Page 1
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, §
` §
` Petitioner, §
` § Case IPR2015-01320
`VS. § Patent No. 6,287,902
` §
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS § Case IPR2015-1327
`COMPANY, LTD., § Patent No. 6,287,902
` §
` Patent Owner. §
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D.
` FEBRUARY 25, 2016
` VOLUME 1 OF 2
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF JACK CHUNG-YEUNG
` LEE, PH.D., produced as a witness at the instance
` of the Patent Owner fand duly sworn, was taken in
` the above styled and numbered cause on Thursday,
` February 25, 2016, from 9:16 a.m. to 5:25 p.m.,
` before Tamara Chapman, CSR, RPR, CCR (LA) in and
` for the State of Texas, reported by computerized
` stenotype machine, at the offices of Regus,
` 901 Mopac Expressway South, Building 1,
` Suite 300, Austin, Texas.
`
` Job No. 103798
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 2005
`NVIDIA v. SAMSUNG
`Trial IPR2015-01320
`
`Page 1 of 281
`
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, §
` §
` Petitioner, §
` § Case IPR2015-01320
`VS. § Patent No. 6,287,902
` §
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS § Case IPR2015-1327
`COMPANY, LTD., § Patent No. 6,287,902
` §
` Patent Owner. §
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D.
` FEBRUARY 25, 2016
` VOLUME 1 OF 2
`
` ORAL DEPOSITION OF JACK CHUNG-YEUNG
` LEE, PH.D., produced as a witness at the instance
` of the Patent Owner fand duly sworn, was taken in
` the above styled and numbered cause on Thursday,
` February 25, 2016, from 9:16 a.m. to 5:25 p.m.,
` before Tamara Chapman, CSR, RPR, CCR (LA) in and
` for the State of Texas, reported by computerized
` stenotype machine, at the offices of Regus,
` 901 Mopac Expressway South, Building 1,
` Suite 300, Austin, Texas.
`
` Job No. 103798
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`89
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 2005
`NVIDIA v. SAMSUNG
`Trial IPR2015-01320
`
`Page 1 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
` REPRESENTING PETITIONER:
` Mr. Eugene Chiu
` LATHAM & WATKINS
` 140 Scott Drive
` Menlo Park, California 94025
` -
` Mr. Clement Naples
` LATHAM & WATKINS
` 885 Third Avenue
` New York, New York 10022
` -
` Mr. Bob Steinberg
` LATHAM & WATKINS
` 355 South Grand Avenue
` Los Angeles, California 90071
`
` REPRESENTING PATENT OWNER:
` Mr. Naveen Modi
` Mr. Chetan Bansal
` PAUL HASTINGS
` 875 15th Street, N.W.
` Washington, D.C. 20005
`
` -
` Ms. Bo Moon
` O'MELVENY & MYERS
` 610 Newport Center Drive
` Newport Beach, California 92660
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`56
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2 of 281
`
`
`
` * * *
` EXAMINATION INDEX
`
` Page
` BY MR. MODI.................................. 4
`
`Page 3
`
` * * *
`
` INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
` Page
` Exhibit 2003................................. 105
` MOSIS Scalable CMOS Design Rules
` (Revision 7)
` (No Bates - 28 pages)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4 5 6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` (All parties present have hereby
` waived the necessity of the reading of the
` statements by the deposition officer as required
` by Rule 30(b)(5).)
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D.,
` having been first duly sworn, testified as
` follows:
` EXAMINATION
` BY MR. MODI:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Lee.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Can you please state your full name for
` the record?
` A. Yes. Jack Chung Yeung Lee, C-H-U-N-G,
` Y-E-U-N-G, Lee, yes.
` Q. Have you been deposed before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many times?
` A. I don't remember off the top of my head.
` Half a dozen times to ten times. I don't remember
` exactly.
` Q. What about -- have you testified in court?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How many times?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 4 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` A. One time in ITC and one time in
` arbitration.
` Q. And the testimony in a deposition, at the
` ITC and the arbitration, are these all patent cases?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So you understand you're under oath today?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You understand we'll take breaks?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And your lawyer may object, but you have
` to answer anyways unless you're instructed not to
` answer. Do you understand that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. If the question is not clear, let me know
` and I'll rephrase it. If not, I'm going to assume
` you understand it.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Is that clear?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Any reason you cannot testify completely
` and accurately today?
` A. No.
` Q. Do you have any questions for me?
` A. Not at this point.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 5 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` Q. Okay. Who retained you for this
` proceeding?
` And just for the record, we'll be dealing
` with IPR 2015-1327 today. So who retained you for
` this?
` A. NVIDIA.
` Q. And when were you retained?
` A. I'll say early last year, 2015.
` Q. And you submitted a declaration in this
` proceeding?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How much time did you spend preparing your
` declaration?
` A. I don't recall. I really have to look
` back on my record, you know. I spent quite a bit of
` time preparing it.
` You mean both declarations or this
` particular one?
` Q. We can say both.
` A. Okay.
` Q. That's fine.
` A. I will say that including reading all the
` documents and prior art and drafting the declaration,
` discussion with the attorneys working in this case, I
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 6 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` would say at least approximately 40, 50 hours per
` declaration, I would say. That's a rough estimate.
` Q. How much money have you charged for your
` services in connection with these proceedings?
` A. For the IPR, these two patents or these
` two declarations? So -- so about 90 hours, let's
` say, times $475 an hour.
` Q. Other than NVIDIA, are you consulting with
` any other companies regarding patents that are at
` issue?
` A. These patent -- these --
` Q. I'm sorry. Let me rephrase it. Other
` than NVIDIA, are you currently consulting for any
` other companies in patent matters?
` A. Any patents? Not these particular ones?
` Q. (Nods.)
` A. There is one case -- a few cases, I would
` say. And some -- yeah, maybe a couple, two, three
` cases or so.
` Q. Have you submitted declarations in
` proceedings before the Patent Office before?
` A. You mean similar IPR declarations?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Yes.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 7 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` Q. And when was that?
` A. Last year.
` Q. And what were the cases?
` A. Those are related to this case of NVIDIA
` versus Samsung.
` Q. So those are different than the --
` these -- the two proceedings we are here for today
` and tomorrow?
` A. That's right.
` Q. Okay. And -- and were the -- did the --
` what patents were at issue? Were they NVIDIA patents
` or Samsung patents in those cases?
` A. These are Samsung's patent, yes.
` Q. Other than the cases you just mentioned,
` have you provided declarations in any other cases
` before the Patent Office?
` A. No, I have not.
` Q. How many times have you been deposed in
` connection with proceedings before the Patent Office?
` A. Before the Patent Office, I don't
` understand that.
` Q. So you're being deposed today, right, for
` proceedings in front of the Patent Office, that are
` before the Patent Office?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 8 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` A. Oh, I see. Okay. So related to IPR?
` Q. That's right.
` A. Once.
` Q. So once before?
` A. Once before, yes.
` Q. And that was the Samsung-NVIDIA IPR you
` were talking about?
` A. That's right.
` Q. Did you spend any time preparing for
` today's deposition?
` A. Yes.
` Q. When did you begin to prepare?
` A. Probably a couple weeks ago I started
` reviewing the documents and the prior art.
` Q. Approximately how much time do you think
` you spent preparing for your deposition today?
` A. Probably 20 hours or so. Maybe more. I
` don't know. I haven't looked at the records.
` Q. Did you prepare with anyone for this
` deposition?
` A. What do you mean by that?
` Q. Did you meet with the attorneys to prepare
` for this deposition?
` A. Yes.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 9 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` Q. Who did you meet with?
` A. With -- with Eugene, Bob, and Clem here.
` Q. Anyone else?
` A. No, I don't think so.
` Q. And how long did you meet with the
` attorneys?
` A. We met the last couple days, Tuesday and
` Wednesday of this week.
` Q. Did you meet with them before Tuesday and
` Wednesday?
` A. Regarding what?
` Q. Preparing for the deposition.
` A. No, I -- I have not.
` Q. Did you review any documents to prepare
` for your deposition?
` A. Yes.
` Q. What did you review?
` A. All the declarations, the two declarations
` that I wrote, all the prior art, and the preliminary
` response, and -- and the PTAB decisions. I think
` that's -- there might be some -- some more documents
` that I prepared, but those are the main ones.
` Q. What else comes to mind?
` A. And the, I believe, two IPR petitions that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 10 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` came to my mind at this point. And there is some --
` some other ones, but I can’t recall exactly.
` Q. When you say "some other ones," what are
` you referring to, petitions?
` A. No, the -- the two IPR petitions I already
` mentioned. Nothing specific came to my mind at this
` point, but I think there might be something that
` I'm -- that I reviewed, but that didn't come to my
` mind at this point.
` Q. Can you recall anything -- let me withdraw
` that.
` Did you review anything other than the
` things you mentioned and what was submitted with your
` declaration?
` A. Like I said, I think I have, but I don't
` recall exactly what.
` Q. Did you bring anything to help you testify
` today?
` A. My -- my laptop has a lot of -- all the
` documents in there, so during a break I might look
` through it. I don't know.
` Q. And when you said your laptop has a lot of
` documents, what documents are you referring to?
` A. The ones that I mentioned.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 11 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` Q. Dr. Lee, you mentioned you looked at the
` two IPR petitions earlier.
` A. Yes.
` Q. When was the first time you saw those
` petitions?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. Was it before today?
` A. Oh, yeah.
` Q. Did you see them in connection with
` preparation of your declaration?
` A. You mean during the last couple days?
` Q. When you were engaged -- let's say when --
` or let me withdraw that.
` Did you see the petition when you were
` preparing your declaration for this case?
` A. I saw them, but I already focused on my
` declarations.
` Q. And why were you looking at them when you
` were working on your declarations?
` A. Well, those are one of the documents that
` was in folder that was given to me.
` Q. The petitions?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what were you -- why were you engaged
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 12 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` for this proceeding?
` A. I don't understand the question.
` Q. What were you asked to do for this
` proceeding?
` A. You mean today proceedings?
` Q. For these IPRs.
` A. For the IPRs. Well, I was asked to
` provide technical assistance and my expert opinion on
` the related matters to the IPR.
` Q. And you looked at some -- I think you
` mentioned prior art references in connection with
` your declaration. Right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And those are discussed in your
` declarations?
` A. Yes.
` Q. How did you select the references you
` ended up using in your declaration?
` A. Well, as you know, there is an ongoing
` case in the Eastern District of Virginia. So during
` that case we look -- also looked at prior arts, and
` these set of prior arts that is included in the -- in
` these two declaration we felt that -- I felt that
` it's -- those are very strong prior arts, and so,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 13 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` therefore, we used them in the IPR.
` Q. How did you locate the prior art?
` A. I don't understand the question.
` Q. How did you -- how did you find this prior
` art that you used?
` A. Well, I worked with the attorneys in this
` case and we search the -- you know, on the web and --
` and also, you know, we searched for prior arts and we
` found these.
` Q. And how -- what did you do to search for
` the prior art?
` A. I myself obviously using, for example,
` patent -- Google Patents search on Google, and the
` attorney also searched in parallel and -- and we
` found these set of prior arts.
` Q. Which one did you find?
` A. I don't recall. I mean, we exchanged so
` many of them. We e-mail each other things that we
` found. So I don't recall exactly which ones I found
` and which ones they found.
` Q. And so the prior art that you searched
` for, you only did searching online?
` A. I mean, we exchanged so many documents, so
` many references. Some I basically look at my
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 14 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` collection of books and journal papers on my
` bookshelves, and sometimes I make copies of that and
` scan it, and so I -- I don't -- I mean, there are
` more ways to find prior arts than just search on the
` web.
` Q. Did you continue to look for prior art
` after your declaration was submitted in this case?
` A. I don't recall.
` Q. So would you say you're familiar with
` patents?
` A. These particular patents?
` Q. Patents in general.
` A. I don't understand the question. What do
` you mean, "familiar with patents"?
` Q. Would you say you're well-versed in
` patents generally?
` A. I mean, I work with patent cases, so I
` would think that I have some understanding and good
` understanding of what patents are, and I followed a
` number of patents and issued a number of patents.
` Q. Would you say you have a good
` understanding of patent law?
` A. Probably not as much as you do. But some
` understanding.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 15 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` Q. Are you offering any legal opinions here?
` A. Well, based on my analysis, I found that
` those patents -- I mean, that particular -- the '902
` patent invalid, and -- and obviously that's a legal
` opinion.
` Q. Earlier you said you had searched for
` prior art for the patent here that's at issue. Is
` that right?
` A. Yes, I've done some searching.
` Q. What words did you use to search?
` A. What what?
` Q. What were some of the words you used to
` search for the patent in question?
` A. Well, there's so many -- so many words
` that I used. The '902 patent talk about etching,
` talk about contact, semiconductors, and so there's so
` many that one can use. I don't -- I don't have the
` complete list for you.
` Q. What comes to mind sitting here today?
` A. Well, like I said, there's semiconductor,
` contact etch, borderless contact, insulator, etch
` selectivity, planarizations, and so on and so forth.
` There's DRAM. D-R-A-M, yes.
` Q. Do you understand what anticipation is?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 16 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` A. As I detail in my declaration, I have a
` section talk about what is anticipation and that the
` prior art basically anticipate the claims and the
` elements in the -- in the patent.
` Q. What do you mean, "prior art anticipate
` the claims"?
` MR. CHIU: Doctor, do you want to
` have your declaration?
` THE WITNESS: Yeah.
` A. May I have my declaration?
` MR. MODI: Counsel, no speaking
` objections.
` A. I'm obviously not an attorney, so I want
` to make sure that I use the right terms in these --
` in these answer when related to legal matters. Is
` that okay?
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) That's fine.
` Dr. Lee, your attorney just handed you
` something. Can I see what that is, sir?
` A. (Hands document to Mr. Modi.)
` Q. Dr. Lee, can you identify for me what was
` just handed to you by your attorney?
` A. This is Exhibit 1116.
` Q. And what is it?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 17 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` A. It's Declaration of Dr. Jack Lee in
` Support of Petitions No. 2 for Inter Partes Review of
` U.S. Patent No. 6,287,902.
` Q. Do you agree this is one of the two
` declarations that we've been discussing today?
` A. Are we discussing both declaration today
` or --
` Q. Well, we've been mentioning both
` declarations. We're going to focus on 1327 today,
` but I think some of the preliminary questioning went
` to both.
` A. Yes, this is one of the two declarations
` that we mentioned today.
` Q. I'm going to note for the record the
` witness has been looking at the LiveNote feed when
` answering the questions.
` So I was asking you earlier --
` A. Am I not allowed?
` MR. NAPLES: You can look at that.
` THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.
` A. Am I not allowed to look at the live feed?
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) Dr. Lee, I'm asking the
` questions.
` A. No, I --
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 18 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` Q. So if you could answer my questions, I
` would appreciate it.
` MR. CHIU: You can look at the
` live feed.
` THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) So, Dr. Lee, I asked you
` about anticipation earlier?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Would you tell me what is your
` understanding of anticipation, sir?
` A. "I understand that anticipation of a claim
` requires that every limitation" -- "every element of
` a claim is disclosed expressly or inherently in a
` single prior art reference, arranged as in the
` claim."
` Q. Where are you reading from, Dr. Lee?
` A. This is on Page 4 of the declaration.
` Q. What does it mean to disclose inherently?
` A. It means that it might not be expressly
` disclosed but is inherent, that a person of ordinary
` skill in the art understand that in this prior art
` reference, that the claim element and each and every
` claim element is expressly or inherently disclosed,
` and so certain claims might not be expressly
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 19 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` disclosed, but it is inherent.
` Q. So what does "inherent" mean?
` MR. CHIU: Objection; calls for a
` legal conclusion.
` MR. MODI: Counsel, no speaking
` objections, please.
` A. "Inherent" means that it is implicitly
` disclosed in this -- in the prior art. The claim
` element is implicitly disclosed, is there.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) What do you mean,
` "implicitly"?
` A. That means if it -- by not explicitly or
` expressly, but it is disclosed.
` Q. But then what's the difference?
` A. The difference that is one is expressly,
` one is not expressly.
` Q. Can you give me an example?
` MR. CHIU: Objection; legal
` conclusion and beyond the scope.
` A. (Reviewing document.)
` Are you asking an example in this
` declaration or just a general example? I wasn't --
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) Well, you just spent the
` last few minutes looking at your declaration. Did
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 20 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` you find any example in your declaration, sir?
` A. I just -- I -- I don't think so. I
` haven't seen any, so -- there might be, but, you
` know, I haven't looked at it too carefully. But let
` me give you perhaps a -- a general example. Is that
` what you like, what is inherent, inherently
` expressed?
` Q. Sure.
` A. So --
` MR. CHIU: Again, this is beyond
` the scope of this deposition.
` A. For example, if the claim, let's say --
` say that the substrate is silicon and the prior art
` says the substrate is semiconductor, and when it's
` thermally grown in oxygen and silicon dioxide is
` formed, even though it does not specifically
` expressly say that the semiconductor substrate is
` silicon, when it's thermally grown in oxygen to form
` SiO2, silicon dioxide, I believe that's an example
` that the claim limitation or claim element of the
` substrate being silicon is inherently expressed.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) And what is the inherent
` disclosure there?
` MR. CHIU: Objection; legal
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 21 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` conclusion, beyond the scope.
` A. That the substrate is silicon. That is
` expressly -- inherently disclosed in this example.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) So in your example, what
` was in the claim, sir?
` MR. CHIU: Objection; legal
` conclusion, beyond the scope of what's in
` Dr. Lee's declaration.
` A. Well, I think, if you read it back, it
` says if the claim says the substrate is silicon.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) So the claim would say the
` substrate is silicon?
` MR. CHIU: Same objection.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) Is that right?
` MR. CHIU: Same objection.
` A. That's -- that's the example that I have,
` yes.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) Okay. And what did you say
` was in the prior art?
` MR. CHIU: Objection; outside the
` scope of Dr. Lee's deposition.
` A. The prior art says the substrate is
` semiconductor, and when it's thermally exposed in
` oxygen, silicon dioxide is formed.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 22 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) And that, in your view, is
` an inherent disclosure of the substrate being
` silicon?
` MR. CHIU: Calls for a legal
` conclusion, outside the scope of Dr. Lee's
` declaration.
` A. That's my understanding, that even though
` it does not expressly discloses that the substrate is
` silicon, but it's inherently disclosed.
` MR. STEINBERG: Counsel, at
` 8 o'clock [sic] I want to take a break. I'm
` going to switch out for a call, and I don't want
` to disrupt you. I need to talk to these two
` guys.
` THE WITNESS: May I?
` MR. MODI: Can we finish this line
` of questioning?
` MR. STEINBERG: Sure.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) So can you not deposit
` silicon on top of nonsilicon, and thermally grow
` silicon oxide from the deposited silicon?
` MR. CHIU: Objection; calls for a
` legal conclusion, outside the scope of Dr. Lee's
` deposition.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 23 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` A. Can you repeat? Because this doesn't make
` sense.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) Can you not deposit silicon
` on top of nonsilicon and thermally grow silicon oxide
` from the deposited silicon?
` MR. CHIU: Objection; vague,
` outside the scope of Dr. Lee's declaration.
` (Discussion off the record.)
` A. In this example of the prior art, the
` semiconductor wafer does not have a layer of silicon
` deposit on top.
` MR. MODI: Why don't we take a
` break.
` THE WITNESS: Thank you.
` (Break.)
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) Dr. Lee?
` A. Yes.
` Q. During the break did you talk to your
` attorneys?
` A. Yes. But when I walked in that office
` there, they told me that we cannot talk anything --
` anything substance, so I left the room. I said,
` "Well, let me leave the room."
` And they just said, "You're doing fine.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 24 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` Fine. Relax." That's it. Nothing else.
` Q. What is your understanding of obviousness?
` MR. CHIU: Calls for a legal
` conclusion.
` A. Well, as I stated in Paragraph 15, that
` "Obviousness of a claim requires that the claim be
` obvious from the perspective of a person of ordinary
` skill in the art, in the relevant art, at the time
` the invention was made."
` So in analyzing obviousness, my
` understanding is that it is important to understand
` the scope of the claim and the level of the skills in
` the relevant art, and the scope and the content of
` the prior art, and the differences between the prior
` art and the claims, and any secondary considerations.
` So "understand that if a technique can be
` used to improve one device and a person of ordinary
` skill in the art would recognize that, that it would
` improve similar devices in the same way, using the
` technique is obvious unless the actual application is
` beyond his or her skill."
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) Dr. Lee, let me just stop
` you --
` A. Yes.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 25 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` Q. -- for a minute. I obviously have read
` your declaration, sir.
` A. Right.
` Q. I want to know what is your understanding
` of obviousness.
` A. That is my --
` MR. CHIU: Calls for a legal
` conclusion.
` A. That is my understanding.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) What is stated in
` Paragraph 15 of your declaration?
` A. That's right.
` Q. Okay. You mentioned secondary
` considerations. What is your understanding of
` secondary considerations, sir?
` MR. CHIU: Calls for a legal
` conclusion. Outside the scope of Dr. Lee's
` declaration.
` A. (Reviewing document.)
` I was told secondary consideration, what
` they are, and -- but since I'm not a lawyer and --
` and I just don't recall right at this moment. And --
` yeah, it's -- it's -- my mind is kind of -- have not
` focused on this particular issues of secondary
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 26 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` consideration, but hold on one second.
` (Reviewing document.)
` No, I just don't recall the definitions of
` "secondary considerations" at this moment. I'm
` really a technical person.
` Q. But your declaration uses the word
` "secondary considerations." Right?
` A. Right.
` Q. And you told me earlier that those should
` be considered in an obviousness analysis. Right?
` A. Right.
` Q. But you're not able to tell me what
` secondary considerations are?
` A. I can tell you the legal definition of
` what is secondary considerations.
` Q. I'm just asking for your understanding
` as -- what understanding of secondary considerations
` did you apply in forming your opinions?
` MR. CHIU: Calls for a legal
` conclusion. Outside the scope of Dr. Lee's
` declaration.
` A. I'm not -- I don't think I've used
` "secondary considerations." I'm not sure. I don't
` think I have used "secondary considerations" in this
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 27 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` declaration.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) So you have not considered
` any secondary considerations in your obviousness
` analysis? Would it be fair to say that, that you
` have not considered any secondary considerations in
` your obviousness analysis? Fair?
` MR. CHIU: Outside the scope of
` Dr. Lee's declaration.
` A. (Reviewing document.)
` In this declaration I don't think I've
` used secondary considerations. I think that -- that
` was not considered at this point, if I recall
` correctly.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) What is the difference in
` anticipation and obviousness?
` MR. CHIU: Objection; calls for
` legal conclusion, outside the scope of Dr. Lee's
` declaration.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) Actually, let me withdraw
` that, Dr. Lee.
` What is your understanding of the
` difference between anticipation and obviousness as
` you have applied it to your declaration?
` MR. CHIU: Objection; calls for a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Page 28 of 281
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JACK CHUNG-YEUNG LEE, Ph.D. - 2/25/16
` legal conclusion, outside the scope of Dr. Lee's
` declaration.
` A. Well, anticipation is that -- when every
` element of the claim is disclosed expressly or
` inherently in the prior art, in a single prior art
` reference; and when it is not expressly or inherently
` disclosed, that the claim can still be invalid by
` obviousness.
` Q. (BY MR. MODI) Are you finished?
` A. Yes. So when -- when it is not expressly
` or inherently disclosed -- when the element is not
` disclosed expressly or inherently, it can still be
` disclosed by obviousness.
` Q. Can I have you turn to Page 38 of
` Exhibit 1116, which
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
