Trials@uspto.gov
`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.
`
`
`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
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
