U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`34789.157
`DOCKET NO.:
`Filed on behalf of: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.;
`TSMC North America Corp.;
`Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited; and
`Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc.
`
`By:
`
`David M. O’Dell, Reg. No. 42,044
`David L. McCombs, Reg. No. 32,271
`
`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. 6,896,775 to Roman Chistyakov
`
`IPR Trial No. TBD
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,896,775
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES..............................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ...........................................................................................1
`
`Related Matters....................................................................................................1
`
`Counsel................................................................................................................1
`
`Service Information..............................................................................................2
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................2
`
`OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED.......................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications............................................................2
`
`Grounds for Challenge .........................................................................................4
`
`IV.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY..................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`Sputtering and etching..........................................................................................4
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘775 PATENT .............................................................................6
`
`OVERVIEW OF CERTAIN PRIOR ART REFERENCES..............................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Summary of the prior art ......................................................................................7
`
`References Are Not Cumulative...........................................................................7
`
`Overview of Mozgrin (Ex. 1102) .........................................................................8
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev (Ex. 1103).................................................................11
`
`Overview of Wang (Ex. 1108)............................................................................11
`
`VII.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION...........................................................................................12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas …” (claim 36) and “means for ionizing a
`volume of feed gas…” (claim 37).......................................................................13
`
`“means for generating a magnetic field…” (claims 36 and 37) ...........................14
`
`“means for applying an electrical field…” (claim 36) and “means for
`applying an electrical pulse…” (claim 37)..........................................................14
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“means for exchanging the strongly-ionized plasma with a second volume of
`feed gas…” (claim 37) .......................................................................................15
`
`“means for applying a bias voltage…” (claims 36 and 37)..................................15
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION .......................................................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 30-34 and 37 would have been obvious in view of the
`combination of Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis, and Lantsman ...................................16
`
`Ground 2: Claim 35 would have been obvious over Mozgrin, the Mozgrin
`Thesis, and Lantsman, and further in view of Kudryavtsev.................................29
`
`Ground 3: Claim 36 would have been obvious in view of the combination of
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev..................................................................................34
`
`Ground 3: Claims 30-35 and 37 would have been obvious in view of the
`combination of Wang, Mozgrin, and Lantsman ..................................................39
`
`Ground 5: Claim 35 would have been obvious over Wang, Mozgrin,
`Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev ...............................................................................52
`
`Ground 6: Claim 36 would have been obvious in view of the combination of
`Wang and Mozgrin ............................................................................................53
`
`IX.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................59
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).................................13
`In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................13
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ......................................................................................................................4
`35 U.S.C. §103........................................................................................................................... 4
`
`RULES
`
`Rule 42.104(a) ............................................................................................................................2
`Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5)............................................................................................................... 16
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)............................................................................................................... 12
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012)......................................................................................... 13
`
`iii
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`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 ‘775 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); IPR2014-00578 filed April 4, 2014; and
`
`IPR2014-00604 filed April 10, 2014. The present petition is substantially identical
`
`to IPR2014-00604, 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 6,896,773 all of which have generally similar
`
`subject matter.
`
`C.
`
`Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel: David M. O’Dell (Registration No. 42,044)
`
`Backup Counsel: David L. McCombs (Registration No. 32,271)
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`E-mail:
`
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: David M. O’Dell
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Telephone: 972-739-8635
`
`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 30-37 of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775 (the ’775 Patent) (Ex. 1101).
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references and others listed in the Table of Exhibits and at
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 12 (Ex. 1111) are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
`
`1.
`
`Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, Plasma Physics Reports,
`
`Vol. 21, No. 5, 1995 (“Mozgrin” (Ex. 1102)), which is prior art under §102(b).
`
`2.
`
`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. 1103)), which is prior art under § 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`Lantsman, U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1104)), which is prior
`
`art under at least § 102(a) and (e).
`
`4.
`
`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. 1105)), which is prior art under §102(b).
`
`Ex. 1105 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis, attached
`
`as Ex. 1106. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at the Russian
`
`State Library is attached as Exhibit 1107.
`
`5. Wang, U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1108)), which is prior art
`
`under at least §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
`6.
`
`Gopalraja, U.S. Patent No. 6,277,249 (“Gopalraja”(Ex. 1109)), which is
`
`prior art under § 102(b).
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 30-37 of the ’775 Patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 (“challenged claims”). This Petition, supported
`
`by the declaration of Richard DeVito (“DeVito Declaration” or “DeVito Decl.”
`
`(Ex. 1111)), 1 filed herewith, 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. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
`Sputtering and etching
`
`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 Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1111).
`
`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
`
`1 Dr. DeVito has been retained by Petitioner. Ex. 1111 is a copy of Dr. DeVito’s
`
`declaration filed in the previously-file IPR for this patent, discussed above.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`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. The dislodged target atoms are then deposited on the substrate
`
`surface, often by providing a bias signal on the substrate to attract the ionized
`
`sputtered 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 Decl. ¶¶ 23-25 (Ex. 1111).
`
`High voltages or currents can be useful in the sputtering process to increase
`
`the plasma density, but the use of higher power makes it more likely that arcing
`
`will occur in the plasma. Arcing is an uncontrolled collapse of the plasma to a
`
`localized region. It is generally considered undesirable during the sputtering
`
`process because it can cause larger portions of the target to be deposited on the
`
`substrate, potentially causing defects. DeVito Decl. ¶¶ 28-69 (Ex. 1111).
`
`Further detail about plasma sputtering, including sputtering with high power
`
`pulses for providing an electric field is provided at DeVito Decl. ¶ 25-66 (Ex.
`
`1111).
`
`Etching is a process that can be performed with a plasma to remove a thin
`
`layer of material from a substrate. Similar to sputtering for deposition, when a
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`voltage is applied to a plasma for etching, ions in the plasma strike the surface of
`
`the substrate to cause a thin layer of material to be removed. Etching has
`
`numerous applications, but it is widely used in semiconductor manufacturing to
`
`remove thin layers of material on a silicon wafer, often according to a pattern.
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶¶ 28, 67-69 (Ex. 1111).
`
`It is well known in the art that sputter deposition and sputter etching can
`
`typically be performed using the same type of reaction chamber because both
`
`processes involve generating a plasma, applying a bias voltage to a substrate and
`
`bombarding ions at the substrate. With sputter deposition, the goal is for atoms
`
`sputtered from a target to stick to the substrate; with sputter etching, the ions
`
`sputter material from the substrate. Examples of sputtering and etching described
`
`as using the same or similar processes include: Mozgrin (Ex. 1102); Lantsman
`
`6:12-20 (Ex. 1104); Gopalraja (Ex. 1109); and Bobbio 1:13-16, 1:43-47, 5:3-9,
`
`5:44-47, 7:19-25, 8:56-61 (Ex. 1110). See DeVito Decl. ¶ 69 (Ex. 1111).
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘775 PATENT
`
`The ’775 Patent describes an etching technique in which a strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is generated from a weakly-ionized plasma in a manner that purports to
`
`increase uniformity and etch rate. More specifically, the ’775 Patent relates to a
`
`magnetron system that applies an electric field across the weakly-ionized plasma to
`
`excite atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma to generate secondary electrons from
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the cathode. The secondary electrons ionize the excited atoms to generate a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma. A voltage supply then applies a bias voltage to a
`
`substrate proximate to the cathode. Ions in the strongly-ionized plasma strike the
`
`substrate in a manner that causes etching of the surface of the substrate. See also
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶¶ 71-72 (Ex. 1111).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF CERTAIN PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the prior art
`
`As explained in detail below, there is nothing new or non-obvious in Zond’s
`
`claims. Engineers had been working with industrial plasmas for decades before the
`
`‘775 Patent was filed. Ionization processes also had been researched extensively
`
`before the ‘775 Patent. In addition, using the same type of reaction chamber for
`
`both sputtering and etching was well understood before the ‘775 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`References Are Not Cumulative
`
`Mozgrin and Wang relate to similar subject matter of high power pulsing to
`
`achieve a high density plasma, but are otherwise quite different in viewpoint.
`
`Mozgrin is an academic paper, which sometimes omits the most obvious
`
`structures. For example, Mozgrin shows an anode and a cathode, but does not
`
`show a substrate, even though a substrate is necessary for sputter deposition. A
`
`reader would naturally assume there was a substrate. The Wang patent is assigned
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`to Applied Materials, a major supplier of semiconductor processing equipment and
`
`relates to a practical system, but does not discuss plasma science in the same detail
`
`as a paper like Mozgrin would. DeVito Decl. ¶ 73 (Ex. 1111)
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Mozgrin (Ex. 1102)
`
`Mozgrin teaches using “weakly-ionized plasmas” and “strongly-ionized
`
`plasmas” for the purpose of “sputtering” and “etching.” Fig. 7 of Mozgrin shows
`
`the current-voltage characteristic (“CVC”) of a plasma discharge.
`
`FIG. 7 of Mozgrin (Ex. 1102)
`
`Mozgrin divides this CVC into four distinct regions: (1) “pre-ionization”
`
`(Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 2); (2) “high current magnetron discharge” (Mozgrin
`
`at 409, left col, ¶ 4), in which 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), where continued application of current to
`
`the “high-current magnetron discharge” (regime 2) causes the plasma to transition
`
`to region 3; and (4) “arc discharge” (Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3), where
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`application of higher current can cause the plasma to transition from region 3 to the
`
`“arc discharge” region 4. (Ex. 1102). DeVito Decl. ¶ 76 (Ex. 1111)
`
`Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is useful for sputtering. Mozgrin at 403, right
`
`col, ¶ 4 (Ex. 1102). Region 3 is useful for etching, i.e., removing material from a
`
`surface. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 5 (Ex. 1102). Within its broad disclosure of a
`
`range of issues related to both sputtering and etching, Mozgrin describes how this
`
`is achieved using “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma.”
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 77 (Ex. 1111).
`
`In Fig. 1 of Mozgrin, the magnets are labeled “3.” The field generated by
`
`those magnets extends through the cathode 2, anode 1, and the space or gap
`
`between them. Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 1 (“The electrodes were immersed in a
`
`magnetic field of annular permanent magnets.”) (Ex. 1102). Further, Mozgrin’s
`
`magnetic field is proximate to the weakly-ionized plasma, i.e., a plasma with a
`
`density of less than 1012 cm-3. Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶ 2 (Ex. 1102) (“We
`
`found out that only the regimes with magnetic field strength not lower than 400 G
`
`provided the initial plasma density in the 109-1011 cm-3 range.”). Also, Mozgrin’s
`
`magnetic field traps electrons thereby enhancing collisions between electrons and
`
`gas particles. Mozgrin at 407, left col, ¶ 3 (Ex. 1102) (“The action of the magnetic
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`field serves…to provide collisions sufficient for efficient energy transfer from
`
`electrons to heavy particles.”)2. See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 78 (Ex. 1111).
`
`By applying a voltage pulse, Mozgrin generates a strongly-ionized plasma,
`
`e.g., a plasma with a density that is above 1012 cm-3. For example, in Mozgrin’s
`
`regime 2, the plasma density exceeded 1013 cm-3. Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶ 4 (Ex.
`
`1102) (“The implementation of the high-current magnetron discharge (regime 2) in
`
`sputtering … plasma density (exceeding 2x1013 cm-3”). Moreover, in Mozgrin’s
`
`regime 3, i.e., the regime useful for etching, the plasma density is even higher.
`
`Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶5 (Ex. 1102) (“The high-current diffuse discharge
`
`(regime 3) is useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni 
`
`1.5x1015cm-3….”). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 76 (Ex. 1111). Mozgrin also teaches
`
`that the plasma goes through an ionization process that involves exciting atoms.
`
`Mozgrin states that in “[d]esigning the [pulsed supply] unit, we took into account
`
`the dependences which had been obtained in [8] of ionization relaxation on pre-
`
`ionization parameters, pressure, and pulse voltage amplitude.” Mozgrin at 401, ¶
`
`spanning left and right columns (Ex. 1102). In Mozgrin, the voltage and current
`
`are applied long enough to create a large population of excited atoms as part of the
`
`ionization process. DeVito Decl. ¶ 79 (Ex. 1111).
`
`2 Emphasis on citations that is bolded and italicized is added throughout.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Kudryavtsev (Ex. 1103)
`
`Kudryavtsev is a technical paper that studies the ionization of a plasma with
`
`voltage pulses. See, e.g., Kudryavtsev at 30, left col. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1103). In particular,
`
`Kudryavtsev describes how ionization of a plasma can occur via different
`
`processes. The first process is direct ionization, in which ground state atoms are
`
`converted directly to ions. See, e.g., id. FIG. 6 caption (Ex. 1104). The second
`
`process is the ionization of excited atoms, which Kudryavtsev calls stepwise
`
`ionization. See, e.g., id. Kudryavtsev notes that under certain conditions multi-
`
`step ionization can be the dominant ionization process. See, e.g., id. Mozgrin took
`
`into account the teachings of Kudryavtsev when designing his experiments.
`
`Mozgrin at 401, ¶ spanning left and right cols (“Designing the unit, we took into
`
`account the dependenc[i]es which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev]….”) (Ex.
`
`1102). DeVito Decl. ¶ 81 (Ex. 1111).
`
`E.
`
`Overview of Wang (Ex. 1108)
`
`Wang discloses a pulsed magnetron device having an anode (24), a cathode
`
`(14), a magnet assembly (40), a DC power supply (100) (Fig. 7) and a pulsed DC
`
`power supply (80). Wang Figs. 1, 7, 3:57-4:55; 7:56-8:12 (Ex. 1108).
`
`Fig. 6 shows a graph of the power Wang applies to the plasma. A lower
`
`power level, PB, is generated by the DC power supply 100 (shown in Fig. 7), and
`
`the higher power level, PP, is generated by the pulsed power supply 80. See Wang
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`7:56-64 (Ex. 1108). Wang’s lower power level, PB, “is chosen to exceed the
`
`minimum power necessary to support a plasma.... Instead, the application of the
`
`high peak power, PP, quickly causes the already existing plasma to spread and
`
`increases the density of the plasma.” Wang 7:17-31 (Ex. 1108); 8:2-5
`
`(“Advantageously, the plasma may be ignited by the DC power supply 100 before
`
`the pulsed power supply 80 is even turned on….”). DeVito Decl. ¶ 83 (Ex. 1111).
`
`FIG. 6 of Wang (Ex. 1108)
`
`VII. 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). The broadest reasonable construction is the broadest reasonable
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`interpretation of the claim language.3 See In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1572
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004). Any claim term which lacks a definition in the specification is
`
`therefore also given a broad interpretation. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496
`
`F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, should the Patent Owner contend
`
`that the claims have a construction different from their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in order to avoid the prior art, the appropriate course is for the Patent
`
`Owner to seek to amend the claims to expressly correspond to its contentions in
`
`this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`“means for ionizing a feed gas …” (claim 36) and “means for
`A.
`ionizing a volume of feed gas…” (claim 37)
`
`The claimed function is: “generating/forming a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`proximate to a cathode.” The ’775 Patent discloses the following corresponding
`
`structure: a power supply that is electrically coupled to an anode and a cathode, as
`
`3 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.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`shown in FIGS. 2, 3, 7, 10, or 11 and as described in the text of the ‘775 Patent at
`
`4:42-67, 6:1-4, 8:27-31 (Ex. 1101).4
`
`B.
`
`“means for generating a magnetic field…” (claims 36 and 37)
`
`The claimed function is: “generating a magnetic field proximate to the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma.” The ’775 Patent discloses the following corresponding
`
`structure: one or more magnets arranged as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 6A-6D, 7, 10, or
`
`11 and as described in the text of the ‘775 Patent at 5:31-46, 8:27-40, 13:37-15:31
`
`(Ex. 1101).
`
`“means for applying an electrical field…” (claim 36) and “means
`C.
`for applying an electrical pulse…” (claim 37)
`
`The claimed function is: “applying an electrical pulse / electrical field across
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma voltage pulse to a weakly-ionized plasma to generate a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma.” The ’775 Patent discloses the following corresponding
`
`structure: power supply, generating the voltage and power values shown in Figs.
`
`4
`
`The ’775 Patent discloses that “other techniques including UV radiation
`
`techniques, X-ray techniques, electron beam techniques, ion beam techniques, or
`
`ionizing filament techniques” can ionize a gas, but fails to describe any structure
`
`for these “techniques.” See ’775 Patent, 7:9-13. The “means for ionizing…”
`
`cannot be construed to include any techniques that lack corresponding structure in
`
`the specification.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`4-5, and 8, that is electrically coupled to an anode and a cathode, wherein the
`
`anode and cathode are arranged relative to the cathode as shown Figs. 2, 3, 7, 10,
`
`or 11 and as described in the text of the ‘775 Patent at 4:42-67, 6:1-4, 8:27-31 (Ex.
`
`1101).
`
`“means for exchanging the strongly-ionized plasma with a second
`D.
`volume of feed gas…” (claim 37)
`
`The claimed function is: “exchanging the strongly-ionized plasma with a
`
`second volume of feed gas while applying the electrical pulse across the second
`
`volume of feed gas to generate a strongly-ionized plasma comprising a second
`
`plurality of ions.” The ’775 Patent discloses the following corresponding
`
`structure: a gas inlet, e.g., from gas source 208, as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 7, 10, or 11
`
`and as described in the text of the ‘775 Patent at 4:14-17 (Ex. 1101).
`
`E.
`
`“means for applying a bias voltage…” (claims 36 and 37)
`
`The claimed function is: “applying a bias voltage to a substrate… causing
`
`ions in the first and the second plurality of ions to impact a surface of the substrate
`
`in a manner that causes etching of the surface of the substrate.” The ’775 Patent
`
`discloses the following corresponding structure: bias voltage source, electrically
`
`coupled to the substrate via a substrate support as shown in Figs. 2, 3, 7, 10, or 11
`
`and as described in the text of the ‘775 Patent at 4:31-41, 7:66-8:8 (Ex. 1101).
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the Declaration of Richard DeVito (Ex. 1111), demonstrate in detail how the prior
`
`art discloses each and every limitation of the claims of the ’775 Patent, and how
`
`those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 30-34 and 37 would have been obvious in view
`A.
`of the combination of Mozgrin, Mozgrin Thesis, and Lantsman
`
`1.
`
`Independent claims 30 and 37
`
`The preambles: “A method of magnetically
`a)
`enhanced plasma processing comprising;” and “A
`magnetically enhanced plasma processing apparatus
`comprising.”
`
`Mozgrin discloses a plasma processing apparatus and methods for sputtering
`
`and etching. For example, Mozgrin teaches that region 2 is useful for sputtering
`
`and region 3 is useful for etching. Mozgrin at 403, right col, ¶ 4 and at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 5 (Ex. 1102). The processing apparatus includes a magnet “3” for a quasi-
`
`stationary discharge in crossed fields with high-power. See, e.g., Mozgrin at 400-
`
`401, right col. ¶¶ 3-5, 404, left col. ¶ 3, Figures 1 and 5 (Ex. 1102). DeVito Decl. ¶
`
`92 (Ex. 1111).
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Limitation (a) of claim 30: “ionizing a volume of
`b)
`feed gas to form a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to a
`cathode;” and limitation (a) of claim 37: “means for ionizing
`a volume of feed gas to form a weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to a cathode”
`
`Mozgrin teaches using the power supply shown in Fig. 2 to generate a
`
`weakly ionized plasma, such as a plasma with a density less than 1012 cm-3. For
`
`example, Mozgrin states:
`
`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 not lower than 400 G provided
`the initial plasma density in the 109 – 1011 cm-3 range.
`
`See Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶2 (emphasis added) (Ex. 1102). DeVito
`Decl. ¶ 96 (Ex. 1111).
`
`Mozgrin’s plasma is generated between and proximate to the cathode “2”
`
`and the anode “1” as shown in Mozgrin’s Figures 1 and 6. Mozgrin teaches using
`
`feed gases such as argon and nitrogen for forming its plasmas. Mozgrin at 400,
`
`right col, ¶ 3 (“We investigated the discharge regimes in various gas mixtures at
`
`10-3 – 10 torr…”); 402, ¶ spanning left and right cols (“We studied the high-current
`
`discharge in wide ranges of discharge current…and operating pressure…using
`
`various gases (Ar, N2, SF6, and H2) or their mixtures of various composition…”).
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 94 (Ex. 1111).
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Additionally, regarding claim 37, Fig. 2 of Mozgrin discloses an example of
`
`a power supply in the form of a discharge supply unit:
`
`The discharge supply unit ionizes a feed gas to generate a pre-ionized plasma
`
`having a density between 107 – 1011 cm-3. Indeed, the voltage and power values
`
`and waveform applied by the discharge supply unit are very similar to those shown
`
`in the ’775 Patent. Compare FIG. 3(b) of Mozgrin to FIG. 5 of the ’775 Patent:
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶¶ 95-96 (Ex. 1111).
`
`Fig 3(b) of Mozgrin (Ex. 1102)
`
`Excerpt of FIG 5 of ’775 Patent
`(Ex. 1101)
`
`Moreover, Mozgrin’s discharge supply unit is coupled to an anode and
`
`cathode that are arranged relative to a sputtering target as shown in, e.g., Fig. 3 of
`
`the ’775 Patent. For example, referring to Fig. 1(a) of Mozgrin, portions of anode
`
`2 are arranged relative to cathode 1 to create a configuration as shown in Figure 3
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of the ’775 Patent. Indeed, the configuration of the anode and cathode in Mozgrin
`
`generate the same electric field (noted in green) as the ’775 Patent. Mozgrin thus
`
`discloses the recited function using the same or equivalent structure. DeVito Decl.
`
`¶ 97 (Ex. 1111).
`
`Annotated Figure 3 of ’775 Patent
`(Ex. 1101)
`
`Annotated Figure 1 of Mozgrin
`(Ex. 1102)
`
`Limitation (b) of claim 30: “generating a
`c)
`magnetic field proximate to the weakly-ionized plasma, the
`magnetic field substantially trapping electrons in the weakly-
`ionized plasma proximate to the cathode;” and limitation (b)
`of claim 37: “means for generating a magnetic field
`proximate to the weakly-ionized plasma, the magnetic field
`substantially trapping electrons in the weakly-ionized plasma
`proximate to the cathode”
`
`Fig. 1 of Mozgrin discloses magnets, e.g., “annular permanent magnets,”
`
`labeled “3.” The generated magnetic field, as shown in Fig. 1(a) of Mozgrin,
`
`extends through the cathode “2,” anode “1,” and the space between them. Mozgrin
`
`at 401, left col, ¶ 1 (Ex. 1102). Further, Mozgrin’s magnetic field is proximate to
`
`the weakly-ionized plasma, i.e., a plasma with a density of less than 1012 cm-3,
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 – Claims 30-37
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`specifically “in the 109-1011 cm-3 range.” Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶ 2 (Ex. 1102).
`
`Mozgrin’s magnetic field traps electrons thereby enhancing collisions between
`
`electrons and gas particles. Mozgrin at 407, left col, ¶ 3 (Ex. 1102). Mozgrin thus
`
`shows the method of generating of claim 30 and the means for generating of claim
`
`37, using the same or equivalent structure. DeVito Decl. ¶ 98 (Ex. 1111).
`
`Limitation (c) of claim 30: “applying an electrical
`d)
`pulse across ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized
`plasma comprising a first plurality of ions”; and limitation (c)
`of claim 37: “means for applying an electrical pulse across
`the weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized
`plasma comprising a first plurality of ions”
`