throbber
Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` GLOBALFOUNDRIES
` U.S., Inc., et al., IPR 2014-00807
` IPR 2014-00808
` IPR 2014-01099
` Petitioners, IPR 2014-01100
`
` vs.
`
` ZOND, LLC,
`
` Patent Owner.
`
`-----------------------------------------------------
`
` VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF LARRY D. HARTSOUGH, Ph.D.
` Oakland, California
` Wednesday, April 8, 2015
`
`REPORTED BY:
`TAVIA MANNING, CSR No. 13294, CLR, CCRR, RPR
`JOB NO. 92219
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`25
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
` April 8, 2015
` 9:01 A.M.
`
`Page 2
`
`Deposition of LARRY D. HARTSOUGH, Ph.D.,
`taken on behalf of Petitioners at 1001
`Broadway, Oakland, California,
`before Tavia Manning, Certified Shorthand
`Reporter No. 13294, Certified LiveNote
`Reporter, California Certified Realtime
`Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4 5 6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE GLOBALFOUNDRIES PETITIONERS:
` WHITE & CASE
` BY: DAVID TENNANT, ESQ.
` BRETT RISMILLER, ESQ.
` 701 Thirteenth Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.:
` O'MELVENY & MYERS
` BY: VINCENT ZHOU, ESQ.
` SCOT RIVES, ESQ.
` 400 South Hope Street
` Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
`
`Page 4
`
`FOR PETITIONER TOSHIBA (appearing telephonically):
` BAKER BOTTS
` BY: ROBINSON VU, ESQ.
` One Shell Plaza
` 910 Louisiana Street
` Houston, TX 77002
`
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER ZOND, LLC:
` ASCENDA LAW GROUP
` BY: TAREK FAHMI, ESQ.
` 333 West San Carlos Street
` San Jose, CA 95110
`
`
`
`Also present: Marza Tozo, Videographer
` ***
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
` OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA;
` WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2015; 9:01 A.M.
`
`Page 5
`
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning.
` This is the beginning of DVD Number 1 of
`the deposition of Dr. Larry Hartsough, in the matter
`of GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. Inc., et al., versus Zond,
`LLC, in the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
`Cases IPR 2014-00807, IPR 2014-00808, IPR
`2014-01099, and IPR 2014-01100.
` We are located at 1001 Broadway, Oakland,
`California, on Wednesday, April 8th, 2015. The time
`is 9:02 a.m.
` My name is Marza Tozo from TSG Reporting,
`Inc., and I am the legal video specialist.
` The court reporter is Tavia Manning, in
`association with TSG Reporting.
` Will counsel please introduce yourselves.
` MR. RISMILLER: Brett Rismiller with White
`& Case, LLP, on behalf of GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S.,
`Inc., GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module One, LLC &
`Co. Kg and GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Module Two, LLC &
`Co. Kg.
` MR. TENNANT: David Tennant, with White &
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case, for GLOBALFOUNDRIES.
` MR. ZHOU: Xin-Yu Zhou, O'Melveny & Myers,
`for petitioner Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
` And with me on the phone is Scot Rives,
`from the same law firm, and also for Advanced Micro
`Devices.
` MR. FAHMI: Tarek Fahmi on behalf of the
`patent owner, Zond.
` MR. RISMILLER: Is there anyone else on the
`phone? If so, please introduce yourselves.
` MR. VU: This is Robinson Vu, with Baker
`Botts, representing Toshiba.
` THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter
`please swear in the witness.
`
` LARRY D. HARTSOUGH, Ph.D.,
` having been first duly sworn by the reporter,
` testified as follows:
`
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Hartsough.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Before we get started, do you understand
`that you are required to answer truthfully
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`throughout this deposition?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Do you understand that you have to answer
`the questions asked, even if an objection is made,
`unless your attorney instructs you not to answer?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If you cannot hear or understand my
`questions, will you please give me a heads-up and
`let me know?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If you answer my -- if you do not answer my
`question -- if you do not let me know, I will assume
`that you understood my question; is that fair?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many other times have you been deposed
`prior to today?
` A. I don't recall exactly, but probably
`between 15 and 20.
` Q. Have you been deposed outside of the series
`of Zond IPR proceedings?
` A. Can you speak just a little more slowly?
` Q. Sure.
` Have you been deposed outside of this
`series of Zond IPR proceedings?
` A. Yes, I have.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Q. How many times outside of these Zond IPR
`proceedings would you say you've testified?
` A. I don't recall exactly, but probably
`minimum of five -- between five and ten.
` Q. During those depositions, were you
`truthful?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Did you review the transcripts of those
`depositions for errors and submit an errata?
` A. To my recollection, I did, but that's
`standard practice.
` Q. And your prior depositions, were they in
`conjunction with a litigation in district court?
` A. Not all of them, but -- let's see -- at
`least two or three.
` Q. And have you ever had your testimony
`challenged by another party in the form of a Daubert
`motion?
` A. No.
` Q. What did you do to prepare for the
`deposition today?
` A. Well, in addition to the meetings that I
`talked about -- and preparation we talked about
`yesterday, of which a small amount of time was in
`preparation for today, I also spent about three
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`hours after the meeting yesterday in preparation.
` Q. For the purposes of the record, could you
`please repeat what meetings you're referring to when
`you say the meetings discussed yesterday?
` A. Oh, the meeting with Mr. Fahmi on -- what
`date was that? -- Saturday, I guess it was.
` Q. And did you meet with anyone else --
` A. And then we met briefly and had a telephone
`conversation last night.
` Q. And did you meet with anyone aside from
`Mr. Fahmi in preparation for today's deposition?
` A. No.
` Q. Did you also review any documents in
`connection with your preparation for today's
`deposition?
` A. I did.
` Q. How long would you say you spent reviewing
`documents?
` A. Would have been less -- less than three
`hours. Around three hours, something like that.
` Q. And did you review any of these documents
`yesterday?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When were you first retained by Zond?
` A. The very initial retention was in November
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`of 2013 for the civil case.
` Q. And how did that come about?
` A. I got a call. So I -- I think that they
`found me on the web, you know, found my website.
`I'm not sure.
` Q. And what was the scope of your assignment
`from this case? What did Zond -- strike that.
` What was -- what did Zond say to you, when
`they retained you, would be your scope for this
`case?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection to the extent that it
`calls for information that would be covered by the
`attorney work client (sic) immunity doctrine or
`attorney-client privilege.
` You can answer to the extent that you do
`not reveal such privileged information.
` THE WITNESS: So please repeat your
`question just so I fully understand what you're
`asking.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. When Zond first retained you -- strike
`that. I will rephrase the question.
` When Zond first retained you, what was the
`scope of your employment with them, as Zond
`communicated to you?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MR. FAHMI: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: I was told that there was a
`civil case with -- between Zond and Gillette and
`that there were patents at issue, and I was asked to
`review a couple of patents to give my opinion about
`the technology.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. And did they inform you that they planned
`to use your testimony in the form of a declaration
`in conjunction with these IPR proceedings?
` MR. FAHMI: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: At that time?
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Yeah. At that time, yes.
` A. Well, I -- I -- I have no knowledge of when
`the IPR review was initiated, but I was certainly
`not informed in November of 2013.
` I'm beginning to understand that that was
`initiated at some later date.
` Q. So then as I understand your testimony,
`later Zond came back to you and told you that they
`would like to use your expert testimony in
`conjunction with the IPRs that had then been
`initiated?
` MR. FAHMI: Same objection.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 12
` THE WITNESS: There was -- they would like
`to use my services as an expert in connection with
`the IPR that was at a later date, yeah.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. For these IPR proceedings, when did you
`first receive materials relating to the petitions
`and the patents at issue?
` A. Relating to the deposition or related...
` Q. No. Relating to the IPR proceedings.
` A. Oh, the entire proceeding.
` Well, it would have been sometime like late
`October, early November of 2014. I don't remember
`exactly.
` Q. And then when were you -- when did you
`begin to form your opinions that would ultimately be
`used in your declarations?
` A. Well, I began working on reviewing the
`first patents pretty soon thereafter. So, you know,
`about that time or toward the end of November.
` Q. Earlier you testified that you reviewed
`some documents in anticipation for the deposition
`today.
` What documents did you review?
` A. I -- I looked at my declaration, the '716
`patent, and I also reviewed the Board's decisions.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`And last night that's pretty much all I reviewed.
` Q. Did you review any of the prior art
`references in which the Board has instituted
`proceedings on today?
` A. Not yesterday.
` Q. When is the last time you reviewed any of
`the prior art references implicated with this IPR
`proceeding?
` A. Well, it's -- it's a little hard keeping
`track of -- of all the depositions and the patents
`involved, but the prior art that's been cited in --
`at least the main prior art has been cited for other
`ones, and so it would be within the last several
`months that I would have reviewed the -- that prior
`art.
` Q. Aside from the documents you listed just
`now, were there any other case-specific written
`materials that were given to you for your review?
` A. Are you saying at any time?
` The materials were made -- there were
`materials made available to me to -- to look at --
` Q. Simply --
` A. -- for each case.
` Q. Simply in connection with your preparation
`for today's deposition?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. For today's deposition, no.
` Q. You did not review any of your prior
`deposition transcripts from any other IPR
`proceedings?
` A. Not for today's deposition.
` Q. You did not review any materials from the
`district court litigation from Zond and any of the
`parties implicated in the IPR proceedings?
` A. For the civil court litigation?
` Q. Correct.
` A. I don't know if that -- the only -- not in
`preparation -- I have not reviewed any of that
`material in preparation for any of the IPR
`proceedings.
` Q. So the materials that you did review in
`preparation for today's deposition, who selected the
`materials for your review?
` A. Well, I selected them in consultation with
`Mr. Fahmi.
` Q. Were any opinions provided to you by
`counsel?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; work-product
`immunity. I instruct you not to answer.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Do you care to answer?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A. No.
` Q. When forming your opinions expressed in
`your declaration for the '716 IPR proceedings, did
`you review or were you shown anything that you felt
`contradicted your opinion?
` A. Could you repeat the question?
` Q. When forming your opinions expressed in
`your declaration for the '716 IPR proceedings, did
`you review or were you shown anything that you felt
`contradicted your opinion as an expert?
` A. I don't recall. But if there was anything,
`it would have been corrected, and I -- by me. And
`I, you know -- I stand behind the opinions that I
`stated in my declaration.
` Q. In preparing those opinions, did you ask
`counsel for all information in their possession that
`is relevant to the analysis that you were asked to
`perform?
` A. I asked -- well, it was all available to
`me, and so I asked them what was -- what was
`relevant, yeah.
` Q. And did they give you what they considered
`to be all relevant information needed for you to
`form your opinions expressed in your declaration?
` A. Well, as I mentioned, that -- that material
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`is all available to me online.
` Q. In preparing your opinions, did you ask
`Zond's counsel whether there was any information
`that might be considered inconsistent with your
`conclusions?
` A. I don't recall asking that question.
` Q. Were there any opinions that you provided
`that were ultimately not included in your
`declaration?
` A. I don't recall. I don't think so.
` Q. Were there any opinions that you were asked
`by Zond's counsel to give but refused to include in
`your declaration?
` A. Would you repeat the question, please?
` Q. Sure.
` Were there any opinions that you were asked
`by Zond's counsel to give but refused to include in
`your declaration?
` A. Again, I don't recall. I don't think so,
`but I don't recall.
` Q. Did you perform any experimentation to
`confirm your conclusions expressed in your
`declaration?
` A. No.
` Q. Which portions of your declaration did you
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`write?
` A. As I mentioned yesterday, most of the
`background information has -- was authored by me and
`provided, you know, to counsel for inclusion in the
`report, and other parts of it were edited to be
`consistent with my opinions.
` Q. Did Zond's counsel draft the portions that
`you mentioned, aside from the background
`information, which you claimed to have authored?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you review these portions and edit
`them as you saw fit to be consistent with your
`opinions?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What did you do to verify or determine that
`you agreed with the portions that you did not
`originally author?
` A. Excuse me just a moment.
` I would have looked at the necessary -- at
`the material that was -- would be referenced and
`looked at that material in its context and the
`context of what it was referencing so that I could
`form my own opinion and then determine if that
`opinion is consistent with what -- what is stated.
` Q. Were there any opinions in the portions of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`your declaration that you authored that were
`ultimately not included in the final version of your
`declaration?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; asked and answered.
` THE WITNESS: As I said, I don't recall,
`but I don't think so.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Is it your opinion that, in conjunction
`with obviousness, that there must be a reason to
`combine prior art references in order for the
`combination to render a patent claim obvious?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` You can answer.
` THE WITNESS: That's my understanding.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. What constitutes a reason to combine
`references?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: What constitutes...
` Well, it would be basically the goal of the
`person of ordinary skill in the art that is wanting
`to achieve some improvement or -- or purpose and
`would look for the -- would find that the
`combination would be beneficial.
` I mean, I don't know what the official -- I
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`don't know what the legal terminology is, but...
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Must a particular reference express
`explicitly a teaching or motivation to combine with
`another reference in order for the two to be
`combined?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Must the reference itself
`express it? I don't believe so. At least that's
`not my understanding.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. If two references do not contain any
`explicit references to each other, how would you
`determine whether or not there is sufficient
`motivation to combine these references?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, motivation to combine
`and the ability to combine are two different things.
` A motivation to combine would -- would
`really come down to what a person of ordinary skill
`in the art wanted, for some reason, to make some
`change or improvement to a technology or
`intellectual property expressed in -- in one or both
`of them. So the motivation would have to result in
`some sort of -- the motivation would be a desire for
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`some improvement.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. So two references could be -- there could
`be -- strike that.
` There could be sufficient motivation to
`combine two references notwithstanding any ability
`to combine; correct?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: It really comes down to, you
`know, if in the judgment of the person of ordinary
`skill in the art that there is some relevance there,
`there might be -- there might be a motivation.
` But if, in the judgment of the person of
`ordinary skill in the art, the technologies are not
`allied, a person of ordinary skill in the art might
`not have any motivation, might not see any benefit
`there.
` So that's hard to answer in terms of other
`than what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would think.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Well, earlier you testified that there is a
`difference between a motivation to combine and the
`ability to combine for two prior art references;
`correct?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Yeah. It's basically, could
`you have any reasonable chance of success of
`combining, you know, two different things. That has
`to do with whether they can be combined or not.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. And whether or not the two prior art
`references refer to technologies that are allied,
`does that go towards ability to combine or the
`motivation to combine?
` A. The -- maybe both.
` Q. And reasonable chance of success for
`combining the references, does that go to motivation
`to combine or ability to combine?
` A. Well, the reasonable chance of success, if
`one -- it goes to both. If one -- if one of
`ordinary skill in the art couldn't see any -- any
`probability of success in combining, that would
`certainly reduce their motivation to try.
` Q. For two references to render a claim
`obvious, do they have to be physically compatible?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, physical compatibility
`is a -- again, is kind of a judgment. I don't
`recall what the exact wording of the -- the ruling
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`or the practice is.
` You would have to be able -- I mean, if
`something is -- is not physically compatible, then,
`to be obvious, it would still have to be understood
`by one of ordinary skill in the art that there could
`be some -- some combination that would be possible.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Let me give you an example.
` If reference A discloses a DC power supply
`and reference B discloses an AC power supply, does
`that mean that the two references are incompatible
`and cannot be combined?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Not necessarily. But unless
`there was some benefit, there might not be any
`motivation to combine. So...
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. And that benefit does not have to be
`explicitly expressed in either of the references;
`correct?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: It would have to be obvious
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Let me give you another example.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` If reference A discloses a plasma supply
`for physical vapor deposition while reference B
`discloses a plasma supply for plasma etching, does
`that mean that the two references are incompatible
`and cannot be combined?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: What do you mean by
`"combined"? Could you clarify your question?
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Combined to render a claim obvious.
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: I think that depends on the
`specifics of the claim. So it doesn't mean that
`they cannot be. But if the claim is very specific
`in a way that's not made obvious by those two, then
`it's possible that it would not be obvious.
` So it really kind of depends on the
`specifics. I would say it's not impossible, but it
`would really have to be decided on the specifics of
`the case.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. What is your understanding when two
`references are considered analogous?
` A. Well, the example I can, you know, think of
`is the -- the impedance of a plasma is analogous to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 24
`the resistance of a wire. So even though they are,
`you know, really different, there is an analogue or
`similarity between impedance and resistance.
` Q. So would you define the term "analogous" to
`have some similarities between the two?
` A. I would have to look it up in a dictionary.
` But "analogy" means that there are
`similarities of appearance or behavior or -- or the
`way it's described.
` Q. So you gave me an example of two pieces of
`technology that are analogous -- you gave me --
`strike that.
` When you referred to the plasma impedance
`being similar to the resistance of a wire, that was
`two pieces of technology that are analogous;
`correct?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Is there any difference between two pieces
`of technology being analogous and two fields of
`technology being analogous?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, there -- there can be
`some differences, you know, like where one talks
`about -- we talked yesterday about the fluid flow
`and gas dynamics or some other -- there are
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 25
`differences of course, but there are similarities as
`well. So the -- so that's -- that's the difference
`in that the way -- you know, maybe -- maybe not all
`of the equations of one apply to the other, while
`some of them may. So a whole field of technology
`would be different -- would be different than the
`one aspect that I mentioned, which is just, you
`know, one phenomenon in a field.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Would you consider plasma etching to be an
`analogous field to plasma sputtering?
` A. Again, there are some similarities
`depending on which techniques would be used for
`plasma etching, but there are other techniques used
`for plasma etching that are not analogous to plasma
`sputtering.
` Q. Earlier you testified that a whole field of
`technology would be different than the one aspect
`that you draw an analogy between; correct?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, I said it could be more
`complex in that not every aspect of one would
`translate to an analogue in the other, although many
`of the phenomenon might.
`//
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Going back to my example of plasma etching
`versus plasma sputtering, is there a subset of those
`fields for which each field has an analogue in one
`another?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Could you give me some examples, please.
` A. Well, if one is doing plasma etching
`strictly by removal of the materials being etched by
`a physical sputtering phenomenon, then it would --
`then it would be analogous.
` If you're doing it by a combination of
`chemical reaction, chemical species reacting with
`the surface, then, you know, it's not analogous to
`sputtering.
` Q. When looking at physical sputtering etching
`versus traditional plasma sputtering, would creation
`of that plasma be considered to be an analogue
`between the two fields?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Again, there can be very
`distinct differences in this way the two techniques
`are carried out.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Correct.
` But did you not earlier testify that there
`can be some differences as well as similarities
`between analogous fields?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. If we have two references, and reference A
`discloses creating a plasma to be used in physical
`sputtering etching while reference B discloses
`creating a plasma for physical vapor deposition
`sputtering, would you consider those two references
`to be analogous?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Not necessarily.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. And why is that?
` A. Well, if the plasma, the plasma that's
`created to do physical sputtering, is created in the
`proximity to the physical sputtering target, the
`plasma that is created to do physical sputter
`etching may or may not be created in proximity to
`the surface to be sputter etched -- to be etched.
`So there can be very distinct differences in the two
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`technologies.
` Q. And how would you determine whether these
`distinct differences render the two references to
`not be analogous?
` A. You have to look at the details of it.
` I mean, I gave -- I gave an example. If
`the plasma is not created in proximity to the -- to
`the device to be sputter etched, then there's a
`difference there.
` Q. Comparing that to your earlier example,
`comparing plasma impedance to current through a
`wire, there is similar differences between those
`analogies as well; correct?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Yes.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Yet you -- your opinion is that those two
`examples are analogues?
` A. In the sense that one can describe the
`equation of power, you know, equal in voltage times
`current or in other terms, that equation applies to
`both cases. So that analogue holds.
` Q. You state that the reason that the analogue
`holds is because the equation relating to the power
`being equal to the voltage times current is the same
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 29
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`for both examples; correct?
` A. Yeah.
` Q. In the previous example I gave to you
`comparing physical sputtering versus traditional PVD
`sputtering, the difference you gave to me was the
`location in which the plasma was created; correct?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: That's the difference that I
`used as an example, yes.
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. Would the equations or mechanisms for
`generating that plasma be similar between the two?
` A. They may or may not be. That depends on,
`you know, how the plasma is generated. There are
`ways to generate a plasma for -- for etching that
`would not necessarily create it in proximity to a
`cathode, and yet that plasma could still be used for
`etching. So there could be differences.
` Q. If in both references the plasma is created
`in the same manner, being the equations for
`supplying power to the feed gas and creating a
`plasma, if those were the same between the two
`references, would you consider them to be analogous?
` MR. FAHMI: Objection; form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, again, one would have
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`Page 30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`to look at each reference and decide whether they
`were truly analogous or truly similar, so...
`BY MR. RISMILLER:
` Q. But the fact that -- that one reference is
`disclosing creating a plasma for etching while the
`other is disclosing creating a plasma for sputtering
`does not preclude them from being analogous;
`correct?
` A. Well, again, the differences are -- the
`creation of the plasma itself could be analogous,
`but the uses of the plasma could be -- could be
`different depending on the details of the -- the
`etching process.
` Q. So I am handing you what is marked as
`Exhibit 2004 in the 01099 proceeding, the '716
`patent.
` Do you recognize this document?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what is it?
` And what is this document?
` A. This is my declaration for the '716 patent.
` Q. This declaration is the same as your
`declaration submitted in all four of the IPR
`proceedings for the '716 patent; correct?
` A. That's my understanding.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`IPR2014-00808
`AMD Ex. 1331
`
`

`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 31
` Q. And so when I refer to your declaration, I
`will be referring to this exhibit, as it is also
`produced in the other proceedings as well; is that
`understood?
` A. I understand th

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