`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED,
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.,
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RENESAS ELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC
`COMPONENTS, INC., TOSHIBA AMERICA INC., TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2014-008001
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,811,421
`____________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS
`ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2014-01037, IPR2014-00991 and IPR2014-00844 have been joined
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Response to Observation 1 .................................................................... 1
`
`Response to Observation 2 .................................................................... 2
`
`Response to Observation 3 .................................................................... 3
`
`Response to Observation 4 .................................................................... 4
`
`Response to Observation 5 .................................................................... 6
`
`Response to Observation 6 .................................................................... 8
`
`Response to Observation 7 .................................................................... 9
`
`Response to Observation 8 .................................................................. 11
`
`Response to Observation 9 .................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`Petitioner submits this response to Patent Owner Zond’s Observations on
`
`Cross-Examination of Dr. Overzet, Paper No. 48 (“Observation”). Patent Owner
`
`presents nine observations on Dr. Overzet’s testimony. The observations are
`
`irrelevant and mischaracterize the testimony of Dr. Overzet, as specified below,
`
`and therefore are not probative of any material issue before the Board.
`
`Response to Observation 1
`
`A.
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Overzet’s testimony “confirms that the ’421
`
`patent used the phrase ‘creates a weakly ionized plasma’ to refer to the ignition of
`
`feed gas.” Observation at 1-3. This observation is irrelevant.
`
`First, the observation is irrelevant because it fails to address the fact that the
`
`initial ignition of feed gas is not the only way to create a weakly ionized plasma
`
`that the ’421 Patent discloses. Paper No. 45, Petitioner Reply (“Reply”) at 2-3.
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “creates a weakly ionized plasma” is
`
`improper because it excludes an embodiment of the ’421 Patent in which the
`
`weakly-ionized plasma is generated after a strongly-ionized plasma. Id. This is
`
`true regardless of whether the ’421 Patent also uses the term to refer to the initial
`
`ignition of feed gas. Excerpt A notes only that one embodiment of the ’421 Patent
`
`describes creating a weakly ionized plasma by the initial ignition. It does not
`
`change the fact that Patent Owner’s conclusions improperly exclude other
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`embodiments of the ’421 Patent.
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`Second, the observation is irrelevant because the ’421 Patent is unpatentable
`
`even under Patent Owner’s improper proposed claim construction.2 Even if
`
`“creates a weakly ionized plasma” is construed to refer only to the initial ignition
`
`of the feed gas, this limitation is disclosed by Wang (e.g., Ex. 1004 at 7:46-48) and
`
`Patent Owner never relies on this construction to distinguish Wang. In fact, Patent
`
`Owner admitted that Wang addresses the problem of arcing during ignition and
`
`only disputed whether arcing occurred during the transition from weakly- to
`
`strongly-ionized plasma. Patent No. 27, Patent Owner Response (“Response”) at
`
`33 (“Wang does not address arcing in the transition from a preionized plasma to a
`
`strongly ionized plasma at all, but only during ignition.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Response to Observation 2
`
`B.
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Overzet was unable to identify the use of the
`
`phrase “creates a weakly ionized plasma” in the specification of the ‘421 patent to
`
`refer to the creation of weakly ionized plasma from strongly ionized plasma.
`
`Observation at 3. Patent Owner’s quotation surreptitiously omits from the cited
`
`testimony its instruction that Dr. Overzet not “waste time” by reviewing the patent:
`
`That is fine. I don't want to spend the entire -- it is a
`Q.
`long patent, and I don't want to waste time having you read
`
`2
`Observations 2 and 3 are irrelevant for the same reason.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`the entire thing. So based upon your review to date and your --
`your current knowledge, are you able to cite right now any
`additional text in the '421 patent where the phrase "creates a
`weakly-ionized plasma" was used to refer to the technique
`referred to in paragraph 31 of your declaration?
`
`Ex. 2018, Dep. Tr. of Dr. Overzet re U.S. Patent No. 7,811,421 (“Overzet Dep.
`
`Tr.”) at 114:5-14. Patent Owner did not give Dr. Overzet a fair opportunity to
`
`review the patent before asking if he could provide a detailed citation to where
`
`specific phrase is used in a specific context in the ’421 Patent. Whether he could
`
`do so off the top of his head is irrelevant.
`
`More importantly, Patent Owner’s observation is irrelevant because it is
`
`premised on the flawed understanding that the ’421 Patent does not disclose
`
`multiple means of creating a weakly ionized plasma unless it uses the exact
`
`language “creates a weakly-ionized plasma.” Dr. Overzet explained how the ’421
`
`Patent describes an alternative way to create a weakly ionized plasma. Ex. 1027,
`
`Overzet Decl., ¶ 31. Aside from challenging the word choice (see Observation 3),
`
`Patent Owner does not attempt to rebut him.
`
`Response to Observation 3
`
`C.
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Overzet confirmed that the specification
`
`uses the phrase “maintains the plasma” to refer to the transition from a strongly-
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`ionized to a weakly-ionized plasma. Observation at 4-5. Patent Owner’s
`
`observation elevates form over substance and is irrelevant to the proceeding.
`
`Dr. Overzet explained that, while the specification does not use the word
`
`“create,” it describes the function of “create.” Ex. 2018, Overzet Dep. Tr. at
`
`112:20-113:3. He elaborated that the word choice does not affect this result:
`
`It uses that word “maintain,” but before t6 there is not weakly-
`ionized plasma. At some point in time after there is. That is a
`generation event.
`
` Id. at 113:7-10. The use of the word “maintain” does not change the fact that the
`
`substance of the specification describes an additional way of creating weakly-
`
`ionized plasma that is inconsistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner ignores that the language in the specification is
`
`“maintains the plasma” while the claim language is “creates a weakly ionized
`
`plasma.” There is nothing inconsistent about maintaining a plasma (i.e., a genus)
`
`and creating a weakly ionized plasma (i.e., a species) in the same embodiment.
`
`Response to Observation 4
`
`D.
`Patent Owner contends that a figure that Dr. Overzet annotated at his
`
`deposition confirms that the waveform in Wang does not “create a weakly ionized
`
`plasma.” Observation at 5-7. This observation is based on documents that are
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`outside the record, raises new patentability arguments for the first time, and
`
`mischaracterizes Dr. Overzet’s testimony.
`
`The Board should disregard this observation because it is not based on
`
`record evidence. Patent Owner relies on a figure that was annotated by Dr.
`
`Overzet during his deposition, but notes that the exhibit “was not produced with
`
`his deposition transcript, and it has not been found.” Id. at 6. Patent Owner
`
`attempts to rely on it anyway by citing its counsel’s recollection of the exhibit. Id.
`
`Even if the Board were to credit Patent Owner’s counsel’s representation, it is not
`
`helpful because it does not show where the identified pulse begins or ends.
`
`The Board should also disregard this observation because Patent Owner
`
`improperly attempts to raise a new ground of patentability that was not included in
`
`its Response. Nowhere did Patent Owner argue that Wang does not disclose the
`
`specific limitation “creates a weakly ionized plasma.”3 By raising this argument
`
`now, Patent Owner’s observation exceeds the evidentiary scope of its motion and
`
`is likewise irrelevant.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Overzet’s testimony in arguing
`
`that the low power region of the pulse does not create a weakly-ionized plasma
`
`3
`Patent Owner attempts to obscure the citation by citing 11 pages of its
`response brief. Observation at 7 (citing Response at 28-38). While Patent Owner
`challenged several limitations (e.g., “pulse” and “without arcing”), it never argued
`that Wang does not “create a weakly ionized plasma.”
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`“because in that region the weakly ionized plasma already exists.” Observation at
`
`6 (citing Ex. 2018 at 95:7-99:9). A review of the cited testimony shows that Dr.
`
`Overzet said no such thing. Dr. Overzet instead explained that the weakly ionized
`
`plasma is created when the system transitions from a strongly ionized plasma. Ex.
`
`2018, Overzet Dep. Tr. at 95:7-99:9.
`
`Response to Observation 5
`
`E.
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Overzet testified that “1) he did not know
`
`whether the word ‘pulse’ has a special meaning in this art, 2) the definition of
`
`pulse he proposes in his declaration was prepared for this litigation, 3) he could not
`
`recall whether he or his lawyers prepared it, and 4) he did not consult any
`
`dictionaries or trade literature to see if such documents were consistent with his
`
`proposed definition.” Observation at 7-9. This observation is irrelevant and
`
`attacks a series of straw men.
`
`The entire observation is fundamentally irrelevant because it fails to address
`
`Dr. Overzet’s evaluation of the ’421 Patent and his conclusion that Wang discloses
`
`the same pulse as the ’421 Patent itself. See, e.g., Ex. 1027, Overzet Decl., ¶¶ 52-
`
`56. Based on the similarities in the disclosures, Dr. Overzet explained that “Fig. 6
`
`of the ’421 Patent discloses a “pulse,” as that term is used by the ’421 Patent,
`
`and so must Fig. 6 of Wang.” Id. ¶ 53 (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`observation vaguely criticizes Dr. Overzet’s interpretation in the abstract without
`
`ever acknowledging that he interpreted the term as it is used in the ’421 Patent.
`
`Patent Owner’s observation regarding Dr. Overzet’s definition of “pulse”
`
`being prepared for the purposes of litigation has no relevance to the instituted
`
`grounds of unpatentability as it is no surprise to anyone experienced in litigation
`
`that his declaration was drafted as a direct result of the IPR proceedings. Patent
`
`Owner does not identify any error in Dr. Overzet’s definition but implies that it is
`
`improper because “he could not recall whether he or his lawyers prepared it.” Id.
`
`However, Dr. Overzet stood by his definition, explaining “[i]t is my assertion that
`
`that sentence is my opinion, and it's immaterial who first typed it up, that it came
`
`out of conversation with counsel.” Ex. 2018, Overzet Dep. Tr. at 60:22-25.
`
`Similarly, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Overzet “did not consult any
`
`dictionaries or trade literature to see if such documents were consistent with his
`
`proposed definition.” Observation at 7. The most obvious problem with this
`
`observation is that it ignores that Dr. Overzet’s definition arises from his
`
`understanding of the term “pulse” and the way that the term is used in the ’421
`
`Patent.4 To the extent any dictionary is inconsistent with the ’421 Patent’s use of
`
`
`4
`Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Overzet “did not know whether the word
`‘pulse’ has a special meaning in the art” is similarly misplaced. Dr. Overzet
`considered the term in connection with the ’421 Patent.
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`the term, it cannot change the meaning of that term. Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli,
`
`
`
`LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he examiner erred by resorting to
`
`extrinsic evidence that was inconsistent with the more reliable intrinsic evidence.).
`
`In any event, Patent Owner does not actually identify any dictionary that would
`
`rebut Dr. Overzet’s definition. As Petitioner has already observed, both Patent
`
`Owner and its expert have failed to offer any definition of “pulse” at all, much less
`
`a definition of “pulse” that is consistent with the way it is used in the ’421 Patent.
`
`Reply at 4-6.
`
`Response to Observation 6
`
`F.
`Patent Owner contends that “Dr. Overzet essentially modified his proposed
`
`definition of ‘pulse.’” Observation at 9-11. Once again, Patent Owner attempts to
`
`criticize Dr. Overzet’s definition of the term “pulse” without offering its own
`
`definition. This observation should be disregarded because it mischaracterizes Dr.
`
`Overzet’s testimony.
`
`In an attempt to stretch Dr. Overzet’s testimony, Patent Owner litters its
`
`observation with qualifying language. Id. at 9 (“Dr. Overzet EFFECTIVELLY
`
`[sic] modified his definition of ‘pulse’”) (emphasis in original); id. (“Dr. Overzet
`
`essentially modified his proposed definition of ‘pulse.’”) (emphasis added). Dr.
`
`Overzet stood by his definition of pulse, and Patent Owner fails to identify any
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`problem with it. Indeed, Patent Owner does not identify how Dr. Overzet
`
`allegedly modified his definition of the term pulse, choosing instead to state that
`
`Dr. Overzet changed his opinion followed by unilluminating excerpts from his
`
`deposition. Observation at 9-11.
`
`Even if Dr. Overzet had clarified his definition, Patent Owner makes no
`
`effort to explain how this is relevant to the ’421 Patent’s patentability. Patent
`
`Owner’s only apparent conclusion is that Dr. Overzet’s explaining his definition
`
`somehow makes it “unreasonable.” But as noted previously, Patent Owner fails to
`
`offer any definition of “pulse” itself.
`
`Response to Observation 7
`
`G.
`Patent Owner contends that “Dr. Overzet’s testimony explains the meaning
`
`of the word ‘power’ in various contexts, and in doing so clarifies that some power
`
`supply controllers control the power of their output to a target power level, and
`
`others control the voltage of their output to choose a desired voltage.” Observation
`
`at 11-12. The Board should disregard this observation because it is both legally
`
`and factually irrelevant.
`
`As explained in Petitioner’s reply, Patent Owner’s attempt to distinguish
`
`Wang based on why characteristics of the voltage are chosen is legally flawed.
`
`Reply at 14. It is well settled that “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than
`
`define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim
`
`Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003);
`
`see also Pronova BioPharma Norge AS v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 549 Fed.
`
`Appx. 934, 938 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The claim limitation “an amplitude, a duration,
`
`and a rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen to increase a density of ions in the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma” does nothing more than state the intended purpose of
`
`those characteristics. Because Observation 7 attempts to use Dr. Overzet’s
`
`testimony in order to distinguish Wang based on the intended purpose of the claim
`
`limitations, it is legally irrelevant.
`
`The observation is also factually irrelevant. Dr. Overzet explained at his
`
`deposition that “power” and “voltage” are closely related such that a person of skill
`
`in the art will refer to power when voltage is being controlled or vice versa:
`
`Q. I understand amplitude modulating, you are controlling the
`amplitude, but you used the word "power."
`
`A. Actually the true power and voltage are, of course --
`instantaneous power and voltage are, of course, related --
`
`Q. Uh-huh.
`
`A. -- by a simple relationship. So it's common for one of
`ordinary skill in the art to conflate the two and say power when
`voltage is being controlled or voltage when power is being
`controlled or when power is being -- "controlled" perhaps is not
`the right word to use there, but to conflate the two ideas.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`Ex. 2018, Overzet Dep. Tr. at 36:10-24. Dr. Overzet’s testimony is in keeping
`
`with his declaration in which he explains that Wang discloses the use of “voltage
`
`pulses in order to produce its desired power, PP.” Ex. 1027, Overzet Decl., ¶ 68.
`
`As a result, Zond’s observation is factually irrelevant to the bases for
`
`unpatentability at issue in these proceedings.
`
`Response to Observation 8
`
`H.
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Overzet confirms that “his declaration does
`
`not offer an opinion on the patentability of the claims.” Observation at 12-13. The
`
`Board should disregard this observation because it mischaracterizes Dr. Overzet’s
`
`testimony and is irrelevant.
`
`Patent Owner’s observation mischaracterizes Dr. Overzet’s testimony
`
`because he explicitly states that he offers a final conclusion on patentability in
`
`paragraph 22 of his declaration. Ex. 2018, Overzet Dep. Tr. at 136:23-137:7.
`
`Paragraph 22 of his declaration (and Paragraph 21 to which it refers) are
`
`reproduced below:
`
`I have reviewed the following portions of the
`21.
`declarations of Dr. Kortshagen provided in the above-captioned
`inter partes reviews of the ’421 Patent and I agree with the
`findings of Dr. Kortshagen at (1) No. 2014-00800, Ex. 1002,
`¶¶ 93-141 and 160-167 captioned Ground II and Ground IV; (2)
`No. 2014-00802, Ex. 1202, pages 43-58 captioned Ground V
`and Ground VI; (3) No. 2014-00805, Ex. 1102, ¶¶ 90-125 and
`150-176 captioned Ground II, Ground IV, and Ground V.
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`22. Thus, it is my opinion that every limitation of the
`sputtering system and methods described in claims 1 through 48
`of the ’421 Patent are disclosed by the prior art, and are
`anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Ex. 1027, Overzet Decl., ¶¶ 21-22. Dr. Overzet reviewed the declarations of Dr.
`
`Kortshagen and reached the same conclusion that the claims of the ’421 Patent are
`
`unpatentable for the same reasons and had no need to repeat every factual finding
`
`in his own declaration. Instead, Dr. Overzet responded to Patent Owner’s few
`
`patentability arguments raised in its Response and addressed those claim
`
`limitations.
`
`Far from “confirm[ing] that his declaration does not provide an opinion on
`
`the patentability of the claims,” Dr. Overzet testified that his declaration does
`
`contain an opinion and directed Patent Owner’s counsel to the relevant paragraph.
`
`Ex. 2018, Overzet Dep. Tr. at 136:23-137:7. Patent Owner’s counsel chose not to
`
`ask any more questions about the underlying opinion. That was his prerogative,
`
`but it is incorrect to suggest that Dr. Overzet did not provide an opinion.
`
`Notwithstanding Zond’s mischaracterization of Dr. Overzet’s testimony,
`
`Observation 8 is irrelevant as Dr. Kortshagen already provided declarations that
`
`explain in detail why the claims of the ’421 Patent are unpatentable and Patent
`
`Owner has only challenged his conclusions with respect to a handful of elements.
`
`Dr. Overzet submitted his declaration as a reply expert, not as an initial petition
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`expert. There is no need for Dr. Overzet to address elements that Patent Owner
`
`does not dispute are present in the prior art. As a result, Patent Owner’s
`
`observation is irrelevant to the patentability at issue in these proceedings.
`
`Response to Observation 9
`
`I.
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Overzet confirms “that the gas flow in Wang
`
`was constant and that Dr. Overzet never considered the requirement for controlling
`
`flow rate to diffuse the strongly-ionized plasma.” Observation at 13-15. The
`
`Board should disregard this observation because it is premised on an incorrect
`
`reading of the ’421 Patent claims.
`
`As an initial matter, Patent Owner surreptitiously omits from its Excerpt A
`
`Dr. Overzet’s prior explanation regarding the difference between diffusing the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma and transporting it:
`
`A. Claim 6 says, so that the feed gas diffuses the strongly-
`ionized plasma. It would have been clear I think to someone of
`ordinary skill in the art to say expands the strongly-ionized
`plasma or transports the strongly-ionized plasma if those things
`were meant.
`
`Q. Uh-huh.
`
`A. But when you say the feed gas diffuses the strongly-ionized
`plasma, the implication is that the feed gas is diffusing into and
`thereby allowing the plasma as stated in the patent, if I
`remember it to be this one, to absorb additional power. The
`conflation of transport or expansion with a word that has a clear
`meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art, yeah, is what's --
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`Ex. 2018, Overzet Dep. Tr. at 160:20-161:12.
`
`The ’421 Patent’s use of the phrase “feed gas diffuses the strongly-ionized
`
`plasma” means that the feed gas diffuses into the strongly-ionized plasma. As Dr.
`
`Overzet further explained, this process refers to the exchange of gas:
`
`Q. Let's look at Claim 45. What was your understanding of the
`phrase "exchange in the volume of feed gas to diffuse the
`plasma" because that language is a little different?
`
`A. But that's also clear, isn't it, to be the same thing I just
`described. The exchange is between the gases. You're
`exchanging the volume of gas, I think, and as a result, old gas is
`going out and new gas is coming in.
`
`Id. at 161:25-162:10.
`
`Patent Owner incorrectly ignores that the limitation “feed gas diffuses the
`
`strongly-ionized plasma” concerns the interaction of two gases: the plasma and the
`
`feed gas. In Excerpt A, when counsel for Patent Owner asked Dr. Overzet whether
`
`he considered “the process of diffusion of the plasma particles” (i.e., a single gas),
`
`Dr. Overzet corrected him and explained that he “discussed the diffusion of the
`
`argon in the plasma” (i.e., both gases). That is consistent with the claims and
`
`supported by Dr. Overzet’s testimony contained in Excerpts A and B. The
`
`remaining excerpts of this observation do not raise any additional issues on this
`
`point.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`Finally, Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Overzet confirmed “the gas flow
`
`
`
`in Wang was constant” is irrelevant to the patentability of the ’421 Patent because
`
`it is not related to any limitation in the claims. There is no requirement that the
`
`sputtering system uses a varying flow rate. Indeed, Patent Owner did not even
`
`attempt to distinguish Wang from the claims on this basis, choosing instead to
`
`argue that Wang does not satisfy the claims “because the feed gas enters the
`
`chamber far from the strongly ionized plasma and is directed away from the
`
`strongly ionized plasma.” Response at 48. However, as Dr. Overzet has
`
`explained, that patentability argument is contrary to basic physics. Ex. 1027,
`
`Overzet Decl., ¶¶ 74-77. Zond made no effort to rebut Dr. Overzet’s explanation
`
`and this new distinction that Zond manufactures in its observation is not supported
`
`by the claim language. As a result, the observation is irrelevant to the instant
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`Dated: May 26, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Robinson Vu/
`Robinson Vu
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Toshiba
`Registration No. 60,211
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00800 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), this is to certify that I caused to be served a
`
`true and correct copy of the foregoing “PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS” as detailed below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date of service May 26, 2015
`
`Manner of service Email: gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com;
`bbarker@chsblaw.com; and
`patents@ascendalaw.com
`
`Documents served PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS
`
`Persons Served Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`
`Bruce Barker
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Mail Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`
`
`/Tracy E. Perez/
`Tracy E. Perez
`Baker Botts LLP
`98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1500
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: (512) 322-2601
`Email: tracy.perez@bakerbotts.com
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`