Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 11
`571-272-7822 Entered: May 22, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DAIHEN CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RENO TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`____________
`
`Before JEAN R. HOMERE, J. JOHN LEE, and
`CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`Daihen Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–12 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`9,496,122 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’122 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Reno
`Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a preliminary response.
`Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Section 314(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that an
`inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information
`presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). On April 24, 2018, the
`Supreme Court held that, under 35 U.S.C. § 314, we may not institute
`review of fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v.
`Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). For the reasons expressed below,
`we determine that, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged
`claims. In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we do not institute an inter
`partes review of any challenged claim on any of the grounds alleged in the
`Petition.
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The ’122 patent is not involved in any other judicial or administrative
`matter that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding.
`Pet. 2; Paper 3, 2.
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`B. The ’122 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’122 patent relates to a radio frequency (RF) impedance matching
`
`network using electronic variable capacitors (EVC) for reducing the time
`required to match the variable impedance of a plasma chamber to the fixed
`impedance of an RF source during the fabrication of a semiconductor
`device, thereby maximizing RF power transmission from the RF source to
`the plasma chamber. Ex. 1001, 1:14–17, 1:51–54, 2:50–55, 6:5–9.
`Specifically, as depicted in Figure 1 below, RF matching impedance
`network (11) includes RF input (13) coupled to RF source (15) having a
`fixed impedance (e.g., 50 Ohms), and RF output (17) coupled to plasma
`chamber (19) having a variable impedance. Id. at 5:66–6:2. Connected
`between RF input source (15) and RF impedance matching network (11) is
`power sensor (21) for monitoring the RF signal output of input source (15).
`Id. at 6:2–5. RF impedance matching network (11) further includes series
`electronically variable capacitor (EVC) (31) coupled in series between RF
`input (13) and RF output (17), and shunt EVC (33) coupled in parallel
`between a ground and one of RF input (13) and RF output (17). Id. at 7:66–
`8:4. Additionally, RF impedance matching network (11) includes control
`circuit (45) that utilizes the known settings of series EVC (31) and shunt
`EVC (33) coupled thereto to determine the variable impedance of plasma
`chamber (19). Id. at 3:3–14, 13:55–64. Control circuit (45) uses outputs
`from EVCs (31, 33) and power sensor (21) to adjust the capacitance values
`of the EVCs to quickly match the variable impedance of the plasma chamber
`to the fixed impedance of the RF source such that the time elapsed between
`determining the variable impedance, to when the RF power reflected back to
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`the RF source is reduced, is less than 150 microseconds. Id. at 7:34–48,
`14:25–34.
`
`
`
`
`
` Figure 1 shows an impedance matching network using EVC incorporated
`into a semiconductor wafer fabrication system. Id. at 6:2–5.
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 6 and 10 are independent claims.
`Claims 2–5 depend from claim 1. Claims 7–9 depend from claim 6. Claims
`11 and 12 depend from claim 10. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced
`below:
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`1. An RF impedance matching network comprising:
`an RF input coupled to an RF source having a fixed impedance;
`an RF output coupled to a plasma chamber having a variable
`impedance;
`a series electronically variable capacitor having a first variable
`capacitance, the series electronically variable capacitor electrically coupled
`in series between the RF input and the RF output;
`a shunt electronically variable capacitor having a second variable
`capacitance, the shunt electronically variable capacitor electrically coupled
`in parallel between a ground and one of the RF input and the RF output; and
`a control circuit operatively coupled to the series electronically
`variable capacitor and to the shunt electronically variable capacitor to
`control the first variable capacitance and the second variable capacitance,
`wherein the control circuit is configured to:
`determine the variable impedance of the plasma chamber,
`determine a first capacitance value for the first variable
`capacitance and a second capacitance value for the second variable
`capacitance, and
`generate a control signal to alter at least one of the first variable
`capacitance and the second variable capacitance to the first
`capacitance value and the second capacitance value, respectively,
`wherein an elapsed time between determining the variable impedance
`of the plasma chamber to when RF power reflected back to the RF
`source decreases is less than about 150 μsec.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:9–39.
`
`
`D. Asserted Prior Art and Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner, relying upon a declaration of Fred Niell (Ex. 1004), asserts
`the following challenges:
`1. Claims 1– 4, and 6–11 are anticipated under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`by Zhang.1 Pet. 4.
`
`
`1 Zhang et al. (US 8,513,889 B2, filed Oct. 6, 2010, pub. Aug. 20, 2013)
`(“Zhang”) (Ex. 1006) (cited in IDS during original prosecution).
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`2. Claims 1– 4, and 6–11 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Zhang. Id.
`3. Claims 4, 5, 9, and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
`obvious over the combination of Zhang and Chen.2 Id.
`4. Claims 1–12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over
`the combination of Howald and Chen.3 Id.
`5. Claims 1–12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over
`the combination of Howald, Chen, and Bhutta121.4 Id.
`6. Claims 10–12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over
`the combination of Howald, Chen, Bhutta121, and Scanlan.5 Id.
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claim terms in an
`unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in light
`of the Specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2017)6. Under that standard, and absent any special definitions,
`
`
`2 Chen et al. (US 6,472,822 B1 A1, filed Apr. 28, 2000, pub. Oct. 29, 2002)
`(“Chen”) (Ex. 1008).
`3 Howald (US 6,259,334 B1, filed Dec. 22, 1998, pub. July 10, 2001)
`(“Howald”) (Ex. 1007).
`4 Bhutta (US 7,251,121 B2, filed Mar. 6, 2006, pub. July 31, 2007)
`(“Bhutta121”) (Ex. 1009).
`5 Scanlan et al. (US 2002/0048960 A1, filed Dec. 6, 2001, pub. Apr. 25,
`2002) (“Scanlan”) (Ex. 1010).
`6 A recent amendment to this rule does not apply here because the Petition was
`filed before November 13, 2018. See Changes to the Claim Construction
`Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37
`C.F.R. pt. 42).
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`
`we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as they would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then 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 proposes
`constructions for a number of terms. (Pet. 17–20). Patent Owner does not
`dispute Petitioner’s proposed claims constructions. Prelim Resp. 18. We
`determine that no explicit construction of any term is necessary to resolve
`the issues before us at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp.
`v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not
`construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not
`‘material to the. . . dispute.’” (Citations omitted)).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(internal quotation and citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner submits
`that a person with ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the
`invention:
`
`
`[H]as a Bachelor degree in electrical engineering or physics and 2-3
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`
`years of experience designing RF-IMNs related to automatic tuning
`apparatuses associated with plasma processing equipment. POSITA
`possesses working knowledge of RF-IMNs, plasma chambers,
`semiconductor manufacturing, EVCs, VVCs, components and
`processes of electronic circuits, and the timing of electronic circuits
`and impedance matching. POSITA knows the state of the art and is
`comfortable designing and optimizing RF-IMNs capable of operating
`on unstable RF loads.
`
`
`Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 28-34).
`
`Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of a person of
`ordinary skill in the art. On this record, we observe that Petitioner’s
`undisputed assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art appears to be
`consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima
`v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Therefore, for purposes
`of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.
`
`C. Anticipation by Zhang
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–4 and 6–11 are anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Zhang. Pet. 20–32.
`Based on the evidence in this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`not established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`respect to this ground of anticipation.
`1. Principles of Law
`A claim is anticipated “if each and every limitation is found either
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.” In re Affinity Labs of
`Texas, LLC, 856 F.3d 883, 894 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted) (citation
`omitted).
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Overview of Zhang (Ex. 1006)
`Zhang discloses a method for tuning a matching network coupling an
`RF source to a load during the fabrication of a semiconductor device.
`Ex. 1006, 1:15–17, 40–43. As depicted in Figure 1 below, plasma-enhanced
`substrate process system (100) includes first matching network (110) and
`second matching network (118) utilizing variable capacitors for matching
`the impedance of substrate process chamber (101) to the impedance of first
`RF source (112) or second RF source (112) respectively via controller (114).
`Id. at 3:55–62. Controller (114) can configure either first RF source (112) or
`second RF source (116) for fast frequency tuning in response to a sensed
`reflected power measurement to minimize the amount of reflected power. Id.
`at 3:27–31. Plasma-enhanced substrate process system (100) also includes
`first indicator device (150) and second indicator device (152) for
`determining the effectiveness of matching networks (110, 118) by
`monitoring how much power is reflected back therefrom. Id. at 4:1–6.
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows a plasma enhanced substrate process system for
`etching substrates. Ex. 1006, 3:55–62.
`
`As depicted in Figures 2A and 2 below, the matching network may
`include matching circuit (210) including variable capacitors (C1, C3), which
`are electrically or mechanically tuned to adjust the matching of load (206) of
`plasma (124) formed in chamber (102). Id. at 4:35–52.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figs. 2A, 2 depict a matching network using variable capacitors to
`match the impedance of a load to the impedance of an RF power source. Id.
`
`3. Anticipation Analysis
`Petitioner argues that Zhang describes all limitations of claims 1–4 and
`6–11. Pet. 20–31. Patent Owner opposes. See Prelim. Resp. 33–42. After
`considering Petitioner’s contentions and Patent Owner’s arguments in
`opposition, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that Zhang
`describes “determin[ing] the variable impedance of the plasma chamber,” as
`recited in the challenged claims.7 Petitioner has not provided sufficient
`
`
`7 “[T]he control circuit uses the power output of the RF source, the current
`of the RF signal, and the known settings of the series and shunt variable
`capacitors to determine the current variable impedance of the plasma
`chamber. Once the variable impedance of the plasma chamber is known, the
`control circuit can then determine the changes to make to the variable
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`explanation as to how Zhang allegedly describes the cited limitation.
`Petitioner includes in its Petition a claim chart with corresponding
`quotations from Zhang. Pet. 20–31. In those portions, Petitioner argues that
`Zhang’s disclosure of “Box 302 of Figure 3 (Figures Appendix 8) teaches a
`controller configured to read the initial reflected RF power of the substrate
`process chamber” describes the claim limitation of “determin[ing] the
`variable impedance of the plasma chamber.” Id. at 22–23. In particular,
`Petitioner asserts “such reading necessarily includes the variable impedance
`of the chamber, as the purpose of the matching network is to match the
`variable impedance of the load to the fixed impedance of the source.” See
`id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 138). This argument is not persuasive. We agree
`with Patent Owner that although the cited portion of Zhang describes a
`controller reading the initial reflected RF power of the substrate chamber to
`perform the impedance matching, such reading of the initial reflected power
`does not necessarily include or determine the variable impedance of the
`plasma chamber. Prelim Resp. 35–37. As correctly argued by Patent
`Owner, Petitioner’s assertion is premised upon an inherency doctrine, which
`requires that a certain result ensues from a given set of circumstances but not
`by mere possibilities or probabilities. Id. at 37 (citing In re Robertson, 169
`F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). That is, inherency must be established by
`extrinsic evidence, which makes clear that “the missing descriptive matter is
`necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would
`be recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” Id. at 36, See also Continental
`Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991. However,
`
`
`capacitances of one or both of the series and shunt variable capacitors for
`purposes of achieving an impedance match.” Ex. 1001, 13:56–64.
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`as further noted by Patent Owner, Petitioner’s invocation of inherency
`merely cites for support paragraph 138 of the expert declaration, which in
`turn recites the same conclusory language quoted above. Id. at 36 (citing
`Pet. 22–23). Although one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to
`calculate the variable impedance from the initial reading of the reflected RF
`power, such variable impedance would not necessarily be determined or
`readily available to the ordinarily-skilled artisan from the initial reading of
`the reflected RF power. Subsequent measurement or mathematical
`computation that is not disclosed in Zhang would be needed to determine the
`variable impedance of the plasma chamber, and Petitioner does not explain
`sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill would necessarily undertake such
`measurement or computation based on Zhang’s disclosures.
`A petition for inter partes review must include a “full statement of the
`reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the
`significance of the evidence,” must identify “where each element of the
`claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon,”
`and must “identify[] specific portions of the evidence that support the
`challenge.” 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4)–(5). “The Board may
`exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its
`relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the
`challenge.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). Petitioner’s description of Zhang and
`unexplained quotations from Zhang in its claim chart fail to meet these
`requirements.
`Because Petitioner does not explain, and does not provide adequate
`evidence to support, the contention that Zhang’s disclosure of reading initial
`reflected RF power necessarily includes determining the variable impedance,
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that Zhang describes the
`“determining” step as required by independent claim 1. Petitioner has
`likewise failed to make a sufficient showing that Zhang describes the cited
`limitation as similarly recited in independent claims 6 and 10.
`On the record presented, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that independent
`claims 1, 6, and 10, as well as dependent claims 2–5, 7–9, and 11, are
`anticipated by Zhang.
`
`D. Obviousness over Zhang
`1. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousness if, to one of ordinary skill in
`the pertinent art, “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 at the time the invention was made.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). The
`question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including “the scope and content of the prior art”;
`“differences between the prior art and the claims at issue”; and “the level of
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art.”8 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966).
`
`
`8 Additionally, secondary considerations, such as “commercial success, long
`felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light
`to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to
`be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries
`may have relevancy.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Neither party raised any
`such indicia; thus, we do not consider them for this Decision.
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that
`each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR,
`550 U.S. at 418. 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.’”
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359,
`1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418
`(for an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”).
`A petitioner’s assertion of obviousness “cannot employ mere conclusory
`statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based
`on [the] evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
`We analyze Petitioner’s obviousness grounds with the principles
`identified above in mind.
`2. Obviousness Analysis
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–4 and 6–11 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zhang and the knowledge of a POSITA. Pet. 32.
`Likewise, Petitioner asserts that claims 4, 5, 9, and 12 are unpatentable over
`the combination of Zhang and Chen.9 Id. at 50. Patent Owner opposes. See
`
`
`9 Petitioner initially refers to the proposed combination of Zhang and Chen
`as Ground 3. Pet. 4, id. at 68. Then, Petitioner refers to that same
`combination as Ground 5. Id. at 33, 50, 53. Although the specific Ground is
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`Prelim. Resp. 42–43. In both grounds of rejection, Petitioner relies upon
`Zhang to teach the required claim limitation of “determin[ing] the
`impedance of the plasma chamber.” Pet. 32, 51. After considering
`Petitioner’s contentions and Patent Owner’s arguments in opposition, and
`for the reasons set forth in our analysis of claims 1–4 and 6–11 above, we
`are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that Zhang teaches the
`disputed limitation of “determin[ing] the variable impedance of the plasma
`chamber,” as recited in the challenged claims.
`Critically, Petitioner relies only on Zhang, and not the knowledge of a
`POSITA, as teaching this limitation. And Petitioner does not provide any
`explanation of how or why Zhang would teach or suggest performing the
`undisclosed measurements or computation required to determine variable
`impedance. See Pet. 32. Because Petitioner relies upon the knowledge of a
`POSITA solely to teach the use of EVCs, associated circuits, and filters,
`such teaching does not cure the noted deficiency in Zhang. Id. Likewise,
`because Petitioner relies upon Chen solely to teach the use of a PIN diode
`switched linear capacitor bank as an electronically tunable capacitor in
`Zhang, such teaching does not cure the noted deficiency in Zhang. Id. at 50.
`Based on the evidence in this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`not established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`respect to these grounds of obviousness.
`
`
`unclear, we surmise from the record before us that Petitioner intends to
`challenge the patentability of claims 1–12 over the combination of Zhang
`and Chen.
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`E. Obviousness over Howald and Chen
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over the combination of Howald and Chen. Pet. 33–44. Further,
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–12 are unpatentable over the combination of
`Howald, Chen, and Bhutta121. Id. at 44–50. Additionally, Petitioner asserts
`that claims 10–12 are unpatentable over the combination of Howald, Chen,
`Bhutta121, and Scanlan. Id. at 59–67. Patent Owner opposes. See Prelim.
`Resp. 44–49.
`Based on the evidence in this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`not established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`respect to these grounds of obviousness.
`
`1. Overview of Howald (Ex. 1007)
`Howald discloses a system for tuning an RF impedance matching
`network to minimize power reflection for plasma processing chamber. Ex.
`1007, 4:38–40. As depicted in Figure 5 below, plasma processing system
`(500) includes RF matching network (508) coupled between RF generator
`(504) and plasma chamber (502) to transmit power from the RF generator to
`the load of the plasma chamber. Id. at 7:18–28. Impedance tuning
`apparatus (510) tunes variable capacitors C1 and C2 to match impedance ZL
`of the load to impedance Zo of RF generator (504) so that the reflected
`power is at a minimum, and maximum power is delivered from the RF
`generator to the plasma chamber load. Id. at 8:5–8, 32–40. By finding the
`tune point for the RF matching network, a substantial amount of time is
`saved in matching the impedance. Id. at 12:8–16.
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 5 depicts an RF matching network for matching the impedance of a
`plasma chamber to the impedance of the RF generator. Id. at 7: 45–51.
`
`
`2. Overview of Chen (Ex. 1008)
`Chen discloses a system for delivering maximum RF power from an RF
`source to a plasma processing chamber, which may be used for dry etching.
`Ex. 1008, 2:32–38. As depicted in Figure 1 below, RF power delivery
`system (100) includes RF matching network (106) that matches the
`impedance of load (108) of a plasma reaction chamber the RF to the
`impedance of RF pulse generator (102) to transmit power from the RF
`generator to the load with minimal reflected power. Id. at 2:30–38, 5:1–5,
`10:47–49. Reduction of the reflected power is achieved by varying the RF
`frequency within each pulse. Id. at 8:5–8, 8:32–40. “For example, a 12
`megahertz RF wave and a pulse period of 100 microseconds, taking 10
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`samples per period of the RF wave would require 12,000 samples per pulse
`period.” Id. at 10:27–29. Alternatively, reduction of reflected RF power is
`achieved by varying the capacitance of variable series capacitor C1 and
`variable shunt capacitor C2. Id. at 10:59–11:10.
`.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a pulsed RF power delivery system to delivering
`maximum power from an RF generator to a load. Id. at 2:30–38, 5:1–5,
`10:47–49
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`3. Obviousness Analysis
`In all three asserted grounds based on Howald, acknowledging that
`Howald does not provide details about the amount of time required for
`tuning the matching network, Petitioner relies upon Chen to teach the
`limitation of “wherein an elapsed time between determining the variable
`impedance of the plasma chamber to when RF power reflected back to the
`RF source decreases is less than about 150 μsec,” as required by claims 1–
`12. Pet. 43–46. After considering Petitioner’s contentions and Patent
`Owner’s arguments in opposition, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Chen
`teaches the disputed limitations, as recited in the challenged claims. In
`particular, Petitioner asserts that Chen discloses “a PiN diode based digital
`tuner for plasma processing with a pulse-on period of at most 100 μsec.” Id.
`at 43 (citing Ex. 1008, 15:13–55). Petitioner further asserts that Chen
`discloses “conventional systems operate on control algorithms with iteration
`times varying from 100 microseconds to a few milliseconds… generator and
`chamber. … Reflected power is minimized by fixing degrees of freedom in
`the local matching circuit….” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 1:44–2:5). According to
`Petitioner, a “POSITA would understand that Chen’s 100-μsec iteration was
`the period of time from when CW RF power was transferred from the RF
`source to the chamber until RF power reflected back to the source was
`minimized (i.e., decreased).” Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 185).
`Additionally, Petitioner asserts the following:
`POSITA’s motivation to design faster circuits includes reducing
`the time to achieve impedance matches. Knowing that Chen teaches that
`CW RF-IMNs could achieve impedance matches within 100 μsec,
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to include in Howald’s network the
`EVC and control circuitry of Chen to complete a match tune process with
`a 100 μsec iteration time, thereby achieving Bhutta122’s claimed
`invention. Achieving a 100-μsec elapsed time period was not unique and
`would not be a surprising result.
`
`Id. at 44 (citing Ex.1004 ¶ 186).
`
`Similarly, POSITA, motivated towards faster speed and knowing that
`100 μsec had been achieved in RF-IMNs, would include in Howald’s
`network the EVCs of Bhutta121 with Chen’s control circuitry to
`achieve a match tune process with a 100 μsec iteration time of,
`thereby achieving Bhutta122’s claimed invention with a reasonable
`expectation of success.
`
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 187).
`
`
`These arguments are not persuasive. Although the cited disclosures of
`Chen teach collectively that each tuning iteration is performed within 100
`microseconds or less, each such tuning iteration is performed by varying the
`RF frequency within each pulse, and not by varying the capacitances, as
`required by the claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 1:53–55, 2:32–38, 5:42–45,
`10:27–29. Thus, while Chen teaches tuning an RF matching network either
`by varying the capacitances or by varying the RF frequency, Chen only
`specifies the 100 microseconds time limit in connection with the frequency
`tuning. Id. We, therefore, agree with Patent Owner that the proposed
`combinations of references teach frequency tuning within 100 microseconds
`or less, but are silent regarding a time limit for capacitance tuning. Prelim.
`Resp. 44–47.
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`
`
`Based on the evidence in this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`not established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`respect to these grounds of obviousness.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging the patentability of at
`least one of claims 1–12 of the ’122 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute
`an inter partes review on the grounds of unpatentability presented in the
`Petition.
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is
`instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 23
`
`ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES INC.
`Exhibit 1015
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00248
`Patent 9,496,122 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`Peter C. Schechter
`schechter@oshaliang.com
`Suzanne