Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 19
`Entered: August 8, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01560, Patent 5,912,188
`Case IPR2017-01561, Patent 5,912,188
`Case IPR2017-01562, Patent 6,097,061
` Case IPR2017-01563, Patent 6,103,6111
`____________
`
`Before KRISTINA M. KALAN and ELIZABETH M. ROESEL,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion
`to issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties, however, are
`not authorized to use this caption for any subsequent papers.
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01560, Patent 5,912,188
`IPR2017-01561, Patent 5,912,188
`IPR2017-01562, Patent 6,097,061
`IPR2017-01563, Patent 6,103,611
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s prior authorization in email correspondence
`with the parties (see Attachment A), Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply in
`response to Petitioner’s Reply and a supplemental declaration of Dr. W.R.
`Bottoms in each of the above-referenced proceedings. Paper 31, Ex. 2025.2
`In our email correspondence with the parties (see Attachment A), we
`authorized additional discovery and filings responsive to Patent Owner’s
`Sur-reply. The parties agreed to a schedule for the additional discovery and
`filings (see Attachment B), which we now adopt.
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, in each of the above-captioned cases, Petitioner may
`cross-examine Dr. Bottoms regarding the supplemental declaration and, not
`later than August 27, 2018, file a motion for observations on cross-
`examination;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in Case IPR2017-01563, not later than
`August 27, 2018, Petitioner may file a seven-page response to Patent
`Owner’s Sur-reply, limited to the issues addressed by sections II.A.2 and
`II.A.3 of Petitioner’s Reply and by Patent Owner’s Sur-reply;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, not later than August 31, 2018, Patent
`Owner may submit responses to observations in each of the above-captioned
`cases; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Due Dates 4–7 remain in place.
`
`2 We cite to papers and exhibits filed in Case IPR2017-01560. Similar
`papers and exhibits have been filed in Cases IPR2017-01561, IPR2017-
`01562, and IPR2017-01563.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01560, Patent 5,912,188
`IPR2017-01561, Patent 5,912,188
`IPR2017-01562, Patent 6,097,061
`IPR2017-01563, Patent 6,103,611
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Jared Bobrow
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`PTABDocketJJL2@orrick.com
`PTABDocketJ3B3@orrick.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Timothy P. Maloney
`Nicholas T. Peters
`David Gosse
`FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY LLP
`tim@fitcheven.com
`lonestar-ipr@fitcheven.com
`ntpete@fitcheven.com
`dgosse@fitcheven.com
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attachment A
`
`Trials
`Nicholas Peters
`Timothy Maloney; Bobrow, Jared; Lang, Jason; Lonestar IPR; David Gosse; Trials
`RE: IPR2017-01560, -01561, -01562, -01563: Patent Owner Motion to Strike and Requests for Surreply
`Thursday, August 2, 2018 8:55:34 AM
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Counsel,
`
`The deadline for the sur-reply is Monday, August 6, 2018. 
`
`Apologies for any confusion.
`
`Regards,
`
`Carrie M. Johnson
`Detailee Supervisory Paralegal Specialist
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`Phone: (571) 272-5169
`Email: carrie.johnson@uspto.gov
`
`From: Nicholas Peters <ntpete@fitcheven.com> 
`Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 5:10 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Timothy Maloney <Tpmalo@fitcheven.com>; Bobrow, Jared <jbobrow@orrick.com>; Lang, Jason
`<jlang@orrick.com>; Lonestar IPR <lonestar-ipr@fitcheven.com>; David Gosse
`<DGosse@fitcheven.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2017-01560, -01561, -01562, -01563: Patent Owner Motion to Strike and Requests
`for Surreply
`
`Mr. Kellogg,
`
`We write to clarify the instructions provided below. The instructions provide a deadline for Patent
`Owner to file any sur-reply of August 4, 2018, which is this Saturday. Did the Board intend to set the
`deadline for Saturday? If not, what is the deadline for the filings?
`
`Regards,
`
`Nicholas T. Peters |  Partner
`
`FITCH EVEN
`Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP
`
`

`

`Attachment A
`
`120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2100  |  Chicago, Illinois  60603
`P 312.577.7000  |  F 312.577.7007
`ntpete@fitcheven.com |  www.fitcheven.com
`
`This email message, as well as any attachments, contains information from the law firm of Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP that may be
`confidential and/or legally privileged. These documents are intended only for the personal and confidential use of the addressee
`identified above. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering these documents to the intended recipient,
`you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this
`transmitted information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the firm at 312-577-7000
`and delete or destroy all electronic or hard copies of the message and any attachments. Thank you. 
`Please consider the environment before printing this message.
`
`From: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV> 
`Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 2:47 PM
`To: Nicholas Peters <ntpete@fitcheven.com>; Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Timothy Maloney <Tpmalo@fitcheven.com>; Bobrow, Jared <jbobrow@orrick.com>; Lang, Jason
`<jlang@orrick.com>; Lonestar IPR <lonestar-ipr@fitcheven.com>; David Gosse
`<DGosse@fitcheven.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2017-01560, -01561, -01562, -01563: Patent Owner Motion to Strike and Requests
`for Surreply
`
`Counsel:
`
`In each of the above-referenced cases, the Board grants Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a
`sur-reply and a supporting declaration under the following conditions: Any sur-reply and supporting
`declaration shall be filed no later than August 4, 2018, and shall reference this authorization. Each sur-
`reply and supporting declaration is limited to seven pages and is limited to the issues specifically
`identified by Patent Owner in the July 31, 2018 e-mail. Any supporting declaration shall be from the
`same declarant previously relied upon by Patent Owner (Dr. Bottoms). In response to any supporting
`declaration, Petitioner shall be entitled to cross-examine Dr. Bottoms and submit observations on cross-
`examination. Patent Owner may submit responses to observations. In Case IPR2017-01563, Petitioner
`may submit a seven-page response to Patent Owner’s sur-reply, limited to the issues addressed by
`sections II.A.2 and II.A.3 of Petitioner’s reply and by Patent Owner’s sur-reply. The parties shall meet
`and confer and agree on a schedule for each case that does not change Due Date 7 (oral argument date of
`Sept. 18, 2018). The parties shall submit their agreed proposed schedule(s) by email to the Board no later
`than August 3, 2018.
`
`In view of the foregoing, Patent Owner’s request for leave to file a motion to strike in IPR2017-01563 is
`denied, and no telephone conference with the panel is necessary at this time.
`
`Regards,
`
`Andrew Kellogg,
`Supervisory Paralegal
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`USPTO
`andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov
`Direct: 571-272-5366
`
`

`

`Attachment A
`
`From: Nicholas Peters <ntpete@fitcheven.com> 
`Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 2:03 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Timothy Maloney <Tpmalo@fitcheven.com>; Bobrow, Jared <jbobrow@orrick.com>; Lang, Jason
`<jlang@orrick.com>; Lonestar IPR <lonestar-ipr@fitcheven.com>; David Gosse
`<DGosse@fitcheven.com>
`Subject: IPR2017-01560, -01561, -01562, -01563: Patent Owner Motion to Strike and Requests for
`Surreply
`
`Your Honors,
`
`Patent Owner Lone Star Silicon Innovations respectfully requests leave to file a motion to strike
`portions of Petitioner Micron’s reply in IPR2017-01563, and requests leave to file surreply briefs in
`each of IPR2017-01560, -01561, -01562, and -01563. If briefing is required, Patent Owner seeks
`seven pages for each case. The parties have met and conferred, are at an impasse, and therefore
`request a conference call Thursday or Friday this week after 11 A.M (and can provide additional
`available times if the Board requests).  The parties summarize the issues as follows below.
`
`IPR2017-01560 (’188 patent – Hashimoto)
`Patent Owner respectfully requests leave to file a ten page surreply, supported by a supplemental
`expert declaration, with respect to sections IV.A.1, IV.A.3, IV.A.5 of Petitioner’s reply. Petitioner’s
`reply was filed along with six new technical exhibits, in addition to a new supplemental declaration
`of Petitioner’s expert. Section IV.A.1 relies on new factual assertions regarding Miller capacitance,
`supported by new evidence. (Reply 14–15.) These assertions are also referenced in sections IV.A.2,
`IV.A.3, and IV.A.5 of the reply. Further, section IV.A.3 cites new exhibit 1023 as the basis for
`asserting that anisotropic etching can be achieved at pressures higher than 2 Torr. (Reply 22.) This
`material is highly technical in nature and Patent Owner will be unfairly prejudiced by the late
`disclosure of this evidence unless it is allowed to file a short surreply with additional expert
`testimony and analysis.
`
`Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s request with respect to IPR2017-01560.  First, the allegedly “new
`supplemental declaration” is simply the rebuttal declaration supporting the Reply.  Second, Patent
`Owner argued in its POR that the prior art does not disclose an anisotropic etch because (1) the prior
`art was not concerned about, for example, the width of the contact hole and (2) an anisotropic etch
`is not achievable at the pressures disclosed in the prior art reference.  The Reply directly rebuts that,
`demonstrating that (1) the prior art was concerned with the width of the contact hole due to basic
`and well-known physical properties of semiconductor devices (Miller capacitance), and (2) an
`anisotropic etch was known to be achievable at the prior art’s disclosed pressure.  The proper
`vehicle for Patent Owner to contest this Reply and supporting declaration is a deposition, motion for
`observation, and argument at the oral hearing.  Petition made its expert available for deposition, but
`Patent Owner chose not to depose him.
`
`IPR2017-01561 (’188 patent – Kawai)
`Patent Owner respectfully requests leave to file a ten page surreply, supported by a supplemental
`expert declaration, with respect to section III.B.1 of Petitioner’s reply. Petitioner’s reply was filed
`
`

`

`Attachment A
`
`along with five new technical exhibits, in addition to a new supplemental declaration of Petitioner’s
`expert. Section III.B.1 relies on new factual assertions regarding Miller capacitance, supported by this
`new evidence. (Reply 18–19.) This material is highly technical in nature and Patent Owner will be
`unfairly prejudiced by the late disclosure of this evidence unless it is allowed to file a short surreply
`with additional expert testimony and analysis.
`
`Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s request with respect to IPR2017-01560.  First, the allegedly “new
`supplemental declaration” is simply the rebuttal declaration supporting the Reply.  Second, as with
`the IPR2017-01560 proceeding, Patent Owner argued in its POR that the prior art does not disclose
`an anisotropic etch for the same reason (no concern over the width of the contact hole).  The Reply
`directly rebuts that, demonstrating that the prior art was concerned with the width of the contact
`hole due to basic and well-known physical properties of semiconductor devices (Miller capacitance). 
`The proper vehicle for Patent Owner to contest this Reply and supporting declaration is a deposition,
`motion for observation, and argument at the oral hearing.  Petition made its expert available for
`deposition, but Patent Owner chose not to depose him.
`
`IPR2017-01562 (’061 patent)
`Patent Owner respectfully requests leave to file a ten page surreply, supported by a supplemental
`expert declaration, with respect to sections II, III.C, and IV.C of Petitioner’s reply. Petitioner’s reply
`was filed along with nine new technical exhibits, in addition to a new supplemental declaration of
`Petitioner’s expert. Section II for the first time offer’s Petitioner’s claim construction arguments
`regarding “channel region.” Petitioner offers a variety of new technical evidence in support of its
`arguments. Patent Owner would be unfairly prejudiced if it was denied the opportunity to reply to
`these new arguments. Sections III.C and IV.C rely on a series of factual assertions supported by new
`evidence. This material is highly technical in nature and Patent Owner will be unfairly prejudiced by
`the late disclosure of this evidence unless it is allowed to file a short surreply with additional expert
`testimony and analysis.
`
`Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s request with respect to IPR2017-01562.  First, the allegedly “new
`supplemental declaration” is simply the rebuttal declaration supporting the Reply.  Second, Patent
`Owner’s POR (1) offered a claim construction of “channel region,” limiting it to requiring dopants
`and (2) argued that the prior art does not disclose a doped channel region under its construction. 
`The Reply directly rebuts those arguments, demonstrating (1) that “channel region,” properly
`construed, does not require dopants and, (2) even under Patent Owner’s construction, the prior art
`discloses doped channel regions.  The proper vehicle for Patent Owner to contest this Reply and
`supporting declaration is a deposition, motion for observation, and argument at the oral hearing.
`
`IPR2017-01563 (’611 patent)
`Patent Owner respectfully requests leave to file a motion to strike sections II.A.2 and II.A.3 of
`Petitioner’s reply. Patent Owner contends that these new sections improperly shift the basis of the
`ground asserted in the Petition. Section II.A.2 argues for the first time that Yonemaru's side walls 4
`would be replaced with material disclosed by Ohshima. Section II.A.3 similarly argues for the first
`time that Yonemaru's side walls 4 would be replaced with materials that were “well-known.”
`Alternatively, Patent Owner requests leave to file a ten page surreply, supported by a supplemental
`expert declaration, with respect to these sections and the further issues below.
`
`

`

`Attachment A
`
`Petitioner does not believe that these sections improperly raise new arguments, because as the
`Board already found in its Institution Decision, Yonemaru’s sidewalls are not limited to a particular
`type of material.  Thus, these arguments properly rebut Petitioner’s continued assertion that the
`Yonemaru/Ohshima combination would be understood to disclose only one type of sidewall
`material. 
`
`In the interest of compromise, Petitioner does not oppose a sur-reply with respect to sections II.A.2
`and II.A.3, so long as it receives a response of commensurate scope, and the opportunity to depose
`Patent Owner’s expert and file observations.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully additionally requests leave to file a surreply, supported by a supplemental
`expert declaration, with respect to sections II.B.1, II.B.3, II.B.4, and II.B.5 of Petitioner’s reply. These
`sections offer a series of factual assertions supported by eight new technical exhibits, in addition to a
`new supplemental declaration of Petitioner’s expert. This material is highly technical in nature and
`Patent Owner will be unfairly prejudiced by the late disclosure of this evidence unless it is allowed to
`file a short surreply with additional expert testimony and analysis.
`
`Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s request with respect to sections II.B.1, II.B.3, II.B.4, and II.B.5. 
`First, the allegedly “new supplemental declaration” is simply the rebuttal declaration supporting the
`Reply.  Second, Patent Owner argued in its POR that the Yonemaru/Ohshima combination is
`unsatisfactory for its intended purpose due to diffusion.  These sections directly rebut that assertion
`by establishing that diffusion in the Yonemaru/Ohshima combination is not an issue in light of well-
`known semiconductor principles.  The proper vehicle for Patent Owner to contest this Reply and
`supporting declaration is a deposition, motion for observation, and argument at the oral hearing. 
`Petition made its expert available for deposition, but Patent Owner chose not to depose him.
`
`Petitioner also respectfully asserts that allowing sur-replies greatly prejudices Petitioner, because
`Petitioner carries the burden to provide unpatentability, and thus should be given the final brief to
`rebut Patent Owner’s arguments.  Should Patent Owner be able to make new arguments, and
`introduce new evidence (e.g., a declaration), Petitioner would need an additional opportunity to
`respond.  This procedure, if even possible within the statutory time limits, would frustrate the
`parties from focusing on the remaining issues as the oral arguments quickly approach. 
`
`Respectfully,
`Nick Peters
`Counsel for Patent Owner Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLC
`
`Nicholas T. Peters |  Partner
`
`FITCH EVEN
`Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP
`120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2100  |  Chicago, Illinois  60603
`P 312.577.7000  |  F 312.577.7007
`ntpete@fitcheven.com |  www.fitcheven.com
`
`

`

`Attachment A
`
`This email message, as well as any attachments, contains information from the law firm of Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP that may be
`confidential and/or legally privileged. These documents are intended only for the personal and confidential use of the addressee
`identified above. If you are not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering these documents to the intended recipient,
`you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this
`transmitted information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the firm at 312-577-7000
`and delete or destroy all electronic or hard copies of the message and any attachments. Thank you. 
`Please consider the environment before printing this message.
`
`

`

`Attachment B
`
`From: Lang, Jason <jlang@orrick.com>
`Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 1:16 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>; Nicholas Peters <ntpete@fitcheven.com>
`Cc: Timothy Maloney <Tpmalo@fitcheven.com>; Bobrow, Jared <jbobrow@orrick.com>; Lonestar IPR <lonestar-
`ipr@fitcheven.com>; David Gosse <DGosse@fitcheven.com>; Bonini, Matthew <mbonini@orrick.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2017-01560, -01561, -01562, -01563: Schedule for Sur-replies
`
`Your Honors,
`
`Following up on the below, the proposed schedule has been corrected below. Our apologies for the error in the proposed
`scheduled.
`
`Corrected Schedule for New Events
`
`IPR2017-1560, 61, 62
`PO’s Sur-reply: 8/6
`Deposition of Dr. Bottoms: 8/16 or 8/17
`Motion for Observation of Dr. Bottoms: 8/27
`Response to Motion for Observation of Dr. Bottoms: 8/31
`
`IPR2017-1563
`PO’s Sur-reply on 8/6
`Deposition of Dr. Bottoms: 8/16 or 8/17
`Motion for Observation of Dr. Bottoms: 8/27
`Micron response to sur-reply: 8/27
`Response to Motion for Observation of Dr. Bottoms: 8/31
`
`Proposed Schedule In Context
`
`Sur-
`rep.
`
`DUE DATE
`4
`
`MTN for
`Obs.
`
`MTN to
`Exc.
`Req. OA
`
`Dr. Bot.
`Dep. on
`sur.
`
`DUE
`DATE 5
`Resp.
`MTN for
`Obs.
`OPP to
`MTN to
`Exc.
`
`MTN
`Obs. Dr.
`Bot.
`
`Sur-
`sur-
`reply
`
`DUE
`DATE 6
`RPY ISO
`MTN to
`Exc.
`
`Rep. MTN
`for Obs.
`Dr. Bot.
`
`Ex.
`Slides
`
`DUE
`DATE 7
`
`Hearing
`
`IPR2017-
`1563
`IPR2017-
`1560
`IPR2017-
`1561
`IPR2017-
`1562
`
`611
`
`188
`
`188
`
`061
`
`8/6
`
`8/6
`
`8/6
`
`8/6
`
`8/8
`
`8/8
`
`8/8
`
`8/8
`
`8/16-17
`
`8/16-17
`
`8/16-17
`
`8/16-17
`
`8/22
`
`8/22
`
`8/22
`
`8/22
`
`8/27*
`
`8/27
`
`8/27*
`
`8/27*
`
`8/27*
`
`8/29
`
`8/29
`
`8/29
`
`8/29
`
`8/31
`
`8/31
`
`8/31
`
`8/31
`
`9/7
`
`9/7
`
`9/7
`
`9/7
`
`9/18
`
`9/18
`
`9/18
`
`9/18
`
`*When the final transcript issues, if after 8/20, Micron will amend observations to include final transcript cites.
`
`Respectfully,
`J. Jason Lang
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner Micron Technology, Inc.
`
`