throbber
Paper 35
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: August 14, 2015
`
`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.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-010831
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00988 has been joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden
`
`Module One LLC & Co. KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`
`Two LLC & Co. KG (collectively, “the GlobalFoundries entities”) filed a
`
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claim 40 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,147,759 B2 (Ex. 1401, “the ’759 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner
`
`Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`instituted the instant trial on October 10, 2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`Paper 9 (“Dec.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, we granted the revised Motion for Joinder
`
`filed by The Gillette Company (“Gillette”), joining Case IPR2014-00988
`
`with the instant trial.2 Paper 12. Zond filed a Response (Paper 23 (“PO
`
`Resp.”)), and GlobalFoundries filed a Reply (Paper 26 (“Reply”)). Oral
`
`hearing3 was held on June 8, 2015, and a transcript of the hearing was
`
`entered into the record. Paper 34 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`
`decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we determine that GlobalFoundries has
`
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 40 of the ’759 patent is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`2 In this Decision, we refer to the GlobalFoundries entities (the original
`Petitioner) and Gillette as “GlobalFoundries,” for efficiency.
`3 The hearings for this review and the following inter partes reviews were
`consolidated: IPR2014-00781, IPR2014-00782, IPR2014-00800, IPR2014-
`00802, IPR2014-00805, IPR2014-01086, and IPR2014-01087.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`
`
`The parties indicate that the ’759 patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No.1:13-cv-11577-DPW (D. Mass.), and
`
`identify other proceedings in which Zond asserted the ’759 patent. Paper 5;
`
`Ex. 1419.
`
`
`
`B. The ’759 Patent
`
`The ’759 patent relates to a high-power pulsed magnetron sputtering
`
`apparatus. Ex. 1401, Abs. At the time of the invention, sputtering was a
`
`well-known technique for depositing films on semiconductor substrates. Id.
`
`at 1:6–13. The ’759 patent indicates that prior art magnetron sputtering
`
`systems deposit films having low uniformity and poor target utilization—the
`
`target material erodes in a non-uniform manner. Id. at 1:55–62. To address
`
`these problems, the ’759 patent discloses that increasing the power applied
`
`between the target and anode can increase the amount of ionized gas and,
`
`therefore, increase the target utilization. Id. at 2:60–62. However,
`
`increasing the power also “increases the probability of establishing an
`
`undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the process chamber.”
`
`Id. at 2:63–67.
`
`According to the ’759 patent, forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
`
`cathode and anode. Id. at 7:17–21. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`
`7:27–30, 7:65–66.
`
`C. The Sole Challenged Claim
`
`Claim 40, reproduced below, is the sole challenged claim:
`
`40. A magnetically enhanced sputtering source comprising:
`
`a) means for ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized
`plasma proximate to a sputtering target;
`
`b) means for generating a magnetic field proximate to the
`weakly-ionized plasma,
`the magnetic
`field substantially
`trapping electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma proximate to
`the sputtering target; and
`
`c) 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.
`
`Ex. 1401, 24:1–20 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`GlobalFoundries relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`
` US 6,413,382 B1
`
`July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1405)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1403, “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS.
`TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (1983) (Ex. 1404, “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`E. Ground of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the sole ground that claim 40
`
`of the ’759 patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
`
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Dec. 30.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 4097949, at *5–8 (Fed. Cir.
`
`July 8, 2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,”4 and “the standard was
`
`properly adopted by PTO regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not
`
`interpreted in a vacuum but are part of, and read in light of, the
`
`specification. United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966) (“[I]t is
`
`fundamental that claims are to be construed in the light of the specifications
`
`and both are to be read with a view to ascertaining the invention.”) (citations
`
`omitted). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption by providing a
`
`definition of the term in the specification with “reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read
`
`from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Claim Terms
`
`“multi-step ionization process”
`
`Claim 40 recites “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.”
`
`Ex. 1401, 24:15–20 (emphasis added). Prior to institution, the parties
`
`submitted their proposed claim constructions for the claim term “multi-step
`
`ionization process.” Pet. 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 18–20. In the Decision on
`
`Institution, we addressed each of the parties’ contentions, and adopted
`
`Zond’s proposed construction, in light of the Specification, as the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation. Dec. 9; Ex. 1401, 9:18–36. The parties do not
`
`challenge any aspect of our claim construction as to this term. PO Resp. 13;
`
`Reply 1. Upon review of the present record, we discern no reason to change
`
`our claim construction. We, therefore, construe the claim term “multi-step
`
`ionization process” in light of the Specification as “an ionization process
`
`having at least two distinct steps.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Claim 40 recites:
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1401, 24:9–15 (emphasis added).
`
`During the pre-trial stage of this proceeding, the parties also submitted
`
`their constructions for the claim terms “a weakly-ionized plasma” and “a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 16; Prelim. Resp. 17–18. In our Decision on
`
`Institution, we adopted Zond’s proposed constructions, in light of the
`
`Specification, as the broadest reasonable interpretation. Dec. 7–9; see, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1401, 10:3–6 (“This rapid ionization results in a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`having a large ion density being formed in an area proximate to the cathode
`
`assembly 216.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, notwithstanding that neither Zond, nor its
`
`expert witness, expressly challenged our claim constructions as to these
`
`terms (PO Resp. 13; Ex. 2005 ¶ 58), Zond improperly attempts to import
`
`extraneous limitations into the claim by arguing that specific ion density
`
`ranges for these claim terms are required, in connection with the ground of
`
`unpatentability based on Wang and Kudryavtsev (PO Resp. 46–47). It is
`
`well settled that if a feature is not necessary to give meaning to a claim term,
`
`it is “extraneous” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v.
`
`Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Zond does not direct us to where the Specification provides an explicit
`
`definition for these claim terms, nor do we discern one. See Paulsen,
`
`30 F.3d at 1480. We also do not share Zond’s view that Dr. Uwe
`
`Kortshagen’s cross-examination testimony supports its newly proposed
`
`claim constructions, requiring specific ion density ranges. PO Resp. 46–47
`
`(citing Ex. 2010, 44:13–58:12). We observe that the claim terms “weakly-
`
`ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” are relative terms, and that
`
`Dr. Kortshagen’s cross-examination testimony merely points out that one
`
`with ordinary skill in the art possibly could have ascertained the claim scope
`
`with reasonable certainty when reading the claims in light of the
`
`Specification. See Ex. 2010, 44:13–58:12.
`
`Moreover, Zond’s newly proposed constructions that require specific
`
`ion density ranges would render at least the limitation recited in dependent
`
`claim 33 superfluous. Ex. 1401, 23:35–38 (“The method of claim 20
`
`wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater
`
`than about 1012 cm-3.”). It is well settled that “claims are interpreted with an
`
`eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.” Bicon Inc. v. Straumann
`
`Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Stumbo v. Eastman
`
`Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim
`
`constructions that render phrases in claims superfluous). Concomitantly,
`
`“[i]t is improper for courts to read into an independent claim a limitation
`
`explicitly set forth in another claim.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co.
`
`of Cal., 713 F.2d 698, 699 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we decline to adopt Zond’s newly proposed
`
`constructions that require specific ion density ranges. Rather, upon review
`
`of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence before us, we discern
`
`no reason to modify our claim constructions set forth in the Decision on
`
`Institution with respect to these claim terms, which adopted Zond’s
`
`originally proposed constructions. Dec. 7–9. Therefore, for purposes of this
`
`Final Written Decision, we construe, in light of the Specification, the claim
`
`term “a weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively low peak
`
`density of ions,” and the claim term “a strongly-ionized plasma” as “a
`
`plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`“without forming an arc discharge”
`
`Claim 40 recites, among other things, the following limitation:
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1401, 24:15–20 (emphasis added).
`
`As we explained previously in the Decision on Institution (Dec. 26–
`
`27), neither the Specification nor the original disclosure of the ’759 patent
`
`recites the claim term “without forming an arc discharge.” Rather, they
`
`merely disclose a process that reduces or substantially eliminates the
`
`possibility of arcing.
`
`For instance, the Specification of the ’759 patent discloses:
`
`The partially ionized gas is also referred to as a weakly-ionized
`plasma or a pre-ionized plasma. As described herein, the
`formation of weakly-ionized plasma substantially eliminates
`the possibility of creating a breakdown condition when high-
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power pulses are applied to the weakly-ionized plasma. The
`substantially
`suppression of
`this breakdown condition
`eliminates the occurrence of undesirable arcing in the chamber
`202.
`
`Id. at 11:54–64 (emphases added).
`
`As previously discussed, the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized
`plasma reduces or substantially eliminates the possibility of
`establishing a breakdown condition in the chamber 202 when
`high-power pulses are applied to the plasma.
`
`Id. at 15:49–53 (emphasis added).
`
`In its Response, Zond argues that the claim term “without forming an
`
`arc discharge,” should not be construed as “reduces or substantially
`
`eliminates the possibility of arcing.” PO Resp. 48–50. Zond alleges that
`
`such a construction would not be consistent with the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the word “without,” essentially urging that the claim term be
`
`construed as absolutely no arcing. Id. Zond also alleges that the disputed
`
`term cannot mean a mere reduction in the number of arc discharges. Id.
`
`Although Zond proffers examples of a young boy ordering ice cream
`
`without sprinkles and a customer ordering a hamburger without cheese (id.
`
`at 49–50), Zond does not explain adequately why one with ordinary skill in
`
`the plasma art would have interpreted the claim term “without forming an
`
`arc discharge,” in light of the Specification, to require the ionization of
`
`excited atoms be performed completely free of arcing. See In re NTP, Inc.,
`
`654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that the Board’s claim
`
`construction “cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
`
`evidence”); see also In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`
`(stating that the Board’s claim construction “must be consistent with the one
`
`that those skilled in the art would reach”). Nor does Zond direct our
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`attention to credible evidence that would support its attorney’s arguments
`
`regarding the disputed claim term at issue. See PO Resp. 48–50.
`
`One with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, unlike
`
`ice cream sprinkles or cheese that can be avoided altogether simply by not
`
`adding them, electrical arcing in a real-world plasma sputtering apparatus
`
`occurs naturally under certain processing conditions. Dr. Lawrence J.
`
`Overzet testifies that “I expect that arcing will not be wholly eliminated in
`
`sputtering systems and arc-arrestor circuitry in the power supplies will
`
`continue to be required,” and that “[t]here 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.” Ex. 1421 ¶¶ 31, 70–71. We credit
`
`that the testimony of Dr. Overzet as it is consistent with the Specification of
`
`the ’759 patent. Ex. 1401, 11:54–64, 15:49–53.
`
`It is well settled that “[a] claim construction that excludes the
`
`preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly
`
`persuasive evidentiary support.” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v.
`
`Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A construction that
`
`excludes all disclosed embodiments is especially disfavored. MBO Labs.,
`
`Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In
`
`short, claim construction requires claim terms to be read so that they
`
`encompass the very preferred embodiment they describe, i.e., formation of a
`
`weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma in a multi-step ionization process. See
`
`On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Here, nothing in the Specification indicates that no arcing occurs
`
`when the excited atoms are ionized within the weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`Rather, it explicitly states that “the formation of weakly-ionized plasma
`
`substantially eliminates the possibility of creating a breakdown condition
`
`when high-power pulses are applied to the weakly-ionized plasma,” and “the
`
`suppression of this breakdown condition substantially eliminates the
`
`occurrence of undesirable arcing in the chamber.” Ex. 1401, 11:58–63
`
`(emphases added). Given the disclosure in the Specification, we decline to
`
`adopt Zond’s proposed construction—absolutely no arcing—because it
`
`would be unreasonable to exclude the disclosed embodiments. See Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (stating that
`
`the Specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`
`term”). Instead, we construe the claim term “without forming an arc
`
`discharge” as “substantially eliminating the possibility of arcing,” consistent
`
`with an interpretation that one of ordinary skill in the art would reach when
`
`reading the claim term in the context of the Specification.
`
`Means-Plus-Function Claim Elements
`
`The parties identify three claim elements recited in claim 40 as
`
`means-plus-function elements, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.5 Pet. 17–19;
`
`Prelim. Resp. 21–26. We agree that those claim elements are written in
`
`means-plus-function form and fall under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, because:
`
`(1) each claim element uses the term “means for”; (2) the term “means for”
`
`5 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Because the ’759
`patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date), we refer
`to the pre-AIA version of § 112 in this Decision.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in each claim element is modified by functional language; and (3) the term
`
`“means for” is not modified by any structure recited in the claim to perform
`
`the claimed function. See Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l
`
`Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (using the term
`
`“means for” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter
`
`intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6); Sage Prods. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d
`
`1420, 1427–28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the presumption is not rebutted if the term
`
`“means for” is modified by functional language and is not modified by any
`
`structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed function).
`
`The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim element is to
`
`identify the recited function in the claim element. Med. Instrumentation &
`
`Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The
`
`second step is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding
`
`structure for that recited function. Id. A structure disclosed in the
`
`specification qualifies as “corresponding” structure only if the specification
`
`or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`
`recited in the claim. B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419,
`
`1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “While corresponding structure need not include all
`
`things necessary to enable the claimed invention to work, it must include all
`
`structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit
`
`Card Sys. Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005).
`
`Upon review of the parties’ contentions and the Specification, we set
`
`forth our claim constructions in the Decision on Institution for the means-
`
`plus-function elements identified by the parties. Dec. 11–14. Neither party
`
`challenges any aspect of our claim constructions as to these claim elements.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PO Resp. 13–15; Reply 2. Based on this entire record, we also discern no
`
`reason to modify our claim constructions at this juncture. For convenience,
`
`our claim constructions are reproduced in the table below:
`
`Means-Plus-Function Claim
`Elements
`
`Corresponding Structures
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas to
`generate a weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to a sputtering target”
`
`A power supply electrically
`connected to a cathode, an anode,
`and/or an electrode. See, e.g.,
`Ex. 1401, 4:57–65, 6:22–26, 6:53–
`7:8, Figs. 2, 7, 10, 11; Dec. 11–13.
`
`“means for generating a magnetic
`field proximate to the weakly-
`ionized plasma, the magnetic field
`substantially trapping electrons in
`the weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to the sputtering
`target”
`
`A magnet assembly having either a
`permanent magnet or a current
`source coupled to one or more
`electro-magnets. See, e.g., Ex. 1401,
`5:58–6:21, 6:10–14, Figs. 2, 7, 10,
`11; Dec. 13.
`
`“means for applying a voltage
`pulse to the weakly-ionized
`plasma . . . to ions that sputter
`target material from the sputtering
`target”
`
`A pulsed power supply electrically
`connected to a cathode, an anode,
`and/or an electrode. See, e.g.,
`Ex. 1401, 5:6–49, 7:27–30, 7:65–66,
`8:51–10:6, 15:7–17, Figs. 2, 7, 10,
`11; Dec. 14.
`
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In
`
`that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
`
`can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Translogic,
`
`504 F.3d at 1259. The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
`
`prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
`
`Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`We analyze the asserted ground of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`C. Claim 40—Obviousness over the Combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that claim 40 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev.
`
`Pet. 38–53. In its Petition, GlobalFoundries explains how the combination
`
`of the prior art technical disclosures collectively meets each claim limitation
`
`and articulates a rationale to combining the teachings. Id. GlobalFoundries
`
`also submitted a Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1402) to support its
`
`Petition, and a Declaration of Dr. Overzet (Ex. 1421) to support its Reply to
`
`Zond’s Patent Owner Response.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Zond responds that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev does
`
`not disclose every claim element. PO Resp. 36–54. Zond also argues that
`
`there is insufficient reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev. Id. at 17–36. To support its contentions, Zond proffers a
`
`Declaration of Dr. Larry D. Hartsough (Ex. 2005).
`
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`
`our discussion with a brief summary of Wang and Kudryavtsev, and then we
`
`address the parties’ contentions in turn.
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1405, Abs. Wang also discloses
`
`a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a magnetron
`
`sputtering system:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10
`
`includes anode 24, cathode 14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power
`
`supply 80, as well as pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20.
`
`Id. at 3:57–4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus is capable of creating
`
`high density plasma in region 42, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the
`
`sputtered particles into positively charged metal ions and also increases the
`
`sputtering rate. Id. at 4:13–34. Magnet assembly 40 creates a magnetic field
`
`near target 14, which traps electrons from the plasma to increase the electron
`
`density. Id. at 4:23–27. Wang further recognizes that, if a large portion of
`
`the sputtered particles are ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly
`
`and effectively—the sputtered ions can be accelerated towards a negatively
`
`charged substrate, coating the bottom and sides of holes that are narrow and
`
`deep. Id. at 1:24–29.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how the apparatus
`
`applies a pulsed power to the plasma:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
`
`power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP. Id.
`
`at 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum power
`
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
`
`(e.g., 1 kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100 or 1000
`
`times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak power
`
`PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the density of
`
`the plasma. Id. According to Dr. Kortshagen, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`
`low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
`
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`
`PP. Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 109–10, 124.
`
`Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process, exciting
`
`the ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizing the
`
`excited atoms. Ex. 1404, Abs., Figs. 1, 6. Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev,
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`reproduced below (with annotations added by GlobalFoundries (Pet. 33)),
`
`illustrates the atomic energy levels during the slow and fast stages of
`
`ionization:
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, ionization occurs
`
`with a “slow stage” (Fig. 1a) followed by a “fast stage” (Fig. 1b). During
`
`the initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribution to
`
`the generation of plasma ions (arrow Γ1e showing ionization (top line labeled
`
`“e”) from the ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Dr. Kortshagen
`
`explains that Kudryavtsev shows the rapid increase in ionization once
`
`multi-step ionization becomes the dominant process. Ex. 1402 ¶ 91; Pet. 33.
`
`Indeed, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`
`For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom density] values . . . there
`is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The subsequent
`increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`
`Ex. 1404, 31 (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also recognizes that “in a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures . . . [i]t is shown
`
`that the electron density increases explosively in time due to accumulation of
`
`atoms in the lowest excited states.” Id. at 30, Abs., Fig. 6.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`Increasing excitation rate
`
`
`
`
`
`GlobalFoundries relies upon Wang to disclose all of the structural
`
`limitations expressly recited in claim 40—namely, a magnetically enhanced
`
`sputtering apparatus that includes: (1) a power supply for ionizing a feed
`
`gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma; (2) a magnetron for trapping
`
`electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma; and (3) a power supply for applying
`
`a voltage pulse to the weakly-ionized plasma. Pet. 38–53. Indeed, Wang
`
`discloses these structural claim features, as well as their functionalities.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1405, Abs., Figs. 1, 6, 7. For instance, Wang discloses a
`
`variable DC power supply that is connected to the sputtering target,
`
`supplying a constant negative voltage to the target to generate a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at 7:56–61, Figs. 6, 7.
`
`The parties’ dispute mainly centers on: (1) whether the prior art
`
`combination renders obvious the effect or result limitations—the purportedly
`
`improved plasma characteristics resulted from applying a voltage pulse to a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma; and (2) whether GlobalFoundries has articulated a
`
`reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have combined the prior art teachings. For example, claim 40 recites
`
`“applying a voltage pulse . . . to increase an excitation rate of ground state
`
`atoms.” Ex. 1401, 24:9–12 (emphasis added). GlobalFoundries relies upon
`
`Wang to disclose a pulsed power supply that generates a series of voltage
`
`pulses, applying peak power pulses to a weakly-ionized plasma. Pet. 45–46
`
`(citing Ex. 1405, 7:61–62, Fig. 7). Although Wang discloses the claimed
`
`structure (a pulsed power supply electrically connected to a cathode/target)
`
`performing the claimed function (applying a voltage pulse to a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to increase the density of the plasma quickly without
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01083
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arcing) (Ex. 1405, 7:1–8:13, Figs. 6, 7), Wang does not describe expressly
`
`increasing excitation rate of the ground state atoms.
`
`Nevertheless, GlobalFou

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket