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,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
` ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00818, 00819, 00821, 00827, and
`01098
`U.S. Patent 6,853,142
`
`PATENT OWNER ZOND’S OBSERVATIONS ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION O F D R . O V E R Z E T
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
` ZOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00818, 00819, 00821, 00827, and
`01098
`U.S. Patent 6,853,142
`
`PATENT OWNER ZOND’S OBSERVATIONS ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION O F D R . O V E R Z E T
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner, Zond LLC (“Zond”), hereby files observations on the
`
`testimony given by Petitioners’ Declarant Dr. Overzet (Exhibit 2012) at a
`
`deposition held on May 8, 2015.
`
`(1) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That He Is Not An Expert In Gas
`
`Lasers: At the following transcript location (IPR2014-00781, Exhibit 2012), when
`
`asked a question relating to a gas laser, Dr. Overzet stated that he was not an expert
`
`in gas lasers. The testimony is relevant because many of the prior art references
`
`asserted against U.S. Patent 6,853,142 (“the ’142 patent”) are directed to gas lasers
`
`(e.g., Kudryavtsev) and therefore, that there is no expert support for the Petitioners’
`
`positions with respect to the gas laser references:
`
`A. I am not an expert in gas laser design. My expertise -- my field of
`
`expertise is removed from that. (IPR2014-00781, Exhibit 2012, p. 107,
`
`ll. 6-8).
`
`
`
`(2) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Supporting The Patent Owner’s Position That
`
`The Gas in Wang Does Not Diffuse The Strongly-Ionized Plasma To Allow Additional
`
`Power From The Pulsed Power Supply To Be Absorbed By the Strongly Ionized Plasma,
`
`As Required By Claims 1 and 10 Of the ‘142 Patent: At the following transcript
`
`location (Exhibit 2012), when asked a question about the gas in Wang’s device, Dr.
`
`Overzet stated that gas entered Wang’s chamber at the lower right portion and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`flowed through the pumping station at the left portion of the chamber. This
`
`testimony is relevant because it indicates that the flow of gas is far from the strongly
`
`ionized plasma at the upper end of the chamber and therefore, supports Patent
`
`Owner’s position that there is no objective evidence indicating that the gas in Wang
`
`diffuses the strongly ionized plasma to the extent that it allows additional power to
`
`be absorbed by the strongly ionized plasma:
`
`Q. Does gas enter Wang's chamber at the lower right portion?
`
`A. This is a schematic of Wang, of the system. In the schematic it
`
`shows gas entering in the lower right portion.
`
`Q. Is item 38 a vacuum pump?
`
`A. Almost. Wang identifies item 38 is a vacuum system.
`
`Q. Is item 40 in Figure 1 of Wang a pumping port?
`
`A. This is what -- this is how Wang identifies item 40, yes.
`
`Q. Does the vacuum system identified by reference number 38 pump
`
`gas out of the chamber in Figure 1 of Wang?
`
`A. Did you say the vacuum system 38?
`
`Q. Yes. 22
`
`A. Yes, I would expect the vacuum system 38 to pump gas out of the
`
`chamber in Wang.
`
`Q. Does gas in the chamber of Wang showed in Figure 1 leave the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`chamber at the pumping port?
`
`A. In that schematic, that would be a place where gas leaves the
`
`chamber. (Exhibit 2012, p. 6, l. 5 – p. 7, l. 5).
`
`
`
`(3) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Supporting The Patent Owner’s Interpretation
`
`Of The Claimed Electrode: At the following transcript location (Exhibit 2012), when
`
`asked a question about the electrode in the device disclosed in the ‘142 patent, Dr.
`
`Overzet testified that the ‘142 patent disclosed a pre-ionizing filament electrode that
`
`is separate and distinct from the cathode and anode. This testimony is relevant
`
`because it supports the Patent Owner’s position that the electrode recited in certain
`
`dependent claims of the ‘142 patent (e.g., claim 29) is separate and distinct from the
`
`cathode and anode recited in the claims from which they depend (e.g., claim 21):
`
`Q … I'll repeat the question if it makes it easier for you. Does the '142
`
`patent disclose an electrode as a preionizing filament electrode that is a
`
`component in an ionization source that generates weakly-ionized
`
`plasma?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form and relevance.
`
`A. So the line to which you directed me in column refers to Figure
`
`16A and does -14 and states simply, "The plasma generating system
`
`200 prime of Figure 6A includes an electrode 452 that generates a
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`weakly-ionized 17 or preionized plasma." The next sentence is what
`
`you want as well. "The electrode 452 is also referred to as a preionizing
`
`filament electrode and is a component and an ionization source that
`
`generates the weakly-ionized plasma."
`
`Q. Can you turn your attention to Figure 6A of the '142 patent
`
`remember. Does Figure 6A show an anode as reference number
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, relevance.
`
`A. Going back to that column as well, it does in the specification
`
`identify -- the specification does identify 216 as an anode.
`
`Q. Does Figure 6A show a cathode identified as reference number
`
`204?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, relevance.
`
`A. It does appear in that column 16 to identify 204 as a cathode.
`
`Q. Does Figure 6A show that the preionizing filament electrode
`
`identified as 452 is separate from the anode identified as 216 and the
`
`cathode identified as 204?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, relevance, form.
`
`A. It identifies it as a separate element. I would note, as I did in my
`
`declaration in paragraph 127 and 128, that the cathode and anodes are
`
`also electrodes, so that in Figure 6A I see three -- a minimum of three
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`electrodes, only one of which is identified as a filament electrode.
`
`
`
`(4) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That Wang’s Device Includes A
`
`Floating Shield and Dielectric Between Its Anode And Cathode Instead Of “a cathode
`
`that is positioned adjacent to the anode and forming a gap there between,” As Recited In
`
`The Claims Of The ‘142 Patent (e.g., claim 21): At the following transcript location
`
`(Exhibit 2012), when asked questions about Wang’s device, Dr. Overzet testified
`
`that Wang’s device includes a floating shield and dielectric between its anode and
`
`cathode. This testimony is relevant because the claims of the ‘142 patent (e.g.,
`
`claim 21) recites a different structure in which a cathode is positioned adjacent to
`
`the anode with a gap there between:
`
`Q. Can you turn your attention back to the Wang reference, please?
`
`A. Okay. I'm there.
`
`Q. Does Wang disclose a grounded shield 21 identified by reference
`
`number 24 that protects the chamber walls from sputter deposition?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form.
`
`A. I see at the bottom of column 3, 25 line 66 and 67, "the grounded
`
`shield 24 protects the chamber walls from sputter deposition and also
`
`acts as a grounded anode for the cathode."
`
`Q. Does Wang also disclose a floating shield identified by reference
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`number 26 that is supported by a second dielectric isolator?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, relevance.
`
`A. In column 4, lines 1 and 2 -- shall I read it?
`
`Q. So is it your testimony that at column 4, lines 1 and 2, Wang
`
`discloses a floating shield identified by reference number 26 that is
`
`supported by a second dielectric isolator?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, relevance.
`
`A. 28? Yes, that was read verbatim from Wang.
`
`Q. Can you take a look at Figure 1 of 20 Wang?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Is item 14 in Figure 1 of Wang a cathode at the top of the
`
`chamber?
`
`A. Item 14 is described by Wang both as a cathode and as a
`
`sputtering target.
`
` Q. Is Item 24 in Figure 1 of Wang a grounded shield acting as an
`
`anode along the sides and bottom of the chamber?
`
`A. Are you asking me if item 24 is grounded?
`
`Q. No, I'm asking -- well, I'm asking you a little bit more than that.
`
`I'm asking if item 24 in Figure 1 of Wang is a grounded shield acting as
`
`an anode.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`A. I believe I've already answered that. That's the bottom of column
`
`3 and the top sentence of column 4.
`
`Q. Is the purpose of the floating shield in Wang to focus sputtered
`
`metal ions toward the wafer?
`
`A. Wang says in column 4, "A floating shield 26" -- this is what you
`
`are referencing?
`
`Q. I asked you if the purpose of the floating shield in Wang is to focus
`
`sputtered metal ions toward the wafer?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, relevance.
`
`A. Wang discusses his floating shield 26 in the following words: It is
`
`supported on a second dielectric isolator 21 -- 28, rather, becomes
`
`negatively charged in the presence of a high=density plasma and acts to
`
`focus sputtered metal ions towards the wafer 20.
`
`(Exhibit 2012, p. 24, l. 17 – p. 27, l. 4)
`
`
`
`(5) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That It Would Not Have Been
`
`Obvious To Combine Lantsman With Either Wang Or Mozgrin To Achieve The
`
`Invention Claimed In The ‘142 Patent: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit
`
`2012), when asked questions relating to Lantsman, Dr. Overzet testified that
`
`Lantsman teaches two DC power supplies rather than a pulse as taught by each of
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Wang and Mozgrin. The testimony is relevant because it indicates that Lantsman’s
`
`device applies a very different type of power than the pulses applied by Wang and
`
`Mozgrin and because the Petitioners did not set forth any objective evidence
`
`showing how one of ordinary skill in the art would have achieved the claimed
`
`invention of the ‘142 patent by combining the teachings of Lantsman with the very
`
`different devices of Wang or Mozgrin:
`
`Q … But my question is - my question is simple. It is, would you agree that
`
`Lantsman discloses two DC power supplies?
`
`A. And in the abstract, Lantsman notes a secondary power supply. If it's
`
`secondary, then he also has a primary also in the abstract.
`
`Q. And are the primary and secondary power supplies in Lantsman DC
`
`power supplies?
`
`A. They're both listed as DC power supplies in his Figure 5. (Exhibit 2012,
`
`p. 30, l. 13-25)
`
`
`
`(6) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That It Would Not Have Been
`
`Obvious To Combine Wang or Mozgrin With Kudryavtsev To Achieve The Invention
`
`Claimed In The ‘142 Patent: At the following transcript locations (IPR2014-00781,
`
`Exhibit 2012), when asked questions relating to Kudryavtsev, Dr. Overzet testified
`
`that the results shown in Kudryavtsev’s Figure 5 is applicable to only devices that
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`have a radius The testimony is relevant because neither Wang’s device nor
`
`Mozgrin’s devices has a radius and therefore, the testimony indicates that
`
`combining the teachings of Wang or Mozgrin with Kudryavtsev would not have led
`
`to predictable results:
`
`Q. What do you feel the horizontal axis of Figure 5 [of Kudryavtsev]
`
`represents?
`
`A. Normalized radius.
`
`Q. A normalized radius of what type of device?
`
`A. Kudryavtsev's model is widely applicable, and so it could be many
`
`different devices.
`
`Q. What type of device could it be?
`
`A. There are many types of devices that it could be.
`
`Q. Well, it would have to be a type of device that has a radius; correct?
`
`A. Correct. (IPR2014-00781, Exhibit 2012, p. 28, l. 20 – p. 29, l. 9, emphasis
`
`added)
`
`
`
`(7) Additional Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That It Would Not Have
`
`Been Obvious To Combine Wang or Mozgrin With Kudryavtsev To Achieve The
`
`Invention Claimed In The ‘142 Patent: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit
`
`2012), when asked questions relating to the devices disclosed in Wang and
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Kudryavtsev, Dr. Overzet testified about the numerous differences between the
`
`Wang device and the Kudryavtsev device. The testimony is relevant because it
`
`further demonstrates that the devices of Wang and Kudryavtsev are very different
`
`and that there is no objective evidence tending to establish that the teachings of the
`
`very different devices of Wang and Kudryavtsev would have led to predictable
`
`results:
`
` Q. To perform the experiments, did Kudryavtsev use a device
`
`including electrodes and a cylindrical tube of diameter 2.5 centimeters?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form.
`
`A. Kudryavtsev writes on page 32 in the right column, the fifth
`
`paragraph, the center of the paragraph: "The discharge occurred inside a
`
`cylindrical tube of diameter 2R equals 2.5 centimeters." (IPR2014-00781,
`
`Exhibit 2012, p. 8, ll. 9-18, emphasis added).
`
`…
`
`Q. And the other part of my question is whether -- whether the device
`
`disclosed in Kudryavtsev included electrodes.
`
`A. I'm not seeing the place in Kudryavtsev where he discloses this,
`
`but this is my understanding.
`
`Q. Is the distance between the electrodes in Kudryavtsev 52 centimeters?
`
`A. On that same page, Kudryavtsev does disclose a distance -- ah,
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`between the electrodes, there is exactly where it was for the prior
`
`question -- of 52 centimeters (IPR2014-00781, Exhibit 2012, p. 8, l. 19 –
`
`p. 9, l. 6, emphasis added).
`
`…
`
`Q … Kudryavtsev's device does not have a magnetic field; is that
`
`correct?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form.
`
`A. Are you referring to the device that he used to verify his model?
`
`Q. Yes.
`
`A. It's my understanding that he did not utilize a magnetic field, other
`
`than the earth's magnetic field, in that device. (IPR2014-00781, Exhibit
`
`2012, p. 12, l. 22 – p. 13, l. 6, emphasis added).
`
`…
`
`Q. Does Wang disclose a small magnetron having an area less than 20
`
`percent of the target area rotating about the target center?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form, and relevance.
`
`A. Again, this is outside some of my declaration actually. I do
`
`discuss the portion related to this in one section as well. However,
`
`before going there, it's possible to read Claim 1 from Wang's patent,
`
`which is virtually -- the center portion of which is virtually word for word
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`what you read to me. (IPR2014-00781, Exhibit 2012, p. 69, ll. 13-24,
`
`emphasis added).
`
`…
`
`Q. Try looking at column 7 of Wang, around line 32. And the
`
`question was, does Wang teach a SIP reactor as advantageous for a
`
`low-power, low-pressure background?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection to form and relevance.
`
`A. There is a sentence in Wang which says -- which says that a
`
`particular SIP reactor is advantageous for a low-power, low-pressure
`
`background period since the small rotating SIP magnetron can maintain
`
`a plasma at lower power and lower pressure than can a larger
`
`stationary magnetron. However, so it qualifies this advantageous, it is
`
`possible to combine highly-ionized sputtering during the pulses with
`
`significant neutral sputtering during the background period. (IPR2014-
`
`00781, Exhibit 2012, p. 89, l. 13 – p. 90, l. 5, emphasis added).
`
`
`
`(8) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That The Plasma Disclosed In
`
`Kudryavtsev Is Not Substantially Uniform: At the following transcript locations
`
`(IPR2014-00781, Exhibit 2012), when asked questions relating to the density of
`
`plasma generated by Kudryavtsev’s cylindrical device, Dr. Overzet testified that the
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`density of the plasma is shown in Kudryavtsev to decrease away from the axis of
`
`the cylinder. The testimony is relevant because many of the claims of the ‘142
`
`patent require the strongly-ionized plasma to be substantially uniform proximate to
`
`the sputtering target and therefore, that these claims would not have been obvious
`
`over combinations of references including Kudryavtsev:
`
`Q. Does the curve corresponding to the greatest value of time shown
`
`on Figure 5 show that the plasma density decreases as you move from
`
`the center of the device?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form.
`
`A. I believe the answer to your question is that the plasma density
`
`shown in that final curve in Figure 5, the one most into the page, at T
`
`equals -- or tau -- assuming that they do mean tau there, and actually
`
`mean T time, rather than tau, equal to 39, by my eyesight, does
`
`decrease from center going out to radial edge.
`
`…
`
`Q. Can you now direct your attention to the -- to the curve that
`
`corresponds to the third greatest value of time on Figure 5?
`
`A. Uh-huh.
`
`Q. And can we agree to label that time as T equals 36?
`
`A. Okay.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Q. Does the curve at T equals 36 on Figure 5 show that the plasma
`
`density decreases as you move from the center of the device?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form, relevance.
`
`A. That curve also appears to indicate that the plasma -- or the n sub
`
`e of r/R equals zero is larger than n sub e of r/R for little R greater than
`
`zero -- little r/R greater than zero.
`
`Q. And do all the curves in Figure 5 show that the plasma density
`
`decreases as you move away from the center of the device?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form, relevance.
`
`A. As I look at Figure 5, it appears to me that each of the curves is larger
`
`in the center than at some little r/R value away from the center -- away
`
`from zero. (Exhibit 2012, p. 41, l. 19 – p. 44, l. 20, emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves (Reg. No. 43,639)
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`(571) 419-7252
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner Zond’s Observations On Cross
`
`Examination was served on the Petitioner by e m a i l at the following e m a i l addresses
`
`on May 15, 2015.
`
`For Petitioner: FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR LIMITED AND
`FUJITSU SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC.
`
`David L. McCombs David M. O’Dell
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Tel: (214) 651-5533
`Email: David.McCombs@haynesboone.com;
`david.odell@haynesboone.com
`
` For Petitioner: THE GILETTE COMPANY David Cavanagh Larissa
`Park
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street Boston, MA 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-5000
`Email: David. Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com;
`Larissa.Park@wilmerhale.com
`
`For Petitioner: 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., AND TOSHIBA CORPORATION
`Robinson Vu BAKER BOTTS LLP ONE SHELL PLAZA 910
`LOUISIANA STREET HOUSTON, TX 77002
`
`Robinson.vu@bakerbotts.com
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Brian M. Berliner Ryan K. Yagura Xin-Yi Zhou
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 S. HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
`bberliner@omm.com; ryagura@omm.com; vzhou@omm.com
`
`
`John Feldhaus Pavan Agarwal Mike Houston
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`3000 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 600
`WASHINGTON, DC 20007
`jfeldhaus@foley.com; pagarwal@foley.com; mhouston@foley.com
`
`David M. Tennant
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`701 THIRTEENTH STREET, NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`
`
`/s/ Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Reg. No. 43,639
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`(571) 419-7252
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`17
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
