`
`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
`________________
`
`IPR2014-010891
`Patent 6,806,652 B2
`
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Claim 35
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01004 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST ............................................................................ iv
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`
`II. ZOND’S FLAWED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PRIOR ART FAIL ......... 1
`
`A. Fahey generates an initial plasma and excited atoms from a volume of
`feed gas in the same manner as disclosed by the ’652 Patent ...................... 1
`
`B. Mozgrin explicitly teaches that the ionization fraction of its high-
`density plasma exceeds the 75% required by the ’652 Patent ...................... 4
`
`C. Mozgrin discloses process parameters that “super-ionize” the initial
`plasma in the same manner as taught by the ’652 Patent ............................. 6
`
`D. Patent Owner’s criticism of Dr. Kortshagen’s calculation has no effect
`on Mozgrin’s disclosure of “super-ionizing” the initial plasma ................ 11
`
`E. Patent Owner is incorrect in concluding that Mozgrin does not control
`its sputtering chamber pressure .................................................................. 13
`
`F. Even if Mozgrin does not control its sputtering chamber pressure, Dr.
`Kortshagen’s analysis remains correct and demonstrates Mozgrin’s
`disclosure of “super-ionizing” its initial plasma. ....................................... 15
`
`III. CLAIM 35 IS UNPATENTABLE OVER THE CITED PRIOR ART ............. 17
`
`A. Fahey discloses means for generating an initial plasma and excited
`atoms from volume of feed gas as claimed by claim 35. ........................... 18
`
`B. Fahey with Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev discloses means for transporting
`the initial plasma and excited atoms proximate to a cathode assembly as
`claimed by claim 35. ................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`C. Mozgrin discloses means for super-ionizing an initial plasma to
`generate a high-density plasma as claimed by claim 35. ........................... 20
`
`D. Iwamura further suggests the combination of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`with Fahey in order to (1) create an initial plasma, then (2) super-ionize
`the initial plasma to create a high-density plasma, as claimed by claim
`35. ............................................................................................................... 22
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 25
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`June 26, 2015
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 (“’652 Patent”)
`
`Kortshagen Declaration (“Kortshagen Decl.”)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-
`Stationary Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental
`Research, Plasma Physics Reports, Vol. 21, No. 5, 1995
`(“Mozgrin”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”)
`
`D. W. Fahey, et al., High flux beam source of thermal rare-
`gas metastable atoms, J. Phys. E; Sci. Insrum., Vol. 13, 1980
`(“Fahey”)
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization relaxation in
`a plasma produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys.
`Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35, January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 (“Chistyakov”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,753,886 (“Iwamura”)
`
`Röepcke et al, Comparison of Optical Emission Spectrometric
`Measurements of the Concentration and Energy of Species in
`Low-pressure Microwave and Radiofrequency Plasma
`Sources, J. Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, September 1993,
`Vol. 8, pp. 803-808 (“Röepcke”)
`
`J. Hopwood and J. Asmussen, Neutral gas temperatures in a
`multipolar electron cyclotron resonance plasma, Appl. Phys.
`Let. 58 (22), 2473-2475 (1991) (“Hopwood”)
`
`G. A. Hebner, Spatially resolved, excited state densities and
`iv
`
`Exhibit
`1201
`
`1202
`
`1203
`
`1204
`
`1205
`
`1206
`
`1207
`
`1208
`
`1209
`
`1210
`
`1211
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`neutral and ion temperatures in inductively coupled argon
`plasmas, J. Appl. Physics, 80 (5), 2624- 2636 (1996)
`(“Hebner”)
`
`Clarenbach, Time-dependent gas density and temperature
`measurements in pulsed helicon discharges in argon, Plasma
`Sources Sci. Technol. 12 (2003) 345–357 (“Clarenbach”)
`
`Plaintiff Zond LLC’s Preliminary Proposed Claim
`Constructions, Civil Action No. 13-cv-11634-WGY
`
`List of Related Litigations
`
`Affidavit of Brett C. Rismiller in Support of Petitioner’s
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Supplemental Kortshagen Declaration (“Supp. Kortshagen
`Decl.”)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough Ph.D. for U.S.
`Patent No. 6,806,652 dated May 15, 2015 (“’652 Hartsough
`Depo. Tr.”)
`
`1212
`
`1213
`
`1214
`
`1215
`
`1216
`
`1217
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In its Decision on Institution (“DI”), the Board recognized that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that claim 35 of the ’652 Patent is unpatentable. DI at 33
`
`(Paper No. 13).
`
`Zond’s Patent Owner Response offers flawed interpretations of the prior art
`
`and in some cases mischaracterizes Petitioner’s argument, in a vain attempt to
`
`distinguish the cited prior art. The Petition, supported by Dr. Kortshagen’s
`
`declaration, clearly demonstrates why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`combined the teachings of the cited references. In fact, the cross-examination of
`
`Dr. Hartsough demonstrates many areas of agreement between Dr. Kortshagen and
`
`Dr. Hartsough and contrary to the arguments in Zond’s Patent Owner Response.
`
`Petitioner provides a supplemental declaration of Dr. Korthshagen to respond to
`
`Zond’s Patent Owner Response and the declaration by Dr. Hartsough.
`
`II. ZOND’S FLAWED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PRIOR ART FAIL
`A.
`Fahey generates an initial plasma and excited atoms from a
`volume of feed gas in the same manner as disclosed by the ’652 Patent
`
`As an initial matter, there is no dispute that Fahey’s high-flux beam source
`
`generates ions, electrons, and excited atoms from a volume of feed gas.
`
`Kortshagen Dec. at ¶¶ 68-70 (Ex. 1202); Patent Owner’s Response at 19 (“Thus
`
`the ions tend to be blocked by the skimmer, whereas the metastable atoms. . . pass
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`through the skimmer…”) (Paper No. 23). However, Patent Owner misreads the
`
`grounds advocated by Petitioner – and confirmed by the Board in its Institution
`
`Decision – and concludes that Fahey only creates a volume of excited/metastable
`
`atoms and does not generate an initial plasma because “any ions generated by
`
`Fahey are an undesirable by-product that are extracted by his system. . . ” Patent
`
`Owner Response at 20-21 (Paper No. 23); Hartsough Dec. at ¶ 65 (Ex. 2002). This
`
`is patently incorrect.
`
`First, Patent Owner admits that Fahey does indeed create an initial plasma
`
`comprising excited atoms and ions. Patent Owner acknowledges that Fahey’s
`
`parallel sweep plates disposed after the beam skimmer removes charged particles
`
`such as ions and electrons which are only present due to Fahey’s generation of an
`
`initial plasma. See Patent Owner Response at 19 (Paper No. 23) (“Thus, the ions
`
`and electrons tend to be blocked by the skimmer, whereas the metastable atoms . . .
`
`tend to remain on-axis and pass through the skimmer. . .”). The sole reason that
`
`Fahey employs parallel sweep plates is to remove charged particles in order to take
`
`diagnostic measurements of Fahey’s beam. See Fahey at p. 384, left col. ¶ 5 (“For
`
`all diagnostic measurements, the beam was kept free of charged species by
`
`maintaining an adequate voltage on a set of parallel sweep plates mounted after
`
`the skimmer.”) (Ex. 1205) (emphasis added); Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 59 (Ex.
`
`1216). To this end, Dr. Hartsough confirmed that charged particles (i.e., ions and
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`electrons) are directed to Fahey’s beam skimmer where a portion of the charged
`
`particles pass through the beam skimmer’s opening. ’652 Hartsough Dep. Tr. at
`
`89:24-90:20 (Ex. 1217). Thus, by confirming that Fahey removes ions and
`
`electrons downstream from its beam skimmer, Patent Owner does not dispute that
`
`Fahey generates an initial plasma.
`
`Second, Fahey’s set of parallel plates mounted after its skimmer are solely
`
`for beam diagnostic purposes. Fahey at 382, left col., ¶ 6 (Ex. 1205) (“For all
`
`diagnostic measurements, the beam was kept free of charged species by . . . a set of
`
`parallel sweep plates mounted after the skimmer.”); Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 59
`
`(Ex. 1216). Fahey uses the parallel plates to remove ions so that he may measure
`
`and characterize the performance of the generated beam to determine velocity
`
`profiles for the particles. Fahey at p. 382, left col. ¶ 5 (Ex. 1205); Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 57 (Ex. 1216). Petitioner maintains that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the beam source and skimmer
`
`elements upstream from the diagnostic components. Petition at 25-26 (Paper No.
`
`2); Kortshagen Decl. at ¶¶ 68-70 (Ex. 1202); Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 60 (Ex.
`
`1216). Petitioner did not propose to combine the diagnostic components that
`
`Fahey used to study the beam source. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 56 (Ex. 1216).
`
`This distinction is apparently lost on Patent Owner who wrongly points to
`
`Fahey’s removal of ions exiting the beam skimmer for diagnostic purposes as
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`proof that Fahey only generates excited/metastable atoms and considers ions an
`
`undesirable by-product. Patent Owner Response at 29 (Paper No. 23). This is
`
`simply untrue. Fahey uses its parallel sweep plates to remove ions for “beam
`
`diagnostics” so that Fahey can study and take various time-of-flight measurements
`
`of the generated excited/metastable atoms. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 59 (Ex.
`
`1216). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the diagnostic
`
`setup that Fahey used to analyze the generated beam has no bearing on combining
`
`Fahey’s beam source with Mozgrin. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 60 (Ex. 1216).
`
`Based on this, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Fahey would
`
`understand that Fahey generates both excited atoms and an initial plasma from a
`
`volume of feed gas. Patent Owner’s focus on the diagnostic parallel sweep plates
`
`used by Fahey to study its generated beam is irrelevant to the actual source to be
`
`used in the Mozgrin system.
`
`B. Mozgrin explicitly teaches that the ionization fraction of its high-
`density plasma exceeds the 75% required by the ’652 Patent
`
`Speaking dispositively, Mozgrin explicitly states that the ionization degree
`
`of its high-density plasma ranges from 70-100%. Given that the ’652 Patent
`
`requires that at least 75% of the neutral atoms in the plasma are ionized, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would certainly understand that Mozgrin’s high-density
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`plasma having an ionization degree approaching 100% ionization would qualify as
`
`“super-ionization.”
`
`Specifically, Mozgrin discloses that “for the discharge transit from regime 2
`
`to regime 3 … the ionization degree α = ne / (ng + ni) ranges from α ≈ 1 (p = 0.01
`
`torr) to α ≈ 0.7 (p = 1 torr).” See Mozgrin at p. 407, left col. ¶ 2; right col. ¶ 3 (Ex.
`
`1203) (emphasis added). As explained by Dr. Kortshagen, the density of electrons
`
`(ne) is equal to the density of ions (ni) as both ions and electrons are byproducts of
`
`ionizing a feed gas atom. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 33 (Ex. 1216). Similarly,
`
`because one gas atom is required to generate one ion, as the density of ions (ni)
`
`increases, the corresponding density of gas atoms (ng) decreases. Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 33 (Ex. 1216). Looking at Mozgrin’s disclosed equation for
`
`its ionization degree, α, an increase in the density of gas atoms (ng) will result in a
`
`decrease by the same amount in the density of ions (ni), and vice versa, such that
`
`the denominator (ng + ni) will remain constant regardless of the plasma density. Id.
`
`This is true even as the density of ions (ni) increases due to more ground state
`
`atoms becoming ionized. Id.
`
` Looking at the situation in which α approaches 1, the density of neutral gas
`
`atoms (ng) approaches zero and 100% of the neutral gas atoms are ionized. Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. at ¶¶ 32-34 (Ex. 1216). Accordingly, Mozgrin’s determination
`
`that α approaches 1 when the system pressure is 0.01 torr represents a situation
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`where the initial plasma is super-ionized to generate a high-density plasma as
`
`required by the ’652 Patent. Id. Dr. Hartsough likewise testified that he
`
`understands that a situation where α = 1 represents 100% ionization. See ’652
`
`Hartsough Dep. Tr. at 124:12-23 (Ex. 1217). Thus, Mozgrin explicitly teaches a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art that its high-density plasma has an ionization
`
`degree above and beyond what is required to be considered “super-ionized” by the
`
`’652 Patent.
`
`C. Mozgrin discloses process parameters that “super-ionize” the
`initial plasma in the same manner as taught by the ’652 Patent
`
`The ’652 Patent discloses that it super-ionizes the initial plasma in two steps.
`
`First, the initial plasma is generated from initial feed gas by applying power from a
`
`first power supply sufficient to at least partially ionize the gas. ’652 Patent at
`
`17:66-18:5 (Ex. 1201); Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 21 (Ex. 1216). Second, a
`
`second power supply applies a high-power pulse to the initial plasma whose
`
`electric field imparts additional energy which super-ionizes the initial plasma to
`
`generate a high-density plasma. ’652 Patent at 18:10-15 (Ex. 1201); Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 22 (Ex. 1216). Figure 4 of the ’652 Patent provides a
`
`graphical representation of these two steps. ’652 Patent at 17:53-56 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Dr. Kortshagen provides an annotated version of Figure 4 of the ’652 Patent which
`
`shows the relative power and timing of both steps:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`
`
`Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 20 (Ex. 1216).
`
`Figure 4 demonstrates that the ’652 Patent generates an initial plasma at t1
`
`by applying power in the range of 0.01kW to 100kW to the feed gas. ’652 Patent
`
`at 17:66-18:5 (Ex. 1201); Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 21 (Ex. 1216). According to
`
`the ’652 Patent, this initial plasma can be a “weakly-ionized plasma” and may have
`
`a plasma density of about 107 cm-3 to 1012 cm-3. Id. After creating the weakly-
`
`ionized initial plasma, a second power supply delivers a high-power pulse 404 to
`
`the initial plasma wherein the pulse has a power in the range of 1kW to 10MW.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`’652 Patent at 18:10-15 (Ex. 1201); Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 22 (Ex. 1216).
`
`This high-power pulse “super-ionizes the initial plasma to generate a high-density
`
`plasma.” Id. The high-density plasma formed by super-ionizing the initial plasma
`
`may have a plasma density in excess of 1012 cm-3. ’652 Patent at 10:57-63 (Ex.
`
`1201); Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 22 (Ex. 1216). The only information provided
`
`by the ’652 Patent about the power used to super-ionize the initial plasma as
`
`demonstrated in Figure 4 relates to the rise-time and duration of the high-power
`
`pulse. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 23 (Ex. 1216). More specifically, the ’652
`
`Patent states that the high-power pulse 404 represented in Figure 4 has a rise-time
`
`from t2 to t3 of approximately 0.1μs to 10s. ’652 Patent at 18:15-24 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Also, the ’652 Patent teaches that the pulse width of the high-power pulse 404 is in
`
`the range of 1μs to 10s. Id.
`
`In the exact same manner as the ’652 Patent, Mozgrin discloses generating a
`
`high-density plasma from an initial plasma in two stages. First, Mozgrin generates
`
`an initial plasma by applying power from a pre-ionization system comprising a
`
`stationary discharge supply unit. Mozgrin at p. 401, left col. ¶¶ 4-5 (Ex. 1203);
`
`Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 75 (Ex. 1202). Second, Mozgrin utilizes a pulsed discharge
`
`supply unit to apply a high-power pulse to the initial plasma in order to generate a
`
`high-density plasma. Mozgrin at p. 402, right col. ¶ 2 (Ex. 1203); Kortshagen
`
`Decl. at ¶ 76 (Ex. 1202).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`Not only does Mozgrin disclose the same two-stage process, it also discloses
`
`power ranges and pulse characteristics that fall exactly within the ranges disclosed
`
`by the ’652 Patent when describing super-ionization. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶¶
`
`24-28 (Ex. 1216). Mozgrin’s stationary discharge unit creates its initial plasma by
`
`applying power in the range of 52W-56W. See Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 26
`
`(Ex. 1216); see also Mozgrin at p. 402, right col. ¶ 3 (Ex. 1203). Mozgrin’s initial
`
`plasma has a density ranging from 107 - 109 cm-3. Mozgrin at p. 401, left col. ¶ 4
`
`(Ex. 1203); Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 26 (Ex. 1216). After generating the initial
`
`plasma, Mozgrin’s high-voltage supply unit applies a high-power pulse having
`
`power in the range of 1.35kW and 126kW to increase the plasma density. See
`
`Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 27 (Ex. 1216); see also Mozgrin at p. 403, left col. ¶ 1;
`
`p. 404, right col. ¶ 2 (Ex. 1203). Mozgrin notes that its maximum Ar plasma
`
`density was measured to be 1.5 x 1015 cm-3 corresponding to a high-power pulse of
`
`100kW. Mozgrin at p. 404, right col. ¶ 2 (Ex. 1203); Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶
`
`27 (Ex. 1216).
`
`Finally, Mozgrin’s high-current diffuse discharge generated from the initial
`
`plasma has a rise time of 5 - 60µs and pulse durations of up to 1.5ms. See Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 28 (Ex. 1216); see also Mozgrin at p. 401, right col. ¶ 1 (Ex.
`
`1203). In the case where the pre-ionization plasma comprises argon having a
`
`plasma density of 109 - 1011 cm-3, Mozgrin specifically discloses the pulse duration
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`is about 50µs. Id. All of Mozgrin’s disclosed plasma densities and power pulse
`
`characteristics overlap with those disclosed by the ’652 Patent when describing
`
`super-ionization:
`
`’652 Patent
`Applied Power: 10W to 100kW.
`’652 Patent at 17:67-18:1.
`
`Resulting Plasma Density: 107
`to 1012 cm-3. ’652 Patent at
`8:60-62.
`High-Power Pulse: 1kW to
`1MW. ’652 Patent at 18:10-12.
`
`Pulse Rise Time: 0.1µs to 10s.
`’652 Patent at 18:16-18.
`
`Pulse Duration: 0.1µs to 10s.
`’652 Patent at 18:22-24.
`
`Resulting Plasma Density:
`Greater than 1012 cm-3. ’652
`Patent at 10:57-63.
`
`Mozgrin
`Applied Power: 52W to 56W.
`Mozgrin at p. 402, right col. ¶ 3.
`
`Resulting Plasma Density: 109 –
`1011 cm-3. Mozgrin at p. 402,
`right col. ¶ 2.
`High-Power Pulse: 100kW.
`Mozgrin at p. 404, right col. ¶ 2.
`
`Pulse Rise Time: 5µs to 60µs.
`Mozgrin at p. 401, right col. ¶ 1.
`
`Pulse Duration: 50µs. Mozgrin
`at Fig. 3; p. 401, right col. ¶ 1.
`
`Resulting Plasma Density: 1.5 x
`1015 cm-3. Mozgrin at p. 404,
`right col. ¶ 2.
`
`
`Generating
`the initial
`plasma
`
`Generating
`the high-
`density
`plasma
`
`
`Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 29 (Ex. 1216).
`
`
`
`Thus, to the extent that the two-stage application of power disclosed by the
`
`’652 Patent “super-ionizes” the initial plasma to create a high-density plasma,
`
`Mozgrin discloses the exact same process.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`D.
`Patent Owner’s criticism of Dr. Kortshagen’s calculation has no
`effect on Mozgrin’s disclosure of “super-ionizing” the initial plasma
`
`As a threshold matter, neither Patent Owner nor its declarant, Dr. Hartsough,
`
`dispute that Mozgrin discloses super-ionizing its initial plasma in order to generate
`
`a high-density plasma. In his initial supporting declaration, Dr. Kortshagen
`
`analyzed Mozgrin’s disclosed process parameters in view of the ideal gas law and
`
`showed how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Mozgrin
`
`does indeed “super-ionize” its plasma when creating its higher-density plasma.
`
`Kortshagen Dec. at ¶¶ 84-94 (Ex. 1202). Notably absent from both the Patent
`
`Owner Response and the supporting expert declaration is the conclusion that
`
`Mozgrin does not disclose super-ionization. Instead, both the Patent Owner and
`
`Dr. Hartsough merely criticize Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration for failing to consider
`
`the number of ions in the initial plasma when concluding that Mozgrin’s high-
`
`density plasma has a degree of ionization in excess of 75%. Patent Owner
`
`Response at 33 (Paper No. 23).
`
`Dr. Kortshagen, in his initial declaration, contemplated the ions present in
`
`the initial plasma and concluded that the relatively few number of ions present in
`
`the initial plasma did not affect his conclusion that Mozgrin super-ionized its initial
`
`plasma. This is evidenced by his conclusion that “if Mozgrin’s neutral gas density
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`were about 2.0 x 1015 atoms cm-3, then at least 75% of the neutral argon gas would
`
`have been ionized. . .” Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 88 (Ex. 1202).
`
`What Patent Owner fails to acknowledge is that the number of ions present
`
`in the initial plasma is so much less than the number of ions present in the high-
`
`density plasma. Mozgrin discloses that for its high-current diffuse regime 3, the
`
`necessary pre-ionized plasma density is 107 - 109 cm-3 while the maximum density
`
`for the high-density plasma was measured to be 1.5 x 1015 cm-3. Supp. Kortshagen
`
`Decl. at ¶ 37 (Ex. 1216); see also Mozgrin at p. 401, left col. ¶ 3; p. 404, right col.
`
`¶ 2 (Ex. 1203). Thus, when Mozgrin’s high-power pulse increases the plasma
`
`density, the density increase spans some six to eight orders of magnitude as it
`
`increases from 107 - 109 cm-3 (initial plasma) to 1.5 x 1015 cm-3 (high-density
`
`plasma).
`
`In order to examine the maximum number of ions contributed by Mozgrin’s
`
`initial plasma, Dr. Kortshagen assumed Mozgrin’s densest disclosed initial plasma
`
`having a density of 109 cm-3. Looking at this scenario, an additional 1.499999 x
`
`1015 cm-3 of neutral gas atoms in the initial plasma must be ionized in order to
`
`generate the final high-density plasma in Mozgrin’s regime 3 having a measured
`
`plasma density of 1.5 x 1015 cm-3. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 38 (Ex. 1216).
`
`This is because the 1.499999 x 1015 cm-3 of ions generated during the high-power
`
`pulse, when added to the 109 cm-3 of ions already present in the initial plasma,
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`results in a high-density plasma having a density of 1.5 x 1015 cm-3 as disclosed by
`
`Mozgrin. Given that Mozgrin’s initial plasma would contribute 0.000067% of the
`
`ions in the high-density plasma, the contribution is so small as to be immaterial to
`
`Dr. Kortshagen’s initial conclusion that Mozgrin converts at least 75% of the
`
`neutral gas atoms in the pre-ionization plasma to generate the final high-density
`
`plasma. See Kortshagen Dec. at ¶ 94 (Ex. 1202); Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 39
`
`(Ex. 1216). As a result, Patent Owner’s criticism of Dr. Kortshagen’s analysis in
`
`his initial declaration is unfounded and ultimately immaterial to the fact that
`
`Mozgrin discloses “super-ionization” as claimed in the ’652 Patent.
`
`E.
`Patent Owner is incorrect in concluding that Mozgrin does not
`control its sputtering chamber pressure
`
`In a thinly-veiled attempt to further discredit Dr. Kortshagen’s analysis,
`
`Patent Owner unilaterally concludes that Mozgrin does not control the pressure in
`
`his chamber such that when the gas temperature increases upon application of the
`
`high-power pulse, the chamber pressure will likewise increase. Patent Owner
`
`Response at 32 (Paper No. 23); Hartsough Decl. at ¶ 13 (Ex. 2002). Based on this
`
`unsupported conclusion, Patent Owner suggests that Dr. Kortshagen’s calculation
`
`of the gas temperature via the ideal gas law does not account for this effect and is
`
`accordingly unreliable. This is nothing more than an attorney-argument as Dr.
`
`Hartsough did not address Mozgrin’s pressure control in his declaration aside from
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`a passing conclusion. Hartsough Decl. at ¶ 13 (Ex. 2002). Nevertheless, Dr.
`
`Hartsough testified in his deposition that he believes that Mozgrin does not control
`
`its pressure based on his reading of how the experiment is described in the
`
`Mozgrin Thesis, but not based on the Mozgrin reference itself. ’652 Hartsough
`
`Dep. Tr. at 99:23-100:7 (Ex. 1217).
`
`Unsurprisingly, Patent Owner’s bare conclusion that Mozgrin discloses a
`
`closed system with uncontrolled pressure is contrary to what a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art reading Mozgrin would conclude. Mozgrin notes that the residual
`
`gas pressure of his system is 8 x 10-6 torr, which – as Dr. Kortshagen explains – a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand represents the system’s leak
`
`rate. Mozgrin at p. 401, left col. ¶ 3 (Ex. 1203); Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 44
`
`(Ex. 1216). Armed with the knowledge of Mozgrin’s leak rate, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would conclude that Mozgrin does not use a closed system
`
`because if he did then the pressure would fluctuate as soon as the feed gas is turned
`
`off and impurities would begin to leak into the system. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at
`
`¶ 45 (Ex. 1216). The pressure fluctuations and growing presence of impurities
`
`would have a profound effect on Mozgrin’s measurements and would render his
`
`experiment highly irreproducible. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 45 (Ex. 1216).
`
`Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`Mozgrin controls the pressure of its chamber by utilizing a continuous feed gas in
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`combination with a vacuum pump. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at 23, fn. 2 (Ex. 1216).
`
`Moreover, to the extent that Mozgrin’s experimental setup is described by the
`
`Mozgrin Thesis, Figure 2.3 of the Mozgrin Thesis illustrates a schematic of an
`
`experimental setup utilizing a continuous gas feed in combination with a pump and
`
`a series of valves. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at 23, fn. 2 (Ex. 1216). Mozgrin’s leak
`
`rate, along with the schematic in the Mozgrin Thesis, does not in any way suggest
`
`that Mozgrin uses a closed system. Id. Instead, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand that Mozgrin uses a continuous gas flow in order to control
`
`the level of impurities and obtain accurate, reproducible measurements. Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 46 (Ex. 1216). Thus, Dr. Kortshagen’s analysis in his initial
`
`declaration remains accurate and correct.
`
`F.
`Even if Mozgrin does not control its sputtering chamber pressure,
`Dr. Kortshagen’s analysis remains correct and demonstrates Mozgrin’s
`disclosure of “super-ionizing” its initial plasma.
`
`Notwithstanding the litany of evidence that would suggest to a person of
`
`ordinary sill in the art that Mozgrin utilizes a continuous gas feed which regulates
`
`chamber pressure, Dr. Kortshagen’s initial conclusion that Mozgrin super-ionizes
`
`its initial plasma remains correct even if Mozgrin utilized a closed system as
`
`suggested by Patent Owner. See IPR2014-00861, Patent Owner’s Response at pp.
`
`2-3 (Paper No. 33) (“Mozgrin does not control pressure of his fill gas, so as
`
`temperature rises, pressure will rise.”).
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`As a threshold matter, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that the increase in gas temperature occurs only in the volume of the high-density
`
`plasma which comprises a small fraction of the overall chamber volume. Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 48 (Ex. 1216). Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand that the remaining volume of gas in the chamber will act as a
`
`pressure buffer such that the chamber pressure will remain relatively constant
`
`notwithstanding any localized pressure changes in the region of high-density
`
`plasma. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 49 (Ex. 1216). Finally, the chamber wall
`
`serves as a large heat sink which will keep the chamber wall temperature
`
`essentially constant notwithstanding any changes in gas temperature, and likewise,
`
`gas pressure. Id. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that any pressure increase due to generation of high-density plasma will be
`
`minimal.
`
`In order to demonstrate the relatively little impact of any pressure change,
`
`Dr. Kortshagen calculated the requisite gas temperature required to super-ionize
`
`Mozgrin’s initial plasma under the unlikely dramatic circumstances in which
`
`Mozgrin’s pressure is doubled from 0.2 torr to 0.4 torr when creating the high-
`
`density plasma. Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 50 (Ex. 1216). As gas temperature
`
`and pressure are directly related, a twofold increase in pressure will require twice
`
`as high a gas temperature to super-ionize Mozgrin’s initial plasma (in this case, the
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`requisite gas temperature is 1932 K). Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 51 (Ex. 1216).
`
`As Dr. Kortshagen stated in his initial declaration, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand that Mozgrin’s disclosed application of 100kW of power to
`
`generate its high-density plasma will result in a gas temperature of 2000 K which
`
`is in excess of the 1932 K temperature required to super-ionize Mozgrin’s initial
`
`plasma in the presence of a twofold pressure increase. Kortshagen Dec. at ¶ 81
`
`(Ex. 1202); Supp. Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 52 (Ex. 1216).
`
`Thus, not only would a person of ordinary skill in the art understand that any
`
`change in Mozgrin’s pressure during creation of the high-density plasma will be
`
`minimal, but they would further understand that even if Mozgrin’s system
`
`experienced a dramatic pressure change, its application of 100kW to generate its
`
`high-density plasma will result in a gas temperature in excess of 2000 K. Supp.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. at ¶ 53 (Ex. 1216). This gas temperature corresponds to a
`
`neutral atom density of less than 2.0 x 1015 atoms cm-3 by virtue of the ideal gas
`
`law, indicating that Mozgrin super-ionizes the initial pre-ionization plasma as
`
`explained in the original Petition.
`
`III. CLAIM 35 IS UNPATENTABLE OVER THE CITED PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2014-01089
` Patent No. 6,806,652
`
`A.
`Fahey discloses means for generating an initial plasma and
`excited atoms from volume of feed gas as claimed by claim 35.
`
`It is undisputed that Fahey’s disclosed high-flux beam source generates an
`
`initi
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
