dependent claims. And, Your Honor, we
`would like to reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal time.
`JUDGE CHANG: Sure. Okay.
`MR. VU: So, we have the '421 patent, issued in 2010,
`titled high deposition rate sputtering. We pulled out a
`representative figure, one of the embodiments, slide 4, and
`highlighted some of the various hardware features, and we will
`get back to those in a moment.
`Claim 1, Your Honor, we submit, is representative of all
`of the independent claims in this patent, and I think it's important
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`to go through it quickly, as a preview for the rest of the
`presentation. So, claim 1 recites: (a) sputtering source
`comprising a cathode assembly comprising a sputtering target
`that is adjacent to an anode; and (b), a power supply that
`generates a voltage pulse between the anode and cathode
`assembly that creates a weakly-ionized plasma, but then a
`strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma without
`an occurrence of arcing between the anode and cathode assembly;
`an amplitude, a duration and a rise time of the voltage pulse being
`chosen to increase the density of ions in the strongly-ionized
`plasma. This is in reference to slide 5.
`The Board instituted the IPRs on all claims of the '421
`patent. The grounds of institution are summarized here on slide
`6. The primary reference for all of the rejections is the Wang
`reference, and we've pulled out Figure 1 from the Wang reference
`and done the same, the highlighting of relevant features.
`And here we show in slide 8 the embodiment of the
`sputtering chamber on the left of the '421 patent, Figure 4, and
`Figure 1 of the Wang reference. We point out the anode in both
`the cathode assembly, the pulse power supply, magnets, the areas
`in which the plasma is generated, the feed gas source, the
`substrate, and the bias power supply.
`As to the independent claims, Your Honor, there are
`three disputes between the parties. These relate to claims 1, 17,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`34 and 46 through 48. This is slide 9. The first dispute is
`whether Wang discloses a voltage pulse for creating
`weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from
`the weakly-ionized plasma. The second is whether Wang
`discloses without an occurrence of arcing. And the third is
`whether Wang discloses an amplitude, a duration and a rise time
`of the voltage pulse being chosen to increase the density of ions
`in the strongly-ionized plasma. Let's start with the first dispute.
`Before we get to that, there were only two terms that
`were construed by the Board and they're not in dispute,
`"weakly-ionized plasma" and "strongly-ionized plasma." Two
`other terms are in dispute as a result of the briefing. The first is
`raised by Patent Owner, they're disputing the construction of
`"creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized
`plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma." And the second relates
`to the meaning of "pulse."
`For the construction of "creates a weakly-ionized
`plasma" --
`JUDGE CHANG: I would like to interrupt you to just
`remind you to say the slide number for the record and also for the
`remote judges.
`MR. VU: Correct, thank you. So, I'm on slide 11 now,
`I was previously on slide 10. Slide 10 related to the claim
`construction disputes. Slide 11 will go into the details of the first
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`dispute, wherein the Patent Owner is trying to construe a voltage
`pulse that creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a
`strongly-ionized plasma without an occurrence of arcing. Patent
`Owner is asking the Board to construe that to require that it
`means the ignition of a gas from a state in which there is no
`plasma to a state in which a plasma exists. And we would
`submit, Your Honor, that that construction is improper. Primarily
`because in slide 12, it excludes an embodiment in the '421 patent
`that's completely consistent with the claim language. The
`creation of a weakly-ionized plasma is not confined to the initial
`ignition of the plasma.
`The embodiment I'm talking about is discussed in
`column 16 of the '421 patent, and we're familiar, Your Honors,
`I'm going to skip ahead, I apologize, to slide 15, just to show the
`wave form disclosed in the '421 patent, on the right side of slide
`15.
`
`And we see the weakly-ionized plasma is generated
`between time T1 and time T5, and then a high-powered pulse is
`applied, the high-powered pulse generates a strongly-ionized
`plasma. At the end of the high-powered pulse, we go back down
`again to 352, to the lower power region, where weakly-ionized
`plasma is created again. That's confirmed by our expert
`testimony. The '421 patent describes it, I'm going back down to
`slide 12, in the text as the "continuously generated power
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`maintains the pre-ionization condition in the plasma while the
`pulse power supply 234 prepares to deliver another high-power
`pulse."
`
`So we have, of course, the '421 patent, Your Honor, is it
`illustrates a single pulse, and it discusses that that pulse can be
`repeated. And in between the repetitions, they've creating
`weakly-ionized plasma. That's completely consistent with the
`claim language and inconsistent with the Patent Owner's
`proposed construction to create only related to the initial addition
`of the plasma.
`As for pulse, the Patent Owner disputes that Wang
`discloses a voltage pulse, but importantly, they refuse to construe
`what "pulse" means. We've supplied a construction of our view
`of "pulse" and we believe, Your Honor, that it's consistent with
`the way it's used in the '421 patent.
`I deposed Patent Owner's expert on this issue,
`Dr. Hartsough, and I asked him, I tried to get at his understanding
`of what a pulse is, in the context of the '421 patent, and clearly,
`and I've excerpted his testimony here, he refused to give us an
`answer. I asked, "Question: Can you tell me what pulse means
`to you in relation to the '421 patent?
`"Answer: I don't think I can give you a definition of it.
`As I said, as it's used here, I understand what it means.
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`
`"Question: Okay. What's your understanding of what it
`
`means?
`
`"Answer: In the context of these patents, it's pretty
`clear what it means.
`"Question: If it's clear, Dr. Hartsough, I would like you
`to tell me what it means.
`"Answer: I am not going to -- I am not going to try to
`come up with a definitive definition of the word as it's used. To a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, it's clear what it means."
`This is slide 14. So, we had repeated questions about
`the meaning of "pulse," the Patent Owner refused to provide an
`answer as to what it means, and the reason, Your Honor, I think is
`clear, they are unable to come up with a construction of "pulse"
`that distinguishes what's disclosed in the '421 patent from what's
`disclosed in the Wang reference. They're simply identical wave
`forms, identical voltage pulses, and there's no distinction between
`the two.
`So, the first dispute, that takes us into the first dispute,
`whether Wang discloses a voltage pulse for creating a
`weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from
`the weakly-ionized plasma.
`We've repeated on slide 17 Figure 7 from the Wang
`reference that illustrates the power supply in Wang, and in no
`uncertain terms, the Specification of Wang states "the pulse DC
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`power supply 80 produces a train of negative voltage pulses."
`Wang produces voltage pulses.
`Slide 18, slide 18 is an excerpt from Wang where he
`discusses that the low-power PB creates the weakly-ionized
`plasma, and then the application of the high power pulse TP
`quickly causes the already existing plasma, the weakly-ionized
`plasma, to spread and increases the density of the plasma. So,
`Wang discloses a voltage pulse that creates a strongly-ionized
`plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma.
`The second dispute in the independent claims is whether
`Wang discloses an occurrence of arcing. The only description in
`the '421 patent of arcing is this two-sentence excerpt we've
`repeated on slide 20. "As described herein, the formation of the
`weakly-ionized plasma 262 substantially eliminates the
`possibility of creating a breakdown condition when high-power
`pulses are applied to the weakly-ionized plasma 262. The
`suppression of this breakdown condition substantially eliminates
`the occurrence of undesirable arcing between the anode and the
`cathode assembly 216."
`What Wang is talking -- excuse me, what the '421
`patent is talking about with respect to without an occurrence of
`arcing is first creating a weakly-ionized plasma in the chamber.
`We've created this weakly-ionized plasma, and what that does is
`it creates a condition in which when a strongly -- when the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`high-power pulses are applied, the strongly-ionized plasma is
`created without arcing. That's what the '421 patent means when it
`talks about without an occurrence of arcing. Arcing being
`substantially eliminated, or not occurring, when high-power
`pulses are applied to a weakly-ionized plasma.
`We would submit, Your Honor, that Wang discloses the
`exact same thing. The exact same thing. On slide 21, we broke it
`out, the syllogism in Wang, he starts out by recognizing that
`during initial arcing, there's a tendency to generate initial particles
`during arcing, okay? Then he says, "my solution to this is
`provide a background power, a low-power PB between pulses to
`create this weakly-ionized plasma." And once he's done that, he
`says, "the initial plasma ignition needs to be performed only once
`and at much lower power levels." So he's creating that
`weakly-ionized plasma, you only ignite it once, and then the
`particulates produced by arcing are much reduced.
`So, creates is that same weakly-ionized plasma
`embodiment, and then he later discloses, I will get to this in
`subsequent slides, that the application of the high-power pulses in
`slide 22, no arcing is occurring during the application of the
`strongly-ionized -- excuse me, no arcing is occurring during the
`application of the high-power to create the strongly-ionized
`plasma.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`
`And how do we know that? We know that because we
`have this quote here that the impedance is changing very little
`between the power levels PB and PP. Again, power equals voltage
`squared divided by the impedance. If we've got a constant power
`and we've got a constant impedance, we've got a constant voltage
`in the chamber and there is no high current occurring, which
`means that there's no arcing occurring.
`Zond's expert agrees that if we've got impedance
`changing very little, between these pulses, it's indicative of no
`unipolar arc. Petitioners' expert agrees, in his Declaration, he
`cites to the chamber impedance changing very little. His
`conclusion is that no arcing is occurring, arcing is avoided during
`the creation of the strongly-ionized plasma. The last dispute as to
`the independent claims is whether Wang discloses an amplitude,
`a duration and a rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen to
`increase a density of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma. This is
`slide 25. I'm on slide 26.
`So, there's no dispute that Wang discloses a wave form
`with an amplitude, a duration and a rise time, that wave form
`generates a strongly-ionized plasma. Patent Owner's sole dispute
`is whether those parameters are chosen by Wang to do that. And
`I think Judge Turner raised this issue in the '184 hearing, there's
`plenty of case law, Your Honor, that says that the state of mind of
`the Patent Owner is irrelevant as a limitation to the claim.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`Whether you choose it or not, if it does what's claimed, it's
`disclosed and unpatentable. And we would submit that's what's
`going on here.
`In any event, even if chosen means that Wang has to
`choose it, we would submit, Your Honor, that Wang chooses
`those various parameters.
`Slide 27, again, we have the power supply of Wang. He
`discloses that he chooses a voltage pulse. Slide 28, we have the
`wave form of Wang shown in Figure 6, it has clearly an
`amplitude, and Wang discusses that PP can be multiple times PB,
`he says it can be 10 or 100 or 1,000 times, so he clearly discusses
`and shows an amplitude of a wave form.
`JUDGE CHANG: But, counsel?
`MR. VU: Yes, Your Honor?
`JUDGE CHANG: Doesn't the Patent Owner distinguish
`power pulse from voltage pulse and Figure 6 of Wang is power
`pulse?
`
`MR. VU: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`MR. VU: Let me go back to slide 27. At slide 27,
`Wang discloses that it's applying negative voltage pulses. It's
`also disclosed above the highlighted area, that we have a constant
`negative voltage being applied by 100, so voltage is being
`applied, Your Honor. What Wang did -- what Wang does,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`though, is he chooses to graph power. He discloses applying
`voltage, he chooses to graph power and I think he does that
`because when he graphs Figure 4, which is a different
`embodiment, he talks about when you have high impedance
`changing, it's desirable to characterize power, and so he graphs
`power in a high impedance changing environment and then I
`think to be consistent with what he's done in Figure 4, he shows
`Figure 6, the power characteristic, but he clearly discloses that
`voltage is being applied.
`JUDGE CHANG: I guess I'm trying to initiate a little
`bit more. So, you say you have a power source, right, in Wang,
`so it's 80, item 80, pulse of a power supply, right?
`MR. VU: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE CHANG: And what comes out of that is the
`voltage pulse. So, where does Wang measure that power pulse to
`graph Figure 6?
`MR. VU: Where does the --
`JUDGE CHANG: After the filter or 104, or before
`
`that?
`
`MR. VU: Your Honor, if I understand correctly, so I'm
`looking at Figure 7 on slide 30 and what we have is pulse DC
`power supply 80 and you can see the wave form coming out of
`that.
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Yes, that's a voltage pulse.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`
`MR. VU: That's a voltage pulse and it goes through a
`high-pass filter, so it's letting in the higher frequency voltage
`pulses and then what's applied to the chamber is after the
`high-pass filter, and it's still a voltage pulse, it's just been filtered
`out, and then you have this voltage source 100.
`JUDGE CHANG: Yes, but that's a -- in the
`background.
`MR. VU: Yes, yes, and it goes through a low-pass filter
`and then the combined wave form comes out and it looks like
`Figure 6.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`MR. VU: And he's illustrating power.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`MR. VU: That's what's illustrated, but clearly, Your
`Honor, just because there's a direct relationship to power equals
`voltage squared divided by impedance, that the wave form -- that
`there is a voltage wave form, he doesn't show it, and then, Your
`Honor, again, the impedance -- Wang says that the impedance in
`this environment, once we've created the weakly-ionized plasma,
`before time zero, before the time that starts on the graph at Figure
`6 --
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Wang said that that impedance is the
`chamber impedance, right?
`MR. VU: Yes. Yes.
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE CHANG: So, let me ask again, where is the
`power? Where is being measured the power on the pulse of
`Wang? Of 6? See, here in Figure 6 --
`MR. VU: This is the perspective, Your Honor, if I
`understand correctly, Your Honor.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`MR. VU: Again on slide 30, the wave form in Figure 6
`is from the perspective of I would say point 106.
`JUDGE CHANG: Um-hmm. Okay.
`MR. VU: So, it's from that perspective. It's not a -- it's
`not an empirical measurement of the chamber. Does that make
`sense?
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay. If that's what your position is.
`MR. VU: Let me confer with my colleagues.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay. I just want to know your
`position.
`MR. VU: Okay, Your Honor, if we look at column 7,
`line 56 of Wang.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`MR. VU: As best we can tell it says that the
`background in pulse power may be generated by distinctly
`different circuitry as illustrated in Figure 7.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`
`MR. VU: So, you know, according to Wang, this is the
`circuitry that can generate the wave form of Figure 6.
`So, back to the wave form of Wang. Slide 29, we show,
`again, that the wave form of Wang has a duration and a rise time,
`and Wang acknowledges that Figure 6 is idealized and that the
`exact shape of the wave form, the rise times and fall times are
`expected to vary, depending on the choice of the DC power
`supply.
`
`JUDGE CHANG: So, let me ask you this, can you go
`back to slide 29.
`MR. VU: Yes.
`JUDGE CHANG: I'm sorry about having to ask too
`much questions here, but where is the rise time in that figure?
`MR. VU: The rise time is not illustrated, and Wang is
`clear that it's idealized, in the Specification he discusses that the
`exact shape depends on the design of the pulse DC power supply
`and significant rise times and fall times are expected.
`JUDGE CHANG: Even if it's like idealized, like when
`I'm driving a car, ideally I'm putting the gas in and try to stay at
`55 miles per hour, but when you go up a hill, you might have to
`adjust it. So, here, I understand it's idealized, but still, where is
`the rise time?
`MR. VU: The rise time would be specific -- in terms of
`the wave form, Your Honor, it would be clearly between the flat
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`lower portion PB, the rise time would be the time that it takes to
`get to the top PP.
`JUDGE CHANG: So, it's almost like zero, then?
`MR. VU: In the idealized form, it would be zero.
`JUDGE CHANG: Be zero, okay.
`MR. VU: In real life it's never zero.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay, thank you.
`MR. VU: And Wang recognizes that it can vary, it's
`going to significant rise times and fall times are expected
`depending on the choice of the power supply.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`MR. VU: As to the rise time being chosen, Your
`Honor, Wang discusses the time constants of the high-pass filter
`or low-pass filter being chosen, and Zond's expert, we asked him
`about it, he agrees the choice of the time constant for the
`high-pass filter would enable fast rise times.
`And then the final clause in this limitation is that -- is
`that the amplitude, duration and rise time of the voltage pulse
`increases at density of the ions in the strongly-ionized plasma,
`and Your Honors are familiar with these disclosures of Wang, but
`the very purpose of the high-powered pulse in Wang is to
`increase the density of the ions in the plasma.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`
`And again, we have the passage on slide 32 at the
`bottom, where he discusses the PP quickly causes the already
`existing plasma to spread and increase the density of the plasma.
`Slide 33, the Patent Owner does not raise any additional
`arguments as to these claims, so the same arguments that we
`discussed earlier relate to --
`JUDGE CHANG: Can we go back to the previous
`
`slide?
`
`MR. VU: Sure. Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE CHANG: Sorry.
`MR. VU: Slide 32?
`JUDGE CHANG: Yes, um-hmm. Here, what Wang is
`talking about is power, right? Level?
`MR. VU: Yes.
`JUDGE CHANG: So, here he's still talking about in the
`claim itself it's a voltage pulse. So, how do we know that's being
`strongly-ionized?
`MR. VU: Yes, Your Honor, let me go back to the
`impedance issue. Because this is a very important point in Wang.
`We've already created in Wang a PB, the weakly-ionized plasma,
`okay? And in both Wang and the '421 patent he discusses that
`once this weakly-ionized plasma is created, we've got this
`conductive environment that avoids arcing. Wang notes, okay,
`that after PB, the chamber impedance changes relatively little
`
` 22
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00781; IPR 2014-00782; IPR2014-01083;
`IPR2014-01086; IPR2014-01087 (Patent 7,147,759 B2)
`IPR2014-00800; IPR2014-00802; IPR2014-00805 (Patent 7,811,421 B2)
`
`between the two power levels PB and PP. So, we've got a constant
`impedance environment, you've got constant -- you've got these
`power pulses being applied, the voltage will also be constant. So,
`if the voltage wave form is going to look proportional to what's
`shown in Figure 6, because, again, P equals V2 over R, R is the
`impedance, and we've got a given power here in Figure 6, so we
`know, based on the graph in Figure 6, and that the impedance is
`constant, that the voltage wave point is going to look like Figure
`6 with some constant multiplied by it. Does that make sense?
`JUDGE CHANG: Yes, but I'm still -- what is the
`indication that all that will produce a strongly-ionized plasma?
`MR. VU: So, Your Honor, we have -- we have the
`high-power pulses PP, Your Honor, and Wang discloses that upon
`application of that, we're producing a strongly-ionized plasma.
`JUDGE