`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2017-018411
`Patent 7,893,501
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SERVED WITH
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01842 has been consolidated with this proceeding．
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Patent Owner submits the following
`
`objections to evidence served in connection with the Petitioner’s Reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Response. These objections have been timely filed and served within five
`
`business days of the service of evidence to which the objection is directed.
`
`Exhibit 1025 is a patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,389,810, “Agata”). Patent
`
`Owner objects to Exhibit 1025 as new evidence that is not properly included in a
`
`reply as it is only cited in Petitioner’s Reply to support new arguments. See Paper
`
`No. 22 at pp. 10-13. Accordingly, Exhibit 1025 is irrelevant and/or substantially
`
`more prejudicial than probative pursuant to F.R.E. 401, 402, and 403
`
`Exhibit 1026 is a patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,618,607, “Rashed”). Patent
`
`Owner objects to Exhibit 1026 as new evidence that is not properly included in a
`
`reply as it is only cited in Petitioner’s Reply to support new arguments. See Paper
`
`No. 22 at pp. 10-13. Accordingly, Exhibit 1026 is irrelevant and/or substantially
`
`more prejudicial than probative pursuant to F.R.E. 401, 402, and 403. Patent
`
`Owner also objects to Exhibit 1026 pursuant to F.R.E. 401, 402, and 403 because
`
`Exhibit 1026 issued from an application which was filed on July 2, 2012 (see
`
`Exhibit 1026), more than 9 years after the priority date of the ’501 Patent.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that Rashed has any bearing on claim
`
`construction or the knowledge of a POSA at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1027 is the Reply Declaration of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`Several portions of Exhibit 1027 contain new evidence and/or support for new
`
`theories that are not properly included in a reply as they are only cited in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to support new arguments. Patent Owner objects to the
`
`following portions because they are an improper reply and are therefore irrelevant
`
`and/or substantially more prejudicial than probative pursuant to F.R.E. 401, 402,
`
`and 403.
`
`• Exhibit 1027, ¶ 5 improperly raises a new argument that it would have
`
`been obvious to apply Igarashi’s teaching of isolation regions to
`
`Igarashi’s Fifth Embodiment that is only cited in Petitioner’s Reply to
`
`support new arguments. See Paper No. 22 at p. 3.
`
`• Exhibit 1027, ¶¶ 19, 37-39 improperly raise a new argument that it
`
`would have been obvious based on Woerlee to use isolation regions in
`
`Igarashi’s Fifth Embodiment that is only cited in Petitioner’s Reply to
`
`support new arguments. See Paper No. 22 at pp. 14, 26, 28.
`
`• Exhibit 1027, ¶ 19 improperly raises a new argument that transistors
`
`that do not use isolation regions still have active region because the
`
`absence of an isolation region does not signify the absence of an
`
`active region that is only cited in Petitioner’s Reply to support new
`
`arguments. See Paper No. 22 at p. 14.
`
`
`
`• Exhibit 1027, ¶ 29 improperly raises a new argument that there is one
`
`active region in the TSMC-modified Figure 12 of Igarashi that is only
`
`cited in Petitioner’s Reply to support new arguments. See Paper No.
`
`22 at pp. 19-20.
`
`• Exhibit 1027, ¶ 16-18 improperly raise a new argument that where
`
`two transistors share a drain, both transistors are formed within the
`
`same active region that is only cited in Petitioner’s Reply to support
`
`new arguments. See Paper No. 22 at pp. 10-13. Further, these
`
`paragraphs discuss Exhibits 1025 and 1026 which as discussed above
`
`are new evidence that is not properly included in a reply.
`
`Furthermore, the discussion of Exhibit 1026 in these paragraphs is
`
`irrelevant and/or substantially more prejudicial than probative because
`
`Exhibit 1026 issued from an application which was filed more than 9
`
`years after the priority date of the ’501 Patent.
`
`Dated: July 13, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`By /Gerald B. Hrycyszyn /
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Reg. No. 50,474
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Edmund J. Walsh, Reg. No. 32,950
`Joshua J. Miller (admitted pro hac vice)
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Ave.
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`Tel: 617-646-8000/Fax: 617-646-8646
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.6 (e)(4)
`
`I certify that on July 13, 2018 I will cause a copy of the foregoing document
`
`
`
`
`to be served via electronic mail, as previously consented to by Petitioner, upon the
`
`following:
`
`
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Dominic.Massa@wilmerhale.com
`
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dominic E. Massa
`
`Michael H. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 13, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/MacAulay Rush/
`MacAulay Rush
`Patent Paralegal
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
