UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.,
`PETITIONER,
`v.
`RENO TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`PATENT OWNER.
`________________________________
`
`Case IPR2021-01397
`Patent 10,707,057
`________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF STEVEN H. VOLDMAN, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 10,707,057
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Background Qualifications .............................................................................. 6
`
`Understanding Of Patent Law ......................................................................... 9
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art .................................................. 11
`
`IV. Claim Interpretation ....................................................................................... 12
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Background of the Technology ..................................................................... 12
`
`The ’057 Patent .............................................................................................. 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of the Disclosure of the Claimed Subject Matter ............... 15
`
`Summary of the Prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 10,707,057 .............. 17
`
`Summary of Application No. 15/373,271 (the ’271 Application) ...... 18
`
`Summary of Inter Partes Review Proceeding on USPN
`9,946,122 ............................................................................................. 19
`
`VII. Summary of Prior Art .................................................................................... 20
`
`A. Mavretic ............................................................................................... 20
`
`B. Mason .................................................................................................. 22
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Navigator II ......................................................................................... 24
`
`Howald ................................................................................................ 26
`
`VIII. Detailed Invalidity Analysis .......................................................................... 26
`
`IX.
`
`The Challenged Claims are Invalid ............................................................... 27
`
`A. Mavretic in view of Mason Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
`9-13, and 16-17 .................................................................................... 27
`
`1
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`B. Mavretic in view of Mason and Navigator II Renders Obvious
`Claims 3, 6-8, 14 and 15 ..................................................................... 66
`
`C. Mavretic in view of Mason and Howald Renders Obvious
`Claims 3, 6, 8 and 14 ........................................................................... 73
`
`2
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`I, Steven H. Voldman, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) to provide expert opinions in connection with this inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,707,057 (“the ’057 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at my
`
`standard consulting rate for consulting services. My compensation is not
`
`affected by the outcome of this matter.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-17 of
`
`the ’057 Patent (“the Challenged Claims”) are invalid as obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`(“POSITA”).
`
`4.
`
`For the purposes of my Declaration, a patent or printed publication that
`
`predates January 10, 2014 is prior art against the ’057 Patent.
`
`5.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed at least the ’057 Patent, the file
`
`history of the ’057 Patent, the prior art cited in this declaration, and any other
`
`documents cited in this declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I have also been informed that the Board construes claims during IPR such
`
`that the words in the claim are given their plain meaning, which is the meaning
`
`understood by a POSITA after reading the entire patent. The analysis focuses
`
`3
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`on how the patentee used the claim terms in the claims, specification, and
`
`prosecution history of the patent. As so informed, I have considered and
`
`applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms in my analysis
`
`below.
`
`7.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education in the relevant field of
`
`the art, and have considered the viewpoint of a POSITA as of January 10,
`
`2014. My opinion is based, at least in part, on analysis of the following prior
`
`art and background references in view of a POSITA:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,707,057 (“the ’057 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,654,679 to Mavretic, et al. (“Mavretic”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,436,643 to Mason (“Mason”)
`Navigator® II Matching Networks With a Solid-State Technology
`Option, presented by Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. at
`SEMICON West 2012 (“Navigator II”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,259,334 to Howald (“Howald”)
`Valentin Todorow, Impedance Matching and Matching Networks,
`(PowerPoint slides), Etch Products Business Group, Applied
`Materials (December 2009) (“Todorow”)
`available at:
`https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/presentation/3711/53475dd48c0f719
`38d8d49dad2d83c1a2579.pdf.
`
`4
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Lou Frenzel, Back to Basics: Impedance Matching (Part 1),
`Electronic Design, (October 24, 2011) (“Frenzel Part 1”)
`available at:
`https://www.electronicdesign.com/datasheet/back-basics-impedance-
`matching-part-1
`
`Lou Frenzel, Back to Basics: Impedance Matching (Part 2),
`Electronic Design (March 1, 2012) (“Frenzel Part 2”)
`available at:
`https://www.electronicdesign.com/datasheet/back-basics-impedance-
`matching-part-2.
`
`Lou Frenzel, Back to Basics: Impedance Matching (Part 3),
`Electronic Design (March 14, 2012) (“Frenzel Part 3”)
`available at:
`https://www.electronicdesign.com/datasheet/back-basics-impedance-
`matching-part-3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,887,339 to Goodman, et al. (“Goodman”)
`
`File history of Application No. 16/665,778 (“the ’778 Application”)
`
`File history of Application No. 15/637,271 (“the ’271 Application”)
`
`Daihen Corporation v Reno Technologies, Inc., IPR2019-002248,
`Paper No. 11, Decision Denying Inter Partes Review (May 22, 2019)
`
`Daihen Corporation v Reno Technologies, Inc., IPR2019-002248,
`Paper No. 8, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (March 13, 2019)
`
`Specification sheet for Analog Devices AD734, “10 MHz, Four-
`Quadrant Multiplier/Divider” (“AD734 Multiplier/Divider”)
`
`Specification sheet for Analog Devices ADCMP556, “Dual Ultrafast
`Voltage Comparator” (“ADCMP556 Comparator”)
`
`5
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Specification sheet for Analog Devices AD9600, “10-Bit, 105
`MSPS/125 MSPS/150 MSPS, 1.8 V Dual Analog-to-Digital
`Converter” (“AD9600 ADC”)
`
`Specification sheet for Analog Devices AD8302, “LF–2.7 GHz
`RF/IF Gain and Phase Detector” (“AD8302 Magnitude/Phase
`Detector”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,839,223 to Van Zyl, et al. (“Van Zyl”)
`
`Daihen Corporation v Reno Technologies, Inc., IPR2019-002248,
`Paper No. 11, Decision Denying Inter Partes Review (May 22, 2019)
`(“the ʼ248 IPR Decision”)
`
`I.
`8.
`
`Background Qualifications
`I am an electrical engineer with more than 30 years experience in
`
`semiconductor development at IBM, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
`
`Corporation (TSMC), Samsung, Intersil and Qimonda. I am a former member
`
`of an RF power source group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`
`(MIT) and have studied plasma physics. I am a named inventor on more than
`
`250 patents and the author of 11 books related to semiconductor technologies.
`
`9.
`
`I received a B.S. in engineering science from the University of Buffalo; a S.M.
`
`in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; as
`
`well as both a M.S. in engineering physics and a Ph.D. (IBM resident study
`
`fellow) in electrical engineering from the University of Vermont.
`
`6
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`10.
`
`I have 25 years of experience specifically conducting semiconductor
`
`processing, device development, circuit design, chip architecture, floor
`
`planning and chip integration at IBM (1982-2007). My experience also
`
`includes semiconductor/chip fabrication, processing, testing, design rule
`
`checking, layout, impedance isolation, distributed loads and buffering.
`
`11.
`
`I have extensive experience in circuit and technology product development
`
`including: Bipolar DRAM (1982-1983); Bipolar SRAM (1982-1987); CMOS
`
`SRAM (1985-1995); CMOS DRAM 4MB (1984-1988); CMOS DRAM
`
`16MB (1991-1995); CMOS Multi-chip Development / Stacked Chips
`
`(CUBE); CMOS CPU Microprocessors
`
`(1993-2000); CPU SOI
`
`Microprocessors (1991-2002); CMOS ASIC Development (1994-2000); RF
`
`Design (2000-2007); Through Silicon Via (TSV) Development for RF SiGe;
`
`and CMOS DRAM 500MB: 2 GB DRAM (2007-2008).
`
`12. Among the 11 books I have authored are “ESD: RF Technology and Circuits”
`
`(Chinese Edition) (2010); “ESD: RF Technology and Circuits” (2006); “ESD
`
`Basics: From Semiconductor Manufacturing to Product Use” (2012); and
`
`“Integrated Circuit Design for Radiation Environments” (2019).
`
`13.
`
`I have received the following awards: IEEE Fellow Citation “Contributions in
`
`ESD protection in CMOS, SOI and SiGe” (2003); ESD Association General
`
`Chairman Award
`
`(2009); ESD Association Outstanding Technical
`
`7
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Contribution Award (2007); IBM Master Inventor Award (2006); IEEE
`
`Electron Device Society (EDS) Distinguished Lecturer; 67th IBM Invention
`
`Achievement Plateau Awards; IBM Corporate Technical Recognition Award:
`
`IBM Top Inventor (2002); IBM Corporate Technical Recognition Award:
`
`IBM Top Inventor (2000); and IBM Corporate Technical Recognition Award:
`
`IBM Top Inventor (1999).
`
`14.
`
`I was actively involved in the development of the following standards: ESD
`
`Work Group 5.1 Human Body Model (HBM); ESD Work Group 5.2 Machine
`
`Model (MM); ESD Work Group 5.3 Charged Device Model (CDM); ESD
`
`Work Group 5.4 Transient Latchup (TLU); ESD Work Group 5.5
`
`Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) (Chairman); ESD Work Group 5.6 Human
`
`Metal Model (HMM); and ESD Work Group 14 Cable Discharge Event
`
`(CDE).
`
`15.
`
`I have given external tutorial programs on various topics relating to RF
`
`technology including: ESD in Digital and RF Circuits (Semitracks Inc.,
`
`Phoenix, AZ 2007); RF ESD (Dreamcatcher, Penang, Malaysia 2010); ESD
`
`RF Circuits (Dreamcatcher, 2005); and ESD in RF Technology (CEPREI;
`
`Suzhou, China, 2006).
`
`16. Other details concerning my background, professional service, and more, are
`
`set forth in my curriculum vitae. See EX1003.
`
`8
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`17.
`
`In forming my opinion expressed in this report, I relied on my knowledge,
`
`skill, training, and education and over 30 years of professional experience in
`
`semiconductor development including RF power and plasma physics.
`
`Understanding Of Patent Law
`II.
`18. As I am not an attorney, the laws and principals of patent law have been
`
`explained to me by counsel for Petitioner. I have been provided with an
`
`understanding of the patent law sufficient to conduct the analysis given in this
`
`report.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that a patent or printed publication that predates January
`
`10, 2014 is prior art against the ’057 Patent. I have been informed that at least
`
`Mavretic, Mason, Navigator II, and Howald were all published prior to
`
`January 10, 2014 and are prior art to the ’057 Patent.
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is invalid if that claim is either anticipated
`
`or obvious by the prior art. I understand that an obviousness analysis requires
`
`an understanding of the scope and content of the prior art, any differences
`
`between the alleged invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill
`
`in evaluating the pertinent art. I understand that a claim in a patent is invalid
`
`for obviousness when the differences between the subject matter sought in the
`
`claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter of the claim as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`
`9
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`having ordinary skill in the art which the subject matter pertains. I understand
`
`that certain factors may support or rebut the obviousness of a claim, such as
`
`secondary considerations.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that an obvious determination is not the results of a rigid formula
`
`disassociated from the consideration of the facts. By way of example, a claim
`
`would have been obvious when it unites old elements with no change to a
`
`respective function, or alters prior art by mere substitution of one element for
`
`another known in the field, and that combination yields predictable results. It
`
`is my understanding that to facilitate a combination of prior art references, a
`
`reason to combine the prior art is helpful. However, common sense should be
`
`used as a guide and no rigid requirement of finding a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine is required. I understand that when a product is
`
`available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of
`
`it, either in the same field or different one. If a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the relevant art can implement a predictable variation, a finding of
`
`obviousness would likely prohibit patentability. For the same reason, I
`
`understand that, if a technique has been used to improve one device and a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
`
`similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious. I understand
`
`a claim may be obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple
`
`10
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`prior art references or add missing features to reproduce the alleged invention
`
`recited in the claims.
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art
`22.
`I have been advised that there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including the education level of
`
`active workers in the field at the time of the alleged invention, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, the type of problems encountered in the art,
`
`and the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`23.
`
`The Challenged Claims pertain to an RF impedance matching network to
`
`efficiently transfer power from an RF generator to a plasma chamber in order
`
`to energize a gas mixture within the plasma chamber.
`
`24.
`
`It is my opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention was typically a person with a graduate degree in
`
`electrical engineering with knowledge of RF matching networks and plasma
`
`chamber processes. Alternatively, a POSITA could have sufficient work
`
`experience in these fields to have gained an understanding of the subject
`
`matter claimed. I am qualified to provided opinions as to the understanding of
`
`a POSITA since I have a PhD in electrical engineering with extensive
`
`knowledge of both RF matching networks and plasma chamber processes.
`
`11
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`IV. Claim Interpretation
`25.
`I understand that claims during an IPR are interpreted under their plain
`
`meaning, which is the meaning understood by a POSITA after reading the
`
`entire patent. The analysis focuses on how the patentee used the claim terms
`
`in the claims, specification, and prosecution history of the patent. It is my
`
`understanding that information external to the patent, such as dictionaries,
`
`expert testimony, and prior art, may be considered if ambiguities remain.
`
`V.
`26.
`
`Background of the Technology
`Plasma processing is widely used in the semiconductor industry, such as to
`
`perform wafer etching and deposition related to fabrication of integrated
`
`circuits. Howald at 1:13-30; Goodman at 1:22-26; Todorow at 3. An RF
`
`generator is coupled to the plasma chamber to provide power to the chamber
`
`to energize the source gas and form a plasma. Howald at 1:31-40.
`
`27.
`
`The RF generator and related components are designed to operate into a fixed
`
`impedance, usually a standard 50 + j0 Ohm. Howald at 1:47-48 and 2:15-23;
`
`Todorow at 5. However, the impedance of the plasma chamber is often far
`
`from 50 + j0 Ohm (e.g., 2 ± j35 Ohm) and varies during operation due to
`
`various factors. Mavretic at 1:42-45; Mason at 1:21-25; Todorow at 5, 17 and
`
`19.
`
`12
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`28.
`
`To correct for this impedance mismatch, an impedance matching network is
`
`placed between the RF generator and the plasma chamber. Howald at 2:15-23
`
`and Todorow at 5. Any mismatch between the impedance presented to the
`
`generator by the matching network and 50 + j0 Ohm cause an inefficiency in
`
`the power transferred from the generator to the load, often expressed as
`
`reflected power, and may also negatively affect the processing of the wafer.
`
`Howald at 1:41-54; Mavretic at 2:13-21.
`
`29. Other common measures of impedance mismatch include the reflection
`
`coefficient and standing wave ratio (SWR), which are mathematically related
`
`to reflected power. Frenzel Part 1 at 5-6. An SWR of one would be a perfect
`
`impedance match with no reflected power, while an “SWR of 2 means that
`
`reflected power is 10%. Therefore, 90% of the power will reach the load.” Id.
`
`An SWR of two is approximately equal to a reflection coefficient of 0.33 using
`
`the equations provided by Frenzel Part 1. Id.
`
`30. As there is both a real and an imaginary value for impedance, match networks
`
`often include two variable impedance elements to obtain the closet match. Id.
`
`at 9-10. The effect of varying one compared to two impedance elements to
`
`match a representative plasma load of 2 - j35 Ohm to 50 + j0 Ohm is illustrated
`
`in the below Smith charts. Todorow at 17-18.
`
`13
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`31. As seen in the charts, varying only one element (shown on the left) cannot
`
`obtain the impedance match possible by varying two elements (shown on the
`
`right). Id.; see also id. at 19-20 (showing a match of a 2 + j35 Ohm load).
`
`Todorow at 17-18
`
`32. As understood by POSITA, both impedance elements in the matching network
`
`provide a separate degree of freedom (e.g. their respective trace lines in the
`
`Smith charts) in matching the load impedance.
`
`33. Mechanical vacuum variable capacitors using a servo-motor to alter
`
`capacitance values have been widely used in matching networks since well
`
`before
`
`the
`
`’057 Patent, but were slow, unreliable, bulky and
`
`expensive. Howald at 2:56-61; Mavretic at 2:6-37 and Fig. 1; Mason at 3:23-
`
`25. Therefore, electronically variable capacitors were developed and include
`
`discrete capacitors connected in parallel where each capacitor may be
`
`14
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`individually switched into or out of the circuit by an electronic switching
`
`element, such a diode or transistor. Mavretic at 3:13-20, 4:41-52 and Fig. 3;
`
`Mason at 3:25-51 and Fig. 2. The overall capacitance value of the
`
`electronically variable capacitor is based on the combination of capacitors
`
`switched in or out. Id.
`
`VI. The ’057 Patent
`A.
`Summary of the Disclosure of the Claimed Subject Matter
`
`34.
`
`The ’057 Patent relates generally to a system to transfer power from an RF
`
`generator through a matching network to a plasma chamber. ’057 Patent at
`
`7:26-44. A block diagram of this system is shown below in Figure 1.
`
`’057 Patent at Figure 1
`
`35.
`
`“As is known in the art, the plasma within a plasma chamber 19 typically
`
`undergoes certain fluctuations outside of operational control so that the
`
`15
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`impedance presented by the plasma chamber 19 is a variable impedance.” Id.
`
`at 7:52-55. The claims of the ’057 patent are primarily directed to the
`
`matching network where the “purpose of the RF matching network is to
`
`transform the variable plasma impedance to a value that more closely matches
`
`the fixed impedance of the RF generator” to “help maximize the amount of
`
`RF power transmitted into the plasma chamber.” Id. at 2:34-48.
`
`36.
`
`The ’057 Patent acknowledges RF matching networks for plasma chambers
`
`were well-known, where a “typical RF matching network includes variable
`
`capacitors and a control circuit with a microprocessor to control the
`
`capacitance values of the variable capacitors”. Id. at 2:49-55. These typical
`
`matching networks use sensors such as “a phase/magnitude detector, a
`
`directional coupler, or a voltage/current sensor” to tune the matching network.
`
`Id. 3:39-41.
`
`37.
`
`The ’057 Patent describes electronically variable capacitors as “purely
`
`electronic device[s]” or “digitally controlled, non-mechanical devices.” Id. at
`
`3:29-30 and 33:11-12. Each electronically variable capacitor can be “formed
`
`as a capacitor array formed by a plurality of discrete capacitors.” Id. at 8:44-
`
`48. The “capacitance of the electronically variable capacitor may be
`
`controlled and varied” by a “process of independently activating one or more
`
`of the electronic switches.” Id. at 10:24-36 and 51-58 and (internal numbering
`
`16
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`removed). Figure 2D, shown below, illustrates an embodiment of the ’057
`
`Patent’s electronically variable capacitor 651 comprised of discrete capacitors
`
`653 connected to individual switches 661.
`
`’057 Patent at Figure 2D
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 10,707,057
`
`38.
`
`The ’057 Patent resulted from Application No. 16/665,778 (“the ‘778
`
`Application). See the ‘778 Application. During prosecution of the ‘778
`
`Application, the Examiner did not issue a single prior art rejection and only
`
`issued obviousness-type double patenting rejections. Id. at 151-53. Patent
`
`Owner overcame the rejections by filing a terminal disclaimer. Id. at 179-80.
`
`The Examiner then allowed the claims without further discussion. Id. at 193.
`
`17
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`39.
`
`The Examiner did not discuss Mavretic or Mason (or any other prior art) with
`
`respect to the claims of the ’057 Patent.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Application No. 15/373,271 (the ’271 Application)
`
`40.
`
`The ’778 Application was filed as a continuation of the ’271 Application,
`
`which does contain a discussion of Mavretic by the Examiner and Patent
`
`Owner. See the ’271 Application at 445-456 and 478-482.
`
`41.
`
`In the ’271 Application, the Examiner rejected the pending claims over
`
`Mavretic in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0253442 to Mu, where Mu
`
`was used to teach “coarse” and “fine” capacitors in an electronically variable
`
`capacitor. Id. at 420-437 and 445-456.
`
`42.
`
`The Examiner determined Mavretic taught: “an RF input configured to
`
`operably couple to an RF source,” “an RF output configured to operably
`
`couple to a plasma chamber,” “electronically variable capacitors (EVC),” “a
`
`control circuit operably coupled to the EVCs, the control circuit configured to
`
`cause the switching in and out of the discrete capacitors,” and “deposit a
`
`material layer onto the substrate or etch a material layer from the substrate.”
`
`Id. at 87-91.
`
`43.
`
`Patent Owner argued for the alleged lack of combinability of Mu’s teaching
`
`of “coarse” and “fine” capacitors with Mavretic’s matching network. Id. at
`
`479-481.
`
`18
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`44.
`
`The Examiner did not agree and Patent Owner further amended the scope of
`
`the claims relative to the “coarse and “fine” capacitors. Id. at 502-504 and
`
`520-528. The Examiner agreed in an interview that these amendments, shown
`
`below, rendered the claims patentable. Id.
`
`The ‘271 Application at 521.
`
`45.
`
`The amendments resulting in allowance of the ’271 are not a limitations
`
`recited in any claim of the ’057 Patent.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of Inter Partes Review Proceeding on USPN 9,946,122
`
`46.
`
`The ’057 Patent purports to be a continuation-in-part of US Patent No.
`
`9,496,122 (“the ’122 Patent”). ’057 Patent at 1:20-22. The Board considered
`
`the subject matter of the ’122 Patent in IPR2019-00248. The relevant subject
`
`matter of the ’057 Patent overlaps with some of the subject matter the Board
`
`previously considered in the ʼ248 IPR.
`
`19
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`47. While the Board denied institution of the ‘248 IPR, the Board did not consider
`
`grounds citing either Mavretic or Mason. Id. at 5-6. The Board’s reasons for
`
`denial of institution were fact specific to the grounds of rejection presented in
`
`that IPR petition.
`
`48.
`
`The combination of Mavretic and Mason presented herein provides
`
`substantially different teachings to a POSITA than the prior art references and
`
`arguments considered by the Board in the ’248 IPR.
`
`49. Unlike the claims in the ’122 Patent there is no requirement to measure the
`
`variable impedance of the plasma chamber or requirements related to timing
`
`in the independent claims of the ’057 Patent. Where those limitations are
`
`recited in dependent claims of the ’057 Patent, a POSITA would find them
`
`obvious for the reasons provided below.
`
`VII. Summary of Prior Art
`A. Mavretic
`
`50. Mavretic is generally directed to RF impedance match networks. Mavretic at
`
`2:34-3:6. Specifically, an “impedance matching network as may be embodied
`
`by the present invention provides maximum power transfer between an RF
`
`power generator and a load, e.g., a plasma chamber.” Id. at 5:60-63.
`
`20
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Mavretic at Figure 2
`
`51.
`
`The RF impedance matching network 220 “matches the internal impedance
`
`of the RF power generator, typically 50 ohms, while providing an impedance
`
`to the plasma chamber that matches the varying impedance of the plasma
`
`chamber.” Id. at 5:63-67. For example, the “L-type impedance matching
`
`network” illustrated in Figure 6 matches the impedance based on the values
`
`of capacitance 306, inductance 307, and capacitance 308. Id. at 6:23-34.
`
`Mavretic at Figure 6
`
`52.
`
`Figure 6 shows the electronically variable capacitor (i.e. capacitance 306) is
`
`coupled to controller 608 that provides control signals to vary the capacitance
`
`to the desired value. Id. at 6:64-7:9 and Fig. 6. Various sensors (i.e. 601, 602,
`
`and 607) measure the network parameters that are used by controller 608 to
`
`21
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`determine which discrete capacitors within capacitance 306 to turn on or off
`
`in order to alter the variable capacitance values and tune the network to match
`
`the impedance. Id. at 2:9-22 and 6:60-7:9.
`
`B. Mason
`
`53. Mason is generally directed to “match networks of a power supply for
`
`generating and sustaining a plasma in, or provided to, a plasma processing
`
`chamber.” Mason at 3:8-12. Specifically, Mason discloses that an RF match
`
`network “can include two or more variable capacitance elements” where each
`
`variable capacitance element is comprised of “banks of parallel electronically
`
`switched capacitors.” Id. at 3:21-34 and Fig. 2. An example of Mason’s
`
`variable capacitance element is shown below in Figure 2.
`
`Mason at Fig. 2
`
`22
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`54.
`
`The discrete capacitors can be switched into or out of the variable capacitor
`
`element in 11 μsec or less. Id. at 7:46-8:32 and Fig. 8-11. Mason also discloses
`
`a fixed RF source frequency when switching the discrete capacitors in or out
`
`to alter the capacitance of the variable capacitance element. Id. at 6:35-40,
`
`7:46-8:32 and Fig. 3, 8-11.
`
`55.
`
` The decision to increase or decrease the variable capacitance values to tune
`
`the matching network is “based on measurements of impedance and/or
`
`reflectance and a calculation as to whether less power to the plasma load will
`
`be reflected via increasing or decreasing impedance.” Id. at 10:34-48 and Fig.
`
`6.
`
`Mason at Fig. 6
`
`23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Navigator II
`
`56. Navigator II is a poster describing the Navigator II RF matching network
`
`architecture, which includes variable solid state capacitors (i.e., electronically
`
`variable capacitor) using a fixed 13.56 MHz source frequency or vacuum
`
`variable capacitors with a range of source frequencies, an input sensor, an
`
`output sensor, and a controller as illustrated below. Navigator II at 1. Since,
`
`Navigator II covers both vacuum and solid state capacitor technology it
`
`includes a “Motor Drive” block, but a POSITA would understand the motor
`
`drive would not be used with the solid state option.
`
`Navigator II at 1
`
`24
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`57.
`
`Figure d of Navigator II shows the solid state capacitor option could obtain
`
`reflected power under 10% in 1-7 tuning iterations, where a reflectance
`
`coefficient (rho) of .33 is approximately equal to 10% reflected power. Id.;
`
`Frenzel Part 1 at 5-6. As seen in figure d, each change in the slope of a line
`
`indicates an iteration where the impedance was changed. The marking for 3
`
`milliseconds is part of the original figure and not directly relevant to the issues
`
`I discuss below. In addition, the x-axis contains a typo listing seconds when
`
`the accompany description in Navigator II makes clear it should be
`
`milliseconds.
`
`25
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Navigator II at 1
`
`D.
`
`Howald
`
`58. Howald is generally directed to tuning an RF impedance matching network to
`
`a point where power reflection is at a minimum. Howald at Abstract. As part
`
`of the tuning process, Howald teaches determining the variable load
`
`impedance from the RF matching network input impedance, values of the
`
`reactive components, and the network topology. Howald at 8:43-67, 10:13-16
`
`and Figs 7b and 7c. By determining the variable load impedance, Howald
`
`shortens the tuning time of the RF matching network compared to using only
`
`the impedance measured at the input of the RF match network. Id. at 10:46-
`
`56.
`
`VIII. Detailed Invalidity Analysis
`59.
`I have been asked to provide an opinion as to whether or not the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’057 Patent are patentable to a POSITA in view of the prior art
`
`in light of the legal principles discussed above. The discussion below provides
`
`a detailed analysis of why a POSITA would consider the prior art references
`
`cited herein render obvious claims 1-17. The four independent claims of the
`
`’057 Patent (claims 1, 4, 10 and 12) and their respective dependent claims
`
`have substantial overlapping claim limitations. Where the limitations of a
`
`26
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`claim have already been discussed, I refer back to my original discussion of
`
`that limitation rather than repeat the same discussion multiple times.
`
`IX. The Challenged Claims are Invalid
`A. Mavretic in view of Mason Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-13,
`and 16-17
`
`60. Mavretic and Mason are highly analogous references with both teaching RF
`
`impedance match networks having electronically variable capacitors to match
`
`a variable plasma load. Mavretic teaches an RF generator coupled to a plasma
`
`chamber via match networking, electronically variable capacitor, sensors to
`
`determine network parameters, control circuit to alter the variable capacitors
`
`based on the network parameters, and processing substrates in a plasma
`
`chamber.
`
`61. Mavretic’s primary embodiment uses a single electronically variable
`
`capacitor along with a variable frequency to tune the circuit. See e.g., Mavretic
`
`at 3:48-53. Despite an advantage in tuning speed, a POSITA would have
`
`known using a variable source frequency to tune a matching network also has
`
`a number of disadvantages compared to using only variable capacitors, such
`
`as having a more limited impedance match range and causing interference
`
`with the operation of other equipment in the plasma processing system. See
`
`Goodman at 2:20-40.
`
`27
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`62. A POSITA looking to overcome the disadvantages of using a variable RF
`
`source frequency would look to Mason, which teaches an