`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED,
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC
`COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`____________________________________________
`
`IPR Case Nos. IPR2014-00807, 00808, 01099, 01100
`____________________________________________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
`UWE KORTSHAGEN PH.D.
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`RELEVANT LAW .......................................................................................... 5
`I.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-33 ................................................. 5
`II.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`A.
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” .................... 6
`B.
`“weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the probability
`of developing an electrical breakdown condition” ............................... 8
`Claim 33 – means-plus-function limitations ......................................... 9
`1. “means for ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a weakly-ionized
`plasma that substantially eliminates the probability of developing an
`electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” ......................................10
`2. “means for supplying an electrical pulse across the weakly-ionized
`plasma to transform the weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized
`plasma without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`chamber” ...................................................................................................11
`IV. RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE
`ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-33 ......................12
`A.
`Background Discussion of the Prior Art .............................................12
`1. Power, Voltage, and Current Relationship ..........................................12
`2. The Two Embodiments of Wang ........................................................16
`3. Kudryavtsev’s Teaching of Arc Prevention ........................................20
`4. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would be Motivated to
`Combine the Teachings of Wang and Kudryavtsev .................................29
`5. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would be Motivated to
`Combine the Teachings of Wang and Lantsman .....................................31
`6. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would be Motivated to
`Combine the Teachings of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin ................34
`Independent Claim 1 and 33 (“means for ionizing…”) ......................36
`1. Weakly-Ionized and Strongly-Ionized Plasma in Wang .....................36
`2. Wang Teaches Selection of a Pulse Magnitude and Rise-Time .........38
`3. Wang Teaches Creating a Strongly-Ionized Plasma Without Forming
`an Arc as Claimed by the ’716 Patent ......................................................40
`Independent Claims 14 and 26 ............................................................44
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`E.
`
`F.
`
`1. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev Teaches Creating a Weakly-Ionized
`Plasma That Substantially Eliminates the Probability of Developing an
`Electrical Breakdown Condition ..............................................................44
`2. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev Teaches Creating a Strongly-Ionized
`Plasma Without Forming an Arc as Claimed by the ’716 Patent ............46
`3. Wang in view of Kudryavtsev Teaches a Cathode Adjacent to an
`Anode ........................................................................................................48
`D. Dependent claims 4 and 5: Wang Discloses Application of a Constant
`Power and a Constant Voltage ............................................................52
`Dependent claim 6: Wang Discloses Application of Power 50μs to 5s
`After Generating Weakly-Ionized Plasma ..........................................57
`Dependent claims 7 and 21: Wang Discloses Application of Power for
`a Duration that is Sufficient to Generate a Quasi-static Electric Field
` .............................................................................................................59
`G. Dependent Claims 16, 17, and 30: Wang in light of Kudryavtsev
`Discloses the Selection of at Least One of a Rise Time and Magnitude
`of the Pulse or Electric Field to Increase the Density/Ionization Rate
`of the Plasma .......................................................................................62
`H. Dependent Claims 28 and 29: Wang in light of Kudryavtsev Discloses
`the Selection of a Cathode-Anode Gap to Increase the Ionization Rate
` .............................................................................................................68
`Dependent Claims 22-24: A person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Would be Motivated to Combine Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin to
`Achieve the Claimed System Characteristics .....................................71
`Dependent Claims 12, 19, and 20: Wang in view of Lantsman
`discloses gas lines that supply feed gas to strongly-ionized plasma that
`transports the plasma via rapid volume exchange and allows
`additional power absorption by the strongly-ionized plasma .............72
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`I, Uwe Kortshagen, declare as follows:
`
`
`
` My name is Uwe Kortshagen. 1.
`
`
`
` My background is detailed in my declarations submitted with the 2.
`
`original Petition for Inter Partes Review in Case Nos. IPR2014-00807, 00808,
`
`01099, and 01100.
`
`3.
`
`
`I have reviewed the following publications in preparing this
`
`declaration:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716 (the “’716 Patent” (Ex. 1001, 1101, 1201, 1301))
`
`• D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics
`
`Reports, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1003, 1103,
`
`1203, 1303 )).
`
`• A. A. Kudryavtsev et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a
`
`pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 28(1), pp. 30-35, January
`
`1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1205, 1305)).
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1004,1104, 1204, 1304)), including
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,306,265 (“Fu” (Ex. 1010, 1319)) and U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,398,929 (“Chiang” (Ex. 2008)) both of which Wang incorporates by
`
`reference.
`
`• U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1105, 1306)).
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`4.
`
`
`Also, I have reviewed papers in the Inter Partes Review Case Nos.
`
`IPR2014-00807, 00808, 01099, and 01100 including the Petitions and my
`
`accompanying Declarations. As discussed below, I agree with my conclusions as
`
`stated in those Declarations. Further, I have reviewed the Board’s Institution
`
`Decisions, Patent Owner’s Responses, the accompanying Declaration of Larry D.
`
`Hartsough, Ph.D. (“Hartsough Decl.,” Ex. 2004), and various transcripts from the
`
`depositions of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D. in a variety of Inter Partes review
`
`proceedings challenging this and other Zond patents.
`
`5.
`
`
`I have read and understood each of the above material and any other
`
`publication cited in this declaration. As I stated previously, the disclosure of each
`
`of these publications provides sufficient information for someone to make and use
`
`the plasma generation and sputtering processes that are described in the above
`
`publications.
`
`6.
`
`
`I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as described below at the time the ’716 Patent application
`
`was filed. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’716 Patent
`
`would have found the ’716 Patent invalid.
`
`7.
`
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner as an expert in the field of plasma
`
`technology. I am working as an independent consultant in this matter on behalf of
`
`Petitioner and am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $450/hour
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`for my time. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this Declaration. Nor is it dependent on the outcome
`
`of these proceedings.
`
`8.
`
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioners. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’716 Patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’716 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`9.
`
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is detailed in my declaration submitted with the original
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review (Ex. 1002, 1102, 1202, and 1302) and my
`
`understanding remains the same for my instant declaration.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS: CLAIMS 1-33
`
`
`
` As a preliminary matter, I note that Patent Owner’s Responses, and 10.
`
`the accompanying Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D, provided in the above
`
`captioned inter partes reviews of the ’716 Patent did not explicitly respond to my
`
`opinions regarding the anticipation or obviousness of claims 2, 3, 8-11, 13, 15, 18,
`
`20, 25, 27, 31, and 32 of the ’716 Patent set forth in my previous declarations,
`
`which I hereby incorporate by reference. See IPR2014-00807, Ex. 1202, ¶¶ 150-
`
`151 (claim 15), ¶¶ 164-167 (claims 18 and 31), ¶¶ 168-170 (claims 25 and 32), and
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`¶¶ 171-172 (claim 27); IPR2014-00807, Ex. 1302, ¶¶ 128-135 (claim 20);
`
`IPR2014-01099, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 157-160 (claims 2 and 3) and ¶¶ 173-183 (claims 8-
`
`11); IPR2014-01100, Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 106-113 (claim 13).
`
`
`
` Accordingly, this supplemental declaration is limited to addressing the 11.
`
`elements of claims Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough responded to, namely: claims
`
`1, 4, 5-7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22-24, 26, 28-30, and 33 of the ’716 Patent, and
`
`reasons for the combination of the cited references.
`
`12.
`
`
`I am unpersuaded by the arguments contained in Patent Owner’s
`
`Responses and Dr. Hartsough’s declaration, as will be explained in greater detail
`
`below. I therefore maintain my findings as expressed at (1) No. 2014-00807, Ex.
`
`1202, ¶¶ 119-176 captioned Ground II; (2) No. 2014-00808, Ex. 1302, ¶¶ 102-126,
`
`127-135, and 136-142 captioned Ground IV, Ground V, and Ground VI; (3) No.
`
`2014-01099, Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 120-183 captioned Ground III; (4) No. 2014-01100, Ex.
`
`1102, ¶¶ 89-113 captioned Ground II.
`
`
`
` Thus, it is my opinion that every limitation of the plasma generation 13.
`
`methods and apparatuses recited in claims 1 through 33 of the ’716 Patent is
`
`disclosed by the prior art, and claims 1-33 are invalid in light of the prior art.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`A.
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`
`
` The Board, after noting that there is “no significant difference 14.
`
`between the parties’ constructions,” stated that “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.’” IPR2014-00807, Decision at p. 8 (Paper No. 10); IPR2014-
`
`00808, Decision at pp. 8-9 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-01099, Decision at p. 8 (Paper
`
`No. 9); IPR2014-01100, Decision at p. 8 (Paper No. 9).
`
`15.
`
`
`I understand that, while the Patent Owner did not directly address the
`
`construction, Dr. Hartsough agreed with the Board’s construction. Hartsough
`
`Decl., ¶ 21. I agree with this construction by the Board, and my determination that
`
`the claims of the ’716 Patent are rendered obvious by the prior art applies this
`
`construction. I have produced Kortshagen Fig. 1 below to illustrate that these are
`
`ranges without any specific magnitude or order difference, as described by the
`
`specification of the ’716 Patent.
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`Kortshagen, Figure 1.
`
`
`
`
`
` Accordingly, in light of the teachings of the ’716 Patent specification 16.
`
`that weakly-ionized plasma and strongly-ionized plasma can have numerically
`
`overlapping ranges of plasma density, I agree with the Board’s adopted
`
`construction that “‘weakly-ionized plasma’ is ‘a plasma with a relatively low peak
`
`density of ions,’ and that ‘strongly-ionized plasma’ is ‘a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak density of ions.’”
`
`
`
` Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term 17.
`
`“high-density plasma” to be the same as “strongly-ionized plasma.” These terms
`
`are used synonymously in the ’716 Patent, as evidenced at 7:18-19 (“The strongly-
`
`ionized plasma is also referred to as a high-density plasma.”) and 9:40-41.
`
`B.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition”
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`18.
`
`
`I understand that the Board construed “weakly-ionized plasma that
`
`substantially eliminates the probability of developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition” as “weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the probability
`
`of developing a breakdown condition when an electrical pulse is applied across the
`
`plasma to thereby generate a strongly-ionized plasma.” IPR2014-00807, Decision
`
`at p. 10 (Paper No. 10); IPR2014-00808, Decision at p. 10 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-
`
`01099, Decision at p. 10 (Paper No. 9); IPR2014-01100, Decision at p. 8 (Paper
`
`No. 9).
`
`19.
`
`
`I understand that, while the Patent Owner did not directly address the
`
`construction, Dr. Hartsough agreed with the Board’s construction. Hartsough
`
`Decl., ¶ 22. I agree with the Board that the relevant time period for substantially
`
`eliminating a breakdown condition as claimed by the ’716 patent is during the
`
`application of an electrical pulse to transition from a provided weakly-ionized
`
`plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma. I agree with this construction by the Board,
`
`and my determination that the claims of the ’716 Patent are rendered obvious by
`
`the prior art applies this construction.
`
`C. Claim 33 – means-plus-function limitations
` Petitioner previously proposed, and the Board agreed, that claim 33 20.
`
`
`contains two means-plus-function limitations that must be construed to recite a
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`function that is performed by specific structures from the patent specification.
`
`IPR2014-01099, Decision at pp. 11-12 (Paper No. 9).
`
`1.
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a
`weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition
`in the chamber”
`
`
`
` The Board, in adopting the broadest reasonable interpretation, has 21.
`
`construed this claim element as having a claimed function of “ionizing a feed gas
`
`to form a weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the probability of
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.” Patent IPR2014-
`
`01099, Decision at pp. 12-13 (Paper No. 9). The Board stated it identifies “a
`
`pulsed power supply electrically connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an
`
`electrode” to be the corresponding structures. IPR2014-01099, Institution
`
`Decision at p. 14 (Paper No. 9).
`
`22.
`
`
`I understand that, while the Patent Owner did not directly address the
`
`construction, Dr. Hartsough did not agree with the Board’s construction of the
`
`claimed structures. Hartsough Decl., ¶ 23. Dr. Hartsough argues that the
`
`corresponding structure for the recited function is a power supply electrically
`
`coupled to a cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode, by a gap there between. Id.
`
`Dr. Hartsough’s proposed construction is incorrect as it reads into the claim a
`
`limitation that the structures be oriented in a certain manner by virtue of the
`
`cathode and anode orientation being a “process parameter.” Hartsough Decl., ¶ 23.
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`However, process parameters such as cathode/anode geometry affect how the feed
`
`gas receives energy, not whether the feed gas receives energy.
`
`
`
` The Board, in applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, has 23.
`
`correctly identified all physical structures that allow for creation of weakly-ionized
`
`plasma, as identified by the ’716 patent. I agree with this construction by the
`
`Board, and my determination that claim 33 of the ’716 Patent is anticipated by
`
`Wang applies this construction. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that in order to ionize a feed gas to create a weakly-ionized plasma, the ’716 Patent
`
`relies on the components that allow power to be absorbed by the feed gas. As
`
`demonstrated by the ’716 Patent, these ionization components include a power
`
`supply connected to both a cathode and an anode which may or may not include an
`
`electrode. ’716 Patent at 5:1-13 (no electrode); 16:43-52 (includes electrode).
`
`2.
`
` “means for supplying an electrical pulse across the weakly-
`ionized plasma to transform the weakly-ionized plasma to a
`strongly-ionized plasma without developing an electrical
`breakdown condition in the chamber”
`
`
`
` The Board, in adopting the broadest reasonable interpretation, has 24.
`
`construed this claim element as having a claimed function of “supplying an
`
`electrical pulse across the weakly-ionized plasma to transform the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma without developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber.” Patent IPR2014-01099, Decision at p. 14 (Paper No.
`
`9). The Board stated it identifies “a pulsed power supply electrically connected to
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`a cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode” to be the corresponding structures. Id. at
`
`pp. 15-16.
`
`25.
`
`
`I understand that, while the Patent Owner did not directly address the
`
`construction, Dr. Hartsough agreed with the Board’s construction. Hartsough
`
`Decl., ¶ 23. I agree with this construction by the Board, and my determination that
`
`claim 33 of the ’716 Patent is anticipated by Wang applies this construction.
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING
`THE ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-33
`A. Background Discussion of the Prior Art
`Power, Voltage, and Current Relationship
`1.
`
`
` Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough demonstrate a fundamental 26.
`
`misunderstanding of the relationship between power, voltage, and current as they
`
`interact in a pulsed plasma system. Hartsough Decl., ¶¶ 75-83. In response, I
`
`explain the relationship between power, voltage, and current as they apply to
`
`plasma systems where an electrical pulse is suddenly applied to both a feed gas and
`
`to an initial plasma.
`
`
`
` The ’716 patent and Kudryavtsev refer to power supplies, as well as 27.
`
`the concepts of power (P), voltage (V), and current (I). As shown below in
`
`Kortshagen Figure 2, Kudryavtsev illustrates the relationship between voltage and
`
`current, exactly as shown in the ’716 patent, noting that voltage leads current by a
`
`time ts.
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`Kortshagen, Figure 2
`
`
`
`
`
` Although Kudryavtsev does not show a power pulse, it is understood 28.
`
`that power is defined as a product of the voltage and current (P = V ∙ I).
`
`
`
` Further, and more importantly, the ’716 patent describes similar 29.
`
`power supply operation as Wang. See ’716 Patent at Fig. 4 and Wang at Fig. 6
`
`(reproduced and annotated below).
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`Kortshagen, Figure 3
`
`
`
`
`
` Although both the ’716 patent and Wang refer to power pulses, both 30.
`
`teach providing the power pulse in Fig. 4 (’716 patent) and Fig. 6 (Wang) using a
`
`voltage pulse. See ’716 patent 13:61-67; Wang at 7:61-64. Wang specifically
`
`teaches: “a power supply connected to said target and delivering pulses of power of
`
`negative voltage.” Wang at 8:37-38. The negative voltage pulses are further
`
`illustrated in Fig. 7 of Wang, being output from the pulsed supply 80. This is
`
`illustrated below in Kortshagen Figure 4.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`Kortshagen, Figure 4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`31.
`
`
`In short, and as illustrated above in Kortshagen Figure 3, to generate a
`
`power pulse, a voltage pulse with a specific amplitude and rise time is first
`
`provided by the power supply. After a period of time (illustrated as the time
`
`between t3 and t4 of the ’716 patent, and illustrated as time ts in Kudryavtsev) the
`
`current and power will pulse with related profiles.
`
`The Two Embodiments of Wang
`
`2.
`
`
` As a threshold matter, I note that Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough’s 32.
`
`assertions regarding Wang are flawed because their analysis generally jumps back
`
`and forth between two different embodiments, improperly applying some of
`
`Wang’s statements regarding one embodiment to the other embodiment.
`
`IPR2014-00807, Patent Owner Response at pp. 16-21, 26-28 (Paper No. 29);
`
`IPR2014-00808, Patent Owner Response at pp. 19-24, 31-33 (Paper No. 28);
`
`IPR2014-01100, Patent Owner Response at pp. 17-22, 24-26 (Paper No. 29). I
`
`have reproduced and annotated Wang’s Figures 4 and 6 below in Kortshagen,
`
`Figure 4.
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`Kortshagen, Figure 5
`
`
`
`
`
` Wang shows and discusses a system diagram of a magnetron sputter 33.
`
`reactor in Fig. 1. Wang at 3:57-59. In connection with Figs. 4 and 6, Wang shows
`
`and discusses two different embodiments of pulsing a target in the reactor of Fig.
`
`1. See Wang at 3:37-50. These two separate and distinct embodiments are shown
`
`by the figures reproduced above.
`
`
`
` While both of these embodiments show power pulses PP that can be 34.
`
`used to form a strongly-ionized plasma, they are quite different in the manner in
`
`which they form the plasma. Specifically, the embodiment in Fig. 4 shows a graph
`
`of the power pulsing from 0 (off) to a peak power PP, while the embodiment in Fig.
`
`6 shows the power pulsing from a background power level PB to the peak power
`
`level PP. Wang’s lower power level of “0” in Fig. 4 terminates application of
`
`power to the plasma (and thus, the current) and requires that the plasma be re-
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`ignited for each pulse. Wang at 5:28-29 (“in this embodiment, each pulse 82 needs
`
`to ignite the plasma.”). When application of power to a plasma is terminated, the
`
`impedance of the plasma becomes very high. See Wang at 5:30-32 (“[t]he
`
`effective chamber impedance dramatically changes between these two phases.”).
`
`Thus, in Fig. 4 a condition of near zero current occurs just before the ignition of
`
`the plasma for each pulse. Also under Fig. 4’s changing impedance level, Wang
`
`recognizes that “power pulse widths is preferably specified rather than the current
`
`or voltage pulse widths.” Wang at 5:52-54.
`
`35.
`
`
`In contrast, Wang’s background power PB, shown in Fig. 6, maintains
`
`the plasma after ignition allowing the peak power PP to have a controlled voltage
`
`amplitude and rise time to avoid arcing. Wang at 7:17-19 (“The background level
`
`PB is chosen to exceed the minimum power necessary to support a plasma.”)
`
`Wang specifically recognizes the embodiment of Fig. 6 as an improvement upon
`
`that of Fig. 4: “The on-and-off pulsing represented in the waveforms of Fig. 4 can
`
`be further improved to benefit semiconductor processing…Accordingly, it is
`
`advantageous to use a target power waveform illustrated in Fig. 6 in which the
`
`target is maintained at a background power level…” Wang at 7:1-15. In contrast
`
`to Fig. 4, Wang’s Fig. 6 maintains a plasma, and accordingly, “the chamber
`
`impedance changes relatively little between the two power levels PB and PP.”
`
`Wang at 7:49-51. Because of the application of background power level, a near
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`zero current condition does not occur just before or at the transition to high power
`
`level PP.
`
`
`
` These and several additional important differences between the 36.
`
`operation of the reactor using the two embodiments of Figs. 4 and 6 are
`
`summarized in the table below.
`
`Wang embodiment of Fig. 4 Wang embodiment of Fig. 6
`
`Single stage: A single stage
`combines ignition and
`generation of strongly ionized
`plasma. Wang at Fig. 4.
`
`Three stages: Separate ignition
`stage, weakly ionized plasma stage,
`and strongly ionized plasma stage.
`Wang at Fig. 6.
`
`Repeated ignition as plasma
`turns on and off: [E]ach pulse
`needs to ignite the plasma and
`maintain it.” Wang at 5:28-29.
`
`Plasma is ignited to generate
`strongly ionized plasma with
`high voltage: “narrow pulses
`of negative DC power
`supplied from a pulsed DC
`supply 80.” Wang at 5:17-18,
`Fig. 4.
`
`
`
`Single ignition as plasma always
`stays on: “[P]lasma always exist in
`the chamber.” Wang at 7:17-19, 51.
`
`
`
`Plasma is ignited to generate weakly
`ionized plasma with low voltage:
`“The initial plasma ignition [is]
`performed …at much lower power
`levels.” Wang at 7:47-48.
`“Advantageously, the plasma may
`be ignited by the DC power supply
`100 before the pulsed power supply
`80 is even turned on.” Wang at 8:2-
`4, Fig. 6.
`
`Impedance changes little:
`“[C]hamber impedance changes
`relatively little ….” Wang at 7:49-
`51.
`
`
`
`Stages
`
`Ignition
`
`Ignition
`Power
`
`Internal
`impedance
`
`Impedance changes
`dramatically: “[C]hamber
`impedance dramatically
`changes.” Wang at 5:29-30,
`52-53.
`
`Power or
`
`“Where chamber impedance is Where chamber impedance changes
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`Wang embodiment of Fig. 4 Wang embodiment of Fig. 6
`
`changing, the power pulse
`width is preferably specified
`rather than the current or
`voltage pulse widths.” Wang
`at 5:52-54.
`
`relatively little, there is no
`preference to specify power pulse
`over current or voltage pulse. (V = I
`* R).
`
`Tendency to arc during
`ignition/generation of strongly
`ionized plasma: see Wang at
`7:1-12.
`
`Arcing is avoided during ignition
`and during generation of strongly
`ionized plasma. See Wang at 7:26-
`28, 47-48.
`
`
`
`Voltage
`
`Arcing
`
`
`
`37.
`
`
`I highlight the teachings of Wang above because I understand that
`
`Patent Owner and Dr. Hartsough do not properly distinguish the important
`
`differences between the embodiments of Fig. 4 and Fig. 6.
`
`3. Kudryavtsev’s Teaching of Arc Prevention
`In its response, Patent Owner mischaracterizes Kudryavtsev’s
`
`38.
`
`
`disclosure of its explosive ionization increase as resulting from arcing occurring in
`
`Kudryavtsev’s system. IPR2014-00807 Patent Owner Response, pp. 23-25 (Paper
`
`No. 29); IPR2014-00808 Patent Owner Response, p. 26-28 (Paper No. 28);
`
`Hartsough Decl. at ¶¶ 75-83. This is incorrect. Not only does Kudryavtsev’s
`
`derived model apply to pulsed plasma systems that both arc and do not arc,
`
`Kudryavtsev teaches conditions that lead to arcing and how to avoid it.
`
`Kudryavtsev, p. 34, left col., ¶ 5 – right col., ¶ 1. Moreover, the tube apparatus
`
`Kudryavtsev used to test his model is most likely a pulsed glow discharge
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`apparatus, not a “flash tube” as proffered by Zond. IPR2014-00807 Patent Owner
`
`Response, pp. 21-22, 29 (Paper No. 29); IPR2014-00808 Patent Owner Response,
`
`pp. 24-25, 34 (Paper No. 28); Hartsough Decl. at ¶ 72.
`
`39.
`
`
`In sputtering systems, an arc discharge occurs due to a localized
`
`concentration of electrons in a plasma which results in a near short circuit of
`
`electron flow, creating a deleterious discharge between the plasma and a surface of
`
`lower potential. Dr. Hartsough acknowledges this event and describes it as a
`
`“lightning bolt.” Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D. re U.S.
`
`Patent no. 7,604,716 at 161:10-15 (“Hartsough ’716 Transcript”). In sputtering
`
`systems, it is well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that it is best to
`
`avoid such arcs as they can damage the sputtering tool as well as the substrate. Dr.
`
`Hartsough likewise acknowledges the benefits of avoiding these arc discharges.
`
`Hartsough ’716 Transcript at 171:18-19.
`
`
`
` Kudryavtsev acknowledges that his model can be used to analyze such 40.
`
`arcing and refers to it as a “formation and constriction of the current channel in a
`
`pulsed discharge” (Kudryavtsev, p. 34, left col., ¶ 5) for which he refers to
`
`reference 17 and not his own experiment as relevant to the study of such arcing.
`
`Kudryavtsey explains that the constricted current channel discussed in reference 17
`
`is the result of a deformation of the initial electron distribution, ne, following the
`
`application of a pulse. Kudryavtsev, p. 34, left col., ¶ 6 - right col. ¶ 1. In
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`Kudryavtsev’s model, the initial electron distribution is relatively uniform. This
`
`can be seen in the annotated version of Kudryavtsev’s Fig. 5 reproduced below as
`
`Kortshagen, Figure 6. The trace highlighted in green represents the initial electron
`
`distribution as calculated by Kudryavtsev based on his equation 9b as applied to an
`
`argon discharge system. Id.
`
`Kortshagen, Figure 6
`
`
`
`
`
` Kudryavtsev identifies the variable A as the system factor that 41.
`
`determines whether a plasma constriction will occur and lead to an arc. The A
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`variable is defined by Kudryavtsev in equation 10 and represents the relative
`
`contribution of three processes detailed in equations 5 and 6. Id. at p. 32, left col.,
`
`¶ 3; p. 31, right col. ¶ 3. For discussion purposes, Equation 10 can be simplified to
`
`express the A variable as follows:
`
`A ≈ P1P3− �P2P3�2
`
`
`
`where P1 represents the rate of collisional excitation of ground state atoms to an
`
`excited state, P2 represents the rate of ionization of ground state atoms (direct
`
`ionization), and P3 represents the rate of ionization of excited state atoms (multi-
`
`step ionization).
`
`
`
` Equation 10 essentially describes how the nature of the weakly-42.
`
`ionized plasma will affect the resulting electron distribution when a voltage pulse
`
`is applied. For example, if the weakly-ionized plasma is relatively weak (weak
`
`electric field and low plasma density), there is a relatively small number of excited
`
`atoms relative to ground state atoms. Thus, P3 will be small and the term P1/P3
`
`will be large. P2 will also be small (due to the weak electric field) such that the
`
`second term [P2/P3]2 will become negligible. Hence A will be greater than zero
`
`and the plasma will become non-uniform on application of a pulsed voltage or
`
`pulsed electric field.
`
`IPR2014-01099
`GlobalFoundries 1025
`
`

`

`
`
` Likewise, if the weakly-ionized plasma is relatively strong (strong 43.
`
`electric field and high plasma density), the amount of excited atoms is larger
`
`relative to the ground state atoms than in a weaker weakly-ionized plasma as
`
`considered in the previous paragraph. In this case, P2 will increase much stronger
`
`than P1 due to the stronger electric field and P3 will increase due to the higher
`
`plasma density and higher density of excited atoms. Thus the second term [P2/P3]2
`
`will become greater than the first term [P1/P3]. Hence, A will be less than zero
`
`and the plasma will stay relatively uniform. Thus, the A variable essentially
`
`describes that the weakly-ionized plasma must have a threshold intensity in order
`
`to prevent plasma constriction which may lead to arc formation upon application of
`
`the pulsed voltage or electric field.
`
`
`
` Kudryavtsev points to Figure 5 as representing calculations for an 44.
`
`argon-based system in which A > 0 (as evidenced by the figure’s caption);
`
`Kudryavtsev concludes that in systems where A > 0 such as the system
`
`contemplated in Figure 5, “the theory predicts that the distributions will become
`
`highly nonuniform at times t ≥ τs after the field is turned on.” Id. at left col., ¶ 6.
`
`This non-uniformity is shown in Figure 5 as the electron density increases sharply
`
`at r/R = 0 which causes the constriction of the current channel as time progresses
`
`and may lead to a subsequent arc.
`
`IPR2014-01099
`