`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent 7,544,276
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`______________________
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1
`PO FAILS TO ANTEDATE HIROSE ............................................................ 2
`A.
`Insufficient Evidence to Establish Prior Invention ............................... 3
`1.
`Testimony .................................................................................... 3
`2.
`Documents .................................................................................. 8
`3.
`Claim Chart ............................................................................... 10
`PO Fails to Establish Prior RTP/Conception ...................................... 12
`1.
`6/13/2001 .................................................................................. 12
`2.
`6/13/2001-6/26/2001 ................................................................. 16
`3.
`7/2/2001-7/6/2001 ..................................................................... 18
`4.
`7/13/2001-7/16/2001 ................................................................. 20
`5.
`7/18/2001 .................................................................................. 21
`IV. PO FAILS TO OVERCOME OBVIOUSNESS ........................................... 24
`A.
`Barber-Hirose’s NBRF ....................................................................... 24
`B. Motivation to Use NBRF in Barber .................................................... 26
`1.
`Glew’s Unreliable Analysis/Opinions ...................................... 26
`2.
`Glew Confirms POSITA’s Knowledge .................................... 30
`3.
`PO Attacks of State-of-Art Literature Are Inapposite .............. 32
`Barber’s RF-Coupling ......................................................................... 34
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`D.
`Printed Publication .............................................................................. 37
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 38
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner (“PO”) attempts (Paper 29, “POR”) to antedate Hirose through
`
`a shotgun of present-day testimony and interpretation of evidence that collectively
`
`fail to demonstrate both prior conception and reduction-to-practice (“RTP”). And
`
`PO’s witnesses’ cross-examination testimony exposed that the named inventors may
`
`not have even conceived the claimed invention, and certainly did not RTP before
`
`Hirose. PO’s narrative relies on the uncorroborated leap that a faxed circuit drawing
`
`of a band-reject filter confirms its use in prior “runs”—and thus, RTP—but fails to
`
`evidence that any of those runs actually RTP’d the claimed invention. Likewise,
`
`PO’s obviousness arguments are based on
`
`faulty expert analysis and
`
`misunderstandings of the record and evidence.
`
`The challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner disputes PO’s suggestion of “agree[ment]” (EX2022, 10), but
`
`nevertheless, PO’s positions are not dispositive because they do not distinguish the
`
`prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`III. PO FAILS TO ANTEDATE HIROSE
`To antedate, PO “must show either an earlier reduction to practice [RTP], or an
`
`earlier conception followed by a diligent RTP.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer
`
`Ingelheim GmbH, 237 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001). PO alleges the former,
`
`contending conception/RTP “no later than July 18, 20011, but likely as of June 13,
`
`2001.” (POR, 29.)2
`
`To establish RTP, PO must show: (1) construction of an embodiment meeting
`
`all limitations of the claimed invention; (2) a determination that the invention would
`
`work for its intended purpose; and (3) the existence of sufficient evidence to
`
`corroborate inventor testimony regarding these events. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo,
`
`S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2006). PO shows none.
`
` To establish conception, PO must “prove possession of the complete mental
`
`picture of the invention.” Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 40
`
`F.3d 1223, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994). PO cannot do so.
`
`
`1 PO’s assertions that RTP “on” Hirose’s date antedates (POR, 12-13) misreads
`
`Tomecek, which found the prevailing party “show[ed] an actual [RTP] on or before”
`
`the RTP date alleged by that party—not the reference date. (Tomecek v. Stimpson,
`
`513 F.2d 614, 614-16 (C.C.P.A. 1975).)
`
`2 PO waived any argument of diligent RTP after July 18, 2001. (POR, 12-15.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`A.
`
`Insufficient Evidence to Establish Prior Invention
`1.
`Testimony
`Over 20 years have passed since the alleged invention. Yet, PO relies heavily
`
`on present-day testimony/declarations from just one of four named inventors
`
`(Zhang) and non-inventor (Pethe). PO did not proffer testimony from inventors
`
`Demaray, who manages PO (EX1110), or Narasimhan, who consults for PO.
`
`(EX1117, ¶7.) PO’s unwillingness to present them, despite relying on their
`
`notebooks, calls into question what PO is hiding.3 Regardless, such “post-invention
`
`oral testimony is more suspect,” especially here where so many years have passed.
`
`Sandt Technology, Ltd. v. Resco Metal and Plastics Corp., 264 F.3d 1344, 1351
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001); Linear Technology Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311,
`
`1329 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (9 year-old record “of questionable value as corroboration”).
`
`Zhang and Pethe’s declarations are even more questionable given their cross-
`
`examination
`
`testimony.
`
` (EX1105 passim (“I [don’t/do not/can’t/cannot]
`
`[recall/remember]” >120 times); EX1107 passim (“I [don’t/do not] [recollect]” >50
`
`
`3 Demaray’s 2006 prosecution testimony that “(more than six units) of pulsed-DC
`
`power supplies” were “damaged” developing the invention, EX1052, 1134(¶3),
`
`cannot align with Zhang’s 2021 testimony. (EX2019, ¶17 (declaring only two
`
`damaged; EX1105, 95:2-9 (changing testimony to “maybe three or four”).)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`times).) Each admitted spending only 5 hours total (1) reviewing three notebooks;
`
`(2) the patents; and (3) drafting their declarations (Zhang (EX2019): 14 pages/32
`
`paragraphs; Pethe (EX2020): 13 pages/27 paragraphs). (EX1105, 239:24-240:22;
`
`EX1107, 168:10-171:9). The de minimus time and inability to recall details cast
`
`doubt on the veracity of their declarations.
`
`Both admitted not writing significant portions. (EX1107, 82:20-84:12 (Pethe
`
`“wrote about half of” declaration), 174:25-177:6 (“pictures” and “different samples”
`
`naming information added by counsel, as Pethe “did not have access to that”), 201:7-
`
`203:25 (“it’s possible” counsel first wrote declaration); EX1105, 19:17-22:8,
`
`122:15-23.) And, multiple declaration paragraphs are near replicas. (EX1107,
`
`195:6-199:13 (addressing EX1094), 200:2-202:25 (EX1095), 205:1-208:18
`
`(EX1097); 210:3-212:24 (EX1098).) 4 EX1095/EX1098 excerpted below
`
`(differences in red):
`
`
`
`
`4 Further, PO’s expert’s testimony is contradictory (discussed herein) and
`
`questionable given he was caught reading from previously-provided counsel email
`
`to change his declaration during redirect. (EX1106, 269:20-287:2; EX1104.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`a target area for receivingatarget:
`
`TPR2021-00103: Ex. 2019 Zhang Declaration|IPR2021-00103: Ex. 2020 Pethe Declaration
`10. In 2001, Symmorphix had two Applied
`7. In 2001-2002, Symmorphix had two
`Komatsu reactors for physical vapor
`Applied Komatsu reactors for physical vapor
`deposition, an AKT-1600 PVD system and
`deposition, an AKT-1600 PVD system and
`AKT-4300 PVD system. Each reactor had
`AKT-4300 PVD system.
`multiple chambers that could be used for PVD
`Each reactor also had multiple chambers that
`processes. Each chamberhad its own power
`could be used for PVD processes. Each
`sources and associated components. Pictures
`chamber had its own powersources and
`of examples of such systems are shown
`associated components. Pictures of examples
`of such systems are shown below:
`below:
`11. These reactors were originally developed
`8. These reactors were originally developed at
`at Appled Komatsu for sputtermg silicon on
`Applied Komatsu for sputtering silica on a
`a substrate usmg RF sputtermg. They mclude
`substrate. They include a target area for
`a target area for holding thetarget(e.g., silica
`holding the target (e.g., a silica or metal
`or metal) and a substrate area opposite the
`target) and a substrate area opposite the target
`target area for recetving the substrate (e.g.,
`area for recetving the substrate (e.g., various
`various types of glass or silicon wafers).
`types of glass or silicon wafers). There was
`Because these were magnetron reactors, they
`also a heater intended to mamtain the
`include a magnetic field generator supplying a
`temperature of the substrate. As shown below
`magnetic field to the target in the form of a
`mn the red box, the reaction chambers include
`magnet, which provides erosion of the target.
`There wasalso a heater mtended to maintain
`the temperature of the substrate.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`
`PO may argue counsel routinely draft declarations based on witnesses’
`
`recollection, but the de minimus time spent and lack of recollection suggest more
`
`likely influenced content. This is further illustrated in “their” testimony regarding
`
`conception of the narrow-band rejection filter (“NBRF”), which changed in cross-
`
`
`
`examination.
`
`Pethe declared that Zhang and Demaray conceived the NBRF (EX2020, ¶22),
`
`but on cross-examination, admitted “he was not part of the team” and would not
`
`know “what types of things that the team would have included to protect the pulsed
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`DC power supply to stop this problem of power supplies being damaged.” (EX1107,
`
`106:19-107:9, 113:11-116:13). Pethe ultimately admitted not knowing who
`
`conceived the NBRF (id., 123:7-129:4). Indeed, despite Zhang’s testimony that a
`
`consultant—Bob Weisse—was involved (EX2019, ¶19), Pethe knew little to nothing
`
`about Weisse’s work. (EX1107, 73:20-74:7; 76:16-21.) At first, Pethe was
`
`“confident” Weisse was not involved (id., 120:5-20), but eventually admitted not
`
`knowing who (1) designed the filter (id., 123:7-11); (2) built the filter (id., 122:22-
`
`123:6); or (3) recommended a specific filter to protect the power supply, because “I
`
`was not a part of the team, so I am not aware.” (Id., 123:12-17). He simply could
`
`not “recollect” whether Weisse or even the fourth inventor, Mullapudi, was involved
`
`in conceiving/building any NBRF. (Id., 124:10-20.)5
`
`Zhang’s declaration suggested she and Demaray solely solved the problem,
`
`but on cross-examination admitted “others on the engineering team” could have been
`
`involved (EX1105, 120:14-121:14) and that “we conceived” meant “the team”—
`
`not just her and Demaray (id.¸124:2-20)—an admission also at odds with Pethe’s
`
`declaration.
`
`
`5 Thus, no evidence corroborates the alleged NBRF conception (EX2019, ¶¶18-19).
`
`Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc., IPR2013-00580, Paper 31 at 11-13.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Ultimately, Pethe admitted lacking personal knowledge of “dates” and
`
`“details” in his declaration (EX1107, 79:9-19, 82:20-83:11 (“recollection” of
`
`“dates”/“process parameters” did “not necessarily” match notebooks); 79:9-19
`
`(“details”/“dates” are “based on the notebooks,” not personal knowledge).)6 He had
`
`no recollection whether he was even “working with the team” on a “chamber” with
`
`“pulsed DC power to the target and RF bias to the substrate.” (Id., 98:6-21.) Pethe’s
`
`cross-examination
`
`testimony precludes his declaration from providing
`
`the
`
`“independent” corroboration required to establish prior invention. Reese v. Hurst,
`
`661 F.2d 1222, 1225 (C.C.P.A. 1981).7
`
`2.
`Documents
`PO did not proffer any contemporaneously witnessed documentary evidence
`
`supporting prior invention. The majority was unwitnessed. The few cited witnessed
`
`notebook entries were almost exclusively done by co-inventors nearly one-and-a-
`
`half years after Hirose and nine-plus months after the earliest parent patent
`
`application (EX1052, 1; EX2012, 199-200; EX2013, 19-20, 22-25.)
`
`
`6 All emphasis added unless otherwise stated.
`
`7 Pethe also failed to acknowledge speaking to PO’s expert, who testified the two
`
`spoke while preparing declaration(s). (EX1106, 37:19-38:5, 240:25-241:13;
`
`EX1107, 45:5-20, 47:9-13.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Moreover, these entries are inventor evidence, which cannot alone provide
`
`sufficient corroboration. Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1170-72.
`
`PO cannot authenticate its notebooks. PO’s witnesses did not have access to
`
`actual notebooks, but only a “digital copy” from counsel. (EX1105, 44:2-10,
`
`257:13-258:12, 252:6-253:3, 259:23-260:24; EX1107, 29:1-14, 47:2-8, 80:8-21,
`
`130:10-131:1.) They do not “know how the digital copy…was created.” (EX1105,
`
`44:11-17, 258:10-15; EX1107, 222:8-223:1.). They were unwilling to testify that
`
`the “digital cop[ies]” they reviewed were “complete” copies. (EX1105, 252:6-
`
`253:3, 258:10-18, 258:23-259:2; EX1107, 29:20-30:4.) Zhang would not testify the
`
`notebooks had not “been altered in any way before a digital copy was created and
`
`provided to” her. (EX1105, 260:25-262:12, 258:10-259:19.) She did, however,
`
`acknowledge that Demaray later added content to her notebook. (Id., 41:21-43:7.)8
`
`Admittedly, PO’s witnesses have “no clue” where the notebooks “have been stored
`
`
`8 EX2012 shows other modifications. (E.g., EX2012, 407 (B&W-copy (handwritten
`
`“P90”)), 184 (color-copy of same page without handwriting). Loose pages in
`
`EX2012 suggests strategic placement (E.g., EX2012, 77-89, 95-115), despite
`
`Pethe’s unbelievable testimony they “would have been pasted” into the notebook
`
`(EX1107, 263:7-12, 264:25-266:15), not loose.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`since Symmorphix ceased to exist over a decade ago.” (EX1107, 222:8-22; EX1105,
`
`44:2-25.)
`
`PO’s witness
`
`testimony
`
`that unauthenticated April 2002
`
`reactor
`
`pictures/photographs (EX2024) “reflect what was used in the 2001-2002 time-
`
`period” do not establish possession/use on/before 7/18/2001. (POR, 32-33;
`
`EX2009, ¶81 (pp.45-47, 52-55); EX2020, ¶¶7-9.) Indeed, Pethe had no access to
`
`the pictures. (EX1107, 91:2-92:1, 174:25-175:13.)
`
`3.
`Claim Chart
`PO’s chart (POR, 32-41) cites a hodgepodge of different process “runs”
`
`(having different configurations) performed on different dates. No evidence
`
`establishes that, on any specific date, PO possessed/used a configuration including
`
`every limitation of any claim.
`
`PO had multiple PVD reactors and “used those reactors in various
`
`configurations for various processes.” (POR, 15; EX2009, ¶81 (referencing AKT-
`
`1600 and AKT-4300 reactors).) Each reactor had “multiple chambers that could be
`
`used for PVD processes,” and “[e]ach chamber had its own power sources and
`
`associated components.” (EX2019, ¶10; EX1105, 81:9-82:11 (each had “three
`
`or…four” chambers”). Zhang could not today discern “which chambers had which
`
`power supplies.” (EX1105, 82:25-83:14.)
`
`
`
`***
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Consequently, substantive holes aside, PO’s evidence is distinguishable from
`
`that of recent cases where sufficient corroboration was found, e.g., Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2014-00504, Paper 84 (March 13,
`
`2020).
`
` Unlike Motorola’s “uncontested” testimony (Motorola, 28), PO’s
`
`witnesses—who did not entirely write their declarations—could not recall details of
`
`their work 20-years ago and lack personal knowledge of declared dates/details, as
`
`explained herein. Motorola’s patent owner mapped its files to every claim limitation
`
`(Motorola, 17-18; Motorola, Paper 20, 17-22), whereas PO relies on disjoint
`
`excerpts of alleged notebook copies for which no witness could attest to their actual
`
`source or completeness/accuracy. (Supra, §§III.A.1-2.) PO’s alleged SCI-data
`
`“metadata” is nothing like the “metadata” in Motorola. PO has no corroborating
`
`“internal metadata” for the SCI-data or evidence it was obtained from an inventor-
`
`created repository. Motorola, 17-18. Further, unlike the “Requirements Document”
`
`in Motorola, the loose-page SCI-data does not disclose any claimed process
`
`parameters/configurations. Id. (EX2012, 207-213.)9 Further, PO’s chart was not
`
`
`9 Pethe’s SCI-data statements cannot stand in the shoes of Motorola’s internal
`
`metadata for corroboration. (Supra §§III.A.1-2, infra B.1(i) n.9.) Nor does EX2013
`
`(notebook of another inventor—who did not testify) and EX2014 make Zhang’s
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`created by inventors, but allegedly by its expert (or counsel) lacking personal
`
`knowledge of conception/RTP (Motorola, Paper 84, 20; POR, 32; EX2009, ¶¶81-
`
`82).
`
`B.
`
`PO Fails to Establish Prior RTP/Conception
`PO provides no limitation-by-limitation mapping of any individual “run”
`
`on/before 7/18/2001 to establish possession/use of a configuration including all
`
`limitations of any claim.
`
`1.
`6/13/2001
`PO fails to establish RTP/conception was “likely” 6/13/2001. (POR, 29.) PO
`
`does not establish any configuration on/before 6/13/2001 included an NBRF
`
`“[reject[ing] at a frequency/operating at a frequency] of the RF bias power supply
`
`coupled between the pulsed DC power supply and the target,” or “provid[ed]
`
`alternating negative and positive voltages to the target” as claimed. (POR, 21-23;
`
`EX1001, 22:44-50, 22:66-23:5.)
`
`i)
`
`Documents
`
`
`SCI-data conclusions any more persuasive. (EX2019, ¶§29-30.) Indeed, EX2014 is
`
`an unauthenticated compilation of materials including posted-invention dated
`
`handwriting/information (id., 1 (legal text (RTP)), 2, 6).
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Zhang and Narasimham (no testimony here) notebooks have diminished
`
`corroborative value. (§III.A.2.) The only witnessed page in 6/13/2001’s entries
`
`(EX2012, 200; EX2013, 19) was allegedly witnessed by co-inventors on
`
`12/18/2002. All others (EX2012, 207-213) are unwitnessed, unnumbered, and
`
`loose/unbound.
`
`Zhang’s 6/13/2001 entry provides no details concerning the “Run biased
`
`RPDC on 60/40 Target.” (EX2012, 199.) PO’s allegation Narasimhan
`
`“contemporaneously recorded the parameters for this “run” (POR, 22)10 is belied by
`
`evidence of different “runs” using different configurations performed that day.
`
`(EX2020, ¶23 (6/13/01: “Zhang ran a few test runs…”); EX2012, 201 (different
`
`“Quartz target” run (not “60/40 Target”)).)11
`
`
`10 The cited SCI data is inconsistent with Narasimhan’s entry. (EX2013, 19
`
`(identifying “MN-D03B-Y-10613-153”); EX2014, 6-15 (identifying “MN-D03B-
`
`Y-10613-1”, “MN-D03B-Y-10613-2”, or “MN-D03B-Y-10613-3”). Also, Pethe
`
`lacked personal knowledge of the “SCI data” naming and testified counsel “probably
`
`added” his related declaration statements (EX2020, ¶¶24-27). (EX1107, 176:1-
`
`177:6.)
`
`11 PO’s witnesses refused to testify a target power supply would necessarily be
`
`damaged without a filter. (EX1105, 112:12-115:7; EX1107, 111:15-21, 107:10-22.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Assuming Zhang’s/Narasimhan’s entries concern the same “run,” they still
`
`fail to demonstrate/corroborate the run/configuration included all claim limitations,
`
`including those identified above (e.g., EX1001, 22:44-50, 22:66-23:5 (claims 1/6)
`
`(NBRF coupled between pulsed DC supply and target rejecting/operating at
`
`frequency of RF bias power supply coupled to substrate).
`
`These pages never mention/reference “RF bias” or an NBRF. The mention of
`
`“Biased” and “Bias” does not equate to “RF” bias, especially since the inventors
`
`used “bias” to refer to both “DC” and “RF.” (EX2012, 10 (“DC Bias”), 42, 44, 152,
`
`156 (“Bias RF”), 215 (“DC Bias”), 201 (distinguishing “PRF=5.2kW”/“Bias 200W”
`
`powers).) PO’s and its expert’s understandings are consistent. (EX2009, ¶¶53 (“RF
`
`bias”/“DC bias”), 59; EX1111, 979-980 (distinguishing “bias” from “RF bias”
`
`during prosecution of patent-at-issue in IPR2021-00104).) The entries also do not
`
`demonstrate “RF Bias” being “coupled to the substrate,” especially where runs had
`
`RF coupled to e.g., the target. (EX2019, ¶14 (“runs…with RF target power”);
`
`EX1105, 83:15-17, 77:9-78:2.)
`
`ii)
`
`Testimony
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Zhang’s explanation about what “biased RPDC” means (EX2019, ¶20.)12 is
`
`uncorroborated by any contemporaneous disclosure. Moreover, her ambiguous
`
`testimony about Weisse’s “filter iterations” and the “AKT-1600 reactor”
`
`configuration (EX2019, ¶¶19-20) does not indicate that any reactor chamber, or the
`
`alleged “60/40” run, included an NBRF as claimed, or explain which chamber the
`
`“run” was performed in.
`
`Pethe does not corroborate. First, Pethe does not corroborate that his
`
`identified Zhang “test runs” corresponded to the “60/40” run Zhang noted (EX2020,
`
`¶23) or that a filter was present in the particular chamber used for the “60/40” run.
`
`(Id., ¶24.) Second, despite discussing “a prototype filter…” (id., ¶23), Pethe does
`
`not allege/demonstrate an NBRF was included/used in any 6/13/2001 configuration
`
`or Zhang’s “60/40” “run.” Third, Pethe merely alleges presence of “RF bias power”
`
`for the “test runs” (id., ¶23)—not where such bias was “coupled,” and the presence
`
`
`12 Glew’s opinion regarding “BRPDC” relies on the ’276 patent (EX2009, ¶80),
`
`which is not contemporaneous and never uses that term, which is not a term of art.
`
`(EX1108, ¶¶91-92.)
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`of “bias[]” for the “60/40” run (id., ¶24)—not that “RF bias” was coupled to the
`
`substrate.13
`
`2.
`6/13/2001-6/26/2001
`PO contends that unwitnessed notebook pages include a “sketch of further
`
`thoughts on the [NBRF].” (POR, 23-25.) PO does not contend the “sketch” reflects
`
`a filter in any RTP, acknowledging the sketch had “error[s]” (EX2019, ¶22.)
`
`Nevertheless, the “sketch” does not disclose an NBRF. First, it fails to
`
`disclose the circuit’s input/output locations necessary to understand what filter type
`
`(“band-pass” or “band-reject”) is disclosed. (EX1108, ¶¶51-57.) PO admits the
`
`“inventors first considered a band-pass filter” (POR, 5) and does not deny having
`
`“tried using a band-pass filter.” (EX1105, 182:2-183:9; EX1052, 1134(¶3) (“band-
`
`pass filter” in context of “development of…chambers…claimed”).) Second, the
`
`pages fail to disclose the purported filter’s frequency response, Rp’s value, and
`
`parasitic impedances (which could widely vary) of the sketch’s inductor, capacitor,
`
`
`13 Pethe did not discuss bias “frequency” in any 6/13/2001 run, and thus no evidence
`
`corroborates a filter rejecting/operating at the RF bias frequency. Symmorphix
`
`admittedly “experiment[ed] with different frequencies.” (EX1107, 166:11-20;
`
`EX2012, 201.)
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`and connecting wires/cables.14 Those values impact the rejection/pass band, and
`
`without knowing them (or the circuit’s frequency response), a POSITA would not
`
`understand whether the filter was wide or narrow band. (EX1108, ¶¶58-64.)
`
`Glew made questionable assumptions for his opinion. (EX2009, ¶¶70-75.)15
`
`He flipped the “sketch” 90⁰, added input/output, assumed Rp’s value, changed the
`
`disclosed L-C values, added/assumed output resistance, and disregarded other
`
`parasitic impedances. A POSITA would not consider Glew’s assumption-based
`
`opinion to reflect the “sketch[ed]” circuit’s operation. (EX1108, ¶¶65-69.)
`
`Moreover, Glew’s simulations disclose wide—not narrow—band operation as his
`
`calculated bandwidth (~2MHz) and center frequency (2MHz) are the same order.
`
`(EX1108, ¶¶69-71; EX1106, 130:21-132:3 (“[C]ertainly
`
`in
`
`the megahertz
`
`context….100K[hertz] would be narrow” and “[i]f one were looking at a 200K…,
`
`100K would be broad”).) The “sketch” does not support conception of the NBRF,
`
`
`14 (EX1107, 159:3-11 (“always hav[ing] a cable” when “connect[ing] a power
`
`supply to the target”); EX1106, 218:21-219:18 (“[i]nductors have resistance” and
`
`“wire or cable” has “resistance”/“capacitance”).)
`
`15 Glew has no “personal knowledge” of alleged conception/RTP. (EX1106, 239:20-
`
`240:24.)
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`alone or in combination with any other claim feature. See Burroughs, 40 F.3d at
`
`1228.
`
`3.
`7/2/2001-7/6/2001
`PO’s allegations of “Si/Al
`
`target” “runs”
`
`(POR, 25-26) do not
`
`contend/demonstrate any run included every limitation of any claim, including those
`
`identified above (e.g., EX1001, 22:44-50, 22:66-23:5).
`
`Documents
`i)
`The three cited unwitnessed Zhang notebook pages (POR, 26; EX2012, 206,
`
`214-215) do not demonstrate prior invention. P.214 simply notes multiple different
`
`“runs”—e.g., “top clad” run “with pulse DC,” but not where it was “coupled” or
`
`whether it provided the claimed alternating negative/positive voltages to the target.
`
`No document indicates what “Arizona”/“Florida”/“BRPDC” means. 16 And no
`
`purported Lot66 SCI data discloses any claimed process parameters/configurations.
`
`(EX2012, 207-213.) These pages never mention/reference “RF bias” or an NBRF.
`
`ii)
`
`Testimony
`
`
`16 PO’s allegation that unwitnessed/undated p.215’s“Things to do” “included Lot
`
`66 pre-run data” (POR, 26) is uncorroborated attorney argument. P.206
`
`(unwitnessed, undated, unnumbered, loose/unbound) simply alludes to “use” of
`
`“BRPDC.” (EX1105, 42:17-43:3 (Zhang uncertain “date” added to notebook).)
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Zhang’s testimony about the “clad” and “Florida” runs (EX2019, ¶24) is
`
`unsupported. The 7/2/2001 entry (EX2012, p.214) does not: mention “RF
`
`bias”/“bias” applied “to the substrate;” show “pulse DC” was supplied “to the
`
`target;” or disclose any run including an NBRF between pulsed DC and target, as
`
`she alleged.
`
`No other evidence independently corroborates or establishes conception/RTP
`
`on 7/2/2001. First, Zhang and Pethe contradict each other. (EX2019, ¶24 (“Lot 66
`
`us[ed]…an aluminum silica target”); (EX2020, ¶26) (“Lot 66 us[ed]…an aluminum
`
`silicon target”).) Silica (SiOx) is not Silicon (Si). (EX2020, ¶26.) Second, Pethe
`
`alleges “pulsed DC” and “RF bias” were used, but does not corroborate Zhang’s
`
`testimony regarding where they were respectively “applied”/“supplied.” Third,
`
`Pethe does not corroborate the filter allegedly used in Lot 66’s “Arizona” and
`
`“Florida” was an NBRF or where it was “coupled” or the target receiving alternating
`
`voltage, as claimed. (Id.) Fourth, neither witness testifies the “filter”
`
`rejects/operates at a “frequency of the RF bias,” as claimed. (Supra n.12.)
`
`Also, no evidence corroborates a run on 7/2/2001 having the “magnet” or
`
`“magnetic field” features of claims 3-13. Instead, Zhang’s notebook demonstrates
`
`such features were not necessarily present. (E.g., EX2012, 77 (“took the magnets
`
`out”); 116 (“no magnet on top”); 126 (“put magnet back into the one chamber B”);
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`138 (“put the magnet back”); 144) (“Dep. Rate with no magnets on” and “measure
`
`the dep rate with magnet on”).)
`
`4.
`7/13/2001-7/16/2001
`PO does not establish any of
`
`the “Burn-in runs…conducted on
`
`57Si/41.4Al/0.8Er/0.8Yb” (POR, 26-27) involved every limitation of any claim.
`
`Documents
`i)
`PO cites unwitnessed pages from Zhang’s notebook, one numbered (EX2012,
`
`p.220) and thirteen unnumbered-loose/unbound (pp.221-233).17 These pages never
`
`mention an NBRF, “RF” bias, “pulsed” DC (or where such features were
`
`“coupled”), or alternating negative/positive voltages to the target.
`
`Testimony
`ii)
`Zhang’s cited testimony essentially parrots claim limitations without
`
`corroboration by documentary evidence. None of the entries demonstrate any “run”
`
`included an NBRF that rejects at/operates at a frequency of the RF bias power
`
`supply, “pulsed DC power” connected/coupled to a “target” and providing
`
`alternating negative and positive voltages to the target, “RF bias coupled to a
`
`substrate,” or a “magnetron,” as claimed.
`
`
`17 Supra §III.A.2.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
` Nor are Zhang’s assertions independently corroborated. Pethe testified only
`
`to “July 16, 2001” (EX2020, ¶27) and even that does not corroborate configurations
`
`involving the above-discussed claimed limitations, or other “run” details.18
`
`5.
`7/18/2001
`PO does not allege RTP of any claimed feature on 7/18/2001, only that “Bob
`
`Weisse provided the final filter schematic.” (POR, 27.)
`
`Documents
`i)
`PO alleges the unwitnessed and loose/unbound schematic was part of
`
`Zhang’s notebook. 19 Nevertheless, the schematic neither supports/establishes
`
`conception/RTP of the claimed NBRF (alone or with other claimed features). First,
`
`the schematic, as evidenced by its label, at most purports to disclose a “band reject
`
`filter,” which is not necessarily a narrowband rejection filter. (EX1106, 199:21-
`
`200:11 (band reject filter “could be very broad”); EX1108, ¶59.)
`
`
`18 Similarly, no evidence corroborates inclusion of a “magnet”/“magnetic field”
`
`(claims 3-13) between 7/13/2001-7/16/2001.
`
`19 PO’s suggestion the 7/18/2001-schematic was part of Zhang’s original notebook
`
`is questionable given it is a loose page (EX2012, p.217) before the 7/13/2001 entry
`
`(p.220), and preceded by Demaray blue post-it note (“RF Filter drawing”) added to
`
`Zhang’s notebook (p.216). (EX1105, 40:7-41:17; supra §III.A.2.)
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
`Patent No. 7,544,276
`Second, no documentary evidence provides the circuit’s frequency response;
`
`output (“chamber”) impedance; or parasitic impedances of the circuit’s L-C and
`
`cable elements, which could vary widely. (EX1105, 117:6-16; Supra n.13.) These
`
`values impact the rejection band, and without knowing them (or the frequency
`
`response), a POSITA would not understand whether the filter was wide or narrow
`
`band. (EX1108, ¶¶72-79; EX2016, 41:5-45:10.)
`
`Third, the schematic does not corroborate conception/RTP of the claimed
`
`limitations. “Input from pulse supply” (EX2012, 217) does not necessarily show an
`
`NBRF coupled between pulsed DC power and a target given different types of
`
`“power supplies” were known at the time, including pulse RF and pulse DC
`
`supplies. (EX1108, ¶¶86-87; EX1114, Title, Abstract; EX2019, ¶14; EX1105, 77:9-
`
`78:2, 83:15-17
`
`(Zhang acknowledging RF-target connections
`
`in some
`
`configurations).) “Output to chamber” does not necessarily equate to “coupling to
`
`a target” as it was common/known to couple pulsed supplies to the chamber
`
`substrate. (EX1108, ¶88; EX1014 (pulsed DC to bias substrate); EX1115, 4:20-21,
`
`9:31.) Also, no documentary evidence exists that the schematic-circuit was (or
`
`contemplated to be) included in a configuration between pulsed DC power and
`
`target, alternating negative/positive voltages, and having RF substrate bias as
`
`claimed. Indeed, if RF bias was coupled, it could have been elsewhere, e.g., chamber
`
`coil. (EX1108, ¶¶89-90.)
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00103
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
