PTAB

IPR2014-00496

Intel Corp v. Zond LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Generating a Strongly-Ionized Plasma
  • Brief Description: The ’142 patent describes a method and apparatus for generating plasma while reducing the probability of electrical arcing. The invention involves a two-stage process: first generating a "weakly-ionized plasma" to create a stable condition, and then applying a high-power electrical pulse to transition it into a "strongly-ionized plasma" suitable for applications like sputtering.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev - Claims 21, 26-28, 31, 37, and 38 are obvious over Mozgrin in view of Kudryavtsev.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mozgrin (a 1995 article titled High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a Magnetic Field) and Kudryavtsev (a 1983 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 discloses all elements of the independent claims. Mozgrin describes a plasma generation process with four distinct regions, teaching that starting with a "pre-ionization" stage (Region 1) prevents the formation of an arc discharge. Petitioner contended this pre-ionization plasma is the claimed "weakly-ionized plasma reducing the probability of developing an electrical breakdown condition." Subsequently applying a high-voltage pulse transitions the plasma to a "high-current magnetron discharge" (Region 2), which Petitioner mapped to the claimed "strongly-ionized plasma." The teachings of Kudryavtsev on "stepwise ionization" explain the underlying physics of how applying a pulse to a weakly-ionized gas creates an explosive increase in plasma density via excited atoms, directly corresponding to the ’142 patent’s claimed ionization mechanism.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references because Mozgrin explicitly cites Kudryavtsev when discussing the design of its experimental pulsed power supply unit. A POSITA reading Mozgrin would have been directly motivated to consult Kudryavtsev to better understand the effects of applying a voltage pulse to a pre-ionized gas to optimize the process.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded the predictable result of increasing the ionization rate and plasma density. This would predictably increase the sputtering rate, a known goal in the art.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Mozgrin Thesis - Claims 24 and 32 are obvious over Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev in view of the Mozgrin Thesis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mozgrin (1995 article), Kudryavtsev (1983 article), and Mozgrin Thesis (a 1994 thesis by the same author as the Mozgrin article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses dependent claims 24 and 32, which add the limitation that the applied electric field is a "quasi-static electric field." Petitioner asserted that the primary Mozgrin article does not specify the pulse duration necessary to make this determination. However, the Mozgrin Thesis, written by the same author on the same research, provides oscillograms showing the pulse duration is approximately 250 microseconds. Petitioner argued that this duration is significantly greater than the calculated electron collision time (approx. 1.88 nanoseconds), thereby satisfying the patent's definition of a quasi-static field.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Mozgrin with the Mozgrin Thesis because they are by the same author and describe the same research. The thesis merely provides additional, clarifying detail for the material already disclosed in the primary article, and a POSITA would naturally look to it for a more complete understanding of the experiment.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Wang and Kudryavtsev - Claims 21, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 37, and 38 are obvious over Wang in view of Kudryavtsev.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wang (Patent 6,413,382) and Kudryavtsev (1983 article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wang, which teaches a pulsed magnetron sputtering device, discloses the core two-stage plasma generation process. Wang uses a low-level "background power" (PB) to maintain an existing plasma, which Petitioner equated to the claimed "weakly-ionized plasma." Wang explicitly teaches that maintaining this plasma between pulses reduces arcing. Wang then applies a high "peak power" (PP) pulse, which "increases the density of the plasma," corresponding to the claimed "strongly-ionized plasma." The power levels disclosed in Wang for both stages fall within the ranges described in the ’142 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Wang's system, which applies voltage pulses that "suddenly generate an electric field," would be motivated to consult Kudryavtsev's foundational work on ionization in weakly ionized gases. The goal would be to better understand and optimize the rapid ionization process to increase plasma density and, consequently, the sputtering rate, a primary objective in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: Incorporating the teachings of Kudryavtsev into Wang's system would predictably lead to an "explosive increase" in plasma density through stepwise ionization, a known and desirable outcome for enhancing sputtering efficiency.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for the broadest reasonable construction of key terms based on the specification.
  • "weakly-ionized plasma": Should be construed as "a lower density plasma."
  • "strongly-ionized plasma": Should be construed as "a higher density plasma."
  • Petitioner noted these constructions were consistent with the Patent Owner's own arguments during prosecution of a related European patent application, where it stated that a skilled person would understand these terms simply refer to relative ionization levels.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 21, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 37, and 38 of the ’142 patent as unpatentable.