• Arris Group, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2014-01191 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 59, 61, 74, 76, 78, and 87 are unpatentable under § 103 over Stone and Takashashi, with Shioda, Ohmi, or Garmon applied to dependent claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther

    “interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Even under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms generally also 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. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “[an] education and/or experience in the field of optics” and “in the sub-field of thin-film filters.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). According to Petitioner, such person would have, at a minimum, (1) more than three years of relevant work experience and hold a basic Bachelor’s degree, or (2) less than three years of relevant work experience, but hold a more advanced degree, such as a Masters or a Ph.D. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner does not comment on Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, or offer an alternative definition. See generally, PO Resp. Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Tomlinson, see Pet. 15–20, who testified that he is “an expert in the field of optical assemblies and . . . [has] been an expert in this field since prior to 1965.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 11. Dr. Tomlinson testified that he is “familiar with the knowledge and capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art” by virtue of his “work as a research assistant, scientist, researcher, supervisor of Ph.D. level researchers and engineers, and project manager.” Id. ¶ 23; see also id. ¶¶ 13–18 (wherein Dr. Tomlinson discusses the specifics of his work). We find Dr. Tomlinson is qualified to give an opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art in the field of optics, and adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this proceeding. Cf. Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that to testify as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather “qualified in the pertinent art.”).” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Dr. Tomlinson’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art: “would not [have] use[d] a beveled end face for applications where reducing reflected power is not necessary because a beveled end face requires additional machining and, as illustrated by Stone’s Figure 6, makes connection to other fibers more problematic” and “would generally use a perpendicular end face as shown in Stone Figure 1 unless a particular application called for a beveled end face” (Ex. 1020 ¶ 23). We also credit Dr. Tomlinson’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Takashashi’s description of the benefits provided by a higher packing density, e.g., a reduction in the effect of ambient moisture on filter performance, to substitute one known method of thin film deposition – i.e., the “electron-beam deposition” of Stone – for another know method of thin film deposition – i.e. the reactive-ion plasma process of Takashashi – because the substitution would have yielded a favorable and predictable result. Namely, the combination of Stone and Takashashi would have yielded a thin-film filter with a higher packing density which was less susceptible to volumetric distortion of the film due to ambient moisture, as taught by Takashashi. Ex. 1003 ¶ 100.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, but are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the filter inefficiencies created by ambient moisture could be addressed adequately by merely beveling Stone’s filter/fiber end face, i.e., we are not persuaded that the ordinary artisan would not have been motivated to increase filter packing density in Stone’s optical assembly. As pointed out by Petitioner, Stone discloses that optical fibers having multilayer thin-films deposited directly on their end faces have advantageous properties, regardless of whether the filters are deposited on perpendicular fiber end faces or on beveled fiber end faces. See Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:60– 67). We further agree with Petitioner that Stone’s teaching of a preference for using a beveled end face is limited to “certain situations in which power would be reflected back into the waveguide in a problematic way” (id. at 10–11 (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:57–65)). Patent Owner has not argued, however, nor do we find any language in the claims or specification of the ’970 patent that supports a narrow reading of claim 59 as limited to an optical fiber assembly that is capable of use in an application in which reflected light is problematic. We credit Dr. Tomlinson’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art: “would not [have] use[d] a beveled end face for applications where reducing reflected power is not necessary because a beveled end face requires additional machining and, as illustrated by Stone’s Figure 6, makes connection to other fibers more problematic” and “would generally use a perpendicular end face as shown in Stone Figure 1 unless a particular application called for a beveled end face” (Ex. 1020 ¶ 23). We also credit Dr. Tomlinson’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Takashashi’s description of the benefits provided by a higher packing density, e.g., a reduction in the effect of ambient moisture on filter performance, to substitute one known method of thin film deposition – i.e., the “electron-beam deposition” of Stone – for another know method of thin film deposition – i.e. the reactive-ion plasma process of Takashashi – because the substitution would have yielded a favorable and predictable result. Namely, the combination of Stone and Takashashi would have yielded a thin-film filter with a higher packing density which was less susceptible to volumetric distortion of the film due to ambient moisture, as taught by Takashashi.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 6,222,970 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,222,970
• Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited / Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00828 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30–37, 39, and 40 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley, with Wells or Lovelock added for specified dependent claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Zond’s expert, Dr. Larry D. Hartsough, also testifies that, in the context of the ’779 patent, one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that a plasma includes charged particles (ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized. Ex. 1223, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term “plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that a plasma also includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1201, 1:7–8, 8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons). Ex. 1223, 42:9–43:17. Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelOther

    “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 1262. We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)); Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259–1262. Notwithstanding that Dr. Hartsough provides a definition of “a person of ordinary skill in the 10 art” in the context of the ’779 patent,5 we are mindful that the level of ordinary skill in the art also 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 Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the evidence in this record, we credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony (Ex. 1221 ¶¶ 39–46, 58–59) that magnets, such as those disclosed in Pinsley and Angelbeck, generate a magnetic field that substantially traps electrons in a plasma apparatus. Notably, the Admitted Prior Art (Figure 1 of the ’779 patent) discloses a plasma sputtering apparatus, having magnets that generate a magnetic field to trap electrons. Ex. 1201, 3:9–18 (“The magnetic field 132 is shaped to trap and concentrate secondary electrons proximate to the target surface.”). Dr. Hartsough acknowledges that, since the mid-1970s, using magnets for trapping electrons in magnetron sputtering systems was well-known in the art. Ex. 1223, 20:13–21:1. Both Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony (Ex. 1221 ¶¶ 39–46, 58–59) and Dr. Hartsough’s cross-examination testimony (Ex. 1223, 123:4–13) are consistent with the prior art of record, including the Admitted Prior Art, which recognizes a magnetic field is strongest at the poles of the magnet and weakest in the region at the center between the poles (Ex. 1201, 3:12–13). As discussed above, the prior art of record clearly shows that it was well-known in the art at the time of the invention to use magnets in a plasma apparatus for trapping electrons. Based on the prior art of record, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that “the use of magnets and their corresponding magnetic fields to trap electrons . . . was already known in the prior art,” at the time of the invention. See Ex. 1221 ¶ 37.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Here, GlobalFoundries relies upon Angelbeck and Pinsley to show that generating a magnetic field to trap electrons in a plasma apparatus was well-known in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 47–49, 52, 54–55. Indeed, both Angelbeck and Pinsley teach the use of a magnet to generate a magnetic field for increasing the efficiency of exciting atoms in a plasma apparatus. Ex. 1205, 2:43–48; Ex. 1206, 1:36–41. Zond’s expert, Dr. Hartsough, also acknowledges that, since the mid-1970s, using magnets for trapping electrons in magnetron sputtering systems was well-known in the art. Ex. 1223, 20:13–21:1. Moreover, the Admitted Prior Art (Figure 1 of the ’779 patent) discloses a plasma sputtering apparatus, having magnets that generates magnetic field to trap electrons. Ex. 1201, 3:9–18 (“The magnetic field 132 is shaped to trap and concentrate secondary electrons proximate to the target surface.”). Given the evidence before us, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that one with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley, to use a magnet with Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit—which are located proximate to the ground 30 state atoms source (gas supply 20)—for generating a magnetic field to trap electrons, in order to increase the efficiency of excitation of ground state atoms. Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 120, 140–41. We credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is consistent with the disclosures of Angelbeck and Pinsley, and other prior art of record. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence in this entire record, we determine that GlobalFoundries has demonstrated that combining the technical disclosures of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley is merely a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Therefore, GlobalFoundries has provided an articulated reason with rational underpinnings for modifying Iwamura in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley. X-ray radiation” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,805,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,805,779
• Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited / Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00917 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the specified combinations of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley with Gruber or Wells.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “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 1262. We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)); Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259–1262. Notwithstanding 10 that Dr. Hartsough provides a definition of “a person of ordinary skill in the art” in the context of the ’779 patent,6 we are mindful that the level of ordinary skill in the art also 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 Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “context of the ’779 patent, one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that a plasma includes charged particles (ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized. Ex. 1419, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term “plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that a plasma also includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1401, 1:7–8, 8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons). Ex. 1419, 42:9–43:17. 9 Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Here, GlobalFoundries relies upon Angelbeck and Pinsley to show that generating a magnetic field to trap electrons in a plasma apparatus was well-known in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 44–47. Indeed, both Angelbeck and Pinsley teach the use of a magnet to generate a magnetic field for increasing the efficiency of exciting atoms in a plasma apparatus. Ex. 1405, 2:43–48; Ex. 1406, 1:36–41. Zond’s expert, Dr. Hartsough, also acknowledges that, since the mid-1970s, using magnets for trapping electrons in magnetron sputtering systems was well-known in the art. Ex. 1419, 20:13–21:1. Moreover, the Admitted Prior Art (Figure 1 of the ’779 patent) discloses a plasma sputtering apparatus, having magnets that generates magnetic field to trap electrons. Ex. 1401, 3:9–18 (“The magnetic field 132 is shaped to trap and concentrate secondary electrons proximate to the target surface.”). Given the evidence before us, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that one with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley, to use a magnet with Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit—which are located proximate to the ground state atoms source (gas supply 20)—for generating a magnetic field to trap electrons, in order to increase the efficiency of excitation of ground state atoms. Ex. 1402 ¶ 139. We credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is 34 consistent with the disclosures of Angelbeck and Pinsley, and other prior art of record. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence in this entire record, we determine that GlobalFoundries has demonstrated that combining the technical disclosures of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley is merely a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Therefore, GlobalFoundries has provided an articulated reason with rational underpinnings for modifying Iwamura in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley. Trapping electrons and ions” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 6,805,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,805,779
• Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited / Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00829 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, and 45 are unpatentable as obvious over Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley; claim 46 is unpatentable as anticipated by Iwamura.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for petitioner

    “(ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized. Ex. 1317, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term “plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that a plasma includes excited atoms and metastable atoms. Ex. 1301, 1:7–8, 8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons). Ex. 1317, 42:9–43:17. Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “In its Petition, GlobalFoundries identifies four claim elements recited in claims 41 and 42 as means-plus-function elements, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, but Zond did not proffer any claim constructions as to these claim elements prior to institution of this inter partes review.6 Pet. 17–19; Prelim. 6 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Because the ’779 9 Resp. 18–19. We agree with GlobalFoundries that these claim elements are written in means-plus-function form and fall under § 112 ¶ 6, because: (1) each claim element uses the term “means for”; (2) the term “means for” in each claim element is modified by functional language; and (3) the term “means for” is not modified by any structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed function. See Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (using the term “means for” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6); Sage Prods. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1427–28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the presumption is not rebutted if the term “means for” is modified by functional language and is not modified by any structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed function); see also Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (confirming that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6, applies” (citing Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 703)).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Zond’s argument and Dr. Hartsough’s testimony, however, are predicated on the premise that the gas is fully ionized, containing no excited or metastable atom, before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit inside the chamber. That premise squarely contradicts Iwamura’s 17 disclosure. Notably, Iwamura explicitly discloses that “the first plasma generation unit preactivates the gas and the second plasma generation unit activates the gas and forms activated gas species.” Ex. 1307, 2:61–65 (emphasis added). Iwamura also describes “preactivation” to mean that “the gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation level is high.” Id. at 2:34–39 (“[T]he gas reaching the downstream plasma generation position maintains the ionized or near-ionized state, formed by preactivation, i.e., the gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation level is high, due to the upstream plasma preactivation.” (emphasis added)). Moreover, if the gas were fully ionized before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit, as Zond alleges, there would be no reason to have a second plasma generation unit, much less having a second plasma generation unit to generate a plasma inside the chamber. On the contrary, Iwamura explicitly states that “a second plasma generation unit [is] for activating the gas to generate a plasma downstream along the flow path of the gas.” Id. at 2:59–61 (emphasis added). Iwamura further discloses that the gas is activated by the second plasma generation unit—increasing the density and excitation levels of activated gas species and generating a plasma—to improve uniformity and treatment rate. Id. at 8:4–46, Fig. 1. In fact, Dr. Hartsough in his cross-examination testimony acknowledges, and Dr. Kortshagen confirms, that the gas reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1317, 42:9–43:17, 74:2–76:4; Ex. 1315 ¶¶ 25–33, 89. Zond’s contention that a plasma does not include a volume of excited or metastable atoms also is inconsistent with the ordinary and customary” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “A prior-art reference is considered to be analogous if it is either: (1) from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned, regardless of the field of endeavor. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Id. at 659. In that regard, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Here, the field of plasma generation is not limited to the particular type of plasma chamber disclosed in the ’779 patent, as Zond suggests. On the contrary, the prior art of record shows that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that plasma treatment systems and gas lasers are from the same field of endeavor, and that effects observed in one may be applicable to the other, as explained by Kudryavtsev. Pet. 48; Ex. 1304, 30, 34; Ex. 1302 ¶ 138. In fact, in Pinsley and Angelbeck, the gas is excited in a region between a pair of anode and cathode electrodes to generate a plasma, similar to the ’779 patent. Ex. 1305, 2:31–36; Ex. 1306, 2:45–56; Ex. 1301, 6:21–23 (“Numerous other cathode and anode configurations known in the art can be used with the plasma generator of the present invention.”), Figs. 1–2. In short, both 40 Pinsley and Angelbeck are analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor as the ’779 patent—namely, plasma generation. Additionally, Pinsley and Angelbeck are reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the ’779 patent, at least with respect to generating a magnetic field and using the magnetic field to excite gas atoms efficiently. As we discussed previously, both Pinsley and Angelbeck disclose the application of a magnetic field to improve the efficiency of exciting atoms. Ex. 1305, 2:43–48, Ex. 1306, 1:36–41. Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck for how to increase the efficiency of exciting atoms for generating a plasma.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 6,805,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,805,779
• Globalfoundries U.S., Inc. / Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC & Co. KG et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2015 · IPR2014-01073 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 10–15, 17, 18, 24–27, and 29 are unpatentable as obvious over Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “Ex. 1017, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term “plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that a plasma also includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1001, 1:7–8; 8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons). Ex. 1017, 42:9–43:17. Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Given the evidence before us, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that one with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley, to use a magnet with Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit—which are located proximate to the ground state atoms source (gas supply 20)—for generating a magnetic field to substantially trap electrons, in order to increase the efficiency of excitation of ground state atoms. Ex. 1002 ¶ 129. We credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is consistent with the disclosures of Angelbeck and Pinsley, and other prior art of record. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence in this entire record, we determine that GlobalFoundries has demonstrated that combining the technical disclosures of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley is merely a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is 35 beyond his or her skill.”). Therefore, GlobalFoundries has provided an articulated reason with rational underpinnings for modifying Iwamura in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley. Conclusion” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Zond’s argument and expert testimony, however, improperly rest on the notion that all of the electrons, in Angelbeck, are lost to the wall. On the contrary, Angelbeck specifically indicates that “[t]he current-excited discharge passed through the gas within tube 10 creates a plasma in which the atoms are ionized and the electrons are freed.” Ex. 1006, 2:54–56 (emphasis added). More importantly, as discussed above, Angelbeck teaches that a magnetic field creates a high density of excited atoms and increases the efficiency of excitation. Id. at 1:36–41, 2:18–20, 2:29–33. Given the evidence before us, we do not discern that Angelbeck criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation into using magnetic field to substantially trap electrons. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3 (CCPA 1971) (“Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure of non-preferred embodiments.”). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would not have been dissuaded from combining Iwamura with Angelbeck and Pinsley.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “the contrary, the prior art of record shows that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that plasma treatment systems and gas lasers are from the same field of endeavor, and that effects observed in one may be applicable to the other, as explained by Kudryavtsev. Pet. 50; Ex. 1004, 30, 34; Ex. 1002 ¶ 130. In fact, in Pinsley and Angelbeck, the gas is excited in a region between a pair of anode and cathode electrodes to generate a plasma, similar to the ’779 patent. Ex. 1005, 2:31–36; Ex. 1006, 2:45–56; Ex. 1001, 6:21–23 (“Numerous other cathode and anode configurations known in the art can be used with the plasma generator of the present invention.”), Figs. 1–2. In short, both Pinsley and Angelbeck are analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor as the ’779 patent—namely, plasma generation. Additionally, Pinsley and Angelbeck are reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the ’779 patent, at least with respect to generating a magnetic field and using the magnetic field to excite gas atoms efficiently. As we discussed previously, both Pinsley and Angelbeck disclose the application of a magnetic field to improve the efficiency of exciting atoms. Ex. 1005, 2:43–48, Ex. 1006, 1:36–41. Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck for how to increase the efficiency of exciting gas atoms for generating a plasma.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 6,805,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,805,779
• Globalfoundries U.S., Inc. / Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC & Co. KG et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2015 · IPR2014-01076 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 43 is unpatentable as anticipated by Iwamura; claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, and 23 are unpatentable as obvious over Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Zond’s expert, Dr. Larry D. Hartsough, also testifies that, in the context of the ’779 patent, one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that a plasma includes charged particles (ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized. Ex. 1117, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term “plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that a plasma also includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1101, 1:7–8, 8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons). Ex. 1117, 42:9–43:17. Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and 9 metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Zond’s arguments and Dr. Hartsough’s testimony, however, are predicated on the premise that the gas is fully ionized containing no excited or metastable atoms, before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit inside the chamber. That premise squarely contradicts Iwamura’s disclosure. Notably, Iwamura explicitly discloses that “the first plasma generation unit preactivates the gas and the second plasma generation unit activates the gas and forms activated gas species.” Ex. 1107, 2:61–65 (emphasis added). Iwamura also describes “preactivation” to mean that “the gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation level is high.” Id. at 2:34–39 (“[T]he gas reaching the downstream plasma generation position maintains the ionized or near-ionized state, formed by preactivation, i.e., the gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation level is high, due to the upstream plasma preactivation.”) (emphasis added). Moreover, if the gas were fully ionized before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit, as Zond alleges, there would be no reason to 15 have a second plasma generation unit, much less having a second plasma generation unit to generate a plasma inside the chamber. On the contrary, Iwamura explicitly states that “a second plasma generation unit [is] for activating the gas to generate a plasma downstream along the flow path of the gas.” Id. at 2:59–61 (emphasis added). Iwamura further discloses that the gas is activated by the second plasma generation unit—increasing the density and excitation levels of activated gas species and generating a plasma—to improve uniformity and treatment rate. Id. at 8:4–46, Fig. 1. In fact, Dr. Hartsough in his cross-examination testimony acknowledges, and Dr. Kortshagen confirms, that the gas reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1117, 42:9–43:17, 74:2–76:4; Ex. 1115 ¶¶ 25–33, 89. Zond’s contention that a plasma does not include a volume of excited atoms also is inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “plasma”—namely, “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms.” As discussed above, both Dr. Kortshagen and Dr. Hartsough agree with that definition. Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 22–28; Ex. 1117, 42:9–43:17. Furthermore, the Specification of the ’779 patent discloses that a plasma includes charged particles as well as neutral excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1101, 8:43–48. More importantly, as the Specification explains, a volume of excited or metastable atoms is generated when “a discharge is created in a discharge region” between a pair of electrodes, similar to Iwamura’s first plasma generation unit, energizing and ionizing a portion of ground state atoms. Id. at 14:4–14:23 (“Some of the ground state atoms 208 are directly ionized, which releases ions 424 and 16 electrons 426 into the stream of metastable atoms 218. . . . The metastable atoms 218, the free ions 424 and electrons 426 then pass through the output 423 of the metastable atom source 402.”) (emphasis added). Therefore, even in the embodiment in which Iwamura’s first generation unit generates a plasma, one with ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the plasma reaching Iwamura’s second generation unit includes a volume of excited and metastable atoms. Given the evidence in this record, we determine that GlobalFoundries has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Iwamura discloses an energy source that raises “an energy of excited atoms in the volume of excited atoms so that at least a portion of the excited atoms in the volume of excited is ionized, thereby generating a plasma with a multi-step ionization process,” as recited in claim 43. Excited atom source” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Given the evidence before us, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that one with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley, to use a magnet with Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit—which are located proximate to the ground state atoms source (gas supply 20)—for generating a magnetic field to substantially trap electrons, in order to increase the efficiency of excitation of ground state atoms. Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 142, 159. We credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is consistent with the disclosures of Angelbeck and Pinsley, and other prior art of record. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence in this entire record, we determine that GlobalFoundries has demonstrated that combining the technical disclosures of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley is merely a predicable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Therefore, GlobalFoundries has provided an articulated reason with rational underpinnings for modifying Iwamura in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley.” slip op. at 39

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “A prior-art reference is considered to be analogous if it is either: (1) from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned, regardless of the field of endeavor. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Id. at 659. In that regard, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Here, the field of plasma generation is not limited to the particular type of plasma chamber disclosed in the ’779 patent, as Zond suggests. On the contrary, the prior art of record shows that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that plasma treatment systems and gas lasers are from the same field of endeavor, and that effects observed in one may be applicable to the other, as explained by 35 Kudryavtsev. Pet. 55; Ex. 1104, 30, 34; Ex. 1102 ¶ 143. In fact, in Pinsley and Angelbeck, the gas is excited in a region between a pair of anode and cathode electrodes to generate a plasma, similar to the ’779 patent. Ex. 1105, 2:31–36; Ex. 1106, 2:45–56; Ex. 1101, 6:21–23 (“Numerous other cathode and anode configurations known in the art can be used with the plasma generator of the present invention.”), Figs. 1–2. In short, both Pinsley and Angelbeck are analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor as the ’779 patent—namely, plasma generation. Additionally, Pinsley and Angelbeck are reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the ’779 patent, at least with respect to generating a magnetic field and using the magnetic field to excite gas atoms efficiently. As we discussed previously, both Pinsley and Angelbeck disclose the application of a magnetic field to improve the efficiency of exciting atoms. Ex. 1105, 2:43–48, Ex. 1106, 1:36–41. Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck for how to increase the efficiency of exciting gas atoms for generating a plasma.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 6,805,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,805,779
• Parrot S.A. / Parrot, Inc. v. Drone Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 20, 2015 · IPR2014-00730 · APJ Howard B Blankenship · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–14 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 5, 10–14 anticipated by Smith; claims 6–7 and 8–9 obvious over Smith with Barr and Fouche, respectively. Claims 4 and 15 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “construe “difference of motion” in claim 4 as relative motion. Pet. Reply 5– 6. Petitioner in its Reply does not, however, provide a persuasive explanation with respect to how the signal sent by the remote controller in Smith, or its “target motion signal” in the terms of claim 4, may contribute to getting the relative motion between the remote controller and the remotecontrolled device.2 Petitioner submits that “[i]t bears noting, moreover, that the ‘target motion signal’ (STAR3) of Fig. 5 of the ’071 Patent, also is a combination of the remote-controller’s measured orientation and the angle of the joystick, just as in Smith. Ex. 1001, 6:39-51. In that embodiment, it is ‘STAR3’ that is used to calculate the ‘difference of motion.’” Pet. Reply. 7. Petitioner refers to no evidence of record, however, to establish that this “third operation mode” described by the ’071 patent necessarily sends, as in Smith, a target motion signal that is the summation of the terrestrial magnetism signal and the orientation of the joystick relative to the remote 2 Although we did not institute trial on the alternative ground that claim 4 would have been obvious over Smith and Fouche (or the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art) (Pet. 29), the alternative ground for obviousness would suffer from the same deficiency as the anticipation ground. controller. Although attorney arguments are helpful when directing us to evidence in the record, the arguments themselves do not constitute evidence. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See, e.g., Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 4 is unpatentable as anticipated by Smith.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The ’071 patent, thus, makes clear that, in the preferred embodiment of the invention, “detecting” the remote controller’s motion is detecting the change in terrestrial magnetism relative to the horizontal ground surface as the controller is moved or rotated, with the resulting terrestrial magnetism sensing signal SG changing accordingly. The “terrestrial magnetism” of the Earth “directs to a fixed direction parallel to the horizontal ground surface.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 63–65. Detecting the orientation of a remote controller with respect to magnetic North is, at the least, within the scope of “detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion” as claimed. “A claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.’” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “in orientation.” Pet. 17. As Petitioner indicates (id.), the ’071 patent does not provide a definition of the relevant terms different from the ordinary meaning of the words. At the preliminary proceeding stage, we interpreted “difference of motion” simply to mean, under the required broadest reasonable interpretation, relative motion. Dec. on Inst. 10. That interpretation is consistent with the language of claim 4. Claim 4 recites that the “calculated result” — the calculated current motion of the remote-controlled device — is compared with the target motion signal to get the “difference of motion” (relative motion) between the remote-controlled device and the remote controller. In relation to Petitioner’s proffered interpretation, because a change in orientation is a type of motion, relative orientation would be a type (or species) of “difference of motion.”” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Thus, “detecting” the remote controller’s motion is detecting the change in terrestrial magnetism relative to the horizontal ground surface as the controller is moved or rotated, with the resulting terrestrial magnetism sensing signal SG changing accordingly. Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’071 patent of the remote controller storing a previous orientation for comparison with a present orientation to effect “detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion” as claimed. We, therefore, remain convinced that detecting the orientation of a remote controller with respect to magnetic North — which Patent Owner admits Smith to disclose — is, at the least, within the scope of “detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion” as claimed.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 7,584,071 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,584,071
• Parrot S.A. / Parrot, Inc. v. Drone Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 20, 2015 · IPR2014-00732 · APJ Howard B Blankenship · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 were not shown unpatentable as obvious because Petitioner did not establish that Shkolnikov was analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Owner Response in support of why Shkolnikov is non-analogous art, other than the unfounded reliance on the Decision on Institution, is the observation that the fact Dr. D’Andrea had not heard of Bathiche or Shkolnikov prior to this case is irrelevant to the analogous-art inquiry. Pet. Reply 6; PO Resp. 12. We agree with Petitioner to the extent that the fact Dr. D’Andrea was not aware of the Bathiche and the Shkolnikov references prior to this case has little relevance to the question of whether the references are analogous art. “The issue of obviousness is determined entirely with reference to a hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art.’ It is only that hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all the pertinent prior art.” Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Owner Response, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to demonstrate that Shkolnikov is analogous art. The grounds for unpatentability in this proceeding are asserted by Petitioner, not grounds entered by the Board as permitted, for example, in reexamination proceedings. In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence (35 U.S.C. § 316(e)), and that burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v Nat’l Graphics, Inc., No. 2015-1214, 2015 WL 5166366, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2015). Petitioner has not met its burden in showing that Shkolnikov is analogous art. Moreover, Petitioner cannot rely on the Board to make new findings regarding analogous art in a final written decision.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “1011). Paper 19. Because consideration of Dr. D’Andrea’s Declaration does not change the outcome in favor of Patent Owner in this final written decision, the motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,106,748 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,106,748
• Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited / Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00805 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3–7, 18–20, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44, and 45 are unpatentable under § 103 over Wang with Kawamata, Wang with Lantsman, or Wang with Lantsman and Kawamata.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “Subsequent to institution, we granted revised Motions for Joinder filed by other Petitioners listed in the Caption above, joining Cases IPR2014-00851, IPR2014-00990, and IPR2014-01069 with the instant trial (see Papers 12, 13), and also granted a Joint Motion to Terminate with respect to TSMC (Paper 30).5 Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 27, “PO Resp.”), along with a Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D. (Ex. 2015) to support its positions. Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 41, “Reply”) to the Patent Owner Response, along with a Declaration of Lawrence J. Overzet, Ph.D (Ex. 1126). An oral hearing6 was held on June 8, 2015. A transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 49 (“Tr.”).” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the evidence before us, we determine that “creates” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean “to bring into existence,” consistent with the use of the word in the Specification and the plain and ordinary meaning thereof. See Create Definition, Merriam- Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 271 (10th edition 2000). Furthermore, the ’421 patent does not explicitly define “creates a weakly-ionized plasma.” While Patent Owner provides examples described in the Specification (PO Resp. 18), we will not import the suggested “ignition” limitation into the claim. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also, SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim 14 language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”). As such, we interpret the term “creates a weakly-ionized plasma” as “brings into existence a weakly-ionized plasma,” and do not limit the claim to a circumstance that the gas is ignited from a state in which there is no existing plasma, as proposed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Given the evidence before us in the entire record, for the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that Wang discloses a “power supply that generates a voltage pulse between the anode and the cathode assembly that 25 creates a weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma.”” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Petitioner asserts “[o]ne of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kawamata in Wang, e.g., using input power to control the density of the plasma and thereby control the temperature of the sputtering material so as to control the sputtering yield,” because “[b]oth Wang and Kawamata provide ways to enhance the sputtering rate” and it “would have been a combination of old elements in which each element behaved as expected.” Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 118–120). Beyond the arguments provided with respect to the independent claims, which we do not find persuasive for the reasons discussed above, Patent Owner does not provide separate arguments or otherwise address claims 3–5, 18–20, 36, 40, and 41 in its Response. We have reviewed 32 Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding these dependent claims (Pet. 39–42, 24–29; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 76–79, 83, 85–86, 89, 116–120, 122, 124– 125; Ex. 1109, 2:6–9, 3:18–20, 3:34–38, 5:66–6:3, 7:36–40, 7:53–58, Figs. 1, 2; Ex. 1104, 4:27–29; Ex. 1101, 2:9–10, 9:57–61), and, given the evidence in the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that the combination of Wang and Kawamata renders obvious each of claims 3–5, 18–20, 36, 40, and 41.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,811,421 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,811,421
• Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited / Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00802 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9, 14, 21, 26, 35, and 37 are unpatentable under § 103 over Wang with Kudryavtsev or Mozgrin Thesis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “weakly-ionized plasma” and “strongly-ionized plasma” Each of the independent claims from which the challenged claims depend recites “creat[ing] a weakly-ionized plasma and then a 6 strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma.” Ex. 1201, 22:18–20, 23:14–16, 24:17–19. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, in light of the Specification, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of each of these claim terms. Inst. Dec. 9–11; see, e.g., Ex. 1201, 9:24–25 (“the weakly-ionized plasma 232 has a low-level of ionization”), 12:11–12 (“The strongly-ionized plasma 268 is also referred to as a high-density plasma.”). Neither party has challenged our claim constructions as to these terms. PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2015 ¶ 20; Reply 2; Ex. 1228 ¶¶ 26–28. Upon consideration of the complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change our claim constructions set forth in the Institution Decision with respect to these claim terms. See Inst. Dec. 9–11. Therefore, 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,” and the claim term “a strongly-ionized plasma” as “a plasma with a relatively high peak density of ions.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageNo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “We first address Patent Owner’s argument that the claims require no arcing during creation of the weakly-ionized plasma. Here, Patent Owner improperly attempts to import extraneous limitations into the claim by arguing repeatedly that the claims require that arcing is avoided, even on plasma ignition. See, e.g., PO Resp. 11, 14, 16, 18, 28; Tr. 59:22–62:7. Patent Owner’s interpretation, however, is not consistent with the language of the claims, particularly when considered in view of the Specification. The plain claim language of the independent claims, which recite “creat[ing] a weakly-ionized plasma and then a strongly-ionized plasma without an occurrence of arcing,” supports a claim construction where the claim phrase “without an occurrence of arcing” modifies only the portion of the claim reciting the transition to a strongly-ionized plasma from a weakly-ionized plasma. Further, as seen in the quoted portions of the Specification set forth above, the Specification of the ’421 patent describes the weakly-ionized plasma as substantially eliminating the setup of a breakdown condition, and thus arcing, when the high-power pulses are applied across the weakly-ionized plasma to generate a strongly-ionized plasma from the weakly-ionized plasma; the Specification does not support Patent Owner’s assertion that the setup of a breakdown condition, or arcing, also be substantially eliminated when the weakly-ionized plasma itself is formed. In fact, the Specification indicates that it is the presence of the weakly-ionized plasma that provides for the ability to substantially eliminate arcing when the high-power pulses are applied. See Ex. 1201, 9:16–28, 15:66–16:5. Accordingly, we decline to construe the claims to require creation of the 9 weakly-ionized plasma without an occurrence of arcing. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (stating that the Board’s claim construction “cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence”); see also In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that the Board’s claim construction “must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach”).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “The parties’ dispute with respect to this term focuses on the application of the cited art to the claims, rather than on a particular meaning of the term itself. For this reason, we do not provide an express construction for this term. Instead, we address the parties’ arguments regarding the usage of the term “pulse” in more detail below, in the context of applying the cited art to the claims.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelOther

    “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; see Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976). 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 Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,811,421 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,811,421

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.