[00:00:23] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Ralph Statham for the appellant, Dr. Pflaum.

[00:00:30] Speaker 02:
Let me just, housekeeping.

[00:00:32] Speaker 02:
We've got two cases back to back, and they have the same parties involved.

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
But just to confirm that they're entirely different patents, different arguments, different court decisions.

[00:00:41] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:00:45] Speaker 00:
The issue here pertains to the first two Graham factors, the scope of the prior art,

[00:00:52] Speaker 00:
and the differences between the prior art and claim one of the patent in suit.

[00:00:58] Speaker 00:
The standard of review is whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding below that Lieberman and Sheehan, or the combination of Lieberman and Sheehan, teach or suggest all the elements of claim one.

[00:01:15] Speaker 00:
Our contention, in accordance with the definitions of substantial evidence,

[00:01:21] Speaker 00:
is that there is not, quote, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion when the record is considered as a whole.

[00:01:37] Speaker 00:
The evidence being what the prior art says.

[00:01:43] Speaker 00:
Is that right?

[00:01:43] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
And also expert testimony?

[00:01:46] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry?

[00:01:47] Speaker 01:
And also expert testimony explaining what the prior art teaches?

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
Certainly.

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
This is a very unusual case.

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
The crucial prior art references, Lieberman and Sheehan, are explicitly clear as to what they teach.

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
But the decision below, relying entirely on Apoli's expert

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
found that they teach something quite different and completely foreign to the actual teachings of the references themselves.

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
Is that the essence of this case under the substantial evidence review, whether or not the board correctly considered what the prior art taught?

[00:02:33] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:02:33] Speaker 00:
Correctly considered means they considered it fully, but they didn't understand it.

[00:02:40] Speaker 00:
Is that true?

[00:02:40] Speaker 00:
Exactly.

[00:02:43] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:02:43] Speaker 00:
Consider the following.

[00:02:45] Speaker 00:
One, Lieberman and Sheehan both teach using an isolation transformer.

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
Two, Lieberman and Sheehan both teach that using an isolation transformer results in a reduction in unwanted capacitive funds.

[00:03:05] Speaker 00:
Three, neither Lieberman nor Sheehan states or suggests that reduction of unwanted capacitive currents can be achieved other than by use of an isolation transformer or the prior art approach of using electrostatic shield.

[00:03:24] Speaker 00:
Four, regarding the limitations of claim one of the patented suit,

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
Lieberman, Sheehan, Dibble do not state or teach anything, A, about phase and anti-phase portions of capacitive occurrence, B, about selectively balancing phase and anti-phase portions of capacitive occurrence, and C, about a wave adjustment circuit for balancing phase and anti-phase portions of capacitive occurrence.

[00:03:55] Speaker 00:
Five, the entirety of the decision below is based on petitioner's expert, not the actual content of the Lieberman reference.

[00:04:07] Speaker 00:
We now turn to comparing the processes of claim one and Lieberman and Sheehan.

[00:04:12] Speaker 00:
Because Lieberman and Sheehan employ an isolation transformer, the path of the capacitive current is not to the substrate walls, et cetera.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
Instead, the current flows from the coil to the plasma and then returns to the coil.

[00:04:30] Speaker 00:
Since the current cannot go to ground, it must return to the coil.

[00:04:36] Speaker 00:
This is a straightforward application of Kirchhoff's current law, which states that current going out of any node must equal the current returning to that node.

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
The decision appellees

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
Annapolis experts all affirmatively agree that the capacitive currents in Lieberman flow into the plasma and return from the plasma.

[00:05:04] Speaker 00:
Quoting from the decision, the phase voltages push capacitive couple current into the plasma, while the anti-phase voltages pull a couple current out of the plasma.

[00:05:22] Speaker 00:
However, the patent suit claims that the capacitive currents flow from the coil to the substrate, chamber walls, et cetera.

[00:05:33] Speaker 00:
And interesting, the decision below at one point agrees, correctly stating, quote, according to the 221 patent, this process provides for a technique that is substantially free from stray or parasitic capacitive couplings.

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
You want to give us a citation to that quote?

[00:05:55] Speaker 00:
That is pages four and five of the decision.

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
And I apologize.

[00:06:03] Speaker 00:
I didn't put down the appendix number.

[00:06:08] Speaker 00:
Continuing on, for example, from the plasma source to the chamber bodies, substrates, walls, et cetera.

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
The upshot is that these findings

[00:06:20] Speaker 00:
regarding the processes of claim one and Lieberman and Sheehan are irreconcilable with the finding that Lieberman teaches all the elements of claim one.

[00:06:35] Speaker 00:
If there are any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

[00:06:40] Speaker 01:
I hear what you're saying.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
It sounds like you have a different view of what the prayer teaches than what the expert presented to the board.

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
And you said that the board erred in relying on the expert testimony and its understanding, the expert's explanation of what those references teach.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
But I haven't heard exactly how there was error yet and what exactly the expert said that was incorrect.

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
and that the board shouldn't have credited.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
And it also makes me puzzled as to what I'm supposed to do with that sitting here on appeal.

[00:07:14] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:07:14] Speaker 00:
I think the key there is the law.

[00:07:18] Speaker 00:
That substantial evidence is not taken by itself.

[00:07:21] Speaker 00:
It has definitions that we look to... Well, let me quote it again.

[00:07:37] Speaker 00:
The definition of substantial error is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion.

[00:07:48] Speaker 00:
And then in another case, when the record is considered as whole.

[00:07:54] Speaker 00:
Now, our point is that if you look at the actual references, you just have to read them and understand that if you have an isolation transformer, that means

[00:08:06] Speaker 00:
it is not grounded.

[00:08:09] Speaker 00:
And so the capacitive currents can't go to the substrate walls, et cetera, which is what the patent claims.

[00:08:19] Speaker 00:
The capacitive current goes out into the plaza, and then in quarter into Kirchhoff, it comes right back into the plaza.

[00:08:30] Speaker 00:
So I don't think it really makes any difference what the expert had to say.

[00:08:34] Speaker 00:
You just look at that, and

[00:08:36] Speaker 02:
It's clear.

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
Dr. Flam's presentation on appeal suffers from the same flaw that it did before the board.

[00:08:59] Speaker 03:
You have here on the one side, as Your Honors alluded to, you have the teachings of the prior art, you have expert testimony about what the prior art discloses that is backed up by additional

[00:09:11] Speaker 03:
documentary reference in the form of the other exhibits that we relied on, and you have the 221 patent itself.

[00:09:18] Speaker 03:
All of those say one thing, and on the other side, you have Dr. Flam's bare say-so that none of that is right, that you have to ignore all of that.

[00:09:27] Speaker 03:
I'll start specifically with the reference to what Lieberman and Cheon teach about the effect of using an isolation transformer.

[00:09:34] Speaker 03:
I want to first point out we do think this argument is waived.

[00:09:37] Speaker 03:
Before the board, what Dr. Flam argued was that if you

[00:09:41] Speaker 03:
use an isolation transformer, you can't have any reduction in the relevant capacitive currents at all.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
Now on appeal, he appears to be arguing, and this was not clearly made until his reply brief, but I think what he's arguing is that the reduction happens, but it's due to isolation, not to balancing, as the patent claims.

[00:10:01] Speaker 03:
That's simply wrong.

[00:10:02] Speaker 03:
If you look at the relevant page of Laborman, this is at Appendix 922, and what it says is, the coil can be driven push-pull using a balance transformer,

[00:10:15] Speaker 03:
which places a virtual ground.

[00:10:18] Speaker 03:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
It's all right.

[00:10:20] Speaker 01:
Just 922.

[00:10:20] Speaker 03:
922, correct.

[00:10:21] Speaker 03:
And I'm starting at the top page of the top line of the text.

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
The coil can be driven push-pull using a balanced transformer, which places a virtual ground in the middle of the coil and reduces the maximum coil to plasma voltage by a factor of two.

[00:10:36] Speaker 03:
So that is describing the selective balancing.

[00:10:38] Speaker 03:
It's describing

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
You use this balance transformer with two inputs.

[00:10:42] Speaker 03:
It puts two inputs onto each end of the coil that are opposite in phase.

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
They are 180 degrees apart from each other in phase.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
doing so.

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
This reduces the undesired capacitively coupled RF current flowing from coil to plasma by a factor of two.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
That is exactly what Dr. Graves said and relied on.

[00:11:03] Speaker 03:
That's backed up by additional citations that I can give you.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
And that's what the board found.

[00:11:07] Speaker 03:
What Dr. Flam points to is back at appendix 911.

[00:11:12] Speaker 03:
That's talking about a totally different configuration.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
Here Lieberman is talking about using a helical mode, not the inductive configuration that is at 922 and that is what the patent expressly claims.

[00:11:27] Speaker 03:
So it's not relevant what he says here, but even if it were, it doesn't say anything that is in tension with the rest of Lieberman or with Dr. Graves or with the board's findings.

[00:11:40] Speaker 03:
It says, here too, the antenna can be driven through a balanced transformer, that is what the patent also calls a ballon, so that the antenna coil is isolated from ground.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
There is no inconsistency between an isolation transformer and a ballon.

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
The record makes that clear.

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
It's two different functions that the transformer is forming.

[00:12:02] Speaker 03:
It's serving as a ballon because it takes an unbalanced input and turns it into a balanced output.

[00:12:08] Speaker 03:
It's serving as an isolation transformer because within itself it isolates the secondary coil, which is the outputs, from the primary coil, which is the inputs.

[00:12:18] Speaker 03:
Lieberman says this reduces the maximum antenna plasma voltage by a factor of two, thus also reducing the undesired capacitive current.

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
He is not saying that the reduction in undesired capacitive current is coming from isolation.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
He's saying it's coming from the use of a balanced transformer that is also isolated.

[00:12:37] Speaker 03:
So it's not a faithful reading of what the prior discloses.

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
It's also irrelevant.

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
The claim here says nothing about reducing capacitively coupled current.

[00:12:48] Speaker 03:
claim one has two relevant requirements.

[00:12:51] Speaker 03:
One is selectively balancing the currents on the coil.

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
And the other is using a wave adjustment circuit to do that.

[00:12:59] Speaker 03:
It says nothing about reducing, let alone eliminating, capacitively coupled current.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
The 221 patent teaches that as an advantage of this configuration, but it is not claimed.

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
So for each of those reasons, the material that they rely on from Lieberman simply is not relevant and certainly does not undermine the substantial evidentiary support for the board's findings.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
I'd also like to address the other point that was made about capacitive coupled current going into the plasma and back into the coil and therefore never reaching the substrate.

[00:13:34] Speaker 03:
There's no

[00:13:37] Speaker 03:
record support for that other than Dr. Flem's statement, which did not cite anything for that point.

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
The references do not say that.

[00:13:45] Speaker 03:
In fact, Cheon empirically demonstrates that when you use that isolation transformer in a balanced mode, you get a reduction of capacitive coupling to the substrate.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
And so there obviously is capacitive current going not just back into the coil, but into the process as well.

[00:14:18] Speaker 00:
What's wrong with me?

[00:14:19] Speaker 00:
I beg to differ.

[00:14:21] Speaker 00:
Yeah, go ahead.

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
First of all, if you look at Lieberman, there's a passage where he defines what a balanced transformer is.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
And he says it is an isolation transformer.

[00:14:38] Speaker 01:
What about this language where it says the coil can be driven push-pull using a balanced transformer?

[00:14:44] Speaker 01:
It's talking about push-pull.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
That comes from the expert.

[00:14:49] Speaker 01:
I think it's in the reference.

[00:14:51] Speaker 01:
It's on page A, 922.

[00:14:53] Speaker 01:
922 of the appendix.

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
I just read from that.

[00:14:58] Speaker 01:
I didn't read from the expert.

[00:15:00] Speaker 00:
What does 922?

[00:15:02] Speaker 01:
It says the coil can be driven push-pull using a balance transformer.

[00:15:07] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
That's after Lieberman had defined what a balance transformer

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
or what a balanced transformer as opposed to a balance.

[00:15:18] Speaker 01:
I heard Chief Judge Prost ask you for a site for that.

[00:15:24] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry I don't have that, but I'd be glad to get it to the court afterwards.

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
So the point is that Lieberman tells you what a balanced transformer is.

[00:15:35] Speaker 00:
It's an isolation transformer.

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
An isolation transformer is not the same as a balance

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
A ballon is grounded.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
An isolated transformer is not grounded.

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
And counsel said that in Xi'an that the capacitive current goes from the coil into the plasma to the substrate.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
That's absolutely wrong.

[00:16:06] Speaker 00:
It can't go to the substrate because it's not grounded.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
it has to go into the plasma and back to the substrate.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
I mean, back to the plasma.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, the coil.

[00:16:19] Speaker 00:
So it goes from the coil to the plasma to the coil.

[00:16:23] Speaker 00:
And the patent says that it goes from the coil to the substrate, walls, chamber, et cetera.

[00:16:34] Speaker 00:
Very different.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
And it doesn't fit with what the decision below says.

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
So you're telling us that these judges on the PTAB misunderstood that?

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
Absolutely.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
Frankly, when you read the opinion, I think what happened is they decided who's going to win, and they picked up everything from the expert testimony.

[00:17:04] Speaker 00:
and they rejected everything from our testimony.

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:17:14] Speaker 02:
We thank both sides of the cases submitted.

[00:17:19] Speaker 02:
Next case is 182384, Flam versus Micron Technology.

[00:17:27] Speaker 02:
Mr. Shadhan, you get to stay where you are.