Page 252
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`))
`
`))
`
`) CASE IPR2019-00080
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`
`FORMFACTOR, INC.,
` Petitioner,
`VS.
`FEINMETALL, GmbH,
` Patent Owner.
`
`ORAL DEPOSITION OF
`FREDERICK TABER
`JUNE 27, 2019
`VOLUME 2 - JOB NO: 162858
`ORAL DEPOSITION of FREDERICK TABER,
`produced as a witness at the instance of the Patent
`Owner, and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled
`and -numbered cause on the 27th of June, 2019, from
`9:07 a.m. to 2:49 p.m., before Therese J. Casterline,
`CSR in and for the State of Texas, reported by machine
`shorthand, at the offices of Sheppard, Mullin,
`Richter & Hampton LLP, 2200 Ross Avenue, 24th Floor,
`in the City of Dallas, County of Dallas, State of
`Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure and the provisions stated on the record.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`1 2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Feinmetall Exhibit 2009
`FormFactor, Inc. v. Feinmetall, GmbH
`IPR2019-00082
`
`Page 1 of 141
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`))
`
`))
`
`) CASE IPR2019-00080
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`
`FORMFACTOR, INC.,
` Petitioner,
`VS.
`FEINMETALL, GmbH,
` Patent Owner.
`
`ORAL DEPOSITION OF
`FREDERICK TABER
`JUNE 27, 2019
`VOLUME 2 - JOB NO: 162858
`ORAL DEPOSITION of FREDERICK TABER,
`produced as a witness at the instance of the Patent
`Owner, and duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled
`and -numbered cause on the 27th of June, 2019, from
`9:07 a.m. to 2:49 p.m., before Therese J. Casterline,
`CSR in and for the State of Texas, reported by machine
`shorthand, at the offices of Sheppard, Mullin,
`Richter & Hampton LLP, 2200 Ross Avenue, 24th Floor,
`in the City of Dallas, County of Dallas, State of
`Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure and the provisions stated on the record.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`1 2
`
`3
`
`4 5
`
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Feinmetall Exhibit 2009
`FormFactor, Inc. v. Feinmetall, GmbH
`IPR2019-00082
`
`Page 1 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 253
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`FOR THE PETITIONER:
` Mr. Jamie McDole, ESQ.
` HAYNES AND BOONE
` 2323 Victory Avenue
` Dallas, TX 75219
`
` Mr. David O'Dell, ESQ.
` HAYNES AND BOONE
` 2505 North Plano Road
` Richardson, TX 75082
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
` Mr. Timothy Cremen, ESQ.
` Mr. Robert Masters, ESQ.
` SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON
` 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
` Washington, DC 20006
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`1 2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`
`7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 2 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 254
`
` I N D E X
` PAGE
`Appearances 253
`
`WITNESS: FREDERICK TABER
`FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. CREMEN 255
`
`Changes and Signature 389
`Reporter's Certificate 391
`
` EXHIBITS
`NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
`(None marked)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`1 2
`
`3
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`
`8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 3 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 255
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` FREDERICK TABER,
`having been previously duly sworn, further testified
`as follows:
` FURTHER EXAMINATION
`BY MR. CREMEN:
` Q. Good morning, Mr. Taber.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. You understand you're still under oath
` from yesterday; is that right?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. Okay. Great. Let's start on page 48
` of your declaration.
` A. 48?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Okay.
` Q. And this is a list of your challenges;
` is that right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. Do you consider -- and -- start
` over.
` So challenge 1, 7, and 14 are each
` asserting obviousness of Claim 1; is that
` correct?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`1 2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 256
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Okay. Do you consider any one of
`challenge 1, 7, or 14 stronger than others?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. I never considered whether one was
`stronger than the other, so I can't give you an
`answer one way -- one way or the other as to
`whether one was stronger or not.
` There were three challenges there, and
`I really couldn't say that I thought in my head
`one was stronger than the other.
` Q. As you sit here today, do you think
`that one is stronger than the other?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. Well, that -- you know, that would
`require me to -- to answer -- to answer that
`question, I would have to go through my -- my
`entire document to see if one -- if I felt like
`one was stronger than the other.
` So pretty much my first answer that --
`that I never -- well, never thought of it in
`terms of which one was stronger than the other,
`if at all.
` Q. So let's look at paragraph 293. And
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 5 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 257
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`this is in the section we were discussing,
`challenge number 7, based on Sudin, just for
`reference.
` A. Okay. I'm there.
` Q. Okay. At the end of this paragraph,
`before paragraph 294, you have an annotated
`figure.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you've labeled the figure with
`some end region arrows and an elongated
`intermediate region arrow; is that right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. Where -- could you give me an
`idea of where the end regions start and stop in
`Figure 14?
` A. I think this is -- this is very
`similar to the '460 patent where -- where the end
`regions are identified by those brackets in the
`'460 patent in the intermediate region. We tried
`to do the -- the same thing here.
` So in terms of like a precision point
`where the end region starts and -- starts, I look
`at it very similar to -- to the '460. It's in --
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 6 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 258
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`it's in this -- it's in this area. It's the
`end -- it's the end of the -- the probe element.
` Q. Could you be --
` A. You're asking me for some precision
`with it and --
` Q. I'm sorry. I was just asking for a
`little more precision than an arrow.
` So, for example, the foot region, 51,
`is it the whole square of 51 that's the end
`region, in your view?
` A. You could consider that -- that
`that -- that area would be -- would be considered
`the end region.
` Q. Did you consider that when you formed
`your opinion?
` A. (Nods head.)
` Q. Okay.
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` Q. And the same question for the --
`the -- the tip portion, 52: Is it the whole
`square in the conical region there that you
`consider to be the end region for purposes of
`your opinion?
` A. Generally, that entire -- that entire
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 7 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 259
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`area is -- I would consider an end -- end region.
` Q. And in -- in this figure, does -- is
`Sudin saying that the intermediate region -- the
`sidewalls of the intermediate region should be
`formed with the -- the same width as the base and
`tip portion?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. I would have to look through the Sudin
`patent, but my recollection is that he doesn't
`specify that they're the same width or -- or not.
`There's -- that's my recollection.
` But, again, I would need to look --
`read through, but that would be my
`recollection.
` Q. You agree with me that --
` A. Yeah. I mean, he -- you know, he has
`a number of different embodiments where those --
`those sidewalls take different shapes and
`locations and so forth, so --
` Q. You agree with me that Figure 14 shows
`that they're --
` A. It appears --
` Q. -- of the same width?
` A. It appears --
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 8 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 260
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
` THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, I need one
` at a time, please.
` Q. Of the same width.
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. Your question was?
` Q. You agree with me that Figure 14 shows
`that they're of the same width?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. It -- it appears from the -- from the
`drawing that they are about the same width.
` Q. Would -- and feel free to look at
`Sudin to answer this question, but would you
`agree with me that Sudin's probes are attached to
`the testing head set?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. Sudin refers to Figures 2 to 4
`and also -- let's see -- Sudin refers to Figures
`2 to 4 where -- where he says that each of the
`probes comprising a post-like foot, a tip, and a
`middle body portion connected between the
`post-like foot and the tip. The post-like foot
`can be made having a circular -- et cetera. The
`post-like foot is formed integral with the top
`surface of a plate-like base.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 9 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 261
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
` So in Figures 2 to 4, he shows it
`connected to a plate-like base.
` In the -- in Figures 14 through 20, he
`shows the probe as a stand-alone, without any
`indication of a plate-like base, from what I've
`quickly ready here.
` Q. Okay. If you look at Figures 5
`through 13, that discloses a manufacturing method
`that provides an integral --
` A. Yes.
` Q. Okay. And is not Figures 14 through
`20 embodiments of that manufacturing method?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. Sudin describes -- in -- in those
`figures, 5 through 10 -- 5 through 13, I -- he
`describes a manufacturing method, essentially a
`lithography type of method.
` He goes on in paragraph 39 to say that
`the plate-like base of the probe set of the probe
`card can be formed integrally in a circuit board.
` So when I look at Figures 14 through
`20, it shows an independent probe. So my
`understanding is that he used the lithography
`process, but he's showing a probe independent of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 10 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 262
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`it being attached.
` Q. At the end of paragraph 38 in Sudin,
`he says, further, the invention allows batch
`production to simplify the fabrication and to
`reduce the manufacturing cost; is that right?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. There's more to paragraph 38. The end
`of paragraph 38 says, further, the invention
`allows batch production to simplify the
`fabrication and to reduce the manufacturing cost.
` Q. And is batch production the production
`that's shown in Figures 5 through 13?
` A. In 5 through 13, he's -- he's
`illustrated fabricating more than one probe at --
`at a time. How large the batch is is unclear.
` Q. But that would be a batch production?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. He shows each -- he shows three
`probes. I'm not sure what -- what -- you know,
`what quantifies as a -- as a batch. He shows
`three probes there.
` Q. Okay.
` A. It's more than one.
` Q. Okay. Does Sudin illustrate a way to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 11 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 263
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`manufacture a single probe in its manufacturing
`process?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. As with any lithography process, you
`could manufacture one or more than -- more than
`one. He is illustrating -- I believe it's three
`here. So, you know, lithography process could be
`one to whatever number.
` Q. But -- but he does say his invention
`is directed towards a batch process, right --
` A. In --
` Q. -- in the process -- in the part we
`just read?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. It's -- he says that it allows batch
`production.
` Q. Okay. If -- circling back to
`something we talked about yesterday, the
`differences between a probe that is attached to
`the testing head end -- I'm sorry.
` The differences between a probe that
`is attached on the testing head side and a probe
`that is capable of separable connection on the
`testing head side -- remember --
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 12 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 264
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
` A. So --
` Q. I'll start all over. How about that?
` Yesterday, we talked about the
`differences between probes that are connected on
`the testing head side and are capable of
`electrical contact on the testing head side; is
`that right?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. I don't have access to the entire
`transcript from -- from yesterday.
` Q. All right. I'm just asking about a
`general concept. I don't -- I'm not trying to
`say those were your exact words.
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. We talked about -- we talked about
`different types of vertical probes yesterday,
`some with separable connections and some without
`separable connections.
` Q. And the ones without separable
`connections, I think we used the word attached;
`is that --
` A. Again, when -- you know, just to be
`clear, when I say without separable connections,
`clearly something that's soldered could be
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 13 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 265
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`removed and so forth, but not --
` Q. Understood.
` A. -- straightforward, easily, whatever
`the right word is.
` Q. Okay. So we -- we used the word
`attached to talk about those probes that are
`connected, right?
` A. My -- my recollection is I used the
`word attached.
` Q. Okay. So if you kept all of the --
`all of the parameters -- all other parameters
`equal, would a probe that is attached to the
`testing head and a probe that has separable
`connection -- separable contact to the testing
`head, are they interchangeable?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. As I recall, what I said yesterday is
`that when a POSITA or, you know, applicable probe
`engineer considers probes, he's going to look at
`a variety of factors.
` To -- to say that they're exactly
`replaceable I think depends on all of those
`particular -- those circumstances.
` So a POSITA would have to look at his
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 14 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 266
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`application and all of the other -- other factors
`to make a determination as to whether they were
`equivalent.
` Q. So are there --
` A. So off -- you know, to just say, you
`know, they're equivalent or not equivalent really
`depends on many other factors in the selection of
`a probe technology.
` Q. So I think my question was a little
`bit different, though.
` So if you keep all of the parameters
`equal, all of the parameters, would a probe that
`has -- that is attached to the testing head and a
`probe that has separable contact to the testing
`head, would they be interchangeable?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. You're asking me to speculate, and,
`you know, I really don't want to speculate. I'm
`not sure what "all" means.
` Are you saying like -- yeah, I really
`don't want to -- want to speculate.
` Q. So you can't say one way or the other?
` A. Without -- without understanding your
`question further, without understanding all of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 15 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 267
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`the parameters, no, I -- I don't -- I don't think
`I can give you a -- an accurate answer on that.
` Q. What -- what other parameters would
`you need to know?
` Let me ask a different way.
` What are the minimum parameters you
`would need to know?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. It feels like you're asking me to do
`an engineering job here on these two probe
`technologies, and an engineering job requires not
`just saying certain things are equivalent or not,
`but it requires analyzing that; it requires doing
`some testing and evaluation, which we're not
`going to do in this room today, nor if we had
`multiple days here. It's an extensive process
`for me to be able to answer that question.
` Q. Okay. So let me ask it from the other
`direction, and maybe -- I think we might just be
`talking past each other.
` So are there applications where one or
`the other of those probes, one that's attached
`versus one that has separable contact -- where
`they would be more appropriate?
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 16 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 268
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
` A. I would say it's possible, but I
`couldn't say definitely. Again, you would need
`to do the work to say -- you know, if I am a
`POSITA, and I'm confronted or facing these two
`probe technologies from two different suppliers,
`both of the suppliers are going to say, these are
`the same, they'll -- they'll work in your
`application, I would still need to do -- do
`the -- my due diligence on the -- on those probes
`in order to determine that.
` Then it may -- may, in fact, come back
`that they -- that they operate similarly; they --
`you know, they fit what my requirements are.
` Q. Do you know of any concrete instance
`where one would not use one of those kinds of
`probes?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. Would not use what kind of probes?
` Q. Would not use either an attached --
`would not use either a probe that is attached to
`the testing head or a probe that is of separable
`contact to the testing head.
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. There are a vast number of probe
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 17 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 269
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`technologies out there, even similar technologies
`among different companies.
` So for me to speculate on an answer,
`again, requires a lot of engineering work to be
`able to answer your question, and I'm not
`prepared to do that here today, nor have I done
`it.
` Q. Based on your experience, is there
`ever an instance where the technology would have
`a preference between using a probe that's
`attached to the testing head versus a probe that
`has a separable contact to the testing head?
` A. Would you repeat the question?
` Q. I'll do the best I can.
` Based on your experience, is there
`ever an instance where one would select a probe
`that is attached to the testing head versus a
`probe that is -- has separable contact to the
`testing head for a particular application?
` A. Yeah, I think you --
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. It feels like you're asking me the
`same question. There are just so many parameters
`to do -- and to do an engineering job here,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 18 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 270
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`that's -- again, you're asking me kind of an
`engineering question. And obviously I have not
`done that work to -- to make that assessment.
`Plus the world of probes is huge. The -- to say
`has there ever been an instance --
` Q. Have you ever been involved in the
`selection of -- let me strike that.
` Have you ever been involved with the
`decision to use a probe that is attached to the
`testing head versus a probe that has separable
`contact to the testing head?
` A. When you say decision, do you mean
`final decision or decision to evaluate?
` Clearly -- clearly I've been
`involved -- well, maybe not clearly to you, but
`I've been -- I've been involved in evaluating
`different probe technologies and have been
`involved in evaluating one -- one or -- one or
`the other.
` And, again, it's that whole range of
`parameters that help you decide what probe
`technology to -- to use.
` I don't recall a specific instance
`where that was the single driving force. I don't
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 19 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 271
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`recall.
` Q. Okay. Let's look at --
` A. It's far more complex than that single
`driving force.
` Q. Okay. Let's look at the '460 patent
`for a second.
` And I think we touched on this briefly
`yesterday, but I just wanted to make sure I
`understood.
` Is there any portion of the '460
`patent that indicates that its probe is attached
`to the testing head?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. The '460 -- to the best of my
`recollection, the '460 patent does not talk about
`the -- the tester side -- the connection to the
`tester side and what type of connection that is.
` Q. If you had a -- if you had a given
`probe design and you wanted to -- let me ask it a
`different way. Sorry.
` If you had a given probe design that
`was of a separable contact to the testing head,
`and you wanted to use it in a -- in an attached
`to the testing head scheme, would there be any
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 20 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 272
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`modifications you would have to make to the probe
`itself to switch between those two schemes?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. I would have to see the probe
`technology to be able to make that -- that
`judgment and may even take more than just looking
`at it and reading specs on it. It may, again,
`take some -- some engineering work to determine
`that.
` Q. So it would depend on the specific
`arrangement of the probe and testing head, that
`kind of thing?
` A. Well, with each technology you would
`have to take a look at it. If -- if -- if there
`was a demand by your manufacturing manager that
`it be attached or not attached, then you would --
`you would have to take a look at the -- the
`technology.
` Q. Do -- do either implementation have
`any other necessary surrounding structure?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. Did you say either?
` Q. Yes. Does -- did -- if -- comparing
`the two, for example, does a probe that has a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 21 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 273
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`separable contact to the testing head have any
`structure in the -- either on the probe or
`adjacent to the probe that an embodiment of a
`probe that is attached to the testing head would
`not have?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. Again, I think it depends on the probe
`technologies, and they would have to be looked at
`closely to make that determination. It's not a
`determination I can make today.
` Q. So there's no general structure you
`can think of that a probe that is separably --
`that has a separable contact to the testing head
`would have versus a probe that is attached to the
`testing head would have?
` A. As I said, I would have --
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. As I said, I would have to take a look
`at it. It's a -- would be an evaluation process
`that I -- I can't do in the time we have together
`here.
` Q. Okay. Let's look at paragraph 295.
` In paragraph 295, you mention
`perspective view. I just wanted you to explain
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 22 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 274
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`that.
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. 295 says, Figure 14 of Sudin is not
`illustrated in perspective view, which means it's
`a two-dimensional view.
` Q. What is a perspective view?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` Q. Let me ask a different question.
` Is Figure 2 of the '460 patent a
`perspective view?
` A. So a perspective view gives a -- gives
`a -- gives an indication of the three -- three
`dimensions, and so you're actually able to see a
`z-dimension.
` So if I look at Figure 2, it is an
`example of where you're attempting to show a
`z-dimension in the -- in that illustration.
` Q. Is there a reason a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would provide a perspective
`view --
` A. You're going to have to start all
`over.
` Q. Okay. Is there a reason a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would provide a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 23 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 275
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`perspective view of their device in addition to
`any two-dimensional views?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. I'm certain each engineer has his own
`particular style, but what -- what happens --
`what kind of commonly happens is that in a set of
`engineering drawings, that -- that you would end
`up with a -- you know, a two-dimensional view,
`you know, from, let's say, the front, then a
`two-dimensional view from the side; you may or
`may not have a three-dimensional view as -- as
`part of your regular drawings. It's possible.
` These days, a lot of designs are done
`using 3D CAD software, so those -- those views
`are -- are available in a 3D CAD software.
` Q. Would you agree that a perspective
`view shows more three-dimensional detail than a
`side view?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. I would have to see the two of them to
`give you an answer to that.
` Q. Okay. Let's look at paragraph 296.
` I think we looked at paragraph 296
`yesterday, but in it you discuss Sudin's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 24 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 276
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`disclosure of the middle body portion that --
`that the middle body portion can be made of a
`round rod or flat plate, and that a flat plate
`would define a rectangular cross-section, right?
` A. I believe we talked about that
`yesterday.
` Q. Okay. Are you relying on any other
`portion of Sudin to inform your understanding
`that the flat plate would have a rectangular
`cross-section?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. Sudin describes the use of a flat
`plate as an alternative. He also speaks to the
`fabrication process, the lithography process.
` A POSITA would understand with the
`lithography process that you can produce a flat
`plate. You can produce different types of shapes
`using the lithography process.
` Q. So is there any portion of Sudin that
`says a flat plate would have a rectangular
`cross-section?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. A POSITA would understand that a flat
`plate has a -- a rectangular cross-section --
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 25 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 277
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
` Q. I understand --
` A. -- and understand that.
` Q. I understand that part. I'm just
`asking, is there anything in Sudin that says
`that?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. Again, Sudin describes a flat -- a
`flat plate, and a POSITA would understand that a
`flat plate has a rectangular cross-section.
` Sudin uses the term flat plate, and,
`again, that would be what a POSITA would -- would
`understand, a rectangular cross-section.
` Q. I'm -- I'm just trying to follow your
`logic train here. I just want to make sure I
`understand.
` So Sudin says its middle body portion
`can be a flat plate. Do we agree on that?
` A. He says the middle body portion 24 can
`be made having the shape of a round rod or flat
`plate.
` Q. Okay. And then it's your position
`that a POSITA would understand that a flat plate
`has a rectangular cross-section; is that right?
` A. My understanding is a POSITA would
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 26 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 278
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`understand flat plate to have a rectangular
`cross-section.
` Q. So that -- that's how you reach
`your -- that's how you reached the conclusion
`that the round rod -- I'm sorry, strike that.
` That's how you reach your conclusion
`that the flat plate has a rectangular
`cross-section, your understanding of how a POSITA
`would read that; is that --
` A. Right.
` Q. Okay. But you agree with me that
`Sudin doesn't say, my flat plate has a
`rectangular cross-section, right?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. Are you asking me if he has those
`specific words in his -- in his patent?
` Q. Yes.
` A. Those specific words?
` Q. I'm asking you if he says -- strike
`that.
` I'm asking you if he says in any
`descriptive words what the cross-section of the
`flat plate is.
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 27 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 279
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
` A. So you're asking me if he provides a
`description of the flat plate?
` Q. Of the cross-section of a flat plate.
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. As I said before, I think a POSITA
`would -- I know a POSITA would understand the
`flat plate to -- to mean a rectangular
`cross-section, that -- that it's sufficiently
`descriptive in Sudin's -- Sudin's patent for a
`POSITA to understand what that means.
` Q. So --
` A. Sudin doesn't have a drawing of --
`of -- specifically of a flat plate, but a POSITA
`would understand what that means.
` Q. Okay. And he -- and Sudin also does
`not describe what the cross-section of his flat
`plate is, right?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. I think flat plate is descriptive.
` Q. Okay. Let me ask a different
`question.
` So I just want to make sure I -- I
`want to understand the basis of your opinion.
` Sudin discloses that its middle body
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 28 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 280
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`portion could be a flat plate; you agree?
` A. Middle body portion could be made
`having the shape of a round rod or flat plate.
` Q. You -- in your view, a POSITA would
`understand that a flat plate has a rectangular
`cross-section?
` A. That would be the understanding that a
`POSITA has --
` Q. Okay.
` A. -- a flat plate --
` Q. Okay. And --
` A. -- with a rectangular cross-section.
` Q. And that's the basis for your opinion
`of why you think the middle body portion could
`have a rectangular cross-section, at least in
`Figure 2 of Sudin, right?
` A. I say that it would have been obvious
`to form the middle body portion. He describes it
`with respect to some of the earlier figures, but
`it would be obvious to form the middle portion of
`embodiment of Figure 14 having a similar
`cross-section.
` Q. So those -- I'm just asking, those are
`the two inputs for the basis of your opinion.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 29 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 281
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` TABER
`One -- the first one is that Sudin says, my
`middle body portion can be a flat plate and, two,
`that a POSITA would understand a flat plate to
`have a rectangular cross-section? Those are the
`two inputs, right?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. Sudin -- Sudin identifies a flat plate
`as -- as an option, round rod or flat plate. A
`POSITA would understand that a flat plate has a
`rectangular cross-section. That's -- that's what
`I'm saying.
` Q. And a POSITA would understand that
`based on his experience; is that your opinion?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. The skills that a POSITA has in probe
`technology would enable him to understand that a
`flat plate has a rectangular cross-section.
` Q. But Sudin does not explicitly say that
`its flat plate has a rectangular cross-section;
`do we agree on that?
` MR. McDOLE: Objection, form.
` A. We're going to circle back. Sudin --
`Sudin talks about a flat plate, and a flat plate
`is descriptive. So a POSITA would understand
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Page 30 of 141
`
`
`
`Page 282
`
`1
`2
`
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
