Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Entered: October 14, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBAL FOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEYER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Entered: October 14, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBAL FOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEYER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden
`Module One LLC & Co. KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`Two LLC & Co. KG, (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting
`inter partes review of claims 1–11 and 33 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,604,716 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’716 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`Zond, LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is
`a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and
`the Preliminary Response, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–11 and 33.
`Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted as to the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner indicates that the ’716 patent was asserted in several related
`district court cases, including Zond, LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`No. 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (D. Mass.). Pet. 1 (citing Ex. 1023). Petitioner
`also identifies other petitions for inter partes review that are related to this
`proceeding. Id.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`B. The ’716 Patent
`The ’716 patent relates to a method and apparatus for generating a
`strongly-ionized plasma, for use in various plasma processes. Ex. 1001,
`Abstract, 7:30–47. For example, at the time of the invention, plasma
`sputtering was a widely used technique for depositing films on substrates.
`Id. at 1:24–25. As discussed in the ’716 patent, prior art magnetron
`sputtering systems deposited films having low uniformity and poor target
`utilization (the target material erodes in a non-uniform manner). Id. at 3:20–
`33. The ’716 patent discloses that increasing the power applied to the
`plasma, in an attempt to increase the plasma uniformity and density, can also
`“increase the probability of generating an electrical breakdown condition
`leading to an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the
`chamber.” Id. at 3:34–40.
`The ’716 patent further discloses that using pulsed DC power can
`reduce the probability of establishing such an electrical breakdown
`condition, but that large power pulses still can result in undesirable electrical
`discharges. Id. at 3:42–52. According to the ’716 patent, however, first
`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 the anode.” Id. at 6:16–19. The
`“probability of establishing a breakdown condition is substantially
`eliminated because the weakly-ionized plasma . . . has a low-level of
`ionization that provides electrical conductivity through the plasma. This
`conductivity substantially prevents the setup of a breakdown condition, even
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`when high power is applied to the plasma.” Id. at 6:20–25. Once the
`weakly-ionized plasma is formed, high-power pulses are applied between
`the cathode and anode to generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the
`weakly-ionized plasma “without developing an electrical breakdown
`condition in the chamber.” Id. at 6:52–54, 7:16–19, 20:26–27.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 33 are independent. Claims
`2–11 depend from claim 1. Claims 1 and 33 are illustrative, and are
`reproduced as follows:
`1. An apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma,
`the apparatus comprising:
`a. an ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized
`plasma from a feed gas contained in a chamber, the weakly-
`ionized plasma substantially eliminating the probability of
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber;
`and
`
`b. a power supply that supplies power to the weakly-
`ionized plasma th[r]ough an electrical pulse that is applied
`across the weakly-ionized plasma, the electrical pulse having at
`least one of a magnitude and a rise-time that is sufficient to
`transform the weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized
`plasma without developing an electrical breakdown condition in
`the chamber.
`Ex. 1001, 20:14–27.
`33. An apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized
`plasma, the apparatus comprising:
`a. means for ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a
`weakly-ionized plasma
`that substantially eliminates
`the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in
`the chamber; and
`b. 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.
`Id. at 22:41–50.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references (Pet. 2–3):
`Wang
`US 6,413,382 B1
` July 2, 2002
`(Ex. 1004)
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1003) (“Mozgrin”)
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow
`Engineering Physics Institute (1994) (Ex. 1006) (“Mozgrin Thesis”).1
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 8–59):
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1–5, 8–11, 33 § 102
`
`Mozgrin
`
`6, 7
`
`1–11, 33
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 102
`
`Mozgrin and Mozgrin Thesis
`
`Wang
`
`
`1 The Mozgrin Thesis is a Russian-language reference. Petitioner has also
`submitted a certified English-language translation (Ex. 1005).
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are given
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the
`claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`In the instant proceeding, the parties propose claim constructions for
`several claim terms, including two means-plus-function claim elements.
`Pet. 11–15; Prelim. Resp. 11–16, 22–23, 31–32. In construing the claim
`terms below, we have considered these proposed constructions and applied
`the broadest reasonable construction, taking into account the plain meaning
`of the terms and their usage in the Specification.
`
`Claim Terms
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`Each of claims 1 and 33 recites supplying an electrical pulse to
`“transform [a] weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 20:25–27, 22:48–50. Petitioner proposes that the claim term
`“weakly-ionized plasma” should be interpreted as “a lower density plasma,”
`and that the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma” should be interpreted as
`“a higher density plasma.” Pet. 12–13 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner’s
`contention is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46). Dr. Kortshagen defines the term “density” in the
`context of plasma as “the number of ions or electrons that are present in a
`unit volume.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 22.
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner proposes that the claim
`term “weakly-ionized plasma” should be construed as “a plasma with a
`relatively low peak density of ions,” and that the claim term “strongly-
`ionized plasma” should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively high
`peak density of ions.” Prelim. Resp. 11–13 (citing Ex. 1001,2 6:22–24 (“the
`weakly-ionized plasma 232 has a low-level of ionization”), 7:16–18 (“high-
`power pulses generate a highly-ionized or a strongly-ionized plasma 238
`from the weakly-ionized plasma 232”)). Patent Owner also directs our
`attention to the Specifications of U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652
`patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 B2 (Ex. 1018, “the ’759 patent”),
`which are being challenged in GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. v. Zond,
`LLC, Case IPR2014-01088, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. v. Zond,
`LLC, Case IPR2014-01086, respectively. Id at 12–13. The Specification of
`
`
`2 The Preliminary Response cites to the ’716 patent as Ex. 1101. We
`assume, however, the intention was to cite to Ex. 1001, which is the exhibit
`number assigned to the ’716 patent in this case.
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`the ’652 patent states “[t]he term ‘weakly-ionized plasma’ is defined herein
`to mean a plasma with a relatively low peak plasma density. The peak
`plasma density of the weakly[-]ionized plasma depends on the properties of
`the specific plasma processing system.” IPR2014-01088, Ex. 1001, 8:55–
`59. The Specification of the ’759 patent refers to “strongly-ionized plasma
`[as] having a large ion density.” Ex. 1018, 10:4–5.
`We recognize when construing claims in patents that derive from the
`same parent application and share common terms, “we must interpret the
`claims consistently across all asserted patents.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In
`Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Here,
`although Patent Owner characterizes at least the ’652 patent as “a related
`patent” (Prelim. Resp. 13), Patent Owner does not explain how the ’652
`patent, or the ’759 patent, is related to the involved patent in the instant
`proceeding (i.e., the ’716 patent). In fact, these patents do not share the
`same written disclosure, nor do they derive from the same parent
`application.
`Nevertheless, we observe no significant difference between the
`parties’ proposed constructions. Pet. 12–13; Ex. 1002 ¶ 47; Prelim. Resp.
`11–13. More importantly, the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and
`“strongly-ionized plasma” appear to be used consistently across each of
`these patents. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:14–24. For purposes of this decision,
`we construe the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a
`relatively low peak density of ions,” and the claim term “strongly-ionized
`plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma substantially eliminating the probability of
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber”
`Claim 1 recites generating a weakly-ionized plasma, “the weakly-
`ionized plasma substantially eliminating the probability of developing an
`electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.” Ex. 1001, 20:16–20. Claim
`33 includes a similar limitation. See id. at 22:44–46. Petitioner does not
`provide a proposed construction of this claim term. Patent Owner asserts
`this claim term requires the weakly-ionized plasma be
`plasma having a level of ionization that is low enough and
`sufficiently conductive to substantially eliminate the setup of a
`breakdown condition when the plasma is formed and when an
`electrical pulse is applied across the plasma to thereby
`generate a strongly ionized plasma.
`Prelim. Resp. 14–16 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded on this
`record, however, that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is the broadest
`reasonable construction in view of the Specification of the ’716 patent. The
`Specification describes the weakly-ionized plasma only as substantially
`eliminating the setup of a breakdown condition when the high-power pulses
`are applied across the weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized
`plasma; the Specification does not support Patent Owner’s assertion that the
`setup of a breakdown condition be substantially eliminated when the
`weakly-ionized plasma itself is formed. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:16–26
`(“Forming the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma . . . substantially
`eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown condition in the
`chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the cathode . . . and
`the anode.”) (emphasis added); id. at 11:39–47, 12:65–13:4, 16:59–63,
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`17:48–54; see also id. at 5:41–46 (“[A] direct current (DC) power
`supply . . . is used in an ionization source to generate and maintain the
`weakly-ionized . . . plasma . . . . In this embodiment, the DC power supply
`is adapted to generate a voltage that is large enough to ignite the weakly-
`ionized plasma.”) (emphasis added); id. at 11:51–54 (“[T]he power from the
`pulsed power supply . . . is continuously applied after the weakly-ionized
`plasma . . . is ignited in order to maintain the weakly-ionized plasma . . . .”)
`(emphasis added).
`The additional claim language of claims 1 and 33, which recites
`“transform[ing] the weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma
`without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber,” also
`supports this construction. Ex. 1001, 20:25–27, 22:48–50. Accordingly, on
`this record, we construe “weakly-ionized plasma substantially eliminating
`the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`chamber” as “weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the
`probability of developing a breakdown condition when an electrical pulse is
`applied across the plasma thereby to generate a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`“feed gas in a chamber”
`Claims 1 and 33 recite “a feed gas contained in a chamber” and “a
`feed gas in a chamber,” respectively. Ex. 1001, 20:17, 22:43. Petitioner
`does not provide a proposed construction of these claim terms. Patent
`Owner asserts that these terms require “[g]as within a chamber from an
`ongoing gas feed.” Prelim. Resp. 13–14. We are not persuaded by this
`contention. Nothing in the plain language of the claims requires an ongoing
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`gas feed, as asserted by the Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction improperly imports limitations from the Specification into the
`claims. See, e.g., SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
`875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be
`aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important
`not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).
`In any event, our decision on institution does not turn on the
`construction of this claim term. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision,
`we do not provide an express construction of “feed gas in a chamber.”
`
`Means-Plus-Function Claim Elements
`Petitioner identifies two claim elements recited in claim 33 as means-
`plus-function elements, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 63: “means for ionizing
`a feed gas” and “means for supplying an electrical pulse.” Pet. 13–15. 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
`
`
`3 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) re-
`designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Because the ’716 patent has a filing date before
`September 16, 2012 (effective date), we will refer to the pre-AIA version of
`§ 112.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (A claim element using the term “means
`for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke
`§ 112, ¶ 6.); Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1427–28
`(Fed. Cir. 1997) (The presumption is not rebutted if the term “means for” is
`modified by functional language and is not modified by any structure recited
`in the claim to perform the claimed function.).
`The first step in construing a means-plus-function claim element is to
`identify the recited function in the claim element. Med. Instrumentation &
`Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The
`second step is to look to the specification and identify the corresponding
`structure for that recited function. Id. A structure disclosed in the
`specification qualifies as “corresponding” structure only if the specification
`or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`recited in the claim. B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419,
`1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “While corresponding structure need not include all
`things necessary to enable the claimed invention to work, it must include all
`structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit
`Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir.
`2005).
`
`“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”
`We first observe that the recited function for this claim element is
`“ionizing a feed gas in a chamber to form a weakly-ionized plasma that
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR22014-010999
`16 B2
`
`Patennt 7,604,7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`subsstantially elliminates tthe probabiility of devveloping ann electricall
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`breakkdown conndition in tthe chambeer.” Petitiooner submmits that thee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`correesponding structure ffor that reccited functiion is “a poower supplly,
`(e.g.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`geneerating the voltage, cuurrent and power vallues shownn in Fig. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`betwween t1 – t2 and t6 – t7)), electricallly coupledd to cathodde (e.g., 2004), anode
`
`
`
`
`(e.g., 216) and//or an elecctrode (e.g., 452, 452
`
`
`’), whereinn the cathoode, anode
`and/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or electrodde are arrannged relativve to a spuuttering tarrget as showwn in Figss.
`
`
`
`
`
`2A-22D and 6AA-6D,” and as describbed in correesponding
`
`text of thee ’716
`16:10–25,
`
`
`
`
`patennt. Pet. 133–14 (citingg Ex. 10011, 5:1–32, 1
`
`17:24–61,, 17:62–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18:15, 18:16–227). Patentt Owner dooes not proovide a prooposed connstruction
`
`
`
`
`of thhis claim teerm. See, ee.g., Prelimm. Resp. 311–32.
`
`ed below,
`
`
`
`Figure 22A of the ’7716 patent, reproduce
`
`
`
`
`
`sectiional view of a plasmma generatiing apparattus:
`
`illustrates
`
`a cross-
`
`
`hown in F
`
`As s
`
`igure 2A oof the ’716
`
`
`patent, plaasma generrating appaaratus 200
`
`
`
`
`
`incluudes pulsedd power suupply 202, which is ccoupled to
`
`cathode 2004 and
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`anode 216. Ex. 1001, 3:53–4:6. In this embodiment, pulsed power supply
`202 applies a voltage pulse to cathode 204, thus, generating a weakly-
`ionized plasma 232 (shown in Fig. 2B) in region 222 between anode 216 and
`cathode 204. Ex. 1001, 5:1–13. The ’716 patent describes several
`alternative arrangements of these elements. For example, in another
`embodiment, a “direct current (DC) power supply . . . is used in an
`ionization source to generate and maintain the weakly-ionized . . . plasma
`232.” Id. at 5:41–43. In yet another embodiment, plasma generating
`apparatus 200’ further includes electrode 452, which is connected to power
`supply 456 and is part of the ionization source that generates the weakly-
`ionized plasma. Id. at 16:10–25, 16:43–52, Fig. 6A.
`Given the disclosure in the ’716 patent, we identify the corresponding
`structure for performing the recited function—“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”—to be a power supply electrically connected to a cathode, an
`anode, and/or an electrode.
`
`“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”
`We observe that the recited function for this claim element 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.” Petitioner submits that
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`the corresponding structure for that recited function is “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), 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
`corresponding text of the ’716 patent. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001,
`6:52–7:24, 8:9–19, 11:59–12:6, 13:14–44, 13:52–60, 16:64–18, 18:50–61,
`19:1–11). Patent Owner does not provide a proposed construction of this
`claim term.
`The Specification of the ’716 patent describes that “once the weakly-
`ionized plasma 232 is formed, the pulsed power supply 202 generates high-
`power pulses between the cathode 204 and the anode 216 (FIG. 2C).”
`Ex. 1001, 6:52–54. These “high-power pulses generate . . . a strongly
`ionized plasma 238 from the weakly-ionized plasma 232.” Id. at 7:16–18;
`see id. at 8:9–19, 16:64–17:18. Forming weakly-ionized plasma 232, prior
`to generating the high-power pulses, “substantially eliminates the probability
`of establishing a breakdown condition in the chamber” when the high-power
`pulses are applied between cathode 204 and anode 216. Id. at 6:16–26; see
`id. at 11:39–47, 12:65–13:4, 16:59–63, 17:48–54.
`Given this disclosure in the ’716 patent, we identify the corresponding
`structure for performing the recited function—“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
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`condition in the chamber”—to be a pulsed power supply electrically
`connected to a cathode, an anode, and/or an electrode.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if a single prior art
`reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation set
`forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368,
`1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628,
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “To anticipate a claim reciting a means-plus-function
`limitation, the anticipatory reference must disclose the recited function
`identically.” Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Services, Inc., 290 F.3d 1364,
`1372 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With respect to anticipatory structure, a means-plus-
`function limitation “cover[s] the corresponding structure, material or acts
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`¶ 6. We analyze the asserted grounds of unpatentability in accordance with
`the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Anticipation by Wang
`Petitioner asserts that each of the challenged claims is unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Wang. Pet. 39–60. As support,
`Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how each claim limitation is
`disclosed in Wang, as well as the Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1002).
`Id. Patent Owner responds that Wang does not disclose every claim
`element. Prelim. Resp. 27–33.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`claims 1–11 and 33 are unpatentable as anticipated by Wang. Our
`discussion focuses on the deficiencies alleged by Zond.
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering method for
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1004, Abstract. In particular,
`Wang 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:
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24, cathode
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Ex. 1004, 3:57–
`4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus creates high-density plasma in
`region 42, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles into
`positively charged metal ions and also increases the sputtering rate. Id. at
`4:13–34. Magnet assembly 40 creates a magnetic field near target 14, which
`traps electrons from the plasma to increase the electron density. Id. at 4:23–
`27. 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:
`
`
`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. Ex.
`1004, 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum power
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`(e.g., 1 kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100 or 1000
`times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak power
`PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the density of
`the plasma. Id. According to Dr. Kortshagen, Wang’s apparatus generates a
`low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`PP. Ex. 1002 ¶ 122; see Pet. 40. In Wang, the background power PB may be
`generated by DC power supply 100 and the peak power PP may be generated
`by pulsed power supply 80. Ex. 1004, 7:56–64, Fig. 7; Ex. 1002 ¶ 43.
`
`Weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the probability of
`electrical breakdown
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner alleges that Wang does not
`disclose forming a “weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the
`probability of electrical breakdown,” as recited in each of claims 1 and 33.
`Prelim. Resp. 27–33. In particular, Patent Owner argues that, because Wang
`teaches the “initial plasma ignition needs to be performed only once and at []
`much lower power levels so that particulates produced by arcing are much
`reduced,” Wang cannot disclose this claim limitation. Id. at 29, 32 (quoting
`Pet. 46). Patent Owner’s argument, however, is premised upon a
`construction of this claim limitation not adopted for purposes of this
`decision—that this claim limitation requires the setup of a breakdown
`condition to be substantially eliminated when the plasma is formed. As
`discussed above, on this record, we do not find that the broadest reasonable
`construction of forming a “weakly-ionized plasma that substantially
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`eliminates the probability of electrical breakdown” requires the setup of a
`breakdown condition to be substantially eliminated when the plasma is
`formed, but only that the setup of a breakdown condition is substantially
`eliminated when an electrical pulse is applied across the plasma thereby to
`generate a strongly-ionized plasma.
`In light of this determination, we are persuaded, by the evidence
`currently before us, that Wang discloses this claim feature. See Pet. 42–43
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 128–130); see id. at 10–11. As Petitioner notes, Wang
`explains that arcing, or breakdown conditions, may occur during plasma
`ignition. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:3–49). Indeed, Wang recognizes that
`plasma ignition in a sputtering reactor has a tendency to generate arcing,
`dislodging large particles from the target or chamber. Ex. 1004, 7:3–8. This
`is because plasma ignition is an electronically noisy process, and if
`background power level PB is not maintained between the high power pulses
`PP, each power pulse would need to ignite the plasma (as illustrated in
`Figure 4 of Wang). Id. at 7:8–12.
`Figure 6 of Wang (reproduced previously in our initial discussion of
`Wang) is reproduced below with annotations added by Petitioner (Pet. 10):
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at
`background power level PB between power pulses 96, rising to peak power
`level PP. Ex. 1004, 7:13–25. Background level PB is chosen to exceed the
`minimum power necessary to support a plasma with little, if any, actual
`sputter deposition. Id. The initial plasma ignition needs to be performed
`only once, and at a very low power level so that particulates produced by
`arcing are much reduced. Id. at 7:26–55. According to Dr. Kortshagen,
`because “the plasma need not be reignited thereafter, arcing will not occur
`during subsequent applications of the background and peak power levels, PB
`and PP,” and “Wang therefore teaches that the weakly-ionized plasma
`reduces ‘the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition.’”
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 129.
`We, thus, are persuaded, based on the record before us, that Wang
`discloses a weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01099
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`when an electrical pulse is applied across the plasma thereby to generate a
`strongly ionized plasma.
`
`Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`claims 1–11 and 33 are unpatentable as anticipated by Wang.
`
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability Based on Mozgrin,
`With or Without the Mozgrin Thesis
`Petitioner also asserts that claims 1–5, 8–11, and 33 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Mozgrin, and that claims 6 and 7 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of
`Mozgrin and the Mozgrin Thesis. The Board’s rules for inter partes review
`proceedings, including those pertaining to institution, are “construed to
`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) (regulations
`for inter partes review take into account “the efficient administration of the
`Office” and “the ability of the Office to timely complete [instituted]
`proceedings”). Therefore, we exercise our discretion and do not institute a
`review based on these asserted grounds for reasons of administrative
`necessity to ensure timely completion of the ins
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
