`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent 7,381,657
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`______________________
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`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 ........................................... 25
`A.
`Barber-Hirose’s NBRF ....................................................................... 25
`B. Motivation to Use NBRF in Barber .................................................... 27
`1.
`Glew’s Unreliable Analysis/Opinions ...................................... 27
`2.
`Glew Confirms POSITA’s Knowledge .................................... 31
`3.
`PO Attacks of State-of-Art Literature Are Inapposite .............. 33
`Barber’s RF-Coupling ......................................................................... 35
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`D.
`Printed Publication .............................................................................. 38
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 39
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner’s (“PO”) attempt (Paper 29, “POR”) to prove earlier conception
`
`and actual reduction-to-practice is riddled with evidentiary and credibility holes.
`
`Likewise, PO’s obviousness arguments are based on faulty expert analysis and
`
`misunderstandings of the record and evidence. Both are undermined by PO’s
`
`witnesses’ cross-examination testimony. As explained in the Petition (Paper 1,
`
`“Pet.”) and below, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`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, 30.)2
`
`To establish RTP, PO must show: (1) performance of a process meeting all
`
`claimed limitations; (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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`
`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” 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” corroboration value).
`
`Zhang and Pethe’s declarations are even more questionable given their cross-
`
`examination
`
`testimony.
`
` (EX1105 passim (“I [don’t/do not/can’t/cannot]
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`[recall/remember]” >120 times); EX1107 passim (“I [don’t/do not] [recollect]” >50
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`know “what types of things that the team would have included to protect the pulsed
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`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, 46:21-47:8, 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
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`“have been stored 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, 35-36;
`
`EX2009, ¶82 (p. 56, 62-63, 67-68); 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, 33-39) 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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`created by inventors, but allegedly by its expert (or counsel) lacking personal
`
`knowledge of conception/RTP (Motorola, Paper 84, 20; POR, 33; EX2009, ¶¶81-
`
`82). Neither PO’s/Glew’s chart addresses claim 9.
`
`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/method including
`
`all limitations of any claim.
`
`1.
`6/13/2001
`PO fails to establish RTP/conception was “likely” 6/13/2001. (POR, 30.) PO
`
`does not establish any process performed on/before 6/13/2001 included all claimed
`
`limitations (e.g., EX1001, 23:6-8, 23:19-21 (claims 1-2) (pulsed DC to target
`
`through NBRF, alternating positive and negative target voltages), 23:9-10, 23:22-23
`
`(claims 1-2) (RF bias corresponding to NBRF), 23:12-15 (claim 1) (reconditioning
`
`target in metallic mode, then poison mode), 23:25-27 (claim 2) (depositing oxide
`
`material on substrate and forming insulating film in mode between metallic and
`
`poison modes). (POR, 21-23.)
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`Documents
`i)
`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.
`
`
`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.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`(EX2020, ¶23 (6/13/01: “Zhang ran a few test runs…”); EX2012, 201 (different
`
`“Quartz target” run (not “60/40 Target”)).)11
`
`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, 23:6-10, 23:19-23 (claims 1-2),
`
`23:12-15 (claim 1), 23:25-27 (claim 2)). These pages never mention/reference “RF
`
`bias”, an NBRF, “reconditioning…in the metallic mode and then…poison mode,”
`
`“reactive sputtering in a mode between” metallic/poison modes, as claimed. The
`
`mention of “Biased”/“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; EX1004, 979-980
`
`(distinguishing “bias” from “RF bias”).) The entries also do not demonstrate “RF
`
`Bias” being “coupled to the substrate,” especially where runs had RF coupled to e.g.,
`
`
`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.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`the target. (EX2019, ¶14 (“runs…with RF target power”); EX1105, 83:15-17, 77:9-
`
`78:2.)
`
`Testimony
`ii)
`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 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 “provid[ed]”—and the
`
`
`12 Glew’s opinion regarding “BRPDC” relies on the ’657 patent (EX2009, ¶80),
`
`which is not contemporaneous and never uses that term, which is not a term of art.
`
`(EX1108, ¶¶91-92.)
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`presence of “bias[]” for the “60/40” run (id., ¶24)—not that “RF bias” was provided
`
`to the substrate. 13 Lastly, Pethe does not corroborate “reconditioning…in the
`
`metallic mode…then…poison mode” and “reactive sputtering in…mode between”
`
`metallic/poison modes.
`
`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 of
`
`the sketch’s
`
`inductor, capacitor, and connecting
`
`
`13 Pethe did not discuss bias “frequency,” and thus no evidence corroborates RF bias
`
`frequency “correspond[ing]
`
`to
`
`the
`
`[NBRF].”
`
` Symmorphix admittedly
`
`“experiment[ed] with different frequencies.” (EX1107, 166:11-20; EX2012, 201.)
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`wires/cables.14 Those values impact the rejection/pass band, and without knowing
`
`them (or the frequency response), a POSITA would not understand whether the
`
`filter was wide or narrow band. (EX1108, ¶¶58-64.)
`
`Glew made questionable assumptions. (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, alone or in combination with
`
`any other claim feature. See Burroughs, 40 F.3d at 1228.
`
`
`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 conception/RTP. (EX1106, 239:20-
`
`240:24.)
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`
`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, 23:6-10, 23:19-23, 23:12-15, 23:25-27).
`
`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 “provid[ed],”
`
`and not whether a “target alternates between” positive/negative voltages. 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,” an NBRF,
`
`“reconditioning…in metallic mode and then…poison mode,” “reactive sputtering
`
`in a mode between” metallic/poison modes.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`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 “provid[ed].” Third, Pethe does
`
`not corroborate the filter allegedly used in Lot 66’s “Arizona” and “Florida” was an
`
`NBRF or that pulsed DC power was provided through the “filter” such that the target
`
`voltages alternates as claimed. (Id.) Fourth, neither witness testifies that an RF bias
`
`frequency “corresponds to” the “filter,” as claimed. (Supra n.12.) Fifth, Pethe
`
`provides no testimony regarding any runs “reconditioning” or “sputtering” in
`
`modes as claimed (EX1001, 23:12-15, 23:25-27). (EX2020, ¶26).
`
`Also, no evidence corroborates the process included the claimed “providing a
`
`magnetic field to the target.” Instead, Zhang’s notebook demonstrates such features
`
`were not necessarily present. (E.g., EX2012, 77 (“took the magnets out”); 116 (“no
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`magnet”); 126 (“put magnet back into the one chamber B”); 138 (“put the magnet
`
`back”); 144) (“Dep. Rate with no magnets” and “dep rate with magnet”).)
`
`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, 27-28) 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, “magnetic field,” “pulsed” DC (or where such
`
`features were
`
`“provided”),
`
`that
`
`the
`
`target
`
`voltage
`
`alternates,
`
`“reconditioning…in…metallic mode and then…poison mode,” or “reactive
`
`sputtering in a mode between” metallic/poison modes. While PO argues P.220’s
`
`“burn-in” discloses “reconditioning,” that does not disclose both metallic and poison
`
`modes operations, which requires two different oxygen (reactive gas) flow rates.
`
`(EX1001, 11:51-12:9.)
`
`ii)
`
`Testimony
`
`
`17 Supra §III.A.2.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`Zhang’s cited testimony essentially parrots claim limitations without
`
`corroboration by documentary evidence. None of the entries demonstrate any “run”
`
`included all the above-identified claim limitations.
`
` Nor are Zhang’s assertions independently corroborated. Pethe testified only
`
`to “July 16, 2001” (EX2020, ¶27) and even that does not corroborate use
`
`of/configurations involving the above-discussed claimed limitations: NBRF, “target
`
`alternates,” “RF bias” corresponding to NBRF, “magnetic field”, “reconditioning,”
`
`and “between” metallic/poison modes operations, or other “run” details.
`
`5.
`7/18/2001
`PO does not allege RTP of any claimed feature on 7/18/2001, only that “Bob
`
`Weiss[e] provided the final filter schematic.” (POR, 28.)
`
`Documents
`i)
`PO alleges the unwitnessed and loose/unbound schematic was part of
`
`Zhang’s notebook. 18 Nevertheless, the schematic neither supports/establishes
`
`conception/RTP of the claimed NBRF (alone or with other claimed features). First,
`
`
`18 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
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00104
`Patent No. 7,381,657
`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.)
`
`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
`
`“providing pulsed DC power to the target through” the claimed NBRF because
`
`different types of “pulse suppl[ies]” 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,
`
`4:2
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
