Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 41
`
`Entered: January 5, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-010881
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL,
`and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01000 has been joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 41
`
`Entered: January 5, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-010881
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL,
`and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01000 has been joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`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 Petitioners have shown,
`by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,806,652 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’652 patent”) are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`A. Procedural History
`GlobalFoundries U.S., Inc., GlobalFoundries Dresden Module One
`
`LLC & Co. KG, and GlobalFoundries Dresden Module Two LLC & Co.,
`KG (collectively, “GlobalFoundries”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`seeking inter partes review of claims 1–17 (“the challenged claims”) of
`the ’652 patent. GlobalFoundries included a Declaration of Dr. Uwe
`Kortshagen (Ex. 1002) to support its positions. Patent Owner Zond, LLC
`(“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 10, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), on January 6, 2015, we instituted an inter
`partes review of the challenged claims to determine if the claims are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, Iwamura, Vratney, Lantsman, and Wang.
`Paper 16, 32 (“Dec.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, we granted a revised Motion for Joinder
`filed by the Gillette Company listed in the Caption above, joining Case
`IPR2014-01000 with the instant trial (Paper 17). Zond filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 28, “PO Resp.”), along with a Declaration of Larry D.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`Hartsough, Ph.D. (Ex. 2002) to support its positions. GlobalFoundries filed
`a Reply (Paper 29, “Reply”) to the Patent Owner Response, along with a
`supplemental Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1020). An oral hearing2
`was held on August 13, 2015. A transcript of the hearing is included in the
`record. Paper 40 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Matters
`GlobalFoundries indicates that the ’652 patent was asserted in seven
`
`patent infringement actions in the District of Massachusetts, naming many of
`the Petitioners as defendants. Pet. 1; Ex. 1018. GlobalFoundries also
`identifies Petitions for inter partes review that are related to this proceeding.
`Pet. 1.
`
`C. The ’652 Patent
`The ’652 patent notes several problems with known magnetron
`sputtering systems, such as poor target utilization resulting from a relatively
`high concentration of positively charged ions in the region that results in a
`non-uniform plasma. Ex. 1001, 4:23–28. The ’652 patent states that while
`increasing the power applied to the plasma may increase the uniformity and
`density of the plasma, doing so may significantly increase the probability of
`establishing an electrical breakdown condition of arcing. Id. at 4:31–37.
`The invention set forth in the ’652 patent involves a plasma generation
`method that provides independent control of two or more co-existing
`plasmas in a system. Id. at 4:62–64.
`
`2 The oral arguments for the instant review and IPR2014-00861 and
`IPR2014-01089 were consolidated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`One embodiment of the ’652 patent is shown in Figure 2A set forth
`below.
`
`
`Figure 2A, reproduced above, shows a cross-sectional view of plasma
`generating apparatus 200 with segmented cathode 202. Id. at 5:43–45. Such
`segmented cathode has inner cathode section 202a and outer cathode section
`202b. Id. at 5:45–47. Outer cathode 202b is coupled to first output 204 of
`first power supply 206, which can operate in a constant power mode or a
`constant voltage mode. Id. at 5:56–67. Second output 208 of first power
`supply 206 is coupled to first anode 210 that has insulator 211 to isolate it
`from outer cathode section 202b. Id. at 6:5–7.
`Gap 212 is formed between first anode 210 and outer cathode section
`202b that is sufficient to allow current to flow through region 214 within
`gap 212. Id. at 6:34–38. Gap 212 can be a plasma generator where plasma
`is ignited in gap 212 from feed gas 234, such as argon, fed from gas
`line 230. Id. at 6:59–61, 8:1–3, 10–11. Such an ignition condition and
`plasma development in the gap can be optimized by crossed electric and
`magnetic fields in gap 212 that trap electrons and ions improving the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`efficiency of the ionization process. Id. at 6:61–67. Gap 212 can be
`configured to generate excited atoms, which can increase the density of
`plasma, from ground state atoms. Id. at 6:44–46. “Since excited atoms
`generally require less energy to ionize than ground state gas atoms, a volume
`of excited atoms can generate higher density plasma than a similar volume
`of ground state feed gas atoms for the same input energy.” Id. at 6:46–50.
`Gap 212 facilitates high input power by having additional feed gas
`supplied to gap 212 that displaces some of the already developing plasma
`and absorbs any excess power applied to the plasma. Id. at 7:1–6. Such
`absorption prevents the plasma from contracting and terminating. Id. at 7:6–
`9. Feed gases 234, 236 are introduced into the chamber from more than one
`feed source, such as feed source 238, 240, through gas lines 230, 232 that
`may include in-line gas valves 242, 244 to control gas flow to the chamber.
`Id. at 8:1–5. Pulsing the feed gas can help generate excited atoms, including
`metastable atoms, by increasing the instantaneous pressure in gap 212, while
`the average pressure in the chamber is unchanged. Id. at 8:23–28.
`Second power supply 222 applies high power pulses between inner
`cathode section 202a and second anode 226 after an appropriate volume of
`initial plasma is present in region 252. Id. at 12:1–5. “The high-power
`pulses create an electric field 254 between the inner cathode section 202b
`and the second anode 226 that strongly-ionizes the initial plasma thereby
`creating a high-density plasma in the region 252.” Id. at 12:5–9. These high
`power pulses from second power supply 222, which add additional power to
`an already strongly-ionized plasma, super-ionizes the high-density plasma in
`region 252. Id. at 11:54–57. The ’652 patent defines “super-ionized” to
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`mean that “at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the plasma are converted to
`ions.” Id. at 5:8–10.
`Figure 2B, reproduced below, shows a more detailed cross-sectional
`view of the segmented cathode of Figure 2A.
`
`
`
`Figure 2B shows that electric fields 250, 254, which enhance the
`formation of ions in the plasma, can facilitate a multi-step ionization process
`of feed gases 234, 236, respectively, that substantially increases the rate at
`which the high-density plasma is formed. Id. at 12:50–56.
`Figure 12, set forth below with GlobalFoundries’s annotations,
`Pet. 10, shows another embodiment of the ’652 patent.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`Excited atom source 732b generates an initial plasma and excited
`atoms, which include metastable atoms, from ground state atoms from feed
`gas 234. Ex. 1001, 25:35–38. Nozzle chamber 738 traps a large fraction of
`ions and electrons, while excited atoms and ground state atoms flow through
`aperture 737 of skimmer 736. Id. at 27:18–21. The ’652 patent further
`provides:
`After a sufficient volume of excited atoms including
`
`metastable atoms is present proximate to the inner cathode
`section 732a of the cathode assembly 732, the second power
`supply 222 generates an electric field (not shown) proximate to
`the volume of excited atoms between the inner cathode section
`732a and the second anode 706. The electric field
`super-ionizes the initial plasma by raising the energy of the
`initial plasma including the volume of excited atoms which
`causes collisions between neutral atoms, electrons, and excited
`atoms including metastable atoms in the initial plasma. The
`high-density collisions generate the high-density plasma
`proximate to the inner cathode section 732a. The high-density
`plasma includes ions, excited atoms and additional metastable
`atoms. The efficiency of this multi-step ionization process
`increases as the density of excited atoms and metastable atoms
`increases.
`
`Id. at 27:22–37.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is the only independent claim.
`Challenged claims 2 through 17 depend, either directly or indirectly, from
`claim 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
`1. A high-density plasma source comprising:
`a) a cathode assembly;
`b) an anode that is positioned adjacent to the cathode assembly;
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`c) an excited atom source that generates an initial plasma and
`excited atoms from a volume of feed gas, the initial plasma and
`excited atoms being proximate to the cathode assembly; and
`d) a power supply that generates an electric field between the
`cathode assembly and the anode, the electric field super-
`ionizing the initial plasma so as to generate a high-density
`plasma.
`Ex. 1001, 33:53–64.
`
`E. Prior Art Relied Upon
`GlobalFoundries relies upon the following prior art references:
`Wang et al.
`US 6,413,382 B1 July 2, 2002
`(Ex. 1004)
`
`Iwamura et al.
`US 5,753,886
`May 19, 1998
`(Ex. 1007)
`
`Lantsman
`
`US 6,190,512 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
`(Ex. 1013)
`
`Vratny
`
`US 3,461,054
`Aug. 12, 1969
`(Ex. 1008)
`
`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. 1003) (“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 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1006) (“Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`
`D. W. Fahey, W. F. Parks, and L. D. Schearer, High Flux Beam
`Source of Thermal Rare-Gas Metastable Atoms, 13 J. PHYS. E: SCI.
`INSTRUM. 381–383 (1980) (Ex. 1005) (“Fahey”).
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`unpatentability (Dec. 32).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`Claims
`
`1–14, 16, and 17
`
`5
`
`8–10
`
`15
`
`
`
`References
`Basis
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and
`Iwamura
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey,
`Vratny, and Iwamura
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey,
`Lantsman, and Iwamura
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey,
`Wang, and Iwamura
`
`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). 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).
`In the instant proceeding, GlobalFoundries proposed a construction of
`the term “super-ionizing the initial plasma.” Pet. 13–14. Although Zond
`offered its own construction of this term, in addition to a construction of an
`“excited atom source that generates an initial plasma and excited ions from a
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`volume of feed gas” and “a gas valve that injects feed gas proximate to the
`cathode assembly at a predetermined time” in its Preliminary Response,
`Prelim. Resp. 12–20, Zond did not address explicitly constructions of these
`terms in its Patent Owner Response. In its Patent Owner Response,
`however, Zond does apply our initial construction of the term “super-
`ionizing the initial plasma,” PO Resp. 2–4, and relies on its proposed
`construction for “generating an initial plasma and excited ions from a
`volume of feed gas” in its overview of the teachings of Kudryavtsev. PO
`Resp. 16–20. We address these two claim terms in turn.
`
`1. “excited atom source that generates an initial plasma
`and excited atoms from a volume of feed gas”
`
`All claims at issue require an “excited atom source that generates an
`initial plasma and excited atoms from a volume of feed gas.” Ex. 1001,
`33:53–34:44. As we previously stated, Zond does not propose an explicit
`construction for this claim limitation in its Patent Owner Response. In its
`Preliminary Response, however, Zond proposes that this claim limitation
`should be construed as “a source for generating both an initial plasma and
`significantly more than an incidental amount of excited atoms from the same
`volume of feed gas, wherein a feed gas is a gas that is a flowing gas.”
`Prelim. Resp. 15. Zond implicitly applies this proposed construction in its
`assertions concerning the teachings of Kudryavtsev.
`Zond asserts in its Preliminary Response that the recitation of a
`“volume of feed gas” requires that both ionization and excitation occur in the
`same volume of feed gas, and that “feed gas” implies a flow of gas. Prelim.
`Resp. 12–13. In its Patent Owner Response, Zond reiterates this
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`understanding of the meaning of “excited atom source that generates an
`initial plasma and excited atoms from a volume of feed gas,” by asserting as
`follows regarding Kudryavtsev.
`Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, Kudryavtsev says
`that the “studied effects” are characteristic of a system in which
`a field applied to a pre-existing weak plasma, i.e. an initial
`plasma has already been created when the electric field is
`applied. In the claims at issue, excited atoms are formed from a
`volume of feed gas at the same time as an initial plasma is
`being formed from the same volume of feed gas. Kudryavtsev
`does not consider this situation. The analysis deals only with
`the reaction of an existing plasma when an electric field is
`suddenly applied.
`
`PO Resp. 20 (citations omitted); see also PO Resp. 18 (“Kudryavtsev deals
`with the reaction of an existing plasma when an electric field is suddenly
`applied, and the formation of ions and excited atoms as a result of that
`pulse.”).
`As we previously stated in our Decision on Institution, see Dec. 12,
`the recitation of “feed gas” in claim 1 does not imply necessarily the flow of
`gas. Certainly, the gas is provided, but claim 1 does not recite generating an
`initial plasma and excited atoms “from a gas being fed,” for example.
`Construing the claim limitation as Zond suggests would be equivalent to
`changing the scope of claim 1.
`Also, we previously noted that the Specification of the ’652 patent
`describes the use of in-line gas valves 242, 244 that can control the flow of
`gas to the chamber (Ex. 1001, 8:3–5), and also describes pulsing feed gases
`234, 236 to help generate excited atoms, including metastable atoms, in
`gap 212 (Ex. 1001, 8:3–5, 8:23–25). See Dec. 12–13. Therefore, we
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`concluded that such control of the feed gas supports the notion that “feed
`gas” does not necessitate a “gas that is a flowing gas.” Id. at 13.
`We also previously stated that the Specification of the ’652 patent
`further states that feed gases may be introduced from multiple locations into
`the chamber. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 8:1–3). We also stated that having
`multiple sources for feed gases does not support a construction that “a
`volume of feed gas” requires that the initial plasma and excited ions are
`generated from the same volume of feed gas, assuming that a particular
`volume of feed gas may be identified in such a process. Id. In its Patent
`Owner Response, Zond does not address these issues that we expressed with
`regard to its proposed claim construction. Although we did not construe
`explicitly the claim limitation “excited atom source that generates an initial
`plasma and excited atoms from a volume of feed gas,” we discern no reason
`to modify our conclusions that the claim limitation does not imply
`necessarily the flow of gas, nor does it require that the initial plasma and
`excited ions are generated from the same volume of feed gas.
`
`2. “super-ionizing the initial plasma”
`All claims at issue require “super-ionizing the initial plasma.”
`Ex. 1001, 33:53–34:44. GlobalFoundries notes that the Specification of
`the ’652 patent explicitly defines “super-ionized” as “at least 75% of the
`neutral atoms in the plasma are converted to ions.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1001,
`5:8–10). From this definition, GlobalFoundries concludes that the limitation
`at issue should be construed as “converting at least 75% of the neutral atoms
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`in the initial plasma generated from a volume of feed gas to ions.” Id. at 13–
`14 (emphasis added).
`Zond made arguments in its Preliminary Response that it did not
`reiterate in its Patent Owner Response. Zond, noting the same definition in
`the ’652 patent, asserts that the reference to “the plasma” in the definition
`means that “75% of the neutrals in the original feed gas have been converted
`to ions in the super-ionized plasma.” Prelim. Resp. 15–16. Therefore, Zond
`asserts that this claim limitation should be construed to mean ionizing the
`plasma “so that at least 75% of the neutrals in the original feed gas have
`been converted to ions.” Prelim. Resp. 16.
`We noted in our Decision on Institution that the claim limitation at
`issue requires “super-ionizing the initial plasma,” Ex. 1001, 33:63 (emphasis
`added), which Zond’s proposed construction did not reflect. Dec. 11. We
`also noted that Zond’s construction introduced a term “original feed gas”
`that does not appear to be used or defined in the Specification of the ’652
`patent; therefore, Zond’s construction would introduce an unnecessary
`ambiguity into the claims. Id. We found that GlobalFoundries’s proposed
`construction reflects the explicit definition of “super-ionized” provided in
`the ’652 patent Specification. Id. Therefore, we initially construed the
`claim limitation as “converting at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the initial
`plasma into ions.” Id. Neither party challenges our construction, see PO
`Resp. 27, Reply 3–11, and we discern no reason to modify our construction
`based on the complete record now before us. Therefore, we construe “super-
`ionizing the initial plasma” as “converting at least 75% of the neutral atoms
`in the initial plasma into ions.”
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`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; see
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). Notwithstanding that Dr. Hartsough
`provides a definition of “a person of ordinary skill in the art” in the context
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`of the ’652 patent,3 we are mindful that the level of ordinary skill in the art
`also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Obviousness over, in Whole or in Part, the Combination of Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev, Fahey, Iwamura, Lantsman, and Wang
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts the following: (1) Claims 1–14, 16, and 17
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination
`of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura, Pet. 54–58; (2) Claim 5 is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, Vratny, and Iwamura; (3) Claims 8–10 are
`unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev,
`Fahey, Lantsman, and Iwamura, Pet. 58–59; and (4) Claim 15 is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, Wang, and Iwamura, Pet. 59–60.
`As support, GlobalFoundries provides detailed explanations as to how
`each claim limitation is met by the references and rationales for combining
`the references, as well as an initial declaration and a supplemental
`declaration of Dr. Kortshagen to support GlobalFoundries’s Petition and
`
`3 “[A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the ’652
`patent [is] someone who holds at least a bachelor of science degree in
`physics, material science, or electrical/computer engineering with at least
`two years of work experience or equivalent in the field of development of
`plasma-based processing equipment.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 17.
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`Reply, respectively. Pet. 54–60; Ex. 1002; Reply 16-20; Ex. 1020. Zond
`responds that these combinations do not disclose every claim element.
`PO Resp. 25–35.
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`our discussion with a brief summary of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and
`Iwamura.
`
`Mozgrin
`Mozgrin discloses experimental research conducted on high-current,
`low-pressure, quasi-stationary discharge in a magnetic field. Ex. 1003, 400,
`Title. In Mozgrin, pulse or quasi-stationary regimes are discussed in light of
`the need for greater discharge power and plasma density. Id. Mozgrin
`discloses a planar magnetron plasma system having cathode 1, anode 2
`adjacent and parallel to cathode 1, and magnetic system 3, as shown in
`Figure 1(a). Id. at 400–01. Mozgrin also discloses a power supply unit that
`includes a pulsed discharge supply unit and a system for pre-ionization. Id.
`at 401–02, Fig. 2. For pre-ionization, an initial plasma density is generated
`when the square voltage pulse is applied to the gas. Id.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`Figure 3(b) of Mozgrin is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3(b) of Mozgrin illustrates an oscillogram of voltage of the
`quasi-stationary discharge. Id. at 402. In Figure 3(b), Part 1 represents the
`voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-ionization stage); Part 2 displays the
`square voltage pulse application to the gap (Part 2a), where the plasma
`density grows and reaches its quasi-stationary value (Part 2b); and Part 3
`displays the voltage as the discharge current grows and both the voltage and
`discharge current attain their quasi-stationary value. Id. More specifically,
`the power supply generates a square voltage with rise times of 5–60 µs and
`durations of as much as 1.5 ms. Id. at 401.
`Mozgrin further discloses the current-voltage characteristic of the
`quasi-stationary plasma discharge that has four different stable forms or
`regimes: (1) pre-ionization stage, id. at 401–02; (2) high-current magnetron
`discharge regime, in which the plasma density exceeds 2 x 1013 cm-3,
`appropriate for sputtering, id. at 402–04, 409; (3) high-current diffuse
`discharge regime, in which the plasma density produces large-volume
`uniform dense plasmas η1 ≈ 1.5 x 1015 cm-3, appropriate for etching, id.; and
`(4) arc discharge regime, id. at 402–04. Id. at 402–09, Figs. 3–7.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`Kudryavtsev
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process,
`comprising the steps of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms. Ex. 1006, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev illustrates the atomic energy levels during the
`slow and fast stages of ionization. Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev is reproduced
`below (with annotations added by GlobalFoundries, Pet. 17).
`
`
`
`As shown in 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. 1002 ¶ 46; Pet. 18–19.
`Indeed, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom density] values . . . there
`is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The subsequent
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`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. 1006, 31, right col., ¶ 6 (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.
`
`Fahey
`
`Fahey discloses a high-flux beam source that produces a beam of
`helium, neon, and argon metastable atoms. Ex. 1005, Abs. Figure 1,
`reproduced below, shows a beam source schematic showing Pyrex tube (A),
`boron nitride nozzle (B), skimmer (C), and needle or needle array (D). Id.
`at 381, right col.
`
`
`Figure 1 above shows a source that produces a low-voltage discharge
`
`between sharp needle D, which is a cathode maintained at a negative
`potential, and cone-shaped skimmer electrode C, which is kept at ground
`potential. Id. at 381, right col., ¶ 4; 382, left col., ¶ 2. Skimmer piece C is
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`attached with an aluminum gasket to a vacuum wall to allow differential
`pumping of the source. Id. at 382, left col., ¶ 1. For all diagnostic
`measurements, a set of parallel sweep plates, maintained at an adequate
`voltage, is mounted after the skimmer to keep the beam free of charged
`species. Id. at 382, left col., ¶ 5. The source can provide very stable thermal
`energy beams of helium, neon, and argon metastable atoms. Id. at 381, right
`col., ¶ 3.
`
`Iwamura
`
`Iwamura discloses a plasma treatment apparatus for generating a
`stable plasma with a multi-step ionization process, to treat a semiconductor
`wafer. Ex. 1007, Abs., 6:67–7:8. Figure 1 of Iwamura, reproduced below
`(with our annotations added), illustrates a plasma treatment apparatus.
`
`Pre-excitation unit
`
`First plasma generation unit
`
`Second plasma generation unit
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Iwamura, plasma chamber 10 is coupled to
`the gas supply pipe (shown as items 20a and 20b). Gas supply 20 supplies a
`gas capable of plasma discharge (e.g., helium or argon, a noble gas) through
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`a pre-excitation unit that includes ultraviolet lamp 24, and a first plasma
`generation unit that includes electrodes 26. Id. at 6:67–7:17, 49. Ultraviolet
`lamp 24 causes photoionization, raising the excitation level of the gas and
`generating excited and metastable atoms from ground state atoms. Id. at
`7:55–60. Thereafter, a plasma is generated from the gas in plasma region A,
`between electrodes 26 (the first plasma generation unit), and a plasma also is
`generated in plasma region B, between electrodes 30 (the second plasma
`generation unit). Id. at 7:61–65, 8:4–9, 8:32–46. According to Iwamura,
`because the excitation level of the gas is raised first, a stable plasma can be
`generated inside the plasma chamber. Id. at 8:32–37. Consequently, the
`uniformity of the plasma density, as well as the yield of the treatment of the
`semiconductor wafer, can be improved. Id. at 8:41–46.
`
`Analysis
`
`Zond does not take issue with GlobalFoundries’s assertions that the
`cited references teach “a high density plasma source comprising a cathode
`assembly, and an anode that is positioned adjacent to the cathode assembly.”
`See PO Resp. 25–30. After reviewing the record, we are persuaded that
`GlobalFoundries has shown that the references teach these limitations that
`are found in all challenged claims. See Pet. 20–34, 54–58; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–
`81, 141–146.
`
`Zond does assert that GlobalFoundries has failed to show any cited
`reference teaches “super-ionizing the initial plasma so as to generate a high-
`density plasma,” see PO Resp. 25–30, and, at least implicitly, asserts that no
`reference teaches “an excited atom source that generates an initial plasma
`and excited atoms from a volume of feed gas,” PO Resp. 20–23.
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`“an excited atom source that generates an initial plasma and
`excited atoms from a volume of feed gas”
`
`Zond notes deficiencies in the references for what each teaches alone
`
`(see PO Resp. 16–23), and argues that the combination does not teach or
`suggest “an excited atom source that generates an initial plasma and excited
`atoms from a volume of feed gas,” see PO Resp. 22–23 (regarding Fahey),
`20 (regarding Kudryavtsev). References must be read, however, not in
`isolation, but for what each fairly teaches in combination with the prior art
`as a whole. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Zond
`does not address what the combination of references asserted by
`GlobalFoundries teaches, but only addresses the references individually.
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that both Fahey and Iwamura teach
`“generating an initial plasma and excited atoms from a volume of feed gas.”
`See Pet. 22–24, 54–58. GlobalFoundries asserts the following concerning
`Fahey.
`
`While many of the charged species are skimmed by
`Fahey’s skimmer, some of the charged species will pass
`through the skimmer, as is said to occur in the ’652 Patent. See,
`e.g., ’652 Patent, 27:18–21 (“A large fraction of the ions and
`electrons are trapped in the nozzle chamber 738 while the
`excited atoms and ground state atoms flow through the aperture
`737 of the skimmer 736.”) (Ex. 1001). Kortshagen Decl. ¶ 58
`(Ex. 1002). Therefore, like the ’652 Patent, Fahey generates
`both an initial plasma and excited atoms from a volume of feed
`gas. Id.
`
`Pet. 23–24.
`
`Zond’s argument with respect to the teachings of Fahey focuses on a
`lack of teaching of generation of an initial plasma and excited atoms from a
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`volume of feed gas by pointing out that Fahey “describes a dev
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
