`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DONNA M. PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Ex.1005 p.1
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Lam Research Corp. (“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition (“Pet.”)
`to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,071,221
`(“the ’221 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 4. 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, Preliminary Response, and the
`evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of claims 1, 4,
`and 5–7 of the ’221 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review
`of those claims.
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Petitioner states that “[t]he ’221 patent is presently at issue in the
`declaratory judgment action Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case
`5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.).” Pet. 3. Patent Owner also identifies a
`civil action, titled Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Case No. 1:15-cv-00613-LY (W.D. Tex.), as a related proceeding.
`Paper 6, 1.
`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
`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
`
`Ex.1005 p.2
`
`
`
`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
`balanced.” 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.
`Figure 2A of the ’221 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Ex.1005 p.3
`
`
`
`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
`reducing this voltage difference,” which is achieved by way of wave
`adjustment circuits 57 and 59. Id. at 10:31–37.
`Illustrative Claim
`C.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–7 of the ’221 patent. Claim 1 is the
`only independent claim, and reads as follows:
`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
`
`Ex.1005 p.4
`
`
`
`adjusting the phase portion and the anti-phase portion of
`the capacitively coupled currents.
`Ex. 1001, 22:58–23:2.
`The Prior Art
`D.
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references:
`Exhibit No.
`Reference
`Description
`Date
`1004
`Knapp
`US 4,877,999
`Oct. 3, 1989
`Collins
`US 5,065,118
`Nov. 12, 1991 1005
`Dible
`US 5,573,595
`Nov. 12, 1996 1003
`Review of Inductively
`Hopwood
`Apr. 1, 1992
`1006
`Coupled Plasmas for
`Plasma Processing, Plasma
`Sources Sci. Technol. 1
`(1992) 109–116
`Lieberman93 Design of High-Density
`Plasma Sources for
`Materials Processing,
`University of California,
`Berkeley Technical Report
`No. UCB/ERL M93/3
`Lieberman94 Design of High-Density
`Plasma Sources for
`Materials Processing,
`Plasma Sources for Thin
`Film Deposition and
`Etching (Physics of Thin
`Films Vol. 18)
`
`Aug. 18, 1994 1012
`
`Jan. 11, 1993
`
`1002
`
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–7 of the ’221 patent
`on the following grounds:
`
`Ex.1005 p.5
`
`
`
`References
`
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94, and
`Dible
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94, and
`Knapp, or Dible and Knapp
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94, and
`Collins, or Dible and Collins
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94, and
`Hopwood, or Dible and Hopwood
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1, 5–7
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 5–7
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`2–3
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`4
`
`7
`
`
`
`Although Petitioner lists these challenges as five challenges, there are
`a significantly larger number of individual challenges. For example, the
`challenge to claims 2 and 3 as obvious over Lieberman93 or Lieberman94,
`and Knapp, or Dible and Knapp, deconstructs to at least four challenges, i.e.,
`the combination of Lieberman93 and Knapp; the combination of
`Lieberman94 and Knapp; the combination of Lieberman93, Dible, and
`Knapp; and the combination of Lieberman94, Dible, and Knapp. Thus,
`when properly tallied, Petitioner asserts sixteen challenges to the
`patentability of the claims. The Petition does not address these sixteen
`challenges individually. We address the challenges as presented in the
`Petition.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`[the claims] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In the case of an expired
`
`Ex.1005 p.6
`
`
`
`patent, however, the Board’s interpretation of the claims is similar to that of
`a District Court. See In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`In such a case, we are guided by the principle that the words of a claim “are
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`(internal citation omitted).
`Though it appears that the ’221 patent expired on December 4, 2015,
`we need not decide which claim construction standard applies. For purposes
`of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that none of
`the claim terms requires an explicit construction.
`B.
`Anticipation by Lieberman93 or Lieberman94
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1 and 5–7 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lieberman93 or
`Lieberman94 (collectively, “Lieberman”).1 Pet. 21–32. Petitioner provides
`claim charts, and relies on the Declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi (“Cecchi
`Declaration,” Ex. 1007) in support of its contentions. Id.
`Overview of Lieberman
`1.
`Lieberman is directed to “recent advances in plasma source
`technology for materials processing applications.” Ex. 1002, Abs.
`According to Lieberman, “[t]he advent of sub-micron electronic device
`
`1 Petitioner represents that “Lieberman93 and Lieberman94 are essentially
`identical in content, with only minor variations that do not impact the
`invalidity analysis.” Pet. 5, n. 3. In the Petition, “[w]here referred to
`generally and not distinguished as Lieberman93 or Lieberman94,” Petitioner
`referred to the references “collectively and/or interchangeably as
`‘Lieberman.’” Id. We do the same in this Decision.
`
`Ex.1005 p.7
`
`
`
`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.” Ex. 1002, 1 (internal citations omitted); Ex.
`1012, 2 (internal citations omitted).
`Lieberman describes two inductive source configurations, one using a
`cylindrical coil, the other a planar coil, for a low profile source. Ex. 1002,
`23; Ex. 1012, 52. “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 13.56 MHz, 50 ohm rf supply through a [ ] 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.” Ex. 1002,
`23; Ex. 1012, 52–53. Lieberman explains that “[t]his reduces the undesired
`capacitively coupled rf current flowing from coil to plasma by a factor of
`two.” Ex. 1002, 23; Ex. 1012, 53.
`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.” Ex. 1002, 23; Ex. 1012, 53–54.
`Discussion
`2.
`Petitioner contends that Lieberman discloses all of the elements of
`independent claim 1, and provides arguments setting forth where each of the
`
`Ex.1005 p.8
`
`
`
`limitations may be found. Pet. 21–29. For example, Petitioner contends that
`Lieberman’s disclosure that the inductive 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”
`and “reduces the undesired capacitively coupled rf current flowing from coil
`to plasma by a factor of two” meets the “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” limitations of claim 1. Id. at 24–27. We are persuaded,
`on this record, that Petitioner’s discussion of the particular operations and
`structures in Lieberman, and the explanations in the Petition, are sufficient to
`establish a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated
`by Lieberman. 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. Id. at 26–27.
`We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments, and do not find them
`to be persuasive on this record. For example, Patent Owner argues that
`Lieberman does not disclose “a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of
`capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure are
`selectively balanced” limitation of claim 1 because “the balancing of the
`phase and anti-phase—as taught in the ’221 patent—results in not simply a
`
`Ex.1005 p.9
`
`
`
`reduction by a factor of two, but substantially eliminates capacitively
`coupled power.” Prelim. Resp. 5. The statement in the ’221 patent that
`Patent Owner contends teaches substantially eliminating capacitively
`coupled power refers to specifically-described embodiments. See Ex. 1001,
`9:2–6 (“But in all of these above embodiments, the phase and anti-phase
`potentials substantially cancel each other, thereby providing substantially no
`capacitively coupled power from the plasma source to the chamber
`bodies.”). Patent Owner does not explain why claim 1’s recitation that the
`phase and anti-phase portions are selectively balanced requires that the
`capacitively coupled power be substantially eliminated.
`Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and further requires “said process is
`provided in a chamber.” Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and additionally
`requires “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 the present record that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail as to those claims as well.
`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. 33–47. Petitioner relies on the Cecchi Declaration in support of its
`contentions. Id.
`
`Ex.1005 p.10
`
`
`
`Overview of Dible
`1.
`Dible is directed to methods and apparatus for inducing plasma in low
`pressure plasma systems that are typically used in semiconductor
`fabrication. Ex. 1003, 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
`
`Ex.1005 p.11
`
`
`
`“becomes a combination inductive and capacitive coupling device.” Id. at
`2:52–55.
`Discussion
`2.
`Petitioner contends that “Lieberman itself teaches all of the limitations
`of independent claim 1,” and further contends that Dible “teaches adjustment
`of phase and anti-phase portions of the capacitively coupled currents via a
`control circuit.” Pet. 33. Petitioner contends that it would have been
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Dible’s
`control circuit into Lieberman’s inductively-coupled plasma generation
`system “for the purpose of allowing controlled adjustment of the phase
`difference and, thus, of the undesirable capacitive coupling of the coil to the
`plasma.” Id. at 47. According to Petitioner, “[t]he strong similarity between
`the systems of Lieberman and Dible 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, who would have had a reasonable
`expectation of success in doing so. Id. at 46.
`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
`coupling device when the first phase and second phase are opposite in
`phase.” Ex. 1003, 2:48–50. We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s
`argument that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to incorporate Dible’s controlled adjustment of phase difference
`in Lieberman’s plasma generator “for the purpose and benefit of providing
`
`Ex.1005 p.12
`
`
`
`active control over the phase and anti-phase portions of capacitive currents.”
`Pet. 33.
`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. 11. 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, with the
`exception of employing a phase adjustment circuit, are totally alien to the
`problems set forth in the ’221 patent.” Id. at 12. 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. 37–38, 41–42. 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
`to those claims as well.
`
`Ex.1005 p.13
`
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Lieberman and Knapp, or
`Lieberman, Dible, and Knapp
`Petitioner contends that claims 2 and 3 would have been obvious
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lieberman and Knapp, or
`the combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Knapp. Pet. 47–52. Petitioner
`relies on the Cecchi Declaration in support of its contentions. Id.
`1.
`Overview of Knapp
`Knapp is directed to a method and apparatus for producing noble-gas
`plasma for excitation in optical emission spectroscopy, where the excitation
`means employed is a high-frequency generator. Ex. 1004, 1:10–14. Knapp
`teaches that plasma is formed and located between two mutually opposite
`capacitor plates, and “the energy required for firing and maintaining of the
`plasma is coupled into the gas” through the capacitor plates, which, with an
`inductor, form “an oscillating circuit” that is “fed with an hf potential at a
`frequency corresponding to the resonant frequency of the oscillating circuit.”
`Id. at 1:63–2:2.
`Knapp describes an embodiment where “the hf generator includes an
`internal regulating circuit designed” so that “the generator output frequency
`is automatically set” to the “value at which maximum power is accepted by
`the oscillation circuit.” Id. at 4:8–13. Knapp teaches that, in this
`embodiment, instead of the oscillation circuit being tuned, “the generator
`output frequency is tuned (within a predetermined range) to the arbitrary
`resonant frequency of the oscillation circuit.” Id. at 4:13–16.
`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
`
`Ex.1005 p.14
`
`
`
`frequency field is adjusted using a variable frequency power supply.”
`Petitioner relies on Knapp to meet these additional limitations of claims 2
`and 3. Pet. 47–51.
`A showing of obviousness must be supported by an articulated
`reasoning with rational underpinning to support a motivation to combine the
`prior art teachings. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
`(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
`instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). An
`analysis regarding an apparent reason to combine known elements “should
`be made explicit.” Id.
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`“would have reasons to use the Knapp’s adjustable frequency power supply
`within the plasma generating apparatuses of Lieberman or, alternatively, of
`Lieberman in view of Dible” because “Knapp also is directed to a system for
`‘producing a high-frequency . . . plasma’” and “teaches the obvious
`alternative of using frequency tuning, as opposed to mechanical tuning, for
`the matching network to achieve the desired phase and anti-phase
`configuration.” Pet. 51. Petitioner further contends that a person having
`ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that the tuning method based on
`automatically adjusting the frequency of the generator was a workable
`alternative to the mechanical tuning taught by Lieberman and Dible, and
`simpler than insuring that the current and the voltage of the Dible generators
`had sufficient headroom, something that may not be known a priori.” Id. at
`52.
`
`Ex.1005 p.15
`
`
`
`These statements do not constitute an articulated reasoning with
`rational underpinnings as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
`combine some elements of Lieberman alone, or the combination of
`Lieberman and Dible, with some elements of Knapp, and why one of
`ordinary skill in the would modify the teachings of Lieberman and Dible in
`view of Knapp’s teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Petitioner
`contends that Knapp teaches that frequency tuning is an “obvious
`alternative” to mechanical tuning, but does not provide sufficient
`explanation as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`consider that to be so. Similarly, although Petitioner states that
`automatically adjusting the frequency is a “workable alternative” and
`“simpler” than the mechanical tuning taught by Lieberman and Dible,
`Petitioner fails to provide an adequate explanation why a person having
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Knapp’s tuning method is
`simpler, or that there would be a reasonable expectation of success in
`substituting frequency tuning, as described in Knapp, for the mechanical
`tuning described by Lieberman and Dible.
`Instead, Petitioner appears to contend that each element of claims 2
`and 3 of the ’221 patent was known in the prior art. That is insufficient to
`establish that claims 2 and 3 would have been obvious under a theory of
`obviousness based on the combination of Lieberman and Knapp, or the
`combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Knapp. See Cheese Sys. Inc. v. Tetra
`Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`(“Obviousness cannot be based on the hindsight combination of components
`selectively culled from the prior art to fit the parameters of the patented
`invention.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As explained in KSR, “a
`
`Ex.1005 p.16
`
`
`
`patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
`prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Consequently, we are not persuaded that
`the Petition establishes sufficiently why a person having ordinary skill in the
`art would attempt to improve Lieberman alone, or the combination of
`Lieberman and Dible, by looking to Knapp.
`For these reasons, Petitioner has not established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail on the ground that claims 2 and 3 would
`have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
`Lieberman and Knapp, or the combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Knapp.
`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 combination of Lieberman and Collins, or the
`combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Collins. Pet. 53–56. Petitioner relies
`on the Cecchi 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. 1005, 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
`
`Ex.1005 p.17
`
`
`
`conductor, and ferrite dielectric material between the first transmission line
`conductor and the second transmission line conductor.” Id. at 2:45–50.
`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.
`
`Ex.1005 p.18
`
`
`
`Analysis
`2.
`Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein 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. 53.
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`understand 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.
`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. 53–54.
`According to Petitioner, a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`have reasons to use Collins’[s] transmission line stub topology with the
`plasma generating apparatuses of Lieberman and Dible” 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 teach the use of
`matching networks.” Id. at 55.
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the combination of
`Lieberman and Collins, and the combination of Lieberman, Dible, and
`Collins, teaches or suggests all of the limitations required by claim 4. As
`Petitioner points out, the ’221 patent recognizes that a transmission line can
`
`Ex.1005 p.19
`
`
`
`be a wave adjustment circuit. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:30–32 (“A wave
`adjustment circuit (e.g., RLC circuit, coil, transmission line, etc.) is operably
`coupled to the plasma applicator.”)). Patent Owner does not offer any
`arguments specific to claim 4. See Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (“At least because
`[Petitioner] has failed to demonstrate that independent claim 1 is anticipated
`by Lieberman or rendered obvious by Lieberman in view of Dible, none of
`the claims that depend from claim 1 are anticipated or obvious despite
`[Petitioner’s] introduction of additional prior art references purported to
`relate to those dependent claims.”).
`Consequently, we are persuaded on the present record that Petitioner
`has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`demonstrating that claim 4 would have been obvious over the combination
`of Lieberman and Collins, or the combination of Lieberman, Dible, and
`Collins.
`F.
`Obviousness over Lieberman and Hopwood, or
`Lieberman, Dible, and Hopwood
`Petitioner contends that claim 7 would have been obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lieberman and Hopwood, or the
`combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Hopwood. Pet. 56–59. Petitioner
`relies on the Cecchi Declaration in support of its contentions. Id.
`1.
`Overview of Hopwood
`Hopwood provides a review of inductively coupled plasma (“ICP”)
`geometries. Ex. 1006, Abs. Hopwood states that “the trend toward high-
`rate, single-wafer processing in integrated circuit (IC) fabrication has
`motivated the development of low-pressure (<1 Torr) ICPs for plasma-aided
`materials processing applications.” Id. at 109.
`
`Ex.1005 p.20
`
`
`
`Hopwood describes a helical resonator plasma source that “consists of
`a cylindrical discharge tube within a helical coil,” wherein the coil “is
`designed with an electrical length of (λ/4 + nλ/2) or (λ/2 + nλ/2), where n =
`0, 1, 2, . . . and λ is the wavelength of the excitation frequency.” Id. at 110.
`Hopwood teaches that “the coil is within a conducting enclosure which
`provides a parasitic capacitance from the coil to ground,” and “a trimming
`capacitor is usually connected between the coil and ground to