IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-01087
`Patent 7,147,759
`__________________
`
`
`ZOND LLC’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ’759 PATENT ................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Overview Of Magnetron Sputtering Systems. ...............................................................8
`
`The ’759 patent: Dr. Chistyakov invents a new magnetically enhanced
`sputtering source that creates a multi-step ionization process generating
`highly-ionized plasma from weakly ionized plasma without forming an arc
`discharge. .....................................................................................................................10
`
`C.
`
`The Petitioner Mischaracterized The File History, the Patent Owner’s
`Arguments To The Examiner, and Mozgrin. ...............................................................13
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW .......................15
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS. .............................................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The construction of “weakly ionized plasma” and “strongly ionized plasma.” ..........17
`
`The construction of “multi-step ionization process”. ..................................................18
`
`V. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONER PREVAILING
`AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’738 PATENT. ..............................................20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition failed to set forth a proper obviousness analysis. ....................................22
`
`The Petition failed to demonstrate any motivation to combine. ..................................24
`
`1.
`
`Scope and content of prior art. ...............................................................................26
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Kudryavtsev (Ex. 1004), ..................................................................................26
`
`Mozgrin (Ex. 1103). .........................................................................................28
`
`Wang – U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 (Exhibit 1005)..........................................31
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To Combine
`Kudryavtsev’s Cylindrical Tube System Without A Magnet With Either
`The Mozgrin or Wang Magnetron System. ...........................................................34
`
`C.
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate how the alleged combinations teach every
`element of the challenged claims. ................................................................................39
`
`1.
`
`The cited references do not teach generating “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
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`ionization process that generates a strongly-ionized plasma,” as recited in
`independent claim 1. ..............................................................................................40
`
`The cited references do not teach a “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,” as recited in claim 1. ...................................................47
`
`The cited references do not teach that “the rise time of the voltage pulse is
`chosen to increase the ionization rate of the excited atoms in the weakly-
`ionized plasma,” as recited in dependent claim 6. .................................................51
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`D.
`
`The Petition Fails to Identify Any Compelling Rationale for Adopting
`Redundant Grounds of Rejection With Mozgrin Or Wang As The Primary
`Reference. ....................................................................................................................52
`
`VI. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`The Petitioner has represented in a motion to joinder that this petition
`
`“is identical to the Intel IRP no. IRP2014-00444 in all substantive respects,
`
`includes identical exhibits, and relies upon the same expert declarant.”
`
`Accordingly, based upon that representation, the Patent Owner opposes review
`
`on the same basis presented in opposition to Intel’s request no. IRP2014-
`
`00444, which is reproduced below:
`
`The Board should deny the present request for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,147,759 (“the ’759 patent”) because there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail at trial with respect to at least one
`
`claim of the ’759 patent.1
`
`The references that are primarily relied upon by the Petitioner (i.e.,
`
`Mozgrin and Wang) were already considered by the Examiner and overcome
`
`during the prosecution of the application corresponding to the ’759 patent.
`
`Indeed, these references were considered by 6 different examiners and
`
`
`1 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`overcome during the prosecution of 9 other patents that are related to the ’759
`
`patent over nearly a 10 year period.2
`
`Upon realizing that there was no prior art that was closer to the claimed
`
`invention than the art that had already been considered and overcome at the
`
`patent office, the Petitioner resorted to a desperate strategy of filing an
`
`enormous number of IPR petitions (i.e., 5 IPRs against the ‘759 patent and an
`
`additional 17 against related patents) and alleging that the Patent Owner had
`
`mischaracterized Mozgrin to the patent office.3
`
`But this strategy cannot succeed because the Patent Owner did not make
`
`any mischaracterizations and could not have possibly tricked 6 different
`
`examiners to allow 10 patents over the course of nearly a decade by
`
`mischaracterizing a reference that all 6 Examiners read themselves. Rather,
`
`the Petitioner mischaracterized the prior art references in its Petition and failed
`
`
`2 Examiners Douglas Owens, Tung X. Le, Rodney McDonald, Wilson Lee,
`
`Don Wong, and Tuyet T. Vo allowed U.S. Patents 7,808,184, 7,811,421,
`
`8,125,155, 6,853,142, 7,604,716, 6,896,775, 6,896,773, 6,805,779, and
`
`6,806,652 over Mozgrin and Wang over nearly a decade from the time that the
`
`application for the ‘759 patent was filed on 9/30/2002 to the time that the ‘155
`
`patent issued on 2/28/2012.
`
`3 Petition, p. 7.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`to set forth a prima facia case of obviousness for the proposed grounds of
`
`rejection, as shown by four main groups of reasons.
`
`First, Petitioner neglected to follow the legal framework for an
`
`obviousness analysis set forth long ago by the Supreme Court. 4 That
`
`framework requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter
`
`and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. The Board has previously
`
`warned that failure to identify differences between the cited art and the claims
`
`is a basis for denying a petition:
`
`A petitioner who does not state the differences between
`
`a challenged claim and the prior art, and relies instead on the
`
`Patent Owner and the Board to determine those differences based
`
`on the rest of the submission in the petition risks having the
`
`corresponding ground of obviousness not included for trial for
`
`failing to adequately state a claim for relief. 5
`
`
`4 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); see
`
`also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007) (“While the sequence
`
`of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham]
`
`factors define the controlling inquiry.”)
`
`5 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CBM-2012-00003, paper 7 at 2 – 3.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`The Petitioner ignored the Board’s warning by failing to identify the
`
`differences between the challenged claim and the prior art. That is, the
`
`Petitioner failed to identify the claim limitations that it believed are missing
`
`from the primary references (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang) and are instead taught
`
`by the secondary references (i.e., Kudryavtsev).6 Rather, Petitioner argued that
`
`the claim limitations are taught by “the combination of Mozgrin and
`
`Kudryavtsev,” or “the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev,” leaving the
`
`Board to figure out whether the primary or secondary reference teaches the
`
`claim limitation.7 Under this circumstance, it would be “inappropriate for the
`
`Board to take the side of the Petitioner to salvage an inadequately expressed
`
`ground …”8 On this basis alone, inter partes review should be denied.
`
`Second, Petitioner’s proposed obviousness rejections are all predicated
`
`on the false assumption that a skilled artisan could have achieved the particular
`
`type of magnetically enhanced sputtering source structure and voltage pulse to
`
`achieve the multi-step ionization process without arcing as recited in
`
`independent claim 1 of the ‘759 patent by combining the teachings of either
`
`
`6 See e.g., Petition, pp. 18-60.
`
`7 Id. at pp. 25, 29, 37, 41, 49 and 57.
`
`8 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CBM-2012-00003, paper 8 at 14.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`Mozgrin or Wang and Kudravtsev.9 But these three references disclose very
`
`different structures and processes. Mozgrin teaches two different “[D]ischarge
`
`device configurations: (a) planar magnetron and (b) shaped-electrode
`
`configuration.”10 Wang teaches a “small magnetron of area less than 20% of
`
`the target area rotating about the target center.”11 Kudryavtsev teaches a
`
`fourth type of discharge device configuration in which the “discharge occurred
`
`inside a cylindrical tube of diameter 2R = 2.5 cm and the distance between the
`
`electrodes was L = 52 cm.”12
`
`And Petitioners set forth no evidence that the structure and process of
`
`either Mozgrin or Wang would produce the particular multi-step ionization
`
`process and magnetically enhanced sputtering source of the ‘759 patent if
`
`either were somehow modified by the teachings of the very different structure
`
`and process of Kudryavtsev.13 That is, the Petitioners did not show that a
`
`“skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled
`
`
`9 Petition, pp. 18-31 and 41-51.
`
`10 Mozgrin, Exhibit 1103 at Fig. 1 caption.
`
`11 Wang, Exhibit 1105, Abstract.
`
`12 Kudryavtsev, Ex. 1104 at 32, right col. ¶5.
`
`13 See e.g., Petition, pp. 18-31 and 41-51.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”14
`
`The Board has consistently declined to institute proposed grounds of rejections
`
`in IPR proceedings when the Petition fails to identify any objective evidence
`
`such as experimental data, tending to establish that two different structures or
`
`processes can be combined.15 Here, the Petitioner did not set forth any such
`
`objective evidence.16 For this additional reason, there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail at trial with respect to at least one
`
`claim of the ’759 patent.
`
`Third, each of Petitioner’s proposed grounds of rejections is missing one
`
`or more limitations recited in independent claim 1 of the ‘759 patent including
`
`generating “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,” and a “multi-step ionization process comprising exciting the
`
`
`14 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`15 Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Decision Not To
`
`Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103).
`
`16 See e.g., Petition, pp. 18-31 and 41-51.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizing the excited
`
`atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma without forming an arc discharge.”
`
`Fourth, the Petition contains many redundant grounds of rejection.
`
`Indeed, the Petitioner proposed two or more grounds of rejections for every
`
`challenged claim and did not set forth a compelling reason for why the Board
`
`should institute this proceeding on multiple, redundant grounds.17
`
`In brief, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition for the five reasons summarized in the table below:
`
`Grounds
`
`All
`
`Reasons For Not Instituting a Proceeding
`
`The Petitioner failed to identify differences between
`
`the primary references (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang)
`
`and the claimed invention in the proposed
`
`obviousness rejections.
`
`All
`
`The Petitioner failed to show that a skilled artisan
`
`would have had a reasonable chance of success of
`
`achieving the claimed multi-step ionization process
`
`and magnetically enhanced sputtering source by
`
`combining Kudryavtsev’s cylindrical system that
`
`does not perform sputtering and does not have a
`
`
`17 Petition, pp. 41-60.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`magnet with either the planar magnetron or shaped-
`
`electrode configuration of Mozgrin or the small
`
`magnetron system of Wang.
`
`All
`
`The prior art, either alone or in combination, would
`
`not have taught all the claim limitations of at least
`
`independent claim 1 to a skilled artisan at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`Ground I or Grounds
`
`Ground I using Mogzrin as a primary reference is
`
`II-III
`
`redundant with Grounds II-III using Wang as a
`
`primary reference and the Petitioner did not set
`
`forth a compelling reason for why the Board should
`
`institute this proceeding on multiple, redundant
`
`grounds.
`
`
`
`For these reasons as expressed more fully below, the Board should deny the
`
`Petition.
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ’759 PATENT
`
`A. Overview Of Magnetron Sputtering Systems.
`
`Sputtering systems generate and direct ions from plasma “to a target
`
`surface where the ions physically sputter target material atoms.”18 Then, “[t]he
`
`target material atoms ballistically flow to a substrate where they deposit as a
`
`
`18 Ex. 1101, col. 1, ll. 9-11.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`film of target material.”19 “The plasma is replenished by electron-ion pairs
`
`formed by the collision of neutral molecules with secondary electrons
`
`generated at the target surface.”20
`
`A planar magnetron sputtering system is one type of sputtering system.21
`
`“Magnetron sputtering systems use magnetic fields that are shaped to trap and
`
`to concentrate secondary electrons, which are produced by ion bombardment
`
`of the target surface.”22 “The trapped electrons enhance the efficiency of the
`
`discharge and reduce the energy dissipated by electrons arriving at the
`
`substrate.”
`
`But prior art planar magnetron sputtering systems experienced “non-
`
`uniform erosion or wear of the target that results in poor target utilization.”23
`
`To address these problems, researchers increased the applied power and later
`
`pulsed the applied power.24 But increasing the power increased “the
`
`probability of establishing an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc)
`
`
`19 Id. at col. 1, ll. 11-13.
`
`20Id. at col. 1, ll. 32-34.
`
`21 Id. at 1, ll. 36-54.
`
`22 Id. at col. 1, ll. 36-38.
`
`23 Id. at col. 2, ll. 57-59.
`
`24 Id. at col. 1, l. 60 to col. 2, l. 9.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`in the process chamber.” And “very large power pulses can still result in
`
`undesirable electrical discharges and undesirable target heating regardless of
`
`their duration.”25
`
`B. The ’759 patent: Dr. Chistyakov invents a new magnetically enhanced
`sputtering source that creates a multi-step ionization process
`generating highly-ionized plasma from weakly ionized plasma
`without forming an arc discharge.
`
`To overcome the problems of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented a
`
`magnetically enhanced sputtering source having a particular structure of an
`
`anode, cathode, ionization source, magnet and power supply generating a
`
`particular type of voltage pulse to perform a multi-step ionization process
`
`without forming an arc discharge as recited in independent claim 1 and as
`
`illustrated in Fig. 2 of the ’759 patent, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`25 Id. at col. 3, ll. 7-9.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`
`
`As illustrated by FIG. 2, Dr. Chistyakov’s magnetically enhanced sputtering
`
`source includes an anode 238 and a cathode assembly 216. The anode 238 is
`
`positioned adjacent to the cathode assembly “so as to form a gap 244 between
`
`the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216 that is sufficient to allow current
`
`to flow through a region 245 between the anode 238 and the cathode assembly
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`216.”26 The gap 244 and the total volume of region 245 are parameters in the
`
`ionization process.”27 The “cathode assembly 216 includes a cathode 218 and
`
`a sputtering target 220 composed of target material.”28 “[T]he pulsed power
`
`supply 234 is a component in an ionization source that generates the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma.”29 “The pulsed power supply applies a voltage pulse between
`
`the cathode assembly 216 and the anode 238.”30 “The amplitude and shape of
`
`the voltage pulse are such that a weakly-ionized plasma is generated in the
`
`region 246 between the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216.”31 “The
`
`peak plasma density of the pre-ionized plasma depends on the specific
`
`magnetron sputtering system and is a function of the location of the
`
`measurement in the pre-ionized plasma.”32
`
`Thus, Dr. Chistyakov accomplished his breakthrough of achieving a
`
`multi-step ionization process without forming an arc discharge by inventing a
`
`
`26 Id. at col. 5, ll. 40-43.
`
`27 Id. at col. 5, ll. 47-49.
`
`28 Id. at col. 4, ll. 58-60.
`
`29 Id. at col. 6, ll. 22-24.
`
`30 Id. at col. 6, ll. 24-26.
`
`31 Id. at col. 6, ll. 28-30.
`
`32 Id. at col. 6, ll. 35-38.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`particular magnetically enhanced sputtering source having a particular
`
`structure of interconnected components with a carefully chosen amplitude and
`
`rise time of the applied voltage pulse.
`
`C. The Petitioner Mischaracterized The File History, the Patent Owner’s
`Arguments To The Examiner, and Mozgrin.
`
`The Petitioner alleged that “[a]dding the ‘without forming an arc’
`
`limitation resulted in allowance.”33 But this allegation is just not true for two
`
`main reasons. First, the Examiner stated that he allowed the ’759 patent —
`
`not just because of the arc limitation — but because of the combination of
`
`many claim limitations:
`
`Applicant's arguments filed May 2, 2006 have been fully
`
`considered and are deemed persuasive. Specifically, Claims 1-50
`
`are allowable over the prior art of record because … the applied
`
`prior art applied in the previous office action does not teach the
`
`claimed apparatus or method wherein an ionization source
`
`generates a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the anode and
`
`cathode assembly and 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
`
`
`33 Petition, p. 7.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`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.34
`
`Second, the Patent Owner (i.e., the Applicant at that time), did not argue, as
`
`alleged by the Petitioner, that the claims were allowable solely because of the
`
`“without forming an arc” limitation; it instead argued, inter alia, that “there is
`
`no description in Mozgrin of a multi-step ionization process that first excites
`
`ground state atoms to generate excited atoms, and then ionizes the excited
`
`atoms without forming an arc discharge.”35 That is, the Patent Owner argued
`
`that Mozgrin did not teach avoidance of an arc discharge during a particular
`
`process: the multi-step ionization process. In other words, the Petitioner
`
`mischaracterized the Patent Owner’s argument to the Examiner by truncating
`
`it and quoting only a small portion of it in the Petition.
`
`Moreover, contrary to Petitioner’s allegation, the Patent Owner did not
`
`mischaracterize Mozgrin because Mozgrin does not, in fact, teach that there is
`
`no arcing during the multi-stage ionization process (e.g., while ionizing the
`
`
`34 Exhibit 1115, Notice of Allowance, September 29, 2006, pp. 2-3.
`
`35 Exhibit 1113, Response to Office Action, May 2, 2006, p. 13 (emphasis
`
`omitted).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`excited atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma).36 That is, Mozgrin does not
`
`teach the avoidance of all arcing during execution of the particular process that
`
`is identified in the claim.37
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`REVIEW
`
`Confusingly, the Petition contains multiple, redundant grounds of
`
`rejection based on the same combination of references. In particular, for every
`
`ground of rejection using Mozgrin as a primary reference, there is a
`
`corresponding redundant ground using Wang as a primary reference. For the
`
`Board’s convenience below is a summary of claim rejections proposed by
`
`Petitioner based on the different asserted combinations:
`
`1. Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 13-16, 19, 41-43 and 45: obvious in view of the
`
`combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev (Ground I);
`
`2. Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 13-15, 19 and 41-43: obvious in view of the
`
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev (Ground II); and
`
`3. Claims 16 and 45: obvious in view of the combination of Wang,
`
`Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin (Ground III).
`
`
`36 Infra, § V.C.2.
`
`37 Id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS.
`
`Under the Board’s rules, any unexpired claim “shall be given its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.”38 Under that construction, claim terms are to be given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.39 The customary meaning
`
`applies unless the specification reveals a special definition given to the claim
`
`term by the patentee, in which case the inventor’s lexicography governs.40 Any
`
`term not construed below should be given its ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Zond proposes the
`
`following claim constructions for this inter partes review proceeding.
`
`
`38 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`39 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc);
`
`Research in Motion v. Wi-Lan, Case IPR2013-00126, Paper 10 at 7 (P.T.A.B.
`
`June 20, 2013).
`
`40 See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (“[T]he specification may reveal a special
`
`definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning
`
`that it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography
`
`governs.”).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`A. The construction of “weakly ionized plasma” and “strongly ionized
`plasma.”
`
`The Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the claim terms “strongly
`
`ionized plasma,” and “weakly ionized plasma” are wrong because they are not
`
`the broadest reasonable constructions consistent with the specification. In
`
`particular, Petitioner’s proposed construction of “strongly ionized plasma” as a
`
`“higher density plasma” is wrong because the proposed construction reads the
`
`claim term “ionized” out of the claim. That is, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is incomplete because it does not
`
`specify what the term “density” refers to.
`
`The proper construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is “a plasma with
`
`a relatively high peak density of ions.” This proposed construction specifies
`
`that the term “density” refers to ions and therefore, is consistent with the claim
`
`language. Moreover, the proposed construction is also consistent with the
`
`Specification of the ‘759 patent which refers to “strongly ionized plasma [as]
`
`having a large ion density.”41 In addition, the proposed construction is also
`
`consistent with the Specification of a related patent (i.e., U.S. Patent 6,806,652)
`
`which states that “[t]he term ‘high-density plasma’ is also referred to as a
`
`‘strongly-ionized plasma.’ The terms ‘high-density plasma’ and ‘strongly-
`
`
`41 Exhibit 1101, ‘759 patent, col. 10, ll. 4-5.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`ionized plasma’ are defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively high
`
`peak plasma density.”42
`
`For similar reasons, the proper construction of the claim term “weakly
`
`ionized plasma” is “a plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions.” In
`
`particular, the Specification of the ‘652 Patent states that “[t]he term ‘weakly-
`
`ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively low peak
`
`plasma density. The peak plasma density of the weakly ionized plasma
`
`depends on the properties of the specific plasma processing system.”43
`
`B. The construction of “multi-step ionization process”.
`
`The Petition’s proposed construction of the claim term “multi-step
`
`ionization process” is also wrong because it is inconsistent with the claim
`
`language that follows that term. The Petitioner proposed to construe the term
`
`“multi-step ionization process” as “an 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.”44
`
`
`42 U.S. Patent 6,806,652, col. 10, ll. 60-63.
`
`43 Id. at col. 8, ll. 55-52.
`
`44 Petition, p. 17.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
` But substituting Petitioner’s proposed construction for the claim term in
`
`the last portion of claim 1 yields the following (with Petitioner’s proposed
`
`definition in italics):
`
`the 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 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
`
`Thus, the Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claim term renders much of
`
`the claim language following the term superfluous because it essentially
`
`incorporates that language into the construction of the term itself. In other
`
`words, the feature of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited atoms
`
`and then ionizing the excited atoms is already in claim 1; it does not need to
`
`also be inserted into the construction of the claim term “multi-step ionization
`
`process.”
`
` The claim term “multi-stop ionization process” should instead be
`
`construed as “an ionization process having at least two distinct steps.” This
`
`construction is the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
`
`specification. The term “multi” means two or more. And the Specification
`
`discloses an ionization process having two or more steps:
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759
`
`Thus, as the feed gas 264 flows through the region 245, the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma is formed and the atoms in the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma undergo stepwise ionization process. The excited
`
`atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma then encounter the electrons
`
`that are trapped in the region 266 by the magnetic field 254… the
`
`excited atoms will ionize at a much higher rate than neutral atoms.
`
`In one embodiment, ions in the strongly ionized plasma bombard
`
`the sputtering target 220 causing secondary electron emission from
`
`the sputtering target 220. These secondary electrons are
`
`substantially trapped by the magnetic field 254 and interact with
`
`any neutral or excited atoms in the strongly-ionized plasma. This
`
`process further increases the density of ions in the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma as the feed gas 264 is replenished.45
`
`That is, the Specification discloses a stepwise process (i.e., two or more steps)
`
`for ionization. In addition, the Specification of a related patent (i.e., U.S.
`
`Patent 6,805,779) expressly defines the term “multi-step ionization process” as
`
`"an ionization process whereby ions are ionized