`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 39
`Entered: June 22, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY,INC.,
`INTEL CORPORATION, GLOBALFOUNDRIESU.S., INC., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY,LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00391!
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI,and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`' Samsung Electronics Company,Ltd. wasjoined asa party to this
`proceeding via a Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01746.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Wehavejurisdiction to conduct this interpartes review under
`35 U.S.C. § 6, and this Final Written Decision is issued pursuantto
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we
`determinethat Petitioner has shown by a preponderanceofthe evidencethat
`claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,071,221 (“the ’221 patent,” Ex. 1001) are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`Micron Technology,Inc., Intel Corporation, and
`GLOBALFOUNDRIESU.S., Inc.(collectively, Petitioner’)filed a
`Petition (“Pet.”) to institute an interpartes review of claims 1—7 of the ’221
`patent. Paper 1. DanielL. Flamm (“Patent Owner’)filed a Preliminary
`Response(“Prelim. Resp.”). Paper9. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we
`instituted an interpartes review on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`Reference(s)|Basis Challenged Claim(s)
`
`
`THR)
`
`
`
`Lieberman and Dible*
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`2 On September 15, 2017, we granted the Motion for Joinderfiled by
`Samsung Electronics Company,Ltd.(“Samsung”) in IPR2017-01746, and
`authorized Samsungto participate in this proceedingonly onalimited basis.
`See Paper 14. We refer to Micron Technology,Inc., Intel Corporation,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIESU.S., Inc., and Samsungcollectively as “Petitioner”
`throughout this Decision.
`3 Design ofHigh-Density Plasma Sourcesfor Materials Processing, Plasma
`Sources for Thin Film Deposition and Etching (Physics of Thin Films Vol.
`18, pp. 1-119), August 18, 1994 (Ex. 1006).
`4 US 5,573,595, issued Nov. 12, 1996 (Ex. 1007).
`
`_ 2
`
`
`
`
`
` |Basis|ChallengedClaim(s)
`
`
`LiebermanandHanawa?>
`§ 103(a) pe
`Lieberman, Dible, and
`§ 103(a)
`LiebermanandCollins®
`§ 103(a) fo
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`Reference(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hanawa
`
`Lieberman,Dible and
`Collins
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Qian and Collins
`
`75
`
`105
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`Paper 10 (“Dec. onInst.”’), 29.
`After institution oftrial, Patent Ownerfiled a Corrected Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper34, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 15,
`“Reply”). Petitioner relies on the Declaration of David B. Graves(“the
`Graves Declaration,” Ex. 1003) and the Reply Declaration of Dr. David
`Graves(“the Graves Reply Declaration,” Ex. 1034). Patent Ownerrelies on
`the Declaration of Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D. (“the Flamm Declaration,”
`Ex. 2001) and the Second Declaration of Daniel L. Flamm (“the Second
`Flamm Declaration,” Ex. 2003). An oral hearing was held on March 7,
`
`2018. A transcriptof the hearing is includedin the record. Paper 37.
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`Petitioner indicates that the 22] patentis “at issue in five related
`patent infringement actions,in which [Patent Owner] suedPetitioners and
`other defendants, in the Northern District of California, Case Nos. 5:16-cv-
`
`> US 5,688,357, issued Nov. 18, 1997 (Ex.1010).
`6 US 5,065,118, issued Nov. 12, 1991 (Ex. 1008).
`7US 5,683,539, issued Nov. 4, 1997 (Ex. 1009).
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`01578-BLF; 5:16-cv-01579-BLF; 5:16-cv-01580-BLF; 5:16-cv-01581-BLF;
`
`5:16-cv-02252-BLF.” Pet. 3; see Paper 7,2. The ’221 patent previously
`
`'
`
`wasthe subject of IPR2015-01767 (terminated on December15, 2016 at the
`joint requestofthe parties before a Final Written Decision wasentered).
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case IPR2015-01767, slip. op. at
`
`3-6 (PTAB Dec.15, 2016) (Paper 36).
`
`C.
`
`The ’221 Patent
`
`The ’221 patent, titled “Process Depending on Plasma Discharges
`
`Sustained by Inductive Coupling,” is directed to a process for fabricating a
`productusing plasmadischarge. Ex. 1001, 6:14-16. Theprocess“relies
`
`uponthe controlof the instantaneous plasma AC potential to selectively
`
`control a variety of plasma characteristics,” such as “the amountof neutral
`species, the amountof charged species, overall plasma potential, the spatial
`extent and distribution of plasma density,the distribution of electrical
`
`current, and others.” Jd. at6:16-22. The process “can be used in
`applications including chemical dry etching(e.g., stripping), ion-enhanced
`etching, plasma immersion ion implantation, chemical vapor deposition and
`
`material growth, and others.” /d. 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 gaseousdischarge excited by a high frequencyfield in which
`the vector sum of phase and anti-phase capacitive coupled voltages (e.g., AC
`
`plasmavoltage) from the inductive coupling structure substantially
`
`balances.” /d. at 6:31-37. According to the 221 patent, “[t]his process
`provides for a techniquethat is substantially free from stray or parasitic
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`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 anda plasmaapplicator. Jd. at 7:26—28. “A wave
`adjustmentcircuit (e.g., RLC circuit, coil, transmissionline, etc.) is operably
`coupled to the plasma applicator” and “can selectively adjust phase andanti-
`
`phasepotentials of the plasma from an rf powersupply.” Jd. at 7:30—-34.
`Figure 2A of the ’221 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`FIG. 2A
`
`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 adjustment circuit 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 onthe inductivecoil
`(refer to point 00 in FIG. 2A),”providing “substantially equal phase 70 and
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`anti-phase 71 voltage distributions in directions aboutthis point(refer to 00-
`A and 00-Cin FIG. 2A)”and “substantially equal capacitance coupling to
`the plasmafrom physical inductor elements (00-C) and (00-A), carrying the
`phase andanti-phase potentials.” Jd. at 10:14-22. Accordingto the °221
`patent, “[s]ince the capacitive currentincreases monotonically with the
`magnitudeof the difference of peak phase and anti-phase voltages, which
`occur at points A andCin FIG.2A, this coupling can be lessened by
`reducing this voltage difference,” which is achieved by way of wave
`adjustmentcircuits 57 and 59. Id. at 10:31-37.
`Claim 1 is the only independentclaim, and is reproduced below.
`l.
`A processfor fabricating a product using a plasma
`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 frequencyfield from an
`inductive couplingstructure in which a phaseportion and ananti-
`phaseportion 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-phaseportion of
`the capacitively coupled currents.
`Ex. 1001, 22:58-23:2. Claims 2—7 depend,directly or indirectly,
`from claim 1, and include additionallimitations directed to the
`function of the wave adjustmentcircuit, and the identity and location
`
`of the processing, amongothers.
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Level ofOrdinary Skillin the Art
`Petitioner argues that a personofordinary skill in the art at the time of
`the ’221 patent would have had “a Bachelor’s degreein electrical,
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`mechanical, or chemical engineering, physics, chemistry, ora similar field,
`and three to four years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing
`or related fields,” a Master’s degree in the samefields “and two to three
`years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturingorrelatedfields,”
`or “a PhD in electrical, mechanical, or chemical engineering, physics,
`
`chemistry, or a similar field.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 {J 48-51). Patent
`
`Ownerdoesnotdispute Petitioner’s assessmentin its Response.
`Petitioner’s assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time ofthe invention asreflectedin the priorart in this
`proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not
`required “wheretheprior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need
`for testimony is not shown”(quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State
`Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Accordingly, we adopt
`Petitioner’s assessmentofthe levelof ordinaryskill in the art.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`The ’221 patent has expired. Ex. 1001 at [22] (application filed on
`May30, 1997); see Pet. 16. For claimsof an expired patent, the Board’s
`claim interpretationis similar to that ofa district court,i.e., consistent with
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See /nre
`Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Underthe Phillips standard,
`claim termsare given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`understood by a personofordinaryskill in the art at the time ofthe
`invention, and in the context of the entire patent disclosure and prosecution
`history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-14. Only those termsin controversy
`need to be construed,and onlyto the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean MotorCo.,
`
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms‘that
`
`are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy’) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`For purposes ofthe Decision onInstitution, we determinedthat, based
`
`on the recordat the time, no claim term required express construction (Dec.
`on Inst. 6-7), and wesee no reason to modify that determinationin light of
`the record developedattrial.
`
`C.
`
`Principles ofLaw
`To prevail onits challenges to the patentability of the claims, a
`petitioner must establish facts supporting its challenge by a preponderance
`of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “In an [inter
`partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with
`particularity why thepatent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc.v.
`Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed Cir. 2016)(citing 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3) (requiring interpartes review petitions to identify “with
`particularity .
`.
`. the evidence that supports the groundsfor the challenge to
`eachclaim’”)). This burden of persuasion nevershifts to the patent owner.
`See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,800 F.3d 1375, 1378-
`79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burdensof persuasion and productionin
`
`interpartes review).
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented andtheprior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person
`havingordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
`
`obviousnessis resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
`
`including (1) the scope and contentof the prior art; (2) any differences
`between the claimed subject matter andthe priorart; (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. See Graham
`
`v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstratingthat
`each of its elements was, independently, knownin thepriorart.” ASR, 550
`
`U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a
`
`skilled artisan would have been motivated to combinethe teachings of the
`
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and thatthe skilled
`artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successin 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
`obviousnessanalysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that would
`have promptedapersonofordinary skill in the relevantfield to combine the
`elements in the way the claimed new invention does”).
`D.—Overview ofthe Prior Art
`
`1.
`Overview ofLieberman
`Liebermanis a review article directed to plasma generation schemes,
`the purpose ofwhich “is to (1) develop a unified framework from whichall
`‘high-efficiency’ sources may be viewed and compared;(2) outline key
`elements of sourcedesign that affect processing results; and (3) highlight
`areas where additional research and developmentis needed.” Ex. 1006, 6.8
`
`8’ The cited page numbersin Ex. 1006 refer to the numbers added by
`Petitioner in the bottom right cornerof the page.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`According to Lieberman,“[t]he advent of sub-micronelectronic device
`
`fabrication has brought unprecedented demands for process optimization and
`control which,in turn, have led to improved plasmareactorsfor the etching
`
`and deposition of thin films.” Jd. at 5 (internalcitations omitted).
`Lieberman describes two inductive source configurations, one using a
`
`cylindrical coil, the other a planarcoil, for a low profile source.
`
`/d. at 55.
`
`“Theplanarcoil 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 an L matching network,” and that
`
`“(t]he coil can be driven push-pull using a balanced transformer, which
`places a virtual groundin the middle of the coil and reduces the maximum
`coil-to-plasmavoltage by a factor oftwo.” Jd. at 55-56. Lieberman
`explains that “[t]his reduces the undesired capacitively coupledrf current
`flowing from coil to plasmaby a factor of two.” Jd. at 56.
`Liebermanalso teachesthat “[p]lasma in an inductive source is
`
`created by application of rf power to a non-resonant,inductive coil, resulting
`in the breakdownofthe processgas within or nearthe coil by the inducedrf
`electric field,” and “[t]he plasmacreatedin the source region streams toward
`a wafer holderthat can be independently biased by application of rf power
`
`using a separate generator.” Jd. at 56-57.
`
`Overview ofDible
`2.
`Dible is directed to methods and apparatusfor inducing plasmain low
`
`pressure plasmasystemsthatare typically used in semiconductor
`fabrication. Ex. 1007, 1:79. In particular, Dible “relates to methods and
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`apparatusforvariable control of the plasma generating elementto achieve
`
`combinationsof inductive and/or capacitive coupling.” Jd. at 1:9-12.
`
`The Dible device includes “a first radio frequency excitation source
`for outputtinga first excitation current having a first phase anda first
`amplitude” and “a second radio frequency excitation source for outputting a
`second excitation current having a second phase and a second amplitude”
`
`along with “a plasma generating element havingafirst end and a second end
`for receiving respectively thefirst excitation current and the second
`excitation current.” Jd. at 2:30-37. The Dible device also “includes a
`
`control circuit having a controlinput for receiving a user-variable signal
`indicative of a desired phase difference betweenthefirst phase and the
`second phase.” Jd. at2:38-41. The control circuit, in responseto the
`controlinput, outputs a controlsignal to oneof the first or second radio
`frequency excitation sources, effectuating a phase difference between the
`first and second phasesthat substantially approximates the desired phase
`
`difference. Jd. at2:41—48.
`
`The Dible device “becomesessentially an inductive coupling device
`
`whenthe first phase and the second phaseare opposite in phase,” and
`“becomesessentially a capacitive coupling device” whenthefirst and
`second phasesare in phase. Jd. at2:48-52. Whenthefirst phase and second
`phasediffer by an angle betweenin phase and opposite in phase, the Dible
`device “becomes a combination inductive and capacitive coupling device.”
`
`Id. at 2:52-55.
`
`Overview ofHanawa
`3.
`Hanawais directedto “inductively coupled RF plasmareactors used
`in semiconductorprocessing”that employ “a coiled antennato couple RF
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`powerto the plasmareactor chamber,andin particular to methodsfor tuning
`
`the RF powercircuit (including the coil antenna) in response to impedance
`changesin the plasma.” Ex. 1010, 1:8-13. Hanawateachesa controlcircuit
`
`that is “connected to a control input of the variable frequency RF power
`
`source and responsive to the powersensor for changing the frequency ofthe
`variable frequency RF powersource soasto either increase the transmitted
`
`powerordecrease the reflected power,”in order“to provide an accurate RF
`match instantly responsive to changes in plasma impedance.” Jd. at 2:3-9.
`Hanawafurther teaches that the described controlcircuit “eliminates not
`
`only the needfor variable capacitors and electric motorservosin the RF
`matchcircuit, but also eliminates the entire RF matchcircuititself,
`
`exploiting the coil antenna 24 to obtain the needed reactance for an RF
`match between the chamber 10 and the RF source 26.” Jd. at 4:20—25.
`
`HanawaFigure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`a
`
`
`1o RF sSouRCE
`
`sl
`
` gfPX,
`
`>»
`
`oY”
`
`Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of an RF plasmareactor system including
`Hanawa’s controlcircuit. Jd. at 2:13-14. Inductively coupled RF plasma
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`reactor 10 includes chamber 12 boundedbyside wall 14 and ceiling 16. Jd.
`
`at 2:37-40. Wafer pedestal 18 supports semiconductor wafer 20onisolated
`
`conductive top 22. Id. at 2:43-44. RF poweris coupled to the plasmain
`
`chamber12 by coiled antenna 24 woundaroundthe exterior of ceiling 16.
`
`Id. at 2:45—47. Coiled antenna 24 is connected to matched RF source 26 via
`
`cable 28. Jd. at2:47-48. Conductive top 22 is connected through RF match
`
`circuit 30 and cable 32 to RF generator 34 and amplifier 36. Jd. at 2:48—-51.
`
`In order to compensate for plasma impedancefluctuationsafter a
`
`plasmais ignited in chamber 12, RF source 26 employs conventional
`variable-frequency RF generator 52 having frequency control input 54 and
`
`poweroutput 56 with amplifier 57 and computer 58. Jd. at3:24-31.
`
`Computer 58 monitors the reflected power level measuredbyreflected
`powersensor 50 and applies a control signal to frequency control input 54 of
`RF generator 52. /d. at 3:31-34. Computer 58 is programmedto vary the
`frequency ofRF generator 52 so as to continuously minimize the amountof
`
`reflected power measuredby reflected powersensor 50. Jd. at 3:43—47.
`
`4.
`
`Overview ofCollins
`
`Collins is directed to the connection ofa first electrical circuit (the
`
`source) to a second electricalcircuit (the load) using a matching network in
`order to provide maximum powertransfer between the source and the load.
`
`Ex. 1008, 1:6-10. Collins teaches a matching network that matches an
`output impedanceof a source with an input impedanceof a load, wherein the
`
`matching networkincludesa plurality oftransmission line stubs. Jd. at
`2:40-44. Collins states that “[e]ach transmissionline stub includesa first
`
`transmission line conductor, a second transmission line conductor running
`
`parallel to but notin electrical contact with the first transmissionline
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`conductor, and ferrite dielectric material betweenthe first transmissionline
`
`conductorand the secondtransmission line conductor.” Jd. at 2:45—50.
`
`Collins Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`22
`
`Figu
`21 33
`re 1/“,-”
`vr
`
`4
`
`i’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pc
`oc
`
`POWER
`
`POWER
`
`SUPPLY
`SUPPLY
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 “showsan electronically tuned VHF/UHF matching networkin
`accordancewith the preferred embodiment”described in Collins.
`Jd. at
`
`3:23-25. Source 21 is connected to load 22 through an electronically tuned
`VHF/UHF matching networkconsisting of transmission line stubs 45 and
`46. Id. at 3:44-49. Transmissionline stub 45 consists of transmissionline
`
`conductor 30 separated byaferrite dielectric material. Jd. at 3:59-62. A
`magnetic field is applied to transmissionline stub 45 by a current generated
`by DC powersupply 44 through wire 41, which is wrapped around
`transmission line stub 45. Jd. at 3:62-65. Collins teaches that “[v]Jarying 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
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`networkofthe type shownin FIG.1” is “applied to a system whichis used
`
`‘-
`
`in a plasmaprocessinside a plasma chamber2.” Jd. at 4:35-37.
`
`J.
`
`Overview ofQian
`
`Qian is directed to “improvementsin inductively coupled radio
`frequency (RF) plasmareactors for reducing capacitive coupling from the
`coil antenna to the semiconductor wafer.” Ex. 1009, 1:9-12. Qian teaches
`
`that such capacitive coupling “is reduced byisolating the coil antenna from
`the RF powersourcebyanisolation transformer,so that the coil antenna has
`a floating potential.” Jd. at 1:49-51. Accordingto Qian,this “reduction in
`capacitive coupling has been quantitatively measured to be more than a
`factor of two, a significant advantage.” Id. at 1:55-57.
`
`Qian Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced below.
`
`eae
`
`FIG.
`
`1
`
`Figure | is a schematic diagram illustrating a plasma reactor embodyingthe
`Qian invention, and Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of a preferred
`embodimentoftheisolation transformer described by Qian. Jd. at 1:60—-64.
`Theinductively coupled RF plasmareactor shownin Figure 1 includes
`grounded reactor chamber 10 having groundedside wall 12 and ceiling 14
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`that encloses wafer pedestal 20. Jd. at 2:83-11. Wafer pedestal 20 supports
`
`semiconductor wafer 30. Jd. at 2:11. Processing gas is introducedinto
`
`chamber10 via gasinlet 40, and the gas ionizes to produceaplasma over
`wafer 30 by RF powerinductively coupled to the plasma from inductive coil
`antenna 50 wound overceiling 14 of chamber 10. Jd. at 2:12-16. Coil
`antenna 50 is coupled to RF generator 60 through RF impedance match
`
`network 70. Jd. at 2:16—17.
`
`Isolation transformer80is interposed between match network 70 and
`
`inductive coil 50 in orderto isolate inductive coil antenna 50 from RF power
`generator 60.
`/d. at2:21-24. Isolation transformer 80 (also shownin Figure
`2) has primary winding 82 and secondary winding 84; match network 70 and
`
`RF generator 60 are connected across primary winding 82, and inductive
`coil antenna 50 is connected across secondary winding 84. Jd. at 2:24—29.
`
`Qian teaches that “isolation transformer 80 reducesorvirtually eliminates
`any D.C. potential between”generator 60 and inductive coil antenna 50, so
`that the electric potential of inductive coil antenna 50 is floating with respect
`to wafer pedestal 20. /d. at 2:30-34. Qian states that“[t]he advantageis
`that capacitive coupling between”inductive coil antenna 50 and “pedestal
`20/wafer 30 is reduced as well,” and, therefore, inductive coil antenna 50
`
`“has less effect upon plasmaion energy at the wafer surface, namely less
`broadeningofthe plasmaion energy distribution.” Jd. at 2:34-38. Qian
`further teachesthat isolation transformer 80 mayincludeferrite core 90
`
`around which primary and secondary windings 82, 84 are wound. Id. at
`
`2:44-46.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`E.
`
`Obviousness over Lieberman
`
`Petitioner contendsthat the subject matter of claims 1 and 5-7 is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as having been obvious over
`
`Lieberman. Pet. 27-40; Reply 4-11, 15-18. Petitioner relies on the Graves
`
`Declaration and the Graves Reply Declaration in support of its contentions.
`
`Id. Patent Ownerdisagrees with Petitioner’s assertions, and relies on the
`
`Flamm Declaration and the Second Flamm Declaration. PO Resp.3-19,
`
`26-27.
`
`Theparties focus their arguments on two elements in independent
`claim 1: (1) “a phase portion and an anti-phase portion of capacitive currents
`coupled from the inductive coupling structure are selectively balanced”; and
`
`(2) “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.” As to the
`other elements of claims 1 and 5—7, we have reviewedtheentirety of the
`
`evidence and arguments presentedin the Petition and find thatPetitioner has
`shownsufficiently that those elementsare disclosed as arranged in the
`
`claims. Pet. 27-40. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s analysis as to those
`
`elements, and addressthe arguments regarding the disputed claim elements
`
`in turn.
`
`1.
`
`a phaseportion and an anti-phaseportion ofcapacitive
`currents coupledfrom the inducting couplingstructure are
`selectively balanced
`Petitioner contends, with supporting testimony from Dr. Graves,that
`
`Liebermandiscloses this element ofclaim 1 becauseit “discloses choosing
`
`to drive an inductive coil push-pull via a balanced transformer(i.e., a wave
`
`adjustmentcircuit), which creates a phase configuration that makes the
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`phase and anti-phaseportionsselectively balanced(i.e., substantially equally
`distributed.)” Pet. 30. Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary
`skill in the art “would have understood Lieberman’s choiceto drive the
`
`inductive coil ‘push-pull’ to correspondto the claimed ‘a phase andananti-
`phase portion of capacitive currents. .
`. are selectively balanced’” because
`“the phase voltages ‘push’ capacitively coupled current into the plasma
`while the anti-phase voltages ‘pull’ capacitively coupled currentoutof the
`plasma.” /d. (citing Ex. 1003 § 90). Accordingto Petitioner,“[d]riving the
`coil push-pull with” Lieberman’s “wave adjustmentcircuit (the inductively-
`coupled push-pull arrangement, e.g., a toroidal balun) causes a midpoint on
`the coil to be effectively RF grounded, adjusting the phase portion and the
`
`anti-phaseportion of the capacitively coupled currents so that they are
`selectively balanced about the midpoint.” Jd. at 32-33 (citing Ex. 1003
`{4 91-94, 100-102); see also Reply 4 (arguing that Liebermanteaches“that
`its balanced transformerdrives the current onthe inductive coil in a push-
`pull arrangement, such thata virtual ground is placed in the middle of the
`
`coil’).
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat “Lieberman does not teach balancing any
`currents, where there are capacitively coupled and/or phase and anti-phase
`portionsas claimed,” and “doesnotdisclose or distinguish phase and anti-
`phase capacitively coupled currents as claimed.” PO Resp.9 (citing
`Ex. 2001 4 16). Patent Ownerstates that Lieberman “makesit very clear
`that the ‘balanced transformer’ meansanisolation transformerthatisolates
`
`the output side from ground... .” /d. at 3 (citing Ex. 2003 49). Patent
`Owneralso argues that “Lieberman apparently teaches that the midpoint of
`the coil is at ground potential (‘ .
`.
`. places a virtual groundin the middle of
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`the coil’)” and “contendsthat the coil to plasma voltage is supposedto be
`
`half of the total voltage applied acrossthe coil by the transformer,”but “the
`center of a coil connected in this manneris [not] necessarily at ground
`
`potential.” Jd. at 5 (quoting Ex. 1006, 56).
`
`Patent Ownerfurther argues that Lieberman’s capacitive currents “are
`
`not the samething as the capacitive currents referencedin the ’221 patent,”
`because “[t]he ‘capacitive current’ Liebermanrefersto is only the magnitude
`of that portion of capacitive current which flows from the coil to the plasma
`and returnsto the coil.” PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2003 4 11). Patent Owner
`argues that “claim 1 concernsselectively balancing the vector sum of phase
`and anti-phase currents flowing from the coil as a whole to the plaama—to
`obtain a selected difference current, if any, flowing through the plasmato
`grounded chamberbodies, the wafer chuck, etc.” Jd. at 5—6 (citing Ex. 2003
`4 12). According to Patent Owner,“[t]he magnitude ofcurrent flowing from
`and returningto anisolated coil from the plasma and the vector sum of
`differently phased currents flowing to chamberbodiesare quite different
`things,” and “[t]he magnitudeofthe current taught by Liebermanis not
`susceptible to selective balancing.” /d. at 6 (citing Ex. 2003 { 12).
`
`Petitioner replies that Patent Owner’s “argumentsrest on
`mischaracterizations of the 221 Patent, the priorart, and [Patent Owner’s]
`
`ownexhibits.” Reply 1. Petitioner also asserts that the Second Flamm
`Declaration “simply parrots [Patent Owner’s] attorney argument”and “does
`not provide any explanation or elaboration on anything”in the Patent Owner
`Response,and, therefore,“should be given no weight.” Jd. at 1-2.
`Based on ourreview ofthe record, wefind Petitioner’s argumentthat
`Liebermandiscloses “a phase portion and an anti-phase portion ofcapacitive
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`currents coupled from the inductive coupling structure are selectively
`
`balanced”as required by claim 1 to be persuasive. Pet. 30-36; Reply 4-11.
`
`Liebermanteachesdriving an inductive coil push-pull using a balanced
`
`transformer. Ex. 1006, 56. Petitioner explains that a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art “would have understoodthat choosing to drive the inductive
`
`coil ‘push-pull’ using a ‘balanced transformer’ meant choosingto set the
`
`ends of Lieberman’s inductive coil at equal and opposite voltages.” Pet. 33
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 F§ 93, 102). In that regard, Dr. Gravestestifies that “the
`
`output of the Lieberman transformer producesa balancedsignal with the
`phasesofthe signals applied to each end ofthe coil having a phase
`difference of 180°,” and, therefore, Lieberman’s push-pull arrangement
`
`“correspondsto the claimed ‘phase and an anti-phaseportion of the
`
`capacitively coupled currents.’” Ex. 1003
`
`90 (citing Ex. 1022, 3;
`
`Ex. 1023, 1). We further credit Dr. Graves’s testimonythat
`
`Lieberman’s disclosure of a choosingto drive the coil push-pull
`with a balanced transformer mirrors the disclosure of the 221
`Patent. Specifically,
`the 221 Patent teaches that one way to
`selectively balance the capacitive currents from the inductive
`coupling structureis to transfer powerto a plasma applicator (for
`example, the inductive coil 132 in Fig. 4) “with a balanced
`feed...” means that the terminals of the inductive coil, one of
`each being connected to one of the outputs of the “coupled
`inductors”ofthe transformer, are at equal and opposite voltages.
`Thatis, if the voltage at one of the outputs/terminals is +V, the
`voltage at the other output/terminal is —-V.
`It was well known
`that a balanced push-pull arrangementprovides this symmetry.
`Ex. 1003 4 93 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:17—20; Ex. 1015, 2; Ex. 1016, 5).
`
`Wehave considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary and do
`
`not agree with them forthe following reasons. Patent Owner contendsthat
`
`Lieberman’s capacitive currents “are not the samething as the capacitive
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00391
`Patent 6,071,221
`
`currents referencedin the ’221 patent” (PO Resp.4), but does not provide
`
`sufficient objective analysis or evidence demonstrating whythatis the case.
`
`As Petitioner notes, claim | does not limit the claimed capacitive currents
`
`coupled from the inductive coupling structure to a specific type of capacitive
`current, the ’221 patent does not provide a definition of “capacitive current,”
`
`and Patent Owner“has not provided any proposedconstruction forthe
`
`term.” Reply 6 (citing Ex. 103496). Moreover, we do notcredit
`Dr. Flamm’s supporting testimonyonthis issue becauseit is conclusory in
`nature. Ex. 2003 § 11; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimonythat does
`not disclose the underlying facts or data on whichthe opinionis basedis
`
`entitled to little or no weight.”); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins &
`
`Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (s