`___________________________
`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 No. IPR2014-010831
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`___________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00988 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), Patent Owner, Zond, LLC, hereby provides
`
`notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for
`
`review of the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) in Inter Partes
`
`Review 2014-00781, concerning U.S. Patent 7,147,759 (“the ’759 patent”), entered
`
`on August 14, 2015, attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL
`
`A. Whether the PTAB erred when construing, according to its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the ’759 patent as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention,
`
`the term “without forming an arc discharge,” as recited in the claims of
`
`the ’759 patent, as “substantially eliminating the possibility of arcing?”
`
`B. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claim 40 unpatentable as being
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of U.S. Pat. 6,413,382 to Wang
`
`(“Wang”) and 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) (“Kudryavtsev”)?
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Simultaneous with submission of this Notice of Appeal to the Director of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, this Notice of Appeal is being filed
`
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, this Notice of Appeal, along
`
`with the required docketing fees, is being filed with the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 12, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`333 W. San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
` 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. 11229, 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 at