`Patent No. 6,197,696
`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 IPR2016-01376
`Patent 6,197,696
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SECOND SET OF
`OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), the undersigned, on behalf of and acting
`
`in a representative capacity for Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“Patent
`
`Owner”), hereby submits the following objections to Petitioner Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.’s (“Petitioner”) Exhibits as
`
`indicated below, and any reference thereto/reliance thereon, without limitation.
`
`Patent Owner’s objections below apply the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E.”)
`
`as required by 37 C.F.R § 42.62.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`These objections address evidentiary deficiencies in the evidence submitted
`
`Case IPR2016-01376
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`by Petitioner in its Petition.
`
`The following objections apply to the Exhibits indicated below as they are
`
`actually presented by Petitioner, in the context of the Petition and not in the context
`
`of any other substantive argument on the merits of the instituted grounds in this
`
`proceeding. Patent Owner expressly objects to any other purported use of these
`
`Exhibits, including as substantive evidence in this proceeding, which would be
`
`improper under the applicable rules, and Patent Owner expressly asserts, reserves
`
`and does not waive any other objections that would be applicable in such a context.
`
`I. Objections to Exhibit 1049 and Any Reference to/Reliance Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibit 1049 to the Petition, titled “Expert Declaration
`
`of Dr. Bruce W. Smith, Ph.D. in Support of Petitioner’s Reply”
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 401-402 (Relevance); F.R.E. 403 (Excluding
`
`Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons);
`
`F.R.E. 702 (“Testimony by Expert Witnesses”); F.R.E. 703 (“Bases of an Expert’s
`
`Opinion Testimony); and 37 C.F.R. § 42.61 (“Admissibility”).
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1049 under F.R.E. 702 and 703, and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.61. The declarant of Exhibit 1049, Bruce W. Smith, Ph.D., fails to
`
`provide sufficient underlying facts or data upon which the statements contained
`
`therein could legitimately be based, in violation of F.R.E. 702. Dr. Smith has also
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`not “reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case,” and his
`
`Case IPR2016-01376
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`opinions in Exhibit 1049 are not “the product of reliable principles and methods,”
`
`in violation of F.R.E. 702. Furthermore, there is no indication that Dr. Smith based
`
`his opinions on facts or data upon which an expert in the relevant field would
`
`reasonably rely in violation of F.R.E. 703.
`
`Patent Owner further objects to Exhibit 1049 under F.R.E. 401 and 402
`
`(relevance) and F.R.E. 403 (probative value outweighed by prejudice, confusing of
`
`issues, wasting time).
`
`II. Objections to Exhibits 1030, 1031, 1032, and Any Reference to/Reliance
`Thereon
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibits 1030, 1031, and 1032, titled, “James D.
`
`
`
`Plummer et al., ‘Silicon VLSI Technology: Fundamentals, Practice, and Modeling’
`
`(2000),” “C.Y. Chang & S. M. Sze, ‘ULSI Technology’ (1996),” and “S. Wolf &
`
`R.N. Tauber, ‘Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era: Volume 1: Process
`
`Technology’ (1986),” respectively.
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 106 (“Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded
`
`Statements”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay); 37 C.F.R. § 42.61
`
`(“Admissibility”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner fails to provide any evidence of authenticity of Exhibits 1030,
`
`Case IPR2016-01376
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`1031, and 1032, or any evidence of the date on which any of these exhibits were
`
`published or made available, in violation of, inter alia, F.R.E. 901.
`
`Further, Exhibits 1030, 1031, and 1032 appear to be incomplete excerpts of
`
`documents. To the extent the Reply or any other submission of Petitioner purports
`
`to refer to or rely on any of the exhibits, Patent Owner objects to such reference to
`
`or reliance on an isolated portion as incomplete (F.R.E. 403, 106).
`
`Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Smith rely on Exhibits 1030, 1031, and
`
`1032 for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted without
`
`demonstrating that any hearsay exception applies, this violates Rules 801 and 802.
`
`See, e.g., Reply at 4.
`
`III. Objections to Exhibits 1044, 1045, 1046, and Any Reference to/Reliance
`Thereon
`
`
`
`Evidence objected to: Exhibits 1044, 1045, and 1046, titled, “J.M. Moran &
`
`D. Maydan, ‘High Resolution, Steep Profile Resist Patterns,’ J. Vac. Sci. & Tech.,
`
`vol. 16, no. 6 (Nov./Dec. 1979),” “M.M. O’Toole et al., ‘Linewidth Control in
`
`Projection Lithography Using a Multilayer Resist Process,’ IEEE Transactions on
`
`Electron Devices, vol. ED-28, no. 11 (Nov. 1981),” and “E. Bassous et al., ‘A
`
`Three-Layer Resist System for Deep U.V. and RIE Microlithography on
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Nonplanar Surfaces,’ J. Electrochem. Soc.: Solid-State Sci. & Tech. (Feb. 1983),”
`
`Case IPR2016-01376
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`respectively.
`
`Grounds for objection: F.R.E. 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying
`
`Evidence”); F.R.E. 801, 802 (Impermissible Hearsay); 37 C.F.R. § 42.61
`
`(“Admissibility”).
`
`Petitioner fails to provide any evidence of authenticity of Exhibits 1044,
`
`1045, and 1046, or any evidence of the date on which any of these exhibits were
`
`published or made available, in violation of, inter alia, F.R.E. 901.
`
`Also, to the extent Petitioner and Dr. Smith rely on Exhibits 1044, 1045, and
`
`1046 for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted without
`
`demonstrating that any hearsay exception applies, this violates Rules 801 and 802.
`
`See, e.g., Reply at 7.
`
`Dated: July 28, 2017
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`Andrew N. Thomases (Lead counsel)
`Reg. No. 40,841
`ROPES & GRAY, LLP
`1900 University Ave., 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`(650) 617-4000
`andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ James L. Davis, Jr.
`James L. Davis, Jr.
`
`Jordan M. Rossen (Back-up counsel)
`Reg. No. 74,064
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington D.C. 20006-6807
`P: 202-508-4759/F: 617-235-9492
`jordan.rossen@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01376
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`J. Steven Baughman (Back-up
`counsel)
`Reg. No. 47,414
`Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
`Garrison LLP
`2001 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1047
`P: 202-223-7340/F: 202-403-3740
`sbaughman@paulweiss.com
`
`James L. Davis, Jr. (Back-up counsel)
`Reg. No. 57,325
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`P: 650-617-4794/F: 617-235-9492
`james.l.davis@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys For Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of PATENT OWNER’S
`
`Case IPR2016-01376
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`SECOND SET OF OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS has been
`
`served in its entirety by causing the aforementioned document to be electronically
`
`mailed, pursuant to Petitioner’s agreement (Paper 2 at 76 & Paper 23 at 2), to the
`
`following attorneys of record for the Petitioner listed below:
`
`
`Petitioner’s
`Counsel of
`Record:
`
`
`
`
`Darren M. Jiron (Reg. No. 45,777)
`darren.jiron@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`Two Freedom Square,
`11955 Freedom Drive,
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`
`E. Robert Yoches (Reg. No. 30,120)
`bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`
`J. Preston Long (Reg. No. 65,125)
`JP.Long@finnegan.com
`Finnegan , Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner , LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington , DC 20001-4413
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01376
`Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`
`
`
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg (Reg. No. 59,369)
`Joshua.Goldberg@finnegan.com
`Finnegan , Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner , LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington , DC 20001-4413
`
`TSMC-IPB-PTAB@finnegan.com
`
`Dated:
`
`July 28, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Name: Crena Pacheco
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`8
`
`