PTAB

IPR2014-00445

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 method and apparatus for generating a sputtering flux using a two-stage plasma process. The method involves first creating a low-density, weakly-ionized plasma from a feed gas and then applying a high-voltage pulse to induce a multi-step ionization process, converting it into a high-density, strongly-ionized plasma for sputtering while avoiding arc discharge.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev - Claims 20 and 34 are obvious over Mozgrin in view of Kudryavtsev.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mozgrin (a 1995 article in Plasma Physics Reports) and Kudryavtsev (a 1983 article in Soviet Physics Technical Physics).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mozgrin disclosed all limitations of independent claim 20. Mozgrin taught a method for sputtering that involved a "pre-ionization stage" (the claimed "weakly-ionized plasma") followed by the application of a voltage pulse to create a "high-current magnetron discharge" (the claimed "strongly-ionized plasma"). Critically, Petitioner asserted that while Mozgrin discussed arcing, it did so in the context of providing a "recipe for avoiding" it by controlling discharge parameters to remain in arc-free operating regions. Kudryavtsev, which was cited by Mozgrin, was alleged to supply the explicit teaching of a "multi-step ionization" process, where applying a voltage pulse to a weakly-ionized gas creates excited atoms that are then ionized, leading to an "explosive increase" in plasma density.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references because Mozgrin expressly cited Kudryavtsev and stated its experimental apparatus was designed taking Kudryavtsev's teachings into account. A POSITA reading Mozgrin would have been motivated to consult Kudryavtsev to fully understand and optimize the underlying plasma physics of the ionization process, particularly the rapid density increase caused by the voltage pulse.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as yielding predictable results. Applying the known principles of multi-step ionization from Kudryavtsev to the sputtering system described in Mozgrin would predictably result in an efficient, high-density plasma generation process without arcing, which was the goal of both the prior art and the ’759 patent.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Wang and Kudryavtsev - Claims 20, 21, 34, 36, and 47 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 contended that Wang, which described a commercial-grade pulsed magnetron sputtering device, disclosed the core elements of claim 20. Wang taught using a low-level "background power" to maintain a plasma (the "weakly-ionized plasma") and then applying a high-power pulse to generate a high-density plasma for sputtering (the "strongly-ionized plasma"). Petitioner argued Wang explicitly taught avoiding arcing by igniting the plasma only once and then maintaining it with the background power between pulses. As in the first ground, Kudryavtsev was asserted to provide the scientific explanation for the "multi-step ionization" and creation of "excited atoms" that occurs during Wang's high-power pulse.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Wang and Kudryavtsev to better understand, control, and optimize the plasma behavior in Wang's sputtering system. Because Wang described applying a sudden voltage pulse to a weakly-ionized gas, a POSITA would have turned to a fundamental text like Kudryavtsev, which explained the ionization dynamics in such a scenario, to increase plasma density and improve sputtering rates.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected to successfully apply the principles from Kudryavtsev to the Wang system. The combination was characterized as the application of established plasma physics to a known sputtering apparatus, which would predictably enhance its performance without requiring undue experimentation.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the primary combinations of Mozgrin/Kudryavtsev and Wang/Kudryavtsev. These grounds added further references to address specific dependent claim limitations, including: Mozgrin Thesis (for further detail on pulse characteristics), Li (for film temperature control and bias voltage), Yamaguchi (for using a heated electrode as an ionization source), and Muller-Horsche (for using a UV source for ionization).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "weakly-ionized plasma" / "strongly-ionized plasma": Petitioner proposed these terms should be construed based on relative plasma density. A "weakly-ionized plasma" is "a lower density plasma," and a "strongly-ionized plasma" is "a higher density plasma." This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent's specification and the patent owner's 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 produce a "statistically significant" amount of ions via this two-step pathway.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 20, 21, 34-36, 38, 39, 47, and 49 of the ’759 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.