`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 52
`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