Applied Materials, INC
`v.
`Demaray LLC,
`
`IPR2021-00103, -00104
`U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,544,276 & 7,381,657
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`v.
`Demaray LLC,
`
`IPR2021-00103, -00104
`U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,544,276 & 7,381,657
`
`Patent Owner Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,544,276
`
`’276
`
`Pet. at 9; Ex. 1001 (’276 Patent)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Institution Decision: Petitioner’s Burden
`
`103 Paper 13 (Inst. Dec.) at 8; 104 Paper 13 (Inst. Dec.) at 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Grounds Of Institution
`
`Claims
`
`References
`
`’276, Claims 1‐3, 6‐8
`’657, claims 2‐4, 6, 8,
`10‐12, 21
`
`Remaining claims
`
`Barber + Hirose or
`Barber + Hirose/Belkind
`
`Barber + Hirose or
`Barber + Hirose/Belkind + tertiary
`references
`
`Statutory Ground
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Barber and Hirose are bases for all grounds
`
`103 Paper 13 (Inst. Dec.) at 6‐7; 104 Paper 13 (Inst. Dec.) at 6‐7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Topics
`
`Petitioner failed to establish Hirose as prior art
`
`The state of the art did not teach or suggest the
`claimed combination
`
`No reason to modify Barber as Petitioner argues
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Prior Art Must Predate
`
`“A reference patent anticipates an invention under
`§ 102(e) only if the reference patent's effective filing
`date is before the date of the invention.”
`Spansion, Inc. v. ITC, 629 F.3d 1331, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`103 POR at 12; 104 POR at 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Burden To Show Hirose Is Prior Art
`
`• Petitioner asserts a reference
`• Patent Owner’s burden of production for
`challenging prior art status
`• Petitioner then “bears the burden of persuasion
`on the status of the [asserted reference] as prior
`art” and “must persuade the [factfinder] … that its
`version of the facts is true”
`
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1576‐78 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`103 Sur‐Reply at 1; 104 Sur‐Reply at 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Hirose’s Reference Date Is July 18, 2001
`
`Foreign priority date does not confer priority to
`a pre‐AIA 102(e) reference per In re Hilmer, 359
`F.2d 859 (CCPA 1966)
`
`MPEP §2154.01(b)
`
`103 POR at 11; 104 POR at 11; Ex. 1006
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`’276 Specification: Examples Using Claimed Configuration
`
`’276
`
`Symmorphix (Original Applicant)
`Modified AKT‐1600 Reactor
`
`1. AE Pinnacle Plus+ pulsed DC power
`supply to target
`
`2. ENI 2 MHz RF power supply for
`biasing substrate
`
`3. 2 MHz band rejection filter
`
`103 POR at 18; 104 POR at 18; Ex. 1001 (’276
`Patent), 5:9‐18, 5:4‐43, 5:50‐54, 5:50‐55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Inventive Timeline
`
`• March 2001: Using Pulse DC Power For Arcing Issues
`• April 2001: Implemented Pulsed DC Power Using AE Pinnacle Plus+
`• May 2001: Implemented RF Bias Using ENI 2 MHz RF Generator
`• May 2001: Pulsed DC & RF Bias Combination Failed
`• Late‐May/Early‐June: Implement 2 MHz Narrowband Rejection Filter
`• June 13, 2001: Reduced To Practice For Test Run Using Pulsed DC/RF/Filter
`• July 2, 2001: First Deposition Using Pulsed DC/RF/Filter
`• July 13/16, 2001: Additional Deposition Runs Using Pulsed DC/RF/Filter
`• July 18, 2001: Schematic Of Proven Filter Design
`
`103 POR at 15‐28; 104 POR at 15‐28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Supporting Testimony & Evidence
`
`Description
`Type
`• Dr. Hong Mei Zhang (Exs. 2019, 1105)
`Inventor Testimony
`Non‐inventor testimony • Dr. Rajiv Pethe (process engineer for reactors)
`(Exs. 2020, 1107)
`• Dr. Glew (POSITA’s understanding of documentary
`evidence) (Exs. 2009, 1106)
`Inventor Notebooks, Test Data, Filter Schematics
`(Exs. 2012‐2015)
`• Patent Specification (Ex. 1001)
`• File History (Exs. 1004, 1111, 1052), including Demaray
`1.132 Declaration (Ex. 1052)
`
`Documentary evidence
`
`•
`
`103 POR at 14; 104 POR at 14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`March 2001: Pulse DC Power For Arcing Issues
`
`103 POR at 18‐19; 104 POR at 18‐19; Ex. 2012 at 115‐16, 125‐27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`April 2001: Pulsed DC Power Used For Deposition
`
`No damage to DC power supply when RF bias not used
`
`103 POR at 19; 104 POR at 19; Ex. 2012 at 125‐27, 147‐48; Ex. 2019 at ¶15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`May 2001: Pursuing RF Bias
`
`103 POR at 19‐20; 104 POR at 19‐20;
`Ex. 2019, ¶16; Ex. 2012, 154, 188, 193
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`Symmorphix’s Notebook Policy
`
`• “[P]art of [Symmporphix’s] customary business practices”
`• Required “recording certain important daily activities and
`experiments contemporaneous with when such
`experiments were carried out”
`• Notebooks in evidence:
`– Zhang notebook (EX2012)
`– Narasimhan notebook (EX2013)
`– Demaray notebook (excerpt, EX2015)
`
`Ex. 2019 at ¶¶7‐8, Ex. 2020 ¶¶14‐15 (103 POR at 17; 104 POR at 17)
`
`Ex. 2012 (103 POR at 17; 104 POR at 17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`May 2001: Pulsed DC & RF Bias Combination Failed
`
`File History (Dr. Demaray)
`3. During development of the
`deposition chambers and methods
`claimed in this application, we
`damaged a number (more than six
`units) of pulsed‐DC power supplies
`due to RF bias power coupling
`through the plasma into the
`pulsed‐de power supply. We
`utilized the Advanced Energy
`Pinnacle Plus power supply, which
`produced a 10 kW square wave at a
`frequency of from 180 kHz to 300
`KHz together with a pulse reverse
`time from 1.3 to 5.0 μsec.
`
`Dr. Zhang
`16. In May 2001, modifications
`were made to the AKT‐1600 and
`AKT‐4300 reactors to allow both
`pulsed DC power to the target
`(using the Pinnacle Plus+) and an
`RF bias to the substrate (using the
`2 MHz ENI power supply) for use
`with a conductive target ….
`
`17. … When we hooked up the
`modified system without the filter,
`we burned up the pulsed DC
`power supply….
`
`Dr. Pethe
`21. In May 2001, John Eggermeir’s
`group (referred to as “Egg’_ group”
`in some of the notebooks), of which
`I was part, made modifications to
`the reactors to allow a 2 MHz RF
`bias to the substrate. This was
`implemented with the AKT 1600 &
`4300, but in the AKT 4300, when it
`was first coupled to the pulsed DC
`power source, it resulted in
`hardware issues….
`
`Ex. 1052 at 1134 (103 POR at 20; 104 POR at 20)
`
`Ex. 2019, ¶¶ 16‐17 (103 POR at 19‐20; 104 POR at 19‐20)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶ 21 (103 POR at 19‐20; 104 POR at 19‐20)
`
`16
`
`
`
`Inventors Conceived Solution
`
`File History (Dr. Demaray)
`4. My co‐inventors and I developed
`the band‐rejection filter described
`in the specification and claimed in
`U.S. Application Serial No. 10/101,
`863 to overcome the problem of
`catastrophic failure of the pulsed‐DC
`power supply output electrometer
`circuit during operation ….
`
`Dr. Zhang
`18. Dr. Demaray and I determined that
`energy from the RF bias power supply
`was damaging the arc detection
`circuitry in the Pinnacle Plus+ power
`supply. We conceived the use of the
`claimed narrow band‐rejection filter
`between the pulsed DC power source
`and the target to protect the power
`supply.
`19. During May 2001, I provided initial
`instructions to a consultant named Bob
`Weisse to build a narrow band‐
`rejection filter operating at 2MHz RF
`bias power. At my instruction, Mr.
`Weisse provided filter iterations in late‐
`May to early‐June 2001 ….
`
`Dr. Pethe
`22. Drs. Zhang and Demaray
`determined that feedback from the
`RF bias power supply was damaging
`electrical components used for arc
`detection in the Pinnacle Plus+
`power supply. Drs. Zhang and
`Demaray conceived the use of a
`narrow band rejection filter
`between the DC power source and
`the target in a biased pulse DC
`reactive sputtering system to
`protect the target power source.
`
`Ex. 1052 at 1134 (103 POR at 20; 104 POR at 20)
`
`Ex. 2019, ¶18‐19 (103 POR at 20‐21; 104 POR at 20‐21
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶22 (103 POR at 20; 104 POR at 20)
`
`17
`
`
`
`Construction That Works For Intended Purpose
`
`An inventor establishes an actual reduction to
`practice by proving: “(1) he constructed an
`embodiment or performed a process that met all the
`limitations of the [claim]; and (2) he determined that
`the invention would work for its intended purpose.”
`Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`103 POR at 13; 104 POR at 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`Reduction To Practice June 13, 2001
`
`Dr. Zhang
`20. In mid‐June, 2001, Mr. Eggermeir’s
`process engineering group configured the
`AKT‐1600 reactor with the filter between
`the pulsed DC power source and the target.
`EX2015 (Demaray Notebook), 231. We used
`the abbreviation “BRPDC” in our notebooks
`to refer to reactive sputtering with pulsed
`DC to a target and RF bias to a substrate.
`On June 13, 2001, I ran biased RPDC on a
`60/40 Si/Al target. EX2012, 105….
`
`Ex. 2019, ¶20 (103 POR at 21; 104 POR at 21)
`
`Dr. Pethe
`23. After a prototype filter was received, it
`was installed between the DC power supply
`and a target. On June 13, 2001, Dr. Zhang
`ran a few test runs on the AKT 1600. The
`filter functioned as intended to protect the
`pulsed DC power supply from damaging RF
`bias power; and no damages to the pulsed
`DC power supply was observed.
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶¶ 23 (103 POR at 21‐22; 104 POR at 21‐22)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`Dr. Zhang’s Notebook Corroborates
`
`Ex. 2012, 199‐202 (103 POR at 21‐22; 104 POR at 21‐22)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`Dr. Glew: Dr. Zhang Contemplated A Filter Operating @ 2MHz
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the
`art would recognize that the
`inventor was trying to confirm
`a filter that resonates at 2 MHz
`based on the value she used for
`the angular frequency, ꙍ, which
`relates to resona[nt] frequency
`by a factor of 2π.
`
`Ex. 2009, ¶72 (103 POR at 24; 104 POR at 24)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2012, 202 (103 POR at 24‐25; 104 POR at 24‐25)
`
`21
`
`
`
`Dr. Glew: Dr. Zhang Used A Narrowband Rejection‐Filter
`
`Dr. Glew
`“A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`… recognize that the parallel resonant
`circuit depicted in the notebook is a
`narrow band‐rejection filter”
`
`Ex. 2009, ¶75 (103 POR at 24; 104 POR at 24)
`
`Ex. 2012, 201 (103 POR at 23; 104 POR at 23)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Dr. Demaray’s Notebook Corroborates
`
`Ex. 2015 (103 POR at 21; 104 POR at 21)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`Dr. Narasimhan’s Notebook Corroborates
`
`Ex. 2013, 19 (103 POR at 22; 104 POR at 22)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`SCI Data Corroborates
`
`Ex 2014, 7
`
`Ex. 2014, 7 (103 POR at 21‐22; 104 POR at 22‐23)
`
`Ex. 2013, 19 (103 POR at 21‐22; 104 POR at 22)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`July 2, 2001: Lot 66 Deposited With Claimed Configuration
`
`Dr. Zhang
`• “On July 2, 2001, I ran Lot 66 using
`BRPDC on an aluminum silica target.”
`• “Each of Lots 66A‐C used processes
`described by the code words “Arizona”
`(for BRPDC processes for the cladding
`layer) or “Florida” (for BRPDC processes
`on the core layers) and had a RF bias
`applied to the substrate and a pulsed DC
`supplied to the target with a narrow
`band rejection filter in between.”
`
`Ex. 2019, ¶24 (103 POR at 25‐26; 104 POR at 25‐26)
`
`Dr. Pethe
`• “On July 2, 2001, Dr. Zhang ran Lot 66
`using BRPDC on an aluminum silicon
`target to lay down under‐cladding.”
`• “We used the code name ‘Arizona’ for
`BRPDC on cladding layers and ‘Florida’
`on BPRDC core layers.”
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶¶24, 26 (103 POR at 26; 104 POR at 26)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Dr. Zhang’s Notebook Corroborates
`
`Upper cladding
`Core
`Under cladding
`
`Dr. Pethe:
`“We used the code name ‘Arizona’ for BRPDC on
`cladding layers and ‘Florida’ on BPRDC core layers.”
`
`Exs. 2012, 207, 209, 212, 214 (103 POR at 25‐26; 104 POR at 25‐26)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`SCI Data Corroborates
`
`Ex. 2012, 207‐13 (103 POR at 26; 104 POR at 26)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Exs. 2012, 207, 209, 212, 214 (103 POR at 25‐26; 104 POR at 25‐26)
`
`28
`
`
`
`July 13 & 16, 2001: More Successful Runs
`
`Dr. Zhang
`“On July 13, 2001, I ran another
`BRPDC process and then on July 16,
`2001, I ran a BRPDC process for the
`first time on an active core target,
`which included Er.”
`
`Ex. 2019, ¶25 (103 POR at 26‐27; 104 POR at 26‐27)
`
`Dr. Pethe
`“On July 16, 2001, Dr. Zhang ran a
`BRPDC process for the first time
`on an active core target.”
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶27 (103 POR at 27; 104 POR at 27)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`Dr. Zhang’s Notebook Corroborates
`
`Ex. 2012, 220‐21 (103 POR at 26‐27; 104 POR at 26‐27)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`
`
`July 18, 2001: Proven Filter Schematic
`
`Dr. Zhang
`19. “… At my instruction, Mr.
`Weisse provided filter iterations
`in late‐May to early‐June 2001.
`He did not provide a schematic
`for the filter until a configuration
`most suitable for Symmorphix’s
`processing conditions was
`determined.”
`
`Ex. 2019, ¶19 (103 POR at 21, Sur‐Reply
`at 17; 104 POR at 21, Sur‐Reply at 17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2012, 217 (103 POR at 28; 104 POR at 29)
`31
`
`
`
`Narrow Band Rejection Filter Operating @ 2MHz RF
`
`Ex. 2012, 217 (103 POR at 28; 104 POR at 29)
`
`2MHz
`
`Ex. 1108, ¶85 (Petitioner’s expert), 73 (103 Sur‐Reply at 16; 104 Sur‐Reply at 16)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Petitioner – No Alternative Explanation
`
`• Challenges minor variations in recollection, tangential
`facts, and use of electronic copies
`• Petitioner “bears the burden of persuasion on the
`status of the [asserted reference] as prior art” and
`“must persuade the [factfinder] … that its version of
`the facts is true.”
`
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1576‐78 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`103 Sur‐Reply at 1; 104 Sur‐Reply at 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`Petitioner Improperly Ignores Context
`
`• Corroborating evidence “definitive proof of
`[inventor]’s account or discloses each claim limitation
`as written”
`• Corroboration “is a flexible, rule‐of‐reason demand for
`independent evidence that, as a whole, makes credible
`the testimony of the purported prior inventor with
`regard to conception and reduction to practice of the
`invention as claimed”
`Fleming v. Escort Inc., 774 F.3d 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`103 Sur‐Reply at 2; 104 Sur‐Reply at 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Petitioner: “BRPDC” Could Mean Something Else?
`
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`“I don’t know what BRPDC means because it's not a term of art.”
`
`Petitioner’s expert ignores the context of the notebooks
`and provides no alternative meaning
`
`Ex. 2030, 153:3‐154:8 (103 Sur‐Reply at 11‐12; 104 Sur‐Reply at 11‐12)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`“BRPDC” = RF Bias/Filter/Pulsed DC Power
`
`Ex. 2009, ¶80 (103 Sur‐Reply at 11‐12; 104 Sur‐Reply at 11‐12)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Drs. Pethe & Zhang Confirmed Meaning
`
`Dr. Pethe
`24. Dr. Zhang’s notebook indicates that
`on June 13, 2001, she successfully ran
`“biased RPDC” on a “60/40 target”
`(Si/Al target). The acronym BRPDC
`process was used to describe this
`biased reactive pulsed DC process. ….
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶24 (103 POR at 21; 104 POR at 21)
`
`Dr. Zhang
`
`20. In mid‐June, 2001, Mr. Eggermeir’s process
`engineering group configured the AKT‐1600 reactor
`with the filter between the pulsed DC power source
`and the target. EX2015 (Demaray Notebook), 231. We
`used the abbreviation “BRPDC” in our notebooks to
`refer to reactive sputtering with pulsed DC to a target
`and RF bias to a substrate. On June 13, 2001, I ran
`biased RPDC on a 60/40 Si/Al target. EX2012, 105. Mr.
`Narasimhan was the process engineer responsible for
`running the equipment for this run and I witnessed
`entries in his notebook during the applications
`leading to the patents.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2019, ¶20 (103 POR at 21; 104 POR at 21)
`37
`
`
`
`Drs. Pethe & Zhang Confirmed BRPDC Applied RF Bias To Substrate
`
`Dr. Pethe
`21. In May 2001, John Eggermeir’s group (referred to as “Egg’_ group” in some of the notebooks), of which I
`was part, made modifications to the reactors to allow a 2 MHz RF bias to the substrate. This was implemented
`with the AKT 1600 & 4300, but in the AKT 4300, when it was first coupled to the pulsed DC power source, it
`resulted in hardware issues. We then shifted our work to the AKT 1600 system.
`22. Drs. Zhang and Demaray determined that feedback from the RF bias power supply was damaging electrical
`components used for arc detection in the Pinnacle Plus+ power supply. Drs. Zhang and Demaray conceived the
`use of a narrow band rejection filter between the DC power source and the target in a biased pulse DC reactive
`sputtering system to protect the target power source.
`23. After a prototype filter was received, it was installed between the DC power supply and a target. On June
`13, 2001, Dr. Zhang ran a few test runs on the AKT 1600. The filter functioned as intended to protect the pulsed
`DC power supply from damaging RF bias power; and no damages to the pulsed DC power supply was
`observed.
`24. Dr. Zhang’s notebook indicates that on June 13, 2001, she successfully ran “biased RPDC” on a “60/40
`target” (Si/Al target). The acronym BRPDC process was used to describe this biased reactive pulsed DC process.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Ex. 2020, ¶21‐24 (103 POR at 19‐21; 104 POR at 19‐21)
`
`38
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Not Clearly A Band Rejection Filter
`
`Petitioner
`“[T]he ‘sketch’ does not
`disclose an NBRF. … [I]t
`fails to disclose the circuit’s
`input/output locations
`necessary to understand
`what filter type (“band‐
`pass” or “band‐reject”) is
`disclosed.
`
`Band‐pass filter?
`
`103 Reply to POR at 16; 104 Reply to POR at 16
`
`Ex. 2012, 201 (103 Reply to POR at 16; 104 Reply to POR at 16)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Expert: Band‐Pass Filters Would Not Work
`
`Q: So if a person of ordinary skill in the art is trying to solve the
`problem that the DC power supply is damaged by the RF frequency
`applied to the substrate, would they apply a bandpass filter?
`…
`
`[clarification]
`Dr. Subramanian: So if I assume that the bandpass filter center
`frequency is matched to that of the RF source, then it wouldn't
`function to block the damage.
`And so one of skill, knowing that that was an issue, would not do it
`that way.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2030 at 58:15‐60:20 (103 Sur‐Reply at 13; 104 Sur‐Reply at 13)
`
`40
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Challenges Filter Disclosure
`
`• “Moreover, Glew’s simulations disclose wide—not narrow—
`band operation as his calculated bandwidth (~2MHz) and
`center frequency (2MHz) are the same order.”
`
`103 Reply to POR at 17; 104 Reply to POR at 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`The Simulated Shape Is Comparable To Those Of Alleged NBRFs
`
`Filter as Simulated by Dr. Subramanian
`
`Admitted NBRFs
`
`Ex. 1108, 67 (103 Sur‐Reply at 14; 104 Sur‐Reply at 13)
`
`Ex. 1013, Fig. 2‐9G
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 6
`
`Ex. 2012, 201
`(103 POR at 23; 104 POR at 23)
`
`103 Sur‐Reply at 14; 104 Sur‐Reply at 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`
`
`The Simulated Shape Comparable To Those Of Alleged NBRFs
`
`Filter as Simulated by Dr. Subramanian
`
`Admitted NBRFs
`
`Ex. 1108, 73 (103 Sur‐Reply at 16; 104 Sur‐Reply at 16)
`
`Ex. 1013, Fig. 2‐9G
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 6
`
`Ex. 2012, 217 (103 POR at 28; 104 POR at 29)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`103 Sur‐Reply at 16; 104 Sur‐Reply at 16
`
`43
`
`
`
`Simulation Confirmed Narrow Band‐Rejection Filter
`
`Using the LTspice program, an
`electronic circuit simulator software
`from Analog Devices made freely
`available, I simulated the response
`curves for the above parallel resonant
`circuit at a resistance of either 50 ohm
`(typical for a plasma sputtering system)
`or 1000 ohm (conservative). A person
`of ordinary skill in the art would also
`recognize that the parallel resonant
`circuit depicted in the notebook is a
`narrow band‐rejection filter[.]
`
`Ex. 2009, ¶75 (103 POR at 28‐29; 104 POR at 29‐30)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`Filter Schematic Is A Narrow Band‐Rejection Filter
`
`I again modeled the circuit in the above
`schematics using the Ltspice program. I
`evaluated the responses at a parasitic
`resistance of 1000 ohm (conservative)
`and at a parasitic resistance of 50 ohm
`(more realistic based on my experience).
`A person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand that the filter
`depicted in the schematic is a narrow
`band rejection filter operating at 2MHz.
`
`Ex. 2009, ¶78 (103 POR at 28‐29; 104 POR at 29‐30)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`
`
`The Evidence Maps To The Challenged Claims
`
`Claim: A reactor according to the present invention, comprising:
`
`Evidence:
`ATK‐1600 modified with a
`Pinnacle Plus+ pulsed DC power
`supply coupled to the target via a
`narrow band‐rejection filter and
`an ENI RF power supply to bias
`the substrate is a claimed reactor.
`
`103 POR at 32; 104 POR at 33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`
`
`The Evidence Maps To The Challenged Claims
`
`Claim: a target area for receiving a target;
`
`Dr. Pethe:
`“[T]he reaction chambers
`include a target area for
`receiving a target”
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶8 (103 POR at 33)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶8 (103
`POR at 33)
`
`47
`
`
`
`The Evidence Maps To The Challenged Claims
`
`Claim: a substrate area opposite the target area for receiving a substrate;
`
`Dr. Pethe:
`“[T]he reaction chambers
`also include a substrate area
`opposite the target area for
`receiving a substrate.”
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶8 (103 POR at 34‐35)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶8 (103
`POR at 34‐35)
`
`
`
`The Evidence Maps To The Challenged Claims
`Claim: a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area, the pulsed DC power
`supply providing alternating negative and positive voltages to the target;
`
`Dr. Pethe:
`“In the spring of 2001, a power supplier, Advanced Energy, Inc. made a
`pulsed DC power supply called the Pinnacle Plus+ available as part of its
`beta testing program and personnel at Symmorphix began valuating the
`power supply.”
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶12 (103 POR at 35; 104 POR at 34)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`
`
`The Evidence Maps To The Challenged Claims
`
`Claim: an RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate; and
`
`Dr. Pethe:
`“In the spring of 2001, personnel at Symmorphix under the direction of John
`Eggermeir (head of process engineering), including myself, modified the two
`AKT reactors to have the option of applying an RF bias to the substrate.”
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶¶13, 21 (103 POR at 36; 104 POR at 35)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`
`
`The Evidence Maps To The Challenged Claims
`Claim: a narrow band‐rejection filter that rejects at a frequency of the RF bias
`power supply coupled between the pulsed DC power supply and the target area.
`
`Dr. Pethe:
`“Drs. Zhang and Demaray conceived the use of a narrow band rejection filter
`between the DC power source and the target in a biased pulse DC reactive
`sputtering system to protect the target power source.”
`“After a prototype filter was received, it was installed between the DC power
`supply and a target.”
`
`Ex. 2020, ¶¶22‐23 (103 POR at 36; 104 POR at 35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`
`
`Pethe Testified Repeatedly Demaray And Zhang Conceived NBRF
`
`Q. So, you would agree that you don't know if they actually
`were the ones that conceived of the idea. You were just ‐‐
`you just recall having a conversation with them about the
`idea after it had been conceived; isn't that right?
`
`A. Again, this is my ‐‐ the ‐‐ to the best of my recollection, it is
`Dr. Zhang or Dr. Demaray.
`
`Ex. 1107, 127:9‐18, 123:18‐124:2; 124:21‐125:18; 126:16‐
`127:1; 127:9‐18 (103 Sur‐Reply at 5; 104 Sur‐Reply at 5)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`
`
`Petitioner Selectively Excerpts Testimony
`
`Q. Okay. So, let me just make sure I have your testimony right, Dr. Pethe,
`because it's very important. To the best that you can recall, you
`remember having a discussion with Dr. Zhang and/or Dr. Demaray
`about the idea to use a narrow‐band rejection filter; right?
`A. That is correct.
`Q. You, however, were not present when the idea was conceived; right?
`A. That is correct.
`Q. And you don't know ‐‐ you don't have personal knowledge as to
`who actually conceived of the idea of using the narrow‐band
`rejection filter; right?
`A. That is correct.
`
`Only cited
`portion by
`petitioner
`
`Ex. 1107, 128:3‐20 (103 Sur‐Reply at 6‐7; 104 Sur‐Reply at 6‐7)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`
`
`Pethe/Zhang Had Assistance In Preparing Declarations
`
`Dr. Pethe
`Q. Did you write this declaration yourself?
`A. I did have help from Mr. Wells to write
`this declaration. He did help me word,
`but at a high level, and all the events are
`based on my recollection, based on the
`notebooks and ‐‐ based on the
`notebooks and whatever I could
`remember on my own.
`
`Dr. Zhang
`Q. Okay. Did anyone assist you in writing
`your declaration?
`A. So as I said, I ‐‐ I provide statement,
`facts, and draft. There may be legal
`things I want to make sure it's correct,
`and this was reviewed and, you know,
`worked ‐‐ I worked together with Mr.
`Wells. But all the facts, it's ‐‐ everything
`stated is facts. Maybe languagewise...
`
`Ex. 1107, 82:12‐19 (103 Sur‐Reply at 5‐6; 104 Sur‐Reply at 5‐6)
`
`Ex. 1105, 20:5‐12 (103 Sur‐Reply at 5‐6; 104 Sur‐Reply at 5‐6)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`
`
`Notebooks Are Authentic
`
`Dr. Pethe
`Q. And looking at Exhibits 2012, 2013, and
`2015, do those appear to be digital
`copies of the notebooks that you saw
`back in 2002?
`Q. Or 2001, 2002.
`A. They do look like the notebooks that we
`had in Symmorphix.
`
`Ex. 1107, 262:7‐14 (103 Sur‐Reply at 7; 104 Sur‐Reply at 7)
`
`Dr. Zhang
`Q. And the notebook that you looked at identified as
`yours appears to be a true and accurate copy of
`the notebook ‐‐
`‐‐ that you maintained?
`Q.
`A. Absolutely. It was in my handwriting.
`* * *
`Q. And in addition you looked at the notebooks for
`Mr. ‐‐ for Mux and Ernest as well, in preparation
`for your declaration?
`A. That's correct.
`Q. And did those appear to be true and accurate
`copies of the notebooks that they made?
`A. Yes.
`
`Ex. 1105, 247:4‐10; 247:21‐248:5 (103 Sur‐Reply at 7; 104 Sur‐Reply at 7)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`
`
`Topics
`
`Petitioner failed to establish Hirose as prior art
`
`The state of the art did not teach or suggest the
`claimed combination
`
`No reason to modify Barber as Petitioner argues
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`
`
`’276 Patent, Claim 1
`
`’276
`
`103 POR at 3; 104 at POR at 3; Ex. 1001 (’276 Patent)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`
`
`The Lack Of Teaching Or Suggesting Is Evidence Of Non‐Obviousness
`
`“[W]hen differences that may appear technologically
`minor nonetheless have a practical impact, particularly
`in a crowded field, the decision‐maker must consider
`the obviousness of the new structure in this light.”
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`103 POR at 70‐72; 104 POR at 68‐69
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`
`
`No Recognition Of Advantages Of NBRFs For Claimed Reactor Systems
`
`•
`
`• No filter for pulsed DC power supply to target + a remote RF
`bias to substrate
`• Exhibits 1005, 1008, 1011, 1019, 1036, 1048 and 1059
`Low‐pass or unspecified filter to block RF power from DC
`power source (no recognition of advantages of NBRF)
`• Exhibits 1010, 1014, 1016, 1019, 1020, 1021, reactor
`manuals
`Low‐pass filters used in all RF‐power systems
`• Exhibits 1017, 1018
`• Hirose’s all RF‐power systems (Exhibit 1006)
`
`•
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`
`
`Subramanian: Barber Does Not Disclose A Filter
`
`No filter between
`DC power source
`230 and target to
`block RF power
`source 235
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 2 (103 POR at 43‐44,
`60; 104 POR at 41‐42, 58)
`
`Subramanian:
`Q: For Barber, we agree there
`is no filter between the pulsed
`DC power supply and target;
`correct?
`
`A.∙ ∙ … Yes, I agree.∙ Barber
`itself does not have a filter
`disclosed between the∙pulsed
`DC power supply and the
`target.
`
`Ex. 2016, 128:16‐23 (103 POR at 60; 104 POR at 58)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`
`
`Subramanian: Belkind (EX1008) Does Not Disclose A Filter
`
`Q: And Belkind, 1008, there is no filter disclosed
`between the pulsed DC power supply and the
`target; correct?
`
`A.∙ ∙ In Belkind, there is no filter disclosed
`between the pulsed DC power supply and the
`target. I agree with that.
`
`Ex. 2016, 128:24‐129:5 (103 POR at 60; 104 POR at 58)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`
`
`Subramanian: Sproul (EX1011) Does Not Involve A Filter
`
`Subramanian:
`
`Q: And 1011, Sproul, there is
`no filter disclosed between
`the pulsed DC power supply
`and the target; correct?
`
`A.∙ ∙ With respect to Sproul, I
`agree that there is no filter
`disclosed between the
`pulsed DC power supply and
`the target within the text or
`figures associated therewith.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2016, 129:6‐12 (103 POR at 60; 104 POR at 58)
`
`62
`
`No filter between DC pulsed
`power source 32 and target to
`block RF power source 50
`
`
`
`Subramanian: Sproul (EX1036) Also Does Not Disclose A Filter
`
`Q: Can we look at Exhibit 1036.
`[clarification]
`Does this discuss the use of a filter in
`connection with a pulsed DC power supply?
`A.∙ ∙ Well, the word “filter” does not appear in
`Sproul, so to that extent, at least with respect to
`the explicit use of the word “filter,” the answer is
`no.
`
`Ex. 2017, 520:14‐521:2 (103 POR at 60; 104 POR at 58)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`
`
`Subramanian: EX1047 Also Does Not Disclose A Filter
`
`Q: Can you take a look at Exhibit 1047?
`[clarification]
`Does this discuss the use of a filter in
`connection with a pulsed DC power supply?
`A.∙ ∙ Again, with respect to this, at least performing
`a search for "filter," the world "filter" does not
`appear to be present in this reference. So, to that
`extent, at least with respect to the use of an
`explicit word "filter," it does not show up here.
`
`Ex. 2017, 521:3‐17 (103 POR at 60; 104 POR at 58)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`
`
`Subramanian: Kelly (EX1048) Does Not Disclose A Filter
`
`Q: And for Exhibit 1048, Kelly, no filter is disclosed
`between the power source and the target; correct?
`
`A: I agree with respect to the numerous deposition
`configurations that are disclosed within Kelly, there is
`no– doesn’t appear to be any disclosure explicitly calling
`out the use of a filter in the configurations where a DC or
`pulsed DC power supply was used between said power
`supply and the target.
`
`Ex. 2016, 129:19‐130:5 (103 POR at 60; 104 POR at 58)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`65
`
`
`
`Subramanian: Kelly (EX1059) Does Not Disclose A Filter
`
`Q: Why don’t we take a look at Exhibit 1059, another
`Kelly paper.
`Does this reference indicate the use of a filter in
`connection with a pulsed DC power supply?
`
`A: Again, in this reference, the word “filter” does not
`appear in the reference, so to that extent, at least there
`is no explicit use of the word “filter” in that context.
`
`Ex. 2017, 522:6‐14 (103 POR at 60; 104 POR at 58)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`
`
`EX2019: No Filter Between Pulsed DC Power Source 24 And Target
`No filter between pulsed DC power source 24
`to block RF power 26 to substrate
`
`Subramanian:
`Q: And for Hong, Exhibit
`1019, no filter is disclosed
`between the pulsed DC
`power supply 24 and the
`target, correct?
`
`A.∙ With respect to Hong, I
`agree that there is no filter
`disclosed between 24 and
`four [target].
`
`Ex. 2016, 129:13‐18 (103 POR at 60; 104 POR at 58)
`
`Ex. 1019, Fig. 1 (103 POR at 54‐55; 104 POR at 52‐54)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`67
`
`
`
`EX1019: Filter Between Power Sources Connected To The Same Electrode
`No filter between pulsed DC power source 24
`to block RF power 26 to substrate
`
`Ex. 1019, Fig. 1 (103 POR at 54‐55; 104 POR at 52‐54)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Low‐pass filter to protect DC
`power source 30 from RF
`power 16 connected to the
`same electrode
`
`Ex. 2009 ¶150 (“The symbol used for 32 is that of a low
`pass filter”); ¶151 (“the coil 6 is connected to both the
`RF power 16 and the DC power 30”).
`
`68
`
`
`
`Subramanian Does Not Know Why EX1019 Did Not Use A Filter For the
`Relevant Reactor Configurations
`
`∙Q.∙ ∙ Do you know why Exhibit 1019 does not
`use a filter between the bipolar pulsed DC
`supply and the target, even though there is
`an RF bias on the substrate?
`A.∙ ∙ Well, I ‐‐ if you are asking me why as in
`what the inventor's thoughts are, I can't insert
`myself into the heads of the inventors and tell
`you why or why not.
`
`Ex. 2017, 510:3‐10 (103 POR at 50; 104 POR at 48)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`
`
`EX1021: Filter Between
`Power Source That Would Directly Couple To Signal Processin
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
