`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`GLOBAL FOUNDRIES 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 No. IPR2014-010981
`Patent 76,853,142 B2
`______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`35 U.S.C. § 142 & 37 C.F.R. § 90.2
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR 2014-01016 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), Patent Owner, Zond, LLC, hereby provides
`
`notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for
`
`review of the Final Written Decision of the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) in Inter Partes
`
`Review 2014-01098, concerning U.S. Patent 6,853,142 (“the ’142 patent”), entered
`
`on September 25, 2015, attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL
`
`A. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claim 40 unpatentable as being
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view by U.S. Pat. 6,413,382 to Wang
`
`(“Wang”) and 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) (“Kudryavetsev”)?
`
`B. Whether the PTAB erred in finding claim 41 unpatentable as being
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Wang and U.S. Pat. 6,413,382
`
`to Lantsman (“Lantsman”)?
`
`
`
`Simultaneous with submission of this Notice of Appeal to the Director of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, this Notice of Appeal is being filed
`
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, this Notice of Appeal, along
`
` 2
`
`
`
`with the required docketing fees, is being filed with the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`333 W. San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi, Reg. No. 41,402
`
` 3
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`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).