Paper 35
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: September 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`and THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2014-010981
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01016 has been joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: September 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`and THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2014-010981
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01016 has been joined with the instant inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden
`Module One LLC & Co. KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`Two LLC & Co. KG, (collectively, “GlobalFoundries”) filed a Petition
`requesting inter partes review of claims 40 and 41 of U.S. Patent No.
`6,853,142 B2 (“the ’142 Patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner Zond,
`LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We
`instituted the instant trial on October 31, 2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`Paper 9 (“Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, we granted the revised Motion for Joinder
`filed by The Gillette Company, joining Case IPR2014-01016 with the
`instant trial (Paper 13).2 Zond filed a Response (Paper 22 (“PO Resp.”)),
`and GlobalFoundries filed a Reply (Paper 27 (“Reply”)). Oral hearing3 was
`held on June 12, 2015, and a transcript of the hearing was entered into the
`record. Paper 34 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons set forth below, we determine that GlobalFoundries has
`shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 40 and 41 of the
`’142 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`
`2 Herein, we refer to all Petitioners collectively as “GlobalFoundries.”
`3 The hearings for this review and the following inter partes reviews were
`consolidated: IPR2014-00807, IPR2014-00808, IPR2014-00818, IPR2014-
`00819, IPR2014-00821, IPR2014-000827, IPR2014-01099, and IPR2014-
`01100.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Related District Court Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’142 Patent was asserted in numerous
`
`proceedings in Massachusetts: 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-
`11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11581-DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am.
`Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-
`11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.); 1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond v.
`Fujitsu); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. The Gillette Co.). Pet. 1; Paper 5.
`
`
`B. The ’142 Patent
`
`The ’142 Patent relates to methods and apparatus for generating high-
`density plasma. Ex. 1401, Abs. At the time of the invention, sputtering was
`a well-known technique for depositing films on semiconductor substrates.
`Id. at 1:16–24. The ’142 Patent indicates that prior art magnetron sputtering
`systems deposit films having low uniformity and poor target utilization (the
`target material erodes in a non-uniform manner). Id. at 3:32–36. To address
`these problems, the ’142 Patent discloses that increasing the power applied
`between the target and anode can increase the uniformity and density in the
`plasma. Id. at 3:37–44. However, increasing the power also “can increase
`the probability of generating an electrical breakdown condition leading to an
`undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the chamber 104.” Id.
`According to the ’142 Patent, forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown
`condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
`cathode and anode. Id. at 6:21–30. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
`formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
`7:23–36. The ’142 Patent also discloses that the provision of the feed gas to
`the plasma allows for homogeneous diffusion of the feed gas in the weakly-
`ionized plasma and allows for the creation of a highly uniform strongly-
`ionized plasma. Id. at 6:31–35.
`
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`
`Both challenged claims are independent claims. Claims 40 and 41 are
`reproduced below:
`40. An apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma
`in a chamber, the apparatus comprising:
`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;
`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; and
`means for diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma with
`additional feed gas to allow additional power to be absorbed by
`the strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`41. An apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma,
`the apparatus comprising:
`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; and
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`Ex. 1401, 23:10–24:15.
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Based on the instituted ground, GlobalFoundries relies upon the
`following prior art references:
`Lantsman
`
`US 6,190,512 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
`Wang
`
`
`US 6,413,382 B1 July 2, 2002
`
`
`(Ex. 1406)
`(Ex. 1405)
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skrebov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28(1) SOV. PHYS.
`TECH. PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1404) (hereinafter, “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`E. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
`unpatentability (Dec. 29):
`
`Claim
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`41
`40
`
`
`
`§ 103(a) Wang and Kudryavtsev
`§ 103(a) Wang and Lantsman
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`enacting the AIA,”4 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are
`part of, and read in light of, the specification. United States v. Adams,
`383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966) (“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed
`in the light of the specifications and both are to be read with a view to
`ascertaining the invention.”). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption
`by providing a definition of the term in the specification with “reasonable
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to
`be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`During the pre-trial stage of this proceeding, the parties submitted
`their constructions for the claim terms “a weakly-ionized plasma” and “a
`strongly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 13–14; Prelim. Resp. 19–21. In our Decision
`on Institution, we adopted Zond’s proposed constructions, in light of the
`Specification, as the broadest reasonable interpretation. Dec. 6–8.
`Upon review of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence
`before us, we discern no reason to modify our claim constructions set forth
`
`4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the Decision on Institution with respect to these claim terms. Id.
`Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we construe, in light
`of the Specification, the claim term “a weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma
`with a relatively low peak density of ions,” the claim term “a strongly-
`ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`The parties also identify three claim elements recited in the claims as
`means-plus-function elements, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.5 Pet. 14–16;
`Prelim. Resp. 21–27. We address the claim terms identified by the parties
`below.
`We agree that those claim elements are written in means-plus-function
`form and fall under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, because: (1) each claim element
`uses the term “means for”; (2) the term “means for” in each claim element is
`modified by functional language; and (3) the term “means for” is not
`modified by any structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed
`function. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (using the term “means for” creates a
`rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6)
`(citations omitted); Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420,
`1427–28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the presumption is not rebutted if the term
`“means for” is modified by functional language and is not modified by any
`structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed function); see also
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`5 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Because the ’142
`Patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date), we refer
`to the pre-AIA version of § 112 in this Decision.
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(confirming that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112,
`¶ 6 applies” (citing Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 703)).
`The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim element is to
`identify the recited function in the claim element. Med. Instrumentation &
`Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The
`second step is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding
`structure for that recited function. Id. A structure disclosed in the
`specification qualifies as “corresponding” structure only if the specification
`or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`recited in the claim. B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419,
`1424 (Fed. Cir.1997). “While corresponding structure need not include all
`things necessary to enable the claimed invention to work, it must include all
`structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit
`Card Sys. Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (citation omitted).
`Upon review of the parties’ contentions and the Specification, we set
`forth our claim constructions in the Decision on Institution for the means-
`plus-function elements identified by the parties. Dec. 9–12. The parties do
`not challenge any aspect of our claim constructions as to these claim
`elements, although GlobalFoundries alleges that Zond and Zond’s expert,
`Dr. Hartsough, have disregarded these constructions in their analyses. PO
`Resp. 17–20; Reply 2–9. Based on this entire record, we also discern no
`reason to modify our claim constructions at this juncture.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For convenience, our claim constructions are reproduced in the table
`below:
`Means-Plus-Function
`Claim Element
`“means for ionizing a
`feed gas”
`“means for supplying
`power / applying an
`electrical field”
`
`Identified Corresponding Structure
`a pulsed power supply electrically
`connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an
`electrode
`a pulsed power supply electrically
`connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an
`electrode
`a feed gas source and structures for
`supplying the gas to the strongly-ionized
`plasma
`
`“means for diffusing”
`
`
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In
`that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings
`directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
`can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Translogic,
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`504 F.3d at 1259. The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
`prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
`Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We analyze the asserted grounds of
`unpatentability in accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`
`C. Claims 40 and 41—Obviousness over Wang and Lantsman, or
`Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`GlobalFoundries asserts that claim 41 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev.
`Pet. 33–43. GlobalFoundries also asserts that claim 40 is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Wang and Lantsman.
`Pet. 53–60. As support, GlobalFoundries provides detailed explanations as
`to how each claim limitation is met by the references and rationales for
`combining the references, as well as a Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen
`(Ex. 1402). GlobalFoundries also submitted a Declaration of Dr. Overzet
`(Ex. 1422) to support its Reply to Zond’s Patent Owner Response.
`Zond responds that the combinations of prior art do not disclose every
`claim element. PO Resp. 42–49. Zond also argues that there is insufficient
`reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev or
`Lantsman. Id. at 30–42. To support its contentions, Zond proffers a
`Declaration of Dr. Larry D. Hartsough (Ex. 2005).
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`our discussion with a brief summary of Wang, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`address their combinations with respect to the instant grounds, and then we
`address the parties’ contentions about specific claim elements in turn.
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1405, Abs. Wang also discloses
`a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
`semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
`of a power pulsed magnetron sputtering reactor:
`
`
`Fig. 1 of Wang illustrates its magnetron sputtering apparatus.
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24,
`cathode 14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Id. at
`3:57–4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus is capable of creating high
`density plasma in region 42, from argon gas feed 32 through mass flow
`controller 34, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`into positively charged metal ions and also increases the sputtering rate. Id.
`at 4:5–34. Wang further recognizes that, if a large portion of the sputtered
`particles are ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly and
`effectively—the sputtered ions can be accelerated towards a negatively
`charged substrate, coating the bottom and sides of holes that are narrow and
`deep. Id. at 1:24–29.
`Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how the apparatus
`applies a pulsed power to the plasma:
`
`
`Fig. 6 of Wang illustrates a representation of applied pulses.
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
`power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP. Id.
`at 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum power
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
`(e.g., 1kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100 or 1000
`times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak power
`PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the density of
`the plasma. Id. According to Dr. Kortshagen, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`PP. Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 117–119; see Pet. 41–42.
`
`
`Lantsman
`Lantsman discloses a plasma ignition system for plasma processing
`chambers having primary and secondary power supplies, used to generate a
`plasma current and a process initiation voltage, respectively. Ex. 1406, Abs.
`The primary power supply provides the primary power to electrically drive
`the cathode during the plasma process, and the secondary power supply
`supplies an initial plasma ignition voltage to “pre-ignite” the plasma so that
`when the primary power supply is applied, the system smoothly transitions
`to final plasma development and deposition. Id. at 2:48–51.
`The system is applicable to magnetron and non-magnetron sputtering
`and radio frequency (RF) sputtering systems. Id. at 1:6–8. Lantsman also
`provides that “arcing which can be produced by overvoltages can cause local
`overheating of the target, leading to evaporation or flaking of target material
`into the processing chamber and causing substrate particle contamination
`and device damage,” and “[t]hus, it is advantageous to avoid voltage spikes
`during processing wherever possible.” Id. at 1:51–59.
`Lantsman also discloses that “at the beginning of processing . . . gas is
`introduced into the chamber” and “[w]hen the plasma process is completed,
`the gas flow is stopped.” Id. at 3:10–13. This is illustrated in Figure 6 of
`Lantsman reproduced below:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 6 of Lantsman illustrates the timing of its processes.
`Figure 6 illustrates that the gas flow is initiated, and the gas flow and
`pressure begin to ramp upwards toward normal processing levels for the
`processing stage. Id. at 5:39–42.
`
`Kudryavtsev
`Kudryavtsev discloses a multi-step ionization plasma process,
`comprising the steps of exciting the ground state atoms to generate excited
`atoms, and then ionizing the excited atoms. Ex. 1404, Abs., Figs. 1, 6.
`Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev (annotations added) illustrates the atomic
`energy levels during the slow and fast stages of ionization. Annotated
`Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 of Kudryavtsev, ionization occurs
`with a “slow stage” (Fig. 1a) followed by a “fast stage” (Fig. 1b). During
`the initial slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribution to
`the generation of plasma ions (arrow Γ1e showing ionization (top line labeled
`“e”) from the ground state (bottom line labeled “1”)). Dr. Kortshagen
`explains that Kudryavtsev shows the rapid increase in ionization once multi-
`step ionization becomes the dominant process. Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 137–138;
`Pet. 47–48.
`Specifically, Kudryavtsev discloses:
`For nearly stationary n2 [excited atom density] values . . . there
`is an explosive increase in ne [plasma density]. The subsequent
`increase in ne then reaches its maximum value, equal to the rate
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`Ex. 1404, 31 (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also recognizes that “in a
`pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures . . . [i]t is shown
`that the electron density increases explosively in time due to accumulation of
`atoms in the lowest excited states.” Id. at Abs., Fig. 6.
`
`
`Rationale to Combine References
`GlobalFoundries asserts that it would have been obvious to have
`combined Wang and Lantsman to render the claim 40 obvious. Pet. 53–60.
`GlobalFoundries discusses the suggestion of continuing to supply the feed
`gas in the process of Wang, and argues that supply of the feed gas is likely to
`occur during that disclosed process, although not expressly recited. Id. at
`56–57; Ex. 1402 ¶ 166. GlobalFoundries also argues that even if Wang does
`not disclose maintaining the flow of the feed gases, “[i]t would have been
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill to continue to exchange the feed gas during
`Wang’s application of background power and high peak power, as taught by
`Lantsman.” Pet. 58. GlobalFoundries submits an ordinarily skilled artisan
`would have been motivated to combine Wang and Lantsman because both
`are directed to sputtering and both employ two power supplies, one for pre-
`ionization and the other for deposition. Id. at 58–59. In addition, both
`Wang and Lantsman are concerned with generating plasma while avoiding
`arcing. Id. GlobalFoundries also cites to the testimony of Dr. Kortshagen
`that the continuous flow of gas would allow for diffusion of the strongly-
`ionized plasma and additional power to be absorbed by the plasma. Id. at
`57; Ex. 1402 ¶ 167.
`In addition, GlobalFoundries asserts that it would have been obvious
`to have combined Wang and Kudryavtsev to render the claim 41 obvious.
`Pet. 39–42 (citing Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 116–126). GlobalFoundries contends that
`Kudryavtsev teaches that ionization proceeds in a slow stage followed by a
`fast stage and that excited atoms are produced in both stages, such that
`excited atoms would be produced in Wang’s weakly-ionized plasma in
`response to the applied electrical pulse. Id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1402
`¶¶ 119, 120). GlobalFoundries also submits that it would have been obvious
`to one with ordinary skill in the art to adjust Wang’s operating parameters
`(e.g., to increase the pulse length of the power and/or the pressure of the gas
`inside the chamber) to trigger a fast stage of ionization. Id. According to
`GlobalFoundries, triggering such a fast stage of ionization in Wang’s
`apparatus would increase plasma density and, thereby, would increase the
`sputtering rate, and reduce the time required to reach a given plasma density.
`Id.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition, GlobalFoundries notes that the ’142 Patent admits that
`secondary electrons are produced in a sputtering process by collisions
`between ions and the cathode and those secondary electrons form ions. Id.
`at 41 (citing Ex. 1402 ¶ 122). As such, GlobalFoundries argues, the
`combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev teaches the generation of excited
`atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma, and the production of secondary
`electrons.
`The parties’ dispute mainly centers on whether GlobalFoundries has
`articulated a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill
`in the art would have combined the prior art teachings. Zond argues that
`GlobalFoundries fails to demonstrate that one with ordinary skill in the art
`would have combined the system of Wang with those of Lantsman or
`Kudryavtsev, to achieve the claimed invention with reasonable expectation
`of success or predictable results. PO Resp. 30–42.
`In particular, Zond contends that GlobalFoundries does not take into
`consideration the substantial, fundamental structural differences between the
`systems of Wang and Lantsman—e.g., pressure, chamber geometry, gap
`dimensions, and magnetic fields. Id. at 30–32 (citing e.g., Ex. 1404;
`Ex. 1405, 3:60–61, 5:18–22; Ex. 2004, 6:60–62; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 80–84).
`Additionally, even if a combination was somehow made, Zond contends it
`would differ significantly from the system disclosed in the ’142 Patent. Id.
`As well, Zond contends that it would not have been obvious how to
`combine Wang and Kudryavtsev, arguing that Wang’s sputtering apparatus
`differs significantly from Kudryavtsev’s experimental apparatus. Id. at 34–
`41. Zond argues that “Kudryavtsev’s theoretical work is targeted for
`‘emission mechanisms in pulsed gas lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks,
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`etc,’” with no magnet, but Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputter
`reactor (id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1404, 34)), that GlobalFoundries’
`characterization of Kudryavtsev is incorrect and cannot serve as a rationale
`to combine (id. at 36–37); and that GlobalFoundries does not take into
`consideration the substantial, fundamental structural differences between the
`systems of Wang and Kudryavtsev—e.g., pressure, chamber geometry, gap
`dimensions, and magnetic fields. Id. at 37–41 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 64, 67,
`85–92; Ex. 1401, 1:19–20, 4:15–17, 5:38–39; Ex. 1404, 31–34, Fig. 3;
`Ex. 1405, 3:16–22, 60–61, 4:35–37, 7:32–34, 57–61, Fig. 1; Ex. 2004,
`14:37–50).
`In its Reply, GlobalFoundries responds that Zond’s arguments
`combine statements directed to different embodiments of Wang together and
`attempt to physically incorporate Lantsman into Wang. Reply 9–14.
`GlobalFoundries also responds that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have viewed Lantsman’s teachings as applicable to Wang’s system, based on
`the ordinary level of skill in the art and the similarities between Wang and
`Lantsman. Id. Additionally, GlobalFoundries continues that Zond’s
`arguments with respect to the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev “focus
`on bodily incorporat[ion],” and that “[d]ifferences in such systems are
`routine and a person of ordinary skill in the art would work with such
`differences on a regular basis, and would consider it routine to make any
`necessary changes to accommodate for any and all such variables.” Id. at
`14–17. Upon consideration of the evidence before us, we are persuaded by
`GlobalFoundries’ contentions.
`We are not persuaded by Zond’s argument that Lantsman’s, Wang’s,
`and Kudryavtsev’s apparatuses would have been viewed as significantly
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`different, or that one with ordinary skill in the art would not have had a
`reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. Obviousness
`does not require absolute predictability, only a reasonable expectation that
`the beneficial result will be achieved. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
`1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
`teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
`substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`2012); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (noting that
`the criterion for obviousness is not whether the references can be combined
`physically, but whether the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the
`teachings of the prior art as a whole). In that regard, one with ordinary skill
`in the art is not compelled to follow blindly the teaching of one prior art
`reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. Lear
`Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21 (stating that a person with ordinary skill in the art
`is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many
`cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
`pieces of a puzzle”).
`Dr. Overzet testifies that Kudryavtsev’s model on plasma behavior is
`not intended to be limited to a particular type of plasma apparatus. Ex. 1422
`¶ 61. Indeed, Kudryavtsev discloses a study of the ionization relaxation in
`plasma when the external electric field suddenly increases. Ex. 1404, 30.
`Specifically, Kudryavtsev discloses that “the electron density increases
`explosively in time due to accumulation of atoms in the lowest excited
`states.” Id. at Abs. (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also describes the
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`experimental results that confirm the model. Id. at 32–34. Moreover,
`Kudryavtsev expressly explains that “the effects studied in this work are
`characteristic of ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly
`ionized gas.” Id. at 34 (emphasis added).
`Dr. Overzet also testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`“would have looked to Kudryavtsev to understand how plasma would react
`to a quickly applied voltage pulse, and how to achieve an explosive increase
`in electron density” when generating a strongly-ionized plasma for
`improving sputtering and manufacturing processing. Ex. 1422 ¶ 62.
`Dr. Overzet further explains that such an artisan would have known how to
`apply Kudryavtsev’s model to Wang’s system by making any necessary
`changes to accommodate the differences through routine experimentation.
`Id. ¶¶ 63–65. On this record, we credit Dr. Overzet’s testimony (id. ¶¶ 61–
`65) because his explanations are consistent with the prior art of record.
`As well, Dr. Overzet testifies, Lantsman states that its techniques can
`be applied to any plasma process, including DC magnetron sputtering, where
`Wang is directed to DC magnetron sputtering. Ex. 1422 ¶¶ 66–67 (citing
`Ex. 1406, 6:14–17). Additionally, Dr. Overzet testifies that the different
`processing conditions in Wang and Lantsman are routine variables that
`ordinarily skilled artisans would understand need to be changed to
`accommodate different systems and processing conditions. Id. ¶ 68. In
`addition, Dr. Overzet points out that both Lantsman and Wang “teach two
`stage plasma systems.” Id. ¶ 69. Indeed, Lantsman discloses both “limited”
`and “substantial” plasma stages (Ex. 1406, 2:48–51, 4:58–61, 5:6), and
`Wang discloses plasma states that vary with the application of pulses
`(Ex. 1405, 7:13–39). As noted above, Wang discloses background power PB
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of 1 kW (falling within the range of 0.01–100 kW, as disclosed in the ’142
`Patent, for generating a weakly-ionized plasma), and pulse peak power PP of
`1 MW (falling within the range of 1 kW–10 MW, as disclosed in the ’142
`Patent, for generating a strongly-ionized plasma). Ex. 1405, 7:19–25;
`Ex. 1401, 11:34–38, 12:1–8, Fig. 5. On this record, we credit Dr. Overzet’s
`testimony (Ex. 1422 ¶¶ 66–69) because his explanations are consistent with
`the prior art of record.
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that GlobalFoundries has
`articulated a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill
`in the art would have combined Wang a
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
