PTAB

IPR2014-00598

Intel Corp v. Zond LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multi-Step Ionization Reactor
  • Brief Description: The ’779 patent discloses a plasma generator using a multi-step ionization process. The system comprises an "excited atom source" that generates excited or metastable atoms from a feed gas; these excited atoms are then coupled to a separate plasma chamber where a second energy source ionizes them to form a plasma with allegedly higher density.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley - Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29 are obvious over Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mozgrin (a 1995 plasma physics research article), Kudryavtsev (a 1983 technical paper on ionization in plasma), and Pinsley (Patent 3,761,836).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mozgrin taught a plasma generator capable of achieving high plasma density (the claimed "plasma chamber"). Kudryavtsev taught the underlying physics that a multi-step ionization process, which relies on a sufficient population of excited atoms, leads to an "explosive increase" in plasma density. Pinsley, disclosing a flowing gas laser, taught the claimed "excited atom source" that generates excited atoms from ground state atoms and, crucially, includes a magnet that generates a magnetic field to trap electrons proximate to the ground state atoms, thereby increasing excitation efficiency. The combination of Pinsley's source coupled to Mozgrin's chamber, informed by Kudryavtsev's teachings, allegedly rendered the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Mozgrin explicitly cited Kudryavtsev, directly linking the two arts and motivating a POSITA to apply Kudryavtsev's principles to improve Mozgrin's device. Kudryavtsev's teaching—that accumulating excited atoms is key to boosting plasma density—would have motivated a POSITA to seek a source of such atoms. Pinsley's gas laser was argued to be a well-known source of excited atoms, and its use of magnets to improve generation efficiency was a known technique that a POSITA would have readily incorporated to achieve the desired higher plasma density.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying established principles of plasma physics (Kudryavtsev) using known components (Pinsley's magnetic source, Mozgrin's chamber) to achieve the predictable result of increased plasma density.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Iwamura and Angelbeck - Claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29 are obvious over Iwamura and Angelbeck.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Iwamura (Patent 5,753,886) and Angelbeck (Patent 3,514,714).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Iwamura disclosed the core two-stage architecture of the ’779 patent: a plasma treatment apparatus with a "pre-excitation unit" (e.g., a UV lamp or microwave source) that creates excited atoms upstream, which then flow into a downstream plasma treatment chamber where a second energy source further energizes them to create the final plasma. This mapped directly to the claimed multi-step process involving a distinct "excited atom source" coupled to a "plasma chamber." However, Iwamura did not teach using a magnet in its source. Angelbeck was introduced to supply this missing element, as it taught a gas laser using a transverse magnetic field to increase the efficiency of excitation and create a "high density of excited atoms."
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation argued was that the specific method for generating excited atoms was a matter of simple design choice. The ’779 patent itself lists approximately twelve different types of energy sources for its excited atom source, indicating the non-criticality of any single method. Iwamura also disclosed multiple alternatives (UV, microwave, RF). A POSITA, seeking to improve the efficiency of Iwamura's system, would have been motivated to substitute Iwamura’s source with other known, more efficient methods. Angelbeck taught that applying a transverse magnetic field was one such method for increasing excitation efficiency and power output. Therefore, combining Angelbeck's magnetic source with Iwamura's two-stage system was presented as an obvious modification to improve performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in combining the references because it amounted to substituting one known functional block (Iwamura's excitation unit) with another known, more efficient block (Angelbeck's magnetic excitation unit) to achieve the predictable outcome of improved excited atom generation.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 10-15, 17, 18, 24-27, and 29 of the ’779 patent as unpatentable.