Paper 36
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: January 5, 2016
`
`571-272-7822
`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 IPR2014-010891
`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 IPR2014-01004 has been joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: January 5, 2016
`
`571-272-7822
`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 IPR2014-010891
`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 IPR2014-01004 has been joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`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 claim 35 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,806,652 B1 (Ex. 12012, “the ’652 patent”) is 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 revised Petition (Paper 4, “Pet.”)
`seeking inter partes review of claim 35 (“the challenged claim”) of the ’652
`patent. GlobalFoundries included a Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (Ex.
`1202) 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 claim to determine if the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 as obvious over various combinations of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey,
`and Iwamura. Paper 13 (“Dec.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, we granted a revised Motion for Joinder
`filed by the Gillette Company, joining Case IPR2014-01004 with the instant
`
`
`2 Petitioners filed a revised version for each of Exhibits 1201–1214, on
`July 11, 2014. All citations are to the revised Exhibits, unless otherwise
`indicated.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`trial (IPR2014-01004, Paper 14). Zond filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 23, “PO Resp.”), along with a Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 2002) to support its positions. GlobalFoundries filed a Reply
`(Paper 24, “Reply”) to the Patent Owner Response, along with a
`supplemental Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1216). An oral hearing3
`was held on August 13, 2015. A transcript of the hearing is included in the
`record. Paper 35 (“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; Paper 7, 1; Ex. 1214. GlobalFoundries
`also identifies Petitions for inter partes review that are related to this
`proceeding. Pet. 1; Paper 7, 2–3.
`
`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. 1201, 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
`
`3 The oral arguments for the instant review and IPR2014-00861 and
`IPR2014-01088 were consolidated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`method that provides independent control of two or more co-existing
`plasmas in a system. Id. at 4:62–64.
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`plasma development in the gap can be optimized by crossed electric and
`magnetic fields in gap 212 that trap electrons and ions improving the
`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 sources 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`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
`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. 8,
`shows another embodiment of the ’652 patent.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`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. 1201, 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.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`
`Id. at 27:22–37.
`
`D. Challenged Claim
`The single challenged claim 35 is an independent claim. Claim 35 is
`reproduced below.
`35. A high-density plasma source comprising:
`a) means for generating an initial plasma and excited atoms
`from a volume of feed gas;
`b) means for transporting the initial plasma and excited atoms
`proximate to a cathode assembly; and
`c) means for super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the
`cathode assembly, thereby generating a high-density plasma.
`Ex. 1201, 36:15–22.
`
`E. Prior Art Relied Upon
`GlobalFoundries relies upon the following prior art references:
`Iwamura et al.
`US 5,753,886
`May 19, 1998
`(Ex. 1208)
`
`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. 1203) (“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. 1206) (“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. 1205) (“Fahey”).
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`unpatentability (Dec. 30–31):
`
`Claim
`35
`35
`
`References
`Basis
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura
`§ 103(a) Mozgrin, Iwamura, and Fahey
`
`
`
`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 constructions for
`the following claim elements from challenged claim 35 that GobalFoundries
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`construed as means-plus-function elements, invoking 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6:4
`(1) “means for generating an initial plasma and excited atoms from a volume
`of feed gas”; (2) “means for transporting the initial plasma and excited
`atoms proximate to a cathode assembly”; and (3) “means for super-ionizing
`the initial plasma proximate to the cathode assembly.” Pet. 12–17.
`The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim element is to
`identify the recited function in the claim element. Med. Instrumentation &
`Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The
`second step is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding
`structure for that recited function. Id. A structure disclosed in the
`specification qualifies as “corresponding” structure only if the specification
`or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`recited in the claim. B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419,
`1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “While corresponding structure need not include all
`things necessary to enable the claimed invention to work, it must include all
`structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit
`Card Sys. Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`2005).
`We agreed that the three claim elements identified by
`GlobalFoundries were written in means-plus-function form and fall under
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Dec. 9–10. Upon review of the parties’ contentions
`
`
`4 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) re-designated
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat.
`284, 296 (2011). Because the ’652 patent has a filing date before September
`16, 2012 (effective date), we will refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112.
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`and the Specification, we set forth our claim constructions in the Decision on
`Institution for the means-plus-function elements identified by the parties.
`Dec. 11–19. For convenience, our claim constructions are reproduced in the
`table below:
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`Means-Plus-
`Function Claim
`Elements
`
`“means for
`generating an
`initial plasma and
`excited atoms
`from a volume of
`feed gas”
`
`“means for
`transporting the
`initial plasma and
`excited atoms
`proximate to a
`cathode
`assembly”
`
`Corresponding Structures
`
`A chamber or gap structure containing the feed gas
`and a power source that applies a voltage to the feed
`gas. See Ex. 1201, 6:34–7:9 (describing Fig. 2 that
`includes gap 212 or region 214 defined by an outer
`cathode section and an anode spaced apart from the
`cathode sufficient to allow current to flow through
`region 214, and first power supply 206, which is
`separate from a second power supply used to super-
`ionize the plasma); Id. at 25:30–26:15 (describing
`Fig. 12 that includes an excited atom source 732b
`(cathode assembly) that has tube 733, which is
`surrounded by enclosure 735, that defines electrode
`chamber 739, in which is positioned electrode 741
`connected to first power supply 731); id. 25:60–
`26:15 (describing excited atom source 732b); Dec.
`11–13.
`A gas source with controlled flow in a contained area
`to achieve the transportation of the initial plasma and
`excited atoms. Dec. 15–16 (describing structure for
`transporting function as gas exchange system 238,
`242 that flows gas through the outer cathode sections
`202b/656b/702b/722b/732b (shown, e.g., in Figures
`2, 3, 5, 6, and 12), through gap 214, toward inner
`cathode assembly 202a/732a); see, e.g., Ex. 1201,
`8:1–5 (stating in relation to Figure 2A of the ’652
`patent, that 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); 8:36–52 (describing feed
`gas 234 is supplied into gap 212 between outer
`cathode section 202b and first anode 210, which
`defines region 214, by controlling gas valve 242).
`
`12
`
`
`
`Corresponding Structures
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`Means-Plus-
`Function Claim
`Elements
`“means for super-
`ionizing the initial
`plasma proximate
`to the cathode
`assembly, thereby
`generating a high-
`density plasma”
`
`Although Zond applied these constructions that we adopted in the
`Decision on Institution in its Patent Owner Response, PO Resp. 10, it noted
`some areas of disagreement with how we construed the functions associated
`with the means elements set forth above that we will address here.5
`
`A second power supply 222 that generates an electric
`field across inner cathode 202a (e.g., Fig. 2A, 2B, 3,
`5, and 6) or inner cathode 732a (Fig. 12); and inner
`anode 226 or 658 (e.g., Fig. 2A, 2B, 3, 5 and 6) or
`inner anode 703 (Fig. 12). Dec. 18.
`
`1. “means for generating an initial plasma and excited ions
`from a volume of feed gas”
`Claim 35 recites “means for generating an initial plasma and excited
`ions from a volume of feed gas.” Ex. 1201, 34:45–36:14. In its Preliminary
`Response, Zond proposes that the function of this claim element should be
`construed as “generation of both an initial plasma and excited atoms from
`the same volume of feed gas, wherein a feed gas is a gas that is a flowing
`gas.” Prelim. Resp. 11. In its Patent Owner Response, Zond reiterates this
`
`
`5 Zond asserts that although it uses the constructions adopted in the Decision
`on Institution, it is “not waiving its right to challenge these interpretations on
`Appeal or in other forums.” PO Resp. 10. Zond had the opportunity in its
`Patent Owner Response to address our tentative claim constructions set forth
`in the Decision on Institution, but chose not to do so, except to challenge our
`construction of “volume of a feed gas.”
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`construction stating that it disagrees with our construction of “from a volume
`of feed gas” because our construction reads out the word “feed,” and states
`that “the patent’s pulsed gas pressure embodiment changes nothing since it
`too causes the gas to flow.” PO Resp. 10, n.20.
`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. 9. In its Patent Owner Response, Zond reiterates this understanding of
`the meaning of “generating an initial plasma and excited ions from a volume
`of feed gas,” by asserting as follows regarding Kudryavtsev.
`
`Kudryavtsev says that the “studied effects” are
`characteristic of a system in which a field is 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. 17–18 (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also PO Resp. 16
`(“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 stated in our Decision on Institution, see Dec. 9–10, the
`recitation of “feed gas” in claim 35 does not imply necessarily the flow of
`gas. Dec. 11.
`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
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`gas to the chamber (Ex. 1201, 8:3–5), and also describes pulsing feed gases
`234, 236 to help generate excited atoms, including metastable atoms, in
`gap 212 (Ex. 1201, 8:3–5, 8:23–25). See Dec. 10–11. Therefore, we
`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. Although we
`agree with Zond that this pulsed gas pressure embodiment can cause the gas
`to flow, it does not necessitate that the gas flow.
`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. 1201, 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. 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. “means for transporting the initial plasma and excited atoms
`proximate to a cathode assembly”
`GlobalFoundries asserts that a plain reading of this function means
`
`that “the initial plasma with excited atoms is generated in one location ( . . .
`in a gap or with an ‘excited atom source’), and moved to another location
`near a cathode assembly where the plasma is super-ionized.” Pet. 15.
`Because the structure for the previous element, “means for generating,”
`includes a cathode, GlobalFoundries asserts that the cathode assembly which
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`is recited in this element must be a different cathode. Id. at 16.
`GlobalFoundries notes that all embodiments shown in the figures of the ’652
`patent have an “outer” and an “inner” cathode to which initial plasma is
`transported. Id.
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond proposes that the function means to
`“transport the initial plasma and excited atoms to a region that is proximate
`to a cathode assembly.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Zond asserts that the claim
`language does not require that the cathode assembly in this element be
`distinct from the cathode structure that corresponds to the “means for
`generating” element. Id. at 17. Zond did not reiterate these arguments in its
`Patent Owner Response.
`In our Decision on Institution, we noted that if the cathode assembly
`in this element is not distinct, however, the “means for transporting” element
`would appear superfluous; there would be no need to transport the initial
`plasma and excited atoms if the cathode assembly were the same. Dec. 14.
`In fact, the ’652 patent describes a plasma generation method that provides
`independent control of two or more co-existing plasmas in a system. Id. at
`14–15 (citing Ex. 1201, 4:62–64). Without the two cathode assemblies, we
`found there would be no such independent control. Id. at 15. As
`GlobalFoundries indicates, all figures show segmented cathode assemblies
`with an inner and outer cathode. See Ex. 1201, Figures 2–12. We agreed in
`our Decision on Institution that the cathode assembly in the “means for
`transporting” element is distinct from the cathode assembly corresponding
`structure for the “means for generating” element. See Dec. 15. Neither
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`party subsequently challenged this construction, and we see no reason to
`change our construction based on review of the entire record now before us.
`
`3. “means for super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the cathode
`assembly, thereby generating a high-density plasma”
`
`GlobalFoundries notes that the Specification of the ’652 patent
`defines super-ionizing to mean that “at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the
`plasma are converted to ions.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1201, 5:8–10; Ex. 1202
`¶ 47). From this definition, GlobalFoundries concludes that the function
`should be construed as “converting at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the
`initial plasma into ions near the cathode assembly.” Id. (emphasis added).
`Zond asserts that the function should be construed to mean “ionizing the
`plasma that is proximate to the cathode so that at least 75% of the neutrals in
`the original feed gas have been converted to ions.” Prelim. Resp. 19.
`We noted in our Decision on Institution that the recited function for
`the claim element at issue requires “super-ionizing the initial plasma,”
`Dec. 17 (citing Ex. 1201, 36:20) (emphasis added), and that Zond’s
`construction does not reflect this claim language. Id. We also noted that
`Zond’s construction introduces 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 introduces an unnecessary ambiguity into the
`construction. Id. We also stated that GlobalFoundries’s proposed
`construction reflects the explicit definition of “super-ionized” provided in
`the ’652 patent Specification, and therefore, construed the recited function as
`“converting at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the initial plasma into ions
`near the cathode assembly.” Id. Neither party challenges our construction,
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`and we discern no reason to modify our construction based on the complete
`record now before us. Therefore, we construe the recited function “super-
`ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the cathode assembly” as
`“converting at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the initial plasma into ions
`near the cathode assembly.”
`
`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
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`of the ’652 patent,6 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, and Iwamura
`GlobalFoundries asserts that claim 35 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey,
`and Iwamura, Pet. 38–42, and as obvious over the combination of Mozgrin,
`Fahey, and Iwamura, Pet. 50–52.
`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
`Reply, respectively. Pet. 38–42; Ex. 1202; Reply 17-25; Ex. 1216. Zond
`responds that these combinations do not disclose every claim element.
`PO Resp. 29–41.
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`
`6 “[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.
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`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. 1203, 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.
`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
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`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 402–409, Figs. 3–7.
`
`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. 1206, 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).
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`Patent 6,806,652 B1
`
`
`
`
`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. 1202 ¶ 60; Pet. 21–22.
`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. 1206, 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 i
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
