UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-012461
`Patent 7,126,174 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED DURING THE PRELIMINARY PROCEEDING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-01247 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-012461
`Patent 7,126,174 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED DURING THE PRELIMINARY PROCEEDING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-01247 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01246, IPR2016-01247
`
`Patent 7,126,174 B2
`
`In accordance with 37 C .F.R. § 42.64(b)(l), Petitioner Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. hereby submits a list of objections to
`
`Patent Owner IP Bridge’s Exhibits 2001 through 2011 submitted during the
`
`preliminary proceeding, identified in the chart below:
`
`E h'b't
`
`N::,.;.,:..
`
`.
`
`.
`
`2001
`
`Declaration of Dr- E. Fred Schubert, Ph.D. in support of Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response filed in IPR20l6-01246 on October 5, 2016
`
`Schematic illustration of the Chemical Mechanical Polishing process
`from Steigerwald, Murarka, and Gutmann, Chemical Mechanical
`Planarization ofMicroelectronic Materials (1997).
`
`Schematic illustration of the Chemical Mechanical Polishing process
`from the Motorola Company. SCSolutions.com. Accessed September
`30, 2016. http://wvvw.scs0lutions.com/chernical-
`mechanicalplanarization-cmp-controllers-0
`
`Photograph of a Chemical Mechanical Polishing Tool from the Applied
`Materials Company- BusinessWire.com- Accessed October 5, 2016.
`http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2004071 1005007/en/Applied
`—Materials—ReVolutionizes—Planarization—Technology—Breakthrough—
`Reflexion
`
`2005
`
`Troxel, Boning, McIlrath “Semiconductor Process Representation.”
`Wiley Encyclopedia ofElectrical and Electronics, pp. 139 -147 (1999).
`
`2006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,052 319 to Jacobs
`
`2007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,952,656 to Cordova et al.
`
`2008
`
`Hunt, “Low Budget Undergraduate Microelectronics Laboratory.”
`University Government Industry Microelectronics Symposium, pp.
`81-87 (2006).
`
`2009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,074,709 to Young
`
`
`
`IPR20l6-01246, IPR2016-01247
`
`Patent 7,126,174 B2
`
`E l|'b't
`
`Preliminary Response filed in IPR2016-01247 on October 7, 2016 - DeclarationofDr- E. Fred Schubert, Ph.D. in support ofPatentOwner’s
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Burckel, “3D—ICs created using oblique processing.” Advances in
`Patterning Materials and Processes JOCXYII, pp. 1-12 (2016).
`
`I.
`
`Objection to Paragraphs 33-159 of Patent Owner’s Exhibit 2001 and
`Paragraphs 33-149 of Patent Owner’s Exhibit 2011—Unreliable
`“Expert” Testimony
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2001 and 2011 because they contain unreliable
`
`testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. , 509
`
`U.S- 579 (1993). Dr. Schubert’s declaration includes numerous purported “expert”
`
`opinions on matters for which Dr. Schubert has failed to establish himself as an
`
`expert. Based on paragraphs 13—21 of Ex. 2001 and Ex. 20] 1,2 Dr. Schubert has
`
`not established himself as someone possessing sufficient knowledge, skill,
`
`experience, training, and/or education regarding LDD (lightly doped drain)
`
`MOSFETS. Although he may have experience with III-V compound
`
`2 Dr. Schubert claims to have included his curriculum vitae as “Exhibit A”
`
`to Ex. 2001 and Ex. 2011, but no “Exhibit A” appears to have been filed or served
`
`on Petitioner.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01246, IPR2016-01247
`Patent 7,126,174 B2
`
`
`semiconductors and light-emitting devices,3 such devices are vastly different from
`
`the LDD Si MOSFET devices at issue in these proceedings.
`
`Dr. Schubert does not claim to have significant experience designing or
`
`making LDD Si MOSFET devices, let alone during the relevant time period.4
`
`Nevertheless, Dr. Schubert repeatedly opines about the understanding of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art during the relevant period with respect to LDD Si
`
`MOSFET devices.
`
`II. Objection to Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, and
`2010—Failure to Authenticate
`
`Patent Owner has not submitted evidence to authenticate Exhibits 2002,
`
`2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, and 2010, making them inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`901.
`
`
`3 See, e.g., Ex. 2001 & 2011 at ¶¶ 14–16; https://www.rpi.edu/dept/cfes/
`
`researchers/Fred%20Schubert.html (last visited Jan. 7, 2017).
`
`4 Although MOSFETS may be included in some of the subject matter of
`
`courses taught by Dr. Schubert, he provides no evidence regarding the type of
`
`information taught relative to MOSFETs, the depth of its treatment, or why mere
`
`inclusion of MOSFETs in a course establishes him as an expert relative to the
`
`design and fabrication of LDD MOSFETs (or even one of ordinary skill in the art).
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01246, IPR2016-01247
`Patent 7,126,174 B2
`
`
`III. Objection to Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
`2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010—Improper Incorporation By Reference
`
`Neither of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses cites Exhibits 2002, 2003,
`
`2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010; they only appear in Dr. Schubert’s
`
`declarations (Exhibits 2001 and 2011), and therefore are improperly incorporated
`
`by reference in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`IV. Objection to Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
`2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010—Irrelevant and Non-Probative Evidence
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
`
`and 2010 are irrelevant to any material facts at issue in these proceedings, and any
`
`probative value Patent Owner may try to assign them is substantially outweighed
`
`by their tendency to confuse the issues, mislead the Board, waste time, and
`
`needlessly present cumulative evidence. These exhibits are therefore inadmissible
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, and 403.
`
`Citations to Exhibits 2002, 2003, and 2004 appear only in footnotes to
`
`paragraph 61 of Dr. Schubert’s declarations (Exhibits 2001 and 2011). Paragraph
`
`61 of both declarations reads, in its entirety, as follows:
`
`61. CMP is a process that includes a polishing pad that is soaked with
`a chemical solution. The semiconductor wafer is slightly pressed onto
`the polishing pad. The semiconductor wafer and polishing pad are
`subjected to rotating motions to ensure uniformity of the CMP
`process. CMP
`includes a chemical-etching component and a
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01246, IPR2016-01247
`Patent 7,126,174 B2
`
`
`mechanical-polishing component both of which contribute to the
`planarization (or flattening) of the wafer surface. Two schematics of
`the CMP process5 and a photograph of a CMP tool6 are shown below.
`The schematics and photograph show a Si wafer subjected to CMP.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01246, IPR2016-01247
`Patent 7,126,174 B2
`
`
`Footnotes 5 and 6 cite Exhibits 2002, 2003, and 2004 as the sources of the
`
`photographs above. None of the claims at issue in these proceedings, which are
`
`device structure claims, recites CMP or even planarization, making the entire
`
`discussion of CMP irrelevant.
`
`Additionally, Exhibits 2002, 2003, and 2004 all seem to have been published
`
`years after the date of invention (December 1995, see Paper 8, at 13 n.5). Exhibit
`
`2002 bears a copyright date of 2004.5 Exhibit 2003 is an undated Internet
`
`webpage, but it cites U.S. Patent Nos. 7,050,880 and 7,437,206, both of which
`
`were filed in 2003, and cites an image bearing a copyright date from 2000. Exhibit
`
`2004 is an Internet webpage dated July 12, 2004. Because Exhibits 2002, 2003,
`
`and 2004 significantly post-date the invention and provide only “impermissible . . .
`
`later knowledge about later art-related facts,” they have no relevance. In re
`
`Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 605 (CCPA 1977).
`
`The citations to Exhibits 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 also
`
`appear only once, in Dr. Schubert’s declarations, and are cited to support of the
`
`5 Patent Owner attempts to rely on the earlier 1997 copyright date to John
`
`Wiley & Sons, Inc., rather than the 2004 copyright date to WILEY-VCH Verlag
`
`GmbH & Co. KGaA, the name that appears on the reference. Compare Ex. 2001
`
`& 2011 at ¶ 61 n.5, with Ex. 2002 at 4. Even assuming the 1997 date were correct,
`
`that date still post-dates the invention.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01246, IPR2016-01247
`Patent 7,126,174 B2
`
`
`proposition, “The complexity of integrated circuit fabrication is appreciated by the
`
`technical community and widely supported by the technical literature.” Ex. 2001
`
`& 2011 at ¶ 53. The complexity of IC fabrication and the technical community’s
`
`recognition of that premise are not at issue in these proceedings, making these
`
`references irrelevant.
`
`Additionally, Exhibits 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 significantly
`
`post-date the invention and provide only “impermissible . . . later knowledge about
`
`later art-related facts.” In re Hogan, 559 F.2d at 605. They are therefore
`
`irrelevant. Exhibit 2005 bears a date of 1999. Exhibit 2006 was filed in December
`
`1997. Exhibit 2007 was filed in April 2000. Exhibit 2008 bears a date of June
`
`2006. Exhibit 2009 was filed in November 2002. Exhibit 2010 bears a copyright
`
`date of 2016.
`
`V. Objection to Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2003 and 2004—Hearsay
`Petitioner objects to Exhibits 2003 and 2004 to the extent that Patent Owner
`
`relies on their contents for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Exhibits 2003
`
`and 2004 constitute hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801 and 802, and no exception
`
`applies. Exhibits 2003 and 2004 are both third-party websites that bear no
`
`discernable relationship to Dr. Schubert, strongly suggesting that he has no
`
`personal knowledge of the contents contained therein.
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01246, IPR2016-01247
`Patent 7,126,174 B2
`
`
`Dated: January 19, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Darren M. Jiron/
`Darren M. Jiron
`Reg. No. 45,777
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01246, IPR2016-01247
`Patent 7,126,174 B2
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), this is to certify that I served a true and
`
`
`
`correct copy of the Petitioner’s Objections to Patent Owner’s Evidence
`
`Submitted During the Preliminary Proceeding by electronic mail, on this 19th
`
`day of January, 2017, on counsel of record for the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`Neil F. Greenblum
`ngreenblum@gbpatent.com
`
`Michael J. Fink
`mfink@gbpatent.com
`
`Arnold Turk
`aturk@gbpatent.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Lauren K. Young/
`Lauren K. Young
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 19, 2017
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
