throbber
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. 6,896,773
`Trial No. IPR2014-007261
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`WITNESS DR. JOHN C. BRAVMAN
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01481 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`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 1 ........................................................................................ 1 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Observation 2 ........................................................................................ 3 
`
`Observation 3 ........................................................................................ 5 
`
`D.  Observation 4 ........................................................................................ 7 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`Observation 5 ........................................................................................ 8 
`
`Observation 6 ........................................................................................ 9 
`
`G.  Observation 7 ...................................................................................... 10 
`
`H.  Observation 8 ...................................................................................... 11 
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`Observation 9 ...................................................................................... 11 
`
`Observation 10 .................................................................................... 12 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner submits this response to Patent Owner Zond’s Motion for
`
`Observation on Cross-Examination of Dr. Bravman, Paper No. 37
`
`(“Observation”) . Patent Owner presents ten 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 mischaracterize 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 1
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Bravman’s testimony indicates “that it
`
`would not have been obvious to combined either Lantsman or Kawamata with the
`
`other asserted prior art. . . .” Observation at 2. Patent Owner alleges that the cited
`
`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. . . .” Observation at 2.
`
`These observations are not accurate.
`
`Dr. Bravman does not contend that Lantsman or Kawamata should be
`
`modified to apply voltage pulses and to generate a “strongly-ionized plasma,” as
`
`1
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`the selected portions of the testimony misleadingly implies. Dr. Bravman’s
`
`declaration states that it would have been obvious to use Lantsman’s “continuous
`
`gas flow” and Kawamata’s “cooling” mechanisms with Mozgrin. See Bravman
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 104-105 (“Mozgrin does, in fact, teach a continuous flow of gas. . . . Use
`
`of Lantsman’s continuous gas flow within Mozgrin is a combination of old
`
`elements in which each element behaved as expected.”; id. ¶ 91 (“Kawamata and
`
`Mozgrin both avoid increasing the average temperature of the sputtering target by
`
`cooling the target and … one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`combine the teachings of Kawamata and Mozgrin.”). There is nothing inconsistent
`
`in his deposition testimony. For example, he testified that “in these proceedings
`
`what is strong and weak are relative terms, there is nothing to compare
`
`qualitatively in Lantsman’s description, but it is also true that what a worker of
`
`skill would understand by strongly ionized is the type of plasma that’s typically
`
`used but Lantsman does not call that out.” Bravman ’773 Dep. at 12:15-13:2 (Ex.
`
`1129). Similarly, he testified: “Again, strongly ionized is, in these proceedings, is a
`
`relative term. It [Kawamata] does talk about specifically and successfully ejecting
`
`material from sputtering and elsewhere in this matter that’s often associated with
`
`strongly-ionized plasma.” Bravman ’773 Dep. at 18:3-13 (Ex. 1129). Thus, the
`
`testimony the Patent Owner identifies, both by itself and also when viewed in
`
`context of his other testimony, does not support the argument made by the Patent
`
`2
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`Owner.
`
`B. Observation 2
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Bravman’s testimony indicates “that Fortov,
`
`Mozgrin, and Kudryavtsev do not teach” the claim limitation “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. . . .” Observation at 4.
`
`Patent Owner alleges that the cited testimony is relevant because “it undermines
`
`the Petitioners’ position that this claim limitation is taught by the combination of
`
`these references. . . .” Observation at 4. Patent Owner is incorrect.
`
`Patent Owner cites testimony showing that neither Mozgrin nor Fortov
`
`alone teaches the limitation “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.” Observation at 4. This issue has already been addressed by the
`
`Board, and the Board rejected the approach. Decision at 21 (“[O]ne cannot show
`
`nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based
`
`on combinations of references.”).
`
`Dr. Bravman has testified throughout this proceeding that it is the
`
`combination of Mozgrin and Fortov that render this limitation obvious. First, Dr.
`
`Bravman testified that Mozgrin discloses controlling voltage pulses:
`
`Q. Does -- does Mozgrin describe the control of voltage pulses?
`
`3
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`A. He reports on at least page 402 what he calls oscillograms of
`voltage and current characteristics. . . . [H]e’s clearly indicating that
`those quantities must be known and I would opine controlled. . . . [S]o
`again my opinion is that a worker of skill would understand this in the
`context of plasma apparatus to be able to control voltage and current.
`
`Bravman ’775 Dep. at 28:8-23 (Ex. 1129); Bravman Decl. ¶¶ 61-62 (Ex. 1127).
`
`
`
`Second, Dr. Bravman testified that Fortov explains precisely how to achieve
`
`the temperature at which point the relationship to sputtering yield becomes non-
`
`linear:
`
`Q. Does Fortov describe the relationship between the sputtering
`yield and the temperature of the target?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Fortov does not describe how to achieve a nonlinear
`Q.
`relationship between the sputtering yield and the target temperature; is
`that right? …
`
`A. Well, as I hear the question, it does, because it indicates and
`shows data for sputtering yield as a function of temperature, so that
`directs a worker of skill to first understand and then actually achieve
`nonlinear or enhanced sputtering yields by elevating the temperature
`of a target. . . .
`
`Bravman ’773 Dep. at 20:10-21:7 (Ex. 1129); see also Bravman Decl. ¶ 63 (“[F]or
`
`a copper target … we can expect the nonlinear relationship to begin somewhere
`
`4
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`around 0.7 Tm, the melting point of copper. . . .”) (Ex. 1127).
`
`
`
`Finally, Dr. Bravman testified that the equation describing the nonlinear
`
`relationship between sputtering yield and temperature in Fortov is directly
`
`applicable to Mozgrin:
`
`Q. What does equation 10.7 of Fortov describe? …
`
`It describes what it calls the thermal sputtering yield capital Y
`A.
`sub T.
`
`Q. As a function of what?
`
`A.
`
`Temperature. …
`
`Q. What did you conclude regarding the applicability of equation
`10.7 of Fortov to Mozgrin’s sputtering regime? …
`
`A.
`
`That it is applicable.
`
`Bravman ’773 Dep. at 99:7-22 (Ex. 1129); see also Bravman Decl. ¶ 63
`
`(“Moreover, both Mozgrin and Fortov describe the use of copper targets.”) (Ex.
`
`1127). Accordingly, the combination of Fortov and Mozgrin teaches the claim
`
`limitation “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. . . .”
`
`C. Observation 3
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Bravman’s testimony indicates “that it
`
`5
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`would not have been obvious to combine Mozgrin with Kudryavtsev. . . .”
`
`Observation at 6. Patent Owner alleges that the cited 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 predictable results. . . .” Observation at 6. The
`
`Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Bravman’s testimony.
`
` Patent Owner cites testimony purporting to show that Dr. Bravman did not
`
`determine how the specific graphs in Kudryavtsev would change if Mozgrin’s
`
`magnetron system had been physically substituted for that of Kudryavtsev.
`
`Observation at 7-9. Patent Owner’s questions in this portion of the cross-
`
`examination relate to an approach toward non-obviousness that the Board has
`
`already considered and rejected . Decision at 21 (“It is well-established that a
`
`determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not
`
`require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”) (internal quotations and
`
`citations omitted).
`
`Dr. Bravman testified that “a worker of skill understands, for instance, the
`
`difference between extrinsic and intrinsic parameters, things that are geometry
`
`dependent and things are basic physics and directly applicable across
`
`experimental regimes.” Bravman ’773 Dep. at 33:16-34:15 (Ex. 1129). Indeed,
`
`Dr. Bravman testified as follows:
`
`6
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`Q. Now, the experimental results that were determined from
`Kudryavtsev’s experiments with his device would be different than
`the results that would be obtained with, for example, Mozgrin as
`planar magnetic device; is that right?
`
`They would be different in some regards that a worker of skill
`A.
`would know would be related to the particularities of the plasma
`generating system but in other ways, this is the principal contribution
`of the Kudryavtsev paper. They would comport with the modeling
`therein, and as the author of the paper himself states, even in the last
`sentence of the paper, and certainly the last paragraph, he has
`developed a general model for pulsed inert gas discharge --
`discharges, and how this is important work for a variety of
`applications.
`
`Bravman ’773 Dep. at 32:20-33:15 (Ex. 1129). Accordingly, Dr. Bravman’s
`
`testimony is consistent with the Petitioner’s position that it would have been
`
`obvious to combine Mozgrin with Kudryavtsev.
`
`D. Observation 4
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Bravman’s testimony indicates “that it
`
`would not have been obvious to combine Mozgrin with Kudryavtsev. . . .”
`
`Observation at 6. Patent Owner alleges that the cited 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
`
`7
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`Kudryavtsev would have led to predictable results. . . .” Observation at 6. Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments are misplaced for the same reasons discussed above in
`
`connection with Observation 3.
`
`Dr. Bravman did not purport to measure “electron fluxes”—a concept
`
`mentioned nowhere in the ’773 patent. Dr. Bravman testified that “a worker of
`
`skill understands, for instance, the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic
`
`parameters, things that are geometry dependent and things are basic physics and
`
`directly applicable across experimental regimes.” Bravman ’773 Dep. at 33:16-
`
`34:15 (Ex. 1129).
`
`E. Observation 5
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Bravman testified that “sputtering does not
`
`occur in region 3” and “[t]he testimony is relevant because the Petitioner relied
`
`upon region 3 of Mozgrin in its argument that Mozgrin teaches the sputtering that
`
`is claimed in the ‘773 patent.” Observation at 10-11. Patent Owner’s observations
`
`misleadingly imply that Dr. Bravman’s obviousness analysis somehow hinges on
`
`whether or not Mozgrin performs sputtering in regime 3. Not so. Dr. Bravman
`
`testified that Mozgrin expressly teaches a sputtering regime 2:
`
`Q. Does Mozgrin disclose a sputtering regime?
`
`A.
`
`Yes it does.
`
`Bravman ’773 Dep. at 98:22-25; emphases added (Ex. 1129).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`The Patent Owner confuses Mozgrin’s region 3 in Figure 3 with the etching
`
`regime 3 of Figure 4. Dr. Bravman’s testimony is consistent with his declaration,
`
`which explained that “the oscillograms shown in Mozgrin’s Fig. 3 [which has
`
`regions 1, 2 and 3] when taken as a whole corresponds to a point either in regimes
`
`2 or 3 of Mozgrin’s Figs. 4 and 7.” Bravman Declaration at ¶60; see also
`
`Bravman ’773 Dep. at 24:13-23 (“Q. … How many different regions does Mozgrin
`
`disclose? … A. Well, in Figure 4, he -- and in the text, he describes four distinct
`
`regions. In the [oscillograms] of Figure 3, he marks three regions, one of which,
`
`region 2, is subdivided into two parts, 2(a) and 2(b). So depending on which data
`
`set you are looking at, it is three or four regions.”) (Ex. 1129). Accordingly,
`
`Mozgrin teaches sputtering in regime 2 of Figure 4, where each data point in the
`
`sputtering regime 2 of Figure 4 is derived from the oscillograms of Figure 3 that
`
`contains regions 1, 2 and 3.
`
`F. Observation 6
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Bravman’s testimony indicates “that
`
`Petitioners’ invalidity argument with respect to the feed gas limitations are based
`
`on a faulty claim construction” because “Petitioners’ invalidity grounds are based
`
`on a claim construction that reads the claim term ‘feed’ out of the claims.”
`
`Observation at 11, Paper No. 43, citing Bravman ’773 Dep. at 67:15-23 (Ex.
`
`1129).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`However, Dr. Bravman does not ignore the term “feed.” He merely
`
`disagrees with Patent Owner’s argument—already rejected by the Board—that the
`
`term “feed” requires the gas to “flow.” Dr. Bravman testified that a “feed gas in
`
`the context of this matter is a gas that is subsequently ionized in part to become
`
`part of a plasma. It is a thing, and in that regard, the word ‘feed’ does not
`
`influence my answer.” Bravman ’773 Dep. at 68:5-9 (Ex. 1129); see also
`
`Bravman ’773 Dep. at 67:3 – 68:9 (Ex. 1129). The Board agreed with this
`
`interpretation of the term “feed gas.” See IPR2014-00578 Decision on Institution
`
`at p. 9, Exhibit 1027 (“The recitation of ‘a feed gas’ … does not necessarily imply
`
`the flow of gas.”).
`
`G. Observation 7
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Bravman’s testimony indicates “that the
`
`Petitioners’ invalidity argument against claim 10 is based on a faulty claim
`
`construction.” Observation at 12, Paper No. 43, citing Bravman ’773 Dep. at
`
`85:23-86:11 (Ex. 1129). However, the Patent Owner did not cross-examine Dr.
`
`Bravman on his understanding of the term “electrode” recited in claim 10, which
`
`Dr. Bravman already opined on in his declaration. See Bravman Declaration at ¶76
`
`(“Hence, the ‘773 patent teaches that the ionization source can be either the anode,
`
`cathode assembly or a third electrode.”).
`
`Patent Owner’s cross-examination merely reaffirmed Dr. Bravman’s opinion
`
`10
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`that “either the anode or cathode shown in Mozgrin’s FIG. 1 constitutes an
`
`‘electrode’ as recited in claim 10.” Bravman Declaration at ¶74, Exhibit 1028.
`
`H. Observation 8
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Bravman’s testimony indicates “that
`
`Mozgrin does not supply gas during the plasma generation process as required by
`
`the claim term ‘feed gas.’” Observation at 13, Paper No. 43, citing Bravman ’773
`
`Dep. at 75:23-76:4 (Ex. 1129). Patent Owner alleges that because “the chamber of
`
`Mozgrin is filled up with gas rather than supplied with gas during the plasma
`
`generation… it shows that Mozgrin does not meet the term ‘feed gas.”
`
`Observation at 13.
`
`To the contrary, Dr. Bravman testified that “a worker of skill understand
`
`when you introduce a gas to an otherwise evacuated space, a chamber, that natural
`
`diffusion will rapidly equilibrate the density or pressure throughout that volume.”
`
`Bravman ’773 Dep. at 74:23 – 75:7 (Ex. 1129). In other words, Dr. Bravman
`
`testified that a gas can “fill up” a chamber through rapid diffusion that naturally
`
`occurs, especially in an evacuated space. His testimony is consistent with his
`
`opinion rejecting “Patent Owner’s position that Mozgrin does not teach a feed gas
`
`because it uses a static gas.” Bravman Declaration at ¶49, Exhibit 1028.
`
`Observation 9
`
`I.
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Bravman’s testimony indicates “that
`
`11
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`Mozgrin does not teach “a rise time of the voltage pulse is chosen to increase an
`
`ionization rate of the strongly-ionized plasma,’ as recited in claim 11.”
`
`Observation at 14. Patent Owner alleges that the cited “testimony is relevant
`
`because the Petitioners’ relied on the mere increase in the number of ions to
`
`support its argument that Mozgrin teaches an increase in the ionization rate.”
`
`Observation at 13-14. In fact, Dr. Bravman’s cross-examination testimony is
`
`consistent with his declaration.
`
`In his declaration, Dr. Bravman noted that “application of the ‘voltage pulse
`
`[to the weakly-ionized plasma] in Mozgrin will cause…the plasma density [to]
`
`grow.’” Bravman Declaration at ¶ 114, citing Patent Owner’s own expert’s
`
`testimony, Exhibit 1028. Patent Owner merely fails to acknowledge Dr.
`
`Bravman’s further opinion that “ ‘if you have a quick increase in the plasma
`
`density, … that indicate[s] a quick increase in the rate of ionization.’” Bravman
`
`Declaration at ¶ 113, citing Patent Owner’s own expert’s testimony, Exhibit 1028.
`
`J. Observation 10
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Bravman’s testimony indicates “that
`
`Mozgrin does not teach … “strongly-ionized plasma is substantially uniform
`
`proximate to the cathode assembly,’ as recited in claim 13.” Observation at 14,
`
`Paper No. 43, citing Bravman ’773 Dep. at 88:6-12 and 89:3-18 (Ex. 1129).
`
`Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Bravman’s testimony. Dr. Bravman
`
`12
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`testified that while Figure 6(a)(1) of Mozgrin may have different plasma densities
`
`in different parts of the image, the image indeed shows that the plasma is uniform
`
`proximate to the cathode assembly of Mozgrin.
`
`Q: Now, if you can turn to Figure 6 of Mozgrin on page 405
`
`and focus on the figure at the top left labeled A-1?
`
`A: I have it.
`
`Q: What did you conclude regarding whether the plasma shown
`
`in that figure is substantially uniform approximate to the cathode?
`
`MR. GONSALVES: Objection.
`
`A: In the sputtering regime[,yes,] which [i]s exactly the type of
`
`uniformity one would expect.
`
`Bravman ’773 Dep. at 100:20 – 101:7 (Ex. 1129).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 15, 2015
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 15, 2015, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner Zond’s Motion for Observation
`on Cross-Examination of Dr. Bravman
` Exhibit 1129
` Exhibit Appendix
`
`to be served via e-mail, as previously agreed by the parties, on the following
`
`attorneys of record:
`
`
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, VA 22043
`(571) 419-7252
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bruce Barker
`Chao Hadidi Start & Barker LLP
`176 East Mail Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
` /Yung-Hoon Ha/
` Yung-Hoon Ha
` Registration No. 56,368
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`EXHIBIT APPENDIX
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,896,773
`D.V. Mozgrin, et al, High-Current Low-Pressure Quasi-
`Stationary Discharge in a Magnetic Field: Experimental
`Research, Plasma Physics Reports, Vol. 21, No. 5, 1995
`(“Mozgrin”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,413,382 (“Wang”)
`Certified Translation of Encyclopedia of Low-Temperature
`Plasma Physics, Introductory Vol. III, Section VI, Fortov,
`V.E., Ed., Nauka/Interperiodica, Moscow (2000); pp. 117-126
`(“Fortov”)
`Declaration of Richard DeVito (“DeVito”)
`A. A. Kudryavtsev, et al, Ionization relaxation in a plasma
`produced by a pulsed inert-gas discharge, Sov. Phys. Tech.
`Phys. 28(1), January 1983 (“Kudryavtsev”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,306,265 (“Fu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,190,512 (“Lantsman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,958,155 (“Kawamata”)
`Encyclopedia of Low-Temperature Plasma Physics,
`Introductory Vol. III, Section VI, Fortov, V.E., Ed.,
`Nauka/Interperiodica, Moscow (2000); pp. 117-126 (in
`Russian)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,398,929 (“Chiang”)
`CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Lide D.R., Ed.-in-
`Chief. CRC Press 2001. p. 4-9.
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,896,773, Amendment mailed
`October 19, 2004 (“10/19/04 Amendment”)
`Catalogue Entry at the Russian State Library for the Mozgrin
`Thesis
`Certified Translation of D.V. Mozgrin, High-Current Low-
`Pressure Quasi-Stationary Discharge in a Magnetic Field:
`Experimental Research, Thesis at Moscow Engineering
`Physics Institute, 1994 (“Mozgrin Thesis”)
`Mozgrin Thesis (Original Russian)
`Thornton, J. and Hoffman, D.W. Stress related effects in thin
`films, Thin Sold Films, 171, 1989, 5-31
`
`Savvides and B. Window, Unbalanced magnetron ion‐assisted
`
`15
`
`Exhibit
`1101
`
`1102
`1103
`
`1104
`1105
`
`1106
`1107
`1108
`1109
`
`1110
`1111
`
`1112
`
`1113
`
`1114
`
`1115
`1116
`
`1117
`1118
`
`

`

`Trial No. IPR2014-00726
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`deposition and property modification of thin films, J. Vac.
`Sci. Technol. A 4 , 504, 1986
`Grove TC. Arcing problems encountered during sputter
`deposition of aluminum, White Papers, ed: Advanced
`Energy, 2000
`Asymmetric bipolar pulsed DC: the enabling technology for
`reactive PVD. Sellers, J. Surface & Coatings Technology vol.
`98 issue 1-3 January, 1998. p. 1245-1250
`Rossnagel and Hopwood. Rossnagel, S. M., & Hopwood, J.,
`Magnetron sputter deposition with high levels of metal
`ionization, Applied Physics Letters, 63(24), 3285-3287, 1993.
`Declaration of Mark Matuschak in Support of Unopposed
`Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Declaration of Cosmin Maier in Support of Unopposed
`Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough Ph.D. for U.S.
`Patent No. 6,896,773 (February 18, 2015)
`Ehrenberg and Gibbons “Electron bombardment induced
`conductivity and its applications,” 1981
`IPR2014-00578 Decision on Institution
`Declaration of John C. Bravman
`Deposition Transcript of Larry D. Hartsough Ph.D. for U.S.
`Patent No. 6,896,775 (February 19, 2015)
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. John C. Bravman with Signed
`Errata Sheet
`
`1119
`
`1120
`
`1121
`
`1122
`
`1123
`
`1124
`
`1125
`1126
`1127
`
`1128
`
`1129
`
`
`
`16
`
`

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