throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Entered: October 14, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBAL FOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER M. MEYER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEYER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., GLOBAL FOUNDRIES Dresden
`Module One LLC & Co. KG, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module
`Two LLC & Co. KG, (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting
`inter partes review of claims 12 and 13 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,604,716 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’716 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`Zond, LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is
`a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and
`the Preliminary Response, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 12 and 13. Accordingly,
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted as to the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner indicates that the ’716 patent was asserted in several related
`district court cases, including Zond, LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`No. 1:13-cv-11577-DPW (D. Mass.). Pet. 1 (citing Ex. 1118). Petitioner
`also identifies other petitions for inter partes review that are related to this
`proceeding. Id.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`B. The ’716 Patent
`The ’716 patent relates to a method and apparatus for generating a
`strongly-ionized plasma, for use in various plasma processes. Ex. 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
`plasma, in an attempt to increase the plasma uniformity and density, can also
`“increase the probability of generating an electrical breakdown condition
`leading to an undesirable electrical discharge (an electrical arc) in the
`chamber.” Id. at 3:34–40.
`The ’716 patent further discloses that using pulsed DC power can
`reduce the probability of establishing such an electrical breakdown
`condition, but that large power pulses still can result in undesirable electrical
`discharges. Id. at 3:42–52. According to the ’716 patent, however, first
`forming a weakly-ionized plasma “substantially eliminates the probability of
`establishing a breakdown condition in the chamber when high-power pulses
`are applied between the cathode . . . and the anode.” Id. at 6:16–19. The
`“probability of establishing a breakdown condition is substantially
`eliminated because the weakly-ionized plasma . . . has a low-level of
`ionization that provides electrical conductivity through the plasma. This
`conductivity substantially prevents the setup of a breakdown condition, even
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`when high power is applied to the plasma.” Id. at 6:20–25. Once the
`weakly-ionized plasma is formed, high-power pulses are applied between
`the cathode and anode to generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the
`weakly-ionized plasma “without developing an electrical breakdown
`condition in the chamber.” Id. at 6:52–54, 7:16–19, 20:26–27. The ’716
`patent also describes providing a flow of feed gas sufficient to cause a rapid
`volume exchange of the strongly-ionized plasma, which permits application
`of a high power pulse with a longer duration, resulting in formation of a
`higher density plasma. Id. at 4:56–67, 20:61–67.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`Each of challenged claims 12 and 13 depends, directly or indirectly,
`from claim 1. 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 of
`developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber;
`and
`
`b. a power supply that supplies power to the weakly-
`ionized plasma th[r]ough an electrical pulse that is applied
`across the weakly-ionized plasma, the electrical pulse having at
`least one of a magnitude and a rise-time that is sufficient to
`transform the weakly-ionized plasma to a strongly-ionized
`plasma without developing an electrical breakdown condition in
`the chamber.
`Ex. 1101, 20:14–27.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references (Pet. 2–3):
`Wang
`US 6,413,382 B1
` July 2, 2002
`(Ex. 1104)
`Lantsman US 6,190,512 B1
` Feb. 20, 2001
`(Ex. 1105)
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
`PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1103) (“Mozgrin”)
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 3,
`14–44):
`
`Claims
`
`12, 13
`
`12, 13
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`References
`
`Mozgrin and Lantsman
`
`Wang and Lantsman
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are given
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`definition, 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).
`
`In the instant proceeding, the parties propose claim constructions for
`several claim terms. Pet. 11–13; Prelim. Resp. 10–16. In construing the
`claim terms below, we have considered these proposed constructions and
`applied the broadest reasonable construction, taking into account the plain
`meaning of the terms and their usage in the Specification.
`
`Claim Terms
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`Claim 1, from which challenged claims 12 and 13 depend, recites
`supplying an electrical pulse to “transform [a] weakly-ionized plasma to a
`strongly-ionized plasma.” Ex. 1101, 20:25–27. Petitioner proposes that the
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” should be interpreted as “a lower
`density plasma,” and that the claim term “strongly-ionized plasma” should
`be interpreted as “a higher density plasma.” Pet. 12–13 (emphasis omitted).
`Petitioner’s contention is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Uwe
`Kortshagen. Id. (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 46). Dr. Kortshagen defines the term
`“density” in the context of plasma as “the number of ions or electrons that
`are present in a unit volume.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 22.
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner proposes that the claim
`term “weakly-ionized plasma” should be construed as “a plasma with a
`relatively low peak density of ions,” and that the claim term “strongly-
`ionized plasma” should be construed as “a plasma with a relatively high
`peak density of ions.” Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (citing 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”)). Patent Owner also directs our
`attention to the Specifications of U.S. Patent No. 6,806,652 B1 (“the ’652
`patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 B2 (Ex. 1018, “the ’759 patent”),
`which are being challenged in GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. v. Zond,
`LLC, Case IPR2014-01088, and GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. v. Zond,
`LLC, Case IPR2014-01086, respectively. Id. The Specification of the ’652
`patent states “[t]he term ‘weakly-ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a
`plasma with a relatively low peak plasma density. The peak plasma density
`of the weakly[-]ionized plasma depends on the properties of the specific
`plasma processing system.” IPR2014-01088, Ex. 1001, 8:55–59. The
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`Specification of the ’759 patent refers to “strongly-ionized plasma [as]
`having a large ion density.” Ex. 1111, 10:4–5.
`We recognize when construing claims in patents that derive from the
`same parent application and share common terms, “we must interpret the
`claims consistently across all asserted patents.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In
`Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Here,
`although Patent Owner characterizes at least the ’652 patent as “a related
`patent” (Prelim. Resp. 13), Patent Owner does not explain how the ’652
`patent, or the ’759 patent, is related to the involved patent in the instant
`proceeding (i.e., the ’716 patent). In fact, these patents do not share the
`same written disclosure, nor do they derive from the same parent
`application.
`Nevertheless, we observe no significant difference exists between the
`parties’ proposed constructions. Pet. 11–13; Ex. 1102 ¶ 47; Prelim. Resp.
`11–13. More importantly, the claim terms “weakly-ionized plasma” and
`“strongly-ionized plasma” appear to be used consistently across each of
`these patents. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 5:14–24. For purposes of this decision,
`we construe the claim term “weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a
`relatively low peak density of ions,” and the claim term “strongly-ionized
`plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”
`
`“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
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`electrical breakdown condition in the chamber.” Ex. 1101, 20:16–20.
`Petitioner does not provide a proposed construction of this claim term.
`Patent Owner asserts this claim term requires the weakly-ionized plasma be
`plasma having a level of ionization that is low enough and
`sufficiently conductive to substantially eliminate the setup of a
`breakdown condition when the plasma is formed and when an
`electrical pulse is applied across the plasma to thereby
`generate a strongly ionized plasma.
`Prelim. Resp. 14–16 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded on this
`record, however, that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is the broadest
`reasonable construction in view of the Specification of the ’716 patent. The
`Specification describes the weakly-ionized plasma only as substantially
`eliminating the setup of a breakdown condition when the high-power pulses
`are applied across the weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized
`plasma; the Specification does not support Patent Owner’s assertion that the
`setup of a breakdown condition be substantially eliminated when the
`weakly-ionized plasma itself is formed. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 6:16–26
`(“Forming the weakly-ionized or pre-ionized plasma . . . substantially
`eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown condition in the
`chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the cathode . . . and
`the anode.”) (emphasis added); id. at 11:39–47, 12:65–13:4, 16:59–63,
`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-
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`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 this construction. Ex. 1101, 20:25–27, 22:48–50. Accordingly, on
`this record, we construe “weakly-ionized plasma substantially eliminating
`the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the
`chamber” as “weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the
`probability of developing a breakdown condition when an electrical pulse is
`applied across the plasma thereby to generate a strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`“feed gas in a chamber”
`Claim 1 recites “a feed gas contained in a chamber.” Ex. 1101, 20:17.
`Petitioner does not provide a proposed construction of this claim term.
`Patent Owner asserts that this term requires “[g]as within a chamber from an
`ongoing gas feed.” Prelim. Resp. 13–14. We are not persuaded by this
`contention. Nothing in the plain language of claim 1 requires an ongoing
`gas feed, as asserted by the Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction improperly imports limitations from the Specification into the
`claims. See, e.g., SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
`875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important
`not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).
`In any event, our decision on institution does not turn on the
`construction of this claim term. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision,
`we do not provide an express construction of “feed gas in a chamber.”
`
`B. Principles of Law
`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
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`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 grounds 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. As support, Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations as to how each claim limitation is disclosed in the cited
`references, as well as the Declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1102). Id.
`Patent Owner responds that the cited combination does not disclose every
`claim element. Prelim. Resp. 34–42.
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence.
`Given the evidence on this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`claims 12 and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Wang
`and Lantsman. Our discussion focuses on the deficiencies alleged by Patent
`Owner.
`
`Wang
`
`Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering method for
`generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1104, Abstract. In particular,
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`Wang discloses a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto
`advanced semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
`Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
`of a power pulsed magnetron sputtering reactor:
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
`pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24, cathode
`14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Id. at 3:57–4:55.
`A sputter working gas is supplied to chamber 12 from gas source 32, via
`mass flow controller 34. Id. at 4:5–11. Vacuum system 38 pumps chamber
`12 through pumping port 40. Id. at 4:11–12. 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
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`40 creates a magnetic field near target 14, which traps electrons from the
`plasma to increase the electron density. Id. at 4:23–27. Wang further
`recognizes that, if a large portion of the sputtered particles are ionized, the
`films are deposited more uniformly and effectively—the sputtered ions can
`be accelerated towards a negatively charged substrate, coating the bottom
`and sides of holes that are narrow and deep. Id. at 1:24–29.
`Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how the apparatus
`applies a pulsed power to the plasma:
`
`
`As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
`power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP. Id.
`at 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
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
`PP. Ex. 1102 ¶ 90; see Pet. 32. In Wang, the background power PB may be
`generated by DC power supply 100, and the peak power PP may be
`generated by pulsed power supply 80. Ex. 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:
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR22014-011000
`16 B2
`
`Patennt 7,604,7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuure 6 illustrrates a timiing diagramm for operaation of th
`
`e Lantsmaan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`appaaratus. Id. at 3:35–366. As showwn, gas floww is initiatted, and th
`
`
`evels for thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`and ppressure raamp upwarrds toward normal prrocessing l
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proccessing stagge. Id. at 55:39–42. AAs also shoown, gas coontinues fllowing
`
`
`
`durinng the entire processiing stage. Id. at 5:300–58.
`
`
`
`
`e gas floww
`
`
`
`
`
`Reassons to commbine Wanng and Lanntsman
`
`
`
`
`Petitioneer asserts thhat one of ordinary sskill in the
`art would
`have
`
`
`
`are directeed to sputteering usingg
`
`
`
`
`combbined Wanng and Lanntsman beccause both
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`plasmma, and more specifiically, to syystems thaat use two ppower suppplies, one
`
`
`for ppre-ionizatiion and onne for deposition. Pett. 43–44 (cciting Ex. 11104,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 7; Ex. 11005, 4:45–477; Ex. 11022 ¶ 112). PPetitioner ffurther assserts that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“onee of ordinarry skill woould have bbeen motivvated to usee Lantsmann’s
`in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`continuous gass flow in WWang so as to maintaiin a desiredd pressure
`us,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`chammber.” Pett. 44 (citingg Ex. 11022 ¶ 113). OOn the recoord before
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petittioner has sset forth a sufficient articulatedd reasoningg with ratioonal
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`underpinning to support combining these prior art teachings. See KSR, 550
`U.S. at 418.
`
`Weakly-Ionized Plasma Substantially Eliminating the Probability of
`Electrical Breakdown
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner alleges that Wang does not
`disclose forming a “weakly-ionized plasma [that] substantially eliminat[es]
`the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition,” as recited
`in claim 1, from which claims 12 and 13 depend. See Prelim. Resp. 35–37.
`In particular, Patent Owner argues that, because Wang teaches the “initial
`plasma ignition needs to be performed only once and at [] much lower power
`levels so that particulates produced by arcing are much reduced,” Wang
`cannot disclose this claim limitation. Id. at 37 (quoting Pet. 351). Patent
`Owner’s argument, however, is premised upon a construction of this claim
`limitation not adopted for purposes of this decision—that this claim
`limitation requires the setup of a breakdown condition to be substantially
`eliminated when the plasma is formed. As discussed above, on this record,
`we do not find that the broadest reasonable construction of forming a
`“weakly-ionized plasma [that] substantially eliminat[es] the probability of
`electrical breakdown” requires the setup of a breakdown condition to be
`substantially eliminated when the plasma is formed, but only that the setup
`of a breakdown condition is substantially eliminated when an electrical pulse
`is applied across the plasma thereby to generate a strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`1 We note that the Preliminary Response cites to page 46 of the Petition,
`which appears to be a typographical error.
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`
`In light of this determination, we are persuaded, by the evidence
`currently before us, that Wang discloses this claim feature. See Pet. 35–36
`(citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 96–97); see id. at 10–11. As Petitioner notes, Wang
`explains that arcing, or breakdown conditions, may occur during plasma
`ignition. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1104, 7:3–49). Indeed, Wang recognizes
`that plasma ignition in a sputtering reactor has a tendency to generate arcing,
`dislodging large particles from the target or chamber. Ex. 1104, 7:3–8. This
`is because plasma ignition is an electronically noisy process, and if
`background power level PB is not maintained between the high power pulses
`PP, each power pulse would need to ignite the plasma (as illustrated in
`Figure 4 of Wang). Id. at 7:8–12.
`Figure 6 of Wang (reproduced previously in our initial discussion of
`Wang) is reproduced below with annotations added by Petitioner (Pet. 11):
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at
`background power level PB between power pulses 96, rising to peak power
`level PP. Ex. 1104, 7:13–25. Background level PB is chosen to exceed the
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`minimum power necessary to support a plasma with little, if any, actual
`sputter deposition. Id. The initial plasma ignition needs to be performed
`only once, and at a very low power level so that particulates produced by
`arcing are much reduced. Id. at 7:26–55. According to Dr. Kortshagen,
`because “the plasma need not be reignited thereafter, arcing will not occur
`during subsequent applications of the background and peak power levels, PB
`and PP,” and “Wang therefore teaches that the weakly-ionized plasma
`reduces ‘the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition.’”
`Ex. 1102 ¶ 97.
`We, thus, are persuaded, based on the record before us, that Wang
`discloses a weakly-ionized plasma that substantially eliminates the
`probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in the chamber
`when an electrical pulse is applied across the plasma thereby to generate a
`strongly ionized plasma.
`
`Supply of Feed Gas to a Strongly-Ionized Plasma that Transports the
`Strongly-Ionized Plasma by a Rapid Volume Exchange.
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner alleges that “Lantsman
`does not teach or disclose in any way the claimed supply of feed gas ‘to a
`strongly ionized plasma that transports the strongly-ionized plasma by a
`rapid volume exchange,’” as recited in claim 12. Prelim. Resp. 38
`(emphasis added by Patent Owner).
`In this regard, Patent Owner first asserts this “claim [term] 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
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`plasma.’” Prelim. Resp. 21 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded by this
`contention. Nothing in the plain language of claim 12 requires any
`particular location to which the feed gas must be supplied. Instead, the
`claim language merely requires the gas line be “coupled to the chamber” and
`“supply[] feed gas to the strongly-ionized plasma” that is in the chamber.
`Here, Patent Owner attempts to import improperly limitations from the
`Specification into the claims. See SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875. We are
`persuaded, on this record, that Wang discloses a feed gas supplied to the
`chamber with the strongly-ionized plasma. See Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1104,
`4:5–6, 4:8–10; Ex. 1102 ¶ 107).
`Patent Owner further argues that, in Lantsman, “there is no indication
`of how the gas flows into, through, and out of the chamber.” Prelim. Resp.
`38. Petitioner, however, relies on Lantsman for the teaching of a continuous
`flow of gas. Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1105, 2:48–51; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 109–110).
`As noted above, Petitioner relies on Wang as disclosing how the gas flows
`into the chamber. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1104, 4:5–6, 4:8–10; Ex. 1102 ¶ 107).
`Thus, Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive in this regard. See In re
`Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (holding that nonobviousness
`cannot be established by attacking references individually where the ground
`of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of
`references).
`Patent Owner further argues that Lantsman does not “mention any
`‘rapid volume exchange’ in a region where the strongly ionized plasma is
`formed so as to physical[ly] transport that plasma.” Prelim. Resp. 39.
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`Petitioner, however, provides declaration testimony that “exchange of the
`feed gas into and out of Wang’s chamber [during production of the strongly-
`ionized plasma, as disclosed in Lantsman] would have . . . transported the
`strongly-ionized plasma by a rapid volume exchange,” as required by claim
`12. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 109); see also id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1102
`¶ 111) (“It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to continue to
`exchange the feed gas during Wang’s application of background power and
`high peak power, as taught by Lantsman.”). Petitioner provides further
`declaration testimony that “exchange of the feed gas into and out of Wang’s
`chamber [during production of the strongly-ionized plasma, as disclosed in
`Lantsman] would have . . . allowed additional power from Wang’s repeating
`voltage pulses to be absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma,” as required
`by claim 13. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 109).
`In response, Patent Owner argues,
`by [Petitioner’s] flawed reasoning, any gas flow through a
`chamber will transport a strongly[-]ionized plasma by a rapid
`volume exchange, regardless of the rate of gas flow relative to
`the size of the chamber and regardless of how faint the gas flux
`is in the region where the strongly-ionized plasma is formed.
`Prelim. Resp. 40. Nothing in the plain language of claim 12 requires any
`particular flow rate of the feed gas or any resultant gas flux; claim 12 merely
`requires feed gas be supplied to the strongly-ionized plasma and transport it
`by rapid volume exchange. Ex. 1101, 20:61–64. Neither the Patent Owner,
`nor the ’716 patent, however, provides an express definition of what is
`meant by “rapid volume exchange.” At most, the ’716 patent describes that
`
`21
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01100
`Patent 7,604,716 B2
`
`rapid volume exchange can be caused by increased gas flow rate. Ex, 1101,
`4:58–66. Patent Owner, again, attempts to import improperly limitations
`from the Specification into the claims. See SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875. In
`addition, we are persuaded that those of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that a “rapid volume exchange” would be beneficial for the
`reasons provided by Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1102 ¶ 109, n.16), and would have
`been adopted in the combined system of Wang and Lantsman.
`On the record before us, we credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is
`consistent with the prior art disclosures. We, thus, are persuaded that the
`combination of Wang and Lantsman discloses supplying a feed gas to a
`strongly-ionized plasma that transports the strongly-ionized plasma by a
`rapid volume exchange, which permits additional power to be absorbed by
`the strongly-ionized plasma.
`
`Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`claims 12 and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Wang
`and Lantsman.
`
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability Based on Mozgrin
`Petitioner also asserts

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket