`Filed By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Dominic E. Massa, Reg. No. 44,905
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Dominic.Massa@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-018411
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS
`ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Case IPR2017-01842 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`Petitioner submits this response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross
`
`Examination. Patent Owner (“PO”) presents seventeen observations on Dr.
`
`Shanfield’s testimony. While Petitioner believes that the testimony will be
`
`appropriately viewed and weighed by the Board, the specific observations
`
`presented by Patent Owner misstate or omit the full testimony of Dr. Shanfield,
`
`and are often irrelevant, as specified below.
`
`Response to Observation #1
`
`
`
`PO contends Ex. 2026 at 88:10-89:7, 92:9-14, and 95:4-96:18 shows that the
`
`parties have the same construction for the claim term “an active region made of a
`
`semiconductor substrate.” PO’s observation ignores Dr. Shanfield emphasis that
`
`he disagrees with PO’s interpretation because the term does not require a one-to-
`
`one correspondence between an active region and a transistor. Ex. 2026, 94:15-
`
`95:3 (“I don't agree with the patent owner's interpretation of that phrase… I don't
`
`agree with the patent owner's interpretation, which, as I explain in the following
`
`sentences, limits the active region to a single transistor, for example.”). By
`
`contrast, after reviewing Dr. Shanfield’s Reply Declaration, Dr. Glew testified he
`
`had no opinion on this claim term. Ex. 1029, 46:1-47:6 (“Q. Sitting here today,
`
`you don't have an opinion on whether the phrase ‘an active region made of a
`
`semiconductor substrate[’] requires a one-to-one correspondence with a MISFET,[]
`
`correct? A. I haven't been asked to analyze that with respect to that question. So I
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`haven't formed an opinion on that.”). Dr. Shanfield’s undisputed testimony is that
`
`the active region does not require a one-to-one correspondence. Ex. 1027, ¶¶7-20;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶¶66-67; see also DI, 8-9.
`
`Response to Observation #2
`
`PO contends Ex. 2026 at 84:18-86:12 and 95:4-96:18 shows that Dr. Glew’s
`
`statement that semiconductor devices have been made without isolation regions is
`
`not misleading. As noted for Observation #1, PO ignores Dr. Shanfield emphasis
`
`that he disagrees with PO’s interpretation of the term “an active region made of a
`
`semiconductor substrate.” Id., 94:15-95:3. Dr. Shanfield also confirmed that “you
`
`can have an active region without an isolation region,” id., 84:18-85:1, and
`
`explained that whether a transistor can theoretically exist without isolation is “not
`
`particularly relevant to the ’501 patent because in 2003, all transistors -- virtually
`
`all transistors included isolation regions.” Id., 87:12-87:18. Dr. Glew agrees that
`
`using spacing rather than isolation “would not be a typical solution.” Ex. 1024,
`
`111:18-25. Moreover, as noted for Observation #1, Dr. Glew has testified he has
`
`no opinion on this claim term, and thus Dr. Shanfield’s testimony is undisputed.
`
`Ex. 1029, 46:1-47:6; Ex. 1027, ¶¶7-20; Ex. 1002, ¶¶66-67.
`
`Response to Observation #3
`
`
`
`PO contends Ex. 2026 at 84:18-86:12 and 95:4-96:18 supports unspecified
`
`testimony from Dr. Glew that transistors without isolation do not have an active
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`region. To the contrary, Dr. Shanfield’s testimony confirms that all functional
`
`transistors include an active region and that virtually all transistors at the time of
`
`the alleged invention used isolation. Id., 84:18-85:1, 87:12-87:18; Ex. 1027, ¶16;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶37-44. Dr. Shanfield’s testimony also confirms Dr. Glew has not
`
`identified a single reference that describes a transistor as not having an active
`
`region or that says a lack isolation means there is no active region. Ex. 1027, ¶¶16-
`
`19; see also Sur-sur-reply, 3. Moreover, Dr. Glew has testified he had no opinion
`
`on this claim term. Ex. 1029, 46:1-47:6. Dr. Shanfield’s consistent testimony
`
`confirms both that a POSITA would have understood the transistors in Igarashi’s
`
`Fig. 12 embodiment include an active region because Igarashi expressly discloses
`
`performing “isolation” to form an “active element region,” and that this limitation
`
`would have been obvious, because virtually all transistors at the time of the ’501
`
`patent included these features. Ex. 1027, ¶¶7-20; Ex. 1002, ¶¶61-81.
`
`Response to Observation #4
`
`
`
`PO contends that Ex. 2026 at 84:18-86:12 and 95:4-96:18 allegedly
`
`establishes that the absence of an isolation region signifies the absence of an active
`
`region. Patent Owner is incorrect. Dr. Shanfield confirms that all functional
`
`transistors, even rare examples without isolation, still include active regions. Id.,
`
`84:18-85:1, Ex. 1027, ¶16. Dr. Shanfield adds that isolation regions are typically
`
`used to define an active region, but it is not a requirement. Ex. 2026, 88:2-9 (“Q.
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`So in your opinion, isolation regions are not required to define an active region in a
`
`transistor; is that right? A. It is not required. It’s not a requirement. But as far as
`
`what’s relevant, it’s useful to understand how a transistor is really built, or groups
`
`or transistors are really build, and not some very exceptional situation.”). PO’s
`
`observation is also irrelevant because virtually all transistors at time of invention
`
`used isolation. Id., 87:12-87:18. Dr. Glew agrees using spacing rather than
`
`isolation “would not be a typical solution.” Ex. 1024, 111:18-25. Moreover, Dr.
`
`Glew has testified he had no opinion on the meaning of this claim term. Ex. 1029,
`
`46:1-47:6. Thus, Dr. Shanfield’s testimony is undisputed.
`
`Response to Observation #5
`
`
`
`PO contends Ex. 2026 at 97:10-99:15 and 105:14-106:18 shows that Dr.
`
`Shanfield admitted that the formation region Rn of the transistor does not include
`
`the isolation region and argues this is contrary to the patent. This observation
`
`mischaracterizes Dr. Shanfield’s plain testimony in the cited section. Id., 98:12-24
`
`(“Q. So the formation region is a part of the substrate in which the transistor is
`
`formed; is that accurate? A. It looks like they're including some of the isolation
`
`region in region Rn. That's not where the transistor is being formed. Q. So the
`
`formation region includes portions of the -- at least portions of the isolation region?
`
`A. It's hard to tell. This is a schematic diagram, so I don't know whether -- how
`
`literally to take exactly where that bracket extends. Q. But as it's shown in Figure
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`1, it does show that the isolation regions are included within what the '501 patent
`
`calls the formation region, correct? A. My sense is, because of the name, that
`
`they're talking about where the transistor is formed and not the isolation region
`
`even though – because if you look to the right side of bracket Rn, it doesn't seem
`
`to line up with the isolation region.”).2 This observation also ignores other
`
`discussion of the use of the term “formation region” in the ’501 patent. E.g., id.,
`
`101:20-23; 102:4-11; and 106:3-6. Moreover, this observation is irrelevant to the
`
`arguments made in this proceeding, and even Dr. Glew admits he offers no
`
`analysis of a “formation region.” Ex. 1029, 67:4-69:17.
`
`Response to Observation #6
`
`PO contends that in Ex. 2026 at 97:10-99:15 Dr. Shanfield “admitted that
`
`the formation region Rn of the transistor [] is shown in the ’501 patent as including
`
`the isolation region 2.” This observation mischaracterizes Dr. Shanfield’s plain
`
`testimony at 98:20-24 (“My sense is, because of the name, that they're talking
`
`about where the transistor is formed and not the isolation region even though –
`
`because if you look to the right side of bracket Rn, it doesn't seem to line up with
`
`the isolation region.”). Moreover, this observation is irrelevant to the arguments
`
`
`
` 2
`
` All emphasis is added unless noted otherwise
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`made in this proceeding, and even Dr. Glew admits he offers no analysis of a
`
`“formation region.” Ex. 1029, 67:4-69:17. Contrary to PO’s assertion in this
`
`observation that each transistor be isolated from other transistors, Dr. Shanfield’s
`
`undisputed testimony is that the active region does not require a one-to-one
`
`correspondence. Ex. 1027, ¶¶7-20; Ex. 1002, ¶¶66-67; DI, 8-9.
`
`Response to Observation #7
`
`
`
`PO cites to Ex. 2026 at 112:1-113:21 regarding Dr. Shanfield’s testimony as
`
`to the number of active regions in Igarashi’s Fig. 12. This observation
`
`mischaracterizes Dr. Shanfield’s testimony and omits Dr. Shanfield’s explanation
`
`of the context surrounding his testimony (e.g., Ex. 2026, 114:7-24 (explaining he
`
`was “basically harassed”)), as well as Dr. Shanfield’s testimony confirming that he
`
`immediately clarified himself in his first deposition, and has been consistent since.
`
`Id., 147:10-148:3, 165:16-166:16; Ex. 2009, 93:16-20; Ex. 2010, 410:1-437:22,
`
`438:11-19. This observation is also irrelevant because the claims simply recite a
`
`transistor that includes an active region and do not preclude there being other
`
`transistors or active regions. Ex. 1027, ¶¶7-20, 29-31.
`
`Response to Observation #8
`
`
`
`PO cites to Ex. 2026 at 112:4-11 and 116:22-118:22 regarding Dr.
`
`Shanfield’s testimony as to the number of active regions in Igarashi’s Fig. 12.
`
`Like Observation #7, this observation mischaracterizes Dr. Shanfield’s testimony
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`and excludes both Dr. Shanfield’s explanation of the context surrounding his
`
`testimony (e.g., Ex. 2026, 114:7-24) and Dr. Shanfield’s testimony confirming that
`
`he immediately clarified himself in his first deposition, and has been consistent
`
`since. Id., 147:10-148:3, 165:16-166:16; Ex. 2009, 93:16-20; Ex. 2010, 410:1-
`
`437:22, 438:11-19. This observation is also irrelevant because the claims simply
`
`recite a transistor that includes an active region and do not preclude there being
`
`other transistors or active regions. Ex. 1027, ¶¶7-20, 29-31.
`
`Response to Observation #9
`
`
`
`PO cites to Ex. 2026 at 112:4-11, 117:23-118:8, and 147:13-148:3 regarding
`
`Dr. Shanfield’s testimony as to the number of active regions in Igarashi’s Fig. 12.
`
`Like Observation #7, this observation excludes both Dr. Shanfield’s explanation of
`
`the context surrounding his testimony (see Ex. 2026, 114:7-24) and Dr. Shanfield’s
`
`testimony confirming that he immediately clarified himself in his first deposition,
`
`and has been consistent since. Id., 147:10-149:4; 149:5-150:18, 165:16-166:16;
`
`Ex. 2009, 93:16-20; Ex. 2010, 410:1-437:22, 438:11-19. This observation also
`
`omits PO’s counsel’s misleading questioning. After questioning Dr. Shanfield
`
`about page 93 of the transcript of the initial deposition, PO’s counsel told Dr.
`
`Shanfield to “go a couple pages forward” to see if he could find where he clarified
`
`his testimony, when in fact Dr. Shanfield had corrected himself on that same page.
`
`Ex. 2026, 113:13-114:6; 147:10-149:4; Ex. 2009, 93:16-20. PO’s counsel also
`
`7
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`insisted Dr. Shanfield locate the correction in a transcript covering two full days of
`
`deposition without providing him an adequate opportunity to do so. Ex. 2026,
`
`117:23-122:5 (“… Q. But in the time that's just passed, you haven't found it? A. In
`
`the two minutes, yeah…). On re-direct, when given the opportunity to do so, Dr.
`
`Shanfield confirmed where he had clarified his testimony during the initial
`
`deposition. Id., 147:10-148:3, 165:16-166:16; Ex. 2009, 93:16-20; Ex. 2010,
`
`401:17-402:5.
`
`Response to Observation #10
`
`
`
`PO cites to Ex. 2026 at 123:7-15 contending it allegedly “confirms Patent
`
`Owner’s position that the Petition and [Dr.] Shanfield’s original declaration filed
`
`with it failed to demonstrate where an ‘active region’ as claimed is found in
`
`modified Igarashi Fig. 12.” To the contrary, the cited testimony confirms that the
`
`claims simply recite a transistor that includes an active region and do not preclude
`
`there being other transistors or active regions. Ex. 2026, 123:7-15; Ex. 1027, ¶¶7-
`
`20, 29-31. This observation is also misleading because both experts have testified
`
`that the figures in the ’501 patent and Igarashi are shown schematically (Ex. 2026,
`
`67:12-17 (“Figure 1 is shown schematically…”), 98:12-16 (“… This is a schematic
`
`diagram, so I don't know whether -- how literally to take exactly where that bracket
`
`extends.”); Ex. 1024, 109:13-16 (“Paragraph 117 describes ‘Figure 12 is a
`
`schematic sectional view showing a semiconductor device according to the fifth
`
`8
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`embodiment of the present invention.’”)) and identification of precise boundaries is
`
`not required by claim 1. As demonstrated in the Petition and throughout this
`
`proceeding, Dr. Shanfield’s consistent testimony confirms both that a POSITA
`
`would have understood the transistors in Igarashi’s Fig. 12 embodiment include an
`
`active region because Igarashi expressly discloses performing “isolation” to form
`
`an “active element region,” and that this limitation would have been obvious,
`
`because virtually all transistors at the time of the ’501 patent included these
`
`features. Ex. 1027, ¶¶7-20; Ex. 1002, ¶¶61-81.
`
`
`
`Response to Observation #11
`
`
`
`PO contends Ex. 2026 at 123:18-124:18 “shows that [Dr.] Shanfield cannot
`
`determine whether there is only one, or more than one, active region in Petitioner’s
`
`modified Igarashi Figure 12.” This observation mischaracterizes Dr. Shanfield’s
`
`testimony. Dr. Shanfield’s initial declaration included an annotated version of Fig.
`
`12 from Igarashi, which identified the active region and included ellipsis indicating
`
`the wafer could include additional structures not shown. Ex. 1002, ¶66. Dr.
`
`Shanfield was asked unclear questions that did not specify if he was being asked
`
`about the identified active region, or whether he was being asked about other
`
`potential isolation regions and active regions represented by the ellipsis. Ex. 2026,
`
`123:23-124:8 (“A. And the reason I said that was because there could be STI not
`
`shown. And those would form active regions that weren’t pictured. And that is
`
`9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`what I was referring to when I said I couldn’t answer it because it’s not pictured. I
`
`said, ‘I haven’t indicated in this drawing what else there is, beyond what Igarashi
`
`has drawn.’”). By contrast, when PO’s counsel gave Dr. Shanfield an opportunity
`
`to explain his answer and posed its questions more clearly, Dr. Shanfield had no
`
`difficulty explaining that he had identified an active region formed between the
`
`STI in Fig. 12. Ex. 107:17-108:24; see also Ex. 1027, ¶29, Ex. 1002, ¶66.
`
`Response to Observation #12
`
`
`
`PO cites to Ex. 2026 at 125:13-126:11 and, just as in Observation #11, this
`
`observation mischaracterizes Dr. Shanfield’s testimony. As explained above for
`
`Observation #11, Dr. Shanfield was not unable to say how many active regions
`
`were present. Rather, his testimony makes clear he identified the active region in
`
`Fig. 12 and included ellipsis to indicate there could be others. Ex. 2026, 107:17-
`
`108:24, 125:13-126:11; Ex. 1027, ¶29, Ex. 1002, ¶66. This observation is also
`
`irrelevant. Dr. Shanfield confirmed that Igarashi discloses the claimed “active
`
`region” regardless of what assumptions are made about the ellipses in annotated
`
`Fig. 12, Ex. 2026, 150:14-18.
`
`Response to Observation #13
`
`
`
`PO contends Ex. 2026 at 126:21-127:18 “demonstrates that at the reply stage
`
`[Dr.] Shanfield readily addressed an issue he did not address in his original
`
`declaration.” This observation is incorrect and mischaracterizes Dr. Shanfield’s
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`testimony. As Dr. Shanfield explains in his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1027, ¶¶34-
`
`36), during the initial deposition, he was asked and attempted to answer a long
`
`series of questions that were posed in a manner that did not make technical sense,
`
`despite Dr. Shanfield’s efforts to seek clarification. As discussed above for
`
`Observation #11, during cross-examination on his Reply Declaration, Dr.
`
`Shanfield went out of his way to explain how the questioning had been unclear and
`
`to help Patent Owner’s counsel ask the questions more clearly. Ex. 2026, 107:17-
`
`108:24, 123:23-124:8. Having helped PO’s counsel clarify its questions and
`
`address some of the ambiguity in its previously questions, Dr. Shanfield could
`
`readily answer PO counsel’s questions when more clearly presented. Id.
`
`Response to Observation #14
`
`
`
`PO contends Ex. 2026 at 56:17-58:2 and 160:20-23 contradicts Dr.
`
`Shanfield’s testimony that Igarashi’s etch stop silicon nitride layer 8 meets the film
`
`in claim 1. This observation ignores Dr. Shanfield’s repeated, unambiguous
`
`testimony on cross that the claims do not require stress: “Q. Does that language
`
`require that the silicon nitride film apply stress? A. No. The claim language
`
`doesn’t require stress.” Ex. 2026, 51:22-52:2; id., 30:4-6 (“A. … But there is no
`
`requirement in the limitations of the first claim that it has to be a stress film.”); id.
`
`52:21-53:6 (“Q. So it’s your opinion that in order for a silicon nitride film to meet
`
`the limitations of Claim 1, I must induce stress? A. No. Q. So the silicon nitride
`
`11
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`film that’s called out in Claim 1 isn’t required to apply stress to meet the
`
`limitations of the claim? A. That’s correct, yes.”); see also Ex. 1002, ¶46 n. 3.
`
`PO’s observation mischaracterizes Dr. Shanfield’s testimony at 56:17-58:2. The
`
`surrounding testimony makes clear Dr. Shanfield is discussing an exemplary
`
`embodiment, not what is required by the claims. Ex. 2026, 56:4-16 (“Q. So in the
`
`context of the '501 patent, can a silicon nitride film, which is called out in the last
`
`limitation of Claim 1, be made out of multiple layers if those layers deliver only
`
`negligible stress? A. There's nothing in the claim language that prohibits it. The
`
`context of the '501 patent though is referring to silicon nitride that will create a
`
`stress field in the substrate as a whole. So in the literal sense, the claim language
`
`doesn't prohibit the theoretical zero stress film. But what's being referred to is a
`
`stress-inducing film.”). Dr. Shanfield confirmed on re-direct that this testimony
`
`was “referring to the embodiment in the specification,” not what is required by the
`
`claims. Ex. 2026, 144:14-145:6. PO’s citation to Dr. Shanfield’s testimony on re-
`
`cross at 160:20-23 is also misleading. PO omits Dr. Shanfield’s immediately
`
`preceding testimony, which makes clear his testimony at 160:20-23 was based on
`
`confusion after a long day of deposition about the legal requirements for how
`
`dependent claims relate to independent claims (in this case dependent claims that
`
`are not challenged in this proceeding). Ex. 2026, 159:5-160:19. PO also omits Dr.
`
`Shanfield’s confirmation of this misunderstanding of the law, and confirmation
`
`12
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`that as a technical matter, claim 1 does not require stress. Ex. 2026, 167:14-18
`
`(“Q. I'm going to represent to you that as a legal matter, a dependent claim recites
`
`additional limitations that are not present in the independent claim from which it
`
`depends. Do you have that understanding in mind?”), and 170:11-172:14 (“… Yes.
`
`I do want to clarify. Now that I understand the legal issue, Claim 1 does not require
`
`that -- it does not have any language in it that requires the film to have stress, as I
`
`said before. And what that means legally is that it's not required in meeting the
`
`limitations of Claim 1.”); see also id., 174:12-23, 175:2-15, 176:4-24, 177:11-19
`
`(repeatedly confirming on second re-cross that the challenged claims do not require
`
`stress and that he had confused the legal requirements for dependent claims during
`
`the first re-cross). This observation is also irrelevant because there is no dispute
`
`that the challenged claims do not require stress. PO has never asserted that the
`
`challenged claims require a stress film and acknowledges that there is no such
`
`requirement. PO Observation #15; PO’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 35) at 8.
`
`Response to Observation #15
`
`
`
`PO cites to Ex. 2026 at 56:17-58:2, 144:1-12, and 160:20-23, alleging that
`
`Dr. Shanfield changed his testimony in response to alleged coaching. As discussed
`
`above for Observation #14, this allegation is baseless. Dr. Shanfield testified
`
`repeatedly and unambiguously throughout the deposition (and this proceeding) that
`
`the challenged claims do not require stress. Ex. 2026, 51:22-52:2; id., 30:4-6; id.
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`52:21-53:6; see also Ex. 1002, ¶46 n. 3. On re-cross, he misstated the legal
`
`relationship between dependent and independent claims on the record and gave
`
`testimony based on that misunderstanding. Ex. 2026, 159:5-160:23. Even PO’s
`
`counsel recognized that Dr. Shanfield was confused on a legal issue. Id., 159:5-
`
`160:19 (“… A… So stress is required in the set of the dependent claims that relate
`
`to the independent claim. Q. Perhaps you're confused…”). When the law was
`
`clarified, Dr. Shanfield confirmed, consistent with his earlier testimony, that as a
`
`technical matter, claim 1 does not require stress. Id., 167:14-21, 171:9-172:14,
`
`174:12-23, 175:2-15, 176:4-24, 177:11-19. See also Response to Observation #14.
`
`Response to Observation #16
`
`
`
`PO cites to Ex. 2026 at 56:17-58:2, 160:20-23, 167:14-173:3, and 173:10-
`
`178:4, as allegedly showing Dr. Shanfield’s testimony has been inconsistent. To
`
`the contrary, as discussed for Observations #14-15, Dr. Shanfield’s testimony has
`
`been consistent that, as a technical matter, claim 1 does not require stress. See also
`
`Response to Observations #14-15.
`
`Response to Observation #17
`
`
`
`PO cites to Exhibit 2026 at 45:3-18, 56:17-58:2, and 160:20-23 as allegedly
`
`showing Dr. Shanfield testified an etch stop layer cannot satisfy the silicon nitride
`
`film limitation. This observation mischaracterizes Dr. Shanfield’s testimony. As
`
`discussed above, Dr. Shanfield repeatedly and unambiguously testified that the
`
`14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`
`claims do not require stress. Response to Observations #14-15. Moreover, Dr.
`
`Shanfield unambiguously confirmed that the claimed silicon nitride film includes
`
`etch stop layers and that Igarashi discloses the claimed silicon nitride film. Ex.
`
`2026, 145:11-13 (Q: Could the silicon nitride film in Claim 1 be a silicon nitride
`
`etch stop layer? A. Yes, it could); 145:20-22 (“Q. Has your testimony that Igarashi
`
`discloses the claimed silicon nitride film changed? A. No, not at all.); 146:8-11
`
`(same); see also Ex. 1002, ¶¶91-102). This observation is also irrelevant because
`
`Patent Owner has never disputed that Igarashi’s silicon nitride film discloses the
`
`claimed silicon nitride film and agrees the claims do not require stress. PO
`
`Observation #15; PO’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 35) at 8.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 22, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Michael Smith /________________
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`
`15
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,893,501; IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that, on August 22, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Observations on Cross-
`
`Examination
`
`to be served via email on the following counsel of record as listed in Patent
`
`Owner’s Mandatory Notices:
`
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Registration No. 50,474
`GHrycyszyn-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Richard F. Giunta, Registration No. 36,149
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Edmund J. Walsh, Registration No. 32,950
`EWalsh-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Joshua Miller, admitted pro hac vice
`Joshua.Miller@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`___/ Michael Smith /__________
`Michael H. Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`i
`
`