`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 40
`Entered: September 14, 2018
`
`
`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 IPR2017-018431
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Acting Vice Chief Administrative Patent
`Judge, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Authorizing Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5; 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01844 has been consolidated with Case IPR2017-01843.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`
`The parties came before the Board for a regularly scheduled oral
`argument on September 6, 2018. See Paper 36 (trial hearing order). Oral
`argument was heard by Judges Haapala, Arbes, and Chagnon.2 In the
`particular circumstances of this case, we exercise our discretion under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(d) to authorize the following additional post-hearing
`briefing.
`Patent Owner is authorized, but not required, to file a sur-reply brief,
`to Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 22, “Reply”) on or before October 5, 2018.
`Patent Owner’s sur-reply is limited to addressing Petitioner’s arguments
`regarding whether Misra3 teaches that its spacers 23 may be formed of a
`material other than silicon nitride, such as thermally grown silicon dioxide
`(see Reply 2, 4–6 (Section II)).4 Patent Owner’s sur-reply shall be limited to
`four (4) pages, not including the cover sheet or certificate of service. Patent
`Owner is not authorized to introduce any new evidence. Any statements,
`explanations, or arguments presented in the brief may only be supported by
`citations to materials in the current record.
`
`
`2 The transcript for the oral hearing is not yet in the record.
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,960,270, issued Sept. 28, 1999 (Ex. 1204).
`4 We recognize that Patent Owner asserts this argument in Petitioner’s Reply
`is improper in that it allegedly “change[s] Petitioner’s theory of
`unpatentability based on a new argument.” See Paper 27 (Patent Owner’s
`Identification of Improper New Argument in Petitioner’s Reply). We have
`not yet made a determination in this regard, and will address this issue in the
`Final Written Decision. We, however, provide Patent Owner this
`opportunity to respond substantively to Petitioner’s reply argument in the
`event we determine that the arguments presented by Petitioner are within the
`proper scope of reply.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01843
`Patent 7,893,501 B2
`
`
`If Patent Owner elects not to timely file a brief, Patent Owner will be
`deemed to have waived the right to brief this issue or otherwise be heard on
`this issue before entry of a Final Written Decision.
`No further briefing is authorized at this time.
`
`It is SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Dominic E. Massa
`Michael H. Smith
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Dominic.Massa@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn
`Richard F. Giunta
`Edmund J. Walsh
`Joshua J. Miller
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`GHrycyszyn-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`EWalsh-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`joshua.miller@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`3
`
`