U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Docket No. 1642930-0005 IPRl
`
`Filed on behalf of GLOBALFOUNDRIES US, Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES
`Dresden Module One LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`Two LLC & CO. KG
`
`By: David M. Tennant, Reg. No. 48,362
`White & Case LLP
`
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 626-3684
`Email: dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE
`
`TWO LLC & CO. KG
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`ZOND, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`US. PATENT NO. 7,604,716
`
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1-11 AND 33
`
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................ - 1 -
`
`A. Real Party—in-Interest ................................................................................ - 1 —
`
`B. Related Matters ......................................................................................... — l -
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Counsel ..................................................................................................... - l -
`
`Service Information .................................................................................. - l -
`
`II. Certification of Grounds for Standing .......................................................... — 2 -
`
`III. Overview of Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................. — 2 —
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications .....I.......................................... - 2 —
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge ............................................................................. - 3 -
`
`IV. Brief Description of Technology ................................................................. — 4 —
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plasma ....................................................................................................... - 4 -
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms ............................................................................ - 5 —
`
`V. Overview of the ‘716 Patent ......................................................................... - 6 -
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’716 Patent .................................. - 6 -
`
`Prosecution History .................................................................................. — 7 -
`
`VI. Overview of the Primary Prior Art References ........................................... - 8 -
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art ......................................................................... — 8 —
`
`B. Overview of Mozgrin ............................................................................... — 8 -
`
`C. Overview of Wang.................................................................................. - 10 -
`
`VII.
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................. — ll —
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” ..................... - 12 -
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas...” (claim 33) ........................................ - l3 -
`
`“means for supplying an electrical pulse...” (claim 33) ........................ — l4 -
`
`VIII.
`
`Specific Grounds for Petition ................................................................. - 15 -
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 33 are anticipated by Mozgrin ........... - 15 —
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Independent claim 33 is anticipated by Mozgrin ................................ - 15 -
`
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Mozgrin .................................. - 27 -
`
`3. Dependent claims 2—5 and 8-11 are anticipated by Mozgrin .............. — 3O -
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B. Ground II: Claims 6 and 7 are obvious in View of the combination of
`
`Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis .................................................................... - 36 -
`
`C. Ground III: Claims 1-11 and 33 are anticipated by Wang .................... — 39 -
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Independent claim 33 is anticipated by Wang .................................... - 40 -
`
`Independent claim 1 is anticipated by Wang ...................................... - 49 -
`
`3. Dependent claims 2-11 are anticipated by Wang ................................ - 51 -
`
`IX. Conclusion ................................................................................................. — 60 —
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`37 CPR. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 CPR. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 CPR. §42.104(a)
`
`37 CPR. §42.104(b)(1)—(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Part‘es Review
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`
`One LLC & Co. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module Two LLC & Co.
`
`KG (collectively, “Petitioner”) are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`Zond has asserted US. Patent No. 7,604,716 (“’716 Patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`against numerous parties in the District of Massachusetts. See List of Related
`
`Litigations (Ex. 1023). Petitioner is also filing additional Petitions for Inter Partes
`
`review in several patents that name the same alleged inventor. The below-listed
`
`claims of the ’716 Patent are presently the subject of two substantially identical
`
`petitions for inter partes review with Case Nos. IPR2014—00520 and IPR2014-
`
`00972. Petitioner plans to seek joinder with IPR2014-00520.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: David M. Tennant (Reg. No. 48,362)
`
`Backup Counsel: Dohm Chankong (Reg. No. 70,524)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served on the following. Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`David M. Tennant (Reg. No. 48,362)
`
`E—mail:
`
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Post and hand delivery: White & Case LLP
`
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Telephone: (202) 626-3684
`
`Fax: (202) 639-9355
`
`II.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(l)—(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-11 and 33 of the ’716 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below: 1
`
`l.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, er a], Hi h—Current Low-Pressure
`
`uasi-Stationa
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`1 The ‘716 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has chosen to use the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer
`
`to the prior art.
`
`

`

`Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 400-409, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1003)), which is prior art under
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`102(b).
`
`2.
`
`US. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1004)), which is prior art under
`
`102(a) and (e).
`
`3.
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, Hi h-Current Low-Pressure
`
`uasi—Stationa Dischar e in a
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering Physics
`
`Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1005)), which is prior art under 102(b).
`
`Exhibit 1005 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis,
`
`attached as Exhibit 1006. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at
`
`the Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1007.
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-11 and 33 of the ’716 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This Petition, supported by the
`
`declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen (“Kortshagen Decl.” (Ex. 1002)) filed
`
`herewith,2 demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`2 Dr. Kortshagen has been retained by Petitioner. The declaration at Ex. 1002 is a
`
`copy of Dr. Kortshagen’s declaration filed in IPR2014-00520, discussed above.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim and that each challenged claim
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Parl‘es Review
`
`is not patentable.3 See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Plasma
`
`A plasma is a collection of ions, free electrons, and neutral atoms.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 1] 22 (Ex. 1002). The negatively charged free electrons and
`
`positively charged ions are present in roughly equal numbers such that the plasma
`
`as a whole has no overall electrical charge. The “density” of a plasma refers to the
`
`number of ions or electrons that are present in a unit volume. Id. (Ex. 1002).4
`
`Plasmas had been used in research and industrial applications for decades
`
`before the ‘716 patent was filed. Id. at 1] 23 (Ex. 1002). For example, sputtering is
`
`an industrial process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a target material
`
`onto a surface called a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer during a semiconductor
`
`3 The term “challenged claims” as used herein refers to claims 1-11 and 33 of the
`
`‘716 Patent. Petitioner seeks to invalidate the remaining Iclaims of the ‘716 Patth
`
`in separate petitions.
`
`4 The terms “plasma density” and “electron density” are often used interchangeably
`
`because the negatively charged free electrons and positively charged ions are
`
`present in roughly equal numbers in plasmas that do not contain negatively
`
`charged ions or clusters. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 22, FNl (EX. 1002).
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`manufacturing operation). Id. (Ex. 1002). Ions in the plasma strike a target
`
`surface causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id. (Ex. 1002). The
`
`ejected target material then forms a film on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`Under certain conditions, electrical arcing can occur during sputtering. Id. at
`
`1] 24 (Ex. 1002). Arcing is undesirable because it causes explosive release of
`
`droplets from the target that can splatter on the substrate. Id. (Ex. 1002). The need
`
`to avoid arcing while sputtering was known long before the ‘716 Patent was filed.
`
`Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`B.
`
`Ions and Excited Atoms
`
`Atoms have equal numbers of protons and electrons. Id. at 1] 25 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Each electron has an associated energy state. Id. (Ex. 1002). If all of an atom’s
`
`electrons are at their lowest possible energy state, the atom is said to be in the
`
`“ground state.” Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`On the other hand, if one or more of an atom’s electrons is in a state that is
`
`higher than its lowest possible state, then the atom is said to be an “excited atom.”
`
`Id. at 11 26 (Ex. 1002). Excited atoms are electrically neutral— they have equal
`
`numbers of electrons and protons. Id. (Ex. 1002). A collision with a free electron
`
`(e-) can convert a ground state atom to an excited atom. Id. (Ex. 1002). For
`
`example, the ‘716 Patent uses the following equation to describe production of an
`
`

`

`excited argon atom, Ar*, from a ground state argon atom, Ar. See ‘716 Patent at
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`9:7 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar+e' 9 Ar* +e'
`
`An ion is an atom that has become disassociated from one or more of its
`
`electrons. Kortshagen Decl. 11 27 (Ex. 1002). A collision between a free, high
`
`energy, electron and a ground state or excited atom can create an ion. Id. (Ex.
`
`1002). For example, the ‘716 Patent uses the following equations to describe
`
`production of an argon ion, Ar+, from a ground state argon atom, Ar, or an excited
`
`argon atom, Ar*. See ‘716 Patent at 2:65 and 9:9 (Ex. 1001).
`
`Ar + e" 9 Ar+ + 2e‘
`
`Ar* + e' 9 Ar+ + 2e'
`
`The production of excited atoms and ions was well understood long before
`
`the ‘716 patent was filed. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 28 (Ex. 1002).
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘716 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’7 16 Patent
`
`The ‘716 Patent describes generating a plasma by applying an electrical
`
`pulse in a manner that allegedly reduces the probability of arcing. Id. at 1] 29 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`More specifically, the claims of the ‘716 Patent are generally directed to
`
`generating a, so called, “weakly-ionized plasma” and then applying an electrical
`
`pulse to increase the density of that plasma so as to form a “strongly-ionized
`
`_ 6 _
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`plasma.” Id. at 11 30 (Ex. 1002). The weakly-ionized plasma is claimed to reduce
`
`the probability of forming an electrical breakdown condition. Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`Specific claims are directed to further operational details such as supplying a
`
`feed gas to the plasma, characteristics of the electrical pulse, generating a magnetic
`
`field and the type of power supply used. Id. at 11 31 (Ex. 1002).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ‘716 patent is a continuation of U.S. Pat. App. No. 10/065,629 (now
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,853,142) (Ex. 1008). See ‘716 Patent at Certificate of Correction
`
`(Ex. 1001).
`
`The first substantive office action rejected all independent claims as being
`
`anticipated. See 03/27/08 Office Action at 2 (EX. 1014). The applicant then
`
`amended every independent claim to require “substantially eliminating the
`
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” and
`
`“without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” or similar
`
`limitations. See 09/24/08 Resp. (Ex. 1015).
`
`Following that amendment, the claims were allowed. The Notice of
`
`Allowance explicitly recites these limitations as the examiner’s reasons for
`
`allowance. 06/11/09 Allowance at 2 (“The closest prior art of record Kouznetsov
`
`WO 98/40532 fails to teach the claimed elements including ‘substantially
`
`eliminating the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Part‘es Review
`
`chamber’ and ‘without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`
`chamber.”) (Ex. 1016). However, as explained in detail below, and contrary to the
`
`Examiner’s reasons for allowance, the prior art addressed herein teaches those and
`
`all other limitations of the challenged claims. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 34 (EX. 1002).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prior Art
`
`As explained in detail below, limitation-by—limitation, there is nothing new
`
`or non—obvious in the challenged claims of the ‘71 6 Patent. Kortshagen Decl. 11 35
`
`(Ex. 1002).
`
`B.
`
`Overview of Mozgrin5
`
`Mozgrin teaches forming a
`
`U, v
`500— 1000
`
`plasma “without forming an arc
`
`discharge.” Id. at 11 36 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Fig. 7 of Mozgrin, copied at right,
`
`shows the current-voltage
`
`characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma
`
`15 _ 45
`
`1000 ’1800 l’ A
`15 ' 225
`0
`Fig. 7. Generalized ampere-voltaic characteristic CVC of
`quasi-stationary discharge.
`
`discharge. As shown, Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions.
`
`Mozgrin calls region 1 “pre—ionization.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, 1} 2 (“Part
`
`1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-
`
`5 Mozgrin is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`-8—
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`ionization stage)” (emphasis added)) (Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. 11 38 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 2 “high current magnetron discharge.” Mozgrin at 409,
`
`left col, 1 4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge
`
`(regime 2)...” (emphasis added)) (EX. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. 11 39 (EX. 1002).
`
`Application of a high voltage to the pre—ionized plasma causes the transition from
`
`region 1 to 2. Kortshagen Decl. 11 39 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is
`
`useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, 1 4 (“Regime 2 was characterized
`
`by an intense cathode sputtering. . .”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 3 “high current diffuse disCharge.” Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, 1 5, (“The high-current diflhse discharge (regime 3)...” (emphasis added))
`
`(Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. 11 40 (EX. 1002). Increasing the current applied to
`
`the “high-current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition
`
`to region 3. Id. (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin also teaches that region 3 is useful for
`
`etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col, 1 5 (“The
`
`high-current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is useful
`
`Hence, it can enhance the
`
`efficiency of ionic etching. . .”) (Ex. 1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11 40 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`Mozgrin calls region 4 “arc discharge.” Mozgrin at 402, right col, 1 3
`
`(“. . .part 4 corresponds to the high-current low-voltage arc discharge...”
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(emphasis added)) (Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. 11 41 (Ex. 1002). Further
`
`increasing the applied current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the
`
`“arc discharge” region 4. Id. (EX. 1002).
`
`Within its broad disclosure of a range of issues related to sputtering and
`
`etching, Mozgrin describes arcing and how to avoid it. Id. at 11 42 (Ex. 1002).
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Wang6
`
`Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode (24),
`
`a cathode (14), a magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown in Fig.
`
`7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang at Figs. 1, 7, 3:57—4:55; 7:56-
`
`8.12 (EX.1004). F1g.6
`
`(annotated and reproduced
`
`Possible
`arc
`
`..
`gnltlon
`
`:.
`I
`
`E
`i
`
`No arcing
`
`”strongly-ionized plasma"
`
`|ll|llIl1III
`
`herein) shows a graph ofthe W
`
`
`
`power Wang applies to the
`
`plasma. The lower power
`
`level, PB, is generated by the
`
`FIG. 6
`
`"weakly-Ionized plasma"
`
`DC power supply 100 (shown in Fig. 7) and the higher power level, Pp, is
`
`generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang 7:56-64 (EX. 1004); see also
`
`Kortshagen Dec]. 11 43 (Ex. 1002). Wang’s lower power level, PB, maintains the
`
`plasma after ignition and application of the higher power level, Pp, raises the
`
`6 Wang is art of record, but was not substantively applied during prosecution.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`density of the plasma. Wang at 7:17-31 (“The background power level, PB, is
`
`chosen to exceed the minimum power necessary to support a plasma...
`
`[T]he
`
`application of the high peak power, Pp, quickly causes the already existing plasma
`
`to spread and increases the density of the plasma”) (Ex. 1004). Kortshagen Decl.
`
`11 43 (EX. 1002). Wang applies the teachings of Mozgrin in a commercial,
`
`industrial plasma sputtering device. Id. (Ex. 1002).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 CPR. § 42.100(b). Any claim term that lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is therefore also given a broad interpretation.7 In re
`
`ICONHeaZth & Fitness, Inc, 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
`
`following discussion proposes constructions of and support therefore of those
`
`terms. Any claim terms not included in the following discussion are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as commonly
`
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, should the Patent
`
`Owner, in order to avoid the prior art, contend that the claim has a construction
`
`7 Petitioner adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by
`
`the governing regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`pursue different constructions in a district court, where a different standard is
`
`applicable.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`different from its broadest reasonable interpretation, the appropriate course is for
`
`the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claim to expressly correspond to its
`
`contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly—ionized plasma”
`
`The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. Kortshagen Decl. 11 46
`
`(EX. 1002). With reference to Fig. 3, the ‘716 Patent describes forming a weakly-
`
`ionized plasma between times t1 and t2 by application of the low power 302 and
`
`then goes on to describe forming a strongly-ionized plasma by application of
`
`higher power 304.
`
`‘716 Patent at 11:24-30; 11:66-12:6 (EX. 1001). The ‘716
`
`Patent also provides exemplary densities for the weakly-ionized and strongly—
`
`ionized plasmas. See ‘716 Patent at claim 23 (“wherein a peak plasma density of
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm”); claim 24 (“wherein the
`
`peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about
`
`1012 cm'3”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`
`Thus, the proposed construction for “weakly—ionized plasma” is “a lower
`
`density plasma.” Likewise, the proposed construction for “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma” is “a higher density plasma.”
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the position the Patent
`
`Owner has taken in other jurisdictions. For example, the Patent Owner, when
`
`faced with a clarity objection during prosecution of a related European patent
`
`application, argued that “it is [sic] would be entirely clear to the skilled man, not
`
`just in view of the description, that a reference to a ‘weakly—ionised plasma’ in the
`
`claims indicates a plasma having an ionisation level lower than that of a ‘strongly-
`
`ionized plasma’ and there can be no lack of clarity.” 04/21/08 Response in EP
`
`1560943 (EX. 1017).
`
`B.
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas...” (claim 33)
`
`Claim 33 recites “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 claimed function is:
`
`“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 ‘716 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure for
`
`the “means for ionizing...” limitation of claim 33: a power supply, generating the
`
`voltage, current and power values shown in Fig. 4 (e. g., between t1 — t2 and t6 — t7),
`
`electrically coupled to cathode (e.g., 204), anode (e.g., 216) and/or an electrode
`
`(e.g., 452, 452’), wherein the cathode, anode and/or electrode are arranged relative
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`to a sputtering target as shown in Figs. 2A-2D and 6A-6D, and as described in the
`
`text ofthe ‘716 Patent at 5:1-32,16:10—25,17:24—61,17:62—18:15, and 18:16-27
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(Ex. 1001).8
`
`C.
`
`“means for supplying an electrical pulse...” (claim 33)
`
`Claim 33 recites “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 claimed function is “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 ‘716 Patent discloses at least the following corresponding structure for
`
`the “means for supplying an electrical pulse...” of claim 33: pulsed power supply
`
`(e. g., 202), generating the voltage, current and power values shown in Fig. 4 (e.g.,
`
`between t2 — t4), electrically coupled to a cathode (e.g., 204) and anode (e.g., 216),
`
`8 The ‘759 Patent discloses that “other techniques including UV radiation
`
`techniques, X—ray techniques, electron beam techniques, ion beam techniques, or
`
`ionizing filament techniques” can ionize a gas, but fails to describe any structure
`
`for these “techniques.” See ‘716 Patent, 627-15 (Ex. 1001). The “means for
`
`ionizing...” cannot be construed to include any techniques that lack corresponding
`
`structure in the specification.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Part’es Review
`
`wherein the cathode and anode are arranged relative to a sputtering target as shown
`
`in Figs. 2A—2D and 6A-6D, and as described in the text of the ‘716 Patent at 6:52-
`
`7:24, 8:9-19,11:59-12:6,13:14-44,13:52-60,16:64—18,18:50-61, and 19:1-11
`
`(Ex. 1001).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)—(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Kortshagen Decl. 1] 51 (EX. 1002), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of claims 1—11 and 33 of the ’716 Patent, and
`
`how those claims are rendered anticipated or obvious by the prior art.
`
`A.
`
`Ground I: Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 33 are anticipated by Mozgrin
`
`The claim chart that Petitioner served on Feb. 11, 2014 in its ongoing
`
`litigation involving the Petitioner and the Patent Owner, showing that claims 1-5,
`
`8-11 and 33 are anticipated by Mozgrin, is submitted hereto as Exhibit 1020 (Ex.
`
`1020). Dr. Kortshagen reviewed that chart and agrees with it. Kortshagen Decl. 11
`
`53 (Ex. 1002).
`
`1.
`
`Independent claim 33 is anticipated by Mozgrin
`
`a)
`
`The preamble
`
`Claim 33 begins, “[a]n apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`As shown in Fig. 1, Mozgrin teaches generating plasma in “two types of devices: a
`
`planar magnetron and a system with specifically shaped hollow electrodes.”
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Mozgrin at Fig. 1; 400, right col, 1 4. (Ex. 1003). Kortshagen Decl. 11 54 (Ex.
`
`1002). The densities in Mozgrin’s regions 1—3 are summarized below.
`
`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Parl‘es Review
`
`0 Region 1: 109—1011cm'3.9
`
`0 Region 2: exceeding 2x1013 cm'3.10
`
`0 Region 3: 1.5x1015cm'3.11
`
`Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma in both regions 2 and 3.
`
`Kortshagen Decl. 11 55 (Ex. 1002). The density in those regions matches the
`
`exemplary density given for a strongly-ionized plasma in the ‘716 Patent.
`
`‘716
`
`Patent at claim 24 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is greater than about 1012 cm'3”) (Ex. 1001). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11
`
`55 (Ex. 1002).
`
`9 Mozgrin at 401, right col, 112 (“For pre—ionization
`
`the initial plasma density in
`
`the 109 — 1011 cm'3 range”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`10 Mozgrin at 409, left col, 1 4 (“The implementation of the high-current
`
`magnetron discharge (regime 2) in sputtering. . .plasma density (exceeding
`
`2x10” cm'3).”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`H Mozgrin at 409, left col, 115 (“The high—current diffuse discharge (regime 3) is
`
`useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas 71,- _—~_ 1.5x1015cm'3...”).
`
`(Ex. 1003).
`
`—16-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`b)
`
`“means for ionizing... ”: Function
`
`As explained above in section VII.B, the claimed function of the “means for
`
`ionizing...” is: “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.”
`
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a
`(1)
`weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`The ‘716 Patent uses the terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and “pro-ionized
`
`plasma” synonymously.
`
`‘716 Patent at 5:14-15 (“The weakly-ionized plasma 232
`
`is also referred to as a pre-ionized plasma”) (Ex. 1001). See also Kortshagen
`
`Decl. 11 57 (EX. 1002). Mozgrin’s power supply (shown in Fig. 2) generates a pre-
`
`ionized plasma in Mozgrin’s region 1. Mozgrin at 402, right col, 112 (“Figure 3
`
`shows typical voltage and current oscillograms.. .. Part I in the voltage oscillogram
`
`represents the voltage of the stationary discharge (pre-ionization stage).”) (Ex.
`
`1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11 57 (EX. 1002).
`
`Moreover, the density of Mozgrin’s pre-ionized plasma matches the
`
`exemplary density for weakly-ionized plasma given in the ‘716 Patent.
`
`‘716 Patent
`
`at claim 23 (“wherein a peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less
`
`than about 1012 cm'3”) (emphasis added) (Ex. 1001); Mozgrin at 401 , right col, 112
`
`(“[flor pre—ionization, we used a stationary magnetron discharge;
`
`provided the
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`initial plasma density in the 109 — 10" cm'3 range”) (Ex. 1003) (emphasis added).
`
`See also Kortshagen Decl. 11 58 (EX. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin also teaches generating its plasma from feed gasses such as Argon
`
`and Nitrogen. Mozgrin at 400, right col, 1] 3 (“We investigated the discharge
`
`regimes in various gas mixtures at 10'3 — 10 torr. . .”) (emphasis added); 402, 11
`
`spanning left and right 0013 (“We studied the high-current discharge in wide ranges
`
`of discharge current. . .and operating pressure. . .using various gases (Ar, N2, SF6,
`
`and H2) or their mixtures of various composition. . .”) (emphasis added) (Ex.
`
`1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11 59 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Finally, Mozgrin’s weakly-ionized plasma was generated between the anode
`
`and cathode, both of which reside within a chamber. See also Kortshagen Decl. 11
`
`60 (Ex. 1002). For example, Mozgrin states “[t]he gas from the discharge volume
`
`was pumped out; minimal residual gas pressure was about 8 X 10'6 torr.” Mozgrin
`
`at 401, left col, 11 3 (Ex. 1003). That is, Mozgrin pumped the gas out to achieve a
`
`desired base pressure within the chamber. See also Mozgrin at Figs. 1 and 6 (Ex.
`
`1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. 1] 60 (Ex. 1002).
`
`“that substantially eliminates the probability of
`(2)
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`chamber”
`
`Mozgrin states “pre—ionization was not necessary; however, in this case, the
`
`probability of discharge transferring to arc mode increased.” Mozgrin at 406, right
`
`—18-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`col, 1] 3 (Ex. 1003). Thus, Mozgrin teaches that failing to make the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma increases the probability of arcing and that creation of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma (Mozgrin’s region 1) reduces “the probability of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition proximate to the cathode.” Kortshagen Decl. 11 61 (Ex.
`
`1002).
`
`The Patent Owner mischaracterized Mozgrin
`(a)
`during prosecution of the related US. Pat. No.
`7,147,759
`
`The ‘716 Patent (Ex. 1001) and the ’759 Patent (Ex. 1018) name the same
`
`inventor and are owned by a common assignee. Both patents are asserted in
`
`related litigation identified in Section I.B. During prosecution of the ‘759 Patent,
`
`the Patent Owner argued that Mozgrin does not teach “without forming an arc.”
`
`See 05/02/06 Resp. of ‘759 Patent file history at 2, 5, 7 and 13—16 (EX. 1019).
`
`However, the Patent Owner was wrong. Kortshagen Decl. 1] 62 (EX. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin does teach “without forming an arc” as required by the ‘759 Patent as
`
`well as “substantially eliminat[ing] the probability of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber” as required by the ‘716 Patent. Id. (EX.
`
`1002).
`
`As shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 7, if voltage is steadily applied, and current is
`
`allowed to grow, the plasma will eventually transition to the arc discharge region
`
`(Mozgrin’s region 4). However, ifthe current is limited, the plasma will remain
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 7,604,716
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`in the arc-free regions 2 (sputtering) or 3 (etching). Id. at 11 63 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin is an academic paper and it explores all regions, including the arc
`
`discharge region, so as to fully characterize the plasma. Id. at 11 64 (Ex. 1002).
`
`But Mozgrin ’s discussion ofarcing does not mean that arcing is inevitable. Id.
`
`(Ex. 1002). Rather, Mozgrin ’s explanation ofthe conditions under which arcing
`
`occurs provides a recipefor avoiding arcs. Id. (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin explicitly
`
`notes that arcs can be avoided. See Mozgrin at 400, left col, 11 3 (“Some
`
`experiments on magnetron systems of various geometry showed that discharge
`
`regimes which do not transit to arcs can be obtained even at high currents”)
`
`(emphasis added) (Ex. 1003). See also Kortshagen Decl. 11 64 (Ex. 1002).
`
`One of ordinary skill would have understood that the arc discharge region
`
`should be avoided during plasma generation that is used for applications such as
`
`sputtering or etching. Id. at 11 65 (Ex. 1002). For example, Plasma Etching: An
`
`Introduction, by Manos and Flamm (“Manos”), a well-known textbook on plasma
`
`processing, which was published in 1989, over a decade before the ‘716 Patent was
`
`filed, states that “arcs. . .are a problem. . .” Manos at 231