Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 1 of 32
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 1 of 32
`
`EXHIBIT K
`EXHIBIT K
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 2 of 32
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Morgan Chu (70446)
`MChu@irell.com
`Benjamin W. Hattenbach (186455)
`BHattenbach@irell.com
`C. Maclain Wells (221609)
`MWells@irell.com
`Olivia L. Weber (319918)
`OWeber@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone:
`(310) 277-1010
`Facsimile:
`(310) 203-7199
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`DEMARAY LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD-NC
`
`DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER D.
`GLEW
`
`)))))))))))
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11063148
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 3 of 32
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................... 1
`
`PREPARATION AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED ..................................................... 2
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................ 3
`
`THE DEMARAY PATENTS............................................................................................. 4
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`CLAIM TERMS ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`“Insulating substrate” (’657 Patent, claim 1).......................................................... 7
`
`“Insulating film” (’657 Patent, claim 2) ............................................................... 10
`
`“A method of depositing an insulating film on a substrate,
`comprising:” (’657 Patent, Claim 2)..................................................................... 12
`
`“Wherein an oxide material is deposited on the substrate, and the
`insulating film is formed by reactive sputtering in a mode between a
`metallic mode and a poison mode” (’657 patent, claim 2) ................................... 13
`
`“Pulsed DC power” / “Pulsed DC power supply” (’276 Patent,
`claims 1, 6; ’657 Patent, claims 1, 2).................................................................... 14
`
`“Narrow band rejection filter” (’276 Patent, claims 1, 6; ’657 Patent,
`claims 1, 2)............................................................................................................ 19
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11063148
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 4 of 32
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`My name is Alexander D. Glew, Ph.D., P.E. I
`have been asked to explain, from a technical perspective,
`how certain terminology in the patents at issue would have
`been used and understood by people working in the
`semiconductor fabrication field.
`II.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`2.
`For 34 years, I have been involved with
`engineering practice. A large portion of my work has
`involved semiconductor fabrication, including product
`design, semiconductor device analysis, semiconductor equipment design and analysis, thin film
`processing, equipment, characterization, and project development. I was intimately involved in
`this field during the time of the patents at issue in this case.
`3.
`I received my Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University
`of California, Berkeley, in 1985; I received my Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from
`the University of California, Berkeley, in 1987; I received my Master of Science in Materials
`Science and Engineering from Stanford University in 1995.
`4.
`I received my Doctor of Philosophy in Materials Science and Engineering from
`Stanford University in 2003. My dissertation involved plasma CVD of diamond-like carbon,
`fluorinated diamond-like carbon, and low k dielectrics.
`5.
`I began my career with the plaintiff in this declaratory judgment action, Applied
`Materials, Inc., one of the leading companies that supplies equipment for semiconductor
`manufacturers. My services to Applied Materials included various engineering roles: product
`development, project management, core technology, and supplier quality management. I remained
`at Applied Materials for ten years.
`6.
`I hold six patents on technologies such as tungsten chemical vapor deposition, and
`ultra-high purity and high-temperature valves, and thin film heater and chuck design for
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11063148
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 5 of 32
`
`processing chambers. I have authored or co-authored over nine articles, presentations, and
`seminars on topics including semiconductor thin film processing and diamond like carbon.
`7.
`Additional details of my education and employment history, recent professional
`service, patents, publications, and other testimony are set forth in my current curriculum vitae,
`attached as Exhibit A.
`III.
`PREPARATION AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`8.
`In forming my opinions, I have considered the specifications of the patents at issue,
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,544,276 and 7,381,657 (“’276 Patent” and “’657 Patent,” respectively),
`including their respective abstracts, figures, and the claim language, as would have been
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). I have also reviewed the file
`histories of the ’276 Patent and the ’657 Patent, and the other material cited in this declaration.
`9.
`I have also relied on my personal knowledge and professional experience in
`designing and developing equipment for semiconductor manufacturing, and on the documents and
`information referenced in this report. I am also aware of information generally available to, and
`relied upon by, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, including, for example,
`textbooks, manuals, technical papers, and articles, as well as commercially available systems.
`10.
`Throughout this declaration, I refer to specific portions of the ’276 Patent and the
`’657 Patent and other documents. The citations are intended to be exemplary and are not intended
`to convey that the citations are the only source of evidence to support the propositions for which
`they are cited.
`I previously submitted a declaration offering my opinions with respect to the ’276
`11.
`Patent and the ’657 Patent in two other pending litigations: Demaray LLC v. Intel Corporation,
`6:20-cv-00634-ADA, and Demaray LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD et al., 6:20-cv-00636-
`ADA. The district court in those matters subsequently issued an order regarding claim
`construction of the ’276 and ’657 patents. Demaray LLC v. Intel Corp., 6:20-cv-00634-ADA, Dkt.
`106 (“Texas Claim Construction”). As detailed below, I agree with all of the conclusions that the
`district court reached in that order.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11063148
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 6 of 32
`
`In addition to opinions outlined herein, I may also offer opinions (1) in rebuttal to
`12.
`the plaintiff’s positions, including opinions of its experts and materials it discusses or relies upon,
`(2) based on any orders from the Court, or (3) based on documents, contentions, or other
`disclosures produced too late to be considered herein. I reserve the right to supplement or amend
`my opinions as further documentation and information is received.
`13.
`If called to testify in this matter, I may use as exhibits various documents produced
`in this matter that refer or relate to the matters discussed herein. In addition, I may create or assist
`in the creation of certain demonstrative exhibits or summaries of my findings and opinions to
`assist me in testifying. Such exhibits have not yet been created.
`14.
`I am being compensated by Demaray LLC for my time spent on this matter at my
`customary consulting rate of $650 per hour, and my compensation is in no way contingent upon
`the outcome of this matter or on the opinions I offer. All of the opinions expressed in this report
`are my own.
`IV.
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`15.
`I have been advised by counsel on the law and general principles relevant to claim
`construction. I have applied these principles to the facts set forth in this report in rendering my
`opinions.
`I understand that claims are interpreted from the perspective of a POSITA at the
`16.
`time of the invention. I understand that claim construction is a matter of law for the Court.
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`17.
`In my opinion, a POSITA at the time the invention of the ’276 Patent and the ’657
`Patent were made (i.e., the 2001-2002 timeframe), would have had at least an undergraduate
`degree in electrical engineering or material science, or a related field, and at least around 1–2 years
`of relevant work experience. Such a person would have had at least a general understanding of
`sputtering methods and systems, as well as sputtering deposition of thin films on substrates. In
`arriving at my opinions and conclusions in this report, I have considered and applied the
`perspective of such a POSITA. However, I do not think that my analysis would materially change
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11063148
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 7 of 32
`
`if a somewhat higher or lower level of skill were adopted.
`VI.
`THE DEMARAY PATENTS
`18.
`The Demaray patents generally concern equipment and processes used to deposit
`thin films in the manufacture of semiconductor products. These films can be deposited one after
`the other to form structures such as transistors and electrical interconnections of the sort that make
`up modern integrated circuits. Such deposition is typically carried out in a chamber called a
`reactor. An example image of a reactor is shown below:
`
`In physical vapor deposition (“PVD”), the reactor applies power to a target to
`19.
`sputter particles from the target to form the desired thin film on a substrate. ’657 Patent at 2:55–
`56, 5:27–34. Magnetron sputtering is a PVD technique that generally involves the use of magnets
`with the reactor chamber. Id. at 8:38–60. An inert gas, e.g., argon, is typically introduced into the
`chamber to create a magnetically confined ionized plasma. Id. at 5:30-33. The plasma results in
`ejection of atoms from the metal target, which are then deposited on the substrate. Id. “Reactive”
`magnetron sputtering further includes the use of a reactive process gas while sputtering. Id. at
`8:61–67. For example, nitrogen gas can be used with a tantalum target to deposit thin films of
`
`11063148
`
`- 4 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 8 of 32
`
`tantalum nitride (TaN) on silicon wafers. Id.
`20.
`One problem with reactive sputtering of a metal target is that, in addition to coating
`the substrate surface as desired, the same material may also undesirably coat the target surface.
`This is known as target poisoning. Id. at 10:40–59, 11:66–12:9. This coating can have very
`different properties from the original target material. Such a layer on the target surface can also
`accumulate positive charge. Id. at 10:40–59, 11:66–12:9. Arcing occurs when the accumulated
`charge causes a breakthrough in the insulating film on the target surface. Each dielectric material
`has a dielectric breakdown strength characterized by voltage divided by distance. When a high
`level of electrons are emitted from the breakthrough area, (i.e., when discharge occurs), an arc
`appears. Arcing is an unpredictable process causing changing impedance in the reactor’s electrical
`circuits. This arcing “can damage the power supply, produce particles and degrade the properties
`of deposited … films.” Id. at 4:55–58.
`21.
`The Demaray patents provide a solution to the problems that arise when a layer of
`undesired material accumulates on the target surface. See, e.g., id. at 4:55–57. For example, by
`using one or more pulses of DC power that alternate between negative and positive potentials,
`“[d]uring the positive period, the insulating layer on the surface of target 12 is discharged and
`arcing is prevented.” Id, at 5:39–41. The Demaray inventors also recognize that using a DC pulse
`to prevent arcing may not alone yield the desired film quality. The patents therefore teach that by
`also applying an RF bias to the substrate during deposition “the deposited film can be dandified
`(sic) [densified] by energetic ion bombardment and the columnar structure can be substantially
`eliminated.” Id. at 6:4–6; see also id. at 9:57–10:2.
`22.
`The Demaray inventors found that when RF power is used to bias the substrate
`while providing a pulse of DC power to the target, the RF power presents a danger to the DC
`power supply. Id. at 5:56–57. The patents accordingly teach the use of a filter that, for example,
`“prevents the bias power from power supply 18 from coupling into pulsed DC power supply 14,”
`id., i.e., a filter that blocks a narrow band of frequencies around the frequency of the RF bias
`power supply. The narrow band rejection filter “protect[s] the pulsed-DC power supply from the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11063148
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 9 of 32
`
`RF energy while not distorting the pulses generated by the pulsed-DC power supply applied to the
`target.” DEMINT00000001 (’356 FH) at DEMINT00001134.
`23.
`As described in the Demaray patents, in one embodiment, the narrow band filter is
`a 2 MHz filter in which the bandwidth of the filter can be approximately 100 kHz. ’657 Patent at
`5:61–65. Such a filter “prevents the 2 MHz power from the bias to substrate 16 from damaging
`power supply 18.” Id. at 5:63–65. Figure 1A (below) represents a schematic representation of an
`example reactor apparatus according to the Demaray patents:
`
`Id. at 5:25–35 (annotating as follows: 10: apparatus; 12: target; 14: pulsed DC power supply; 15:
`filter; 16: substrate; 18: RF power supply; 20: magnet; 53: plasma).
`24.
`The Demaray patents also describe a reconditioning process or “burn in” by which
`the target surface is cleaned and conditioned. Id. at 17:6–15; 19:44–51; 20:52–60.
`25.
`The Demaray patents are applicable to a wide variety of chemistries. While they
`provide illustrative examples involving deposition of oxide layers, they instruct that the
`technology applies to “various films” including “oxides, fluorides, sulfides, nitrides, phosphates,
`sulfates, and carbonates, as well as other wide band gap semiconductor materials” (Id. at 2:55–56,
`7:47–52, 16:19–24) and disclose the use of reactive gases associated with the deposition of such
`films (id. at 3:5–9 (“the process gasses can include combinations of Ar, N2, O2, C2F6, CO2, CO
`and other process gasses.”); 9:4–10 (same)).
`
`11063148
`
`- 6 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 10 of 32
`
`VII. CLAIM TERMS
`A.
`“Insulating substrate” (’657 Patent, claim 1)
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’657 Patent recites the term “insulating substrate.” ’657
`26.
`Patent, claim 1. A POSITA would give this term its plain and ordinary meaning. The term has an
`ordinary and customary meaning in the industry, and the ’657 Patent’s usage of the term
`“substrate” is consistent with that plain and ordinary meaning. As I explain below, this plain and
`ordinary meaning includes, but is not limited to, “a wafer coated with an insulator.”
`27.
`The ’657 Patent uses the term “substrate” repeatedly throughout its common
`specification. For example, the ’657 Patent states that a “substrate can be any material and, in
`some embodiments, is a silicon wafer.” ’657 Patent at 2:61–62 (emphases added). It further
`describes that “[s]ubstrate 16 can be a solid, smooth surface. Typically, substrate 16 can be a
`silicon wafer or a silicon wafer coated with a layer of silicon oxide formed by a chemical vapor
`deposition process or by a thermal oxidation process. Alternatively, substrate 16 can be a glass …
`a glass-like material, quartz, a metal, a metal oxide, or a plastic material.” Id. at 7:62–8:1
`(emphases added). Pure silicon, although a semiconductor, is understood in the industry to act as
`an insulating material. Figure 1A from the ’657 patent showing the substrate is reproduced below
`according to ’657 Patent at 5:23–35:
`
`28.
`
`The ’657 Patent consistently uses the term “substrate” in reference to the material
`
`11063148
`
`- 7 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 11 of 32
`
`or work piece on which the target material or film is “deposited on.” Id. at 2:55-56; 5:28-29; 6:24-
`65; 7:47-50; 8:33-37. As in industry practice, thin films are deposited on “substrates.” Silicon
`wafers are one of the most commonly used substrates in the industry. Id. at 2:61-62. A substrate is
`a product on which the reactor performs work. The operators remove the substrate from the
`reactor, and then place it in another reactor, which performs additional work. On the other hand, a
`substrate holder is a fixed part of the reactor that remains in place. This is similar to a pizza
`(substrate) placed in an oven (reactor) on a pizza stone (substrate holders).
`
`I understand that the plaintiff has proposed the term “insulating substrate” to mean
`29.
`a “base material that, considered in its entirety, is insulating.” A POSITA, reading the description
`and purpose of the claim terms in the ’657 Patent, would not construe the claim term in that
`fashion because such a construction would be inconsistent with the ordinary and customary
`meaning in the industry.
`
`First, it is unclear what “base material” is intended to include. For example, the
`30.
`’657 Patent states that “[s]ubstrate 16 can be supported on a holder or carrier sheet that may be
`larger than substrate 16.” ’657 Patent at 8:1-3. A POSITA would not understand “insulating
`substrate” to mean “base material that, considered in its entirety, is insulating” (emphasis added),
`including because such a meaning may encompass the substrate holder.
`
`Other patents to inventor Dr. Richard E. Demaray similarly describe an “object
`31.
`(substrate) support structure 62 on which rests the substrate to be deposited” or an “object
`substrate support structure 32 on which the substrate to be deposited 31 rests.” U.S. Patent No.
`5,565, 071 at 2:23-26; 5,603,816 at 2:16-17. These patents are cited on the fact of the ’657 Patent
`or incorporated by reference. See ’657 Patent at page 2; 7:60-71. I understand that, as a legal
`matter, such citations (and subsequent citations in this declaration) are part of the intrinsic record
`of the ’657 Patent. For similar reasons as above, a POSITA would not understand “insulating
`substrate” to mean a “base material that, considered in its entirety, is insulating” (emphasis
`added), including because the plaintiff’s proposal may encompass the support structure on which
`the substrate rests.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11063148
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 12 of 32
`
`Additionally, the ’657 patent consistently indicates that the term “substrate” can be
`32.
`any material. Id. at 2:61–62, 7:62–8:1; see also id. at 3:34–36 (“Fig. 4 shows a flow chart of an
`embodiment of a process for depositing a film on a substrate”); 22:59–67 (“The examples and
`embodiments discussed above are exemplary only and are not intended to be limiting. One skilled
`in the art can vary the processes specifically described here in various ways. Further, the theories
`and discussions of mechanisms presented above are for discussion only. The invention disclosed
`herein is not intended to be bound by any particular theory set forth by the inventors to explain the
`results obtained. As such, the invention is limited only by the following claims.”). Accordingly, a
`POSITA, reading the description and purpose of the claim term in the ’657 Patent, would not
`construe “insulating substrate” in claim 1 to mean “base material that, considered in its entirety, is
`insulating.” As in industry practice, thin films are deposited on “substrates.” Silicon wafers are
`one of the most commonly used substrates in the industry, Id. at 2:61–62, but they are not the only
`substrates used in the industry, and the term “insulating substrate” in the ’657 Patent includes, but
`is not limited to, a wafer coated with an insulator (such as silicon dioxide). This is similar to a
`pizza. A pizza is not limited to just the dough, it is comprised of all of its layers (dough, sauce, and
`toppings).
`Plaintiff’s proposal that the claim term means “base material that, considered in its
`33.
`entirety, is insulating” could be used to suggest that a substrate must be monolithic as opposed to
`including previously deposited layers. This is also inconsistent with industry practice. For
`example, the ’657 Patent discloses that “[t]ypically, substrate 16 can be a silicon wafer or a silicon
`wafer coated with a layer of silicon oxide.” Id. at 7:62-64; see also id. at 18:8–12 (example
`deposition on a “6 inch wafer of substrate 16 which includes a 10 μm thick thermal oxide
`substrate.”); 18:55-57 (“substrate 16 is a silicon substrate with an undercladding layer of thermally
`oxidized SiO2 of about 15 μm thick.”). Specifically, pure silicon is an insulating material. In
`semiconductor manufacturing, the silicon is doped to create a lower resistance semiconductor
`material. A doped silicon wafer contains striations of layers that exhibit differing degrees of
`insulating properties and conductive properties resulting from the doping. A POSITA would thus
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11063148
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 13 of 32
`
`consider silicon wafers used in the industry to be insulating substrates only to the extent they are
`not considered in their entirety (i.e., to the extent they are not considered monolithic).
`Accordingly, in the ’657 Patent, the term “insulating substrate” includes, but is not limited to, a
`wafer coated with an insulator (such as silicon). The term “insulating substrate” could also
`encompass other layers exhibiting other (i.e., conductive) properties.
`B.
`“Insulating film” (’657 Patent, claim 2)
`34.
`The independent claim of the ’657 Patent recites the term “insulating film.” ’657
`Patent, claim 2. A POSITA would give this term its plain and ordinary meaning. The term has an
`ordinary and customary meaning in the industry.
`35.
`I understand that the plaintiff has proposed the term “the insulating film” to mean
`“the insulating film comprising the oxide material.” A POSITA, reading the use of “insulating
`film” in the ’657 Patent, would not construe the claim term in that fashion because such a
`construction would be inconsistent with its ordinary and customary meaning in the industry.
`36.
`It is accepted in the industry that “insulating film” encompasses insulating films
`like nitrides and other materials, not just oxide materials. For example, a semiconductor is either
`insulating or conducting, depending on how one treats it. There are many insulating films,
`including not just oxides and nitrides, but oxy-nitrides, as well. For example, films comprising
`carbon, such as diamond-like carbon and polyimides, can be insulating. Further, one may form
`insulating films from compounds with well-known reactive non-metals: fluorine, sulfur,
`phosphorous, and other elements. Additionally, wide band gap semiconductors function as
`insulating films.
`37.
`Consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning in the industry, the ’657
`Patent consistently indicates that an “insulating film” can be deposited apart from an oxide
`material and is not just limited to oxide material. In particular, “[o]ptically useful materials to be
`deposited onto substrate 16 include oxides, fluorides, sulfides, nitrides, phosphates, sulfates, and
`carbonates, as well as other wide band gap semiconductor materials.” ’657 Patent, 7:47-50.
`38.
`It is well-accepted that insulating films are not just limited to oxide material. For
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11063148
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 14 of 32
`
`example, all of the elements shown in bright green below are reactive nonmetals that can be used
`to make insulating films:
`
`Plaintiff’s proposal is inconsistent with industry practice. For example, the ’657
`39.
`Patent discloses that “[t]ypically, substrate 16 can be a silicon wafer or a silicon wafer coated with
`a layer of silicon oxide formed by a chemical vapor deposition process or by a thermal oxidation
`process.” Id. at 7:62-66; see also id. at 18:10–12 (example deposition on a “6 inch wafer of
`substrate 16 which includes a 10 μm thick thermal oxide substrate.”); 18:55-57 (“substrate 16 is a
`silicon substrate with an undercladding layer of thermally oxidized SiO2 of about 15 μm thick.”);
`7:47-50 (“Optically useful materials to be deposited onto substrate 16 include oxides, fluorides,
`sulfides, nitrides, phosphates, sulfates, and carbonates, as well as other wide band gap
`semiconductor materials.”). A POSITA would thus understand that a substrate could include “a
`silicon wafer coated with a layer of silicon oxide,” but a POSITA would not understand a substrate
`to be limited to a layer of oxide material. This is similar to topping a pizza that may already have
`ingredients on it. One is still topping the pizza regardless of how many ingredients one has already
`placed on it.
`Indeed, the ’657 Patent states that a variety of materials can be deposited onto the
`40.
`substrate, including fluorides and sulfides (among others). Id., 7:47-50; see also id., 9:8-10 (using
`other reactive gases giving rise to films other than oxides: “Other gasses such as N2, NH3, CO,
`
`11063148
`
`- 11 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 15 of 32
`
`NO, CO2, halide containing gasses other gas-phase reactants can also be utilized.”). Note that F,
`Br, and I comprise halide gasses, the last column in the above excerpted periodic table. The ’657
`Patent also contemplates that these non-oxide materials can be deposited even when the wafer is
`already “coated with a layer of silicon oxide.” Id., 7:63-65.
`41.
`Plaintiff’s proposal would also rewrite claim 2 of the ’657 Patent to require
`“insulating film” to comprise the oxide material. A POSITA would not understand claim 2 to be
`limited in this way, particularly because the ’657 Patent expressly contemplates that “substrate 16
`can be a silicon wafer or a silicon wafer coated with a layer of silicon oxide formed by a chemical
`vapor deposition process or by a thermal oxidation process.” ’657 Patent, 7:62-65 (emphasis
`added). Accordingly, because claim 2 of the ’657 Patent requires an insulating film formed by
`reactive sputtering, this means that the ’657 Patent expressly contemplates the possibility of
`insulating oxide film already pre-existing on the wafer that was formed by an entirely different
`non-reactive sputtering process (e.g., chemical vapor deposition or thermal oxidation). As shown
`in the excerpted periodic table above, a POSITA would understand that claim 2 could permit an
`“insulating film” to comprise an oxide material, but a POSITA would not understand claim 2 to
`limit an “insulating film” to oxide material, when there are numerous other materials that could be
`used. A POSITA would also not understand claim 2 to require “insulating film” to comprise the
`oxide material because the ’657 Patent contains no language expressly disclaiming other
`insulating films or limiting the “insulating film” to oxides.
`C.
`“A method of depositing an insulating film on a substrate, comprising:” (’657
`Patent, Claim 2)
`
`The preamble of independent claim 2 of the ’657 Patent recites the term “[a]
`42.
`method of depositing an insulating film on a substrate, comprising” ’657 Patent, claim 2. I am
`informed that, as a legal matter, the preamble of a claim can be found limiting under certain
`circumstances, such as when the preamble is essential to understand limitations or terms in the
`claim body.
`Here, the only part of the preamble that is limiting is “insulating film on a
`43.
`substrate,” because such language limits the method set forth in claim 2 to insulating film on a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11063148
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 16 of 32
`
`substrate. The other language—“A method of depositing an”—simply describes an intended use
`with the invention specified in the body of the claim.
`44.
`I understand that the plaintiff has proposed that the preamble is limiting in its
`entirety. As stated above, “[a] method of depositing an” merely delineates an intended use for the
`invention. The body of claim 2 announces that full and complete invention, and “[a] method of
`depositing an” does not provide an antecedent basis for the subsequent claim limitations. A
`POSITA would not consider the words “[a] method of depositing an” necessary given the full and
`complete description of the invention in the claim body.
`D.
`“Wherein an oxide material is deposited on the substrate, and the insulating
`film is formed by reactive sputtering in a mode between a metallic mode and a
`poison mode” (’657 patent, claim 2)
`Independent claim 2 of the ’657 Patent recites the term “[w]herein an oxide
`45.
`material is deposited on the substrate, and the insulating film is formed by reactive sputtering in a
`mode between a metallic mode and a poison mode.” A POSITA would give this term its plain and
`ordinary meaning in the industry, and the ’657 Patent’s usage of this term is consistent with that
`plain and ordinary meaning.
`46.
`Plaintiff proposes that this term means “wherein an oxide material is deposited on
`the substrate thereby forming the insulating film by reactive sputtering in a mode between a
`metallic mode and a poison mode.” For the same reasons identified above, a POSITA, reading the
`claim term, would not construe the term in that fashion because such a construction would be
`inconsistent with its ordinary and customary meaning in the industry. A POSITA would not
`understand this term to mean that an oxide material is deposited on the substrate “thereby forming
`the insulating film.”
`47.
`As stated above with respect to “insulating film” and the preamble to claim 2 of the
`’657 Patent, a POSITA would not understand that “insulating film” comprises “oxide material,”
`and it follows that a POSITA would not understand “[a] method of depositing an insulating film
`on a substrate” to be limited to deposition of oxide material. Accordingly, as to the term here, a
`POSITA would not understand “insulating film” to be formed from the deposition of “oxide
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11063148
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 145-12 Filed 04/01/22 Page 17 of 32
`
`48.
`
`material” as part of the claimed invention.
`As I have noted, the ’657 Patent states that a variety of materials can be deposited
`onto the substrate, including fluorides and sulfides (among others). Id., 7:47-50; see also id., 9:8-
`10 (using other reactive gases giving rise to films other than oxides: “Other gasses such as N2,
`NH3, CO, NO, CO2, halide containing gasses other gas-phase reactants can also be utilized.”). See
`also id., 23:30-33. The ’657 Patent also contemplates that these non-oxide materials can be
`deposited even when the wafer is already “coated with a layer of silicon oxide.” Id., 7:63-65.
`Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above and consistent with the plain and customary
`meaning, a PO