UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`FORMFACTOR, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FEINMETALL, GmbH
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Cases IPR2019-00080; IPR2019-00081; IPR2019-00082
`
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`Claims 1-33
`
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF PRADEEP LALL. Ph.D.
`
`Feinmetall Exhibit 2011
`FormFactor, Inc. v. Feinmetall, GmbH
`IPR2019-00082
`
`Page 1 of 335
`
`

`

`D.
`
`Table of Contents
`I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 2
`III. THIS PROCEEDING AND INFORMATION I HAVE CONSIDERED ........... 8
`IV LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................... 14
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’460 PATENT ............................................................... 18
`A.
`Technology Background .....................................................................18
`B.
`Probe Design Is Not a Simple Endeavor .............................................32
`C.
`The ’460 Patent ...................................................................................47
`The ‘460 Patent Identifies Three Problems ...................................47
`1.
`The Novel Probe Design of the ‘460 Patent ..................................48
`2.
`3. Mr. Taber’s Comments on Bove ....................................................52
`Prosecution History Of The ’460 Patent .............................................53
`Sudin Was Considered By The Examiner .....................................53
`1.
`The Examiner Recognized The ’460 Patent Is Directed To an
`2.
`Intermediate Region With a Rectangular Cross Section ..........................54
`The Examiner Applies Buckling Beam Probe References in His
`3.
`Rejections .................................................................................................54
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................55
`E.
`VI. MY OBSERVATIONS ON THE DEPOSITION OF MR. TABER ................. 56
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 56
`A.
`“An Elongate Electrical Contact Element” .........................................57
`B.
`“An Elongate Intermediate Region Situated Between The End
`Regions, Having An At Least Substantially Rectangular Cross-
`Section” ..........................................................................................................62
`C.
`“Two Electrical Contacting End Regions” .........................................67
`“Contact” Specifies a Separable Connection to a POSITA ...........69
`1.
`“Contact” Is Used By The Prior Art to Specify a Separable
`2.
`Connection ................................................................................................70
`“Contact” Is Used In the ’460 Patent to Specify a Separable
`3.
`Connection ................................................................................................79
`4. Mr. Taber Also Uses “Contact” As Specifying a Separable
`Connection ................................................................................................82
`5.
`The ’460 Patent Claims Require a Separable Connection .............84
`1
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 335
`
`

`

`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`FormFactor’s Construction Is Unsupported ...................................86
`The Board’s Comments..................................................................87
`Conclusion ......................................................................................88
`“Lamellae” ...........................................................................................89
`D.
`“Configured Lamellar” ........................................................................90
`E.
`[Being] “Configured To Bend” ...........................................................91
`F.
`“One Piece Contact Body” ..................................................................94
`G.
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE REFERENCES CITED BY FORMFACTOR ......... 96
`A.
`The Prior Art and Motivation to Combine Generally .........................96
`B.
`JP182 ...................................................................................................99
`C.
`Sudin ..................................................................................................102
`D.
`Chen ...................................................................................................110
`E.
`Crippa ................................................................................................112
`F.
`Other References Cited In FormFactor’s Petitions ...........................114
`IX. ALL OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE PATENTABLE ................... 114
`Petitioner’s Grounds Based On a Combination of JP182, Sudin,
`A.
`and Crippa Fail ............................................................................................114
`The Asserted Combination Fails to Teach or Suggest “Two
`1.
`Electrical Contacting End Regions” .......................................................117
`The Asserted Combination Would Not Have Resulted in an
`2.
`Intermediate Region with Both a “Substantially Rectangular Cross
`Section” and “at Least Two Lamellae” ..................................................120
`A POSITA Would Not Have Modified JP182 in View of Crippa In
`3.
`The Manner Asserted .............................................................................130
`A POSITA Would Not Have Modified JP182 in View of Sudin In
`4.
`The Manner Asserted .............................................................................150
`5.
`All Challenged Claims Are Patentable ........................................161
`6.
`Various Challenged Dependent Claims Are Patentable ..............162
`Petitioner’s Grounds Based On Sudin Fail .......................................174
`Sudin Fails to Teach or Suggest “Two Electrical Contacting End
`1.
`Regions” .................................................................................................174
`Sudin Fails To Teach Or Suggest An Intermediate Region with
`2.
`Both a “Substantially Rectangular Cross Section” and “at Least Two
`Lamellae” ................................................................................................178
`
`B.
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`2
`
`
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 335
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Sudin Fails To Teach Or Suggest “Lamellae” That Are
`3.
`“Configured to Bend” .............................................................................191
`4.
`All Challenged Claims Are Patentable ........................................192
`5.
`Various Challenged Dependent Claims Are Patentable ..............193
`Petitioner’s Grounds Based On Chen Fail ........................................203
`Chen Fails to Teach or Suggest “Two Electrical Contacting End
`1.
`Regions” .................................................................................................203
`Chen Fails To Teach Or Suggest An “Elongate Electrical Contact
`2.
`Element” .................................................................................................205
`Chen Fails to Teach or Suggest An Intermediate Region with Both
`3.
`a “Substantially Rectangular Cross Section” and “at Least Two
`Lamellae” ................................................................................................207
`4.
`All Challenged Claims Are Patentable ........................................210
`5.
`Various Challenged Dependent Claims Are Patentable ..............211
`X. PATENT OWNER’S CONTINGENT AMENDMENTS ARE SUPPORTED
` ........................................................................................................................... 218
`A.
`The Substitute Claims Are Supported by The ’083 Application ......218
`B.
`The Substitute Claims Are Patentable Over the Instituted
`Grounds ........................................................................................................231
`1.
`Substitute Independent Claims 34 and 66 ....................................231
`2.
`Substitute Independent Claim 61 .................................................236
`3.
`Substitute Dependent Claims .......................................................236
`XI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 238
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 335
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Pradeep Lall, of Auburn, AL, hereby state and declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I am over 18 years of age and otherwise competent to make this
`1.
`
`Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged as an expert witness by Feinmetall, GmbH
`
`(“Feinmetall”) to: (i) review U.S. Patent No. 7,850,460 (“the ’460 patent”); (ii)
`
`review three Petitions for Inter Partes Review (“Petitions”) filed by FormFactor,
`
`Inc. (“FormFactor”) in case numbers IPR2019-00080, IPR2019-00081, and
`
`IPR2019-00082, challenging the validity of claims 1-33 of the ’460 patent (the
`
`“challenged claims”); and (iii) provide expert analysis and testimony in any related
`
`Inter Partes Review proceeding. I have also been asked to provide my opinion on
`
`whether the challenged claims of the ’460 patent are obvious in view of the
`
`grounds that FormFactor raises in the Petitions.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in connection with the above
`
`engagement at my standard hourly rate of $475 per hour. My compensation is in no
`
`way dependent on, nor affects, the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`I have no financial interest in either party or in the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`As is set forth in more detail below, it is my opinion that the
`
`challenged claims are not obvious based on the grounds advanced by FormFactor.
`
`in its Petitions.
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`1
`
`
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 335
`
`

`

`5.
`
`In reaching my opinions and conclusions as stated herein, I have
`
`considered the information identified below in the context of my own education,
`
`training, research, knowledge, and personal and professional experience, including
`
`knowledge of the state of the art and the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (a “POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the subject matter described
`
`and claimed in the ’460 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`Attached to this Declaration as Appendix A is a true and correct copy
`6.
`
`of my current curriculum vitae, which describes my education, publications,
`
`employment and research history, and professional activities and awards.
`
`7.
`
`I have had extensive experience and familiarity with semiconductor
`
`design, manufacturing, semiconductor packaging, reliability, test, failure analysis,
`
`modeling, simulation and specifically including the area of contact element design,
`
`and have been working in this field for over 26 years.
`
`8.
`
`I have authored or co-authored 2 books, 14 book chapters, and over
`
`550 publications in the general area of semiconductor packaging, reliability and
`
`test. I have used spring contact probes for the purpose of inline testing as part of
`
`the assembly process during my work at Motorola and more recently in my
`
`research at Auburn University. I have worked on the design of spring contacts in
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`2
`
`
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 335
`
`

`

`my work at Motorola. I have studied the issues with the probe design for product
`
`testing.
`
`9.
`
`I am a named co-inventor on 2 United States Patents in the field of
`
`connectors. In addition, in my research, I have worked on the development of
`
`prognostic health management methods for sensing degradation in connectors. I
`
`have also developed computational methods for modeling the wear of electrical
`
`contacts. I am also the lead author on a book chapter on the topic of
`
`interconnections and connectors. Examples of my papers and patents in the general
`
`area of connectors follow:
`
`• Interconnections and Connectors, Chapter 5, Lall, P., Pecht, M., in
`
`Handbook of Electronic Package Design, edited by Michael Pecht,
`
`Marcel Dekker, New York, N.Y. pp.39-100; 101-152; 239-292, 1991.
`
`• Lall, P., Sakalaukus, P., Lowe, R., Goebel, K., Leading Indicators for
`
`Prognostic Health Management of Electrical Connectors Subjected to
`
`Random Vibration, Proceedings of the 13th ITherm, pp. 632 – 638, May
`
`30-June 1, 2012.
`
`• Lall, P., Shinde, D., Rickett, B., Suhling, J., Finite Element Models for
`
`Simulation of Wear in Electrical Contacts, Proceedings of the 10th
`
`Intersociety Thermal and Thermo-mechanical Phenomena (ITherm),
`
`Orlando, Florida, pp. 836-841, May 28-31, 2008.
`3
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 335
`
`

`

`• Surface k, Mountable Flexible Interconnect, Lall, P., US Patent No.
`
`5,928,001, 1999 (with Gillette, J., Potter; S.)
`
`• Flexible Connector For Circuit Boards, Lall, P., US Patent No.
`
`5,742,484, 1998. (with Gillette, J., Potter; S., Lall, P.)
`
`10.
`
`In addition, I have served as a session chair for HE2: Metallization
`
`and Connector Failure Mechanisms, SMTAI Conference, Ft. Worth, TX, October
`
`16-20, 2011. In all, I have held over 125 conference and session roles at national
`
`and international conferences.
`
`11.
`
`I received my M.S. (1989) and Ph.D. (1993) degrees in mechanical
`
`engineering from the University of Maryland. I received my B.S. (1988) from the
`
`Delhi College of Engineering, University of Delhi. I received my M.B.A. (2002)
`
`degree from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.
`
`12. From 1994 to 2002, I worked for Motorola. In 1994, I joined at the
`
`rank of Lead Engineer working on the manufacturing, design, reliability and test of
`
`portable communication products. Over the years till 2002, I worked in various
`
`positions of increasing responsibility rising to the position of Distinguished
`
`Member of Technical Staff. In this period, my work was recognized with Three
`
`Motorola Outstanding Innovation Awards, and Five Motorola Engineering
`
`Awards. My work published at the Motorola Advanced Manufacturing
`
`Technology Symposium (AMT) was recognized with 5 best paper awards. In
`4
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 335
`
`

`

`addition, my work published at the Motorola HERMES Symposium was
`
`recognized with 3 best paper awards. During this time, I worked on a number of
`
`product categories including handheld two-way radios, mobile two-way radios,
`
`cellular phones, and telecommunication products. My work was focused on
`
`various aspects related to manufacturing, design, reliability, test, failure analysis,
`
`modeling and simulation. It was also during this time that I used spring-contact
`
`fixtures for inline testing of products on Motorola assembly lines, and had an
`
`opportunity to study issues with performance of test fixtures.
`
`13.
`
`In 2002, I joined the faculty at Auburn University in the Samuel Ginn
`
`College of Engineering at the rank of an Associate Professor. Presently, I hold the
`
`rank of John and Anne MacFarlane Endowed Professor in the Department of
`
`Mechanical Engineering. I also hold a courtesy joint appointment in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and a courtesy joint
`
`appointment in the Department of Finance. In addition, I am the Director of the
`
`National Science Foundation CAVE3 Electronics Research Center. I serve on the
`
`technical council and the governing council of the NextFlex Flexible Electronics
`
`Manufacturing Institute established by the Department of Defense (DoD).
`
`14. My work in the general field of electronics has been recognized with
`
`the IEEE Sustained Outstanding Technical Contributions Award in 2018, National
`
`Science Foundation Schwarzkopf Prize for Technology Innovation in 2016, and
`5
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 335
`
`

`

`with the IEEE Exceptional Technical Achievement Award in 2014. In all, I am the
`
`recipient of over 35 awards and over 30 best-paper awards. A complete list of my
`
`awards and honors is provided in my curriculum vitae , which is an attachment to
`
`this Declaration.
`
`15.
`
`I am a Fellow of the IEEE, a Fellow of the ASME and a Fellow of the
`
`Alabama Academy of Science.
`
`16.
`
`I have previously been retained to provide expert opinion in the
`
`following proceedings:
`
`Case
`1. International Trade Commission Case: 337-TA-
`605, Tessera Technologies, Inc. v. Freescale
`Semiconductor, Spansion Inc., Qualcomm, Inc,
`ATI Technologies, ULC, Motorola, Inc. ST
`Microelectronics, NV
`2. International Trade Commission Case: 337-TA-
`630, Tessera Technologies, Inc. v. Elpida
`Memory, Inc.,
`3. International Trade Commission Case: 337-TA-
`649, Tessera Technologies, Inc. v. ASE, Inc.,
`ChipMOS Technologies Inc., Siliconware,
`STATS ChipPAC, Inc.
`4. Tessera Technologies, Inc. v. Hynix
`Semiconductor, et. al., Santa Clara County
`Superior Court Case No. 1-06-CV-076688, 2009
`5. Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.,
`International Court of Arbitration of the
`International Chamber of Commerce, Ref No. 16
`351/VRO, 2011
`
`Dr. Lall Retained by:
`ST-Microelectronics
`
`Elpida Memory
`
`STATS ChipPAC
`
`Hynix Semiconductor
`
`Amkor Technology
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 335
`
`

`

`Case
`6. N.D. Cal Patent Litigation (Oakland Division):
`Tessera, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., et.al. (No. 4:12-
`CV-0692); Related Case – Tessera, Inc. v.
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc, et.al. (No. C 05-
`04063); Related Case - Tessera, Inc. v.
`Qualcomm, et.al., EDTX, Marshall Div., Case
`No. 2:07cv143.
`7. International Trade Commission Case, Inv. No.
`337-TA-888, Knowles Electronics, LLC v.
`GoerTek, Inc.
`8. FCA US LLC, Petitioner, v., Signal IP, Inc.,
`Inter Partes Review, Before The Patent Trial
`And Appeal Board, United States Patent And
`Trademark Office, 2015
`9. Fabrienne English And Karen Lowthert,
`individually and On Behalf Of Themselves And
`All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
`Apple Inc., Applecare Service Company, Inc.,
`and Apple CSC Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01619-
`WHO, United States District Court, Northern
`District Of California, San Francisco Division,
`2015
`10. International Trade Commission Case 337-TA-
`1010, Tessera, Inc. et. al. v. Broadcom
`Corporation, 1:16-cv-00379 and Tessera, Inc., et.
`al. v. Broadcom Corporation, 1:16-cv-00380.
`11. Dutch court case (case number C/09/517267)
`between Invensas Corp (plaintiff) and Broadcom
`Limited c.s. (defendants)
`12. Acer Incorporated, and Luxshare Precision
`Industry Co., Ltd. v. Bing Xu Precision Co.,
`Ltd.; Petition for Inter Partes Review.
`13. Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-00351 (E.D. Va.)
`
`Dr. Lall Retained by:
`Qualcomm
`ST Microelectronics
`FreeScale
`SPIL
`
`GoerTek
`
`Chrysler
`
`Apple
`
`Broadcom
`
`Broadcom
`
`Luxshare Precision
`Industry Co., Ltd.
`
`T-Mobile
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`7
`
`
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 335
`
`

`

`Case
`14. Qualcomm v. Apple, In the United States
`District Court for the Southern District of
`California, Case. No. 3:17-CV-2402
`15. Invensas Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et
`al., No. 2:17-cv-00670 (E.D. Tex.)
`16. Invensas Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et
`al., No. 1:17-cv-01363 (D. Del.)
`17. TATI Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al.,
`No. 2:17-cv-671-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`
`Dr. Lall Retained by:
`Qualcomm
`
`Samsung
`
`Samsung
`
`Samsung
`
`17. My curriculum vitae includes additional details about my experience
`
`and professional background.
`
`18.
`
`In light of the foregoing, I consider myself to be an expert in the areas
`
`of semiconductor design, manufacturing, packaging, and testing and specifically
`
`including the area of contact element design to which the ‘460 patent is directed.
`
`III. THIS PROCEEDING AND INFORMATION I HAVE CONSIDERED
`I understand that FormFactor’s three Petitions assert the following
`19.
`
`grounds of alleged obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`Obviousness Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Petition /
`Ground
`’80, Ground 1 JP182 + Sudin + Crippa
`‘80, Ground 2 JP182 + Sudin + Crippa + Felici
`‘80, Ground 3 JP182 + Sudin + Crippa + Kister
`‘80, Ground 4 Sudin
`‘80, Ground 5 Sudin + Kister
`‘80, Ground 6 Sudin + Felici
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`1-2, 11-12, 14, 18-19, 22
`15-16, 33
`3
`1, 11-12, 14, 18-19, 22
`3
`15-16 and 33
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 335
`
`

`

`Petition /
`Ground
`‘80, Ground 7 Chen
`
`Obviousness Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`‘81, Ground 1 JP182 + Sudin + Crippa
`‘81, Ground 2 JP182 + Sudin + Crippa + Bove
`‘81, Ground 3 Sudin
`‘81, Ground 4 Sudin + Bove
`‘81, Ground 5 Chen
`‘81, Ground 6 Chen + Bove
`‘82, Ground 1 JP182 + Sudin + Crippa
`‘82, Ground 2 JP182 + Sudin + Crippa + Nguyen
`‘82, Ground 3 JP182 + Sudin + Crippa + Yu
`‘82, Ground 4 Sudin
`‘82, Ground 5 Sudin + Byrnes
`‘82, Ground 6 Sudin + Nguyen
`‘82, Ground 7 Sudin + Yu
`‘82, Ground 8 Chen
`
`1-3, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19,
`22, 33
`1, 4-10, 13, 17, 20-21, 31-32
`25
`1, 4-10, 13, 17, 20-21
`25
`1, 4-10, 13, 17, 20-21
`25
`1, 15-16, 23-24, 27-30, 33
`26
`31-32
`1, 15-16, 23, 27, 33
`24
`26
`28-32
`1, 23, 26, 27
`
`20. As can be seen in the Table above, the same three primary Grounds
`
`are applied against independent claim 1 of the ’460 Patent in each of the three
`
`Petitions: (1) “JP182 + Sudin + Crippa” (’80, Ground 1, ’81, Ground 1, ’82,
`
`Ground 1); (2) “Sudin” (’80, Ground 4, ’81, Ground 3, ’82, Ground 4); and (3)
`
`“Chen” (’80, Ground 7, ’81, Ground 5, ’82, Ground 8).
`
`21.
`
`I address each of the primary Grounds in separate sections below,
`
`along with various Grounds directed to dependent claims.
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`9
`
`
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 335
`
`

`

`22.
`
`In forming my opinions and preparing for this Declaration, I have
`
`reviewed and am now familiar with the contents of FormFactor’s three Petitions
`
`and each of the Exhibits thereto, which are listed in the following chart.
`
`Exhibit
`‘82
`‘81
`‘80
`FF1001 FF1001 FF1001 U.S. Patent 7,850,460
`FF1002 FF1002 FF1002 File History of U.S. Patent 7,850,460
`FF1003 FF1003 FF1003 File History of EP 2 117 081 (German),
`• Attachment A – English Translation of the EP
`Search Report;
`• Attachment B – English Translation of the
`Response to the EP Search Report
`FF1004 FF1004 FF1004 Declaration of Frederick Taber
`• Attachment A - Curriculum Vitae of Frederick
`Taber
`FF1005 FF1005 FF1005 Japanese Publication JP 2000-214182
`FF1006 FF1006 FF1006 English translation of JP 2000-214182 (“JP182”),
`with Certification
`FF1007 FF1007 FF1007 Declaration of Toyu Yazaki
`FF1008 FF1008 FF1008 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0170440 to Sudin
`(“Sudin”)
`FF1009 FF1009 FF1009 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0238209 to Chen
`et al. (“Chen”)
`FF1010 FF1010 FF1010 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0110506 to
`Crippa et al (“Crippa”)
`FF1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,529,021 to Yu et al (“Yu”)
`FF1012 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0113612 to
`Nguyen (“Nguyen”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0070743 to Felici
`et al (“Felici”)
`
`n/a
`n/a
`
`FF1013
`
`n/a
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`n/a
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`10
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 335
`
`

`

`FF1014 FF1014 FF1014 U.S. Patent No. 3,806,801 to Bove (“Bove”)
`FF1015
`n/a
`n/a
`U.S. Patent No. 7,671,610 to Kister (“Kister”)
`FF1016 FF1016 FF1016 U.S. Patent No. 4,027,935 to Byrnes et al
`(“Byrnes”)
`FF1017 FF1017 F1017 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0183898 to
`Kazama et al
`FF1018 FF1018 FF1018 Selected portions of Webster’s II New College
`Dictionary, Third Edition, 2005
` Declaration of Adam Fowles
`FF1019 FF1019 FF1019
`FF1020 FF1020 FF1020 U.S. Patent No. 7,659,739 to Kister et al.
`FF1021
`n/a
`n/a
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,112 to Das et al.
`
`23.
`
`I have also reviewed and am familiar with the file history of the ’460
`
`patent and references of record therein listed in the following chart. Most of the
`
`references of record were not included as Exhibits to FormFactor’s Petitions, and
`
`were not discussed therein. FormFactor does cite Sudin (FF1008), Byrnes
`
`(FF1016), and Nguyen (FF1012). I discuss Tamburro (Ex. 2002), Matheiu (Ex.
`
`2003), and Felici ’496 (Ex. 2004) below.
`
`Patent / Publication No.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,026,011
`U.S. Patent No. 4,027.935 (“Byrnes”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,076,356 (“Tamburro”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,116,523
`U.S. Patent No. 4,737,114
`U.S. Patent No. 4,773,877
`U.S. Patent No. 5,225,777
`
`Inventor(s)
`Walton
`Byrnes et al.
`Tamburro
`Coberly et al.
`Yaegashi
`Kruger et al.
`Bross et al.
`
`Exhibit #
`
`FF1016
`2002
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`11
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 335
`
`

`

`Exhibit #
`Inventor(s)
`Patent / Publication No.
`
`Driller et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,399,982
`
`Swart et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,865,641
`
`Khandros et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,917,707
`
`Vinh
`U.S. Patent No. 5,952,843
`
`Bennett
`U.S. Patent No. 6,024,579
`
`Peters
`U.S. Patent No. 6,358,097
`
`Nakano et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,471,524
`2003
`Mathieu et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,491,968 (“Mathieu”)
`2004
`U.S. Patent No. 6,515,496 (“Felici ’496”) Felici et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,758,682
`Kosmala
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,855,010
`Yen
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,859,054
`Zhou et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. D507,198
`Kister
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,945,827
`Grube et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,690,925
`Goodman
`FF1012
`U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0113612 (“Nguyen”) Nguyen
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0142669
`Phillips
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0121627
`Grube et al.
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0064765
`Simpson et al.
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0070170
`Zhang et al.
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0046528
`Beaman et al.
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0073712
`Suhir
`FF1008
`U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0170440 (“Sudin”)
`Sudin
`
`U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0001612
`Kister
`
`Swiss Pub. CH 661129
`Kruger
`
`German Pub. DE 4104215
`Hauber
`UK Pub. GB 1470007
`Cobaugh et al.
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`12
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 335
`
`

`

`Patent / Publication No.
`International Pub. WO 2007/097559
`
`Inventor(s)
`Baek et al.
`
`Exhibit #
`
`
`24.
`
`I have also reviewed and am familiar with the Notices of Institution of
`
`IPR2019-00080, IPR2019-00081, and IPR2019-00082 instituting the Grounds of
`
`FormFactor’s Petitions (identified above), and the following additional Exhibits to
`
`Feinmetall’s Patent Owner Response and Contingent Motion to Amend:
`
` Exhibit
`Holm, R., Electrical Contacts, 3rd Edition, Springer-Verlag,
`1958, pp.1.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,977,787 (“Taber ’787”)
`Handwritten Drawing from the Deposition of Frederick
`Taber
`June 26, 2019 Transcript of the Deposition of Frederick
`Taber
`June 27, 2019 Transcript of the Deposition of Frederick
`Taber
`U.S. Application No. 12/463,083
`FormFactor’s “Initial Invalidity Contentions” in Feinmetall
`GmbH et al. v. FormFactor, Inc., Case No. 18-1057 (RGA)
`in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`U.S. Patent No. 4,737,114 (“Yaegashi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,923,178 (“Higgins”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,768,327 (“Felici ‘327”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,511,523 (“Chen ‘523”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005-0184748 (“Chen ‘748”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007-0210813 (“Hirakawa”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,599,194 (“Ozawa”)
`
`Exhibit #
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`2012
`
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`13
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 335
`
`

`

`
`
` Exhibit
`U.S. Patent No. 6,144,212 (“Mizuta”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,788,080 (“Lenz”)
`European Patent Publication No. 0 500 227 A2
`(“Matsuoka”)
`Amir Afshar, Principles of Semiconductor Network Testing
`(1995)
`Milenko Braunovic et al., Electrical Contacts: Fundamentals,
`Applications and Technology (2007)
`Paul Slade, Electrical Contacts: Principles and Applications
`(1999)
`Marjorie Myers, Overview of the Use of Silver in Connector
`Applications (2009)
`Irvin Brockman et al., A Limited Study of the Effects of
`Contact Normal Force, Contact Geometry, and Wipe
`Distance on the Contact Resistance of Gold-Plated Contacts,
`11 IEEE Transactions on Components, Hybrids, and
`Manufacturing Tech. 393 (1988)
`
`
`Exhibit #
`2020
`2021
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`25. This section sets forth certain legal standards provided to me by
`
`counsel for Feinmetall that have guided my analysis.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the scope of the issues to be considered in an Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) are limited to those grounds disclosed in the Petition.
`
`Therefore, I have focused my analysis on those grounds.
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`14
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 335
`
`

`

`27.
`
`I understand that in IPR proceedings, the claim terms in an unexpired
`
`patent are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean
`
`the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term
`
`must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless
`
`the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be
`
`consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings.
`
`29.
`
` I understand that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims
`
`must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.
`
`Thus the focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim should be what
`
`would be reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`30.
`
` I understand that the ordinary and customary meaning of a term may
`
`be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves,
`
`the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, I understand that the best
`
`source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the
`
`greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim
`
`terms.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that each of the Grounds in the ’80, ’81, and ’82 IPRs
`
`rely upon allegations that the claims of the ’460 patent are obvious.
`15
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 335
`
`

`

`32.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is not patentable if it is
`
`obvious. I understand that a claimed invention is obvious if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art reference or references are
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (a “POSITA”).
`
`33.
`
`I understand that several factual inquiries underlie a determination of
`
`obviousness. These inquiries include (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2)
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention, (3) the differences between
`
`the claimed invention and the prior art, and (4) any objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness.
`
`34. Objective evidence of non-obviousness, also called “secondary
`
`considerations,” include the invention’s commercial success, commercial
`
`acquiescence (i.e., licensing), a long felt but unresolved need, the failure of others,
`
`skepticism by experts, praise by others, teaching away by others, recognition of a
`
`problem, laudatory statements by infringers, and copying of the invention by
`
`competitors.
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed that obviousness is determined by looking at the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”).
`
`IPR2019-00080; -00081; -00082
`Patent No. 7,850,460
`
`16
`
`Declaration of Pradeep Lall, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 335
`
`

`

`36.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is not obvious if the asserted
`
`combination of prior