`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DEMARAY LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE TO PETITONER’S NOTICE
`REGARDING MULTIPLE PETITIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10914031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`As the Board recognizes, “one petition should be sufficient to challenge
`
`the claims of a patent in most situations.” PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice
`
`Guide (“TPG”) (Nov. 2019) at 59. Petitioner instead filed two parallel
`
`petitions on the ‘276 patent challenging the same set of claims with no material
`
`differences and none of the exceptions articulated in the TPG. For example,
`
`Petitioner clearly can attack all the issues claims of the patent in a single
`
`petition; and it does not assert there is any priority dispute. See Paper 3
`
`generally. As such, the Board should not institute more than one petition.
`
`Petitioner nevertheless argues that the Board should entertain both of its
`
`petitions because it also represents the interest of Samsung and Intel and
`
`because only two petitions are filed among the three of them. Paper 3 at 2-3.
`
`That argument makes no sense: had Samsung and Intel filed petitions on their
`
`own, the Board would have also treated those petitions as either parallel or
`
`serial and they would also have to explain why the filing of those follow-on or
`
`parallel petitions are justified, including under the General Plastics factors.
`
`The purported existence of a “wealth of prior art against the ‘276 patent”
`
`is also not an excuse for filing multiple petitions. Were that reason sufficient
`
`to justify the filing of multiple petitions, the Board would not have required
`
`petitioners who filed multiple petitions to provide “a succinct explanation of
`
`the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the
`
`differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to
`- 1 -
`
`10914031
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s
`
`burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” TPG at 60. Petitioner fails to make the
`
`requisite showing.
`
`Petitioner instead first asserts that all the art asserted in the two petitions
`
`is allegedly “new.” Paper 3 at 3. But as explained in the POPRs for IPR2021-
`
`00103 and IPR2021-00105, the combinations were used in substantially the
`
`same way as the Office has already considered. See 325(d) sections the POPRs
`
`for IPR2021-00103 and IPR2021-00105. Specifically, the claims were allowed
`
`because prior art of record did not disclose the claimed reactor system
`
`“combined with” the claimed filter. Ex. 1004 at 382, 434. The applicants
`
`explained that filter choice was not a mere design choice, but was important to
`
`the proper operation of the claimed reactor system that combined a bipolar
`
`pulsed DC power to the target and an RF bias on the substrate. Ex. 1052 at
`
`1456-57, 1134. The inventors explained that the claimed filter needed to both
`
`(1) not to filter out too many frequencies and distort the DC pulse waveform
`
`and (2) not to allow RF power to couple into the DC power. Id.
`
`In both petitions, however, Petitioner uses the base reference(s) for
`
`limitations related to the claimed reactor, and relies on the secondary “filter”
`
`reference directed a totally different reactor system to argue that a POSITA
`
`would have plucked the filter from the secondary “filter” reference and plug it
`
`10914031
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`into the claimed reactor system. See IRP2021-00103 Pet. 30-36; IPR2021-
`
`00105 Pet. 37-40. This is summarized in the table below:
`
`
`
`Petition 1 (IPR2021-00103)
`
`Petition 2 (IPR2021-00105)
`
`reactor
`
`Barber or Barber + Belkind1
`
`Licata + Kelly
`
`filter
`
`Hirose
`
`Collins
`
`background
`knowledge
`
`Ex. 1023, Ex. 1013, Ex. 1057,
`Ex. 1058, Ex. 1016, Ex. 1006,
`Ex. 1009, Ex. 1011, Ex. 1012,
`Ex. 1017, Ex. 1018, Ex. 1019,
`Ex. 1020, Ex. 1021, Ex. 1010;
`Ex. 1024-1026, 1062, 1067
`
`Ex. 1023, Ex. 1013, Ex.
`1057, Ex. 1058, Ex. 1016,
`Ex. 1006, Ex. 1009, Ex.
`1011, Ex. 1012, Ex. 1017,
`Ex. 1018, Ex. 1019, Ex.
`1020, Ex. 1021, Ex. 1010
`
`Reason-to-
`combine
`arguments
`
`filter helps “providing a stable
`waveform to the target so as to
`optimize film deposition by
`reducing or eliminating
`electrical interference from RF
`power supply” (Pet. 30-31)
`
`“the waveform of Licata’s
`pulsed DC power supply 20
`would determine the
`deposited film quality” (Pet.
`38)
`
`“the type of filter is a mere
`design choice,” and “[t]he filter
`will necessarily be designed to
`
`“the type of filter is a mere
`design choice” & “[t]he filter
`will necessarily be designed
`
`
`1 Belkind and Kelly are both used to show the existence of a bipolar pulsed DC
`
`power system. Compare Ex. 1008, Fig. 1 with Ex. 1059, Fig. 2.
`
`10914031
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`reflect the frequency of
`operation” (Pet. 31-32)
`
`Case IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`to reflect the frequency of
`operation” (Pet. 38)
`
`remote RF energy blocking: “A
`POSITA would have
`considered the known use and
`benefits of filters in plasma
`system for blocking
`interference /current of one
`power supply from another
`when considering Barber” (Pet.
`32)
`
`“the use and benefits of
`filters in deposition
`systems/processes to block
`interference/current from one
`power supply from another
`power supply was known,
`and thus would have been in
`the mind of a POSITA …”
`(Pet. 39)
`
` “a filter would aid in
`preventing the RF power from
`the RF power supply from
`damaging the power supply”
`(Pet. 33)
`
`“prevent such signals from
`RF bias power supply from
`affecting DC power supply
`20 during Licata’s process”
`(Pet. 37)
`
`implementations “achieved
`through using known design
`and engineering skills” Pet. 35
`
`implementations “achieved
`through the use of known …
`design, and relevant
`skills…” Pet. 39-40.
`
`Regarding Petitioner’s purported difference—that Barber/Barber-
`
`Belkind does not disclose the use of a filter in a claimed reactor system, while
`
`Licata discloses an RF filter with a DC power supply (Paper 3 at 3)—Petitioner
`
`omits one important fact. In the Licata-Kelly combination, Licata’s DC power
`
`10914031
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`is not disclosed as providing an alternating positive and negative voltages on
`
`the target. IPR2021-00105 Pet. 27 (using Kelly for this limitation). Kelly’s
`
`bipolar pulsed DC power system, however, also does not mention the use of a
`
`filter. See Ex. 1059 generally. This is also true for other pulsed DC power/RF
`
`bias reactors systems like Belkind, Sproul and Kelly1. Ex. 1008, Ex. 1011 and
`
`Ex. 1048 generally. Hence, there is really no difference in the base reactor
`
`system: none of these systems had a filter coupled to the pulsed DC power.
`
`In short, in both petitions, Petitioner starts with the same base reactor
`
`system with no filter and then makes the same design-choice argument as to
`
`why a POSITA would have had a reason to add a claimed filter to the reactor
`
`system. Given the way the references are applied, there is no justification for
`
`Petitioner to have filed two petitions and to have thus “place[d] a substantial
`
`and unnecessary burden on the Board the patent owner.” TPG at 59.
`
`Petitioner’s clearly harassing tactic “raise[s] fairness, timing and efficiency
`
`concerns.” Id. Such conduct should be discouraged and admonished.
`
`Date: February 16, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Hong Zhong/
`H. Annita Zhong, (Reg. No. 66,530)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`
`10914031
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on February
`
`16, 2021, a copy of the foregoing document PATENT OWNER’S
`
`RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF MULTIPLE PETITIONS
`
`was served by electronic mail upon the following:
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
`Naveen Modi, Reg. No. 46,224
`PH-Applied_Materials-Demaray-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Joseph E. Palys, Reg. No. 46,508
`PH-Applied_Materials-Demaray-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Howard Herr (pro hac admission to be requested)
`PH-Applied_Materials-Demaray-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Susan M. Langworthy
`Susan M. Langworthy
`
`
`
`10914031
`
`
`- i -
`
`