`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Patent No. 6,968,248
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via PTAB E2E
`
`1
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. v.
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC
`
`IPR2021-01342
`(U.S. Patent No. 6,968,248)
`
`IPR2021-01344
`(U.S. Patent No. 6,907,305)
`
`Oral Argument –
`November 15, 2022
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`SOLE GROUND AT ISSUE
`
`(1342 Petition (‘248 Patent) at 16; 1344 Petition (‘305 Patent) at 15.)
`
`Except as otherwise noted, all citations are to Exhibits from IPR2021-01342.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`US PATENT
`6,968,248
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`‘248 Patent
`Claim 1
`
`A method for scheduling in an automated manufacturing
`environment, comprising:
`automatically detecting an occurrence of a predetermined
`event in an integrated, automated process flow;
`automatically notifying a software
`scheduling agent of the occurrence; and
`reactively scheduling an action from the software
`scheduling agent responsive to the detection of the
`predetermined event.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 30:40-48.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`‘248 Patent
`Claim 14
`
`An automated manufacturing environment, comprising:
`an integrated, automated process flow; and
`a computing system, including a plurality of software
`scheduling agents residing thereon, the software scheduling
`agents being capable of reactively scheduling appointments
`for activities in the process flow responsive to an automatic
`detection and notification of a plurality of predetermined
`events.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 30:40-48.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`’248 Patent
`Dependent
`Claims
`
`Depends from Claim 14
`Claim 15
`Claim 16 (through claim 15)
`Claim 17 (through claim 15)
`Claim 18 (through claim 15)
`Claim 19 (through claim 15)
`Claim 20 (through claim 15)
`Claim 21 (through claim 15)
`Claim 22 (through claim 15)
`
`Depends from Claim 1
`Claim 2
`Claim 3
`Claim 4 (through claim 3)
`Claim 5
`Claim 6
`Claim 7
`Claim 8
`Claim 9 (through claim 8)
`Claim 10
`Claim 11 (through claim 10)
`Claim 12
`Claim 13 (through claim 12)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`US PATENT
`6,907,305
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`‘305 Patent
`Claim 1
`
`A method for scheduling in an automated manufacturing
`environment, comprising:
`detecting an occurrence of a predetermined event
`in a process flow;
`notifying a software
`scheduling agent of the occurrence; and
`reactively scheduling an action from the software
`scheduling agent responsive to the detection of the
`predetermined event.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 39:52-60.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`‘305 Patent
`Claim 12
`Preamble
`A computer-readable, program storage medium encoded with
`instructions that, when executed by a computer, perform a method
`for scheduling in an automated manufacturing environment, the
`method comprising:
`(Ex. 1002 at 40:64-67.)
`
`‘305 Patent
`Claim 19
`Preamble
`A computing System programmed to perform a method for
`Scheduling in an automated manufacturing environment, the method
`comprising:
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 41:.58-60.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`‘305 Patent
`Claim 33
`
`An automated manufacturing environment, comprising:
`a process flow; and
`a computing system, including a plurality of
`software scheduling agents residing thereon, the software
`scheduling agents being capable of reactively scheduling
`appointments for activities in the process flow responsive
`to a plurality of predetermined events.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 43:43-50.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`‘305 Patent
`Claim 44
`
`An automated manufacturing environment, comprising:
`a plurality of work pieces,
`a plurality of processing stations through which the
`work pieces may be processed;
`a plurality of software scheduling agents capable of
`scheduling appointments for processing the work pieces
`through the process stations, the software scheduling agents
`capable of reactively scheduling responsive to predetermined
`events.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 44:49-58.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`’305 Patent
`Dependent
`Claims
`
`Depends from Claim 1
`
`Depends from
`Claim 12
`Claim 13
`Claim 2
`Claim 14
`Claim 3
`Claim 4 (through claim 3) Claim 15
`Claim 5 (through claim 3) Claim 16
`Claim 6 (through claim 3) Claim 17
`Claim 7
`Claim 18
`Claim 8
`Claim 9
`Claim 10
`Claim 11
`
`Depends from
`Claim 19
`Claim 20
`Claim 21
`Claim 22
`Claim 23
`Claim 24
`Claim 25
`
`Depends from Claim 33
`
`Depends from Claim 44
`
`Claim 34
`Claim 35 (through claim 34)
`Claim 36 (through claim 34)
`Claim 37 (through claim 34)
`Claim 38 (through claim 34)
`Claim 39 (through claim 34)
`Claim 40 (through claim 34)
`Claim 41
`Claim 42
`Claim 43
`
`Claim 45
`Claim 46 (through claim 45)
`Claim 47 (through claim 45)
`Claim 48 (through claim 45)
`Claim 49 (through claim 45)
`Claim 50 (through claim 45)
`Claim 51 (through claim 45)
`Claim 52
`Claim 53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`
`“Although MES systems are sufficient for tracking lots and
`machines, such systems suffer several deficiencies, the
`most obvious of which are their passive nature, lack of
`advance scheduling and inability to support highly
`automated factory operations.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 2:45-49.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`
`“Current MES Systems largely depend on manufacturing personnel for
`monitoring factory State and initiating activities at the correct time.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 2:49-51.)
`
`“Furthermore, the size and complexity of the modern fabrication process
`flows makes it exceedingly difficult for a WFT [wafer fab technician] to
`foresee and prevent downstream bottlenecks or shortages arising from
`upstream activities.”
`
`(Id. at 3:16-17.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERMS ARE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF
`THE SPECIFICATION
`
`“Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is
`deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of
`the particular claim in which the disputed term appears,
`but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`specification.”
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`PETITIONER RELIES ON SCHULZE FOR THE
`“INTEGRATED, AUTOMATED PROCESS FLOW”
`
`“Schulze discloses a semiconductor fabrication system capable of
`automatically detecting an occurrence of a predetermined event in an
`integrated automated process flow. Ex. 1007, ¶¶ [0039], [0040]”
`
`(Shanfield Declaration, Ex. 1003 at ¶ 132.)
`
`“Schulze is disclosing this semiconductor fabrication system that's
`capable of automatically detecting an occurrence of a predetermined
`event in an integrated, automated process flow. And that's in
`Paragraphs 39 and 40 of Schulze.”
`
`(Shanfield Dep. Tr., Ex. 2044 at 76:3-7.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007
`Schulze
`
`(Schulze, Ex. 1007 at Fig. 4.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001
`’248
`Patent
`
`(‘248 Patent, Ex. 1001 at Fig. 2.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2041 – Humphrey Declaration
`
`“Essentially, the entirety of Schulze’s detailed system as shown
`in Figure 4 above would correspond to the dotted line portion
`and MES 270 of Figure 2 from the ’248 patent. In other words,
`the detailed system of Schulze is little more than a standards-
`compliant collection of data communication interfaces/buses
`connecting fab equipment to an MES 402 and the associated
`E58-0697 Automated Reliability, Availability and
`Maintainability Standard (ARAMS) databases.”
`
`(Humphrey Decl., Ex. 2041 at ¶ 40.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`’248 COMPONENTS MISSING FROM SCHULZE
`
`Software Scheduling
`Agent
`
`Automated Material
`Handling System (AMHS)
`
`(‘248 Patent, Ex. 1001 at Fig. 2.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`SCHULZE’S MES IS NOT INTEGRATED WITH SOFTWARE
`AGENTS OR AMHS
`
`“In furtherance of these objectives, the software agents 265 interface
`with the software components 270, 280 of the MES and AMHS,
`respectively, and are integrated with other existing factory control
`systems (not shown). The software agents 265, where appropriate,
`also interface with the process tools 115 and other equipment
`through a software implemented “equipment interface” (“EI”) (not
`shown).”
`
`(‘248 Patent, Ex. 1001 at 6:47-54.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`A REFERENCE MUST BE REASONABLY PERTINENT TO A
`PARTICULAR PROBLEM
`
`“Two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is
`analogous: ‘(1) whether the art is from the same field of
`endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the
`reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor,
`whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
`particular problem with which the inventor is involved.’”
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010) quoting
`Comaper Corp v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`GUPTA ALSO DOES NOT TEACH OR SUGGEST AN
`“INTEGRATED, AUTOMATED PROCESS FLOW”
`• Gupta does not disclose an integrated, automated process flow that
`includes an AMHS. (Humphrey Decl., Ex. 2041 at ¶¶ 70-72.)
`• Gupta does not disclose a software scheduling agent. (Id. at ¶¶ 70-73.)
`• Gupta teaches “local optimization, not a comprehensive real-time resource
`scheduling system using global, i.e., fab-wide distributed optimization.” (Id.
`at ¶¶ 50-53.)
`• “—factory—factory automation in general is generally presumed to be
`fabwide automation.” (Humphrey Dep. Tr., Ex. 1046 at 106:10-14.)
`• Gupta’s citation of E10, E58, and E79 standards is not enabling.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`THE “SOFTWARE SCHEDULING AGENT(S)” SCHEDULE FAB-
`WIDE, IN REAL TIME
`
`“The software agents 265, collectively, are responsible for efficiently
`scheduling and controlling the lots 130 of wafers 135 through the
`fabrication process. In furtherance of these objectives, the software
`agents 265 interface with the software components 270, 280 of the MES
`and AMHS, respectively, and are integrated with other existing factory
`control systems (not shown).”
`
`(’248 Patent, Ex. 1001 at 6:47-54.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`THE “SOFTWARE SCHEDULING AGENT” INCLUDES
`RESOURCE SCHEDULING
`The principle [sic] types of scheduling agents 265 in the illustrated embodiment,
`shown in FIG. 3, include:
`a Lot Scheduling Agent (“LSA') 305 that schedules activities on behalf of lots 130
`of wafers 135;
`a Machine Scheduling Agent (“MSA”) 310 that schedules activities on behalf of
`process tools 115;
`a PM Scheduling Agent (“PMSA”) 315 that schedules activities on behalf of PMs
`and Quals (not shown); and
`a Resource Scheduling Agent (“RSA”) 320 that schedules activities on behalf of
`resources (not shown).
`
`(‘248 Patent, Ex. 1001 at 7:20-30 (emphasis added).)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001
`’248
`Patent
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Fig. 3.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`GUPTA FOCUSES ONLY ON MACHINE, LOT, AND
`LOCAL PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE (PM) SCHEDULING
`
`(Gupta, Ex. 1008 at Fig. 2 & 3.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`SCHULZE DOES NOT DISCLOSE A “SOFTWARE SCHEDULING AGENT”
`OR A “PLURALITY OF SOFTWARE SCHEDULING AGENTS”
`
`“Additionally, Schulze fails to disclose or suggest any system or method that
`provides the proactive and reactive scheduling functions of the ’248 patent. In
`fact, Schulze’s only reference to “schedule” in any context is with respect to
`specific tools and their designated states, e.g., ‘the user may initially be
`presented with a list of the default states as specified by the E10 and/or E58
`Standards, including the Productive state (and its sub-states), Standby state (and
`its sub-states), Engineering state, Scheduled Downtime state, Unscheduled
`Downtime states (and its sub-states), and NonScheduled state.’ (Schulze, Ex. 1007
`at [0178].)”
`
`(Humphrey Decl., Ex. 2041 at ¶ 43.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`SCHULZE DOES NOT DISCLOSE A “SOFTWARE SCHEDULING AGENT”
`OR A “PLURALITY OF SOFTWARE SCHEDULING AGENTS”
`
`“The ’248 patent has little to do with Schulze’s automated tool monitoring and
`assessment system. The ’248 patent only makes brief mention of tool status in the
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION stating, “An automated MES enables a user to
`view and manipulate, to a limited extent, the status of machines and tools, or
`‘entities,’ in a manufacturing environment” (‘248 patent at 2:28-31), and this is set
`out in the context of a conventional MES which is widely used in the industry and
`in and of itself is merely one component in the comprehensive automated
`scheduling system of the ’248 patent.”
`
`(Humphrey Decl., Ex. 2041 at ¶ 45.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`GUPTA’S INABILITY TO SCALE UP PROVIDES NO
`MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`“The computational resources required for decision making
`tend to grow at least geometrically, and usually exponentially,
`with the size of the problem. Decisions which consider many
`factors, such as those made for the entire facility at once,
`tend to require prohibitive computational resources.”
`
`(Gupta, Ex. 1008 at 13:57-14:4.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`A POSITA IN 2002 WOULD NOT HAVE LOOKED TO GUPTA
`AND SCHULZE FOR FAB-WIDE REACTIVE SCHEDULING
`
`“Therefore, even if Gupta had contemplated real-time resource scheduling,
`which again was never mentioned or alluded to in the Gupta disclosure, there
`were no means at that time (circa 1988) to implement such real-time resource
`scheduling. It would be another 10+ years for computer hardware and software
`to advance to the point that the integrated software scheduling agents of the
`‘248 patent—including the Resource Scheduling Agent—could be created,
`implemented, and reduced to practice. This is further evidence that Gupta does
`not teach or suggest such scheduling as claimed in the ’248 patent.”
`
`(Humphrey Decl., Ex. 2041 at ¶ 58.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`GUPTA IS LIMITED TO SIX MINUTE TIME STEPS
`
`“The period of time which will be used herein is called the
`time step. A time step is preferably 0.1 hours, or 6 minutes.
`All times used by the scheduler are expressed in time steps,
`and all absolute times, such as the predicted time for an
`event, are expressed as a number of time steps from some
`arbitrary beginning.”
`
`(Gupta, Ex. 1008 at 3:67-4:4.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`GUPTA IS LIMITED TO SIX MINUTE TIME STEPS
`
`“For example, if the decision making process for an average
`machine is 30 seconds, and 12 machines are due to be
`unloaded at the same time step, an instantaneous demand of
`6 minutes of computation will be required at that time. If this
`delay is unacceptable, it will be necessary for the scheduling
`system to begin the decision making calculations 6 minutes in
`advance.”
`
`(Gupta, Ex. 1008 at 14:33-40.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`GUPTA IS LIMITED TO SIX MINUTE TIME STEPS
`
`“In my opinion, the separation of factory activities into six minute intervals is
`incompatible with an integrated fab-wide system for reactive scheduling of the
`type disclosed by the ’248 patent. A POSITA at the filing date of the ’248 patent
`would have recognized that such a system could not be adapted to schedule
`multiple machine and/or resource operations simultaneously throughout a large
`semiconductor production facility without building in inherent and unavoidable
`tool, lot and resource inefficiencies and increased risks for misprocessing.”
`
`(Humphrey Decl., Ex. 2041 at ¶ 82.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`KNOWLEDGE OF A PROBLEM DOES NOT EQUAL
`MOTIVATION TO COMBINE REFERENCES
`
`“The district court was nevertheless correct that knowledge
`of a problem and motivation to solve it are entirely different
`from motivation to combine particular references to reach
`the particular claimed method.”
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs, 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`MOTIVATION TO COMBINE REFERENCES MUST BE
`SPECIFIC
`
`“The factual inquiry whether to combine references
`must be thorough and searching and the need for
`specificity pervades our authority on the findings
`on motivation to combine.”
`
`In re Anova Hearing Labs, Inc., 809 Fed. Appx. 840, 842 (Fed. Cir. 2020), quoting In re NuVasive,
`842 F.3d 1376, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`Summary
`SUMMARY
`
`• Neither Schulze nor Gupta Disclose an
`“Integrated, Automated Process Flow”
`• Schulze Does Not Disclose a “Software
`Scheduling Agent”
`• Schulze Is Not Relevant to Scheduling
`• Gupta Does Not Disclose a “Software
`Scheduling Agent”
`• Gupta’s Six Minute Localized Approach Is
`Incompatible With Fab Wide Scheduling
`• Even if Combined, Schulze and Gupta Do
`Not Teach All of the Claimed Elements of
`the Challenged Claims of the ‘248 and ‘305
`Patents
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
`
`electronically via electronic mail on November 9, 2022, on the following counsel
`
`of record for Petitioners:
`
`COUNSEL FOR APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
`LEAD COUNSEL
`BACKUP COUNSEL
`
`
`Pan C. Lee (pro hac vice)
`Eric A. Krause (Reg. No. 62,329)
`Jeannine Yoo Sano (pro hac vice)
`ekrause@axinn.com
`Don Zhe Nan Wang (pro hac vice)
`
`Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider LLP
`plee@axinn.com
`560 Mission Street
`jsano@axinn.com
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`dwang@axinn.com
`Telephone: (415) 490-1491
`
`Facsimile: (415) 490-2001
`Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider LLP
`
`560 Mission Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 490-1491
`Facsimile: (415) 490-2001
`
`Additional email for service: applied-ocean@axinn.com
`
`/s/ Timothy Devlin
` Timothy Devlin
`
`
`
`IPR2021-1342
`PATENT OWNER EX, 2047
`
`