UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`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 IPR2014-008021
`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 IPR2014-01071, IPR2014-00992 and IPR2014-00848 have been joined
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`____________________________________________
`
`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 IPR2014-008021
`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 IPR2014-01071, IPR2014-00992 and IPR2014-00848 have been joined
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Response to Observations
`IPR2014-00802 (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
`IPR2014-00802 (U.S. 7,811,421)
`
`
`Petitioner submits this response to Patent Owner Zond’s Observations on
`
`Cross-Examination of Dr. Overzet, Paper No. 44 (“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. 41, 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
`IPR2014-00802 (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. 1204 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
`IPR2014-00802 (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. 1228,
`
`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
`IPR2014-00802 (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
`IPR2014-00802 (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
`IPR2014-00802 (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. 1228, 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
`IPR2014-00802 (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
`IPR2014-00802 (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
`IPR2014-00802 (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
`IPR2014-00802 (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
`IPR2014-00802 (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. 1228, 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
`IPR2014-00802 (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. 1228, 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
`IPR2014-00802 (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
`IPR2014-00802 (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
`IPR2014-00802 (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. 1228,
`
`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
`IPR2014-00802 (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
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
