`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Docket No. 1642930—0004 IPR1
`
`Filed on behalf of GLOBALFOUNDRIES US, Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES
`Dresden Module One LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`Two LLC & CO. KG
`
`By: David M. Tennant, Reg. No. 48,362
`White & Case LLP
`
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 626-3684
`Email: dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`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
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`US. PATENT NO. 6,853,142
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 40 and 41
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................ — 1 —
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest ................................................................................ - 1 -
`
`B. Related Matters ......................................................................................... - 1 -
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Counsel ..................................................................................................... - l —
`
`Service Information .................................................................................. - 1 —
`
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing .......................................................... - 2 —
`
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................. - 2 —
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................... - 2 -
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge ............................................................................. - 3 —
`
`IV. Brief Description of Technology ................................................................. — 3 —
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plasma ....................................................................................................... - 3 -
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms ............................................................................ - 5 -
`
`V. Overview of the ‘ 142 Patent ......................................................................... - 6 -
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’ 142 Patent .................................. - 6 -
`
`Prosecution History .................................................................................. — 6 -
`
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ........................................... — 7 -
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art ......................................................................... - 7 —
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin ............................................................................... - 7 —
`
`C. Overview of Kudryavtsev ......................................................................... - 9 -
`
`D. Overview of Wang.................................................................................. - 10 —
`
`E. Overview of Lantsman ........................................................................... - 11 —
`
`VII.
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................. — 12 -
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“weakly—ionized plasma” and “strongly—ionized plasma” ..................... - l3 -
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas...” (claims 40 and 41) .......................... - l4 -
`
`“means for supplying power...” (claim 40) and “means for applying an
`C.
`electric field...” (claim 41) ............................................................................. — 15 -
`
`D.
`
`“means for diffusing...” (claim 40) ........................................................ — 16 -
`
`VIII.
`
`Specific Grounds for Petition ................................................................. - 16 -
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A. Ground 1: Claim 41 is obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin and
`Kudryavtsev .................................................................................................... - 17 -
`
`B. Ground 11: Claim 41 is obvious in view of the combination of Wang and
`Kudryavtsev .................................................................................................... — 33 —
`
`C. Ground 111: Claim 40 is obvious in view of the combination of Mozgrin
`- and Lantsman ................................................................................. 7 ................ — 43 —
`
`D. Ground IV: Claim 40 is obvious in view of the combination of Wang and
`Lantsman ......................................................................................................... - 53 —
`
`IX. Conclusion ................................................................................................. - 60 -
`
`ii
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re ICONHealth & Fitness, Inc, 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)—(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`iii
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES US, Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`
`One LLC & Co. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module Two LLC & Co.
`
`KG (collectively, “Petitioner”) are the real parties-in—interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Zond has asserted US. Patent No. 6,853,142 (“’ 142 Patent”) (Ex. 1401)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts. See List of Related
`
`Litigations (Ex. 1420). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes
`
`review in several patents that name the same alleged inventor. The below-listed
`
`claims of the ’142 Patent are presently the subject of two substantially identical
`
`petitions for inter partes review with Case Nos. IPR2014—00498 and IPR2014-
`
`01016. Petitioner plans to seek joinder with IPR2014-00498.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: David M. Tennant (Reg. No. 48,362)
`
`Backup Counsel: Dohm Chankong (Reg. No. 70,524)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served on the following. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`David M. Tennant (Reg. No. 48,362)
`
`E-mail:
`
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Post and hand delivery: White & Case LLP
`
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Telephone: (202) 626-3684
`
`Fax: (202) 639-9355
`
`11.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)—(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 40 and 41 of the ’ 142 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:
`
`1.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, er al, Hi h-Current Low—Pressure uasi-Stationa
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1403)), which is prior art under
`
`1 02(b).
`
`2.
`
`US. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1405)), which is prior art under
`
`102(a) and (e).
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`3.
`
`US. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1406)), which is prior art under
`
`102(b).
`
`4.
`
`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” (Ex. 1404)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 40 and 41 of the ’ 142 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. This Petition, supported by the declaration of
`
`Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1402)) filed herewith,1
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged claim is not
`
`patentable.2 See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Plasma
`
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen Dec]. 1] 22 (Ex. 1402). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`1 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by Petitioner. The declaration at EX. 1402 is a
`
`copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014—00498, discussed above.
`
`2 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 40 and 41 of the
`
`‘ 142 Patent.
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma
`
`as a whole has no overall electrical charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the
`
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Id. (Ex. 1402).3
`
`Plasma had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘142 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 23 (Ex. 1402). For example,
`
`sputtering is an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a
`
`target material onto a surface called a substrate (e. g., silicon wafer during a
`
`semiconductor manufacturing operation). Id. (Ex. 1402). Ions in the plasma strike
`
`a target surface causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id. (Ex.
`
`1402). The ejected target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id. (Ex.
`
`1402).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering. Id. at
`
`11 24 (EX. 1402). Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive release of
`
`droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1402). The need
`
`to avoid arcing while sputtering was known long before the ‘142 Patent was filed.
`
`Id. (Ex. 1402).
`
`3 The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters. Kortshagen Decl. 11 22, FNl (Ex. 1402).
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Kortshagen Decl. 11 25
`
`(Ex. 1402). Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. (Ex. 1402). If all of
`
`an atom’s electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be
`
`in the “ground state.” Id. (Ex. 1402).
`
`On the other hand, if one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state that is
`
`higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to be an “excited atom.”
`
`Id. at 1] 26 (Ex. 1402). Excited atoms are electrically neutral— they have equal
`
`numbers of electrons and protons. Id. (Ex. 1402). A collision with a free electron
`
`(e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited atom. Id. (Ex. 1402). For
`
`example, the ‘ 142 Patent uses the following equation to describe production of an
`
`excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘142 Patent at
`
`10:12 (Ex. 1401).
`
`Ar+e' 9Ar* +e'
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. 'll 27 (Ex. 1402). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Id. (Ex.
`
`1402). For example, the ‘ 142 Patent uses the following equations to describe
`
`production of an argon ion, Arl, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or an excited
`
`argon atom, Ar*. See ‘ 142 Patent at 3:1 and 9:14 (Ex. 1401).
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ar + e' 9 Ar+ + 2e"
`
`Ar* + e' -) Ar+ + 2e"
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ‘142 patent was filed. Kortshagen Dec]. 1] 28 (Ex. 1402).
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘142 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’142 Patent
`
`The ‘142 Patent describes generating a plasma by applying an electrical
`
`pulse in a manner that allegedly reduces the probability of arcing.
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ‘ 142 Patent are generally directed to
`
`generating a so—called, “weakly—ionized plasma” and then applying an electrical
`
`pulse to increase the density of that plasma so as to form a “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” The weakly-ionized plasma is claimed to reduce the probability of
`
`forming an electrical breakdown condition.
`
`Specific claims are directed to further operational details such as supplying a
`
`feed gas to the plasma, characteristics of the electrical pulse, generating a magnetic
`
`field and the type of power supply used.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The first substantive office action rejected all independent claims as
`
`anticipated. See 10/07/03 Office Action at 3 (Ex. 1407). The applicant then
`
`amended every independent claim to require “the weakly-ionized plasma reducing
`
`the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber”
`
`—6-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`or similar limitations. See 03/08/04 Resp. (Ex. 1408).
`
`Following that amendment, the claims were allowed. The Notice of
`
`Allowance explicitly recites these limitations as the examiner’s reasons for
`
`allowance. 03/29/04 Allowance at 2 (“The prior art neither discloses nor suggests
`
`the weakly—ionized plasma reducing the probability of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber such as required by claims 1, 22, 43, 44. . . 10
`
`and 33.”) (Ex. 1409). However, as explained in detail below, and contrary to the
`
`Examiner’s reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches those and
`
`all other limitations of the challenged claims. Kortshagen Dec]. 11 33 (Ex. 1402).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art
`
`As explained in detail below, limitation—by-limitation, there is nothing new
`
`or non—obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘ 142 Patent. Id. at 11 34 (Ex. 1402).
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Mozgrin4
`
`Mozgrin teaches forming a plasma “without forming an arc discharge.” Fig.
`
`7 of Mozgrin, copied here, shows the current—voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of a
`
`plasma discharge. As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`4 Mozgrin is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`.
`.
`.
`cc
`.
`_
`Mozgrln calls reg1on 1 pre—10n1zat1on.
`
`,,
`
`U,V
`5W moo
`
`Mozgrin at 402, right col, 1 2 (“Part 1 in the
`
`voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the
`
`stationary discharge (pm-ionization stage)”
`
`1000 -1800 LA
`15 -225
`0
`Fig. 7. Generalized ampere-voltaic characteristic CVC of
`quasi-stationary discharge.
`
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1403). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 11 38 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, 1 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)...” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1403). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11 39 (EX.
`
`1402). Application of a high voltage to the pre—ionized plasma causes the
`
`transition from region 1 to 2. Id. (EX. 1402). Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is
`
`useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, 1 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized
`
`by an intense cathode sputtering. . .”) (Ex. 1403).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse discharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, 1 5, (“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3). . .” (emphasis added))
`
`(Ex. 1403). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11 40 (Ex. 1402). Increasing the current
`
`applied to the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to
`
`transition to region 3. Id. (Ex. 1402). Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is useful
`
`for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col, 1 5
`
`(“The high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful
`
`Hence, it can enhance
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the efficiency of ionic etching. . .”) (Ex. 1403). See also Kortshagen Decl. 1] 40
`
`(Ex. 1402).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, 1} 3
`
`(“. . .part 4 corresponds to the high-current low—voltage arc discharge...”
`
`(emphasis added)) (EX. 1403). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11 41 (Ex. 1402). Further
`
`increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the
`
`“arc discharge” region 4. Id. (Ex. 1402).
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Id. at 1] 42 (EX. 1402).
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev
`
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. fl 1 (EX. 1404). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 1] 43 (Ex. 1402). In particular, Kudryavtsev describes how
`
`ionization of a plasma can occur via different processes. The first process is direct
`
`ionization, in which ground state atoms are converted directly to ions. See, e.g.,
`
`Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1404). See also Kortshagen Decl. 1] 43 (EX.
`
`1402). The second process is multi—step ionization, which Kudryavtsev calls
`
`stepwise ionization. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1404). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 1] 43 (Ex. 1402). Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions
`
`multi—step ionization can be the dominant ionization process. See, e. g.,
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Kudryavtsev at Fig. 6 caption (Ex. 1404). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11 43 (Ex.
`
`1402). Mozgrin took into account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing
`
`his experiments. Mozgrin at 401, 11 spanning left and right cols. (“Designing the
`
`unit, we took into account the dependences which had been obtained in
`
`[Kudryavtsev]...”) (Ex. 1403). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11 43 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Kudryavtsev was not of record during the prosecution of the ‘142 Patent.
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Wang5
`
`Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode (24),
`
`Possible
`
`a cathode (14), a magnet
`assembly (40), a DC power
`
`am:
`ilgnltio i
`
`No arcing
`
`(80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7,
`
`supply (100) (shown in Fig. 7),
`
`and a pulsed DC power supply
`
`3:57—4:55; 7:56-8:12 (Ex. 1405). FIG. 6 m
`
`Fig. 6 (annotated and reproduced here) shows a graph of the power Wang applies
`
`to the plasma. The lower power level, PB, is generated by the DC power supply
`
`100 (shown in Fig. 7) and the higher power level, Pp, is generated by the pulsed
`power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (EX. 1405); see also Kortshagen Decl. 11 45
`
`(Ex. 1402). Wang’s lower power level, PB, maintains the plasma after ignition and
`
`5 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`application of the higher power level, Pp, raises the density of the plasma. Wang at
`
`7:17—31 (“The background power level, PB, is chosen to exceed the minimum
`
`power necessary to support a plasma...
`
`[T]he application of the high peak power,
`
`Pp, quickly causes the‘already existing plasma to spread and increases the density
`
`of the plasma”) (EX. 1405). See also Kortshagen Decl. ‘H 45 (EX. 1402). Wang
`
`applies the teachings of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in a commercial, industrial
`
`plasma sputtering device. Id. (Ex. 1402).
`
`E.
`
`Overview of Lantsman
`
`Like Mozgrin and Wang, Lantsman relates to plasma sputtering systems.
`
`Lantsman at Title (EX. 1404); 126-8 (“This invention relates to reduction of device
`
`damage in plasma processes, including DC (magnetron or non-magnetron)
`
`sputtering, and RF sputtering”) (Ex. 1404). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11 46 (Ex.
`
`1402). Also like Mozgrin and Wang, Lantsman is concerned with generating a
`
`plasma while avoiding arcing. Lantsman at 1:51-59 (“Thus, it is advantageous to
`
`avoid voltage spikes during processing whenever possible”) (Ex. 1404). See also
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 11 46 (EX. 1402).
`
`Lantsman teaches supplying the feed gas during the entirety of the plasma
`
`processing. Lantsman at 319-13 (“[A]t the beginning of processing, this switch is
`
`closed and gas is introduced into the chamber. When the plasma process is
`
`completed, the gas flow is stopped. . ..”) (Ex. 1404); 4:36-38 (“To end processing,
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`primary supply 10 is disabled, reducing the plasma current and deposition on the
`
`wafer. Then, gas flow is terminated. . ..”) (EX. 1404). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11
`
`47 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Lantsman was not of record during the prosecution of the ‘142 Patent.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.6 In re
`
`ICONHeaZth & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
`
`following discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those
`
`terms. Any claim terms not included in the following discussion are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent
`
`Owner, in order to avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction
`
`different from its broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate course is for
`
`the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its
`
`contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`6 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`37 CPR. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to pursue different
`
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard is applicable.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. 11 51
`
`(EX. 1402). With reference to Fig. 3, the ‘ 142 Patent describes forming a weakly—
`
`ionized plasma between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 302 and
`
`then goes on to describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of
`
`higher power 304.
`
`‘142 Patent at 11:32—38; 1219-16 (Ex. 1401). The ‘142 Patent
`
`also provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized
`
`plasmas. See ‘ 142 Patent at claim 17 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm'3”); claim 18 (“wherein the peak
`
`plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about 1012 cm”) (EX.
`
`1401).
`
`
`Thus, the proposed construction for “weakly-ionized plasma” is “a lower
`
`density plasma.” Likewise, the proposed construction for “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma” is “a higher density plasma.”
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the position the Patent
`
`Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner, when
`
`faced with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent
`
`application, argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`just in view of the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly-ionised plasma’ in the
`
`claims indicates a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-
`
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (Ex. 1415).
`
`B.
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas...” (claims 40 and 41)
`
`Claim 40 recites “means for ionizing a feed gas to form a weakly—ionized
`
`plasma that reduces the probability of developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber.” The claimed function is: “ionizing a feed gas to form a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma that reduces the probability of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber.”
`
`Claim 41 recites “means for ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma proximate to a cathode, the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the probability
`
`of developing an electrical breakdown condition proximate to the cathode.” The
`
`claimed function is “ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`proximate to a cathode, the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the probability of
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition proximate to the cathode.”
`
`The ‘ 142 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure for
`
`the “means for ionizing...” limitations of both claims 40 and 41: a power supply,
`
`generating the voltage, current and power values shown in Fig. 4 (e. g., between t1 —
`
`t2 and t6 — t7), electrically coupled to cathode (e.g., 204), anode (e.g., 216) and/or an
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`electrode (e.g., 452, 452’), wherein the cathode, anode and/or electrode are
`
`arranged relative to a sputtering target as shown in Figs. 2A—2D and 6A—6D, and as
`
`described in the text ofthe ‘142 Patent at 5:5-36, 16:24—40, 17:40-18:12, 18: 13—34,
`
`and 18:35-46 (Ex. 1401).
`
`C.
`
`“means for supplying power...” (claim 40) and “means for
`applying an electric field...” (claim 41)
`
`Claim 40 recites “means for supplying power to the weakly-ionized plasma
`
`by applying an electrical pulse across the weakly—ionized plasma, the electrical
`
`pulse having a magnitude and a rise—time that is sufficient to increase the density of
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly—ionized plasma.” The claimed
`
`function is “supplying power to the weakly—ionized plasma by applying an
`
`electrical pulse across the weakly-ionized plasma, the electrical pulse having a
`
`magnitude and a rise-time that is sufficient to increase the density of the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`Claim 41 recites “means for applying an electric field across the weakly—
`
`ionized plasma in order to excite atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma and to
`
`generate secondary electrons from the cathode, the secondary electrons ionizing
`
`the excited atoms, thereby creating the strongly—ionized plasma.” The claimed
`
`function is “applying an electric field across the weakly-ionized plasma in order to
`
`excite atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma and to generate secondary electrons
`
`from the cathode, the secondary electrons ionizing the excited atoms, thereby
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`creating the strongly—ionized plasma.”
`
`The ‘ 142 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure for
`
`the “means for supplying power...” of claim 40 and the “means for applying...” of
`
`claim 41: pulsed power supply (e.g., 202), generating the voltage, current and
`
`power values shown in Fig. 4 (e.g., between t2 — t4), electrically coupled to a
`
`cathode (e.g., 204) and anode (e.g., 216), wherein the cathode and anode are
`
`arranged relative to a sputtering target as shown in Figs. 2A-2D and 6A-6D, and as
`
`described in the text ofthe ‘142 Patent at 6:57-7:31, 8:16-25, 1221-16, 13:25—55,
`
`13:63-l4z5, 17:12-33, 1913—14, and 19:22-32 (Ex. 1401).
`
`D.
`
`“means for diffusing...” (claim 40)
`
`Claim 40 recites “means for diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma with
`
`additional feed gas to allow additional power to be absorbed by the strongly—
`
`ionized plasma.” The claimed function is “diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`with additional feed gas to allow additional power to be absorbed by the strongly—
`
`ionized plasma.”
`
`The ‘ 142 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure:
`
`feed gas lines 224 as shown in Figs. 2A-2D and 6A-D and as described in the text
`
`ofthe ‘ 142 Patent at 4:48-5:4 (Ex. 1401).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)—(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the Kortshagen Decl. 11 62 (Ex. 1402), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 40 and 41 of the ’142 Patent, and
`
`how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art. The claim charts that
`
`Petitioner served on Feb. 11, 2014 in its ongoing litigation involving the Petitioner
`
`and the Patent Owner, showing that claims 40 and 41 are unpatentable, are
`
`submitted hereto as Exhibits 1416-1419 (Exs. 1416-1419). Dr. Kortshagen has
`
`reviewed those charts and agrees with them. Kortshagen Decl. W 63, 64, 102, 131,
`
`155 (Ex. 1402).
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Claim 41 is obvious in View of the combination of
`
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`a)
`
`The preamble
`
`Claim 41 begins, “[a]n apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`As shown in Fig. 1, Mozgrin teaches generating plasma in “two types of devices: a
`
`planar magnetron and a system with specifically shaped hollow electrodes.”
`
`Mozgrin at Fig. 1; 400, right col, 1] 4.
`
`(EX. 1403). The densities in Mozgrin’s
`
`regions 1—3 are summarized below.
`
`0 Region 1: 109 —10110m'3.7
`
`0 Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm'3.8
`
`7 Mozgrin at 401, right col, 112 (Ex. 1403).
`
`8 Mozgrin at 409, left col, 1] 4 (Ex. 1403).
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`0 Region 3: 1.5x10150m'3.9
`
`Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 1] 66 (Ex. 1402). The density in those regions matches the
`
`exemplary density given for a strongly-ionized plasma in the ‘ 142 Patent.
`
`‘142
`
`Patent at claim 18 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is greater than about 1012 cm'3”) (Ex. 1401). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11
`
`66 (Ex. 1402). Mozgrin therefore teaches the preamble. Kortshagen Decl. 11 66
`
`(Ex. 1402).
`
`b)
`
`“means for ionizing... ”: Function
`
`As explained above in section VILB, the claimed function of the “means for
`
`ionizing...” is: “ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma proximate
`
`to a cathode, the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the probability of developing an
`
`electrical breakdown condition proximate to the cathode.”
`
`“ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly—ionized
`(1)
`plasma proximate to a cathode”
`
`The ‘142 Patent uses the terms “weakly—ionized plasma” and “pre-ionized
`
`plasma” synonymously.
`
`‘ 142 Patent at 5:18-19 (“The weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`also referred to as a pre—ionized plasma”) (Ex. 1401). Mozgrin’s power supply
`
`(shown in Fig. 2) generates a pre—ionized plasma in Mozgrin’s region 1. Mozgrin
`
`9 Mozgrin at 409, left col, 115 (Ex. 1403).
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`at 402, right col, 112 (“Figure 3 shows typical voltage and current oscillograms....
`
`Part I in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge
`
`(pre—ionization stage).”) (Ex. 1403). See also Kortshagen Dec]. 11 68 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Moreover, the density of Mozgrin’s pre-ionized plasma matches the
`
`exemplary density for weakly-ionized plasma given in the ‘142 Patent.
`
`‘ 142 Patent
`
`at claim 17 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less
`
`than about 1012 cm'3”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1401); Mozgrin at 401, right col, 112
`
`(“[fjor pre-ionization, we used a stationary magnetron discharge;
`
`provided the
`
`initial plasma density in the 109 — 10” cm'3 range”) (Ex. 1403) (emphasis added).
`
`Mozgrin also teaches generating its plasma from feed gasses such as Argon
`
`and Nitrogen. Mozgrin at 400, right col, 1 3 (“We investigated the discharge
`
`regimes in various gas mixtures at 10‘3 — 10 torr. . .”) (emphasis added); 402, 11
`
`spanning left and right cols (“We studied the high-current discharge in wide ranges
`
`of discharge current. . .and operating pressure. . .using various gases (Ar, N2, SF6,
`
`and H2) or their mixtures of various composition. . .”) (emphasis added) (Ex.
`
`1403). See also Kortshagen Dec]. 11 70 (Ex. 1402).
`
`Finally, Mozgrin’s weakly-ionized plasma is proximate to the cathode “2” as
`
`shown in Mozgrin’s Figs. 1 and 6. Mozgrin at 401, left col, 1 1 (“The [plasma]
`
`discharge had an annular shape and was adjacent to the cathode”) (emphasis
`
`added) (Ex. 1403). See also Kortshagen Dec]. 11 71 (Ex. 1402).
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,853,142
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the
`(2)
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown
`condition proximate to the cathode”
`
`Mozgrin states “pre-ionization was not necessary; however, in this case, the
`
`probability of discharge transferring to arc mode increased.” Mozgrin at 4