`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