U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 34789.152
`Filed on behalf of: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.;
`
`
`
`TSMC North America Corp.;
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited; and
`Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc.
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`David L. McCombs, Reg. No. 32,271
`David M. O’Dell, Reg. No. 42,044
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.
`TSMC NORTH AMERICA CORP.
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent Owner of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773 to Roman Chistyakov
`
`IPR Trial No. IPR2014-***
`
`
` PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,896,773
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES .............................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................. 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 1 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 1 
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................... 2 
`II. 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ..................... 2 
`A. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................. 2 
`B. 
`Grounds for Challenge ........................................................................... 4 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ‘773 PATENT ............................................................. 5 
`A.  Overview of Sputtering .......................................................................... 5 
`B. 
`Sputtering Yield ..................................................................................... 6 
`C. 
`Temperature Dependence of the Sputtering Yield ................................. 7 
`D. 
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘773 Patent ................................. 7 
`E. 
`Prosecution History ................................................................................ 8 
`F. 
`Summary of the prior art ........................................................................ 9 
`G. 
`References Are Not Cumulative ............................................................ 9 
`H.  Overview of Mozgrin (Ex. 1002) ........................................................... 9 
`I. 
`Overview of Wang (Ex. 1003) ............................................................. 11 
`J. 
`Overview of Fortov (Ex. 1004) ............................................................ 12 
`VI.  SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ....................................................... 13 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 1, 6, 8-20 and 36-39 would have been obvious
`over Mozgrin and Fortov ..................................................................... 13 
`Ground II: Claim 5 would have been obvious over Mozgrin,
`Fortov, and Kawamata ......................................................................... 25 
`Ground III: Claims 1, 6, 8-20 would have been obvious over
`Wang and Fortov ................................................................................. 27 
`D.  Ground IV: Claim 5 would have been obvious over Wang,
`Fortov and Kawamata .......................................................................... 39 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ground V: Claims 3, 4 and 34-39 would have been obvious in
`view of Mozgrin, Fortov and Lantsman ............................................... 41 
`Ground VI: Claims 3, 4 and 34-39 would have been obvious in
`view of Wang, Fortov and Lantsman ................................................... 45 
`G.  Ground VII: Claim 7 would have been obvious in view of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Fortov ....................................................... 50 
`H.  Ground VIII: Claim 7 would have been obvious in view of
`Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Fortov ............................................ 55 
`Ground IX: Claim 2 would have been obvious in view of
`Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis, and Fortov as evidenced by Raiser ............ 56 
`Ground X: Claim 2 would have been obvious in view of Wang,
`Fortov and Fu as evidenced by Raizer ................................................. 58 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(5)
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.; TSMC North America
`
`Corp.; Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited; and Fujitsu Semiconductor America are the
`
`real parties-in-interest (“Petitioner”).
`
`B. Related Matters
`The ‘773 patent is involved in the following related matters: Zond, LLC v.
`
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited et al., Civ. No. 1-14-cv-12438 (MAD June 9, 2014);
`
`TSMC Tech., Inc. et al v Zond LLC, Civ. No. 1-14-cv-00721 (DED June 6, 2014);
`
`Zond, Inc. v. The Gillette Co. and the Procter and Gamble Co., Civ. No. 1:13-CV.
`
`11567-DJC (MAD, July 1, 2013); IPR2014-00726 filed May 2, 2014; and IPR2014-
`
`00580 filed April 4, 2014. The present petition is substantially identical to IPR2014-
`
`00580, and Petitioner plans to seek joinder therewith. Additionally, the Patent
`
`Owner is suing Petitioner and/or other parties under one or more of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,147,759; 6,896,775; 6,853,142; 7,604,716; 8,125,155; 7,811,421; 6,805,779;
`
`7,808,184; 6,806,652, and 6,896,775 which have generally similar subject matter.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: David L. McCombs (Registration No. 32,271)
`
`Backup Counsel: David M. O’Dell (Registration No. 42,044)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`E-mail:
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: David L. McCombs
`
`
`
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`
`
`
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`
`
`
`
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Telephone: 214-651-5533
`
`
`
`Fax: 214-200-0853
`
`Counsel agrees to service by email.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which review
`
`is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-20 and 34-39 (“challenged claims”) of the ‘773 Patent.
`
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability:1
`
`(1) D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in
`
`a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports, Vol. 21, No. 5,
`
`1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1002)), which is prior art under § 102(b); (2) U.S. Pat. No.
`
`1 As the ’773 Patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA,) the pre-
`
`AIA statutory framework for prior art is used herein.
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1003)), which is prior art at least under §§ 102(a) and (e);
`
`(3) Certified Translation of Encyclopedia of Low-Temperature Plasma Physics,
`
`Introductory Vol. III, Section VI, Fortov, V.E., Ed., Nauka/Interperiodica, Moscow
`
`(2000); pp. 117-126 (“Fortov” (Ex. 1004)); the Russian language version is Ex.
`
`1010, which is prior art under § 102(b); (4) A. A. Kudryavtsev, et al, Ionization
`
`relaxation in a plasma produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech.
`
`Phys. 28(1), January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev” (Ex. 1006)), which is prior art under §
`
`102(b); (5) U.S. Pat. No. 6,306,265 (“Fu” (Ex. 1007)), which is prior art under §
`
`102(b); (6) U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1008)), which is prior under
`
`§ 102(b); (7) U.S. Pat. No. 5,958,155 (“Kawamata” (Ex. 1009)), which is prior art
`
`under § 102(b); (9) U.S. Patent No. 6,398,929 (“Chiang” (Ex. 1011)), which is
`
`prior art under §§ 102(a) and 102(e); (10) Gas Discharge Physics, by Raizer, Table
`
`of Contents, pp. 1-35, Springer 1997 (“Raizer” (Ex. 1012)), which is prior art under
`
`§ 102(b); (11) File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,896,773, Amendment mailed October
`
`19, 2004 (“10/19/04 Amendment” (Ex. 1013)); and (12) Certified Translation of
`
`D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a
`
`Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering Physics
`
`Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis” (Ex. 1015)); the Russian language version is Ex.
`
`1016, which is prior art under § 102(b); a copy of the catalogue entry for the
`
`Mozgrin Thesis at the Russian State Library is attached as Exhibit 1014.
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-20 and 34-39 (“challenged
`
`claims”) of the ‘773 Patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103, based on the 10
`
`grounds identified herein. This Petition, supported by the declaration of Richard
`
`DeVito (“DeVito” (Ex. 1005)), 2 demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim and that each
`
`challenged claim is not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner
`
`adopts the “broadest reasonable construction” standard as required by the governing
`
`regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner reserves the right to pursue different
`
`constructions in a district court, where a different standard is applicable.
`
`A.
`
`“weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma”
`
`The challenged claims recite “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasma.” These terms relate to the density of the plasma, i.e., a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma has a lower density than a strongly-ionized plasma. With reference to Fig. 6,
`
`the ‘773 Patent describes forming a weakly-ionized plasma between times t1 and t2
`
`
`2 Dr. DeVito has been retained by Petitioner. Ex. 1005 is a copy of Dr. DeVito’s
`
`declaration filed in the previously-file IPR for this patent, discussed above.
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`by application of the low power 330 and then goes on to describe forming a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma by application of higher power 350. ‘733 Patent at 15:5-7;
`
`15:51-54 (Ex. 1001). The ‘773 Patent also provides exemplary densities for the
`
`weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasmas. See ‘773 Patent, claim 26 (“wherein
`
`the peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasma is less than about 1012 cm-3”);
`
`claim 30 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized plasma is greater
`
`than about 1012 cm-3”) (Ex. 1001). Thus, the proposed construction for “weakly-
`
`ionized plasma” is “a lower density plasma.” Likewise, the proposed construction
`
`for “strongly-ionized plasma” is “a higher density plasma.”
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘773 PATENT
`A. Overview of Sputtering
`Sputtering is a technique for depositing a thin film of a material onto a surface
`
`called a substrate. This technology is widely used in thin film deposition processes,
`
`including in semiconductor wafer processing and razor blade manufacturing.
`
`DeVito ¶22 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Sputtering is performed in a plasma chamber under low pressure, e.g.,
`
`between 1-100 mTorr, and typically with an inert feed gas, such as argon. The
`
`material to be deposited is typically provided in the form of a solid disk, or a plate,
`
`and is referred to as a target. A plasma of ground state argon atoms, excited argon
`
`atoms, positive argon ions, and electrons is created by applying an electric field to
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`electrodes near the feed gas. The target develops a negative potential, Vb, related to
`
`the applied field. Positive argon ions in the plasma are attracted to the target and are
`
`accelerated at a potential Vb. These ions strike the target and cause target atoms to
`
`be dislodged through momentum exchange. These atoms can themselves become
`
`ionized under certain plasma conditions. The dislodged target atoms are then
`
`deposited on the substrate surface, often in part by providing a bias signal on the
`
`substrate to attract the ionized sputtered and ionized argon atoms. A magnet system
`
`or “magnetron” is often used to control the location of the plasma relative to the
`
`target by trapping electrons close to the target. DeVito ¶¶23-24 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Further detail about plasma sputtering, including sputtering with high power
`
`pulses for providing an electric field is provided at DeVito ¶¶26-63 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Sputtering Yield
`
`B.
`Sputtering yield refers to the number of target atoms ejected from the target
`
`per incident ion, such as an Ar+ ion. An increase in sputtering yield is desirable
`
`because it increases the deposition rate of the sputtering target onto the substrate.
`
`This was known in the art well before the ‘773 Patent was filed. DeVito ¶64 (Ex.
`
`1005). It was also known that sputtering causes the temperature of the target surface
`
`to increase, and that the sputtering yield is a function of a number of parameters,
`
`including target temperature, angle of the sputtering ions relative to the target and
`
`the energy of the sputtering ions. DeVito ¶65 (Ex. 1005).
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Temperature Dependence of the Sputtering Yield
`
`C.
`If certain conditions are met, the sputtering yield can be related to the target
`
`temperature in a non-linear way. Usually, the non-linear dependence occurs when
`
`the sputtering target is heated to a certain temperature, which depends on the
`
`chemical composition of the sputtering target. DeVito ¶66 (Ex. 1005).
`
`The relationship of the sputtering yield to the temperature of the sputtering
`
`target was known before the ‘773 Patent. The ‘773 Patent essentially copied its
`
`disclosure about the relationship between temperature and sputtering yield from
`
`Fortov (Ex. 1004), as is apparent from the comparison of their disclosures. DeVito
`
`¶67 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ‘773 Patent
`
`D.
`The ‘773 Patent describes a sputtering technique in which a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is generated from a weakly-ionized plasma. The ions in the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma impact the sputtering target to generate sufficient thermal energy in the
`
`sputtering target and are said to cause the sputtering yield to be related to a
`
`temperature of the sputtering target in a non-linear way.
`
`The ‘773 Patent indicates that the sputtering yield is related to a temperature
`
`of a sputtering target in a non-linear way when: (1) the bombarding ion energy is
`
`greater than “several hundred eV” (4:42-45); (2) the temperature of the target is
`
`greater than 0.7 x the melting temperature (Tm) of the target (18:67-19:1); or (3) the
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`deposition rate of the sputtered material is related to the temperature of the target in
`
`a non-linear way (4:59-60) (Ex. 1001).
`
`Without providing any experimental evidence or guidance about how to
`
`achieve the claimed effects, the ‘773 Patent states that the non-linearity of the
`
`sputtering yield is achieved when the weakly-ionized plasma is being pulsed with a
`
`pulse described in Fig. 6 and 15:45-50 over very broad ranges of parameters. Such
`
`pulse, which can last between 1µs and 10s (7 orders of magnitude), produces voltage
`
`in the range of 50V-30kV (about 3 orders of magnitude), current in the range of
`
`10A-5kA, and power in the very broad range of 1kW to 10MW (4 orders of
`
`magnitude) (col. 15:45-50) .
`
`The dependent claims are directed to further obvious operational details such
`
`as characteristics of the voltage pulse, plasma, ionization source, the sputtering
`
`source, natural properties of the system and observations about such a system.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`E.
`In an Amendment dated 10/19/ 2004 (Ex. 1013), the Patent Owner stated:
`
`“Fortov describes the relationship between the sputtering yield and the temperature
`
`of the target, but does not describe how to achieve the non-linear relationship
`
`between the sputtering yield and the target temperature.” Id. at 11.
`
`However, before the ‘773 Patent was filed, it was generally known in the art
`
`that high power would provide a high density plasma, and thus a high level of heat
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`to the target, thus showing how to achieve high target temperature. As shown
`
`below, Mozgrin and Wang both operate at high power, as does the ‘773 Patent itself.
`
`DeVito ¶¶70, 87, 93 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Summary of the prior art
`
`F.
`As explained in detail below, there is nothing new or non-obvious in Zond’s
`
`claims. As Mozgrin and Wang show, using high power pulses to go from a weakly
`
`to strongly ionized plasma was known, and techniques for increasing sputtering
`
`yield by increasing target temperature were well understood before the ‘773 Patent.
`
`DeVito ¶¶64-76 (Ex. 1005).
`
`G. References Are Not Cumulative
`Wang and Mozgrin have in common that they disclose the concept behind the
`
`patent – providing a pulse to transition from a weakly to a strongly ionized plasma.
`
`But they should not be considered cumulative because their focus and type of
`
`disclosure are different. Each Mozgrin reference is an academic paper, so they do
`
`not necessarily show certain details of a working sputtering system, even though
`
`such details would have been well known to a person of ordinary skill. Wang is a
`
`patent assigned to a major supplier of sputtering equipment, and therefore is less
`
`focused on physics, as compared to Mozgrin.
`
`H. Overview of Mozgrin (Ex. 1002)
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Mozgrin teaches forming a high density plasma during a voltage pulse
`
`without forming an arc. FIG. 7 of Mozgrin, copied below, shows the current-voltage
`
`characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`
`
`Fig. 7 of Mozgrin (Ex. 1002)
`
`Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions: (1) “pre-ionization,” Mozgrin
`
`at 402, right col, ¶ 2 (“Part 1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the
`
`stationary discharge (pre-ionization stage)”) (Ex. 1002); (2) “high current magnetron
`
`discharge,” Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4; application of a high voltage to the pre-
`
`ionized plasma causes the transition from region 1 to 2; (3) “high current diffuse
`
`discharge,” Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5; increasing the current applied to the “high-
`
`current magnetron discharge” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition to region 3;
`
`and (4) “arc discharge,” Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3; further increasing the applied
`
`current causes the plasma to transition from region 3 to the “arc discharge” region 4.
`
`DeVito ¶¶87-91 (Ex. 1005).
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Region 2 is useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (Ex. 1002);
`
`region 3 is useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a surface. Mozgrin at
`
`409, left col, ¶ 5; DeVito ¶89 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Overview of Wang (Ex. 1003)
`
`I.
`Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron sputtering device having an anode (24), a
`
`cathode (14), a movable magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (shown in
`
`FIG. 7), and a pulsed DC power supply (80). See Wang, Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55; 7:56-
`
`8:12 (Ex. 1003).
`
`
`Fig. 1 of Wang (Ex. 1003)
`
`FIG. 6 shows a graph of the power Wang applies to the plasma. A lower
`
`power level, PB, is generated by a DC power supply 100 (shown in FIG. 7), and a
`
`higher power level, PP, is generated by the pulsed power supply 80. Wang 7:56-64.
`
`The lower power level, PB, “is chosen to exceed the minimum power necessary to
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`support a plasma” after ignition, and application of the higher power level, PP,
`
`“increases the density of the plasma.” Wang 7:17-31; 8:2-5; DeVito ¶ 93 (Ex.
`
`1005).
`
`Fig. 6 of Wang (Ex. 1003)
`
`
`
`Overview of Fortov (Ex. 1004)
`
`J.
`Fortov is a Russian language encyclopedia of plasma physics that was
`
`published in 2000. Fortov teaches the non-linear relationship between the target
`
`temperature and the sputtering yield Y above temperature T0. Fortov at 123, left col.
`
`(Ex. 1004). DeVito ¶98 (Ex. 1005) (including a chart showing how the ‘773 Patent
`
`virtually copied the Fortov reference).
`
`Fortov observes that above certain temperature, the sputtering yield Y starts to
`
`grow rapidly. (“At temperature being less than T1 coefficient Y is not actually
`
`dependent on the temperature, and at Т ≈ T1 starts to grow rapidly concurrently with
`
`the growth of temperature (Pic. VI.1.315).” Fortov at 119, left col. Fortov also
`
`depicts this effect graphically in Pic. VI.1.315:
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`“Pic. VI.1.315. Sputtering coefficient of cuprum [copper] being bombarded by the
`
`ions of Аr+ with the energy of 400 eV, from the temperature: 1 — electrolytic
`
`copper, 2 — rolled copper, 3 — cuprum monocrystal, facet (101)” (Fortov at 119,
`
`left col. (Ex. 1004)). DeVito ¶99 (Ex. 1005).
`
`The ‘773 Patent adopted sections and equations from Fortov without
`
`attributing those disclosures to Fortov, and then claims this effect in a particular type
`
`of system, even though there is nothing to indicate that the effect described in Fortov
`
`would work in some different way in the system of the ‘773 Patent.
`
`VI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in the
`
`DeVito Declaration (Ex. 1005), demonstrate in detail how the prior art discloses
`
`each and every limitation of the claims of the ‘773 Patent, and how those claims are
`
`rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1, 6, 8-20 and 36-39 would have been obvious
`over Mozgrin and Fortov
`1.
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`a) The preamble: “A sputtering source comprising”
`Mozgrin discloses a sputtering source. Mozgrin 403, right col, ¶4 (“Regime 2
`
`was characterized by intense cathode sputtering…”)3. Further, Figure 1 of Mozgrin
`
`shows two configurations of magnetrons that can be used for sputtering. Mozgrin at
`
`Figure 1. (Ex. 1002). DeVito ¶108 (Ex. 1005).
`
`b) Limitation (a): “a cathode assembly that is positioned
`adjacent to an anode, the cathode assembly including a
`sputtering target”
`
`Mozgrin’s Figure 1 shows a cathode labeled “1,” that is adjacent to Mozgrin’s
`
`anode “2.” Mozgrin also discloses that its cathode includes a sputtering target, and
`
`that sputtering occurs in Region 2. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 (“Regime 2 was
`
`characterized by intense cathode sputtering….”). The sputtered material comes
`
`from the cathode. Id. ¶ 4 (“The pulsed deposition rate of the cathode material….”).
`
`In a magnetron, the portion of the cathode that can be sputtered is the “sputtering
`
`target.” DeVito ¶109 (Ex. 1005).
`
`c) Limitation (b): “an ionization source that generates a
`weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas proximate to the anode
`and the cathode assembly”
`
`Mozgrin teaches using the power supply shown in Fig. 2 of Mozgrin to
`
`generate a weakly-ionized plasma with density less than 1012 ions/cm3 from the feed
`
`gas. For example, Mozgrin states (Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2):
`
`
`3 All bold/italic emphasis is added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`For pre-ionization, we used a stationary magnetron discharge; the
`discharge current ranged up to 300 mA…. We found out that only the
`regimes with magnetic field strength … provided the initial plasma
`density in the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range. (emphasis added)
`
`Mozgrin’s plasma is generated from a feed gas between and proximate to the anode
`
`“1” and cathode “2” as shown in Mozgrin’s Figures 1 and 6. Mozgrin at 401, left
`
`col, ¶ 1 (“The [plasma] discharge had an annular shape and was adjacent to the
`
`cathode.”). DeVito ¶110-111 (Ex. 1005).
`
`Mozgrin teaches using feed gasses such as argon and nitrogen for forming its
`
`plasmas. Mozgrin at 400, right col, ¶ 3; 402, ¶ spanning left and right cols (“We
`
`studied the high-current discharge … using various gases (Ar, N2, SF6, and H2) or
`
`their mixtures of various composition….”). DeVito ¶112 (Ex. 1005).
`
`d) Limitation (c)
`(1)
`“a power supply that generates a voltage pulse
`between the anode and the cathode…[with] an amplitude
`and a rise time”
`
`Fig 3(b) of Mozgrin, which shows the voltage pulse generated by the “high-
`
`voltage supply unit” of Mozgrin’s power supply, is copied below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Region 1 of Mozgrin’s Fig 3(b) represents the voltage used for pre-ionization,
`
`corresponding to generating of the weakly-ionized plasma. Mozgrin at 402, right
`
`col, ¶ 2 (“Part 1 in the voltage oscillogram represents the voltage of the stationary
`
`discharge (pre-ionization stage).”) DeVito ¶113 (Ex. 1005). FIG. 1 of Mozgrin
`
`shows two configurations of magnetrons, each with a cathode 1 and an anode 2.
`
`Mozgrin, 401, FIG. 1 caption (“FIG. 1 Discharge device configuration… (1)
`
`Cathode; (2) anode….”) . Mozgrin’s FIG. 1 also shows the anode adjacent to the
`
`cathode, in parallel and arranged such that there is a gap between them.
`
`Also, Mozgrin teaches using a pulse with a rise time of 5 – 60 µs. Mozgrin at
`
`401, right col, ¶ 1 (“[t]he power supply was able to deliver square voltage and
`
`current pulses with [rise] times (leading edge) of 5 – 60 µs ….”). Region 2 of
`
`Mozgrin’s Fig 3(b) represents a voltage pulse having an amplitude and a rise time,
`
`that is applied to the weakly-ionized plasma between Mozgrin’s anode and cathode.
`
`DeVito ¶114 (Ex. 1005)
`
`(2) Generating a “strongly-ionized plasma” from the
`“weakly-ionized plasma”
`
`Mozgrin’s voltage pulse generates a “strongly-ionized plasma.” In Mozgrin’s
`
`sputtering region 2, the plasma density exceeded 1013 cm-3. Mozgrin at 409, left col,
`
`¶4 (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge (regime 2) in
`
`sputtering … plasma density (exceeding 2x1013 cm-3).” In Mozgrin’s region 3, the
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`plasma density is even higher. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶5 (“large-volume uniform
`
`dense plasmas ni  1.5x1015cm-3. DeVito ¶115 (Ex. 1005).
`
`(3) Generating “sufficient thermal energy in the
`sputtering target to cause a sputtering yield to be non-
`linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering target”
`
`Fortov discloses a relationship between the target temperature and the
`
`sputtering yield. Fortov further discloses that the sputtering yield Y becomes non-
`
`linear above temperature T0: “Y increases with the increase of target temperature T0,
`
`meanwhile, the relation Y(T0) has an exponential character which explains the
`
`thermal dependence of the sputtering yield (see pic. VI.1.315).” Fortov at 123, left
`
`col. (Ex. 1004). Fortov discloses that “[a]t temperature being less than T1 coefficient
`
`Y is not actually dependent on the temperature, and at Т ≈ T1 starts to grow rapidly
`
`concurrently with the growth of temperature (Pic. VI.1.315).” Fortov at 119, left
`
`col. Pic. VI.1.315 depicts sputtering yield as a function the temperature of a copper
`
`cathode in argon plasma, and shows that the sputtering yield increases with
`
`increasing surface temperature of the sputtering target in a non-linear way above
`
`certain temperature. DeVito ¶116 (Ex. 1005).
`
`The ‘773 Patent admits it was known in the prior art that the sputtering
`
`process generates heat at the surface of the target. ‘773 Patent, Figs. 2-3, 4:62-5:16.
`
`One of ordinary skill reading Mozgrin would have understood that controlling
`
`discharge parameters, such as the current or the characteristics of the pulse (e.g.,
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`duration, amplitude and rise time), could have been performed to cause the plasma
`
`to remain in the region 2 that is useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4-
`
`404, left col. ¶ 1 (“Regime 2 was characterized by an intense cathode sputtering due
`
`to both high energy and density of ion flow. [] The pulsed deposition rate of cathode
`
`material [] turned out to be about 80 µm/min in the argon discharge, Id = 65 A, Ud =
`
`900 V. The … pulse duration was 25 ms, and the repetition frequency was
`
`10Hz….”); Figs. 5a and 7. DeVito ¶117 (Ex. 1005).
`
` The natural operation of Mozgrin over at least some range of disclosed
`
`parameters would read on this limitation. For example, the ‘773 Patent describes
`
`that a strongly-ionized plasma is greater than 1012 ions cm-3. ‘773 Patent, 7:61-64
`
`(“The weakly-ionized plasma is also referred to as a preionized plasma. In one
`
`embodiment, the peak plasma density of the pre-ionized plasma is between about
`
`106 and 1012 cm-3 for argon feed gas.”). DeVito ¶118 (Ex. 1005). Mozgrin teaches
`
`that the plasma density can be greater than 1013 in region 2 that is useful for
`
`sputtering, and even 1015 in region 3 in which the cathode would be sputtered in an
`
`etching process. ’773 Patent, Claim 30. DeVito ¶119 (Ex. 1005). Thus, Mozgrin
`
`discloses over 10 times the plasma density described in the ‘773 Patent as suitable
`
`for increasing the sputtering yield in a non-linear way. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶4
`
`(“…plasma density (exceeding 2 x 1013 cm-3)….” DeVito ¶119 (Ex. 1005).
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT 6,896,773 Claims 1-20 and 34-39
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`It would have been obvious to follow Mozgrin to obtain a non-linear increase
`
`in yield. Because increasing sputtering yield is beneficial for manufacturing
`
`applications, it would have been obvious to pulse the weakly-ionized plasma in
`
`Mozgrin with sufficient power to generate strongly-ionized plasma. This would
`
`increase the density of ions in the strongly-ionized plasma to generate sufficient
`
`thermal energy in the sputtering target to increase the sputtering yield to a point
`
`where “it starts to grow rapidly in a non-linear way with the growth of temperature,”
`
`as taught in Fortov. DeVito ¶120 (Ex. 1005).
`
`The ‘773 Patent admits, and Fortov teaches, that the sputtering yield is related
`
`in a non-linear way to the temperature of the sputtering target when the temperature
`
`of the target is greater than 0.7 x the melting temperature (Tm) of the target. ‘773
`
`Patent, 18:67-19:1. The melting temperature of copper, which is the target described
`
`in Fortov, is about 1,085ºC. Thus, the sputtering yield of the copper cathode in
`
`Fortov is related in a non-linear way to the target temperature above 0.7 x 1,085 ºC,
`
`which is above 759.5 ºC. This can also be seen in Pic. VI.1.315 of Fortov (Ex.
`
`1004)