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,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-010871
`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 IPR2014-00984 has been joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`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 claims 2, 3, 5–9, 13–16, 19, 41–
`
`43, and 45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 B2 (Ex. 1101, “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 IPR2014-00984
`
`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 claims 2, 3, 5–9, 13–16, 19,
`
`41–43, and 45 of the ’759 patent are 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, IPR2014-01083, and IPR2014-01086.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`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. 1034.
`
`
`
`B. The ’759 Patent
`
`The ’759 patent relates to a high-power pulsed magnetron sputtering
`
`apparatus. Ex. 1101, 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
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`
`7:27–30, 7:65–66.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Claims 2, 3, 5–9, 13–16, 19, 41–43, and 45 depend, directly or
`
`indirectly, from claim 1. Claims 1 and 6, reproduced below, are illustrative:
`
`1. A magnetically enhanced sputtering source comprising:
`
`a) an anode;
`
`b) a cathode assembly that is positioned adjacent to the anode,
`the cathode assembly including a sputtering target;
`
`c) an ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to the anode and the cathode assembly;
`
`d) a magnet that is positioned to generate 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
`
`e) a power supply generating a voltage pulse that produces an
`electric field between the cathode assembly and the anode, the
`power supply being configured to generate the voltage pulse
`with an amplitude and a rise time that increases 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, which comprises ions that
`sputter target material, 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.
`
`Ex. 1101, 21:22–48 (emphases added).
`
`6. The sputtering source of claim 1 wherein the rise time of the
`voltage pulse is chosen to increase the ionization rate of the
`excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma.
`
`Id. at 21:57–59 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`GlobalFoundries relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Wang
`
`
`
`
` US 6,413,382 B1
`
`July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1105)
`
`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. 1103, “Mozgrin”).
`
`
`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. 1104, “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`E. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Dec. 28):
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`2, 3, 5–9, 13–15, 19, and 41–43 § 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`16 and 45
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Wang, Kudryavtsev, and
`Mozgrin
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.”). 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. 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).
`
`
`
`“multi-step ionization process”
`
`Claim 1 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.” Ex. 1101, 21:44–48 (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
`
`
`4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adopted Zond’s proposed construction, in light of the Specification, as the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation. Dec. 9–10; Ex. 1101, 9:18–36. The
`
`parties do not challenge any aspect of our claim construction as to this term.
`
`PO Resp. 11–13; Reply 1–2. 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.”
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Claim 1 recites “the voltage pulse with an amplitude and a rise time
`
`that increases 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.” Ex. 1101, 21:38–42 (emphases
`
`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. 15–16; 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. 1101, 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.”). The parties do not challenge any aspect of our
`
`claim construction as to this term. PO Resp. 15; Reply 1. Upon review of
`
`the present record, we discern no reason to change our claim construction.
`
`Therefore, we construe, in light of the Specification, the claim term “a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively low peak density of
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 1 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.
`
`Ex. 1101, 21:43–48 (emphasis added).
`
`As we explained previously in the Decision on Institution (Dec. 21–
`
`22), 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-
`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).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 47–48. 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 an example of a young boy ordering ice
`
`cream without sprinkles (id.), 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 attention to credible evidence that would support its attorney’s
`
`arguments regarding the disputed claim term at issue. See PO Resp. 47–48.
`
`One with ordinary skill in the plasma art would have recognized that,
`
`unlike ice cream sprinkles 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 1122 ¶¶ 31, 70–71. We credit
`
`that testimony of Dr. Overzet as it is consistent with the Specification of the
`
`’759 patent. Ex. 1101, 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, as urged by Zond here, 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).
`
`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. 1101, 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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
`
`(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.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`C. Grounds of Unpatentability Based, in Whole or in Part, on the
`Combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that claims 2, 3, 5–9, 13–15, 19, 41, 42 and
`
`43 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev. Pet. 42–57. GlobalFoundries also
`
`asserts that claims 16 and 45 are unpatentable over the combination of
`
`Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin. Id. at 58–60. In support of these
`
`asserted grounds of unpatentability, 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. at
`
`42–60. GlobalFoundries also submitted a Declaration of Dr. Uwe
`
`Kortshagen (Ex. 1102) to support its Petition, and a Declaration of
`
`Dr. Overzet (Ex. 1122) to support its Reply to Zond’s Patent Owner
`
`Response.
`
`Zond responds that the combinations of prior art do not disclose every
`
`claim element. PO Resp. 39–60. Zond also argues that there is insufficient
`
`reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and
`
`Mozgrin. Id. at 27–39. 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
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 1105, Abs. Wang also discloses
`
`a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 1102 ¶¶ 133–134, 142–143.
`
`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. 1104, Abs., Figs. 1, 6. Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev,
`
`reproduced below (with annotations added by GlobalFoundries (Pet. 27)),
`
`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. 1102 ¶ 81.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 1104, 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.
`
`Increasing excitation rate
`
`GlobalFoundries relies upon Wang to disclose all of the structural
`
`limitations expressly recited in claims 2, 3, 5–9, 13–15, 19, and 41–43—
`
`namely, a magnetically enhanced sputtering apparatus that includes: (1) an
`
`anode; (2) a cathode assembly that is positioned adjacent to the anode, the
`
`cathode assembly including a sputtering target; (3) an ionization source;
`
`(4) a magnet; (5) a power supply generating a voltage pulse; (6) substrate
`
`support; and (7) a bias voltage power supply. Pet. 42–57. Indeed, Wang
`
`discloses these structural claim features, as well as their functionalities.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1105, Abs., Fig. 1. For instance, Wang discloses a variable DC
`
`power supply (an ionization source) 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
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have combined the prior art teachings. For example, claim 1 recites
`
`“the power supply being configured to generate the voltage pulse . . . that
`
`increases an excitation rate of ground state atoms.” Ex. 1101, 21:35–46
`
`(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. 1105, 7:61–62,
`
`Fig. 7). Although Wang discloses the claimed structure (a power supply)
`
`performing the claimed function (applying a voltage pulse to a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to increase the density of the plasma quickly without
`
`arcing) (Ex. 1105, 7:1–8:13, Figs. 6, 7), Wang does not describe expressly
`
`increasing excitation rate of the ground state atoms.
`
`Nevertheless, GlobalFoundries asserts that Wang’s disclosed power
`
`levels of the power pulses fall within the ranges disclosed in the ’759 patent,
`
`and, therefore, Wang is as likely as “the ’759 patent to increase the
`
`excitation rate of ground state atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma and
`
`to cause multi-step ionization.” Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1105, 7:19–25);
`
`Ex. 1101, Fig. 5. Dr. Overzet testifies (Ex. 1122 ¶ 83) and Zond’s expert,
`
`Dr. Hartsough, confirms (Ex. 1125, 99:14–23) that “the ionization rate of the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma is higher than that in the weakly-ionized plasma.”
`
`Dr. Overzet further testifies that when generating a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`from a weakly-ionized plasma, the ionization rate will increase. Ex. 1122
`
`¶ 83.
`
`GlobalFoundries further alleges that, even if Wang does not disclose
`
`an increase in ionization rate, it would have been obvious, in light of
`
`Kudryavtsev’s teaching of an “explosive increase” in plasma density, to
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adjust Wang’s operating parameters to trigger a fast stage of ionization.
`
`Pet. 48–49. According to GlobalFoundries, triggering such a fast stage of
`
`ionization in Wang’s apparatus would increase plasma density, thereby
`
`increasing the sputtering rate, and reducing the time required to reach a
`
`given plasma density. Id.
`
`Zond counters that GlobalFoundries fails to demonstrate that one with
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined the systems of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev to achieve the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of
`
`success or predictable results. PO Resp. 17–39. In particular, Zond
`
`contends that GlobalFoundries does not take into consideration the
`
`substantial, fundamental structural differences between the systems of Wang
`
`and Kudryavtsev—e.g., pressure, chamber geometry, gap dimensions, and
`
`magnetic fields. Id. at 27–36 (citing Ex. 1104, 32; Ex. 2005 ¶ 102;
`
`Ex. 1105, 4:35–37, Fig. 1). Zond also argues that GlobalFoundries fails to
`
`provide experimental data or other objective evidence to show that Wang’s
`
`system as modified would produce the claimed result. Id. at 37–39
`
`(citing Epistar v. Trs. of Boston Univ., Case IPR2013-00298 (PTAB Nov.
`
`15, 2013) (Paper 18)).
`
`In its Reply, GlobalFoundries responds that Zond’s arguments focus
`
`on bodily incorporating one system into the other. Reply 2–9.
`
`GlobalFoundries alleges that Zond improperly attempts to tie Kudryavtsev’s
`
`model on plasma characteristics to the particular dimensions and
`
`components of the apparatus used in the experiments that support
`
`Kudryavtsev’s model. Id. at 2, 6. According to GlobalFoundries, one with
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood how the structural
`
`differences would affect a magnetically enhanced sputtering system, and
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`how to adjust for these differences to obtain the desired result. Id. at 6.
`
`GlobalFoundries also contends that Epistar, cited by Zond, which involved a
`
`direct substitution of a gallium layer for an aluminum layer, is inapplicable
`
`to the particular facts in the instant proceeding, because the prior art
`
`combination here does not involve substitution of one apparatus feature for
`
`another. Id. at 8–9.
`
`Upon consideration of the evidence before us, we are persuaded by
`
`GlobalFoundries’s contentions. GlobalFoundries merely relies upon
`
`Kudryavtsev’s teaching that an increase in the excitation rate is achieved by
`
`applying a voltage pulse to a weakly-ionized plasma. Pet. 48–49.
`
`We also agree with GlobalFoundries that Zond’s reliance on its
`
`interpretation of Epistar, a non-precedential Board decision, is misplaced.
`
`“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
`
`teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`
`substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (noting that
`
`the criterion for obviousness is not whether the references can be combined
`
`physically, but whether the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the
`
`teachings of the prior art as a whole). In that regard, one with ordinary skill
`
`in the art is not compelled to follow blindly the teaching of one prior art
`
`reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. Lear
`
`Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21 (stating that a person with ordinary skill in the art
`
`is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many
`
`cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
`
`pieces of a puzzle”).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`We, further, are not persuaded by Zond’s argument that applying
`
`Kudryavtsev’s model on plasma behavior to Wang’s sputtering apparatus
`
`would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill, or that one with ordinary
`
`skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`combining the teachings. Obviousness does not require absolute
`
`predictability, only a reasonable expectation that the beneficial result will be
`
`achieved. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As
`
`Dr. Overzet testifies, Kudryavtsev’s model on plasma behavior is not
`
`intended to be limited to a particular type of plasma apparatus. Reply 6;
`
`Ex. 1122 ¶ 55. Indeed, Kudryavtsev discloses a study of the ionization
`
`relaxation in plasma when the external electric field suddenly increases.
`
`Ex. 1104, 30. Specifically, Kudryavtsev discloses that “the electron density
`
`increases explosively in time due to accumulation of atoms in the lowest
`
`excited states.” Id. at Abs. (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also describes
`
`the experimental results that confirm the model. Id. at 32–34. Moreover,
`
`Kudryavtsev expressly explains that “the effects studied in this work are
`
`characteristic of ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly
`
`ionized gas.” Id. at 34 (emphasis added).
`
`Dr. Overzet also testifies that a

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