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, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-005801
`U.S. Patent 6,896,773
`
`PATENT OWNER ZOND’S OBSERVATIONS ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION O F D R . B R A V M A N
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01479 has been joined with IPR2014-00580.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY, FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR
`
`LIMITED, and FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
` ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-005801
`U.S. Patent 6,896,773
`
`PATENT OWNER ZOND’S OBSERVATIONS ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION O F D R . B R A V M A N
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01479 has been joined with IPR2014-00580.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner, Zond LLC (“Zond”), hereby files observations on the
`
`testimony given by Petitioners’ Declarant Dr. Bravman (Exhibit 2013) at a
`
`deposition held on April 22, 2015.
`
`(1) Testimony From Dr. Bravman Indicating That It Would Not Have Been
`
`Obvious To Combine Either Lantsman Or Kawamata With The Other Asserted Prior
`
`Art To Achieve The Invention Claimed In The ‘773 Patent: At the following transcript
`
`locations (Exhibit 2013), when asked questions relating to the differences between
`
`Lantsman or Kawamata and the claimed invention of the ‘773 patent, Dr. Bravman
`
`testified that neither Lantsman nor Kawamata teaches a pulsed power supply, that
`
`Lantsman instead teaches two DC power supplies and that he had no opinion on
`
`whether Lantsman or Kawamata generates strongly ionized plasma. The testimony
`
`is relevant because it shows that the Petitioners did not identify objective evidence
`
`tending to establish that the teachings of Lantsman’s dual power supply or
`
`Kawamata could have been used in a system that uses a pulsed power supply and
`
`generates a strongly ionized plasma, like the claimed invention of the ‘773 patent:
`
`Q. Now, Lantsman does not teach a pulsed power supply; is that
`
`right?
`
`A. It does not -- it does not describe the power supplies as capable of
`
`pulsing, that's right. (Exhibit 2013, p. 11, ll. 10-14, emphasis added).
`
`…
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Q. … in your opinion, does the device that's disclosed in Lantsman
`
`generate a strongly ionized plasma?
`
`A. … I don't have an opinion today whether or not it constitutes a strongly
`
`ionized plasma. (Exhibit 2013, p. 13, l. 11 – p. 14, l. 7, emphasis
`
`added).
`
`…
`
`Q. Is one of Lantsman's power supplies a DC power supply that is
`
`identified by the reference number 10?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And is the other power supply in Lantsman a secondary DC
`
`power supply that is identified by the reference number 32?
`
`A. Yes. (Exhibit 2013, p. 14, ll. 8-15).
`
` …
`
`Q. Kawamata makes no mention of applying a voltage pulse, right?
`
`A. No, that's correct. (Exhibit 2013, p. 17, l. 24 – p. 18, l. 2,
`
`emphasis added).
`
`…
`
`Q. In your opinion, does the device that's described in Kawamata
`
`generate strongly ionized plasma?
`
`A. I haven't offered an opinion about that because, again, that's a
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`matter of definitions. It would be my opinion that Kawamata is
`
`describing a successful application of sputtering technology to this
`
`particular material. But I have not offered an opinion about whether that
`
`would be called or that would happen through the application of high
`
`density plasma or not. (Exhibit 2013, p. 18, ll. 14 – 25, emphasis added).
`
`
`
`(2) Testimony From Dr. Bravman Indicating That Fortov, Mozgrin, and
`
`Kudryavtsev Do Not Teach “choosing an amplitude and rise time of a voltage pulse to
`
`cause a sputtering yield to be nonlinearly related to a temperature of a sputtering target,”
`
`As Claimed In The ‘773 Patent: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit 2013),
`
`when asked questions relating to the claim limitation of “choosing an amplitude
`
`and rise time of a voltage pulse to cause a sputtering yield to be nonlinearly related
`
`to a temperature of a sputtering target,” Dr. Bravman testified that neither Fortov,
`
`Mozgrin nor Kudryavtsev teaches this claim limitation. The testimony is relevant
`
`because it undermines the Petitioners’ position that this claim limitation is taught
`
`by the combination of these references:
`
`Q. Does Fortov disclose a device that performs sputtering?
`
`A. No, this reference is more fundamental scientific work that is
`
`discussing sputtering yield as a function of many variables.
`
`Q. Does Fortov teach choosing an amplitude and rise time of a voltage
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`pulse to cause a sputtering yield to be nonlinearly related to a temperature of
`
`a sputtering target?
`
`MR. MAIER: Objection to form; calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`A. From a technical viewpoint, no. Again, it is talking about various
`
`aspects of sputtering yield including temperature dependents.
`
` (Exhibit 2013, p. 21, ll. 8-24, emphasis added).
`
`…
`
`Q. … Mozgrin does not teach that an amplitude and a rise time of the
`
`voltage pulse chosen to cause a sputtering yield to be nonlinearly
`
`related to the temperature of the sputtering target, right?
`
`MR. MAIER: Objection to form.
`
`A. Mozgrin does not teach specifically that there is a nonlinear
`
`dependence of sputtering yield with temperature of the target.
`
`Q. And Mozgrin does not mention any relation between sputtering
`
`yield and the temperature of the sputtering target, right?
`
`MR. MAIER: Object to form.
`
`A. I believe that's correct. (Exhibit 2013, p. 29, ll. 7-22, emphasis
`
`added).
`
`…
`
`Q. So Mozgrin makes no mention of the temperature of the target
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`material during 16 the application of a pulse?
`
`A. I believe that's correct. (Exhibit 2013, p. 76, ll. 14-17).
`
`…
`
`Q. Kudryavtsev does not mention that the amplitude and rise time of
`
`a voltage pulse were chosen to have a particular effect on the relation of
`
`the sputtering yield to the temperature of the sputtering target, right?
`
`A. It does not mention that, correct. (Exhibit 2013, p. 49, l. 25 – p.
`
`50, l. 8, emphasis added).
`
`
`
`(3) Testimony From Dr. Bravman Indicating That It Would Not Have Been
`
`Obvious To Combine Mozgrin With Kudryavtsev To Achieve The Invention Claimed In
`
`The ‘773 Patent: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit 2013), when asked
`
`questions relating to the differences between Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev, Dr.
`
`Bravman testified that many of the results that were obtained using Kudryavtsev's
`
`device would be different than the results obtained using Mozgrin's planar
`
`magnetron device. Indeed, Dr. Bravman testified that he didn’t even know how the
`
`different structure of Mozgrin’s device would effect many of the results obtained
`
`from Kudryavtsev’s device. The testimony is relevant because it shows that the
`
`Petitioners did not identify objective evidence tending to establish that the teachings
`
`of the very different devices of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev would have led to
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`predictable results:
`
`Q. Could you identify for me which of those results that were
`
`obtained using Kudryavtsev's device would be different if Mozgrin's
`
`planar magnetron device had been used?
`
`MR. MAIER: Objection; foundation, form.
`
`A. Well, the currents, for instance, that he lists 0.5 to 20 milliamps,
`
`that's a broad range. That's a factor of 40 in range itself. Those
`
`currents could be different in a different tube let alone a machine that
`
`comprises a planar magnetron. A worker of skill understands that. He
`
`uses initial gas densities, that is Kudryavtsev, of .5 to five 17 times ten
`
`to the 17th per cubic centimeter… (Exhibit 2013, p. 35, ll. 2-17,
`
`emphasis added).
`
`…
`
`Q. Well, let me ask you a simple question. In your opinion, as one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, would the curves depicted in Figure 4(a) be
`
`different if Mozgrin's planar magnetron system had been used?
`
`MR. MAIER: Objection; foundation.
`
`A. I don't have an opinion for that. And I don't know, as I sit here,
`
`whether they would differ in material or immaterial ways.
`
`Q. Now, turning your attention -- I said I would take these figures
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`separately to make it simpler. Turning your attention to Figure 4(b),
`
`would the curves depicted in that figure be different if Mozgrin's
`
`planar magnetron system had been used instead of Kudryavtsev's
`
`device?
`
`MR. MAIER: Objection; foundation.
`
`A. The same answer.
`
`Q. With respect to Figure 4(a), would the curves depicted there be
`
`different if Mozgrin's shaped electrode device had been used instead
`
`of Kudryavtsev's device?
`
`MR. MAIER: Objection; foundation.
`
`A. Same answer.
`
`Q. With respect to the Figure 4(b), would the curves depicted there
`
`be different had Mozgrin's shaped electrode device been used instead
`
`of Kudryavtsev's device?
`
`MR. MAIER: Objection to foundation.
`
`A. Same answer. (Exhibit 2013, p. 39, l. 11 – p. 40, l. 21, emphasis
`
`added).
`
`…
`
`Q. Would the curves depicted in Figure 5 be different had
`
`Mozgrin's planar magnetron system been used instead of
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Kudryavtsev's device
`
`MR. MAIER: Objection; foundation.
`
`A. Again, I have not offered an opinion about that. As I sit here, I
`
`am not prepared to offer one that would take into account the
`
`various geometries of the systems or the variations of the system.
`
`Q. Would the curves depicted in Figure 5 of Kudryavtsev have
`
`differed if Mozgrin's shaped electrode device had been used instead
`
`of Kudryavtsev's device?
`
`MR. MAIER: Objection; foundation.
`
`A. Same answer. (Exhibit 2013, p. 41, l. 22 – p. 42, l. 15, emphasis
`
`added).
`
`
`
`(4) Additional Testimony From Dr. Bravman Indicating That It Would Not Have
`
`Been Obvious To Combine Mozgrin With Kudryavtsev To Achieve The Invention
`
`Claimed In The ‘773 Patent: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit 2013),
`
`when asked additional questions relating to the differences between Mozgrin and
`
`Kudryavtsev, Dr. Bravman testified that it would be difficult to determine how the
`
`values of electron fluxes that were obtained using Kudryavtsev's device differ from
`
`the values obtained using Mozgrin's planar magnetron device. The testimony is
`
`relevant because it further demonstrates that the Petitioners did not identify
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`objective evidence tending to establish that the teachings of the very different
`
`devices of Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev would have led to predictable results:
`
` Q. Would it be easy or difficult to determine how the electron fluxes
`
`of a system that used the cylindrical tube structure with electrodes
`
`spaced by 52 centimeters differ from the electron to fluxes of a planar
`
`magnetron system with the electrodes spaced by 10 milliliters?
`
`MR. MAIER: Objection to form.
`
`A. Actual measurement of electron fluxes would be probably
`
`impossible in all circumstances. So one would resort to the type of
`
`modeling that Kudryavtsev reports on; especially electron fluxes within
`
`individual atoms. One could probably come up with an experimental
`
`system by which one could attempt to measure the density of both
`
`excited and ionized states. But it would be difficult for both and equally
`
`so (Exhibit 2013, p. 66, l. 9 – p. 67, l. 2, emphasis added).
`
`
`
`(5) Testimony From Dr. Bravman Indicating That Sputtering Is Not Performed In
`
`Region 3 Of Mozgrin: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit 2013), when
`
`asked questions relating to whether sputtering occurs in region 3 of Mozgrin, Dr.
`
`Bravman testified that according to Mozgrin, sputtering does not occur in region 3.
`
`The testimony is relevant because the Petitioner relied upon region 3 of Mozgrin in
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`its argument that Mozgrin teaches the sputtering that is claimed in the ‘773 patent:
`
`Q. Do you see the sentence, "There was no cathode sputtering in
`
`these regimes"?
`
`A. I see that sentence, yes.
`
`Q. When that sentence uses the phrase "these regimes," is it your
`
`understanding that it is referring to regimes 3 and 4 which were
`
`discussed in the 3 immediately preceding paragraph?
`
`A. Yes, 3 is the etching regime as I called it and 4 is the arc regime.
`
`(Exhibit 2013, p. 52, l. 20 – p. 53, l. 5, emphasis added).
`
`
`
`(6) Testimony From Dr. Bravman Indicating That The Petitioners’ Invalidity
`
`Argument With Respect To The Feed Gas Limitations Are Based On A Faulty Claim
`
`Construction: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit 2013), Dr. Bravman
`
`testified that the meaning of the claim limitation “an ionization source that
`
`generates a weakly ionized plasma from a feed gas” would not change if the claim
`
`term “feed” were removed. The testimony is relevant because it shows that the
`
`Petitioners’ invalidity grounds are based on a claim construction that reads the
`
`claim term “feed” out of the claims and is therefore, erroneous:
`
`Q. Would your understanding of the phrase differ if I removed the word
`
`feed, and in particular, would your understanding of the meaning of the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`phrase "an ionization source that generates a weakly ionized plasma
`
`from a gas" differ from your understanding of an ionization source that
`
`generates a weakly ionized plasma from a feed gas?
`
`A. No. (Exhibit 2013, p. 67, ll. 15 – 23 emphasis added).
`
`
`
`(7) Testimony From Dr. Bravman Indicating That The Petitioners’ Invalidity
`
`Argument Against Claim 10 Is Based On A Faulty Claim Construction: At the
`
`following transcript locations (Exhibit 2013), Dr. Bravman testified that Petitioners’
`
`argument against claim 10 is based on an understanding that term “electrode”
`
`recited in claim 10 is the same as either the claim terms “anode” or “cathode”
`
`recited in the claim from which claim 10 depends (i.e., claim 1). The testimony is
`
`relevant because under the proper construction, the claim term “electrode” of claim
`
`10 must refer to something other than the anode or cathode recited in claim 1:
`
`Q. … Is it your opinion that either the cathode or the anode that you
`
`mentioned in Figure 2 of Mozgrin corresponds to the electrode that's
`
`recited in Claim 10?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Does the Mozgrin reference disclose a third electrode besides the
`
`cathode and anode that you just referred me to?
`
`MR. MAIER: Objection to form.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`A. Only as I recall from measurement of densities, but not as part of
`
`the actual ionization system. (Exhibit 2013, p. 85, l. 23 – p. 86, l. 11).
`
`
`
`(8) Testimony From Dr. Bravman Indicating That Mozgrin Does Not Supply Gas
`
`During The Plasma Generation Process As Required By The Claim Term “Feed Gas”:
`
`At the following transcript locations (Exhibit 2013), Dr. Bravman testified that the
`
`chamber of Mozgrin is filled up with gas rather than supplied with gas during the
`
`plasma generation. The testimony is relevant because it shows that Mozgrin does
`
`not meet the term “feed gas” as recited in the claims of the ‘773 patent:
`
`Q. Does that refresh your memory as to whether Mozgrin mentions
`
`specifically the term filled up with either neutral or pre-ionized gas?
`
`A. It is indeed filled up as it says in the middle of that line, thank you.
`
`(Exhibit 2013, p. 75, l. 23 – p. 76, l. 4, emphasis added).
`
`
`
`(9) Testimony From Dr. Bravman Indicating That Mozgrin Does Not Teach That
`
`“a rise time of the voltage pulse is chosen to increase an ionization rate of the strongly-
`
`ionized plasma,” As Recited In Claim 11: At the following transcript locations
`
`(Exhibit 2013), Dr. Bravman testified that the number of ions increases if the
`
`ionization rate is constant. The testimony is relevant because the Petitioners’ relied
`
`on the mere increase in the number of ions to support its argument that Mozgrin
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`teaches an increase in the ionization rate:
`
`Q. My question was at the rate at which ions are created remains
`
`constant. So in that circumstance can the number of ions within a
`
`particular closed volume increase if the rate at which ions are created
`
`remain constant?
`
`A. I may have misspoke, but that's the question I was answering. If
`
`all other things are equal, you produce ions at a constant rate. The
`
`numbers -- the total number produced per unit time is constant. But the
`
`total number produced goes up. All other things being constant.
`
`(Exhibit 2013, p. 86, l. 21 – p. 87, l. 9, emphasis added).
`
`
`
`(10) Testimony From Dr. Bravman Indicating That Mozgrin Does Not Teach
`
`That “strongly-ionized plasma is substantially uniform proximate to the cathode
`
`assembly,” As Recited In Claim 13: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit
`
`2013), Dr. Bravman that the plasma density is substantially different (i.e., not
`
`uniform) at two different locations (i.e., the center of the circle and ring shown in
`
`FIG. 6a of Mozgrin) that are proximate to the cathode assembly of Mozgrin. The
`
`testimony is relevant because it indicates that Mozgrin does not teach the strongly
`
`ionized plasma to be substantially uniform in the area that is proximate to the
`
`cathode assembly, as required by claim 13:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Q. Is the point at the center of the black circle of Figure 6(a) of
`
`Mozgrin approximate to the cathode in Mozgrin?
`
`A. Mozgrin describes a system where, in both the planar and the
`
`shaped magnetron sources where the answer to that would be yes.
`
`(Exhibit 2013, p. 88, ll. 6-12).
`
`…
`
`Q. Are the points on the white ring of Figure 6(a) approximate to the
`
`cathode in Mozgrin?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Is the plasma density, according to the image shown in Figure 6(a)
`
`at the center of the black circle different than the plasma density on the
`
`white ring shown in Figure 6(a)?
`
`MR. MAIER: Objection to form.
`
`A. So the Figure 6 is a result of the plasma exposure but
`
`understanding -- the answer to your question is yes. (Exhibit 2013, p.
`
`89, ll. 3-18.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves (Reg. No. 43,639)
`
`André J. Bahou, Esq.
`Reg. No. 56,157
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner Zond’s Observations On Cross
`
`Examination was served on the Petitioner by e m a i l at the following e m a i l addresses
`
`on April 28, 2015.
`
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476 (Lead Counsel)
`Yung-Hoon Ha, Reg. No. 56,368 (Back-up Counsel)
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6025
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`David M. O’Dell
`David L. McCombs
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`/s/ Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Reg. No. 43,639
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`(571) 419-7252
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`
`16
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
