`
`Frederick P. Fish
`1855—1930
`
`WK. Richardson
`1859—1951
`
`W
`
`February 24, 2014
`
`Mr. John s. Kern
`Mr. Robert C. Mattson
`
`Oblon, Spiyak, McClelland,
`Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.
`1940 Duke Street
`
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`1425 K Street, N.W.
`11th Floor
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Telephone
`202 783—5070
`
`Facsimile
`202 783-2331
`
`7
`
`Web Site
`WWW.fr.COIn
`
`SERVICE OF SIGNED TRANSCRIPT AND ERRATA FOR
`THE DEPOSITION OF RICHARD C. JUERGENS
`
`Re:
`Case No:
`
`Our Ref.:
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 7,348,575
`IPR2013—00363
`
`24984-005611’2
`
`Dear Messrs. Kern and Mattson:
`
`Attached are the signed transcript and errata for the deposition of Richard C. Juergens
`on February 13, 2014 in IPR2013-00363 and the following documents that Mr.
`Juergens refers to in his errata:
`
`65*
`ATLANTA
`
`AUSTIN
`
`BOSTON
`
`DALLAS
`
`DELAWARE
`
`HO USTON
`
`MUNICH
`
`NEW YD RK
`
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
`
`TWIN CITIES
`
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`l.
`
`2.
`
`A Code V file provided to Mr. Juergens by Fish & Richardson prior to
`his declaration;
`
`The Mann application as filed with the USPTO.
`
`If you have any questions, please let us know.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/Edward G. F aeth!
`
`Edward G. Faeth
`
`Patent Paralegal
`
`40953642doc
`
`1
`
`ZEISS 1135
`Zeiss v. Nikon
`
`|PR2013-00363
`
`
`
`1
`
`ZEISS 1135
`Zeiss v. Nikon
`IPR2013-00363
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on-February 24, 2014, complete and entire copies of the transmittal letter,
`
`Signed Deposition Transcript and Errata of Richard C. Iuergens, a Code V file
`
`provided to lVLr. Juergens by Fish & Richardson prior to preparing his declaration,
`
`and the Mann application as filed with the USPTO were provided via email to the
`
`Petitioner by serving the correspondence email address of record as follows:
`
`Mr. John S. Kern
`
`Mr. Robert C. Mattson
`
`Oblon, Spivak, McClelland,
`Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.
`1940 Duke Street
`
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Email: CPdocketKern@,oblon.corn
`Email: CPdocketMattsonngblon.corn
`
`.
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`
`Edward G. Faeth
`
`Fish & Richardson RC.
`
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202) 626—6420
`
`.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRA jMARK OFFIC
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`EIS SMT GMBH
`
`Petitioner
`
`: Case IPR2013—00363
`
`v.
`
`: Patent 7,348,575
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Sandra A. Deschaine, CSR, RPR, CLR, CRA
`
`
`
`
`CROSS-EXAMINATION BY )EPOSIT,
`
`
`OF RICHARD C.
`JUERGENS
`
`THURSDAY,
`
`FEBRUARY 13, 2014
`9:02 AM
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON
`One Marina Park Drive
`
`
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`3
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF NIKON CORPORAT:ON:
`
`
`
`0%.ON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER &
`4 NEUSTADT, L.L.P.:
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`John Kern, Esquire
`
`Robert Mattson, Esquire
`
`1940 Duke Street
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`22314 U.S.A.
`
`T. 703.412.3000
`
`F. 703.413.2200
`
`jkern@oblon.com
`
`rmattson@oblon.com
`
`12
`
`
`ON BEHALF OE CARL ZErSS SMT GMBH:
`
`F:SH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Kurt Glitzenstein, Esquire
`
`Marc Wefers, Ph.D., Esquire
`
`One Marina Park Drive
`
`Boston, Massachusetts
`
`02210
`
`T. 617.542.5070
`
`F. 617.542.8906
`
`g1itzenstein©fr.com
`
`I 20
`
`
`wefers@fr.oom
`
`
`
`(866) 448 — DEPO
`WWCapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`4
`
`
`
`Richard C. Juergens
`
`By Mr. Zern
`
`By Mr. GlitzenStein
`
`
`
`
`E X H I B I T S
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
` international
`
`Technology Roadmap
`for Semiconductors
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`
`
`WITNESSES:
`
`
`
`(Exhibits retained by Attorney Kern.)
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D : N G S
`
`RICHARD C.
`
`
`JUERGENS, Deponent,
`
`having first been satisfactorily identified
`
`by the production of his Arizona driver's
`
`was examined and testified as follows:
`
`CROSS—EXAMINATION
`
`Good morning, Mr Juergens.
`
`Good morning.
`
`Do you know why you're here today?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Are you here for —— are you here
`
`license and duly sworn by the Notary Public,
`
`Okay.
`
`
`
`as an expert witness for Karl Zeiss?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I am.
`
`Are you here for Inter Partes
`
`Review IPR2013—00363?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Is that involving U.S. Patent
`
`Number 7,348,575.
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`'
`
`
`
`Z‘d like to ask you a few
`
`questions about your background to start
`
`the day.
`
`A.
`
`(866)448—IDEPC)
`WWWCapitalReportirlgCompanytom ©2014
`
`6
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`Would you please begin by telling
`
` 1
`
`Q.
`
`
`
`
` Fullerton, and that is in Fullerton,
`
`me about your education.
`
`3
`
`A.
`
`I have a Bachelor's degree in
`
`Physics from California State College of
`
`Irvine.
`
`9
`
`Q.
`
`And did your studies in physics
`
`focus on optics?
`
`A.
`
`They did not.
`
`Q. Would you please tell me where you
`
`
`
`
`California, and I have a Master's degree in
`
`
`7 Physics from University of California,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`learned about lithography technology?
`
`
` 14 A. I picked it up over the course of
`
`15 my career. On—the—job training, you might
`
`
`
`17
`Q.
`Can you give me some examples of
`
`
`
`
`really impinged upon microlithography. Where
`
`
`
`microlithography were from conferences that _
`
`
`
`talks, and from work that I've done for Fish
`
`attended where I have listened to papers and
`
`11
`
`12
`
`say.
`
`on—the—job training?
`
`19
`
`A.
`
`My actual employment has never
`
`I
`
`learned about the techniques of
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`& Richardson.
`
`Q.
`
`So just for clarity, have you
`
`worked at any time as a lens designer in
`
`microlithography?
`
`,A. Well,
`
`there's two questions in
`
`I have worked as a lens designer,
`
`but
`
`I have not worked as a lens designer
`
`specifically in microlithography.
`
`Q.
`
`So would you consider‘
`
`
`
`microlithography more of a hobby‘
`
`profession?
`
`A.
`
`
`Optics is my profession, and
`
`microlithography is part of that profession.
`
`Q.
`
`I see.
`
`Do you have any publications in
`
`the field of microlithography?
`
`AJ
`
`
`Not specifically in the field of
`
`lithography, no.
`
`20
`
`Q.
`
`Do you have any publications in
`
`the field of optics generally?
`
`reference them generally?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I do.
`
`Can you list those or just
`
`(866) 448 — DEPO
`wwaapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`A.
`
`They are listed in my CV, which is
`
`one of the exhibits submitted in this
`
`discussion.
`
`Q.
`
`Fair enough.
`
`Do you know what
`
`the acronym ITRS
`
`stands for?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No,
`
`
`I do not.
`
`Would you agree that it stands for
`
`the International Technology Roadmap of
`
`Semiconductors?
`
`MR. GLITZENSTEIN: Objection,
`
`foundation.
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`I would accept
`
`A half pitch of 90 nanometers as
`
`that.
`
`BY MR . KERN:
`
`Q.
`
`Do you know what a technology node
`
`
`is in the context of resolution?
`
`A.
`
`I've never come across that exact
`
`Q.
`
`Say,
`
`for example, a half pitch of
`
`90 nanometers, does that help your
`
`understanding?
`
`A half pitch.
`
`AA
`
`Q.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`an example of a technology node.
`
`IA.
`
`No,
`
`that does not help.
`
`Q.
`
`Would it help if I had told you
`
`that it was related to the resolution of a
`
`rejection lens system?
`
`A-
`
`It does not help much, no.
`
`MR. KERN:
`
`I'd like to introduce a
`
`document and mark it Nikon 2101.
`
`(Exhibit No. 2001,
`
`
`international Technology
`
`identification.)
`
`
`MR. GL:TZENSTEIN:
`
`2001.
`
`
`MR. KERN:
`
`2101 corresponds to
`
`your Zeiss exhibits.
`
`(Off—the—reCOrd discussion.)
`
`BY MR. KERN:
`
`Q.
`
`Could you read the title of this
`
`document, Mr. Juergens?
`
`A.
`
`
`it is called the International
`
`Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors.
`
`Q.
`
`And it's the 2003 Edition,
`
`Lithography?
`
`A.
`
`
`Roadmap for Semiconductors, marked :or
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`And are you familiar with this
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`wwaapitalReportingCompany.Com ©2014
`
`10
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 02—13-2014
`
`publication?
`
`Al
`
`I am not.
`
`Q.
`
`Would it surprise you to learn
`
`that this publication is published every
`
`year?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`It would not surprise me.
`
`Would it surprise you to learn
`
`that this pUblication sets forth the industry
`
`expectations for the future of semiconductor
`
`devices?
`
`
`MR. GLITZENSTEIN: Objection,
`
`foundation.
`
`
`
`
`TH? WTTNH
`
`:
`
`
`; accept that.
`
` ERN:
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`So could you please turn to Page
`
`16 of this document and look at Figure 53.
`
`What is the title of the graph shown in
`
`Figure 53.
`
`A.
`
`
`It's labeled, "Lithography
`
`Exposure Tool Potential Solutions."
`
`Q.
`
`And do you see the years across
`
`the top of the graph?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And what
`
`is the range of the years
`
`11
`
`
`
`shown on the top of the graph?
`
`A.
`
`It starts at 2003 and goes to
`
`Thank you.
`
`And the next line below that is
`
`
`
`
`half pitch of 90 nanometers in 2004 to a half
`
`labeled "Technology Node."
`
`Do you see that?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And can you read the range of half
`
`pitches shown corresponding to the years 2003
`
`through 2019 shown in that row?
`
`AJ
`
`Okay.
`
`
`it starts under 2004.
`
`
`
`says, "hp90."
`
`And then under 2019 it lists
`
`Q.
`
`So what
`
`is your understanding of a
`
`half pitch in nanometers?
`
`A.
`
`
`i would assume that this is the
`
`half spacing between two individual, separate
`
`lines.
`
`Q.
`
`And what is your understanding of
`
`a graphic,
`
`such as the one shown in Figure
`
`53, showing a half pitch changing from —— a
`
`(866) 448 — DEPO
`WWWCapitalReportingCompanytom ©2011”;L
`
`12
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Juergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014:
`
`2
`
`4
`
`pitch of 60 nanometers in 2019?
`
`A.
`
`Could you clarify what
`
`the
`
`question is?
`
`Q.
`
`Sure. What is your understanding
`
`of this graphic when it indicates that a half
`
`pitch is 90 in year 2004 and is being reduced
`
`year by year to a half pitch of 16 in 2019?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`MR. GLITZENSTEIN: Objection,
`
`foundation.
`
`
`
`
`10
`THE WiTNESS:
`The graph appears to
`
`
`
`indicate that over time, between 2004
`
`
`and 2019,
`
`
`
`that the half pitch will be
`
`steadily decreasing from 90 to 16.
`
`So do you understand that this
`
`resolution moving forward from 2003 past,
`
`present into the future?
`
`19
`
`
`MR. GLITZENSTEfiZN: Objection,
`
`foundation.
`
`BY MR. K RN:
`
`
` 15
`
`Q.
`
`
`
`graph is showing the industry expecta:ion :or
`
`
`
`
`THE WITNESS: That's what it
`
`
`
`
`appears to be, yes.
`
`'BY MR. KERN:
`
`
`
`So based on the 2003 ITRS
`Q.
`
`13
`
`
`
`document, would you say that it's reasonable
`
`
`that it was the plan for the semiconductor
`
`industry to achieve better resolution in the
`
`future?
`
`MR. GLITZENSTEIN: ObjectiOD,
`
`foundation.
`
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`I could not answer
`
`that since I have not read this
`
`document.
`
`BY MR. KERN:
`
`Q.
`
`Fair enough.
`
`
`
`
`future, expectations are that the half pitch
`
`Per our prior discussions, do you
`
`agree that resolution is an important design
`
`
`feature of a projection lens?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And without having the benefit of
`
`reading this document and looking at the
`
`graphs shown in Figure 3, would you agree
`
`that the graph —— I'm sorry, scratch that,
`
`53, would you agree that the graph shown in
`
`Figure 53 is at least indicating that,
`
`in the
`
`will be reduced?
`
`MR. GLITZENSTEIN: Objection,
`
`(866)448—13EPC)
`WWW.CapitalReportingCompanynom ©2014
`
`14
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`form,
`
`foundation.
`
`THE WITNESS: Yes.
`
` BY MR. KERN:
`
`Q.
`
`Are you aware of some of the
`
`leading technologies in lithography at the
`
`
`
`time of filing the '575 Patent?
`
`A.
`
`
`Is this question, Am ; aware of
`
`the technology at that time, or the question
`
`I aware at the time of the filing?
`
`At the time of filing, did you
`
`
`
`still in their design phase.
`
`is, Was
`
`Q.
`
`
`
`just list some of the leading technologies in
`
`microlithography? Roughly 2003.
`
`A.
`
`About that time is when immersion
`
`technology was being applied to lithography,
`
`and catadioptric technology was also being
`
`applied to lithography.
`
`Q.
`
`When you say "applied," were they
`
`leading technologies in the field at that
`
`time, or were they still in their design
`
`phase?
`
`form.
`
`MR. GLITZENSTEIN: Objection,
`
`
`TH; WITNESS:
`
`They were probably
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`ERN:
`
`Q.
`
`And what about EUV lithography,
`
`would you agree that was available in 2003
`
`and a leading technology?
`
`MR. GLITZENSTETN: Objection,
`
`
`
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`That was not
`
`available back in 2003.
`
`BY MR. KERN:
`
`Q.
`
`What about
`
`l5? nanometer
`
`lithography, was that a leading technology in
`
`
`
`2003?
`
`I would say yes.
`
`Fair enough.
`
`Have you personally designed any
`
`reduction projection lens For lithography?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`Q.
`
`Have you managed the design of a
`
`projection lens for photolithography?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No.
`
`
`So I want
`
`
`to look at Exhibit ll29,
`
`and that's your CV.
`
`Could you look at the second
`
`paragraph and refresh your recollection of
`
`(866) 448 — DEPO
`WWWCapitalReporfingCompanytom © 2014
`
`16
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`that paragraph?
`
`(Witness reviewing document.)
`
`Okay°
`
`read aloud the last full sentence in that
`
`paragraph?
`
`7
`
`A.
`
`"He worked eleven years at Optical
`
`Research Associates,
`
`and went around the world giving seminars,
`
`
`
` 3
`
`A.
`
`
` O.
`For the record, could you please
`
`
`
`
` the suppliers of CODE V,
`
`
` lectures, and technology support on how to
`
`H
`
`
`11 use COD; V effectively for design and
`
`
`
`So is it the intention of that
`
`
`
`
` A. No.
`
`
`
`19
`Q.
`I want
`to ask you about some of
`
`
`
`
`
`Are you familiar with Mr. Willi
`
`
`designers and whether you're familiar with
`
`analysis of all kinds of optical systems
`
`including lithography systems."
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`last sentence to imply that you designed
`
`lithographic systems while at Optical
`
`Research Associates?
`
`the authors of several articles and lens
`
`their work or them personally.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Yes.
`
`You're personally familiar with
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And you are familiar with his
`
`works as far as publications?
`
`A.
`
`
`I‘m familiar with some of his-
`
`works.
`
`I would not say I'm familiar with all
`
`of them.
`
`Q.
`
`Fair enough.
`
`Are you familiar with Mr. Ulrich's
`
`design in the Field 0” optical
`
`lens design,
`
`
`
`
`patents that L've been working with Fish &
`
`
`
`particularly related to lithography?
`
`A.
`
`I'm only familiar with his designs
`
`that have been expressed or shown in the
`
`Richardson on.
`
`Q.
`
`Fair enough.
`
`How about
`
`the same questions with
`
`regard to Mr. David Williamson? Are you
`
` familiar with Mr. Wi1iiamson?
`
`A.
`
`
`
` I am.
`
`Q.
`
`Are you personally familiar with
`
`Mr. Williamson?
`
`@6Q448—DEPO
`WWW.CapitalReporfingCompany.com ©2014
`
`18
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`
`Are you with familiar any of
`
`Williamson's publications?
`
`A.
`
`I have heard him give some talks
`
`at conferences.
`
`I could not now tell you
`
`what
`
`they are on, other than probably touched
`
`
`on lithographic topics. But I would not say
`
`that I‘m intimately familiar with his
`
`-complete history of publications.
`
`Q.
`
`And Mr. Williamson is a lens
`
`designer in the field of lithography;
`
`is that
`
`accurate?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`And are you familiar with
`
`Yes, he is.
`
`
`
`Are you familiar with any of
`
`Mr. Williamson‘s optical designs in the field
`
`of lithography?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No,
`
`
`I'm not.
`
`Same questions with regards to a
`
`Mr. David Shafer.
`
`Do you know Mr. David Shafer?
`
`Yes,
`
`I do.
`
`And do you know him_personally?
`
`Yes,
`
`I do.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Mr. Shafer's publications or a subset of his
`
`
`
`publications?
`
`Omura's publications in the field
`
`
`Mr. Yashuhiro Omura. Are you familiar with
`
`A.
`
`I
`
`am familiar with his —— with
`
`some of his publications.
`
`I actually have a
`
`complete set of his publications, but
`
`
`i have
`
`not read all of them.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Fair enough.
`
`
`And Mr. David Shafer is an optical
`
`lens designer in the field of lithography?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes, he is.
`
`And are you familiar with some or
`
`all of Mr. Shafer's optical designs in
`
`lithography?
`
`AJ
`
`Q.
`
`
`I'm familiar with some of them.
`
`Okay.
`
`What about
`
`the same questions for
`
`
`
`Mr . Omura?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A4
`
`Yes,
`
`
`; am.
`
`And do you know him personally?
`
`
`i have met Mr. Omura personally,
`
`And are you familiar with some or
`
`(866) 448 — DEPO
`WWW.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2014
`
`20
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02-13—2014
`
`of
`
`lithography?
`
`A.
`
`Only through the patents that I've
`
`seen in conjunction with this task.
`
`Q.
`
`Fair enough.
`
`Would you agree that Mr. Omura is
`
`an optical lens designer in
`
`microlithography?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Are you familiar with all or some
`
`
`
`of Mr. Omura‘s optical designs in
`
`lithography?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Only as shown in his patents.
`
`In the '575 Patent?
`
`In particular, yes.
`
`And you also studied the similar
`
`continuation in the '870 patent?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Are there any other patents of
`
`Mr. Omura that you studied?
`
`A.
`
`There is another patent that we
`
`are using as an example of prior art to his
`
`'575 Patent.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`In this proceeding?
`
` In this proceeding.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
` Okay. Fair enough.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Are you familiar with Mr. Warner
`
`3 Tabarelli?
`
`4
`
`5
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`Q.
`
`So you never met Mr. Warner
`
`6 Tabarelli?
`
`7
`
`8
`
`A.
`
`
`1 have not.
`
`Q;
`
`Do you agree that Mr. Warner
`
`9 Tabarelli is an optical lens designer?
`
`10
`
`A.
`
`I could not say of my own
`
`11
`
`knowledge.
`
`12
`
`”3
`
`Q.
`
`Are you aware of any publications
`
`by Mr. Tabarelli?
`
`14
`
`A.
`
`
`i
`
`am aware of a publication that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` field of lithography?
`
`21
`A.
`No,
`:‘m not.
`
`
`22
`Q.
`Okay.
`Fair enough.
`
`
`Do you consider the people
`
` mentioned to be experts in the field of
`
`
`15
`
`he has that describes the use of immersion
`
`16
`
`fluids.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Fair enough.
`
`Are you familiar with all or some
`
`19
`
`of Mr. Tabarelli‘s optical designs in the
`
`
`
`
`just
`
`(866) 448 — DEPO
`'WWW.CapitalReportingCompa11y.com © 2014:
`
`22
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Inergens, Richard C. 02—13-2014
`
`optical design for projection lenses and
`
`microlithography?
`
`
`
` 3
`
`A. With the exception of Tabarelli,
`
`
`
`whom I do not know,
`I would say yes.
`
`5
`Q.
`But you are familiar with
`
`
`6 Mr. Tabarelli‘s work in the form of his
`
`patent?
`
`
`
`
`
`immersion fluids.
`
`That was related to
`
`
`
`8 Yes, but that work was not related A.
`
`
`to optical design.
`
`
` Q.
`Okay. Fair enough.
`
`
` A.
`Yes.
`
`
`
`15
`Q.
`Can you tell me about your main
`
`
` 18
`
`A.
`I was in the marketing and
`
`
`
`customer support group, and I did technical
`
` support through faxes, e—mails, and
`
` L‘J
`
`
`telephonically to Customers on CODI V.
`
` LiJ
`
`gave seminars on the use of COD: V, both at
`
`
`
`
`I
`
`Would you consider those persons
`
`to be persons of ordinary skill in the art?
`
`responsibilities at Optical Research
`
`Associates?
`
`the ~— beginning, and intermediate, or
`
`23
`
`
`
`1
`
`around the world visiting various countries
`
`2 giving technical support, doing marketing,
`
`
`
`and giving seminars on COJj V.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`Q.
`
`And during your employment at ORA,
`
`or Optical Research Associates, did you ever
`
`lecture Nikon?
`
`A.
`
`I have visited Nikon several
`
`times, yes.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`And that was Nikon in Japan?
`
`In Japan, yes.
`
`Have you ever visited their U.S.
`
`12
`
`subsidiary?
`
`13
`
`14
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No,
`
`I have not.
`
`And do you recall what
`
`the topic
`
`15
`
`of the lecture was when yOu visited Japan,
`
`16 with Nixon in Japan?
`
`17
`
`A.
`
`I visited them several times.
`
`The
`
`
`
`first time " vis‘ted them was to give
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20 because a: the time they were not using CODE
`
`
`19 demonstrations of CODE V and describe it,
`
`V, and it was in an attempt to convince them
`
`to start to use CODE V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` meet with them and help answer technical
`
`
`Subsequent visits to them were to
`
`(866)448—1JEPC)
`WWW.CapitaJReporfingC0mpany.com © 2014
`
`24
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`
`questions that they had on CODE V.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Does Nikon currently use CODE V?
`
`Yes,
`
`they do.
`
`Do you remember what group you had
`
`
`
`met with when you visited Nikon or groups,
`
`plural?
`
`A.
`
`At least one time or more times
`
`the groups l visited were managed by
`
`Mr. Omura.
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`So how long have you or did you
`
`work at Optical Research Associates?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`It was almost eleven years.
`
`And from when to when?
`
`From 1988 to 1999.
`
`So going back to your
`
`responsibilities at Optical Research
`
`Associates, what percentage of your time at
`
`Optical Research Associates would you say was
`
`devoted to the sales of CODE V software?
`
`A.
`
`Zero.
`
`Q.
`
`What percentage of your time was
`
`devoted to demonstrating CODE V software to
`
`potential clients?
`
`Ar
`
`Probably 5
`
`to 10 percent.
`
`25
`
`
`
`
` Fair enough.
`
`2
`
`What percentage of your time then
`
`3 was devoted to customer support of clients
`
`4 using CODE V software?
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`75 to 80 percent.
`
`And what percentage of your time
`
`at Optical Research Associates was devoted to
`
`8 optical design, specifically optical design
`
`9
`
`
`of microlithography?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Zero percent.
`
`And can you tell me what your main
`
`12
`
`responsibilities are at Raytheon?
`
`13
`
`A.
`
`I am considered as a senior --
`
`14 what‘s called a subject matter expert
`
` :5 opticals, and I am involved in overseeing the
`
`in
`
`16
`
`technical aspects of the various optical
`
`17 products that are included in Raytheon
`
`18 products.
`
`Q.
`
`How long have you worked at
`
`19
`
`
`
` Raytheon?
` 21
`A.
`I started in 1999 up to the
`
`present time,
`
`so it has been just over 15
`
`
`years.
`
` And do you do optical design for
`
`
`(866)448—13EPC)
`WWW.CapitaIReporfingCompanyrom © 2014
`
`_
`
`26
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02-13—2014
`
`What
`
`type of optical design?
`
`A.
`
`It has been primarily infrared
`
`type systems.
`
`Q.
`
`So infrared sensors?
`
`Infrared
`
`emitters? What
`
`
`type of infrared?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Infrared image sensors.
`
`Image sensors. Okay.
`
`And what percentage of your time
`
`microlithography systems?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Zero percent.
`
`So have you been involved in
`
`Sematech, S—e—m—a—t—e—c~h?
`
`at Raytheon is devoted to optical design of
`
`to Omura, have you ever
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`No,
`
`I have not.
`
`Do you know what Sematech is?
`
`I cannot say right now what it is.
`
`It sounds familiar, but
`
`
`I do not know what it
`
`is.
`
`Okay.
`
`Fair enough.
`
`So prior to your
`
`involvement in
`
`this litigation and the prior interference of
`
`the '870 Patent
`
`27
`
`
`
`examined patents related to lens systems
`
`before?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`
`would mean to a person 0" ordinary skill in
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`Have you ever examined patents-
`
`related to projection optical systems before
`
`in the field of microlithography?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`Q.
`
`Can you define what a lens unit
`
`the art?
`
`A.
`
`Usually that would be considered a
`
`
`
`group of lenses that is doing some speciric
`
`function within the overall operation of the
`
`lens.
`
`Q.
`
`Can you define what it means to be
`
`a lens group to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art?
`
`A.
`
`A lens group is simply a
`
`
`concatenation of multiple lenses that are
`
`called a single group for whatever reason the
`
`namer of that group had.
`
`It would probably
`
`tend to have the same general meaning as a
`
`lens unit but not exactly the same name.
`
`Q.
`
`So people would generally
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`wwmflwmmwmmghmmwmn©mfl
`
`28
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`scratch that.
`
`Back to the definition of
`
`Lens unit was a grouping of lenses
`
`that had a similar function;
`
`is that
`
`accurate?
`
`A.
`
`No,
`
`that had a specific function.
`
`For example,
`
`if I had a telescope followed by
`
`a scanner,
`
`followed by an imaging unit,
`
`then
`
`I would -— I can call a telescope one unit;
`
`I
`
`can call the imager one unit;
`
`
`i can call the
`
`scanning system one unit and so forth.
`
`Q.
`
`So a lens unit could fairly be
`
`described as a group of lenses that
`
`
`functioned together to achieve a function?
`
`
`MR. GLITZENSTEIN: Objection,
`
`
`
`
`THE WITNQSS: Yes.
`
`
`MR. GL:TZENSTEIN:
`
`
`Just pause for
`
`a moment, give me a moment
`
`to object,
`
`please.
`
`BY MR. KERN:
`
`Q.
`
`So are you familiar with the
`
`
`objective lens in a pair Cf binoculars?
`
`29
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I am.
`
`Is the objective lens in your
`
`definition a lens unit?
`
`A.
`
`It could be considered as a lens
`
`unit.
`
`Q.
`
`And why would it be considered a
`
`lens unit?
`
`A.
`
`Because the objective lens is ——
`
`
`
`the elements in an objective lens are close
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`together, and they are relatively separated
`
`from other portions of the overall lens
`
`system.
`
`Q.
`
`And what
`
`is the function of the
`
`objective lens unit in a pair of binoculars?
`
`A.
`
`To collect the incoming light and
`
`l6
`
`focus it.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2O
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Q.
`
`And does that function play a role
`
`in defining it as a lens unit since the
`
`lenses cooperate together to collect and
`
`focus light?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`It could.
`
`It could.
`
`Why might it not?
`
`A.
`
`The "could" implies that it could
`
`(866) 448 — DEPO
`WWW.CapitameportingCompany.com @2014
`
`30
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`
`
`be called a lens unit for the reason that you
`
`stated.
`
`So are you familiar with the
`
`lenses in a pair of binoculars?
`
`
`
` 3
`
`Q.
`I see. Okay.
`
`
`
`
`eyepiece lens in a pair of binoculars or
`
`Yes. A.
`
`
`
`8
`Q.
`Is an eyepiece unit a lens unit?
`
` 10
`Q.
`
`9
`
`AJ
`
`It could be called a lens unit.
`
`
`
`Why could it be called a lens
`
`12
`
`A.
`
`Because they tend to be grouped
`
`the objective lens unit.
`
`Q.
`
`And what is the function of the
`
`eyepiece lens unit in a pair of binoculars?
`
`It is to recoluminate the light so
`
`that the human eye can see the light easily.
`
`
`
`
`
`together and form a separate function from
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`A.
`
`
`
`19
`Q,
`:‘d like to turn to your
`
`that. I believe it's Exhibit 1116.
`
`
`
`standards.
`
`
` Declaration. It‘s Exhibit 1101.
`
`
`
`Scratch
`
`So in your expert report at
`
`Paragraph 15 there's a section about legal
`
`31
`
`
`
`Do you agree with that?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And did you write this section of
`
`your expert report?
`
`A.
`
`
`I had help from Fish & Richardson
`
`in writing it.
`
`Q.
`
`What portion or percentage of that
`
`l'm going to
`
`just, before you answer, Mr. Juergens.
`
`Counsel,
`
`I want
`
`to make sure I
`
`understand your position on inquiring on
`
`this issue.
`
`So you know, Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure 26 protects the types
`
`of questions that you're asking right
`
`now from discovery.
`
`I'm curious as to your position on
`
`
`the discoverability of this type OT
`
`
`information in View of that.
`
`MR. KERN:
`
`Sure.
`
`I just want
`
`to
`
`see what percentage of the report was
`
`actually written by Mr. Juergens.
`
`section was written by Fish & Richardson?
`
`
`
`
`GLlLJZjNS'i'L'iN:
`
`understand the ques:ion.
`
`
`
`MR. GLITZENSTZIN: Right.
`
`
`
`
`
`(866)448ulDEIT)
`WWWCapitalReportingCompany.Com © 2014
`
`32
`
`
`
`CapfialReporflng(lnnpany
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`My question for you is, how do you
`
`the ability to take discovery of experts
`
`set forth in Rule 26 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure as operative in
`
`this proceeding?
`
`
`
`MR. KERN: Yes. Okay. Given
`
`9
`
`
`
`view —— do you view the limitations on
`
`
`
`
`
`Of course. MR. KERN:
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. G”."TZENSTEIN5 You do.
`
`
` that, I'll allow you to answer, but
`I am
`
`
`a little concerned about ——
`
`
`
`12
`MR. KERN: Let rephrase the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`did you draft, Mr. Juergens?
`
`
`
`
`draft any 0: it.
`I did not draft any of it.
`
`
`
`
`20
`I did proof read it.
`
`
`
`
`23
`Q.
`Sure.
`Fair enough.
`
`
` 8
`
`question if it's causing
`
`consternation.
`
`BY MR. KERN:
`
`16
`
`Q.
`
`What percentage of Paragraph 15
`
`18
`
`A.
`
`I would say that
`
`I did not have to
`
`I did read it and
`
`verify that I could understand it and knew
`
`what it meant.
`
`33
`
`
`
`V
`
`'
`
`—32|
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`aloud?
`
`A4
`
`"I understand that when it comes
`
`
`to interpreting the scope of a claim,
`
`the
`
`claim's terms should be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`
`specification and the prosecution history of
`
`the application or patent.- If the
`
`specification provides a definition of a
`
`claim term,
`
`the claim term should be
`
`interpreted based on :he definition."
`
`Q.
`
`And so wha: does the language
`
`
`
`12
`
`"consistent with the specification" in that
`
`13 paragraph mean to you?
`
`14
`
`A.
`
`It means to me that the
`
`15
`
`interpretation of a term must be consistent
`
`l6 with how it is used in the specification of
`
`17
`
`the patent.
`
`18
`
`Q.
`
`By II'used," would you include how
`
`19
`
`it is described in the specification?
`
`Is
`
`20
`
`that what‘s meant by "used" in your last
`
`21
`
`answer?
`
`22
`
`23
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`That's —— yes.
`
`And would you generally agree that
`
`the drawings are part of the specification in
`
`(866) 448 — DEPO
`WWW.CapitalReporfingCompany.com © 2014-
`
`34
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02-13—2014
`
`the U.S. Patent?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`The drawings?
`
`{The drawings,
`
`the figures are part
`
`of the specification in the U.S. Patent?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`What do you understand "the
`
`prosecution history“ to mean in that
`
`paragraph?
`
`A.
`
`
`i understand that to mean that if
`
`previous discussions or histories of the
`
`application have —— indicate a different
`
`interpretation of a term,
`
` interpretation that should be used.
`
`then that is the
`
`Fair enough.
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`And what
`
`is the prosecution
`
`history?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`For example, an interference.
`
`Okay.
`
`Would you agree that interaction
`
`by the applicant with the U.S. Patent and
`
`
`Trademark Office during examination of the
`
`application,
`
`the record of that is a
`
`prosecution history?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I could accept that.
`
`Okay.
`
`35
`
`
`
`So do you generally agree with
`
`Paragraph 15?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Did you apply Paragraph 15 in your
`
`analysis of what a third lens unit is in
`
`paragraph -1 I'm sorry, Claim 55?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And do you believe that the '575
`
`
`Patent defines various lens units?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Fair enough.
`
`
`L'd like to turn now to the Mann
`
`Application, which is Exhibit 1110.
`
`Do you recognize the Mann
`
`Application, Mr. Juergens?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes,
`
`I do.
`
`Did you read the Mann Application
`
`or review the Mann Application in its
`
`entirety?
`
`I 20
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`21
`
`22.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Q.
`
`HOW did you come to know about
`
`the
`
`Mann Application?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Through Fish & Richardson.
`
`Were you told anything about the
`
`(866)448—1DEIK3
`vvmnvfilqfiHflReporfinngnnpanyixnn (32014
`
`36
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Iuergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`Mann Application when you were given the Mann
`
`Application for the first time?
`
`A.
`
`It looks like —— I'm not sure what
`
`
`you mean by was ; told anything about it.
`
`Q.
`
`Did anybody describe to you the
`
`purpose of the Mann Application when they
`
`gave the application to you for the first
`
`time?
`
`A.
`
`
`i was asked to look at the Mann
`
`Application,
`
`in particular the embodiment of
`
`Figure 2,
`
`to ascertain whether or not it
`
`appeared to be a prior art to the '575 Patent
`
`application.
`
`Q.
`
`Did anybody give you any guidance
`
`in ascertaining whether Figure 2 was prior
`
`art to the '575 Patent?
`
`A.
`
`
`; discussed the issue with Fish &
`
`Richardson.
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`Okay. Fair enough.
`
`
`I'd like to look at annotated
`
`Figure 2 of the Mann reference in your expert
`
`report. And I believe that's Paragraph 94 of
`
`your expert report.
`
`A.
`
`Okay.
`
`37
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you recognize this figure?
`
`Yes.
`
`Did you annotate this figure?
`
`Yes,
`
`I did.
`
`Did you annotate that figure with
`
`help from others?
`
`A.
`
`I discussed the annotations with
`
`Fish & Richardson.
`
`Q.
`
`So did you have any assistance in
`
`separating the various lens units shown in
`
`this figure?
`
`A.
`
`I would not call it assistance.
`
`I
`
`would certainly say that I discussed the
`
`separation of the lens units with Fish &
`
`Richardson.
`
`Q.
`
`So were you given any guidance in
`
`how to divide the various lens units of the
`
`Mann Figure 2?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`Q.
`
`So nobody suggested to you or
`
`showed you where the breakpoints should be
`
`between the various units in Figure 2 Mann?
`
`A,
`
`We discussed where the breaking
`
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`should be.
`
`(866) 448 - DEPO
`WWW.CapitalReporfingCompany.com @2014.
`
`38
`
`
`
`Capital Reporting Company
`Inergens, Richard C. 02—13—2014
`
`Q.
`
`Do you recall where and when you
`
`annotated this figure?
`
`A.
`
`It was last year, maybe summer
`
`
`frame.
`
`I don‘t recall exactly when.
`
`Q.
`
`And I notice your annotations are
`
`typed on this figure.
`
`Did you generate that graphic?
`
`A.
`
`I did not.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you know who did generate that
`
`graphic?
`
`A.
`
`I assume somebody at Fish &
`
`Richardson generated this graphic.
`
`Q.
`
`Was that graphic based on your
`
`drawing?
`
`direction?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`And how did you communicate that
`
`graphic to be generated?
`
`A.
`
`I took a similar diagram that
`
`I
`
`created from CODE V and put that into
`
`PowerPoint, and annotated that drawing and
`
`submitted —— with these annotations, and
`
`submitted that drawing to Fish & Richardson.
`
`Q.
`
`Do you still have a copy of that
`
`39
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I probably do somewhere.
`
`So this graphic then was generated
`
`3
`
`by Fish & Richardson at your direction?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Were there any changes made to the
`
`drawing after you submitted the instruction
`
`to modify the graphic?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`So you had submitted an original
`
`marked up version and instructions to modify
`
`Figure 2,
`
`a graphic was generated, and then
`
`it was later modified?
`
`A.
`
`I submitted to them a drawing that
`
`broke this up into units, and we discussed ——
`
`
`" discussed with Fish & Richardson the
`
`breaking of the units and the