Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`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
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2014-01089*
`
`Patent 6,806,652 B2
`_____________________
`
` PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.220
`
`
`
`
`Claim 35
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2014-01004 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
` *
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 3  
`
`II.   TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 3  
`
`A.   The ‘652 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents a Technique for Generating Super
`Ionized Plasma Having A Uniform Charge Distribution. ........................................ 5  
`
`III.   SUMMARY OF GROUNDS UNDER REVIEW ............................................................. 9  
`
`IV.   CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) .................................. 10  
`
`V.   PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF
`THE EVIDENCE THAT CLAIM 35 IS OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE CITED
`ART. ...................................................................................................................................... 11  
`
`A.   Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate By A Preponderance of the Evidence
`That 35 is Obvious Over Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey and Iwamura as
`Recited in Petitioners Ground II. ............................................................................. 11  
`
`1.   Scope and Content of the Prior Art ................................................................... 11  
`
`a.  
`
`b.  
`
`c.  
`
`d.  
`
`Overview of Mozgrin. ......................................................................... 11  
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev. ................................................................... 14  
`
`Overview of Fahey. ............................................................................. 18  
`
`Overview of Iwamura ......................................................................... 21  
`
`2.   Analysis of Petitioner’s Ground II: Pertinent Differences Between
`Claim 35 and the Ground II References ...................................................... 29  
`
`3.  
`
`Conclusion: Petitioner Has Not Shown By A Preponderance of the
`Evidence That Claim 35 is Obvious for the Reasons Asserted in
`Ground I. ........................................................................................................ 38  
`
`B.   Defects In Ground IV: Petitioner Failed To Prove By A Preponderance of
`the Evidence That Claim 35 is Obvious Over Mozgrin, Iwamura and Fahey ........ 39  
`
`VI.   CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 41  
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 2001
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`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 Dr. Kortshagen
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the challenged claim 35
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
`
`cited references. Petitioners fail to cite any reference that teaches or suggests
`
`the claimed means for super-ionizing an initial plasma so as to generate a high-
`
`density plasma.1 They also fail to show by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that it would have been obvious in view of the cited art to combine a means for
`
`transporting an initial plasma with a means for super-ionization as claimed.
`
`In instituting this proceeding, the Board endorsed the Petitioners’
`
`proposed interpretation of the claimed means for super-ionizing an initial
`
`plasma, which requires “converting at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the
`
`initial plasma into ions.”2 Petitioners cite Mozgrin as allegedly teaching such a
`
`super-ionization means, and rely on the declaration of Dr. Kortshagen to
`
`prove that Mozgrin yielded the required degree of ionization. But Dr.
`
`Kortshagen devoted his proofs to the wrong parameter, and therefore his
`
`calculations are irrelevant to the claimed super-ionization means.
`
`
`1 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration, ¶ 82 – 85.
`
`2 IPR2014-001089, Paper 13, p. 17 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2014).
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`Dr. Kortshagen ignores the requirement in the claims that “the electric
`
`field super-ioniz[e] the initial plasma so as to generate a high-density plasma”3
`
`such that at least 75% of the neutral atoms in this initial plasma are ionized.
`
`He instead points to the percentage of ionized atoms in the final high-density
`
`plasma of Mozgrin without regard to the percentage of neutral atoms in the
`
`initial plasma that are ionized. 4 Specifically, Dr. Kortshagen starts by noting
`
`that Mozgrin reports an ion density of 1.5 x 1015 cm-3.5 Dr. Kortshagen then
`
`uses the ideal gas equation to estimate the total density of gas atoms in
`
`Mozgrin’s chamber so he can the deduce the percentage of those gas atoms that
`
`were ionized to yield Mozgrin’s reported ion density of 1.5 x 1015 cm-3.6 Not
`
`only does Dr. Korthsagen use flawed estimates of the pressure in Mozgin’s
`
`chamber to compute the density of gas atoms,7 his calculations are irrelevant to
`
`the claimed super-ionization: Dr. Kortshagen purports to prove that at least
`
`75% of all atoms in Mozgrin’s chamber were ionized, but this does not address
`
`
`3 Ex. 1201, ‘652 patent at 33:61-64 (emphasis added).
`
`4 Ex. 2002 Hartsough Declaration at ¶ 83.
`
`5 Ex. 1202, Kortshagen Declaration at ¶ 87.
`
`6 Ex. 1202, Kortshagen Declaration at ¶ 88 - 93
`
`7 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration at ¶ 14.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`the claimed requirement of super-ionizing an initial plasma so as to convert 75%
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`of the neutrals in the initial plasma into ions. In other words, “rather than
`
`addressing the claim requirement of super-ionizing an initial plasma so as to
`
`convert 75% of the neutrals in the initial plasma into ions, Dr. Kortshagen
`
`instead attempts to demonstrate that Mozgrin teaches that at least 75% of all the
`
`atoms in the final high-density plasma are ions, without regard to the percentage
`
`of converted neutrals in the initial plasma.8
`
`II. Technology Background
`
`The ‘652 patent explains that for certain plasma applications, such as
`
`plasma etching or plasma sputtering, it is undesirable for the plasma’s ion
`
`concentration to vary significantly from one location to another. For example
`
`if the ion concentration is relatively high in one region, it can cause
`
`corresponding non-uniformities in the target.9 The patent therefore is
`
`directed to an improved method that generates highly dense plasmas with a
`
`more uniform distribution of charged particles.
`
`
`8 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration at ¶ 83.
`
`9 Ex. 1201, ‘652 patent, col. 4, lines 23 – 30.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`To provide context for understanding the improvements, the ‘652 patent
`
`first describes a prior plasma generation system shown in figure 1 reproduced
`
`below:10
`
`
`
`The patent explains that neutral gas in the region 105 between electrodes 114
`
`and 124 is ionized by applying a voltage across the electrodes 114, 124 to
`
`create a plasma. In such systems, ions tend to concentrate in certain portions
`
`of region 105.
`
`
`10 Ex. 1201, ‘652 patent, col. 4, lines 8 – 31.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`The uniformity of the plasma can be improved by increasing the power
`
`applied to the plasma via the voltage across the electrodes, to thereby increase
`
`the ion density and disperse the charged particles.11 However, increasing
`
`plasma density and uniformity in this manner can significantly increase the
`
`risk of an undesirable electrical breakdown and arcing.12
`
`The ‘652 patent is therefore directed to an improved technique for
`
`generating a super-ionized plasma with a relatively uniform density of charged
`
`particles, while reducing the risk of arcing at such high charge densities.
`
`A. The ‘652 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents a Technique for
`Generating Super Ionized Plasma Having A Uniform Charge
`Distribution.
`
`The ‘652 patent proposes a combination of features that generate a
`
`super-ionized, uniformly distributed plasma, while mitigating the risk of
`
`arcing. For example, in the system shown in figure 3 below, a feed gas 234 is
`
`directed into a region 214 between electrodes 202b and 210.
`
`
`11 Ex. 1201, ‘652 patent, col. 4, lines 31 – 32.
`
`12 Ex. 1201, ‘652 patent, col. 4, lines 32 - 37.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`A voltage from a first power supply 206 generates an electric field 250 across
`
`the feed gas 214 as shown in the enlarged portion shown in figure 2B below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The region 214 is designed to promote excitation of neutral atoms from the
`
`feed gas for transportation into region 252, where the excited atoms are then
`
`ionized by the high power pulses applied to electrodes 202a, 226. To generate
`
`excited atoms in region 214, the size of the gap 212 and the parameters of the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`electric field across the gap are chosen to promote the excitation of atoms in
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`region 214 for transportation to region 252.13 For example, where the feed gas
`
`is argon (which requires 11.55 electron volts to become excited), the electric
`
`field 150 is adjusted to maximize the excitation rate of argon atoms so that
`
`“the vast majority of ground state feed gas atoms are not directly ionized, but
`
`instead undergo a step-wise ionization process.”14 Thus, the region operates as
`
`a source of excited ions that generates more than a mere incidental amount of
`
`excited atoms.
`
`The region 214 is shaped to act as a conduit so that the pressure of the
`
`feed gas physically transports the newly formed ions and the excited atoms
`
`through region 214 into an adjacent region 252 where another electrode 202a
`
`resides that is surrounded by a magnetic field generated by magnets 304.15 As
`
`is known in the art, a magnetic field imposes a force on charges that move
`
`through the field. The shape of the magnetic field is chosen so that such forces
`
`trap electrons in the region 308 where the magnetic field is weak:
`
`
`13 Ex. 1201, ‘652 patent, col. 13, lines 42 – 47.
`
`14 Ex. 1201, ‘652 patent, col. 13, lines 42 – 54.
`
`15 Ex. 1201, ‘652 patent, col. 6, lines 50 – 52; col. 10, lines 10 – 12; col. 14,
`
`lines 37 – 65.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`“[T]he magnetic field 306 traps electrons in the initial plasma. A
`
`large fraction of the electrons are concentrated in the region 308
`
`that corresponds to the weakest area of the magnetic field 306 that
`is generated by the magnet assembly 302.”16
`
`Thus, as the transported mixture is injected into the region 310 and its
`
`magnetic field, the concentration of electrons and excited atoms in the region
`
`increases.
`
`A second power supply 222 applies high power pulses to electrode 202a
`
`to thereby launch additional power into the transported mixture in the region
`
`to super-ionize it:
`
`The second power supply 222 generates high power pulsed that
`
`launch additional power into the already strongly ionized plasma
`
`and therefore super ionizes the high density plasma in the region
`252. 17
`
`The ‘652 patent explains that it takes significantly less energy to ionize excited
`
`atoms than ground states atoms.18 Thus, the excitation of ground state atoms
`
`in region 214, and the transportation of those excited atoms to region
`
`containing electrons trapped by the magnetic field, facilitates ionization in
`
`
`16 Ex. 1201, ‘652 patent, col. 16, lines 24 – 30.
`
`17 Ex. 1201, ‘652 patent, col. 11, lines 54 - 57
`
`18 Ex. 1201, ‘652 patent, col. 14, lines 15 – 18.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`region and the generation of a super-ionized plasma with a reduced probability
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`of undesirable electrical breakdown.19
`
`In short, the disclosed plasma source generates a super-ionized plasma
`
`by first applying an electric field across a volume of feed gas, wherein the
`
`electric field is chosen to partially ionize the feed gas and to promote the
`
`excitation of neutral, ground state gas atoms. The resultant mixture of ions
`
`filled with excited neutral gas atoms is then transported to another location
`
`where a magnetic field traps a high concentration of electrons, while another
`
`electric field applies more power to the mixture, to thereby ionize the excited
`
`atoms and generate a super-ionized plasma.
`
`III. Summary of Grounds Under Review
`
`The Board initiated review of claim 35 under the Petitioners’ Ground II and
`
`Ground IV, summarized below:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Art
`
`35
`
`35
`
`103 Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey, and Iwamura
`
`103 Mozgrin, Iwamura, and Fahey
`
`
`
`II
`
`IV
`
`
`
`
`19 Ex. 1201, ‘652 patent, col. 14, lines 15 – 65,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`IV. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`
`The Board construed the following three features of the claim:
`
`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,”
`
`3. “means for super-ionizing the initial plasma proximate to the
`cathode assembly.”
`
`For purposes of this response, Zond uses the claim constructions adopted by
`
`the Board. However, in doing so Zond is not waiving its right to challenge
`
`these interpretations on Appeal or in other forums.20
`
`
`20 For example, Zond disagrees with the Board’s construction of “volume of
`
`feed gas.” The Board effectively equates the phrase - “from a volume of feed
`
`gas” - with the broader phrase - “from a gas.” The mere fact that alternative
`
`claim language might more explicitly recite the concept of flow does not
`
`resolve the question of how the claim language at issue - “feed gas” - should be
`
`construed. It leaves unanswered the significance of the word “feed,” and the
`
`Board effectively treats the expression “feed gas” as if it were synonymous
`
`with the word “gas” by itself. Also, the patent’s pulsed gas pressure
`
`embodiment changes nothing since it too causes the gas to flow.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`V.
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Prove by a Preponderance of the Evidence
`that Claim 35 is Obvious In View of the Cited Art.
`A. Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate By A Preponderance of
`the Evidence That 35 is Obvious Over Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev,
`Fahey and Iwamura as Recited in Petitioners Ground II.
`
`
`The Board granted review on the basis of Petitioners’ Ground II in
`
`which the Petitioners allege that claim 35 is obvious in view of the
`
`combination of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Fahey and Iwamura. We begin by
`
`exploring the relevant scope and content of these references.
`
`1. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`
`a. Overview of Mozgrin.
`
`Mozgrin summarizes a variety of experiments conducted using a planar
`
`electrode structure of Mozgrin’s figure 1(a), and a bell shaped electrode
`
`structure shown in Mozgrin’s figure 1(b), reproduced below:21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21 Ex. 1203, Mozgrin at 401.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Planar Electrodes
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`Shaped
`Electrodes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mozgrin states that the space between the electrodes was “filled up with
`
`either neutral gas or pre-ionized gas” before a “voltage pulse” was applied.22
`
`This merely indicates that the space between the electrodes was “filled,” but
`
`makes no mention of any flow of gas during the process, and therefore
`
`certainly does not indicate a rate of gas flow in the region between the
`
`electrodes that could transport any matter from the region between the
`
`electrodes.
`
`To provide the “pre-ionized gas” between the electrodes, Mozgrin applied
`
`a DC voltage across the electrodes with a “Stationary Discharge Supply Unit”
`
`shown below.23
`
`
`22 Ex. 1203, Mozgrin at 401, left col.
`
`23 Ex. 1203, Mozgrin at 401, rt. col.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`
`
`The “Stationary Supply Unit” emits a non-pulsed DC voltage to the electrodes
`
`(before the high voltage pulse is applied) to pre-ionize the gas residing between
`
`the electrodes.
`
`Mozgin does not mention any excitation of atoms in the gas as a result of
`
`this voltage from stationary supply unit. Therefore Mozgrin does not teach or
`
`suggest that the DC voltage should or could be chosen to promote excitation of
`
`the neutral gas atoms, nor any mention that such excited atoms can be used as
`
`a precursor for generation ions to form a dense plasma. Nor, does Mozgrin
`
`make any mention or suggestion that a pre-ionized plasma could or should be
`
`transported to a different location for further ionization.
`
`Instead, the pre-ionized gas created by Mozgrin’s DC voltage apparently
`
`remains in the same location when Mozgrin’s High-Voltage component
`
`superimposes the voltage pulse across the electrodes to thereby grow the
`
`density of the pre-ionized gas.24 Thus, the high voltage component increases
`
`
`24 Ex. 1203, Mozgrin.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`the ionization of the pre-ionized plasma, while the plasma remains in the same
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`location where the stationary unit created it.
`
`b. Overview of Kudryavtsev.
`
`Kudryavtsev reports on “ionization relaxation” in a plasma when an
`
`external electric field is suddenly increased.25 More particularly, Kudryavtsev is
`
`a study to determine how well or poorly a set of measured data fits into a
`
`simplified, analytically-solvable model for the initial stage of an inert gas
`
`pulsed discharge plasma in a flash tube. A flash tube is comprised of a sealed
`
`glass tube filled with an inert gas such as argon with a cathode and an anode at
`
`either end to apply an electric field to the gas.26 Flash tubes are designed to
`
`apply a high voltage greater than the breakdown voltage across the inert gas,
`
`resulting in a simultaneous excitation and ionization of the gas and finally in a
`
`brilliant flash of light for a short duration.27 Flash tubes apply a voltage greater
`
`than the breakdown voltage, which may initiate the flash by an arc between
`
`the cathode and the anode.
`
`
`25 Ex. 1206, Kudryavtsev at 30, left col, ¶ 1.
`
`26 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration, ¶ 54.
`
`27 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration, ¶ 54.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`Kudryavtsev predicts that electron density can “increase explosively” if an
`
`electric field is applied long enough to a pre-ionized gas in the tube.28 Using the
`
`specified mathematical model (which presumes a tubular shaped assembly of
`
`radius R and, apparently, no magnetic field) Kudryavtsev shows that the
`
`electron density initially grows very slowly for a period of time designated τs
`
`but then enters a “fast stage:” “[O]nce steady conditions have been reached
`
`during the fast stage, ionization builds up explosively when the external field is
`
`constant.”29
`
`Kudryavtsev’s work is targeted for “pulsed gas lasers, gas breakdown,
`
`laser sparks, etc.”30 The pressures or gas densities reported by Kudryavtsev are
`
`much higher than those used for sputtering.31 Moreover, Kudryavtsev’s
`
`
`28 Ex. 1206, Kudryavtsev at 32, rt. col. ¶ 1.
`
`29 Ex. 1206, Kudryavtsev at 32, left col. ¶ 1; and see p. 32, rt. col. ¶ 1 (“We see
`
`by inspecting the form of the above solutions that ne builds up explosively with
`
`time.”).
`
`30 Ex. 1206, Kudryavtsev at 34, rt. col, ¶ 4; Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration, ¶
`
`56.
`
`31 See, e.g., Ex. 1206, Kudryavtsev at 32, FIG. 3 (reporting pressures of 11.4
`
`Torr and 3.7 Torr); 33, FIG. 5 (11.4 Torr).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`experimental system involved a 2.5 cm diameter tube with two electrodes
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`spaced 52 cm apart. This apparatus did not use magnets or magnetic fields.32
`
`Kudryavtsev does not address the formation of excited atoms in a volume
`
`of feed gas while that feed gas is being initially ionized, and does not consider
`
`or discuss the formation of excited atoms and an initial plasma from a volume
`
`of feed gas. Instead, 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.
`
`To test the accuracy of his model, Kudryavtsev conducted a variety of
`
`experiments with a device having a pair of electrodes spaced nearly two feet
`
`(52 cm) apart from each other at opposite ends of a narrow tube less than an
`
`inch (2.5 cm) in diameter.33 A gas in the tube was “pre-ionized” by applying a
`
`DC current,” but Kudryavtsev does not describe any details of this process, such
`
`as whether the gas was flowing during ionization.34
`
`A voltage pulse was then delivered to the “pre-ionized” plasma within
`
`the tube circuit. Kudryavtsev does not provide any values for his voltage pulse
`
`
`32 Ex. 1206, Kudryavtsev at 32, rt. col, ¶ 4.
`
`33 Ex. 1206, Kudryavtsev at 31, rt. col.
`
`34 Ex. 1206, Kudryavtsev at 32, rt. col.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`and no current values, and never teaches that the proper selection of a voltage
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`pulse can optimize the generation of excited atoms in his tube. In fact,
`
`Kudryavtsev merely indicates that a “specially designed electric circuit” for
`
`generating pulses was used, without any teaching of that design and its relation
`
`to promoting the generation of excited atoms.
`
`But more importantly, Kudryatsev’s voltage pulse was applied to the “pre-
`
`ionized” plasma within the same tube where the pre-ionized plasma was
`
`initially formed.35 Thus, Kudryavtsev makes no mention of transporting a pre-
`
`ionized plasma mixed with excited atoms to a different location for purposes of
`
`further ionizing the mixture.
`
`Kudryavtsev says that the “studied effects” are characteristics of a system
`
`in which a field is applied to a pre-existing weak plasma,36 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 volume of feed gas. Kudryavtsev
`
`
`35 Ex. 1206, Kudryavtsev at 31, rt. col.
`
`36 Ex. 1206, Kudryavtsev at 34, rt. col. (“Since the effects studied in this work
`
`are characteristic of ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to a
`
`weakly ionized gas . . . .”).
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`does not consider this situation. The analysis deals only with the reaction of an
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`existing plasma when an electric field is suddenly applied.
`
`c. Overview of Fahey.
`
`Fahey describes a nozzle (shown below) for creating a beam of neutral
`
`atoms, some of which are “metastable” atoms.
`
`
`
`Gas flows through tube A and exits out of a nozzle B. The exhaust from the
`
`nozzle expands in the region between nozzle B and skimmer C, while the
`
`particles that flow along the axis are drawn through a skimmer C and into a
`
`low-pressure reaction chamber, whose wall is labeled “vacuum wall” in the
`
`figure above.37
`
`
`37 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration, ¶ 63.
`
`18
`
`

`
`A voltage is applied across a needle electrode D and the skimmer C.38
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`
`
`The voltage causes “an electric discharge” that creates “metastable atoms.”39
`
`Fahey does not say where in the region between the needle D and the skimmer
`
`C the ions, electrons, and metastable atoms are formed. However, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would know that electrons in the region between
`
`nozzle B and skimmer C would be attracted to the skimmer, and ions in the
`
`resultant positive space charge in the region would repel each other and thus
`
`expand in the region between nozzle B and skimmer C.40 Thus, the ions and
`
`electrons tend to be blocked by the skimmer, whereas the metastable atoms,
`
`which are not charged, tend to remain on-axis and therefore pass through the
`
`skimmer into the reaction region.41
`
`Any ions that pass through the skimmer are removed by a set of parallel
`
`plates mounted after the skimmer:
`
`[T]he beam was kept free of charged species by maintaining
`
`an adequate voltage on a set of parallel plates mounted after
`
`
`38 Ex. 1205, Fahey at 381, rt. col. “Source Design and Operation.”
`
`39 Ex. 1205, Fahey at 382; Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration at ¶ 64.
`
`40 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration at ¶ 66.
`
`41 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration at ¶ 64.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`the skimmer.42
`Thus, Fahey describes a device for generating a beam of “metastable atoms.”
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`The beam is supplied to a “reaction region” where the characteristics of
`
`the particles in the beam are detected.43 For example, the reaction region can
`
`be a time-of-flight spectrometer that is sensitive to “fast neutral ground state
`
`particles.”44 Thus, Fahey teaches a source that is designed to form a flow of
`
`metastable atoms that are directed into a time-of flight spectrometer for
`
`measuring the relative fluxes and energies of the metastable atoms based upon
`
`their relative times of flight.45
`
`Fahey is not in the field of high-density plasma sources.46 Furthermore, it
`
`never teaches or suggests transporting a mixture of plasma and excited atoms
`
`to a region proximate to a cathode assembly for super-ionization.47 To the
`
`contrary, any ions generated by Fahey are an undesirable by-product that are
`
`
`42 Ex. 1205, Fahey at 382, left col, penultimate paragraph (emphasis added).
`
`43 Ex. 1205, Fahey at 382 et seq., section 3, “Beam Diagnostics.”
`
`44 Ex. 1205, Fahey at 382, rt. col.
`
`45 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration at ¶ 64.
`
`46 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration, ¶ 67.
`
`47 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration, ¶ 67.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`extracted by his system – the complete opposite of the purpose of the claimed
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`“high-density plasma source.”
`
`d. Overview of Iwamura
`
`Iwamura describes a plasma treatment device (shown below) for forming
`
`an “activated gas species” in region B for treating the surface of a wafer 10.48
`
`Iwamura says that “the activated gas species react with either the object
`
`to be treated or with a film formed on the surface thereof, and the reaction
`
`
`
`
`48 Ex. 1208, Iwamura at 1:6-8, 39-42; 8:10-31.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`products are removed by vaporization.”49 For example, Iwamura’s system is
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`designed to increase the density of “helium radicals and oxygen radicals” in
`
`the treatment chamber B to improve the rate at which oxygen reacts with the
`
`object 1a to treat its surface.50
`
`Radicals are atoms, molecules and ions that are highly reactive with
`
`other atoms and molecules because they have unpaired electrons.51 For
`
`example, one type of oxygen radical is an oxygen molecule with an extra
`
`electron, which makes the oxygen molecule more likely to react chemically
`
`with another material, such as the surface of Iwamura’s object to be treated.52
`
`Iwamura does not explicitly define what he means by an “activated gas
`
`species.” However, his usage of the expression in the patent suggests that it is
`
`intended to include inert gas radicals and treatment gas radicals that are
`
`“formed” by a plasma:53
`
`
`49 Ex. 1208, Iwamura at 1:39-41.
`
`50 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration at ¶ 68.
`
`51 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration, ¶ 70.
`
`52 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration, ¶ 70.
`
`53 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration, ¶ 71.
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`“forming activated gas species by the plasma ...”54
`
`The plasma forms activated species which are then applied to the
`object to be treated to carry out an ashing or etching process.”55
`
`
`
`Iwamura indicates that in one embodiment the “activated gas species”
`
`preferably includes only excited neutral atoms/molecules of the gas for
`
`reacting with the object:56
`
`“As a result, since only neutral activated gas species are directed
`
`toward the object to be treated, it is possible to prevent charging
`damage to the object to be treated caused by exposure to ions.”57
`
` “Thus, charged particles such as electrons and ions in the plasma can
`be captured by the grounded electrode, and only neutral activated
`gas species are directed toward the object to be treated.”58
`
`But, as indicated above, the “activated gas species” can include ions that can
`
`damage the object to be treated:
`
`
`54 Ex. 1208, Iwamura at 1:13-14.
`
`55 Ex. 1208, Iwamura at 1:33-35.
`
`56 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration at ¶ 72.
`
`57 Ex. 1208, Iwamura at 4:25-29.
`
`58 Ex. 1208, Iwamura at 4:48-53.
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`“The plasma damage suffered by the object to be treated depends
`on the magnitude of the energy imparted to electrons and ions of
`the activated gas species in the plasma …”59
`
`Thus, Iwamura proposes a two stage plasma system wherein a plasma
`
`and “activated gas species” are formed in a first stage A, then transferred to a
`
`second stage B that maintains the desired activated gas species, but under
`
`conditions that are less likely to damage the substrate than the conditions in
`
`upstream region A.60
`
`Iwamura’s system provides an “inert gas” to supply pipe 20a that passes
`
`by a window 22 through which UV radiation shines on the gas. “The energy of
`
`the ultraviolet radiation causes photoionization [sic] and excites the gas. At
`
`this stage, however, no plasma is observed in the inert gas.”61 Thus, Iwamura
`
`teaches the formation of excited atoms from a volume of feed gas between
`
`lights 24. Iwamura specifically notes that a plasma is not formed from the
`
`volume of gas between lights 24 - only excited atoms are formed. Therefore,
`
`the correct term is photoexcitation.62
`
`59 Ex. 1208, Iwamura at 3:14-18.
`
`60 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration at ¶ 74.
`
`61 Ex. 1208, Iwamura at 7:57-60 (emphasis added).
`
`62 Ex. 2002, Hartsough Declaration at ¶ 75.
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`The inert gas with a raised excitation level flows to a different volume
`
`labeled “A” where it is “activated.”63 More specifically, the inert gas flows
`
`between a pair of electrodes 26 a, b coupled to a high frequency voltage source
`
`28. This causes the excited inert gas in that volume to form a plasma.64 Thus,
`
`Iwamura’s system forms an initial plasma from an excited inert gas in the
`
`separate volume between electrodes 26.
`
`Referring again to Figure 1 of Iwamura, the gas from region A then flows
`
`through pores in electrode 30a and pores in insulator 32 to arrive in region
`
`“B,” which contains the object to be treated 1.
`
`Region B is formed by insulators 32a, b that are surrounded by a second
`
`pair of electrodes 30 a, b driven by a second voltage source 34. In region B the
`
`“activated” helium gas is “further activated.” As Iwamura explains, “in this
`
`way the plasma state is maintained in plasm