UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DEMARAY LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,381,657
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`
`III.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 3
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 3
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 9
`
`VII. THE ’657 PATENT ......................................................................................... 9
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................11
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................12
`
`A. Ground 1: Barber in view of Hirose Renders Obvious Claims 2-
`4, 6, 8, 10-12, and 21 ...........................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................12
`
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................34
`
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................36
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................37
`
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................37
`
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................38
`
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................38
`
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................39
`
`Claim 21 ....................................................................................40
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Barber in view of Hirose and Dogheche Renders
`Obvious Claims 5 and 7 ......................................................................41
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................41
`
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................43
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Barber in view of Hirose and Safi Renders Obvious
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................44
`
`1.
`
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................44
`
`D. Ground 4: Barber in view of Hirose and Aokura Renders
`Obvious Claims 12 and 13 ..................................................................46
`
`1.
`
`Claims 12 and 13.......................................................................46
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Barber in view of Hirose and Segal Renders Obvious
`Claims 14-18 .......................................................................................49
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 14 and 15.......................................................................49
`
`Claim 16 ....................................................................................52
`
`Claim 17 ....................................................................................52
`
`Claim 18 ....................................................................................52
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Barber in view of Hirose, Segal, and Sakawaki
`Renders Obvious Claim 19 .................................................................54
`
`1.
`
`Claim 19 ....................................................................................54
`
`G. Ground 7: Barber in view of Hirose and Sill Renders Obvious
`Claim 20 ..............................................................................................57
`
`1.
`
`Claim 20 ....................................................................................57
`
`H. Ground 8: Barber in view of Hirose and Sellers Renders Obvious
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................60
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................60
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`I.
`
`Grounds 9-16: Each of the Above Prior Art Combinations in
`view of Belkind Renders Obvious the Challenged Claims .................67
`
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE ..................73
`
`A.
`
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under § 325 ........................73
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Institution is Appropriate Under § 314(a) ...........................................74
`
`The Board Should Consider the Merits and Institute Review of
`Petitioner’s Multiple Petitions .............................................................77
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,134 to Barber et al.
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,485,602 to Hirose
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,651,865 to Sellers
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`A. Belkind et al., Pulsed-DC reactive sputtering of dielectrics:
`Pulsing parameter effects (2000)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,464,223 to Gorin
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,132,564 to Licata
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,942,089 to Sproul
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,352,629 to Wang
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`S. Gibilisco, Handbook of Radio & Wireless Technology (1999)
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`J. Joo, Low-temperature polysilicon deposition by
`magnetron sputtering (2000)
`
`ionized
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`B. Chapman, Glow Discharge Processes
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,579,618 to Celestino
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`International Publication No. WO 02/23588 to Quon
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`International Publication No. WO 01/6300 to Johnson
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,695,954 to Hong
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,153,068 to Ohmi
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,846,920 to Keller
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,911,351 to Kidoguchi
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,302,882 to Miller
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Pinnacle Plus+ 10KW (325-650 Vdc) Master/Slave AE Bus,
`DeviceNet, MDXL User, UHF Output User Manual (March 2005)
`The Advanced Energy MDX Magnetron Drive, Advanced Energy
`Industries, Inc. (March 1993)
`Pinnacle 10x6 kW DeviceNet, MDXL User 5702063-C, User
`Manual, (May 2000)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0027249 A1 to Takemura
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0144889 to Tao
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`Ex. 1033
`
`E. Dogheche, Growth and optical characterization of aluminum
`nitride thin films deposited on silicon by radio-frequency
`sputtering, Applied Physics Letters (1999)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,506,686 to Masuda
`
`K. Nam, A study on the high rate deposition of CrN films with x
`controlled microstructure by magnetron sputtering, Surface &
`Coatings Technology (2000)
`D. Mattox, Handbook of Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD)
`Processing – Film Formation, Adhesion, Surface Preparation and
`Contamination Control (1998)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,830,327 to Kolenkow
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0041252 to Laird
`
`Ex. 1035 M. Ruske, Properties of SiO2 and Si3N4 layers deposited by MF
`twin magnetron sputtering using different target materials, Thin
`Solid Films (1999)
`Ex. 1036 W. Sproul, High-rate reactive DC magnetron sputtering of
`oxide and nitride superlattice coatings (1998)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0029563 to Kaushal
`
`Ex. 1037
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Ex. 1038
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,627,323 to Nagaraj
`
`Ex. 1039
`
`Ex. 1040
`
`I. Safi, A novel reactive magnetron sputtering technique for
`producing insulating oxides of metal alloys and other compound
`thin films (2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,001,227 to Pavate
`
`Ex. 1041
`
`S. Wolf et al., Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era, Vol. 1 (2000)
`
`Ex. 1042 Declaration of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee
`
`Ex. 1043 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0031383 to Sakawaki
`
`Ex. 1044
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,895,631 to Wirz
`
`Ex. 1045
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,041,391 to Ando
`
`Ex. 1046
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,657,260 to Yamazaki
`
`Ex. 1047
`
`Ex. 1048
`
`Ex. 1049
`
`A. Billard, Low-frequency modulation of pulsed d.c. or r.f.
`discharges for controlling the reactive magnetron sputtering
`process, Surface & Coatings Technology (1996)
`P. Kelly, The deposition of aluminum oxide coatings by reactive
`unbalanced magnetron sputtering (1996)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,247,227 to Hanson
`
`Ex. 1050
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,391,072 to Forbes
`
`Ex. 1051
`
`International Publication No. WO 96/06203 to O’Brien
`
`Ex. 1052
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,378,356
`
`Ex. 1053
`
`Ex. 1054
`
`Ex. 1055
`
`Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 74, No. 9 (March 1, 1999) Webpages
`https://aip.scitation.org/toc/apl/74/9?size=all& and
`https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.123501 (visited Sept.
`2020)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,331,218 to Moody
`
`Overall Revision of the Rules Regarding Industrial Scientific and
`Medical (ISM) Equipment, 50 Fed. Reg. 36,061 (September 5,
`1985)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Ex. 1056
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,409,965 to Nagata
`
`Ex. 1057
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,284,110 to Sill
`
`Ex. 1058
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,148,133 to Zennamo
`
`Ex. 1059
`
`Ex. 1060
`
`P. Kelly et al., Reactive pulsed magnetron sputtering
`process for alumina films (2000)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 09/145,323 to Miller et al.
`
`Ex. 1061
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,960,651 to Pettigrew
`
`Ex. 1062
`
`Ex. 1063
`
`Pinnacle 20 kW DeviceNet, MDXL User 5702199-A, User
`Manual, (April 2001)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,010,583 to Annavarapu
`
`Ex. 1064
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1065
`
`Pinnacle Plus Pulsed DC Power Supply Data Sheet (April 1999)
`
`Ex. 1066
`
`Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. SEC 10-K (2000)
`
`Ex. 1067
`
`Pinnacle Plus 10kW User 5702269-B, User Manual, (June 2002)
`
`Ex. 1068
`
`Ex. 1069
`
`Exs. 1070-
`1074
`
`Ex. 1075
`
`Ex. 1076
`
`Ex. 1077
`
`Ex. 1078
`
`Ex. 1079
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH10102247A to Aokura and
`certified English translation of JPH10102247A
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2001/0047838 to Segal
`
`RESERVED
`
`Complaint filed Demaray LLC v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 6-20-
`cv-00634 (W.D. Tex.)
`Complaint filed in Demaray LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`et al., Case No. 6-20-cv-00636 (W.D. Tex.)
`First Amended Complaint filed in Applied Materials, Inc. v.
`Demaray LLC, Case No. 5-20-cv-05676 (N.D. Cal.)
`Preliminary Injunction Motion filed in Applied Materials, Inc. v.
`Demaray LLC, Case No. 5-20-cv-05676 (N.D. Cal.)
`Docket Report (October 21, 2020) Applied Materials, Inc. v.
`Demaray LLC, Case No. 5-20-cv-05676 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Ex. 1080
`
`Ex. 1081
`
`Ex. 1082
`
`Docket Report (October 21, 2020) Demaray LLC v. Intel
`Corporation, Case No. 6-20-cv-00634 (W.D. Tex.)
`Docket Report (Oct. 21, 2020) Demaray LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 6-20-cv-00636 (W.D. Tex.)
`Order Governing Proceedings (October 5, 2020) Demaray LLC v.
`Intel Corporation, Case No. 6-20-cv-00634 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of
`
`claims 1-21 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657 (“the ’657
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001), assigned to Demaray LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO”) according
`
`to PTO records. For reasons below, the challenged claims should be found
`
`unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`Real Party-in-Interest: Petitioner identifies Applied Materials, Inc., Intel
`
`Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC as the real
`
`parties-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: The ’657 patent is at issue in the following cases: Demaray
`
`LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 6-20-cv-00636 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`(“Samsung Litigation”); Demaray LLC v. Intel Corporation, Case No. 6-20-cv-
`
`00634 (W.D. Tex.) (“Intel Litigation”); and Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray
`
`LLC, Case No. 5-20-cv-05676 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`The above cases also involve US. Patent No. 7,544,276, against which
`
`Petitioner is also filing an IPR petition. Petitioner is also filing concurrently
`
`herewith another IPR petition challenging the ’657 patent.1
`
`Counsel and Service Information: Petitioner designates lead and back-up
`
`counsel as noted below. Powers of attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)
`
`accompany this Petition.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`2050 M Street NW
`
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 551-1990
`Facsimile: (202) 551 -0490
`E-mail: PH-Applied_Materials-
`Demaray-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`2050 M Street NW
`
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 551-1996
`Facsimile: (202) 551—0496
`E—mail: PH—Applied_Materials-Demaray—
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Howard Herr (pro hac admission to be
`requested)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`2050 M Street NW
`
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 551-1980
`Facsimile: (202) 551-1705
`E-mail: PH-Applied_Materials-Demaray-
`IPR I aulhastin
`
`1 Petitioner concurrently submits a separate paper (consistent with the Trial Practice
`
`Guide Update, July 2019), explaining why the filing of multiple petitions should be
`
`not be a basis for discretionary denial under § 314.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`Back-U Counsel
`——
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Please address all correspondence to counsel identified above. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service by email at: PH—Applied_Materials-Demaray—
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`III.
`
`PAYNIENT OF FEES
`
`The PTO is authorized to charge any fees due during this proceeding to
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’657 patent is available for review and is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting review on the identified grounds.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`
`Ground 1: Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10-12, and 21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 as obvious over Barber (Ex. 1005) and Hirose (Ex. 1006);
`
`Ground 2: Claims 5 and 7 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, and Dogheche (Ex. 1029);
`
`Ground 3: Claim 9 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Barber,
`
`Hirose, and Safi (Ex. 1039);
`
`Ground 4: Claims 12 and 13 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, and Aokura (Ex. 1068);
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Ground 5: Claims 14-18 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, and Segal (Ex. 1069);
`
`Ground 6: Claim 19 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Barber,
`
`Hirose, Segal, and Sakawaki (Ex. 1043);
`
`Ground 7: Claim 20 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Barber,
`
`Hirose, and Sill (Ex. 1057);
`
`Ground 8: Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Barber,
`
`Hirose, and Sellers (Ex. 1007);
`
`Ground 9: Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 21 are unpatentable under § 103
`
`as obvious over Barber, Hirose, and Belkind (Ex. 1008);
`
`Ground 10: Claims 5 and 7 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, and Dogheche;
`
`Ground 11: Claim 9 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Barber,
`
`Hirose, Belkind, and Safi;
`
`Ground 12: Claims 12 and 13 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, and Aokura;
`
`Ground 13: Claims 14-18 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, and Segal;
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Ground 14: Claim 19 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Barber,
`
`Hirose, Belkind, Segal, and Sakawaki;
`
`Ground 15: Claim 20 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Barber,
`
`Hirose, Belkind, and Sill; and
`
`Ground 16: Claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Barber,
`
`Hirose, Belkind, and Sellers.
`
`The ’657 patent claims a March 16, 2002 priority date. Barber issued from
`
`an application filed February 11, 2000 (Ex. 1005, Cover), Hirose issued from an
`
`application filed July 18, 2001 (Ex. 1006, Cover). Both qualify as prior art under §
`
`102(e). Aokura published on April 21, 1998 (Ex. 1068, Cover) and qualifies as prior
`
`art under § 102(b). Sellers issued on July 29, 1997 and Sill issued September 4,
`
`2001, and both qualify as prior art under § 102(b) (Ex. 1007, Cover; Ex. 1057,
`
`Cover). Sakawaki published on October 18, 2001 from an application filed March
`
`19, 2001 (Ex. 1043, Cover) and Segal published on December 6, 2001 from an
`
`application filed February 13, 2001, and both qualify as a prior art under §§ 102(a)
`
`and (e).
`
`Dogheche is an article received on July 24, 1998, accepted for publication on
`
`January 5, 1999, and published by the American Institute of Physics in Applied
`
`Physics Letters, Vol. 74, No. 9 on March 1, 1999. (Ex. 1029, 1-2; Ex. 1042, ¶¶35-
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`37, Appendix 1029.)2 Dogheche itself demonstrates it was published and publicly
`
`available at least as early as March 1999. (e.g., 1999 copyright marking (Ex. 1029,
`
`1-2), “March 1999” date on each page (id., 1-4), citations dated from 1969-1999 (id.,
`
`4); Ex. 1042, ¶¶35-37). Other information so confirms. (Ex. 1053, 3 (AIP.org
`
`website (visited 2020) showing Dogheche in Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 74, No.
`
`9, March 1, 1999), 20-23 (resulting page from hyperlink for Dogheche on page 3,
`
`including same title, abstract and references cited as in Ex. 1029), Linda Hall Library
`
`date stamp (“AUG 04 1999”) (Ex. 1042, ¶¶38, 41, Appendix 1029-A), bibliographic
`
`and MARC records (Ex. 1042, ¶¶39-49, Appendices 1029-B, 1029-C), and citations
`
`to Dogheche in prior publications (id., ¶50; id., (Appendix 1029-D, 2-4 (May 2000
`
`article), 3 (citation [9] to Dogheche), 4-9 (November 2000 article), 9 (citation [9] to
`
`Dogheche), 10-14 (February 2001 article), 14 (citation [6] to Dogheche) and Dr.
`
`Hsieh-Yee’s testimony (Ex. 1042, ¶¶35-51) demonstrate Dogheche was publicly
`
`accessible before March 2002.
`
`
`2 Petitioner submits Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee’s testimony, an expert in library
`
`cataloguing and classification, regarding various references’ printed publication
`
`status. (Ex. 1042, ¶¶3-20, Appendix A.)
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Safi is an article received on March 20, 2000 and accepted in revised form for
`
`publication on August 17, 2000, and published by Elsevier Science B.V in Surface
`
`and Coatings Technology Journal (135) in 2000. (Ex. 1039, 1; Ex. 1042, ¶¶67-69,
`
`Appendix 1039.) Safi itself demonstrates that it was published and publicly available
`
`at least as early as 2000 (thus no later than Dec. 31, 2000) (e.g., copyright marking
`
`(Ex. 1039, 1), reference to “Surface and Coatings Technology (2000) 48-59 (id., 1-
`
`12), citations dated before 2000 (id., 11-12).) Other information so confirms: Linda
`
`Hall Library date stamp (“JAN 10 2001”) (Ex. 1042, ¶¶70, 73; Appendix 1039-A),
`
`bibliographic and MARC records (Ex. 1042, ¶¶71-81, Appendices 1039-B, 1039-
`
`C), and citations to Safi in prior publications (id., ¶82; id., (Appendix 1039-D
`
`(November 2001 article), 6 (citation [3] to Safi)) and Dr. Hsieh-Yee’s testimony (Ex.
`
`1042, ¶¶67-83) demonstrate that Safi was publicly accessible before March 2002.
`
`Belkind is an article dated in 2000 and published by Society of Vacuum
`
`Coaters in its 43rd Annual Technical Conference Proceedings (2000). (Ex. 1008, 1;
`
`Ex. 1042, ¶¶21-22, Appendix 1008.) Belkind itself demonstrates that it was
`
`published and publicly available at least as early as 2000 (thus no later than
`
`December 31, 2000) (e.g., Ex. 1008, 1 (2000 copyright), 5 (citations dated before
`
`2000); Ex. 1042, ¶¶21-22). Other information so confirms: Linda Hall Library date
`
`stamp (“SEP 12 2000”) (Ex. 1042, ¶¶22, 25; Appendix 1008, 10), bibliographic and
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`MARC records (Ex. 1042, ¶¶23-33, Appendix 1008-A, 1008-B) and Dr. Hsieh-
`
`Yee’s testimony (Ex. 1042, ¶¶21-34) demonstrate that Belkind was publicly
`
`accessible before March 2002. (See also Section X.A, Ex. 1052, 1305 (n.2), 1364
`
`(applicant citing Belkind in IDS).)
`
`Evidence associated with Dogheche, Safi, and Belkind (including respective
`
`copyright markings) provide substantial indicia of publication supporting that these
`
`references qualify as prior art. Coupled with Dr. Hsieh-Yee’s testimony (and her
`
`supporting evidence)3, this petition presents evidence sufficient to establish
`
`Dogheche, Safi, and Belkind were publicly accessible before the alleged invention
`
`of the ’657 patent and qualify as prior art. Hulu, LLC v. Sound View innovation,
`
`LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 12-13, 18 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Further,
`
`none of the asserted references other than Belkind were considered during
`
`prosecution. (See Ex. 1004; Section X.A.)
`
`
`3 As Dr. Hsieh-Yee notes, the Library of Congress and the British Library continue
`
`to be closed due to the COVID pandemic (Ex. 1042, ¶¶20, 33, 49, 81), and it was
`
`impossible to access additional evidence from these sources to support public
`
`accessibility. Petitioner reserves the right to submit such information with
`
`supporting expert testimony once those libraries reopen to the public.
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had, at the time
`
`of the ’657 patent (March 2002): a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or
`
`Material Science (or an equivalent subject) plus at least two years of relevant
`
`experience (e.g., sputtering deposition of films on substrates (Ex. 1001, 1:10-14,
`
`2:45-47)), or a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Material Science (or
`
`an equivalent subject) plus at least four years of relevant experience. More education
`
`can substitute for practical experience, and vice versa. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶19-20.)4
`
`VII. THE ’657 PATENT
`
`The ’657 patent describes a reactor 10, including a target 12 electrically-
`
`coupled through a filter 15 to a pulsed-DC power supply 14, and a substrate 16
`
`capacitively-coupled to electrode 17, which is coupled to an RF power supply 18.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 5:25-34.) Filter 15 prevents the bias from supply 18 from coupling into
`
`DC power supply 14. (Id., 5:56-57.) (Ex. 1002, ¶¶39-41.)
`
`
`
`
`4 Petitioner submits Dr. Vivek Subramanian’s declaration (Ex. 1002), an expert in
`
`the field of the ’657 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶3-38; Ex. 1003.)
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 (annotated), Figure 1A.) This arrangement was nothing new. The same
`
`manufacturer of the DC supply exemplified in the patent (id., 5:46-48) repeatedly
`
`advised the need for an RF filter in similar systems since early 1990s.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`(Ex. 1025, 6, 23-24; Ex. 1026, 116, Ex. 1062, 134; Ex. 1024, 151; Section IX; Ex.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`1002 (generally).)5
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`During IPR, claims are construed according to the “Phillips standard.”
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); 83 Fed. Reg.
`
`51341 (Oct. 11, 2018). The Board only construes the claims when necessary to
`
`resolve the underlying controversy. Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00633, Paper No. 11 at 16 (Aug. 14, 2015); Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here,
`
`given the correlation between the prior art and the challenged claims, the Board need
`
`not construe any terms of the challenged claims to resolve the underlying
`
`controversy, as any reasonable interpretation of those terms consistent with their
`
`plain meaning reads on the prior art.6 (Ex. 1002, ¶54.)
`
`
`5 Section IX below references exhibits other than the identified prior art for each
`
`ground. Such exhibits reflect the state of the art known to a POSITA at the time of
`
`the alleged invention consistent with the testimony of Dr. Subramanian.
`
`6 Petitioner reserves all rights to raise alternative claim construction and other
`
`arguments in this and other proceedings as appropriate.
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`
`As discussed below, claims 1-21 are unpatentable in view of the prior art. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶13-203.)
`
`A. Ground 1: Barber in view of Hirose Renders Obvious Claims 2-4,
`6, 8, 10-12, and 21
`
`1.
`
`Claim 2
`
`a) Claim 2[a] “A method of depositing an insulating
`film on a substrate, comprising:”
`
`To the extent limiting, Barber discloses this preamble. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶56-60.)
`
`Barber discloses depositing a piezoelectric film, e.g., aluminum nitride (AlN), a
`
`known insulating material. (Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1:15-19, 4:31-34, 5:62-67, 6:42-46,
`
`6:58-62, 7:26-29, 8:44-9:22; Ex. 1002, ¶56; Ex. 1005, 2:50-52 (“insulating films
`
`(including piezoelectric films)”); Ex. 1022, 38:63-67 ( “insulating film…of AlN”
`
`)7.) Piezoelectric film 120 (AlN) is deposited on substrate 110 via reactive sputtering
`
`using the system of Figure 2. (Ex. 1005, Figs. 1, 2, 5:67-6:3, 7:23-25.) Barber also
`
`discloses depositing AlN and silicon dioxide on a monitor wafer. (Id., 8:44-48, 9:25-
`
`31; Ex. 1002, ¶56.)
`
`
`7 Emphasis herein is added unless noted otherwise.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005, FIG. 2.) Pressure within plasma chamber 210 is regulated by valve 270
`
`and source 240, which introduces a noble gas (e.g., Ar), and source 250, which
`
`introduces a reactive gas (e.g., O2, N2.). (Id., 6:4-13, 6:27-29; Ex. 1002, ¶57.)
`
`Pulsed DC power source 230 applies a bias across target 260 and anode ring
`
`225 to ionize the noble gas, forming a plasma. (Ex. 1005, 6:4-11, 7:30-34; 8:49-52.)
`
`Noble gas ions bombard target 260 and eject target materials (e.g., aluminum). (Id.,
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`7:30-34, 6:42-46; id., 2:1-5 (conventional techniques).) The freed materials, reacted
`
`with the reactive gas (e.g., nitrogen), are deposited on substrate 110, forming a film
`
`(e.g., AlN film). (Id., 7:34-36, 8:44-9:22.) Radio Frequency (RF) power supply 235
`
`applies a bias to platen 115 positioning substrate 110 to control deposited film
`
`property. (Id., 6:15-17, 6:29-31, Fig. 5, 7:1-2, 8:43-9:22 (AlN), 9:23-10:11 (SiO2);
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶¶58-60.)
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`(Ex. 1005, FIG. 5.) Barber’s process controls gas flows to attain a “cross-over point”
`
`and adjusting parameters to deposit high-quality films. (Id., 7:1-8:12.) (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶58-60; infra Sections IX.A.1(b)-(f).)
`
`b) Claim 2[b] “providing a process gas between a target
`and a substrate;”
`
`Barber discloses providing a noble gas and a reactive gas (collectively, or one
`
`of noble gas (e.g., argon) or reactive gas (e.g., nitrogen, oxygen), the claimed
`
`“process gas”) into chamber 210 between target 260 and substrate 110. (Ex. 1005,
`
`6:8-13.) Substrate 110 is “disposed such that it is in communication with the target
`
`and gasses.” (Id., 6:14-17; FIG. 2; Ex. 1002, ¶61 (annotated FIG. 2.) Target 260 is
`
`bombarded by the ionized noble gas and reacts with the reactive gas. (Ex. 1005, 2:1-
`
`9, 6:6-11, 7:30-36; 8:49-52; Ex. 1002, ¶61; Section IX.A.1(a).)
`
`c)
`
`Claim 2[c]
`
`(1)
`
`2[c](1): “providing pulsed DC power to the
`target…such that the voltage on the target
`alternates between positive and negative
`voltages;”
`
`Barber discloses applying positive DC pulses to target 260 at a pulse
`
`frequency (Ex. 1005, 2:21-26, 7:14-17, 8:45-48, 8:66-9:3, 9:17-22) and that the
`
`“reverse-bias pulse width” of the DC supply may be adjusted for tuning the
`
`deposited film property (id., 9:6-11, 9:48-53; Ex. 1002, ¶63-72). A POSITA would
`
`have understood that Barber’s reference to a “reverse-bias” pulse refers to a positive
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`bias pulse, which is consistent with the ’657 patent and the state of the art at the time.
`
`(Ex. 1002, ¶¶63-64; Ex. 1001, 5:50-51 (“The reverse voltage is 10% of the negative
`
`target voltage.”); 5:39-43 (positive-bias period known as “reverse time”); Ex. 1008,
`
`1-2 (positive-bias period is “off-time”), 3 (“off-time” also called “reverse time”).)
`
`Barber’s disclosure that “increasing the [reverse] pulse width…lowers the
`
`deposition rate” (Ex. 1005, 9:6-11) is consistent with a POSITA’s and the ’657
`
`patent’s understanding that positive-pulse periods are off-times. (Ex. 1002, ¶65; Ex.
`
`1001, 10:57-58 (long “reverse time” decreases “deposition rate”).)
`
`A POSITA would have understood that, in sputtering process, a negative bias
`
`must be applied to the target at times in a DC-based sputtering system (e.g., as in
`
`Barber) in order to attract the positively-charged gas ions of the plasma. (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶66.) This is because the positively-charged gas ions must be accelerated towards a
`
`negatively-biased target to knock off the target material for deposition. (Id., ¶66;
`
`Ex. 1005, 2:1-5, 7:30-34.) This would not occur if the target is only positively-
`
`biased, consistent with Coulomb’s Law (like charges repel and opposite charges
`
`attract). (Ex. 1002, ¶¶66-67; Ex. 1007, 3:8-16, 3:39-41, 3:53-54 (a “negative” target
`
`voltage is the “normal” sputtering voltage); Ex. 1008, 1-2, 4 (“[s]puttering takes
`
`place only during the on-time”).) (Ex. 1052, 1382-1384 (recognition by applicant
`
`during prosecution of parent application that applying negative target bias so that
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`“the target functions as a cathode” and to allow “gas ions [to] accelerate toward the
`
`target”).)
`
`Accordingly, Barber’s pulsed-DC supply 230 necessarily provides a negative
`
`bias to target 260 during its reactive-sputtering process in order to attract positively-
`
`charged gas ions (e.g., ionized argon, Ar+) to facilitate target material bombardment
`
`for deposition onto substrate 110. (Ex. 1002, ¶68.) Thus, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that the voltage provided by supply 230 to target 260 necessarily
`
`alternates between positive and negative voltages at a pulse frequency because target
`
`260, being an electrode, receives such voltage (Ex. 1005, 6:4-8, 8:45-48). Such
`
`understanding is consistent with as disclosed in Miller, incorporated by reference in
`
`Barber. (Ex. 1005, 2:14-26, 8:44-9:22 (applying Miller’s pulsed DC technique to
`
`deposit films).) Miller discloses that in “pulsed DC reactive sputtering,” negative
`
`cathode/target bias is “reversed periodically” to positive for depositing insulating
`
`films. (Ex. 1060, 4:24-5:5, 6:2-11, 6:26-29, 7:6-11, 8:14-10:22, 11:14-12:30, FIGS.
`
`4a-b; Ex. 1002, ¶¶69-72; Section IX.A.1(a).) Therefore, Barber discloses and/or
`
`inherently discloses limitation 2[c](1).
`
`(2)
`
`2[c](2): [] “through a narrow band rejection
`filter []” ;
`
`Barber in view of Hirose discloses and/or suggests this claim element. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶73-100.) Barber explains that reactive sputtering at the “cross-over point” is
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review