PTAB

IPR2014-00495

Intel Corp v. Zond LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus and Method for Generating a Strongly-Ionized Plasma
  • Brief Description: The ’142 patent discloses an apparatus and method for generating plasma for applications like sputtering. The invention purports to reduce electrical arcing by first creating a "weakly-ionized plasma" and then applying a high-power electrical pulse to transition it into a "strongly-ionized plasma."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Obviousness over Mozgrin and Lantsman - Claim 14 is obvious over Mozgrin in view of Lantsman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mozgrin (a 1995 plasma physics research article) and Lantsman (Patent 6,190,512).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mozgrin disclosed the core limitations of the challenged claims. Mozgrin taught a two-stage plasma discharge process: a "pre-ionization stage" (region 1) followed by a "high-current magnetron discharge" (region 2) suitable for sputtering. Petitioner contended Mozgrin's pre-ionization plasma is equivalent to the claimed "weakly-ionized plasma," and the high-current discharge is the "strongly-ionized plasma." Critically, Mozgrin explicitly stated that using pre-ionization reduces the probability of the discharge "transferring to arc mode," directly teaching the key benefit recited in the claims. Lantsman was introduced as teaching the conventional practice of supplying a feed gas continuously throughout the entire plasma process to maintain stable pressure.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Mozgrin and Lantsman because both references are directed to plasma sputtering and share the common goal of avoiding arcing. A POSITA would have found it obvious to apply the conventional continuous gas flow technique taught by Lantsman to Mozgrin’s system to maintain a desired, stable pressure during operation, which is a standard requirement for industrial sputtering processes.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success, as the combination involved applying a standard gas handling technique (Lantsman) to a known plasma generation system (Mozgrin) to achieve the predictable result of stable process pressure.

Ground II: Obviousness over Wang and Lantsman - Claims 13 and 14 are obvious over Wang in view of Lantsman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wang (Patent 6,413,382) and Lantsman (’512 patent).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Wang represented a commercial implementation of the principles taught in Mozgrin. Wang disclosed a pulsed magnetron sputtering device that used two power levels: a low "background power" to sustain a low-density plasma between pulses, and a high "peak power" pulse to create a high-density plasma for sputtering. Petitioner mapped Wang’s low-density background plasma to the claimed "weakly-ionized plasma" and its high-density pulsed plasma to the "strongly-ionized plasma." Wang taught that maintaining the background plasma reduces arcing during ignition. The combination with Lantsman was for the same purpose as in Ground I: to add the obvious and conventional step of continuous feed gas exchange.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was similar to Ground I. Wang and Lantsman both addressed plasma sputtering systems using two power supplies (one for pre-ionization/sustainment, one for deposition) and aimed to reduce process-damaging arcing. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Lantsman's continuous gas flow into Wang’s system to ensure stable operating pressure, a known requirement for reliable sputtering.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results, as it involved integrating a standard gas flow method with a well-described commercial sputtering system.

Ground III: Obviousness over Mozgrin, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev - Claims 2 and 11 are obvious over Mozgrin and Lantsman in view of Kudryavtsev.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mozgrin, Lantsman (’512 patent), and Kudryavtsev (a 1983 technical paper on ionization relaxation).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground I to address the limitations of dependent claims 2 and 11, which recite that the electrical pulse excites atoms and generates secondary electrons that, in turn, ionize the excited atoms. Petitioner argued Kudryavtsev provided the scientific basis for this "multi-step ionization" process. Kudryavtsev described how applying a sudden electric field to a weakly ionized gas first creates excited atoms, and once a sufficient population of these atoms exists, ionization occurs rapidly through collisions with electrons (including secondary electrons). This leads to an "explosive increase" in electron density, explaining the transition from a weak to a strong plasma.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner highlighted that Mozgrin explicitly cited Kudryavtsev when discussing the design of its pulsed power supply unit. This provided a direct and compelling motivation for a POSITA to consult Kudryavtsev to understand and optimize the ionization dynamics of the Mozgrin system. A POSITA would have been motivated to use Kudryavtsev's teachings to ensure the "fast stage" of ionization was triggered, thereby increasing sputtering rates.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was expected to succeed because Kudryavtsev provided the underlying theory for the exact phenomena observed and utilized in Mozgrin's experimental system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combining Wang, Lantsman, and Kudryavtsev, as well as combinations including the Mozgrin Thesis (a more detailed version of the Mozgrin article) to provide further evidence on pulse parameters like rise time.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for the following constructions based on the specification and the patent owner's statements in a related European prosecution:
    • "weakly-ionized plasma": should be construed as "a lower density plasma."
    • "strongly-ionized plasma": should be construed as "a higher density plasma."
  • These constructions were central to Petitioner's argument, as they allowed mapping the prior art's descriptions of low-density pre-ionization or background plasmas and high-density discharge plasmas directly onto the claim terms.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 2, 11, 13, 14, and 16 of the ’142 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.