`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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., GLOBAL
`FOUNDRIES 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 IPR2014-828, 829, 917, 1073, and 1076
`U.S. Patent 6,805,779
`
`PATENT OWNER ZOND’S OBSERVATIONS ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION O F D R . K O R T S H A G E N
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner, Zond LLC (“Zond”), hereby files observations on the
`
`testimony given by Petitioners’ Declarant Dr. Kortshagen (Exhibit 2006) at a
`
`deposition held on May 5, 2015.
`
`(1) Testimony From Dr. Kortshagen Indicating That Iwamura Does Not Teach A
`
`Magnetic Field: At the following transcript location (Exhibit 2006), when asked
`
`questions relating to Iwamura, Dr. Kortshagen testified that Iwamura does not
`
`teach a magnetic field. The testimony is relevant because many of the claims of
`
`U.S. patent 6,805,779 (“the ‘779 patent”) recite limitations requiring a magnetic
`
`field and therefore, the testimony indicates that Iwamura cannot possibly teach
`
`these limitations:
`
`Q. Is it correct that Iwamura does not discuss the use of a magnetic
`
`field?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection to form.
`
`THE WITNESS: I believe it is correct that Iwamura does not discuss
`
`the use of a magnetic field.
`
`(Exhibit 2006, p. 7, ll. 13-18)
`
`
`
`(2) Testimony From Dr. Kortshagen Indicating That In Pinsley, The Magnetic
`
`Field Would Not Have Any Effect On The Motion Of Any Ground State Atoms In The
`
`Absence Of A Discharge: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit 2006), when
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`asked questions relating to the magnetic field in Pinsley, Dr. Kortshagen testified
`
`that the magnetic field would not have any effect on the motion of any ground state
`
`atoms in the absence of a discharge. This testimony is relevant because it indicates
`
`that the magnetic field in Pinsely does not effect the volume of ground state atoms
`
`and therefore, does not teach many of the claim limitations of the ‘779 patent that
`
`require generating a magnetic field proximate to a volume of ground state atoms:
`
`Q. Are there any ground state atoms in that feed gas?
`
`A. Commonly, the majority of atoms in a feed gas will likely be in the
`
`ground state.
`
`Q. So what, if anything, would be the effect of the magnetic field in
`
`Pinsley on those ground state atoms?
`
`A. Are you asking the question whether there is an effect on the
`
`ground state atoms by the magnetic field in the absence of a discharge?
`
`Q. We could start there.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. So let's say in the absence of a discharge, that would presume the
`
`absence of an electric field, right?
`
`A. It would presume the absence of a current that could still be an
`
`electric field too weak to actually maintain or ignite a plasma.
`
`Q. Okay. So under those conditions, what if anything would be the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`effect of the magnetic field on the ground state atoms coming from
`
`the source?
`
`A. … part of my answer is that there is no effect on the ground state
`
`atoms that would in any way affect their motion. And I'm saying I'm
`
`thinking on a tangent because you could imagine a gas with ground
`
`state atoms which have some kind of a magnetic moment, but I don't
`
`think that this is what you're referring to, right?
`
`Q. I'm sorry, what do you mean by a magnetic moment?
`
`A. Well, I mean some kind of magnetic moment yeah, I mean, I
`
`cannot think of any kind of gas which would have something like this.
`
`A gas like argon, helium would not feel any effect by the magnetic
`
`field.
`
`(Exhibit 2006, p. 21, l. 3 – p. 22, l. 16).
`
`
`
`(3) Testimony From Dr. Kortshagen Indicating That Angelbeck Does Not Teach
`
`A Feed Gas: At the following transcript location (Exhibit 2006), when asked
`
`questions relating to Iwamura, Dr. Kortshagen testified that Angelbeck does not
`
`teach a feed gas. The testimony is relevant because many of the claims of the ‘779
`
`patent recite limitations requiring a feed gas and therefore, the testimony indicates
`
`that Angelbeck cannot possibly teach these limitations:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Q. Now, within the tube shown in Figure 1 there is a gas, correct?
`
`A. Yes, that is correct.
`
`Q. The ends of the tube are closed so the gas is not flowing, right?
`
`A. In this particular configuration shown in Figure 1 the gas is not
`
`flowing, that is correct.
`
`(Exhibit 2006, p. 29, l. 22, p. 30, l. 5)
`
`
`
`(4) Testimony From Dr. Kortshagen Indicating That In Angelbeck, The
`
`Magnetic Field Would Not Have Any Effect On The Motion Of Any Ground State
`
`Atoms In The Absence Of A Current Flow: At the following transcript locations
`
`(Exhibit 2006), when asked questions relating to the magnetic field in Angelbeck,
`
`Dr. Kortshagen testified that the magnetic field would not have any effect on the
`
`motion of any ground state atoms in the absence of a current flow. This testimony
`
`is relevant because it indicates that the magnetic field in Angelbeck does not effect
`
`the volume of ground state atoms and therefore, does not teach many of the claim
`
`limitations of the ‘779 patent that require generating a magnetic field proximate to a
`
`volume of ground state atoms:
`
`Q. In the absence of any current flow, what, if anything, would be the
`
`effect of the magnetic field on those ground state atoms?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection to form.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`THE WITNESS: In the absence of a current flow, as we discussed in
`
`Pinsley, I believe there is no effect of the magnetic field on the ground
`
`state atoms.
`
`(Exhibit 2006, p. 30, ll. 11-18).
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves (Reg. No. 43,639)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 12, 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
`Brian M. Berliner Ryan K. Yagura Xin-Yi Zhou
`
`7
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`