Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01088
`
`
`
`
`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 No. IPR2014-010881
`
`Patent 6,806,652 B2
`
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`OF PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`1 Case IPR2014-01000 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`IPR2014-01088
`
`
`
`
`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 No. IPR2014-010881
`
`Patent 6,806,652 B2
`
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`OF PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`1 Case IPR2014-01000 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01088
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.70(a), Patent Owner, Zond, LLC, hereby
`
`submits it observations on cross-examination of Dr. Korthsagen, whose
`
`Declaration was submitted by Petitioners with their Reply Brief filed June 26,
`
`2015. Dr. Kortshagen’s cross-examination was conducted by deposition on
`
`July 2, 2015. Exhibit 2003 is a transcript of that deposition, and is used as the
`
`basis for the present observations.
`
`
`
`1.!
`
`Dr. Kortshagen Testified that Mozgrin’s Regions 2 and 3 Both
`Represent Areas of High-Density Plasma.
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘652 patent requires “super-ionizing [an] initial plasma so as
`
`to generate a high-density plasma.”2 According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the device of Fahey in the
`
`preexcitation unit of Iwamura to generate such an initial plasma.3 That is,
`
`Petitioner specifies the initial plasma as that which is produced by the
`
`preexcitation unit.4 Dr. Kortshagen testified that region 1 of Mozgrin’s Fig. 4 is
`
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`2 Ex. 1001 at 33:63-64; see also, Ex. 2003 at 10:5-23.
`
`3 Pet. at 54-55.
`
`4 Id. at 55; see also, Ex. 2003 at 46:12 – 51:23 (Dr. Kortshagen specifying that
`
`2
`
`
`
`representative of such an initial plasma created by a preexcitation unit.5 Dr.
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01088
`
`
`Kortshagen further testified that region 2 of Mozgrin’s Figure 4 represents an area
`
`of high-density plasma,6 and that region 3 of Mozgrin’s Figure 4 also represents
`
`an area of high-density plasma.7 This testimony is relevant because it contradicts
`
`Petitioner’s argument that Mozgrin teaches “super-ionizing the initial plasma so
`
`as to generate a high-density plasma.”8
`
`In an attempt to show “super-ionization” of the initial plasma, Dr.
`
`Kortshagen and Petitioner rely on computations that discuss the plasma densities
`
`during a transition from Mozgrin’s region 2 to region 3.9 For example, Dr.
`
`Kortshagen states that “‘for the discharge transit from regime 2 to regime 3 . . . the
`
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`although it may not be visible, a plasma is produced in Iwamura’s preexcitation
`
`unit.).
`
`5 Ex. 2003 at 22:16-24:18 (testifying that region 1 shown in Mozgrin’s Figure 4
`
`represents a pre-ionization stage, with an initial plasma having a density in the
`
`range 107 – 109 cm-3).
`
`6 Id. at 26:3-21; 28:7-17.
`
`7 Id. at 28:19 – 29:8.
`
`8 Reply Brief at 2 et seq.
`
`9 Ex. 1020 at ¶ 31; Reply Brief at 10-11, 17.
`
`3
`
`
`
`ionization degree α = ne / (ng + ni) ranges from α ≈ 1 (p = 0.01 torr) to α ≈ 0.7 (p
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01088
`
`
`= 1torr).’”10 However, Dr. Korshagen’s deposition testimony reveals that such a
`
`transition is not super-ionizing an initial plasma, as required by claim 1, rather it
`
`is further ionizing an already high-density plasma. That is, Dr. Kortshagen’s
`
`reliance on the densities reported by Mozgrin for a “discharge transit from regime
`
`2 to regime 3” do not support “converting at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the
`
`initial plasma into ions,”11 as the Board has determined is required by the claim.
`
`Rather, the “discharge transit from regime 2 to regime 3” represents ionization of
`
`an already dense plasma, not ionization of an initial plasma.
`
`
`
`2.!
`
`Dr. Kortshagen Testified that Mozgrin’s Region 1 Represents An
`Area of a Weakly-Ionized Plasma.
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘652 patent requires “super-ionizing [an] initial plasma so as
`
`to generate a high-density plasma,”12 and claim 4 specifies that the initial plasma
`
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`10 Ex. 1020 at ¶ 31 quoting Mozgrin at 407, left col. ¶ 2 and right col. ¶ 3 (emphasis
`
`in original).
`
`11 Globalfoundries U.S., Inc. et al. v. Zond, LLC, IPR2014-01088, Paper 16, p. 11
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2015).
`
`12 Ex. 1001 at 33:63-64; see also, Ex. 2003 at 10:5-23.
`
`4
`
`
`
`is a weakly-ionized plasma.13 Dr. Kortshagen testified that region 1 of Mozgrin’s
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01088
`
`
`Fig. 4 is representative of such an initial plasma created by a preexcitation unit.14
`
`Dr. Kortshagen further testified that region 2 of Mozgrin’s Figure 4 represents an
`
`area of high-density plasma,15 and that region 3 of Mozgrin’s Figure 4 also
`
`represents an area of high-density plasma.16 This testimony is relevant because it
`
`contradicts Petitioner’s argument that claim 4 is obvious in view of the cited
`
`references.17
`
`In an attempt to show “super-ionization” of the initial plasma, Dr.
`
`Kortshagen and Petitioner rely on computations that discuss the plasma densities
`
`during a transition from Mozgrin’s region 2 to region 3.18 For example, Dr.
`
`Kortshagen states that “‘for the discharge transit from regime 2 to regime 3 . . . the
`
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`13 Ex. 1001 at 34:5-6.
`
`14 Ex. 2003 at 22:16-24:18 (specified that region 1 shown in Mozgrin’s Figure 4
`
`represents a pre-ionization stage, with an initial plasma having a density in the
`
`range 107 – 109 cm-3).
`
`15 Id. at 26:3-21; 28:7-17.
`
`16 Id. at 28:19 – 29:8.
`
`17 Pet. at 54 et seq.
`
`18 Ex. 1020 at ¶ 31; Reply Brief at 10-11, 17.
`
`5
`
`
`
`ionization degree α = ne / (ng + ni) ranges from α ≈ 1 (p = 0.01 torr) to α ≈ 0.7 (p
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01088
`
`
`= 1torr).’”19 However, Dr. Korshagen’s deposition testimony reveals that such a
`
`transition is not super-ionizing an initial, i.e., weakly-ionized plasma, as required
`
`by claim 4, rather it is further ionizing an already high-density plasma.
`
`
`
`3.!
`
`Dr. Kortshagen Testified that He Could Not Determine Whether
`Iwamura’s Preexcitaiton Unit Generated a Weakly-Ionized Plasma.
`
`
`During cross-examination, Dr. Kortshagen testified that he could not
`
`determine whether Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit creates a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`as defined in the ‘652 Patent.20 This testimony is relevant because it contradicts
`
`Petitioner’s argument that claim 4 is obvious in view of the cited references.21
`
`
`
`4.!
`
`Dr. Kortshagen’s Testimony Confirms that Iwamura’s Objective was
`to Treat an Object with “Active” Neutral Gas Atoms or Molecules,
`While Reducing the Risk of Damage by Ions.
`In his testimony,22 Dr. Korthsagen confirmed that Iwamura’s goal was to
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`19 Ex. 1020 at ¶ 31 quoting Mozgrin at 407, left col. ¶ 2 and right col. ¶ 3 (emphasis
`
`in original).
`
`20 Ex. 2003 at 54:2-10.
`
`21 Pet. at 54 et seq.
`
`22 Ex. 2003 at 63:6 – 72:6; 76:6-16; 78:3 – 79:14.
`
`6
`
`
`
`treat an object with electrically neutral “activated species,” while minimizing
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01088
`
`
`damage to the object caused by ions that are generated along with the activated
`
`species. This is relevant to Patent Owner’s explanation that the purpose of
`
`Iwamura’s two-stage system is NOT to super-ionize an initial plasma,23 and that
`
`Iwamura’s teaching is in fact contrary to this objective of the invention.
`
`First, Dr. Kortshagen explained that the “activated species” described by
`
`Iwamura are electrically neutral atoms/molecules that are in an excited energy
`
`state:24
`
`Q. Do you have an understanding of what Iwamura means by
`the term "activated gas species"?
`
`THE WITNESS: I believe what Iwamura refers to with
`"activated gas species" is can include excited atoms, excited
`molecules, potentially fragmented molecules, which would be
`called radicals.
`
`BY MR. FAHMI:
`
`Q. Are all of these electrically neutral?
`
`A. Yes, all of the ones that I named are electrically neutral.
`
`Dr. Kortshagen then confirmed that Iwamura’s goal was to treat a substrate or
`
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`23 Patent Owner’s Opposition at 24-25.
`
`24 Id. at 60:4-16.
`
`7
`
`
`
`object with such electrically neutral molecules that are formed by a plasma:
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01088
`
`
`Q. Yes. So, generally, then, Iwamura's goal is to treat the
`substrate or the object to be treated with the activated gas
`species that are formed by the plasma in order to improve the
`yield of the treatment, correct?
`
`. . .
`
`THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe that this is a fair statement,
`yes.25
`
`Dr. Kortshagen further testified that Iwamura discloses two techniques for
`
`reducing the damage caused by charged particles in the plasma so as to limit
`
`damage to the object by the ions26 - both of which are contrary to the claimed
`
`objective of super-ionizing a plasma. Dr. Korshagen confirmed that the first of
`
`these techniques removed the majority of charged particles from the plasma27 (thus
`
`reducing plasma density), and that the other reduced the power in the down stream
`
`stage (which also is contrary to the claimed super-ionization of a plasma).28 All of
`
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`25 Id. at 64:19 – 65:3; see also, id. at 78:3-14.
`
`26 Id. at 76:6-16; 69:9 – 72: 6.
`
`27 Id. at 76:6-16.
`
`28 Id. at 69:9 – 72: 6; see 94:24 – 96:4 regarding the use of high power in the ‘652
`
`patent for super-ionization.
`
`8
`
`
`
`this confirms Patent Owner’s explanation that the purpose of Iwamura’s two-stage
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01088
`
`
`system is NOT to super-ionize an initial plasma and that Iwmura’s teachings are
`
`contrary to this objective.
`
`
`
`5.!
`
`Dr. Kortshagen Confirmed that Fahey Does Not Teach Super-
`Ionization.
`Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony confirms Patent Owner’s characterization29 that
`
`the purpose of Fahey’s device was not to produce a high-density plasma, as
`
`claimed, but instead to produce electrically neutral, metastable atoms. Indeed, Dr.
`
`Kortshagen admitted that “it is correct that Fahey is a reference that is not geared
`
`towards super-ionization . . . .”30
`
`
`
`6.!
`
`Dr. Kortshagen Confirmed that the Power Supply of Claim 5 is the
`Power Supply Used to Super-Ionize The Plasma in Claim 1.
`Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony confirms Patent Owner’s argument31 that claim
`
`5 requires that the power supply that generates the electric field super-ionizing the
`
`initial plasma so as to generate the high-density plasma comprise an RF power
`
`supply. In particular, Dr. Kortshagen testified that a person of ordinary skill in the
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`29 Patent Owner’s Opposition at 22-23.
`
`30 Ex. 2003 at 86:13 – 18 (emphasis added).
`
`31 Patent Owner’s Opposition at 31.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01088
`
`art would understand the power supply recited in Element D of Claim 1 to generate
`
`an electric field that super-ionizes the initial plasma so as to generate a high-
`
`density plasma,32 and that this is the same power supply recited in claim 5.33 This
`
`confirms Patent owner’s argument that, “Claim 5 is not concerned with a power
`
`supply for generating an initial plasma, rather the claim is concerned with
`
`characteristics of a power supply for super-ionizing an initial plasma and
`
`generating a high-density plasma.”34
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 20, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Tarek Fahmi/
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Reg. No. 41,402
`333 W. San Carlos Street, Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`408-799-0612
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner Zond, LLC
`
`
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`32 Ex. 2003 at 91:25 – 92:16.
`
`33 Id. at 93:6-11.
`
`34 Patent Owner’s Opposition at 32.!
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01088
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 2001 Affidavit of Maria Granovsky in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Ex. 2002 Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 2003 Deposition of Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing:
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01088
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`OF PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS
`
`was served on July 20, 2015, by filing this document though the Patent Review
`
`Processing System as well as delivering a copy via EMAIL directed to the attorneys of
`
`record for the Petitioner at the following address:
`
`For Petitioner:
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, and
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG
`David M. Tennant
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`701 THIRTEENTH STREET, NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`dchankong@whitecase.com
`
`
`For Petitioner:
`THE GILETTE COMPANY
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Larissa Park, Reg. No. 59,051
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
`Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-5000
`Email:
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com;
`Larissa.Park@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`The parties have agreed to electronic service in this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by:
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
` /Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W. San Carlos Street, Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866 877 4883
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
