`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-00781, 00782, 01083, 01086, and
`01087
`U.S. Patent 7,147,759
`
`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 (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 7,147,759 (“the ’759 patent”) are directed to gas lasers (e.g.,
`
`Kudryavtsev, Müller-Horsche) 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. (Exhibit 2012, p. 107, ll. 6-8).
`
`
`
`(2) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That He Did Not Understand
`
`Kudryavtsev To Disclose A Gas Laser Even Though It Explicitly Does so: At the
`
`following transcript location (Exhibit 2012), when asked a question relating to
`
`Kudryavtsev, Dr. Overzet stated that Kudryavtsev did not disclose a gas laser even
`
`though Kudryavsev explicitly does so: “studying emission mechanisms in pulsed gas
`
`lasers, gas breakdown, laser sparks, etc.” (Kudryavtsev, Exhibit 1204, p. 34,
`
`emphasis added). The testimony is relevant because it further establishes, as Dr.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overset admitted, that he is not an expert in gas lasers and this his expertise is
`
`removed from gas lasers:
`
`Q. I wasn't referred to any particular passage, but in light of what you read
`
`and the other parts of Kudryavtsev, would you conclude that Kudryavtsev discloses
`
`emission mechanisms, pulsed gas lasers, gas breakdown and laser sparks?
`
`A. Because of the list at the end, I have forgotten the word that described
`
`them in the beginning. Could you please repeat the question?
`
`Q. Sure. Is it your opinion that Kudryavtsev discloses emission mechanisms
`
`in pulsed gas lasers, gas breakdown and laser sparks?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form.
`
`A. I believe that my answer to that 23 question needs to be no. (Exhibit
`
`2012, p. 83, ll. 7-23, emphasis added).
`
`
`
`(3) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That Müller-Horsche Discloses A Gas
`
`Laser And Therefore, That His Expertise Is Removed From Müller-Horsche: At the
`
`following transcript location (Exhibit 2012), when asked a question relating to
`
`Müller-Horsche, Dr. Overzet stated that Müller-Horsche discloses a gas laser. The
`
`testimony is relevant because it indicates -- in light of Dr. Overset’s admission that
`
`he is not an expert in gas lasers and that his expertise is removed from gas lasers –
`
`that Petitioners have no expert support for any of their positions with respect to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Müller-Horsche:
`
`A. … Müller-Horsche applies his invention to a pulsed gas laser. (Exhibit
`
`2012, p. 104, ll. 5-6).
`
`
`
`(4) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That It Would Not Have Been
`
`Obvious To Combine Wang With Kudryavtsev To Achieve The Invention Claimed In
`
`The ‘759 Patent: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit 2012), when asked
`
`questions relating to Kudryavtsev and Wang, Dr. Overzet testified that the results
`
`shown in Kudryavtsev’s Figure 5 is applicable to only devices that have a radius
`
`The testimony is relevant because Wang’s device does not have a radius and
`
`therefore, the testimony indicates that combining the teachings of Wang and
`
`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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Q. Well, it would have to be a type of device that has a radius; correct?
`
`A. Correct. (Exhibit 2012, p. 28, l. 20 – p. 29, l. 9, emphasis added)
`
`
`
`(5) Additional Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That It Would Not Have
`
`Been Obvious To Combine Wang With Kudryavtsev To Achieve The Invention Claimed
`
`In The ‘759 Patent: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit 2012), when asked
`
`questions relating to the devices disclosed in Wang and 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 and 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." (Exhibit 2012, p.
`
`8, ll. 9-18, emphasis added).
`
`…
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`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,
`
`between the electrodes, there is exactly where it was for the prior
`
`question -- of 52 centimeters (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. (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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`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
`
`what you read to me. (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. (Exhibit
`
`2012, p. 89, l. 13 – p. 90, l. 5, emphasis added).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`(6) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That The Plasma Disclosed In
`
`Kudryavtsev Is Not Substantially Uniform: At the following transcript locations
`
`(Exhibit 2012), when asked questions relating to the density of plasma generated by
`
`Kudryavtsev’s cylindrical device, Dr. Overzet testified that the 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 ‘759 patent (e.g.,
`
`claims 9, 26, and 31) 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 also look at the curve that corresponds to the second
`
`greatest time that's depicted on Figure 5? And with respect to -
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. -- with -- with respect to that 13 curve, what do you see as the
`
`value of time corresponding to the curve that's associated with the
`
`second greatest value of time in the figure?
`
`A. So as I look at the time axis, it appears to me that the final curve
`
`sits at 39. The next curve back sits at, then -- it is difficult to say for
`
`sure, but it looks like 38.
`
`Q. Okay. Well -
`
`A. Something around there.
`
`Q. Well, let's just call the second curve corresponding to the second
`
`highest time as -- as T equals 38, just so that we're -
`
`A. Just with nomenclature?
`
`Q. Right, so we can -
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. -- easily identify what curve we're talking about.
`
`A. Okay.
`
`Q. Does the curve at time equals 38 show that the plasma density
`
`decreases as you move from the center of the device?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form.
`
`A. The -- for the 38 curve, any -- any at R equals R over -- capital R --
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`let me start over. For the 38 curve, n sub e of r/R equal to zero appears
`
`larger than for r/R 18 greater than zero.
`
`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.
`
`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).
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`(7) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That Wang Does Not Teach “an
`
`amplitude and a rise time of the voltage pulse being chosen to increase an excitation rate
`
`of ground state atoms that are present in the weakly-ionized plasma to create a multi-step
`
`ionization process that generates a strongly-ionized plasma,” As Recited In Claim 20,
`
`And As Similarly Recited in Claims 1 and 40 Of The ‘759 Patent: At the following
`
`transcript locations (Exhibit 2012), Dr. Overzet testified that figures 4 and 6 of
`
`Wang merely disclose idealized power pulses. Petitioners cited to figures 4 and 6 to
`
`support their position that Wang teaches choosing an amplitude and rise time of a
`
`voltage pulse to increase an excitation rate as claimed in the ‘759 patent. Thus, Dr.
`
`Overzet’s testimony is relevant because it undermines the basis for the Petitioners’
`
`position.
`
`Q. … Does Wang show an idealized power pulse in Figure 4?
`
`A. That is my understanding.
`
`Q. Does Wang show an idealized power pulse in Figure 6?
`
`A. That is my understanding as well.
`
`(Exhibit 2012, p. 81, l. 21 – p. 82, l. 2).
`
`
`
`(8) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That The Embodiment Corresponding
`
`To Figure 6 Forms An Arc, And Therefore, Does Not Teach The Claim Limitation In
`
`The ‘759 Patent Of Applying A Voltage Pulse To Ionize Excited Atoms Without
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Forming An Arc Discharge: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit 2013), Dr.
`
`Overzet testified that Wang teaches that its embodiment corresponding to Figure 6
`
`merely reduces the particulates caused by arcing. The testimony is relevant because
`
`it shows that Wang does not teach applying a voltage pulse to ionize excited atoms
`
`“without forming and arc discharge,” as claimed in the ‘759 patent:
`
`Q. My question is whether Wang states that particulates produced by
`
`arcing are much reduced in the embodiment of Figure 6.
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection to form.
`
`A. The statement -- direct statement in Wang's column 7 is that the
`
`initial plasma ignition needs to be performed only once and at much
`
`lower power levels so that particulates produced by arcing are much
`
`reduced. Further, the chamber impedence changes relatively little
`
`between the two power levels P sub v and P sub p since a plasma
`
`always exists in the chamber.
`
`Q. Does the passage that you just read from, Wang, pertain to the
`
`embodiments of Figure 6?
`
`A. That is my -- that is my understanding that it pertains to Figure 6
`
`(Exhibit 2012, p. 102, l. 11 – p. 103, l. 3, emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`(9) Testimony From Dr. Overzet Indicating That It Would Not Have Been
`
`Obvious To Combine Wang With Muller-Horsche To Achieve The Invention Claimed In
`
`The ‘759 Patent: At the following transcript locations (Exhibit 2013), when asked
`
`questions relating to the device disclosed in Muller-Horsche, Dr. Overzet testified
`
`that Muller-Horsche’s device is a gas laser, applies a voltage pulse for preionization,
`
`and avoids sputtering. The testimony is relevant because Wang discloses a
`
`sputtering device that applies a background power instead of a voltage pulse for
`
`preionization. Accordingly, the testimony demonstrates that the devices of Muller-
`
`Horsche and Wang are very different and that there is no objective evidence
`
`tending to establish that the teachings of the very different devices of Muller-
`
`Horsche and Wang would have led to predictable results:
`
` Q. … And in the preionization stage, is a voltage pulse supplied to
`
`the preionization electrodes?
`
`A. He does in his first claim indicate that he will have an electrical
`
`line for applying voltage to said preionization electrodes.
`
`Q. Müller-Horsche discloses a gas laser; is that correct?
`
`A. In Claim 1 he specifically says "a pulsed gas laser comprising" and
`
`lists several 6 elements.
`
`…
`
`Q. Would one of ordinary skill in the art try to avoid sputtering in a
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`gas laser?
`
`MR. TENNANT: Objection, form, relevance.
`
`A. I am not an expert in gas laser design. My expertise -- my field of
`
`expertise is removed from that. Given the discussion in Müller-
`
`Horsche, I would assume that to be an appropriate goal in a gas laser
`
`system. (Exhibit 2012, p. 105, l. 19 – p. 107, l. 10)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`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
