Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 39
` Entered: June 22, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`INTEL CORPORATION, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-003911
`Patent 6,071,221
`____________
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. was joined as a party to this
`proceeding via a Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01746.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 39
` Entered: June 22, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`INTEL CORPORATION, GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-003911
`Patent 6,071,221
`____________
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. was joined as a party to this
`proceeding via a Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01746.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`We have jurisdiction to conduct this inter partes review under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 6, and this Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we
`
`determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,071,221 (“the ’221 patent,” Ex. 1001) are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`
`Micron Technology, Inc., Intel Corporation, and
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”)2 filed a
`
`Petition (“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–7 of the ’221
`
`patent. Paper 1. Daniel L. Flamm (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`
`Response (“Prelim. Resp.”). Paper 9. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we
`
`instituted an inter partes review on the following grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Lieberman3
`
`Lieberman and Dible4
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 5–7
`
`1, 5–7
`
`
`2 On September 15, 2017, we granted the Motion for Joinder filed by
`Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. (“Samsung”) in IPR2017-01746, and
`authorized Samsung to participate in this proceeding only on a limited basis.
`See Paper 14. We refer to Micron Technology, Inc., Intel Corporation,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc., and Samsung collectively as “Petitioner”
`throughout this Decision.
`
`3 Design of High-Density Plasma Sources for Materials Processing, Plasma
`Sources for Thin Film Deposition and Etching (Physics of Thin Films Vol.
`18, pp. 1–119), August 18, 1994 (Ex. 1006).
`
`4 US 5,573,595, issued Nov. 12, 1996 (Ex. 1007).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Lieberman and Hanawa5
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Lieberman, Dible, and
`Hanawa
`Lieberman and Collins6
`
`Lieberman, Dible and
`Collins
`Qian7
`
`Qian and Hanawa
`
`Qian and Collins
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`2, 3
`
`2, 3
`
`4
`
`4
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 5–7
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`2, 3
`
`4
`
`
`Paper 10 (“Dec. on Inst.”), 29.
`
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Corrected Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 34, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 15,
`
`“Reply”). Petitioner relies on the Declaration of David B. Graves (“the
`
`Graves Declaration,” Ex. 1003) and the Reply Declaration of Dr. David
`
`Graves (“the Graves Reply Declaration,” Ex. 1034). Patent Owner relies on
`
`the Declaration of Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D. (“the Flamm Declaration,”
`
`Ex. 2001) and the Second Declaration of Daniel L. Flamm (“the Second
`
`Flamm Declaration,” Ex. 2003). An oral hearing was held on March 7,
`
`2018. A transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 37.
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’221 patent is “at issue in five related
`
`patent infringement actions, in which [Patent Owner] sued Petitioners and
`
`other defendants, in the Northern District of California, Case Nos. 5:16-cv-
`
`
`5 US 5,688,357, issued Nov. 18, 1997 (Ex.1010).
`6 US 5,065,118, issued Nov. 12, 1991 (Ex. 1008).
`7 US 5,683,539, issued Nov. 4, 1997 (Ex. 1009).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`01578-BLF; 5:16-cv-01579-BLF; 5:16-cv-01580-BLF; 5:16-cv-01581-BLF;
`
`5:16-cv-02252-BLF.” Pet. 3; see Paper 7, 2. The ’221 patent previously
`
`was the subject of IPR2015-01767 (terminated on December 15, 2016 at the
`
`joint request of the parties before a Final Written Decision was entered).
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case IPR2015-01767, slip. op. at
`
`3–6 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) (Paper 36).
`
`C.
`
`The ’221 Patent
`
`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
`
`current, and others.” Id. at 6:16–22. The process “can be used in
`
`applications including chemical dry etching (e.g., stripping), 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 phase and anti-phase capacitive coupled voltages (e.g., AC
`
`plasma voltage) from the inductive coupling structure substantially
`
`balances.” 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
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`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.
`
`Claim 1 is the only independent claim, and is reproduced below.
`
`1.
`A process for fabricating a product using a plasma
`source, said process comprising the steps of subjecting a
`substrate to entities, at least one of said entities emanating from
`a gaseous discharge excited by a high frequency field from an
`inductive coupling structure in which a phase portion and an anti-
`phase portion of capacitive currents coupled from the inductive
`coupling structure are selectively balanced;
`
`wherein said inductive coupling structure is adjusted using a
`wave adjustment circuit, said wave adjustment circuit
`adjusting the phase portion and the anti-phase portion of
`the capacitively coupled currents.
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:58–23:2. Claims 2–7 depend, directly or indirectly,
`
`from claim 1, and include additional limitations directed to the
`
`function of the wave adjustment circuit, and the identity and location
`
`of the processing, among others.
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the ’221 patent would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical,
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`mechanical, or chemical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field,
`
`and three to four years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing
`
`or related fields,” a Master’s degree in the same fields “and two to three
`
`years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing or related fields,”
`
`or “a PhD in electrical, mechanical, or chemical engineering, physics,
`
`chemistry, or a similar field.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–51). Patent
`
`Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment in its Response.
`
`Petitioner’s assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this
`
`proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not
`
`required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need
`
`for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State
`
`Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Accordingly, we adopt
`
`Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`The ’221 patent has expired. Ex. 1001 at [22] (application filed on
`
`May 30, 1997); see Pet. 16. For claims of an expired patent, the Board’s
`
`claim interpretation is similar to that of a district court, i.e., consistent with
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See In re
`
`Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Under the Phillips standard,
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, and in the context of the entire patent disclosure and prosecution
`
`history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–14. Only those terms in controversy
`
`need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that
`
`are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`For purposes of the Decision on Institution, we determined that, based
`
`on the record at the time, no claim term required express construction (Dec.
`
`on Inst. 6–7), and we see no reason to modify that determination in light of
`
`the record developed at trial.
`
`C.
`
`Principles of Law
`
`To prevail on its challenges to the patentability of the claims, a
`
`petitioner must establish facts supporting its challenge by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “In an [inter
`
`partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`
`particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v.
`
`Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with
`
`particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to
`
`each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner.
`
`See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378–
`
`79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burdens of persuasion and production in
`
`inter partes review).
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`
`obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`
`including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. See Graham
`
`v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`A patent claim “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. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a
`
`skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled
`
`artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’”
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–
`
`68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (for an
`
`obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that would
`
`have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
`
`elements in the way the claimed new invention does”).
`
`D. Overview of the Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Lieberman
`
`Lieberman is a review article directed to plasma generation schemes,
`
`the purpose of which “is to (1) develop a unified framework from which all
`
`‘high-efficiency’ sources may be viewed and compared; (2) outline key
`
`elements of source design that affect processing results; and (3) highlight
`
`areas where additional research and development is needed.” Ex. 1006, 6.8
`
`
`8 The cited page numbers in Ex. 1006 refer to the numbers added by
`Petitioner in the bottom right corner of the page.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`According to Lieberman, “[t]he advent of sub-micron electronic device
`
`fabrication has brought unprecedented demands for process optimization and
`
`control which, in turn, have led to improved plasma reactors for the etching
`
`and deposition of thin films.” Id. at 5 (internal citations omitted).
`
`Lieberman describes two inductive source configurations, one using a
`
`cylindrical coil, the other a planar coil, for a low profile source. Id. at 55.
`
`“The planar coil is a flat helix wound from near the axis to near the outer
`
`radius of the source chamber (‘electric stovetop’ coil shape),” and can be
`
`united with a cylindrical coil “to give ‘cylindrical cap’ or ‘hemispherical’
`
`coil shapes.” Id. Lieberman states that “inductive coils can be driven by a
`
`13.56 MHz, 50 ohm rf supply through an L matching network,” and that
`
`“[t]he coil can be driven push-pull using a balanced transformer, which
`
`places a virtual ground in the middle of the coil and reduces the maximum
`
`coil-to-plasma voltage by a factor of two.” Id. at 55–56. Lieberman
`
`explains that “[t]his reduces the undesired capacitively coupled rf current
`
`flowing from coil to plasma by a factor of two.” Id. at 56.
`
`Lieberman also teaches that “[p]lasma in an inductive source is
`
`created by application of rf power to a non-resonant, inductive coil, resulting
`
`in the breakdown of the process gas within or near the coil by the induced rf
`
`electric field,” and “[t]he plasma created in the source region streams toward
`
`a wafer holder that can be independently biased by application of rf power
`
`using a separate generator.” Id. at 56–57.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Dible
`
`Dible is directed to methods and apparatus for inducing plasma in low
`
`pressure plasma systems that are typically used in semiconductor
`
`fabrication. Ex. 1007, 1:7–9. In particular, Dible “relates to methods and
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`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 phase and second
`
`phase differ by an angle between in phase and opposite in phase, the Dible
`
`device “becomes a combination inductive and capacitive coupling device.”
`
`Id. at 2:52–55.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of Hanawa
`
`Hanawa is directed to “inductively coupled RF plasma reactors used
`
`in semiconductor processing” that employ “a coiled antenna to couple RF
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`power to the plasma reactor chamber, and in particular to methods for tuning
`
`the RF power circuit (including the coil antenna) in response to impedance
`
`changes in the plasma.” Ex. 1010, 1:8–13. Hanawa teaches a control circuit
`
`that is “connected to a control input of the variable frequency RF power
`
`source and responsive to the power sensor for changing the frequency of the
`
`variable frequency RF power source so as to either increase the transmitted
`
`power or decrease the reflected power,” in order “to provide an accurate RF
`
`match instantly responsive to changes in plasma impedance.” Id. at 2:3–9.
`
`Hanawa further teaches that the described control circuit “eliminates not
`
`only the need for variable capacitors and electric motor servos in the RF
`
`match circuit, but also eliminates the entire RF match circuit itself,
`
`exploiting the coil antenna 24 to obtain the needed reactance for an RF
`
`match between the chamber 10 and the RF source 26.” Id. at 4:20–25.
`
`Hanawa Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of an RF plasma reactor system including
`
`Hanawa’s control circuit. Id. at 2:13–14. Inductively coupled RF plasma
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`reactor 10 includes chamber 12 bounded by side wall 14 and ceiling 16. Id.
`
`at 2:37–40. Wafer pedestal 18 supports semiconductor wafer 20 on isolated
`
`conductive top 22. Id. at 2:43–44. RF power is coupled to the plasma in
`
`chamber 12 by coiled antenna 24 wound around the exterior of ceiling 16.
`
`Id. at 2:45–47. Coiled antenna 24 is connected to matched RF source 26 via
`
`cable 28. Id. at 2:47–48. Conductive top 22 is connected through RF match
`
`circuit 30 and cable 32 to RF generator 34 and amplifier 36. Id. at 2:48–51.
`
`In order to compensate for plasma impedance fluctuations after a
`
`plasma is ignited in chamber 12, RF source 26 employs conventional
`
`variable-frequency RF generator 52 having frequency control input 54 and
`
`power output 56 with amplifier 57 and computer 58. Id. at 3:24–31.
`
`Computer 58 monitors the reflected power level measured by reflected
`
`power sensor 50 and applies a control signal to frequency control input 54 of
`
`RF generator 52. Id. at 3:31–34. Computer 58 is programmed to vary the
`
`frequency of RF generator 52 so as to continuously minimize the amount of
`
`reflected power measured by reflected power sensor 50. Id. at 3:43–47.
`
`4.
`
`Overview of Collins
`
`Collins is directed to the connection of a first electrical circuit (the
`
`source) to a second electrical circuit (the load) using a matching network in
`
`order to provide maximum power transfer between the source and the load.
`
`Ex. 1008, 1:6–10. Collins teaches a matching network that matches an
`
`output impedance of a source with an input impedance of a load, wherein the
`
`matching network includes a plurality of transmission line stubs. Id. at
`
`2:40–44. Collins states that “[e]ach transmission line stub includes a first
`
`transmission line conductor, a second transmission line conductor running
`
`parallel to but not in electrical contact with the first transmission line
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`network of the type shown in FIG. 1” is “applied to a system which is used
`
`in a plasma process inside a plasma chamber 2.” Id. at 4:35–37.
`
`5.
`
`Overview of Qian
`
`Qian is directed to “improvements in inductively coupled radio
`
`frequency (RF) plasma reactors for reducing capacitive coupling from the
`
`coil antenna to the semiconductor wafer.” Ex. 1009, 1:9–12. Qian teaches
`
`that such capacitive coupling “is reduced by isolating the coil antenna from
`
`the RF power source by an isolation transformer, so that the coil antenna has
`
`a floating potential.” Id. at 1:49–51. According to Qian, this “reduction in
`
`capacitive coupling has been quantitatively measured to be more than a
`
`factor of two, a significant advantage.” Id. at 1:55–57.
`
`Qian Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating a plasma reactor embodying the
`
`Qian invention, and Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of a preferred
`
`embodiment of the isolation transformer described by Qian. Id. at 1:60–64.
`
`The inductively coupled RF plasma reactor shown in Figure 1 includes
`
`grounded reactor chamber 10 having grounded side wall 12 and ceiling 14
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`that encloses wafer pedestal 20. Id. at 2:8–11. Wafer pedestal 20 supports
`
`semiconductor wafer 30. Id. at 2:11. Processing gas is introduced into
`
`chamber 10 via gas inlet 40, and the gas ionizes to produce a plasma over
`
`wafer 30 by RF power inductively coupled to the plasma from inductive coil
`
`antenna 50 wound over ceiling 14 of chamber 10. Id. at 2:12–16. Coil
`
`antenna 50 is coupled to RF generator 60 through RF impedance match
`
`network 70. Id. at 2:16–17.
`
`Isolation transformer 80 is interposed between match network 70 and
`
`inductive coil 50 in order to isolate inductive coil antenna 50 from RF power
`
`generator 60. Id. at 2:21–24. Isolation transformer 80 (also shown in Figure
`
`2) has primary winding 82 and secondary winding 84; match network 70 and
`
`RF generator 60 are connected across primary winding 82, and inductive
`
`coil antenna 50 is connected across secondary winding 84. Id. at 2:24–29.
`
`Qian teaches that “isolation transformer 80 reduces or virtually eliminates
`
`any D.C. potential between” generator 60 and inductive coil antenna 50, so
`
`that the electric potential of inductive coil antenna 50 is floating with respect
`
`to wafer pedestal 20. Id. at 2:30–34. Qian states that “[t]he advantage is
`
`that capacitive coupling between” inductive coil antenna 50 and “pedestal
`
`20/wafer 30 is reduced as well,” and, therefore, inductive coil antenna 50
`
`“has less effect upon plasma ion energy at the wafer surface, namely less
`
`broadening of the plasma ion energy distribution.” Id. at 2:34–38. Qian
`
`further teaches that isolation transformer 80 may include ferrite core 90
`
`around which primary and secondary windings 82, 84 are wound. Id. at
`
`2:44–46.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`E. Obviousness over Lieberman
`
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1 and 5–7 is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as having been obvious over
`
`Lieberman. Pet. 27–40; Reply 4–11, 15–18. Petitioner relies on the Graves
`
`Declaration and the Graves Reply Declaration in support of its contentions.
`
`Id. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s assertions, and relies on the
`
`Flamm Declaration and the Second Flamm Declaration. PO Resp. 3–19,
`
`26–27.
`
`The parties focus their arguments on two elements in independent
`
`claim 1: (1) “a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of capacitive currents
`
`coupled from the inductive coupling structure are selectively balanced”; and
`
`(2) “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.” As to the
`
`other elements of claims 1 and 5–7, we have reviewed the entirety of the
`
`evidence and arguments presented in the Petition and find that Petitioner has
`
`shown sufficiently that those elements are disclosed as arranged in the
`
`claims. Pet. 27–40. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s analysis as to those
`
`elements, and address the arguments regarding the disputed claim elements
`
`in turn.
`
`1.
`
`a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of capacitive
`currents coupled from the inducting coupling structure are
`selectively balanced
`
`Petitioner contends, with supporting testimony from Dr. Graves, that
`
`Lieberman discloses this element of claim 1 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
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`phase and anti-phase portions selectively balanced (i.e., substantially equally
`
`distributed.)” Pet. 30. Petitioner contends 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 ‘a 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.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90). According to Petitioner, “[d]riving the
`
`coil push-pull with” Lieberman’s “wave adjustment circuit (the inductively-
`
`coupled push-pull arrangement, e.g., a toroidal balun) causes a midpoint on
`
`the coil to be effectively RF grounded, adjusting the phase portion and the
`
`anti-phase portion of the capacitively coupled currents so that they are
`
`selectively balanced about the midpoint.” Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`¶¶ 91–94, 100–102); see also Reply 4 (arguing that Lieberman teaches “that
`
`its balanced transformer drives the current on the inductive coil in a push-
`
`pull arrangement, such that a virtual ground is placed in the middle of the
`
`coil”).
`
`Patent Owner argues that “Lieberman does not teach balancing any
`
`currents, where there are capacitively coupled and/or phase and anti-phase
`
`portions as claimed,” and “does not disclose or distinguish phase and anti-
`
`phase capacitively coupled currents as claimed.” PO Resp. 9 (citing
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 16). Patent Owner states that Lieberman “makes it very clear
`
`that the ‘balanced transformer’ means an isolation transformer that isolates
`
`the output side from ground. . . .” Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 9). Patent
`
`Owner also argues that “Lieberman apparently teaches that the midpoint of
`
`the coil is at ground potential (‘ . . . places a virtual ground in the middle of
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`the coil’)” and “contends that the coil to plasma voltage is supposed to be
`
`half of the total voltage applied across the coil by the transformer,” but “the
`
`center of a coil connected in this manner is [not] necessarily at ground
`
`potential.” Id. at 5 (quoting Ex. 1006, 56).
`
`Patent Owner further argues that Lieberman’s capacitive currents “are
`
`not the same thing as the capacitive currents referenced in the ’221 patent,”
`
`because “[t]he ‘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.” PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 11). Patent Owner
`
`argues that “claim 1 concerns selectively balancing the vector sum of phase
`
`and anti-phase currents flowing from the 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.” Id. at 5–6 (citing Ex. 2003
`
`¶ 12). According to Patent Owner, “[t]he 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,” and “[t]he magnitude of the current taught by Lieberman is not
`
`susceptible to selective balancing.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 12).
`
`Petitioner replies that Patent Owner’s “arguments rest on
`
`mischaracterizations of the 221 Patent, the prior art, and [Patent Owner’s]
`
`own exhibits.” Reply 1. Petitioner also asserts that the Second Flamm
`
`Declaration “simply parrots [Patent Owner’s] attorney argument” and “does
`
`not provide any explanation or elaboration on anything” in the Patent Owner
`
`Response, and, therefore, “should be given no weight.” Id. at 1-2.
`
`Based on our review of the record, we find Petitioner’s argument that
`
`Lieberman discloses “a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of capacitive
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure are selectively
`
`balanced” as required by claim 1 to be persuasive. Pet. 30–36; Reply 4–11.
`
`Lieberman teaches driving an inductive coil push-pull using a balanced
`
`transformer. Ex. 1006, 56. Petitioner explains that a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art “would have understood that choosing to drive the inductive
`
`coil ‘push-pull’ using a ‘balanced transformer’ meant choosing to set the
`
`ends of Lieberman’s inductive coil at equal and opposite voltages.” Pet. 33
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93, 102). In that regard, Dr. Graves testifies that “the
`
`output of the Lieberman transformer produces a balanced signal with the
`
`phases of the signals applied to each end of the coil having a phase
`
`difference of 180º,” and, therefore, Lieberman’s push-pull arrangement
`
`“corresponds to the claimed ‘phase and an anti-phase portion of the
`
`capacitively coupled currents.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 90 (citing Ex. 1022, 3;
`
`Ex. 1023, 1). We further credit Dr. Graves’s testimony that
`
`Lieberman’s disclosure of a choosing to drive the coil push-pull
`with a balanced transformer mirrors the disc
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
