Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`----------------------------:
` CARL ZEIS SMT GMBH, :
` :
` Petitioner, :
` :
` V. : Case No.:
` : IPR2013-00362
` NIKON CORPORATION :
` :
` Patent Owner, :
`----------------------------:
`
` Boston, Massachusetts
` Wednesday, July 2, 2014
` Deposition of:
`
` RICHARD C. JUERGENS
` called for oral examination by counsel for the
` Nikon Corporation, pursuant to notice, at the
` Law Offices of Fish & Richardson, One Marina
` Park Drive, Boston, Massachusetts, before MaryJo
` O'Connor, of Capital Reporting Company, a Notary
` Public in and for the State of Massachusetts,
` beginning at 8:55 a.m., when were present on behalf
` of the respective parties:
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 1
`
`
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`1
`
`----------------------------:
` CARL ZEIS SMT GMBH, :
` :
` Petitioner, :
` :
` V. : Case No.:
` : IPR2013-00362
` NIKON CORPORATION :
` :
` Patent Owner, :
`----------------------------:
`
` Boston, Massachusetts
` Wednesday, July 2, 2014
` Deposition of:
`
` RICHARD C. JUERGENS
` called for oral examination by counsel for the
` Nikon Corporation, pursuant to notice, at the
` Law Offices of Fish & Richardson, One Marina
` Park Drive, Boston, Massachusetts, before MaryJo
` O'Connor, of Capital Reporting Company, a Notary
` Public in and for the State of Massachusetts,
` beginning at 8:55 a.m., when were present on behalf
` of the respective parties:
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 1
`
`
`
`2
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S
`2 On behalf of Nikon Corporation:
`3 JOHN KERN, ESQ.
` ROBERT MATTSON, ESQ.
`4 Oblon, Spivak, McCelland, Maier &
` Neustadt, LLP
`5 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`6 Ph: 703.412.3000
` jkern@oblon.com
`7 rmattson@oblon.com
`8 On behalf of Carl Zeiss SMT GMBH:
`9 MARC WEFERS, Ph.D., ESQ.
` CHRISTOPHER BOWLEY, Ph.D., ESQ.
`10 Fish & Richardson, P.C.
` One Marina Park Drive
`11 Boston, Massachusetts 02210
` Ph: 617.542.5070
`12 wefers@fr.com
` bowley@fr.com
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 2
`
`
`
`3
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 C O N T E N T S
`2 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
`3 Counsel for Nikon Corporation 5
`4 Counsel for Carl Zeiss SMT GMBH 131
`5 Counsel for Nikon Corporation 137
`
`6 7
`
` E X H I B I T S
`8 JUERGENS DEPOSITION EXHIBITS: * PAGE
`9 Exhibit 2029 Document entitled, "Code V 9.8 30
` Delivers Improved Optical
`10 System Modeling and
` Optimization"
`11
` Exhibit 2030 Document entitled, "Optical 33
`12 Design Software Synopsys,
` Inc., Optical Solutions Group"
`13
` Exhibit 2031 Document entitled, "Optical 36
`14 Research Associates CODE V
` 10.2 Delivers Designed to
`15 Enhance Ease of Use"
`16 Exhibit 2032 Document entitled, "Synopsys 37
` Code V Enhances Aspheric Lens
`17 System Design"
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 3
`
`
`
`4
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 JUERGENS DEPOSITION EXHIBITS: * PAGE
`2 Exhibit 2033 Document entitled, "Synopsys 40
` CODE V Version 10.4 Optical
`3 Design and Analysis Software"
`4 Exhibit 2034 Document entitled, "Synopsys 41
` Releases Version 10.5 of
`5 CODE V Optical Design Software"
`6 Exhibit 2035 Document entitled, "Synopsys, 43
` Optical Solutions"
`7
` Exhibit 2036 Document entitled, "RMS 74
`8 Wavefront Error (157 nm waves)
` For Example 2 (Table 2, Fig. 5)
`9 In Terasawa"
`10 Exhibit 2037 Document entitled, "RMS 108
` Wavefront Error (157 nm waves)
`11 For Exhibit 1042"
`12 Exhibit 2038 Document entitled, "RMS 114
` Wavefront Error (157 nm waves)
`13 For Exhibit 1047"
`14 Exhibit 2039 Document entitled, "RMS 123
` Wavefront Error (157 nm in waves)
`15 For Exhibit 1049"
`16
`17
`18 **(Exhibits retained by Attorney Kern)**
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 4
`
`
`
`5
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 P R O C E E D I N G S
`2 WHEREUPON,
`3 RICHARD C. JUERGENS, called as a
`4 witness, and having been satisfactorily identified
`5 by a Arizona driver's license and duly sworn, was
`6 examined and testified as follows:
`7 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR NIKON CORPORATION
`8 BY MR. KERN:
`9 Q. So we're on the record.
`10 Good morning, Mr. Juergens.
`11 A. Good morning, Mr. Kern.
`12 Q. It's nice to see you again. Do you know
`13 why you are here today?
`14 A. Yes.
`15 Q. You are an expert witness for Zeis for
`16 IPR 2013-00362; is that correct?
`17 A. That's correct.
`18 Q. And that involves U.S. Patent Number
`19 7,348,575; is that correct?
`20 A. That's correct.
`21 Q. I just want to make it clear that if I'm
`22 unclear at any point today during the deposition or
`23 ask a question that maybe you don't understand,
`24 please stop me and let me know and I can rephrase
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 5
`
`
`
`6
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 the question for you.
`2 So you had executed a Supplemental
`3 Declaration on May 27, 2014; is that correct?
`4 A. Yes.
`5 Q. And that was Zeis Exhibit 1036? And that
`6 is your Declaration?
`7 A. Yes, it is.
`8 Q. Could you please explain to me why you
`9 provided a Supplemental Declaration in this matter?
`10 A. In the first Declaration I did not attempt
`11 to actually try to modify a dry lithographic system
`12 to convert it to a wet system. And I was asked
`13 after that if I could do that, and so I did that
`14 activity and wrote it up.
`15 Q. Were you asked or instructed to do the
`16 Supplemental Declaration by your attorneys?
`17 A. Yes.
`18 Q. And did they instruct you or ask or
`19 provide you with an explanation as to why they
`20 needed you to perform a Supplemental Declaration of
`21 experiments?
`22 A. I don't recall if they gave me any
`23 explanation.
`24 Q. Did they explain to you what the purpose
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 6
`
`
`
`7
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 was of the Supplemental Declaration?
`2 A. I'm not sure of your question. Is it the
`3 purpose of the Declaration or the purpose of why
`4 they wanted me to do this effort?
`5 Q. Well, the purpose of why they wanted you
`6 to submit your experiments, additional experiments,
`7 in a Supplemental Declaration for this matter.
`8 A. I -- I'm not sure what the answer to that
`9 is. They asked me to do this, and so I just
`10 followed their instructions.
`11 Q. When they gave you the instructions to
`12 draft a Supplemental Declaration, was there any
`13 indications that perhaps your original Declaration
`14 was deficient in any way?
`15 A. I do not know if they felt if it was
`16 deficient or not.
`17 Q. And was the goal of the experiments in
`18 your Supplemental Declaration to replicate the
`19 immersion system that's described in the '575
`20 patent?
`21 A. No.
`22 Q. What would you say the goal of your
`23 Supplemental Declaration was?
`24 A. The goal was to show that it was fairly
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 7
`
`
`
`8
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 obvious and straightforward to add immersion to a
`2 dry lithographic system using the tools and
`3 knowledge that were available in the 2003 time
`4 frame.
`5 Q. And are the opinions in your Supplemental
`6 Declaration your own opinions?
`7 A. Yes, they are.
`8 Q. So during the last deposition in this
`9 matter on February 12th of this year, you had
`10 maintained that it would have been obvious to
`11 combine Terasawa with the immersion references; is
`12 that correct?
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. Do you agree that the success of the '575
`15 patent in immersing a catadioptric system would
`16 have encouraged a person of ordinary skill in the
`17 art to make such a combination?
`18 A. I'm not sure I understand the question.
`19 Q. So a person of ordinary skill in the art
`20 having the knowledge of the '575 patent, would that
`21 have made it easier for them to produce the
`22 experiments in your Supplemental Declaration?
`23 A. No. I -- no.
`24 Q. So a person having the knowledge of the
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 8
`
`
`
`9
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 disclosure of the '575 patent, would it be easier
`2 for that individual to immerse a catadioptric
`3 system in a liquid, or would that be more
`4 difficult?
`5 A. It certainly wouldn't make it more
`6 difficult.
`7 Q. So then it would be easier?
`8 A. Perhaps.
`9 Q. Did you review the Declaration of Doctor
`10 Sasian which was submitted by Nikon on March 6,
`11 2014?
`12 A. No.
`13 Q. Were you told about its content?
`14 A. No.
`15 Q. Have you reviewed the patent owner's
`16 response to the petition submitted by Nikon on
`17 March 6, 2014?
`18 A. No.
`19 Q. Were you told about its content?
`20 A. No.
`21 Q. When approximately did you conduct the
`22 experiments I through IV that are described in your
`23 Supplemental Declaration?
`24 A. It would have been in the March/April time
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 9
`
`
`
`10
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 frame.
`2 Q. Approximately how many hours did you
`3 spend in conducting the experiments in your
`4 Supplemental Declaration?
`5 A. 40 to 60 hours perhaps.
`6 Q. Are those the only experiments that you
`7 conducted to prepare your Supplemental Declaration,
`8 the ones described in your Supplemental
`9 Declaration?
`10 A. No.
`11 Q. How many other experiments did you run?
`12 A. I ran several experiments. Tried several
`13 different tactics to include the immersion, and
`14 finally came up with the approach that I wrote up.
`15 Q. How many hours would you say you spent on
`16 the other experiments versus the experiments
`17 described in your Supplemental Declaration?
`18 A. Oh, the 20 to 60 includes everything, or 40
`19 to 60 includes everything.
`20 Q. Is there any breakdown of that 40 to 60
`21 that you could attribute to other experiments
`22 versus the experiments described in your
`23 Supplemental Declaration?
`24 A. Maybe half of it.
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 10
`
`
`
`11
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 Q. So did you use the knowledge you had
`2 learned from the '575 patent in any way in
`3 conducting your experiments described in your
`4 Supplemental Declaration?
`5 A. No.
`6 Q. I'd like to direct you to Paragraph 7 of
`7 your Supplemental Declaration, Zeis Exhibit 1036.
`8 On Page 5 the last full sentence of the
`9 only full paragraph, could you please read that out
`10 loud beginning with "The designer also."
`11 A. "In addition to the initial design data,
`12 the designer also needs to specify for the optical
`13 design software additional constraints for the
`14 system, such as the numerical aperture, maximum
`15 surface diameters of each optical element, system
`16 magnification, telecentricity, and minimum distances
`17 between adjacent optical elements, to name a few
`18 examples.
`19 "The designer also specifies a metric
`20 representing the quality of the projection optical
`21 system design. Often, the metric is related to
`22 image quality. For example, the metric can be the
`23 Root-Mean-Square wavefront error averaged over a set
`24 of specified field points."
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 11
`
`
`
`12
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 Q. Will you please describe what "RMS
`2 wavefront error" means?
`3 A. You would trace a bundle of rays from a
`4 specific object point through to the exit pupil of
`5 the system and you compute the optical path
`6 difference of each of those rays from the center
`7 ray, and you compute the root-mean-square of those
`8 differences.
`9 Q. And why is a root-mean-square wavefront
`10 error important in the context of a projection
`11 optical system?
`12 A. It's related to the image quality.
`13 Q. And how is it related to the image
`14 quality?
`15 A. The quality of an image, how close it
`16 corresponds to the pure diffraction limit can be
`17 approximated by an expression using the
`18 root-mean-square wavefront error.
`19 Q. And what would it mean in the context of
`20 a projection optical system to have a high RMS
`21 wavefront error?
`22 A. You want a low RMS wavefront error.
`23 Q. So an image having a high RMS wavefront
`24 error would be blurry; is that fair?
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 12
`
`
`
`13
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 A. That's correct.
`2 Q. It would be low quality; is that
`3 accurate?
`4 A. Yes.
`5 Q. Would an image having a high RMS
`6 wavefront error be desirable in the context of a
`7 projection optical system?
`8 A. No.
`9 Q. Maybe can you explain why an image would
`10 need to have a low RMS wavefront error in the
`11 context of a projection optical system?
`12 A. To have a good image, you want the
`13 wavefront that's converging onto the object point --
`14 or on the image point to be a perfect sphere, and
`15 any deviation from that is going to cause a
`16 degradation of the image quality.
`17 Q. And is it fair to say that poor image
`18 quality translates into poor pattern forming on the
`19 photoresist of the wafer?
`20 A. Yes.
`21 Q. And so in the context of a projection
`22 optical system, does the RMS wavefront error value
`23 need to be in a particular range for use in
`24 photolithography?
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 13
`
`
`
`14
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 A. I would say in general, yes.
`2 Q. And do you know what that range is?
`3 A. The generally accepted criteria for a good
`4 image is that the RMS wavefront error is less than
`5 .07 waves.
`6 For lithography oftentimes they choose to
`7 have -- to work with a smaller value than that.
`8 Q. Do you know what that smaller value might
`9 be?
`10 A. It depends upon the application and how
`11 good an image you need. Typically they try to
`12 design these systems to be a few milliwaves of
`13 aberration.
`14 Q. Would .04 RMS value satisfy a
`15 photolithography design?
`16 A. In some cases, yes.
`17 Q. So, again, in the context of
`18 photolithography, what if a value for RMS wavefront
`19 error is higher than, let's say, a .07 value?
`20 A. Well, the line widths that the lithography
`21 system creates will not be as crisp and sharp.
`22 Q. Related question; in the context of
`23 photolithography, what does the term "diffraction
`24 limit" mean?
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 14
`
`
`
`15
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 A. Diffraction limit refers to how close the
`2 image quality is to being perfect, and a perfect
`3 image has a perfectly spherical wavefront, you know,
`4 converging onto the image point.
`5 So diffraction limit is how close is the
`6 wavefront to a pure sphere.
`7 Q. How is diffraction limit related to RMS
`8 wavefront error?
`9 A. The RMS wavefront error is used to compute
`10 a term called the Strehl ratio, and a Strehl ratio
`11 being closer to 1 implies a diffraction-limited
`12 image.
`13 Q. Is there an industry standard in
`14 photolithography for a diffraction limit?
`15 A. I don't know. The quality of your
`16 wavefront error probably depends upon the
`17 application of the lithography system.
`18 Q. Let's say for your run-of-the-mill
`19 projection optical system producing
`20 photolithographic patterns on a wafer for use of a
`21 semiconductor, is there a limit on the diffraction?
`22 A. It really, it depends upon whether you're
`23 talking about needing, you know, you're talking
`24 about 100 nanometer resolution, you know, 50
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 15
`
`
`
`16
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 nanometer, 40 nanometer. It depends upon the
`2 application.
`3 Q. Would it be reasonable to set a
`4 diffraction limit at 0.7?
`5 A. You certainly wouldn't want it higher than
`6 that.
`7 Q. Or fabricating integrated circuits with
`8 setting the diffraction limit at 0.4 be reasonable?
`9 A. It could be.
`10 Q. So in the context of photo lithography,
`11 why is it necessary to have an RMS wavefront error
`12 that's below a diffraction limit?
`13 A. Well, you can't ever get below the
`14 diffraction limit. The diffraction limit is
`15 perfect.
`16 100 years ago or so, Lord Rayleigh declared
`17 that if the image quality was of a certain level of
`18 goodness, or at a certain minimum amount of
`19 wavefront error, that the image quality was
`20 considered to be not, in his term, sensibly
`21 degraded. And that limit that Rayleigh kept it is
`22 equal to .07 waves RMS.
`23 Q. And that .07 waves is referred to as a
`24 diffraction limit or?
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 16
`
`
`
`17
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 A. No. That's referred to as to Rayleigh 1/4
`2 wave limit. Diffraction limit is perfect. It
`3 corresponds to a wavefront error of zero.
`4 Q. Okay. Fair enough.
`5 So I understand, if an RMS wavefront error
`6 were to exceed 0.7, certain equations may no longer
`7 hold? Is that accurate?
`8 A. No. The equation will still hold, it's
`9 just that it's a gradual degradation of the image.
`10 It's up to .07, its image quality may be considered
`11 to be good enough. As it gets above that, it's
`12 going to degrade. It's going to degrade gradually.
`13 It's not catastrophic.
`14 Q. So when we are discussing wavefront error
`15 in setting a maximum when designing a system, does
`16 that RMS wavefront error need to be satisfied
`17 across the entire field of view in a system?
`18 A. Not for all applications, but for
`19 lithography the answer is yes.
`20 Q. So if a field of view contains several
`21 field points and several of them were above an RMS
`22 wavefront error limit, how would that affect the
`23 image that's formed?
`24 A. Well, the image at that position, that
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 17
`
`
`
`18
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 field point, would look a little blurrier than
`2 images at other points where the RMS wavefront error
`3 is less.
`4 Q. Generally is that desirable in a
`5 projection optical system?
`6 A. No.
`7 Q. Would you consider an image that's formed
`8 having RMS wavefront error greater than a .07
`9 threshold to be a usable image in microlithography?
`10 A. Probably not for microlithography, no.
`11 Q. So when designing an optical projection
`12 system, is it common to include some of the field
`13 points in the field of view that are below the
`14 maximum RMS wavefront error and some above the
`15 maximum RMS wavefront error?
`16 A. You include field points that sample the
`17 region of interest on the image plane, and you --
`18 you evaluate the wavefront error at each of those
`19 field points of interest, and then you compute the
`20 RMS for those.
`21 Q. So if some of those field points have an
`22 RMS wavefront error above .07 and some below .07,
`23 what's the result on the image formed by that
`24 system?
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 18
`
`
`
`19
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 A. Well, it would not be completely uniform.
`2 Q. I see. So is it fair to say some of the
`3 portions of the image would be maybe blurry; some
`4 of the portions may be crisp? Is that accurate?
`5 A. Let's not say blurry. Let's just say not
`6 as crisp.
`7 Q. Okay. Fair enough.
`8 So when a person of ordinary skill in the
`9 art is designing a projection optical system, they
`10 generally would not want to design the system to
`11 include field points in an area of interest above
`12 some maximum RMS wavefront error?
`13 A. No, of course, you would. You would
`14 include them.
`15 Q. So I don't maybe understand. When a
`16 person of ordinary skill in the art is designing a
`17 projection optical system, are they striving for
`18 points, field points, in the field of view that are
`19 below the RMS wavefront error threshold?
`20 A. Yes.
`21 Q. I'd like to direct your attention to
`22 Paragraph 17 of the Exhibit 1036, and I'd like to
`23 ask you to please read it out loud.
`24 A. "The version of CODE V that I used is
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 19
`
`
`
`20
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 Version 10.6. While this version was not available
`2 in 2003, I was careful to use only those functions
`3 and features of the program that were available in
`4 the 2003 version, which is no longer available."
`5 Q. Do you recall what version of CODE V
`6 software you had used to prepare your June 16,
`7 2013, expert Declaration?
`8 A. That was probably version 10.4.
`9 Q. So the version you had used to create
`10 your original Declaration is different from the
`11 version you used to create your Supplemental
`12 Declaration?
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. Why were you using a different version in
`15 your Supplemental Declaration?
`16 A. The program had been updated, and I keep my
`17 version of the program up-to-date on my computer.
`18 Q. Had you been instructed to use the new
`19 version of CODE V?
`20 A. No.
`21 Q. Do you recall what year Version 10.4 of
`22 CODE V became available?
`23 A. I could not tell you exactly. It was
`24 probably in the 2013 time frame.
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 20
`
`
`
`21
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 Q. Do you know approximately when you
`2 upgraded your software from Version 10.4 to 10.6?
`3 A. It would have been probably towards the end
`4 of 2013.
`5 Q. Do you know what version of CODE V would
`6 have been available in the year 2003?
`7 A. I have been told that that version was
`8 numbered 9.2.
`9 Q. And you had been told by whom?
`10 A. Somebody at the company that provides
`11 CODE V.
`12 Q. And what company is that?
`13 A. The company is now called Synopsys.
`14 Q. And did you inquire into what version was
`15 available in 2003 with the company Synopsys?
`16 A. Yes, I did.
`17 Q. Are you in any way familiar with the
`18 version of CODE V that was available in 2003,
`19 Version 9.2?
`20 A. Yes.
`21 Q. Have you ever personally used version
`22 9.2?
`23 A. Yes.
`24 Q. Do you recall for what purpose?
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 21
`
`
`
`22
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 A. I was a practicing optical designer at the
`2 time. So I used it in the course of my work.
`3 Q. Do you recall what type of optical
`4 systems you were working on with CODE V Version
`5 9.2?
`6 A. The main type of systems were for infrared
`7 optics for missiles. That was the company I was
`8 working for at the time.
`9 Q. And what company was that again?
`10 A. The name of the company is Raytheon Missile
`11 Systems.
`12 Q. Did you ever use the 2003 version of
`13 CODE V 9.2 to design projection optical systems?
`14 A. No.
`15 Q. Are you aware that CODE V had been
`16 released several times with new improvements since
`17 2003?
`18 A. Yes.
`19 Q. Do you know how many new versions of
`20 CODE V have been released since 2003?
`21 A. I don't know the exact number. It went
`22 from 9.2 to nine point -- to higher versions of 9,
`23 and then eventually they changed to 10, and now it's
`24 up to 10.6.
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 22
`
`
`
`23
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 Q. Do you know why the software company
`2 released new versions of CODE V over the years?
`3 A. For several reasons. One is they fixed
`4 bugs in the program. And another one is they add
`5 new features to the program.
`6 Q. Do you know whether they improve existing
`7 features to the program in their subsequent
`8 releases of new versions?
`9 A. Certainly they do.
`10 Q. Do you know what those improvements are?
`11 A. In general. I could not tell you
`12 specifically what improvements were made for a given
`13 version.
`14 Q. Are you aware whether any of the
`15 improvements involve the optimization routines in
`16 the CODE V software?
`17 A. Yes, they did include them.
`18 Q. Do you know what aspects of the
`19 optimization routines were included?
`20 A. Yes.
`21 Q. Could you please list them?
`22 A. Well, I probably can't list all of them.
`23 But the main feature is they added -- in 10.6 they
`24 added a new feature that is used to accelerate the
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 23
`
`
`
`24
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 optimization so it proceeds in a faster manner.
`2 Q. Are there any others that you recall,
`3 improvements?
`4 A. They added some improvements to allow one
`5 to control the derivative increments during
`6 optimization.
`7 Q. Are there any others that you can recall?
`8 A. Nothing major. There probably were others,
`9 but I don't recall them offhand.
`10 Q. Okay. Fair enough.
`11 Did you ever attempt to get a version of
`12 the 2.3 CODE V software?
`13 A. No.
`14 Q. So you currently don't have a copy?
`15 A. No.
`16 Q. Did you ever own a copy?
`17 A. Yes.
`18 Q. Did you check with the software
`19 manufacturer in an attempt to get a copy of the
`20 CODE V two point -- 9.2?
`21 A. No, I did not.
`22 Q. Just for clarity of the record, did you
`23 ever attempt to get a version of the 9.2 version of
`24 the CODE V software?
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 24
`
`
`
`25
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 A. Did I ever attempt to?
`2 Q. Yes.
`3 A. At one time I had 9.2 on my computer.
`4 Q. For the purposes of preparing your
`5 Declaration in this matter?
`6 A. Oh. No.
`7 Q. Are you familiar with any of the source
`8 code for Version 10.6 of the CODE V software?
`9 A. No.
`10 Q. Are you familiar with any of the source
`11 code for the 2003 version of the CODE V software?
`12 A. No.
`13 Q. Are you familiar with the source code for
`14 any of the intervening versions of the CODE V
`15 software?
`16 A. No.
`17 Q. Do you have access to CODE V source code?
`18 A. No, I do not.
`19 Q. Do you have access to any of the software
`20 included in the optimization algorithms?
`21 A. No.
`22 Q. So referring back to your Paragraph 17 of
`23 your Supplemental Declaration, you explain that you
`24 were careful to use only those functions and
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 25
`
`
`
`26
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 features of the program that were available in the
`2 2003 version.
`3 How can you be certain that you used only
`4 the function and features that were available in
`5 the 2003 version of CODE V?
`6 A. I -- in 1999 I changed jobs. And prior to
`7 that, I worked for the company that put out CODE V.
`8 At the time, that company was named Optical Research
`9 Associates. And while working for that company, I
`10 visited many customers teaching CODE V and giving
`11 seminars and instructions on how to use it.
`12 I visited, among other companies, I visited
`13 both Zeis and Nikon and I taught them how to use
`14 CODE V to optimize, in particular, lithographic
`15 systems. And I used those features and those
`16 techniques that I had taught back in that time
`17 frame.
`18 Q. Can you tell me what functions you had
`19 used in preparing your Supplemental Declaration
`20 from CODE V?
`21 A. The function within CODE V mainly that I
`22 use is a function called Automatic Design.
`23 Q. Could you describe the purpose of that
`24 function?
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 26
`
`
`
`27
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 A. That Automatic Design is the main feature
`2 for use in optimizing lens systems. It has several,
`3 you know, subcommands underneath it for setting up
`4 your merit function for identifying constraints
`5 during the optimization process and controlling the
`6 progress of the optimization.
`7 Q. So correct me if I'm wrong, then. So
`8 it's for the auto design feature you would input an
`9 optical design and ask the software to optimize, to
`10 create a design that meets some end parameters? Is
`11 that accurate?
`12 A. Yes.
`13 Q. Do you have any way to confirm that the
`14 source code for the functions and features that you
`15 used is the same as those functions and features
`16 were in the 2003 version of the software?
`17 A. No.
`18 Q. Are you currently an employee of the
`19 software manufacturer?
`20 A. No.
`21 Q. Are you aware whether the 10.6 version of
`22 CODE V allows the user to disable or turn off any
`23 specific features?
`24 A. I -- I guess I'm not sure what you're
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`IPR2013-00362, Carl Zeiss v Nikon
`Nikon Exhibit 2040, pg. 27
`
`
`
`28
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 07-02-2014
`
`1 referring to.
`2 Q. Are there any functions or features in
`3 the 10.6 version of CODE V that can be deactivated
`4 by the user in performing an analysis?
`5 A. I'm still not sure what you're getting at.
`6 You specify in an analysis or an
`7 optimization, there are several commands that you
`8 give to the program to control an analysis or an
`9 optimization, and you can turn those -- you
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
