`
` 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