Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2014-01100
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’s PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ....................................................................................4
`
`A. Overview of Plasma Generation Systems ......................................................................4
`
`B. The ‘716 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved Plasma Source. .....................7
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS ........................................10
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(B)(3) ...................................10
`
`A. Construction of “Weakly Ionized Plasma” and “Strongly Ionized Plasma” ...........11
`
`B. Construction of “Ionizing a Feed Gas in a Chamber” (Parent Claim 1) ...................13
`
`C. Construction of “a Weakly Ionized Plasma that Substantially Eliminates the
`Probability of Developing an Electrical Breakdown Condition in the
`Chamber” (Claim 1) ...................................................................................................14
`
`V. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF PREVAILING. ..............................................................................................................16
`
`A. Defect in Ground I: Petitioner Fails to Demonstrate That Parent Claim 1 is
`Anticipated by Mozgrin. ............................................................................................16
`
`1. Overview of the Claim 1 Features at Issue. ......................................................18
`
`2. Overview of Mozgrin ..........................................................................................18
`
`3. Differences Between Mozgrin and Claim 1 ......................................................20
`
`B. Defect In Ground I: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 12 – 13
`Are Obvious In view of Mozgrin Combined with Lantsman .................................21
`
`1. Overview of the Claim Features at Issue. .........................................................21
`
`2. Differences Between Mozgrin and Claims 12, 13 ............................................24
`
`3. Overview of Lantsman .......................................................................................25
`
`4. Differences Between Lantsman and Claims 12, 13 ..........................................28
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`5. Petitioner’s Inherency Arguments Do Not Cure the Shortcomings in
`Mozgrin and Lantsman .................................................................................30
`
`6. Conclusion: Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Claims 12, 13 are Obvious in View of Mozgrin Combined With
`Lantsman. .......................................................................................................32
`
`C. Defects in Ground II: Petitioner Fails to Demonstrate That Parent Claim 1
`is Anticipated by Wang. ............................................................................................34
`
`1. Overview of Wang. .............................................................................................35
`
`2. Differences Between Wang and the Claim 1. ...................................................36
`
`3. Conclusion: Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Claim 1 is Anticipated by Wang ...................................................................37
`
`D. Defect In Ground II: Petitioner Also Fails To Demonstrate A Reasonable
`Likelihood That Claims 12 and 13 Are Obvious in View of Wang
`Combined with Lantsman .........................................................................................38
`
`1. Differences Between Wang and the Claims 12, 13. .........................................38
`
`2. Differences Between Lantsman and Claims 12, 13 ..........................................39
`
`3. Conclusion: Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Claim 12 is Obvious in View of Wang Combined With Lantsman. .........40
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Petitioner has represented in a motion for joinder that this petition
`
`“is identical to the Intel IPR no. IPR2014-00521 in all substantive respects,
`
`includes identical exhibits, and relies upon the same export declarant.”
`
`Accordingly, based upon that representation, the Patent Owner opposes
`
`review on the same basis presented in opposition to Intel’s request no. IPR-
`
`2014-00521, which is reproduced below:
`
`The present petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716
`
`(“the ‘716 patent”) is the second of four petitions filed by Intel challenging the
`
`‘716 patent. This petition challenges two claims of the ‘716 patent, nos. 12, 13,
`
`that depend from claim 1. Parent claim 1 is addressed separately in Intel’s
`
`petition number IPR2014- 520.
`
`Claims 12 and 13 are directed to the plasma generating apparatus of
`
`claim 1 that also includes a gas line for supplying feed gas to a region where a
`
`strongly ionize plasma is formed to thereby “transport the strongly ionized
`
`plasma by a rapid volume exchange.” The specification explains, as we will
`
`discuss below, that this type of gas flow permits more power to be added to the
`
`plasma without arcing and thus allows the formation of denser plasmas.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`The Petition alleges that the claims are obvious in view of Mozgrin1 or
`
`Wang2 (that were already considered by the Patent Office)3combined with a
`
`prior art patent to Lantsman.4 But the Petition does not, because it cannot, cite
`
`to any teaching in these references of a gas flow through a region where a
`
`strongly ionize plasma is formed to thereby “transport” the strongly ionized
`
`plasma by “a rapid volume exchange.” Accordingly, it instead tries to nullify
`
`this claim language, boldly asserting that this language “merely recites the
`
`natural consequence of exchanging gas during processing, e.g., by adding gas
`
`to balance gas withdrawn by the vacuum system.”5 In other words, the
`
`Petition alleges that any gas exchange in a plasma chamber, no matter how
`
`slow and diffuse, and regardless of the location of the gas flux in the chamber
`
`relative to the site where the strongly ionized plasma is formed, will inherently
`
`“transport” the strongly ionized plasma by a “rapid volume exchange.” The
`
`only evidence cited in support of this facially flawed assertion, is a single
`
`
`1 Ex. 1103, Mozgrin.
`
`2 Ex. 1104, Wang patent No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”).
`
`3 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, list of cited references cited.
`
`4 Ex. 1105, Lantsman patent no. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman”).
`
`5 Petition, page 28.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`conclusory sentence of its Expert.6 The Petition presents no teaching of this
`
`aspect of the claim in the printed literature.
`
`Lastly, the Petitioner reiterates the same accusation that it repeats in all
`
`of its petitions, that Zond allegedly misrepresented Mozgrin’s teachings during
`
`prosecution of Zond’s U.S. patent number 7,147,759 (“the ‘759 Patent”).7
`
`Accordingly, we respond again that a mere glance at the record reveals to the
`
`contrary: In the alleged misrepresentation, Zond argued that Mozgrin does not
`
`teach a process in which “ground state atoms” are excited to form “excited
`
`atoms,” and then the excited atoms are “ionizing without forming an arc.”8
`
`On the basis of this assertion, the Petitioner accuses Zond of wrongly asserting
`
`that “Mozgrin does not teach ‘without forming an arc.’”9 The Patent Owner
`
`(i.e., the Applicant at that time), never argued, as alleged by the Petitioner, that
`
`the claims were allowable solely because of the “without forming an arc”
`
`limitation; it instead argued, inter alia, that “there is no description in Mozgrin
`
`of a multi-step ionization process that first excites ground state atoms to
`
`
`6 Ex. 1102, Kortshagen Declaration, Par. 81.
`
`7 Petition at p. 18, Ex. 1111, ‘759 Patent.
`
`8 Ex. 1112, Response of May 2, p. 13 – 16.
`
`9 Petition at p. 18.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`generate excited atoms, and then ionizes the excited atoms without forming an
`
`arc discharge.”10 That is, the Patent Owner argued that Mozgrin did not teach
`
`avoidance of an arc discharge during a particular process that was the subject
`
`of the ‘759 patent: a multi-step ionization process. In other words, the
`
`Petitioner mischaracterized the Patent Owner’s argument to the Examiner by
`
`truncating it and quoting only a small portion of it in the Petition.
`
` In short, the Petition does not precisely state the relief requested11 and
`
`fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable.12 On the basis of the record presented in the present Petition,
`
`review should be denied.
`
`II. Technology Background
`
`A. Overview of Plasma Generation Systems
`
`The claims at issue in this petition are all directed to an apparatus for
`
`generating a strongly-ionized plasma. Accordingly, we first provide an
`
`overview of plasmas and how they are generated.
`
`
`10 Exhibit 1112, Response to Office Action, May 2, 2006, p. 13 (emphasis
`
`omitted).
`
`11 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`12 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`A “plasma” is a gaseous mixture of electrons, positive ions and neutral
`
`molecules that can be formed by applying a strong electric field to a gas:
`
`One method of generating a plasma is to drive a current through a
`
`low-pressure gas between two parallel conducting electrodes. Once
`
`certain parameters are met, the gas "breaks down" to form the
`
`plasma. For example, a plasma can be generated by applying a
`
`potential of several kilovolts between two parallel conducting
`
`electrodes in an inert gas atmosphere (e.g., argon) at a pressure
`
`that is between about 10-1 and 10-2 Torr.13
`
`A simplified illustration of a plasma formed between a pair of electrodes 238,
`
`216 is shown below in figure 2B of the ‘716 patent:14
`
`
`
`A plasma is on average electrically neutral because there are approximately as
`
`many negative electrons in the plasma as positive ions. However, the density
`
`of charged particles can vary greatly depending on the strength of the applied
`
`
`13 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 1, lines 8 - 15.
`
`14 Ex. 1101, ’716 Patent, Fig. 2B.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`electric field and the length of time it is applied. Figure 2D from the ‘716
`
`patent15 below shows a “strongly ionized plasma” having a significantly higher
`
`density of charged particles than in the figure above, due, in part, to a stronger
`
`electric field applied across the electrodes:
`
`
`
`In pulsed systems, the strong electric field for generating a dense plasma is
`
`applied in short bursts or pulses that temporarily provide the field strength
`
`needed to form a dense plasma, but at a lower average power.16 The
`
`duration of these pulses can be preset “to reduce the probability of
`
`establishing electrical breakdown condition leading to an undesirable
`
`electrical l discharge” that can “corrupt the plasma process and can cause
`
`
`15 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, Fig. 2D.
`
`16 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 3, lines 42 - 45.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`contamination in the vacuum chamber.”17 However, very large voltage
`
`pulses “can still result in undesirable electrical discharged regardless of their
`
`duration.”18
`
`B. The ‘716 Patent: Dr. Chistyakov Invents an Improved
`Plasma Source.
`
`To overcome the problems of the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented an
`
`improved plasma source that allows the formation of very dense plasmas
`
`without arcing by controlling the flow of gas into the plasma in a region where
`
`the electric field is very strong. Figure 2a below shows a pair of electrodes 216
`
`and 204 separated by a gap 220:
`
`
`
`
`17 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 3, lines45 - 50.
`
`18 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 3, lines 50 - 51.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`A pulsed power supply provides a voltage across the electrodes to thereby
`
`generate an electric field between them. The strength of the electric field in the
`
`region 222 depends on the magnitude of the voltage across the electrodes and
`
`the size of the gap 220, and can be very strong due to the small size of gap
`
`220.19
`
`
`
`Gas lines 224 provide a feed gas 226 that “is pushed through the region
`
`222” between the electrodes as shown.20 The patent explains that injecting gas
`
`into the region 222 where the electric field is strong causes a rapid exchange of
`
`the volume in region 222, and thereby allows the use of high power pulses
`
`having “a longer duration [that] results in the formation of a higher density
`
`plasma:”
`
`Directly injecting the feed gas 226 between the cathode 204 and
`
`the anode 216 can increase the flow rate of the feed gas 226. This
`
`causes a rapid volume exchange in the region 222 between the
`
`cathode 204 and the anode 216, which permits a high-power pulse
`
`having a longer duration to be applied across the gap 220. The
`
`
`19 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 8, lines 33 – 40.
`
`20 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 6, lines 27 – 28; col. 4, lines 56 – 67.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`longer duration high-power pulse results in the formation of a
`
`higher density plasma.21
`
`The patent further explains that “the level and duration of the high-powered
`
`electrical pulse is limited by the level and duration of the power that the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma can absorb before the high power discharge contracts
`
`and terminates.”22 However, if the feed gas flows through the region 222 at a
`
`sufficiently high rate, it causes a rapid volume exchange in region 222 that
`
`physically transports the strongly ionized plasma through the region 222.23
`
`This rapid volume exchange “increases the level and the duration of the power
`
`that can be applied to the strongly ionized plasma and thus generates a higher
`
`density strongly ionized plasma in regions 234.”24 This process is depicted in
`
`figures 2C and 2D below, wherein the strongly ionized plasma that is formed
`
`in region 222 (figure 2C) is transported by the gas flow into region 234 (figure
`
`2D):
`
`Fig. 2C
`
`Fig. 2D
`
`
`21 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 4, lines 58 - 66.
`
`22 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 9, lines 53 – 55.
`
`23 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 9, line 60 – col. 10, lines 2.
`
`24 Ex. 1101, ‘716 Patent, col. 10, lines 2 – 5.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The claims at issue in this petition (claims 12 and 13) are directed to an
`
`apparatus for generating a plasma that includes such a gas line for “supplying
`
`feed gas to the strongly ionized plasma that transports the strongly ionized
`
`plasma by a rapid volume exchange.
`
`III. Summary of Petitioner’s Proposed Grounds
`
`For the Board’s convenience, here is a summary of the Petition’s proposed
`
`claim rejections:
`
`Ground
`I
`II
`
`Claims
`12, 13
`12, 13
`
`Alleged Basis
`103
`103
`
`Art
`Mozgrin and Lantsman
`Wang and Lantsman
`
`IV. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`
`Pursuant to Rule §42.104(b)(3), the Petitioner “must identify [] how the
`
`claim is to be construed” for purposes of comparing the challenged claim to the
`
`cited art. The present Petition construes only the claimed phrases “strongly-
`
`ionized plasma” and “weakly-ionized plasma.” For all other claim language it
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`offers no explicit construction, inviting the reader to infer the Petitioner’s
`
`“interpretation” from its allegations that the claimed features are taught by the
`
`prior art.
`
`But as we will explain when rebutting the Petitioner’s comparison of the
`
`claims to the prior art, the Petitioner gives no apparent weight to the claim
`
`language requiring that the feed gas “transport the strongly ionized plasma by
`
`a rapid volume exchange” (claim 12) to thereby “permit additional power to be
`
`absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma” (claim 13). Treating claim terms as
`
`superfluous is “ a methodology of claim construction that [the Federal Circuit]
`
`has denounced.”25 Furthermore, to the extent that the Petitioner contends that
`
`it did attach meaning of this claim language, it did not “identif[y] how the
`
`challenged claim is to be construed” as required by 42 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`Accordingly, it did not “provide a statement of the precise relief requested for
`
`each challenged claim” and should therefore be denied.26
`
`A. Construction of “Weakly Ionized Plasma” and “Strongly
`Ionized Plasma”
`
`The Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the claim terms “strongly
`
`ionized plasma,” and “weakly ionized plasma” are wrong because they are not
`
`
`25 Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`26 42 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`the broadest reasonable constructions consistent with the specification. In
`
`particular, the Petitioner’s proposed construction of “strongly ionized plasma”
`
`as a “higher density plasma” is wrong because the proposed construction reads
`
`the claim term “ionized” out of the claim. That is, the Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is incomplete because it does not
`
`specify what the term “density” refers to.
`
`The proper construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is “a plasma with
`
`a relatively high peak density of ions.” This proposed construction specifies
`
`that the term “density” refers to ions and therefore, is consistent with the claim
`
`language. Moreover, the proposed construction is also consistent with the
`
`specification of the ‘716 patent which indicates that a strongly ionized plasma
`
`is also referred to as a “highly-ionized plasma.”27 In addition, the proposed
`
`construction is consistent with the specification of the ‘759 patent that refers to
`
`“strongly ionized plasma [as] having a large ion density.”28 The term
`
`‘strongly-ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak density of ions.
`
`
`27 Ex. 1101, ‘716 patent, col. 7, lines 15 - 16.
`
`28 Ex. 1111, ‘759 patent, col. 10, lines. 4-5.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`For similar reasons, the proper construction of the claim term “weakly
`
`ionized plasma” is “a plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions.” In
`
`particular, the specification of the ‘716 patent says that “a weakly ionized
`
`plasma [has] a relatively low-level of ionization.”29 Furthermore, the
`
`specification of a related patent number 6,806,652 (“the ‘652 Patent”) states
`
`that “[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.”
`
`B. Construction of “Ionizing a Feed Gas in a Chamber” (Parent
`Claim 1)
`
`The Petitioner does not construe the claimed phrase “feed gas contained
`
`in a chamber” or patent claim 1. But its comparison to the claims improperly
`
`treat the word “feed” in these expressions as superfluous.30 Even under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the claim term “feed” cannot be
`
`read out of the claims and cannot be deemed superfluous over the claimed
`
`“gas … in a chamber.”
`
`
`29 Ex. 1101, ‘716 patent, col. 6, lines 22 - 24.
`
`30 Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`“A feed gas,” as its name implies, is a flow of gas. As explained in the
`
`specification, the “electric field … is adapted to ignite the plasma from the feed
`
`gas 226 flowing through the gap 472.”31 The claim thus requires ionization of
`
`gas contained in a chamber from an ongoing gas feed. Accordingly, the
`
`claimed requirement generating or forming a weakly ionized plasma from a
`
`“feed gas … in a chamber” refers ionization of a gas in a chamber as that gas is
`
`being fed into the chamber:
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`“feed gas … in a chamber”
`
`Gas within a chamber from an
`ongoing gas feed
`
`
`
`C. Construction of “a Weakly Ionized Plasma that Substantially
`Eliminates the Probability of Developing an Electrical
`Breakdown Condition in the Chamber” (Claim 1)
`
`The Petitioner does not offer an interpretation of the following language
`
`from claim 1: “a weakly ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the
`
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.”
`
`However, in its comparison to the prior art, the Petition treats the language as
`
`encompassing any pre-ionized plasma to which an electric pulse is applied.
`
`However, this interpretation renders superfluous the claimed requirement that
`
`
`31 Ex. 1001, ‘716 Patent, col. 18, lines 9 – 12.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`the weakly ionize plasma “substantially eliminates the probability of
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.”32
`
`The claim language requires the weakly-ionized plasma to substantially
`
`eliminate the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in
`
`the chamber. In the context of the other claim language, this language requires
`
`the weak plasma to substantially eliminate the probability of developing a
`
`breakdown condition, not only when the weak plasma is formed, but also
`
`when the claimed electrical pulse is applied across the weak plasma that
`
`transforms the weakly ionized plasma to a strongly ionized plasma (see
`
`element b in claim 1).
`
`The specification identifies the characteristics of the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma that achieve the claimed property of substantially eliminating the
`
`probability of an electrical breakdown condition in the plasma: The
`
`specification states that the plasma must have a low level of ionization that
`
`provide sufficient conductivity to prevent the setup of a breakdown condition
`
`when high power is applied to the plasma:
`
`The probability of establishing a breakdown condition is
`
`substantially eliminated because the weakly-ionized plasma 232
`
`has a low-level of ionization that provides electrical
`
`
`32 Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`conductivity through the plasma. This conductivity substantially
`
`prevents the setup of a breakdown condition, even when high
`
`power is applied to the plasma.33
`
`Thus, the claimed ionization step forms a low-level of ionization from the feed
`
`gas that substantially eliminates the probability of breakdown. Furthermore,
`
`when an electrical pulse is applied to that plasma to transform the weakly
`
`ionized plasma to thereby form a strongly ionized plasma, the conductivity of
`
`the weakly plasma must be sufficient to prevent an electrical breakdown.
`
`Claim Language at Issue
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`a weakly ionized plasma that
`substantially eliminates the
`probability of developing an
`electrical breakdown condition in
`the chamber
`
`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
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing.
`
`A. Defect in Ground I: Petitioner Fails to Demonstrate That
`Parent Claim 1 is Anticipated by Mozgrin.
`
`For purposes of challenging dependent claims 12, 13, Ground I reiterates
`
`the allegation from IPR2014-00520 that claim 1 is anticipated by Mozgrin.
`
`For the elements of parent claim 1, Ground I is based solely upon the alleged
`
`
`33 Ex. 1201. ‘716 Patent, col. 6, lines 16 – 26.
`16
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`anticipation by Mozgin, and does not rely upon the secondary reference
`
`Lantsman for any of these elements. Nor does Ground I address the
`
`obviousness of claim 1 from the perspective of one skilled in the art. Since the
`
`Petition does not argue that Lanstman has any relevance to the features of the
`
`parent claim 1 or that the shortcomings in Mozgrin can be overcome in view
`
`of the level of skill in the art, neither Lantsman nor the level of skill can cure
`
`the shortcomings of Mozgrin in this regard. As the Board noted in Liberty
`
`Mutual:
`
`We address only the basis, rationale, and reasoning put forth by
`
`the petitioner and resolve all vagueness and ambiguity in
`
`Petitioner’s arguments against the Petitioner. … It would be
`
`unfair to expect the Patent owner to conjure up arguments against
`
`its own patent, and just as inappropriate for the Board to take the
`
`side of the Petitioner to salvage an inadequately expressed ground
`
`…”34
`
`Accordingly, review on the basis of Ground I should be denied since certain
`
`elements of the parent claims are missing from Mozgrin as we already
`
`explained in our response to IPR2014-00520. We repeat that explanation
`
`below since the rules do not permit incorporation by reference:
`
`
`34 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CMB-2012-00003, paper 8 at 14 - 15.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`Anticipation is a highly technical defense that requires a single prior art
`
`reference to “expressly or inherently describe each and every limitation set
`
`forth in the patent claim.”35 If even one aspect of the claim is missing from
`
`Mozgrin, there is no anticipation and review should be denied.
`
`1. Overview of the Claim 1 Features at Issue.
`
`The apparatus of claim 1 includes an ionization source that generates a
`
`weakly ionized gas from a feed gas contained in a chamber. A power supply
`
`then applies an electrical pulse across a weakly ionized plasma to transform the
`
`weakly ionized plasma to a strongly ionized plasma.
`
`As explained in our claim construction above, “a feed gas,” as its name
`
`implies, is a flow of gas. As explained in the specification, the “electric field in
`
`the gap 472 between the electrode 452 and the cathode 204' is adapted to ignite
`
`the plasma from the feed gas 226 flowing through the gap 472.”36 The claims
`
`thus require ionization of gas contained in a chamber from an ongoing gas
`
`feed.
`
`2. Overview of Mozgrin
`
`Mozgrin summarizes a variety of experiments he made using two
`
`different electrode structures that generated a plasma in the presence of a
`
`
`35 Trintec Industries, Inc. v. TOP-USA Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 294 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`36 Ex. 1001, ‘716 Patent, col. 18, lines 9 – 12.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`magnetic field: a planar electrode structure of figure 1(a), and a bell shaped
`
`electrode structure shown in figure. 1(b).37 The two electrode structures are
`
`depicted by Mozgrin in the figures below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Planar Electrodes
`
`Shaped Electrodes
`
`
`
`
`
`Mozgrin does not depict or describe a chamber or a feed gas flowing into a
`
`chamber. Mozgrin says that the space between the electrodes was “filled up
`
`with either neutral gas or pre-ionized gas” before a pulse was applied.38 This
`
`merely indicates that the space between the electrodes was “filled” with gas but
`
`makes no mention of how, when, or where the gas was supplied.
`
`
`37 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, p. 401.
`
`38 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, page 401, left column.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Differences Between Mozgrin and Claim 1
`
`Mozgrin does not depict or describe any chamber or any gas feed into a
`
`chamber. So whatever vacuum/gas supply structure Mozgrin used to “fill
`
`up”39 the space between his electrodes with gas, it was not disclosed in his
`
`article. There is no mention that Mozgrin fed gas to a chamber while an
`
`ionization source generates a weakly ionized plasma from the feed gas within
`
`the chamber as in claim 1.
`
`Mozgrin also says that when the gas was “pumped out,” the residual
`
`pressure was about 8 x 10-6 torr.40 This merely mentions the minimum
`
`pressure that Mozgin’s vacuum system could achieve. It makes no mention of
`
`a flow of feed gas while an ionization source generates a weakly ionized
`
`plasma from the feed gas contained within the chamber.
`
`As a matter of law, such a difference is fatal to the Petition’s anticipation
`
`grounds: As the Federal Circuit has noted when assessing anticipation, “the
`
`difference … may be minimal and obvious to those of skill in this art.
`
`Nevertheless obviousness is not inherent anticipation. Given the strict identity
`
`required of the test for novelty, on this record no reasonable jury could
`
`conclude that the” prior art expressly or inherently disclosed each claim
`
`39 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, p. 401.
`
`40 Ex. 1003, Mozgrin, page 401, left col.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`element.41 Since un-patentability based on anticipation requires Mozgrin to
`
`describe “each and every limitation set forth in the patent claim,”42 review on
`
`Ground I should be denied for least this reason.
`
`
`B. Defect In Ground I: Petitioner Failed To Demonstrate That
`Claims 12 – 13 Are Obvious In view of Mozgrin Combined
`with Lantsman
`
`
`With regard to the features adding by dependent claims 12 and 13,
`
`Ground I relies on Lantsman. We begin by exploring some pertinent aspects
`
`of claims 12 and 13.
`
`1. Overview of the Claim Features at Issue.
`
`Claim 12 is directed to an improvement to claim 1’s apparatus for
`
`generating a strongly-ionized plasma, wherein a gas line is coupled to the
`
`plasma chamber to supply feed gas “to the strongly ionized plasma,” i.e., the
`
`dense plasma that is formed by transforming the weakly ionized plasma. Thus
`
`the claim requires that the gas line coupled to the chamber supply the feed gas
`
`to a location where the weakly ionized plasma transforms into “the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma.” Furthermore, claim 12 requires that the feed gas flow at a
`
`
`41 Trintec Industries, Inc. v. TOP-USA Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 294 (Fed Cir. 2002).
`
`42 Trintec Industries, Inc. v. TOP-USA Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 294 (Fed Cir. 2002).
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,604,716
`IPR2014-01100
`
`
`
`rate that causes a “rapid volume exchange” that is sufficient to “transport the
`
`strongly ionized plasma.”
`
` In sum, the claim specifically requires that the feed gas is supplied to
`
`“the strongly–ionized plasma” (i.e., the dense plasma formed by transforming
`
`the weakly ionized plasma with an electrical pulse), and that the flow of the
`
`feed gas must be substantial enough to “transport the strongly-ionized plasma
`
`by a rapid volume exchange.”
`
`This parsing of the claim language is consistent with the specification.
`
`As explained earlier, this type of feed gas is shown in the example depicted in
`
`figures 2C, 2D, wherein the feed gas is supplied i