PTAB

IPR2014-00686

Intel Corp v. Zond LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Generating Plasma with Multi-Step Ionization
  • Brief Description: The ’779 patent relates to plasma generators that use a multi-step ionization process. The system employs a distinct source to generate excited or metastable atoms from a ground-state gas, which are then supplied to a separate plasma chamber where an energy source ionizes them to form a plasma.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground I: Obviousness over Mozgrin, Kudryavtsev, and Pinsley - Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43 are obvious over Mozgrin in view of Kudryavtsev and Pinsley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mozgrin (a 1995 plasma physics journal article), Kudryavtsev (a 1983 technical paper on ionization relaxation), and Pinsley (Patent 3,761,836).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mozgrin discloses a base plasma generator system that utilizes pre-ionization followed by a high-voltage pulse. Kudryavtsev, which is explicitly cited by Mozgrin, teaches that multi-step ionization via the accumulation of excited atoms can "explosively" increase plasma density. This provides the scientific basis and motivation for enhancing a system like Mozgrin's. Pinsley, in the analogous art of gas lasers, discloses an excited atom source that uses magnets to trap electrons proximate to ground state atoms, thereby increasing the efficiency of generating excited atoms. The combination of these references, Petitioner asserted, teaches all limitations of the challenged claims, including a distinct excited atom source (Pinsley) coupled to a plasma chamber (Mozgrin) to achieve a multi-step ionization process (Kudryavtsev).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) reading Mozgrin would be motivated to consult Kudryavtsev, as Mozgrin’s system was designed based on its teachings. Kudryavtsev’s disclosure that accumulating excited atoms dramatically increases plasma density would motivate a POSITA to add an external source of excited atoms to Mozgrin’s system to improve its performance. Gas lasers, such as the one disclosed in Pinsley, were a well-known source of excited atoms, making Pinsley a natural and logical choice to supply the excited atoms called for by Kudryavtsev.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the references operate on well-understood principles of plasma physics. Combining a known excited atom source (Pinsley) with a plasma chamber (Mozgrin) to leverage the ionization principles described by Kudryavtsev would be a straightforward integration of known components to achieve a predictable result.

Ground II: Anticipation by Iwamura - Claim 43 is anticipated by Iwamura.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Iwamura (Patent 5,753,886).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Iwamura discloses every limitation of claim 43. Iwamura teaches a plasma treatment apparatus with a multi-step process where a gas first passes through an upstream "preexcitation unit" (the claimed "excited atom source") that uses RF or UV energy to excite ground state atoms. These excited atoms then flow into a downstream "treatment chamber" (the claimed "plasma chamber") where a second energy source further energizes them to generate a final plasma. Petitioner further asserted that Iwamura discloses a pressure differential between the smaller cross-sectional area of the upstream preexcitation unit and the larger treatment chamber, which increases the density and generation rate of excited atoms, thus meeting another key limitation of claim 43.

Ground III: Obviousness over Iwamura and Angelbeck - Claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, and 23 are obvious over Iwamura in view of 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 argued that Iwamura teaches the foundational two-stage plasma generation system, including a distinct excited atom source coupled to a plasma chamber. However, Iwamura’s preferred embodiments use RF or UV sources, not the magnet recited in claims dependent on independent claims 1 and 18. Angelbeck, whose lead inventor was a co-inventor on the Pinsley patent, discloses a gas laser that generates a high density of excited atoms and explicitly teaches using a transverse magnetic field to trap electrons. This trapping mechanism increases electron temperature and improves the efficiency of excitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that both the ’779 patent and Iwamura present the specific method for generating excited atoms as a non-critical design choice with many known alternatives. A POSITA seeking to improve the efficiency of Iwamura’s excited atom source would have been motivated to look to analogous arts, such as gas lasers, for known optimization techniques. Angelbeck provides such a technique: using a magnetic field to trap electrons and boost excitation efficiency. A POSITA would have been motivated to substitute or add Angelbeck’s magnet-based system into Iwamura’s apparatus to achieve the predictable benefit of more efficient excited atom generation.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been successful because it involved applying a known efficiency-enhancement technique (Angelbeck's magnets) to a known component (Iwamura's excited atom source) in a standard plasma generation architecture.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 5, 6, 8, 19, 22, 23, and 43 of the ’779 patent as unpatentable.