`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`Issued: January 5, 2000
`
`Named Inventor: Daniel L. Flamm
`
`Title: PROCESS DEPENDING ON PLASMA
`DISCHARGES SUSTAINED BY INDUCTIVE COUPLING
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,017,221 UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`3475044
`
`Page 1 of 67
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1018
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`PAGE
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 
`FORMALITIES ............................................................................................ 3 
`A.  Notice of Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................. 3 
`B.  Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ........................... 3 
`C.  Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)) ..................................................................................................... 3 
`D. 
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .................................... 3 
`E. 
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ............................................... 3 
`F. 
`Certification of Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(a)) ...................................................................................................... 4 
`III.  CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED.............................................. 4 
`Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the
`A. 
`Challenges Are Based ................................................................................... 4 
`IV.  THE '221 PATENT ...................................................................................... 7 
`A. 
`Representative Claim 1 ...................................................................... 7 
`B. 
`The '221 Patent Disclosure ................................................................. 8 
`1. 
`Inductively-Coupled Plasma Source ........................................ 8 
`2. 
`Capacitively Coupled Currents ................................................ 9 
`3. 
`Phase and Anti-Phase Portions of the Capacitively
`Coupled Currents ................................................................................ 9 
`4.  Wave Adjustment Circuit ...................................................... 10 
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................... 11 
`V. 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 12 
`"wave adjustment circuit" ................................................................ 12 
`A. 
`
`3475044
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`"selectively balanced" ...................................................................... 16 
`B. 
`"entities" ........................................................................................... 18 
`C. 
`"high frequency field" ...................................................................... 19 
`D. 
`VII.  THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE '221 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ............................ 20 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1 and 5-7 Are Anticipated by
`Lieberman93, or alternatively Lieberman94, Under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(b) .......................................................................................................... 21 
`Lieberman93, or alternatively Lieberman94, Teaches
`1. 
`All the Limitations of Independent Claim 1 .................................... 21 
`2. 
`Chart for Claim 1 ................................................................... 27 
`3. 
`Lieberman93, or alternatively Lieberman94, Teaches
`All the Limitations of Claims 5-7 .................................................... 29 
`4. 
`Chart for Claims 5-7 .............................................................. 31 
`B.  Ground 2: Claims 1 and 5-7 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Lieberman93, or Alternatively Lieberman94, In View Of Dible
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................... 33 
`Lieberman93, or Alternatively Lieberman94, In View
`1. 
`Of Dible Teaches All the Limitations of Claim 1 ............................ 34 
`2. 
`Chart for Claim 1 ................................................................... 39 
`3. 
`Lieberman93, or Alternatively Lieberman94, In View
`Of Dible Teaches All the Limitations of Claims 5-7 ....................... 42 
`4. 
`Chart for Claims 5-7 .............................................................. 44 
`5. 
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 1,2 and 5-7 ............... 46 
`C.  Ground 3: Claims 2-3 are Rendered Obvious by
`Lieberman93, or Alternatively Lieberman94, in View of Knapp or,
`in the alternative, by Lieberman in View of Dible and Knapp Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...................................................................................... 47 
`
`3475044
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`Chart for Claims 2-3 .............................................................. 49 
`1. 
`Reasons for Combinability for Claims 2-3 ............................ 51 
`2. 
`D.  Ground 4: Claim 4 is Rendered Obvious by Lieberman93, or
`Alternatively Lieberman94, in View of Collins, or Alternatively in
`View of Dible and Collins, Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................... 52 
`1. 
`Chart for Claim 4 ................................................................... 54 
`2. 
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 4 ................................. 55 
`Ground 5: Claim 7 is Rendered Obvious by Lieberman93, or
`E. 
`Alternatively Lieberman94, in View of Hopwood, or Alternatively
`in View of Dible and Hopwood, Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...................... 56 
`1. 
`Chart for Claim 7 ................................................................... 57 
`2. 
`Reasons for Combinability for Claim 7 ................................. 57 
`
`
`
`3475044
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE
`
`Cases 
`Agilent Technologies Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., No. C 06-05958 JW, 2008
`WL 7348188, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2008) ....................................... 12
`
`In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ................................................... 2
`
`In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................... 2
`
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16 (2007) .......................... 1
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D.
`Cal.) ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976) ........................................... 2
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .................................................................................... 4, 6, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ......................................................................................... 1
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ........................................................................................ 1, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ......................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ............................................................................. 4, 12, 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) ....................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`3475044
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ........................................................................................ 3
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3475044
`
`
`- i -
`
`Page 6 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221 (the '221 patent)
`
`1002 Michael A. Lieberman and Richard A. Gottscho, Design of High
`Density Plasma Sources for Materials Processing, UNIVERSITY OF
`CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY TECHNICAL REPORT NO. UCB/ERL M93/3
`(JANUARY 11, 1993) (on file with the University of California, Berkeley
`Library) (Lieberman93)
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,573,595 (Dible)
`
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 4,877,999 (Knapp)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,065,118 (Collins)
`
`1006
`
`J. Hopwood, Review of Inductively Coupled Plasmas for Plasma
`Processing, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 1, 109-116 (1992) (Hopwood)
`
`1007 Declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D.
`
`1008 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2012
`
`1009
`
`'221 Patent Prosecution History, 10/2/98 Office Action and 4/2/99
`Response
`
`1010 Declaration of Miyoko Tsubamoto
`
`1011 Curriculum Vitae of Joseph L. Cecchi, Ph.D.
`
`1012 Michael A. Lieberman and Richard A. Gottscho, Design of High-
`Density Plasma Sources for Materials Processing, PLASMA SOURCES
`FOR THIN FILM DEPOSITION AND ETCHING (PHYSICS OF THIN FILMS
`VOLUME 18), August 1994 (Lieberman94)
`
`1013
`
`Publisher's Webpage for PLASMA SOURCES FOR THIN FILM DEPOSITION
`AND ETCHING (1st Edition),
`http://store.elsevier.com/product.jsp?isbn=9780125330183&_requestid=
`1611063 (last visited Aug. 13, 2015).
`
`3475044
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.,
`
`Petitioner Lam Research Corporation ("Lam" or "Petitioner") respectfully requests
`
`that the Board institute inter partes review of claims 1-7 ("challenged claims") of
`
`U.S. Patent 6,017,221 ("the '221 patent"), which is owned by Daniel L. Flamm
`
`("Flamm" or "Patent Owner"), and cancel those claims because they are
`
`unpatentable in view of prior art patents and printed publications.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The seven claims challenged in this Petition are all directed to a method for
`
`minimizing undesirable capacitive coupling of an inductively-coupled plasma
`
`source for semiconductor processing. In the method, undesirable capacitive
`
`coupling is reduced by adjusting phase and anti-phase portions of capacitively
`
`coupled currents. A so-called wave adjustment circuit is employed to selectively
`
`balance the phase and anti-phase portions.
`
`As set forth below, the claims of the '221 patent are anticipated because they
`
`recite known methods that were described in printed publications before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention. They are also obvious because they
`
`are nothing more than the result of Flamm combining "familiar elements according
`
`to known methods" to "yield predictable results." KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398, 415-16 (2007). As the Supreme Court has held, "when a patent
`
`'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Page 8 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro,
`
`Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976) (reh'g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976))). The key
`
`question is whether the alleged improvement "is more than the predictable use of
`
`prior art elements according to their established functions." Id. at 401. As set forth
`
`below, the answer to this question is "no" for the '221 patent because, well before
`
`the purported invention, minimizing undesirable capacitive coupling of an
`
`inductively-coupled plasma source for semiconductor processing, was well known.
`
`Patents and printed publications predating the purported invention also disclosed
`
`minimizing undesirable capacitive coupling of an inductively-coupled plasma
`
`source for semiconductor processing by using a wave adjustment circuit to
`
`selectively balance phase and anti-phase portions of capacitively coupled currents.
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use
`
`the teachings of these references to practice the method of the challenged claims.
`
`Notably, "the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
`
`reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference...."
`
`In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Rather, "obviousness focuses on
`
`what the combined teachings would have suggested." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d
`
`1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Page 9 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`II.
`
`FORMALITIES
`A. Notice of Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real-party in interest for this Petition is Lam Research Corporation.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The '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.).
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`Lead Counsel: Michael R. Fleming (Reg. No. 67,933)
`
`Backup Counsel: Samuel K. Lu (Reg. No. 40,707), Kamran Vakili (Reg. No.
`
`64,825)
`
`Address: Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900,
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067 | Tel: (310) 277-1010 | Fax: (310) 203-7199
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`D.
`Please address all correspondence to the lead and backup counsel above.
`
`Petitioner also consents to email service at: LamFlammIPR@irell.com,
`
`MFleming@irell.com, SLu@irell.com and KVakili@irell.com.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`E.
`The Office is authorized to charge the required fees, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a), to Deposit Account No. 09-0946 referencing Docket
`
`No. 153405-0053(221IPR), and for any other required fees.
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Page 10 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`F. Certification of Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the '221 patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of
`
`the challenged claims of the '221 patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`Petitioner has filed a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement of the
`
`claims of the '221 patent, Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case 5:15-cv-
`
`01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Petitioner has not filed a declaratory judgment action for
`
`invalidity of the claims of the '221 patent. See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics, IPR2012-
`
`00022 (MPT), 2013 WL 2181162, at *5 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2013).
`
`On July 21, 2015, Flamm filed an answer asserting counterclaims for infringement
`
`of the '221 patent in the declaratory judgment action.
`
`III. CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) and §§ 42.104(b) and (b)(1), Petitioner
`
`challenges claims 1-7 of the '221 patent. Petitioner respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 of the '221 patent based on the
`
`grounds detailed below.
`
`A.
`
`Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the Challenges
`Are Based
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), inter partes review of the '221 patent
`
`is requested in view of the following references, each of which is prior art to the
`
`'221 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b):
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Page 11 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`1. Michael A. Lieberman and Richard A. Gottscho, Design of High-Density
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`
`
`Plasma Sources for Materials Processing ("Lieberman93," Ex. 1002),
`
`UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY TECHNICAL REPORT NO. UCB/ERL
`
`M93/3 (JANUARY 11, 1993) (on file with the University of California, Berkeley
`
`Library).1
`
`2. Michael A. Lieberman and Richard A. Gottscho., Design of High-Density
`
`Plasma Sources for Materials Processing ("Lieberman94," Ex. 1012), PLASMA
`
`SOURCES FOR THIN FILM DEPOSITION AND ETCHING (PHYSICS OF THIN FILMS
`
`VOLUME 18), August 18, 1994.23
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 5,573,595 to Dible ("Dible," Ex. 1003) issued on November 12,
`
`1996 and filed on September 29, 1995.
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 4,877,999 to Knapp et al. ("Knapp," Ex. 1004) issued on
`
`October 3, 1989, filed on April 7, 1988, and a continuation of prior application
`
`serial no. 931,031 filed November 17, 1986 (later abandoned).
`
`
`1 Attached hereto as Ex. 1010 is the declaration of Miyoko Tsubamoto,
`Senior Designer, Print/Web for the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`department of the University of California at Berkeley, related to the publication of
`Lieberman.
`2 Attached hereto as Ex. 1013 is a webpage of Academic Press (Elsevier) for
`the Lieberman94 publication, indicating a "Release Date" of August 18, 1994.
`3 Lieberman93 and Lieberman94 are essentially identical in content, with
`only minor variations that do not impact the invalidity analysis herein. Where
`referred to generally and not distinguished as Lieberman93 and Lieberman94, they
`will be referred to collectively and/or interchangeably as "Lieberman."
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Page 12 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`5. U.S. Patent No. 5,065,118 to Collins et al. ("Collins," Ex. 1005) issued on
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`
`
`November 12, 1991, filed on July 26, 1990.
`
`6. J. Hopwood, Review of Inductively Coupled Plasmas for Plasma Processing
`
`("Hopwood," Ex. 1006), Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 1, 109-116 (1992).
`
`Each of the above references qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 because each was published or issued prior to the earliest priority date
`
`recited by the '221 patent, Dec. 4, 1995. Each of the references except Dible was
`
`published or issued more than one year prior to the earliest priority date recited by
`
`the '221 patent. None of these references were cited or considered by the PTO
`
`during the prosecution of the '221 patent.
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of challenged claims 1-7 under the following
`
`statutory grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1 and 5-7 are anticipated by Lieberman93, or alternatively
`
`Lieberman94, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1 and 5-7 are rendered obvious by Lieberman93, or
`
`alternatively Lieberman94, in view of Dible under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a)
`
`Ground 3: Claims 2-3 are rendered obvious by Lieberman93, or alternatively
`
`Lieberman94, in view of Knapp, or alternatively in view of Dible
`
`and Knapp, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Page 13 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`Ground 4: Claim 4 is rendered obvious by Lieberman93, or alternatively
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`
`
`Lieberman94, in view of Collins, or alternatively in view of Dible
`
`and Collins, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Ground 5: Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Lieberman93, or alternatively
`
`Lieberman94, in view of Hopwood, or alternatively in view of
`
`Dible and Hopwood, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Section VII demonstrates, for each of the statutory grounds, that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner will prevail. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Additional explanation and support for each ground is set forth in the expert
`
`declaration of Joseph Cecchi, Ph.D. Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.].
`
`IV. THE '221 PATENT
`The '221 patent is a continuation-in-part of a U.S. patent application filed on
`
`October 23, 1996 (now abandoned) which, in turn, claims priority to another
`
`application filed on December 4, 1995 (also abandoned). Ex. 1001-1. No matter
`
`which of these dates Flamm may rely on as the priority date of the '221 patent, the
`
`references relied upon in this Petition are prior art to the '221 patent because they
`
`all predate Dec. 4, 1995, the earliest possible priority date of the '221 patent.
`
`A. Representative Claim 1
`The crux of the alleged invention of the '221 patent is the straightforward
`
`and well-known process of minimizing undesirable capacitive coupling of an
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Page 14 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`inductively-coupled plasma source for semiconductor processing. See, e.g., Ex.
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`
`
`1007 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 43. For example, claim 1 recites a process comprising (a)
`
`"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," (b) "in which a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of capacitive
`
`currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure are selectively balanced;"
`
`and (c) "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 ['221 patent] at
`
`22:58-23:2.
`
`B.
`
`The '221 Patent Disclosure
`1.
`The '221 patent discusses "plasma processing of devices using an inductive
`
`Inductively-Coupled Plasma Source
`
`discharge," such processing including, for example, "plasma etching and resist
`
`stripping of semiconductor devices. . . . [and] chemical vapor deposition (CVD) of
`
`semiconductor devices." Ex. 1001 ['221 patent] at 1:16-21. "These plasma
`
`processing techniques often rely upon radio frequency power (rf) supplied to an
`
`inductive coil for providing power to gas phase species in forming a plasma."
`
`Id. at 1:33-36. Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 44.
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Page 15 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`Capacitively Coupled Currents
`
`2.
`The '221 patent describes how, in an inductively-coupled plasma source
`
`configuration, "capacitive coupling between high voltage selections of the coil and
`
`the plasma discharge often cause high and uncontrollable plasma potentials relative
`
`to ground," which, in turn, "can cause damaging high energy ion bombardment of
`
`articles being processed by the plasma." Id. at 2:66-3:5. "Consequently,
`
`uncontrolled potential differences, such as that caused by 'stray' capacitive
`
`coupling from the coil of an inductive plasma source to the plasma, are
`
`undesirable." Id. at 4:37-39. Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 45.
`
`3.
`
`Phase and Anti-Phase Portions of the Capacitively Coupled
`Currents
`
`The '221 patent discusses reducing undesirable capacitively coupled currents
`
`by selectively adjusting phase and anti-phase portions of an excitation signal. It
`
`
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Page 16 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`states, "[s]ince the capacitive current increases monotonically with the magnitude
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`
`
`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." Ex. 1001 ['221 patent] at 10:31-35. Referring to Fig. 2A of the '221
`
`patent, reproduced above, the phase and anti-phase components of the voltage are
`
`represented, respectively, at reference numerals 70 and 71. Capacitive coupling is
`
`reduced by setting "substantially zero AC voltage at one point on the inductive coil
`
`(refer to point 00 in FIG. 2A)," corresponding to "substantially equal phase 70 and
`
`anti-phase voltage distributions in directions about this point (refer to 00-A and 00-
`
`C in FIG. 2A) and provides 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. Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 46.
`
`4. Wave Adjustment Circuit
`The '221 patent discusses adjusting phase and anti-phase portions of
`
`capacitively coupled currents using wave adjustment circuits. Referring back to
`
`Fig. 2A of the '221 patent, an "upper wave adjustment circuit 57" and a "lower
`
`wave adjustment circuit 59" are shown connected to the "inductive applicator 55."
`
`Ex. 1001 ['221 patent] at 10:4-6. They are used to achieve the reduction of
`
`undesirable capacitively coupled currents, as "the wave adjustment circuits are
`
`adjusted to provide substantially zero AC voltage at one point on the inductive coil
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Page 17 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`(refer to point 00 in FIG. 2A)." Id. at 10:14-16. The '221 patent describes several
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`possibilities for the wave adjustment circuit, but chiefly defines it by the role it
`
`plays: "A wave adjustment circuit (e.g., RLC circuit, coil, transmission line, etc.) is
`
`operably coupled to the plasma applicator. The wave adjustment circuit can
`
`selectively adjust phase and anti-phase potentials of the plasma from an rf power
`
`supply." Id. at 7:29-34. As a further disclosed aspect of the '221 patent, the wave
`
`adjustment circuit receives an input waveform from the power supply and produces
`
`an output waveform, destined for the inductive plasma applicator, which has
`
`changed phase and anti-phase portions. Figure 4 of the '221 patent shows a wave
`
`adjustment circuit 400 that has an input that is connected to the output of rf power
`
`source 122 and has output connected to inductive plasma coil 132. Id. at 16:1-6
`
`and Fig. 4. As a specific embodiment, the specification of the '221 patent describes
`
`a "toroidal transformer . . . coupled between the rf power source 122 and the coil
`
`132," whereby the "(balanced-unbalanced) toroidal transformer (i.e., broadband
`
`transmission transformer, broadband transformer, etc.) 401 can be used to provide
`
`balanced matching." Ex. 1001 ['221 patent] at 16:28-30. Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.]
`
`at ¶ 47.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art ("PHOSITA") would generally
`
`have had either (i) a Bachelor's degree in engineering, physics, chemistry,
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Page 18 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`materials science, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`
`
`semiconductor manufacturing or related fields, or (ii) a Master's degree in
`
`engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a similar field and two or
`
`three years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related
`
`fields. Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶¶ 29-32.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, the challenged claims must be given their
`
`"broadest reasonable construction" in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Because of this rule, for the purpose of
`
`this inter partes review, Petitioner has employed the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the challenged claims throughout this petition. The broadest
`
`reasonable construction of claim terms, of course, will often be quite different from
`
`the construction those terms would receive in district court claim construction
`
`proceedings. See Agilent Technologies Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., No. C 06-05958
`
`JW, 2008 WL 7348188, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2008). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.104(b)(3), the following subsections explain the proper construction of
`
`particular claim terms at issue for purposes of this review.
`
`"wave adjustment circuit"
`
`A.
`The challenged claims of the '221 patent recite the limitation of a "wave
`
`adjustment circuit." For example, independent claim 1 recites, "wherein said
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Page 19 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`inductive coupling structure is adjusted using a wave adjustment circuit, said
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`
`
`wave adjustment circuit adjusting the phase portion and the anti-phase portion of
`
`the capacitively coupled currents." The limitation is also recited by dependent
`
`claim 2, "wherein the wave adjustment circuit selectively adjusts a frequency of
`
`an rf power supply," and by dependent claim 4, "wherein the wave adjustment
`
`circuit comprises a transmission line."
`
`The claimed "wave adjustment circuit" is not a term of art, but is described
`
`throughout the specification of the '221 patent as circuits that perform the function
`
`of changing the phase and anti-phase portions of the voltage waveform applied to
`
`the inductive applicator. Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 54. Firstly, the term
`
`"adjustment" is used consistently with the dictionary definition of "adjust" (i.e., "to
`
`bring to a more satisfactory state") (Ex. 1008 [Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
`
`Dictionary] at 16). Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 54. Further, the specification
`
`describes a "wave adjustment circuit (e.g., RLC circuit, coil, transmission line,
`
`etc.) [that] is operably coupled to the plasma applicator," (Ex. 1001 ['221 patent] at
`
`7:30-32) and, "provides an inductive applicator operating at full-wave multiples . .
`
`. . [or] effectively made shorter or longer than a full-wave length multiple by a
`
`selected amount, thereby operating at selected phase and anti-phase voltages." Id.
`
`at 8:53-67. Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 54. The wave adjustment circuit is shown
`
`in the specification and drawings to accept an input waveform from a power supply
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Page 20 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`and generate an output waveform, destined for the inductive applicator, which has
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`
`
`a changed phase and anti-phase profile. Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 54. This is
`
`illustrated clearly, for example, in Fig. 2D of the '221 patent:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 ['221 patent] at Fig. 2D. Each wave adjustment circuit ("WAC")
`
`takes an input waveform from a corresponding power supply ("PS") and sends an
`
`output, with changed phase and anti-phase portions, to a corresponding plasma
`
`applicator ("PA"). Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 55. A particular embodiment of a
`
`wave adjustment circuit is shown in Fig. 4:
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Page 21 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 ['221 patent] at Fig. 4. In this embodiment, the wave adjustment
`
`circuit is a "toroidal transformer . . . coupled between the rf power source 122 and
`
`the coil 132," whereby the "(balanced-unbalanced) toroidal transformer (i.e.,
`
`broadband transmission transformer, broadband transformer, etc.) 401 can be used
`
`to provide balanced matching." Id. at 16:28-30. The role of the wave adjustment
`
`circuit in changing the phase and anti-phase portions of an input waveform from a
`
`power supply before being output to an inductive applicator is consistently
`
`illustrated throughout the '221 patent, including Figs. 1-4. Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.]
`
`at ¶ 56.
`
`The role of the wave adjustment circuit to change the relative phase and anti-
`
`phase portions of the capacitve currents from the inductive applicator is confirmed
`
`again in the prosecution history of the application leading to the '221 patent, where
`
`3475044
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`Page 22 of 67
`
`

`

`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`the applicant stated that a "wave adjustment circuit adjusts the phase portion and
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
`
`
`
`
`
`anti-phase portion of the capacitive current coupled to the inductive coupling
`
`structure so they are selectively balanced." Ex. 1009 ['221 Patent Prosecution
`
`History, 4/2/99 Response] at p. 7; Ex. 1007 [Cecchi decl.] at ¶ 57.
`
`Accordingly, "wave adjustment circuit" would be understood by a
`
`PHOSITA in its broadest reasonable construction in view of the specification, at
`
`the time of the purported invention of the '221 patent, to mean "any circuit that
`
`changes the phase and anti-phase portions of the capacitive curr