throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.:
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.:
`Filing Date:
`Title:
`
`Shunpei Yamazaki et al.
`9,293,545 Attorney Docket No.: 12732-1924IP1
`March 22, 2016
`14/451,680
`August 5, 2014
`SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
`
`DECLARATION OF Michael Lebby, Ph.D.
`
`I, Michael Lebby, Ph.D., of San Francisco, CA, declare that:
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`
`1.
`
`I am currently the CEO of Oculi LLC and the CEO & Director of
`
`Lightwave Logic. Oculi LLC is my consulting company where I undertake my
`
`expert witness work. Lightwave Logic is a technology company based in Denver,
`
`Colorado that is developing optical polymers for fiber optic communications. I
`
`have testified as an expert witness and consultant in patent and intellectual
`
`property litigation as well as inter partes reviews and re-examination proceedings.
`
`My curriculum vitae is provided (as SEL2002).
`
`2.
`
`I also serve as a Technical Expert/Consultant for the Photonics Unit of
`
`the European Commission. My role is to advise the European Commission in
`
`matters that are photonics technology based that have included for example:
`
`displays, fiber optic communications, sensing, medical, and biological
`
`applications.
`
`1
`
`SEL 2001
`Bluehouse v. SEL
`IPR2018-01393
`
`

`

`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering degree in 1984, a
`
`Master of Business Administration in 1985, and a Doctorate degree in 1987, all
`
`from University of Bradford in the United Kingdom. My Ph.D. thesis involved the
`
`design and fabrication of both optoelectronic and electronic semiconductor
`
`devices, and their associated characterization. In 2004, I was awarded a Doctor of
`
`Engineering degree from University of Bradford for my technical contributions to
`
`the field, with citation to “Technical Contributions to Optoelectronics.”
`
`4.
`
`As described in my curriculum vitae (attached as SEL2002), I have
`
`over 30 years of experience in the field of optoelectronics, photonics, and
`
`electronic engineering including extensive experience in the research,
`
`development, fabrication, and manufacture of semiconductor devices, organic
`
`technology, and associated packaging for optical applications such as fiber optic
`
`links, general lighting, displays, sensing, etc.
`
`5.
`
`My career started in the late 1970s at the Ministry of Defense in UK
`
`where I spent time at their R&D facility in Malvern (RSRE – Royal Signals and
`
`Radar Establishment). I worked on semiconductor device design, fabrication, and
`
`characterization. My research work in semiconductor device design then took me
`
`to AT&T Bell Laboratories in 1985 where I pursued research in novel device
`
`designs using III-V semiconductor material systems. The devices researched
`
`became the subject of my Ph.D. thesis that was granted in 1987.
`
`2
`
`

`

`6.
`
`I moved to Motorola in 1989 to further develop my semiconductor
`
`engineering and packaging skills and became a Research and Development
`
`Manager for Motorola in the photonics division until I left the company in 1998.
`
`During my time at Motorola, I worked on many electronic and photonic
`
`technology projects that included optical interconnects, displays, LEDs, LCDs,
`
`lasers, detectors, opto-couplers, integrated circuits (analog and digital), etc., as well
`
`as the packaging and reliability of mobile prototypes. At that time, I was
`
`particularly interested in miniature displays using a number of technologies such as
`
`LEDs, lasers, LCDs, and organic LEDs. I also worked with driver and receiver
`
`based integrated circuits. I collaborated with Motorola’s mobile division on new
`
`and novel display prototypes, and patented a number of new concepts that include
`
`an electronic book, electronic wallet, spectacle/eyeglass and binocular based
`
`mobile phone designs. I also patented a new semiconductor laser that had potential
`
`to be manufactured in high volume. This device was called a VCSEL (vertical
`
`cavity surface emitting laser), and is now the basis for the highest volume
`
`semiconductor laser today with its recent implementation into Apple’s new iPhone
`
`Face ID system. I also initiated Motorola’s work in optical interconnect
`
`(Optobus™) and was involved in the IC chip designs that this parallel interconnect
`
`module utilized. During this period, I was one of Motorola’s most prolific
`
`inventors, having over 150 issued utility patents as inventor or co-inventor. Many
`
`3
`
`

`

`of the photonics prototypes were subjected to reliability and stress testing that
`
`included humidity, temperature, optical, mechanical, and electrical evaluation.
`
`7.
`
`Between 1998 and 1999, I worked as the Director of Technology/ BD
`
`(Fiber Optics) for Tyco Electronics (previously AMP). I joined Tyco Electronics
`
`as a member of the Global Optoelectronics Division’s management team. There, I
`
`was responsible for growing the optoelectronics business through external
`
`interactions that include mergers, acquisitions, strategic alliances, and technical
`
`strategic planning. Much of that work was photonics based that included designing
`
`and characterizing photonics-based modules for customer qualification
`
`specifications.
`
`8.
`
`In 1999, I left Tyco and started employment at Intel. At Intel, I was
`
`involved heavily in photonic technology and especially those that supported silicon
`
`photonic device platforms. As a culmination of this work, I was one of Intel’s
`
`founders of its silicon photonics division in the year 2000, and worked to set up a
`
`design facility in South San Jose, California. The work looked at integrating
`
`silicon FET electronics with optoelectronics onto the same silicon semiconductor
`
`wafer. I was also part of Intel Capital’s optical investment team, and participated
`
`on over 30 photonics investments into photonics that included displays and liquid
`
`crystal on silicon (LCOS). Technologies invested included detectors, lasers,
`
`LEDs, LCDs, and displays.
`
`4
`
`

`

`9.
`
`In 2001, I founded a fiber optics transceiver company called Ignis
`
`Optics that developed and manufactured high speed fiber optic transceivers.
`
`Included in the design were micro-controllers as well as standard integrated circuit
`
`technology that was designed to both transmit and receive fiber optic data signals.
`
`10.
`
`In 2005, I took up employment with a trade association called OIDA
`
`based in Washington DC. As the head of this trade association, and with photonics
`
`manufacturers that included fiber optics, display, sensing, defense, aerospace,
`
`lighting, and automotive vendors as members, I was responsible in part for
`
`industry-based technology roadmaps and implemented common industry roadmap
`
`methodologies with common features such as “Red Brick Walls” and transferred
`
`them into optoelectronics roadmaps for the industry where displays were featured.
`
`11.
`
`In 2010, I became the General Manager and CTO of Translucent, Inc.,
`
`a high-tech start-up company which developed and manufactured silicon and rare
`
`earth oxide based epitaxial semiconductor wafers. One of the key drivers at
`
`Translucent was to develop a new and novel platform for the growth of GaN and
`
`InGaN onto silicon for low cost LED as well as power FET manufacturing.
`
`Translucent pioneered the deposition of single crystal rare earth oxides such as
`
`Erbium Oxide (ErOx), Gadolinium Oxide (GdOx), Neodymium Oxide (NdOx),
`
`etc., that when grown, single crystal layers of GaN/InGaN/AlN could be grown on
`
`top of them. This allows a lattice-matched, and monolithic based wafer template to
`
`5
`
`

`

`be manufactured for LED and FET fabrication. While at Translucent, I invented
`
`various epitaxial semiconductor layer structures that utilized rare earth oxide
`
`technology to improve the performance of LEDs and FETs. Other material growth
`
`work at Translucent focused on the growth of Silicon Germanium (SiGe)
`
`compounds with rare earth oxides, and various crystal orientation wafer substrates.
`
`Electrical contacts to devices developed at Translucent included the use of ITO
`
`(Indium Tin Oxide), Indium Oxide (IO), and other transparent conducting oxide
`
`(TCO) compounds.
`
`12. As discussed in more detail in my curriculum vitae, I have continued
`
`to work in the semiconductor, electronics, optoelectronics and packaging field
`
`throughout my career.
`
`13.
`
`Throughout my career I have also had an active role in a number of
`
`technical, professional organizations, including, among others, IEEE Components,
`
`Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology (CPMT), IEEE Electronic Components
`
`and Technology Conferences (ECTC); IEEE TC-10 (Technical Committee on
`
`Optoelectronics), and IEEE Optoelectronics Industry Development Association
`
`(OIDA). Through these organizations, I have consistently been a part of
`
`committees, events, and workshops relating to semiconductor, optoelectronics,
`
`electronics and packaging technology.
`
`6
`
`

`

`14. My work has also led to over 200 utility patents in semiconductors,
`
`electronics, and optoelectronics, and includes a number of patents relating to
`
`photonics-based displays both from a technology platform perspective as well as a
`
`packaging perspective. I am the author of more than 60 publications in the field of
`
`optoelectronics.
`
`15.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`stated in this declaration and could testify competently to them if asked to do so.
`
`16. My compensation is in no way dependent upon or contingent upon the
`
`opinions and testimony that I render during the course of this case. My findings
`
`are based on my education, experience, and background in the fields discussed
`
`below.
`
`17.
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in the fields of
`
`electronics and photonics and my experience in working with others involved in
`
`those fields at companies such as the British Government, Motorola, AT&T Bell
`
`Labs, Intel, etc. In addition, I have analyzed the following publications and
`
`materials, in addition to other materials I cite in my declaration:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01393 Petition for Inter Partes Review (“petition”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,293,545 (“the ’545 patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`Declaration of Richard A. Flasck (Ex. 1003)
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`United States Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0299693 to
`
`Toyota et al. (“Toyota”) (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`
`United States Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0072439 to
`
`Akimoto et al. (“Akimoto”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`United States Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0173752 to
`
`Chung et al. (“Chung”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF SKILL IN THE ART WOULD
`HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’545 PATENT
`
`Brief Overview of the ’545 Patent
`
`18.
`
`Flat-panel displays such as those used in televisions and smartphones
`
`can include semiconductor devices such as thin-film transistors (TFTs). A TFT is
`
`a field-effect transistor (FET) formed by depositing a thin film of a semiconductor
`
`over an insulating substrate such as glass. The semiconductor used in a TFT can
`
`include a silicon semiconductor or an oxide semiconductor.
`
`19.
`
`Semiconductors can be classified according to the polarity of their
`
`majority charge carriers into two different types: n-type and p-type. N-type
`
`semiconductors have majority carriers with negative charge (electrons). P-type
`
`semiconductors have majority carriers with positive charge (holes). The majority
`
`carrier type of a silicon semiconductor is controlled by doping the semiconductor
`
`with impurity atoms. Impurity atoms act as either donors or acceptors and change
`
`the electron and hole concentrations of the silicon semiconductor.
`
`8
`
`

`

`20.
`
`In a silicon semiconductor, impurity doping is used to increase the
`
`number of electrons or holes in the silicon semiconductor. For example, a p-type
`
`silicon semiconductor is formed when silicon is doped with acceptors, such as
`
`boron (B) atoms, so that the majority carriers are holes. An n-type semiconductor
`
`is formed when silicon is doped with donors, such as phosphorus (P) atoms, so that
`
`the majority carriers are electrons. The semiconductor layer of a transistor can
`
`include an n-type silicon semiconductor, a p-type silicon semiconductor, or both.
`
`In addition, an ohmic contact of a metal to the semiconductor can be created by
`
`heavily doping regions of a silicon semiconductor. Silicon semiconductors can be
`
`used to form complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) transistors.
`
`21.
`
`The ’545 patent generally relates to a semiconductor device having,
`
`among other layers, an oxide semiconductor layer. Ex. 1001 at 1:44-56, 2:37-43,
`
`3:13-26, 11:13-15. An oxide semiconductor exhibits different characteristics from
`
`a silicon semiconductor. For example, an oxide semiconductor is difficult to dope
`
`with impurities to control the majority carrier type or to create metal-
`
`semiconductor ohmic contacts. Currently, a transistor with favorable
`
`characteristics can be formed using an n-type oxide semiconductor, but is difficult
`
`to form using a p-type oxide semiconductor. Therefore, CMOS transistors may be
`
`difficult to form using an oxide semiconductor.
`
`9
`
`

`

`22. A conventional TFT may exhibit electric field intensity concentrated
`
`in the oxide semiconductor layer at and near either the boundary separating the
`
`source electrode from the channel formation region of the oxide semiconductor
`
`layer or the boundary separating the drain electrode from the channel formation
`
`region of the oxide semiconductor layer, a representation of which is shown in the
`
`figure below.
`
`In practice, an upper part of an area where the electric field concentration occurs
`
`may be narrower than a lower part of the area where the electric field concentration
`
`occurs, a representation of which is shown in the figure below.
`
`The increased concentration of charge carriers induced at the location of the
`
`concentrated electric field intensity can affect movement of the charge carriers in
`
`the channel formation region and cause deterioration of the TFT’s switching
`
`characteristics and transistor performance.
`
`23.
`
`To address these problems, I understand that Patent Owner developed
`
`a bottom-gate TFT having an oxide semiconductor layer where the two side
`
`10
`
`

`

`surfaces of the source and drain electrodes, which face each other, each have a
`
`tapered portion so that the distance from the top to the bottom of the side surface of
`
`each electrode is increased. Ex. 1001 at 3:34-45, 12:13-20. The inventors of the
`
`’545 patent advanced the state of the art using such a configuration for a bottom-
`
`gate TFT having an oxide semiconductor layer, which provides the capability to
`
`relax electric field concentration in the oxide semiconductor layer and suppress
`
`deterioration of the TFT’s switching characteristics. Ex. 1001 at 1:38-43, 2:63-
`
`3:12, 3:34-59, 6:38-48, 10:5-54, 12:13-20. The ’545 patent discloses that a TFT
`
`with such a configuration may allow the region of the oxide semiconductor layer at
`
`and near either the boundary separating the source electrode from the channel
`
`formation region of the oxide semiconductor layer or the boundary separating the
`
`drain electrode from the channel formation region of the oxide semiconductor layer
`
`to function as an electric-field relaxation region that relaxes the electric field
`
`concentration. Ex. 1001 at 3:9-12.
`
`24.
`
`FIG. 2 of the ’545 patent shows an example of a TFT with such a
`
`configuration. FIG. 2 of the ’545 patent is reproduced below. FIG. 2 has been
`
`annotated to highlight the source electrode (red layer), the drain electrode (blue
`
`layer), and the oxide semiconductor (purple layer).
`
`11
`
`

`

`’545 Patent (Ex. 1001), FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`For the transistor shown above, a bottom portion of the side surface of the source
`
`electrode is tapered such that the angle formed between the surface of the substrate
`
`and the bottom portion of the side surface of the source electrode is different from
`
`the angle formed between the surface of the substrate and the top portion of the
`
`side surface of the source electrode. Ex.1001 at 4:30-34. In addition, a bottom
`
`portion of the side surface of the drain electrode is tapered such that the angle
`
`formed between the surface of the substrate and the bottom portion of the side
`
`surface of the drain electrode is different from the angle formed between the
`
`surface of the substrate and the top portion of the side surface of the drain
`
`electrode. Ex. 1001 at 4:34-39.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`25. Based upon my knowledge and experience in this field and my review
`
`of the ’545 patent and the references cited above, I believe that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA” or “person of
`
`skill”) would have had at least a bachelor of science or engineering degree in
`
`electrical engineering, semiconductor technology, physics, or a related field, and
`
`either an advanced degree (such as a master’s degree) or an equivalent amount of
`
`work experience, i.e., 2-3 years, in an area relating to semiconductor design and/or
`
`fabrication, liquid crystal display (“LCD”) design or fabrication, electrical
`
`engineering, or a related technical field. Additional education might substitute for
`
`some of the experience and substantial experience might substitute for some of the
`
`educational background. My analysis is thus based on the perspective of a
`
`POSITA having at least this level of knowledge and skill in the time leading up to
`
`the ’545 patent. I have been informed that the priority date of the ’545 patent is
`
`November 7, 2008, and I have applied this timeframe in my analysis as being the
`
`relevant time of the ’545 patent.
`
`26. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a POSITA. Indeed, I have participated in organizations and worked
`
`closely with many such persons over the course of my career. Furthermore, I have
`
`hired a number of times engineers (electrical, mechanical, chemical/chemistry,
`
`13
`
`

`

`physics, computing, software, etc.) with Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral degrees.
`
`I have at times during the course of my career, hired engineers on behalf of my
`
`employer who have demonstrated specific job experience that would count in place
`
`of post-graduate education. I am well qualified in the semiconductor technologies
`
`related to the ’545 patent, and I was a person of at least ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the ’545 timeframe.
`
`OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine Toyota and Akimoto
`to Eliminate the Extraneous Portion of Toyota’s Insulating Film Between the
`Gate Insulating Film and the Lower Layers of the Source and Drain
`Electrodes
`
`27.
`
`This expert Declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed
`
`based on my analysis. Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review
`
`of the IPR petition and the publications listed above, I believe that the proposed
`
`combination of Toyota and Akimoto fails to disclose a semiconductor device
`
`where “the first metal film and the second metal film are in contact with the gate
`
`insulating film” as recited in claims 3 and 13.
`
`28.
`
`Toyota describes a CMOS circuit including an n-channel type thin
`
`film transistor (NTFT) complementarily connected to a p-channel type thin film
`
`transistor (PTFT). Ex. 1004 at [0004], [0054]. Toyota’s FIG. 8B shows a bottom
`
`gate NTFT:
`
`14
`
`

`

`Toyota (Ex. 1004), FIG. 8B
`
`29. Akimoto describes a TFT that includes an oxide semiconductor film
`
`as a channel region. Ex. 1005 at [0014], [0071], [0120]. Akimoto’s FIG. 5C
`
`shows a bottom gate TFT:
`
`Akimoto (Ex. 1005), FIG. 5C
`
`30.
`
`Toyota describes an example of interconnected devices, e.g., a NTFT
`
`interconnected with a capacitance element Cstg. Ex. 1004 at [0070]-[0071]. In
`
`this example, Toyota discloses that a layer of insulating film IN, between the lower
`
`layers of the source/drain electrodes and the gate insulating film GI, is used for
`
`formation of the capacitance element Cstg:
`
`15
`
`

`

`The source electrode ST is formed on the insulating film IN so
`
`as to overlap the electrode CT of the capacitance signal line CL as well
`
`as is formed to extend toward the central side of the pixel region. A
`
`portion of the source electrode ST overlapping the electrode CT is
`
`formed as the capacitance element Cstg using the insulating films
`
`IN and GI as a dielectric film. Further, a portion corresponding to an
`
`end of the extended portion of the source electrode ST serves as a
`
`connection portion to the after-mentioned pixel electrode PX.
`
`Ex. 1004 at [0071] (emphasis added). Toyota’s Fig. 8A (reproduced and annotated
`
`below) shows that a capacitance element Cstg is formed by the overlapping of a
`
`portion of the source electrode ST (green) and the electrode CT (blue):
`
`capacitance element Cstg
`
`alleged “first metal film”
`
`alleged “second
`metal film”
`
`Toyota (Ex. 1004), FIG. 8A (annotated)
`
`16
`
`

`

`Toyota’s Fig. 8B (reproduced and annotated below) shows that layers of insulating
`
`films IN and GI are used as the capacitance element’s dielectric film:
`
`alleged “first metal film”
`
`alleged “second metal
`film”
`
`alleged “extraneous portion”
`
`alleged “gate insulating film”
`
`Toyota (Ex. 1004), FIG. 8B (annotated)
`
`31.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has asserted that a POSITA would have
`
`been motivated to combine Toyota and Akimoto to “eliminate the extraneous
`
`portion of the insulating film IN between the gate insulating film GI and the lower
`
`layers of the source electrode ST(D) and drain electrode DT(D), such that the film
`
`and these layers would now be in contact with one another.” Pet. at 51 (emphasis
`
`added). A POSITA reviewing the above disclosure of Toyota regarding the use of
`
`the layer of the insulating film IN between the source electrode and the gate
`
`insulating film GI as part of the dielectric film of the capacitance element Cstg
`
`would not have been led to Petitioner’s proposed modification. The layer of
`
`17
`
`

`

`insulating film IN is necessary to form the capacitance element Cstg, and thus its
`
`removal would compromise the Cstg structure used in Toyota’s device. The
`
`presence of the layer of insulating film IN between the source electrode and the
`
`gate insulating film GI would prevent at least the source electrode ST (alleged to
`
`correspond to the recited first metal film) from being “in contact with the gate
`
`insulating film.” This is a requirement of claims 3 and 13.
`
`32.
`
`For these reasons, the combination of Toyota and Akimoto does not
`
`teach a semiconductor device where “the first metal film and the second metal film
`
`are in contact with the gate insulating film” and a person of skill would have
`
`readily recognized this fact upon reviewing Toyota and Akimoto. Based upon my
`
`knowledge and experience in this field and my review of Toyota in view of
`
`Akimoto, this proposed combination of references would not provide this
`
`requirement of claims 3 and 13.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`Anticipation
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element of a claim, as properly construed,
`
`is found either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the
`
`principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or
`
`includes the claimed limitations, it anticipates.
`
`18
`
`

`

`34.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`if the claimed invention was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented
`
`or published anywhere, before the applicant’s invention. I further have been
`
`informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the invention was
`
`patented or published anywhere, or was in public use, on sale, or offered for sale in
`
`this country, more than one year prior to the filing date of the patent application
`
`(critical date). And a claim is invalid, as I have been informed, under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e), if an invention described by that claim was described in a U.S. patent
`
`granted on an application for a patent by another that was filed in the U.S. before
`
`the date of invention for such a claim.
`
`Obviousness
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of one or more prior art references if it would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA, taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-
`
`obviousness, which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii)
`
`commercial success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results
`
`of the claimed invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others.
`
`For purposes of my analysis above and because I know of no indication from the
`
`19
`
`

`

`patent owner or others to the contrary, I have applied a date of November 7, 2008,
`
`as the date of invention in my obviousness analyses, although in many cases the
`
`same analysis would hold true even at an earlier time than November 7, 2008.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason to
`
`modify the single prior art reference, or combine two or more references, in order
`
`to achieve the claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine, or may come from the reference or
`
`references themselves, the knowledge or “common sense” of one skilled in the art,
`
`or from the nature of the problem to be solved, and may be explicit or implicit
`
`from the prior art as a whole. I have been informed that the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on
`
`hindsight in making the obviousness determination.
`
`ADDITIONAL REMARKS
`
`37.
`
`I currently hold the opinions set expressed in this declaration. But my
`
`analysis may continue, and I may acquire additional information and/or attain
`
`supplemental insights that may result in added observations.
`
`20
`
`

`

`38.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`I further declare that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful
`
`false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or
`
`both, under Section 1001 of the Title 18 of the United States Code and that such
`
`willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any
`
`patents issued thereon.
`
`Dated:
`
`By:
`
`Michael Lebby, Ph.D.
`
`21
`
`Thursday, November 29, 2018
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket