`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`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
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`III.
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 4
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 4
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ..................................................................10
`VII. THE ’ 276 PATENT ......................................................................................10
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................12
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................14
`A. Ground 1: Barber in view of Hirose Renders Obvious Claims 1-
`3 and 6-8 ..............................................................................................14
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................14
`2.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................37
`3.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................39
`4.
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................39
`5.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................45
`6.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................45
`Ground 2: Barber in view of Hirose and Aokura Renders
`Obvious Claims 4 and 5 ......................................................................46
`1.
`Claims 4 and 5 ...........................................................................46
`Ground 3: Barber in view of Hirose and Yamazaki Renders
`Obvious Claim 9 ..................................................................................50
`i
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`

`

`F.
`
`E.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`1.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................50
`D. Ground 4: Barber in view of Hirose and Dogheche Renders
`Obvious Claims 9 and 10 ....................................................................53
`1.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................53
`2.
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................56
`Ground 5: Barber in view of Hirose and Sproul Renders Obvious
`Claims 11 and 12 .................................................................................59
`1.
`Claims 11 and 12.......................................................................59
`Ground 6: Barber in view of Hirose and Laird Renders Obvious
`Claims 11 and 13 .................................................................................62
`1.
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................62
`2.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................................64
`G. Ground 7: Barber in view of Hirose and Segal Renders Obvious
`Claims 11-13 .......................................................................................64
`1.
`Claims 11-13 .............................................................................64
`H. Grounds 8-14: Each of the Above Prior Art Combinations in
`view of Belkind Renders Obvious the Challenged Claims .................68
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE ..................74
`A.
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under § 325 ........................74
`B.
`Institution is Appropriate Under § 314(a) ...........................................75
`C.
`The Board Should Consider the Merits and Institute Review of
`Petitioner’s Multiple Petitions .............................................................78
`XI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................78
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,695,954 to Hong
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,153,068 to Ohmi
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,846,920 to Keller
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`RESERVED
`
`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)
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`RESERVED
`
`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
`
`Ex. 1038
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,627,323 to Nagaraj
`
`Ex. 1039
`
`RESERVED
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`Ex. 1040
`
`RESERVED
`
`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 RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1044
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1045
`
`RESERVED
`
`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)
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1050
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1051
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1052
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,378,356
`
`Ex. 1053
`
`Ex. 1054
`
`Ex. 1055
`
`Ex. 1056
`
`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)
`
`RESERVED
`
`Overall Revision of the Rules Regarding Industrial Scientific and
`Medical (ISM) Equipment, 50 Fed. Reg. 36,061 (September 5,
`1985)
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1057
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,284,110 to Sill
`
`Ex. 1058
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,148,133 to Zennamo
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`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. 1059
`
`Ex. 1060
`
`Ex. 1061
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1062
`
`Ex. 1063
`
`Pinnacle 20 kW DeviceNet, MDXL User 5702199-A, User
`Manual, (April 2001)
`RESERVED
`
`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
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH10102247A to Aokura and
`certified English translation of JPH10102247A
`U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2001/0047838 to Segal
`
`Exs. 1070-
`1074
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1075
`
`Ex. 1076
`
`Ex. 1077
`
`Ex. 1078
`
`Ex. 1079
`
`Ex. 1080
`
`Ex. 1081
`
`Ex. 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.)
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-13 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276 (“the
`
`’276 patent”) (Ex. 1001), assigned to Demaray LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO”).
`
`This Petition asserts the same grounds of unpatentability upon which the
`
`Board has already instituted review in Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC,
`
`IPR2021-00103 (the “Applied Materials IPR”); see Paper 13. For the same reasons
`
`previously considered by the Board, on the same schedule, Samsung respectfully
`
`seeks to join the Applied Materials IPR. This Petition, accompanied by a Motion
`
`for Joinder, is timely and proper under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) because it is filed within
`
`one month of the institution of the Applied Materials IPR.
`
`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.
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Related Matters: The ’276 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”); Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC,
`
`Case No. 5-20-cv-05676 (N.D. Cal.); Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC,
`
`IPR2021-00103 (PTAB) (institution granted); Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray
`
`LLC, IPR2021-00105 (PTAB) (institution denied); and Intel Corporation v.
`
`Demaray LLC, IPR2021-01030 (PTAB).
`
`The above cases also involve U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657, against which
`
`Petitioner is also filing an IPR petition. Petitioner is also filing concurrently
`
`herewith another IPR petition challenging the ’276 patent.
`
`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
`Cosmin Maier (Reg. No. 75,387)
`cmaier@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`212-351-3400 (telephone)
`212-351-3401 (facsimile)
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Christopher R. O’Brien (Reg. No.
`63,208)
`cobrien@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC, 20006
`202-451-4900 (telephone)
`202-451-4901 (facsimile)
`
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`Registration No. 56,368
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Back-Up Counsel
`Desmarais LLP
`230 Park Ave
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: (212) 351-3400
`Facsimile: (212) 351-3401
`Email: yha@desmaraisllp.com
`
`
`Service Information:
`
`Post and hand delivery: Desmarais LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Telephone:
`
`Email:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`230 Park Ave, New York, NY 10169
`
`212-351-3400
`
`SamsungDemarayIPRService@desmaraisllp.com
`
`Please address all correspondence to counsel identified above. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service by email at:
`
`SamsungDemarayIPRService@desmaraisllp.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`Petitioner concurrently submits required fees for this Petition. The Board is
`
`authorized to charge Desmarais LLP’s deposit account, No. 50-6822, for any fee
`
`deficiency.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’276 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
`The challenged claims should be canceled as unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`obvious over Barber (Ex. 1005) and Hirose (Ex. 1006);
`
`Ground 2: Claims 4 and 5 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, and Aokura (Ex. 1068);
`
`Ground 3: Claim 9 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Barber,
`
`Hirose, and Yamazaki (Ex. 1046);
`
`Ground 4: Claims 9 and 10 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, and Dogheche (Ex. 1029);
`
`Ground 5: Claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, and Sproul (Ex. 1036);
`
`Ground 6: Claims 11 and 13 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, and Laird (Ex. 1034);
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Ground 7: Claims 11-13 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, and Segal (Ex. 1069);
`
`Ground 8: Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, and Belkind;
`
`Ground 9: Claims 4 and 5 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, and Aokura;
`
`Ground 10: Claim 9 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Barber,
`
`Hirose, Belkind, and Yamazaki;
`
`Ground 11: Claims 9 and 10 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, and Dogheche;
`
`Ground 12: Claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, and Sproul; and
`
`Ground 13: Claims 11 and 13 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, and Laird; and
`
`Ground 14: Claims 11-13 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, and Segal.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`The ’276 patent claims a priority date of March 16, 2002.1 Barber issued
`
`from an application filed February 11, 2000 (Ex. 1005, Cover), Hirose issued from
`
`an application filed July 18, 2001 (Ex. 1006, Cover), Laird issued from an
`
`application filed March 5, 2001 (Ex. 1034, Cover), Yamazaki issued from an
`
`application filed February 21, 2002 (Ex. 1046, Cover). Thus, they each qualify as
`
`prior art under § 102(e). Aokura published on April 21, 1998 (Ex. 1068, Cover) and
`
`thus qualifies as prior art under § 102(b). Segal published on December 6, 2001
`
`from an application filed February 13, 2001 (Ex. 1069, Cover), and thus qualifies 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-
`
`
`1 The ’276 patent issued from a patent application filed prior to enactment of the
`
`America Invents Act (“AIA”) (September 26, 2011). Accordingly, the pre-AIA
`
`statutory framework applies.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`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, ¶¶3-19, Appendix A.)
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Sproul is an article dated in 1998 and published by Elsevier Science Ltd. in
`
`Vacuum, volume 51, No. 4 641-646 (1998). (Ex. 1036, 1; Ex. 1042, ¶¶52-53,
`
`Appendix 1036.) Sproul itself demonstrates that it was published and publicly
`
`available at least as early as 1998 (thus no later than December 32, 1998 and before
`
`March 2002) (e.g., Ex. 1036, 1 (1998 copyright), id. (reference to “1998 published
`
`by Elsevier Science Ltd.”), 6 (citations dated before 1998)); Ex. 1042, ¶¶52-55).
`
`Other information so confirms: Linda Hall Library date stamp (“JAN 11 1999”)
`
`(Ex. 1042, ¶¶55, 58, Appendix 1036-A), bibliographic and MARC records (Ex.
`
`1042, ¶¶56-61, Appendix 1036-B), and citations to Sproul in prior publications (id.,
`
`¶¶62-65; id., (Appendix 1036-C (2000 article), 13 (citation [21] to Sproul),
`
`Appendix 1059 (2000 article), 8 (citation [11] to Sproul)) and Dr. Hsieh-Yee’s
`
`testimony (Ex. 1042, ¶¶52-66) demonstrate that Sproul 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
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`stamp (“SEP 12 2000”) (Ex. 1042, ¶¶22, 25; Appendix 1008, 10), bibliographic and
`
`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, Sproul, 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, Sproul, and Belkind were publicly accessible before the alleged invention
`
`of the ’276 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,
`
`
`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.
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`none of the asserted references, other than Belkind, were considered during
`
`prosecution. (See Ex. 1004; Section X.A.)
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had, at the time
`
`of the ’276 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, 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 and “relevant experience,” in
`
`the context of the ’276 patent, refers to experience with sputtering deposition of films
`
`on substrates. (See ’276 patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:10-14, 2:45-47; Ex. 1002, ¶¶18-19.)4
`
`VII. THE ’ 276 PATENT
`The ’276 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.
`
`
`4 Petitioner submits Dr. Vivek Subramanian’s declaration (Ex. 1002), an expert in
`
`the field of the ’276 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶1-38; Ex. 1003.)
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`(Ex. 1001, 5:19-28.) Filter 15 prevents the bias from supply 18 from coupling into
`
`DC power supply 14. (Id., 5:51-52; Ex. 1002, ¶¶39-41.)
`
`(Ex. 1001, Figure 1A (annotated).) This arrangement was nothing new. The same
`
`manufacturer of the DC power supply exemplified in the ’276 patent (id., 5:41-43)
`
`repeatedly advised the need for an RF filter in similar systems since early 1990s.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1025, 6, 23-24; Ex. 1026, 116, Ex. 1062, 134; Ex. 1024, 151; Section IX; Ex.
`
`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
`
`
`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.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`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 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
`
`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.6 (Ex. 1002, ¶54.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 Petitioner reserves all rights to raise claim construction and other arguments in this
`
`and other proceedings as relevant and necessary.
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`IX. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`As discussed below, claims 1-13 are unpatentable in view of the prior art. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶13-168.)
`
`A. Ground 1: Barber in view of Hirose Renders Obvious Claims 1-3
`and 6-8
`Claim 1
`1.
`a) Claim 1[a] “A reactor according to the present
`invention, comprising:”
`To the extent limiting, Barber discloses this preamble. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶56-58.)
`
`For instance, Barber discloses a rotating magnetron sputtering system (“reactor”).
`
`(Ex. 1005, Abstract, 5:67-6:3, FIG. 2.) The system includes a plasma chamber 210.
`
`(Id., 6:4-13; see also id., 2:1-2.)
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 2.) Pressure within the chamber is regulated by a valve 270 and flow
`
`control sources 240 and 250 (id., 6:27-29), where source 240 introduces a noble gas
`
`(e.g., Ar) and source 250 introduces a reactive gas (e.g., O2, N2) into the chamber
`
`(id., 6:8-13). (Ex. 1002, ¶56.)
`
`In the system, pulsed DC power source 230 applies a bias across a target 260
`
`and an anode ring 225 (collectively serving as electrodes) to ionize the noble gas,
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`forming a plasma. (Ex. 1005, 6:4-11, 7:30-34, 8:49-52.) Noble gas ions bombard
`
`target 260 and eject the target material (e.g., aluminum). (Id., 7:30-34; id., 2:1-5
`
`(describing known sputtering techniques), 6:42-46 (aluminum target).) The freed
`
`materials, reacted with the reactive gas (e.g., nitrogen), are deposited on substrate
`
`110 to form films, e.g., aluminum nitride (AlN) films. (Id., 7:34-36, 8:44-9:22.)
`
`Barber also discloses reactive sputtering a silicon target in oxygen to form silicon
`
`dioxide (SiO2) films. (Id., 6:46-67, 9:24-10:11.) A radio frequency (RF) power
`
`supply 235 applies a bias voltage to a substrate platen 115, positioning substrate 110,
`
`to control deposited film property. (Id., 6:15-17, 6:29-31; Ex. 1002, ¶57.)
`
`The reactor system further includes a rotating magnet assembly 280 which
`
`forms a magnetic field over the target surface facing substrate 110. (Ex. 1005, 6:17-
`
`21.) A rotation motor 300 rotates magnet assembly 280 about an axis with respect
`
`to target 260. (Id., 6:21-27; Ex. 1002, ¶58; infra Sections IX.A.1(b)-(f).)
`
`b) Claim 1[b] “a target area for receiving a target;”
`Barber discloses this limitation. (Ex. 1002, ¶59.) For example, Barber
`
`discloses that a target material 260 is positioned within chamber 210 and is
`
`“mounted adjacent a rotating magnet assembly 280.” (Ex. 1005, 6:14-18, FIG. 2;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶59.) The area in Barber’s system associated with target 260 (including
`
`a portion of target 260 and the region that receives target 260) meets “a target area
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`for receiving a target.” (Ex. 1002, ¶59.) Barber’s “target area” is similar to the
`
`“target area 52” described in the ’276 patent. (Ex. 1001, Fig. 1B (showing area 52
`
`encompassing part of target 12), 6:17-19 (region 52 of target 12) 6:38-40 (target 12
`
`with target area 52), Fig. 2 (showing area 52 in relation to deposition area 24),
`
`22:40-43; Ex. 1002, ¶59.)7
`
`(Ex. 1005, FIG. 2 (left); Ex. 1001, FIGs. 1B, 2 (right), (each annotated to show a
`
`target area (blue) with a width extending down to substrate area (yellow)); Ex. 1002,
`
`
`
`
`7 Emphasis herein is added unless noted otherwise.
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`¶59.)8 Thus, Barber discloses a target area for receiving a target as claimed. (Id.)
`
`(Supra Sections IX.A.1(a); infra Sections IX.A.1(c)-(f).)
`
`c)
`
`Claim 1[c] “a substrate area opposite the target area
`for receiving a substrate;”
`Barber discloses this limitation. (Ex. 1002, ¶60.) For instance, Barber
`
`discloses substrate platen 115, upon which a substrate 110 is positioned. (Ex. 1005,
`
`6:15-17, 6:29-31.) Substrate 110 is positioned such that “it is in communication with
`
`the target and gasses within the chamber” and in a location opposite from target 260.
`
`(Id., 6:15-17; FIG. 2.)
`
`
`8 The annotations showing a “target area” are exemplary and are not shown to limit
`
`the exact parameters of the disclosed/claimed “target area.” (Ex. 1002, ¶59.)
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 2 (annotated); Ex. 1002, ¶60.) Accordingly, consistent with Figure 2
`
`above, Barber’s substrate platen 115 hosting substrate 110 includes an “area” that
`
`receives substrate 110 and is opposite to the “target area” for receiving target 260,
`
`as explained for claim limitation 1[b]. (Ex. 1002, ¶60; Section IX.A.1(b).) Barber’s
`
`disclosures in this regard are similar to that disclosed in the ’276 patent, which does
`
`not use the term “substrate area” in the specification. (Ex. 1001, 5:19-29 (describing
`
`substrate 16 “coupled to an electrode 17”), 6:16-19 (describing substrate 16
`
`positioned on “carrier sheet 17”).)
`
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`(Ex. 1005, FIG. 2 (left); Ex. 1001, FIG. 1B (right), (each annotated to show
`
`exemplary substrate area (green)9; Ex. 1002, ¶60.) (Supra Sections IX.A.1(a)-(b);
`
`infra Sections IX.A.1(d)-(f).)
`
`
`
`
`9 The annotations showing “substrate area” are exemplary and are not shown to limit
`
`the exact parameters of the disclosed/claimed “substrate area”. (Ex. 1002, ¶60.) For
`
`example, the “substrate area” in the ’276 patent and in Barber can include the area
`
`associated with carrier 17 (’276 patent) and platen 115 (Barber). (Id.)
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`d) Claim 1[d] “a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the
`target area, the pulsed DC power supply providing
`alternating negative and positive voltages to the
`target;”
`Barber discloses this limitation. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶61-71.) For instance, Barber
`
`discloses that pulsed DC power source 230 applies a bias across target 260 and anode
`
`ring 225 (collectively serving as electrodes) to ionize the noble gas, forming a
`
`plasma. (Ex. 1005, 6:6-11, 7:30-34; 8:49-52.) A POSITA would have understood
`
`that because the pulsed-DC bias is applied to target 260 in the target area (as
`
`discussed above for claim element 1[b]), the target area is also coupled to the pulsed-
`
`DC power source. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶61-62; supra Section IX.A.1(b).) Barber’s
`
`disclosure in this regard is similar to that disclosed in the ’276 patent. (Ex. 1001,
`
`2:49-50, 5:19-20 (“target 12 which is electrically coupled through a filter 15 to a
`
`pulsed DC power supply 14”); Ex. 1002, ¶¶61-62.)
`
`Barber discloses providing 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.) Moreover,
`
`Barber discloses that the “reverse-bias pulse width” of the pulsed DC power supply
`
`may be adjusted for tuning the property of the deposited film and that “increasing
`
`the pulse width also lowers the deposition rate.” (Id., 9:6-11, 9:48-53.) A POSITA
`
`would have understood that Barber’s reference to a “reverse-bias” pulse refers to the
`
`pulse of a positive bias, which is consistent with the ’276 patent and the state of the
`2