throbber
FISH 8: RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket