Applied Materials Inc v. Demaray LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-00103
• Patent #: 7,544,276
• Filed: October 23, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Applied Materials, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Demaray LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Sputtering Reactor with Pulsed DC Power and RF Bias
• Brief Description: The ’276 patent discloses a plasma sputtering reactor for depositing films on a substrate. The system uses a pulsed DC power supply coupled to a sputtering target and a separate RF power supply to bias the substrate, with a narrow band-rejection filter positioned between the DC supply and the target to prevent RF interference from affecting the DC supply.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Barber and Hirose - Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are obvious over Barber in view of Hirose.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Barber (Patent 6,342,134) and Hirose (Patent 6,485,602).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Barber disclosed all elements of independent claims 1 and 6 except for the claimed "narrow band-rejection filter." Barber taught a reactive sputtering system with a pulsed DC power supply (230) coupled to a target (260) and a separate RF bias power supply (235) coupled to the substrate (110). Petitioner contended that Hirose remedied this deficiency by teaching a plasma processing apparatus with two power supplies operating at different frequencies. Hirose explicitly disclosed using filter circuits (20, 21) to isolate the power supplies from each other, preventing high-frequency current from one from reaching the other. Petitioner asserted that Hirose’s LC series resonant circuit was a well-known type of band-rejection filter.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Hirose's filter with Barber's reactor to solve the known problem of RF interference in systems using both DC and RF power. This interference could damage the DC power supply and degrade the stability of the pulsed DC waveform, which Barber taught was critical for controlling film quality. A POSITA would have been motivated to add the filter to protect the equipment and optimize the deposition process, which were recognized goals in the art.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as combining a known filter element (Hirose) into a standard sputtering reactor configuration (Barber) to solve a known interference problem was a predictable application of established electrical engineering principles.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Barber, Hirose, and Aokura - Claims 4 and 5 are obvious over Barber in view of Hirose and Aokura.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Barber (Patent 6,342,134), Hirose (Patent 6,485,602), and Aokura (Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH10102247A).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Barber-Hirose combination to address the limitations of claims 4 and 5, which pertained to the magnet's scanning motion. While Barber disclosed a rotating magnet assembly for uniform target erosion, it did not teach the specific claimed motion where the magnet "scans across the target in a first direction and extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction" and "extends beyond the target." Petitioner argued that Aokura taught this precise configuration, disclosing a magnet (14) that scans across a rectangular target (6) and extends beyond the target's edges to ensure the entire target surface is eroded uniformly, thereby improving target utilization.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Aokura's more efficient magnet scanning technique into the Barber-Hirose system to improve deposition uniformity and extend the operational life of the sputtering target. This modification addressed a well-known objective in the field of physical vapor deposition.
  • Expectation of Success: Implementing a known magnet scanning system into a sputtering reactor was a straightforward mechanical modification with predictable results for improving target erosion uniformity.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Barber, Hirose, and Yamazaki - Claim 9 is obvious over Barber in view of Hirose and Yamazaki.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Barber (Patent 6,342,134), Hirose (Patent 6,485,602), and Yamazaki (Patent 6,657,260).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 9, which depended from claim 6 and added the limitation that the target is a "ceramic target." Barber disclosed using metallic (aluminum) and semiconductor (silicon) targets but not ceramic ones. Petitioner argued that Yamazaki taught the use of a ceramic aluminum nitride (AlN) target to deposit an aluminum oxynitride film in a reactive sputtering process.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute Yamazaki's ceramic target into the Barber-Hirose system to expand its processing capabilities. Using a ceramic target would allow for the deposition of different types of films known to be useful in semiconductor devices, a field of use explicitly mentioned in Barber. The process gases required by Yamazaki (argon, nitrogen, oxygen) were already disclosed as being available in Barber's system.
  • Expectation of Success: The substitution of one known target material for another to deposit a different, but also known, film type was a predictable and routine modification for a POSITA in the semiconductor manufacturing field.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Barber and Hirose with other tertiary references, including Sproul, Laird, and Segal, to meet various dependent claim limitations related to alloyed and rare-earth targets. Furthermore, Grounds 8-14 re-asserted the combinations of Grounds 1-7 with the additional teaching of Belkind (a 2000 technical article) to further support the obviousness of using a pulsed DC power supply that provides alternating positive and negative voltages.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate under both 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and §314(a).
• Regarding §325(d), Petitioner argued that although the reference Belkind was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution, the Examiner never substantively considered or relied upon it to reject the claims. Therefore, the arguments and evidence presented in the petition were not cumulative.
• Regarding §314(a) and the Fintiv factors, Petitioner contended that the parallel district court litigations were in their infancy, with no trial date scheduled and minimal investment of resources by the parties or the court. Petitioner also argued that there was not a complete overlap between the invalidity grounds in the IPR and those in the litigation, and that Petitioner was not a party to the co-pending Texas litigations.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of Patent 7,544,276 as unpatentable.