U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Docket No. 164293 0-0009 IPR1
`
`Filed on behalf of GLOBALFOUNDRIES US, Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES
`Dresden Module One LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`Two LLC & CO. KG
`
`By: David M. Tennant, Reg. No. 48,362
`White & Case LLP
`
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 626—3684
`Email: dtennant@whiteease.com
`
`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 Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`US. PATENT NO. 7,147,759
`
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1, 4, 10-12, 17, 18 and 44
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................ l
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest .................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Related Matters ............................................................................................. l
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Counsel ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Service Information ...................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing .................................. ............................. 2
`
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ................................................... 2
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge ................................................................................. 4
`
`IV. Brief Description of Technology ..................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Plasma ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms ................................................................................ 5
`
`V. Overview of the ‘759 Patent ............................................................................. 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’759 Patent ...................................... 7
`
`Prosecution History ...................................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`The Patent Owner mischaracterized the prior art Mozgrin reference ....... 7
`
`2. Adding the “without forming an arc” limitation resulted in allowance.... 8
`
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ............................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art ............................................................................. 9
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin ................................................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`Summary .................................................................................................... 9
`
`2. Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs ................................................................ 11
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev ........................................................................... 13
`
`D. Overview of Wang ...................................................................................... 14
`
`VII.
`
`Claim construction ...................................................................................... 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“weakly—ionized plasma” and “strongly—ionized plasma” ......................... 16
`
`“multi-step ionization process” .................................................................. 17
`
`VIII.
`
`Specific Grounds for Petition ..................................................................... 18
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 10 and 18 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev ................................................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1 ................................................................................ 19
`
`2. Dependent claim 10 is obvious in View of the combination of Mozgrin
`and Kudryavtsev .............................................................................................. 31
`
`B. Ground II: Claims 4 and 44 are obvious in view of the combination of
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and the Mozgrin Thesis ................................................ 33
`
`C. Ground 111: Dependent claims 10-12 are obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Li .................................................... 36
`
`D. Ground IV: Dependent claim 17 is obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Muller-Horsche ....................................................... 39
`
`E. Ground V: Claims 1, 4, 10 and 12 are obvious in view of the combination
`of Wang and Kudryavtsev ................................................................................... 41
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1 ................................................................................ 41
`
`2. Dependent claims 4, 10 and 12 are obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang andKudryavtsev ....... 51
`
`Ground VI: Dependent claim 11 is obvious in view of the combination of
`F.
`Wang, Kudryavtsev and Li ................................................................................. 54
`
`G. Ground VII: Dependent claim 17 is obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang, Kudryavtsev and Muller-Horsche ........................................................... 54
`
`H. Ground VIII: Dependent claim 18 is obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang, Kudryavtsev and Kobayashi .................................................................... 55
`
`Ground IX: Dependent claim 44 is obvious in view of the combination of
`1.
`Wang, Kudryavtsev, and the Mozgrin Thesis ..................................................... 56
`
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`37 CPR. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`37 CPR. §42.104(b)(1)—(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES US, Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`
`One LLC & Co. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module Two LLC & Co.
`
`KG (collectively, “Petitioner”) are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Zond has asserted US. Patent No. 7,147,759 (“’759 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts. See List of Related
`
`Litigations (EX. 1034). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter
`
`Partes review in several patents that name the same alleged inventor. The below-
`
`listed claims of the ’759 Patent are presently the subject of two substantially
`
`identical petitions for inter partes review with Case Nos. IPR2014—00443 and
`
`IPR2014-00981. Petitioner plans to seek joinder with IPR2014—00443.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: David M. Tennant (Reg. No. 48,362)
`
`Backup Counsel: Dohm Chankong (Reg. No. 70,524)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 CPR. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served on the following. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`David M. Tennant (Reg. No. 48,362)
`
`E-mail:
`
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Post and hand delivery: White & Case LLP
`
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Telephone: (202) 626-3684
`
`Fax: (202) 639-9355
`
`11.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(l) and 42.104(b)(l)—(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1, 4, 10-12, 17, 18 and 44 ofthe ’759 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below: 1
`
`1.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et a], High-Current Low—Pressure Quasi—Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`1 The ’759 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has used the pre—AIA statutory framework to refer to the
`
`prior art.
`
`

`

`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1003)), which is prior art under
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`102(b).
`
`2.
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35,
`
`January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1004)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`US. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1005)), which is prior art under
`
`102(a) and (e).
`
`4.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi—Stationag Discharge in a
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering Physics
`
`Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1017)), which is prior art under 102(b).2
`
`5.
`
`Li et al, Low-temperature magnetron sputter-deposition, hardness, and
`
`electrical resistivity of amorphous and cgstalline alumina thin films, J. Vac. Sci.
`
`Technol. A 18(5), pp. 2333-38, 2000 (“Li” (EX. 1020)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`6.
`
`US. Pat. No. 5,247,531 (“Muller-Horsche” (Ex. 1021)) , which is prior art
`
`under 102(b).
`
`7.
`
`US. Pat. No. 5,968,327 (“Kobayashi” (Ex. 1022)), which is prior art under
`
`2 Exhibit 1017 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis
`
`attached as Exhibit 1018. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at
`
`the Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1019.
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`102(b).
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 4, 10—12, 17, 18 and 44 of the
`
`’759 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the
`
`declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1002)) filed
`
`herewith,3 demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged claim
`
`is not patentable.4 See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Plasma
`
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen D601. 1] 21 (Ex. 1002). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma
`
`as a whole has no overall electrical charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the
`
`3 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by Petitioner. The declaration at Ex. 1002 is a
`
`copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-00443, discussed above.
`
`4 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 1, 4, 10-12, 17, 18
`
`and 44 of the ‘759 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate remaining claims of the
`
`‘759 Patth in separate petitions.
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Id.5
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘759 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 22 (EX. 1002). For example,
`
`sputtering is an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a
`
`target material onto a surface called a substrate (e. g., silicon wafer during a
`
`semiconductor manufacturing operation). Id. Ions in the plasma strike a target
`
`surface causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id. The ejected
`
`target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id.
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 1} 23 (Ex. 1002). Arcing is undesirable because it causes
`
`explosive release of droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate. Id.
`
`The need to avoid arcing while sputtering was known long before the ‘759 patent
`
`was filed. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 24
`
`(Ex. 1002). Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. If all of an atom’s
`
`5 The term “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 21, FN 1 (Ex. 1002).
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the
`
`“ground state.” Id.
`
`On the other hand, if one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state that is
`
`higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to be an “excited atom.”
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 1] 25 (Ex. 1002). Excited atoms are electrically neutral— they
`
`have equal numbers of electrons and protons. Id. A collision with a free electron
`
`(e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited atom. Id. For example, the ‘759
`
`Patent uses the following equation to describe production of an excited argon atom,
`
`Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘759 Patent at 9:40 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar+e' 9Ar*+e'
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 26 (Ex. 1002). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. 1d. For
`
`example, the ‘759 Patent uses the following equations to describe production of an
`
`argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or an excited argon atom, Ar*.
`
`See ‘759 Patent at 3:58 and 9:42 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e" 9 Ar+ + 2e"
`
`Ar* + e' 9 Ar+ + 2e'
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ‘759 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. 1T 27 (Ex. 1002).
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘759 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’759 Patent
`
`The ’759 Patent describes a two-stage sputtering technique in which a so
`
`called strongly—ionized plasma is generated from a weakly-ionized plasma in a
`
`manner that avoids arcing.
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ’759 Patent are directed to an ionization
`
`source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas. A power supply
`
`then applies a specific, high-voltage pulse to the weakly-ionized plasma to
`
`generate a strongly—ionized plasma. The voltage pulse induces a “multi-step
`
`ionization process” in which ground state atoms transition to an excited state
`
`before becoming ionized. The strongly-ionized plasma is generated “without
`
`forming an arc discharge.” Kortshagen Decl. 1] 29 (Ex. 1002).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The Patent Owner mischaracterized the prior art Mozgrin
`1.
`reference
`
`During prosecution, the Patent Owner asserted that Mozgrin failed to teach
`
`the “without forming an arc discharge” limitation. However, that assertion is
`
`incorrect. Kortshagen Decl. 11 30 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin teaches all limitations of
`
`the challenged claims — including “withoutforming an arc discharge. ” Id.
`
`Mozgrin discusses arcs but does so in the context ofproviding a recipe for
`
`avoiding them. Id.
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Adding the “without forming an arc” limitation resulted in
`2.
`allowance
`
`Before the Patent Owner narrowed the claims to require “without forming an
`
`arc discharge,” it unsuccessfully argued, three separate times, that other limitations
`
`such as “multi-step ionization” made the claims allowable over Mozgrin. 06/14/04
`
`Response at 12 (EX. 1007); 02/24/05 Response at 15 (Ex. 1009); and 10/27/05
`
`RCE at 14 (Ex. 1011). The Examiner was not persuaded by those arguments,
`
`correctly noted that Mozgrin teaches multi—step ionization, and consistently
`
`rejected the claims over Mozgrin even after they had been amended to require
`
`“multi—step ionization.” 01/11/06 Office Action at 12 (“. . .Mozgrin does teach a
`
`power supply that generates a pulse that allows the plasma to go through a multi-
`
`step ionization.” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1012). See also 08/30/04 Office Action
`
`(EX. 1008) and 05/27/05 Office Action (EX. 1010).
`
`In an amendment dated May 2, 2006, although the Patent Owner repeated its
`
`previously unsuccessful multi—step ionization argument, the only substantive
`
`difference was addition of the limitation “without forming an arc discharge,” and
`
`the argument that Mozgrin did not teach that limitation. 05/02/06 Resp. at 2, 5, 7
`
`and 13—16 (EX. 1013). After that amendment and argument, the Examiner allowed
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the claims which are now challenged. 6 10/11/2006 Allowance at 2-3 (Ex. 1015).
`
`However, as will be explained in detail below, and contrary to the Patent
`
`Owner’s argument, Mozgrin ’s provides a recipe for avoiding arcing. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. 11 33 (Ex. 1002).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art
`
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by-limitation, there is nothing new
`
`or non-obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘759 Patent. Kortshagen Decl. 11 34
`
`(Ex. 1002).
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Mozgrin7
`
`Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc discharge.”
`
`1 .
`
`Summary
`
`Fig 7. of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage characteristic
`
`(“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`6 After “without forming an arc discharge” was added to the claims, the only
`
`remaining rejection, double patenting, was addressed by a terminal disclaimer.
`
`08/28/2006 Response at 2-3 (Ex. 1014).
`
`7 As noted in the prosecution history section, the Patent Office used Mozgrin to
`
`reject claims that eventually issued in the’759 Patent.
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U, V
`500- 1000
`
`
`
`0
`
`15 - 225
`
`1000 — 1800 I, A
`
`Fig. 7. Generalized ampere-voltaic characteristic CVC of
`quasi-stationary discharge.
`
`As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre-ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, 1] 2 (“Part
`
`1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`ionization stage)” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. fl 38 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, 1] 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)...” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. 11 39 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Application of a high voltage to the pre-ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`region 1 to 2. Id. Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is useful for sputtering. Mozgrin
`
`at 403, right col, 1] 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an intense cathode
`
`sputtering. . .”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, 1] 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3)...” (emphasis added))
`
`(EX. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. 1] 40 (EX. 1002). Increasing the current applied to
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition
`
`to region 3. Id. Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is useful for etching, i.e.,
`
`removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col, 1] 5 (“The high-current
`
`diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful
`
`Hence, it can enhance the efficiency of
`
`ionic etching. . .”) (EX. 1003). See also Id.
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, 11 3
`
`(“. . .part 4 corresponds to the high—current low-voltage arc discharge...”
`
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. 11 41 (EX. 1002). Further
`
`increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the
`
`“arc discharge” region 4. Id.
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 42 (EX.
`
`1002)
`
`2.
`
`Mozgrin teaches avoiding arcs
`
`As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7 (copied above), if voltage is steadily applied,
`
`and current is allowed to grow, the plasma will eventually transition to the arc
`
`discharge (Mozgrin’s region 4). However, ifthe current is limited, the plasma
`
`will remain in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). Kortshagen
`
`I)ecL1143(Ex.1002)
`
`Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including the arc
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. But Mozgrin ’s discussion
`
`of arcing does not mean that arcing is inevitable. Rather, Mozgrin ’s explanation
`
`of the conditions under which arcing occurs provides a recipe for avoiding arcs.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 11 44 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin explicitly notes that arcs can be
`
`avoided. See Mozgrin at 400, left col, 1] 3 (“Some experiments on magnetron
`
`systems of various geometry showed that discharge regimes which do not transit
`
`to arcs can be obtained even at high currents”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1003). One
`
`of ordinary skill would understand that the arc discharge region should be avoided
`
`during an industrial application, such as sputtering. Kortshagen Decl. 11 44 (Ex.
`
`1002). For example, Plasma Etching: An Introduction, by Manos and Flamm,
`
`(“Manos”), a well-known textbook on plasma processing, which was published in
`
`1989, over a decade before the ‘759 Patent was filed, states that “. . .arcs. .. are a
`
`problem...” Manos at 231 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1006).
`
`One of ordinary skill would further understand that Mozgrin’s arc region can
`
`be avoided by limiting the current as shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7. See, e. g.,
`
`Mozgrin at 400, right col, 11 l (“A further increase in the discharge currents caused
`
`the discharges to transit to the arc regimes. . .”); 404, left col, ‘H 4 (“The parameters
`
`of the shaped-electrode discharge transit to regime 3, as well as the condition of its
`
`transit to are regime 4, could be well determined for every given set of the
`
`discharge parameters”); and 406, right col, 1] 3 (“Moreover, pre-ionization was not
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`necessary; however, in this case, the probability of discharge transferring to the arc
`
`mode increased”) (Ex. 1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11 45 (EX. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin’s determination of conditions that cause transition to the arc regime
`
`is useful because it teaches one of ordinary skill how to avoid arcs. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. 11 46 (Ex. 1002).
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`voltage pulses. See, e. g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. 1] 1 (Ex. 1004). In particular,
`
`Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via different
`
`processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state atoms are
`
`converted directly to ions. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1004).
`
`The second process is multi-step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise
`
`ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1004). Kudryavtsev notes
`
`that under certain conditions multi-step ionization can be the dominant ionization
`
`process. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1004). Mozgrin took into
`
`account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing his experiments. Mozgrin at
`
`401 , 11 spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the unit, we took into account the
`
`dependences which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev] . . .”) (Ex. 1003). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 11 47 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ’759 Patent.
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Wang8
`
`Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode (24),
`
`a cathode (14), a magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown in Fig.
`
`7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55; 7:56-
`
`8:12 (Ex. 1005). Fig. 6 (annotated and reproduced below) shows a graph of the
`
`power Wang applies to the plasma. The lower power level, PB, is generated by the
`
`DC power supply 100 (shown in Fig. 7) and the higher power level, Pp, is
`
`generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (Ex. 1005); see also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 11 49 (Ex. 1002). Wang’s lower power level, PB, maintains the
`
`plasma after ignition and application of the higher power level, Pp, raises the
`
`density of the plasma. Wang at 7:17-31 (“The background power level, PB, is
`
`chosen to exceed the minimum power necessary to support a plasma...
`
`[T]he
`
`application of the high peak power, Pp, quickly causes the already existing plasma
`
`to spread and increases the density of the plasma”) (Ex. 1005). Id. Wang applies
`
`the teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a commercial, industrial plasma
`
`sputtering device. Id.
`
`8 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`No arcing
`
`"strongly-Ionized pIasma"
`
`Possible
`are
`
`| :
`
`I
`Ignltlon :I
`
`IIII|||l||I
`
`
`
`FIG , 6
`
`"weakly-ionized plasma"
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.9 In re
`
`ICONHealth & Fitness, Inc, 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
`
`following discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those
`
`terms. Any claim terms not included in the following discussion are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent
`
`Owner, in order to avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction
`
`9 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`the governing regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`pursue different constructions in a district court, where a different standard is
`
`applicable.
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`different from its broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate course is for
`
`the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its
`
`contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`The challenged claims recite “weakly—ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly—ionized
`
`plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Dec]. 1] 51
`
`(Ex. 1002). With reference to Fig. 4, the ‘759 Patent describes forming a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 302 and
`
`then goes on to describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of
`
`higher power 304.
`
`‘759 Patent at 10:22—29; 10:66-11:4 (EX. 1001). The ‘759
`
`Patent also provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-
`
`ionized plasmas. See ‘759 Patent at claim 32 (“wherein the peak plasma density of
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm'3”); claim 33 (“wherein the
`
`peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about
`
`1012 cm'3”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`
`Thus, the proposed construction for “weakly—ionized plasma” is “a lower
`
`density plasma.” Likewise, the proposed construction for “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma” is “a higher density plasma.”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the position the Patent
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner, when
`
`faced with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent
`
`application, argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not
`
`just in view of the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly-ionised plasma’ in the
`
`claims indicates a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-
`
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1024).
`
`B.
`
`“multi-step ionization process”
`
`A multi-step ionization process produces ions using at least two steps: (a)
`
`convert ground state atoms (or molecules) to excited atoms (or molecules); and (b)
`
`convert excited atoms (or molecules) to ions. The ‘759 Patent and its file history
`
`clearly describe this aspect of a “multi-step ionization process”: “[T]he term
`
`‘multi-step’ ionization as used in the present application refers to an ionization
`
`process that requires ground state atoms and molecules to transition from the
`
`ground state to at least one intermediate'excited state before beingfully ionized.”
`
`See 05/02/06 Resp. at 11 (Ex. 1013) (emphasis added). See also ‘759 patent at
`
`9:37-51 (Ex. 1001). See also Kortshagen Decl. 1] 54 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Also, during prosecution the Patent Owner argued that multi-step ionization
`
`processes must produce a statistically significant amount of ions by this two-step
`
`process. 02/24/05 Resp. at 16 (Ex. 1009) (“However, the Applicant submits that
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the ions in the [prior art] pre-ionized plasma are generated by direction ionization
`
`and any ions that are generated by a multi-step ionization process will be
`
`statistically insignificant”). See also, e. g., 02/24/05 Resp. at 13, 14, 16, 17 (Ex.
`
`1009); and 10/27/05 Resp. at 11, 12, 13, 15 (Ex. 1011) (emphasis added). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 11 55 (Ex. 1002).
`
`The proposed construction for “multi-step ionization process” is “Q
`
`ionization process in which a statistically significant portion of the ions are
`
`produced by exciting ground state atoms or molecules and then ionizing the
`
`excited atoms or molecules.”
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)—(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Kortshagen Declaration (Ex. 1002), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 1, 4, 10-12, 17, 18 and 44 of the ’759
`
`Patent, and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Claim charts, which were served on the Patent Owner on February 11, 2014
`
`in connection with District Court litigation 1:13-cv-11570-RGS, showing that the
`
`challenged claims are invalid based on the references relied upon in this Petition, is
`
`submitted hereto as Exhibits 1025 — 1033. Dr. Kortshagen has reviewed those
`
`charts and agrees with them. See Kortshagen Decl. 1H] 58, 59, 94, 104, 115, 120,
`
`157, 161, 166, 170 (Ex. 1002).
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`
`Ground I: Claims 1, 10 and 18 are obvious in View of the
`
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`A claim chart showing that claims 1, 10 and 18 are obvious in View of the
`
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev, is submitted hereto as Exhibit 1025 (Ex.
`
`1025)
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`a)
`
`The preamble
`
`Claim 1 begins, “A magnetically enhanced sputtering source comprising.”
`
`Mozgrin discloses a sputtering source. Mozgrin 403, right col, 114 (“Regime 2 was
`
`characterized by intense cathode sputtering. . .”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1003).
`
`Further, both configurations shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 1 include a magnet, labeled
`
`3, i.e., they are “magnetically enhanced.” Kortshagen Decl. 11 60 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin therefore teaches the preamble of claim 1. Id.
`
`b)
`
`Limitations (a) and (b)
`
`Limitation (a) of claim 1 reads “an anode.” Limitation (b) of claim 1 reads
`
`“a cathode assembly that is positioned adjacent to the anode, the cathode assembly
`
`including a sputtering target.”
`
`The ‘759 Patent admits that the claimed anode and cathode assembly were
`
`well known. Kortshagen Decl. 11 62 (Ex. 1002). For example, the ‘759 Patent
`
`shows in prior art Fig. 1 a “cross-sectional View of a known magnetron sputtering
`
`apparatus 100...” ‘759 Patent at 3:10-12 (Ex. 1001). The known “magnetron
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,147,759
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`sputtering apparatus 100 also includes a cathode assembly 114 having a target
`
`material 116.” ‘759 Patent at 3:23-24 (Ex. 1001). Moreover, “an