Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2014-010891
`
`Patent 6,806,652
`
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`OF PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01004 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01089
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., INC., GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE ONE LLC & CO. KG, GLOBALFOUNDRIES DRESDEN
`MODULE TWO LLC & CO. KG, and THE GILLETTE COMPANY,
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`ZOND, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2014-010891
`
`Patent 6,806,652
`
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`OF PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-01004 has been joined with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.70(a), Patent Owner, Zond, LLC, hereby
`
`submits it observations on cross-examination of Dr. Korthsagen, whose
`
`Declaration was submitted by Petitioners with their Reply Brief filed June 26,
`
`2015. Dr. Kortshagen’s cross-examination was conducted by deposition on
`
`July 2, 2015. Exhibit 2004 is a transcript of that deposition, and is used as the
`
`basis for the present observations.
`
`1. Dr. Kortshagen Testified that Mozgrin’s Regions 2 and 3 Both
`Represent Areas of High-Density Plasma.
`
`
`
`Claim 35 of the ‘652 patent requires “means for super-ionizing the initial
`
`plasma … thereby generating a high-density plasma.”2 Dr. Kortshagen
`
`testified that region 1 of Mozgrin’s Fig. 4 is representative of such an initial
`
`plasma created by a preexcitation unit.3 Dr. Kortshagen further testified that
`
`region 2 of Mozgrin’s Figure 4 represents an area of high-density plasma,4 and
`
`that region 3 of Mozgrin’s Figure 4 also represents an area of high-density
`
`
`2 Ex. 1001 at 36:20 -22.
`
`3 Ex. 2004 at 22:16-24:18 (testifying that region 1 shown in Mozgrin’s Figure 4
`
`represents a pre-ionization stage, with an initial plasma having a density in the
`
`range 107 – 109 cm-3).
`
`4 Id. at 26:3-21; 28:7-17.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`plasma.5 This testimony is relevant because it contradicts Petitioner’s argument
`
`that Mozgrin teaches “means for super-ionizing the initial plasma … thereby
`
`generating a high-density plasma.”6
`
`In an attempt to show “super-ionization” of the initial plasma, Dr.
`
`Kortshagen and Petitioners rely on computations that discuss the plasma
`
`densities during a transition from Mozgrin’s region 2 to region 3.7 For
`
`example, Dr. Kortshagen states that “‘for the discharge transit from regime 2
`
`to regime 3 . . . the ionization degree α = ne / (ng + ni) ranges from α ≈ 1 (p =
`
`0.01 torr) to α ≈ 0.7 (p = 1torr).’”8 However, Dr. Korshagen’s deposition
`
`testimony reveals that such a transition is not super-ionizing the initial plasma
`
`to thereby generate a high density plasma, as required by claim 35, rather it is
`
`further ionizing an already high-density plasma. That is, Dr. Kortshagen’s
`
`reliance on the densities reported by Mozgrin for a “discharge transit from
`
`regime 2 to regime 3” do not support “converting at least 75% of the neutral
`
`
`5 Id. at 28:19 – 29:8.
`
`6 Reply Brief at 2 et seq.
`
`7 Ex. 1216 at ¶ 31; Reply Brief at 11 - 13, 20 - 21.
`
`8 Ex. 1216 at ¶ 31 quoting Mozgrin at 407, left col. ¶ 2 and right col. ¶ 3 (emphasis
`
`in original).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`atoms in the initial plasma into ions,”9 as the Board has determined is required
`
`by the claim. Rather, the “discharge transit from regime 2 to regime 3”
`
`represents ionization of an already dense plasma, not ionization of an initial
`
`plasma to thereby generate a high density plasma.
`
`2. Dr. Kortshagen Testified that He Could Not Determine Whether
`Iwamura’s Preexcitaiton Unit Generated a Weakly-Ionized
`Plasma.
`
`
`
`During cross-examination, Dr. Kortshagen testified that he could not
`
`determine whether Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit creates a weakly-ionized
`
`plasma as defined in the ‘652 Patent.10 This testimony is relevant because it
`
`contradicts Petitioner’s argument that claim 35 is obvious in view of the cited
`
`references.11
`
`
`
`
`9 Globalfoundries U.S., Inc. et al. v. Zond, LLC, IPR2014-01088, Paper 16, p. 11
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2015).
`
`10 Ex. 2004 at 54:2-10.
`
`11 Pet. at 54 et seq.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`3. Dr. Kortshagen’s Testimony Confirms that Iwamura’s Objective was
`to Treat an Object with “Active” Neutral Gas Atoms or Molecules,
`While Reducing the Risk of Damage by Ions.
`
`
`
`In his testimony,12 Dr. Korthsagen confirmed that Iwamura’s goal was to
`
`treat an object with electrically neutral “activated species,” while minimizing
`
`damage to the object caused by ions that are generated along with the activated
`
`species. This is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument that the purpose of
`
`Iwamura’s two-stage system is NOT to super-ionize an initial plasma,13 and
`
`that Iwamura’s teaching is in fact contrary to this objective of the invention.
`
`First, Dr. Kortshagen explained that the “activated species” described by
`
`Iwamura are electrically neutral atoms/molecules that are in an excited energy
`
`state:14
`
`Q. Do you have an understanding of what Iwamura means
`
`by the term "activated gas species"?
`
`THE WITNESS: I believe what Iwamura refers to with
`
`"activated gas species" is can include excited atoms, excited
`
`molecules, potentially fragmented molecules, which would
`
`be called radicals.
`
`
`12 Ex. 2004 at 63:6 – 72:6; 76:6-16; 78:3 – 79:14.
`
`13 Patent Owner’s Opposition at 27.
`
`14 Id. at 60:4-16.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`BY MR. FAHMI:
`
`Q. Are all of these electrically neutral?
`
`A. Yes, all of the ones that I named are electrically neutral.
`
`Dr. Kortshagen then confirmed that Iwamura’s goal was to treat a substrate or
`
`object with such electrically neutral molecules that are formed by a plasma:
`
`Q. Yes. So, generally, then, Iwamura's goal is to treat the
`
`substrate or the object to be treated with the activated gas
`
`species that are formed by the plasma in order to improve
`
`the yield of the treatment, correct?
`
`. . .
`
`THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe that this is a fair statement,
`yes.15
`
`Dr. Kortshagen further testified that Iwamura discloses two techniques for
`
`reducing the damage caused by charged particles in the plasma so as to limit
`
`damage to the object by the ions16 - both of which are contrary to the claimed
`
`objective of super-ionizing a plasma. Dr. Korshagen confirmed that the first of
`
`these techniques removed the majority of charged particles from the plasma17
`
`(thus reducing plasma density), and that the other technique reduced the
`
`power in the down-stream stage (which also is contrary to the claimed
`
`
`15 Id. at 64:19 – 65:3; see also, id. at 78:3-14.
`
`16 Id. at 76:6-16; 69:9 – 72: 6.
`
`17 Id. at 76:6-16.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`objective of super-ionizating the initial plasma to thereby generate a high
`
`density plasma).18 All of this confirms Patent Owner’s explanation that the
`
`purpose of Iwamura’s two-stage system is NOT to super-ionize the initial
`
`plasma, and that Iwmura’s teachings are contrary to this objective.
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Dr. Kortshagen Confirmed that Fahey Does Not Teach Super-
`Ionization.
`
`Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony confirms Patent Owner’s characterization19 that
`
`the purpose of Fahey’s device was not to produce a high-density plasma, as
`
`claimed, but instead to produce electrically neutral, metastable atoms. Indeed,
`
`Dr. Kortshagen admitted that “it is correct that Fahey is a reference that is not
`
`geared towards super-ionization . . . .”20
`
`
`
`
`18 Id. at 69:9 – 72: 6; see 94:24 – 96:4 regarding the use of high power in the ‘652
`
`patent for super-ionization.
`
`19 Patent Owner’s Opposition at 22-23.
`
`20 Ex. 2004 at 86:13 – 18 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Bruce Barker/
`Bruce Barker; Reg. No. 33,291
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Main Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`(508) 366-3800/bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`7
`
`
`
`Date: July 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST IPR 2014-00800
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`Ex. 2001
`
`Description
`
`Affidavit of Maria Granovsky in Support of
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`Ex. 2002
`
`Declaration of Larry D. Hartsough, Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 2003
`
`Deposition of Dr. Kortshagen
`
`Ex. 2004
`
`Deposition of Dr. Korthshagen
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,806,652
`IPR2014-01089
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner Observations were served via email on July, 20 2015, on Petitioner’s
`
`attorneys:
`
`dtennant@whitecase.com
`dchankong@whitecase.com
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`larissa.park@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`/Bruce Barker/
`Bruce Barker
`Reg. No. 33,291
`Chao Hadidi Stark & Barker LLP
`176 East Main Street, Suite 6
`Westborough, MA 01581
`(508) 366-3800
`bbarker@chsblaw.com
`
`9
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
