PTAB

IPR2014-00456

Intel Corp v. Zond LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method of Generating Plasma
  • Brief Description: The ’184 patent discloses methods for generating a high-density, "strongly-ionized plasma" used in industrial processes like sputtering. The invention involves supplying a feed gas between an anode and a cathode assembly and applying a voltage pulse with controlled characteristics to rapidly increase plasma density without causing detrimental electrical arcing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev - Claims 6-10 and 16-20 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 Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys.).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mozgrin taught all elements of the challenged claims. Mozgrin described a sputtering system that generates a "strongly-ionized plasma" (identified as "high-current magnetron discharge" in its Region 2) by applying a square voltage pulse with a controlled rise time and amplitude. Crucially, Mozgrin described operating in specific "arc-free" regions (Regions 2 and 3) to achieve intense sputtering while explicitly teaching how to avoid the "arc discharge" region (Region 4). Kudryavtsev was argued to supply the express teaching of a "rapid increase in electron density," disclosing that applying a voltage pulse to a pre-ionized gas results in an "explosive increase" in electron density that is "several orders of magnitude greater than the ionization rate during the initial stage."
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been strongly motivated to combine these references because Mozgrin explicitly cited Kudryavtsev. Mozgrin stated its pulsed power supply was designed by taking "into account the dependences which had been obtained in [Kudryavtsev]," directly linking the two teachings.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the combination. Since Mozgrin’s experimental setup was designed based on Kudryavtsev's principles, a POSITA would expect that applying Kudryavtsev’s teachings about explosive ionization to Mozgrin’s arc-free sputtering system would predictably achieve the claimed rapid formation of a strongly-ionized plasma.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Wang and Kudryavtsev - Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are obvious over Wang in view of Kudryavtsev.

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

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Wang, which discloses a commercial-grade pulsed magnetron sputtering device, taught the generation of a "strongly-ionized plasma" without arcing. Wang described using a low-power background source to maintain a "weakly-ionized plasma" and then applying high-peak-power pulses to "quickly cause the already existing plasma to spread and increase the density," resulting in "highly ionized sputtering." This process inherently avoids arcing because the plasma does not need to be re-ignited for each pulse. As in Ground 1, Kudryavtsev was relied upon to supply the explicit teaching of a "rapid" and "explosive increase" in electron density upon the application of a voltage pulse.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references to optimize the commercial system in Wang. Because Wang’s system involves applying a voltage pulse to a weakly ionized gas, a POSITA would have been motivated to consult Kudryavtsev’s foundational work, which describes the characteristic ionization effects of such a process, to better understand and enhance the system’s performance and sputtering rate.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a predictable application of established plasma physics to a known sputtering apparatus. A POSITA would expect that applying the principles from Kudryavtsev to Wang’s device would predictably result in the rapid increase in electron density necessary for efficient high-density plasma formation.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 6-10 and 16-20 are obvious over Mozgrin in view of the Mozgrin Thesis (a 1994 publication by the same author providing more detail on the Mozgrin article's research), and that claims 8 and 18 are obvious over the three-way combination of Wang, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for constructions of key claim terms based on their relationship to plasma density, which was central to mapping the prior art disclosures.
    • "Strongly-ionized plasma": Proposed construction was "a higher density plasma."
    • "Weakly-ionized plasma": Proposed construction was "a lower density plasma."
  • Petitioner contended these constructions were consistent with the specification, which describes transitioning from a lower-power, weakly-ionized state to a higher-power, strongly-ionized state with a corresponding increase in plasma density. This interpretation allowed Petitioner to map prior art that described processes of increasing plasma density (e.g., from Mozgrin's Region 1 to Region 2, or from Wang's background plasma to its peak-power plasma) to the claim limitations.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 6-10 and 16-20 of the ’184 patent as unpatentable.