based on using a phase mask for the Snitzer project within about
one or two weeks of his discussion with Dr. Snitzer on 21 July
1992 (SR 464, $ 31).
118. Dr. Rishton testified that in the initial discussion
with Dr. Snitzer (22 July 1992), that Dr. Snitzer "told me that a
phase structure would be better for those for patterning
according to their calculations ... " (SR 824, lines 17-19).
119. The calculations that Prohaska did, however, were
performed after Dr. Rishton's and Dr. Snitzer's initial
conversation.
120. Dr. Stubbs, the Snitzer inventor's patent agent,
testified that based on a meeting he had with Dr. Snitzer on 30
July 1992, he believed that a mask having any form of periodic
variation in optical properties was within the invention, whether
they affected phase or amplitude of the transmitted light (SR
487, $ 11).
121. Stubbs, during his cross-examination, testified that
he could not recall the discussions he had with Dr. Snitzer
during the 30 July 1992 meeting (SR 878, lines 5-13).
122. Stubbs does not recall the term phase mask ever being
used during the conversations he had with the Snitzer inventors
for writing their 1839 application (SR 896-897, lines 19-14).
123. Stubbs does not recall a telephone conversation with
Dr. Prohaska in which Dr. Prohaska allegedly emphasized that a
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007