By: Christopher Frerking (chris@ntknet.com)
`
`Reg. No. 42,557
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2015-01767
`U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………...i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………….....ii
`
`EXHIBIT LIST……………………………………………………………………iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. Lam’s Contentions……………………..…………………………………..11
`
`
`Introduction …………………………………………………………………1
`
`Lieberman is Fundamentally Different From the ‘221…...………………....6
`
`A. Lieberman Does Not Teach Claim 1…………………………………….....11
`
`
`
`B. Selectively Balanced………………………………………………………14
`
`C. Phase and Anti-Phase Portions of the Capacitive Currents and the Wave
`Adjustment Circuit………………………………………………………....15
`
`IV. Lieberman and Dible Do Not Render ‘221 Obvious………………………16
`
`V. Dependent Claims………………………………………………………….22
`
`VI. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….……23
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Hartness Int’l Inc. v. Simplimatic Eng. Co.,
`819 F.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1987)…………………………………………………...22
`
`Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984)…………………………………………………...22
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL L. FLAMM, Sc.D
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D., the sole inventor and owner of the U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`6,017,221 (“the ‘221 patent”), through his counsel, submits this response to the
`
`instant petition.
`
`I. Introduction
`
`Lam makes two invalidity contentions for the single independent claim of
`
`the ‘221 patent; anticipation via either of the Lieberman references (Ex’s 1002 and
`
`1012) and obviousness via either of the Lieberman references in view of the Dible
`
`patent (Ex. 1003). As will be demonstrated, neither ground warrants invalidating
`
`the ‘221 patent.
`
`Claim 1
`
`The ‘221 patent relates to a process for fabricating a product. Claim 1 is the
`
`only independent claim. It claims:
`
`A process for fabricating a product using a plasma source, said
`process comprising the steps of subjecting a substrate to entities, at
`least one of said entities emanating from a gaseous discharge excited
`by a high frequency field from an inductive coupling structure in
`which a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of capacitive currents
`coupled from
`the
`inductive coupling structure are selectively
`balanced;
`
`wherein said inductive coupling structure is adjusted using a wave
`adjustment circuit, said wave adjustment circuit adjusting the
`phase portion and the anti-phase portion of the capacitively
`coupled currents.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 22:58-23:2.)
`
`The claim has five key limitations because of the interdependence of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`
`sub-elements. They are:
`
`1. A process for fabricating a product using a plasma source,
`
`2. said process comprising the steps of subjecting a substrate to
`entities,
`
`3. at least one of said entities emanating from a gaseous discharge
`excited by a high frequency field from an inductive coupling
`structure in which a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of
`capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure
`are selectively balanced;
`
`4. wherein said inductive coupling structure is adjusted using a wave
`adjustment circuit,
`
`5. said wave adjustment circuit adjusting the phase portion and the
`anti-phase portion of the capacitively coupled currents.
`
`The meat of the claim is found in elements 3, 4, and 5. The end point of the
`
`claim is the selective balancing of a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of the
`
`capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure. Key to getting
`
`to the end point is a wave adjustment circuit. All this is taught throughout the ‘221
`
`patent’s specification:
`
`At least one of the entities emanates from a species generated by a
`gaseous discharge excited by a high frequency field in which the
`vector sum of phase and anti-phase capacitive coupled voltages from
`the inductive coupling structure is selectively maintained. This
`process provides for a technique that can selectively control the
`amount of capacitive coupling to chamber bodies at or near ground
`potential. [Ex. 1001 at 6:44-:51.]
`
`At least one of the entities emanates from a species generated by a
`gaseous discharge excited by a high frequency field in which the
`vector sum of phase and anti-phase capacitive coupled voltages from
`the inductive coupling structure is selectively maintained. A further
`step of selectively applying a voltage between the at least one of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`
`entities in the plasma source and a substrate is provided. This process
`provides for a technique that can selectively control the amount of
`capacitive coupling to chamber bodies at or near ground potential, and
`provide for a driving voltage between the entities and a substrate. [Id.
`at 6:54-:65.]
`
`The high frequency power source provides high frequency to excite
`the gaseous discharge to provide at least one entity from a high
`frequency field in which the vector sum of phase and anti-phase
`capacitive current coupled from the inductive coupling structure is
`selectively maintained. [Id. at 7:19-:24.]
`
`This embodiment of full-wave multiple operation provides for
`balanced capacitance of phase 23 and anti-phase voltages 27 along the
`inductive applicator (or coil adjacent to the plasma). This full-wave
`multiple operation reduces or substantially eliminates the amount of
`capacitively coupled power from the plasma source to chamber bodies
`(e.g., pedestal, walls, wafer, etc.) at or close to ground potential. [Id.
`at 8:53-:62.]
`
`This provides a helical coil operating at approximately a full-wave
`multiple and has substantially equal phase and anti-phase sections.
`This full-wave multiple operation provides for balanced capacitance
`of phase 151 and anti-phase 153 voltages along the coil 132 adjacent
`to the plasma source. Full-wave multiple operation reduces or even
`substantially eliminates the amount of capacitively coupled power
`from the plasma source to chamber bodies (e.g., pedestal, walls, wafer,
`etc.) at or close to ground potential. [Id. at 15:27-:36.]
`
`In alternative embodiments, the wave adjustment circuit can be
`configured to provide selected phase and anti-phase coupled voltages
`coupled from the inductive applicator to the plasma that do not cancel.
`This provides a controlled potential between the plasma and the
`chamber bodies, e.g., the substrate, grounded surfaces, walls, etc. In
`one embodiment, the wave adjustment circuits can be used to
`selectively reduce current (i.e., capacitively coupled current) to the
`plasma. This can occur when certain high potential difference regions
`of the inductive applicator to the plasma are positioned (or kept) away
`from the plasma region (or inductor-containing-the-plasma region) by
`making them go into the wafer adjustment circuit assemblies, which
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`
`are typically configured outside of the plasma region. In this
`embodiment, capacitive current is reduced and a selected degree of
`symmetry between the phase and anti-phase of the coupled voltages is
`maintained,
`thereby providing a selected potential or even
`substantially ground potential. In other embodiments, the wave
`adjustment circuits can be used to selectively increase current (i.e.,
`capacitively coupled current) to the plasma. [Id.at 9:7-:26.]
`
`Contrary to Lam’s proffered claim construction that “selectively balanced”
`
`means “chosen to be substantially equally distributed” (Pet. at 21), the ‘221
`
`patent’s specification clearly teaches that selectively balanced covers a range, per
`
`one’s selection, between 100% balanced to various lesser percentages. “Of course,
`
`the type of operation used will depend upon the application.” (Ex. 1001 at 13:26-
`
`:28.)
`
`In addition to teaching the desirability of “a phase portion and an anti-phase
`
`portion of the capacitive currents” being “selectively balanced,” the specification
`
`teaches the functionality of various amounts of selectively balanced phase and anti-
`
`phase portions of capacitive currents:
`
`In further embodiments, the wave adjustment circuits employ circuit
`elements that provide plasma applicators with phase and anti-phase
`potential relationships that do not cancel each other out using a
`variety of wave length portions. [Ex. 1001 at 9:63-:67 (emphasis
`added).]
`
`In this embodiment, capacitive current is reduced and a selected
`degree of symmetry between the phase and anti-phase of the coupled
`voltages is maintained, thereby providing a selected potential or even
`substantially ground potential. In other embodiments, the wave
`adjustment circuits can be used to selectively increase current (i.e.,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`
`capacitively coupled current) to the plasma. [Id. at 9:19-:26
`(emphasis added).]
`
`One of the applications where substantially zero capacitive current is
`
`undesirable is ion bombardment:
`
`In alternative embodiments, it is desirable to maintain an elevated
`source plasma voltage relative to ground potential to induce a
`controlled ion plasma flux (or ion bombardment) to the product
`substrate (or any other chamber bodies).
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 12:66-13:2.)
`
`Sputtering is another application where substantially zero capacitive current
`
`is undesirable:
`
`In the embodiments were imbalance is desirable, the potential
`difference between the phase and anti-phase potential portions is
`reduced (or minimized) when the amount of sputtering (e.g., wall
`sputtering, etc.) is reduced. The amount of sputtering, however, can be
`increased (or maximized) by increasing the potential difference
`between the phase and anti-phase potential portions. Sputtering is
`desirable in, for example, sputtering a quartz target, cleaning
`applications, and others.
`
`(Id. at 13:17-36; see also 24:1-:3.) Bias is another example:
`
`This wave adjustment circuit provides for a selected potential
`difference between the plasma source and chamber bodies. These
`chamber bodies may be at a ground potential or a potential supplied
`by another bias supply, e.g., See FIG. 1 reference numeral 35.
`
`(Id. at 9:41-:45.) In this regard, the specification also notes:
`
`This process provides for a technique that can selectively control the
`amount of capacitive coupling to chamber bodies at or near ground
`potential, and provide for a driving voltage between the entities and a
`substrate.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`
`(Id. at 6:61-:65.)
`
`II. Lieberman is Fundamentally Different From the ‘221 Patent
`
`Lieberman lacks the key elements required by the ‘221 patent. Lieberman
`
`fails to teach an inductive coupling structure in which a phase portion and an anti-
`
`phase portion of capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure
`
`are selectively balanced. Lieberman fails to teach said inductive coupling structure
`
`is adjusted using a wave adjustment circuit. In particular, the capacitive currents
`
`referenced in Lieberman are not the same as the capacitive currents in the ‘221
`
`patent. Lieberman makes it very clear that he considers only the capacitive current
`
`proportional to the coil voltage in saying: “using a balanced transformer . . . reduces
`
`[sic] the maximum coil-to-plasma voltage by a factor of two” (singular) “reduces
`
`the undesired capacitively couple rf current flowing from coil to plasma” (singular).
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 16.) In other words, Lieberman concerns only a magnitude of
`
`capacitive current flowing from a momentary positive portion of the coil to the
`
`plasma (and, thus, returning from the plasma to a momentary negative portion of
`
`the coil). This is not the subject of Claim 1, and does not teach a phase and anti-
`
`phase portion of capacitive currents in the manner claimed.
`
`In contrast, rather than a magnitude, claim 1 mainly concerns selectively
`
`balancing the vector sum of phase and anti-phase currents flowing from the coil as
`
`a whole to the plasma—the selected difference current, if any, flows through the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`plasma to grounded chamber bodies, the wafer chuck, etc. The current magnitude
`
`and vector sum are quite different things. The magnitude taught by Lieberman is
`
`not susceptible to selective balancing. Lieberman merely addresses lowering the
`
`magnitude of a current that flows in a closed path within the plasma source by itself
`
`(e.g., coil to plasma and return). The ‘221 patent, on the other hand, concerns using
`
`a wave adjustment circuit to selectively adjust an inductive coupling structure such
`
`that the total sum of different phased amounts of current flowing from an
`
`applicator (coil) into the plasma are selectively balanced, whereby a selected
`
`amount of current flows from the plasma source to grounded chamber bodies, the
`
`wafer chuck, etc.
`
`Thus, the claim 1 sub-element “a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of
`
`capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure are selectively
`
`balanced” cannot be met by Lieberman because it merely teaches a static structure
`
`to decrease the magnitude of plasma to coil voltage.
`
`Similarly, the wave adjustment as claimed by the ‘221 patent is not taught
`
`by Lieberman. Lieberman provides no means to adjust or control anything. (Ex.
`
`2001 (Declaration of Daniel L. Flamm) ¶ 8.) The isolated secondary winding in the
`
`conventional magnetic flux coupled balanced transformer suggested by Lieberman
`
`cannot control the coil potential because it is floating. (Id.) Its voltage and voltage
`
`distribution when it is coupled to a processing chamber is determined by the detailed
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`coupling of elements of the coil to process-specific plasma conditions and
`
`compositions. (Id.) Accordingly, the voltages and voltage distribution are not
`
`controlled; they are decided by the load encountered in a specific condition.
`
`Lieberman has nothing operable to adjust a voltage distribution, let alone adjusting
`
`an inductive coupling structure using a wave adjustment circuit or adjusting phase
`
`and anti-phase portions of the capacitively coupled currents.
`
`In its decision instituting review, the Board wrote:
`
`As Petitioner points out, the ‘221 patent describes an embodiment that
`includes a wave adjustment circuit comprising a balun (balanced-
`unbalanced) toroidal transformer, where “the midpoint 406 between
`the phase 405 and anti-phase voltage on the coil is effectively rf
`grounded,” and also uses push-pull balanced coupling, which
`Lieberman also teaches.
`
`(Paper 7 at 26-27.)
`
`Lam’s allegation is both contrary to fact and bad science for at least the
`
`following reasons.
`
`Lieberman teaches a conventional balanced magnetic transformer, which is
`
`not a balun. (Ex. 2001 ¶ 9.) A magnetic transformer is not a balun transformer; it
`
`is an essentially different thing. (Id. ¶ 10.) A conventional magnetically coupled
`
`transformer, such as depicted by Lieberman, transmits input energy to the output
`
`circuit through magnetic flux linkage, and the conventional transformer is capable
`
`of DC isolation. (Id.) However, a conventional transformer suffers from large core
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`and winding losses as frequency increases and inherently suffers from even higher
`
`disproportionate losses in higher power applications, such as here, powering a
`
`processing chamber plasma. (Id.)
`
`A balun transformer is a transmission line transformer that depends on
`
`coupling input energy to a load using a transverse transmission line mode, wherein
`
`an electromagnetic field is completely contained within the transmission line. (Id. ¶
`
`11.) In a balun transmission line transformer, unlike conventional transformers, the
`
`magnetic flux is effectively canceled out in the core, whereby far higher efficiencies
`
`can be obtained over a far wider range of frequencies. (Id.) A balun transformer,
`
`unlike the conventional magnetic transformer, is not capable of DC isolation
`
`because a balun requires a conductive connection to ground to be functional. (See
`
`id.; see also Ex. 1001 at 16:32-:36.)
`
`Moreover, a PHOSITA having expertise in high frequency matching systems
`
`would have recognized that in practice Lieberman’s coil midpoint, the so-called
`
`virtual ground, would not maintain ground potential when powering a plasma
`
`during processing. (Ex. 2001 ¶ 12.) Because the transformer secondary is
`
`“floating,” all positions along the coil have no determinable voltage relative to
`
`ground before a load coupled to ground is provided. (Id.) Having the midpoint
`
`coil voltage be midway from the upper and lower end voltages of the coil requires
`
`that the upper (above the midpoint) and lower segments of the coil be coupled to
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`identical loads (the capacitive and inductive coupling between the plasma and coil
`
`must be axially and radially symmetric about a midpoint). (Id.) This, in turn,
`
`requires plasma sheath thickness and plasma density (and potential) at all positions
`
`above the midpoint to be a mirror image of the values below the midpoint, which is
`
`unlikely or impossible to occur where the plasma source is coupled to a processing
`
`chamber. (Id.)
`
`First, plasma processing requires that plasma stream from the source toward
`
`the workpiece in the chamber. (Id. ¶ 13.) Since the streaming creates a plasma
`
`density gradient along the vertical axis in cylindrical geometry there is no midpoint
`
`load symmetry. (See id.; see also Ex. 1002 at Fig. 25(a).) As for the planar
`
`geometry coil, it does not even have a perceptible midpoint position. (Ex. 1002 at
`
`Fig. 25(b).)
`
`Second, if the transformer secondary is “floating,” as Lieberman has
`
`stipulated, the values of all of the voltages along the coil, and in particular those of
`
`the upper end of the coil, the lower end of the coil, and the midpoint, will depend
`
`on the detailed “load” (e.g., the plasma density, its spatial distribution, the plasma
`
`potential, and position of the inductive plasma current ring). (Ex. 2001 ¶ 14.) This
`
`is because the voltage drop (voltage difference) between the midpoint and one end
`
`of any physical coil, and particularly one carrying high frequency current, varies
`
`with the local value of load coupled to that portion of the physical coil. (Id.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`Even the proposition that voltage would be reduced by a factor of two is
`
`flawed. That is at least because the geometric extent and position of the induced
`
`plasma current ring (inductively coupled plasma absorbing power) depends on the
`
`detailed distribution of current along the applicator coil. (Id. ¶ 15.) Since
`
`Lieberman never clearly defines a reference configuration such as the electrical
`
`length (wavelength portion) of a coil, (other than stating it is “similar to helicon
`
`antennas” (Ex. 1002 at 52)), and since the magnitude of voltage and power that are
`
`necessary to sustain a preselected local plasma density depends on how an
`
`applicator is powered, the relative voltages are indeterminate. (Id.)
`
`In fact, Lieberman does not teach balancing any currents, whether they are
`
`capacitively coupled or phase and anti-phase portions as claimed, and Lieberman
`
`does not disclose or distinguish phase and anti-phase capacitively coupled currents
`
`as claimed. (Id. ¶ 16.) Furthermore, Lieberman’s conventional transformer has
`
`nothing operable to selectively balance any capacitive currents, nor anything
`
`operable to adjust any phase and anti-phase portions of capacitive currents. (Id.)
`
`Accordingly, Lieberman fails to teach key elements of claim 1.
`
`III. Lam’s Contentions
`
`A. Lieberman Does Not Teach Claim 1
`
`Lieberman is a 1993 “review article . . . focus[ing] on recent advances in
`
`plasma source technology for materials processing applications.” (Ex. 1002 at
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`Abstract.) There appears to be no attempt to introduce any new innovative
`
`material by Lieberman, he was simply reporting on the old. Given the modest
`
`explication by Lieberman—essentially a paragraph of nine lines—one would
`
`expect that there would be more robust prior art if, in fact, Lieberman were
`
`anticipatory as Lam maintains.
`
`Such prior art would actually teach using phase and anti-phase and inductive
`
`coupling structure in which the phase and anti-phase portion of capacitive currents
`
`coupled from the inductor are selectively balanced and a wave adjustment circuit
`
`for obtaining selectively balancing. Whatever Lieberman was documenting, it did
`
`not include using phase and anti-phase and inductively coupled structure in the
`
`manner claimed. That is, there is nothing in Lieberman about phase and anti-phase
`
`portions of the capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure.
`
`There is nothing in Lieberman about selectively balancing those phases. And there
`
`is nothing in Lieberman about a wave adjustment circuit for adjusting the phase
`
`and anti-phase portions of the capacitive currents.
`
`In fact, even as interpreted by Lam, Lieberman teaches away from claim 1.
`
`For example, here is the entirety of Lieberman’s discussion of capacitive currents:
`
`This reduces the undesired capacitively coupled rf current flowing
`from coil to plasma by a factor of two. An electrostatic shield placed
`between the coil and the plasma can further reduce the capacitive
`coupling if desired, while allowing the inductive field to couple
`unhindered to the plasma.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 16.)
`
`This teaches away from selective balancing the phase and anti-phase
`
`portions of the capacitive currents where one in the range of selections is to reduce
`
`or substantially eliminate capacitive currents:
`
`This full-wave multiple operation reduces or substantially eliminates
`the amount of capacitively coupled power from the plasma source to
`chamber bodies (e.g., pedestal, walls, wafer, etc.) at or close to ground
`potential.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 8:58-:62; see also id. at14:32-:36, 15:27-:36; 17:3-:13.) Lieberman
`
`offers a Hobson’s choice—take it or leave it—take the reduction by a factor of two
`
`or leave it and get no reduction. This is hardly a “selective” balancing.
`
`Further, Lieberman recognized that the scheme he described did not solve
`
`the problem of what he called these “undesired” currents. (Ex. 1002 at 16.) Thus,
`
`he teaches using an “electronic shield” for further reduction. That is, he teaches
`
`one of the conventional approaches from which Flamm deliberately and
`
`successfully escaped. The ‘221 specification describes in detail the pitfalls and
`
`failures of baffles and shields. (Ex. 1001 at 2:17-:51, 3:14-4:4.)
`
`In short, Lieberman’s approach, even under Lam’s interpretation, did not
`
`solve the problem of sufficiently controlling the capacitive currents, a fact that he
`
`readily admits. Accordingly, Lieberman is no more relevant then what has already
`
`been described as prior art in the ‘221 patent specification.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`
`B.
`
`Selectively Balanced
`
`Lam addresses the “selectively balanced” portion of the claim:
`
`[1.d] in which a phase
`portion and an anti-
`phase portion of
`capacitive currents
`coupled from the
`inductive coupling
`structure are selectively
`balanced;
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1002 [Lieberman93] at p. 23; Ex. 1012
`[Lieberman94] at p. 53 ("The coil can be driven push-
`pull using a balanced transformer, which places a
`virtual ground in the middle of the coil and reduces the
`maximum coil-to-plasma voltage by a factor of two.
`This reduces the undesired capacitively coupled rf
`current flowing from coil to plasma by a factor of
`two.").
`
`
`(Pet. at 28.)
`
`As just discussed, the last sentence in the quoted portion of Lieberman
`
`essentially admits the opposite of what Lam is attempting to establish; a reduction
`
`by a factor of two is not “selectively balanced.”
`
`Lam is reduced to making two arguments: (i) a skewed claim construction
`
`and (ii) a misstatement of “the goal” of the ‘221 patent. Actually, the two are tied
`
`together.
`
`First, Lam’s proposed claim construction for “selectively balanced” is:
`
`“chosen to be substantially equally distributed.” (Pet. at 17.) In its institution
`
`decision, the Board found: (i) that Lam incorrectly employed the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction” standard in light of the fact that the patent had expired,
`
`and (ii) that no construction was required “based on the record before us.” (Paper
`
`7 at 6-7.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`In light of the normal meaning of the words selectively and balanced, as well
`
`as the clear teachings of the ‘221 patent specification, Lam’s construction is not
`
`reasonable. In essence, Lam has ignored the word “selectively” and focused only
`
`on “balanced.” True, Lam uses the word “chosen” which sounds somewhat akin to
`
`selectively, but as discussed above, that is a Hobson’s choice.
`
`Second, Lam concludes its discussion of selectively balanced with the
`
`contention that a “PHOSITA would have understood” that a virtual ground would
`
`“accomplish[] the same goal as in the ‘221 patent of ‘reduc[ing] the undesired
`
`capacitively coupled rf current flowing from coil to plasma.” (Pet. at 25-26.)
`
`While that was a goal of the ‘221, it was not the goal. The goal, regarding the
`
`selectively balanced language, was to be able to balance the phases and anti-phase
`
`portions of the capacitive current selectively.
`
`C.
`
`Phase and Anti-Phase Portions of the Capacitive Currents and the
`Wave Adjustment Circuit
`
`There is no discussion or suggestion in Lieberman about controlling phase
`
`and anti-phase portions of the capacitive currents or of a wave adjustment. Lam
`
`tries to pull these claim elements out of Lieberman by citing to Lieberman’s
`
`balanced transformer. As demonstrated above, there is no factual or engineering
`
`basis for this contention.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`
`IV. Lieberman and Dible Do Not Render ‘221 Obvious
`
`Lam argues there is strong similarity between the systems of Lieberman and
`
`Dible that would render modification of the former with aspects of the latter
`
`straightforward and well within the skill of a PHOSITA. This statement is merely
`
`conclusory; it makes no technical sense and would not make a working process.
`
`First, what Lieberman discloses is a conventional magnetically coupled
`
`transform-er having an isolated floating secondary that is connected to either end
`
`of an inductive applicator coil, which is also floating.
`
`Lieberman’s floating applicator coil and its isolated transformer secondary
`
`have no ground. (Ex. 2001 ¶ 17.) The midpoint of Lieberman’s coil is only a
`
`midpoint. This midpoint is not a virtual ground because Lieberman has nothing to
`
`maintain the midpoint, nor any other portion of the coil, at a reference potential.1
`
`(Id.)
`
`Lam’s argument deceptively passes off Lieberman’s misuse of the term
`
`“virtual ground” to argue as if the midpoint of Lieberman’s transformer secondary
`
`is at ground potential, and goes on to conflate the term “virtual ground” with the
`
`term “push-pull” to argue that Lieberman anticipates the instant claims. Lam then
`
`
`1 See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_ground (“In electronics, a virtual
`ground (or virtual earth) is a node of a circuit that is maintained at a steady
`reference potential, without being connected directly to the reference potential. In
`some cases, the reference potential is considered to be that of the surface of the
`earth, and the reference node is called “ground” or “earth” as a consequence.”)
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`proceeds to advance the conclusory assertion that Dible and Lieberman are similar
`
`and that Dible’s control system could have obviously been combined with
`
`Lieberman to obtain the instant invention. This is nonsense at least because the
`
`Dible and Lieberman powering systems are based on entirely different principles
`
`of operation that have nothing in common. (Id. ¶ 18.) The Lieberman excerpt was
`
`only concerned with the absolute magnitude of voltages and currents in an
`
`inductively coupled plasma source and the solution of using a conventional
`
`magnetic transformer with a floating secondary winding. (Id.) In contrast, Dible
`
`concerns controlling the relative phase of two currents flowing to respectively
`
`different coil terminals for the completely different purpose of being able to choose
`
`capacitive or inductive coupling operation in the same equipment. (Id.)
`
`At most, Dible merely teaches relative current phases powering the opposing
`
`terminal ends of a coil. (Id. ¶ 19.) Dible does not disclose any local distribution of
`
`current and voltage along the extent of any coil, nor does Dible teach selectively
`
`balancing phase and anti-phase capacitive currents emanating from the coil into the
`
`plasma, as claimed by the ‘221 patent in any mode of operation. (Id.) In other
`
`words, Dible taught providing an inductively coupled discharge when the powering
`
`currents flowing into the two respective coil terminals have a relative phase
`
`difference of 180 degrees, which stands in contrast to the ‘221 patent’s phase and
`
`antiphase capacitive currents flowing from distributed positions along the coil into
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`the plasma—these are entirely different things. (Id.) Furthermore, Dible does not
`
`teach any selective balancing of the phase and anti-phase currents into the plasma
`
`as claimed by the ‘221 patent. (Id.)
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered Dible’s
`
`control system to be inoperable, as explained below. (Id. ¶ 20.) Because of this,
`
`there would have been no reason or incentive to combine Dible with similar
`
`functional art. (Id.) As is shown below, there is no similarity between Lieberman
`
`and Dible at least because their respective powering systems are based on different
`
`and incompatible principles of operation. (Id.)
`
`In addition, contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the Dible control system is
`
`incompatible with Lieberman’s conventional magnetic flux coupled transformer
`
`floating secondary winding. (Id. ¶ 21.) Accordingly, there would have been no
`
`reason or way to combine the control system of Dible with Lieberman’s
`
`conventional isolated magnetic transformer and nothing useful would result from
`
`attempting to do so. (Id.) That is, combining Dible’s control system would not
`
`work with Liberman’s conventional magnetic transformer, as further expressed
`
`below. (Id.)
`
`Lieberman teaches isolating a source of RF power from the coil by using a
`
`conventional transformer based on magnetic flux coupling to an isolated secondary
`
`winding and applying the rf voltage difference across the winding to power two
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2015-01767
`
`ends of a coil. (Id. ¶ 22.) Lieberman teaches this configuration is useful to reduce
`
`the