IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 AND
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2014-01479
`Patent 6,896,773
`__________________
`
`
`ZOND LLC’S PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .........................................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Overview Of Magnetron Sputtering Systems. .............................................................10
`
`The ’773 patent: Dr. Chistyakov invents a new sputtering source containing a
`cathode containing a sputtering target, an ionization source to generate weakly
`ionized plasma, a power supply generating a voltage pulse having an
`amplitude and a rise time chosen to increase a density of ions in the strongly
`ionized plasma enough to generate sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering
`target to cause a sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of
`the sputtering target......................................................................................................12
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR REVIEW ..............16
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS. .............................................................18
`
`A.
`
`The construction of “weakly ionized plasma” and “strongly ionized plasma” ...........19
`
`V. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONER PREVAILING
`AS TO ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’773 PATENT. .........................................20
`
`A.
`
`The Petition failed to demonstrate any motivation to combine. ..................................22
`
`1.
`
`Scope and content of prior art. ...............................................................................24
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Lantsman ..........................................................................................................24
`
`Kawamata ........................................................................................................25
`
`Fortov ...............................................................................................................26
`
`Fu .....................................................................................................................27
`
`Mozgrin ............................................................................................................28
`
`Wang – U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 ..................................................................29
`
`Kudryavtsev .....................................................................................................31
`
`2.
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To
`Combine The DC Power System Without Pulses Of Lantsman or Fu With
`The Pulsed Power System Of Either Mozgrin or Wang. .......................................33
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`3.
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Show That It Would Have Been Obvious To
`Combine The Cylindrical Tube System Without A Magnet Of
`Kudryavtsev With Either The Mozgrin or Wang Magnetron System. ..................39
`
`B.
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate how the alleged combinations teach every
`element of the challenged claims. ................................................................................43
`
`1.
`
`The cited references do not teach “an amplitude and a rise time of the
`voltage pulse being chosen to increase a density of ions in the strongly
`ionized plasma enough to generate sufficient thermal energy in the
`sputtering target to cause a sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a
`temperature of the sputtering target,” as recited in independent claim 1 and
`as similarly recited in independent claim 34. .........................................................44
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The Petition Failed to Identify Any Compelling Rationale for Adopting
`Redundant Grounds of Rejection Under Both Mozgrin and Wang. ............................47
`
`The Petition failed to set forth a proper obviousness analysis. ....................................52
`
`The Petitioner Failed To Establish That The Mozgrin Thesis Is Prior Art. .................54
`
`VI. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should deny the present request for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,896,773 (“the ’773 patent”) because there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail at trial with respect to at least one
`
`claim of the ’773 patent.1
`
`Indeed, there are six different and independent groups of reasons why
`
`the Petitioner cannot prevail. First, the references that are primarily relied
`
`upon by the Petitioner (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang) were already considered by
`
`the Examiner and overcome during the prosecution of the application that led
`
`to the issuance of the ’773 patent. These references were considered by 6
`
`different examiners and overcome during the prosecution of 9 other patents
`
`that are related to the ’142 patent over nearly a 10 year period.2
`
`
`1 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`2 Examiners Douglas Owens, Tung X. Le, Rodney McDonald, Wilson Lee,
`
`Don Wong, and Tuyet T. Vo allowed U.S. Patents 7,147,759, 7,808,184,
`
`7,811,421, 8,125,155, 6,853,142, 7,604,716, 6,896,775, 6,896,773, 6,805,779,
`
`and 6,806,652 over Mozgrin and Wang over nearly a decade from the time
`
`that the application for the ‘759 patent was filed on 9/30/2002 to the time that
`
`the ‘155 patent issued on 2/28/2012.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`Second, the Petitioner’s obviousness rejections are all predicated on the
`
`false assumption that a skilled artisan could have achieved the combination of
`
`i) a cathode assembly including a sputtering target; (ii) an ionization source
`
`that generates a weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas, and (iii) a power
`
`supply that generates a voltage pulse between the anode and the cathode
`
`assembly that creates a strongly ionized plasma, an amplitude and a rise time
`
`of the voltage pulse being chosen to increase a density of ions in the strongly
`
`ionized plasma enough to generate sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering
`
`target to cause a sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of
`
`the sputtering target, as required by each of the independent claims challenged
`
`in this Petition (i.e., claims 1 and 34) by combining the teachings of either
`
`Mozgrin or Wang with Fortov, Kawamata, Lantsman, Kudryavtsev, Mozgrin
`
`Thesis, and/or Raiser.3
`
`But these references disclose very different structures and processes. For
`
`example, Mozgrin teaches two different “[d]ischarge device configurations: (a)
`
`planar magnetron and (b) shaped-electrode configuration.”4 Mozgrin further
`
`
`3 Petition at pp. 13-60.
`
`4 Mozgrin, Ex. 1002 at Fig. 1 caption.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`discloses a “square voltage pulse application to the gap.”5 Wang discloses that
`
`a “target 14 is powered by narrow pulses of negative DC power supplied from
`
`a pulsed DC power supply 80, as illustrated in FIG. 1.”6 Lantsman makes no
`
`mention of generating strongly ionized plasma.7 Kudryavtsev teaches a fourth
`
`type of discharge device configuration in which the “discharge occurred inside
`
`a cylindrical tube of diameter 2R = 2.5 cm and the distance between the
`
`electrodes was L = 52 cm.”8 Lantsman did not describe a pulsed power
`
`supply; it instead discloses two DC power supplies: “DC power supply 10,”9
`
`and “secondary DC power supply 32.”10
`
`And the Petitioner sets forth no evidence that the structure and process
`
`of either Mozgrin or Wang would produce the particular sputtering source
`
`with a voltage pulse having an amplitude and a rise time being chosen to
`
`increase a density of ions in the strongly ionized plasma enough to generate
`
`
`5 Id. at p. 402, col. 2, ¶ 2.
`
`6 Wang, Ex. 1003, col. 5, ll. 18-22.
`
`7 See e.g., id. at col. 4.
`
`8 Kudryavtsev, Ex. 1404 at 32, right col. ¶5.
`
`9 Lantsman, Ex. 1008 at col, 4, l. 11.
`
`10 Id. at col. 4, l. 11.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to cause a sputtering yield to
`
`be non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering target, as required by
`
`independent claims 1 and 34 if either were somehow modified by the very
`
`different cylindrical structure Kudryavtsev that does not have a magnet or a
`
`structure that does not even apply an electrical pulse or generate strongly-
`
`ionized plasma, like the structure disclosed in Lantsman.11
`
`That is, the Petitioner did not show that a “skilled artisan would have
`
`been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve
`
`the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so.”12 The Board has consistently declined to
`
`institute proposed grounds of rejections in IPR proceedings when the Petition
`
`fails to identify any objective evidence such as experimental data, tending to
`
`establish that two different structures or processes can be combined.13 Here,
`
`
`11 See e.g., Petition, pp. 14-60.
`
`12 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`13 Epistar, et al. v. Trustees Of Boston University, IPR2013-00298, Decision Not To
`
`Institute, Paper No. 18 (P.T.A.B. November 15, 2103).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`the Petitioner did not set forth any such objective evidence.14 For this
`
`additional reason, there is not a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will
`
`prevail at trial with respect to at least one claim of the ’773 patent.
`
`Third, the prior art in each of the Petitioner’s proposed grounds of
`
`rejections are missing one or more limitations recited in the claims of the ’773
`
`patent such as “a power supply that generates a voltage pulse between the
`
`anode and the cathode assembly that creates a strongly ionized plasma from
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma, an amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse
`
`being chosen to increase a density of ions in the strongly ionized plasma
`
`enough to generate sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to cause a
`
`sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering
`
`target.”
`
`Fourth, Petitioner neglected to follow the legal framework for an
`
`obviousness analysis set forth long ago by the Supreme Court. 15 That
`
`
`14 See e.g., Petition, pp. 14-60.
`
`15 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); see
`
`also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007) (“While the sequence
`
`of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham]
`
`factors define the controlling inquiry.”)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`framework requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter
`
`and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. The Board has previously
`
`warned that failure to identify differences between the cited art and the claims
`
`is a basis for denying a petition:
`
`A petitioner who does not state the differences between
`
`a challenged claim and the prior art, and relies instead on the
`
`Patent Owner and the Board to determine those differences based
`
`on the rest of the submission in the petition risks having the
`
`corresponding ground of obviousness not included for trial for
`
`failing to adequately state a claim for relief. 16
`
`The Petitioner ignored the Board’s warning by failing to identify the
`
`differences between the challenged claim and the prior art. That is, the
`
`Petitioner failed to identify the claim limitations that it believed are missing
`
`from the primary references (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang) and are instead taught
`
`by the secondary references (i.e., Fortov, Kawamata, Lantsman, Kudryavtsev,
`
`Mozgrin Thesis, and/or Raiser).17 Rather, Petitioner argued that the claim
`
`limitations are taught by combinations of references, leaving the Board to
`
`
`16 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CBM-2012-00003, paper 7 at 2 – 3.
`
`17 See e.g., Petition, pp. 18-60.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`figure out whether the primary or secondary reference teaches the claim
`
`limitation.18 Under this circumstance, it would be “inappropriate for the Board
`
`to take the side of the Petitioner to salvage an inadequately expressed ground
`
`…”19 On this additional basis, inter partes review should be denied.
`
`Fifth, the Petition contains many redundant grounds of rejection.
`
`Indeed, the Petitioner proposed two or more grounds of rejections for every
`
`challenged claim and did not set forth a compelling reason for why the Board
`
`should institute this proceeding on multiple, redundant grounds.20
`
`Sixth, the Mozgrin Thesis is not prior art because Petitioner failed to
`
`show that it “has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent
`
`that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art,
`
`exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it."21
`
`In brief, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`
`18 Id. at pp. 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 49, 50-53, and 57.
`
`19 Liberty Mutual v. Progressive Casualty, CBM-2012-00003, paper 8 at 14.
`
`20 Petition, pp. 14-60.
`
`21 In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981) (quoting I.C.E. Corp. v.
`
`Armco Steel Corp., 250 F. Supp. 738, 743, 148 USPQ 537, 540 (SDNY 1966)).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`challenged in the petition for the four groups of reasons summarized in the
`
`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`table below:
`
`Grounds
`
`All
`
`Reasons For Not Instituting a Proceeding
`
`The references that are primarily relied upon by the
`
`Petitioner (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang) were already
`
`considered by the Examiner and overcome during
`
`the prosecution of the application that led to the
`
`issuance of the ’773 patent.
`
`All
`
`The Petitioner failed to show that a skilled artisan
`
`would have had a reasonable chance of success of
`
`achieving the claimed particular sputtering source
`
`with a voltage pulse having an amplitude and a rise
`
`time being chosen to increase a density of ions in
`
`the strongly ionized plasma enough to generate
`
`sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to
`
`cause a sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to
`
`a temperature of the sputtering target, as required by
`
`independent claims 1 and 34 by combining the
`
`cylindrical spaced electrode structure without a
`
`magnet of Kudryavtsev or a structure that does not
`
`even apply an electrical pulse or generate strongly-
`
`ionized plasma, like the structure disclosed in
`
`Lantsman with either the planar magnetron or
`
`shaped-electrode pulsed systems of Mozgrin or the
`
`small magnetron pulsed system of Wang.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`All
`
`The prior art, either alone or in combination, would
`
`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`not have taught all the claim limitations of
`
`independent claims 1 and 34 to a skilled artisan at
`
`the time of the invention.
`
`All
`
`The Petitioner failed to identify differences between
`
`the primary references (i.e., Mozgrin and Wang)
`
`and the claimed invention in the proposed
`
`obviousness rejections.
`
`Grounds I, II, V, VII,
`
`Grounds I, II, V, VII, and IX using Mozgrin as a
`
`and IX or Grounds III,
`
`primary reference are redundant with Grounds III,
`
`IV, VI, VIII, and X
`
`IV, VI, VIII, and X using Wang as a primary
`
`reference and Petitioner did not set forth a
`
`compelling reason for why the Board should
`
`institute this proceeding on multiple, redundant
`
`grounds.
`
`Grounds IX
`
`The Mozgrin Thesis is not prior art.
`
`
`
`For these reasons as expressed more fully below, the Board should deny the
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview Of Magnetron Sputtering Systems.
`
`Sputtering systems generate and direct ions from plasma “to a target
`
`surface where the ions physically sputter target material atoms.”22 Then,
`
`“[T]he target material atoms ballistically flow to a substrate where they deposit
`
`as a film of target material.”23 “The plasma is replenished by electron-ion pairs
`
`formed by the collision of neutral molecules with secondary electrons
`
`generated at the target surface.”24
`
`A planar magnetron sputtering system is one type of sputtering system.25
`
`“Magnetron sputtering systems use magnetic fields that are shaped to trap and
`
`to concentrate secondary electrons, which are produced by ion bombardment
`
`of the target surface.”26 “The trapped electrons enhance the efficiency of the
`
`
`22 Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 9-10.
`
`23 Id. at col. 1, ll. 10-12.
`
`24Id. at col. 1, ll. 30-33.
`
`25 Id. at 1, ll. 42-43.
`
`26 Id. at col. 1, ll. 34-36.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`discharge and reduce the energy dissipated by electrons arriving at the
`
`substrate.”27
`
`But prior art planar magnetron sputtering systems experienced non-
`
`uniform erosion or wear of the target that results in poor target utilization.28
`
`“In addition, conventional magnetron sputtering systems have a relatively low
`
`deposition rate…the amount of material deposited on the substrate per unit of
`
`time”29 “The deposition rate of a sputtering process is generally proportional
`
`to the sputtering yield.”30 The sputtering yield means “the number of target
`
`atoms ejected from the target per incident particle.”31
`
`
`27 Id. at col. 1, ll. 49-51.
`
`28 Id. at col. 2, ll. 54-63.
`
`29 Id. at col. 1, ll. 63-66.
`
`30 Id. at col. 2, ll. 57-58.
`
`31 Id. at col. 2, ll. 1-2.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`B. The ’773 patent: Dr. Chistyakov invents a new sputtering source
`containing a cathode containing a sputtering target, an ionization
`source to generate weakly ionized plasma, a power supply generating
`a voltage pulse having an amplitude and a rise time chosen to increase
`a density of ions in the strongly ionized plasma enough to generate
`sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to cause a sputtering
`yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering
`target
`
`To overcome the problems of low deposition rate and sputtering yield of
`
`the prior art, Dr. Chistyakov invented a sputtering source containing (i) a
`
`cathode containing a sputtering target, (ii) an ionization source to generate
`
`weakly ionized plasma, and (iii) a power supply generating a voltage pulse
`
`having an amplitude and a rise time chosen to generate a strongly ionized
`
`plasma with an increase in the density of ions enough to generate sufficient
`
`thermal energy in the sputtering target to cause a sputtering yield to be non-
`
`linearly related to a temperature of the sputtering target, as recited in
`
`independent claims 1 and 34, and as illustrated in Fig. 5A of the ’773 patent,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`
`
`
`
`As illustrated by FIG. 5A, Dr. Chistyakov’s sputtering source 200 includes
`
`a pulsed power supply 234, and a cathode assembly 216 including the
`
`sputtering target 220. In one embodiment, the “cathode assembly 216 is
`
`coupled to the output 222 of the matching unit 224.”32 “The input 230 of the
`
`matching unit 224 is coupled to the first output 232 of the pulsed power supply
`
`
`32 Id. at col. 6, ll. 39-40.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`234. The second output 236 of the pulsed power supply 234 is coupled to the
`
`anode 238.”33
`
`“The anode 238 is positioned so as to form a gap 244 between the anode
`
`238 and the cathode assembly 216 that is sufficient to allow current to flow
`
`through the region 245 between the anode 238 and the cathode assembly 216.
`
`In one embodiment, the width of the gap 244 is between approximately 0.3 cm
`
`and 10 cm.”34
`
`In operation, a “pre-ionizing voltage is applied between the cathode
`
`assembly 216 and the anode 238 across the feed gas 256, which forms the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma 262.”35 A magnetic field is generated to trap electrons
`
`in a particular region:
`
`[The] magnetic field tends to assist in diffusing electrons from the
`
`region 245 to the region 264. The electrons in the weakly-ionized
`
`plasma 262 are substantially trapped in the region 264 by the
`
`magnetic field 245. In one embodiment, the volume of weakly-
`
`
`33 Id. at col. 6, ll. 42-43.
`
`34 Id. at col. 10, ll. 19-25.
`
`35 Id. at col. 11, ll. 62-65.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`ionized plasma 262 in the region 245 is rapidly exchanged with a
`
`fresh volume of feed gas 256.36
`
`“Next, the pulsed power supply 234 applies a high power electrical pulse
`
`across the weakly-ionized plasma 262. The high power electrical pulse
`
`generates a strongly-ionized plasma 268 from the weakly-ionized plasma
`
`262.”37 “The strong electric field 266 causes the feed gas to experience stepwise
`
`ionization. In one embodiment, the feed gas includes a molecular gases and
`
`the strong electric field 266 increases the formation of ions that enhance the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma 268.”38
`
`The sputtering yield is monitored and the electrical pulse is adjusted so
`
`that the sputtering yield increases in a non-linear manner:
`
`After the strongly-ionized plasma 268 is formed (step 626), the
`
`sputtering yield is monitored (step 628) by known monitoring
`
`techniques. If the sputtering yield is insufficient (step 630), the
`
`power delivered to the plasma is increased (step 632). In one
`
`embodiment, increasing the magnitude of the high-power pulse
`
`applied between the cathode assembly 216 and the anode 238
`
`increases the power delivered to the plasma. In one embodiment,
`
`
`36 Id. at col. 12, ll. 3-8.
`
`37 Id. at col. 13, ll. 41-44.
`
`38 Id. at col 20, ll. 34-38.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`the power delivered to the plasma is sufficient to vaporize a surface
`
`layer of the target. This increases the sputtering yield in a
`
`substantially nonlinear fashion.39
`
`In the claimed invention, the rise time and amplitude of the applied voltage
`
`pulse is chosen so that “to increase a density of ions in the strongly ionized
`
`plasma enough to generate sufficient thermal energy in the sputtering target to
`
`cause a sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature of the
`
`sputtering target.”40
`
`
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`REVIEW
`
`Confusingly, the Petition contains multiple, redundant grounds of
`
`rejection based on the same combination of references. In particular, for every
`
`ground of rejection using Mozgrin as a primary reference, there is a
`
`corresponding redundant ground using Wang as a primary reference. For the
`
`Board’s convenience below is a summary of claim rejections proposed by the
`
`Petitioner:
`
`1. Ground I: Claims 1, 6, 8-20 and 36-39 would have been obvious
`
`over Mozgrin and Fortov;
`
`39 Id. at col 1, ll. 53-63.
`
`40 Id. at col. 21, ll. 19-23.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`2. Ground II: Claim 5 would have been obvious over Mozgrin,
`
`Fortov, and Kawamata;
`
`3. Ground III: Claims 1, 6, 8-20 would have been obvious over
`
`Wang and Fortov;
`
`4. Ground IV: Claim 5 would have been obvious over Wang, Fortov
`
`and Kawamata;
`
`5. Ground V: Claims 3, 4 and 34-39 would have been obvious over
`
`Mozgrin, Fortov and Lantsman;
`
`6. Ground VI: Claims 3, 4 and 34-39 would have been obvious over
`
`Wang, Fortov and Lantsman;
`
`7. Ground VII: Claim 7 would have been obvious over Mozgrin,
`
`Kudryavtsev and Fortov;
`
`8. Ground VIII: Claim 7 would have been obvious over Wang,
`
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Fortov;
`
`9. Ground IX: Claim 2 would have been obvious over Mozgrin,
`
`Mozgrin Thesis, Fortov and Raiser; and
`
`10.
`
`Ground X: Claim 2 would have been obvious over Wang,
`
`Fortov, Fu, and Raizer.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS.
`
`Under the Board’s rules, any unexpired claim “shall be given its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.”41 Under that construction, claim terms are to be given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.42 The customary meaning
`
`applies unless the specification reveals a special definition given to the claim
`
`term by the patentee, in which case the inventor’s lexicography governs.43 Any
`
`term not construed below should be given its ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner Zond
`
`
`41 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`42 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc);
`
`Research in Motion v. Wi-Lan, Case IPR2013-00126, Paper 10 at 7 (P.T.A.B.
`
`June 20, 2013).
`
`43 See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (“[T]he specification may reveal a special
`
`definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning
`
`that it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography
`
`governs.”).
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`proposes the following claim constructions for the purposes of this inter partes
`
`review proceeding.
`
`A. The construction of “weakly ionized plasma” and “strongly ionized
`plasma”
`
`The proper construction of “strongly ionized plasma” is “a plasma with
`
`a relatively high peak density of ions.” This proposed construction specifies
`
`that the term “density” refers to ions and therefore, is consistent with the claim
`
`language. Moreover, the proposed construction is also consistent with the
`
`Specification of the ’773 patent which refers to “strongly ionized plasma 238
`
`[as] having a large ion density.”44 In addition, the proposed construction is
`
`also consistent with the Specification of a related patent (i.e., U.S. Patent
`
`6,806,652) which states that “[t]he term ‘high-density plasma’ is also referred
`
`to as a ‘strongly-ionized plasma.’ The terms ‘high-density plasma’ and
`
`‘strongly-ionized plasma’ are defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively
`
`high peak plasma density.”45
`
`For similar reasons, the proper construction of the claim term “weakly
`
`ionized plasma” is “a plasma with a relatively low peak density of ions.” In
`
`
`44 Exhibit 1001, ‘773 patent, col. 13, ll. 31-33.
`
`45 U.S. Patent 6,806,652, col. 10, ll. 60-63.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`particular, the Specification of the ‘652 Patent states that “[t]he term ‘weakly-
`
`ionized plasma’ is defined herein to mean a plasma with a relatively low peak
`
`plasma density. The peak plasma density of the weakly ionized plasma
`
`depends on the properties of the specific plasma processing system.”46
`
`
`
`V. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONER
`PREVAILING AS TO ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’773
`PATENT.
`
`Inter partes review cannot be instituted unless the Board determines that
`
`the Petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one
`
`of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable.47 Differences between
`
`the challenged claims and the prior art are critical factual inquiries for any
`
`obviousness analysis and must be explicitly set forth by the Petitioner.48 The
`
`bases for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be made explicit.49 Thus, a
`
`Petition seeking to invalidate a patent as obvious must demonstrate that a
`
`“skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`
`46 Id. at col. 8, ll. 55-52 (emphasis added).
`
`47 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`48 See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
`
`49 MPEP § 2143.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled
`
`artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”50
`
`The Petition’s evidence must also address every limitation of every challenged
`
`claim.
`
`Here, the Board should decline to institute an inter partes review because
`
`(i) the Petition failed to demonstrate any motivation to combine the asserted
`
`references; (ii) the Petition failed to demonstrate that the prior art teaches every
`
`element of the challenged claims; (iii) there is a substantial amount of
`
`redundancy in the Petitioner’s proposed grounds of obviousness and the
`
`Petitioner did not set forth a compelling reason for why the Board should
`
`institute this proceeding on multiple, redundant grounds; (iv) the Petition
`
`failed to provide a proper obviousness analysis because it did not discuss the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; and (v) the
`
`Mozgrin Thesis is not prior art.
`
`
`
`
`50 OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 706 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012).
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01479
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`
`A. The Petition failed to demonstrate any motivation to combine.
`
`The Petitioner did not meet its statutory threshold for instituting a trial
`
`with respect to any of the three grounds because the Petitioner f