Filed on behalf of The Petitioners
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`The Gillette Company, Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited, and Fujitsu Semiconductor
`America, Inc.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Zond, Inc.
`Patent Owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-005781
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`WITNESS DR. JOHN C. BRAVMAN
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01494 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`The Gillette Company, Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited, and Fujitsu Semiconductor
`America, Inc.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Zond, Inc.
`Patent Owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,896,775
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-005781
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`WITNESS DR. JOHN C. BRAVMAN
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01494 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00578
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`RESPONSES TO OBSERVATIONS ON DR. BRAVMAN’S
`TESTIMONY .................................................................................................. 1
`
`A. Observation A ........................................................................................ 1
`
`B.
`
`Observation B ........................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00578
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner submits this response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`on Cross-Examination of Reply Witness Dr. John C. Bravman (Paper No. 50).
`
`Patent Owner presents two observations on Dr. Bravman’s testimony. While
`
`Petitioner believes that the testimony will be appropriately viewed and weighed by
`
`the Board, the specific observations presented by Patent Owner misstate the
`
`testimony of Dr. Bravman, as specified below and therefore are not probative of
`
`any material issue before the Board.
`
`II. RESPONSES TO OBSERVATIONS ON DR. BRAVMAN’S
`TESTIMONY
`A. Observation A
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Bravman testified at his deposition that
`
`“Wang fails to teach a strongly-ionized plasma in an area adjacent to the surface of
`
`the substrate.” Petitioner’s Motion for Observation (“Observation”) at 2-3, Paper
`
`No. 50, citing Bravman Tr. 45:4-12 (emphasis added), Ex. 2012. Patent Owner,
`
`however, mischaracterizes Dr. Bravman’s testimony.
`
`Dr. Bravman’s answer was in response to Patent Owner’s question about the
`
`plasma densities near the cathode and the anode, not the substrate.
`
`Q: With the higher densities being near the cathode, and the
`
`lower densities being near the anode; is that correct?
`
`A: The end goal is to have the high density near the cathode
`
`1
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00578
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`target, yes.
`
`Bravman Tr. 45:4-12, Ex. 2012
`
`Dr. Bravman was shown Figure 1 of Exhibit 1008, the Wang patent. Figure
`
`1 shows a cathode 14, area of high density plasma 42, and substrate (wafer 20 on
`
`pedestal electrode 18) below the cathode. Dr. Bravman testified that the high-
`
`density plasma 42 shown in Wang would expand downward toward the substrate.
`
`Q: Do you recall being asked about the high-density plasma
`
`region marked as Number 42?
`
`A: Yes.
`
`Q: What would one of ordinary skill understand to happen to
`
`the location of that plasma?
`
`MR. FAHMI: Objection. Beyond the scope of cross-
`
`examination.
`
`THE WITNESS: During the application of higher voltages, the
`
`development of higher power, in addition to the rotation that was
`
`already there, it also would expand.
`
`BY MR. MAIER:
`
`Q Where would it expand?
`
`MR. FAHMI: Objection. Beyond the scope of cross-
`
`examination.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00578
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`THE WITNESS: It -- it would have to expand downward.
`
`Bravman Tr. 55:24 – 56:19, Ex. 2012.
`
`B. Observation B
`Patent Owner contends that “Dr. Bravman admitted that Kudravetsev’s [sic]
`
`model does not permit a solution for volume between the anode and the cathode.”
`
`Observation at 3-4, Paper No. 50, citing Bravman Tr. 48:14-23, Ex. 2012. The
`
`Petitioner’s further contends that “[t]his testimony is relevant because it is
`
`inconsistent with the Petitioner’s contention that the combined teachings of Wang,
`
`Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev somehow suggest choosing a volume between an anode
`
`and a cathode to increase an ionization rate of excited atoms and molecules in a
`
`weakly-ionized plasma, as required by claim 9.” Observation at 3. Patent Owner,
`
`however, mischaracterizes Dr. Bravman’s testimony.
`
`Dr. Bravman explained that Kudryavtsev’s equation is a behavior model
`
`which can be applied to a variety of situations, including the volume which was
`
`chosen by Wang and Mozgrin. The Petition clearly noted that “both Wang and
`
`Mozgrin carried out their ionization within a volume in which the ionization rate of
`
`excited atoms was increased.” Revised Petition at p. 50, Paper No. 9. Dr.
`
`Bravman testified consistent with the statements in the petition in his deposition:
`
`Q And these equations that actually define the model don't
`
`permit a solution for the volume between an anode and a cathode, do
`
`3
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00578
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`they?
`
`MR. MAIER: Object to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: I am not sure what you mean by a solution,
`
`but good models, in fact, are scale-independent so they can be applied
`
`to a variety of situations.
`
`…
`
`Q And the model that is reported by Kudryavtsev can't be
`
`solved in order to provide a specific volume solution, correct?
`
`MR. MAIER: Object to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: The model here is a described behavior of a
`
`certain kind of plasma independent of the size of the volume in which
`
`it's happening -- independent of the size of which it's occupying.
`
`That's why it's scale-independent. It is a behavioral model for a region
`
`of plasma with a certain set of characteristics, and it doesn't purport to
`
`be anything else.
`
`BY MR. FAHMI:
`
`Q So as a behavioral model, it does not purport to provide a
`
`solution for a designer to determine the dimensions of the three-
`
`dimensional space between the anode and the cathode in a system
`
`such as that shown in Wang, for example, correct?
`
`4
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00578
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`A It is a theoretical framework for establishing the plasma that
`
`would be presumably generated in whatever configuration of anode
`
`and cathode one would use.
`
`Bravman Tr. 49:6 – 51:22, Ex. 2012.
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/David L. Cavanaugh/
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Registration No. 36,476
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Tel.: 202-663-6000
`Fax: 202-663-6363
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 20, 2015
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00578
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 20, 2015, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation on
`Cross-Examination of Petitioner’s Reply Witness Dr. John C.
`Bravman
`
`to be served via e-mail, as previously agreed by the parties, on the following
`
`attorneys of record:
`
`
`
`Tarek Fahmi
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`333 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, VA 22043
`(571) 419-7252
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`
`
` /Yung-Hoon Ha/
`
` Yung-Hoon Ha
`
` Registration No. 56,368
`
`6
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
