IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE
`TWO LLC & CO. KG, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-011001
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`__________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`35 USC §§ 316 AND 37 CFR § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00973, has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`GLOBAL FOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE
`TWO LLC & CO. KG, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-011001
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`__________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`35 USC §§ 316 AND 37 CFR § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00973, has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .................................................................... 6
`
`
`A. Plasma Fundamentals. .................................................................................... 6
`
`
`III. THE ‘716 PATENT ......................................................................................... 11
`
`IV. ARGUMENT. ................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`B. Plasma Ignition ............................................................................................... 8
`
`C. High-Density Plasmas ................................................................................... 10
`
`A. Wang. ............................................................................................................ 17
`
`B. Lantsman. ...................................................................................................... 22
`
`C. Wang Does Not Teach Transforming a Weakly-Ionized Plasma into a
`Strongly-Ionized Plasma Without Developing an Electrical Breakdown
`Condition as Required by the Challenged Claims of the ’716 Patent. ................ 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. It Would Not Have Been Obvious To Combine the Teachings of Wang and
`Lantsman To Achieve the Invention Recited in Claims 12 and 13 of the ’716
`Patent. .................................................................................................................. 27
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`464 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 17
`
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 29
`
`
`Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 16
`
`
`Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00183 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) ........................................................... 16
`
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) ............................................................................... 29
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 16
`
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... 15
`
`
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iii
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 2001 Affidavit of Etai Lahav in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 2002 Affidavit of Maria Granovsky in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Ex. 2003 Affidavit of Tigran Vardanian in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Ex. 2004 Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 2005 Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Uwe Kortshagen, IPR2014-00807,
`-00808, -01099 & -01100, Dec. 22, 2014.
`
`Ex. 2006 Eronini Umez-Eronini, SYSTEM DYNAMICS AND CONTROL,
`Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. (1999), pp. 10-13.
`
`Ex. 2007 Robert C. Weyrick, FUNDAMENTALS OF AUTOMATIC CONTROL,
`McGraw-Hill Book Company (1975), pp. 10-13.
`
`Ex. 2008 Chiang et al., U.S. Patent 6,398,929.
`
` iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`All of the challenged claims are patentable over Wang and Lantsman. The
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`‘716 patent requires transforming a weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma without developing an electrical breakdown condition in a chamber.1
`
`Wang, however, merely describes techniques for reducing, but not eliminating,
`
`electrical breakdown conditions such as arcing. The two are not the same.
`
`Lantsman fails to cure these deficiencies.
`
`
`
`Wang describes applying DC power pulses to a plasma when sputtering
`
`material from a target, but fails to teach or suggest controlling voltage during such
`
`activities or when generating a high-density plasma. In fact, Wang does not explain
`
`any electrodynamics of high-density plasmas.2 Control of power (as in Wang) is
`
`very different from controlling voltage,3 and even Wang acknowledges this
`
`distinction.4 Thus, unlike the ‘716 patent, in which the rise time of the electric field
`
`is chosen to increase an ionization rate of excited atoms in a weakly-ionized
`
`1 Ex. 1101 at 20:23-27; 22:47-50 (emphasis added).
`
`2 Ex. 2004 at ¶¶ 12, 71.
`
`3 Id. at ¶¶ 58-62.
`
`4 Ex. 1104 at 5:52-54 (“Where chamber impedance is changing, the power pulse
`
`width is preferably specified rather than the current or voltage pulse widths.”).
`
`1
`
`
`
`plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma,5 Wang discloses a very different
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`approach to achieving a high density plasma.6
`
`
`
`“Wang’s elections in this regard have consequences.”7 The power pulses will
`
`tend to produce an arc during the ignition of the plasma, as observed by Wang:
`
`Plasma ignition, particularly in plasma sputter reactors, has a
`tendency to generate particles during the initial arcing, which
`may dislodge large particles from the target or chamber.8
`
`This arcing is very problematic inasmuch as it leads to particle generation and can
`
`damage the chamber and power equipment.9 Because Wang expects arcing when
`
`his power pulses are used to ignite a plasma, the reference proposes only igniting
`
`the plasma once and applying a fixed background power so that the plasma is
`
`maintained in between power pulses.10
`
`
`
`Wang, however, does not solve the problem of arcing during plasma
`
`
`5 See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at 8:40-47; 22:29-32.
`
`6 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 60.
`
`7 Id. at ¶ 61.
`
`8 Ex. 1104 at 7:3-6.
`
`9 Id. at 7:1-12.
`
`10 Id. at 7:13-31.
`
`2
`
`
`
`initiation.11 Instead, Wang merely proposes reducing the amount of arcing by
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`keeping the plasma maintained so as not to require re-ignition with each pulse.12
`
`Arcing is still possible when a pulse is applied across a pre-existing plasma,
`
`particularly when there is a large, abrupt increase in the electric field as would
`
`occur upon the sudden application of a power pulse, such as in the transition from
`
`PB to PP shown in Wang’s Fig. 6.13 Wang does not discuss the risk of arcing in
`
`connection with the application of power pulses, PP, or how to avoid it. Thus,
`
`Wang does not teach or suggest that arcing could be avoided.14 It is also worth
`
`noting that Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Kortshagen, testified that he understands the
`
`Board’s construction of the terms “strongly ionized plasma” and “weakly ionized
`
`plasma” to require a range of absolute magnitudes in peak density of ions, (namely,
`
`equal to or greater than 1012 and equal to or less than 109, respectively).15
`
`Interestingly, this opinion conflicts with that of Mr. Devito—Petitioner’s other
`
`
`11 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 64.
`
`12 Id.
`
`13 Id. at ¶ 65.
`
`14 Id.
`
`15 IPR2014-00818 Ex. 2010 at 44:13 – 58:12.
`
`3
`
`
`
`expert—who requires that a strongly-ionized plasma have a peak density of ions
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`that is 3-4 orders of magnitude greater than a weakly ionized plasma.16 But Dr.
`
`Kortshagen acknowledges that Wang does not disclose a magnitude for the peak
`
`density of ions.17 Thus, according to Dr. Kortshagen’s interpretation, it is
`
`impossible to conclude that Wang teaches a strongly ionized plasma at all.
`
`
`
`In contrast, the ‘716 patent demonstrates that arcing can be avoided, even on
`
`plasma ignition, with proper control of electric field amplitude and rise time. This
`
`is recited in the claims of the ‘716 patent, which require an “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.”18
`
`Lantsman relates to “a power supply circuit which reduces oscillations
`
`generated upon ignition of a plasma within a processing chamber.”19 In particular,
`
`Lantsman’s circuit has two power supplies: “[a] secondary power supply pre-
`
`
`16 IPR2014-00799, Ex. 2014 at 169:10 – 170:25; 225:23 – 226:3.
`
`17 IPR2014-00818 Ex. 2010 at 212:20-22; 216:2 – 217:21; 154:23 – 155:15.
`
`18 Ex. 1101 at 20:24-27 (emphasis added).
`
`19 Ex. 1105 at Abstract.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`ignites the plasma by driving the cathode to a process initiation voltage. Thereafter,
`
`a primary power supply electrically drives the cathode to generate plasma current
`
`and deposition on a wafer.”20 Irrespective of any teachings Lantsman may or may
`
`not provide concerning the provision of a feed gas, the use of two power supplies
`
`means Lantsman differs substantially from Wang in important regards.21 As such,
`
`and inasmuch as Lantsman fails to even mention strongly-ionized plasma, there
`
`would be no motivation to modify Wang in such a fashion and little, if any, reason
`
`for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have consulted Lantsman for any relevant
`
`teachings concerning systems in which an electrical pulse is applied across a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma.22 Even if one were
`
`to combine the teachings of these two references, it remains the case that the
`
`combination would still suffer from arcing upon application of power pulse, as
`
`taught by Wang.23 Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 1 and therefore require
`
`“transform[ing] the weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma without
`
`
`20 Id.; see also 4:11 and 4:19 (describing two DC power supplies).
`
`21 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 100.
`
`22 Id.
`
`23 Id. at ¶ 90.
`
`5
`
`
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.24 Inasmuch as
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`neither reference teaches nor suggests such features, it necessarily follows that the
`
`combination of the references cannot suggest same. Accordingly, the patentability
`
`of claims 12 and 13 over the combination of Wang and Lantsman should be
`
`confirmed.
`
`
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`The ‘716 patent relates to “[m]ethods and apparatus for generating a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma.”25 Accordingly, we first review some fundamentals
`
`concerning plasmas, and strongly-ionized (or high-density) plasmas in particular,
`
`and then address Dr. Chistyakov’s particular solution for generating such a plasma.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Plasma Fundamentals.
`
`Plasma is a distinct state of matter characterized by a significant number of
`
`electrically charged particles.26 In an ordinary gas, each atom or molecule contains
`
`an equal number of positive and negative charges, so that each is electrically
`
`24 Id.
`
`25 Ex. 1101 at Abstract.
`
`26 Id. at 1:6-8.
`
`6
`
`
`
`“neutral.” When the atoms or molecules of the gas are subjected to heat or other
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`energy, they begin to lose electrons and are left with a positive charge. This
`
`process is called ionization. When enough gas atoms or molecules have been
`
`ionized such that the ions, together with the free electrons, significantly affect the
`
`electrical characteristics of the substance it is said to be plasma. Although made up
`
`of charged particles the plasma remains electrically neutral overall.27
`
`Plasmas are used in a number of commercial and industrial applications,
`
`including the manufacture of semiconductor devices. To that end, if a target (or an
`
`object in its vicinity) is made electrically negative compared to the plasma,
`
`positively charged ions in the plasma will be accelerated towards the target and a
`
`number of different interactions may occur (see Figure 1, below).28
`
`(A)
`
`(B)
`
`(C)
`
`(D)
`
`Plasma
`
`Surface
`of
`Target
`
`FIG. 1
`
`
`
`Figure 1: Interactions at a target’s surface
`
`27 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 46.
`
`28 Id. at ¶ 47.
`
`7
`
`
`
`In Figure 1, an arriving ion is adsorbed onto the surface of the target at (A).
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`At (B), the incoming ion transfers some of its momentum to one of the target’s
`
`surface atoms and causes it to be displaced. If the energy of the incoming ion is
`
`sufficiently high, surface atoms of the target may be removed in a process referred
`
`to as sputtering (shown in (C)). If the ion energy is even greater, then it may be
`
`implanted into the target (at (D)).29 Sputtering is often used to deposit layers of
`
`material on a semiconductor substrate as part of an integrated circuit fabrication
`
`process.30
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Plasma Ignition
`
`To ignite a plasma, a gas is introduced in a space between two electrodes,
`
`for example in a tube or other container, and an electric field is applied between
`
`the electrodes. An example of such an arrangement is shown in Figure 2.31
`
`
`29 Id. at ¶ 48.
`
`30 Ex. 1104 at 1:10-15.
`
`31 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 49.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`Cathode
`
`Anode
`
`Tube
`
`Gas
`
`Electric Field
`
`+
`
`_
`
`Voltage
`Source
`Figure 2: Simplified plasma system
`Ions and electrons in the gas are accelerated towards the electrically negative
`
`
`
`electrode (the “cathode”) and the electrically positive electrode (the “anode”),
`
`respectively. As electrons collide with gas atoms, they produce new ions.32
`
`When the ions are in close proximity to the cathode (e.g., on the order of a
`
`few Angstroms), electrons can tunnel from the cathode, neutralizing the ions and
`
`releasing energy. If sufficient energy is transferred to a surface electron at the
`
`cathode, “secondary electrons” are emitted into the gas. The secondary electrons
`
`are accelerated towards the anode, and when they collide with gas atoms they
`
`generate new ions and free electrons. The process of ionization proceeds in this
`
`fashion; and, if the applied power is sufficiently high, a plasma is created.33
`
`
`32 Id.
`
`33 Id. at ¶ 50.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`C. High-Density Plasmas
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`The ‘716 patent is particularly concerned with high-density plasmas, for
`
`example, plasmas having a density greater than 1012 cm-3.34 Magnetron reactors
`
`develop high-density plasmas using a magnetic field configured parallel to a target
`
`surface to constrain the secondary electrons. The ions also concentrate in the same
`
`region, maintaining the quasi-electrical neutrality of the plasma.35 This trapping of
`
`electrons and ions creates a dense plasma.36
`
`Conventional magnetron systems suffer from undesirable, non-uniform
`
`erosion or wear of the target that results in poor target utilization.37 To address
`
`such problems, researchers tried increasing the applied power and later pulsing the
`
`applied power. However, increasing the applied power increased “the probability
`
`of generating an electrical breakdown condition leading to an undesirable electrical
`
`discharge (an electrical arc) in the chamber . . . .”38 Even with the pulsed approach,
`
`34 See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at 21:45-7.
`
`35 Id. at 3:13-28.
`
`36 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 51.
`
`37 Ex. 1101 at 3:29-31.
`
`38 Id. at 3:38-41.
`
`10
`
`
`
`“very large power pulses can still result in undesirable electrical discharges
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`regardless of their duration.”39
`
`
`
`III. THE ‘716 PATENT
`
`To overcome some of the deficiencies of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov
`
`invented a plasma processing apparatus and corresponding method in which:
`
`An ionization source generates a weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to the cathode. A power supply produces an electric
`field in the gap between the anode and the cathode. The electric
`field generates excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma and
`generates secondary electrons from the cathode. The secondary
`electrons ionize the excited atoms, thereby creating a strongly-
`ionized plasma.40
`
`***
`
`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 [ ]. The
`probability of establishing a breakdown condition is
`
`
`39 Id. at 3:50-52; and see Ex. 2004 at ¶¶ 52-54.
`
`40 Ex. 1101 at Abstract.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`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 when high power is applied to the plasma.41
`
`As illustrated in Fig. 2A of the ‘716 patent, Dr. Chistyakov’s plasma
`
`processing apparatus includes a cathode 204.42 An anode 216 is positioned “so as
`
`to form a gap 220 between the anode 216 and the cathode 204 that is sufficient to
`
`allow current to flow through a region 222 between the anode 216 and the cathode
`
`204. . . . The gap 220 and the total volume of the region 222 are parameters in the
`
`ionization process . . . .”43
`
`
`41 Id. at 4:16-25 (emphasis added).
`
`42 Id. at 3:63-64.
`
`43 Id. at 4:30-39.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`
`“[O]nce 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).”44
`
`
`
`
`44 Id. at 6:51-53.
`
`13
`
`
`
`“The high-power pulses generate a strong electric field 236 between the cathode
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`204 and the anode 216. . . . [and] generate a highly-ionized or a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma 238 from the weakly-ionized plasma 232 . . . .”45 The strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is also referred to as a high-density plasma.46
`
`The challenged claims are all directed to generating a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma using the multi-stage ionization described above. In particular, the claims
`
`require transforming a weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma without
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in a chamber.47
`
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT.
`
`In this proceeding, claims 12 and 13 are alleged to be unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of the combination of Wang and Lantsman.
`
`However, Petitioners cannot prevail on this proposed ground of rejection because
`
`neither Wang nor Lantsman, whether considered separately or in combination,
`
`teach or suggest transforming a weakly-ionized plasma into a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma without developing an electrical breakdown condition in a chamber as
`
`45 Id. at 7:3-18.
`
`46 Id. at 7:18-19.
`
`47 Id. at 20:23-27; 22:47-50 (emphasis added).
`
`14
`
`
`
`required by the challenged claims. Accordingly, the patentability of claims 12 and
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`13 should be confirmed.
`
`A party seeking to invalidate a patent claim as obvious must demonstrate
`
`that a “skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan
`
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”48 This
`
`determination is one that must be made at the time the invention was made.49 This
`
`temporal requirement prevents the “forbidden use of hindsight.”50 Furthermore,
`
`
`48 See Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009) (“To decide whether risedronate was obvious in light of the prior art, a
`
`court must determine whether, at the time of invention, a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had ‘reason to attempt to make the composition’ known
`
`as risedronate and ‘a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’”) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`49 Id.
`
`50 See Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(“Indeed, where the invention is less technologically complex, the need for
`
`…Continued
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`rejections for obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements.51
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`“Petitioner[s] must show some reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have thought to combine particular available elements of knowledge, as
`
`evidenced by the prior art, to reach the claimed invention.”52 Inventions are often
`
`deemed nonobvious (and thus patentable) even when all of the claim elements are
`
`individually found in the prior art because an “invention may be a combination of
`
`old elements.”53 The motivation to combine inquiry focuses heavily on “scope and
`
`
`Continued from previous page
`Graham findings can be important to ward against falling into the forbidden use of
`
`hindsight.”).
`
`51 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on
`
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead,
`
`there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).
`
`52 Heart Failure Technologies, LLC v. Cardiokinetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183, Paper
`
`12 at p. 9 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2013) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418) (emphasis in
`
`original).
`
`53 Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1321
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`16
`
`
`
`content of the prior art” and the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” aspects
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`of the Graham factors.54 Accordingly, we begin with a discussion of the references
`
`at issue in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`A. Wang.
`Wang discusses “[a] pulsed magnetron sputter reactor [with] a high plasma
`
`density.”55 In this reactor, “narrow pulses of negative DC power” are used to
`
`sputter material from a target.56 In one example, Wang indicates that the pulses are
`
`applied to both ignite the plasma and maintain it,57 while in another example Wang
`
`describes maintaining the plasma using a background power level with the pulses
`
`applying a much greater peak power to increase the density of the plasma.58 In both
`
`54 Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“We
`
`further explained that the ‘motivation to combine’ requirement ‘[e]ntails
`
`consideration of both the ‘scope and content of the prior art’ and ‘level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art’ aspects of the Graham test.’”).
`
`55 Ex. 1104 at 3:16-22.
`
`56 Id. at 4:33-34.
`
`57 Id. at 5:29-30.
`
`58 Id. at 7:13-30.
`
`17
`
`
`
`examples it is the power applied to a cathode target that is driven to a prescribed
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`level, not voltage.59
`
`“This is not merely a difference in semantics.”60 Wang acknowledges there
`
`is a substantive difference between controlling power and controlling voltage, and
`
`chooses to control power parameters rather than those of current or voltage:
`
`Where chamber impedance is changing, the power pulse width
`is preferably specified rather than the current or voltage pulse
`widths.61
`
`Thus, unlike the ‘716 patent, in which the rise time of the electric field is chosen to
`
`increase an ionization rate of excited atoms in a weakly-ionized plasma to generate
`
`a strongly-ionized plasma,62 Wang discloses a very different approach to achieving
`
`a high density plasma.63
`
`
`59 Id. at 5:18-20; 7:13-30; and see 5:52-54 (“Where chamber impedance is
`
`changing, the power pulse width is preferably specified rather than the current or
`
`voltage pulse widths.”); and see Ex. 2004 at ¶ 58.
`
`60 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 60.
`
`61 Ex. 1104 at 5:52-54.
`
`62 See, e.g., Ex. 1101 at 8:40-47; 22:29-32.
`
`63 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 60.
`
`18
`
`
`
`“[W]hen it comes to manipulating plasma density, configuring a power
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`supply to generate electrode power pulses can yield substantially different results
`
`than configuring a power supply to generate voltage pulses with amplitude and rise
`
`times.”64 Power pulses are the product of voltage and current. Therefore, to
`
`maintain a constant power in the presence of a varying impedance (as in the case of
`
`a weakly ionized plasma being transformed to a strongly ionized plasma), voltage
`
`and current can vary significantly.65 A power supply will drive the voltage
`
`extremely high when the current is near zero (e.g., before plasma ignition or when
`
`the plasma density is low),66 producing an arc:
`
`Plasma ignition, particularly in plasma sputter reactors, has a
`tendency to generate particles during the initial arcing, which
`may dislodge large particles from the target or chamber.67
`
`Indeed, in referring to the embodiment shown in Fig. 4, Wang admits that arcs
`
`result when a power pulse ignites a plasma.
`
`
`64 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 61.
`
`65 Id.
`
`66 Id.; Ex. 1104 at 5:32-33.
`
`67 Ex. 1104 at 7:3-6.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`“Also, in this embodiment, each pulse 82 needs to ignite the
`plasma and maintain it. The effective chamber impedance
`dramatically changes between these two phases. A typical
`pulsed power supply will output relatively high voltage and
`almost no current in the ignition phase and a lower voltage and
`substantial current in the maintenance phase.”68
`
`In a effort to reduce arcing, Wang proposes a Fig. 6 embodiment in which a
`
`fixed background power is applied so that the plasma is maintained (and need not
`
`be re-ignited) in between power pulses:
`
`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 PB between pulses 96 rising to a peak
`level PP corresponding to that contemplated in FIG. 4. The
`background level PB is chosen to exceed the minimum power
`necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational
`pressure. Preferably, the peak power PP is at least 10 times the
`background power PB, more preferably at least 100 times, and
`most preferably 1000 times to achieve the greatest effect of the
`invention. A background power PB of 1 kW will typically be
`sufficient to support a plasma with the torpedo magnetron and a
`200 mm wafer although with little if any actual sputter
`deposition. As a result, once the plasma has been ignited at the
`
`68 Id. at 5:28-34; Ex. 2004 at ¶¶ 62-63.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`beginning of sputtering prior to the illustrated waveform, no
`more plasma ignition occurs. Instead, the application of the
`high peak power PP instead quickly causes the already existing
`plasma to spread and increases the density of the plasma.69
`
`This embodiment does not, however, solve the problem of arcing during
`
`plasma initiation.70 Nor does Wang’s use of pre-ionization eliminate arcing during
`
`application of the power pulses, it merely reduces the likelihood of same.71 Arcing
`
`is still possible when a pulse is applied across a pre-existing plasma, particularly
`
`when there is a large, abrupt increase in the electric field as would occur upon the
`
`sudden application of a power pulse, such as in the transition from Wang's PB to
`
`PP.72 Thus, Wang does not teach or suggest transforming a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`to a strongly-ionized plasma without developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber.73
`
`
`69 Ex. 1104 at 7:13-31.
`
`70 Ex. 2004 at ¶ 64.
`
`71 Id. at ¶ 65.
`
`72 Id.
`
`73 Id. at ¶¶ 66-70 (explaining how Wang’s failure to design a power supply that
`
`controls rise time of an electric field contributes to the inability to prevent arcing).
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Lantsman.
`
`Lantsman relates to “a power supply circuit which reduces oscillations
`
`generated upon ignition of a plasma within a processing chamber.”74 In particular,
`
`Lantsman’s circuit has two power supplies: “[a] secondary power supply pre-
`
`ignites the plasma by driving the cathode to a process initiation voltage. Thereafter,
`
`a primary power supply electrically drives the cathode to generate plasma current
`
`and deposition on a wafer.”75
`
`Significantly, Lantsman does not disclose a pulsed power supply, any type
`
`of electrical pulse, or even a strongly-ionized plasma as recited in the claims of the
`
`‘716 patent.76 Lantsman thus differs substantially from Wang.77 Whereas Wang is
`
`concerned with a “target 14 [ ] powered by narrow pulses of negative DC power
`
`supplied from a pulsed DC power supply,”78 Lantsman relies o
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
