Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 50
`Entered: March 4, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., INTEL CORPORATION,
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)1
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`_______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: February 9, 2022
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each of the
`above-identified cases. The parties, are not authorized to use this style
`heading in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 50
`Entered: March 4, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., INTEL CORPORATION,
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)1
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`_______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: February 9, 2022
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each of the
`above-identified cases. The parties, are not authorized to use this style
`heading in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOSEPH E. PALYS, ESQ.
`NAVEEN MODI, ESQ.
`Paul Hastings LLP
`2050 M Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 551-1700
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ANNITA ZHONG, ESQ.
`MACLAIN WELLS, ESQ.
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars
`Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`(310) 277-1010
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, February
`
`9, 2022, commencing at 1:33 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE KALAN: Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Judge
`Kristina Kalan. On the panel with me today are Judge Kimberly
`McGraw and Judge Christopher Crumbley, and this is a final
`hearing by video in case numbers IPR2021-00103 and IPR2021-
`00104. Applied Materials, Inc., as Petitioner, Intel
`Corporation and Samsung Electronics Company Limited have been
`joined as Petitioners, versus Demaray, LLC as Patent Owner.
`The -00103 IPR concerns U.S. Patent number 7,544,276 B2. The -00104
`IPR concerns U.S. Patent number 7,381,657 B2. These cases are
`related but not consolidated.
` And at this time I would like counsel to introduce
`themselves and their colleagues for the record starting with
`counsel for Petitioner please.
` MR. PALYS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is
`Joseph Palys for Petitioner. I'm joined today with my
`colleague Naveen Modi.
` JUDGE KALAN: Thank you. Mr. Palys, will you be
`presenting all of Petitioner's arguments or will you be
`sharing that task?
` MR. PALYS: Mr. Modi and I will be splitting it up.
`I'll explain that more in the beginning, but essentially we'll
`be splitting the issues up between us. I'll start and then
`Mr. Modi will pickup where I left off.
` JUDGE KALAN: Thank you. And for Patent Owner?
`
`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
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
` MR. WELLS: Yes, this is --
` MS. ZHONG: This is Annita Zhong representing
`Patent Owner. Also on the line is Mr. Maclain Wells, and also
`listening in are Mr. Ben Hattenbach, Mr. Jeffrey Linxwiler,
`and Ms. Olivia Weber. We are all from Irell & Manella. And I
`also believe that the client representatives Scott Efron (ph),
`Brian Mascouche (ph), Erie Edwards (ph), and one of the
`inventors, Dr. Demaray, are listening as well. And today Mr.
`Maclain Wells and I will be splitting the presentation time.
` JUDGE KALAN: Thank you. And this hearing is open
`to the public. A full transcript of the hearing will be made
`part of the record. All three of the judges have access to
`the complete record and the parties' demonstrative exhibits.
`When you are referring to a demonstrative exhibit, please
`state the slide or page number to which you are referring for
`the record. Also, please mute yourself when not speaking.
`And does either side have any questions before we begin
`arguments?
` MS. ZHONG: Nothing from Patent Owner.
` MR. PALYS: Nothing from Petitioner, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KALAN: All right. And let me go into time.
`Each party has a total time of 60 minutes to present their
`arguments as we set forth in the hearing order. The parties
`may divide their total time for argument between the cases as
`they see fit but must make it clear for the record which case
`is under discussion at any given time. Petitioner bears the
`
`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
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`burden of proof that the patent claims at issue are
`unpatentable and will proceed first.
` Mr. Palys, you have a total of 60 minutes and you
`may reserve some of that time for rebuttal. How much time
`would you like to reserve?
` MR. PALYS: We'd like to shoot for 15 to 20 minutes
`in rebuttal depending on how -- you know, questions and how
`the hearing goes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE KALAN: All right. I will try to remind you
`at 45 minutes.
` MR. PALYS: Appreciate that.
` JUDGE KALAN: And Patent Owner, I will ask you when
`it's time for you to start what you would like to reserve
`after you've had a chance to hear what Petitioner has to say.
`So at this time you've reserved about 15 to 20 minutes for
`rebuttal and I will let you begin when you are ready.
` MR. PALYS: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please
`the board. I assume Your Honors have our demonstratives in
`front of you, so if you could please pull up the Petitioner's
`demonstratives and let's start at slide 2. And I'd like to
`start today by providing a brief roadmap of the issues that
`we're going to attempt to address today with the understanding
`that we realize we're probably not going to be able to get
`through all the details given the time constraints but we
`think it's a good idea just -- let's just set out what we're
`attempting to do here.
`
`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
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
` So as Your Honors know from the post institution
`briefing we really have two issues to address and the first is
`the Patent Owner's arguments regarding the asserted prior art
`grounds and then the second issue is really their attempt to
`antedate one of those prior art references, Hirose in
`particular. And as I mentioned, Your Honors, I'll be
`addressing the first issue and my colleague, Mr. Modi, will
`address the second.
` As to the first issue, we believe Patent Owner's
`arguments -- well, we know that they really focus on the
`Barber-Hirose combination. And in particular with respect to
`the narrow band rejection filter limitations, you'll hear us
`talk about that, sometimes calling it the NBRF and that's what
`we're referring to. Well, Patent Owner actually doesn't
`really meaningfully dispute the Petition's assertions with
`respect to all the other limitations and all the other claims
`barring this reconditioning position which we disagree with
`and that affects the '657 patent, claim 1. But as explained
`in our papers, Your Honor, the record really demonstrates that
`the combination of Barber and Hirose really teaches the NBRF
`limitations and renders obvious the challenged claims.
` Now their Response, Patent Owner's Response, to
`this mountain of evidence is really to demonstrate and really
`to take piecemeal attacks of Barber, a piecemeal attack of
`Hirose, and even going after the state of art evidence that
`really demonstrates what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`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
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`really knew and that was about the use of filters, including
`narrow band rejection filters, and the need to protect a power
`supply from remote RF signals. Their arguments and their
`reliance on their expert's unreliable and faulty opinions we
`believe should be given little weight.
` So now faced with this strong evidence of
`obviousness, Patent Owner really tries to remove Hirose from
`the picture. And as Mr. Modi will discuss today, Patent Owner
`cannot meet its burden to antedate Hirose. Importantly,
`nowhere in the documents do the inventors show the claimed
`invention or that an NBRF was used in the claim system or the
`claim process prior to Hirose. The rule of reason, Your
`Honor, does not permit Patent Owner to insert present day
`assumptions or uncorroborated testimony to fill in evidentiary
`holes. So as a result Hirose remains prior art and that's why
`I'm going to start today and discuss why the record supports a
`finding that the challenged claims were obvious and
`unpatentable.
` So let me stop there or move on with that backdrop
`and let's go to slide 4 please. Slide 4 shows Figure 1A from
`the '276 patent and it's the same in the '657. But anyway,
`the challenged patents really describe a sputtering system
`that includes well known components and processes. You can
`see this in Figure 1A. They have a post DC power supply
`that's connected to a target. It's got an RF power supply
`that's biasing the substrate. It's got a system with plasma.
`
`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
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`And in particular, it has this filter that's located between
`the pulse DC power supply and the target.
` Now the filter is a black box, right, and what does
`the patent tell you about this black box? It starts off with
`saying it's a band rejection filter, that's what it is, and
`only in some embodiments is it really a narrow band rejection
`filter. And you can see that for example in the '276 patent,
`Exhibit 1001 at column 5, 49 through 59.
` Now on the right you can see on slide 4 the
`challenged patents really claim these known features but, as I
`mentioned, Patent Owner's arguments are really focused on the
`highlighted features of these claims. We're only showing you
`claim 1 from each of the patents so obviously there's other
`independent claims at issue across both proceedings. But the
`record demonstrates, as I mentioned, that these features were
`nothing new and indeed obvious in view of Barber and Hirose.
` So if we could turn to slide 5. But before I want
`to really address Barber and Hirose I would like to discuss
`what did a person of ordinary skill in the art really bring to
`the table when it was considering Barber and Hirose at the
`relevant time? Here the record clearly demonstrates that
`persons of ordinary skill in the art were well aware the
`dangers of RF signals coupling from one power supply to
`another in plasma systems and the benefits of using filters to
`block those signals, including narrow band rejection filters.
` So if we turn to slide 6 please. For example, the
`
`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
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`challenged patents even identify this Pinnacle Plus from
`Advanced Energy as one type of pulse DC power supply that can
`be used with its system. Now it's undisputed, Your Honors,
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`prior knowledge about this type of power supply and of its
`manufacturer, Advanced Energy. And you can see here the cite
`from the '276 patent at column 5, 40 through 46.
` JUDGE KALAN: So when you rely on these manuals
`from Advanced Energy, are you relying on them as part of the
`patent, as Applicant admitted prior art, or as separate
`references? Excuse me. What box would you put them into when
`you cite them, for example, in the next few pages of your
`demonstratives?
` MR. PALYS: Sure. So these are representative of
`evidence supporting our expert's opinions about the knowledge
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art and that's what we're
`talking about right now at least in the flow of my discussion.
`What did a person of ordinary skill in the art have in their
`mind when they went to look at Barber and Hirose? And these
`state of the art references are not part of our grounds. You
`know, we're not saying Barber in view of Hirose plus one of
`these references. You know, you can -- we know how our
`Petition under the rules identifies the specific grounds.
`These are demonstrating and supporting what our expert says
`about what a person of ordinary skill in the art is. So
`they're state of the art. They're evidence of state of the
`
`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
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`art knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Did I
`answer your question, Your Honor?
` JUDGE KALAN: Yes. A follow-up question. I think
`in your Petition in the introductory section about the patent
`you rely on this Figure 1-5 that's reproduced in your slide 8
`when discussing the patent, so I suppose that's what led me to
`inquire if you're implying that this manual is incorporated by
`reference or is part of the patent somehow --
` MR. PALYS: No, I --
` JUDGE KALAN: -- rather than something that your
`expert relies on.
` MR. PALYS: Sorry, Your Honor. I appreciate that.
`If you'll allow me to walk through the next of your slides I
`think it might be clear how we're approaching this. And if
`you still have a question I'm happy to try to answer that. Is
`that okay?
` JUDGE KALAN: Sure.
` MR. PALYS: Great. So if we just turn to slide 7.
`You know, we've already mentioned that the patent has a
`reference to the Pinnacle Plus and Advanced Energy, and in
`fact, as you see on slide 7, the record shows that Advanced
`Energy had been informing persons of ordinary skill in the art
`since at least 1993 about the dangers of RF coupling from an
`RF power supply in a plasma system with a DC power supply.
`You can see excerpts from Exhibits 1025, 1026, 1067, and 1090,
`which are the front covers of these manuals.
`
`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
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
` Now if you turn to slide 8, Your Honor, you can see
`here -- now this is an excerpt from one of those manuals.
`This is the 1993 Advanced Energy manual. It's Exhibit 1025.
`And you can see how Advanced Energy, again the same
`manufacturer as identified in the patents, informed POSITAs
`that an RF filter must be placed between the DC power supply
`output and the chamber when an AC power source is used and
`that AC power source of course is RF power. And in particular
`Advanced Energy even provided an exemplary illustration, as
`Your Honor just pointed out, and it refers to it as a typical
`configuration of DC sputtering with RF bias.
` Okay. So if we turn to slide 9, this is where we
`can see the comparisons between this and the point here is
`that this exemplary arrangement provided by Advanced Energy,
`which is on the right, is very similar to that that you see in
`the challenged patents configuration on the left. Both of
`them have a filter between the DC power supply and a target.
`Both of them uses filter to prevent signals from the remote RF
`power supply from coupling to the DC power supply. And indeed
`you can see on the bottom of slide 8 highlighted in yellow
`similar to that discussed by the challenged patents, which is
`on the left, Advanced Energy was indicating that such an RF
`filter must be placed between the DC power supply and the
`chamber because of potential damage from the RF power supply
`in the sputtering system.
` And so to get to your point, Your Honor -- well,
`
`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
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`first let's jump to slide 10 and I'll get to your point which
`is, as noted in our record, Advanced Energy was continuing to
`provide these warnings all the way up to the 2000s. All the
`way from at least 1993 up through at least 2000, 2001, and
`beyond, even for the Pinnacle and Pinnacle Plus. And so to
`your question, Your Honor, this is demonstrating what a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have known. And in fact,
`if you look at Exhibit 1002 which is our expert Dr.
`Subramanian's declaration at paragraph 38, he makes clear that
`these cautions that we find in these manuals were consistent
`with the person of ordinary skill in the art's understanding
`regarding the use of DC and RF power supplies. So it supports
`our expert's opinion.
` JUDGE KALAN: So were they cautions or needs?
`You've called them both. The filter seems like a strongly
`suggested caution in the manuals but Barber doesn't have a
`filter so systems without filters were also known.
` MR. PALYS: Yes, that's true. So to answer your
`question, Your Honor, one, the manuals do use the word must.
`I showed you that with respect to the 1993 one. And then it
`uses the word caution because you can see here on slide 10
`it's cautioning the one of ordinary skill in the art saying,
`hey, look, if you're going to use these types of power
`supplies, whether it's a continuous power supply like the MDX
`or even the Pinnacle Plus power supply just like that in the
`patents, if you're going to use that power supply in a system
`
`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
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`like a sputtering system with an RF power source you better
`put a way of filtering that RF power from coupling to it
`because you'll damage it.
` And that's what our point here is that our expert
`made this point, it's something well known in the art, and in
`fact we don't even just rely on the AEI manuals. There's
`other state of the art references that provide that. In fact,
`the slides 11 to 12 give you some excerpts, I won't go into
`them, but our papers walk through a bunch of these types of
`state of the art documents. But the point is this is what was
`in the mind of a person of ordinary skill in the art before
`they even got to Barber. You know what I mean? And so when
`you get to Barber -- and to your point, you know, Barber
`doesn't have a filter, but that's what our obviousness
`position explains. And if I can just -- I can move ahead --
` JUDGE MCGRAW: If you can go back to slide 10 for a
`moment. I'm sorry. Can you hear me?
` MR. PALYS: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MCGRAW: If you could go back to slide 10 for
`a moment.
` MR. PALYS: Yes.
` JUDGE MCGRAW: In each of these warnings it says do
`not apply the RF power source directly to the output of the DC
`power source. So isn't that a significant difference between
`what is shown in Barber where the RF power source is not
`directly connected to the DC power source?
`
`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
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
` MR. PALYS: You know, that's a good question. I
`think you're referring to -- that's one of Patent Owner's
`arguments that they're making with respect to these AEI
`manuals. And our response is this, and I'm going to try find
`a slide for you to help facilitate that. One second. If we
`look at the 1993, the Exhibit 1028, or 1025 exhibit that has
`that particular arrangement -- or I'll just go up to where we
`were.
` JUDGE MCGRAW: Slide 8 probably.
` MR. PALYS: Yeah. Yeah. Slide 8. I have another
`slide but it's okay. There we go. Let's look at slide 8.
` JUDGE MCGRAW: Whatever slide --
` MR. PALYS: I'm sorry?
` JUDGE MCGRAW: I said whatever slide you choose.
` MR. PALYS: Okay. I think the point can be made
`here. So anyway, first off, when you look at this slide one
`of their arguments to make this direct connection type of
`argument -- the 1993 1025 doesn't really say that direct, but
`that doesn't matter, that's not our real main point here.
`They're looking at this alternate method here, right, and
`that's in hash lines. That's an alternate. By its word it's
`an alternate method. So they -- Patent Owner has really
`raised -- made some hay out about this and said, oh, well,
`Advanced Energy is only referring to the situation and really
`the filter only applies when the power from the RF source goes
`around this dotted line around the chamber. But the filter is
`
`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
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`not even in dotted line, Your Honor. The filter applies to
`both situations. That's why it's called an alternate method.
`The main method is the coupling that's happening through the
`chamber. And of course we know that because that's exactly
`what our expert has explained.
` And in fact, Patent Owner repeatedly -- I mean for
`14 hours on the first deposition, two full days, they went
`after -- or nearly 14 -- went after our expert and, at least
`from our perspective we think, we think he continuously
`supported all his opinions and especially on this point about
`whether there would be RF coupling and why you would need a
`filter, and that gets to your question, Your Honor. So Barber
`doesn't have a filter so why would you need it? And that's
`our motivation, right.
` Well, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`know when you first -- when you think about it and what's in
`our Petitions it starts off with, well, Barber has its
`arrangements, has its systems, and Patent Owner doesn't really
`dispute that it discloses all these other features that you
`see in like claim 1 of the '276 patent. It's only this MBR
`feature. And we acknowledge that. It doesn't teach a filter.
`Barber does have a concern for -- a desire for a stable
`waveform, right. We point that out and you can find that in
`Dr. Subramanian's Exhibit 1002, paragraph 74. I'm referring
`to the -00103 matter, not the -- forget about the -00104 matter but
`there's corresponding cites to both and reference to Barber.
`
`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
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
` And then with that he also explains that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to other
`apparatuses using power supplies and a different system such
`as Hirose. But before we even get there, in their mind they
`have this. They know that if you have a system that has an RF
`bias, like an RF bias here to a substrate, and you have a DC
`power source that's coupled to the target, even in Barber's
`system you are going to get RF coupling and there's potential
`damage to that. That's just the science. That's straight
`physics. They make a big stink about well --
` JUDGE MCGRAW: Where is that evidence in the
`record? Can you point us to the evidence in the record that
`would show that?
` MR. PALYS: Yes. Let me just -- I know I'm eating
`up a lot of time so let me try to wrap that one up. So I
`think it starts with our positions in our Petition, right. If
`we go to the motivations and reason to combine with -- to
`modify Barber, you start at the Petitions anywhere between --
`in the -00103 matter it's pages 27 to 26 and it starts off with,
`you know, what does Barber disclose and what Hirose discloses,
`but there is disclosure here from the state of the art
`citations that you see and from the testimony of our expert,
`direct testimony first, about the stability of -- like I just
`mentioned, Barber is concerned about the -- concerned about a
`stable waveform. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`know that they would be concerned about the need for having a
`
`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
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`filter to protect the DC power supply.
` And in fact, I should have just looked on the
`slides, Your Honor. At the bottom you'll see citations to the
`record that actually give you where you're going to find a lot
`of the backdrop. Each of these slides have that. So we have
`the Petition and both -- you can see 33 through 35, 27 through
`-- 25 through 27 for the -00104. Even citations to Dr.
`Subramanian's declaration.
` But more importantly what I also want to point out
`is, you know, the record even further supports what we have in
`our Petitions. If you look at Dr. Subramanian's cross-
`examination testimony and what came about during trial you can
`see that the arguments that Patent Owner is really making on
`this idea of whether there's RF coupling really doesn't stand
`-- hold water. If we turn to our slides -- and I'll get to
`the citations for the cross-examination testimony when I get
`there.
` So if we go to slide, let's say, 91, we can start
`there. And first off, on this idea of there would be no --
`Patent Owner's position really is the way Barber is arranged a
`person of ordinary skill in the art wouldn't have been
`concerned about any RF coupling to warrant the use of a
`filter. Okay. And how they get there is a few ways. They
`try to attack Barber's -- the characteristics of its system,
`the distance between the components in the system.
` Well, we rebut that in our Reply because Barber
`
`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
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`doesn't describe any particular distance and they don't
`dispute that it's any different from any typical sputtering
`system just like the one you see in the AEI manual which uses
`a filter for protecting it from the coupling.
` They also argue that pressure gases are so low in
`Barber that it would never have this coupling to warrant a
`filter. Well, as we explain in our Reply, Barber has the
`exact same pressures that the '276 and the '657 patents have
`and they have a filter and they say they have a coupling, so
`that can't be.
` And then more importantly, what you see on the
`slide here at slide 91, Your Honor, before institution Patent
`Owner acknowledged that Barber does experience an RF coupling
`and what they do is they look at this -- as you can see on the
`screen, they look at the Miller application, which is
`incorporated by reference here, to make this point. But now
`under Patent Owner Response and what you see in their Sur-reply is like, no,
`no, no, there's not enough coupling to really
`support this idea of having a filter.
` And on slide 92 you can see what Dr. Glew said too.
`And this all goes to his credibility, which I know I'm eating
`up a lot of time, Your Honors, but I want to make sure I get
`to some of those points about Dr. Glew. But here Dr. Glew is
`saying you actually -- the ringing here is indicative of RF
`frequency from other circuits including from the RF bias on a
`substrate coupling into the DC power supply. That's their
`
`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
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`expert post institution. Now they're saying no, no, it
`doesn't have any RF coupling.
` Now this is interesting and I want to pause here
`for a second because you can see in their demonstratives that
`likely they're going to bring this Miller -- this same figure
`back up and try to make the point that it's like, oh, the
`small ringing that you see at the top actually shows that the
`RF coupling is going to be really small, right. I think it's
`important or it's actually telling if we just -- I assume --
`do Your Honors have the record in front of you? Can you pull
`up an exhibit if I ask you to? If you could pull up Exhibit
`1060 --
` JUDGE KALAN: Yes.
` MR. PALYS: -- which is the Miller application.
` JUDGE KALAN: One zero six zero?
` MR. PALYS: Yeah, one zero six zero, and that's where
`you'll see these figures -- this is all incorporated by
`reference into Barber. And if you go to the Miller
`application and you actually scroll down to page I think it's
`20 where the figures are and just take a look at Figure 2. So
`again, their position is that Miller -- that the ringing at
`the top -- this is in their Sur-reply, Your Honors, that the
`ringing in the top of this figure is actually showing minimal
`RF coupling and so they're saying, oh, you don't need a
`filter. Well, my question is where is this RF coupling coming
`from because Miller doesn't have an RF bias. Figure 2 shows
`
`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
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`this. All it has a post DC power supply. There's no bias to
`the substrate here. So it doesn't make sense what they're
`saying. What minimal coupling are they talking about? So we
`think that that's pretty telling on some of the lengths that
`they're going to.
` So one thing I want to do, Your Honor, is get you
`some cites and then I want to finish up with my last point on
`Dr. Glew. But what I want to point out is in Dr.
`Subramanian's cross-examination he talks about the AEI
`manuals. And I'm just going to run through some deposition
`cites and you can check them out and obviously you can ask me
`questions if you want. Exhibit 2017, that's at 321:10 through
`324:10. He's explaining how a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have known about the risk of RF coupling with Barber
`by the extensive calling out by these AEI manuals. And of
`course we have the Reply cite. That's at 33. The
`justification for using a filter you'll see at the same
`Exhibit 2017 at 332:17 through 333:12. Reasonable risk for
`processing conditions and designs. He says it was a good idea
`to protect Barber's system using filters. That's at Exhibit
`2017, 336, 337. I'll just say in that general range, the 320s
`up through the 330s of Exhibit 2017, and 406 through 407 is
`pretty good.
` Now the one thing I want to make sure that the
`board understands before I move on to Dr. Glew is this. Their
`arguments about why -- you know, Barber already has a way of
`
`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
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103 (Patent 7,544,276 B2)
`IPR2021-00104 (Patent 7,381,657 B2)
`
`stabilizing waveforms, right, so you wouldn't need to really
`use -- need a filter. And this is just very key point. You
`start -- again, what did a person of ordinary skill in the art
`have in mind? They knew that you need a filter. You need to
`have protection for that DC power supply when you have an
`arrangement like Barber, right. So you start -- okay, we need
`to have a filter. And now you go what type of filter? That's
`how the arrangement with Barber and Hirose and the state of
`the art comes into play.
` So number one, the fact that Barber was concerned
`with stability actually supports our positions of the type of
`filter that you would want to do and we think there's -- you
`can see this in our slides and then of course the extensive
`citations to Dr. Glew's testimony and the state of the art
`references. Persons of ordinary skill in the art knew about
`the characteristics of the very minimal options you had. I
`mean you could have high pass, low pass, band pass, band
`reject filters. There weren't many to choose from. And the
`fact was this was just known science and known in the art that
`a narrow band rejection filter
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
