By: Christopher Frerking (chris@ntknet.com)
`
`Reg. No. 42,557
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-0391
`U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`Claims 1-29
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Reg. No. 42,557
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-0391
`U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`Claims 1-29
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2017-00391
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ ii
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Overview of the‘221Patent .................................................................... 2
`
`III. Lieberman and Qian Were Concerned with Fundamentally Different
`Problems and Solutions from Claim 1 .................................................. 3
`
`IV. Claim Element [1.2] .............................................................................. 9
`
`V. Claim Element [1.3] .............................................................................. 13
`
`VI. Lieberman Does Not Teach the Use of a Balun .................................... 13
`
`VII. Lieberman’s Transformer Would Not Work in the Claim 1 Invention 16
`
`VIII. The Decision’s Analysis ........................................................................ 17
`
`A. Lieberman ......................................................................................... 17
`
`B. Qain .................................................................................................. 19
`
`C. Dible ................................................................................................. 20
`
`D. Hanawa ............................................................................................. 22
`
`IX. Additional Decision Analysis ................................................................ 25
`
`X. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Cases Page(s)
`
`
`CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333 .......................................... 12
`
`In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981(C.C.P.A. 1974) ...................................................... 12
`
`In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1970) .................................................. 12
`
`
`Statutes Page(s)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................................... 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 .............................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. 103(a) ............................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`
`Ex. 2001
`Ex. 2002
`Ex. 2003
`Ex. 2004
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Declaration of Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D.
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,824,606
`Second Declaration of Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D.
`7th edition of the Graf reference (1999), pp. 603
`Sevick’s Transmission Line Transformers: Theory and Practice,
`5th Edition, 2014, pp. 1-5
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`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
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 and asks that the Patent Trial and Appeals
`
`Board confirm the patentability of claims 1-7.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The instant petition is directed toward independent claim 1 and all of
`
`the claims that depend from those claims. Petitioners rely primarily on three
`
`references, Lieberman, Dible, and Qian, in their attempt to invalidate the ‘221
`
`patent. As will be demonstrated, those references, alone or in combination,
`
`fail to provide a basis for invalidating any of the claims of the ‘221 patent.
`
`II. Overview of the ‘221Patent
`
`
`
`The problems that Dr. Flamm was addressing in making the invention
`
`of the ‘221 patent were reduction, elimination, and/or control of ion
`
`bombardment or ion flux to semiconductor device surfaces being processed in
`
`inductively coupled plasmas, while maintaining desired etching selectivity.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 2:7-16.)
`
`“Conventional ion assisted plasma etching, however, often
`requires control and maintenance of ion flux intensity and
`uniformity within selected process limits and within selected
`process energy ranges. Control and maintenance of ion flux
`intensity and uniformity are often difficult to achieve using
`conventional techniques. For instance, capacitive coupling
`between high voltage selections of the coil and the plasma
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`
`discharge often cause high and uncontrollable plasma
`potentials relative to ground.”
`
`(Id. at 2:614-3:2.)
`
`The specification discusses at length the “conventional techniques,”
`
`including “shields, baffles, large separation distances between the plasma
`
`source and the chamber.” (Id. at 2:17-19; see also generally id. at 1:44-4:57.)
`
`The specification also discusses the many drawbacks of these conventional
`
`techniques. (Id. at 1:44-4:57.)
`
`Most particularly, Dr. Flamm’s solution, as reflected in claim 1 of the
`
`patent, was to balance the phase and anti-phase portions of capacitive currents
`
`coupled from the inductive coupling structure using a wave adjustment circuit.
`
`Instead of suppressing the charged species, as conventional techniques had
`
`done via blockage or distance, Dr. Flamm went to the source of the ion flux
`
`problem and reduced or eliminated the undesired capacitive ion current flux
`
`by selectively balancing a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of
`
`capacitive currents coupled form the inductive coupling structure using a
`
`wave adjustment circuit.
`
`A definition of a wave adjustment circuit is expressly provided at Col.
`
`7, lines 32-34 of the ‘221 patent (Ex. 1001) by its function:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`
`“The wave adjustment circuit can selectively adjust phase
`and anti-phase potentials of the plasma from an rf power
`supply.”
`
`Further elaboration of this definition can be found at Col. 12, lines 57-
`
`“The wave adjustment circuits are used to select a wave
`length portion to be applied in the plasma applicator.”
`
`
`
`58:
`
`
`
`III. Lieberman and Qian Were Concerned with Fundamentally Different
`
`Problems and Solutions from Claim 1
`
`Petitioners inflates the significance of three in a brief four sentence
`
`paragraphs in Lieberman that amounts to suggesting use of a radiofrequency
`
`isolation transformer to apply voltage to a coil used to induce inductive
`
`current in a plasma source (Ex. 2003 ¶ 81). This teaches nothing about the
`
`‘221’s inductive coupling structure being adjusted using a wave adjustment
`
`circuit (Id.). One of those sentences uses the term “capacitively coupled rf
`
`current” [“flowing from the coil to plasma”] and goes on to state that the
`
`[isolation transformer] (Lieberman refers to it as a “balanced transformer”)
`
`reduces the “capacitively coupled rf current” by a factor of two (Id., Ex. 1006,
`
`56). Lieberman’s article as a whole makes it very clear that the “balanced
`
`transformer” means an isolation transformer that isolates the output side from
`
`ground -- on page 452 (Ex. 1006) in the second paragraph he teaches
`
`powering a helicon antenna “driven through a balanced transformer so that the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`coil is isolated from ground.” (Ex. 2003, ¶ 92) As a matter of fact, the main
`
`teaching of the Qian reference (Ex. 1009) is to use an isolation transformer,
`
`the same type of transformer identified in Lieberman (Id.). Qian teaches the
`
`transformer is to isolate a “coil antenna” from the RF power source” (Id.).
`
`Qian further teaches the result of the isolation is that “the potential of the coil
`
`antenna is floating” to reduce capacitive coupling from the antenna to the
`
`plasma (Id., Ex. 1009 Abstract).
`
`None of this has anything do with any balancing, adjusting or wave
`
`adjustment circuits (Id.). Qian correctly teaches an isolation transformer can
`
`eliminate any DC potential between the generator and the inductive coil
`
`antenna so that the electric potential of the coil antenna is floating with respect
`
`to the wafer pedestal (aka “chuck”) (Id.). Qian’s focus on the chuck relates to
`
`another critical distinction between the subject matter of the ‘221 patent and
`
`the subject matter of Qian, and Lieberman (Id.).
`
`The capacitive currents referenced in Lieberman are not the same thing
`
`as the capacitive currents referenced in the ‘221 patent (Id. ¶ 113). The
`
`“capacitive current” Lieberman refers to is only the magnitude of that portion
`
`of capacitive current which flows from the coil to the plasma and returns to
`
`the coil (Id.). In Lieberman, this is the entire capacitive current emanating (or
`
`returning) to the coil, because Lieberman’s coil has been isolated. This is not
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`the subject of Claim 1, and Lieberman does not teach a phase and anti- phase
`
`portion of capacitive currents in the manner claimed (Id.).
`
`What Lieberman expressly teaches is that driving the coil using an
`
`isolation transformer (which Lieberman calls “balanced”) “reduces the
`
`maximum coil to plasma voltage by a factor of two [which] … reduces the
`
`undesired capacitively coupled rf current flowing from the coil to plasma by a
`
`factor of two” (Id., Ex. 1006, p. 56). The Lieberman capacitive current that is
`
`mentioned in one of the three sentences is said to be a quantity proportional to
`
`the voltage difference across the coil (Id.). More specifically, Lieberman
`
`apparently teaches that the midpoint of the coil is a ground potential
`
`(“…places a virtual ground in the middle of the coil”) so accordingly,
`
`Lieberman contends that the coil to plasma voltage is supposed to be half of
`
`the total voltage applied across the coil by the transformer (Id.). Respondent
`
`disagrees with the apparent contention that the center of a coil connected in
`
`this manner is necessarily at ground potential (Id.). Although the subject is
`
`further discussed below, Respondent contends that a scientific analysis of this
`
`question has little or no bearing on obviousness of the ‘221 claims under 35
`
`USC 103 (Id.).
`
`In this regard, the main point is that claim 1 concerns selectively
`
`balancing the vector sum of phase and anti-phase currents flowing from the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`coil as a whole to the plasma— to obtain a selected difference current, if any,
`
`flowing through the plasma to grounded chamber bodies, the wafer chuck, etc.
`
`(Ex. 2003, Id. ¶ 124). The magnitude of current flowing from and returning to
`
`an isolated coil from the plasma and the vector sum of differently phased
`
`currents flowing to chamber bodies are quite different things (Id.). The
`
`magnitude current taught by Lieberman is not susceptible to selective
`
`balancing (Id.). And the voltage of an isolated coil relative to ground is
`
`uncontrolled, as explained by Qian (“the electrical potential of the coil
`
`antenna 50 is floating with respect to the wafer pedestal 20” (Ex. 1009, 2:32-
`
`34), e.g. it has no value without making a connection (in which case it would
`
`no longer be isolated or floating) (Ex. 2003, ¶ 124). Lieberman merely
`
`suggests 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) (Id.).
`
`However, the meaning of “lowering” is never defined (lowering relative to
`
`what?). One can only guess that Lieberman may be thinking of comparison to
`
`a coil that is grounded at one end, rather than being isolated, and having an
`
`equal magnitude of voltage applied to it (Id.). But this would be a misguided
`
`comparison, and in any case it is not the teaching of the ‘221 patent (Id.). The
`
`comparison is misguided because grounding the applicator coil allows current
`
`flow to chamber bodies including the chuck, which engages completely
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`different equivalent circuits and current flows (Id.). The voltage along a
`
`grounded coil is susceptible to wave adjustment using a wave adjustment
`
`circuit (Id.). A wave adjustment circuit can adjust the voltage distribution on
`
`the coil to steer all of the capacitive current from the coil into the plasma and
`
`never return from the plasma to the coil (e.g. there can be only “phase” current
`
`into the plasma) as shown for example in Fig. 7 of the ‘221, or it can adjust
`
`the voltage distribution to make all current emanating from the coil to the
`
`plasma return to the coil (e.g. equal phase and antiphase) as illustrated in Fig.
`
`5B and others), or to have any selected amount flow from the coil to grounded
`
`chamber bodies as illustrated by distributions shown in Fig. 25E of the ‘221
`
`and explained at Col. 12, line 55 to Col. 13 line 55 (Id.).
`
`The gist of this is that the ‘221 patent concerns completely different
`
`concepts from the isolation transformer disclosed by Qian, and mentioned in
`
`Lieberman (Id ¶ 510). The ‘221 teaches using a wave adjustment circuit to
`
`selectively adjust an inductive coupling structure such that the total sum of
`
`differently 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. (Id. ¶ 13).
`
`Lieberman merely teaches a static structure he believes to decrease the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`magnitude of plasma to coil voltage (although it is not entirely clear what
`
`configuration the decrease is in reference to), and teaches nothing about the
`
`subject of claim 1, “a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of capacitive
`
`currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure are selectively
`
`balanced” (Id.).
`
`Petitioners’ contention (e.g., Pet. 32-33) that Lieberman’s coil is
`
`“effectively grounded” at the midpoint is fiction (Ex. 2003, ¶ 146).
`
`1.) The coil is floating, there is NO ground, period. The currents and
`
`voltage distribution will not be symmetric, and certainly never on the spiral
`
`coil (Id.).
`
`2) For the isolated coil, symmetry has nothing to do with the principle
`
`of operation- the principle of operation is isolation, so current out equals
`
`current in. This is not flexible or determined by any wave adjustment or wave
`
`distribution or anything of the sort. The coil floats, period (Id.).
`
`3) The current we care about, net current into the plasma (which is the
`
`concern of Qian as well), is NOT reduced by a factor of 2. As a matter of fact,
`
`Qian found experimentally that his isolation transformer reduced capacitive
`
`current to the chuck in an embodiment by a factor of 2.5 (Id., Ex. 1009, 3:46-
`
`47). This is explained by isolation, not by any wave adjustment circuit
`
`changing any voltage distribution along the coil (Ex. 2003, ¶ 146). In fact, the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`voltage distribution on Qian’s spiral coil is unknown and considered to be of
`
`no consequence (the coil is floating) (Id.).
`
`4. What does it mean to talk about a midpoint on Lieberman’s spiral
`
`coil (Id.). Is it midway radially from the center to the circumference? or is it
`
`midway along the spiral from inside to outside (Id.) Either way, the voltage
`
`distribution is unlikely to be symmetric and would be of no consequence
`
`anyway, the cause of all of the capacitive current isolation, not a voltage
`
`distribution (Id.).
`
`IV. Claim Element [1.2]
`
`
`
`The claim element denominated by Petitioners as [1.2] reads:
`
`“in which a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of
`capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling
`structure are selectively balanced”
`
`(Pet. at 30)
`
`
`
`Lieberman says nothing about selectively balancing the phase and anti-
`
`phase portion of capacitive currents. (Ex. 2001 ¶ at p. 16) Lieberman does not
`
`teach balancing any currents, whether there are capacitively coupled and/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). Lieberman’s conventional transformer has nothing operable to
`
`selectively balance any capacitive currents, nor anything operable to adjust
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`any phase and anti-phase portions of capacitive currents (Id.). The only
`
`functional aspect of the transformer is isolation, as explained by Qian.
`
`Nevertheless, Petitioners’ expert asserts (Ex. 1003 ¶ 64):
`
`
`
`
`“Just like the 221 Patent, the push-pull transformer balances
`the phase and anti-phase portions of applied voltages and
`corresponding capacitive currents.”
`
`(Ex. 2003 ¶ 7)
`
`This is nonsense and no more than a play on words (Id.). Lieberman
`
`expressly references is driving a coil push-pull using a balanced transformer,
`
`not a “push-pull” transformer (Id. ¶ 15). As to a what a push-pull transformer
`
`is, Petitioners has omitted Graf’s definition from its Exhibit 1016, but in the
`
`7th 1999 edition (Ex. 2004, p.603), Graf has:
`
`push-pull transformer -An audio-frequency transformer that
`
`has a center-tapped winding and is used in a push-pull
`
`amplifier circuit
`
`(Ex. 2003, ¶ 157).
`
`Which apparently would be “inconvenient” for Petitioner’s arguments (Id.).
`
`As for the term “virtual ground”, it is not found in the Graf reference (Id.).
`
`(Ex. 2003, ¶ 715)
`
`
`
`Respondent respectfully submits that none of this definition about push-
`
`pull, balanced, or “virtual” grounds is of consequence anyway because, as a
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`matter of fact, the injection and return of the same magnitude of current to the
`
`coil is an inherent consequence of inserting the isolation transformer (Id. ¶
`
`168).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, none of the art relied on by Petitioners for claim 1,
`
`Lieberman, Dible and Qian, teaches the ‘221 claim 1 limitation “a phase
`
`portion and anti-phase portion of capacitive currents…are selectively
`
`balanced.” (Id. ¶ 179)
`
`
`
`The objects of these three references were different from the ‘221’s
`
`object of selectively balancing a phase and anti-phase portion of capacitive
`
`currents (Id. ¶ 18). The object of Lieberman’s configuration (which is
`
`mentioned, but never shown) was to reduce capacitive capacitively coupled
`
`current flowing from the coil to plasma: This reduces the undesired
`
`capacitively coupled rf current flowing from coil to plasma by a factor of two
`
`(Id.). 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.” (Id., Ex.1006, p. 56) Dible’s object was: “More
`
`specifically, the invention relates to methods and apparatus for variable
`
`control of the plasma generating element to achieve combinations of inductive
`
`and/or capacitive coupling.” (Ex. 2003, ¶ 9, Ex. 1007, 1:9-12) Qian’s object
`
`was: “It is therefore a principal object of the invention to reduce any stray
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`capacitive coupling from the coil antenna to the plasma.” (Ex. 2003 ¶ 9, Ex.
`
`1009, 1:40-42)
`
`
`
`Thus, not only do these prior art references fail to meet the claim
`
`limitation “a phase portion and anti-phase portion of capacitive currents…are
`
`selectively balanced,” but each of these references is focused on a different
`
`aspect of plasma processing than that of claim1 of the ‘221 patent (Ex. 2003, ¶
`
`19)
`
`
`
`To establish obviousness, each element of a claim must be shown in the
`
`prior art. See, e.g., CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a
`
`claim” (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (C.C.P.A. 1974))); see also In
`
`re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (“All words in a claim must
`
`be considered in judging Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`IPR2017-00280 patentability of that claim against the prior art.”); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is
`
`found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon . . . .”).
`
`
`
`Petitioners have failed to show that claim element 1.2 is shown
`
`anywhere in the prior art.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`
`V. Claim Element [1.3]
`
`
`
`The claim element denominated by Petitioners as [1.3] reads:
`
`“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”
`
` (Pet. at 44).
`
`
`
`At the outset, one should be wary about any assertion that the cited prior art
`
`teaches a “wave adjustment circuit “given, as we have just seen, that none of this art,
`
`in contradistinction with the ‘221 patent, was aimed at selectively balancing a phase
`
`and anti-phase portions of capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling
`
`structure (Ex. 2003, ¶ 210).
`
`
`
`The Panel, in addressing the “wave adjustment circuit” issue, focused on the
`
`conflicting expert opinions on whether or not Lieberman disclosed a balun, a
`
`balanced-unbalanced transformer, and concluded:
`
`“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.”
`
`
`(Decision at 10)
`
`VI. Lieberman Does Not Teach the Use of a Balun
`
`One embodiment of a “wave adjustment circuit” in the ‘221 specification is a
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`combination of open circuits and a broadband balanced-unbalanced toroidal
`
`transmission line transformer, typically shortened to “balun.” (Id., Ex. 1001 16:26-
`
`31) Petitioners contends that the transformer in Lieberman is a balun (Ex. 2003, ¶
`
`10). It is not (Id.).
`
`
`
`First, Lieberman clearly states that his transformer is a “balanced transformer,”
`
`not a balanced-unbalanced transformer (Id., Ex 1006 at p. 56). A balanced output
`
`transformer, by definition, including the definition in Petitioners’ Ex. 1016, means a
`
`transformer with a grounded center tap on its secondary winding (Ex. 2003 ¶ 2210).
`
`However, Lieberman’s secondary has no center tap and that winding is floating, i.e.,
`
`it is not grounded. (Id.) Second, since Lieberman’s transformer is an isolation
`
`transformer it cannot be a broadband balanced-unbalanced toroidal transmission line
`
`transformer, because a broadband balanced-unbalanced toroidal transmission line
`
`transformer has an electrical continuity between its input and output and it must be
`
`grounded to function. (Id., Ex. 2005 Fig. 1-4, p. 4)]
`
`
`
`Lieberman teaches a conventional magnetic flux coupled isolation transformer
`
`(Ex. 2003, Id. ¶ 2611). A magnetic transformer is not a balun transmission line
`
`transformer; it is an essentially different thing (Ex. 2001, ¶10Id.). A conventional
`
`magnetically coupled transformer, such as depicted by Lieberman, transmits input
`
`energy to the output circuit though magnetic flux linkage, and the conventional
`
`transformer is capable of DC isolation (Id.). A conventional transformer suffers
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`from large core 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.). Most significantly, the
`
`balun transmission line transformer, unlike the conventional magnetic transformer,
`
`is not capable of DC isolation because a balun requires a conductive correction to
`
`ground to be functional (Id.).
`
`Lieberman does not show a drawing of any transformer. (Id.) But what he
`
`states is a mistake (Id.). The coil cannot be driven push pull by an isolation
`
`transformer because doing so requires the transformer to have a grounded center tap
`
`on its secondary winding to effectuate balance to ground (Id.). By definition
`
`Lieberman’s configuration is NOT push-pull (anyway) (Id.).
`
`VII. Lieberman’s Transformer Would Not Work in the Claim 1 Invention
`
`
`
`Lieberman’s transformer provides no means to adjust or control anything (Id.
`
`¶ 812). The isolated secondary winding in the conventional magnetic flux coupled
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`isolation transformer suggested by Lieberman cannot control the coil potential
`
`because it is floating (Id.). Its voltage and voltage distribution at a time when it is
`
`inductively and capacitively coupled to a processing chamber is determined by the
`
`detailed coupling of elements of the coil to process-specific plasma structure, and
`
`the properties of that structure would depend on structural dimensions of the coil and
`
`plasma source chamber, feed gas composition, and process conditions such as feed
`
`gas composition, power, flow rate, and pressure, among others (Id.).
`
`
`
`Petitioners contend that “Lieberman’s balanced transformer results in ‘a
`
`virtual ground in the middle of the coil,’ and therefore corresponds to the claimed
`
`“wave adjustment circuit” that adjusts ‘the phase and anti-phase portion of
`
`capacitive currents.’” (Pet. at 37) Although Lieberman does not explain his use of
`
`the term “virtual ground” in this context, various internet sites suggest it refers to a
`
`circuit element not directly connected to ground, that is held at a reference voltage.
`
`(e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_ground
`
` https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8392/what-is-a-virtual-ground)
`
`(Ex.
`
`2003, ¶ 2312). Since Lieberman’s coils are connected to an isolation transformer,
`
`they have no voltage and no part of the coil comprises any reference voltage. (Id.).
`
`VIII. The Decision’s Analysis
`
`A. Lieberman
`
`The Decision at pages 8-10, relies on four contentions advanced by Petitioners
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`
`for Lieberman (Ex. 2003 ¶ 13). None stand up to scrutiny (Id.).
`
`Petitioners 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).”
`
`Decision at 8.
`
`
`Lieberman does not teach any balanced transformer, but teaches an isolation
`
`transformer (Ex. 2003, ¶ 913). The isolation transformer does not perform any
`
`balancing, but only performs isolation between a primary and a secondary
`
`winding (Id. at ¶24). Accordingly, Lieberman’s isolation transformer cannot
`
`perform as a wave adjustment circuit and cannot make a phase portion and an
`
`anti-phase portion selectively balanced, as claimed (Id.).
`
`Petitioners 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’ capacitively coupled current into
`the plasma while the anti-phase voltages ‘pull’ capacitively coupled
`current out of the plasma.”
`
`(Decision at 8-9)
`Lieberman does not have an inductive coil push pull but rather an isolation
`
`transformer with the same limitations as discussed (Ex. 2003 ¶ 2413).
`
`Accordingly, Lieberman would not have any phase and an anti-phase portion of
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`
`capacitive currents…are selectively balanced (Id.).
`
`According to Petitioners, “[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.”
`
`(Decision at 9)
`
`Lieberman does not have a wave adjustment circuit as discussed in 1 and 2, and does
`
`not show an inductively coupled push pull arrangement (Ex. 2003 ¶ 2613).
`
`Lieberman does not have a toroidal balum, but taught a magnetic flux coupled
`
`isolation transformer (Id.). The isolation transformer would not have its midpoint at
`
`ground potential given that it is isolated and has no relation to ground (Id.).
`
` Dr. Graves testifies for Petitioners, 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 symmetric about the midpoint,” which the ’221 patent describes “as a wave
`
`adjustment circuit that produces phase and anti-phase potentials and currents.”
`
`(Decision at 9-10)
`
`Lieberman does not teach any balanced transformer (but only taught an isolation
`
`transformer), and no virtual ground would occur with the isolation transformer
`
`(Ex. 2003 ¶ 1326). That is, the isolation transformer is isolated so there is no
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`IPR2017-00391
`
`potential and no ground potential in the middle of the coil (Id.). Accordingly, no
`
`wave adjustment circuit to produce phase and anti-phase potentials and currents
`
`are shown (Id.).
`
` B. Qain
`
`
`
`The Decision relies on Qian and cites to Petitioners’ expert’s declaration
`
`(Decision at 21-28). We disagree with the testimony as follows.
`
`Dr. Graves testifies that Qian’s isolation transformer 80 with primary and
`
`secondary windings 82/84 wound on ferrite core 90 “is a flux linked balun and
`
`produces a balanced output.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 169 (citing Ex. 1022, 3; Ex. 1023, 1; Ex.
`
`1016, 79–81).
`
`
`
`Qian’s isolation transformer is not a balun and does not produce a balanced
`
`output (Ex. 2003 ¶ 2714). The isolation transformer has an output that is not
`
`balanced it is merely isolated (Id.). Where an output is floating, it is neither
`
`balanced nor unbalanced (Id.).
`
`Dr. Graves further testifies that this “type of balun transformer includes two
`
`electrically separa
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
