Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: June 9, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., INTEL CORPORATION, and
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`____________
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: June 9, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., INTEL CORPORATION, and
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`____________
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Micron Technology, Inc., Intel Corporation, and
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,017,221 (“the ’221 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 1. Daniel L. Flamm
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”). Paper 9.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of claims 1–7 of the ’221
`patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of those claims.
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Petitioner indicates that the ’221 patent is “at issue in five related
`patent infringement actions, in which [Patent Owner] sued Petitioners and
`other defendants, in the Northern District of California, Case Nos. 5:16-cv-
`01578-BLF; 5:16-cv-01579-BLF; 5:16-cv-01580-BLF; 5:16-cv-02252-
`BLF.” Pet. 3; see Paper 7, 2. The ’221 patent previously was the subject of
`IPR2015-01767 (terminated on December 15, 2016 at the joint request of the
`parties before a Final Written Decision was entered). Lam Research Corp.
`v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case IPR2015-01767, slip. op. at 3–6 (PTAB Dec. 15,
`2016) (Paper 36).
`The ’221 Patent
`B.
`The ’221 patent, titled “Process Depending on Plasma Discharges
`Sustained by Inductive Coupling,” is directed to a process for fabricating a
`product using plasma discharge. Ex. 1001, 6:14–16. The process “relies
`upon the control of the instantaneous plasma AC potential to selectively
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`control a variety of plasma characteristics,” such as “the amount of neutral
`species, the amount of charged species, overall plasma potential, the spatial
`extent and distribution of plasma density, the distribution of electrical
`current, and others.” Id. at 6:16–22. The process “can be used in
`applications including chemical dry etching (e.g., stripping, etc.), ion-
`enhanced etching, plasma immersion ion implantation, chemical vapor
`deposition and material growth, and others.” Id. at 6:22–26.
`The process comprises subjecting a substrate to a composition of
`entities, where “[a]t 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 [the] phase and anti-phase capacitive coupled voltages
`(e.g., AC plasma voltage) from the inductive coupling structure are
`substantially balance[d].” Id. at 6:31–37. According to the ’221 patent,
`“[t]his process provides for a technique that is substantially free from stray
`or parasitic capacitive coupling from the plasma source to chamber bodies
`(e.g., substrate, walls, etc.) at or near ground potential.” Id. at 6:37–41.
`The ’221 patent also describes a plasma discharge apparatus that
`includes a plasma source and a plasma applicator. Id. at 7:26–28. “A wave
`adjustment circuit (e.g., RLC circuit, coil, transmission line, etc.) is operably
`coupled to the plasma applicator” and “can selectively adjust phase and anti-
`phase potentials of the plasma from an rf power supply.” Id. at 7:30–34.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`
`Figure 2A of the ’221 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2A is a simplified configuration using wave adjustment circuits. Id.
`at 7:46–47. Embodiment 50 includes discharge tube 52, inductive applicator
`55, exterior shield 54, upper wave adjustment circuit 57, lower wave
`adjustment circuit 59, plasma source region 60, and rf power supply 61. Id.
`at 10:3–8. “In this embodiment, the wave adjustment circuits are adjusted to
`provide substantially zero AC voltage at one point on the inductive coil
`(refer to point 00 in FIG. 2A),” providing “substantially equal phase 70 and
`anti-phase 71 voltage distributions in directions about this point (refer to 00-
`A and 00-C in FIG. 2A)” and “substantially equal capacitance coupling to
`the plasma from physical inductor elements (00-C) and (00-A), carrying the
`phase and anti-phase potentials.” Id. at 10:14–22. According to the ’221
`patent, “[s]ince the capacitive current increases monotonically with the
`magnitude of the difference of peak phase and anti-phase voltages, which
`occur at points A and C in FIG. 2A, this coupling can be lessened by
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`reducing this voltage difference,” which is achieved by way of wave
`adjustment circuits 57 and 59. Id. at 10:31–37.
`Challenged Claims
`C.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–7 of the ’221 patent. Claim 1, the only
`independent claim, is representative, and is reproduced below.
`A process for fabricating a product using a plasma
`1.
`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, 22:58–23:2.
`D.
`The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references:
`Exhibit No.
`Reference Description
`Date
`Collins
`US 5,065,118
`Nov. 12, 1991 1008
`Dible
`US 5,573,595
`Nov. 12, 1996 1007
`Qian
`US 5,683,539
`Nov. 4, 1997
`1009
`Hanawa
`US 5,688,357
`Nov. 18, 1997 1010
`Lieberman Design of High-Density
`Aug. 18, 1994 1006
`Plasma Sources for Materials
`Processing, Plasma Sources
`for Thin Film Deposition and
`Etching (Physics of Thin
`Films Vol. 18, pp. 1–119)
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`E.
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`1, 5–7
`1, 5–7
`2, 3
`
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–7 on the following
`grounds:
`Reference(s)
`Lieberman
`Lieberman and Dible
`Lieberman and Hanawa, or
`Lieberman, Dible and
`Hanawa
`Lieberman and Collins, or
`Lieberman, Dible and
`Collins
`Qian
`Qian and Hanawa
`Qian and Collins
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`4
`
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 5–7
`2, 3
`4
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`The ’221 patent has expired. Ex. 1001 at [22] (application filed on
`May 30, 1997); see Pet. 16. For claims of an expired patent, the Board’s
`claim interpretation is similar to that of a district court. See In re Rambus,
`Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Claim terms are given their ordinary
`and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill
`in the art at the time of the invention, and in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to
`the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`
`For purposes of this Decision, based on the record before us, we
`determine that none of the claim terms requires an explicit construction.
`B.
`Obviousness over Lieberman
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1 and 5–7 is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as having been obvious over
`Lieberman. Pet. 27–40. Petitioner relies on the Declaration of David B.
`Graves (“the Graves Declaration,” Ex. 1003) in support of its contentions.
`Id.
`
`Overview of Lieberman
`1.
`Lieberman is a review article directed to plasma generation schemes,
`the purpose of which “is to (1) develop a unified framework from which all
`‘high-efficiency’ sources may be viewed and compared; (2) outline key
`elements of source design that affect processing results; and (3) highlight
`areas where additional research and development is needed.” Ex. 1006, 6.1
`According to Lieberman, “[t]he advent of sub-micron electronic device
`fabrication has brought unprecedented demands for process optimization and
`control, which, in turn, have led to improved plasma reactors for the etching
`and deposition of thin films.” Id. at 5 (internal citations omitted).
`Lieberman describes two inductive source configurations, one using a
`cylindrical coil, the other a planar coil, for a low profile source. Id. at 55.
`“The planar coil is a flat helix wound from near the axis to near the outer
`radius of the source chamber (‘electric stovetop’ coil shape),” and can be
`united with a cylindrical coil “to give ‘cylindrical cap’ or ‘hemispherical’
`coil shapes.” Id. Lieberman states that “inductive coils can be driven by a
`
`
`1 The cited page numbers in Ex. 1006 refer to the numbers added by
`Petitioner in the bottom right corner of the page.
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`13.56 MHz, 50 ohm rf supply through an L matching network,” and that
`“[t]he 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.” Id. at 55–56. Lieberman
`explains that “[t]his reduces the undesired capacitively coupled rf current
`flowing from coil to plasma by a factor of two.” Id. at 56.
`Lieberman also teaches that “[p]lasma in an inductive source is
`created by application of rf power to a non-resonant, inductive coil, resulting
`in the breakdown of the process gas within or near the coil by the induced rf
`electric field,” and “[t]he plasma created in the source region streams toward
`a wafer holder that can be independently biased by application of rf power
`using a separate generator.” Id. at 56–57.
`Analysis
`2.
`Petitioner asserts that Lieberman discloses or suggests all of the
`elements of independent claim 1 and provides arguments setting forth where
`each of the limitations may be found. Pet. 28–38. For example, Petitioner
`contends that Lieberman teaches “a phase portion and an anti-phase portion
`of capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure are
`selectively balanced” because it “discloses choosing to drive an inductive
`coil push-pull via a balanced transformer (i.e., a wave adjustment circuit),
`which creates a phase configuration that makes the phase and anti-phase
`portions selectively balanced (i.e., substantially equally distributed).” Id. at
`30. Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`have understood Lieberman’s choice to drive the inductive coil ‘push-pull’
`to correspond to the claimed ‘phase and an anti-phase portion of capacitive
`currents . . . are selectively balanced’” because “the phase voltages ‘push’
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`capacitively coupled current into the plasma while the anti-phase voltages
`‘pull’ capacitively coupled current out of the plasma.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 90). According to Petitioner, “[d]riving the coil push-pull with”
`Lieberman’s “wave adjustment circuit (the inductively-coupled push-pull
`arrangement, e.g., a toroidal balun) causes a midpoint on the coil to be
`effectively RF grounded, adjusting the phase portion and the anti-phase
`portion of the capacitively coupled currents so that they are selectively
`balanced about the midpoint.” Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91–94, 100–
`102). We are persuaded, based on the current record, that Petitioner’s
`discussion of the particular operations and structures in Lieberman, and the
`explanations in the Petition and the Graves Declaration, are sufficient to
`establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`demonstrating that claim 1 would have been obvious over Lieberman.
`We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and do not find them
`to be persuasive on this record. For example, Patent Owner argues that a
`person having ordinary skill in the art “would not have understood what is
`alleged to be Lieberman’s ‘balanced transformer, which places a virtual
`ground in the middle of the coil,’ to be a balun that results in a voltage
`distribution on the inductive coil that is symmetric about the midpoint.”
`Prelim. Resp. 4. In support of its argument, Patent Owner relies on the
`Declaration of Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D. (Ex. 2001), who testifies that
`“Lieberman teaches a conventional balanced magnetic transformer, which is
`not a balun.” Prelim. Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 9–10). Dr. Graves testifies
`for Petitioner, however, that “Lieberman’s ‘balanced transformer, which
`places a virtual ground in the middle of the coil,’ would be understood to be
`a balun that results in a voltage distribution on the inductive coil that is
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`symmetric about the midpoint,” which the ’221 patent describes “as a wave
`adjustment circuit that produces phase and anti-phase potentials and
`currents.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. For purposes of deciding whether to institute an
`inter partes review, we must view any issues of material fact created by
`testimonial evidence in the light most favorable to Petitioner. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108(c). Thus, only for purposes of this Decision, we must resolve the
`dispute between Dr. Flamm and Dr. Graves regarding Lieberman’s
`transformer in Petitioner’s favor.
`Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further requires that “said process
`is provided in a chamber.” Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and additionally
`requires that “the chamber is provided for a process selected from etching,
`deposition, sputtering, or implantation.” Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and
`further recites “said inductive coupling structure provides a wave multiple
`selected from a one-sixteenth wave, a one-eighth wave, a quarter-wave, a
`half-wave, a three-quarter wave, and a full wave.” We have considered the
`arguments and evidence with respect to dependent claims 5–7, and are
`persuaded on this record that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail as to those claims as well. See Pet. 38–40.
`C. Obviousness over Lieberman and Dible
`Petitioner contends that claims 1 and 5–7 would have been obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lieberman and Dible.
`Pet. 40–49. Petitioner relies on the Graves Declaration in support of its
`contentions. Id.
`1.
`Overview of Dible
`Dible is directed to methods and apparatus for inducing plasma in low
`pressure plasma systems that are typically used in semiconductor
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`fabrication. Ex. 1007, 1:7–9. In particular, Dible “relates to methods and
`apparatus for variable control of the plasma generating element to achieve
`combinations of inductive and/or capacitive coupling.” Id. at 1:9–12.
`The Dible device includes “a first radio frequency excitation source
`for outputting a first excitation current having a first phase and a first
`amplitude” and “a second radio frequency excitation source for outputting a
`second excitation current having a second phase and a second amplitude”
`along with “a plasma generating element having a first end and a second end
`for receiving respectively the first excitation current and the second
`excitation current.” Id. at 2:30–37. The Dible device also “includes a
`control circuit having a control input for receiving a user-variable signal
`indicative of a desired phase difference between the first phase and the
`second phase.” Id. at 2:38–41. The control circuit, in response to the
`control input, outputs a control signal to one of the first or second radio
`frequency excitation sources, effectuating a phase difference between the
`first and second phases that substantially approximates the desired phase
`difference. Id. at 2:41–48.
`The Dible device “becomes essentially an inductive coupling device
`when the first phase and the second phase are opposite in phase,” and
`“becomes essentially a capacitive coupling device” when the first and
`second phases are in phase. Id. at 2:48–52. When the first and second phase
`differ by an angle between phase and opposite in phase, the Dible device
`“becomes a combination inductive and capacitive coupling device.” Id. at
`2:52–55.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`
`Analysis
`2.
`Petitioner contends that “Lieberman itself teaches or renders obvious
`all the limitations of independent claim 1,” and that “Dible further teaches
`adjusting the phase and anti-phase portions of the capacitively coupled
`currents via a control circuit.” Pet. 40. Petitioner contends that it would
`have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use Dible’s
`control circuit in Lieberman’s control circuit apparatus for three reasons: (1)
`“Dible offers user control” that “would allow for fine-tuning of the phase
`and anti-phase portions, e.g., to render the device a capacitive coupling
`device, inductive coupling device, or a combination thereof,” “which would
`augment Lieberman’s design;” (2) Lieberman describes that, in certain
`applications, it is desirable to reduce capacitively coupled radio frequency
`currents flowing from the coil to the plasma, and, therefore, a person having
`ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to improve Lieberman’s
`system” by including Dible’s control circuit “to enable adjustment of the
`phase and anti-phase portions” to minimize capacitive coupling and apply
`power only by inductive coupling; and (3) the systems described by
`Lieberman and Dible “have a high degree of similarity in structure, purpose,
`and operation” that “would render modification of the former with aspects of
`the latter straightforward and well within the skill of a” person having
`ordinary skill in the art, and would ensure a reasonable expectation of
`success. Id. at 47–48.
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the combination of
`Lieberman and Dible teaches or suggests all of the limitations required by
`independent claim 1. As Petitioner alleges, Dible, for example, allows for
`active adjustment of current phases so that the device is an “inductive
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`coupling device when the first phase and the second phase are opposite in
`phase.” Ex. 1007, 2:48–50. We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s
`arguments that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had
`reason to incorporate Dible’s controlled adjustment of phase difference in
`Lieberman’s plasma generator.
`We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and, based on the
`record before us, do not find them to be persuasive. For example, Patent
`Owner argues that Dible does not disclose the “wherein said inductive
`coupling structure is adjusted using a wave adjustment circuit” limitation of
`claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner argues that “[e]ven if one were
`to assume that Dible’s ‘plasma generating system’ were an ‘inductive
`coupling structure,’ once it were ‘adjusted’ it would be, according to Dible, a
`capacitive coupling structure (or some combination coupling structure)” and
`“would no longer [be] an ‘inductive coupling structure.’” Id. According to
`Patent Owner, “the problems and solutions set forth in Dible, excepting the
`aspiration to invent a workable method to adjust phase, are totally alien from
`the problems and solutions set forth in the ’221 patent.” Id. at 15.
`Petitioner, however, only relies on Dible’s disclosure of “a control circuit
`having a control input for receiving a user-variable signal indicative of a
`desired phase difference between the first phase and second phase” with
`respect to this claim limitation. See Pet. 44. Patent Owner does address
`whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Dible
`for this purpose.
`We have also considered the arguments and evidence with respect to
`dependent claims 5–7 and are persuaded, on the current record, that
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`to those claims as well. See, e.g., Pet. 38–40; Ex. 1006, 5–8, 11, 13, 16, 27–
`29, 100–101, Fig. 25; Ex. 1003, ¶ 113.
`D. Obviousness over Lieberman and Hanawa, or
`Lieberman, Dible, and Hanawa
`Petitioner contends that claims 2 and 3 would have been obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Lieberman and
`Hanawa, or Lieberman, Dible, and Hanawa. 2 Pet. 49–55. Petitioner relies
`on the Graves Declaration in support of its contentions. Id.
`1.
`Overview of Hanawa
`Hanawa is directed to “inductively coupled RF plasma reactors used
`in semiconductor processing” that employ “a coiled antenna to couple RF
`power to the plasma reactor chamber, and in particular to methods for tuning
`the RF power circuit (including the coil antenna) in response to impedance
`changes in the plasma.” Ex. 1010, 1:8–13. Hanawa teaches a control circuit
`that is “connected to a control input of the variable frequency RF power
`source and responsive to the power sensor for changing the frequency of the
`variable frequency RF power source so as to either increase the transmitted
`power or decrease the reflected power,” in order “to provide an accurate RF
`match instantly responsive to changes in plasma impedance.” Id. at 2:3–9.
`Hanawa further teaches that the described control circuit “eliminates not
`only the need for variable capacitors and electric motor servos in the RF
`match circuit, but also eliminates the entire RF match circuit itself,
`
`
`2 Petitioner states that its argument “refers to only Lieberman in combination
`with Hanawa,” but that “the same argument applies to Lieberman in view of
`Dible, and further in view of Hanawa.” Pet. 49 fn. 5. We address the
`challenges as presented in the Petition.
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`exploiting the coil antenna 24 to obtain the needed resistance for an RF
`match between the chamber 10 and the RF source 26.” Id. at 4:20–25.
`Hanawa Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of an RF plasma reactor system including
`Hanawa’s control circuit. Id. at 2:13–14. Inductively coupled RF plasma
`reactor 10 includes chamber 12 bounded by side wall 14 and ceiling 16. Id.
`at 2:37–40. Wafer pedestal 18 supports semiconductor wafer 20 on isolated
`conductive top 22. Id. at 2:43–44. RF power is coupled to the plasma in
`chamber 12 by coiled antenna 24 wound around the exterior of ceiling 16.
`Id. at 2:45–47. Coiled antenna 24 is connected to matched RF source 26 via
`cable 28. Id. at 2:47–48. Conductive top 22 is connected through RF match
`circuit 30 and cable 32 to RF generator 34 and amplifier 36. Id. at 2:48–51.
`In order to compensate for plasma impedance fluctuations after a
`plasma is ignited in chamber 12, RF source 26 employs conventional
`variable-frequency RF generator 52 having frequency control input 54 and
`power output 56 with amplifier 57 and computer 58. Id. at 3:24–31.
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`Computer 58 monitors the reflected power level measured by reflected
`power sensor 50 and applies a control signal to frequency control input 54 of
`RF generator 52. Id. at 3:31–34. Computer 58 is programmed to vary the
`frequency of RF generator 52 so as to continuously minimize the amount of
`reflected power measured by reflected power sensor 50. Id. at 3:43–47.
`2.
`Analysis
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “the wave
`adjustment circuit selectively adjusts a frequency of an rf power supply.”
`Claim 3 also depends from claim 1 and additionally requires that “the high
`frequency field is adjusted using a variable frequency power supply.”
`Petitioner relies on Hanawa to meet these additional limitations of claims 2
`and 3. Pet. 49–55. With respect to claim 2, Petitioner contends that
`“Hanawa discloses a control circuit that enables adjusting the variable
`frequency RF power source to match the impedance,” wherein computer 58
`continuously monitors the RF power reflected from or transmitted to the
`plasma using sensor 50 and generates frequency control input 54 to vary the
`frequency of RF power supply 52. Id. at 50. Petitioner further contends,
`with respect to claim 3, that “Hanawa discloses a variable frequency power
`supply that enables adjusting the frequency of the power supply, which in
`turn adjusts the high frequency field emanating from the inductive coupling
`structure coupled to the power supply.” Id. at 51.
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art “to adapt Lieberman to include a variable frequency
`power supply and a control circuit and sensor as part of the wave adjustment
`circuit for adjusting the frequency of the power supply as taught by
`Hanawa” in order “to improve coupling of RF power into the plasma by
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`minimizing reflected power or maximizing transmitted power.” Pet. 51–52.
`Petitioner argues that “Hanawa and Lieberman address the same technical
`problem, namely, impedance matching in the context of applying power to
`plasma to effect plasma etching.” Id. at 52. Petitioner further argues that
`“[a]dapting Lieberman to include Hanawa’s control circuit and sensor and/or
`variable frequency power supply would have been understood to provide
`well-known benefits that would have motivated” a person having ordinary
`skill in the art to do so, such as “eliminat[ing] the use of variable capacitors
`and electric servos” by providing “a control circuit that changes the
`frequency of a variable RF power supply to precisely match the impedance,”
`and “minimiz[ing] process time while maintaining yield.” Id. at 52–54.
`With respect to claim 2, Patent Owner responds that Hanawa
`does not show or suggest Flamm’s invention of the wave
`adjustment circuit selectively adjusts a frequency of an rf power
`supply in combination with using the wave adjustment circuit to
`adjust the inductive coupling structure and adjusting the phase
`portion and the antiphase portion of the capacitively coupled
`currents of the gaseous discharge. No such concept is shown,
`explicitly or implicitly, or suggested by Hanawa. No concept of
`to selectively adjust is shown or suggested as well.
`Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner makes a nearly identical argument with
`respect to claim 3. See id. at 17. Patent Owner, however, fails to provide
`any explanation or evidence to support these arguments. We do not find
`Patent Owner’s unsupported, conclusory arguments regarding Hanawa’s
`disclosures to be persuasive.
`Accordingly, based on the current record, we are persuaded that
`Petitioner’s discussion of the particular operations and structures in
`Lieberman, Dible, and Hanawa, and the explanations provided in the
`Petition and the Graves Declaration, are sufficient to establish a reasonable
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that claims 2 and 3
`would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Lieberman and
`Hanawa, or Lieberman, Dible, and Hanawa.
`E.
`Obviousness over Lieberman and Collins, or
`Lieberman, Dible, and Collins
`Petitioner contends that claim 4 would have been obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Lieberman and Collins, or
`Lieberman, Dible, and Collins.3 Pet. 55–58. Petitioner relies on the Graves
`Declaration in support of its contentions. Id.
`1.
`Overview of Collins
`Collins is directed to the connection of a first electrical circuit (the
`source) to a second electrical circuit (the load) using a matching network in
`order to provide maximum power transfer between the source and the load.
`Ex. 1008, 1:6–10. Collins teaches a matching network that matches an
`output impedance of a source with an input impedance of a load, wherein the
`matching network includes a plurality of transmission line stubs. Id. at
`2:40–44. Collins states that “[e]ach transmission line stub includes a first
`transmission line conductor, a second transmission line conductor running
`parallel to but not in electrical contact with the first transmission line
`conductor, and ferrite dielectric material between the first transmission line
`conductor and the second transmission line conductor.” Id. at 2:45–50.
`
`
`3 Petitioner states that its argument “only refer to Lieberman in combination
`with Collins,” but that “the same argument applies to Lieberman in view of
`Dible, and further in view of Collins.” Pet. 56 fn. 6. We address the
`challenges as presented in the Petition.
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`
`Collins Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 “shows an electronically tuned VHF/UHF matching network in
`accordance with the preferred embodiment” described in Collins. Id. at
`3:23–25. Source 21 is connected to load 22 through an electronically tuned
`VHF/UHF matching network consisting of transmission line stubs 45 and
`46. Id. at 3:44–49. Transmission line stub 45 consists of transmission line
`conductor 30 separated by a ferrite dielectric material. Id. at 3:59–62. A
`magnetic field is applied to transmission line stub 45 by a current generated
`by DC power supply 44 through wire 41, which is wrapped around
`transmission line stub 45. Id. at 3:62–65. Collins teaches that “[v]arying the
`current through wire 41, and thus the magnetic field applied to transmission
`line stub 45, varies the relative permeability of transmission line stub 45.”
`Id. at 3:65–68. Collins also describes an embodiment where “a matching
`network of the type shown in FIG. 1” is “applied to a system which is used
`in a plasma process inside a plasma chamber.” Id. at 4:35–37.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`
`Analysis
`2.
`Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further requires that “the wave
`adjustment circuit comprises a transmission line.” Petitioner contends that
`Collins teaches this limitation when it describes a matching network that
`comprises a plurality of transmission lines, which matches the output
`impedance of a source with the input impedance of a load. Pet. 56.
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have
`understood from this disclosure that a transmission line represents a type of
`wave adjustment circuit, and that Collins teaches the use of transmission
`lines to adjust the phase of power between an RF source and a load, such as
`plasma.” Id. at 56–57.
`Petitioner further contends that a person having ordinary skill in the
`art would understand from Collins’s description of “electronic tuning using
`‘a transmission line stub 45 and a transmission line stub 46, arranged in the
`shown topology [of Figure 1]’” that Collins teaches “the wave adjustment
`circuit comprises a transmission line” element of claim 4. Pet. 57.
`According to Petitioner, a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`have had reasons to use, and would have been motivated to use, Collins’[s]
`transmission line stub topology with the plasma generating apparatuses of
`Lieberman” because “[l]ike Lieberman and Dible, Collins is directed to the
`problem of coupling RF power to a load, such as plasma” and “Lieberman
`and Dible, as well as Collins, teach the use of matching networks.” Id. at
`57–58.
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating
`that claim 4 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`Lieberman and Collins, or Lieberman, Dible, and Collins. As Petitioner
`points out, the ’221 patent recognizes that a transmission line can be
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
