Intel Corp v. Demaray LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-01030
• Patent #: 7,544,276
• Filed: June 4, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Intel Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Demaray LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Sputtering Reactor with Pulsed DC and RF Bias Power Supplies
• Brief Description: The ’276 patent describes a plasma reactor for sputtering deposition of films onto a substrate. The system uses a pulsed DC power supply coupled to a sputtering target and a separate RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate, with a narrow band-rejection filter placed between the DC supply and the target to prevent RF interference from damaging the DC supply.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are obvious over Barber in view of Hirose

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Barber (Patent 6,342,134) and Hirose (Patent 6,485,602).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Barber taught a reactive sputtering system with all major components of claim 1 except the filter: a reactor with a target area, a substrate area, a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target, and an RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate. The key limitation missing from Barber was the "narrow band-rejection filter" coupled between the DC power supply and the target. Petitioner contended that Hirose disclosed using precisely this type of filter (a tunable LC series resonant circuit) in a plasma processing apparatus to isolate a first power supply from high-frequency current generated by a second power supply.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hirose's filter with Barber's system to solve a well-known problem: preventing the RF signal from the substrate bias supply (Barber's RF supply) from interfering with or damaging the target power supply (Barber's pulsed DC supply). The manufacturer of the power supply cited as an example in the ’276 patent explicitly recommended using an AC blocking filter for this purpose. This combination would predictably improve the stability of the DC waveform, leading to better control over the film deposition process.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved implementing a known solution (an RF filter) to address a known problem (RF interference) in a predictable electrical system.

Ground 2: Claims 4 and 5 are obvious over Barber, Hirose, and Aokura

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Barber (Patent 6,342,134), Hirose (Patent 6,485,602), and Aokura (Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH10102247A).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Barber-Hirose combination from Ground 1. Petitioner argued claims 4 and 5, which require a magnet that scans across the target and extends beyond the target’s edge in a perpendicular direction, were taught by Aokura. Aokura disclosed a magnetron sputtering apparatus with a scanning magnet that moves in a first direction and extends beyond the rectangular target in a second, perpendicular direction.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Aokura's scanning magnet design into the Barber-Hirose system to achieve more uniform target erosion. This technique was known to improve sputtering uniformity, increase the target's usable life, and enhance deposition rates—all highly desirable and predictable improvements for a sputtering system like Barber's.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because implementing known magnetron scanning techniques to improve erosion uniformity was a common practice in the field of sputtering deposition.

Ground 3: Claims 9 and 10 are obvious over Barber, Hirose, and Dogheche

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Barber (Patent 6,342,134), Hirose (Patent 6,485,602), and Dogheche (a 1999 article in Applied Physics Letters).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Dogheche to the Barber-Hirose combination to address claim 9 (ceramic target) and claim 10 (temperature controller). Petitioner asserted that while Barber used metallic targets, Dogheche taught reactive sputtering using a ceramic aluminum nitride (AlN) target to deposit high-quality AlN films. Dogheche also taught maintaining the substrate at a constant temperature (400 °C) to obtain the best film texture.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to use Dogheche's ceramic AlN target in the Barber-Hirose system to expand its capabilities to deposit different, useful films for microelectronics. Furthermore, a POSITA would incorporate Dogheche's teaching of substrate temperature control to optimize the quality of the deposited films, consistent with Barber's goal of achieving maximum film texture.
  • Expectation of Success: There was a reasonable expectation of success, as using ceramic targets and controlling substrate temperature were known methods for depositing high-quality thin films in reactive sputtering systems.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on similar combinations. Other grounds replaced Dogheche with Yamazaki to teach a ceramic target, or with Sproul, Laird, or Segal to teach various alloyed targets (including rare-earth ions or Si-Al alloys). A final set of grounds (8-14) added the Belkind reference to each of the preceding combinations to argue that, if Barber was not found to inherently teach alternating positive and negative voltages, Belkind explicitly taught using such bipolar pulsed DC to prevent arcing when depositing insulating layers.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) - Same or Substantially the Same Prior Art: Petitioner argued against denial, stating that while the Belkind reference was cited during prosecution, it was not materially relied upon by the examiner to reject the claims. Instead, the Petitioner used Belkind to demonstrate well-known aspects of pulsed DC power supplies that the examiner failed to appreciate.
• §314(a) - Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued against denial based on parallel district court litigation, asserting that the litigation was in its infancy with no scheduled trial date and minimal investment from the court or parties. Petitioner contended there was not a complete overlap between the IPR grounds and the invalidity contentions in the district court, and that Petitioner had acted diligently in filing the IPR.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of Patent 7,544,276 as unpatentable.