In The Matter Of:
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`July 25, 2018
`
`68 Commercial Wharf • Boston, MA 02110
`888.825.3376 - 617.399.0130
`Global Coverage
`court-reporting.com
`
`Original File Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D. 7-25-18.txt
`Min-U-Script® with Word Index
`IP Bridge Exhibit 2232
`TSMC v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`IPR2017-01843
`
`

`

`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Page 1
` 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` 2 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` 3 Case Nos. IPR2017-01841, IPR2017-01843
` 4 Patent 7,893,501
` 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
` 6 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING
` 7 CO., LTD.,
` 8 Petitioner,
` 9 v.
`10 GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`11 Patent Owner.
`12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
`13 VOLUME I Pages 1-181
`14
`15 DEPOSITION OF STANLEY R. SHANFIELD, Ph.D.
`16 Wednesday, July 25, 2018, 9:03 a.m.
`17 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`18 60 State Street
`19 Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`20
`21
`22 --- Reporter: Kimberly A. Smith, CRR, CRC, RDR ---
`23 Realtime Systems Administrator
`24 O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`
`Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`July 25, 2018
`Page 3
`
` 1 APPEARANCES: (continued)
` 2
` 3 Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
` 4 By: Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Esq.
` 5 and Joshua J. Miller, Esq.
` 6 600 Atlantic Avenue
` 7 Boston, MA 02210-2206
` 8 (617) 646-8000
` 9 gerald.hrycyszyn@wolfgreenfield.com
`10 jmiller@wolfgreenfield.com
`11 for the Patent Owner.
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 4
`
` 1 APPEARANCES:
` 2
` 3 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
` 4 By: Michael H. Smith, Esq.
` 5 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
` 6 Washington, D.C. 20006
` 7 (202) 663-6000
` 8 michaelh.smith@wilmerhale.com
` 9 and
`10 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`11 By: Scott Bertulli, Esq.
`12 60 State Street
`13 Boston, MA 02109
`14 (617) 526-6000
`15 scott.bertulli@wilmerhale.com
`16 and
`17 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
`18 By: Willy Chang, Esq.*
`19 8, Li Hsin Road
`20 6 Hsinchu Science Park
`21 Hsinchu 30078, Taiwan
`22 for the Petitioner;
`23
`24 *See pages 23 and 139
`
` 1 I N D E X
` 2
` 3 WITNESS: Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
` 4
` 5 EXAMINATION Page
` 6 Cross-Examination by Mr. Hrycyszyn 6
` 7 AFTERNOON SESSION
` 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Hrycyszyn 59
` 9 Redirect Examination by Mr. Smith 143
`10 Recross-Examination by Mr. Hrycyszyn 157
`11 Redirect Examination by Mr. Smith 167
`12 Recross-Examination by Mr. Hrycyszyn 173
`13
`14 EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION:
`15 Exhibit Description Page
`16 Exhibit 1002 Previously marked 91
`17 Exhibit 1025 Previously marked 136
`18 Exhibit 1026 Previously marked 139
`19 Exhibit 1027 Previously marked 82
`20 Exhibit 1201 Previously marked 9
`21 Exhibit 1202 Previously marked 35
`22 Exhibit 1204 Previously marked 36
`23 Exhibit 1231 Previously marked 81
`24 Exhibit 1232 Previously marked 11
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`(1) Pages 1 - 4
`
`

`

`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Page 5
`
`Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`July 25, 2018
`Page 7
`
` 1 EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION: (continued)
` 2 Exhibit Description Page
` 3 Exhibit 2005 Previously marked 127
` 4 Exhibit 2009 Previously marked 112
` 5 Exhibit 2010 Previously marked 120
` 6
`Exhibit 2023 Annotated Figure 12 of 126
` 7 Igarashi (same as Ex. 2231)
` 8 Exhibit 2202 Previously marked 68
` 9
`Exhibit 2231 Annotated Figure 12 of 126
`10 Igarashi (same as Ex. 2023)
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23 Original exhibit retained by reporter to be returned
`24 to Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks
`
` 1 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
` 2 Q. Do you recall providing declarations in
` 3 this IPR?
` 4 A. Sure.
` 5 Q. Do you remember opining on "film" in this
` 6 IPR?
` 7 A. Yes.
` 8 Q. So I'm asking you, what was your
` 9 understanding of that word "film" that you used in
`10 your declarations?
`11 A. Well, let me take a look. Maybe the best
`12 place to look is in the reply.
`13 So, for example, in paragraph 18 on
`14 page 11 of my reply declaration -- this is the
`15 1843 -- give you a chance to find it -- Figure 5
`16 shows a silicon nitride film 20 and that layer 20
`17 is -- in this Misra reference, is one example of
`18 "film." It's silicon nitride Si 3 and 4, some
`19 hydrogen in there. And it's amorphous layer
`20 material. It's been deposited in one manufacturing
`21 step.
`22 MR. HRYCYSZYN: Object as nonresponsive.
`23 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
`24 Q. So my question is, what was your working
`
`Page 6
`
` 1 STANLEY R. SHANFIELD, Ph.D.,
` 2 having been satisfactorily identified by the
` 3 production of his driver's license, and
` 4 duly sworn by the court reporter, was deposed
` 5 and testified as follows:
` 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION
` 7 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
` 8 Q. Good morning, Dr. Shanfield.
` 9 A. Good morning.
`10 Q. What is a film in the context of the
`11 '501 patent?
`12 A. So maybe in the '501 patent, you could show
`13 me where that word is used and I could give you a
`14 better answer.
`15 Q. So you don't recall in the context of the
`16 '501 patent where "film" is used or where your
`17 declarations in this IPR have been submitted and
`18 focus on?
`19 MR. SMITH: Objection.
`20 THE WITNESS: So I think I can give you
`21 a more accurate and more complete answer if I have
`22 the specific, at least the paragraph or sentence
`23 that refers to "film."
`24
`
`Page 8
` 1 understanding of the term "film" that you applied in
` 2 opining on the claims in this case?
` 3 A. The answer I gave you is an example of that
` 4 and I defined -- or I understood layer 20 as shown
` 5 here is an example of a silicon nitride film. It's
` 6 a layer or layers of material, in this case, that
` 7 are silicon nitride or -- you know, that are on top
` 8 of each other or a single layer, silicon nitride
` 9 being silicon and nitrogen and some hydrogen.
`10 And it's been deposited in one
`11 deposition step. And generally film is a reference
`12 to something -- or a layer that's fairly thin.
`13 Q. So your working understanding of a film is
`14 it's a layer that is relatively thin, or fairly
`15 thin; is that accurate?
`16 MR. SMITH: Objection.
`17 THE WITNESS: No.
`18 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
`19 Q. Then what is your working understanding of
`20 the term "film" as it is used in the claims of the
`21 '501 patent?
`22 A. Well, if you give me the '501 patent, I can
`23 refer to a specific instance of that in the patent
`24 itself. I'd appreciate that. I can't do it by
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`(2) Pages 5 - 8
`
`

`

`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Page 9
`
` 1 memory.
` 2 Q. So you have --
` 3 A. I picked out something in my declaration
` 4 that is a film to give you a sense of my
` 5 understanding of that film.
` 6 Q. So you can't provide me a definition of
` 7 "film" as you understand it and applied in your
` 8 opinions related to the '501 patent?
` 9 MR. SMITH: Objection.
`10 THE WITNESS: No, that's not true. I --
`11 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
`12 Q. Well, that's what I'm asking you to
`13 provide. But so far --
`14 A. I'm asking you for the patents so I can
`15 show you clearly what I mean.
`16 Q. I'm introducing what has been previously
`17 marked as Exhibit 1201. It is titled U.S. Patent
`18 No. 7,893,501.
`19 Do you recognize that document?
`20 A. Yes.
`21 Q. What is it?
`22 A. This is the '501 patent.
`23 Q. Do you remember opining on that patent in
`24 this IPR?
`
`Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`July 25, 2018
`Page 11
` 1 the working definition of "film" that you used in
` 2 this IPR?
` 3 MR. SMITH: Objection.
` 4 THE WITNESS: No.
` 5 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
` 6 Q. So then what is the extent of the working
` 7 definition you used of "film" in this case?
` 8 A. So like I explained, in order to give you a
` 9 good answer, I want to talk about specific context.
`10 In this case, I talked about the gate insulating
`11 film. I can answer any question about, you know,
`12 other film that is mentioned in the '501, explain my
`13 working understanding of it.
`14 Q. So let me draw your attention to
`15 paragraph 19 in your reply brief.
`16 A. Paragraph 19 in which?
`17 Q. I'm introducing what has been previously
`18 marked as Exhibit 1232, "Reply declaration of
`19 Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.," in Case
`20 No. IPR2017-1843.
`21 A. I have a copy.
`22 Q. Do you recognize that document?
`23 A. Yes.
`24 Q. What is it?
`
`Page 10
`
`Page 12
`
` 1 A. Yes, of course.
` 2 Q. Do you remember providing opinions related
` 3 to films in your opinion in this IPR?
` 4 A. I think I answered that. Yes.
` 5 Q. What was your working understanding of the
` 6 term "film" in providing those opinions?
` 7 A. If you go to Claim 1 that's in the
` 8 '501 patent. And I'll start with "a gate electrode
` 9 formed on a [sic] gate insulating film." So in this
`10 case -- and this is the reason I need a specific
`11 reference -- a gate insulating film here is silicon
`12 dioxide grown or some insulating film grown on
`13 silicon, but it's typically silicon dioxide, and the
`14 gate sits on top of that thin layer.
`15 In this case, it's quite thin. It's a
`16 nanometer scale. And it separates the gate because
`17 it's insulating from the active region. So a gate
`18 insulating film formed on the active region, and the
`19 gate electrode formed on the gate insulating film.
`20 In that context, the film is a silicon-
`21 oxygen compound that's a few nanometers thick
`22 deposited or grown in a single deposition step.
`23 And that's my understanding in this case.
`24 Q. So that's the extent of the -- let's say,
`
` 1 A. This is my reply declaration for Case
` 2 No. IPR2017-01843.
` 3 Q. Let me draw your attention to paragraph 19.
` 4 Are you there?
` 5 A. Um-hum, yes.
` 6 Q. Have you had a chance to read that
` 7 paragraph?
` 8 A. One moment. Yes.
` 9 Q. So here you refer to two layers of a single
`10 film, right?
`11 A. What I said was, "no person of ordinary
`12 skill . . . would have considered silicon nitride
`13 film 20 and spacers 23 to be two layers of a single
`14 film."
`15 Q. Do you agree that two layers can form a
`16 single film?
`17 A. The '501 says that a film -- in that case
`18 it's internal stress film -- can include multiple
`19 layers, as long as they apply stress to the
`20 substrate as a whole. So there can be layers as
`21 long as they apply stress to the whole.
`22 Q. So I'm asking about the definition of
`23 "film" more generally. So can two layers make up a
`24 film generally?
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`(3) Pages 9 - 12
`
`

`

`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Page 13
`
`Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`July 25, 2018
`Page 15
`
` 1 MR. SMITH: Objection.
` 2 THE WITNESS: Well, in the sense that I
` 3 just described it, yes. The multiple -- they can
` 4 have multiple layers as long as each of the layers
` 5 applies a stress to the substrate.
` 6 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
` 7 Q. So are you indicating that films, as the
` 8 term "films" is used in the claims of the
` 9 '501 patent, is limited to stress films?
`10 MR. SMITH: Objection.
`11 THE WITNESS: No.
`12 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
`13 Q. So the films that are used in the context
`14 of the '501 patent claims are broader than just
`15 films that apply stress, correct?
`16 A. As I described earlier, the gate insulating
`17 film is not a film intended to apply stress. It's
`18 intended to put an insulator between the gate and
`19 the substrate and reduce -- and keep the density of
`20 charge states low in that interface between the film
`21 and the active region. So clearly, no, that's not
`22 the only function of a film.
`23 There are many functions in general.
`24 But for the specifics of the '501, that's an example
`
` 1 criteria -- what appear to be three criteria:
` 2 process steps, functions, and structures.
` 3 Do you see that?
` 4 A. Those were -- that's a summary of some of
` 5 the reasons why, in my opinion, no one of ordinary
` 6 skill in the art would have thought of these films.
` 7 The film 20, the silicon nitride film and spacer, is
` 8 two layers of the same film.
` 9 Q. So for two adjacent layers to be considered
`10 the same film, is it your opinion that they must be
`11 the same structure formed through the same process
`12 and perform the same function?
`13 MR. SMITH: Objection.
`14 THE WITNESS: That's some of the reasons
`15 why I think someone of ordinary skill would not view
`16 two adjacent films to be two layers of a single
`17 film.
`18 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
`19 Q. So in addition to those three criteria --
`20 same process, same structure, same function -- are
`21 there other criteria that you believe are required
`22 for two adjacent layers to be considered the same
`23 film?
`24 MR. SMITH: Objection.
`
`Page 14
`
` 1 of something that's not a stress film.
` 2 Q. So then in the context of the '501 patent
` 3 claims, can films include more than one layer?
` 4 A. I think I answered that. I said that the
` 5 internal stress films in the '501 don't have to be a
` 6 single layer. They can be multiple layers, but as
` 7 long as each of them applies stress to the substrate
` 8 as a whole.
` 9 Q. So you answered the question specific to
`10 stress films. But the claims aren't limited to
`11 stress films. My question is, in general, do films
`12 require -- or let me rephrase that.
`13 So in the context of the '501 patent
`14 claims, can films include more than one layer?
`15 A. As I mentioned, in the two places where
`16 films are mentioned in the '501, in one case,
`17 internal stress films, the '501 patent explicitly
`18 says that a single -- that the films do not have to
`19 be a single layer. They can be multiple layers.
`20 Q. So let me draw your attention back to
`21 paragraph 19 in your 1843 reply declaration.
`22 Do you see that paragraph?
`23 A. Yes.
`24 Q. So in that paragraph, you talk about three
`
`Page 16
` 1 THE WITNESS: I can think of other ones,
` 2 yes.
` 3 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
` 4 Q. What other ones would those be?
` 5 A. For example, the film could be different
` 6 material.
` 7 Q. Any other criteria that you think applies
` 8 in determining whether adjacent layers are the same
` 9 film?
`10 MR. SMITH: Objection.
`11 THE WITNESS: I -- at the moment --
`12 I mean, I can talk about chemical composition.
`13 So they may have the same description, but the
`14 deposition method being different ends up producing
`15 a film that is going to be different in the detailed
`16 chemistry.
`17 As an example, a film deposited with a
`18 plasma-enhanced CVD system always has hydrogen as
`19 one of the constituents in the amorphous structure.
`20 And a high temperature CVD that's not using plasma
`21 tends to have a much lower level of hydrogen. So I
`22 think that would be yet another aspect that I'd
`23 consider.
`24 Once again, I think these are reasons,
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`(4) Pages 13 - 16
`
`

`

`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Page 17
` 1 not a checklist that must meet these requirements.
` 2 It's what I think a person of ordinary skill in the
` 3 art would view as two layers of a single film. And
` 4 it's clear to me that two layers of a single film
` 5 next to each other -- I'm sorry -- two films next to
` 6 each other deposited in separate process steps
` 7 aren't two layers of a single film.
` 8 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
` 9 Q. So let me ask you about something you said
`10 there. You said that these criteria that you've
`11 been discussing are not a checklist; they're reasons.
`12 What do you mean by "not a checklist"?
`13 A. I am viewing what a person of skill in the
`14 art would consider reasons and, you know,
`15 enumerating those reasons. So this is, in my
`16 opinion, what someone of skill in the art is going
`17 to think and the reasons they would give for not
`18 viewing this as two layers of a single film.
`19 Q. So is it your opinion that sometimes when
`20 layers of a film have separate structures, they
`21 might be the same film, but in other cases, they
`22 wouldn't?
`23 A. You're talking very generally and I'm
`24 talking specifically. We're talking about layers:
`
`Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`July 25, 2018
`Page 19
`
` 1 to be different films.
` 2 Is that accurate?
` 3 MR. SMITH: Objection.
` 4 THE WITNESS: As I explained earlier,
` 5 I am offering that as one reason why a person of
` 6 skill in the art wouldn't review -- wouldn't view
` 7 layer 20 and spacer 23 as two layers of the same
` 8 film. It's clear, in my opinion, that a person of
` 9 skill in the art would not consider those the same
`10 film in two layers.
`11 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
`12 Q. Is that your understanding of "films"
`13 generally, not just specific to layer 20 and 23 in
`14 Misra?
`15 A. Well, you had asked me about paragraph 19.
`16 So that's where I was focusing. Are you asking me
`17 about my understanding of "films" in the '501 patent?
`18 I can answer that too.
`19 Q. So my questions were never specific to
`20 Misra. My questions have all been in the context of
`21 the '501 patent. Are you changing your answers now
`22 to the questions we've been going through?
`23 A. It must have been my misunderstanding.
`24 But you brought my attention to paragraph 19. And
`
`Page 18
` 1 in paragraph 19, the layer 20 and the spacer 23.
` 2 And I'm explaining what a person of
` 3 skill in the art, how they would view those two
` 4 structures, and enumerating the reasons that, in my
` 5 opinion, someone of skill in the art would not
` 6 consider them two layers of a single film.
` 7 Q. My questions are specific to the claims of
` 8 the patent, of which paragraph 19 applies. So I'm
` 9 trying to understand the understanding of the term
`10 "film" you've applied in your opinions regarding the
`11 claims of the '501 patent.
`12 And I understand you've applied a number
`13 of criteria in determining whether or not multiple
`14 layers are the same film. And I'm trying to
`15 understand how you applied those criteria.
`16 Do you understand?
`17 A. I'm offering you my opinion on what someone
`18 of skill in the art would view this claim element in
`19 Claim 1, "a silicon nitride film formed over from
`20 the [sic] side surfaces of the gate electrode to
`21 upper surfaces of the source/drain regions."
`22 Q. Now, my understanding of that term you just
`23 read out from the '501 patent, if multiple layers
`24 have separate structures, you would consider those
`
`Page 20
` 1 paragraph 19 is talking about Figure 5 in Misra, so
` 2 that's --
` 3 Q. Paragraph 19 --
` 4 A. -- why --
` 5 Q. Paragraph 19 applies your understanding of
` 6 "film." And "film" is used in the '501 patent, not
` 7 just in the context of Misra. My questions for you
` 8 are in the context of the '501 patent.
` 9 A. Okay.
`10 Q. Is that clear?
`11 A. Sure.
`12 Q. Do you want to change any of your answers?
`13 A. No.
`14 Q. So just so the record is clear, in the
`15 context of the '501 patent claims, it is your
`16 opinion that if two layers are separate structures,
`17 they would not be considered the same film?
`18 A. I didn't say that.
`19 Q. So do you agree that two adjacent layers
`20 that may be separate structures are the same film?
`21 MR. SMITH: Objection.
`22 THE WITNESS: In my declaration we were
`23 talking about earlier, I was talking about how I
`24 thought a person of skill in the art would view two
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`(5) Pages 17 - 20
`
`

`

`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Page 21
` 1 adjacent films that are formed with a separate
` 2 process, are meant to perform different functions,
` 3 and are separate structures.
` 4 So in that combination of
` 5 characteristics, it's my opinion that they would not
` 6 consider that a single film with two layers.
` 7 MR. HRYCYSZYN: Could you read him back
` 8 the question. Nonresponsive.
` 9 (Record read as requested.)
`10 MR. SMITH: Same objection.
`11 THE WITNESS: And in the context of the
`12 '501 patent is -- my answer is the same. I'm
`13 talking about the '501 patent context, not -- not
`14 beyond that. And there's two films or two areas
`15 where films are discussed. And one of them is the
`16 gate insulating film, and the other is the stress
`17 layers. So I'm answering in that context.
`18 MR. HRYCYSZYN: Can you please read him
`19 back the question again.
`20 (Record read as requested.)
`21 MR. SMITH: Objection.
`22 THE WITNESS: I won't make a general
`23 statement about it. I need to refer to the context
`24 of a particular situation, and then I can give you
`
`Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`July 25, 2018
`Page 23
` 1 understanding I have of "film" as it's used in the
` 2 '501 patent.
` 3 MR. HRYCYSZYN: Why don't we take a
` 4 quick break.
` 5 MR. SMITH: Sure.
` 6 (Recess at 9:38 a.m.,
` 7 resumed at 9:53 a.m.)
` 8 (Mr. Chang is now present.)
` 9 MR. HRYCYSZYN: Back on the record.
`10 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
`11 Q. Dr. Shanfield, if I can draw your attention
`12 back to paragraph 19 in your 1843 reply declaration.
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. So are you there at paragraph 19?
`15 A. Yes.
`16 Q. So in your opinion, silicon nitride film 20
`17 and spacer 23 in prior art reference Misra would not
`18 be considered two layers of the same film because
`19 you consider them to be separate structures formed
`20 through separate processes and performing different
`21 functions; is that accurate?
`22 A. Yes. That's accurate.
`23 Q. Would your opinion be different if they
`24 were considered the same structures?
`
`Page 22
` 1 my opinion of what I think a person of skill in the
` 2 art would view as either a single film with two
` 3 layers or multiple layers or separate films.
` 4 I was trying to provide you a context.
` 5 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
` 6 Q. So do you agree that in the context of the
` 7 '501 patent, two adjacent layers that may be
` 8 separate structures are the same film?
` 9 MR. SMITH: Objection.
`10 THE WITNESS: In the case of the
`11 '501 patent, the question has come up about whether
`12 two adjacent films -- and this time I'll talk about
`13 the structure of the '501 patent, looking at films
`14 8a and 8b in Figure 1 -- and in that situation,
`15 the -- what I opined on was -- is 8a and 8b, are
`16 they -- would you consider -- or what I can opine
`17 on -- I'm sorry -- is, are those adjacent films
`18 really just one film with two layers.
`19 And here they're separate structures.
`20 They're formed in separate process steps. And here
`21 they have the same function. But I would not
`22 consider them two layers of a single film.
`23 So that to me is another relevant -- or
`24 example, and really the most important one, of the
`
`Page 24
` 1 A. Could you show me what you mean by "same
` 2 structures."
` 3 Q. So what I'm trying to understand, if these
` 4 three things -- structures, steps, and functions --
` 5 are all "and"?
` 6 In other words, is it an "and" here? So
` 7 must they be the same function, same structure, and
` 8 same process for multiple layers to be the same
` 9 film? Or is it an "or"? As long as you meet one of
`10 these criterias [sic], adjacent layers can be the
`11 same film?
`12 And I can reword that if it's too long.
`13 A. Well, I think it is an "and" in what I
`14 wrote here. But it also depends on our
`15 understanding of structures as to whether I'm
`16 explaining it to you clearly enough.
`17 The separate structures is one aspect.
`18 The process step is another. To me, those are tied
`19 together. And the fact that they form different
`20 functions yet is further evidence to me that a
`21 person of ordinary skill wouldn't view this as a
`22 single film with two layers.
`23 So hopefully that's clear enough.
`24 I mean, it's an "and."
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`(6) Pages 21 - 24
`
`

`

`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Page 25
` 1 Q. So taking the question out of the specific
` 2 context of these two parts of the device in Misra to
` 3 the '501 patent claims more generally --
` 4 Do you understand the context?
` 5 A. Sure. Yes.
` 6 Q. So in the context of the '501 patent
` 7 claims, the silicon nitride film that is called out,
` 8 if multiple layers, adjacent layers, are not
` 9 considered the same structure and not formed by the
`10 same process and do not perform the same function,
`11 it is your opinion those adjacent multiple layers
`12 are not the same film?
`13 A. I don't understand your question. What do
`14 you mean by "multiple layers"?
`15 Q. So let me reask the question. In the
`16 context of the '501 patent claims, adjacent layers
`17 of a silicon nitride -- So let's try that one more
`18 time.
`19 In the context of the '501 patent, two
`20 adjacent layers of silicon nitride would not be
`21 considered the same film if they did not have the
`22 same structure, were not formed by the same process,
`23 and do not perform the same function? Is that your
`24 opinion?
`
`Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D.
`July 25, 2018
`Page 27
` 1 deposited layer, if those were separated in time,
` 2 you would consider those to be different films?
` 3 Is that accurate?
` 4 A. No. It's the "and" requirement. If a
` 5 film -- a plasma-deposited silicon nitride is put
` 6 down and then another layer of silicon nitride on
` 7 top of that is put down, then in the context of the
` 8 '501 patent, that's still a film, as is pointed out
` 9 in the '501 patent, doesn't have to be a single
`10 layer.
`11 Now, if they're adjacent -- they're
`12 separate structures, I mean -- they're formed with a
`13 separate process, you know, as I said either in
`14 time --
`15 Q. If I can just interrupt you there --
`16 A. Yes.
`17 Q. And I want to understand what you mean by
`18 "if they're adjacent." What does "adjacent" mean to
`19 you?
`20 A. Well, for example, film 8a and 8b shows
`21 them adjacent in Figure 1 of the '501 patent.
`22 Q. So does "adjacent" to you mean like side by
`23 side?
`24 A. Yes.
`
`Page 26
` 1 A. First of all, one thing you said was "not
` 2 formed by the same process." And I think what I
` 3 wrote was "in the same process."
` 4 So in other words, they're performed in
` 5 separate processes. It could be nominally labeled
` 6 the same process, but they're separated, I would
` 7 say, in time, and there are other steps in between.
` 8 Q. So if the same manufacturing step is
` 9 performed twice, but it is separated by some time,
`10 you would consider that to be a different process?
`11 A. In the case of a deposition of a thin film,
`12 it typically is. We'd have to get more specific.
`13 I'm not saying that it's an absolute rule.
`14 The deposition of silicon nitride in a
`15 plasma system in one case, and then in the next step
`16 a few minutes later, those are different, in my view
`17 of -- those are separate process steps.
`18 And the film is different because
`19 that's -- that's something that a person of skill in
`20 the art knows about plasma deposition. So it has
`21 the same label. It's called plasma CVD deposition.
`22 But there is a difference.
`23 Q. So in the context you just described where
`24 you would have two layers of a plasma-enhanced CVD
`
`Page 28
`
` 1 Q. As opposed to one on top of the other?
` 2 A. Well, in the context of the '501, it also
` 3 has to be applying stress to the substrate as a
` 4 whole. So if they're partially on top of each
` 5 other, they're not applying stress to the substrate
` 6 as a whole.
` 7 Q. So in the context of the '501 patent
` 8 claims, if a silicon nitride film does not apply
` 9 stress to the substrate as a whole, is it your
`10 opinion that it could not be made out of multiple
`11 layers?
`12 A. Could you repeat that one more time.
`13 MR. HRYCYSZYN: Could you read it back
`14 to him.
`15 (Record read as requested.)
`16 THE WITNESS: No. That's almost a
`17 non sequitur. Unless I'm not understanding you, I'm
`18 imagining like a little patch of silicon nitride
`19 that's multiple layers. It's not applying stress to
`20 the whole substrate. So it doesn't -- in terms of
`21 what the '501 patent was referring to, that isn't
`22 what they're referring to.
`23 They're talking about layer that will
`24 apply stress over the entire substrate -- over the
`
`Min-U-Script®
`
`O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Solutions
`888.825.3376 - mail@court-reporting.com
`
`(7) Pages 25 - 28
`
`

`

`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v.
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Page 29
` 1 substrate as a whole, meaning really the region that
` 2 matters in the device, in the transistor.
` 3 So I was merely saying that consistent
` 4 with what the '501 patent says, a small patch of
` 5 silicon nitride that doesn't apply stress to the
` 6 substrate as a whole, or really to the transistor as
` 7 a whole, doesn't meet what they're talking about as
` 8 an internal stress film.
` 9 Am I making myself clear, or is -- I can
`10 explain further.
`11 BY MR. HRYCYSZYN:
`12 Q. I guess, let me break it down o