`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`and THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioners
`v.
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-010871
`Patent 7,147,759 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00984 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), Patent Owner, Zond, LLC, hereby provides
`
`notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for
`
`review of the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) in Inter Partes
`
`Review 2014-00781, concerning U.S. Patent 7,147,759 (“the ’759 patent”), entered
`
`on August 14, 2015, attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL
`
`A. Whether the PTAB erred when construing, according to its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the ’759 patent as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention,
`
`the term “without forming an arc discharge,” as recited in the claims of
`
`the ’759 patent, as “substantially eliminating the possibility of arcing?”
`
`B. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 2, 3, 5-9, 13-15, 19, and 41-43
`
`unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of U.S.
`
`Pat. 6,413,382 to Wang (“Wang”) and A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N.
`
`Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-
`
`Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS. TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (1983)
`
`(“Kudryavtsev”)?
`
`C. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claims 16 and 45 unpatentable as
`
` 2
`
`
`
`being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Wang, Kudryavtsev
`
`and 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) (“Mozgrin”)?
`
`
`
`Simultaneous with submission of this Notice of Appeal to the Director of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, this Notice of Appeal is being filed
`
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, this Notice of Appeal, along
`
`with the required docketing fees, is being filed with the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 12, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`333 W. San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
` Paper 35
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: August 14, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, and
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`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. 11229, 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, becau