UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IPR2014-00580 and 726
`Patent 6,896,773
`
`PATENT OWNER ZOND LLC’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`1
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IPR2014-00580 and 726
`Patent 6,896,773
`
`PATENT OWNER ZOND LLC’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
`
`1
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 1-20 and 34-40 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin
`and Fortov
`Mozgrin and Fortov would not have
`taught:
`“an ionization source that generates
`a weakly-ionized plasma from a feed
`gas proximate to the anode and the
`cathode assembly,” as recited in
`independent claim 1 and as similarly
`recited in independent claim 34
`
`2
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 1-20 and 34-40 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin
`and Fortov
` Petitioners relied on Mozgrin alone for this limitation and
`Mozgrin does not teach a weakly ionized plasma
`proximate to both the anode and the cathode assembly:
`
`“For pre-ionization, we used a stationary magnetron
`discharge; the discharge current ranged up to 300 mA. We
`measured the discharge current-voltage characteristics (CVC)
`in a 10^-3 – 10 torr pressure range and plasma parameters of
`the discharge at the symmetry center of the shaped-
`electrode system using a probe technique. We found out
`that only the regime with magnetic field strength not lower
`than 400 G provided the initial plasma density in the 10^9 –
`10^11 cm-3 range (Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶ 2 (emphasis
`added)).
`
`3
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 1-20 and 34-40 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin
`and Fortov
`
`4
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 1-20 and 34-40 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin
`and Fortov
` Mozgrin does not teach a weakly ionized plasma
`proximate to both the anode and the cathode assembly:
`
`As shown by Fig. 1(b) on the previous slide, the axis of
`symmetry (i.e., the place where Mozgrin measured the
`density of the plasma) is as far away from both the cathode
`(1) and anode (2) as it possibly can be while still being
`between the cathode and anode.
`only the area at the perimeters of the anode and cathode
`along the r-axis of Fig. 1(b) reproduced above (i.e., high
`positive and negative values of r at z = 0) are close to both
`the anode and cathode. That is, the only area that is close to
`both the anode and cathode is not the area where Mozgrin
`measured the density of the plasma.
`
`5
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 1-20 and 34-40 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin
`and Fortov
`Mozgrin does not teach generating a weakly
`ionized plasma from a feed gas:
`
`Mozgrin does not teach a feed gas, let alone
`generating a weakly-ionized plasma from a flowing
`feed gas.
`
`Rather, Mozgrin discloses “… the discharge gap …
`was filled up with either neutral or pre-ionized
`gas.” (Mozgrin, p. 401, left col, ¶¶ 3-4).
`
`6
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 21-33 and 40 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin
`and Fortov
`Mozgrin and Fortov would not have
`taught:
`““ionizing a feed gas to generate a
`weakly-ionized plasma proximate to a
`cathode assembly that comprises a
`sputtering target,” as recited in
`independent claim 21, and as
`similarly recited in independent claim
`40
`
`7
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 21-33 and 40 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin
`and Fortov
`Mozgrin does not teach generating a weakly
`ionized plasma from a feed gas:
`
`Mozgrin does not teach a feed gas, let alone
`ionizing a feed gas to generate a weakly-ionized
`plasma.
`
`Rather, Mozgrin discloses “… the discharge gap …
`was filled up with either neutral or pre-ionized
`gas.” (Mozgrin, p. 401, left col, ¶¶ 3-4).
`
`8
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 28 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`Mozgrin and Fortov would not have
`taught:
`“ionizing the feed gas comprises
`exposing the feed gas to one of a static
`electric field, an AC electric field, a
`quasi-static electric field, a pulsed
`electric field, UV radiation, X-ray
`radiation, an electron beam, and an ion
`beam,” as recited in independent claim
`28
`
`9
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 28 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`Mozgrin does not teach generating a weakly
`ionized plasma from a feed gas:
`
`Mozgrin does not teach a feed gas, let alone
`ionizing the feed gas by exposing the feed gas to
`various types of electric fields or radiation.
`
`Rather, Mozgrin discloses “… the discharge gap …
`was filled up with either neutral or pre-ionized
`gas.” (Mozgrin, p. 401, left col, ¶¶ 3-4).
`
`10
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 1-20 and 34-40 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin
`and Fortov
`Mozgrin and Fortov would not have taught:
`“an amplitude and a rise time of the voltage
`pulse being chosen to increase a density of
`ions in the strongly ionized plasma enough
`to generate sufficient thermal energy in the
`sputtering target to cause a sputtering yield
`to be non-linearly related to a temperature
`of the sputtering target,” as recited in
`independent claim 1 and as similarly recited
`in independent claims 21, 34, and 40.
`
`11
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 1-40 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
` With respect to Mozgrin:
`
`“Mozgrin does not even mention any attempt to achieve a
`sputtering yield to be non-linearly related to a temperature
`of the sputtering target, let alone achieving this goal by
`choosing an amplitude or rise time of the applied voltage
`pulse.” (Dr. Hartsough’s Declaration, ¶ 90).
`Mozgrin does not mention a temperature of the target
`material during the pulse. (Dr. Hartsough’s Declaration, ¶ 90).
`
`Indeed, Mozgrin teaches that the voltage pulse was designed
`in an entirely different manner (i.e., to address ionization-
`overheating instability) than that required by the claims of
`the ‘773 patent.
`
`12
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 1-40 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`Mozgrin teaches that the voltage pulse was
`designed in an entirely different manner (i.e., to
`address ionization-overheating instability) than
`that required by the claims of the ‘773 patent:
`
`“we allowed for the fact that the development time
`for the ionization-overheating instability was about
`10^-3 – 3 x 10^-3 s in the pressure range up to 0.5 torr
`[9]. Thus, the supply unit was made proving square
`voltage and current pulses with [rise] times (leading
`edge) of 5 – 60 μs and durations of as much as 1.5 ms”
`(Mozgrin at 401, right col, ¶ 1).
`
`13
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 1-40 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
` Fortov does not make any mention of how to generate
`sufficient target thermal energy to cause the sputtering
`yield to be non-linear with target temperature. (Dr.
`Hartsough’s Declaration, ¶¶ 91-92).
` Fortov does not teach the claim limitation at issue, which
`requires
`
`(i) choosing the amplitude and rise time of the voltage pulse
`to
`(ii) increase ion density in the strongly-ionized plasma to
`(iii) generate sufficient target thermal energy to
`(iv) cause the sputtering yield to be non-linear with target
`temperature.
`
`14
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 10 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`Mozgrin and Fortov would not have taught:
`“wherein the ionization source is chosen
`from the group comprising an electrode
`coupled to a DC power supply, an electrode
`coupled to an AC power supply, a UV source,
`an X-ray source, an electron beam source,
`an ion beam source, an inductively coupled
`plasma source, a capacitively coupled
`plasma source, and a microwave plasma
`source,” as recited by dependent claim 10.
`
`15
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 10 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`The Petitioners argued that Mozgrin
`teaches one and only one of the
`alternatives listed in the claim limitation
`quoted above:
`an electrode coupled to a DC power
`supply.
`“either the anode or cathode shown in
`Mozgrin’s FIG. 1 constitutes an
`‘electrode’ as recited in claim 10.”
`(Petition, p. 22).
`
`16
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 10 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
` The Petitioners’ argument is not persuasive because:
`the claim term “an electrode” recited in claim 10 must be a component other than the
`cathode assembly or the anode that are recited in claim 1, from which claim 10
`depends.
`
`The Specification of the ’773 patent confirms this meaning by stating that the cathode
`assembly, the anode, and the electrode are three distinct components (’773 patent at
`20:14-22. ).
`
`the Petitioner’s expert, Mr. DeVito, explicitly stated that Mozgrin does not teach a
`third electrode in addition to the anode and the cathode:
`Q. Does the Mozgrin reference disclose a third electrode in its -- in the system?
`MR. MAIER: Object to form.
`A. A third electrode?
`Q. Uh-huh.
`A. I mean, I don't see a third electrode.
`Q. Have you offered an opinion in your declaration that the Mozgrin reference
`includes a third electrode, other than the anode and the cathode?
`A. No, I don't see one, no (DeVito Deposition (1/20/15), p. 205, ll. 6-16).
`
`17
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 11 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`Mozgrin and Fortov would not have taught:
`“a rise time of the voltage pulse is chosen to
`increase an ionization rate of the strongly-ionized
`plasma,” as recited in claim 11.
`Petitioners conflate an increase in the density of ions
`with an increase in the ionization rate
`Petitioners did not even attempt to show that the
`rate at which ions are created in Mozgrin increases.
`(Petition, p. 22).
`
`18
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 11 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`Petitioners’ expert, Mr. DeVito admitted that
`Mozgrin does not teach choosing a rise time of a
`voltage pulse to increase an ionization rate, as
`required by claim 11:
`Q. So Mozgrin nowhere says I choose a particular
`rise time of the pulsed voltage to increase the
`ionization rate of the strongly-ionized plasma, right?
`MR. MAIER: Object to form.
`A. He doesn't explicitly state it, no. (DeVito
`Deposition (1/20/15), p. 231, l. 25 – p. 232, l. 6.)
`
`19
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 13 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`Mozgrin and Fortov would not have taught that the:
`“strongly-ionized plasma is substantially uniform
`proximate to the cathode assembly,” as recited in
`claim 13.
`The portion of Mozgrin cited by the Petitioners
`merely compares the discharges in two different
`regions; it does not disclose any specific uniformity
`details about the strongly ionized plasma in either of
`the two regions.
`
`20
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 13 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`Mozgrin instead teaches that the strongly-ionized
`plasma is not substantially uniform near the cathode:
`the plasma in the high-current regime is depicted in
`Fig. 6(a)1 as “the discharge occupied either the ring
`area beyond the circular region of max Br or the disk
`area bounded by the circle of max Br; the area
`depended on the magnetic field configuration.”
`Fig. 6(a)1 shows a non-uniform discharge proximate
`to the cathode surface.
`
`21
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 13 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
` Mozgrin instead teaches that the strongly-ionized plasma is not
`substantially uniform near the cathode:
`the other portion of Mozgrin cited by Petitioners is referring to a
`different region (i.e., region 3). Region 3 is depicted in Mozgrin as Fig.
`6(a)2 and described by Mozgrin as exhibiting no cathode sputtering.
`Indeed, Mozgrin explicitly states that region 3 is not a region exhibiting a
`strongly-ionized plasma because strongly-ionized plasma causes
`sputtering:
`“the positively charged ions in the strongly-ionized plasma accelerate at
`high velocity towards the sputtering target 220. The accelerated ions
`impact the surface of the sputtering target 220, causing the target
`material to be sputtered.”
`That is, the figures and text in Mozgrin related to region 3 cannot possibly
`teach that the “strongly-ionized plasma is substantially uniform
`proximate to the cathode assembly,” as required by claim 13 because
`Mozgrin teaches that there is no strongly ionized plasma in region 3.
`
`22
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 14 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`Mozgrin and Fortov would not have taught that the:
`“distance between the anode and the cathode
`assembly is chosen to increase an ionization rate of
`strongly-ionized plasma,” as recited in claim 14.
`Petitioners conflate an increase in the density of ions
`with an increase in the ionization rate.
`Petitioners did not even attempt to show that the
`rate at which ions are created in Mozgrin increases.
`(Petition, pp. 22 and 24).
`
`23
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 14 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
` “Mozgrin makes no mention of how to achieve an
`increase in an ionization rate of the strongly ionized
`plasma, let alone teach how to achieve such an ionization
`rate increase by choosing a distance between the anode
`and the cathode.” (Dr. Hartsough’s Declaration, ¶ 113).
` Mozgrin discloses numerous experiments such as
`determining the effect of displacing the magnetic field on
`the plasma: “[t]o control the magnetic field strength at
`the cathode surface, we displaced the magnetic system
`along the axis z (Fig. 1).” (Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 1.)
` Mozgrin, however, does not disclose any experiments
`whatsoever about determining the effect of varying the
`distance between an anode and a cathode assembly on
`the plasma.
`
`24
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 18 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
` Mozgrin and Fortov would not have taught that the:
`“the ionization source and the power supply comprise a
`single power supply,” as recited in claim 18.
` Claim 18, when read in conjunction with claim 1, requires
`i) the ionization source that generates a weakly ionized
`plasma and ii) the power supply that generates a voltage
`pulse to create a strongly ionized plasma to comprise a
`single power supply.
` Mozgrin teaches no such single power supply:
`Mozgrin instead teaches two distinct power supplies: a
`pulsed discharge supply unit and a system for pre-
`ionization. (Mozgrin at 401, left col, ¶ 5.)
`
`25
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 18 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`26
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 5 and 36 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and
`Kawamata
` Mozgrin and Kawamata would not have taught that the:
`“the thermal energy generated in the sputtering target does not
`substantially increase an average temperature of the sputtering target,”
`as recited in claim 5, and as similarly recited in claim 36.
` Neither Mozgrin nor Kawamata mention that cooling is performed to the
`extent that the average temperature of the sputtering target does not
`increase. (See e.g., Exhibit 1005, Mozgrin, p. 401, left col, ¶ 1 and
`Kawamata, col. 7, ll. 36-40).
` Kawamata teaches the opposite to what is recited in claims 5 and 36 by
`stating that the temperature of the sputtering target is deliberately
`increased to weaken interatomic bonds:
`“[i]n the present invention, the temperature of the film source material
`as a target material is raised to thereby weaken interatomic bonds of the
`target prior to the collision of ions with the target. Therefore, most of
`the energy of the accelerated ions is used in the sputtering, so that
`sputtering yield is enhanced.” (Kawamata, col. 4, ll. 4-9).
`
`27
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 3 and 35 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and
`Lantsman
` Mozgrin and Lantsman would not have taught:
`“a gas flow controller that controls a flow of the feed gas
`so that the feed gas diffuses the strongly-ionized
`plasma,” as recited in claims 3 and 35.
` Mozgrin does not disclose a feed gas (i.e., a gas that
`flows into the chamber during the sputtering process):
`“ … the discharge gap … was filled up with either neutral
`or pre-ionized gas.” (Mozgrin, p. 401, left col, ¶ 4)
` “Lantsman does not provide any details as to the
`configuration of a gas supply in its apparatus. Lantsman
`is also silent with regard to controlling the flow of feed
`gas with a controller to diffuse strongly ionized-
`plasma.”(Dr. Hartsough’s Declaration, ¶ 181).
`
`28
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 3 and 35 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and
`Lantsman
` Neither the Petitioners nor their expert addresses the
`fact that Mozgrin discloses a static gas system, let alone
`explain why or how one of ordinary skill in the art would
`have changed Mozgrin’s system from a static gas system
`to a feed gas system. (Dr. Hartsough’s Declaration, ¶
`124).
` The Petitioners failed to provide experimental data or
`other objective evidence indicating that a skilled artisan
`would have been motivated to combine Lantsman’s feed
`gas in Mozgrin’s static gas system to achieve the claimed
`invention of the ‘773 patent and would have had a
`reasonable expectation of success of doing so.
`
`29
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claims 4 and 34 Are Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and
`Lantsman
` Mozgrin and Lantsman would not have taught that the:
`“the feed gas allows additional power to be absorbed by the
`strongly ionized plasma, thereby generating additional
`thermal energy in the sputtering target,” as recited in claim 4
`and as similarly recited in claim 34.
` Mozgrin does not disclose a feed gas (i.e., a gas that flows into
`the chamber during the sputtering process):
`“ … the discharge gap … was filled up with either neutral or
`pre-ionized gas.” (Mozgrin, p. 401, left col, ¶ 4)
` “Lantsman does not teach how the flow of feed gas is
`controlled to allow additional power to be absorbed by the
`strongly ionized plasma or to generate additional thermal
`energy in the sputtering target.” (Dr. Hartsough’s Declaration,
`¶ 128).
`
`30
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 25 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Lantsman
`
` Mozgrin and Lantsman would not have taught:
`“diffusing the strongly-ionized plasma with a volume of the
`feed gas while applying the voltage pulse to the cathode
`assembly to generate additional strongly-ionized plasma
`from the volume of the feed gas” as recited in claim 25.
` Mozgrin does not disclose a feed gas (i.e., a gas that flows into
`the chamber during the sputtering process):
`“ … the discharge gap … was filled up with either neutral or
`pre-ionized gas.” (Mozgrin, p. 401, left col, ¶ 4)
` “Lantsman does not provide any details as to the
`configuration of a gas supply in its apparatus. Lantsman is
`also silent with regard to controlling the flow of feed gas with
`a controller to diffuse strongly ionized-plasma.”(Dr.
`Hartsough’s Declaration, ¶ 181).
`
`31
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 25 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Lantsman
`
` Lantsman does not teach applying a voltage pulse to
`anything:
`Lantsman instead discloses two DC power supplies.
`“Lantsman does not teach a strongly ionized plasma.”
`(Dr. Hartsough’s Declaration, ¶ 150).
`Indeed, the Petitioners’ expert, Mr. DeVito, agrees with
`Dr. Hartsough:
`Q. But he [Lantsman] doesn't use strongly-ionized
`plasma, right?
`A. He doesn't call it strongly-ionized, correct (DeVito
`Deposition (1/20/15), p. 268, l. 25 – p. 269, l. 4.)
`
`32
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 25 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Lantsman
`
`The Petitioners failed to explain how it would have
`been obvious to modify Mozgrin to
`i) diffuse strongly ionized plasma with a feed gas
`ii) while applying a voltage pulse from the
`combination of Mozgrin and Lantsman
`given that Mozgrin does not even mention a feed
`gas and Lantsman does not disclose a strongly
`ionized plasma or a pulse of any kind (e.g., a voltage,
`power, or current pulse).
`
`33
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 24 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Lantsman
`
` Mozgrin and Lantsman would not have taught:
`“diffusing the weakly-ionized plasma with a volume of the
`feed gas while ionizing the volume of the feed gas to create
`additional weakly-ionized plasma,” as recited in claim 24.
` Mozgrin does not disclose a feed gas (i.e., a gas that flows into
`the chamber during the sputtering process):
`“ … the discharge gap … was filled up with either neutral or
`pre-ionized gas.” (Mozgrin, p. 401, left col, ¶ 4)
` “Lantsman does not provide any details as to the
`configuration of a gas supply in its apparatus. Lantsman is
`also silent with regard to controlling the flow of feed gas with
`a controller to diffuse strongly ionized-plasma.”(Dr.
`Hartsough’s Declaration, ¶ 181).
`
`34
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 23 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
` Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev would not have taught that:
`“the voltage pulse applied to the cathode assembly generates
`excited atoms in the weakly-ionized plasma and generates
`secondary electrons from the sputtering target, the secondary
`electrons ionizing the excited atoms, thereby creating the strongly-
`ionized plasma,” as recited in claim 23.
` Mozgrin states that sputtering (e.g., the impacting of ions to the
`target) does not occur in the region relied upon by the Petitioners
`(i.e., region 3):
`“the parameters of the shaped-electrode discharge transit to
`regime [region] 3, as well as the condition of its transit to arc
`regime [region] 4, could be well determined for every given set of
`the discharge parameters. … Chemical analysis of the collector
`surface layer was done; the cathode material was not detected
`there. Hence, there was no cathode sputtering in these regimes
`[regions].” Mozgrin at 404, left col, ¶ 4-5 (emphasis added).
`
`35
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 23 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Kudryavtsev
`
` “[w]ithout sputtering in these regions of Mozgrin, the
`secondary electrons from the target cannot possibly be
`generated and therefore, the high density plasma could not
`have possibly been generated by secondary electrons ionizing
`the excited atoms.” (Dr. Hartsough’s Declaration, ¶ 155).
` “Kudryavtsev’s apparatus is not a sputtering apparatus and
`therefore, does not teach secondary electrons [from the
`target] generating the strongly ionized plasma. Accordingly,
`combining the teachings of Kudryatsev with Mozgrin cannot
`possibly overcome Mozgrin’s failure to teach that its high
`density plasma is generated from secondary electrons ionizing
`the excited atoms.” (Dr. Hartsough’s Declaration, ¶ 155).
`
`36
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 29 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
`Mozgrin and Fortov would not have taught that:
`“the ions in the strongly-ionized plasma cause at
`least a portion of a surface layer of the sputtering
`target to evaporate,” as recited in claim 29.
`The Petitioners’ own expert explicitly admitted that
`Mozgrin does not teach that evaporation occurs
`during sputtering:
`Q. Is it your opinion that Mozgrin teaches
`simultaneous sputtering and evaporation?
`A. Well, Mozgrin doesn't teach it, per se. (DeVito
`Deposition (1/20/15), p. 63. l. 27 – p. 64, l. 3.)
`
`37
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS
`Claim 29 Is Not Obvious Over Mozgrin and Fortov
`
` Petitioners argued that Fortov teaches that sputtering is a
`form of evaporation solely because Fortov states that “[i]n the
`model of thermal evaporation the sputtering is reviewed as
`evaporation.”
` But this statement from Fortov merely indicates that
`sputtering was reviewed as evaporation in a particular model
`of thermal evaporation; it does not indicate that sputtering is
`a form of evaporation or that evaporation occurs during
`sputtering, as alleged by the Petitioner.
` Petitioners’ expert, Mr. DeVito, testified that evaporation
`need not necessarily occur during sputtering:
`Q. So you can sputter without evaporation, right?
`A. Yes, you can. (DeVito Deposition (1/20/15), p. 60. l. 24 –
`p. 61, l. 3).
`
`38
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IPR2014-00580 and 726
`Patent 6,896,773
`
`END
`
`39
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
