PTAB

IPR2020-00478

Favored Tech Corp v. P2i Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Coating of a Polymer Layer Using Low Power Pulsed Plasma in a Plasma Chamber of a Large Volume
  • Brief Description: The ’070 patent discloses methods for depositing a hydrophobic polymer layer onto a substrate using plasma polymerization. The core inventive concept asserted is the use of these known techniques within a large-volume plasma deposition chamber (≥ 0.5 m³) at specific low power densities.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Baalmann - Claims 1-3, 6, and 10-14 are anticipated by Baalmann.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baalmann (Application # 2001/0015284).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Baalmann, a reference not considered during prosecution, disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. Baalmann taught methods for applying hydrophobic plasma polymer coatings to large substrates (up to several meters long) in large plasma chambers. Specifically, Baalmann disclosed an exemplary plasma reactor with a 1 m³ volume, which satisfies the "at least 0.5 m³" limitation of claim 1 and the specific volume ranges of claims 2-3. Baalmann also taught using "clock-controlled" plasma ignition, which Petitioner contended disclosed the "pulsed field" limitation, and applying power densities "between 0.5 kW/m³ and 5 kW/m³," which explicitly disclosed the 500 W/m³ endpoint of the claimed range. Further, Baalmann disclosed using unsaturated organic compounds and organofluorines as monomers (claim 6) and admixing a helium carrier gas at a 1:1 ratio (claims 10-12).
    • Key Aspects: The argument relied on a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) understanding that Baalmann’s exemplary 1 m³ chamber, when operated as described, would have a plasma zone filling its entire volume, and that Baalmann's disclosed power density range inherently taught the claimed 500 W/m³ value.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Baalmann and Coulson - Claims 1-15 are obvious over Baalmann in view of Coulson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baalmann (Application # 2001/0015284) and Coulson (a 2000 journal article, "Ultralow Surface Energy Plasma Polymer Films").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Baalmann taught the foundational method of performing plasma polymerization in a large-scale chamber (1 m³), suitable for commercial applications. Coulson, authored by the lead inventor of the ’070 patent, described a laboratory-scale process using the same preferred monomer as the patent (HDFDA) and detailed empirically optimized reaction conditions, including specific pulse timings (20 µs on, 20,000 µs off) and power levels (average power density of 85.1 W/m³), to create highly effective hydrophobic coatings. The combination of Baalmann’s large-scale apparatus and Coulson’s optimized small-scale process allegedly rendered claims 1-15 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine these references for two primary reasons. First, one would be motivated to improve Baalmann’s general large-scale method by incorporating Coulson’s specific, empirically proven monomer (HDFDA) and optimized process parameters to achieve the superior coating properties Coulson reported. Second, a POSA starting with Coulson’s effective lab-scale process would be motivated to scale it up for commercial production by looking to a reference like Baalmann, which explicitly taught how to perform similar plasma coating processes in large-format chambers.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success. Plasma polymerization was known to be a scalable technique, and maintaining key process parameters like power density and pressure when increasing chamber volume was a predictable engineering task. Petitioner noted that the patent owner itself, during prosecution of a related Chinese application, argued that chamber volume would not have a substantial impact on the process and that the technical effect was "completely predictable."

Ground 3: Obviousness over Baalmann, Coulson, and Hillman - Claims 16 and 17 are obvious over Baalmann, Coulson, and Hillman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Baalmann (Application # 2001/0015284), Coulson (2000 journal article), and Hillman (Patent 5,451,258).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Baalmann and Coulson to address the temperature-related limitations of claims 16 and 17. Claim 16 requires supplying gas along a temperature gradient, and claim 17 requires heating the chamber. Hillman disclosed a gas delivery system for chemical vapor deposition that used thermal zones of progressively higher temperature along the supply line to prevent reactant gas from condensing. Hillman also disclosed heating the reaction chamber itself to ensure even monomer flow.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA implementing the Baalmann/Coulson process would know that the preferred monomer, HDFDA, is a liquid at ambient temperature and requires heating to vaporize for the process. This creates a known risk of condensation in cooler parts of the gas supply lines or chamber inlet, leading to uneven flow. A POSA would be motivated to incorporate Hillman’s teachings—supplying gas along a temperature gradient and heating the chamber—into the combined Baalmann/Coulson process to solve this well-known problem of condensation.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Hillman taught that its methods were broadly applicable to the delivery of various reactant gases, and preventing condensation by heating supply lines and reaction chambers was a common and well-understood practice in the art.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "plasma zone": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "the space containing plasma within a plasma chamber." This construction was critical to the anticipation argument, as it supported the view that Baalmann's 1 m³ chamber necessarily contained a 1 m³ plasma zone when operated with an electrode formed by the chamber wall.
  • "between 1 m³ and 10 m³": Petitioner argued this phrase in claim 3 should be construed to be inclusive of its endpoints (i.e., greater than or equal to 1 m³ and less than or equal to 10 m³). This allowed Baalmann's disclosure of a 1 m³ chamber to anticipate claim 3.
  • "1H, 1H, 2H, 3H-heptadecafluorodecylacylate": Petitioner contended that this chemical name in claim 9 contained two typographical errors. Based on the specification and chemical naming conventions, a POSA would understand it to mean "1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-heptadecafluorodecylacrylate" (HDFDA), the preferred monomer disclosed in the patent and in the Coulson reference.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’070 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.