U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`34789.153
`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 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`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
`IV. Claim construction........................................................................................4
`V.
`Brief Description of Technology...................................................................5
`VI. Overview of the ‘775 Patent .........................................................................8
`VII. Overview of the primary prior art references ................................................9
`A.
`Summary of the prior art.....................................................................9
`B.
`References Are Not Cumulative..........................................................9
`C.
`Overview of Mozgrin (Ex. 1002) ......................................................10
`D.
`Overview of Wang (Ex. 1008) ..........................................................13
`VIII. Specific Grounds for Petition......................................................................14
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 9-26, 28, and 29, would have been obvious in
`view of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin Thesis..........................14
`Ground 2: Claim 8 would have been obvious in view of Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev, Mozgrin Thesis, and Kouznetsov ................................34
`Ground 3: Dependent claim 27 would have been obvious in view of
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, Mozgrin Thesis and Li.................................35
`Ground 4: Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-26, 28, and 29 would have been
`obvious in view of Wang, Mozgrin, and Kudryavtsev ......................36
`Ground 5: Claim 8 would have been obvious in view of Wang,
`Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Kouznetsov ............................................57
`Ground 6: Dependent claim 17 would have been obvious in view of
`Wang, Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Lantsman ....................................58
`Ground 7: Dependent claim 27 is obvious in view of Wang, Mozgrin,
`Kudryavtsev and Li...........................................................................59
`IX. Conclusion..................................................................................................60
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL NO TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ENTRIES FOUND.FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`§ 102(a) ................................................................................................................. 4
`§ 102(b) ................................................................................................................. 3
`§ 102(e) ................................................................................................................. 3
`§ 312....................................................................................................................... i
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`35 U.S.C. §103 ...................................................................................................... 4
`RULES
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b).................................................................................................. 3
`42.104(b)(1)-(2)..................................................................................................... 2
`42.104(b)(4)-(5)....................................................................................................14
`Rule 42.104(a) ....................................................................................................... 2
`Rules 42.22(a)(1) ................................................................................................... 2
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................. i
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) .......................................................... 5
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`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 IPR2014-00578, 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)
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`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 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775 (the ’775 Patent) (Ex. 1001).
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The following references and others in the Table of Exhibits are pertinent to
`
`the grounds of unpatentability explained below:
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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.
`
`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. 1003)), which is prior art under § 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`Kouznetsov, U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0092596, filed June 14, 2002
`
`(“Kouznetsov” (Ex. 1004)), which is prior art under § 102(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. 1005)), which is prior art under §102(b).
`
`Ex. 1005 is a certified English translation of the original Mozgrin Thesis, attached
`
`as Ex. 1006. A copy of the catalogue entry for the Mozgrin Thesis at the Russian
`
`State Library is attached as Exhibit 1007.
`
`6. Wang, U.S. Pat. No. 6,413,382 (“Wang” (Ex. 1008)), which is prior art
`
`under at least §§ 102(a) and (e).
`
`7.
`
`Lantsman, U.S. Pat. No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman” (Ex. 1009)), which is prior
`
`art under at least §102(b).
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`8.
`
`N. Li et al., Enhancement of Aluminum Oxide Physical Vapor Deposition
`
`with a Secondary Plasma, Surface and Coatings, Tech. 149 (2002) (“Li” (Ex.
`
`1010)), which is prior art under at least § 102(a).
`
`B.
`
`Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-29 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. 1011)), 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. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION1
`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 interpretation of the
`
`claim language. See In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`Any claim term which lacks a definition in the specification is therefore also given
`
`1 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.
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`a broad interpretation. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). 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 Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`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.
`
`4, the ’775 Patent describes forming a weakly-ionized plasma between times t1 and
`
`t2 by application of the low power 320 and then goes on to describe forming a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma by application of higher power 304. ’775 Patent at 10:51-
`
`57; 11:19-32 (Ex. 1001). The ’775 Patent also provides exemplary densities for
`
`the weakly-ionized and strongly-ionized plasmas. See ’421 Patent, claim 25
`
`(“wherein the peak plasma density of the weakly-ionized plasmas is less than about
`
`1012 cm-3); claim 26 (“wherein the peak plasma density of the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma is greater than about 1012 cm-3.”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`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 semiconductor wafer processing and razor blade
`
`manufacturing. DeVito Decl. ¶ 22 (Ex. 1011).
`
`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
`
`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,
`
`often by providing a bias signal on the substrate to attract the ionized argon atoms
`
`to bombard and densify the growing film or similarly any ionized sputtered atoms.
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 (Ex. 1011).
`
`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. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1011).
`
`Further detail about plasma sputtering, including sputtering with high power
`
`pulses for providing an electric field is provided at DeVito Decl. ¶¶ 25-67 (Ex.
`
`1011).
`
`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
`
`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. ¶ 64 (Ex. 1011)
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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: Lantsman 6:12-20 (Ex. 1025);
`
`Holland 1:22-25, 2:3-7, 5:52-55, 6:36-38, 10:53-65, 11: 21-28 (Ex. 1015); Hauzer
`
`2:62-3:2, 4:62-66, 6:22-26 (Ex. 1016); Bobbio 1:13-16, 1:43-47, 5:3-9, 5:44-47,
`
`7:19-25, 8:56-61 (Ex. 1017); and Pan 5:30-33, 6:12-13 (Ex. 1013). DeVito Decl. ¶
`
`65-67 (Ex. 1011).
`
`VI. 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
`
`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
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`substrate in a manner that causes etching of the surface of the substrate. See also
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 68-69 (Ex. 1011).
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY 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.
`
`Further detail about the following references can be found in DeVito Decl. ¶
`
`70-87 (Ex. 1011).
`
`B.
`
`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 without forming an arc. 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
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Mozgrin. A most appropriate prior art reference may not be apparent until it is
`
`known if and how the Patent Owner intends to respond, whether the Patent Owner
`
`will seek to amend claims, and whether the Patent Owner will argue for
`
`independent patentability of dependent claims, and which ones.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Mozgrin (Ex. 1002)
`
`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. 1002)
`
`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 regime 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” (region 2) causes the plasma to transition to region 3; and
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(4) “arc discharge” (Mozgrin at 402, right col, ¶ 3), where application of higher
`
`current can cause the plasma to transition from region 3 to the “arc discharge”
`
`region 4. (Ex. 1002). DeVito Decl. ¶ 72-73 (Ex. 1011)
`
`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 (Ex. 1002). 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. ¶ 79
`
`(Ex. 1011).
`
`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. 1002). 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. 1002) (“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. 1002) (“The action of the magnetic
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`field serves…to provide collisions sufficient for efficient energy transfer from
`
`electrons to heavy particles.”). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 72-80 (Ex. 1011).
`
`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.
`
`1002) (“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. 1002) (“The high-current diffuse discharge
`
`(regime 3) is useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni 
`
`1.5x1015cm-3….”). See also DeVito Decl. ¶ 72-80 (Ex. 1011)
`
`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. 1002). 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. ¶ 72-
`
`80 (Ex. 1011).
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Wang (Ex. 1008)
`
`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. 1008). DeVito Decl. ¶ 82 (Ex. 1011).
`
`FIG. 6 (annotated and reproduced below) shows a graph of the power Wang
`
`applies to the plasma. The 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, 7:56-64 (Ex. 1008). Wang’s lower power
`
`level PB maintains the plasma after ignition and application of the higher power
`
`level PP, raises the density of the plasma. Wang, 7:17-31 (“The background power
`
`level, PB, is chosen to exceed the minimum power necessary to support a plasma....
`
`[T]he application of the high peak power PP instead quickly causes the already
`
`existing plasma to spread and increases the density of the plasma.”) (Ex. 1008).
`
`DeVito Decl. ¶ 83 (Ex. 1011).
`
`FIG. 6 (annotated) of Wang (Ex. 1008)
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Wang also incorporates by reference a patent to Fu, U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,306,265 (“Fu” Ex. 1014). DeVito Decl. ¶ 84 (Ex. 1011).
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), the below sections, and as confirmed in
`
`the DeVito Declaration (Ex. 1011), demonstrate in detail how the prior art
`
`discloses each and every limitation of the challenged Claims of the ’775 Patent,
`
`and how those claims are rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 9-26, 28, and 29, would have been obvious
`A.
`in view of Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev and Mozgrin Thesis
`
`1.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 15
`
`Independent claims 1 and 15 have very similar language, except that claim 1
`
`additionally recites an anode and a cathode, and claim 15 is a method claim rather
`
`than an apparatus claim like claim 1.
`
`The preambles: “A magnetically enhanced plasma
`a)
`processing apparatus;” and “A method of magnetically
`enhanced plasma processing.”
`
`Mozgrin discloses a plasma processing apparatus 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.
`
`1002). The processing apparatus includes a magnet “3” for a quasi-stationary
`
`discharge in crossed fields with high-power. See, Mozgrin at 400-401, right col. ¶¶
`
`3-5, 404, left col. ¶ 3, FIGS. 1 and 5 (Ex. 1002). DeVito Decl. ¶ 90 (Ex. 1011).
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Limitations (a) and (b) of claim 1: “an anode” and “a
`b)
`cathode that is positioned adjacent to the anode and forming a
`gap there between”
`
`Mozgrin’s Fig. 1 shows a cathode labeled “1”, and an anode labeled “2,”
`
`forming a gap between them. Mozgrin at 401, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1002). DeVito Decl. ¶
`
`91 (Ex. 1011).
`
`Limitation (c) of claim 1: “an ionization source that
`c)
`generates a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to the cathode;”
`and limitation (a) of claim 15: “ionizing a feed gas to generate
`a weakly-ionized plasma proximate to a cathode”
`
`Mozgrin teaches using a power supply shown in Mozgrin Fig. 2 to generate
`
`a weakly ionized plasma, for example, a plasma with a density that is below 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 (Ex. 1002). Mozgrin’s plasma is
`
`generated between and proximate to the cathode “2” and the anode “1” as
`
`shown in Mozgrin’s Figs. 1 and 6. DeVito Decl. ¶ 92-93 (Ex. 1011).
`
`Limitation (d) of claim 1: “a magnet that is positioned
`d)
`to generate a 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 15: “generating a magnetic field
`proximate to the weakly-ionized plasma, the magnetic field
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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. 1002). 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,
`
`specifically “in the 109-1011 cm-3 range.” Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶ 2 (Ex. 1002).
`
`Mozgrin’s magnetic field traps electrons thereby enhancing collisions between
`
`electrons and gas particles. Mozgrin at 407, left col, ¶ 3 (Ex. 1002). DeVito Decl.
`
`¶ 94 (Ex. 1011).
`
`Limitation (e) of claim 1: “a power supply that
`e)
`produces an electric field across the gap, the electric field
`generating excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma and
`generating secondary electrons from the cathode, the
`secondary electrons ionizing the excited atoms, thereby
`creating a strongly-ionized plasma comprising a plurality of
`ions”; and limitation (c) of claim 15: “applying an electric
`field across the weakly-ionized plasma that excites atoms in
`the weakly-ionized plasma and generates secondary electrons
`from the cathode, the secondary electrons ionizing the excited
`atoms, thereby creating a strongly-ionized plasma comprising
`a plurality of ions”
`
`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:
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Region 1 of Mozgrin’s Fig. 3(b) represents the voltage used for pre-ionization,
`
`corresponding to generation of the weakly-ionized plasma. Mozgrin at 402, right
`
`col, ¶ 2 (Ex. 1002). 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 Decl. ¶ 95 (Ex. 1011).
`
`Mozgrin teaches a power supply that generates an electric field to the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma to create a strongly-ionized plasma. For example, in
`
`Mozgrin’s region 2, the plasma density exceeds 1013 cm-3. Mozgrin at 409, left
`
`col, ¶ 4 (Ex. 1002). In Mozgrin’s region 3, the plasma density is even higher.
`
`Mozgrin at 409, left col, ¶5 (Ex. 1002) (“The high-current diffuse discharge
`
`(regime 3) is useful for producing large-volume uniform dense plasmas ni 
`
`1.5x1015cm-3….”). In any such plasma, secondary electrons are necessarily
`
`generated (DeVito Decl. ¶ 96 (Ex. 1011)), and Mozgrin discloses the use of
`
`secondary electrons. Mozgrin at 408, right col, ¶3 (Ex. 1002); see also Mozgrin
`
`Thesis at 9, ¶ 1; 97, ¶ 2 (Ex. 1005). (DeVito Decl. ¶ 96 (Ex. 1011).
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`It is well known that secondary electrons are released from the target by the
`
`inelastic collision of impacting ions to the target. These electrons are accelerated
`
`by the E- field away from the target and are trapped in the B-field. They are
`
`responsible for maintaining and sustaining the discharge, and without them, the
`
`discharge would rapidly diminish. See also ‘775 Patent, discussion of prior art Fig.
`
`1, 3:28-29 (“The plasma is maintained by secondary electron emission from the
`
`cathode 114.”) (Ex. 1001). DeVito Decl. ¶ 97 (Ex. 1011).
`
`An annotated copy of Kudryavtsev’s Fig. 1 is shown below:
`
`Fig. 1 of Kudryavtsev (Ex. 1003)
`
`Kudryavtsev explains that ionization occurs with an initial “slow stage” (Fig. 1a),
`
`followed by a “fast stage” (Fig. 1b). Kudryavtsev at 31, right col, ¶ 7 (“The
`
`behavior of the increase in ne with time thus enables us to arbitrarily divide the
`
`ionization process into two stages, which we will call the slow and fast growth
`
`stages. Fig. 1 illustrates the relationships between the main electron currents in
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`terms of the atomic energy levels during the slow and fast stages.”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`During the slow stage, direct ionization provides a significant contribution to the
`
`generation of plasma ions (see arrow Γ1e in Fig. 1(a)). However, during the same
`
`slow stage, excited atoms are also created within the plasma chamber (see arrow
`
`Γ12 in Fig. 1(a)). Once the population of excited atoms becomes large enough,
`
`multi-step (or “stepwise”) ionization becomes the dominant ionization process as
`
`shown by the thick arrow labeled Γ2e in Fig. 1(b). The thin arrows labeled Γ1e
`
`show that direct ionization produces ions at a roughly constant rate in both the
`
`slow and fast stages. The thick arrow labeled Γ2e in Fig. 1b shows that multi-step
`
`ionization can produce ions at a greater rate than direct ionization. DeVito Decl. ¶
`
`98-99 (Ex. 1011).
`
`Kudryavtsev explains the rapid increase in ionization once multi-step
`
`ionization becomes the dominant process as follows:
`
`[I]n a pulsed inert-gas discharge plasma at moderate pressures… [i]t is
`shown that the electron density increases explosively in time due to
`accumulation of atoms in the lowest excited states.
`
`Kudryavtsev at Abstract (Ex. 1003). DeVito Decl. ¶ 100 (Ex. 1011).
`
`Kudryavtsev also discloses, in Equation (1), that one of the factors leading to
`
`the increase in plasma density (ne /t) includes the collision of excited atoms with
`
`secondary electrons:
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT 6,896,775 Claims 1-29
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Specifically, the second term n2ne2e describes the collision of electrons with
`
`excited atoms in the first excited states. Kudryavtsev at 30, right col, last ¶ (“…n2,
`
`and ne are the atomic densities in the …first excited states and the electron density,
`
`respectively;… 2e [is] the rate coeffi