`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: February 24, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`Before DONNA M.PRAISS, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY,and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI],Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Lam Research Corp.(“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition (“Pet.”)
`
`to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,071,221
`
`(“the ’221 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 4. Daniel L. Flamm (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Preliminary Response (Prelim. Resp.”). Paper 9. We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`Uponconsideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the
`evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of claims 1, 4,
`
`and 5-7 of the ’221 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review
`ofthose claims.
`
`~
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner states that “[t]he ’221 patent is presently at issue in the
`
`declaratory judgment action Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case
`
`5:15-cv-01277-BLF (N.D. Cal.).” Pet. 3. Patent Owneralso identifies a
`
`civil action, titled Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`Case No. 1:15-cv-00613-LY (W.D. Tex.), as a related proceeding.
`
`Paper6, 1.
`
`B.
`
`The ’221 Patent
`
`The ’221 patent, titled “Process Depending on Plasma Discharges
`
`Sustained by Inductive Coupling,” is directed to a process for fabricating a
`
`product using plasma discharge. Ex. 1001, 6:14-16. The process “relies
`
`upon the control of the instantaneous plasma ACpotential to selectively
`
`control a variety of plasma characteristics,” such as “the amountof neutral
`
`species, the amount of charged species, overall plasma potential, the spatial
`
`extent and distribution of plasma density, the distribution ofelectrical
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`current, and others.” Jd. at 6:16—22. The process “can be used in
`
`applications including chemical dry etching (e.g., stripping,etc.), ion-
`
`enhanced etching, plasma immersion ion implantation, chemical vapor
`
`deposition and material growth, and others.” Jd. at 6:22—26.
`
`The process comprises subjecting a substrate to a composition of
`
`entities, where “[a]t least one of the entities emanates from a species
`
`generated by a gaseous discharge excited by a high frequencyfield in which
`
`the vector sum of the phase and anti-phase capacitive coupled voltages(e.g.,
`
`AC plasmavoltage) from the inductive coupling structure are substantially
`
`balanced.” Jd. at 6:31-37. According to the ’221 patent, “[t]his process
`
`provides for a technique that is substantially free from stray or parasitic
`
`capacitive coupling from the plasma source to chamberbodies(e.g.,
`
`substrate, walls, etc.) at or near ground potential.” Jd. at 6:37-41.
`The °’221 patent also describes a plasma discharge apparatus that
`includes a plasma source and a plasmaapplicator. Id. at 726-28. “A wave
`adjustmentcircuit (e.g., RLC circuit, coil, transmission line, etc.) is operably
`
`coupled to the plasma applicator” and “can selectively adjust phase and anti-
`phase potentials ofthe plasma from an rf power supply.” Jd. at 7:30—34.
`Figure 2A of the ’221 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`Figure 2A is a simplified configuration using wave adjustmentcircuits. Jd.
`
`at 7:46-47. Embodiment 50 includes discharge tube 52, inductive applicator
`
`55, exterior shield 54, upper wave adjustmentcircuit 57, lower wave
`
`adjustmentcircuit 59, plasma source region 60, and rf powersupply 61. Jd.
`
`at 10:3-8. “In this embodiment, the wave adjustmentcircuits are adjusted to
`
`provide substantially zero AC voltage at one point on the inductive coil
`
`(refer to point 00 in FIG. 2A),” providing “substantially equal phase 70 and
`
`anti-phase 71 voltage distributions in directions about this point (refer to 00-
`
`A and 00-C in FIG. 2A)” and “substantially equal capacitance coupling to
`
`the plasma from physical inductor elements (00-C) and (00-A), carrying the
`
`phase and anti-phase potentials.” Jd. at 10:14-22. Accordingto the ’221
`
`patent, “[s]ince the capacitive current increases monotonically with the
`
`magnitude of the difference of peak phase and anti-phase voltages, which
`
`occur at points A and C in FIG. 2A,this coupling can be lessened by
`reducing this voltage difference,” which is achieved by way of wave
`
`adjustmentcircuits 57 and 59. Jd. at 10:31-37.
`
`C.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1—7 of the 221 patent. Claim 1 is the
`only independent claim,and readsas follows:
`
`A process for fabricating a product using a plasma
`1.
`source, said process comprising the steps of subjecting a
`substrate to entities, at least one of said entities emanating from
`a gaseous discharge excited by a high frequency field from an
`inductive coupling structure in which a phase portion andan anti-
`phase portion of capacitive currents coupled from the inductive
`coupling structure are selectively balanced;
`
`wherein said inductive coupling structure is adjusted using a
`wave adjustment circuit, said wave adjustment circuit
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`adjusting the phase portion and the anti-phase portion of
`the capacitively coupled currents.
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:58—23:2.
`
`D.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`Petitioner relies on the following priorart references:
`
`Retrence[Dewipion[Date[TN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hopwood Apr. 1,1992|1006Review ofInductively
`
`Coupled Plasmas for
`Plasma Processing, Plasma
`Sources Sci. Technol. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lieberman93|Design ofHigh-Density Jan. 11, 1993|1002
`
`PlasmaSourcesfor
`Materials Processing,
`University of California,
`Berkeley Technical Report
`No. UCB/ERL M93/3
`Design ofHigh-Density
`Plasma Sourcesfor
`Materials Processing,
`Plasma Sources for Thin
`Film Deposition and
`Etching (Physics of Thin
`Films Vol. 18
`
`
`Aug. 18, 1994
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1—7 of the ’221 patent
`
`on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94
`
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94, and
`Dible
`|
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94, and
`Knapp, or Dible and Knapp
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94, and
`Collins, or Dible and Collins
`Lieberman93 or Lieberman94, and
`Hopwood, or Dible and Hopwood
`
`
`
`References
`Basis Challenged
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim(s)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`1, 5-7
`
`9 109)
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`AlthoughPetitioner lists these challenges as five challenges, there are
`
`a significantly larger numberof individual challenges. For example, the
`
`challenge to claims 2 and 3 as obvious over Lieberman93 or Lieberman94,
`
`and Knapp, or Dible and Knapp, deconstructsto at least four challenges,i.e.,
`
`the combination of Lieberman93 and Knapp; the combination of
`
`Lieberman94 and Knapp; the combination of Lieberman93, Dible, and
`
`Knapp; and the combination of Lieberman94, Dible, and Knapp. Thus,
`
`whenproperly tallied, Petitioner asserts sixteen challenges to the
`
`patentability of the claims. The Petition does not address these sixteen
`
`challenges individually. We address the challenges as presented in the
`
`Petition.
`
`A.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`Weinterpret claims of an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`[the claims] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In the case of an expired
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`patent, however, the Board’s interpretation of the claimsis similar to that of
`
`a District Court. See In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`In such a case, we are guided bytheprinciple that the words of a claim “are
`generally giventheir ordinary and customary meaning”as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`(internal citation omitted).
`
`Thoughit appears that the ’221 patent expired on December4, 2015,
`
`we need not decide which claim construction standard applies. For purposes
`
`of this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that none of
`
`the claim terms requires an explicit construction.
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation by Lieberman93 or Lieberman94
`Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1 and 5—7 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lieberman93 or
`Lieberman94(collectively, “Lieberman’”).! Pet. 21-32. Petitioner provides
`
`claim charts, and relies on the Declaration of Joseph L. Cecchi (“Cecchi
`
`Declaration,” Ex. 1007) in support of its contentions. Jd.
`
`1.
`
`Overview ofLieberman
`
`Liebermanis directed to “recent advances in plasma source
`
`technology for materials processing applications.” Ex. 1002, Abs.
`
`According to Lieberman,“[t]he advent of sub-micron electronic device
`
`' Petitioner represents that “Lieberman93 and Lieberman94areessentially
`identical in content, with only minorvariations that do not impact the
`invalidity analysis.” Pet. 5,n.3. In the Petition, “[w]here referred to
`generally and not distinguished as Lieberman93 or Lieberman94,” Petitioner
`referred to the references “collectively and/or interchangeably as
`‘Lieberman.’” Jd. We do the samein this Decision.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`fabrication has brought unprecedented demandsfor process optimization and
`control, which, in turn, have led to improved plasmareactors for the etching
`
`and deposition of thin films.” Ex. 1002, 1 (internal citations omitted); Ex.
`
`1012, 2 (internal citations omitted).
`.
`Lieberman describes two inductive source configurations, one using a
`cylindrical coil, the other a planarcoil, for a low profile source. Ex. 1002,
`
`23; Ex. 1012, 52. “The planarcoil is a flat helix wound from nearthe axis to
`
`near the outer radius of the source chamber(‘electric stovetop’ coil shape),”
`
`and can be united with a cylindrical coil “to give ‘cylindrical cap’ or
`
`hemispherical’ coil shapes.” Jd. Liebermanstates that “inductive coils can
`
`be driven by a 13.56 MHz, 50 ohm rf supply through a [ ] matching
`
`network,” and that “[t]he coil can be driven push-pull using a balanced
`
`transformer, which places a virtual ground in the middle ofthe coil and
`
`reduces the maximum coil-to-plasma voltage by a factor of two.” Ex. 1002,
`
`23; Ex. 1012, 52-53. Lieberman explains that “[t]his reduces the undesired
`capacitively coupled rf current flowing from coil to plasmabya factor of
`
`two.” Ex. 1002, 23; Ex. 1012, 53.
`
`Liebermanalso teachesthat “[p]lasma in an inductive sourceis
`
`created by application of rf power to a non-resonant, inductive coil, resulting
`
`in the breakdown ofthe process gas within or near the coil by the induced rf
`
`electric field,” and “(t]he plasma created in the source region streams toward
`
`a wafer holder that can be independently biased by application of rf power
`
`using a separate generator.” Ex. 1002, 23; Ex. 1012, 53-54.
`
`2.
`
`Discussion
`
`Petitioner contends that Lieberman disclosesall of the elements of
`
`independent claim 1, and provides arguments setting forth where each of the
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`limitations may be found. Pet. 21-29. For example, Petitioner contendsthat
`Lieberman’s disclosure that the inductive coil “can be driven push-pull using
`
`a balanced transformer, which placesa virtual ground in the middle ofthe
`
`coil and reduces the maximum coil-to-plasma voltage by a factor of two”
`
`and “reduces the undesired capacitively coupled rf current flowing from coil
`
`to plasma bya factor of two” meets the “a phase portion and ananti-phase
`
`portion of capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure
`
`are selectively balanced; wherein said inductive coupling structure is
`
`adjusted using a wave adjustmentcircuit, said wave adjustmentcircuit
`adjusting the phase portion and the anti-phase portion ofthe capacitively
`coupled currents”limitations of claim 1. Jd. at 24-27. We are persuaded,
`
`on this record, that Petitioner’s discussion of the particular operations and
`
`structures in Lieberman, and the explanationsin the Petition, are sufficient to
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated
`
`by Lieberman. AsPetitioner points out, the ’221 patent describes an
`
`embodimentthat includes a wave adjustment circuit comprising a balun
`(balanced-unbalancéd) toroidal transformer, where “the midpoint 406
`between the phase 405 and anti-phase voltage on the coil is effectively rf
`grounded,” and also uses push-pull balanced coupling, which Lieberman
`
`also teaches. Id. at 26-27.
`
`Wehave considered Patent Owner’s arguments, and do not find them
`
`to be persuasive on this record. For example, Patent Ownerarguesthat
`
`Lieberman does not disclose ‘“‘a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of
`
`capacitive currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure are
`
`selectively balanced”limitation of claim 1 because “the balancing of the
`
`phase and anti-phase—astaught in the 221 patent—results in not simply a
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`reduction by a factor of two, but substantially eliminates capacitively
`
`coupled power.” Prelim. Resp. 5. The statementin the ’221 patent that
`
`Patent Owner contends teaches substantially eliminating capacitively
`
`coupled powerrefers to specifically-described embodiments. See Ex. 1001,
`
`9:2-6 (“But in all of these above embodiments, the phase and anti-phase
`
`potentials substantially cancel each other, thereby providing substantially no
`
`capacitively coupled powerfrom the plasmasource to the chamber
`
`bodies.”). Patent Owner does not explain whyclaim 1’s recitation that the
`
`phaseandanti-phase portionsare selectively balanced requires that the
`
`capacitively coupled powerbe substantially eliminated.
`
`Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and further requires “said processis
`
`provided in a chamber.” Claim 6 depends from claim 5 andadditionally
`
`requires “the chamberis provided for a process selected from etching,
`
`deposition, sputtering, or implantation.” Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and
`further recites “said inductive coupling structure provides a wave multiple
`selected from a one-sixteenth wave, a one-eighth wave, a quarter-wave, a
`
`half-wave, a three-quarter wave, and a full-wave.” We have considered the
`
`arguments and evidence with respect to dependent claims 5—7, and are
`
`persuaded onthe present record that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail as to those claims as well.
`
`C.
`
`Obviousness over Lieberman and Dible
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1 and S—7 would have been obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lieberman and Dible.
`
`Pet. 33-47. Petitioner relies on the Cecchi Declaration in support ofits
`
`contentions. Jd.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`1.
`
`Overview ofDible
`
`Dible is directed to methods and apparatus for inducing plasma in low
`
`pressure plasma systemsthat are typically used in semiconductor
`fabrication. Ex. 1003, 1:7—9. In particular, Dible “relates to methods and
`apparatus for variable control of the plasma generating element to achieve
`
`combinations of inductive and/or capacitive coupling.” Jd. at 1:9-12.
`
`The Dible device includes“a first radio frequency excitation source
`
`for outputting a first excitation current havingafirst phase anda first
`
`amplitude” and “a secondradio frequency excitation source for outputting a
`
`second excitation current having a second phase and a second amplitude”
`
`along with “a plasma generating element having a first end and a second end
`
`for receiving respectively the first excitation current and the second
`
`excitation current.” Jd. at 2:30-37. The Dible device also “includes a
`
`control circuit having a control input for receiving a user-variable signal
`
`indicative of a desired phase difference between the first phase and the
`
`second phase.” Jd. at 2:38-41. The controlcircuit, in response to the
`
`control input, outputs a control signal to one of the first or second radio
`
`frequency excitation sources, effectuating a phase difference between the
`
`first and second phasesthat substantially approximates the desired phase
`
`difference. Id. at 2:41-48.
`
`The Dible device “becomesessentially an inductive coupling device
`
`whenthe first phase and the second phase are opposite in phase,” and
`
`“becomesessentially a capacitive coupling device” whenthe first and
`
`second phasesare in phase. Jd. at 2:48-52. Whenthefirst and second phase
`
`differ by an angle between phase and opposite in phase, the Dible device
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`“becomes a combination inductive and capacitive coupling device.” Jd. at
`
`2:52-55.
`
`2.
`
`Discussion
`
`Petitioner contendsthat “Liebermanitself teachesall of the limitations
`of independent claim 1,” and further contends that Dible “teaches adjustment
`of phase and anti-phase portions of the capacitively coupled currents via a
`
`control circuit.” Pet. 33. Petitioner contends that it would have been
`
`obviousto a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Dible’s
`
`control circuit into Lieberman’s inductively-coupled plasma generation
`
`system “for the purpose of allowing controlled adjustment of the phase
`
`difference and, thus, of the undesirable capacitive coupling of the coil to the
`
`plasma.” Jd. at 47. According to Petitioner, “(t]he strong similarity between
`
`the systems of Lieberman and Dible would render modification of the
`
`former with aspects of the latter straightforward and well within the skill” of
`‘a person having ordinary skill in the art, who would have hadareasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so. Id. at 46.
`
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the combination of
`
`Lieberman and Dible teaches or suggests all of the limitations required by
`
`independent claim 1. As Petitioner alleges, Dible, for example, allows for
`
`active adjustment of current phases so that the device is an “inductive
`
`coupling device whenthe first phase and second phase are opposite in
`
`phase.” Ex. 1003, 2:48-50. Weare further persuadedby Petitioner’s
`argumentthat a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to incorporate Dible’s controlled adjustment of phase difference
`
`in Lieberman’s plasma generator“for the purpose and benefit of providing
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`active control over the phase and anti-phase portions of capacitive currents.”
`Pet. 33.
`|
`
`Wehave considered Patent Owner’s arguments and, based on the
`
`record before us, do not find them to be persuasive. For example, Patent
`Ownerargues that Dible does not disclose the “wherein said inductive
`coupling structure is adjusted using a wave adjustmentcircuit” limitation of
`claim1. Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner argues that “[e]ven if one were to
`assumethat Dible’s ‘plasma generating system’ were an ‘inductive coupling
`
`structure,’ once it were ‘adjusted’ it would be, according to Dible, a
`
`capacitive coupling structure (or some combination coupling structure)” and
`
`“would no longer [be] an ‘inductive coupling structure.”” Jd. According to
`
`Patent Owner, “the problemsandsolutions set forth in Dible, with the
`
`exception of employing a phase adjustmentcircuit, are totally alien to the
`
`problemsset forth in the ’221 patent.” Jd. at 12. Petitioner, however, only
`relies on Dible’s disclosure of “a controlcircuit having a control input for
`receiving a user-variable signal indicative of a desired phase difference
`between the first phase and secondphase”with respect to this claim
`limitation. See Pet. 37-38, 41-42. Patent Owner does address whethera
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Dible for this
`
`purpose.
`
`Wehavealso considered the arguments and evidence with respect to
`dependent claims 5—7 andare persuaded,on the current record, that
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as
`
`to those claims as well.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`D.—_Obviousness over Lieberman and Knapp, or
`Lieberman, Dible, and Knapp
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 2 and 3 would have been obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lieberman and Knapp,or
`
`the combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Knapp. Pet. 47-52. Petitioner
`
`relies on the Cecchi Declaration in support of its contentions. Id.
`
`1.
`
`Overview ofKnapp
`
`Knappis directed to a method and apparatus for producing noble-gas —
`
`plasmafor excitation in optical emission spectroscopy, where the excitation
`
`means employedis a high-frequency generator. Ex. 1004, 1:10-14. Knapp
`
`teaches that plasmais formed and located between two mutually opposite
`
`capacitorplates, and “the energy required for firing and maintaining of the
`plasmais coupled into the gas” through the capacitor plates, which, with an
`inductor, form “an oscillating circuit” that is “fed with an hf potential at a
`
`frequency corresponding to the resonant frequency ofthe oscillating circuit.”
`
`Id. at 1:63—2:2.
`
`Knapp describes an embodiment where“the hf generator includes an
`
`internal regulating circuit designed”so that “the generator output frequency
`
`is automatically set” to the “value at which maximum poweris accepted by
`the oscillation circuit.” Id. at 4:83-13. Knapp teachesthat, in this
`
`embodiment, instead ofthe oscillation circuit being tuned, “the generator
`
`output frequency is tuned (within a predetermined range)to the arbitrary
`
`resonant frequency ofthe oscillation circuit.” Jd. at 4:13-16.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis
`
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites that “the wave
`
`adjustmentcircuit selectively adjusts a frequency of an rf power supply.”
`
`Claim 3 also depends from claim 1, and additionally requires that “the high
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`frequencyfield is adjusted using a variable frequency power supply.”
`
`Petitioner relies on Knapp to meetthese additionallimitations of claims 2
`
`and 3. Pet. 47-51.
`
`A showing of obviousness must be supported by anarticulated
`
`reasoning with rational underpinning to support a motivation to combine the
`
`prior art teachings. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
`
`(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on
`
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
`
`instead, there must be somearticulated reasoning with somerational
`“underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). An
`
`analysis regarding an apparent reason to combine known elements “should
`
`be madeexplicit.” Id.
`
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`“would have reasons to use the Knapp’s adjustable frequency power supply
`
`within the plasma generating apparatuses of Lieberman or, alternatively, of
`Lieberman in view ofDible” because “Knappalso is directed to a system for
`‘producing a high-frequency .
`.
`. plasma’” and “teaches the obvious
`
`alternative of using frequency tuning, as opposed to mechanical tuning, for
`
`the matching networkto achieve the desired phase and anti-phase
`
`configuration.” Pet. 51. Petitioner further contends that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that the tuning method based on
`
`automatically adjusting the frequency of the generator was a workable
`
`alternative to the mechanical tuning taught by Lieberman and Dible, and
`
`simpler than insuring that the current and the voltage of the Dible generators
`
`had sufficient headroom, something that may not be knowna priori.” Id. at
`
`52.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`These statements do not constitute an articulated reasoning with
`
`rational underpinnings as to why oneofordinary skill in the art would
`
`combine some elements of Liebermanalone, or the combination of
`
`‘ Lieberman and Dible, with some elements of Knapp, and why one of
`
`ordinary skill in the would modify the teachings of Lieberman and Dible in
`
`view of Knapp’s teachingsto arrive at the claimed invention. Petitioner
`
`contends that Knapp teachesthat frequency tuningis an “obvious
`
`alternative” to mechanical tuning, but does not provide sufficient
`
`explanation as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`considerthat to be so. Similarly, although Petitioner states that
`
`automatically adjusting the frequency is a “workable alternative” and
`
`“simpler” than the mechanical tuning taught by Lieberman and Dible,
`
`Petitioner fails to provide an adequate explanation why a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Knapp’s tuning methodis
`
`simpler, or that there would be a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`substituting frequency tuning, as described in Knapp,for the mechanical
`
`tuning described by Lieberman andDible.
`
`Instead, Petitioner appears to contend that each elementof claims 2
`and 3 of the ’221 patent was known in thepriorart. Thatis insufficient to
`establish that claims 2 and 3 would have been obvious undera theory of
`
`obviousness based on the combination of Lieberman and Knapp,or the
`
`combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Knapp. See Cheese Sys. Inc. v. Tetra
`
`Pak Cheese and PowderSys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(“Obviousness cannot be based on the hindsight combination of components
`
`selectively culled from the prior art to fit the parameters of the patented
`
`invention.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As explained in KSR, “a
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`patent composed ofseveral elements 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. Consequently, we are not persuadedthat
`
`the Petition establishes sufficiently why a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would attempt to improve Lieberman alone, or the combination of
`
`Lieberman and Dible, by looking to Knapp.
`
`For these reasons, Petitioner has not established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail on the ground that claims 2 and 3 would
`have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of|
`Lieberman and Knapp,or the combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Knapp.
`
`E.
`
`Obviousness over Lieberman and Collins, or
`Lieberman, Dible, and Collins
`
`Petitioner contends that claim 4 would have been obvious under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lieberman and Collins, or the
`
`combination of Lieberman, Dible, andCollins. Pet. 53—56. Petitionerrelies
`
`on the Cecchi Declaration in support ofits contentions. Jd.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Collins
`
`Collins is directed to the connectionofafirst electrical circuit (the
`
`source) to a secondelectrical circuit (the load) using a matching network in
`
`order to provide maximum powertransfer between the source and the load.
`
`Ex. 1005, 1:6-10. Collins teaches a matching network that matches an
`
`output impedanceof a source with an input impedance of a load, wherein the
`
`matching networkincludesa plurality of transmission line stubs. Jd. at
`
`2:40-44. Collins states that “[e]ach transmission line stub includesa first
`
`transmission line conductor, a second transmission line conductor running
`
`parallel to but not in electrical contact with the first transmission line
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`conductor, and ferrite dielectric material betweenthe first transmission line
`
`conductor and the second transmission line conductor.” Jd. at 2:45—50.
`
`Collins Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 1 “showsan electronically tuned VHF/UHF matching network in
`
`accordancewith the preferred embodiment” described in Collins. Jd. at
`
`3:23-25. Source 21 is connected to load 22 through anelectronically tuned
`
`VHF/UHF matching network consisting of transmission line stubs 45 and
`
`46. Id. at 3:44-49. Transmissionline stub 45 consists of transmission line
`
`conductor 30 separated by a ferrite dielectric material. Jd. at 3:59-62. A
`magnetic field is applied to transmission line stub 45 by a current generated
`by DC powersupply 44 through wire 41, which is wrapped around
`
`transmissionline stub 45. Jd. at 3:62-65. Collins teaches that “[vJarying the
`current through wire 41, and thus the magnetic field applied to transmission
`
`line stub 45, varies the relative permeability of transmission line stub 45.”
`
`Id. at 3:65-68. Collins also describes an embodiment where “‘a matching
`
`networkof the type shown in FIG.1”is “applied to a system whichis used
`
`in a plasmaprocessinside a plasma chamber.” Jd. at 4:35-37.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`2.
`
`Analysis
`
`Claim 4 depends from claim 1] and further recites “wherein the wave
`
`adjustmentcircuit comprises a transmission line.” Petitioner contends that
`
`Collins teaches this limitation whenit describes a matching network that
`
`comprises a plurality of transmission lines, which matches the output
`
`impedance of a source with the input impedance of a load. Pet. 53.
`
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`
`understand from this disclosure that a transmission line represents a type of
`
`wave adjustmentcircuit, and that Collins teaches the use of transmission
`
`lines to adjust the phase of power between an rf source and a load, such as
`
`plasma.” Id.
`
`Petitioner further contends that a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand from Collins’s description of “electronic tuning using
`
`‘a transmission line stub 45 and a transmissionline stub 46, arranged in the
`
`shown topology [of Figure 1]’” that Collins teaches “the wave adjustment
`
`circuit comprises a transmission line” element of claim 4. Pet. 53-54.
`
`Accordingto Petitioner, a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`have reasonsto use Collins’[s] transmission line stub topology with the
`
`plasma generating apparatuses of Lieberman and Dible” because“[lJike
`
`Lieberman and Dible, Collins is directed to the problem of coupling rf power
`
`to a load, such as plasma” and “Lieberman and Dible teach the use of
`
`matching networks.” Id. at 55.
`
`Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the combination of
`Lieberman and Collins, and the combination of Lieberman, Dible, and
`Collins, teaches or suggests all of the limitations required by claim 4. As
`
`Petitioner points out, the ’221 patent recognizes that a transmission line can
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`be a wave adjustmentcircuit. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:30-32 (“A wave
`
`adjustmentcircuit (e.g., RLC circuit, coil, transmissionline, etc.) is operably
`
`coupled to the plasma applicator.”)). Patent Owner does not offer any
`
`arguments specific to claim 4. See Prelim. Resp. 12-13 (“At least because
`
`[Petitioner] has failed to demonstrate that independentclaim | is anticipated
`
`by Lieberman or rendered obvious by Lieberman in view of Dible, none of
`
`the claims that depend from claim 1 are anticipated or obvious despite
`
`[Petitioner’s] introduction of additional prior art references purported to
`
`relate to those dependent claims.”).
`Consequently, we are persuaded on the present record that Petitioner
`
`_has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`
`demonstrating that claim 4 would have been obvious over the combination
`
`of Lieberman and Collins, or the combination of Lieberman, Dible, and
`
`Collins.
`
`F.
`
`Obviousness over Lieberman and Hopwood, or
`Lieberman, Dible, and Hopwood
`
`Petitioner contends that claim 7 would have been obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination ofLieberman and Hopwood, or the
`combination of Lieberman, Dible, and Hopwood. Pet. 56-59. Petitioner
`
`relies on the Cecchi Declaration in support of its contentions. Id.
`
`1.
`
`Overview ofHopwood
`
`Hopwoodprovides a review of inductively coupled plasma (“ICP”)
`
`geometries. Ex. 1006, Abs. Hopwoodstates that “the trend toward high-
`
`rate, single-wafer processing in integrated circuit (IC) fabrication has
`
`motivated the development of low-pressure (<1 Torr) ICPs for plasma-aided
`
`materials processing applications.” Jd. at 109.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01767
`Patent 6,017,221
`
`Hopwooddescribes a helical resonator plasma source that “consists of
`
`a cylindrical discharge tube withinahelical coil,” wherein the coil “is
`
`designed with an electrical length of (A/4 + nA/2) or (A/2 + nA/2), where n =
`
`0, 1,2,...and A is the wavelength of the excitation frequency.” Jd. at 110.
`
`Hopwoodteachesthat “the coil is within a conducting enclosure which
`providesa parasitic capacitance from the coil to ground,” and “a trimming
`capacitor is usually connected between the coil and ground to adjust the
`
`capacitance to ground such that the structure resonates.” Jd. Hopwood also
`
`teaches that, in a quarter-wave resonator, typically one end ofthe coilis
`
`grounded and the other endis floating, and in a half-wave resonator, both
`
`endsof the coil are grounded. Jd. Whenrf poweris applied at a center tap
`
`of th