`571-272-7822
` Entered: June 29, 2022
`_____
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., INTEL CORPORATION,1 and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.2
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`KALAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`1 Intel Corporation was joined as a petitioner to this proceeding based on a
`petition and motion for joinder filed in IPR2021-01030.
`2 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was joined as a petitioner to this proceeding
`based on a petition and motion for joinder filed in IPR2021- 01090.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Applied Materials, Inc. (“Applied Materials”) filed a Petition
`(Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,544,276 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’276 patent”). Demaray LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition (Paper 8).
`Pursuant to our authorization (Paper 9), Applied Materials filed a Reply
`(Paper 10), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 12). Applied
`Materials also filed a Petitioner’s Notice Regarding Multiple Petitions
`(Paper 2) to which Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 7).
`We instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of the ’276 patent
`on the grounds of unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 13 (“Dec.”).
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response.
`Paper 29 (“PO Resp.”). Intel Corporation (“Intel”) and Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd (“Samsung”) were then joined as a petitioners. See Paper 31
`(Intel); Paper 37 (Samsung). Applied Materials, Intel, and Samsung are
`collectively referred to as “Petitioner” in this Decision. Applied Materials
`filed a Reply. Paper 38 (“Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Paper
`45 (“Sur-Reply”). An oral hearing was held on February 9, 2022, with
`IPR2021-00104, which challenges U.S. Patent No. 7,3381, 657 B2. A
`transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 50 (“Tr.”).
`This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–13 of the ’276 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Patent Owner identifies IPR2021-00104, which challenges U.S. Patent
`No. 7,381,657 B2, as a related matter. Paper 6, 1.
`The parties also identify Demaray LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd., No. 6-20-cv-00636 (W.D. Tex.) (“Samsung Litigation”); Demaray LLC
`v. Intel Corporation, No. 6-20-cv-00634 (W.D. Tex.) (“Intel Litigation”);
`and Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC, No. 5-20-cv-05676 (N.D. Cal.)
`(“California Litigation”) as related matters. Pet. 1; Paper 6, 1. Each of these
`proceedings involves the ’276 patent. Id.
`B.
`Real Parties-In-Interest
`Applied Materials identifies Intel Corporation, Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor,
`Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC, and itself as real parties-in-
`interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies itself as the real party-in-interest.
`Paper 6, 1.
`The ’276 Patent
`C.
`The ’276 patent, titled “Biased Pulse DC Reactive Sputtering of
`Oxide Films,” relates to “deposition of oxide and oxynitride films and, in
`particular, to deposition of oxide and oxynitride films by pulsed DC reactive
`sputtering.” Ex. 1001, code (54), 1:12–14. The ’276 patent discloses that
`typically, radio frequency (“RF”) sputtering has been used for deposition of
`oxide dielectric films, but arcing can occur between sputtering target tiles
`used to make such films, which causes contamination of the deposited films.
`Id. at 2:25–30. The ’276 patent further states that reactors for RF sputtering,
`particularly their power systems, are complicated. Id. at 2:30–38. The ’276
`patent discloses that reactive DC magnetron sputtering of nonconductive
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`oxides “is done rarely” because insulating surfaces accumulate charge
`during deposition and result in arcing, which “can damage the power supply,
`produce particles and degrade the properties of deposited oxide films.” Id.
`at 4:44–52.
`Figure 1A of the ’276 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1A depicts a pulsed DC sputtering reactor. Id. at 3:26–27. The ’276
`patent describes reactor apparatus 10 for sputtering of material from
`target 12. Id. at 5:7–9. Magnet 20 is scanned across the top of target 12,
`which reduces local erosion of target 12 during sputtering. Id. at 5:28–29,
`8:47–55. Substrate 16 is opposite and parallel to target 12. Id. at 5:23–24.
`Substrate 16 is capacitively coupled to electrode 17 via insulator 54. Id.
`at 5:26–27. Electrode 17 can be coupled to RF power supply 18. Id.
`at 5:27–28. The ’276 patent explains that columnar structures in a deposited
`film can be detrimental for optical wave guide applications, but applying an
`RF bias on substrate 16 during deposition can substantially eliminate
`columnar structures. Id. at 5:60–67. The ’276 patent discloses that target 12
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`functions as a cathode when power is applied to it, which creates plasma 53.
`Id. at 5:24–26.
`Target 12 is electrically coupled through filter 15 to pulsed DC power
`supply 14. Id. at 5:19–20. The ’276 patent discloses that the polarity of the
`power supplied to target 12 by the pulsed DC power supply 14 oscillates
`between negative and positive potentials. Id. at 5:30–33. According to
`the ’276 patent, the insulating layer on the surface of target 12 discharges
`during the positive period, which prevents arcing. Id. at 5:33–35. The ’276
`patent discloses that the pulsing frequency must exceed a critical frequency,
`which depends on a target material, cathode current, and reverse time. Id.
`at 5:35–37.
`Reactor apparatus 10 further includes filter 15, which prevents RF
`power supply 18 from coupling into pulsed DC power supply 14. Id.
`at 5:50–51. According to the ’276 patent, filter 15 can be a 2 MHz band
`rejection filter when a 2 MHz power supply is used for RF power supply 18.
`Id. at 5:51–55. The ’276 patent discloses that “the band width of the
`filter 15 can be approximately 100 kHz.” Id. at 5:55–57.
`D.
`Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 6 of the ’276 patent are independent. Claim 1 is
`representative and is reproduced below:
`1[a]. A reactor according to the present invention, comprising:
`1[b] a target area for receiving a target;
`1[c] a substrate area opposite the target area for receiving a
`substrate;
`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;
`1[e] an RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate; and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`1[f] a narrow band-rejection filter that rejects at a frequency
`of the [RF]3 bias power supply coupled between the pulsed DC
`power supply and the target area.
`Ex. 1001, 22:40–50 (showing Petitioner’s annotations and bracketing);
`Ex. 3001, 1.
`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`E.
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 1–13 of the ’276 patent on
`the following grounds:
`References
`Barber,4 Hirose5
`
`Basis § Claim(s) Challenged
`103(a)6 1–3, 6–8
`
`Barber, Hirose, Aokura7
`
`Barber, Hirose, Yamazaki8
`
`Barber, Hirose, Dogheche9
`
`103(a)
`
`4, 5
`
`103(a)
`
`9
`
`103(a)
`
`9, 10
`
`
`3 A Certificate of Correction issued for this patent on December 3, 2019,
`changing “RE” to “RF” in claim 1, col. 22 l. 49. Ex. 3001, 1.
`4 US 6,342,134 B1, issued Jan. 29, 2002 (Ex. 1005).
`5 US 6,485,602 B2, issued Nov. 26, 2002 (Ex. 1006).
`6 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’276 patent has an
`effective filing date prior to the effective date of the applicable AIA
`amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 103.
`7 JP H10102247 A, published Apr. 21, 1998 (Ex. 1068) (English translation
`(pp. 1–12); Verified Statement of Translation (p. 13); Japanese language
`document (pp. 14–24)).
`8 US 6,657,260 B2, issued Dec. 2, 2003 (Ex. 1046).
`9 E. Dogheche, Growth and optical characterization of aluminum nitride
`thin films deposited on silicon by radio-frequency sputtering, Appl. Phys.
`Lett. 74, 1209 (1999) (Ex. 1029).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`References
`Barber, Hirose, Sproul10
`
`Barber, Hirose, Laird11
`
`Barber, Hirose, Segal12
`
`Basis § Claim(s) Challenged
`103(a)
`11, 12
`
`103(a)
`
`11, 13
`
`103(a)
`
`11–13
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind13
`
`103(a)
`
`1–3, 6–8
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Aokura
`
`103(a)
`
`4, 5
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Yamazaki
`
`103(a)
`
`9
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Dogheche
`
`103(a)
`
`9, 10
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Sproul
`
`103(a)
`
`11, 12
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Laird
`
`103(a)
`
`11, 13
`
`Barber, Hirose, Belkind, Segal
`
`103(a)
`
`11–13
`
`Petitioner relies on the declarations of Dr. Vivek Subramanian
`(Ex. 1002; Ex. 1108) and Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Ex. 1042). Patent Owner
`relies on the declarations of Dr. Alexander Glew (Ex. 2002; Ex. 2009), Dr.
`HongMei Zhang (Ex. 2019), and Dr. Rajiv Pethe (Ex. 2020).
`
`
`10 W. Sproul, High-rate reactive DC magnetron sputtering of oxide and
`nitride superlattice coatings, Elsevier Science Ltd. 51, 641 (1998)
`(Ex. 1036).
`11 US 2001/0041252 A1, published Nov. 15, 2001 (Ex. 1034).
`12 US 2001/0047838 A1, published Dec. 6, 2001 (Ex. 1069).
`13 A. Belkind et al., Pulsed-DC Reactive Sputtering of Dielectrics: Pulsing
`Parameter Effects, Society of Vacuum Coaters, 43rd Annual Technical
`Conference Proceedings, 86 (2000) (Ex. 1008).
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Legal Standards
`A.
`Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the
`challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent
`Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d
`1364, 1375–78 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussing the burden of proof in inter
`partes review proceedings). Petitioner must demonstrate unpatentability by
`a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.1(d); see also Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes
`review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports
`the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). A petitioner cannot satisfy
`its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory
`statements.” Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380.
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Obviousness is resolved based on
`underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.14 Graham v.
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). “An obviousness determination
`requires finding both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
`combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed
`invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`expectation of success in doing so.’” CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876
`F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v.
`Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner argues:
`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.
`Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:10–14, 2:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–19). In our
`Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of
`one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least”
`to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience.
`Inst. Dec. 10.
`
`
`14 Because we determine Petitioner has not sufficiently shown the
`challenged claims would have been obvious, we do not reach Patent
`Owner’s asserted objective evidence of non-obviousness. PO Resp. 70–72.
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`Patent Owner does not appear to dispute this definition. See generally
`PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ
`based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in
`the art. Accordingly, we retain our modified adoption of Petitioner’s
`definition. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
`F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the
`level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself
`reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”
`(quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158,
`163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).
`C.
`Claim Construction
`We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2019). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary
`and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and
`customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Petitioner does not assert a claim construction for any term of the
`challenged claims. Pet. 11–12. Patent Owner addresses the terms “a narrow
`band-rejection filter that rejects at a frequency of the RF bias power supply,”
`and “a narrow band rejection filter operating at a frequency of the RF bias
`power supply.” PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner argues that these terms “should
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning, which the
`parties to the litigation agree requires the claimed filter to have a rejection
`band set at a frequency of the RF bias power supply.” Id. More particularly,
`Patent Owner argues that a “POSITA would not understand the claim term
`“narrow band-rejection filter that rejects/operating at a frequency of the RF
`bias power supply” to encompass a filter whose pertinent operating
`frequency is materially offset from the RF bias frequency by design.” Id.
`at 11. Petitioner “disputes PO’s suggestion of ‘agree[ment] (EX 2022, 10)”
`but argues that Patent Owner’s “positions are not dispositive because they do
`not distinguish the prior art.” Reply 1.
`On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to
`construe any claim term expressly, because resolution of the present dispute
`does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias power supply is the
`same as, or offset from, the frequency at which the filter operates. Vivid
`Techs., 200 F.3d at 803; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in
`an inter partes review).
`D.
`Principal Asserted Prior Art
`Petitioner asserts fourteen grounds relying on ten different references.
`See Pet. 3–5. Each of Petitioner’s grounds, however, relies on two principal
`prior art references––Barber and Hirose, which are addressed below. Id.
`Other than Hirose, Patent Owner does not challenge the prior art status of
`any of the asserted references. See PO Resp. 11–41 (asserting that Hirose
`does not qualify as pre-AIA § 102(e) prior art to the challenged claims).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`Barber
`1.
`Barber is a patent titled “Method for Producing Piezoelectric Films
`with Rotating Magnetron Sputtering System.” Ex. 1005, code (54).
`Barber’s Figure 2 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of a reactive sputtering arrangement. Id.
`at 3:22–24. The arrangement includes chamber 210 and a pair of electrodes
`(target 260 and anode ring 225) within the chamber. Id. at 6:4–6. Barber
`discloses that an “electric potential applied to the electrodes may be
`controlled by a pulsed DC power source 230 or other suitable source.” Id.
`at 6:6–8. First flow control source 240 provides noble gases to chamber 210
`and second flow control source 250 provides a reactive gas to chamber 210.
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`Id. at 6:9–12. Substrate 110 is positioned within chamber 210 adjacent to
`rotating magnet assembly 280. Id. at 6:14–18. Barber discloses RF power
`supply 235 to apply a bias voltage to substrate platen 115 to control tensile
`film stress. Id. at 6:29–31. Barber further describes using a cross-over
`curve to optimize its reactive sputtering deposition process. Id. at 7:2–5.
`Specifically, Barber discloses introducing noble gas into its chamber and
`then introducing reactive gas incrementally so the flow rate of the reactive
`gas is a rate corresponding substantially to, but greater than, the flow rate for
`a cross-over point between producing a metallic film and an insulator. Id.
`at 7:17–29.
`Hirose
`2.
`Hirose is a patent titled “Plasma Processing Apparatus.” Ex. 1006,
`code (54). Hirose “relates to a plasma processing apparatus capable of
`suppressing a damage due to sputtering to a wall surface of a processing
`chamber during plasma occurrence.” Id. at 1:14–17. Hirose discloses a
`conventional plasma processing apparatus that applies high-frequency power
`with two types of frequency. Id. at 1:19–23. Hirose teaches that
`simultaneously applying two types of high-frequency power decreases an
`effective ground area to one electrode in comparison to when a single
`frequency is used, and this causes sputter rate to increase for the ground area
`and results in more damage to the wall of a processing chamber. Id. at 2:1–
`9.
`
`Hirose’s Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 is a configuration chart showing an embodiment of a plasma
`processing apparatus. Id. at 3:1–3. Hirose describes plasma processing
`apparatus 10 that includes processing chamber 11, upper electrode 12, and
`lower electrode 13.15 Id. at 3:45–51. Hirose discloses that lower
`
`
`15 Hirose discloses lower electrode 13 for the embodiment depicted in
`Figure 1. Ex. 1006, 3:50. However, Figure 1 does not include reference
`numeral 13. The embodiment depicted in Figure 7 includes lower
`electrode 33. Id. at 6:29. Therefore, Figure 1’s reference numeral 33 may
`be a typographical error and represent the lower electrode 13.
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`electrode 13 functions as a mount for a processing object, such as a
`semiconductor wafer. Id. at 3:56–58. Upper electrode 12 is connected to
`first high-frequency power supply 14 and lower electrode 13 is connected to
`second high-frequency power supply 15. Id. at 3:51–56. Hirose discloses
`that first high-frequency power supply 14 may apply, for example, 60 MHz
`power to upper electrode 12, and second high-frequency power supply 15
`may apply, for example, 2 MHz power to lower electrode 13. Id. at 3:59–60,
`3:64–65.
`Hirose describes first filter circuit 20 and second filter circuit 21. Id.
`at 4:9–11. First filter circuit 20 includes an inductor-capacitor (LC) resonant
`circuit with a varying circuit constant. Id. at 4:11–13. Hirose states that
`“[t]he LC series resonant circuit selectively filters a high-frequency current
`output from the second high-frequency power supply 15 for preventing the
`current from reaching the first high-frequency power supply 14.” Id.
`at 4:13–16. Hirose also discloses that second filter circuit 21 prevents high-
`frequency current from first high-frequency power supply 14 from reaching
`second high-frequency power supply 15. Id. at 4:18–21.
`Hirose describes how to set the circuit constant of first filter circuit
`20. Id. at 4:39–40. First and second high-frequency power supplies 14, 15
`apply power to upper electrode 12 and lower electrode 13, respectively, and
`a capacitor capacity of first filter circuit 20 is varied by measuring a voltage
`waveform. Id. at 4:42–47. Hirose teaches that when first and second high-
`frequency power supplies 14, 15 provide power at respective frequencies of
`60 MHz and 2 MHz, a capacitor capacity of 2500 pF for first filter circuit 20
`provides an optimum resonance point. Id. at 4:51–57, 5:1–3. This effect is
`depicted in Hirose’s Figure 6, which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`
`Figure 6 “shows a decrease in the sputter rate.” Id. at 3:24. Hirose is
`concerned with sputtering the chamber wall of its device, and examines the
`relationship between the sputter rate and the capacitor capacity. Id. at 2:1–
`10, 5:3–6, 5:11–12. Hirose determines that a capacitor capacity of 2000 pF
`for first filter circuit 20 “greatly decreases the sputter rate” compared to a
`capacitor capacity of 2500 pF, and first filter circuit 20 with a capacitor
`capacity of “2000 pF is superior to the optimally resonant filter circuit”
`with 2500 pF. Id. at 5:49–52, 5:58–62. Comparing first filter circuit 20 with
`a capacitor capacity of 2000 pF with first filter circuit 20 with a capacitor
`capacity of 2500 pF, “the former is slightly inferior to the latter with respect
`to the resonance phenomenon.” Id. at 5:61–62.
`E. Hirose as Prior Art
`The parties dispute whether Hirose qualifies as prior art to the ’276
`patent. Petitioner, who bears the burden to show Hirose is prior art, asserts
`that Hirose qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001 is before the March 16, 2002 filing date
`of the ’276 patent. See Pet. 5.
`Patent Owner responds that Hirose does not qualify as prior art to
`the ’276 patent because the inventors of the ’276 patent conceived and
`reduced to practice the ’276 invention on or before Hirose’s filing date of
`July 18, 2001, likely as early as June 13, 2001. PO Resp. 12.
`An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the
`invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed
`by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to
`practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362
`(Fed. Cir. 2001).
`Petitioner met its burden of production to demonstrate that Hirose,
`which has a filing date prior to the filing date of the ’276 patent, was prior
`art by asserting Hirose was prior art under § 102(e). See Dynamic
`Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. Hirose’s earlier filing date shifts the burden
`of production to Patent Owner to produce evidence supporting a date of
`invention before Hirose’s filing date. See id. With its Response, Patent
`Owner presented evidence it contends shows a date of conception prior to
`July 18, 2001, followed by reasonably continuous diligence. PO Resp. 11–
`41.
`
`For the purposes of this decision, we do not determine whether Hirose
`qualifies as prior art to claims 1–13, because, as explained below, even if
`Hirose qualifies as prior art, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that any of
`the asserted claims would have been obvious over the grounds asserting
`Hirose.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`Asserted Obviousness based on Barber and Hirose
`F.
`All of Petitioner’s asserted grounds are based wholly or in part on the
`combination of Barber and Hirose. Pet. 3–5. In Ground 1, encompassing
`both independent claims 1 and 6, Petitioner argues that claims 1–3 and 6–8
`are unpatentable as obvious over the combined disclosures of Barber and
`Hirose. Pet. 13–44. Patent Owner challenges certain aspects of Petitioner’s
`grounds based on Barber and Hirose. PO Resp. 41–72. Our analysis of
`Ground 1, below, discusses issues that affect every ground in the Petition.
`1. Petitioner’s Challenge
`Petitioner argues that every element of claim 1 is found in the
`combination of Barber and Hirose, as set forth below. Pet. 13–36.
`a) 1[a] A reactor according to the present invention,
`comprising:
`Petitioner contends that Barber discloses claim 1’s preamble. Pet. 13–
`15 (citing Ex. 1005, code (57), Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 56–58).16
`b) 1[b] a target area for receiving a target;
`Petitioner asserts that “Barber discloses that a target material 260 is
`positioned within chamber 210 and is ‘mounted adjacent a rotating magnet
`assembly 280.’” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:14–18, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 59).
`Petitioner contends that the area associated with target 260, including the
`region that receives target 260, meets the claimed “target area for receiving
`the target,” comparing Barber’s target configuration with that disclosed by
`the ’276 patent. Id. at 15–17 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 59;
`Ex. 1001, Figs. 1B, 2).
`
`
`16 We do not express any opinion on whether the preamble is limiting.
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`c) 1[c] a substrate area opposite the target area for receiving
`a substrate;
`Petitioner argues that Barber discloses substrate 110 that is positioned
`on substrate platen 115 opposite from Barber’s target 260. Pet. 17 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 6:15–17, 6:29–31, Fig. 2). Petitioner further compares Barber’s
`configuration with that disclosed by the ’276 patent. Id. at 18–19 (citing
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60; Ex. 1001, Fig. 1B).
`d) 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;
`Petitioner asserts that Barber discloses pulsed DC power source 230
`that applies a bias across target 260 and anode ring 225, and that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the target area is coupled
`to the pulsed-DC power source because the pulsed-DC bias is applied to
`target 260. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:6–11, 7:30–34, 8:49–52; Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 61–71). Petitioner argues that Barber discloses providing positive DC
`pulses to target 260 at a pulse frequency, and that Barber’s reference to
`“reverse-bias pulse width” refers to the pulse of a positive bias. Id. at 20–21
`(citing Ex. 1005, 2:21–26, 7:14–17, 8:45–48, 8:66–9:3, 9:6–11, 9:17–22,
`9:48–53; Ex. 1002 ¶ 63). According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in
`the art would have also understood that Barber’s pulsed DC power supply
`“necessarily provides a negative bias to the target such that the voltage on
`target 260 alternates between negative and positive voltages,” because a
`negative bias must be applied to the target at times for the sputtering process
`to operate. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65–66).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`
`e) 1[e] an RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate; and
`Petitioner contends that Barber discloses RF power supply 235 that
`applies a bias voltage to substrate platen 115, which supports substrate 110,
`and that the bias is used to control the tensile stress of a deposited film.
`Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:29–31, 9:12, Fig. 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 72).
`f) 1[f] a narrow band-rejection filter that rejects at a
`frequency of the RF bias power supply coupled between the
`pulsed DC power supply and the target area.
`Petitioner asserts that Barber teaches “that electrical characteristics of
`its pulsed DC power supply should be monitored or adjusted ‘to achieve a
`stable waveform.’” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:59–60, 8:66–9:2; Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 73–100). Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that Barber’s pulsed DC supply 230 and RF supply 235 operate
`at different frequencies. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:29–31, 8:45–48, 9:12;
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75–76).
`Petitioner admits that Barber does not disclose any filter. Id.
`Petitioner contends that although Barber “does not expressly disclose ‘a
`narrow band-rejection filter that rejects at a frequency of the [RF] bias
`power supply coupled between the pulsed DC power supply and the target
`area,’” one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been aware of the
`benefits of filters in plasma systems/processes to block interference/current
`of one power supply from another power supply, and thus such knowledge
`would have been in the mind of such a skilled person when considering
`implementing Barber’s system/processes.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75–77).
`Petitioner argues that Hirose discloses a plasma processing apparatus
`that includes chamber 11, two power supplies 14 and 15 having different
`frequencies, and filters 20 and 21, where first filter circuit 20 placed between
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`power supply 14 and upper electrode 12 selectively filters “a high-frequency
`current output from the second high-frequency power supply 15 for
`preventing the current from reaching the first high-frequency power supply
`14.” Id. at 25–27 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:45–4:38, 4:9–16, code (57), Fig. 1;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 78). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have understood that Hirose’s disclosed filters are well-known band-
`rejection filters,” which operate “like a narrow band-rejection filter (aka
`notch filter).” Id. at 27–29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 81–82; Ex. 1006, 4:9–16,
`5:7–10, 8:34–38, Fig. 6; Ex. 1013, 4–6 (Fig. 2–9(F)).
`g) Reasons to Combine
`Because Petitioner asserts that Barber alone discloses or teaches all of
`the limitations of claim 1[a]–1[e], Petitioner’s reasons to combine focus on
`claim 1[f], having to do with the claimed “narrow-band rejection filter that
`rejects at a frequency of the RF bias power supply coupled between the
`pulsed DC power supply and the target area.” Pet. 24–36. First, Petitioner
`argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`modify Barber’s system “to incorporate a narrow-band rejection filter”
`because Hirose’s arrangement is similar to Barber’s arrangement (Pet. 29–
`30), and one of ordinary skill in the art “would have appreciated Hirose’s
`guidance concerning the benefits of filters to block electrical current of a
`remote power supply in plasma process systems, like that disclosed in
`Barber.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82–84; Ex. 1005, Fig. 2; Ex. 1006, code
`(57), 1:44–67, Fig. 1). Petitioner asserts that narrow band-rejection filters
`(“NBRFs”) were known, and refers to “design concepts known at the time”
`to argue that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had the capability
`and knowledge to configure and implement such a filter in Barber’s system
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276 B2
`with an expectation th