`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________________
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. and
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________________________
`Case No. IPR2016-013761
`Patent Number 6,197,696
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc., who filed Petition IPR2017-00921, has been joined as
`
`a petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`Patent Owner Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“Patent Owner”) respectfully
`
`moves for observation of the following testimony from the August 2, 2017 cross-
`
`examination by deposition of Dr. Bruce Smith, expert witness for Petitioner
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (“Petitioner” or “TSMC”),
`
`submitted herewith as EX2040.
`
`1.
`
`In EX2040, at 12:14-15:22, Dr. Smith testified about his “interpretation”
`
`of the sentence “In this case the second resist pattern 359 is removed during the
`
`step of etching the organic film 354,” in ¶93 of EX1014 (Petitioner’s Certified
`
`Translation of the ’696 Foreign Priority Document). Dr. Smith testified that he
`
`interprets this sentence to mean “the second resist pattern [359] is at least partially
`
`removed during this step of etching the organic film 354.” EX2040, 15:16-22.2
`
`This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s assertions and Dr. Smith’s allegations at
`
`EX1049 ¶¶34-36, that Patent Owner “mistakenly suggest that the Japanese ’371
`
`application supports step i) of claim 13” because Dr. Smith asserts that “there is no
`
`reason to think second resist pattern 359 is removed before the complete patterning
`
`of layer 354.” EX1049 ¶35; see also Paper 26 (“Reply”) 13. This testimony is
`
`relevant because Petitioner’s and Dr. Smith’s analysis attempts improperly to
`
`
`2 Emphasis added throughout unless otherwise indicated.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`rewrite the Japanese Application’s express disclosures to avoid the ’696 claims
`
`being entitled to their earlier priority date.
`
`2.
`
`In EX2040, at 16:1-17:20, Dr. Smith testified about Figures 16(b) to
`
`16(c) and 19:41-45 of the ’696 patent (EX1001). Dr. Smith was asked, “Is film
`
`354A being used as a mask in etching film 353?” and answered that “It says that
`
`in the specification, but 354A is not – would not be part of the mask that would
`
`be etching 353.” EX2040, 18:3-7. This testimony is relevant because it is
`
`inconsistent with and contradicts, in addition to the ’696 patent specification itself,
`
`(1) Petitioner’s argument that layer 354A is “exposed to act as a mask” (Reply 14),
`
`and (2) the Board’s construction of “using [the designated layer] as a mask,” which
`
`“does not preclude, for example, a layer positioned between an overlying layer and
`
`the layer being etched from acting as a mask … in an instance where the overlying
`
`layer also is removed during the etching, and thus, the between layer acts to shield
`
`the layer being etched during etching” (Paper 11 at 18 n.7). This testimony is also
`
`relevant to Petitioner’s assertion (Reply 8-9) and Dr. Smith’s opinions in EX1049
`
`¶¶20-28 regarding alleged “inconsistencies in the ‘696 patent.” This testimony is
`
`relevant because it illustrates that Dr. Smith’s analysis of Figures 16(c) and 16(d)
`
`of the ’696 patent ignores and contradicts the express language in the specification,
`
`which states, “[n]ext, as shown in FIG. 16(c), the first silicon dioxide film 353 is
`
`dry-etched using the patterned second silicon dioxide film 355A and the patterned
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`organic film 354A as a mask ….” EX1001, 19:41-45. This testimony is also
`
`relevant because it is apparent that Dr. Smith did not recognize the inconsistencies
`
`in his testimony until Petitioner directed his attention to them through a series of
`
`leading questions, and Dr. Smith never addressed or explained those
`
`inconsistencies with his earlier testimony or clarified which interpretation he
`
`applied. EX2040, 59:16-60:3.
`
`3.
`
`In EX2040, at 18:13-20:20, Dr. Smith testified about processing layers
`
`504A, 505A and 503 in Figures 23(b) and 23(c) and 24:7-10 of the ’696 patent
`
`(EX1001). Dr. Smith testified that “[t]he organic -- first organic film 503 is therefore
`
`etched using the patterned first silicon dioxide film 504A as a mask.” EX2040, 19:6-8.
`
`Dr. Smith additionally testified that layer “505A does act as – as the mask for
`
`503” as shown in Figures 23(b) and 23(c), even though Dr. Smith understands the
`
`’696 specification to only say “first organic film 503 is therefore etched using the
`
`patterned first silicon dioxide film 504A as a mask.” EX2040, 20:19-20, 19:2-13
`
`(citing EX1001, 24:7-10). This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s assertions
`
`(Reply 8-9) and Dr. Smith’s opinions in EX1049 ¶¶20-28 and Petitioner’s
`
`arguments regarding purported “inconsistencies in the ’696 patent” concerning
`
`whether a buried layer that has a lateral edge “in line and flush with [a lateral] edge
`
`of” an overlying layer can act as a mask, because it is inconsistent with those
`
`opinions and arguments. Specifically, Dr. Smith previously asserted that the ’696
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`patent is internally inconsistent because, he argued “three examples IPB identified
`
`where a buried layer is called a ‘mask’ in the specification” contradict “at least
`
`seven examples in the specification where a buried layer is not called a ‘mask.’”
`
`EX1049, ¶27. But in the cross-examination testimony, Dr. Smith testified that a
`
`layer “505A does act as – as the mask for 503,” even though the ’696 specification
`
`does not call layer 505A a mask. EX2040, 20:19-20, 19:2-13 (citing EX1001,
`
`24:7-10). This testimony is also relevant to Petitioner’s assertions and Dr. Smith’s
`
`opinions in EX1049 ¶¶30-33 regarding whether “the Japanese ’371 application
`
`supports step h) of claim 13.” EX1049, ¶30; see also Reply 10-11 (“The
`
`specification identifies layer 359, not layer 358, as the mask for etching layer 355
`
`above.”). This cross-examination testimony is relevant because it illustrates
`
`inconsistencies in Petitioner’s and Dr. Smith’s interpretation of the ’696 patent and
`
`the Japanese ’371 application. Dr. Smith previously testified that layer 358 is not
`
`used as a mask to etch layer 355 because the “Japanese ’371 application makes no
`
`mention of using layer 358 as a ‘mask’” (EX1049, ¶31; Reply 11), but on cross-
`
`examination inconsistently testified that “505A does act as – as the mask for 503”
`
`as shown in Figures 23(b) and 23(c), even though this is not described in the
`
`detailed description of the ’696 patent (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 24:7-10). EX2040,
`
`20:19-20.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`In EX2040, at 20:21-22:1, Dr. Smith testified about processing layers 603,
`
`4.
`
`604A, and 605A in Figures 32(a) and 32(b) of the ’696 patent (EX1001). Dr. Smith
`
`testified that “the patent describes 604A as a mask for the etching of the hole 611 into
`
`film 603.” EX2040, 21:16-17. Dr. Smith additionally testified that “605A will act to
`
`mask etching until the film is removed, until that film is completely removed,” as
`
`shown in Figures 32(a) and 32(b). EX2040, 21:20-22:1. This testimony is relevant
`
`to the same opinions in EX1049 ¶¶30-33 regarding whether “the Japanese ’371
`
`application supports step h) of claim 13,” as identified in paragraph 3, above. This
`
`cross-examination testimony is relevant because it illustrates inconsistencies in
`
`Petitioner’s and Dr. Smith’s interpretation of the ’696 patent and the Japanese ’371
`
`application. Dr. Smith previously opined that layer 358 is not used as a mask to
`
`etch layer 355 because the “Japanese ’371 application makes no mention of using
`
`layer 358 as a ‘mask’” (EX1049, ¶31; Reply 11), but now on cross-examination
`
`has inconsistently testified that layer “605A will act to mask etching until the film
`
`[603] is removed” as shown in Figures 32(a) and 32(b), even though this is not
`
`expressly described in the detailed description of the ’696 patent (see, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001, 29:6-12). EX2040, 21:20-22:1.
`
`5.
`
`In EX2040, at 27:13-33:12, Dr. Smith testified that a dry etching process,
`
`such as reactive ion etching, could have a lateral etching component. Dr. Smith
`
`testified that “an RIE [reactive ion etching] process could allow for a – could allow
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`for chemical species to result in an anisotropy”–that is “a lateral effect, a lateral
`
`removal, which could be from the flow of – or the motion of chemical species.”
`
`EX2040, 32:16-33:1. This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s assertion (Reply 5-
`
`6) and Dr. Smith’s opinion at EX1049 ¶¶8-19, regarding the construction of the
`
`term “using the [designated layer] as a mask.” The testimony on cross is relevant
`
`because, while Dr. Smith previously testified that the vertical sidewalls do not play
`
`a role in dry etching, such as RIE, he now admits that there are lateral effects even
`
`in these dry etches. Specifically, Dr. Smith previously opined that “vertical
`
`sidewalls in the opening that defines the pattern being etched do not ‘mask’ the
`
`etch and are not relevant to the masking function.” EX1049 ¶11. Dr. Smith also
`
`opined that “the interior surfaces of the layers above the layer being etched do not
`
`apply the masking role IPB and Dr. Glew suggest.” EX1049 ¶15. Dr. Smith has
`
`also previously used the term “anisotropic” to describe “highly directional,” and
`
`the term “anisotropic etching” to refer to “directional” etching. EX1049 ¶¶13-14
`
`(citing to Plummer (EX1030, 626-27)). Dr. Smith also testified that “[a]nisotropic
`
`etch conventionally is – conventionally is considered to be one direction.”
`
`EX2040, 33:13-18. In contrast, Dr. Smith’s testimony on cross that an RIE process
`
`could result in “anisotropy” where “lateral removal” could occur (e.g., via lateral
`
`flow of etchant) (EX2040, 32:16-33:1), is inconsistent with his aforementioned
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`opinions that vertical sidewalls do not “mask” an etch, at least because vertical
`
`sidewalls block lateral removal and lateral flow of etchant.
`
`6.
`
`In EX2040, at 33:13-38:9, Dr. Smith answered affirmatively when asked
`
`whether reactive ion etching includes “neutral and ionic components,” which
`
`“contribute to lateral removal.” When asked to confirm that “both neutral and ionic
`
`species [are] present in reactive ion etching,” Dr. Smith answered “That’s right.”
`
`EX2040, 36:22-37:3. Dr. Smith testified that “the combination of the chemically
`
`reactive and chemically neutral species, it’s the combination of the chemical etch
`
`and the physical etch, that result in things like anisotropy of an RIE process.”
`
`EX2040, 37:22-38:4. When asked whether “both the neutral and ionic components
`
`contribute to lateral removal,” Dr. Smith replied in the affirmative, “Yes, they
`
`work together.” EX2040, 38:5-9. This testimony is relevant to the same opinions in
`
`EX1049 ¶¶8-19, identified in paragraph 6, above, that “the interior surfaces of the
`
`layers above the layer being etched do not apply the masking role IPB and Dr.
`
`Glew suggest” (EX1049 ¶15), and “anisotropic etching” refers to “directional”
`
`etching (EX1049 ¶¶13-14 (citing to Plummer (EX1030, 626-27))). See also Reply
`
`5-6. Dr. Smith’s testimony on cross is relevant because it confirms that “the
`
`combination of the chemically reactive and chemically neutral species” result in
`
`“anisotropy of an RIE process” (EX2040, 37:22-38:4) and that “both the neutral
`
`and ionic components contribute to lateral removal” (EX2040, 38:5-9). Dr.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`Smith’s testimony on cross is relevant because it is inconsistent with his
`
`aforementioned opinions, and Petitioner’s assertions, that vertical sidewalls do not
`
`“mask” an etch (EX1049 ¶15; Reply 5-6), at least because he now concedes that
`
`the vertical sidewalls block lateral removal and lateral flow of etchant.
`
`7.
`
`In EX2040, at 40:13-50:5, Dr. Smith testified regarding the terms
`
`“transferring … while concurrently removing” and “transferring, at least partially
`
`concurrently removing” in claim 28 of Grill (EX1005). When asked “[w]hat is the
`
`difference between concurrently and partially concurrently,” Dr. Smith testified
`
`that “simply said, concurrently, it wouldn’t cover the situation where one layer is
`
`removed before another layer is completely removed.” EX2040, 44:14-21. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Smith’s opinions at EX1049 ¶¶43-46, and Petitioner’s
`
`related assertions regarding whether Claim 28 of Grill’s non-provisional
`
`application is supported by Grill’s provisional application, and whether Grill can
`
`claim a priority date earlier than its non-provisional filing date. See also Reply 14-
`
`21. This testimony is relevant because it contradicts and is inconsistent with Dr.
`
`Smith’s earlier opinion that “as I [Dr. Smith] understand it, claim 28 recites the
`
`phrase ‘while concurrently removing,’ which indicates the removal process need
`
`not be completed for the claim element to be satisfied”—i.e., that “while
`
`concurrently removing” covers a case where the photoresist layer is not completely
`
`removed as an underlying film is etched. EX1049 ¶46 n.1. This testimony is also
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`relevant because it contradicts and is inconsistent with Petitioner’s assertion that
`
`“claim 28 reads ‘while concurrently removing,’ indicating the removal process
`
`need not be completed.” Reply 21 n.6.
`
`8.
`
`In EX2040, at 47:13-50:5, Dr. Smith testified that the term “transferring
`
`said via pattern … into said second dielectric layer, while concurrently removing
`
`said via-patterned second layer of resist” of Grill’s claim 28 (EX1005, 13:47-50)
`
`covers a case where some of the second layer of resist is removed after the second
`
`dielectric layer is etched. Dr. Smith testified that in meeting this limitation of
`
`Grill’s claim 28, “the photoresist cannot be removed before the dielectric layer is
`
`patterned,” and that some “photoresist is removed” “after the second dielectric
`
`layer is removed in that via pattern.” EX2040, 47:13-20, 48:8-49:2. This testimony
`
`is relevant to Dr. Smith’s previous opinions at EX1049 ¶¶43-46, and Petitioner’s
`
`related assertions regarding whether Claim 28 of Grill’s non-provisional
`
`application is supported by Grill’s provisional application, and whether Grill can
`
`claim a priority date earlier than its non-provisional filing date. See also Reply 14-
`
`21. This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates Petitioner’s and Dr. Smith’s
`
`analysis of claim 28 and whether it is supported by the earlier provisional
`
`application depends upon an improper attempt to rewrite claim 28’s express
`
`language, which requires “transferring said via pattern … into said second
`
`dielectric layer, while concurrently removing said via-patterned second layer of
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`resist,” to include non-concurrent removal of a portion of the second layer of resist
`
`after the second dielectric layer has been etched. This testimony is also relevant
`
`because it is inconsistent with Dr. Smith’s testimony that “simply said,
`
`concurrently, it wouldn’t cover the situation where one layer is removed before
`
`another layer is completely removed.” EX2040, 44:14-21.
`
`9.
`
`In EX2040, at 40:13-50:5, Dr. Smith testified that the difference between
`
`“transferring concurrently” at 13:47-50, and “transferring at least partially
`
`concurrently” at 13:53-57 in Claim 28 of Grill (EX1005) is that 13:53-57 refers to
`
`a “concurrent etch,” whereas 13:47-50 does not because the term “removing said
`
`via-patterned second layer of resist” at 13:47-50 does not refer to the etching of a
`
`film. See EX2040, 41:21-42:21. Dr. Smith testified that “it’s not etching of two
`
`films in that first instance.” EX2040, at 44:12-13. (Dr. Smith used the phrase “first
`
`instance” to refer to “line 47-ish to line 50,” which recites the term “transferring
`
`said via pattern … into said second dielectric layer, while concurrently removing
`
`said via-patterned second layer of resist.” EX2040, at 42:15-17; EX1005, 13:47-
`
`50.) This testimony is relevant to Dr. Smith’s prior opinions at EX1049 ¶¶43-46,
`
`and Petitioner’s related assertions regarding whether Claim 28 of Grill’s non-
`
`provisional application is supported by Grill’s provisional application, and whether
`
`Grill can claim a priority date earlier than its non-provisional filing date. See also
`
`Reply 14-21. This testimony is relevant because it is inconsistent with Dr. Smith’s
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`previous opinions in EX1049, at ¶36, that an “overetch” technique is used to
`
`remove resist pattern 359. This testimony is also relevant because it is inconsistent
`
`with Petitioner’s assertion that the “overetch” technique is used to remove resist
`
`pattern 359. See Reply 13.
`
`10. In EX2040, at 50:6-51:15, Dr. Smith testified about his interpretation of
`
`the term “features” and “substantially” in the following passage of Grill: “dual
`
`relief patterns in which all features of a smaller area (via) pattern substantially
`
`overlap with the features of a larger area (wiring) pattern.” EX1005, 7:25-30.
`
`When asked whether “the features that are being referred to are openings,” Dr.
`
`Smith responded affirmatively “[i]t is the openings … the openings in these two
`
`layers.” EX2040, 51:4-9. Dr. Smith then confirmed that “the features I’m referring
`
`to in that last sentence is the dual relief pattern, which collectively refers to those
`
`openings, yes.” EX2040, 51:10-15. When asked whether the term “substantially”
`
`in Grill’s phrase “a smaller area (via) pattern substantially overlap with the features
`
`of a larger area (wiring) pattern” (EX1005, 7:25-30) would “encompass also the
`
`term ‘completely,’” Dr. Smith answered in the affirmative, “[s]ure, yeah. That’s
`
`right.” EX2040, 51:20-52:1. This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s assertion
`
`(Reply 23-24) and Dr. Smith’s opinion in EX1049 ¶¶55-57 concerning “whether
`
`using Aoyama’s via pattern … eliminates the ‘dual-relief pattern’ Grill teaches”
`
`and that “[t]he dual relief pattern collectively refers to the openings in the blue
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`layer (a wiring pattern) and the green layer (a via pattern),” where the wiring
`
`pattern and via pattern are distinct. This testimony is relevant because Petitioner
`
`and Dr. Smith rely on this sentence from Grill to argue that the dual relief pattern
`
`in Grill would not be eliminated by applying Aoyama’s teachings, but their
`
`interpretation of Grill’s sentence is nonsensical as it would result in the following
`
`understanding that allows for the elimination not only of the dual relief pattern, but
`
`also of the distinction between the wiring pattern and the via entirely: “dual relief
`
`patterns in which all openingsfeatures of a smaller area (via) pattern
`
`completelysubstantially overlap with the openingsfeatures of a larger area
`
`(wiring) pattern.” Cf. EX1005, 7:25-30. That is, this testimony is relevant to show
`
`that Dr. Smith’s understanding of the term “substantially overlap” includes
`
`situations where the feature (i.e., opening) of underlying via pattern shares the
`
`exact same feature (i.e., opening) of an overlying wire pattern, thereby eliminating
`
`the distinction between the via pattern and the wire pattern. This testimony is also
`
`relevant because it is inconsistent with the plain language of Grill, which describes
`
`a “smaller area (via) pattern” and a “larger area (wiring) pattern.” EX1005, 7:22-
`
`30.
`
`11. In EX2040, at 52:2-53:6, Dr. Smith testified that “cross-sections going
`
`into the page” in Grill might look different than what was shown in Grill’s figures.
`
`When asked whether “other cross-sections going into the page might look different
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`than what’s shown in these figures [5A-5H of Grill],” Dr. Smith responded
`
`affirmatively “[s]ure.” EX2040, 53:2-6. This testimony is relevant to what one of
`
`ordinary skill would have understood based on Grill’s figures and the ’696 patent’s
`
`figures. This testimony is also relevant to Dr. Smith’s previous opinions in
`
`EX1049 ¶¶20-28 regarding the construction of the term, “using the [designated
`
`layer] as a mask.” Dr. Smith opined in EX1049 at ¶24 that “the statement in IPB’s
`
`Preliminary Response that ‘there are other cross-sections in which the second resist
`
`pattern and the mask pattern, shown in one cross-section in Figures 22(b) and
`
`22(c), either have edges lined up and flush with one another” is untrue. EX1049
`
`¶24 (citing Paper 6 at 42). Dr. Smith’s cross-examination testimony is relevant
`
`because, in confirming that other cross-sections of Grill’s figures 5A-5H going into
`
`the page “might look different that what’s shown,” it contradicts his earlier opinion
`
`that no such cross-sections proposed by Patent Owner in the preliminary response
`
`could exist. Paper 6 at 42.
`
`12. In EX2040, at 53:7-16, Dr. Smith testified that 8:24-31 of Grill (EX1005)
`
`describes Grill’s Figure 6A. When asked whether “this portion of Grill [column 8,
`
`lines 24 to 31] is describing Figure 6A,” Dr. Smith responded affirmatively,
`
`“[T]hat's what it -- the paragraph starts off saying Figure 6A shows, so, yes, I
`
`believe that's true.” EX2040, 53:7-13. When asked whether “this passage, Column
`
`8, 24 to 31, describes Figure 5,” Dr. Smith responded negatively, “No. It says
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`Figure 6A.” EX2040, 53:14-16. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Smith’s prior
`
`opinions in EX1049 ¶65 and ¶73, regarding thicknesses of films in Figures 5A-5H
`
`of Grill, and whether a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have
`
`been motivated to combine Grill with Aoyama in the manner proposed by
`
`Petitioner. This testimony on cross is relevant because it shows that Dr. Smith
`
`improperly imported descriptions from Grill’s embodiment of Figure 6A into
`
`Grill’s embodiment of Figures 5A-5H. Dr. Smith’s testimony on cross that the
`
`passage in Grill (EX1005) at 8:24-31 describes Figure 6A, and not Figure 5,
`
`contradicts Dr. Smith’s opinion (1) in EX1049 at ¶65 that “Grill’s hard mask
`
`layers [of Figures 5A-5H] are about 20 to 50 nm thick,” and (2) at ¶73 that
`
`“interlevel dielectric layer 58 [of Figures 5A-5H] is only about 20 to 50 nm thick,”
`
`because he is deriving those measurements from the portions describing Figure 6.
`
`13. In EX2040, at 53:17-54:11, Dr. Smith testified that he could not recall
`
`where the ’696 patent or the ’696 foreign priority document discussed “overetch.”
`
`When asked “[d]o you remember seeing the term ‘overetch’ in the ’696 patent?”
`
`Dr. Smith responded “I can’t recall.” EX2040, 54:4-6. When asked “[d]o you
`
`recall seeing the term ‘overetch’ in the Japanese ’371 application?” Dr. Smith
`
`responded “I can’t recall.” EX2040, 54:7-11. This testimony is relevant to the issue
`
`of whether the ’696 patent can claim priority to its foreign priority document. In
`
`particular, this testimony is relevant to Dr. Smith’s prior opinions at EX1049 ¶¶35-
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`36 and Petitioner’s argument that the ’696 patent’s foreign priority document (the
`
`Japanese ’371 application) does not disclose using layer 355 as a mask. See also
`
`Reply 13-14. Dr. Smith opined that layer 355 was not used as a mask because
`
`“those of ordinary skill in the art would have already understood from their
`
`training that it would be common for layer 354 to be patterned before completely
`
`removing the remnants of second resist pattern 359” in a “technique, called
`
`‘overetch.’” EX1049 ¶36. However, Dr. Smith’s testimony on cross that he cannot
`
`recall the term “overetch” being used in either the ’696 patent or the Japanese ’371
`
`application is relevant because it shows that in his prior testimony Dr. Smith is
`
`importing teachings into the ’696 patent and the Japanese ’371 application.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`Dated: August 15, 2017
`
`
`
`Jordan M. Rossen
`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
`
`James L. Davis, Jr.
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted by:
`
` /James L. Davis, Jr./
`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/F: 617-235-9492
`andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`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
`
`Attorneys For Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01376
`U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this PATENT OWNER’S
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS EXAMINATION was served
`
`by filing this document through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board PTAB
`
`E2E, as well as providing a courtesy copy via e-mail to the following
`
`attorneys of record for the Petitioner listed below:
`
`Petitioner TSMC’s Counsel of Record:
`
`Darren M. Jiron, Darren.jiron@finnegan.com
`E. Robert Yoches, bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`J. Preston Long, j.preston.long@finnegan.com
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Joshua.Goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`ATTN: Patent Administration, Two Freedom Square, 11955 Freedom Drive,
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`
`Petitioner GlobalFoundries’s Counsel of Record:
`
`Christopher Carroll, christopher.carroll@whitecase.com
`75 State St, Boston, MA 02109-1814
`Shamita Etienne-Cummings, setienne@whitecase.com
`701 Thirteenth St NW, Washington, DC 20005-3807
`
`WHITE & CASE, LLP
`Dated:
`August 15, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Name: Crena Pacheco
`
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`
`
`