By: Christopher Frerking (chris@ntknet.com)
`
`Reg. No. 42,557
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR2015-01768
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`FOURTH PETITION
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................. ii
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST .................................................................................................. iii
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Ground 1 .............................................................................................. 2
`
`A. Lam Offers No Prior Art to Meet the “Within a Preselected Time
`Period” Limitation .......................................................................... 2
`
`B. There is No Basis to Combine Tegal with Matsumura .................. 4
`
`III.
`
`Independent Claims 51 & 60 ............................................................... 9
`
`IV. The Dependent Claims ...................................................................... 12
`
`V. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Cases Page(s)
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................................................................... 3, 4
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1970) .......................................................................... 3
`
`In re Ochiai,
`71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................. 4
`
`Hartness Int’l Inc. v. Simplimatic Eng. Co.,
`819 F.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1987)......................................................................... 12
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ......................................................................... 4, 8
`
`In re Packard,
`751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................... 10
`
`Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984)......................................................................... 12
`
`KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc.,
`127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007) ..................................................................................... 4, 8
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Flamm,
`IPR2015-01759, Paper 7 (Feb. 24, 2016) .......................................................... 3
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Flamm,
`IPR2015-01766, Paper 7 (Feb. 24, 2016) .......................................................... 4
`
`Statutes Page(s)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................... 2, 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ..................................................................................... 3
`
`MPEP § 2173.05(E) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case No. IPR2015-
`01759, DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review,
`Paper 7 (Feb. 24, 2016)
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm, Case No. IPR2015-
`01766, DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review,
`Paper 7 (Feb. 24, 2016)
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`Ex. 2006
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D., the sole inventor and owner of the U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE40,264 (“the ‘264 patent”), through his counsel, submits this response to the
`
`instant petition.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`This is Dr. Flamm’s response to Lam’s fourth of seven petitions for inter
`
`partes review on Patent No. RE40,264. Lam filed four petitions in August, 2015,
`
`and filed three more in January, 2016. Trials were instituted on two of the first four
`
`petitions—denominated by Lam as the Second and Fourth Petitions (Case Nos.
`
`IPR2015-01764 and IPR2015-01766, respectively)—and denied to institute on the
`
`other two—denominated by Lam as the First and Third Petitions (Case Nos.
`
`IPR2015-01759 and IPR2015-01766, respectively). Dr. Flamm filed Preliminary
`
`Responses to the later-filed three petitions on April 27, 2016.
`
`Lam’s Second Petition and the Third Petition (as well as its Fifth Petition)
`
`address independent claims 27 and 37 and various of their dependent claims. The
`
`history of the Second Petition and the Third Petition is somewhat tangled; both
`
`petitions addressed independent claims 27 and 37, but then each addressed different
`
`dependent claims. The Second Petition was directed toward dependent claims 28-
`
`30, 33, 35-36, 38-39, 42-43, 45-46, 49, 66-67 and 69 (which depends from claim 51).
`
`The Third Petition was directed toward dependent claims 31-32, 34, 40-41, 44, 47-
`
`48, and 50. The Third Petition was denied in its entirely, including as to independent
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`claims 27 and 37. A scorecard reflecting the rulings on the various patent claims in
`
`the first four petitions on RE40,264 is attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`II. Ground 1
`
`A. Lam Offers No Prior Art to Meet the “Within a Preselected Time
`Period” Limitation
`Lam asserts obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Tegal in view of
`
`Matsumura, Narita, Thomas, and ‘485 Wang.
`
`Lam cites no prior art that teaches the entirety of the following limitation in
`
`claim 56:
`
`wherein the substrate holder is heated to a temperature operable to
`maintain at least one of the selected first and the selected second
`substrate temperatures above 49°C., and the substrate temperature is
`changed from the first substrate temperature to the second substrate
`temperature with a control circuit operable to effectuate the changing
`within a preselected time period that is less than the overall process time
`associated with the etching the first silicon-containing layer and the
`second silicon-containing layer.
`(Ex. 1001 at 24:52-:61.)
`
`Having no prior art that teaches the entirety of the limitation, Lam resorts to
`
`impermissibly splitting the limitation into three separate claim elements,
`
`denominated by Lam as [56.e], [56.f], and [56.g]. (Pet. at 22-23.) While claim
`
`element [56.e] may fairly stand alone, there is no justifiable basis to segment claim
`
`element [56.f] from [56.g] because those two clauses are clearly interdependent.
`
`The Board admonished Lam for this very stratagem in denying Lam’s First
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`Petition on the ‘264 patent:
`
`At the outset, we agree with Flamm that Lam’s analysis improperly
`breaks the elements of claim 13 into small phrases, and then attempts
`to match disclosures from the prior art to those phrases taken out of
`context. In particular, we note that claim 13 requires that the thermal
`mass of the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature
`change within a specific interval of time during processing. The claim
`language requires that these phrases are interdependent, and cannot be
`parsed into separate elements met individually. In other words, the
`thermal mass must be selected in order to undergo a predetermined
`temperature change within a specific interval of time (for example, a
`change of 10°C per minute). Lam’s analysis is deficient, to the extent
`it separates predetermined temperature change from specific interval
`of time and analyzes each separately.
`(Lam Research Corp. v. Flamm, IPR2015-01759, Paper 7 (Feb. 24, 2016) at 17
`
`(emphasis in original), attached hereto as Exhibit 2005.)
`
`The same is true of claim 56. Claim 56 requires the “the substrate temperature
`
`is changed . . . within a preselected time period.” (Ex. 1001 at 24:55-:58 (emphasis
`
`added).)
`
` The word “within” renders claim elements [56.f] and [56.g]
`
`“interdependent,” resulting in another violation of the Board’s rule. Accordingly,
`
`Lam fails to “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art,” as
`
`required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). See also CFMT, Inc. v. YieldUp Int’l Corp.,
`
`349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (“obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim”
`
`(citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (C.C.P.A. 1974))); see also In re Wilson, 424
`
`F.2d 1382, 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in
`
`judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`The fact is that neither Matsumura (on which Lam relies for elements [56.f]
`
`and [56.g]) nor Tegal (on which Lam also relies for element [56.f]) teaches the
`
`changing of substrate temperature “within a preselected time period.” Tegal has no
`
`preselected time for changing the temperature between the two etches and
`
`Matsumura does not have two etches—indeed it has no etches at all.
`
`The all elements rule has long been the law in the PTO and the Federal Circuit:
`
`When determining whether a claim is obvious, an examiner must make
`a searching comparison of the claimed invention—including all its
`limitations—with the teaching of the prior art.
`In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). Thus,
`
`“obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v.
`
`Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Royka, 490
`
`F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)). Moreover, as the Supreme Court recently stated,
`
`“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct.
`
`1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(emphasis added)).
`
`As a matter of law, Lam has failed to meet the requirements for inter parties
`
`review and has failed to meet its burden of proof under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`There is No Basis to Combine Tegal with Matsumura
`B.
`The benefit of the ‘264 patent was to increase throughput while maintaining
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`selectivity in etching semiconductors, especially using plasma etching. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:7-:29.) The invention combines using multiple etches at different temperatures
`
`and in the case of claim 56, as discussed above, one of the limitations is that “the
`
`substrate temperature is changed . . . within a preselected time period.” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`24:55-:58.)
`
`The subject matter of Matsumura is quite different. Matsumura’s focus is the
`
`preliminary processing steps that are taken to prepare the wafer for etching; it is not
`
`concerned with the etching process itself. Matsumura’s “resist processing system,”
`
`is depicted in the block diagram Fig. 4 as the box 40. (Ex. 1003 at 4:56-:59 and Fig.
`
`4.) Specifically, it comprises a “ender 41,” for transporting the wafer to the
`
`“adhesion unit 42,” which applies HMDS to the wafer to enhance the adhesion of
`
`the resist, the resist is applied by the “coating unit 43,” and then it is baked in the
`
`“baking unit 44.” (Id. at 4:59-5:4 and Fig. 4.) The “receiver unit 45,” then forwards
`
`the wafer to an “interface (not shown)” which transfers the wafer to the “exposure
`
`unit (not shown).” (Id. at 5:5-:12 and Fig. 4.)
`
`The only reference to etching, besides the “exposure unit (not shown),” is at
`
`the end of the specification, in a discussion of embodiments to which the invention
`
`is not limited, where Matsumura suggests that the invention can be applied to “any
`
`of the ion implantation, CVD, etching and ashing processes” and to “other
`
`semiconductor devices such as LCD.” (Id. at 10:3-:12.) It is clear that Matsumura
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`never applied his invention to any of these processes, as he says at the beginning of
`
`the above quoted sentence. (Id.at 10:3-:4 (“the present invention has been applied
`
`to the adhesion and baking processes”).)
`
`In discussing this issue, the Board noted:
`
`Matsumura provides in detail a temperature control system for use in a
`plasma etch process, where the control system has the flexibility of
`being responsive to “inputted recipes and temperature detecting signal.”
`Ex. 1003, 5:60-63.
`(Paper 7 at 20.)
`
`In fact, as just discussed, Matsumura teaches nothing about etching.
`
`Preparing a wafer for etching and etching are very different arts.
`
`The Board further noted:
`
`[T]he control system of Matsumura effects temperature changes during
`the process as required by claim 56 and in accordance with a
`“predetermined recipe” that has a “time-temperature relationship.” Id.
`at 3:1-7, 6:36-37. In order to better control temperature during process
`temperature changes, Narita provides two temperature sensors used in
`a control system for plasma etching. Ex. 1004, 4:4-10, 5:30-31, Figs.
`1, 4.
`(Paper 7 at 20.) We beg to differ. Lam relies solely on Matsumura, not Narita, for
`
`the “within a preselected time period” limitation. (Pet. at 20 and 23.) Lam’s
`
`support—and only support—for element [56.g] is Matsumura. This is also true for
`
`comparable claim language in independent claims 60, 51, and 56. (See Pet. at 39
`
`(claim element [60.k]); id. at 47 (claim element [51.k]); id.at 51 (claim element
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`[56.g]).)
`
`The Board also noted that it is “not persuaded, at this early stage of the
`
`proceeding, that the arguments presented in the Petition are not supported by Wang
`
`‘485 and Matsumura.” (Paper 7 at 21.) Yet, again, Lam relies exclusively on
`
`Matsumura for the “within a preselected time period” limitation, not Wang ‘485.
`
`(Pet. at 20 and 23.) The fact that Figure 21 of Wang ‘485 “indicates increased etch
`
`rate over a temperature change of 45°C to 80°C” does not teach that the substrate
`
`temperature is changed “within a preselected period of time,” and Lam does not
`
`argue that it does.
`
`Finally, regarding Matsumura—the only prior art for which Lam relies for the
`
`“within a preselected time period” claim element—the Board noted that “the
`
`predetermined recipes that depend upon a time and temperature relationship for the
`
`heat-processing of semiconductor devices consequently preselects the time and
`
`temperature conditions during which processing is conducted.” (Paper 7 at 21.) But,
`
`Lam has not provided any explanation of how one could use Matsumura’s “recipes”
`
`in Tegal and certainly none is apparent. Again, Matsumura’s “recipes” are not for
`
`etching, much less etching at multiple temperatures within a “preselected time
`
`interval” between the two etching temperatures. The “recipe” cited by the Board is
`
`a process for baking resist onto the substrate. (Paper 7 at 15 (citing Ex. 1003 at
`
`4:42-:43 and 5:52-6:32).) The “recipe” itself—increase the temperature in two steps
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`from 20°C to 140°C in 90 seconds; hold the temperature for 30 seconds; and then
`
`decrease the temperature back to 20°C over 60 seconds—would be of absolutely no
`
`use to one considering modifying Tegal. And, to the extent that Matsumura suggests
`
`the broad concept of associating time and temperature in processing satisfies the
`
`limitation, there must be millions of such prior art references, including cookbooks,
`
`e.g., a recipe calling for roasting turkey at 450° for 30 minutes and then at 325° for
`
`two hours.
`
`There is another reason that the skilled artisan would not look to Matsumura
`
`for any guidance in improving Tegal. The ‘264 patent claims a process for etching,
`
`which is a chemical or plasma (wet or dry) process, while Matsumura teaches a
`
`heating process. While it is true that both use heat, in Matsumura the heat is the
`
`direct cause of the active processing, i.e., baking the resist on the substrate. (Ex.
`
`1003 at 7:54-:56 and Fig. 4.) In the ‘264 patent, by contrast, the chemical or plasma
`
`is the direct cause of the process, i.e., etching the substrate, and the heat is just one
`
`of the environmental factors of the process.
`
`As this Board held in denying Lam’s Third Petition on the ‘264 patent (Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01766):
`
`A showing of obviousness must be supported by an articulated
`reasoning with rational underpinning to support a motivation to
`combine the prior art teachings. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
`398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`conclusion of obviousness.”)). As explained in KSR, “a patent
`composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in
`the prior art.” Id.
`(Lam Research Corp. v. Flamm, IPR2015-01766, Paper 7 (Feb. 24, 2016) at 15,
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 2006.)
`
`It is clear that Matsumura’s non-etching “recipes” would be useless in Tegal’s
`
`double etching environment.
`
`III.
`
`Independent Claims 51 & 60
`
`Under Grounds 2 and 3, Lam rearranges the pieces of prior art on which it
`
`relies, swapping Fischl for ‘485 Wang in Ground 2 and then dropping both Fischl
`
`and ‘485 Wang in Ground 3. Despite that effort, Lam’s continued reliance on
`
`Matsumura exclusively to furnish the “within a preselected time” limitation also
`
`dooms it challenge to claims 51 and 60.
`
`Independent claims 51 and 60 both contain the limitation for changes to
`
`substrate temperature “within a preselected time.” (Ex. 1001 at 24:25-:26, 25:31.)
`
`For its discussion of those claim elements, as well as for its discussion of claim 56
`
`under Ground 4, Lam simply incorporates the Matsumura disclosures asserted in
`
`Ground 1 for claim element [56.g]. (See Pet. at 39 (claim element [60.k]); id. at 47
`
`(claim element [51.k]); id.at 51 (claim element [56.g]).) As demonstrate above,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`Matsumura does not teach changing the substrate temperature “within a preselected
`
`time.”
`
`Additionally, the references in those claims to “substrate temperatures” are all
`
`preceded by the article “the,” which like the word “said,” requires the reader to look
`
`back in the claim for the antecedents.1 In claim 51, the “selected first substrate
`
`temperature” is delineated as: “performing a first etching of a first portion of the film
`
`at a selected first substrate temperature.” (Ex. 1001 at 24:13-:14.) The “selected
`
`second substrate temperature” is delineated as: “performing a second etching of a
`
`second portion of the film at a selected second substrate temperature, the second
`
`temperature being different from the first temperature.” (Id.at 24:15-:16.)
`
`Accordingly, replacing “the” first and second temperatures with their defining
`
`antecedents, the limitation at issue reads:
`
`the substrate temperature control circuit effectuates the change from the
`a first substrate temperature for a first etching to the a second substrate
`temperature for a second etching within a preselected time period.
`Claim 60 is similar. There, the “selected first substrate temperature” is
`
`delineated as: “processing the substrate on the substrate holder at a first substrate
`
`temperature.” (Ex. 1001 at 25:21-:22.) The “selected second substrate temperature”
`
`
`1 The MPEP cautions against claims being rendered indefinite where there is a lack
`of antecedent basis. MPEP § 2173.05(E) (“A claim is indefinite when it contains
`words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314
`(Fed. Cir. 2014).”) There is no such problem with the claims at issue here.
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`is delineated as: “processing the substrate on the substrate holder at a second
`
`substrate temperature to etch at least a portion of the silicide layer.” (Id.at
`
`25:23-:25.)
`
`Replacing “the” first and second temperatures with their defining antecedents,
`
`the limitation reads:
`
`wherein the a first substrate temperature for processing the substrate is
`different from the a second substrate temperature to etch a portion of
`the silicide layer and the first substrate temperature is changed to the
`second substrate temperature with a substrate control circuit within a
`preselected time to etch the silicide layer.
`Properly read in context, it is clear that Matsumura, on which Lam relies for
`
`claim elements [51.k] and [60.k] (Pet. at 39, 47), is not even close. The two operable
`
`temperatures in the ‘264 patent are for two film treatments in a single chamber.
`
`Matsumura has one operable temperature for each of three separate units, the
`
`adhesion unit, the coating unit, and the baking unit, and has no discussion of the time
`
`periods between those processes. He only taught heating up to one operable
`
`temperature for the baking unit and then cooling it down to the initial temperature.
`
`Thus, it makes no sense to speak of the “preselected time period” for the temperature
`
`change between the two film treatments in Matsumura; there simply is no such time
`
`period. Matsumura had recipes for heating and cooling to one operable temperature
`
`over a predetermined time.
`
`For the reasons stated for claim 56, Lam has failed to meet its Section 103(a)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`burden: it has no prior art showing the final limitation in claims 51 or 60 and it has
`
`not established a motive to combine or that there is sufficient disclosure in the prior
`
`art to combine all the elements of claims 51 and 60.
`
`IV. The Dependent Claims
`
`As demonstrated, Lam has failed to meet its Section 103(a) burden for each
`
`of independent claims 51, 56, and 60. As a result, none of the claims that depend
`
`from those claims are rendered obvious by the asserted prior art references. Hartness
`
`Int’l Inc. v. Simplimatic Eng. Co., 819 F.2d 1100, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A fortiori,
`
`dependent claim 3 was nonobvious (and novel) because it contained all of the
`
`limitations of claim 1 plus a further limitation.”); Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Johnson
`
`& Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1448-49 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“We need consider no other
`
`claim because if the invention of claim 1 would not have been obvious the same is
`
`true as to the remaining dependent claims.”).
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Dr. Flamm respectfully requests that the Board
`
`confirm the patentability of the claims challenged in this petition.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Christopher Frerking, reg. no. 42,557/
` Christopher Frerking, reg. no. 42,557
`
`174 Rumford Street
`Concord, New Hampshire 03301
`Telephone: (603) 706-3127
`Email: chris@ntknet.com
`
`Counsel for Daniel L. Flamm
`
`13
`
`

`
` 
`
`Claim #
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`32
`33
`34
`35
`36
`37
`38
`39
`40
`41
`42
`43
`44
`45
`46
`47
`48
`49
`50
`51
`52
`53
`54
`55
`56
`57
`58
`59
`60
`61
`62
`63
`64
`65
`66
`67
`68
`69
`70
`71
`
`Lam v. Flamm IPRs
`Appendix A
`IPR 2016‐0469
`IPR 2016‐0470
`IPR 2016‐0468
`IPR 2015‐01768
`IPR 2015‐01766
`IPR 2015‐01764
`IPR 2015‐01759
`'264 First Petition '264 Second Petition '264Third Petition '264 Fourth Petition '264 Fifth Petition '264 Sixth Petition '264 Seventh Petition
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`Not Instituted
`Instituted
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`IPR2015-01768
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`
`
`RESPONSE FOURTH PETITION was served by electronic mail on this day,
`
`May 16, 2016, on the following individuals:
`
`Michael Fleming
`(mfleming@irell.com)
`Samuel K. Lu
`(slu@irell.com)
`Kamran Vakili
`(kvakili@irell.com)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Beata Ichou/
`Beata Ichou