IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CA No. 2:15-cv-341-JRG-RSP
`LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ET
`AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`SONY KABUSHIKI KAISHA, ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS AND
`DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO PATENT RULES 3-3 AND 3-4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s August 14, 2015 Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 60), and Local
`
`Patent Rule 3-3, and in further view of plaintiff Raytheon Company’s (“Raytheon”) own
`
`disclosures and discovery responses to date, defendants Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of
`
`America, Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony
`
`Semiconductor Corporation, Sony EMCS Corporation, Sony Mobile Communications Inc.,
`
`Sony Mobile Communications AB, OmniVision Technologies, Inc., Apple Inc., Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor Inc.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Raytheon 2002
`
`000001
`
`

`
`(collectively, “Defendants”) by and through their attorneys hereby provide the following
`
`preliminary Invalidity Contentions with respect to the claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,591,678 (“the
`
`’678 patent”) asserted by Raytheon.
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY MATTERS
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions are in response to Raytheon’s Infringement
`
`Contentions served on July 16, 2015. These Invalidity Contentions address the asserted claims in
`
`Raytheon’s infringement contentions against Defendants, which are claims 1, 5-10, 13, and 18 of
`
`’678 patent.1 Defendants reserve the right to supplement their Invalidity Contentions in response
`
`to any additional claims asserted by Raytheon.
`
`Defendants contend that Raytheon has failed to meet its burden under P. R. 3-1
`
`subparagraphs
`
`To the extent Raytheon alleges that the asserted claims are entitled to a date of invention
`
`prior to the filing date of the application identified in Raytheon’s P.R. 3-1(e) disclosure—
`
`application Ser. No. 6,120, filed January 19, 1993—Defendants contend that Raytheon has not
`
`provided evidence sufficient to establish prior conception and reduction to practice for each
`
`asserted claim on a claim-by-claim basis.
`
`These Invalidity Contentions are accompanied by Exhibits A-Z. These exhibits identify
`
`various anticipation and obviousness contentions by disclosing exemplary locations in the prior
`
`
`
` 1
`
`Raytheon has not provided any infringement contentions to Samsung for claims 5-7, 13, and 18 of the ’678
`
`patent. Samsung understands that these claims are not asserted against Samsung. To the extent Raytheon belatedly
`asserts them and is permitted to do so, Samsung reserves the right to supplement, amend, or otherwise modify these
`invalidity contentions.
`
`2
`
`
`
`000002
`
`

`
`art, either expressly or inherently, where each limitation of each asserted claim can be found
`
`and/or would have been considered obvious by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Defendants
`
`are relying on the anticipation and obviousness contentions of Exhibits A-Y regardless of
`
`whether any such contentions are repeated in the text of this document. Moreover, the citations to
`
`prior art and explanations provided in the attached exhibits are exemplary, and Defendants
`
`reserve the right to rely on any other portions or aspects of the cited prior art, systems or
`
`products embodying that art or testimony from others regarding that art, as well as expert
`
`testimony in proving the invalidity of the asserted claims of the ’678 patent. Where Defendants
`
`cite to a particular figure in a reference, the citation should be understood to encompass the
`
`caption and description of the figure and any text relating to the figure. Conversely, where
`
`Defendants cite to particular text referring to a figure, the citation should be understood to
`
`include the figure as well.
`
`The suggested obviousness combinations are in addition to Defendants’ anticipation
`
`contentions and are not to be construed to suggest that any reference included in the
`
`combinations is not anticipatory on its own.
`
`The United States Supreme Court recently clarified the standard for what types of
`
`inventions are patentable. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). In particular,
`
`the Supreme Court emphasized that inventions arising from ordinary innovation, ordinary skill,
`
`or common sense should not be patentable. Id. at 1732, 1738, 1742-1743, 1746. In that regard, a
`
`patent claim may be obvious if the combination of elements was obvious to try or there existed at
`
`the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed
`
`by the patent’s claims. In addition, when a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a
`
`3
`
`
`
`000003
`
`

`
`different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, Section 103
`
`likely bars its patentability.
`
`“[T]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 1731. Because the ’678
`
`patent simply arrange old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to
`
`perform and yields no more than what one would expect from such an arrangement, the
`
`combination is obvious. Id. at 1742. The asserted claims are therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 because they do nothing more than combine known techniques and apparatuses according to
`
`their known and ordinary uses to yield predictable results.
`
`Moreover, since there was a finite number of predictable solutions, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art had good reason to pursue the known options. Id. Indeed, a person skilled in the
`
`art would have been familiar with all the claim elements that the patentee used to distinguish the
`
`prior art during prosecution. The identified prior art references merely use those familiar
`
`elements for their primary or well-known purposes in a manner well within the ordinary level of
`
`skill in the art. Accordingly, common sense and the knowledge of the prior art render the
`
`asserted claims invalid under either Section 102 or Section 103.
`
`A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the above prior art
`
`based on his knowledge, the nature of the problem to be solved, and the teachings of the prior
`
`art. The identified prior art addresses the same or similar technical issues and suggests the same
`
`or similar solutions to those issues. Moreover, some of the prior art refer to or discuss other prior
`
`art, illustrating the close technical relationship among the prior art. To the extent that Raytheon
`
`challenges a combination of prior art with respect to a particular element, Defendants reserve the
`
`right to supplement these contentions to further specify the motivation to combine the prior art.
`
`4
`
`
`
`000004
`
`

`
`Defendants may rely on cited or uncited portions of the prior art, other documents, and expert
`
`testimony to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would have been motivated to modify or combine the prior art so as to render the claims invalid
`
`as obvious.
`
`As discussed in more detail below, any reference identified as anticipating any asserted
`
`claim under 35 U.S.C. §102 also renders the asserted claim invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103, either by itself or when combined with any of the other cited prior art references or the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. All of the identified prior art within an individual
`
`claim chart relates and is directed to the relevant technology of the ‘678 patent, and Defendants
`
`rely upon the disclosures of these references themselves, as well as the nature of the problem
`
`purportedly solved by the asserted claims, to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known and been motivated to combine the references as disclosed to practice the
`
`asserted claims of the ‘678 patent. Where a particular item of prior art incorporates by reference
`
`other documents or materials, Defendants’ identification of the particular prior art reference
`
`includes all such incorporated documents or materials.
`
`These Invalidity Contentions should not be interpreted to rely upon, or in any way affect,
`
`the claim construction or non-infringement arguments that Defendants have put forth or intend to
`
`put forth in this case. Nor are Defendants adopting any of Raytheon’s claim construction
`
`positions. Rather, these contentions are being provided in response to Raytheon’s July 16, 2015
`
`Infringement Contentions (to the extent understood) and the Defendants’ present understanding
`
`of the asserted claims. Therefore, the attached charts contain (among other things) examples of
`
`where the features of the accused products are found in the prior art, such that any interpretation
`
`5
`
`
`
`000005
`
`

`
`of the asserted claims proffered by Raytheon that would somehow cover the accused products
`
`would also cause the claims to necessarily cover the prior art.
`
`References cited in the attached exhibits may disclose the elements of the asserted claims
`
`either explicitly and/or inherently, and/or may be relied upon to show the state of the art in the
`
`relevant timeframes. The suggested obviousness combinations are in the alternative to
`
`Defendants’ anticipation contentions and are not to be construed to suggest that any obviousness
`
`reference is not also anticipatory.
`
`Any and all cites to particular figures in the invalidity charts shall be deemed to wholly
`
`incorporate the figure by reference, and include the figure as if it had been inserted into the chart
`
`itself, as well as any text discussing the figure. Figures which have not been explicitly cited in
`
`the chart or text of these Invalidity Contentions, but which appear on the cited pages of the
`
`reference, are also wholly incorporated by reference into these Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Defendant’s discovery and investigation in connection with this lawsuit and the ’678
`
`patent are continuing, and thus, these Invalidity Contentions are based on information obtained to
`
`date. Among other things, discovery is still underway, no witnesses have been deposed to date,
`
`and the Court has not yet construed the terms of the asserted claims of the ‘678 patent.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions are subject to modification, amendment, or
`
`supplementation in accordance with the Court’s orders, the Local and Patent Rules of the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, and/or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as this action progresses and
`
`additional information is obtained. Further, Defendants reserve all rights to amend or
`
`supplement these invalidity contentions after the Court issues its claim construction ruling and/or
`
`if Raytheon further modifies and/or amends its infringement contentions as permitted or required
`
`by the Docket Control Order or the Court.
`
`6
`
`
`
`000006
`
`

`
`II.
`
`P.R. 3-3 DISCLOSURES
`
`A.
`
`P.R. 3-3(a)
`
`Defendants’ incorporate by reference Exhibits A-Y hereto. In addition, Defendants
`
`further identify the below prior art to the asserted ‘678 patent. Defendants may rely on any of the
`
`below prior art in support of any of its defenses and/or counterclaims, including without
`
`limitation, to demonstrate the state of the art and/or the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`Defendants identify the following prior art patents and patent publications that anticipate
`
`and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the ’678 patent:
`
`PRIOR ART REFERENCE
`
`COUNTRY
`OF ORIGIN
`
`DATE OF ISSUE OR
`PUBLICATION2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,647,581 to Mash (“Mash ’581”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,846,198 to Wen (“Wen ’198”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,864,819 to Ying (“Ying ’819”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,266,334 to Edwards (“Edwards ’334”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,326,238 to Takeda (“Takeda ’238”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,422,091 to Liu (“Liu ’091”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,426,768 to Black (“Black ’768”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,430,153 to Gleason (“Gleason ’153”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,456,901 to Kurtz (“Kurtz ’901”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,599,792 to Cade (“Cade ’792”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`3/7/1972
`
`11/5/1974
`
`2/11/1975
`
`5/12/1981
`
`4/20/1982
`
`12/20/1983
`
`1/24/1984
`
`2/7/1984
`
`6/26/1984
`
`7/15/1986
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`As indicated, the “date” provided in this and the other tables in Section II(A) of this document is the date
`required to be identified by Patent Rule 3-3(a). For example, for patents, “date” refers to the date of issue. For
`publications, “date” refers to the date of publication. Nothing in the “date” column is intended to be a limitation
`on the availability of the particular patent, reference, product or knowledge as “prior art.”
`7
`
`
`
`000007
`
`

`
`PRIOR ART REFERENCE
`
`COUNTRY
`OF ORIGIN
`
`DATE OF ISSUE OR
`PUBLICATION2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,601,779 to Abernathey
`(“Abernathey ’779”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,612,083 to Yasumoto
`(“Yasumoto ’083”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,649,627 to Abernathey
`(“Abernathey ’627”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,676,847 to Lin (“Lin ’847”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,681,657 to Hwang (“Hwang ’657”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,829,018 to Wahlstrom
`(“Wahlstrom ’018”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,851,078 to Short (“Short ’078”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,870,475 to Endo (“Endo ’475”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,875,086 to Malhi (“Malhi ’086”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,889,832 to Chatterjee
`(“Chatterjee ’832”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`7/22/1986
`
`U.S.A.
`
`9/16/1986
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`3/17/1987
`
`6/30/1987
`
`7/21/1987
`
`7/21/1987
`
`5/9/1989
`
`7/25/1989
`
`9/26/1989
`
`10/17/1989
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,681,718 to Oldham (“Oldham ’718”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`12/26/1989
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,891,329 to Reisman (“Reisman ’329”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,910,155 to Cote (“Cote ’155”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,959,328 to Behr (“Behr ’328”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`1/2/1990
`
`3/20/1990
`
`9/25/1990
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,980,308 to Hayashi (“Hayashi ’308”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`12/25/1990
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,982,266 to Chatterjee
`(“Chatterjee ’266)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`1/1/1991
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,013,681 to Godbey (“Godbey ’681”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,024,723 to Goesele (“Goesele ’723”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,034,343 to Rouse (“Rouse ’343”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,061,642 to Fujioka (“Fujioka ’642”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,064,683 to Poon (“Poon ’683”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,066,993 to Miura (“Miura ’993”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,069,002 to Sandhu (“Sandhu ’002”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`5/7/1991
`
`6/18/1991
`
`7/23/1991
`
`10/29/1991
`
`11/12/1991
`
`11/19/1991
`
`12/3/1991
`
`U.S.A.
`
`12/10/1991
`
`U.S.A.
`
`1/14/1992
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,071,792 to VanVonno
`(“VanVonno ’792”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,080,730 to Wittkower
`(“Wittkower ’730”)
`
`8
`
`
`
`000008
`
`

`
`PRIOR ART REFERENCE
`
`COUNTRY
`OF ORIGIN
`
`DATE OF ISSUE OR
`PUBLICATION2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,086,011 to Shiota (“Shiota ’011”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,095,349 to Fujii (“Fujii ’349”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,102,821 to Moslehi (“Moslehi ’821”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,136,344 to Pronko (“Pronko ’344”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,162,251 to Poole (“Poole ‘251”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,176,783 to Yoshikawa
`(“Yoshikawa ’783”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,189,500 to Kusunoki
`(“Kusunoki ’500”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,202,754 to Bertin (“Bertin ’754”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,227,313 to Gluck (“Gluck ’313”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,234,856 to Gonzalez
`(“Gonzalez ’856”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,244,534 to Yu (“Yu ’534”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,244,817 to Hawkins (“Hawkins ’817”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`2/4/1992
`
`3/10/1992
`
`4/7/1992
`
`8/4/1992
`
`11/10/1992
`
`1/5/1993
`
`2/23/1993
`
`4/13/1993
`
`7/13/1993
`
`8/10/1993
`
`9/14/1993
`
`9/14/1993
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,256,581 to Foerstner
`(“Foerstner ’581”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`10/26/1993
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,258,323 to Sarma (“Sarma ’323”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,343,064 to Spangler (“Spangler ’064”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`11/2/1993
`
`8/30/1994
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,270,221 to Garcia (“Garcia ’221”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`12/14/1993
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,347,154 to Takahashi
`(“Takahashi ’154”)
`
`U.S.A.
`
`9/13/1994
`
`JP S59-048950 Publication to Hayashi (“Hayashi ’950”)
`
`Japan
`
`3/21/1984
`
`JP 64-18248 Publication to Morimoto
`(“Morimoto ’248”)
`
`JP H3-104276A Publication to Sakamoto
`(“Sakamoto ’276”)
`
`JP 03-108776 Publication to Kusunoki
`(“Kusunoki ’776”)
`
`JP 2617-000798 Application to Kusunoki
`(“Kusunoki ’798”)
`
`Japan
`
`1/23/1989
`
`Japan
`
`1/5/1991
`
`Japan
`
`5/8/1991
`
`Japan
`
`5/8/1991
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`000009
`
`

`
`Further, Defendants identify the following prior art non-patent publications that also
`
`anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the ’678 patent:
`
`PRIOR ART REFERENCE: AUTHOR, TITLE, AND PUBLISHER
`
`D. Godbey, et al., Advanced Silicon on Insulator Technology (Naval
`Research Laboratory 1991) (“Advanced Silicon on Insulator Technology”)
`
`Nishimura, Three Dimensional IC for High Performance Image Signal
`Processor, International Electron Devices Meeting (1987) (“Nishimura”)
`
`R. Peter Smith, et al., A New Fabrication Technique for Back-to-Back
`Varactor Diodes, Third International Symposium on Space Terahertz
`Technology (1992) (“Smith”)
`
`Jean-Pierre Colinge, Silicon-on-Insulator Technology: Materials to VLSI
`(Kluwers Academic Publishers, 1991) (“Colinge”)
`
`P.H.L. Notten & J.E.A.M. Van Den Meerakker, Etching of III-V
`Semiconductors: An Electrochemical Approach (Elsevier Advanced
`Technology, 1991) (“Notten”)
`
`Andrew Harter, Three-Dimensional Integrated Circuit Layout (Cambridge
`University Press, 1991) (“Harter”)
`
`S Mahajan & LC Kimerling, Concise Encyclopedia of Semiconducting
`Materials & Related Technologies (Pergamon Press, 1992) (“Mahajan”)
`
`M. Kimura, et al., Epitaxial Film Transfer Technique for Producing Single
`Crystal Si Film on an Insulating Substrate, Appl. Phys. Lett 43 (3) (1983)
`(“Kimura”)
`
`J. Robert Linebeck, Buried Oxide Marks Route to SOI Chips, Electronics
`Week (Oct. 1, 1984) (“Linebeck”)
`
`Tsueno Hamaguchi, et al., Novel SOI Technology Using Preferential
`Polishing, Vol. 56 (NEC Corporation 1987) (“Novel SOI Technology
`Using Preferential Polishing”)
`
`Novel Silicon Based Technologies, NATO ASI Series, Series E: Applied
`Sciences - Vol. 193 (R. A. Levy, ed. 1989) (“Levy”)
`
`Hamaguchi, et al., Novel LSI/SOI Wafer Fabrication Using Device Layer
`Transfer Technique, International Electron Devices Meeting (1985)
`(“Novel LSI/SOI Wafer Fabrication”)
`
`H. Gotou, et al., A 256 kbit SOI-Full-CMOS-SRAM, International Electron
`Devices Meeting (1989) (“Gotou”)
`
`Y. Hayashi, et al, Fabrication of Three-Dimensional IC Using
`Cumulatively Bonded IC (CUBIC) Technology, 1990 Symposium on VLSI
`Technology (“Fabrication of Three-Dimensional IC”)
`
`DATE OF
`PUBLICATION
`
`1991
`
`1987
`
`1992
`
`1991
`
`1991
`
`1991
`
`1992
`
`8/1/1983
`
`10/1/1984
`
`7/2/1987
`
`7/28/1989
`
`12/4/1989
`
`12/6/1989
`
`6/7/1990
`
`CRC Handbook of Metal Etchants (Perrin Walker & William H. Tarn, eds.,
`
`12/11/1990
`
`10
`
`
`
`000010
`
`

`
`PRIOR ART REFERENCE: AUTHOR, TITLE, AND PUBLISHER
`
`CRC Press 1991) (“CRC Handbook”)
`
`Chitra K. Subramanian & Gerold W. Neudeck, A Full-Wafer SOI Process
`for 3 Dimensional Integration, University/Government/Industry
`Microelectronics Symposium (1991) (“Subramanian”)
`
`Michael A. Huff, et al., A Threshold Pressure Switch Utilizing Plastic
`Deformation of Silicon, Solid-State Sensors and Actuators (1991) (“Huff”)
`
`Vincent McNeil, et al., Issues Regarding the Application of the
`Electrochemical Etch-Stop Technique to Fabricate Microstructures Using
`Wafer Bonding, The Electrochemical Society’s First International
`Symposium on Wafer Bonding Science, Technology, and Applications
`(1991) (“McNeil”)
`
`Y. Hayashi, et al., A New Three Dimensional IC Fabrication Technology,
`Stacking Thin Film DUAL-CMOS Layers, International Electron Devices
`Meeting (1991) (“A New Three Dimensional IC Fabrication Technology”)
`
`Andrew L. Robinson, Silicon-on-Insulator Photonics, Rome Laboratory
`(1992) (“Robinson”)
`
`Shuji Takahashi, et al., Characteristics of Thin-Film Devices for a Stack-
`Type MCM, Multi-Chip Module Conference (1992) (“Characteristics of
`Thin-Film Devices”)
`
`Stuart M. Lee, Electrical and Electronic Applications, in Epoxy Resins
`Chemistry and Technology at 832-73 (2d ed., 1988) (“Lee”)
`
`Milton I. Ross, Encapsulation of Electrical Components by Transfer
`Molding vs. Precision-Formed Encapsulation Shells, in Advances in
`Electronic Circuit Packaging, Vol. 4 at 296 (1964) (“Ross”)
`
`
`DATE OF
`PUBLICATION
`
`6/14/1991
`
`6/27/1991
`
`10/17/1991
`
`12/8/1991
`
`3/17/1992
`
`3/20/1992
`
`1988
`
`1964
`
`Furthermore, Defendants rely on all documents and other evidence presented in Sony
`
`Corporation’s Petition for Inter Partes Review, filed on May 14, 2015 and assigned case no.
`
`IPR2015-01201, which was served on Raytheon on the same day. Defendants reserve the right to
`
`assert invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,270,221 to Garcia
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 5,162,251 to Poole.
`
`Defendants identify the following individuals that may have information regarding
`
`activities that may have been carried out in the United States to make the subject matter of the
`
`asserted claims of the’678 patent before the development thereof by the named inventors of
`
`11
`
`
`
`000011
`
`

`
`the’678 patent: Enrique Garcia, Sandy Hook, Connecticut; Richard Poole, Norwalk, Connecticut;
`
`William America, Newtown, Connecticut; Hughes Aircraft Co., Los Angeles, California;
`
`Kunihiro Takahashi, Tokyo, Japan; Yoshikazu Kojima, Tokyo, Japan; Hiroaki Takasu, Tokyo,
`
`Japan; Nobuyoshi Matsuyama, Tokyo, Japan; Hitoshi Niwa, Tokyo, Japan; Tomoyuki Yoshino,
`
`Tokyo, Japan; Tsuneo Yamazaki, Tokyo, Japan; Seiko Instruments, Inc., Japan; Shigeru
`
`Kusonoki, Hyogo, Japan; Mitsubishi Denki K.K., Tokyo, Japan; Yet-Zen Liu, Westlake Village,
`
`California; Rockwell International Corporation, El Segundo, California; Pallab K. Chatterjee,
`
`Dallas, Texas; Texas Instruments Incorporated, Dallas, Texas; Claude L. Bertin, South
`
`Burlington, Vermont; Paul A. Farrar, Sr., South Burlington, Vermont; Howard L. Kalter,
`
`Colchester, Vermont; Gordon A. Kelley, Jr., Essex Junction, Vermont; Willem B. van der
`
`Hoeven, Jericho, Vermont; Francis R. White, Essex, Vermont; IBM Corporation, Armonk, New
`
`York; Mitsutaka Morimoto, Tokyo, Japan; NEC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan; Cheng Paul Wen,
`
`Trenton, New Jersey; Yuen-Sheng Chiang, Trenton, New Jersey; RCA Corporation, New York,
`
`New York.
`
`Defendants’ investigation of the § 102(g) issues is ongoing. Defendants reserve the right
`
`to supplement these contentions as new evidence is developed through discovery.
`
`Further, defendants reserve the right to rely on any admissions made in the specification
`
`of the ’678 patent as to what was known in the art at the time of the invention. By way of
`
`example, the ’678 patent specification admits that at least each of the following were known or
`
`commercially available at the time of the invention: substrates including an etchable layer, an
`
`etch-stop layer, and a wafer layer, (see, e.g., 3:64-4:2); preparation techniques of three-layer
`
`substrates, (see, e.g., 4:22-36); and techniques for forming interconnects to a microelectronic
`
`circuit element (see, e.g., 5:9-14).
`
`12
`
`
`
`000012
`
`

`
`B.
`
`P.R. 3-3(b) Disclosures3
`
`With respect to Patent Rule 3-3(b), Exhibits A-Y specifically identify prior art that
`
`anticipates each asserted claim or renders it obvious. Those exhibits also list prior art references
`
`that, in combination, render the asserted claims invalid as obvious and are hereby incorporated
`
`by reference. In addition to the references specifically identified in Exhibits A-Y, Defendants
`
`reserve the right to rely on admissions in the asserted patents, their file wrappers, and any related
`
`patents or applications regarding the prior art. Defendants further reserve the right to rely on any
`
`of the patents or publications deriving from applications in the claimed priority chain of each
`
`asserted patent. Defendants may also rely on expert testimony, and any additional prior art
`
`located or developed during the course of discovery. Defendants further note that they may rely
`
`on any of the Background sections (e.g., “Background of the Invention”) in any the cited prior
`
`art references in the Patent Rule 3-3(a) disclosures above to demonstrate a motivation to
`
`combine. Defendants may also rely on any U.S. or foreign equivalents of any of the patent or
`
`patent publication prior art references identified in Section II(A).
`
`Defendants’ discussion of the references that anticipate or render the asserted claims
`
`obvious is preliminary. Defendants reserve their rights to amend these contentions based upon
`
`discovery not yet taken, Raytheon’s claim construction positions, Raytheon’s rebuttals to
`
`Defendant’s Section 112 invalidity positions and/or any claim construction order of this Court.
`
`Nothing in these Patent Rule 3-3(b) disclosures should be construed as an admission that any
`
`claim complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
`
`
`
`Any and all citations in the text of Defendant’s Invalidity Contentions are exemplary and in no way limiting.
`13
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`000013
`
`

`
`Additionally, Defendants identify the below exemplary discussion regarding references
`
`that anticipate the asserted claims and/or render those claims obvious. Nothing in that discussion
`
`should be construed as an admission that any particular prior art reference is missing any
`
`limitation required by an asserted claim.
`
`Defendants contend that the asserted claims of the ’678 patent are not entitled to a date of
`
`invention prior to the filing date of application Ser. No. 6,120. To the extent Raytheon presents
`
`evidence sufficient to establish an earlier date of invention so as to antedate the references listed
`
`herein, Defendants reserve the right to rely on said references at least as evidence of
`
`simultaneous invention of the purported invention of the ‘678 patent as a secondary
`
`consideration of obviousness and to establish the knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the time the application leading to the ‘678 patent was filed.
`
`Defendants incorporate herein all invalidity challenges presented in Sony Corporation’s
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, case no. IPR2015-01201.
`
`Defendants contend that the limitations of the asserted claims of the ’678 patent are
`
`disclosed in and taught by the prior art references as set forth in Exhibits A-Y. The asserted
`
`claims are each anticipated (and/or rendered obvious) by the art as set forth below:
`
`PRIOR ART REFERENCE
`
`ASSERTED ’678 PATENT
`CLAIMS ANTICIPATED
`
`1, 6-7, and 9-10
`
`1, 6-7, and 10
`
`1 and 10
`
`1 and 10
`
`1 and 10
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,846,198 to Wen
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,422,091 to Liu
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,889,832 to Chatterjee
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,189,500 to Kusunoki
`
`JP 03-108776 Publication to Kusunoki
`
`14
`
`
`
`000014
`
`

`
`PRIOR ART REFERENCE
`
`ASSERTED ’678 PATENT
`CLAIMS ANTICIPATED
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,202,754 to Bertin
`
`1, 6-7, and 10
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,270,221 to Garcia
`
`1, 5-8, 13, and 18
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,347,154 to Takahashi
`
`1, 5, 8, 13, and 18
`
`JP 64-18248 Publication to Morimoto
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,426,768 to Black
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,227,313 to Gluck
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,244,817 to Hawkins
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,829,018 to Wahlstrom
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,599,792 to Cade
`
`1, 6-7, and 10
`
`1, 6-7, and 9-10
`
`1 and 10
`
`1 and 10
`
`1
`
`1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,343,064 to Spangler
`
`1 and 10
`
`
`
`To the extent any of the asserted claims of the ’678 patent are not anticipated by the prior
`
`art listed above, that prior art, either alone or in combination with any of the other references
`
`listed in Section II(A) and/or the general knowledge of those of skill in the art, render those
`
`claims obvious pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In other words, to the extent that any particular
`
`prior art reference is found not to disclose a particular claim limitation, that reference may be
`
`combined with any of the other prior art references disclosed as possessing that claim limitation
`
`to render the asserted claim obvious. Exemplary combinations are shown in Exhibits K-Y and
`
`are set forth below:
`
`15
`
`
`
`000015
`
`

`
`ASSERTED ’678
`PATENT CLAIMS
`RENDERED
`OBVIOUS
`
`1, 5-10, 13 and 18
`
`1, 5-10, 13 and 18
`
`SECONDARY REFERENCE(S)
`
`Edwards ’334; Mash ’581; Ying ’819;
`Takeda ’238; Liu ’091; Black ’768;
`Gleason ’153; Kurtz ’901; Abernathey ’779;
`Yasumoto ’083; Abernathey ’627; Lin ’847;
`Hwang ’657; Oldham ’718; Short ’078;
`Endo ’475; Malhi ’086; Chatterjee ’832;
`Reisman ’329; Cote ’155; Behr ’328;
`Hayashi ’308; Chatterjee ’266); Godbey ’681;
`Goesele ’723; Rouse ’343; Fujioka ’642;
`Poon ’683; Miura ’993; Sandhu ’002;
`VanVonno ’792; Wittkower ’730; Shiota ’011;
`Fujii ’349; Moslehi ’821; Pronko ’344; Poole
`‘251; Kusunoki ’500; Bertin ’754; Gluck ’313;
`Gonzalez ’856; Yu ’534; Hawkins ’817;
`Sarma ’323; Foerstner ’581; Garcia ’221;
`Takahashi ’154; Kusunoki ’776;
`Morimoto ’248; Sakamoto ’276; Hayashi ’950;
`Advanced Silicon on Insulator Technology;
`Nishimura; Smith; Colinge; Notten; Harter;
`Mahajan; Kimura; Linebeck; Novel SOI
`Technology Using Preferential Polishing; Levy;
`Novel LSI/SOI Wafer Fabrication; Gotou;
`Fabrication of Three-Dimensional IC; CRC
`Handbook; Subramanian; Huff; McNeil; A
`New Three Dimensional IC Fabrication
`Technology; Robinson; Characteristics of Thin-
`Film Devices; Lee; Ross.
`
`Edwards ’334; Mash ’581; Wen ’198;
`Ying ’819; Takeda ’238; Black ’768;
`Gleason ’153; Kurtz ’901; Abernathey ’779;
`Yasumoto ’083; Abernathey ’627; Lin ’847;
`Hwang ’657; Oldham ’718; Short ’078;
`Endo ’475; Malhi ’086; Chatterjee ’832;
`Reisman ’329; Cote ’155; Behr ’328;
`Hayashi ’308; Chatterjee ’266); Godbey ’681;
`Goesele ’723; Rouse ’343; Fujioka ’642;
`Poon ’683; Miura ’993; Sandhu ’002;
`VanVonno ’792; Wittkower ’730; Shiota ’011;
`Fujii ’349; Moslehi ’821; Pronko ’344; Poole
`‘251; Kusunoki ’500; Bertin ’754; Gluck ’313;
`Gonzalez ’856; Yu ’534; Hawkins ’817;
`
`16
`
`PRIMARY
`REFERENCE
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`3,846,198 to Wen
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`4,422,091 to Liu
`
`
`
`000016
`
`

`
`ASSERTED ’678
`PATENT CLAIMS
`RENDERED
`OBVIOUS
`
`1, 5-10, 13 and 18
`
`PRIMARY
`REFERENCE
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`4,889,832 to
`Chatterjee
`
`SECONDARY REFERENCE(S)
`
`Sarma ’323; Foerstner ’581; Garcia ’221;
`Takahashi ’154;Kusunoki ’776;
`Morimoto ’248; Sakamoto ’276; Hayashi ’950;
`Advanced Silicon on Insulator Technology;
`Nishimura; Smith; Colinge; Notten; Harter;
`Mahajan; Kimura; Linebeck; Novel SOI
`Technology Using Preferential Polishing; Levy;
`Novel LSI/SOI Wafer Fabrication; Gotou;
`Fabrication of Three-Dimensional IC; CRC
`Handbook; Subramanian; Huff; McNeil; A
`New Three Dimensional IC Fabrication
`Technology; Robinson; Characteristics of Thin-
`Film Devices; Lee; Ross.
`
`Edwards ’334; Mash ’581; Wen ’198;
`Ying ’819; Takeda ’238; Liu ’091; Black ’768;
`Gleason ’153; Kurtz ’901; Abernathey ’779;
`Yasumoto ’083; Abernathey ’627; Lin ’847;
`Hwang ’657; Oldham ’718; Short ’078;
`Endo ’475; Malhi ’086; Reisman ’329;
`Cote ’155; Behr ’328; Hayashi ’308;
`Chatterjee ’266); Godbey ’681; Goesele ’723;
`Rouse ’343; Fujioka ’642; Poon ’683;
`Miura ’993; Sandhu ’002; VanVonno ’792;
`Wittkower ’730; Shiota ’011; Fujii ’349;
`Moslehi ’821; Pronko ’344; Poole ‘251;
`Kusunoki ’500; Bertin ’754; Gluck ’313;
`Gonzalez ’856; Yu ’534; Hawkins ’817;
`Sarma ’323; Foerstner ’581; Garcia ’221;
`Takahashi ’154; Kusunoki ’776;
`Morimoto ’248; Sakamoto ’276; Hayashi ’950;
`Advanced Silicon on Insulator Technology;
`Nishimura; Smith; Colinge; Notten; Harter;
`Mahajan; Kimura; Linebeck; Novel SOI
`Technology Using Preferential Polishing; Levy;
`Novel LSI/SOI Wafer Fabrication; Gotou;
`Fabrication of Three-Dimensional IC; CRC
`Handbook; Subramanian; Huff; McNeil; A
`New Three Dimensional IC Fabrication
`Technology; Robinson; Characteristics of Thin-
`Film Devices; Lee; Ross.
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`
`Edwards ’334; Mash ’581; Wen ’198;
`
`1, 5-10, 13 and 18
`
`17
`
`
`
`000017
`
`

`
`ASSERTED ’678
`PATENT CLAIMS
`RENDERED
`OBVI