Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 38
`
`Entered: September 23, 2015
`
`
`
`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, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-011001
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00973 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 38
`
`Entered: September 23, 2015
`
`
`
`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, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-011001
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00973 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 12
`
`and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,604,716 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’716 patent”) are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden
`
`Module One LLC & Co. KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`
`Two LLC & Co. KG (collectively, “GlobalFoundries”) filed a Petition
`
`(Paper 2, “Pet.”) seeking inter partes review of claims 12 and 13 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) of the ’716 patent. GlobalFoundries included a
`
`Declaration of Uwe Kortshagen, Ph.D. (Ex. 1102) to support its positions.
`
`Zond (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim.
`
`Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), on October 14, 2014, we instituted
`
`an inter partes review of the challenged claims to determine if the claims are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of
`
`Wang2 and Lantsman.3 Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, we granted a revised Motion for Joinder
`
`filed by The Gillette Company (“Gillette”), joining Case IPR2014-00973
`
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 B1, issued July 2, 2002 (Ex. 1104).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,190,512 B1, issued Feb. 20, 2001 (Ex. 1105).
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`with the instant trial (Paper 12).4 Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp.”), along with a Declaration of
`
`Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D. (Ex. 2004) to support its positions. Petitioner
`
`filed a Reply (Paper 30, “Reply”) to the Patent Owner Response, along with
`
`a supplemental Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1120). An oral hearing5
`
`was held on June 12, 2015. A transcript of the hearing is included in the
`
`record. Paper 37 (“Tr.”).
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’716 patent was asserted against
`
`Petitioner, as well as other defendants, in seven district court lawsuits
`
`pending in the District of Massachusetts. Pet. 1; Paper 5; Ex. 1118.
`
`C.
`
`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. 1101,
`
`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
`
`
`
`4 We refer to GlobalFoundries and Gillette, collectively, as “Petitioner”
`throughout this Decision.
`5 The oral hearings for IPR2014-00807, IPR2014-00808, IPR2014-00818,
`IPR2014-00819, IPR2014-00821, IPR2014-00827, IPR2014-01098,
`IPR2014-01099, and IPR2014-01100 were consolidated.
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`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
`
`when high power is applied to the plasma.” Id. at 6:20–25.
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`
`Each of challenged claims 12 and 13 depends, directly or indirectly,
`
`from claim 1, which is not challenged in the present Petition. Claims 1, 12,
`
`and 13 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`chamber; and
`
`the
`to
`that supplies power
`b. a power supply
`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. 1101, 20:14–27.
`
`12. The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a gas
`line that is coupled to the chamber, the gas line supplying feed
`gas
`to
`the strongly-ionized plasma
`that
`transports
`the
`strongly-ionized plasma by a rapid volume exchange.
`
`Id. at 20:61–64.
`
`13. The apparatus of claim 12 wherein the gas volume
`exchange permits additional power to be absorbed by the
`strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`Id. at 20:65–67.
`
`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); see In re Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claim terms
`
`generally 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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`2007). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are part of,
`
`and read in light of, the specification. United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39,
`
`49 (1966) (“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed in the light of
`
`the specifications and both are to be read with a view to ascertaining the
`
`invention.”) (citations omitted).
`
`An inventor may provide a special definition of the term in the
`
`specification, as long as this is done so “with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994). In the absence of such a definition, however, limitations are not to be
`
`read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
`
`1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Claim Terms
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`Independent claim 1 recites supplying an electrical pulse to
`
`“transform [a] weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`Ex. 1101, 20:25–27, 22:48–50. Prior to institution, the parties submitted
`
`proposed constructions for the claim terms “a weakly-ionized plasma” and
`
`“a strongly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 12–13; Prelim. Resp. 12–13. In our
`
`Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, in
`
`light of the Specification, as the broadest reasonable interpretations.
`
`Inst. Dec. 6–8; see, e.g., Ex. 1101, 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”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`Subsequent to institution, notwithstanding that neither Patent Owner,
`
`nor its expert witness, expressly challenged our claim constructions as to
`
`these terms (see, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶ 21), Patent Owner improperly attempts to
`
`import extraneous limitations into the claim by arguing that a specific
`
`magnitude for the peak density of ions is required to disclose a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma, i.e., “equal to or greater than 1012 [cm-3]” (PO
`
`Resp. 3–4, 26–27). It is well settled that if a feature is not necessary to give
`
`meaning to a claim term, it would be “extraneous” and should not be read
`
`into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`
`1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips
`
`Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Patent Owner relies only on testimony from Petitioner’s declarant,
`
`Dr. Kortshagen, to support this construction requiring a specific magnitude
`
`for the peak density of ions. PO Resp. 3 (citing IPR2014-00818, Ex. 2010,
`
`44:13–58:12). Patent Owner, however, does not direct us to where the
`
`Specification provides an explicit definition for this claim term, nor do we
`
`discern one. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Moreover, Patent Owner’s
`
`newly proposed construction, requiring a specific ion density range, would
`
`render at least the limitation recited in dependent claim 24 superfluous.
`
`Ex. 1101, 21:45–47 (Claim 24 states “[t]he method of claim 14 wherein the
`
`peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater than about 1012
`
`cm-3.”). It is well settled that “claims are interpreted with an eye toward
`
`giving effect to all terms in the claim.” Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`
`441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors,
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions
`
`which render phrases in claims superfluous). Further, “[i]t is improper for
`
`courts to read into an independent claim a limitation explicitly set forth in
`
`another claim.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 698,
`
`699 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s newly
`
`proposed construction that requires a specific ion density. Rather, upon
`
`consideration of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence before us,
`
`we discern no reason to change our claim constructions set forth in the
`
`Institution Decision with respect to these claim terms, which adopted Patent
`
`Owner’s originally proposed constructions. Inst. Dec. 8. Therefore, we
`
`construe, in light of the Specification, the claim term “a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions,” and the
`
`claim term “a strongly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively high
`
`peak density of ions.”
`
`“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. 1101,
`
`20:16–20 (emphasis added). During the pre-trial stage of this proceeding,
`
`Patent Owner argued that 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
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`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). In our Institution Decision, we
`
`construed this claim term 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.” Inst. Dec. 8–10.
`
`Subsequent to institution, notwithstanding that neither Patent Owner,
`
`nor its expert witness, expressly challenged our construction as to this term
`
`(see, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶ 22), Patent Owner again improperly attempts to import
`
`extraneous limitations into the claim by arguing repeatedly that the claims
`
`require that arcing6 is avoided, even on plasma initiation. See, e.g., PO
`
`Resp. 2–3, 21, 26. Patent Owner’s interpretation, however, is not consistent
`
`with the language of the claims, or the Specification. The Specification of
`
`the ’716 patent 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. 1101, 6:16–25 (“Forming the
`
`weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma . . . substantially eliminates the
`
`
`
`6 Patent Owner often uses the term “arcing” when discussing the claim term
`“electrical breakdown condition.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 1–3, 21, 24–27.
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`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, 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 claim 1, which recites
`
`“transform[ing] the weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma
`
`without developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber,” also
`
`supports our claim construction set forth in the Institution Decision.
`
`Ex. 1101, 20:25–27, 22:48–50.
`
`Upon consideration of the parties’ explanations and supporting
`
`evidence, we discern no reason to change our claim construction set forth in
`
`the Institution Decision with respect to this term. Inst. Dec. 10. Therefore,
`
`we construe, in light of the Specification, the claim term “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.”
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`“without developing an electrical breakdown condition”
`
`Claim 1 recites “transform[ing] the weakly-ionized plasma to a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma without developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber.” Ex. 1101, 20:25–27, 22:48–50 (emphasis
`
`added). Neither the Specification nor the original disclosure of the ’716
`
`patent recites the claim term “without developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber.” Rather, they disclose a process that reduces or
`
`substantially eliminates the possibility of developing an electrical breakdown
`
`condition in the chamber.
`
`For instance, the Specification of the ’716 patent discloses:
`
`Forming the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma 232
`substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a
`breakdown condition in the chamber when high-power pulses
`are applied between the cathode 204 and the anode 216. 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
`conductivity
`through
`the plasma.
` This conductivity
`substantially prevents the setup of a breakdown condition, even
`when high power is applied to the plasma.
`
`Id. at 6:16–25 (emphases added).
`
`The partially ionized gas is also referred to as a weakly-ionized
`plasma or a pre-ionized plasma 232 (FIG. 2B). The formation
`of weakly-ionized plasma 232 substantially eliminates the
`possibility of creating a breakdown condition when high-power
`pulses are applied to the weakly-ionized plasma 232 as
`described herein.
`
`Id. at 11:41–47 (emphasis added).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`As described herein, the formation of weakly-ionized plasma
`232 substantially eliminates the possibility of creating a
`breakdown condition when high-power pulses are applied to the
`weakly-ionized plasma 232.
` The suppression of
`this
`breakdown condition substantially eliminates the occurrence of
`undesirable arcing between the anode 216 and the cathode 204.
`
`Id. at 12:65–13:4 (emphases added).
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner argues that “Wang . . . merely describes
`
`techniques for reducing, but not eliminating, electrical breakdown
`
`conditions” and “[t]he two are not the same.” PO Resp. 1. Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments, attempting to distinguish the claims from Wang, focus on this
`
`distinction—reducing versus eliminating. See id. at 1–4, 21, 24–26. Patent
`
`Owner, however, does not explain adequately why one with ordinary skill in
`
`the plasma art would have interpreted the claim term “without developing
`
`an electrical breakdown condition,” in light of the Specification, to require
`
`the transformation of the weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma with a guarantee of eliminating all possibility of arcing. See In re
`
`NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that the Board’s
`
`claim construction “cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
`
`evidence”); see also In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`
`(stating that the Board’s claim construction “must be consistent with the one
`
`that those skilled in the art would reach”).
`
`One with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
`
`electrical arcing in a real-world plasma sputtering apparatus occurs naturally
`
`under certain processing conditions. In this regard, Dr. Kortshagen testifies
`
`that
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`[t]he probability of arcing can never be completely eliminated
`in a realistic sputtering system application. This stems from
`arcs being the potential result of stochastic electron density
`fluctuations that may trigger an instability feedback mechanism
`capable of creating a short circuit. Such density fluctuations
`can result from the inherent stochastic motion of electrons, but
`also from external factors such as cathode and anode erosion
`over time or the flaking of deposited films from the chamber
`walls, which all can lead to local enhancements of the electric
`field. Because of the unpredictable nature of such events, there
`is always a chance that a local electron density fluctuation can
`become sufficiently high to create a short circuit and result in
`an arc discharge.
`
`Ex. 1120 ¶ 76 (emphases added). During his cross-examination,
`
`Dr. Hartsough also recognized that “[o]ne can’t say that an arc would never
`
`occur . . . .” Ex. 1123, 188:14–189:3. We credit this testimony of
`
`Dr. Kortshagen and Dr. Hartsough as it is consistent with the Specification
`
`of the ’716 patent. Ex. 1101, 6:16–25, 11:41–47, 12:65–13:4.
`
`It is well settled that “[a] claim construction that excludes the
`
`preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly
`
`persuasive evidentiary support.” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v.
`
`Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotations
`
`omitted). A construction that excludes all disclosed embodiments, as urged
`
`by Patent Owner here, is especially disfavored. MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton,
`
`Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In short, claim
`
`construction requires claim terms to be read so that they encompass the very
`
`preferred embodiment they describe. On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk
`
`Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`Here, nothing in the Specification indicates that the possibility of
`
`arcing is completely eliminated when the weakly-ionized plasma is
`
`transformed to a strongly-ionized plasma. Rather, it explicitly states that
`
`“the formation of weakly-ionized plasma 232 substantially eliminates the
`
`possibility of creating a breakdown condition when high-power pulses are
`
`applied to the weakly-ionized plasma 232,” and “[t]he suppression of this
`
`breakdown condition substantially eliminates the occurrence of undesirable
`
`arcing between the anode 216 and the cathode 204.” Ex. 1101, 12:65–13:4
`
`(emphases added).
`
`Given the disclosure in the Specification and the consistent testimony
`
`of Dr. Kortshagen and Dr. Hartsough, we decline to construe the claims to
`
`require the transformation of the weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-
`
`ionized plasma occur with a guarantee of eliminating all possibility of an
`
`electrical breakdown condition or arcing, because it would be unreasonable
`
`to exclude the disclosed embodiments, all of which stop short of such a
`
`guarantee. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(en banc) (stating that the Specification is “the single best guide to the
`
`meaning of a disputed term”). Instead, we construe the claim term “without
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber” as
`
`“substantially eliminating the possibility of developing an electrical
`
`breakdown condition in the chamber,” consistent with an interpretation that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would reach when reading the claim term in
`
`the context of the Specification.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`B.
`
`Principles of Law
`
`To prevail in its challenges to the patentability of the claims,
`
`Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A patent claim is unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is
`
`resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed
`
`subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`(4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see
`
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). The level of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`We analyze the asserted ground of unpatentability in accordance with
`
`the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Obviousness Over Wang and Lantsman
`
`Petitioner asserts that each of the challenged claims is unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Wang and
`
`Lantsman. Pet. 32–44. Petitioner explains how each claim limitation is
`
`disclosed in or taught by the cited references, and provides an articulated
`
`reasoning with rational underpinning to support combining the prior art
`
`teachings. Id. Petitioner also relies on the Declarations of Dr. Kortshagen
`
`(Ex. 1102; Ex. 1120) to support its Petition and Reply. Patent Owner
`
`responds that the cited combination does not disclose every claim element
`
`(see, e.g., PO Resp. 24–27), and asserts that there is insufficient reason to
`
`combine the technical disclosures of Wang and Lantsman (id. at 27–29),
`
`relying on the Declaration of Dr. Hartsough (Ex. 2004) to support its
`
`Response.
`
`We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
`
`explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
`
`our discussion with a brief summary of Wang and Lantsman, and then we
`
`address the parties’ contentions in turn.
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering method for
`
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1104, Abstract. Wang also
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`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 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
`
`14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Ex. 1104, 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
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`are ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly and effectively. 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. 1104, 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum
`
`power necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational
`
`pressure (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. 1102 ¶ 90; see Pet. 32. In Wang, background power PB
`
`may be generated by DC power supply 100 and peak power PP may be
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`generated by pulsed power supply 80. Ex. 1104, 7:56–64, Fig. 7; Ex. 1102
`
`¶ 44.
`
`Lantsman
`
`Lantsman discloses a plasma ignition system for plasma processing
`
`chambers having primary and secondary power supplies, used to generate a
`
`plasma current and a process initiation voltage, respectively. Ex. 1105,
`
`Abstract. The primary power supply provides the power to drive electrically
`
`the cathode during the plasma process, and the secondary power supply
`
`supplies an initial plasma ignition voltage to “pre-ignite” the plasma. Id.
`
`According to Lantsman, “arcing which can be produced by
`
`overvoltages can cause local overheating of the target, leading to
`
`evaporation or flaking of target material into the processing chamber and
`
`causing substrate particle contamination and device damage,” and “[t]hus, it
`
`is advantageous to avoid voltage spikes during processing wherever
`
`possible.” Id. at 1:51–59. The plasma “pre-ignition” allows the system to
`
`smoothly transition to final plasma development and deposition without
`
`voltage spikes, when the primary power supply is applied. Id. at 2:48–51.
`
`In Lantsman, “at the beginning of processing . . . gas is introduced
`
`into the chamber” and “[w]hen the plasma process is completed, the gas
`
`flow is stopped.” Id. at 3:10–13. This is illustrated in Figure 6 of Lantsman
`
`reproduced below:
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 illustrates a timing diagram for operation of the Lantsman
`
`apparatus. Id. at 3:35–36. As shown, gas flow is initiated, and the gas flow
`
`and pressure ramp upwards toward normal processing levels for the
`
`processing stage. Id. at 5:39–42. As also shown, gas continues flowing
`
`during the entire processing stage. Id. at 5:30–58.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Petitioner explains how each limitation of claim 1 is disclosed in
`
`Wang. Pet. 32–39. Petitioner contends that DC power supply 100 of Wang
`
`discloses the claimed ionization source, which supplies background power
`
`PB that generates a weakly-ionized plasma from a gas, such as an argon feed
`
`gas. Id. at 33–35; Ex. 1104, 7:56–61, 4:5–8, Figs. 6, 7. Petitioner further
`
`contends that pulsed DC power supply 80 of Wang discloses the claimed
`
`power supply, which supplies pulses (high power pulses PP) to the weakly-
`
`ionized plasma, to generate a strongly-ionized plasma. Pet. 36–38; Ex.
`
`1104, 7:19–30, 7:61–62, Figs. 6, 7.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`With respect to the independent claim, the parties’ dispute mainly
`
`centers on: (1) whether Wang discloses the “transform[ing] . . . without
`
`developing an electrical breakdown condition” limitation; and (2) whether
`
`Wang discloses the claimed “electrical pulse.” We address each of these
`
`issues in turn.
`
`Transforming a weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma without
`developing an electrical breakdown condition
`
`Petitioner asserts that Wang discloses “transform[ing a]
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized plasma without developing an
`
`electrical breakdown condition,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 35–36, 38–39.
`
`According to Petitioner, “Wang teaches that maintaining the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma between the pulses reduces arcing, or breakdown conditions.” Id. at
`
`42 (citing Ex. 1104, 7:3–49; Ex. 1102 ¶ 96). An annotated version of Figure
`
`6 of Wang is reproduced below (annotations by Petitioner, Pet. 11):
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 6, the target is maintained at background
`
`power level PB between power pulses 96, rising to peak power level PP.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1104, 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, P
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
