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.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`IPR Case No. IPR2014-008191
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS
`
`
`1 Case Nos. IPR2014-00867, IPR2014-01014, and IPR2014-01046 have been
`joined with this 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,
`Petitioners,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Zond, LLC.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142
`IPR Case No. IPR2014-008191
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS
`
`
`1 Case Nos. IPR2014-00867, IPR2014-01014, and IPR2014-01046 have been
`joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`RESPONSES TO OBSERVATIONS ON DR. OVERZET’S
`TESTIMONY .................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Response to Observation 1 .................................................................... 1
`
`Response to Observation 2 .................................................................... 3
`
`Response to Observation 3 .................................................................... 5
`
`Response to Observation 4 .................................................................... 6
`
`Response to Observation 5 .................................................................... 7
`
`Response to Observation 6 .................................................................. 10
`
`Response to Observation 7 .................................................................. 11
`
`Response to Observation 8 .................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner submits this response to Patent Owner Zond’s Observations on
`
`Cross-Examination of Dr. Overzet, Paper No. 42 (“Observation”). Patent Owner
`
`presents eight observations on Dr. Overzet’s testimony. While Petitioner believes
`
`that the testimony will be appropriately viewed and weighed by the Board, the
`
`specific observations presented by Patent Owner are irrelevant and mischaracterize
`
`the testimony of Dr. Overzet, as specified below, and therefore are not probative of
`
`any material issue before the Board.
`
`II. RESPONSES TO OBSERVATIONS ON DR. OVERZET’S
`TESTIMONY
`A. Response to Observation 1
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Overzet’s testimony indicates that his field
`
`of expertise is inadequate to support Petitioner’s positions with respect to “gas
`
`laser references” such as Kudryavtsev. Observation at 2. As a threshold matter,
`
`Patent Owner’s observation is based on deposition testimony of Dr. Overzet taken
`
`by Patent Owner regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 in different IPR
`
`proceedings. Patent Owner is permitted to submit its motion for observations in
`
`those proceedings, not the instant ones.
`
`Notwithstanding its threshold irrelevance, the cited testimony merely
`
`indicates that Dr. Overzet is not an expert in all aspects of “gas laser design.”
`
`Deposition of Dr. Overzet re U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 (“’759 Depo. Tr.”) at
`1
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`107:6-8 (IPR2014-00781 Ex. 2012). On the other hand, Dr. Overzet testified that
`
`“I am an expert in the generation of plasma; furthermore all of the articles that
`
`we've gone through with respect to the '759 patent involve the generation of
`
`plasma.” Id. at 109:14-18 (IPR2014-00781 Ex. 2012). In other words, Dr. Overzet
`
`is an expert in the relevant field for the patent at issue and he applies his expert
`
`opinion when concluding that it would be obvious to combine references that
`
`pertain to plasma generation such as Kudryavtsev. See IPR2014-00781 Overzet
`
`Dec. at ¶¶ 55-59 (Ex. 1240).
`
`Finally, Patent Owner’s characterization of Kudryavtsev as a reference
`
`“directed to gas lasers” is an incorrect conclusion contrived only to attack Dr.
`
`Overzet’s qualification as an expert purporting to testify about “gas laser design.”
`
`Observation at 2; ’759 Depo. Tr. at 107:6-8 (IPR2014-00781 Ex. 2012).
`
`Kudryavtsev explicitly states that its model emerges from “the study of ionization
`
`relaxation in a plasma when the external electric field suddenly increases” and that
`
`the model is applicable “whenever a field is suddenly applied to a weakly ionized
`
`gas.”2 Kudryavtsev at p. 30, left col., ¶ 1; p. 34, right col. final ¶ (IPR2014-00819
`
`Ex. 1204). Thus, Kudryavtsev is directed to ionization relaxation mechanics which
`
`
`2 The general applicability of Kudryavtsev includes gas lasers, but is not limited to
`them. Kudryavtsev at p. 34, right col., last ¶ (“[The modeled effects] must be
`allowed for when studying emission mechanisms in pulsed gas lasers, gas
`breakdown, laser sparks, etc.”) (IPR2014-00819 Ex. 1204).
`2
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`falls within Dr. Overzet’s plasma generation expertise. As a result, Zond’s limiting
`
`Kudryavtsev to application to gas lasers is an unsupported conclusion which is
`
`irrelevant to this proceeding.
`
`B. Response to Observation 2
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Overzet’s testimony indicates that “the flow
`
`of gas [in Wang] is far from the strongly-ionized plasma at the upper end of the
`
`chamber” which supports Patent Owner’s argument that the gas does not diffuse
`
`the strongly-ionized plasma to the extent that it allows additional power to be
`
`absorbed. Observation at 3. Patent Owner’s observation draws a self-serving
`
`conclusion that has no support from the cited testimony.
`
`The excerpt cited by Patent Owner merely shows that Dr. Overzet agrees
`
`with counsel for Patent Owner that: (1) gas enters Wang’ system at the lower right,
`
`(2) Wang’s system includes a vacuum system and a pumping port, and (3) the
`
`vacuum system pumps gas out of Wang’s chamber at the pumping port location.
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Overzet re U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 (“’142 Depo.
`
`Tr.”) at 6:5-7:5 (Ex. 2012).
`
`Nowhere in the cited testimony does Dr. Overzet opine on what the feed gas
`
`does after it is introduced in Wang’s system and before it is pumped out by the
`
`vacuum system. Despite this, Patent Owner concludes that the testimony indicates
`
`that the feed gas flow is far from the strongly-ionized plasma. Observation at 3. In
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`fact, immediately following the excerpt cited by Patent Owner, Dr. Overzet
`
`discussed the nature of the feed gas flow in Wang’s chamber, indicating that the
`
`feed gas flows from the inlet in the lower right portion of Wang’s chamber, then
`
`flows between the pedestal and the grounded shield into the main volume of
`
`Wang’s chamber, and then eventually reaches the pumping port in the lower left:
`
`Q. All right. So in the three-dimensional device that is
`
`represented in this two-dimensional figure, is there a path around the -
`
`- the bottom portion of the pedestal for the gas to flow?
`
`A. There a gap is shown between the pedestal 18 and the item
`
`24 and 36, in which I expect gas can flow and fill.
`
`Q. Does the gas that enters the chamber in Figure 1 of Wang
`
`move toward the pumping part -- pumping port identified by item
`
`number 40?
`
`A. I'm sorry, I was looking at something else and I missed the
`
`detail of your question. Would you please repeat it for me?
`
`Q. Sure, no problem. Does the gas that enters the chamber of
`
`Figure 1 of Wang move toward the pumping port identified by item
`
`number 40?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form.
`
`A. Eventually.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`’142 Depo. Tr. at 7:24-8:20 (Ex. 2012) (emphasis added). Patent Owner
`
`conveniently omits this testimony which addresses the flow path of the feed gas.
`
`As a result, Patent Owner’s observation is nothing more than a baseless conclusion
`
`which provides no insight on patentability and is irrelevant to the proceeding.
`
`C. Response to Observation 3
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Overzet’s testimony shows that “the ’142
`
`patent disclosed a pre-ionizing filament electrode that is separate and distinct from
`
`the cathode and anode.” Observation at 4. Patent Owner concludes that Dr.
`
`Overzet’s testimony supports Patent Owner’s contention 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).” Id. Again, Patent Owner draws a self-serving conclusion that
`
`has no support from the cited testimony.
`
`In the cited testimony, Patent Owner questioned Dr. Overzet regarding
`
`Figure 6A and whether the ’142 Patent identifies a pre-ionizing filament electrode
`
`separate from the cathode and anode. ’142 Depo. Tr. at 28:20-29:9 (Ex. 2012).
`
`Based on this, and nothing more, Patent Owner concludes that Dr. Overzet’s mere
`
`confirmation that the elements are present in Figure 6A supports its position that
`
`dependent claims reciting electrodes claim an electrode that is separate from the
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`claimed cathode and anode. 3 Observation at 4. Patent Owner never questioned
`
`Dr. Overzet in the context of the claim language. As a result, Zond’s conclusion is
`
`incorrect and irrelevant to this proceeding.
`
`D. Response to Observation 4
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Overzet’s testimony shows that “Wang’s
`
`device includes a floating shield and dielectric between its anode and cathode”
`
`which supports its position that Wang differs from the claims of the ’142 patent
`
`which recite a structure in which a cathode is positioned adjacent to the anode with
`
`a gap there between. Observation at 6. Yet again, Patent Owner’s observation
`
`draws a self-serving conclusion that has no support from the cited testimony.
`
`The excerpt cited by Patent Owner merely shows that Dr. Overzet agrees
`
`with Patent Owner that Wang discloses: (1) a grounded shield that protects the
`
`chamber walls and acts as a grounded anode, (2) a cathode at the top of the
`
`chamber that also acts as a sputtering target, and (3) a floating shield supported by
`
`a dielectric isolator that becomes negatively-charged in the presence of a high-
`
`density plasma and focuses sputtered ions toward the wafer. ’142 Depo. Tr. at
`
`24:17-27:4 (Ex. 2012). Patent Owner never asked Dr. Overzet about the
`
`orientation of the cathode, anode, and floating shield relative to one another.
`
`
`3 Patent Owner’s conclusion is an example of importing a claim limitation from an
`embodiment disclosed in the specification which is manifestly inappropriate.
`6
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`Rather, Patent Owner cites to Dr. Overzet’s mere confirmation that these
`
`components are disclosed by Wang and baselessly concludes that Wang’s floating
`
`shield and dielectric are disposed between the anode and cathode in contravention
`
`of the claims of the ’142 patent. Observation at 6. Dr. Overzet’s testimony is
`
`consistent with his expressed conclusion that Wang discloses the claimed anode
`
`and cathode positioned adjacent to the anode forming a gap there between.
`
`Overzet Declaration at ¶¶ 121-122 (Ex. 1224). As a result, Zond’s unilateral
`
`conclusion in the absence of support from the cited testimony is unhelpful in
`
`deciding patentability and irrelevant to this proceeding.
`
`E. Response to Observation 5
`Observation 5 cites a small portion of Dr. Overzet’s testimony relating to the
`
`power supply utilized in Lantsman and concludes that “Lantsman’s device applies
`
`a very different type of power than the pulses applied by Wang and Mozgrin.”
`
`Observation at 9. More specifically, Patent Owner claims that the difference
`
`between Lantsman’s device and the devices of Wang and Mozgrin preclude
`
`combination without any objective evidence showing how one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art what have achieved the claimed invention by combining them. Id. Patent
`
`Owner’s argument mischaracterizes Dr. Overzet’s testimony about combining
`
`references and is irrelevant to the grounds instituted in this proceeding.
`
`First, the testimony cited by Patent Owner refers only to isolated questions
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`regarding the physical apparatus disclosed in Lantsman and ignores the fact that
`
`Dr. Overzet’s answers were not given in the context of combining Lantsman with
`
`any other reference. Immediately following the excerpt cited by Patent Owner, Dr.
`
`Overzet states that Lantsman discloses a single power supply unit that comprises
`
`two power supply sections – a primary and secondary DC power supply – which
`
`corresponds to Wang’s two-stage plasma system:
`
`Q. Okay. Does Lantsman disclose a value for the ion density of
`
`its plasma?
`
`A. Interesting. So in -- as part of my reading for answering this
`
`question, I note that in column 2, line 42 relating to a prior question,
`
`Lantsman writes: "In brief summary, this technique is implemented
`
`by a power supply circuit comprising two power supply sections: an
`
`essentially conventional primary power supply which provides the
`
`primary power to electrically drive the cathode during the plasma
`
`process, and a secondary power supply which supplies an initial
`
`plasma ignition voltage sufficiently in excess of the oscillation
`
`threshold voltage," and by using the word "two power supply
`
`sections," he implies that it could be part of one power supply
`
`system. Let me just -- got it. Got it. Lantsman describes -- this is, in
`
`fact, discussed in my declaration in paragraph 69 -- actually starting
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`earlier in paragraph 66 and following. Looking in the middle of that
`
`paragraph 69, both Lantsman and Wang teach two-stage plasma
`
`systems. Lantsman teaches a limited or a first plasma stage that he
`
`also calls preionizing, and a second stage that he calls substantial in
`
`that the sputtering current has become substantial with the primary
`
`power supply.
`
`’142 Depo. Tr. at 32:14-33:19 (Ex. 2012). Patent Owner’s observation attempts to
`
`twist Dr. Overzet’s testimony regarding the physical apparatus of Lantsman by
`
`groundlessly concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`combine the references despite the fact that Dr. Overzet never testified as such.
`
`Secondly, Patent Owner’s reliance on the physical differences between
`
`Lantsman and either Wang or Mozgrin is irrelevant as the Board considered this
`
`argument when Patent Owner initially made it in its Preliminary Response and
`
`instituted inter partes review because “a determination of obviousness based on
`
`teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution
`
`of elements.” See, e.g., IPR2014-00818 Institution Decision at 14 (Paper No. 9);
`
`see also IPR2014-00818 Patent Owner Preliminary Response at 32-34, 36 (Paper
`
`No. 8). Because of this, the instant proceeding is instituted on the ground that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teaching of Lantsman to
`
`either Wang or Mozgrin such that Patent Owner’s observation regarding physical
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`differences between the apparatuses of Lantsman, Wang, or Mozgrin is irrelevant.
`
`F. Response to Observation 6
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Overzet’s testimony indicates that Figure 5
`
`of Kudryavtsev is “applicable only to devices that have a radius” such that it could
`
`not predictably be combined with Wang or Mozgrin which do not have a radius.
`
`Observation at 9-10. Similar to Observation 1, Patent Owner’s observation is
`
`based on deposition testimony of Dr. Overzet taken by Patent Owner regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 in different IPR proceedings.
`
`Notwithstanding the threshold irrelevance of the excerpt, Patent Owner’s
`
`argument is misplaced because it mischaracterizes Dr. Overzet’s testimony about
`
`combining Kudryavtsev with Wang or Mozgrin. Immediately following the cited
`
`testimony, Dr. Overzet testified that that Kudryavtsev’s model has wide
`
`applicability to systems other than Kudryavtsev’s particular cylindrical apparatus,
`
`including those that do not have a radius:
`
`A. Since Kudryavtsev has a model that is widely applicable, he
`
`could, and one of ordinary skill in the art -- let me rephrase that. He
`
`could choose to apply his model in various volumes. His model
`
`would not simply be limited to things having a simple radius,
`
`cylindrical or spherical.
`
`Q. But my question was with respect to Figure 5.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`A. Figure 5 discloses one kind of an environment that has a
`
`radius.
`
`Q. So Figure 5 would be limited to only those types of shapes
`
`that have a radius; is that correct?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form. Asked and answered.
`
`A. My understanding is that Figure 5 would be most readily
`
`applied to that kind of a system, but still could have application
`
`outside.
`
`’759 Depo. Tr. at 29:19 – 30:15 (IPR2014-00781 Ex. 2012) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`When Dr. Overzet’s testimony is considered in its full context, Patent
`
`Owner’s observation is incorrect and ultimately irrelevant to Dr. Overzet’s opinion
`
`– both expressed in his declaration and confirmed in his deposition – that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kudryavtsev’s teaching
`
`with the systems disclosed in Wang or Mozgrin.
`
`G. Response to Observation 7
`Observation 7 cites to selected portions of Dr. Overzet’s testimony relating
`
`to differences between Wang and Kudryavtsev and concludes 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.”
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`Observation at 11. Similar to previous observations, Patent Owner’s observation is
`
`based on deposition testimony of Dr. Overzet taken by Patent Owner regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 in different IPR proceedings.
`
`Notwithstanding the threshold irrelevance of the excerpt, Patent Owner’s
`
`argument is misplaced because it mischaracterizes Dr. Overzet’s testimony about
`
`combining Wang and Kudryavtsev and is irrelevant to the instituted grounds .
`
`First, the testimony cited by Patent Owner refers only to isolated questions
`
`regarding the physical apparatus used by Kudryavtsev and Wang and ignores the
`
`fact that Dr. Overzet’s answers were not in the context of combining the two
`
`references. In fact, during his deposition, Dr. Overzet explained in detail how his
`
`declaration shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to
`
`apply the teachings of Kudryavtsev to the system of Wang:
`
`In short, Kudryavtsev is useful for describing how a voltage
`
`pulse such as Wang's voltage pulse operates and how to adjust
`
`voltage amplitude and duration in order to increase the ionization rate
`
`so that a rapid increase in electron density and the formation of a
`
`strongly-ionized plasma occurs for the benefit of improved sputtering
`
`and manufacturing processing capabilities.
`
`Beginning, again, in paragraph 57, bottom of page 29:
`
`"Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`Kudryavtsev intended that its derived model can be applied over a
`
`range of pressures as evidenced by Figure 3 of Kudryavtsev, which
`
`accurately models the duration of the slow growth stage tau sub s for
`
`argon discharges."
`
`’759 Depo. Tr. at 39:4-21 (IPR2014-00781Ex. 2012) (emphasis added). Patent
`
`Owner’s observation attempts to twist Dr. Overzet’s testimony regarding the
`
`physical apparatuses of Wang and Kudryavtsev by unilaterally concluding that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the references despite the fact
`
`that Dr. Overzet never testified as such.
`
`
`
`Secondly, similar to Observation 5, Patent Owner’s reliance on the physical
`
`differences between Wang and Kudryavtsev is irrelevant as the Board has already
`
`denied Patent Owner’s physical substitution argument when instituting inter partes
`
`review. See, e.g., IPR2014-00819 Institution Decision at 15 (Paper No. 9); see
`
`also IPR2014-00819 Patent Owner Preliminary Response at 30-35 (Paper No. 8).
`
`Thus, the instant proceeding is instituted on the ground that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would combine the teaching of Kudryavtsev to Wang irrespective of
`
`any physical differences between the references such that Patent Owner’s
`
`observation is irrelevant.
`
`H. Response to Observation 8
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Overzet’s testimony demonstrates that the
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`“density of the plasma is shown in Kudryavtsev to decrease away from the axis of
`
`the cylinder” which differs from the claims of the ’142 Patent which require a
`
`plasma density to be “substantially uniform proximate to the sputtering target.”
`
`Observation at 14. Similar to previous observations, Patent Owner’s observation is
`
`based on deposition testimony of Dr. Overzet taken by Patent Owner regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 in different IPR proceedings.
`
`Notwithstanding the threshold irrelevance of the excerpt, Patent Owner
`
`incorrectly reads the claims of the ’142 Patent and distorts Dr. Overzet’s testimony
`
`to support its erroneous construction. First, nowhere in its claims does the ’142
`
`Patent require the strongly-ionized plasma to be “substantially uniform proximate
`
`to the sputtering target” as Patent Owner states in its observation. Observation at
`
`14. The only similar language in the ’142 Patent is in claims 15, 27, and 38 which
`
`requires that the strongly-ionized plasma be substantially uniform proximate to, if
`
`anything, the cathode. ’142 Patent at 15:41-44, 22:21-24, 23:2-3 (Ex. 1201).
`
`Secondly, the testimony cited by Patent Owner merely indicates that the
`
`plasma density in Figure 5 of Kudryavtsev is larger in the center than at some
`
`value away from the center. Observation at 14-15. Patent Owner fails to consider
`
`the claim language calling for the plasma to be “substantially uniform.” ’142
`
`Patent at 15:41-44, 22:21-24, 23:2-3 (Ex. 1201) (emphasis added). Indeed, right
`
`after the testimony cited by Patent Owner, Dr. Overzet testified that Kudryavtsev
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`meets the “substantially uniform” limitation:
`
`Q. Figure 5 shows that the plasma density is not uniform;
`
`correct?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form, relevance.
`
`A. One of ordinary skill in the art would always understand that
`
`plasmas, when incoming close to any kind of a surface, will decrease
`
`in plasma density. So the uniformity would never be considered from
`
`0 to 1 in that fashion, as the question has examined it. Therefore, one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand this plasma to be
`
`relatively uniform.
`
`’142 Depo. Tr. at 35:23 – 36:7 (IPR2014-00781 Ex. 2012). When Dr. Overzet’s
`
`testimony is considered in its full context, Patent Owner’s observation is incorrect
`
`and ultimately irrelevant to Dr. Overzet’s opinion – both expressed in his
`
`declaration and confirmed in his deposition – that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand that Kudryavtsev discloses a substantially uniform plasma.
`
`
`Dated: May 29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ David M. Tennant
`David M. Tennant
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`GlobalFoundries
`Registration No. 48,362
`
`
`
`Trial No. IPR2014-00819
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`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 MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-
`
`EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS” as detailed below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Date of service May 29, 2015
`
`Manner of service Email: bbarker@chsblaw.com;
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com; kurt@rauschenbach.com
`
`Documents served PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS
`
`Persons Served Bruce Barker
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Mail Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`
`
`
`/s/ Anna Goodall
`Anna Goodall
`White & Case LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Tel: (650) 213-0367
`Email: agoodall@whitecase.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
