PTAB

IPR2014-00443

Intel Corp v. Zond LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Magnetically Enhanced Sputtering Source
  • Brief Description: The ’759 patent discloses a two-stage sputtering technique that generates a strongly-ionized plasma from a weakly-ionized plasma. The process involves applying a specific high-voltage pulse to induce a "multi-step ionization process" designed to avoid undesirable arc discharges.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Obviousness over Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev - Claims 1, 10, and 18 are obvious over Mozgrin in view of Kudryavtsev.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mozgrin (a 1995 journal article titled "High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a Magnetic Field") and Kudryavtsev (a 1983 journal article titled "Ionization relaxation in a plasma produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mozgrin teaches all elements of independent claim 1. Specifically, Mozgrin discloses a magnetically enhanced sputtering source that first generates a pre-ionized (i.e., weakly-ionized) plasma and then applies a high-voltage pulse to transition the plasma into a high-current magnetron discharge (i.e., a strongly-ionized plasma) suitable for sputtering. Crucially, Petitioner asserted that Mozgrin explicitly teaches how to operate the system in arc-free regions by controlling discharge parameters, directly mapping onto the "without forming an arc discharge" limitation that was key to the patent's allowance.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Mozgrin with Kudryavtsev because Mozgrin expressly cites Kudryavtsev, stating its teachings were taken into account when designing the experimental pulsed power supply. A POSITA reading Mozgrin would have been motivated to consult Kudryavtsev to better understand the effects of the voltage pulse, specifically how to achieve the "explosive increase" in plasma density via multi-step ionization that Kudryavtsev describes, in order to increase the sputtering rate and efficiency of the Mozgrin system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involves applying Kudryavtsev’s well-understood plasma ionization principles to Mozgrin’s disclosed apparatus to achieve the predictable result of enhanced plasma density and sputtering performance.

Ground V: Obviousness over Wang and Kudryavtsev - Claims 1, 4, 10, and 12 are obvious over Wang in view of Kudryavtsev.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wang (Patent 6,413,382) and Kudryavtsev (the 1983 journal article).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Wang, which describes a commercial-grade pulsed magnetron sputtering system, discloses the core elements of claim 1. Wang teaches using a low-level background power to maintain a weakly-ionized plasma, followed by the application of a high-power pulse to generate a strongly-ionized plasma for "highly ionized sputtering." Petitioner argued that Wang explicitly teaches a method to reduce arcing by performing the initial plasma ignition only once, thereby satisfying the "without forming an arc discharge" limitation during the main sputtering process.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Wang and Kudryavtsev is analogous to Ground I. Wang applies voltage pulses that suddenly generate an electric field in a weakly-ionized gas. A POSITA seeking to optimize Wang's commercial sputtering process would have been motivated to consult Kudryavtsev's foundational teachings on multi-step ionization to increase plasma density, improve the sputtering rate, and reduce the time required to reach a target density.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would yield the predictable result of enhanced multi-step ionization and increased plasma density within Wang's established sputtering framework.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including:

    • Claims 4 and 44 over Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin's 1994 Thesis to provide further detail on the quasi-static electric field and pulse rise time.
    • Dependent claims 10-12 over combinations including Li (a 2000 journal article) to add known elements like a substrate support, temperature controller, and bias voltage supply.
    • Dependent claim 17 over combinations including Muller-Horsche (Patent 5,247,531) to show the obviousness of using a UV source for pre-ionization.
    • Dependent claim 18 over combinations including Kobayashi (Patent 5,968,327) to show the obviousness of using an electromagnet.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "weakly-ionized plasma" / "strongly-ionized plasma": Petitioner proposed these terms be construed based on relative plasma density, consistent with the patent's disclosure and the patent owner's statements in a related European prosecution. "Weakly-ionized plasma" means "a lower density plasma," and "strongly-ionized plasma" means "a higher density plasma."
  • "multi-step ionization process": Citing the patent and its file history, Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "an ionization process in which a statistically significant portion of the ions are produced by exciting ground state atoms or molecules and then ionizing the excited atoms or molecules." This construction was central to distinguishing the claimed invention from processes dominated by direct ionization.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Mischaracterization of Prior Art During Prosecution: A central pillar of the petition was the argument that the patent owner overcame prior art rejections by mischaracterizing Mozgrin. The patent owner successfully argued for allowance by adding the "without forming an arc discharge" limitation and asserting Mozgrin failed to teach it. Petitioner contended this was incorrect, arguing that Mozgrin's detailed analysis of different plasma discharge regimes, including the arc-free sputtering regime, provides a clear "recipe for avoiding arcing," rendering the distinguishing limitation obvious.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1, 4, 10-12, 17, 18, and 44 of the ’759 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.