ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.v.ZOND LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2015

10065629 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 50
571-272-7822 Entered: September 25, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
AMERICA, INC., ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC.,
GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG,
GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG,
TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA
AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
INC., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY
Petitioner,

v.

ZOND, LLC,
Patent Owner.
____________
Case IPR2014-008181
Patent 6,853,142 B2
____________
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JONI Y. CHANG,
SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

1 Cases IPR2014-00866, IPR2014-01012, and IPR2014-01075 have been
joined with the instant inter partes review.
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and TSMC
North America Corporation (collectively, “TSMC”) filed a Petition
requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–10, 12, 15, 17–20, and 42 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’142 Patent”). Paper 1
(“Pet.”). Patent Owner Zond, LLC (“Zond”) filed a Preliminary Response.
Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted the instant trial on October 20,
2014, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 9 (“Dec.”).
Subsequent to institution, we granted the revised Motions for Joinder
filed by other Petitioners (collectively, “GlobalFoundries”) listed in the
Caption above, joining Cases IPR2014-00866, IPR2014-01012, and
IPR2014-01075 with the instant trial (Papers 12–14), and also granted a
Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to TSMC (Paper 34). Zond filed a
Response (Paper 26 (“PO Resp.”)), and GlobalFoundries filed a Reply
(Paper 42 (“Reply”)). Oral hearing2 was held on June 12, 2015, and a
transcript of the hearing was entered into the record. Paper 49 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
For the reasons set forth below, we determine that GlobalFoundries has
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 3–10, 12, 15, 17–
20, and 42 of the ’142 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

2 The hearings for this review and the following inter partes reviews were
consolidated: IPR2014-00807, IPR2014-00808, IPR2014-00819, IPR2014-
00821, IPR2014-00827, IPR2014-01098, IPR2014-01099, and IPR2014-
01100.
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

3

A. Related District Court Proceedings
The parties indicate that the ’142 Patent was asserted in numerous
proceedings in Massachusetts: 1:13-cv-11570-RGS (Zond v. Intel); 1:13-cv-
11577-DPW (Zond v. AMD, Inc.); 1:13-cv-11581-DJC (Zond v. Toshiba Am.
Elec. Comp. Inc.); 1:13-cv-11591-RGS (Zond v. SK Hynix, Inc.); 1:13-cv-
11625-NMG (Zond v. Renesas Elec. Corp.); 1:13-cv-11634-WGY (Zond v.
Fujitsu); and 1:13-cv-11567-DJC (Zond v. The Gillette Co.). Pet. 1; Paper 5.

B. The ’142 Patent
The ’142 Patent relates to methods and apparatus for generating
high-density plasma. Ex. 1001, Abs. At the time of the invention,
sputtering was a well-known technique for depositing films on
semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:16–24. The ’142 Patent indicates that
prior art magnetron sputtering systems deposit films having low uniformity
and poor target utilization (the target material erodes in a non-uniform
manner). Id. at 3:32–36. To address these problems, the ’142 Patent
discloses that increasing the power applied between the target and anode can
increase the uniformity and density in the plasma. Id. at 3:37–44. However,
increasing the power also “can increase the probability of generating an
electrical breakdown condition leading to an undesirable electrical discharge
(an electrical arc) in the chamber 104.” Id.
According to the ’142 Patent, forming a weakly-ionized plasma
substantially eliminates the probability of establishing a breakdown
condition in the chamber when high-power pulses are applied between the
cathode and anode. Id. at 6:21–30. Once the weakly-ionized plasma is
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

4

formed, high-power pulses are applied between the cathode and anode to
generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma. Id. at
7:23–36. The ’142 Patent also discloses that the provision of the feed gas to
the plasma allows for homogeneous diffusion of the feed gas in the weakly-
ionized plasma and allows for the creation of a highly uniform strongly-
ionized plasma. Id. at 6:31–35.

C. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 10 are the only independent
claims. Claims 3–9, 12, 15, 17–20, and 42 depend, directly or indirectly,
from claims 1 or 10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. An apparatus for generating a strongly-ionized plasma in
a chamber, the apparatus comprising:
an ionization source that generates a weakly-ionized plasma
from a feed gas, the weakly-ionized plasma reducing the
probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition in
the chamber;
a power supply that supplies power to the weakly-ionized
plasma though an electrical pulse applied across the weakly-
ionized plasma, the electrical pulse having a magnitude and a
rise-time that is sufficient to increase the density of the weakly-
ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma; and
a gas line that supplies feed gas to the strongly-ionized
plasma, the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma,
thereby allowing additional power from the pulsed power
supply to be absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma.
Ex. 1001, 20:35–52 (emphasis added).

IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

5

D. Prior Art Relied Upon
Based on the instituted grounds, GlobalFoundries relies upon the
following prior art references:
Lantsman US 6,190,512 Feb. 20, 2001 (Ex. 1004)
Wang US 6,413,382 July 2, 2002 (Ex. 1005)

D.V. Mozgrin, et al., High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary
Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental Research, 21 PLASMA
PHYSICS REPORTS 400–409 (1995) (Ex. 1003) (hereinafter “Mozgrin”).

E. Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted the instant trial based on the following grounds of
unpatentability (Dec. 23):
Claim(s) Basis References
1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19,
20, and 42 § 103(a) Wang and Lantsman
8, 17, and 18 § 103(a) Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

6

enacting the AIA,”3 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
regulation.”). Significantly, claims are not interpreted in a vacuum but are
part of, and read in light of, the specification. United States v. Adams,
383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966) (“[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed
in the light of the specifications and both are to be read with a view to
ascertaining the invention.”). Claim terms are given their ordinary and
customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may rebut that presumption
by providing a definition of the term in the specification with “reasonable
clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
(Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to
be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 recites “the electrical pulse having a magnitude and a rise-
time that is sufficient to increase the density of the weakly-ionized plasma to
generate a strongly-ionized plasma,” with claim 10 reciting a similar
limitation. During the pre-trial stage of this proceeding, the parties also
submitted their constructions for the claim terms “a weakly-ionized plasma”
and “a strongly-ionized plasma.” Pet. 13–14; Prelim. Resp. 20–22. In our
Decision on Institution, we adopted Zond’s proposed constructions, in light
of the Specification, as the broadest reasonable interpretation. Dec. 6–7.
Upon review of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence
before us, we discern no reason to modify our claim constructions set forth

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284
(2011) (“AIA”).
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

7

in the Decision on Institution with respect to these claim terms. Id.
Therefore, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we construe, in light
of the Specification, the claim term “a weakly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma
with a relatively low peak density of ions,” the claim term “a strongly-
ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.”

B. Principles of Law
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In
that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Translogic,
504 F.3d at 1259. The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

8

Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We analyze the asserted grounds of
unpatentability in accordance with the above-stated principles.

C. Claims 1, 3–10, 12, 15, 17–20, and 42—Obviousness over Wang and
Lantsman, or Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin
GlobalFoundries asserts that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20, and
42 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Wang and Lantsman. Pet. 39–57. GlobalFoundries also
asserts that claims 8, 17, and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combination of Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin. Pet. 57–
59. As support, GlobalFoundries provides detailed explanations as to how
each claim limitation is met by the references and rationales for combining
the references, as well as a declaration of Dr. Kortshagen (Ex. 1002).
GlobalFoundries also submitted a Declaration of Dr. Overzet (Ex. 1022) to
support its Reply to Zond’s Patent Owner Response.
Zond responds that the combinations of prior art do not disclose every
claim element. PO Resp. 34–54. Zond also argues that there is insufficient
reason to combine the technical disclosures of Wang, Lantsman, and
Mozgrin. Id. at 19–34. To support its contentions, Zond proffers a
Declaration of Dr. Larry D. Hartsough (Ex. 2005). Zond does not argue that
elements of claims 8, 17, and 18 are not taught or suggested by the
combination of Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin, only that there is insufficient
reason to combine the references. Id.
We have reviewed the entire record before us, including the parties’
explanations and supporting evidence presented during this trial. We begin
our discussion with a brief summary of Wang and Lantsman, address their
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

9

combination with Mozgrin with respect to the second ground, and then we
address the parties’ contentions in turn.
Wang
Wang discloses a power pulsed magnetron sputtering apparatus for
generating a very high plasma density. Ex. 1005, Abs. Wang also discloses
a sputtering method for depositing metal layers onto advanced
semiconductor integrated circuit structures. Id. at 1:4–15.
Figure 1 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional view
of a power pulsed magnetron sputtering reactor:

Fig. 1 of Wang illustrates its magnetron sputtering apparatus.
As shown in Figure 1 of Wang, magnetron sputtering apparatus 10 has
pedestal 18 for supporting semiconductor substrate 20, anode 24,
cathode 14, magnet assembly 40, and pulsed DC power supply 80. Id. at
3:57–4:55. According to Wang, the apparatus is capable of creating high
density plasma in region 42, from argon gas feed 32 through mass flow
controller 34, which ionizes a substantial fraction of the sputtered particles
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

10

into positively charged metal ions and also increases the sputtering rate. Id.
at 4:5–34. Wang further recognizes that, if a large portion of the sputtered
particles are ionized, the films are deposited more uniformly and
effectively—the sputtered ions can be accelerated towards a negatively
charged substrate, coating the bottom and sides of holes that are narrow and
deep. Id. at 1:24–29.
Figure 6 of Wang, reproduced below, illustrates how the apparatus
applies a pulsed power to the plasma:

Fig. 6 of Wang illustrates a representation of applied pulses.
As shown in Figure 6 of Wang, the target is maintained at background
power level PB between high power pulses 96 with peak power level PP. Id.
at 7:13–39. Background power level PB exceeds the minimum power
necessary to support a plasma in the chamber at the operational pressure
(e.g., 1kW). Id. Peak power PP is at least 10 times (preferably 100 or 1000
times) background power level PB. Id. The application of high peak power
PP causes the existing plasma to spread quickly, and increases the density of
the plasma. Id. According to Dr. Kortshagen, Wang’s apparatus generates a
low-density (weakly-ionized) plasma during the application of background
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

11

power PB, and a high-density plasma during the application of peak power
PP. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 125–130; see also Pet. 41–43.
Lantsman
Lantsman discloses a plasma ignition system for plasma processing
chambers having primary and secondary power supplies, used to generate a
plasma current and a process initiation voltage, respectively. Ex. 1004, Abs.
The primary power supply provides the primary power to electrically drive
the cathode during the plasma process, and the secondary power supply
supplies an initial plasma ignition voltage to “pre-ignite” the plasma so that
when the primary power supply is applied, the system smoothly transitions
to final plasma development and deposition. Id. at 2:48–51.
The system is applicable to magnetron and non-magnetron sputtering
and radio frequency (RF) sputtering systems. Id. at 1:6–8. Lantsman also
provides that “arcing which can be produced by overvoltages, can cause
local overheating of the target, leading to evaporation or flaking of target
material into the processing chamber and causing substrate particle
contamination and device damage,” and “[t]hus, it is advantageous to avoid
voltage spikes during processing wherever possible.” Id. at 1:51–59.
Lantsman also discloses that “at the beginning of processing . . . gas is
introduced into the chamber” and “[w]hen the plasma process is completed,
the gas flow is stopped.” Id. at 3:10–13. This is illustrated in Figure 6 of
Lantsman reproduced below:
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

12

Fig. 6 of Lantsman illustrates the timing of its processes
Figure 6 illustrates that the gas flow is initiated, and the gas flow and
pressure begin to ramp upwards toward normal processing levels for the
processing stage. Id. at 5:39–42.

Rationale to Combine References
GlobalFoundries asserts that it would have been obvious to have
combined Wang and Lantsman to render the claims obvious. Pet. 46–49
(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 134–145). GlobalFoundries discusses the suggestion of
continuing to supply the feed gas in the process of Wang, and argues that
this continuance is likely to occur during that disclosed process, although not
expressly recited. Pet. 44–46; Ex. 1002 ¶ 133. GlobalFoundries also argues
that even if Wang does not disclose maintaining the flow of the feed gases,
“[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to continue to
exchange the feed gas during Wang’s application of background power and
high peak power, as taught by Lantsman.” Pet. 47. GlobalFoundries
submits an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

13

Wang and Lantsman because both are directed to sputtering and both
employ two power supplies, one for pre-ionization and the other for
deposition. Id. In addition, both Wang and Lantsman are concerned with
generating plasma while avoiding arcing. Id. GlobalFoundries also cites to
the testimony of Dr. Kortshagen that the continuous flow of gas would allow
for diffusion of the strongly-ionized plasma and allow for additional power
to be absorbed by the plasma. Id. at 47–48; Ex. 1002 ¶ 138.
Furthermore, GlobalFoundries acknowledges that Wang does not
disclose explicitly that its magnets can be electro-magnets, or disclose
specifically the peak plasma densities recited in claims 17 and 18. Pet. 57–
59. GlobalFoundries argues that it would have been obvious to have used
the electro-magnet of Mozgrin in the system of Wang and that, given the
power levels used in Wang, Mozgrin makes clear that Wang’s peak plasma
densities would have been similar. Id.
We determine that both Wang and Mozgrin deal with pulse
magnetron sputtering (Ex. 1005, Abs.; Ex. 1003, 400), and we are
persuaded that it would have been obvious to have used Mozgrin’s
electro-magnet in the system of Wang. Dec. 20–21 (citing Pet. 57–
58). Additionally, given the similar power levels applied in both
Wang and Mozgrin (Ex. 1005, 7:13–30; Ex. 1003, 401), we are
persuaded also that the plasma formed in Wang would have similar
peak plasma density parameters, or that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to use the densities disclosed in Mozgrin
in the system of Wang. Id.
The parties’ dispute mainly centers on whether GlobalFoundries has
articulated a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

14

in the art would have combined the prior art teachings. Zond argues that
GlobalFoundries fails to demonstrate that one with ordinary skill in the art
would have combined the systems of Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin, and to
achieve the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success or
predictable results. PO Resp. 19–34.
In particular, Zond contends that GlobalFoundries does not take into
consideration the substantial, fundamental structural differences between the
systems of Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin—e.g., pressure, chamber
geometry, gap dimensions, and magnetic fields. Id. at 28–34 (citing e.g.,
Ex. 1003, 400–409; Ex. 1004, Abstract, 2:49–51, 4:11–37, 5:42–52;
Ex. 1005, 3:60–61, 5: 18–22; Ex. 2004 5:60–62; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 80–84).
Additionally, even if a combination was somehow made, Zond contends it
would differ significantly from the system disclosed in the ’142 Patent. Id.
In its Reply, GlobalFoundries responds that Zond’s arguments apply
statements directed to different embodiments of Wang together and attempt
to physically incorporate Lantsman into Wang. Reply 2–4.
GlobalFoundries also responds that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have viewed Lantsman’s teachings as applicable to Wang’s system, based on
the ordinary level of skill in the art and the similarities between Wang and
Lantsman. Id. Upon consideration of the evidence before us, we are
persuaded by GlobalFoundries’ contentions.
We are not persuaded by Zond’s argument that Mozgrin’s,
Lantsman’s, and Wang’s sputtering apparatuses would have been viewed as
significantly different, or that one with ordinary skill in the art would not
have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of
the references. Obviousness does not require absolute predictability, only a
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

15

reasonable expectation that the beneficial result will be achieved. In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2012); In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (noting that
the criterion for obviousness is not whether the references can be combined
physically, but whether the claimed invention is rendered obvious by the
teachings of the prior art as a whole). In that regard, one with ordinary skill
in the art is not compelled to follow blindly the teaching of one prior art
reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. Lear
Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21 (stating that a person with ordinary skill in the art
is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and “in many
cases . . . will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
pieces of a puzzle”).
As Dr. Overzet testifies, Lantsman states that its techniques can be
applied to any plasma process, including DC magnetron sputtering, where
Wang is directed to DC magnetron sputtering. Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 66–67 (citing
Ex. 1004, 6:14–17). Additionally, Dr. Overzet testifies that the different
processing conditions in Wang and Lantsman are routine variables that
ordinarily skilled artisans would understand need to be changed to
accommodate different systems and processing conditions. Id. ¶ 68. In
addition, Dr. Overzet points out that both Lantsman and Wang “teach two
stage plasma systems.” Id. Indeed, Lantsman discloses both “limited” and
“substantial” plasma stages (Ex. 1004, 2:48–51, 4:58–61, 5:6), and Wang
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

16

discloses plasma states that vary with the application of pulses (Ex. 1005,
7:13–39). As noted above, Wang discloses background power PB of 1 kW
(falling within the range of 0.01–100 kW, as disclosed in the ’142 Patent, for
generating a weakly-ionized plasma), and pulse peak power PP of 1 MW
(falling within the range of 1 kW–10 MW, as disclosed in the ’142 Patent,
for generating a strongly-ionized plasma). Ex. 1005, 7:19–25; Ex. 1001,
11:34–38, 12:1–8, Fig. 5. On this record, we credit Dr. Overzet’s testimony
(Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 66–69) because his explanations are consistent with the prior
art of record.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that GlobalFoundries has
articulated a reason with rational underpinning why one with ordinary skill
in the art would have combined Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin as indicated
in the Petition, and where that reason is supported by a preponderance of
evidence.

Feed Gas from a Gas Line Diffusing the Strongly-Ionized Plasma
Claim 1 recites, in part, “a gas line that supplies feed gas to the
strongly-ionized plasma, the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma,
thereby allowing additional power from the pulsed power supply to be
absorbed by the strongly-ionized plasma,” with independent claim 10
reciting similar subject matter.
Zond argues that Lantsman fails to disclose generating a strongly-
ionized plasma, or disclose any activity of the feed gas and plasma diffusion.
PO Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 94). Additionally, Zond argues that
Wang does not teach “the feed gas diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma”
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

17

because Wang’s chamber is significantly different in design from that of the
’142 Patent and the feed gas in Wang “‘could not possibly diffuse the
strongly ionized plasma because it enters the chamber far from the strongly
ionized plasma and is directed away from the strongly ionized plasma.’” Id.
at 36–40 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 94). Also, Zond argues that the only motivation
to diffuse the strongly-ionized plasma and allow additional power to be
absorbed comes from the ’142 Patent. Id. at 40–41. We do not find Zond’s
arguments to be persuasive.
First, we note that it not essential for Lantsman to disclose a strongly-
ionized plasma because Wang discloses a strongly-ionized plasma, and the
specified ground of unpatentability relies on the combination of Lantsman
and Wang. Second, as GlobalFoundries notes, Dr. Hartsough concedes that
“the gas will tend to diffuse throughout the whole volume,” including
areas containing the high-density plasma. Reply 5–6; Ex. 1024, 87:22–88:9,
88:22–89:2, 92:18–93:7. Additionally, Dr. Overzet testifies that due to
random thermal motion and the pressure gradient in the reaction chamber,
Wang’s argon gas will diffuse into the plasma near the target. Ex. 1022
¶ 77. Lastly, Dr. Hartsough acknowledges that a feed gas was commonly
used to diffuse a strongly-ionized plasma (Ex. 1024, 32:18–33:5), such that
ordinarily skilled artisans would have used such a process without resort to
the disclosure of the ’142 Patent.
Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combination of
Wang and Lantsman would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention the provision of a feed gas to a strongly-
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

18

ionized plasma, to diffuse the plasma and allow for greater absorption of
power, as required by claims 1 and 10.

Electrical Pulse with Magnitude and Rise-Time to Generate Strongly-
Ionized Plasma
Claim 1 recites, in part, “the electrical pulse having a magnitude and a
rise-time that is sufficient to increase the density of the weakly-ionized
plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma,” with claim 10 reciting similar
subject matter.
Zond argues that Wang does not teach that the magnitude and the rise
time of its pulses are sufficient to increase the density of weakly-ionized
plasma to generate strongly-ionized plasma, as required by independent
claims 1 and 10 of the ’142 Patent. PO Resp. 41–42. GlobalFoundries
argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from the
teachings of Wang, that certain parameters, such as the magnitude or the rise
time of a voltage pulse, could be chosen to generate a strongly-ionized
plasma. Reply 9. We agree with GlobalFoundries.
We are not persuaded by Zond’s arguments. Wang selects pulse
characteristics and reactors with the goal of “producing a high fraction of
ionized sputtered particles,” which “has long been exploited in high-density
plasma.” Ex. 1005, 1:7–8, 30–37. Therefore, we are persuaded that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the parameters of the
magnitude and the rise time of a voltage pulse could be controlled to achieve
the desired plasma processes, and that it would have been obvious to select
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

19

the magnitude and the rise time of the electrical pulse, to achieve the goals
of the cited references.
In addition, claim 1 is an apparatus claim and claim 10 is a method
claim. With respect to claim 1, we are persuaded that the claim recites an
intended use that will not limit the scope of the claim, such that the
obviousness of claim 1 is based on whether the elements of that claim are
obvious, not on their intended use. With respect to claim 10, the method
does not require an optimization of magnitude or rise time to achieve the
strongly-ionized plasma, but simply that the generated electric pulse achieve
that plasma state, which Wang does, as discussed above.
Based on the evidence before us, we are persuaded that
GlobalFoundries has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the
combination of Wang and Lantsman renders obvious the supplying an
electrical pulse having a magnitude and a rise time of the voltage pulses to
generate a strongly-ionized plasma, per claims 1 and 10.

Substantially Uniform Strongly-Ionized Plasma
Claim 15 recites, in part, “selecting at least one of a pulse amplitude
and a pulse width of the electrical pulse in order to cause the strongly-
ionized plasma to be substantially uniform.” Zond argues that
GlobalFoundries has not shown that Wang discloses that the substantially
uniform plasma is caused by selecting either the amplitude or width of the
pulse. PO Resp. 42–43. We do not agree with Zond.
Zond appears to concede that Wang provides for a uniformity of its
plasma, if only limited to the area beneath the rotating magnet. Id. at 43.
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

20

Wang is clear that “[p]referably, the peak power PP is at least 10 times the
background power PB” (Ex. 1005, 7:19–22), i.e., choosing the pulse
amplitude, and “the application of the high peak power PP instead quickly
causes the already existing plasma to spread,” i.e., creating a substantially
uniform plasma. Id. at 7:28–30. As well, Wang provides that “[t]he choice
of pulse width τw is dictated by considerations of . . . sputtering process
conditions . . . for achieving the greatest effect,” where uniformity may
allow for the greatest effect of the plasma over a target. Id. at 5:43–49.
Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combination of
Wang and Lantsman would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention that the amplitude and pulse width can be
selected to achieve substantial uniformity of the plasma, as required by
claim 15.

Supplying Feed Gas While Applying Electrical Pulse
Claim 3 recites, in part, that “the gas line supplies additional feed gas
that exchanges the weakly-ionized plasma while applying the electrical pulse
across,” with claim 12 reciting similar limitations. Zond argues that
Lantsman only teaches two DC power supplies, which do not supply pulses,
and Wang teaches only the application of a background power, PB, which is
also not a pulse. PO Resp. 43–45. This argument was further elucidated at
the Oral Hearing, with Zond’s counsel explaining that
you would also need to apply the pulse while there is
electrical -- while there is weakly-ionized plasma, while you
are supplying the additional feed gas. You have to get all three
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

21

of these things. And the combination of Lantsman and Wang
at most with the various scenarios that you have identified only
gets two of the three.
Tr. 94. Counsel also indicated that claims 3 and 12 directly map to an
embodiment disclosed in the ’142 Patent (Ex. 1001, 5:5–17) whereby the
weakly-ionized plasma is formed from pulses from a pulsed power supply
portion of the ionization source. Tr. 101–103. We are not persuaded by
Zond’s argument.
The problems with Zond’s arguments come from the language of
claims 3 and 12 themselves in that Zond is arguing limitations not recited in
the claims. Claim 12 does not recite anything about the application of an
electrical pulse. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and relies on that claim for
an antecedent basis for the limitation “the electrical pulse.” However, claim
1 recites “an electrical pulse” only with respect to the power supply element
for generating a strongly-ionized plasma, and not the ionization source
element for generating a weakly-ionized plasma. As such, claim 3 does not
require the weakly–ionized plasma to be formed by pulses from a pulsed
power supply portion of the ionization source, as alleged by Zond.
As GlobalFoundries has asserted, both Wang and Lantsman disclose
the continuous supply of feed gas during the entire plasma process. Reply
11–12 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 86–88). Given the application of the pulses to the
weakly-ionized plasma to form the strongly-ionized plasma, in Wang, and
the continuous supply of feed gas, we are persuaded that claims 3 and 12
would have been obvious.
Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combination of
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

22

Wang and Lantsman would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention a feed gas that supplies to the weakly-ionized
plasma during the application of an electrical pulse, as required by claims 3
and 12.

Power Supply Generates Constant Power / Voltage
Claim 1 recites, in part, “a power supply that supplies power to the
weakly-ionized plasma though an electrical pulse applied across the weakly-
ionized plasma,” with dependent claim 4 reciting that “the power supply
generates a constant power,” and dependent claim 5 reciting that “the power
supply generates a constant voltage.” GlobalFoundries asserts that “Wang’s
pulsed DC power supply 80 (shown in Wang’s Figs. 1 and 7) generates a
peak level power, PP, which is constant for the duration of the pulse τw, as
shown in Fig. 6.” Pet. 52.
Zond argues that because Wang’s figures are idealized, the actual
power pulse applied in Wang is not constant for the duration of the pulse τw.
PO Resp. 46–48 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 111, 112, 133). Zond also argues that
because the pulse in Wang is a power pulse, and the current in the sputtering
system varies with the state of the plasma, the voltage varies with the current
and is not constant. Id. at 49–51 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 115, 116). We do not
find Zond’s arguments to be persuasive.
GlobalFoundries responds that Dr. Hartsough, Zond’s expert,
concedes that Wang’s power supply generates a constant power and the
voltage would approach a constant value. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1023, 152:4–
6; Ex. 1025, 176:20–25; Ex. 1005, 7:49–51; Ex. 2005 ¶ 57). Dr. Hartsough
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

23

also concedes that typical power supplies, such as described by Wang,
operate in the same manner as those disclosed in the ’142 Patent. Id. (citing
Ex. 1026, 149:17–150:20, with respect to related U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
B2, where Fig. 5 of that patent is identical to Fig. 4 of the ’142 Patent).
Based on this, GlobalFoundries counters that Wang teaches applying pulses
at both constant voltage and constant power, in specific regions. Id. We
agree with GlobalFoundries.
As shown in Figure 7 of Wang, pulsed DC power supply 80 produces
a series of voltage pulses, and portions of the voltage pulses are constant.
Ex. 1005, 7:57–61. Figure 6 of Wang depicts that portions of the power
pulses are constant. Moreover, it is clear from Figures 6 and 7 of Wang that
Wang’s system is designed to maintain both the amplitude of the voltage
pulses and the amplitude of the power pulses constant during the entire
process. Based on the evidence in this record, we are persuaded that one
with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Wang discloses:
(1) portions of voltage and power are constant, and (2) the amplitude of the
voltage pulses and the amplitude of the power pulses are constant.
In addition, Dr. Overzet notes that Figure 4 of the ’142 Patent also is
idealized. Ex. 1022 ¶ 116. Indeed, the ’142 Patent explicitly states that
Figures 3, 4, and 7 merely illustrate graphical representations, and not the
actual shape of the voltage and power pulses. Ex. 1001, 1:65–2:15. As well,
given that the instant ground purports claims to be obvious, what the
disclosures of Wang and Lantsman would have suggested to persons of
ordinary skill in the art needs to be considered, even if, arguendo, the actual
results were not as idealized as the representations provided in the figures.
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

24

Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combination of
Wang and Lantsman would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention, a pulsed power supply that generates a
constant power or a constant voltage, as required by claims 4 and 5.

Ionization Source is an Electrode Coupled to a DC Power Supply
Claim 6 recites, in part, that “the ionization source is chosen from the
group comprising an electrode coupled to a DC power supply.” Zond argues
that GlobalFoundries’ reliance on cathode 14 of Wang to satisfy the
electrode limitation of claim 6 (Pet. 54) is misplaced as the ’142 Patent
makes clear that the electrode is separate and distinct from the anode or the
cathode and is a filament. PO Resp. 53–54.
In response, GlobalFoundries responds that Zond’s declarant,
Dr. Hartsough, conceded that an “electrode” would include other electrodes
in the system, including the anode and the cathode. Reply 15 (citing
Ex. 1024, 98:17–99:15). We agree. Although the Specification of the ’142
Patent discloses an embodiment having the electrode as separate and distinct
from the cathode and the anode, claim 6, and claim 1 from which it depends,
do not recite such a distinction. A cathode or an anode connected to a DC
power supply that can generate the weakly-ionized plasma is sufficient to
meet the limitations of claim 6.
Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combination of
Wang and Lantsman would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

25

art at the time of the invention choosing an electrode, connected to a DC
power supply, to create weakly-ionized plasma, as required by claim 6.

Petition Fails to Set Forth a Proper Obviousness Analysis
Zond argues that GlobalFoundries failed to follow the legal
framework for an obviousness analysis set forth in Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–
18. PO Resp. 55–57. Zond continues that GlobalFoundries failed to
identify differences between the cited art and the claims, i.e., failed to
identify claim limitations that it believed are missing from Wang, Lantsman,
and Mozgrin. Id. at 57–59. Zond argues that because GlobalFoundries
argued that the claim limitations are taught by the combination of references,
that leaves the Board with having to provide a supporting basis for the
proffered grounds, and it would be “inappropriate for the Board to take the
side of the Petitioner to salvage an inadequately expressed ground.” Id. at
59 (citation omitted). We do not agree.
With respect to the instituted grounds, we are not persuaded of any
ambiguity therein. Although GlobalFoundries offered differing theories of
obviousness in the same ground, for example arguing that 1) Wang supplies
the feed gas, 2) supplying feed gas is likely to occur during that disclosed
process, and 3) it would have been obvious supplying feed gas would
continue over the entire process in view of Lantsman, each theory is
adequately explained on this record. See Pet. 45–48. We do not find this to
be a case of “an inadequately expressed ground,” but rather multiple reasons
to show that the art teaches the claim element. The last theory, applying
Lantsman, makes clear what potential deficiency in the art Lantsman is
IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

26

proffered to cure and why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined
Lantsman with Wang. This situation is very different from the case with an
obviousness ground that contains no motivation or no detail on how a
second reference is to be applied, and would require the Board to cast
around to provide a basis for the ground. As such, we are not persuaded that
the grounds of the Petition are defective on the bases alleged by Zond.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that GlobalFoundries has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that claims 1, 3–10, 12, 15,
17–20, and 42 are unpatentable over the asserted combinations of Wang and
Lantsman, and Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that GlobalFoundries has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 3–10, 12,
15, 17–20, and 42 of the ’142 Patent are unpatentable based on the following
grounds of unpatentability:
Claim(s) Basis References
1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19,
20, and 42 § 103(a) Wang and Lantsman
8, 17, and 18 § 103(a) Wang, Lantsman, and Mozgrin

IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

27

IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that claims 1, 3–10, 12, 15, 17–20, and 42 of the ’142
Patent are held unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a final written decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

28

For PETITIONERS:
David M. Tennant
WHITE & CASE LLP
dtennant@whitecase.com

Gillette:
David L. Cavanaugh
Larissa B. Park
Michael A. Diener
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
david.cavanaugh@wilmerhalde.com
larissa.park@wilmerhale.com
michael.diener@wilmerhale.com

Fujitsu:
David M O’Dell
David L. McCombs
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
david.mccombs@haynesboone.com

Richard C. Kim
DUANE MORRIS, LLP
rckim@duanemorris.com

AMD:
Brian M. Berliner
Ryan K. Yagura
Xin-Yi Zhou
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
bberliner@omm.com
ryagura@omm.com
vzhou@omm.com

IPR2014-00818
Patent 6,853,142 B2

29

Renesas:
John J. Feldhaus
Pavan Agarwal
Mike R. Houston
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
jfeldhaus@foley.com
pagarwal@foley.com
mhouston@foley.com

GlobalFoundries:
David M. Tennant
Dohm Chankong
WHITE & CASE LLP
dtennant@whitecase.com
dohm.chankong@whitecase.com

Toshiba:
Robinson Vu
BAKER BOTTS LLP
Robinson.vu@bakerbotts.com

For PATENT OWNER:
Gregory J. Gonsalves
THE GONSALVES LAW FIRM
gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com

Bruce J. Barker
CHAO HADIDI STARK & BARKER LLP
bbarker@chsblaw.com