UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DEMARAY LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,544,276
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 6
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 6
`
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 8
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND FEE PAYMENT ................................. 8
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 8
`
`Grounds for Challenge ........................................................................ 13
`
`V.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY .............................................. 14
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’276 PATENT AND PRIOR ART ........................... 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Disclosure ................................................................. 14
`
`Relevant Prosecution History .............................................................. 15
`
`Overview of the Prior Art .................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`
`
`Licata ......................................................................................... 16
`
`Collins ....................................................................................... 17
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 19
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 20
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 21
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are obvious over Licata in view
`Kelly and Collins ................................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 21
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 40
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 42
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 43
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 48
`
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 49
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground II: Claims 4 and 5 are obvious over Licata in view of
`Kelly, Collins, and Aokura .................................................................. 50
`
`
`
`Claims 4 and 5 ........................................................................... 50
`
`Ground III: Claims 9 and 10 are obvious over Licata in view of
`Kelly, Collins, and Dogheche ............................................................. 55
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 55
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 59
`
`D. Ground IV: Claims 11-13 are obvious over Licata in view of
`Kelly, Collins, and Doessel ................................................................. 62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 62
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 65
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 66
`
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE ............................. 68
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under § 325 ........................ 68
`
`Institution is Appropriate Under § 314(a) ........................................... 70
`
`The Board Should Consider the Merits and Institute Review of
`Petitioner’s Multiple Petitions ............................................................. 73
`
`XI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,342,134 to Barber et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,485,602 to Hirose
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,651,865 to Sellers
`
`A. Belkind et al., Pulsed-DC reactive sputtering of dielectrics:
`Pulsing parameter effects (2000)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,464,223 to Gorin
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,132,564 to Licata
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,942,089 to Sproul
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,352,629 to Wang
`
`S. Gibilisco, Handbook of Radio & Wireless Technology (1999)
`
`J. Joo, Low-temperature polysilicon deposition by ionized
`magnetron sputtering (2000)
`
`RESERVED
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,579,618 to Celestino
`
`International Publication No. WO 02/23588 to Quon
`
`International Publication No. WO 01/6300 to Johnson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,695,954 to Hong
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,153,068 to Ohmi
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,846,920 to Keller
`
`RESERVED
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,302,882 to Miller
`
`Pinnacle Plus+ 10KW (325-650 Vdc) Master/Slave AE Bus,
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`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)
`
`1027-1028 RESERVED
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`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
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0041252 to Laird
`
`1035
`
`M. Ruske, Properties of SiO2 and Si3N4 layers deposited by MF
`twin magnetron sputtering using different target materials, Thin
`Solid Films (1999)
`1036 W. Sproul, High-rate reactive DC magnetron sputtering of
`oxide and nitride superlattice coatings (1998)
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0029563 to Kaushal
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,627,323 to Nagaraj
`
`1039-1040 RESERVED
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`S. Wolf et al., Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era, Vol. 1 (2000)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee
`
`1043-1045 RESERVED
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,657,260 to Yamazaki
`
`A. Billard, Low-frequency modulation of pulsed d.c. or r.f.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`discharges for controlling the reactive magnetron sputtering
`process, Surface & Coatings Technology (1996)
`
`1048
`
`P. Kelly, The deposition of aluminum oxide coatings by reactive
`unbalanced magnetron sputtering (1996)
`
`1049-1051 RESERVED
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,378,356
`
`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)
`
`1054-1056 RESERVED
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,284,110 to Sill
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,148,133 to Zennamo
`
`P. J. Kelly et al., Reactive pulsed magnetron sputtering process for
`alumina films (2000)
`
`1060-1061 RESERVED
`
`1062
`
`Pinnacle 20 kW DeviceNet, MDXL User 5702199-A, User
`Manual, (April 2001)
`
`1063-1064 RESERVED
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`
`1074
`
`Pinnacle Plus Pulsed DC Power Supply Data Sheet (April 1999)
`
`RESERVED
`
`Pinnacle Plus 10kW User 5702269-B, User Manual, (June 2002)
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH10102247A to Aokura and
`certified English translation of JPH10102247A
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2001/0047838 to Segal
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,527,605 to Doessel
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,077,384 to Collins et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,130,005 to Hurwitt
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,006,070 to King
`
`Sellers, Asymmetric bipolar pulsed DC: the enabling technology
`for reactive PVD (1998)
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`1075
`
`1076
`
`1077
`
`1078
`
`1079
`
`1080
`
`1081
`
`1082
`
`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.)
`
`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.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests Inter Partes
`
`Review of claims 1-13 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276 (the
`
`“’276 patent”) (Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et
`
`seq.
`
`The ’276 patent describes “a sputtering reactor apparatus for depositing
`
`oxide and oxynitride films.” Ex. 1001, 2:45-46. Reactive DC magnetron
`
`sputtering, however, was well-known at the time of the claimed invention, and the
`
`challenged claims either are not novel or are obvious variations of known
`
`sputtering reactors. The aspects identified by the ’276 patent as allegedly inventive
`
`were known in the prior art at the time of the claimed invention, and they provide
`
`only known and predictable results that do not demonstrate innovation.
`
`
`
`Moreover, the primary prior art references (Licata, Kelly, and Collins) relied
`
`upon in this and related petition—none of which were applied against the claims
`
`nor discussed by the Examiner—disclose the key elements that the Examiner found
`
`to be allegedly missing from the prior art during prosecution. For example, the
`
`Examiner allowed claims 1-13 because he found that the prior art of record did not
`
`disclose the “claimed reactor combined with the narrow band rejection filter that
`
`rejects at a frequency of the RF bias power supply coupled between the pulsed DC
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`power supply and the target area.” However, as demonstrated below, the Licata,
`
`Kelly, and Collins references disclose and/or suggest those limitations.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the prior art cited in this Petition renders obvious claims 1-13
`
`of the ’276 patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. 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.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Demaray LLC (“Demaray” or “Patent Owner”) has asserted the ’276 patent
`
`against Intel in Demaray LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 6:20-cv-00634 (W.D.
`
`Tex.). Demaray also has asserted the ’276 patent against Samsung in Demaray
`
`LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD, No. 6:20-cv-00636 (W.D. Tex.). The ’276
`
`patent is also at issue in Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC, Case No. 5-20-
`
`cv-05676 (N.D. Cal.). Petitioners are also filing concurrently herewith a second
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`IPR petition challenging the ’276 patent.1 The above cases also involve U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,381,657, against which Petitioner is also filing IPR petitions.
`
`C. Counsel
`
`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@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Please address all correspondence to counsel identified above. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service by email at: PH-Applied_Materials-Demaray-
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING AND FEE PAYMENT
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’276 patent is available for review and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting review on the identified
`
`grounds.
`
`The PTO is authorized to charge any fees due during this proceeding to
`
`Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-13 of the ’276 patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`
`The ’276 patent was filed September 16, 2005 and is a division of App. No.
`
`10/101,863, filed on March 16, 2002, now Pat. No. 7,378,356. Accordingly, the
`
`pre-AIA statutory framework applies.
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,132,564, “In-Situ Pre-Metallization Clean and
`
`Metallization of Semiconductor Wafers” to Thomas J. Licata
`
`(“Licata”) (Ex. 1010). Licata was filed on November 17, 1997 and
`
`issued on October 17, 2000.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,077,384, “Plasma Reactor Having an Inductive
`
`Antenna Coupling Power Through a Parallel Plate Electrode” to
`
`Kenneth S. Collins (“Collins”) (Ex. 1071). Collins was filed on
`
`February 2, 1996, issued on June 20, 2000.
`
`3.
`
`P. Kelly et al., Reactive pulsed magnetron sputtering process for
`
`alumina films (2000) (“Kelly”) (Ex. 1059). Kelly is an article
`
`received on March 17, 2000 and accepted for publication on August
`
`28, 2000 and eventually published by the Journal of Vacuum Science
`
`and Technology online on November 10, 2000. Ex. 1059, Cover; Ex.
`
`1042, ¶¶84-87, Appendix 1059.2 Information in Kelly demonstrates
`
`that it was published and publicly available at least as early as
`
`December 2000. See e.g., Ex. 1059, 1 (2000 copyright marking), 2-8
`
`
`
`2 Petitioner submits testimony of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, an expert in the field of
`
`library cataloguing and classification, regarding the printed publication status of
`
`various references. See Ex. 1042, ¶¶3-20, Appendix A .
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`(“Nov/Dec 2000” date on each page), 8 (citations dated from 1990-
`
`2000); Ex. 1042, ¶¶84-86, Appendix 1059-A. Other information
`
`confirms the same: Linda Hall Library date stamp (“NOV 27 2000”)
`
`(Ex. 1042, ¶¶87, 90, Appendix 1059-A), bibliographic and MARC
`
`records (Ex. 1042, ¶¶88-93, Appendix 1059-B), and citations to Kelly
`
`in publications dated before March 2002 (Ex. 1042, ¶94, Appendix
`
`1039-D, 2-4 (November 2001 article), 6 (citation [6] to Kelly)), and
`
`Dr. Hsieh-Yee’s testimony (Ex. 1042, ¶¶84-95). This evidence
`
`demonstrates that Kelly was publicly accessible before March 2002.
`
`See also Section X.A, Ex. 1052, 493 (applicant citing Kelly in IDS).
`
`4.
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH10102247A to Aokura, which
`
`published on April 21, 1998 (Ex. 1068, Cover (certified English
`
`translation)).
`
`5.
`
`E. Dogheche, Growth and optical characterization of aluminum nitride
`
`thin films deposited on silicon by radio-frequency sputtering, Applied
`
`Physics Letters (1999). 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, ¶¶35-37, Appendix
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`1029.3 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, 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
`
`
`
`3 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.)
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`6.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,527,605, “Magnetooptic layer and a process for its
`
`fabrication” to Karl-Friedrich Doessel (“Doessel”) (Ex. 1070).
`
`Doessel was filed on April 7, 1994, issued on June 18, 1996.
`
`Accordingly, Licata, Collins, and Doessel is each prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e), Aokura is prior art under at least §§ 102(a) and
`
`102(b), and Dogheche and Kelly is each prior art under at least §§ 102(a) and
`
`102(b). Evidence associated with Kelly and Dogheche (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)4, this petition presents evidence sufficient to establish
`
`Dogheche, and Kelly 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,
`
`
`
`4 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.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`other than Kelly, none of the asserted references were identified during
`
`prosecution. See generally Ex. 1004; infra Section IX.1.
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-13 of the ’276 patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The specific grounds are as follows:
`
` Ground I: Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are obvious over Licata in view Kelly
`
`and Collins
`
` Ground II: Claims 4 and 5 are obvious over Licata in view of Kelly,
`
`Collins, and Aokura
`
` Ground III: Claims 9 and 10 are obvious over Licata in view of
`
`Kelly, Collins, and Dogheche
`
` Ground IV: Claims 11-13 are obvious over Licata in view of Kelly,
`
`Collins, and Doessel
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian (Exs.
`
`1002, 1003; see Ex. 1002, ¶¶1-38), demonstrates that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to cancellation of at least one
`
`challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioner respectfully requests
`
`institution on all challenged grounds. SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348
`
`(2018).
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`V. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`The ’276 patent is directed to a sputtering reactor apparatus for depositing
`
`oxide and oxynitride film. Ex. 1001, 2:45-47. Sputtering was a known industrial
`
`process that uses plasmas to deposit a thin film of a target material onto a substrate
`
`(e.g., silicon wafer). Ex. 1002, ¶¶20-23. Ions in the plasma strike a target surface
`
`causing ejection of a small amount of target material. Id. The ejected target
`
`material then forms a film on the substrate. Id. As demonstrated below, sputtering
`
`reactors were known to be made up of well-known components, such as a pulsed
`
`DC power supply (including bipolar supplies), an RF bias power supply coupled to
`
`the substrate, and rejection filters to block the RF signals from affecting the pulsed
`
`DC power supply. Id., ¶¶20-38; Section IX.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’276 PATENT AND PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Disclosure
`
`The ’276 patent describes processes for depositing “oxide and oxynitride
`
`films by pulsed DC reactive sputtering.” Ex. 1001, 1:12-14; Ex. 1002, ¶¶39-41.
`
`Figure 1A describes a reactor apparatus 10 that includes a target 12 electrically
`
`coupled through a filter 15 to a pulsed DC power supply 14. Ex. 1001, 5:19-28,
`
`5:40-49 (use of commercially available bipolar DC supply). A substrate 16 is
`
`capacitively coupled to electrode 17, which is coupled to an RF power supply 18.
`
`Id., 5:26-28.
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 – Figure 1A
`
`
`
`During operation, pulsed DC power is supplied to target 12 and RF power is
`
`supplied to substrate 16. Id., 5:16-18. The pulsed DC power supplied to the target
`
`creates plasma 53. Id., 5:25-26. The RF power supplied to the substrate prevents
`
`the creation of columnar structures in the film deposited on the substrate. Id., 5:64-
`
`67, 9:45-57. Filter 15 prevents the bias power from the RF power supply 18 from
`
`coupling into the pulsed DC power supply 14. Id., 5:49-50. Ex. 1002, ¶¶39-41.
`
`B. Relevant Prosecution History
`
`During prosecution, the applicant amended/added claims to include the
`
`positive and negative DC voltage and narrow band rejection filter aspects now
`
`found in the challenged claims. Ex. 1004, 325-330. The Office found the
`
`“oscillating negative and positive voltages” aspects to be in the prior art (e.g., U.S.
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`Pat. No. 5,942,089 to Sproul), but allowed claims based on the claimed filter
`
`aspects. Id., 381-382, 420-422, 434. Neither the applicant nor the Office addressed
`
`how any prior art could be combined with another to disclose the claimed filtering
`
`features. Id., 434. The ’276 patent subsequently issued on June 9, 2009. Ex.
`
`1001, Cover.
`
`C. Overview of the Prior Art
`
`
`
`Licata
`
`Licata, like the ’276 patent, discloses a reactor apparatus that includes target
`
`16, DC power supply 20, bias power source 27, substrate (wafer) 15, and RF filter
`
`22. Ex. 1010, 6:1-45, Figure 2; Ex. 1002, ¶42.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1010 – Figure 2
`
`During operation, power from the DC power supply 20 (which “may be
`
`pulsed”) produces a negative potential on the target 16. Positive ions of gas are
`
`accelerated toward and against the negatively charged target causing particles to be
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`ejected from the surface of target 16. Ex. 1010, 6:34-36, 6:46-59. The RF bias
`
`power supply 27 negatively biases the substrate 15 relative to the plasma to
`
`provide force to accelerate the positively ionized sputtered particles toward and
`
`onto the substrate surface. Id., 9:6-14. The RF bias power supply “is preferably an
`
`RF generator that operates in the range of from about 0.2 to 80 MHz, for example,
`
`at 13.56 MHz.”). Id., 9:14-16; Ex. 1002, ¶43.
`
`
`
`Collins
`
`Collins discloses a plasma processing apparatus 100 that includes a ceiling
`
`110 connected to a first RF power generator 300 and a pedestal 120 connected to a
`
`second RF power generator 305. Ex. 1073, 23:66-24:7, 15:40-64. The pedestal
`
`120 also “supports a semiconductor wafer or workpiece 125 to be processed by the
`
`reactor.” Id., 15:42-44; Ex. 1002, ¶44.
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`Ex. 1073 – Figure 23
`
`
`
`During operation, power from the first RF power generator 300 is applied to
`
`a ceiling 110. Id., 24:1-7. Power from the second RF power generator 305 is
`
`applied to pedestal 120 to generate a bias potential at the semiconductor wafer or
`
`workpiece 125. Id., 24:1-7. The ions in the plasma are attracted to the
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`semiconductor wafer and can be used for wafer processing, such as performing
`
`reactive ion etching. Id., 6:21-24; Ex. 1002, ¶45.
`
`Collins further discloses utilizing a first isolation filter 310, coupled between
`
`the first RF power generator 300 and ceiling 110, and a second isolation filter 315,
`
`coupled between the second RF power generator 305 and pedestal 120. The two
`
`isolation filters are used to “prevent the RF energy from either one of the RF power
`
`generators 300, 305 from reaching the other.” Ex. 1071, 24:7-9; Ex. 1002, ¶46.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Board applies the same standard applied in federal courts to construe
`
`patent claims. 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018). Accordingly, absent contrary
`
`intrinsic evidence, a claim term is given its “ordinary and customary meaning”—
`
`i.e., “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in question … as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`The Board, however, 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); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here,
`
`given the close correlation between the asserted prior art and the claims of the ’276
`
`patent, the Board need not construe any terms of the challenged claims to resolve
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`the underlying controversy, as any reasonable interpretation of those terms
`
`consistent with their plain meaning (as would have been understood by a POSITA
`
`at the time of the invention, having taken into consideration the language of the
`
`claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record) reads on the prior
`
`art. Ex. 1002, ¶47.
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had, at the time
`
`the parent application to the ’276 patent was filed in March 2002: a Master’s
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering or Material Science (or an equivalent subject) plus
`
`at least two years of relevant experience, or a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering or Material Science (or an equivalent subject) plus at least four years
`
`of relevant experience. “Relevant experience,” in the context of the asserted
`
`patent, refers to experience with sputtering deposition of films on substrates. See
`
`’276 patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:12-14 (“The present invention relates to deposition of
`
`oxide and oxynitride films and, in particular, to deposition of oxide and oxynitride
`
`films by pulsed DC reactive sputtering.”), 2:45-47 (“In accordance with the present
`
`invention, a sputtering reactor apparatus for depositing oxide and oxynitride films
`
`is presented.”); Ex. 1002 at ¶¶18-19.
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`For reasons discussed below, claims 1-13 are unpatentable in view of the
`
`prior art. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶13-19; ¶¶39-130; see also id., ¶¶20-38; Exs. 1024, 1025,
`
`1026, 1062, 1065, 1067.)
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are obvious over Licata in view
`Kelly and Collins
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 is obvious over Licata in view of Kelly and Collins. Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶49-76.
`
`(a)
`
`“A reactor according to the present invention,
`comprising:”
`
`To the extent that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, Licata discloses a
`
`“reactor.” Figure 2 of Licata is a diagram of “module 10” which is “an Ionized
`
`Physical Vapor Deposition” apparatus that includes a vacuum tight processing
`
`space 11 enclosed in a chamber 12. Ex. 1010, Figure 2, 5:62-6:2. The reactor
`
`further includes target 16, DC power supply 20, bias power source 27, substrate
`
`(wafer) 15, and RF filter 22. Id., Figure 2, 6:12-35; Ex. 1002, ¶50.
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`Ex. 1010 – Figure 2
`
`
`
`Power from the DC power supply 20 (which “may be pulsed”) produces a
`
`negative potential on the target 16. Positive ions of gas are accelerated toward and
`
`against the negatively charged target causing particles to be ejected from the
`
`surface of target 16. Id., 6:34-36, 6:46-59. The RF bias power supply 27
`
`negatively biases the substrate 15 relative to the plasma to provide force to
`
`accelerate the positively ionized sputtered particles toward and onto the substrate
`
`surface. Id., 9:6-14. The RF bias power supply “is preferably an RF generator that
`
`operates in the range of from about 0.2 to 80 MHz, for example, at 13.56 MHz.”).
`
`Id., 9:14-16; Ex. 1002, ¶51; infra Sections IX.A.1(b)-(f).
`
`22
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`(b)
`
` “a target area for receiving a target;”
`
`Licata discloses “a target area for receiving a target.” Ex. 1002, ¶¶52-53.
`
`Figure 2 shows that the reactor includes target 16 (“target”) that “is formed of a
`
`sputter coating material, for example, titanium metal” or “titanium nitride.” Ex.
`
`1010, Figure 2, 5:54-56, 6:6-7. “The target 16 is part of a cathode assembly 17
`
`mounted in the chamber 12 at an end thereof opposite the substrate holder 14. The
`
`cathode assembly 17 includes a target holder 18 to which the target 16 is secured.”
`
`Ex. 1010, 6:13-16. The target holder 18 includes a “target area” that receives
`
`target 16 (“target”). Ex. 1002, ¶¶52-53.
`
`(c)
`
`“a substrate area opposite the target area for
`receiving a substrate;”
`
`Licata discloses these limitations. Ex. 1002, ¶54-55. Figure 2 shows that
`
`the reactor includes “s