Paper 9
`
`Entered: October 31, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG and
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`Entered: October 31, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG and
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`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, “GF”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`
`partes review of claims 40 and 41 of U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 B2 (“the
`
`’142 Patent,” Ex. 1401). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not
`
`be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`
`petition.”
`
`Upon consideration of GF’s Petition and Zond’s Preliminary
`
`Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that GF would prevail in
`
`challenging claims 40 and 41 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby authorize an inter partes review to
`
`be instituted as to claims 40 and 41 of the ’142 Patent.
`
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`
`
`GF indicates that the ’142 Patent was asserted in Zond, LLC v.
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No.1:13-cv-11577-DPW (D. Mass.).
`
`Ex. 1420. GF also identifies other matters where Zond asserted the claims
`
`of the ’142 Patent against third parties, as well as other Petitions for inter
`
`partes review that are related to this proceeding. Pet. 1; Ex. 1420.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative 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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`GF relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Lantsman
`Wang
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US 6,190,512 B1 Feb. 20, 2001
`US 6,413,382 B1 July 2, 2002
`
`(Ex. 1406)
`(Ex. 1405)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1403) (hereinafter “Mozgrin”).
`
`A. A. Kudryavtsev and V.N. Skerbov, Ionization Relaxation in a
`Plasma Produced by a Pulsed Inert-Gas Discharge, 28 SOV. PHYS. TECH.
`PHYS. 30–35 (Jan. 1983) (Ex. 1404) (hereinafter “Kudryavtsev”).
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`GF asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`40
`
`40
`
`41
`
`41
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Mozgrin and Lantsman
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Wang and Lantsman
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor
`
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`
`definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the
`
`claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`In the instant proceeding, the parties propose claim constructions for
`
`several claim terms. Pet. 12–16; Prelim. Resp. 18–27. We address the claim
`
`terms identified by the parties below.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Claim 40 recites “to increase the density of the weakly-ionized plasma
`
`to generate a strongly-ionized plasma,” and claim 41 recites “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.”
`
`GF proposes that the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” should be
`
`interpreted as “a lower density plasma,” and that the claim term “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” should be interpreted as “a higher density plasma.” Pet. 13
`
`(emphasis omitted). Dr. Uwe Kortshagen, supporting declarant for GF,
`
`defines the term “density” in the context of plasma as “the number of ions or
`
`electrons that are present in a unit volume.” Ex. 1402 ¶ 22 (footnote
`
`omitted).
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond proposes that the claim term
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively
`
`low peak density of ions,” and that the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of
`
`ions.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1401, 9:43–44 (“The rapid ionization
`
`results in a strongly-ionized plasma 238 having a large ion density being
`
`formed in the area 234 proximate to the cathode 204.”)). Zond also directs
`
`our attention to the Specification of U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652
`
`Patent”), which is being challenged in Intel Corp. v. Zond, Inc., IPR2014-
`
`00843. Id.
`
`The Specification of the ’652 patent provides:
`
`The high-power pulses generate a high-density plasma from the
`initial plasma. The term “high-density plasma” is also referred
`to as a “strongly-ionized plasma.” The terms “high-density
`plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” are defined herein to
`mean a plasma with a relatively high peak plasma density. For
`example, the peak plasma density of the high-density plasma is
`greater than about 1012 cm-3. The discharge current that is
`formed from the high-density plasma can be on the order of
`about 5 kA with a discharge voltage that is in the range of about
`50V to 500V for a pressure that is in the range of about 5 mTorr
`to 10 Torr.
`
`IPR2014-00843, Ex. 1101, 10:57–67.
`
`We recognize when construing claims in patents that derive from the
`
`same parent application and share common terms, “we must interpret the
`
`claims consistently across all asserted patents.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In
`
`Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Here,
`
`although Zond characterizes the ’652 Patent as “a related patent” (Prelim.
`
`Resp. 20), Zond does not explain how the ’652 Patent is related to the
`
`involved patent in the instant proceeding (i.e., the ’142 Patent). In fact,
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`those patents do not share the same written disclosure, nor do they derive
`
`from the same parent application.
`
`Nevertheless, we observe no significant difference between the
`
`parties’ constructions. Pet. 13; Ex. 1402 ¶ 22; Prelim. Resp. 20–21. More
`
`importantly, the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma” appear to be used consistently across both the ’652 Patent and the
`
`’142 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1401, 6:31–35. For this decision, we construe the
`
`claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively low peak
`
`density of ions,” and the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma
`
`with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`
`
`Means-Plus-Function Claim Elements
`
`GF identifies three claim elements recited in claims 40 and 41 as
`
`means-plus-function elements, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.1 Pet. 14–16.
`
`Zond differs with GF on the proper claim constructions for those elements.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 21–27.
`
`We agree with GF 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
`
`
`
`1 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) re-designated
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat.
`284, 296 (2011). Because the ’142 Patent has a filing date before September
`16, 2012 (effective date), we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`claimed function. Personalized Media Commc’ns LLC v. Int’l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (A claim element using the
`
`term “means for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended
`
`to invoke § 112, ¶ 6.); 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.).
`
`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) (citations omitted).
`
`We address the three contested means-plus-function elements of the
`
`claims below.
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas”
`
`Claim 40 recites “means for ionizing a feed gas to form a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma that reduces the probability of developing an electrical
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber,” and 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.” We first
`
`observe that the recited function for these claim elements is to ionize a feed
`
`gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma. GF submits that the corresponding
`
`structure for that recited function is a power supply electrically coupled to a
`
`cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode, wherein the latter are “arranged
`
`relative to the sputtering target as shown in [the ’142 Patent’s] Figs. 2A-2D
`
`and 6A-6D.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1401, 5:5–36, 16:24–40, 17:40–18:46).
`
`Zond disputes the disclosure pointed to by GF, arguing that GF “did
`
`not describe the structure that appears at the locations in the Specification
`
`that are identified by those citations.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Zond argues its
`
`recitation of corresponding structure, namely “a pulsed power supply
`
`electrically connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode,” should
`
`be adopted. Id. at 22. We are persuaded, however, of more similarity than
`
`difference between the corresponding structures proffered by GF and Zond,
`
`especially because the cited sections of the Specification cited by each
`
`overlap. See id. at 22–23.
`
`Given the cited disclosure in the ’142 Patent, we identify the
`
`corresponding structure for performing the recited function—“ionizing a
`
`feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized plasma”—to be a pulsed power supply
`
`electrically connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`“means for supplying power / applying an electrical field”
`
`Claims 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.” We observe that the recited function for this claim element
`
`is “applying an electric field through an electrical pulse across the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma to create a strongly-ionized plasma.” Similarly, 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.”
`
`We observe that the recited function for this claim element is “applying an
`
`electric field across the weakly-ionized plasma thereby generating secondary
`
`electrons to create a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`While the functions supplied are slightly different, GF asserts that the
`
`corresponding structure is the same. Pet. 16. And while Zond again argues
`
`that GF has not described the structure, but merely provided citations to the
`
`Specification, Zond identifies essentially the same structure: “a pulsed
`
`power supply electrically connected to a cathode and anode.” Prelim. Resp.
`
`25.
`
`Upon review of the Specification of the ’142 Patent, we are persuaded
`
`that the corresponding structure for performing the recited functions—
`
`“applying an electric field through an electrical pulse across the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma to create a strongly-ionized plasma” or “generating an
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`electric field across the weakly-ionized plasma thereby generating secondary
`
`electrons to create a strongly-ionized plasma”—to be a pulsed power supply
`
`electrically connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode.
`
`
`
`“means for diffusing”
`
`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.” We observe that the recited function for this
`
`claim element is “providing a feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`sufficiently to allow additional power to be absorbed by the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.”
`
`GF argues that the corresponding structure for this claim element is
`
`“feed gas lines 224 as shown in Figs. 2A-2D and 6A-D and as described in
`
`the text of the ’142 Patent at 4:48-5:4.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1401). Zond
`
`again objects to GF’s indicated structure and argues that the corresponding
`
`structure is “‘one or more feed gases, feed gas sources, and feed gas lines
`
`connect[ing] the one or more feed gas sources to a chamber.’” Prelim. Resp.
`
`26. We disagree with Zond with respect to the recitation of “a chamber”
`
`because the specific function recites providing gas to “the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” Thus, feed gas lines that connected to the chamber generally may
`
`not allow for additional power to be absorbed by the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma, i.e., gas may be supplied elsewhere in the chamber.
`
`Upon review of the Specification of the ’142 Patent, we are persuaded
`
`that the corresponding structure for performing the recited function—
`
`“providing a feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma sufficiently to allow
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`additional power to be absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma”—to be a
`
`feed gas source and structures for supplying the gas to the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see
`
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). 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).
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`C. Claim 41 – Obviousness over Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`GF 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. As
`
`support, GF 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). Id. Zond responds that there
`
`is insufficient reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev. Prelim. Resp. 45–49.
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that GF has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 41 would have
`
`been unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev. Our discussion focuses on the deficiencies alleged by Zond as
`
`to claim 41.
`
`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.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
`
`of a power pulsed magnetron sputtering reactor:
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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
`
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`
`PP. Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 117–119; see Pet. 41–42.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`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 by GF (Pet. 27))
`
`illustrates the atomic energy levels during the slow and fast stages of
`
`ionization. Annotated Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`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 ¶¶ 70–72; Pet. 22–
`
`25.
`
`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
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`of excitation . . . which is several orders of magnitude greater
`than the ionization rate during the initial stage.
`
`Ex. 1404, 31, right col, ¶ 6 (emphasis added). Kudryavtsev also recognizes
`
`that “in a pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures . . . [i]t is
`
`shown that the electron density increases explosively in time due to
`
`accumulation of atoms in the lowest excited states.” Id. at Abs., Fig. 6.
`
`Reasons to Combine Wang and Kudryavtsev
`
`GF asserts that the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev teaches the
`
`generation of excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma. Pet. 39–42
`
`(citing Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 116–126). GF 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). GF 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 GF, 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.
`
`In addition, GF 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, GF argues, the combination of Wang and
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`Kudryavtsev teaches the generation of excited atoms in the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma, and the production of secondary electrons.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Zond disagrees that it would have been
`
`obvious to combine the technical disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev,
`
`arguing that Wang’s power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus differs
`
`significantly from Kudryavtsev’s plasma apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 45–49.
`
`In particular, Zond argues that Kudryavtsev’s plasma apparatus uses
`
`electrodes and a cylindrical tube, and does not use magnets or magnetic
`
`fields, whereas Wang’s system includes a magnetron, which is small and
`
`unbalanced. Id. at 47–48. Zond continues that the electron fluxes for the
`
`slow and fast stages of Kudryavtsev’s system “would be substantially
`
`different in a system that uses magnets and magnetic fields like . . . Wang’s
`
`system.” Id. at 47. Zond also points out differences in electrode spacing and
`
`the application of the voltage between the systems of Wang and
`
`Kudryavtsev. Id. at 48.
`
`Those arguments are not persuasive. “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) (citing 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 physically combined[,] but whether the
`
`claimed inventions are 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.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`Aeroquip Corp.,733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also KSR, 550 U.S.
`
`at 420–21 (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.”).
`
`Zond has not explained adequately why triggering a fast stage of
`
`ionization in Wang’s apparatus would have been beyond the level of
`
`ordinary skill, or why one with ordinary skill in the art would not have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings.
`
`Kudryavtsev states that because “the effects studied in this work are
`
`characteristic of ionization whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly
`
`ionized gas, they must be allowed for when studying emission mechanisms
`
`in pulsed gas lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks, etc.” Ex. 1404, 34, right
`
`col. (emphasis added). Wang applies voltage pulses that suddenly generate
`
`an electric field. Ex. 1405, 7:61–63; see Ex. 1402 ¶ 119. More importantly,
`
`Wang discloses background power PB of 1 kW (falling within the range of
`
`0.1–100 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
`
`1kW–10 MW, as disclosed in the ’142 Patent, for generating a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma). Ex. 1405, 7:19–25; Ex. 1401, 11:32–38, 12:1–8, Fig. 4.
`
`Dr. Kortshagen testifies that “[b]ecause Wang’s power levels fall within the
`
`ranges disclosed by the [’]142 Patent, Wang is as likely as is the [’]142
`
`Patent to excite atoms within the weakly-ionized plasma.” Ex. 1402 ¶ 118.
`
`On this record, we credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is
`
`consistent with the prior art disclosures. We also agree with Dr. Kortshagen
`
`that performing a fast stage of ionization (as disclosed by Kudryavtsev) in
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01098
`Patent 6,853,142 B2
`
`
`Wang’s apparatus would have been a combination of known techniques
`
`yielding the predictable results of increasing plasma density and the degree
`
`of multi-step ionization. See Ex. 1402 ¶ 120.
`
`Given the evidence before us, we determine that the Petition and
`
`supporting evidence demonstrate sufficiently that combining the technical
`
`disclosures of Wang and Kudryavtsev is merely a predicable use of prior art
`
`elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
`
`See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
`
`unless its actual application is beyond [his or her] skill.”).
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that GF has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 41 would have
`
`been unpatentable over the combination of Wang and Kudryavtsev.
`
`
`
`D. Claim 40 – Obviousness over Wang and Lantsman
`
`GF 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, GF 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). Id.
`
`Zond responds that there is insufficient reason to combine the
`
`technical disclosures of W
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
