Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 1 of 56
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`MEDIATEK INC., ET AL.,
`Defendant.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`NXP SEMICONDUCTORS NV, ET AL.,
`Defendant.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, ET AL.,
`Defendant.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`SILICON LABORATORIES INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`STMICROELECTRONICS INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-01210-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-01211-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-01212-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-01213-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-01214-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-01215-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-01216-ADA
`
`DECLARATION OF COSTAS SPANOS, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 2 of 56
`
`
`
`
`I, Costas Spanos, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Defendants MediaTek Inc.; MediaTek USA
`
`Inc.; NVIDIA Corporation; NXP USA, Inc.; Renesas Electronics Corporation; Renesas
`
`Electronics America, Inc.; Silicon Laboratories Inc.; STMicroelectronics, Inc.; and Western
`
`Digital Technologies, Inc. as an expert to analyze and explain certain claim terms in U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 6,660,651 (“the ’651 patent”), 8,676,538 (“the ’538 patent”), and 6,420,097 (“the ’097
`
`patent”).
`
`2.
`
`In rendering my opinions, I considered the items discussed or listed herein, as well
`
`as my own experiences in the field of semiconductor manufacturing technology. I have also
`
`reviewed the parties’ lists of claim terms for construction as well as the parties’ proposed
`
`constructions.
`
`3.
`
`I reserve the right to amend or supplement my opinions in light of further
`
`documents, depositions, or discovery disclosures.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual hourly rate of $750 and I am being separately
`
`reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses. My compensation does not depend in any way on the
`
`outcome of this case, my particular testimony, or the opinions that I express.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`I have attached my Curriculum Vitae as Exhibit 1.
`
`I am a Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences at the University
`
`of California in Berkeley, California.
`
`7.
`
`I graduated from the National Technical University of Athens, Greece in 1980 with
`
`a five-year diploma in in Electrical Engineering, specialized in Electronics. I then graduated from
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 3 of 56
`
`
`
`Carnegie Mellon University in 1981 with a M.S. in Electrical Engineering, specialized in
`
`Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits (ICs), and in 1985 with a Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering, specialized in Computer-Aided Fabrication of ICs.
`
`8.
`
`In the course of my professional and academic career, I have taught courses in
`
`semiconductor technology and semiconductor manufacturing at both the undergraduate and
`
`graduate levels, and I have also presented multiple short courses on the subjects of statistical
`
`process control and experimental design in semiconductor manufacturing to industrial audiences.
`
`9.
`
`I have published more than 300 peer-reviewed publications on all these subjects
`
`and co-authored a well-cited textbook. I have also been involved in co-founding two successful
`
`companies. The first, Timbre Technologies, specialized in sub-nm metrology for ultra-fine
`
`patterns that need to be produced and controlled during advanced semiconductor processing. The
`
`second, OnWafer Technologies, specialized in wireless, in-situ monitoring of critical steps during
`
`photolithography and plasma operations. Timbre Technologies was acquired by Tokyo Electron,
`
`and OnWafer Technologies was acquired by KLA-Tencor. The technologies Timbre
`
`Technologies and OnWafer Technologies were based on are widely in use today across the
`
`semiconductor industry.
`
`10.
`
`In addition to my academic and commercial work, I have been at times retained as
`
`an expert witness in several patent disputes relating to semiconductor manufacturing technology,
`
`where I have provided expert opinions and testimony.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`11.
`
`The ’651 patent relates to an adjustable wafer stage on which a process operation
`
`is performed on a wafer. ’651 patent at 1:6-11, 2:26-57, 3:9-14, 5:3-29, 7:28-34. The ’538 patent
`
`relates to determining a relationship between processing parameters such as temperature or
`
`pressure and “faults” (undesired parameter values) detected during processing and adjusting the
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 4 of 56
`
`
`
`weighting of parameters before performing subsequent fault detection algorithms. ’538 patent at
`
`1:9-12, 5:28-59. 
`
`12.
`
`For each of the ’651 and ’538 patents, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention would have had at least a B.S. in mechanical engineering, electrical
`
`engineering, materials science engineering, or a related field. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention also would have had experience with the technological area
`
`relating to the patents at issue. In the case of the ’651 patent, in addition to the educational
`
`requirement described above, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have had four years of experience designing and developing semiconductor
`
`fabrication processes and tooling. For the ’538 patent, in addition to the educational requirement
`
`described above, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would
`
`have had four years of experience working with semiconductor fabrication processes, including
`
`computer programming and data analysis. If someone had an M.S. or Ph.D. in mechanical
`
`engineering, electrical engineering, materials science engineering, or a related field, then less
`
`experience would have been necessary to qualify that person as a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention for each of the ’651, and ’538 patents.
`
`13.
`
`The ’097 patent relates to trimming or reducing the linewidth of a hardmask layer
`
`in a semiconductor film stack in order to achieve linewidths of circuit structures (like transistor
`
`gates), formed using a hardmask, that are narrower than the linewidths generated by conventional
`
`lithography tools at the time of the alleged invention. ’097 patent at 1:4-9, 1:57-63.
`
`14.
`
`For the ’097 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have had a B.S. in chemical engineering, materials science, electrical engineering,
`
`physics, chemistry, or a similar field, and three or four years of work experience in integrated
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 5 of 56
`
`
`
`circuit fabrication or related fields. If someone had an M.S. or Ph.D. in chemical engineering,
`
`materials science, electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, or a similar field, then less experience
`
`would have been necessary to qualify that person as a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the alleged invention for purposes of the ’097 patent.
`
`15.
`
`I meet the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art for each of the ’651,
`
`’538, and ’097 patents. I have a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and several years of experience
`
`researching issues and developing solutions in each of the technology areas relating to the patents
`
`at issues. 
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`16.
`
`I am informed on the law regarding claim construction and patent claims, and
`
`understand that a patent may include two types of claims, independent claims and dependent
`
`claims. An independent claim stands alone and includes only the limitations it recites. A
`
`dependent claim can depend on an independent claim or another dependent claim. I understand
`
`that a dependent claim includes all the limitations that it recites in addition to all the limitations
`
`recited in the claim or claims from which it depends.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that claim construction is a matter of law for the Court to decide.
`
`Claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning within the context of the patent
`
`in which the terms are used, i.e., the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in question at the time of the invention in light of what the patent teaches.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that to determine how a person of ordinary skill would understand a
`
`claim term, one should look to those sources available that show what a person of skill in the art
`
`would have understood disputed claim language to mean. Such sources include the words of the
`
`claims themselves, the remainder of the patent’s specification, the prosecution history of the patent
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 6 of 56
`
`
`
`and the cited references (all considered “intrinsic” evidence), and “extrinsic” evidence, such as
`
`dictionary definitions and learned treatises and the opinions of qualified experts concerning
`
`relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that, in construing a claim term, one looks primarily to the intrinsic
`
`patent evidence, including the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the patent
`
`specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence, which is evidence external to the patent and
`
`the prosecution history, may also be useful in interpreting patent claims.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that words or terms should be given their ordinary and accepted
`
`meaning unless it appears that the inventors were using them to mean something else. In making
`
`this determination, the claims, the patent specification, and the prosecution history are of
`
`paramount importance. Additionally, the specification and prosecution history must be consulted
`
`to confirm whether the patentee has acted as its own lexicographer (i.e., provided its own special
`
`meaning to any disputed terms), or intentionally disclaimed, disavowed, or surrendered any claim
`
`scope.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read a 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. For this reason, the words of the claim must be
`
`interpreted in view of the entire specification. The specification is the primary basis for construing
`
`the claims and provides a safeguard such that correct constructions closely align with the
`
`specification. Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and
`
`confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to
`
`envelop with the claim as set forth in the patent itself.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 7 of 56
`
`
`
`B.
`
`23.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`I understand that a patent must satisfy a definiteness requirement, which requires
`
`that it conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
`
`subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that definiteness requires that a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the
`
`specification and file history from the perspective of a person skilled in the relevant art, inform
`
`those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that patents are presumed valid and indefiniteness is an invalidity
`
`defense. So, I understand that indefiniteness must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`V.
`
`“A SIGNIFICANT FAULT” (’538 PATENT CLAIM 5)
`
`Term
`
`“A significant fault” (’538
`Patent, Claim 5)
`
`
`
`Ocean’s Construction
`No construction is necessary,
`or in the alternative,
`“abnormality or fault that
`relates to an actual fault.”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`
`Indefinite
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, the claim limitation that uses the term “a significant fault” to
`
`describe whether a “detected fault” is “a significant fault” in the ’538 patent is indefinite. A person
`
`of ordinary skill would not be able to understand the scope of those claim limitations with
`
`reasonable certainty.
`
`27.
`
`Claim 5 of the ’538 patent uses the term “a significant fault” to describe a “detected
`
`fault.” “5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: designated in said computer whether said
`
`detected fault is a significant fault; and adjusting said weighting associated with said parameter
`
`based responsive to designating said detected fault as a significant fault.” A POSITA would not
`
`be able to understand the scope of this limitation with reasonable certainty. In this field and in the
`
`context of the patent and claims, it is impossible to know how far a fault must deviate from its
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 8 of 56
`
`
`
`expected value to be “significant,” or how out of specification a workpiece must be before
`
`experiencing a “significant” fault. In other words, it is unclear how far a fault could deviate from
`
`its expected value to be an insignificant or normal fault, or how out of specification a workpiece
`
`could be and still be experiencing only an insignificant or normal fault. Nothing in the claims or
`
`specification of the patent provides any guidance to a POSITA to make this determination and thus
`
`understand the boundaries of this term. In my opinion, it would be purely subjective, and depend
`
`on, for example, the manufacturing tools, the products being manufactured, the level of precision
`
`required by the designer and fabricator, among many other potential factors. 
`
`28.
`
`I have reviewed the patent and did not find any disclosure that provides a definition,
`
`parameters, or other metrics to determine the boundaries of what is or isn’t “significant.” The
`
`specification only explains that “[t]he system 300 analyzes the fault data resulting from the fault
`
`data analysis and/or the PCA, in order to determine whether any particular parameters associated
`
`with any faults or abnormalities detected that are associated with the processing of semiconductor
`
`wafers 105 is actually a significant fault.” ’538 patent at 11:12-19. There is no disclosure in the
`
`patent for how to make that determination, however. 
`
`29.
`
`The other example of the word “significant” being used in the specification (at
`
`11:29-67) is not related to determining whether a fault is “significant.” Instead, it discusses that
`
`certain parameters may be a “significant contribution” to a fault. The disclosure does not provide
`
`a way to determine what is (or isn’t) “significant.” See also ’538 patent at Fig. 8. 
`
`30.
`
`A POSITA also would not understand the bounds of the claims because the word
`
`“significant,” without additional explanation, is a subjective word of degree and it does not indicate
`
`any specific amount, range, or parameter to me. It is an inexact term I would never use if I had to
`
`describe a value in this field with reasonable certainty. I do not know, for example, if these claims
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 9 of 56
`
`
`
`would cover a situation where a fault is 5% out of specification, or if it would only cover a situation
`
`where a fault is 10% out of specification, or a situation where a fault is 15% out of specification.
`
`Whether a fault is “significant” may depend on numerous factors not disclosed by the ‘538 patent.
`
`For example, two engineers may disagree whether a “fault” is “significant” due to, e.g., the
`
`subjective demands of their customers (e.g., the variance permitted by a customer) or the material
`
`used in the manufacturing process (e.g., some materials are more fault tolerant). A POSITA is
`
`thus left guessing what qualifies as a “significant” fault in this claim. As such, it is my opinion
`
`that a POSITA would not know the outer bounds of what is being claimed with reasonable
`
`certainty. 
`
`31.
`
`I also do not agree with Plaintiff’s construction for this term. It does not provide
`
`any actual definition and only imports more ambiguity into the term. Rather than provide a
`
`construction that defines how much a fault must be out of specification to be a significant fault,
`
`Plaintiff instead proposes a construction that redefines the term using unclear concepts such as
`
`“abnormality” and undefined terms like “relates to an actual fault.” If Plaintiff’s alternative
`
`construction were to be adopted, it too would fail to inform a POSITA of the bounds of the claim
`
`because a POSITA would not understand what is meant by “fault relat[ing] to an actual fault.”
`
`Moreover, what qualifies as an “actual fault” is itself subjective and dependent on external factors.
`
`For example, the exact same fault may be an “actual fault” if the result falls outside the scope of
`
`an acceptable variance defined by customer A, but may not be an “actual fault” if customer B has
`
`a wider definition of acceptable variance. 
`
`VI.
`“DETERMINING IN SAID COMPUTER WHETHER SAID PARAMETER IS A
`SIGNIFICANT FACTOR” (’538 PATENT, CLAIM 7)
`
`Term
`“determining in said computer
`whether said parameter is a
`
`Ocean’s Construction
`No construction is necessary,
`or in the alternative, “a
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`Indefinite
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 10 of 56
`
`
`
`significant factor” (’538
`Patent, Claim 7)
`
`
`
`parameter that provides a
`significant contribution to the
`fault.”
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, the claim limitation that uses the term “a significant factor” to
`
`describe whether the “parameter” “provides a significant contribution” in the ’538 patent is
`
`indefinite. A person of ordinary skill would not be able to understand the scope of those claim
`
`limitations with reasonable certainty. 
`
`33.
`
`Claim 7 of the ’538 patent uses the term “a significant factor” to describe a
`
`“parameter”: “7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining in said computer said relationship
`
`of a parameter relating to said fault detection analysis to a detected fault further comprises
`
`determining in said computer whether said parameter is a significant factor associated with said
`
`fault.” 
`
`34.
`
`A POSITA would consider this term indefinite because, in this field and in view of
`
`the patent and its claims, it is impossible to know what would it take to make a “parameter” a
`
`“significant contribution associated with [a] fault.” Nothing in the claims or specification of the
`
`patent provides any guidance. When the term is used in the specification, the specification does
`
`not provide a definition or any objective boundaries as to the term’s meaning. The specification
`
`states: “The system 300 may also comprise a dynamic PCA weighting module 370, which is
`
`capable of receiving data automatically and/or manually relating to information indicating whether
`
`a particular parameter that was considered abnormal is indeed a significant factor in any detected
`
`faults.” ’538 patent at 7:36–40. There are no metrics, parameters, or even characteristics from the
`
`specification that a POSITA could rely on to understand the boundaries of the term. 
`
`35.
`
`Further, a POSITA would not understand the boundaries of the claims with
`
`reasonable certainty because the word “significant” is a subjective word of degree and it does not
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 11 of 56
`
`
`
`indicate a specific amount, parameter, or metric. For example, there is no indication if the claims
`
`would cover a parameter where it is 10% responsible for contributing to a fault, or if it would only
`
`cover a parameter where it is 25% responsible for contributing to a fault, or if it would only cover
`
`a parameter where it is 50% responsible for contributing to a fault. Whether a parameter is a
`
`“significant factor” in a fault may depend on numerous factors not disclosed by the ‘538 patent.
`
`For example, two engineers may disagree whether a “factor” is “significant” due to the presence
`
`of additional factors that may appear to also be significant. It is an inexact term I would never use
`
`if I had to clearly describe a value in this field with reasonable certainty. Thus, it is my opinion
`
`that a POSITA cannot know the outer bounds of what is being claimed in this claim with
`
`reasonable certainty. 
`
`36.
`
`I also do not agree with Plaintiff’s construction for this term. It does not provide
`
`any actual definition and only imports more ambiguity into the term. Rather than attempt to
`
`provide a construction that defines how closely linked to a fault a parameter must be in order to be
`
`deemed “significant,” Plaintiff instead proposes a construction that merely replaces the indefinite
`
`“a significant factor” with the equally indefinite “a significant contribution.” What qualifies as “a
`
`as significant contribution” is itself subjective given the continued use of “significant.” The
`
`alternative construction still renders it impossible for a POSITA to know the bounds of the claim. 
`
`VII. “PNEUMATIC CYLINDER” (’651 PATENT, CLAIMS 19, 75, 81)
`
`Term
`
`“pneumatic cylinder” (’651
`Patent, Claims 19, 75, 81)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ocean’s Construction
`No construction is necessary,
`or in the alternative, “a
`pneumatic, hydraulic,
`electromagnetic or
`mechanical device”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 12 of 56
`
`
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, the claim limitation “pneumatic cylinder” as used in the ’651 patent
`
`should be given a construction consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning. 
`
`38.
`
`The ’651 patent describes different types of mechanisms for “adjusting the position
`
`of the wafer stage,” including “pneumatic, hydraulic, electromagnetic, or mechanical systems.”
`
`’651 patent at 5:65–6:1. 
`
`39.
`
`A POSITA, consistent with the ’651 patent specification, would have understood
`
`these to be four different types of devices—all included in Ocean’s construction for pneumatic—
`
`that have different ways of causing movement in order to move the wafer stage. 
`
`40.
`
`A pneumatic device is a device that is powered by compressed air or other gas.
`
`“Pneumatic,” means that the power to actuate the device is generated by air or other gas pressure.
`
`See American Heritage Dictionary published 2001, reissued 2004 (“Of or relating to air or other
`
`gases” or “Filled or operated by air”); Dictionary of Engineering 1997 (“Pertaining to or operated
`
`by air or other gas”); Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2001 (“of, relating to or using gas (as air or
`
`wind)” and “moved or worked by air pressure”); ’651 patent at 6:1–21. 
`
`41.
`
`One specific type of a pneumatic device is a pneumatic cylinder, which is a
`
`cylindrical device that uses pressurized air or other gas to move a shaft (or rod) of the device along
`
`a linear path (that is, in a straight line). A pneumatic cylinder is described in the ’651 patent and
`
`in the literature known to a POSITA. ’651 patent at 6:1–65, Figure 2 (reproduced below, depicting
`
`“pneumatic cylinder 46 … comprised of a housing 47 [and] a shaft 49” where pressurized air or
`
`an inert gas is supplied to the cylinder to move its shaft 49 in a linear direction), Figure 3;
`
`Pneumatic Systems at 85 (“Pneumatic cylinders offer a straight rectilinear motion to mechanical
`
`elements.”), 85 (“The pneumatic power is converted to straight line reciprocation motions by
`
`pneumatic cylinders”), 86–89. 
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 13 of 56
`
`
`
`
`
`42.
`
`As the ’651 patent notes, in describing the pneumatic cylinders 46 of Figure 2, “The
`
`pneumatic cylinders 46 may be any type of pneumatic cylinders useful for performing the function
`
`of adjusting the surface 42 of the wafer stage 40. For example, the pneumatic cylinders 46 may
`
`be dual-acting pneumatic cylinders. The stroke, size and supply pressure to such cylinders may
`
`vary depending upon the particular application. Air or inert gas may be supplied to the cylinders
`
`46 at the required pressure through flexible houses (not shown).” ’651 patent at 6:13–21. The
`
`Pneumatic Systems book further describes such a dual (double) acting pneumatic cylinder.
`
`Pneumatic Systems at 89. 
`
`43.
`
`As evidenced by the patent and other literature understood to a POSITA, the critical
`
`feature of pneumatic devices is that they are powered by air or other gas pressure.
`
`44.
`
`The other types of devices—consistent with their names—are powered by
`
`particular means (hydraulic, electromagnetic, and mechanical forces, respectively). More
`
`particularly, the second type of device mentioned in the ’651 patent is a hydraulic device, which,
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 14 of 56
`
`
`
`as the “hydraulic” in its name demonstrates, is a device powered by pressurized liquid fluids. The
`
`third type, an electromagnetic device, is powered by an electric current and a magnetic field. And
`
`the fourth type, a mechanical device, is a device that creates the needed motion through interacting
`
`mechanical parts, as, for example, in a rack and pinion configuration. 
`
`VIII. “ULTRA-THIN RESIST LAYER” (’097 PATENT, CLAIMS 1-3, 10-17)
`
`Ocean’s Construction
`Term
`“ultra-thin resist layer” (’097
`Patent, Claims 1-3, 10-17) No construction is necessary.
`
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`Indefinite
`
`45.
`
`I have been asked to opine as to what a person of skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention (POSITA) would have understood by the claim term “ultra-thin resist layer[s]” and
`
`whether a POSITA would have understood, based on the claims, specification, prosecution history,
`
`and extrinsic evidence, whether “ultra-thin resist layer[s]” has a defined upper limit and if so, what
`
`that upper limit is. In this declaration, I use UTR to refer to “ultra-thin resist” and UTR layer to
`
`refer to “ultra-thin resist layer[s].” 
`
`46.
`
`The ’097 patent describes a method for forming circuit structures having linewidths
`
`smaller than conventional lithography techniques allowed. ’097 patent at 1:4–9. Lithography uses
`
`light of specific wavelengths to expose and generate linewidth patterns in a layer of photoresist
`
`material. ’097 patent at 1:16–20. The patterned photoresist is used as a sacrificial layer in the way
`
`of creating circuit structures, such as gates, from underlying layers. ’097 patent at 1:60–63, 4:14–
`
`42. 
`
`47.
`
`The ‘097 patent teaches forming the stack of layers shown in Figure 4(b) (see
`
`below) that includes substrate 114, device layer 116, hardmask layer 118, and UTR layer 120
`
`(shaded blue). ’097 patent at 3:63–4:2. Figure 4(c) below shows that UTR layer 120 is then
`
`patterned to form resist mask 122 (shaded blue). Resist mask 122 is further processed to create a
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 15 of 56
`
`
`
`device structure such as a transistor gate with a linewidth narrower than the original width of the
`
`resist mask. ’097 patent at 4:14–42.
`
` 
`
`48.
`
`The term “ultra-thin resist layer[s]” (UTR layer) appears explicitly in only claims
`
`1 and 4. ’097 patent at 5:34-35, 5:40-41 (claim 1), 6:7 (claim 4). Without consulting the
`
`specification, prosecution history, or extrinsic evidence, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`“resist layer” refers to a layer of photoresist and further that “ultra-thin” modifies “resist layer,” so
`
`that UTR layer refers to resist layers having thicknesses that would have been considered very thin
`
`at the time of the invention. The resist layer’s thickness is the characteristic that qualifies it as
`
`“ultra-thin,” which is a term of degree for thickness. That is, UTR layer refers to resist layers
`
`having thicknesses that fall within a certain range of thicknesses. However, a POSITA would not
`
`have known the limits of that thickness range based on the term alone. In fact, the term UTR layer
`
`begs the question as to what range of thicknesses qualifies as a UTR layer in the context of the
`
`alleged invention. 
`
`49.
`
`The claims of the ’097 patent support my opinion that UTR layer corresponds to
`
`resist layers having thicknesses that fall within a certain range, given the intended application.
`
`Claim 1 does not specify any resist thicknesses. However, claim 4 recites “[a] method of forming
`
`circuit structures as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ultra-thin resist layer has a thickness of less
`
`than 2500 Å” (emphasis added). The language of claim 4 makes clear that for purposes of claim
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 16 of 56
`
`
`
`4 (and claims 5-9, which refer back to claim 4 directly or through an intermediate claim), the UTR
`
`layer must have a thickness of less than 2500 Å. That is, a POSITA would understand claim 4
`
`specifies a range of thicknesses for resist layers that qualify as a UTR layer: less than 2500 Å. 
`
`50.
`
`Because claim 4 depends on claim 1 and includes a limitation on UTR layer not
`
`found in claim 1 (the range of “less than 2500 Å”), a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`thickness range of UTR layer in claim 1 (and claims 2–3 and 10–17, which refer back to claim 1
`
`directly or through an intermediate claim) has an upper limit greater than “less than 2500 Å,” that
`
`is, an upper limit of 2500 Å or greater. But this again begs the question: what range of thicknesses
`
`qualifies as a UTR layer in claims 1-3 and 10-17? A POSITA would have understood that the
`
`language of claim 1, considered in light of the language of claim 4, indicates not what the upper
`
`limit of UTR layer thickness is, but what it is not—“less than 2500 Å.” 
`
`51.
`
`Likewise, the specification of the ’097 patent does not specify an upper limit for
`
`UTR layer thickness. The ’097 patent states that “a resist coating having an UTR thickness is
`
`considered to be resist films of less than 0.25 µm (2500 Å) in thickness” (’097 patent at 1:43–45)
`
`and describes the problem associated with the prior art approach when applied to “an ultra-thin
`
`resist thickness of less than 2500 Å” (’097 patent at 2:32-34 (“FIGS. 2(a)-2(d) illustrate the
`
`problem of applying the conventional lithographic process of FIGS. 1(a)-1(d) to an UTR having a
`
`thickness of less than 2500 Å”), 2:58-61 (“Further, the problem associated when the conventional
`
`lithographic process is applied to an ultra-thin resist thickness of less than 2500 Å will also be
`
`explained in connection with FIGS. 2(a) through 2(d).”), 3:33-40 (“However, when the
`
`lithographic process described above in FIGS. 1(a)-1(d) is applied to an UTR thickness of less
`
`than 2500 Å, there is created a significant problem in the gate conductor etching process since an
`
`excessive amount of resist will have been consumed during the trim process step. As can be seen
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 41-32 Filed 10/06/21 Page 17 of 56
`
`
`
`in FIG. 2(a), an UTR layer 18a has a thickness of less than 2500 Å as compared to the thicker
`
`resist layer 18 of FIG. 1(a).”), Fig. 2a). Similarly, the only thickness associated with UTR layer
`
`in the description of the embodiments of the invention is “less than 2500 Å.” ’097 patent at 4:12-
`
`13 (“UTR layer 120 has a thickness of less than 2500 Å”), Fig. 3 (step 304, “Deposit resist layer
`
`of less than 2500 Å over hardmask”). These disclosures establish that resist films with thicknesses
`
`under 2500 Å qualify as UTR layers. They do not, however, establish the upper limit of the
`
`thickness of UTR layers. 
`
`52.
`
`The ’097 patent’s discussion of thicknesses other than “less than 2500 Å” also does
`
`not establish the upper limit of the thickness of UTR layer. The patent describes a “standard”
`
`resist thickness of 5000 Å or more for 248 nm lithography and of 4000 Å for 193 nm lithography.1
`
`’097 patent at 1:39–43 (“In the current state-of-the-art, integra