the art. Indeed, this is underscored by the following statement made by Leung
in the <143 application at page 8, lines 6-8 (Exhibit 1002), that they did not
understand how their invention worked: “[a]lthough the exact mechanism of
the present invention is not known, we believe the high energy ion
bombardment of the films on a biased substrate densifies the films.”
SX 1015, p. 7, ¶ 10.
F 49. Vasilyeva testifies that she reviewed the 143 Specification3 “to determine if the disclosure
therein was sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the invention defined
in Leung claims 13, 19, 20 and 26.”
F 50. Based upon this review, Vasilyeva expresses the opinion that one skilled in the art would not
have been able to make and use the subject matter of Leung claims 13, 19, 20 and 26. SX
1015, pp. 7-8, ¶ 11.
F 51. Vasilyeva also testifies that the 143 Specification does not teach any method to reduce
carbon content and decrease resistivity without voltage biasing the substrate and that biasing
is understood to be a required step to reduce the carbon content and resistivity. SX 1015, pp.
10-11, ¶¶ 15-17.
F 52. Vasilyeva summarizes her testimony stating that in order for one of ordinary skill to have
practiced the claimed invention based on the disclosures of 143 Application, an extraordinary
amount of experimentation would have been required. SX 1015, p. 15, ¶ 24.
Leung’s Opposition
F 53. Leung opposes arguing (1) that Sandhu has not met its burden of proof in not alleging
sufficient material facts in support of the motion; (2) that the Vasilyeva affidavit does not
establish experience and knowledge in the field of chemical vapor deposition and is therefore
not competent to be relied upon as expert testimony; and (3) that Sandhu has not established
by a preponderance of the evidence that the 143 Specification fails to enable the Leung
claims. Paper 85, pp. 5-6.
3 Vasilyeva’s testimony was expressly addressed to the specification of the great-grandparent
application. However, since the original specifications of the great-grandparent and the 143 Application appear to be
and are admitted to be identical, we have construed the testimony as applying to the 143 Application as well. See F6
and F7, above. We need not refer to the parent and grandparent applications since Leung has disclaimed reliance on
whatever additional description is present in those applications. Paper 104, p. 15.
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007