[Page 1]
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CARL ZEISS SMT GMBH, )
`
` ) Case IPR2013-00362
`
` Petitioner, )
`
` ) Patent 7,348,575
`
` v. )
`
` )
`
`NIKON CORPORATION, )
`
` )
`
` Patent Owner. )
`
`-------------------------)
`
` - - -
`
` WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2014
`
` - - -
`
` Deposition of JOSE SASIAN, PH.D., taken at the
`
`offices of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier &
`
`Neustadt, LLP, 1940 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia,
`
`beginning at 9:11 a.m., before Nancy J. Martin, a
`
`Registered Merit Reporter, Certified Shorthand
`
`Reporter.
`
` VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING
`
` MIDATLANTIC REGION
`
` 1250 Eye Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005
`
` (202) 803-8830
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`1
`
`ZEISS 1033
`Zeiss v. Nikon
`IPR2013-00362
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CARL ZEISS SMT GMBH, )
`
` ) Case IPR2013-00362
`
` Petitioner, )
`
` ) Patent 7,348,575
`
` v. )
`
` )
`
`NIKON CORPORATION, )
`
` )
`
` Patent Owner. )
`
`-------------------------)
`
` - - -
`
` WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2014
`
` - - -
`
` Deposition of JOSE SASIAN, PH.D., taken at the
`
`offices of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier &
`
`Neustadt, LLP, 1940 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia,
`
`beginning at 9:11 a.m., before Nancy J. Martin, a
`
`Registered Merit Reporter, Certified Shorthand
`
`Reporter.
`
` VERITEXT NATIONAL COURT REPORTING
`
` MIDATLANTIC REGION
`
` 1250 Eye Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20005
`
` (202) 803-8830
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`1
`
`ZEISS 1033
`Zeiss v. Nikon
`IPR2013-00362
`
`
`
`[Page 2]
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S :
`
` FISH & RICHARDSON
`
` BY: KURT L. GLITZENSTEIN, ESQUIRE
`
` MARC M. WEFERS, ESQUIRE
`
` 60 South Sixth Street
`
` Suite 3200
`
` Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
` (202) 626-6420
`
` Representing Petitioner Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH
`
` OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT,
`
` LLP
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
` BY: JOHN S. KERN, ESQUIRE
`
`10
`
` ROBERT C. MATTSON, ESQUIRE
`
` 1940 Duke Street
`
`11
`
` Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
` (703) 413-3000
`
` Representing Patent Owner Nikon Corporation
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`2
`
`
`
`[Page 3]
`
` I N D E X
`
`TESTIMONY OF: JOSE SASIAN, PH.D.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN...............................XX
`
`BY MR. MATTSON....................................XX
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN...............................XX
`
` - - -
`
` E X H I B I T S
`
` - - -
`
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION MARKED
`
`Exhibit 1030 United States Patent Application 94
`
` Publication, Nakano, et al.
`
` Pub. No.: US 2013/0329283 Al
`
`Exhibit 1031 United States Patent, 95
`
` 5,650,877
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`3
`
`
`
` DEPOSITION SUPPORT INDEX
`
`[Page 4]
`
`DIRECTION TO WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER
`
`Page Line
`
`(None)
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
`
`Page Line
`
`(None)
`
`QUESTIONS MARKED:
`
`Page Line
`
`(None)
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`4
`
`
`
` WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2014, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA;
`
`[Page 5]
`
` 9:11 A.M.
`
` - - -
`
` JOSE SASIAN, PH.D., after having been
`
`first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
`
`follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Sasian.
`
` A. Good morning.
`
` Q. For the record, sir, could you please state
`
`your full name.
`
` A. Jose Manuel Sasian Alvarado.
`
` Q. And, Dr. Sasian, do you understand that you
`
`are here today to provide cross-examination testimony
`
`in an inter partes review with the Caption
`
`No. IPR2013-00362?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. And, sir, I'm going to hand you a
`
`document entitled "DECLARATION OF DR. JOSE SASIAN"
`
`that was filed in connection with that matter. If you
`
`can confirm for me, sir, that this is, in fact, your
`
`declaration.
`
` A. Yes, it appears so.
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`5
`
`
`
`[Page 6]
`
` MR. GLITZENSTEIN: And I'm going to hand you one
`
`other document, sir, that's been significant in this
`
`matter as Zeiss Exhibit 1001.
`
` (Previously marked Exhibit 1001.)
`
` Q. Do you recognize this, sir, as the patent
`
`that's at issue in this matter?
`
` A. Yes. The '575.
`
` Q. Right. It's U.S. Patent 7,348,575?
`
` A. Yes, sir.
`
` Q. Thank you. And if I refer to this throughout
`
`the proceedings today as "the '575 patent," will you
`
`understand that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Thank you. Have you reviewed the '575 patent
`
`in connection with this matter?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Did you review the entirety of the '575
`
`patent prior to preparing your declaration,
`
`Exhibit 2024?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And in rendering your opinions in this
`
`matter, sir, what did understand to be the relevant
`
`priority date of the '575 patent?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection. Form. Foundation.
`
` THE WITNESS: There are a number of dates on
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`6
`
`
`
`[Page 7]
`
`the '575 patent, and one of them is May 6, 2013.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. And what's the significance in -- to your
`
`understanding of that date?
`
` A. Significance for what?
`
` Q. For any of the opinions that you've rendered
`
`in this matter.
`
` A. It sets a date to set what's prior art and
`
`what is not prior art.
`
` Q. If you could turn in your declaration, sir,
`
`to Paragraph 66, please. And in Paragraph 66 you
`
`begin a section which is entitled "Boundary lens." Do
`
`you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And before that, there's sort of a major
`
`heading that says, "Claim Constructions." Do you see
`
`that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Right. What construction have you applied in
`
`this matter for the term "boundary lens" in the '575
`
`patent?
`
` A. I discuss a number of properties in the
`
`boundary lens.
`
` Q. What construction did you apply for the claim
`
`term "boundary lens" for purposes of rendering your
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`7
`
`
`
`[Page 8]
`
`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
`
`opinions in this matter?
`
` A. As I said in the declaration, "a boundary
`
`lens is a lens of the projection optical system that
`
`has a convex object-side surface and a flat image-side
`
`surface to increase effective numerical aperture in
`
`the presence of the immersion liquid by reducing
`
`reflection loss."
`
` Q. And the entirety of what you've just stated,
`
`is that the construction that you've applied for
`
`purposes of rendering your opinions in this matter?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: There may be another statement
`
`associated with the boundary lens definition. I don't
`
`recall at this moment, but when I see it, I can bring
`
`it to your attention.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. Do you recall, in substance, what additional
`
`statement you applied for purposes of the construction
`
`of the term "boundary lens" in rendering your opinions
`
`in this matter?
`
` A. On Paragraph 67 I mentioned that "From the
`
`575 Patent disclosure it becomes readily apparent that
`
`the boundary lens serves at least two purposes: To
`
`isolate an atmosphere in an optical path of a
`
`projection optical system from an optical path between
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`8
`
`
`
`[Page 9]
`
`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
`
`the boundary lens and a second surface; and 2) to
`
`enable higher resolution by" reduction -- "reducing
`
`reflection losses, and thus preventing total internal
`
`reflection."
`
` Q. I see that statement in Paragraph 67 of your
`
`declaration, sir. Are you saying that you also have
`
`incorporated those principles into your construction
`
`of boundary lens that you applied for purposes of
`
`rendering your opinions in this matter?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Other than what you've already testified to
`
`from Paragraphs 66 and 67 of your declaration, is
`
`there anything else that you have incorporated into
`
`your construction of "boundary lens" for purposes of
`
`rendering your opinions in this matter?
`
` A. Not that I recall at this moment.
`
` Q. Now, it's true, sir, that that is the --
`
`you've only applied one construction of the term
`
`"boundary lens" for purposes of rendering your
`
`opinions in this matter; correct?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. The term "boundary lens" is found in Claim 1
`
`of the '575 patent. True?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And for purposes of this matter, you have not
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`9
`
`
`
`rendered opinions on any of the other claims of the
`
`'575 patent, again, other than Claim 1 of the '575
`
`[Page 10]
`
`patent?
`
` A. I believe that's correct.
`
` Q. If I could just ask you to turn in your
`
`declaration to Paragraph 129. So this paragraph
`
`summarizes the opinions that you formed in connection
`
`with this matter. True?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And part of your opinion in this matter is
`
`that the "Terasawa and the Immersion References fail
`
`to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and
`
`use the subject matter of independent claim 1 of the
`
`575 Patent." True?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Your conclusion in this matter in that regard
`
`is based on the construction that you have applied for
`
`purposes of boundary lens. True?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: No.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. What's untrue about what I said?
`
` A. That it's not my construction. That it's not
`
`my construction.
`
` Q. What's not your construction?
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`10
`
`
`
`[Page 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
`
` A. Well, if I can recall it correctly, the
`
`question was that in applying my construction, I have
`
`used any construction to determine whether Terasawa
`
`and the mentioned references enable or not the Claim 1
`
`of the '575. And the point is that those references
`
`do not render -- do not lead to the boundary lens --
`
`the presence of the boundary lens. So, therefore,
`
`they do not enable Claim 1 of the '575.
`
` Q. In the answer that you just gave you used the
`
`term "boundary lens," and in that answer did you mean
`
`the term "boundary lens" as you've construed it for
`
`purposes of this matter?
`
` A. Well, the boundary lens, it's an actual item,
`
`and my construction is based on the actual boundary
`
`lens.
`
` Q. And I'm going to get to what the basis is for
`
`your construction in just a moment, but I just want to
`
`set a baseline here for purposes of understanding your
`
`opinions, sir. So let me break this down. You've
`
`offered opinions in this case that Terasawa and the
`
`immersion references fail to enable one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to make and use the subject matter of
`
`independent Claim 1 of the '575 patent; correct?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And in rendering that -- withdrawn.
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`11
`
`
`
` And Claim 1 of the '575 patent includes the
`
`[Page 12]
`
`term "boundary lens"; right?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. And you have, in this matter, come up with a
`
`construction for the term "boundary lens"; correct?
`
` A. We may call it that I have come with a
`
`construction. I have written the properties of the
`
`boundary lens. I can recognize where a boundary lens
`
`is present or not. And with that understanding, I
`
`provided my opinion.
`
` Q. Okay. So just so I'm clear on this, sir, you
`
`have come up with your own construction for "boundary
`
`lens." True?
`
` A. You will see the difficulty I have. We talk
`
`about constructions, we usually see a table of claim
`
`construction terms; right? And people say this term
`
`and the construction comes to the right. But in this
`
`case, I don't have that. I have just the attributes
`
`of the boundary lens. So when you ask me did I
`
`construct it in that way, no, I didn't that way. I
`
`just said the boundary lens has these properties, and
`
`I can see whether the prior art had -- say, the
`
`combination of prior art will have that boundary lens,
`
`and my answer is no.
`
` Q. Let me see if I can understand that answer.
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`12
`
`
`
`So for purposes of your work in this matter, have you
`
`[Page 13]
`
`identified what you consider to be the appropriate
`
`construction for the term "boundary layer" as that
`
`term is used in Claim 1 of the '575 patent?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection. Form.
`
` MR. GLITZENSTEIN: Let me withdraw that
`
`question, sir.
`
` Q. I think I might have missed one word, and I
`
`don't want to confuse the issue. I think I said,
`
`"boundary layer" and not "boundary lens," which may be
`
`the cause of my brother's well-placed objection. So
`
`let me try this again.
`
` A. Okay.
`
` Q. For purposes of your work in this matter,
`
`have you identified what you consider to be the
`
`appropriate construction for the term "boundary lens"
`
`as that term is used in Claim 1 of the '575 patent?
`
` A. Yeah, I am satisfied with the terms I used to
`
`refer to that lens, and you can call it a
`
`construction.
`
` Q. Okay. And that's the material that you
`
`identified for me earlier from Paragraph 66 and 67 of
`
`your declaration?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. Okay. And so now, if I could return to my
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`13
`
`
`
`[Page 14]
`
`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
`
`questions about -- from Paragraph 129, in rendering
`
`your opinion in this matter, that "Terasawa and the
`
`Immersion References fail to enable one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to make and use the subject matter of
`
`independent claim 1 of the 575 Patent," am I correct,
`
`sir, that in forming that -- that you have based that
`
`opinion on the construction that you have applied in
`
`this case for the term "boundary lens"?
`
` A. That is one aspect of -- on which I base my
`
`opinion.
`
` Q. If the board in this matter disagrees with
`
`your construction for the term "boundary lens," it's
`
`true, is it not, that you have not offered any opinion
`
`that the "Terasawa and Immersion References fail to
`
`enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and
`
`use the subject matter of independent claim 1 of the
`
`'575 Patent"?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: This is a little bit of a long
`
`question. If you can please -- if you can please
`
`rephrase it.
`
` MR. GLITZENSTEIN: Let me break it down.
`
` Q. You have not offered any opinions in this
`
`case that Terasawa and the immersion references fail
`
`to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`14
`
`
`
`[Page 15]
`
`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
`
`use the subject matter of independent Claim 1 of the
`
`'575 patent on any claim construction other than the
`
`one that you have already identified for us for the
`
`term "boundary layer"?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Let me answer that question as
`
`follows.
`
` If you look at my declaration on the section
`
`of "Opinions," I provide a number of an analyses on
`
`enablement and on obviousness that support my overall
`
`summary of conclusions.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. I understand that your report says more than
`
`just what's in Paragraph 129. What I want to explore
`
`with you, as a preliminary matter, is whether, in your
`
`view, you believe that you have offered any opinion at
`
`all on the issue of enablement in this matter on a
`
`claim construction other than boundary lens?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Let me review the section on
`
`claim construction, please, which is --
`
` MR. GLITZENSTEIN: I can help you on that.
`
`It begins at Paragraph 66 of your declaration.
`
` (The witness reviewed the document.)
`
` THE WITNESS: And, once more, can you repeat
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`15
`
`
`
`[Page 16]
`
`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
`
`the question, please.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. I'm not going to precisely repeat it, but
`
`I'll ask you one that's in the ballpark. Okay?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. Have you offered any opinion in
`
`this matter on the issue of whether "Terasawa and the
`
`Immersion References enable one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to make and use the subject matter of claim 1
`
`of the '575 Patent" on any construction of boundary
`
`lens other than the one that you previously explained?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection to form.
`
` (The witness further reviewed the document.)
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, I want to mention again
`
`that my opinions in my summary of opinions are
`
`supported by the analysis I presented. There I
`
`outline the different reasons, the different arguments
`
`to support my opinion. So when you ask me if I use
`
`other claim construction, again, I don't see that
`
`table with claim construction terms to apply.
`
`However, I have defined what I understand for a
`
`boundary lens, and I have used that to support my
`
`opinion.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. And you have not offered any opinions in this
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`16
`
`
`
`[Page 17]
`
`matter on the issue of enablement applying any
`
`construction of boundary lens other than the one that
`
`you explained before; correct?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I don't recall if I have not,
`
`but right now I have expressed what the meaning of a
`
`boundary lens is.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. And that's the meaning that you have used in
`
`forming your opinions on the enablement issue in this
`
`case; right?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: One aspect. There are a
`
`number -- there is an analysis on enablement that I
`
`presented and my opinions are expressed there and,
`
`yes, they use the definition of the language I
`
`associate with the boundary lens.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. Can you identify for me, sir, any opinions
`
`that you have offered in this matter on the issue of
`
`enablement that do not depend upon the definition that
`
`you have applied for the term "boundary lens"?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection to form.
`
` THE WITNESS: For example, the previous art
`
`does not provide a table of constructional parameters
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`17
`
`
`
`for an optical system as is specified in the '575 that
`
`would enable a person of ordinary skill to make such a
`
`[Page 18]
`
`projection lens.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. When you say, "such a projection lens," you
`
`mean a projection lens as described in Claim 1 of the
`
`'575 patent as you have construed the term "boundary
`
`lens"; right?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. So you see my point on this, sir, is
`
`I'm trying to understand whether, in your view, you
`
`have offered any opinions on the issue of enablement
`
`in this matter that do not depend on the construction
`
`that you have applied in this matter for the term
`
`"boundary lens." Have you done that at all?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: I hesitate because I haven't
`
`had a time to reflect whether or not I have used an
`
`item. I cannot recall right now, and for that reason,
`
`I hesitate. I would have to review it just to make
`
`sure whether I did or I did not.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. You'd have to review what, sir?
`
` A. My declaration in view of your question.
`
` Q. All right. Maybe if you'd just take a few
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`18
`
`
`
`[Page 19]
`
`minutes to do that. I mean it's just a few
`
`paragraphs. It starts at Paragraph 113.
`
` (The witness further reviewed the document.)
`
` THE WITNESS: Why do you refer to
`
`Paragraph 113?
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. I'm sorry. That's the end of it, isn't it.
`
`Let me ask you to start at Paragraph 94. That might
`
`be a better place to start.
`
` A. Thank you.
`
` Q. You're welcome.
`
` A. Just to make sure I understand your question,
`
`if I can understand your question I can answer that.
`
` Q. That's fine.
`
` A. You're asking me if I offer an opinion on
`
`enablement that does not depend on the use of a
`
`boundary lens?
`
` Q. Let me -- I'm glad you asked the question.
`
`So I'm going to be real precise on this. My question
`
`for you, sir, is whether you've offered any opinions
`
`in this matter on the issue of enablement that does
`
`not depend on the construction of boundary lens that
`
`you have applied in this matter?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection. Form.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`19
`
`
`
`[Page 20]
`
`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
`
` Q. Is that clear?
`
` A. It does not depend on the construction of
`
`boundary lens that I have used. Well, my answer is I
`
`cannot think of any right now.
`
` Q. Okay. Thank you. And if you could turn
`
`back, sir, to Paragraph 129. Again, this is the
`
`summary paragraph of your declaration.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. You have also offered opinions in this matter
`
`that Claim 1 would not have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention in Claim 1 of the '575 patent. Is that
`
`true? That's your opinion?
`
` A. That's correct.
`
` Q. My question for you is very similar to the
`
`last one that I asked you, sir. Have you offered any
`
`opinions in this matter on the issue of obviousness
`
`that do not depend on the construction of "boundary
`
`lens" that you have applied in this matter?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Yeah. I believe that in some
`
`aspect of my opinions, I believe to have the
`
`construction of the boundary lens.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. The construction that you have used in this
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`20
`
`
`
`[Page 21]
`
`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
`
`matter?
`
` A. If we call it that way, yes.
`
` Q. If I could ask you to turn back, sir, to
`
`Paragraph 66 of your declaration. In this paragraph
`
`and then the paragraphs continuing through
`
`Paragraph 75, am I correct in understanding that this
`
`is where you set out not only the construction that
`
`you've applied for "boundary lens" but also the --
`
`sort of the bases that led you to that construction?
`
` A. Can you clarify what you mean by "bases."
`
` Q. You have based your analyses in this matter
`
`on a certain construction or meaning of the term
`
`"boundary lens"; correct?
`
` A. Okay. Yes.
`
` Q. And you have applied -- as I understand it,
`
`you have applied some methodology to ascertain what,
`
`in your view, is the proper construction for "boundary
`
`lens." Am I correct in that understanding?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. So is the methodology that you followed in
`
`reaching your opinion on what the appropriate
`
`construction is for "boundary lens" set out in the
`
`paragraphs spanning from 66 to 75?
`
` A. Some of that methodology is expressed on
`
`those paragraphs.
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`21
`
`
`
`[Page 22]
`
` Q. Do you know if you set out any of the
`
`methodology elsewhere in your declaration?
`
` A. I don't recall if I have more language to
`
`define the -- to set the methodology.
`
` Q. Now, are you aware, sir, that the board in
`
`this matter has evaluated the '575 patent and arrived
`
`at a construction for the term "boundary lens"?
`
` A. I don't know that for a fact, but I suspect.
`
` Q. So I asked because I saw in Paragraph 15 of
`
`your declaration a list of the materials that you
`
`reviewed in formulating your opinions. Do you see
`
`that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And this is -- withdrawn.
`
` Am I correct in understanding that this is a
`
`complete list of the materials that you considered?
`
` A. Yes, sir.
`
` Q. And I note that the decision of the board in
`
`this matter that instituted the trial in this case is
`
`not listed in the materials that you've considered; is
`
`that correct?
`
` A. Can I have a list of my exhibits to verify
`
`that it's it or it's not?
`
` Q. You want a list of the Zeiss exhibits, 1001
`
`through -29?
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`22
`
`
`
`[Page 23]
`
` A. No. No. The list of the materials I
`
`considered, which is Exhibit --
`
` Q. Sorry. I didn't mean to throw you off your
`
`answer, sir, with the fumbling on my side of the
`
`table.
`
` A. No problem.
`
` Q. So just -- if you can just let me know.
`
`There are lots of exhibits here. What is it that you
`
`would like to see?
`
` A. I think you mentioned that there is one
`
`document that is not listed on my exhibit of documents
`
`considered, and while I -- shall I take your word that
`
`this document is not there?
`
` Q. I'm actually -- I want to make sure that
`
`we're communicating on this. I see in your
`
`declaration, in Paragraph 15, a list of the things
`
`that you have considered in forming your opinions.
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. Is there another list of things that
`
`you considered in this matter?
`
` A. No. No.
`
` Q. Okay. All right. So the things that you --
`
`let me just ask it this way. So this is, in fact, a
`
`complete list of everything you looked at?
`
` A. Yes.
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`23
`
`
`
`[Page 24]
`
`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
`
` Q. Okay. All right. And do you have any
`
`recollection of reviewing, for purposes of your work
`
`in this matter or otherwise, the decision of the board
`
`instituting the trial in this matter?
`
` A. I would have to look at the document to see
`
`if I remember seeing it or not.
`
` MR. GLITZENSTEIN: All right. Let me get a
`
`copy of that.
`
` Counsel, I don't think I need to mark this as
`
`an exhibit. I'm happy to if you would like me to, but
`
`it's part of the record.
`
` MR. MATTSON: Yeah, I wouldn't bother.
`
` MR. GLITZENSTEIN: All right. Sir, I'm going
`
`to hand you what's been filed in this matter as Paper
`
`No. 10, and it bears a date of December 16, 1993 and
`
`it's entitled "Decision Institution of Inter Partes
`
`Review." I'm sorry. 2013.
`
` (The witness reviewed the document.)
`
` THE WITNESS: I cannot remember if I saw this
`
`document or not.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. Okay. If I could ask you to turn in this
`
`document, sir -- why don't you hang onto that. I've
`
`got maybe a couple more questions for you on it. If
`
`you could turn, please, to Page 8 of this document.
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`24
`
`
`
`And do you see there there's a subheading that's
`
`[Page 25]
`
`entitled "Boundary Lens"?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. And there's a discussion below it that refers
`
`to portions of the '575 patent. Do you see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. Okay. And one of the portions that's cited
`
`here in the board's decision is Column 20, Lines 45
`
`through 49. Do you see that?
`
` A. Column 20, Lines 45 through 49?
`
` Q. Yes. Do you see where that is?
`
` A. Yes, I see that.
`
` Q. Okay. So -- and then below that, there's
`
`also a discussion of Figures 3, 4, 5, and 7. Do you
`
`see that?
`
` A. Yes.
`
` Q. All right. Now, it's true, is it not, that
`
`for purposes of rendering your opinions in this matter
`
`about the meaning of the term "boundary lens," you
`
`didn't take into account the disclosure of the patent
`
`identified by the board in this paragraph; right?
`
` A. Yeah. Now I recall that I didn't see this
`
`document.
`
` Q. You did not?
`
` A. I did not see this document.
`
`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
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`25
`
`
`
`[Page 26]
`
`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
`
` Q. And so, sir, as part of your analysis in
`
`terms of coming up with your construction for the term
`
`"boundary lens," I'm correct, am I not, that you
`
`didn't take account of the portions of the '575 patent
`
`cited by the board in this paragraph; right?
`
` MR. MATTSON: Objection. Form.
`
` THE WITNESS: Well, what I didn't take into
`
`consideration was this paragraph.
`
`BY MR. GLITZENSTEIN:
`
` Q. And my question for you is the portions of
`
`the patent that the board identified in its analysis
`
`of this claim construction issue are not discussed in
`
`the section of your declaration where you analyze the
`
`question of what the appropriate construction is for
`
`boundary lens. True?
`
` A. Well, I do present on my declaration Figure 3
`
`of the '575, and I notice that Figure 3 is here.
`
` Q. That's a fair point. You do discuss
`
`Figure 3. The board also makes reference to Figures
`
`4, 5, and 7 and what's depicted there; right?
`
` A. Yeah. They mention Figures 4, 5, and 7 too.
`
` Q. And those are not figures that you discuss in
`
`connection with your opinion on what the term
`
`"boundary lens" means; right?
`
` A. Just let me clarify that I do refer to the
`
`877-479-2484
`
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. www.uslegalsupport.com
`
`26
`
`
`
`[Page 27]
`
`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
`
`'575. I say in the context of the '575 that item
`
`brings specifically, say, Figures 4, 5, 7, doesn't
`
`mean that I did not consider or I did not mean that
`
`they may have a bearing on the construction.
`
` Q. The board also cites to a specific passage of
`
`the '575 patent, namely Column 20, Lines 45 through
`
`49. And we can agree that your analysis of the
`
`meaning of the term "boundary lens" does not expressly
`
`address that passage of the patent; right?
`
` A. I don't specifically site that paragraph on
`
`my declaration.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
