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
`________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF USPN 10,707,057
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 ET SEQ. AND
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________________
`
`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
`________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF USPN 10,707,057
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 ET SEQ. AND
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .......................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................. 3
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 4
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 4
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................... 5
`
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15............................................ 5
`
`Certification of Word Count Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) .................... 5
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................... 6
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR WHICH REVIEW IS
`REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) .......................................... 6
`
`V. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .................................................................. 6
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY .......................................................... 7
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘057 PATENT .......................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of the Disclosure of the Claimed Subject Matter ............... 10
`
`Summary of the Prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 10,707,057 .............. 12
`
`Summary of Application No. 15/373,271 (the ‘271 Application) ...... 13
`
`Summary of Inter Partes Review Proceeding on USPN
`9,946,122 ............................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of Mavretic .......................................................................... 16
`
`Summary of Mason ............................................................................. 18
`
`Summary of Navigator II .................................................................... 20
`
`Summary of Howald ........................................................................... 24
`
`IX. HOW THE CONSTRUED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ................................................................ 24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art ....................................................................... 24
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-13, and 16-17 are rendered obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 by Mavretic in view of Mason ................................. 25
`
`Claims 3, 6-8, 14 and 15 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 by Mavretic in view of Mason and Navigator II ....................... 61
`
`Claims 3, 6, 8 and 14 and are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 by Mavretic in view of Mason and Howald .............................. 67
`
`X.
`
`BOARD SHOULD NOT DENY THIS PETITION UNDER §325(D) ........ 69
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`First Prong of Advanced Bionics ......................................................... 70
`
`Second Prong of Advanced Bionics .................................................... 71
`
`XI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 74
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,707,057 (“the ’057 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002 Declaration of Dr. Steven Voldman
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`Exhibit 1003 CV of Dr. Steven Voldman
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent No. 5,654,679 to Mavretic, et al. (“Mavretic”)
`Exhibit 1005 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”)
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,259,334 to Howald (“Howald”)
`Exhibit 1008 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.
`Exhibit 1009 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
`
`Exhibit 1010 Lou Frenzel, Back to Basics: Impedance Matching (Part 2), Electronic
`Design (March 1, 2012) (“Frenzel Part 2”)
`available at:
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://www.electronicdesign.com/datasheet/back-basics-impedance-
`matching-part-2.
`
`Exhibit 1011 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.
`
`Exhibit 1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,887,339 to Goodman, et al. (“Goodman”)
`
`Exhibit 1013 File history of Application No. 16/665,778 (“the ‘778 Application”)
`
`Exhibit 1014 File history of Application No. 15/637,271 (“the ‘271 Application”)
`
`Exhibit 1015 Daihen Corporation v Reno Technologies, Inc., IPR2019-002248,
`Paper No. 11, Decision Denying Inter Partes Review (May 22, 2019)
`
`Exhibit 1016 Declaration of Denis Shaw
`
`Exhibit 1017 Daihen Corporation v Reno Technologies, Inc., IPR2019-002248,
`Paper No. 8, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (March 13, 2019)
`
`Exhibit 1018 Specification sheet for Analog Devices AD734, “10 MHz, Four-
`Quadrant Multiplier/Divider”
`
`Exhibit 1019 Specification sheet for Analog Devices ADCMP556, “Dual Ultrafast
`Voltage Comparator”
`
`Exhibit 1020 Specification sheet for Analog Devices AD9600, “10-Bit, 105
`MSPS/125 MSPS/150 MSPS, 1.8 V Dual Analog-to-Digital
`Converter”
`
`Exhibit 1021 Specification sheet for Analog Devices AD8302, “LF–2.7 GHz RF/IF
`Gain and Phase Detector”
`
`Exhibit 1022 U.S. Patent No. 7,839,223 to Van Zyl, et al. (“Van Zyl”)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. (“Petitioner”), hereby respectfully requests
`
`Inter Partes Review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq. and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100
`
`et seq., of claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,707,057 (“the ’057 Patent”) issued on
`
`July 7, 2020, to Bhutta et al. See Ex. 1001.
`
`The ’057 Patent purports to have invented a radio frequency (RF) impedance
`
`matching network (matching network) using two variable capacitors to improve
`
`power transfer to a plasma chamber. However, the independent claims of the ’057
`
`Patent recite basic circuit elements of matching networks that have existed for
`
`decades: an impedance matching circuit between an RF source and a plasma
`
`chamber, two variable capacitors, and a control circuit to alter the capacitance of the
`
`variable capacitors to match varying plasma impedances. Indeed, the ’057 Patent
`
`acknowledges that these were all “typical” components of prior art matching
`
`networks. Ex. 1001 at 2:23-55.
`
`The ‘057 Patent describes using “electronically variable capacitors” in place
`
`of slower mechanical vacuum variable capacitors for matching networks. Id. at 3:25-
`
`33. According to the ’057 Patent, an electronically variable capacitor (often referred
`
`to as an “EVC” in the ’057 Patent) includes a plurality of discrete capacitors with
`
`electronic switches. Id. at 9:65-10:21; see also Fig. 2D. Yet, the ’057 Patent is far
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`from the first to disclose using electronically variable capacitors in matching
`
`networks for plasma chambers.
`
`Years before the earliest claimed priority date of the ’057 Patent, Petitioner’s
`
`patents to Mavretic1 and Mason2 each disclosed the problems with vacuum variable
`
`capacitors and the benefits of EVCs in matching networks for plasma chambers. For
`
`example, Mavretic noted that changes in plasma processing required improvements
`
`to “increase throughput, provide consistent production and reliable performance. To
`
`that end, prior art motor driven impedance matching networks are being replaced by
`
`faster, electronically controlled impedance matching networks.” Ex. 1004 4:3-19;
`
`see also Ex. 1005 at 3:25-29 (“variable capacitive elements can be made from banks
`
`of parallel electronically switched capacitors, which are smaller, faster, and cheaper
`
`than their mechanical counterparts.”).
`
`As discussed below, the combination of Mavretic and Mason teach all of the
`
`limitations of the independent claims of the ’057 Patent. Mavretic teaches an RF
`
`impedance matching circuit with a control circuit to alter an electronically variable
`
`capacitor based on network parameters to maximize power transfer to a plasma
`
`chamber. Mason teaches a fixed frequency matching circuit that uses more than one
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,654,679 to Mavretic et al. See Ex. 1004.
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 8,436,643 to Mason. See Ex. 1005.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`faster switching electronically variable capacitor. These arguments combining
`
`Mavretic with Mason have never been considered before by the Office.
`
`Additionally, Mavretic and Mason render obvious most of the dependent
`
`claims. However, Navigator II3 and Howald4 provide further teachings related to
`
`certain dependent claims including determining the variable impedance of the
`
`plasma chamber and the amount of time necessary to tune an electronically variable
`
`capacitor RF matching network.
`
`Therefore, the Board should institute an inter partes review of claims 1-17 of
`
`the ’057 Patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`Petitioner satisfies each requirement for Inter Partes Review of the ’057
`
`patent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1).
`
`A. Real Party In Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The real party in interest is Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. with a principal
`
`address at 1595 Wynkoop Street, Suite 800, Denver, CO 80202.
`
`
`3 Navigator® II Matching Networks With a Solid-State Technology Option,
`presented by Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. at SEMICON West 2012.
`(“Navigator II”). See Ex. 1006.
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,259,334 to Howald. See Ex. 1007.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any judicial or administrative proceeding involving
`
`the ’057 patent.
`
`Inter partes review 2019-00248 (“the ʼ248 IPR”) challenging US Patent No.
`
`9,496,122 (“the ʼ 122 Patent”) may be considered related under 37 § 42.8(b)(2) since
`
`the ʼ122 Patent is a parent to the ʼ057 Patent. A decision denying institution in the
`
`ʼ248 IPR was entered by the Board on May 22, 2019. See Ex. 1015.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner is represented by the following counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`James P. Murphy
`Reg. No. 55,474
`Polsinelli PC
`1000 Louisiana Street
`Suite 6400
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Telephone: 713.374.1631
`jpmurphy@polsinelli.com
`
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Greg Durbin
`Reg. No. 42,503
`Polsinelli PC
`1401 Lawrence St
`Suite 2300
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`Telephone: 720.931.8133
`gdurbin@polsinelli.com
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Powers of Attorney have been filed with
`
`this Petition.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Physical mailing service information for lead and back-up counsel is as
`
`follows:
`
`James Murphy
`Polsinelli PC
`1000 Louisiana Street
`Suite 6400
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`Petitioner also consents to service by e-mail at the above e-mail addresses provided
`
`for lead and back-up counsel.
`
`E.
`
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15
`
`
`
`All required fees have been paid with the filing of this Petition. Petitioner
`
`further authorizes the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to charge Deposit Account
`
`No. 50-1662 for any fees, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this
`
`Petition.
`
`F. Certification of Word Count Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d)
`
`
`
`Petitioner certifies that the word count in this Petition, including all footnotes
`
`and annotations, is 13,995 words as counted by the word-processing program
`
`(Microsoft Word for Office 365) used to generate this Petition, where such word
`
`count excludes the table of contents, mandatory notices, certificate of service, list of
`
`exhibits, and this certificate of word count. This Petition is in compliance with the
`
`14,000 word limit set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’057 patent is available for inter partes review.
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of the
`
`‘057 patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR WHICH REVIEW IS
`REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1-17 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’057
`
`patent are unpatentable based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-13, and 16-17 are rendered obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 by Mavretic in view of Mason.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 3, 6-8, 14 and 15 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 by Mavretic in view of Mason and Navigator II.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 3, 6, 8 and 14 are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 by Mavretic in view of Mason and Howald.
`
`
`
`V. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`In an IPR, claim terms are to be construed in accordance with the standard set
`
`forth in Phillips. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc). Further, claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to
`
`resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`803 (Fed.Cir.1999). Here, Petitioner does not believe that any term requires express
`
`construction to resolve the invalidity grounds presented in this Petition since the
`
`prior art renders claims 1-17 unpatentable under any reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims. See Ex. 1015 at 6-7 (Board found no term needed construction in the ʼ248
`
`IPR).
`
`
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY5
`Plasma processing is widely used in the semiconductor industry, such as to
`
`perform wafer etching and deposition. Ex. 1007 at 1:13-30; Ex. 1012 at 1:22-26; Ex.
`
`1008 at 3; Ex. 1002 at ¶26. An RF generator provides power to the chamber to
`
`energize the gas and form a plasma. Id. 1:31-40. The RF generator and related
`
`components are designed to operate into a fixed impedance, usually a standard 50 +
`
`j0 Ohm. Ex. 1007 at 1:47-48 and 2:15-23; Ex. 1008 at 5. However, the impedance
`
`of the plasma chamber is often not 50 + j0 Ohm (e.g., 2 ± j35 Ohm) and varies during
`
`operation. Ex. 1004 at 1:42-45; Ex. 1005 at 1:21-25; Ex. 1008 at 5, 17 and 19; Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶27.
`
`
`5 Cited references not named in a ground of rejection are cited for the purpose of
`showing the state of the art and the background knowledge of a POSITA. Randall
`Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`To correct the impedance mismatch, an impedance matching network is
`
`placed between the RF generator and the plasma chamber. Ex. 1007 at 2:15-23 and
`
`Ex. 1008 at 5. Impedance mismatches cause an inefficiency in the power transferred
`
`from the generator to the load, often expressed as reflected power, and may also
`
`negatively affect wafer processing. Ex. 1007 at 1:41-54; Ex. 1004 at 2:13-21; Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶28. Other common measures of impedance mismatch include reflection
`
`coefficient and standing wave ratio (SWR), which are mathematically related to
`
`reflected power. Ex. 1002 at ¶29; Ex. 1009 at 5-6. An SWR of one (1) 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 (2) is approximately equal to a reflection coefficient of 0.33. Id.
`
`As there are both real and imaginary values for impedance, match networks
`
`often include two variable impedance elements to obtain the closest match. Id. at 9-
`
`10. The effect of varying one compared to two impedance elements to match a
`
`representative plasma load is illustrated in the below Smith charts. Ex. 1008 at 17-
`
`18; Ex. 1002 at ¶30. 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). Ex. 1008 at 17-18; see also id. at 19-20.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1008 at 17-18
`
`As understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`(“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. Ex. 1002 at ¶32.
`
`Mechanical vacuum variable capacitors using a servo-motor to alter
`
`capacitance have been widely used in matching networks since well before the ‘057
`
`Patent, but were slow, unreliable, bulky and expensive. Ex. 1007 at 2:56-61; Ex.
`
`1004 at 2:6-37 and Fig. 1; Ex. 1005 at 3:23-25; Ex. 1002 at ¶33. Therefore,
`
`electronically variable capacitors were developed comprised of discrete capacitors
`
`connected in parallel where each capacitor may be individually switched into or out
`
`of the circuit by an electronic switching element, such a diode or transistor. Ex. 1004
`
`at 3:13-20, 4:41-52 and Fig. 3; Ex. 1005 at 3:25-51 and Fig. 2. The overall
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`capacitance value of the electronically variable capacitor is based on the
`
`combination of capacitors switched in or out. Id.
`
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’057 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the Disclosure of the Claimed Subject Matter
`
`The ’057 Patent describes a system to transfer power from an RF generator
`
`through a matching network to a plasma chamber, as shown below. Ex. 1001 at 7:26-
`
`44.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Figure 1
`
`
`
`“As is known in the art, the plasma within a plasma chamber 19 typically
`
`undergoes certain fluctuations outside of operational control so that the impedance
`
`presented by the plasma chamber 19 is a variable impedance.” Id. at 7:52-55. The
`
`“purpose of the RF matching network is to transform the variable plasma impedance
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`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. The ’057 Patent acknowledges matching networks 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 used sensors such as “a
`
`phase/magnitude detector, a directional coupler, or a voltage/current sensor” to tune
`
`the matching network. Id. 3:39-41.
`
`The ’057 Patent describes EVCs as “purely electronic device[s]” or “digitally
`
`controlled, non-mechanical devices.” Id. at 3:29-30 and 33:11-12. Each EVC 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 removed). Figure 2D
`
`depicts the ’057 Patent’s electronically variable capacitor 651 comprised of discrete
`
`capacitors 653 connected to individual switches 661.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Figure 2D
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 10,707,057
`
`The ’057 Patent resulted from Application No. 16/665,778 (“the ’778
`
`Application). See Ex. 1013. During prosecution of the ’778 Application, the
`
`Examiner did not issue any prior art rejections 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.
`
`Mavretic and Mason were submitted in an information disclosure statement
`
`(IDS) albeit within a list of two hundred and eighty references. Id. at 160-69. The
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Examiner did not discuss Mavretic, Mason, or any other prior art. As discussed
`
`below with regards to Section 325(d), the Board should not exercise its discretion to
`
`deny this IPR merely because Mavretic and Mason were cited in an IDS within a list
`
`of two hundred and eighty references.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Application No. 15/373,271 (the ’271 Application)
`
`The ’778 Application was filed as a continuation of the ’271 Application and
`
`the ’271 Application does contain a discussion of Mavretic by the Examiner and
`
`Patent Owner. See Ex. 1014 at 445-456 and 478-482. In the ’271 Application, after
`
`receiving a third party submission identifying relevant disclosure of Mavretic,6 the
`
`Examiner rejected the pending claims over Mavretic in view of U.S. Patent
`
`Publication 2010/0253442 to Mu. Id. at 420-437 and 445-456.
`
`Importantly, 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
`
`
`6 A third party submission is limited to a concise description of relevance of the prior
`art but “does not permit third parties to submit arguments against patentability.” See
`37 CFR §1.290 and MPEP § 1134.01(II)(B)(3). No third party submission was
`submitted in the ’778 Application.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Rather than dispute any of the Examiner’s findings on Mavretic, Patent Owner
`
`focused its arguments on the alleged lack of combinability of Mu’s teaching of
`
`“coarse” and “fine” capacitors with Mavretic’s impedance match network. Id. at
`
`479-481. The Examiner was unpersuaded and Patent Owner was forced to further
`
`limit 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.
`
`Ex. 1014 at 521
`
`
`
`
`
`Therefore, the ’271 Application was allowed due to limitations related to the
`
`“coarse” and “fine” capacitors, which are not found in any claim of the ‘057 Patent.
`
`To the extent “determine the variable impedance of the plasma chamber” was
`
`relevant to allowance, that is only recited in certain dependent claims of the ‘057
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent. See Ex. 1001 at Claims 3, 6 and 14. Moreover, the instant Petition relies on
`
`Navigator II or Howald rather than Mavretic to teach that limitation.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of Inter Partes Review Proceeding on USPN 9,946,122
`
`The ’057 Patent is a continuation-in-part of US Patent No. 9,496,122 (“the
`
`’122 Patent”). Ex. 1001 at 1:20-22. The Board considered the ’122 Patent in
`
`IPR2019-00248 (“the ’248 IPR”) filed by a party unrelated to Petitioner. See Ex.
`
`1015. The relevant subject matter of the ’057 Patent overlaps with some of the
`
`subject matter the Board previously considered in the ’248 IPR.
`
`While the Board denied institution, the petition did not cite to Mavretic or
`
`Mason. Id. at 5-6. The Board’s reasons for denial of institution were specific to the
`
`grounds of rejection presented in that petition and do not diminish the likelihood of
`
`success of the grounds in the instant Petition. The combination of Mavretic and
`
`Mason presented herein provides substantially different teachings than the prior art
`
`and arguments in the ’248 IPR.
`
`Furthermore, the two limitations cited by the Board in the ’248 IPR denial are
`
`not recited in the independent claims of the ’057 Patent. The independent claims in
`
`the ’057 patent recite “determine a first parameter related to the plasma chamber”
`
`which is broader than “determine the variable impedance of the plasma chamber”
`
`recited in the ‘122 Patent independent claims. See Ex. 1001 at Claims 1, 4, 10, and
`
`12. Moreover, the Board did not indicate that Howald failed to teach determining
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`the variable impedance of the plasma chamber, which is what the instant petition
`
`relies on Howald to teach. Ex. 1015 at 20-21.
`
`Additionally, there are no timing requirements in the independent claims of
`
`the ’057 Patent unlike the claims in the ‘122 Patent. For the dependent claims which
`
`do have a timing requirement, the instant Petitioner relies on teachings of Mason’s
`
`11 μsec fast switching electronically variable capacitor and Navigator II’s teaching
`
`of the number of tuning iterations to reduce reflected power below 10%, neither of
`
`which were considered in the ’248 IPR. See Ex. 1001 at Claims 2, 5, 7, 11, 13 and
`
`15.
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A.
`Summary of Mavretic
`
` Mavretic was filed June 13, 1996 and issued August 5, 1997 as U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,654,679. Mavretic is prior art to the ’057 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Mavretic is directed to RF impedance match networks. Ex. 1004 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. The 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.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1004 at Figure 6
`
`
`
`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 the controller 608 uses to determine which
`
`discrete capacitors (C1, C2, CN) within EVC 306 to turn on or off in order to alter
`
`the capacitance values and tune the network to match the impedance. Id. at 2:9-22
`
`and 6:60-7:9.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Mason
`
`Mason was filed November 3, 2011 and issued May 7, 2013 as U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,436,643. Mason is prior art to the ’057 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`or (e).
`
`Mason is directed to “match networks of a power supply for generating and
`
`sustaining a plasma in, or provided to, a plasma processing chamber.” Ex. 1005 at
`
`3:8-12. Specifically, Mason discloses that a 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.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 at Fig. 2
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The discrete capacitors can be switching in or out within 11 μsec. Id. at 7:46-
`
`8:32 and Fig. 8-11. Mason also discloses a fixed RF source frequency when
`
`switching the discrete capacitors to alter the capacitance of the EVC. Id. at 6:35-40,
`
`7:46-8:32 and Fig. 3, 8-11. The decision to increase or decrease the capacitance 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.
`
`Ex. 1005 at Fig. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Navigator II (Poster)
`
`Navigator II is a Printed Publication Publically Accessible by July 12, 2012
`
`Navigator II is a poster regarding some of Petitioner’s products that was on
`
`public display at SEMICON West (“SEMICON”) in July of 2012. See Ex. 1006; Ex.
`
`1016 at §6. Petitioner’s employee, Denis Shaw, attended SEMICON in 2012 and has
`
`personal knowledge of the display of Navigator II at that event. Ex. 1016 at §§3-6.
`
`SEMICON is an annual global tradeshow and conference for the semiconductor
`
`industry. Id. at §4. In 2012 it was attended by over ten thousand people in the
`
`industry. Id. at §5. In addition to customers, attendees at SEMICON included
`
`Petitioner’s competitors. Id. at §5.
`
`In 2012, Petitioner had a public booth at SEMICON, which included a poster
`
`displaying the Navigator II referenced in this IPR. Id. at §6. The poster was three
`
`feet by four feet and highly visible to anyone in public areas around the booth and
`
`visiting the booth. Id. at §§6-7. The purpose of the poster was to market the
`
`Navigator II products to attendees at SEMICON. Id. The Navigator II poster was on
`
`public display at Petitioner’s booth all of the three days (July 10-12) of SEMICON
`
`West 2012. Id. at §6.
`
`Any attendee, including Petitioner’s competitors, could have viewed the
`
`poster and taken notes regarding the poster materials. Id. at §7. There were no
`
`restrictions or conditions on viewing the poster such as private showings, non-
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`disclosure agreements, etc. Id. In fact, Mr. Shaw had public discussions with people
`
`interested in the products described on the poster. Id. at §X. Further, the poster was
`
`printed from an electronic file in portable document format (.pdf) and Mr. Shaw
`
`coordinated emailing the .pdf file to interested parties. Id. at §8.
`
`In determining whether a poster presented at a conference is prior art, the
`
`Federal Circuit looks to the following factors: “the length of time the display was
`
`exhibited, the expertise of the target audience, the existence (or lack thereof) of
`
`reasonable expectations that the material displayed would not be copied, and the
`
`simplicity or ease with which the material displayed could have been copied.” In re
`
`Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). These factors all point to
`
`Navigator II being prior art as of July 12, 2012, when the SEMICON West 2012
`
`conference ended.
`
`First, the poster was on public display for three days, which is the same length
`
`of time that the Federal Circuit found sufficient in Klopfenstein. Id. at 1347; Ex.
`
`1016 at §6. Next, the expertise of the target audience was very high as the conference
`
`is intended for the semiconductor industry and included both Petitioner’ competitors
`
`and customers, whom would have been knowledgeable in the field of RF matching
`
`networks used with plasma chambers. Id. at §§4-6. Third, there were no expectations
`
`that the material displayed on the Navigator II poster would not be copied, rather
`
`copies were emailed to interested parties. Id. at §§7-8.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Therefore, the Navigator II poster is a printed publication that was publicly
`
`accessible by at least July 12, 2012. As such, it is prior art to the ’057 Patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`Summary of Subject Matter of Navigator II
`
`Navigator II describes the Navigator II RF matching network architecture,
`
`which includes variable solid state capacitors (i.e., EVC) 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. Ex. 1006 at
`
`1. Since, Navigator II covers both vacuum and EVC technology it includes a “Motor
`
`Drive” block, but a POSITA would understand the motor drive would not be used
`
`with the solid state option. Id.; Ex. 1002 at ¶56.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006 at 1
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.; Ex. 1002 at ¶57; Ex.
`
`1009 at 5-6.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006 at 17
`
`
`7 The marking for 3 milliseconds is part of the original figure and not directly
`relevant the issues in this IPR. The x-axis also contains a typo listing seconds when
`the accompany description in Navi
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
