`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DEMARAY LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`___________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10911352
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Page
`Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
`Fintiv Factors Favor Discretionary Denial Of Institution Under 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................. 4
`A.
`Fintiv Factor #1: No Evidence That The District Court
`Would Grant A Stay If A Proceeding Is Instituted ............................ 4
`Fintiv Factor #2: Jury Trial Is Expected To Occur Before
`The Final Written Decision ................................................................ 5
`Fintiv Factor #3: There Has Been Immense “Investment In
`The Parallel Proceeding By The Court And Parties” ......................... 6
`Fintiv Factor #4: There Is Substantial “Overlap Between
`Issues Raised In The Petition And In The Parallel
`Proceeding” ........................................................................................ 7
`Fintiv Factor #5: The Defendants In The Texas Litigations
`Are Real-Parties-In-Interest ............................................................... 8
`Fintiv Factor #6: “Other circumstances that impact the
`Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits” favor
`non-institution. ................................................................................... 8
`III. Technology Background ............................................................................... 8
`A.
`The ’657 Invention Describes A Unique Combination That
`Solves A Problem Unique To Reactive Sputtering ............................ 8
`Prior Art Fails To Teach The Solution Claimed By the ’657
`Patent ................................................................................................ 13
`1.
`Licata Does Not Disclose A Pulsed DC Alternating
`Between Negative And Positive Voltages Or A Narrow Band
`Rejection Filter ................................................................................. 14
`2.
`Kelly Does Not Disclose A Filter Coupled Between
`The Target And Its Pulsed DC Power Supply To The Target ......... 18
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`B.
`
`10911352
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`3.
`Collins Does Not Suggest The Use Of The Claimed
`Filter Type Or The Claimed Reactor Process .................................. 19
`IV. The Petition Fails To Show A Likelihood Of Success ............................... 22
`A.
`Petitioner’s Proposed Inclusion Of A Bipolar Pulsed DC
`Power Source In Licata And Poisoned Mode Fails To
`Consider Licata’s Mechanism For Forming TiN Film
`(Elements 1(c), 1(f), 2(c) and 2(f)). .................................................. 22
`Petitioner Fails To Explain Why A POSITA Would Have
`Used Licata-Kelly System For Depositing Films On An
`Insulating Substrate (Claims 2 And Dependent Claims) ................. 31
`Prior Art Does Not Disclose Or Suggest Using A Claimed
`Filter With The Claimed Reactor Process (Elements 1(c)-(d)
`and 2(c)-(d)) ..................................................................................... 32
`1.
`Collins does not suggest using a narrow band rejection
`filter for the Kelly-Licata combination. ........................................... 33
`2.
`None of the other references suggests using a narrow
`band rejection filter for the Kelly-Licata combination .................... 38
`3.
`Petitioner has failed to articulate a reason to combine
`Collins with Licata-Kelly ................................................................. 56
`Petitioner’s analysis of other claims do not cure the
`deficiencies above ............................................................................ 61
`The Petition Should Be Denied Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ........................ 62
`A.
`The Petition Relies On The Same Or Substantially The Same
`Arguments Overcome During Prosecution ...................................... 62
`The Petition Fails To Show That The Office Erred In A
`Manner Material To The Patentability Of The Challenged
`Claims ............................................................................................... 69
`VI. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 70
`
`V.
`
`D.
`
`B.
`
`10911352
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Comm’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 24, 27, 28, 44
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte
`GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) ..................................................... 62, 66
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020) ..................................passim
`Arendi,
`832 F.3d at 1362-66 ............................................................................................ 60
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ........................................... 62
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 29, 32, 60
`Bentley Motors Ltd. v. Jaguar Land Rover Ltd.,
`IPR2019-01539, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2020) .............................................. 6
`Cont’l Intermodal Grp. – Trucking LLC v. Sand Revolution LLC,
`Case No. 7:18-cv-00147-ADA (July 22, 2020) .................................................... 4
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 60
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 30
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 27, 30, 44, 46
`Monarch Knitting Mach. Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH,
`139 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 27
`
`10911352
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Page(s)
`
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 30
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`701 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................... 23, 32
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 30
`In re Van Os,
`844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 45
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00977-ADA ............................................................................. 5
`William Wesley Carnes, SR., Inc. v. Seaboard Int’l Inc.,
`IPR2019-00133, Paper 10 (PTAB May 8, 2019) ............................................... 24
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................... 2, 62
`
`10911352
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,117,279 to Smolanoff et al.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Alexander Glew in Support of Patent Owner's
`Preliminary Response
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest’s First Amended Preliminary Invalidity
`Contentions dated Feb. 12, 2021 in consolidated actions of
`Demaray LLC v. Intel Corp., 6:20-cv-00634-ADA (W.D. Tex.) &
`Demaray LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al., 6:20-cv-
`00636-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 47, Applied
`Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC, 5:20-cv-05676-EJD (N.D. Cal.
`Dec. 23, 2020)
`
`Scheduling Order, Dkt. 33 in consolidated actions of Demaray LLC
`v. Intel Corp., 6:20-cv-00634-ADA (W.D. Tex.) & Demaray LLC
`v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al., 6:20-cv-00636-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.)
`
`Ex. 2001
`
`Ex. 2002
`
`Ex. 2003
`
`Ex. 2004
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Ex. 2006
`Ex. 2007
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,306,265 to Fu et al.
`Prosecution History of U.S. Pat. No. 7,544,276
`
`
`
`10911352
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Introduction1
`During the prosecution of the parent application, the Office and the
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`I.
`
`applicants discussed Smolanoff-based combinations in detail. Smolanoff (Ex.
`
`2001) and the primary reference in this proceeding, Licata, share one common
`
`inventor; and their reactor schemes even use the same numbering scheme for
`
`similar elements. See below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Licata cover
`
`Smolanoff cover
`
`In this proceeding, Petitioner uses Licata in combination with Kelly for the
`
`same elements that the examiner asserted Smolanoff disclosed. See Ex. 1004 at
`
`957 (examiner finding Smolanoff disclosed target, substrate, RF bias on substrate,
`
`and pulsed DC power supply to the target). Regarding the missing narrow band-
`
`rejection filter, Petitioner reiterates what the examiner considered and ultimately
`
`found inadequate: that the type of filter alleged was merely a design choice for
`
`
`1 All emphasis are added unless otherwise noted.
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`blocking RF energy. E.g., Pet. 30. But the applicants repeatedly explained the
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`importance of the filter type for the claimed reactor system that combined a pulsed
`
`DC power supply to the target with an RF bias on the substrate:
`
`The narrow band rejection filter allows the combination of pulsed-dc
`power to the target (where the target voltage is oscillated between
`positive and negative voltages) and an RF bias on the substrate. A
`filter that blocks too many of the constituent frequencies of the pulsed
`DC waveform results in the target voltage not attaining a positive
`voltage. A filter that does not block the RF bias voltage can result in
`failure of the DC power supply.
`Ex. 1004 at 978-79. The examiner accepted that fact and found that the claims
`
`reciting a claimed reactor system combined with the claimed narrow band-
`
`rejection filter were allowable. Id. at 992. The Petition therefore presents
`
`substantially the same references and arguments as those the Office has already
`
`considered during prosecution, and it should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`Petitioner has also not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on
`
`at least one claim. First, Licata’s TiN deposition involves reaction of nitrogen and
`
`titanium “on the substrate surface” through thermally energizing the substrate or
`
`biasing the substrate. 1010 at 10:17-31. Licata does not disclose that nitrogen
`
`reacts with the target or that the target is poisoned. Id. Petitioner does not explain
`
`why, given Licata’s express disclosure regarding the reaction site, a POSITA
`
`would have thought it useful to apply a claimed bipolar pulsed DC power supply to
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`the target to suppress arcing associated with a poison mode on the target surface,
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`when reactions take place on the substrate opposite the target. Pet. 20-26.
`
`Second, Petitioner does not explain why a POSITA would have combined
`
`Licata and Kelly for depositing a film on insulating substrate (claims 2 and
`
`dependent claims) instead of just using Kelly that allegedly already “discloses
`
`depositing alumina films onto ‘glass substrates.’” Pet. 15 (emphasis in original).
`
`If Kelly already does everything that Licata can do and more (including providing
`
`a bipolar pulsed DC), why would a POSITA have gone through the trouble of
`
`modifying Licata in light of Kelly instead of just using Kelly? Petitioner does not
`
`answer that qustion. Without this basic analysis, no prima facie case of analysis
`
`could be made.
`
`Third, Petitioner presents no competent evidence that a POSITA would have
`
`found a reason to combine a claimed filter with the claimed reactor system. In
`
`particular, Collins cited by Petitioner involves only RF power supplies with RF
`
`matching circuits. Ex. 1071, Fig. 23. Petitioner does not explain why a filter used
`
`in such a system would be suitable for a claimed reactor system. Pet. 36-40. But
`
`even if Collins’ disclosures were considered, a POSITA would not have concluded
`
`that a filter of the claimed type would be needed. Specifically, Collins discloses
`
`that if the frequencies of the two power supplies are one octave or more apart, a
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`low-pass or high-pass filter with the right cutoff frequencies would be suitable.
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`Id., 24:44-54. Licata-Kelly’s pulsed DC frequency is 100 kHz (Ex. 1059 at Fig. 2)
`
`and Licata’s RF bias is 13.56 MHz, more than seven octaves apart. Petitioner does
`
`not explain why Collins (or any of its other filter references) suggests the claimed
`
`combination of the claimed filter with the claimed reactor system having pulsed-
`
`DC power to the target (where the target voltage is oscillated between positive and
`
`negative voltages) and an RF bias on the substrate.
`
`For these and the reasons below, the institution should be denied.
`
`II. Fintiv Factors Favor Discretionary Denial Of Institution Under 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a)
`A. Fintiv Factor #1: No Evidence That The District Court Would
`Grant A Stay If A Proceeding Is Instituted
`Petitioner offers no evidence that Judge Albright would grant a stay if an
`
`IPR is instituted; and Judge Albright generally does not do so. Pet. 70; Cont’l
`
`Intermodal Grp. – Trucking LLC v. Sand Revolution LLC, Case No. 7:18-cv-
`
`00147-ADA (July 22, 2020) (order denying motion to stay instituted IPR). Judge
`
`Davila in the Northern District of California also summarily rejected Petitioner’s
`
`attempt to enjoin the Texas litigation from proceeding. Ex. 2004. This factor
`
`weighs in favor of denying institution.
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`B.
`
`Fintiv Factor #2: Jury Trial Is Expected To Occur Before The
`Final Written Decision
`The second Fintiv Factor is “proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s
`
`projected statutory deadline for a final written decision.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. As
`
`Fintiv explains, “[i]f the court’s trial date is earlier than the projected statutory
`
`deadline, the Board generally has weighed this fact in favor of exercising authority
`
`to deny institution under NHK.” Id., Paper 11 at 9. Here, jury selection for the
`
`trial in the district court action is set to begin on December 27, 2021, about 4.5
`
`months before an expected final written decision (“FWD”) in this case. Ex. 2005
`
`[scheduling order] at 4. This factor weighs in favor of denying institution.
`
`Petitioner speculates that the trial may be delayed, e.g., due to COVID-19.
`
`Pet. 70-71. This is speculation: Indeed, Judge Albright continues to hold in-
`
`person jury trials, including one that starts today in VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00057-ADA. There is no evidence to indicate there will be a
`
`delay. In addition, the Board has made clear that it “generally take[s] courts’ trial
`
`schedules at face value absent some strong evidence to the contrary.” Apple Inc. v.
`
`Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15, at 12 (P.T.A.B. May 13, 2020). Because
`
`Petitioner fails to provide any non-speculative evidence regarding the timing of
`
`trial, the Board should abide by its general practice and accept the scheduled trial
`
`date as it is.
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`C. Fintiv Factor #3: There Has Been Immense “Investment In The
`Parallel Proceeding By The Court And Parties”
`Here, the deadline for institution is May 16, 2021. By that time, the parties
`
`will have expended significant resources in the district court litigation complying
`
`with the district court’s scheduling order, including:
`
`• Claim construction briefing and Markman hearing
`
`• Commencement of discovery
`
`• Final infringement and invalidity contentions
`
`The parties’ investment will also continue to increase after institution,
`
`especially because Judge Albright generally does not grant a stay pending
`
`instituted IPRs. See discussion re Factor #1. For example, because the district
`
`court trial date precedes the projected FWD deadline in this proceeding, the parties
`
`and the district court will have invested a significant amount of time and resources
`
`after institution but before the FWD deadline in preparation for the trial, and this
`
`would include completion of fact and expert discovery, pre-trial motion practices
`
`and trial preparation.
`
`The Board has found that “additional investment of time and resources by
`
`the District Court and the parties” occurring “after institution but before our final
`
`decision” also weighs “strongly in favor of denying institution.” Bentley Motors
`
`Ltd. v. Jaguar Land Rover Ltd., IPR2019-01539, Paper 16, at 9-10 (P.T.A.B. Oct.
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`2, 2020). Factor 3 therefore weighs strongly in favor of denying institution to
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`avoid duplicative efforts.
`
`D. Fintiv Factor #4: There Is Substantial “Overlap Between Issues
`Raised In The Petition And In The Parallel Proceeding”
`The real-parties-in-interest have included all the asserted combinations in the
`
`district court action and against all challenged claims at issue here. Ex. 2003 at 6
`
`n.1, 19, 22-25. This fact favors denying institution. Petitioner asserts that “there is
`
`no evidence that the same invalidity grounds sought here will be at-issue in the
`
`Texas Litigation.” Pet. 71. But the real-parties-in-interest have indicated in their
`
`invalidity contentions that they will continue to use the asserted art for invalidity
`
`purposes in the district court, and will continue to pursue cumulative grounds.2 Id.
`
`at 29-30, 30 n.5. Based on admissible evidence before the PTAB, the fourth Fintiv
`
`factor weighs in favor of denying institution.
`
`
`2 For example, instead of Licata and Kelly, RPIs can use Smolanoff (Ex.
`2001) discussed during prosecution and allegedly disclosed the same properties as
`Barber. See Ex. 1052 at 1356; Ex. 1004 at 957. Under the “design choice” theory,
`the RPIs can use any of the other filter references in substantially the same way.
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`E.
`
`Fintiv Factor #5: The Defendants In The Texas Litigations Are
`Real-Parties-In-Interest
`As in Fintiv, this factor weighs in favor of denial, as defendants in both
`
`Texas Litigations are real parties-in-interest in this IPR and coordinated with
`
`Petitioner in filing the petition. Pet. 1, 71.
`
`F.
`
`Fintiv Factor #6: “Other circumstances that impact the Board’s
`exercise of discretion, including the merits” favor non-institution.
`Petitioner claims that they were diligent in filing the petition and the petition
`
`is strong. Pet. 71-72. Patent Owner presents its response on the merits in Sections
`
`III-V, and Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on
`
`at least one claim.
`
` * * *
`
`In sum, the Board should exercise discretion to deny institution under the
`
`Fintiv decision.
`
`III. Technology Background
`A. The ’657 Invention Describes A Unique Combination That Solves
`A Problem Unique To Reactive Sputtering
`U.S. 7,381,657 is entitled “Biased Pulse DC Reactive Sputtering of Oxide
`
`Films.” Ex. 1001 at cover. The ’657 patent provides a packaged solution to
`
`address problems associated with target poisoning in reactive sputtering. Although
`
`the preferred embodiments relate specifically to “deposition of oxide and
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`oxynitride films by pulsed DC reactive sputter,” (id., 1:11-13), the disclosed
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`reactor system in combination with the claimed filter can also be used for nitride
`
`films. Ex. 1001 at 3:5-3:9 (approaches are useful with a broad array of process
`
`gasses “includ[ing] combinations of Ar, N2, O2, C2F6, CO2, CO and other process
`
`gasses”).
`
`The claims of the ’657 patent require several interrelated steps of a reactor
`
`process. In addition to “providing a process gas” and “providing a magnetic field
`
`to the target,” it also requires at least
`
`• “providing pulsed DC power to the target through a narrow band
`
`rejection filter such that the [voltage on the] target alternates between
`
`positive and negative voltages”; and
`
`• “providing an RF bias at a frequency that corresponds to the narrow band
`
`rejection filter to the substrate”
`
`Ex. 1001, 23:2-15 (cl. 1); see also 23:16-27 (cl. 2).
`
`For the ’657 inventions, the target “provides material to be deposited on
`
`[the] substrate.” See id., 5:27-30. In some preferred embodiments, the target “also
`
`functions as a cathode when power is applied to it.” Id., 5:30-32.
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`
`
`The bipolar pulsed DC, resulting in a target voltage oscillating between
`
`negative and positive potentials, prevents arcing associated with reactively
`
`sputtering films such as oxides, nitrides and oxynitrides. Id., 5:38-41. This is
`
`because in the presence of reactive gases such as oxygen and/or nitrogen, films of
`
`oxides, nitrides or oxynitrides could build up on the surface of the target. See, id.,
`
`11:66-12:9, 4:54-55; Glew (Ex. 2002), ¶ 29. Under steady state DC voltage
`
`conditions (e.g., steady negative voltage conditions), “[t]he insulating surface
`
`charges up and result in arcing during process. This arcing can damage the power
`
`supply, produce particles and degrade the properties of the deposited film.” Id.,
`
`4:54-57; see also 12:10-15. By reversing the polarity of the target voltage to
`
`positive as needed, “the insulating layer on the surface of target . . . is discharged”
`
`during the positive period (that is, the surface is neutralized during the period),
`
`“and arcing is prevented.” Id. at 5:39-41, 12:15-12:21.
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`An RF bias power is supplied to the substrate to, for example, “dandif[y]
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`
`
`(sic) [densify]” the deposited film and to “substantially eliminate[]” columnar
`
`structures that may negatively affect the film quality. Id., 5:66-6:6. The use of RF
`
`bias power, however, creates the danger that the DC power supply may be
`
`damaged. Id. at 5:56-57. A filter (15), placed between the pulsed DC power
`
`supply and the target, “prevents the bias power from power supply 18 from
`
`coupling into pulsed DC powers supply 14.” Id. at 5:56-57.
`
`But this is not the whole story because the filter must also ensure that it does
`
`not “distort[] the pulses generated by the pulsed-DC power supply.” Ex. 1052 at
`
`1134. This led to the requirement that the RF bias needs to be provided at “a
`
`frequency that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter.” Id. at cl. 1; see
`
`also cl. 2 (“RF bias that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter”).
`
`The use of the claimed narrow band rejection filter that operates at a
`
`frequency of the RF bias power on the substrate is a unique insight of the
`
`inventors, specific to a reactor system/process that uses combines a bipolar pulsed
`
`DC power to a target (e.g., to help suppress arcing when reactively sputtering) with
`
`an RF bias on a substrate is an insight absent from prior art. See Ex. 1004 at 978-
`
`79 (Applicants rebutting examiner’s assumption that filter selection is merely a
`
`design choice, noting “[t]he narrow band rejection filter allows the combination of
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`pulsed-dc power to the target (where the target voltage is oscillated between
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`positive and negative voltages) and an RF bias on the substrate. A filter that
`
`blocks too many of the constituent frequencies of the pulsed DC waveform
`
`results in the target voltage not attaining a positive voltage. A filter that does not
`
`block the RF bias voltage can result in failure of the DC power supply.”).
`
`Licata—which is substantially the same as Smolanoff discussed during
`
`prosecution—for example, is silent on the suitable type of RF filters for its DC
`
`power source coupled to a target. See Ex. 1010, 6:40-41. Kelly, which uses a
`
`bipolar pulsed DC power supply for the target and optionally an RF bias on the
`
`substrate, does not mention the use of a filter. See Ex. 1059 at Abstract &
`
`Experiment section; 1048 at 3 (Table 1, listing substrate bias conditions and target
`
`power supply types). Collins, which involves only RF power sources for its
`
`reactor systems/processes (see Ex. 1071, Figure 23), states that if the frequency of
`
`an RF power supply to be blocked (e.g., f2) is “widely separately (e.g., by an
`
`octave)” from the frequency (e.g., f1) of the power supply to be protected, “then the
`
`various RF filters . . . can be suitable high-pass and low-pass filters with the
`
`suitably selected cut-off frequencies.” Ex. 1071 at 24:44-50. Collins recommends
`
`the use of “bandpass or band rejection filters centered at the appropriate
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`frequencies” if “the two frequencies . . . are not sufficiently separated.” Id. at
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`24:50-54.
`
`In the ’657 patent, however, however, the RF frequency to be blocked
`
`(2MHz) is more than two octaves away from the pulsed DC frequency (up to
`
`350kHz). Ex. 1001, 5:48-50, 5:57-63; Glew, ¶ 83 (explaining one octave means
`
`f1/f2=2 or ½ and n-octave means f1/f2 =2n or 1/2n). As will be explained further
`
`below in Section IV.C.2, none of the other references suggests using a narrow band
`
`rejection filter in combination with the claimed reactor processes. In fact, if a
`
`POSITA were to apply Collin’s disclosures to a claimed reactor process, as
`
`Petitioner suggests, they would have found it sufficient to use a low-pass filter to
`
`block the higher frequency RF bias power that is more than two octaves away,
`
`instead of the claimed “narrow band” rejection filter. Glew, ¶ 85.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Fails To Teach The Solution Claimed By the ’657
`Patent
`All grounds of challenge rely on at least three references: Licata (Ex. 1010),
`
`Kelly (Ex. 1059) and Collins (Ex. 1071). These references, singly or in
`
`combination, do not disclose the inventions.
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`1.
`
`Licata Does Not Disclose A Pulsed DC Alternating Between
`Negative And Positive Voltages Or A Narrow Band
`Rejection Filter
`The “primary objective” of Licata “is to provide a method of cleaning the
`
`surface of a semiconductor wafer prior to the metallization thereof that overcomes
`
`the disadvantages of” prior art processes. Ex. 1010, 2:42-47. Unlike the prior art
`
`process, Licata proposes a process in which the cleaning of the wafer surface took
`
`place in the same chamber as the metal deposition step. Id. at 2:53-59. The
`
`cleaning, i.e., removal of contaminants from the surface of the wafer substrate, is
`
`“carried out by a soft sputter etch with ions of an inert gas such as argon,” and
`
`preferably “by the use of a plasma that includes ions of the material to be deposited
`
`in the metallization process.” Id. at 2:59-63. As one example, Licata proposes
`
`using a “high energy titanium metal atoms” to “simultaneously sputter clean and
`
`react with the surface contaminants.” Id. at 3:58-61; see also 3:18-25.
`
`The “precleaning module 10” that Petitioner relies on is shown below. Id. at
`
`5:62-63.
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`
`
`The DC power supply 20 is connected to the target 16 via an RF filter. Ex.
`
`1010, 6:34-41. The DC power supply “produces a negative potential on the target
`
`16,” and “[t]he negative potential accelerates positive ions from the plasma 23
`
`toward surface 21 of the target 16.” Id. at 6:46-50. Licata’s DC power supply 20
`
`is not described as a bipolar pulsed DC power supply that causes the target voltage
`
`to oscillate between positive and negative voltages.
`
`Plasma 23 provides a “source of positive ions of gas that are accelerated
`
`toward and against the negatively charged surface 21, where they eject particles of
`
`coating material from the target 16.” Id. at 6:56-59. The ejected particles are
`
`typically neutral but are ionized in flight as they pass through volume 26 to be
`
`deposited on wafer 15. Id. at 7:8-19. “In-flight ionization of sputtered particles in
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`the space 11 is carried out by inductively coupling RF energy into the volume 26
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`from an RF coil 30 that surrounds the volume 26.” Id. at 7:19-21. In the above
`
`configuration, an RF generator 32 (preferably 2 MHz) is connected to the coil 30
`
`via a matching network 33 to provide the RF coil 30 with the power needed “to
`
`form the plasma in the volume 26.” Id. at 7:26-33.
`
`Licata’s substrate 15 is mounted on the substrate holder 14, which is in turn
`
`connected to an RF bias power supply 27 via a matching network 28. Id. at 6:41-
`
`45. The substrate 15 is negatively biased to “provide force to accelerate the
`
`positively ionized sputtered particles toward and onto the substrate surface.” Id. at
`
`9:6-14. The power supply 27 “is preferably an RF generator that operates in the
`
`range of” between 0.2 and 80MHz, such as at 13.56 MHz. Id. at 9:14-16.
`
`In some preferred embodiments, a titanium nitride film may be formed on
`
`substrate 15 “over the film of elemental titanium.” Id. at 10:17-20. In forming the
`
`nitride, nitrogen gas is “reacted with titanium on the substrate surface,” such as
`
`“by thermally energizing the substrate 15 or by biasing the substrate 15 so as to
`
`form a plasma such as plasma 75 adjacent the surface of the substrate to stimulate a
`
`reaction between the nitrogen in the gas at the substrate surface and titanium
`
`impinging onto or deposited on the substrate 15.” Id. at 10:23-31. That is, Licata
`
`forms the TiN film by having nitrogen react directly with titanium on the substrate
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`surface, with no mentioning of reaction with titanium at the target. Glew, ¶ 66.
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`Hence, Licata does not express any concern with nitride build-up on the target in
`
`forming the TiN film. Id. This differs from the ’657 patent and Kelly.
`
`Licata is silent on the nature of the “RF filter” 22 connected to the target.
`
`Id., 6:40-41. Certainly, Licata never suggests that the RF filter 22 is a narrow band
`
`rejection filter, as claimed by the challenged claims. See Ex. 1010 generally. In
`
`relevant aspects, Licata provides substantially the same disclosure as Smolanoff
`
`that the examiner and the applicant discussed at length during the prosecution of
`
`the parent ’356 patent and that the examiner considered during the ’657 patent
`
`prosecution. E.g., Ex. 1052 at 1356, 1431-32, 1456, 1471; Ex. 1004 at 279, 630,
`
`957.
`
`
`
`
`
`Licata cover
`
`Smolanoff cover
`
`10911352
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`As shown above, both have an RF filter 22 coupled between a DC power
`
`Case IPR2021-00106
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`
`
`supply that may be “pulsed” and a target;3 both apply an RF bias on a substrate,
`
`and both include an RF power supply for generating plasma in the volume between
`
`the target and the substrate. But as the examiner’s allowance of the issued claims
`
`show, these disclosures, in view of the state of the art, do not render obvious the
`
`claimed type of filter for use in the claimed reactor system or method. Ex. 1004 at
`
`978-79 (applicants explaining why, Smolanoff notwithstanding, the claimed filter