PTAB

IPR2014-00444

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 describes a two-stage technique for sputtering, an industrial process for depositing thin films. The invention claims a method and apparatus that generates a high-density, "strongly-ionized plasma" from a lower-density, "weakly-ionized plasma" using a high-voltage pulse to induce a "multi-step ionization process," allegedly in a manner that avoids electrical arcing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev - Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 13-16, 19, 41-43, and 45 are obvious over Mozgrin in view of Kudryavtsev.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mozgrin (a 1995 plasma physics research article) and Kudryavtsev (a 1983 technical paper on plasma ionization).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mozgrin, a reference overcome during prosecution, teaches all key limitations of the challenged claims. Mozgrin described a sputtering system that first creates a "pre-ionization" plasma (the claimed "weakly-ionized plasma") and then applies a high-voltage pulse to create a "high-current magnetron discharge" (the claimed "strongly-ionized plasma") suitable for sputtering. Crucially, Petitioner asserted that the ’759 patent was only allowed after adding a "without forming an arc discharge" limitation, based on the patent owner’s incorrect assertion that Mozgrin did not teach avoiding arcs. Petitioner contended that Mozgrin explicitly teaches how to operate the system within specific current-voltage regimes to avoid transitioning into an arc discharge. Kudryavtsev was introduced to provide the explicit teachings of the "multi-step ionization process" limitation, which involves atoms transitioning to an excited state before being ionized.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Mozgrin expressly cited Kudryavtsev as a source it "took into account" when designing its experimental pulsed power supply. A POSITA reading Mozgrin would have been directly motivated to consult Kudryavtsev to better understand the plasma ionization dynamics, such as multi-step ionization, that occur when applying a sudden voltage pulse to a weakly ionized gas.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because applying Kudryavtsev’s detailed analysis of multi-step ionization to Mozgrin’s sputtering system would predictably explain and allow for optimization of the rapid increase in plasma density observed in Mozgrin, thereby improving the sputtering rate.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Wang and Kudryavtsev - Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 13-15, 19, and 41-43 are obvious over Wang in view of Kudryavtsev.

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

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Wang, which describes a commercial-grade pulsed magnetron sputtering system, discloses a practical implementation of the concepts in the ’759 patent. Wang teaches using a low "background power" level to maintain a low-density plasma (mapping to the "weakly-ionized plasma") between pulses. It then applies a high "peak power" pulse to generate a high-density plasma for sputtering (mapping to the "strongly-ionized plasma"). Wang also explicitly teaches that maintaining the background plasma avoids the need for re-ignition, which in turn reduces the "initial arcing" that can occur during plasma ignition. Kudryavtsev was again relied upon for its detailed disclosure of the "multi-step ionization" process.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wang and Kudryavtsev to optimize the performance of Wang’s commercial sputtering system. Because Wang applies voltage pulses that suddenly generate an electric field, a POSITA would be motivated to consult Kudryavtsev’s foundational work to better understand and leverage the "explosive increase" in plasma density caused by multi-step ionization, thereby increasing the sputtering rate and efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: There was a high expectation of success because Wang’s system, which operates with power levels falling within the ranges disclosed by the ’759 patent, is precisely the type of system where Kudryavtsev's principles on multi-step ionization would apply, leading to the predictable result of increased plasma density.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 16 and 45 based on the combination of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin. This ground argued for modifying Wang’s DC power supply with an AC power supply as taught by Mozgrin, and that the combined teachings rendered the claimed voltage ranges obvious.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "weakly-ionized plasma" / "strongly-ionized plasma": Petitioner argued these terms should be construed as relative plasma densities. "Weakly-ionized plasma" was proposed to mean "a lower density plasma," and "strongly-ionized plasma" was proposed to mean "a higher density plasma." This construction was supported by the patent specification and the patent owner's own statements during prosecution of a related European application.
  • "multi-step ionization process": 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 based on the patent’s file history, where the patent owner distinguished prior art by arguing it did not generate a statistically significant number of ions via this two-step pathway.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 2, 3, 5-9, 13-16, 19, 41-43, and 45 of Patent 7,147,759 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.