Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 1 of 20
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Morgan Chu (70446)
`MChu@irell.com
`Benjamin W. Hattenbach (186455)
`BHattenbach@irell.com
`Samuel K. Lu (171969)
`SLu@irell.com
`Olivia L. Weber (319918)
`OWeber@irell.com
`Thomas Horn (348471)
`THorn@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone:
`(310) 277-1010
`Facsimile:
`(310) 203-7199
`FOLIO LAW GROUP PLLC
`C. Maclain Wells (221609)
`Maclain@foliolaw.com
`2376 Pacific Ave.
`San Francisco, CA 94115
`Telephone:
`(415) 562-8632
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`DEMARAY LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`DEMARAY LLC'S REPLY
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`(APRIL 3, 2023)
`Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Defendant.
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Counterclaimant,
`
`))))))))))))))))))
`
`vs.
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Counterdefendant.
`
`DEMARAY'S REPLY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 2 of 20
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ....................................................................................... 2
`A.
`"Narrow band rejection filter"................................................................................. 3
`1.
`Applied Mischaracterizes Demaray's "Comprising"
`Argument .................................................................................................... 3
`The Plain Language Of The Claims And The Specification
`Make Clear That The NBRF Is Focused On The Frequencies
`Rejected....................................................................................................... 4
`Applied's "Centered On" Limitation Is Unsupported By the
`Claims ......................................................................................................... 6
`Pulsed DC power/Pulsed DC power supply ........................................................... 6
`1.
`The Intrinsic Record Makes Clear Where The Oscillations
`Occur........................................................................................................... 7
`"A method of depositing an insulating film on a substrate,
`comprising:"............................................................................................................ 7
`"an RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate"/"an RF bias
`power supply coupled to provide an RF bias to the substrate"............................... 8
`1.
`Applied's Proposed Additions To The Claims Are
`Ambiguous.................................................................................................. 8
`Applied's Flip-Flops On Whether Its New Claim Additions
`Would Require "Direct Coupling" And Preclude "Indirect
`Coupling" .................................................................................................... 9
`Applied Seeks To Add Another New, Unsupported
`Limitation.................................................................................................... 9
`Demaray Made No Clear And Unmistakable Disavowals In
`The IPRs.................................................................................................... 10
`In Addition To The Arguments Above, The Providing Limitation
`Does Not Contain The Word "Coupled"............................................................... 15
`CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`DEMARAY'S REPLY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- i -
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 3 of 20
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases1
`Aircraft Tech. Publishers v. Avantext, Inc.,
`No. C 07–4154 SBA, 2009 WL 3817944 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) .........................................2
`Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc.,
`812 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................8, 11
`Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc.,
`967 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................................8
`Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc.,
`249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)....................................................................................................3
`Boss Control, Inc. v. Bombardier Inc.,
`410 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................................6
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)....................................................................................................5
`CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp.,
`504 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007)....................................................................................................3
`Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc.,
`596 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................10
`Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Env’t. Int’l., L.C.,
`460 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................................................4
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)....................................................................................................5
`France Telecom, S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.,
`No. 12–cv–04967–WHO, 2014 WL 1007449 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................6
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)....................................................................................................5
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................................9
`Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc.,
`244 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001)....................................................................................................3
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, internal citations and subsequent case history are omitted, and
`any emphasis is added. All exhibits unless otherwise noted were attached to the Declaration of
`Thomas Horn ("Horn Decl.") filed with Demaray's Opening Brief ("Br.").
`DEMARAY'S REPLY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- ii -
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 4 of 20
`
`Page
`
`NTP Inc. v. Rsch. In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................................9
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................................2
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................................................................................................8
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................................7
`Sinorgchem Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)....................................................................................................6
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)....................................................................................................8
`TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph,
`790 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................................8
`Trading Techs. Intern., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Circ. 2010)..................................................................................................6
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEMARAY'S REPLY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- iii -
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 5 of 20
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Applied's proposed "constructions" should be viewed for what they are: a thinly veiled
`attempt by an accused infringer to re-litigate claim construction positions that its attorneys and
`former attorneys already lost in co-pending cases in the WDTX,2 all in the hopes of creating
`conflicting rulings and an avenue for appeal. Most of Applied's arguments were previously
`rejected by the WDTX court because Applied's attorneys and former attorneys improperly sought
`to re-write claim terms having plain and ordinary meanings to add limitations unsupported by the
`intrinsic record. By way of example only, Applied now asks the Court here to adopt those rejected
`proposals and to issue conflicting constructions by:
`(1) Re-writing "narrow band rejection filter" (which has a plain and ordinary meaning) to a
`"filter that passes…frequencies…," thereby eliminating altogether the "rejection" requirement and
`substituting in its place an extraneous "passing" requirement;
`(2) Re-writing the open "comprising" claim term that covers chambers with the claimed
`narrow band rejection filter (but that would not exclude additional, unclaimed filter elements) into
`a closed-ended "consisting" term that would exclude additional, unclaimed filter elements;
`(3) Ignoring the context of the patentee's explicit definition for "pulsed DC power"; and
`(4) Re-writing the claim term "insulating film" (which has a plain and ordinary meaning)
`to an "insulating film comprising the oxide material" where (i) the patent specification explicitly
`discloses insulating films other than oxide materials, (ii) there was no lexicography and no clear
`and unmistakable disavowal by the patentee of films other than oxide materials, and (iii) Applied's
`claim construction would exclude a dependent claim.
`The arguments raised by Applied do not override the plain and ordinary meanings of the
`claim terms, as confirmed by the teachings of the specification. Indeed, in four recent IPRs that
`Applied filed and lost against the Demaray patents, each of which contained supporting
`declarations from Applied experts claiming to be persons of skill in the art, neither Applied, nor its
`experts, nor its attorneys proposed a single term for construction. This belies any claim that the
`
`
`2 In the WDTX, WilmerHale also represents Intel, and Paul Hastings, Applied's former
`counsel, represented both Intel and Samsung.
`DEMARAY'S REPLY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- 1 -
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 6 of 20
`
`WDTX erred in giving these claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning.
`As for the "Coupled"/"Providing" "RF bias…to the substrate" terms, Applied attempts,
`based on the IPRs it filed and lost, to create non-infringement arguments by adding unsupported
`limitations to the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms. In addition to repeating the claim
`language verbatim and then adding 21 new and unsupported words on top of it, Applied also now
`attempts to impose a "direct" coupling requirement (thereby precluding "indirect" coupling), even
`though the literal language of its claim construction (and of the ordinary meaning of "coupling")
`does not so require. Applied also now suggests the addition of yet another limitation not present in
`its claim construction, specifically, that the RF bias power source must be coupled to a component
`that is "remote from" (or that the RF bias power source is itself "remote from") the pulsed DC
`power source. None of these limitations are in the claim language as written, and none of the
`materials to which Applied points—which it largely takes out of context and misconstrues—
`permits rewriting the claims in this manner now. Instead, the IPR statements upon which Applied
`relies focused on the absence of a NBRF from the prior art.
`For these and the other reasons discussed below, the Court should endorse the WDTX's
`claim constructions as set forth by Demaray and reject Applied's re-writing of the claim language.
`II.
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS
`Applied acknowledges that the WDTX court has ruled on the majority of the claim
`construction issues that Applied seeks to re-litigate here and has determined that the plain and
`ordinary meaning of the disputed terms should apply. There is also no dispute that this Court
`should "certainly consider" those prior rulings in addressing the issues Applied seeks to raise yet
`again. See Resp., 4 (citing Aircraft Tech. Publishers v. Avantext, Inc., No. C 07–4154 SBA, 2009
`WL 3817944, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009). In addition, for the reasons set forth below, like the
`WDTX, this Court should apply the plain and ordinary meaning to these disputed terms.
`Applied mischaracterizes the Federal Circuit's holding in O2 Micro (e.g., Resp., 4) in an
`effort to disturb the WDTX rulings. O2 Micro does not require a construction when, as here, an
`accused infringer is trying to re-write the plain meaning of the words. O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v.
`Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("not an obligatory
`DEMARAY'S REPLY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- 2 -
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 7 of 20
`
`exercise in redundancy"); Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp,
`Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding no error in non-construction of "melting");
`Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d 1365, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding no
`error in court's refusal to construe "irrigating" and "frictional heat").
`A.
`"Narrow band rejection filter"
`Applied argues that its current proposed construction substantively differs from that
`addressed by the WDTX (Resp., 5), but the WDTX previously rejected attempts to import the
`same "passing" limitation into the construction of NBRF and determined that the plain and
`ordinary meaning should apply. Ex. 3, 3. Applied's attempt to inject a further, new limitation, that
`the filter be "centered on the frequency of the RF bias…," should similarly be rejected. A "narrow
`band rejection filter" is just what the claim language states, i.e., a filter that rejects a narrow band
`of frequencies—no further construction is necessary.
`1.
`Applied Mischaracterizes Demaray's "Comprising" Argument
`Applied mischaracterizes Demaray's argument regarding the scope of the NBRF claim
`term and the fact that the claims allow additional unclaimed elements. See Resp., 11. Contrary to
`Applied's arguments (see id., 10), Demaray is not seeking to broaden the term NBRF beyond its
`plain and ordinary meaning or to substitute a different filter for the NBRF. It is black letter law
`that a "comprising" claim (which is what these claims are) is an open-ended claim: the claim
`encompasses all of the elements listed, but the claim may also include additional, unnamed (and
`therefore unclaimed) elements. CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007) ("In the patent claim context the term 'comprising' is well understood to mean
`'including but not limited to.'"). Thus, the "comprising" claims at issue would cover a processing
`chamber that has a NBRF alone or in combination with additional, unnamed (and therefore
`unclaimed) filtering elements. While any additional, unclaimed filter elements may, and indeed
`would be expected to, reject frequencies that are not rejected by the NBRF, a NBRF must still be
`present in any such filter combination and that NBRF must still "reject[] a narrow band of
`frequencies," including, e.g., "a frequency of the RF bias power supply." See, e.g., Ex. 1, cl. 1.
`Applied argues that the claims should be limited to only a single NBRF with no other
`DEMARAY'S REPLY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- 3 -
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 8 of 20
`
`filtering elements present. Resp., 11 (arguing that a "dual-notch filter" made up of two NBRFs is
`excluded under Applied's proposed construction). But, this is directly contrary to black letter law:
`the claims are written as open "comprising" claims, not closed "consisting of" claims. Conoco,
`Inc. v. Energy & Env't. Int'l., L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("The phrase 'consisting
`of' signifies restriction and exclusion of unrecited … components."). Applied is trying to
`impermissibly re-write the claims to limit the processing chamber to only a NBRF filter and to
`exclude the use of other filter elements (thereby making it a "consisting of" claim).
`2.
`The Plain Language Of The Claims And The Specification Make Clear
`That The NBRF Is Focused On The Frequencies That Are Rejected
`Applied admits that the Demaray patents teach that the purpose of the narrow band
`rejection filter is to "filter[] out the effects of a bias power applied to the substrate, protecting the
`pulsed DC power supply." See Resp., 3 (citing Abstracts). This is confirmed in the body of the
`specification, which teaches that the NBRF "prevents the bias power from [the RF] power
`supply 18 from coupling into pulsed DC power supply 14." Ex. 1, 5:50-51. Such coupling can, e.g.,
`damage arc detection circuitry in the DC power supply. The specification teaches that prevention of
`such coupling is accomplished by using a filter that rejects frequencies corresponding to the RF bias
`power: "filter 15 [which] is a 2 MHz band rejection filter…prevents the 2 MHz power from the bias
`to substrate 16 from damaging the [DC] power supply 18." Id., 5:55-59. Importantly, the
`specification does not disavow the use of additional filter elements other than a NBRF to achieve
`other desired functionality. It is simply silent in this regard.
`Similarly, the applicants discussed the claimed filter throughout the vast majority of the
`prosecution without any reference whatsoever to "passing." See, e.g., Ex. 9, 209 ("A filter that
`does not block the RF bias voltage can result in failure of the DC power supply."); Ex. 7 ('356
`FH), 1458 (similar), 1303 ("The band rejection filter is arranged to reject RF power at the
`frequency of the RF bias…."). Had applicants sought to exclude the use of additional filter
`elements other than a NBRF from the claimed chamber, they could have easily done so by either
`(i) using "consisting of" language (the import of which is described below) or (ii) including a
`negative claim limitation (i.e., language in the claim expressly reciting an element that is absent or
`excluded, such as additional filter elements other than a NBRF). But applicants did neither.
`DEMARAY'S REPLY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- 4 -
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 9 of 20
`
`Applied's reliance on isolated and out of context excerpts from the file history of the parent
`application (Resp., 6, 10) does not change this analysis. The inventor declaration from Dr.
`Demaray upon which Applied relies describes the specific embodiment reduced to practice where
`the output of the pulsed DC power supply was a square wave. Id. (citing, e.g., Applied Ex. 2 ('863
`File History) at -7414 "… must pass all frequencies … so that 'the square wave pulse of the DC
`power' can be 'transmitted'…."). But the statements in this declaration do not constitute a
`disclaimer. First, the WDTX rejected previous attempts to limit the "pulsed DC power" limitation
`to a "square wave" Ex. 3, 2. This time around, Applied expressly abandoned that effort. Resp., 12,
`n.6. (describing this prior effort as a "phantom construction Applied has not proposed…."). Thus,
`it is unclear why these out-of-context passages would apply to limit the claims. While Applied is
`correct that the claims require providing "pulsed power," and that such pulsed power must meet
`certain criteria (such as "providing alternating negative and positive voltages" to the target), the
`claims do not require that the frequency profile of the pulsed power meet a particular
`configuration (where all of the frequencies are passed, other than those rejected by the NBRF, as
`Applied argues) and Applied makes no such argument for the claim term "pulsed DC power
`supply." Second, the description of a preferred embodiment is not limiting. CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (ordinary meaning cannot be overcome
`"simply by pointing to the preferred embodiment or other structures or steps disclosed in the
`specification or prosecution history"). The subsequent discussions upon which Applied also relies
`cite to this declaration and/or are discussing the specific tested embodiment.3, 4
`
`
`3 Applied's reliance on out of context snippets of deposition testimony of Dr. Glew is also
`misplaced. Dr. Glew stated that the NBRF term has an ordinary and customary meaning in the
`industry. Glew Decl., Ex. 6 ¶ 62. If further construction is deemed necessary, the term should be
`construed as "a filter which rejects a narrow band of frequencies." Id.
`4 Applied also cites to six cases in its argument that the inventor declaration effectively
`redefines the NBRF term. Resp., 6, 7. Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363,
`1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) weighs against limiting the term as Applied proposes. In Martek, the
`Federal Circuit reversed a narrow construction adopted by the trial court because discussions of
`the preferred embodiments do not limit the claims: “[T]he fact that the inventor may have
`anticipated that the invention would be used in a particular way does not mean that the scope of
`the invention is limited to that context.” Id. The remaining cases are all easily distinguishable.
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (use in describing
`preferred embodiment limiting because the “definition was not limited to the embodiment being
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEMARAY'S REPLY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- 5 -
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 10 of 20
`
`Applied's "Centered On" Limitation Is Unsupported By the Claims
`3.
`Applied's attempt to tack on another unclaimed limitation, "except within a narrow band
`centered on the frequency of the RF bias applied to the substrate" (which limitation was not in its
`previous March 2022 claim construction) should also be rejected. First, Applied admits that the
`claims contain separate language addressing the operating frequency of the NBRF (which
`language does not contain the "centered on" limitation). See Resp., 8-9 (citing, e.g., other
`limitations for the "frequency of the R[F] bias power supply." (e.g., '276 Pat., cl. 1); also citing cl.
`6 ("operating at a frequency of the RF bias power supply"). It is unclear why Applied believes
`the Court should ignore the actual claim language in the frequency term and import the "centered
`on" limitation into the construction of the separate NBRF term. Second, there is no requirement in
`the claims or the specification that the frequency be "centered," whatever meaning Applied attributes
`to that new term. Applied relies on the same inventor declaration addressed above (Resp. 1, 5), but
`as noted previously, that declaration was describing the specific embodiment reduced to practice,
`not seeking to redefine every term that may be used in the future in yet to be drafted patent claims.
`B.
`Pulsed DC power/Pulsed DC power supply
`The parties' dispute centers on whether the reference to "oscillates between positive and
`negative voltages" is satisfied by "providing alternating negative and positive voltages to the target"
`as recited in the relevant claim language. The Court should reject Applied's efforts to ignore the
`modifying phrase "providing alternating negative and positive voltages to the target." Ex. 1 , cls. 1
`& 6; see also Ex. 2, cls. 1 & 2 (containing similar language: "such that the target alternates between
`positive and negative voltages" and "such that the voltage on the target alternates between positive
`and negative voltages," respectively).
`
`
`discussed” and inventors elsewhere disclaimed the broader meaning); Boss Control, Inc. v.
`Bombardier Inc., 410 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (inventors’ definition supported by
`Background and Summary of the Invention sections in addition to discussions of preferred
`embodiment); Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (did
`not state “that is” is inherently definitional, but analyzed the intrinsic record as a whole);
`Sinorgchem Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (relied on
`indications other than use of the word “is,” including the use of quotation marks, to delineate an
`express definition); France Telecom, S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., No. 12–cv–04967–
`WHO, 2014 WL 1007449, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (relied on express definition from the
`specification that was not tied to any particular embodiment).
`DEMARAY'S REPLY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- 6 -
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 11 of 20
`
`The Intrinsic Record Makes Clear Where The Oscillations Occur
`1.
`Applied's argument that this additional claim language should be ignored in construing
`"pulsed DC power" (Resp., 13 (arguing that "this limitation is separate from the 'pulsed DC power'
`limitation")) contradicts the claim language, the specification and the file history. The claim limitation
`
`makes clear it is not separate: "a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area, the pulsed DC
`power supply providing alternating negative and positive voltages to the target." Ex. 1, cl. 1. "[T]he
`context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered in determining the ordinary
`and customary meaning of those terms." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
`2005).
`
`The specifications similarly focus on the oscillations between positive and negative voltages
`occurring to or at the target: "[f]or pulsed reactive dc magnetron sputtering, as performed by
`apparatus 10, the polarity of the power supplied to target 12 by power supply 14 oscillates between
`negative and positive potentials." Ex. 1, 5:36-39.
`Additionally, the prosecution history makes clear that the "alternating negative and positive
`voltages to the target" language was intended to clarify the locations of the oscillations. During
`prosecution of the parent '356 application, the applicants added the limitation "the target voltage
`oscillates between positive and negative voltages." Ex. 7, 1303. Applicants did so to address the
`Smolanoff reference, which teaches a power supply that "produces a negative potential on the
`target 16." Id., 1306. In explaining meaning of this added limitation, the applicants stated that they
`"have explicitly defined pulsed DC power to refer to power that oscillates between positive and
`negative voltages," equating this to an oscillating "target voltage." Id., 1305.
`C.
`"A method of depositing an insulating film on a substrate, comprising:"
`Applied presents no basis for this Court to reach a different conclusion than the WDTX
`court. See Ex. 4, 3 (rejecting the same proposal). As previously noted, contrary to Applied's
`arguments (Resp., 14), the term "depositing" does not provide an antecedent basis for any claim
`element in the claim body. While a different form of the verb (i.e., "deposited") appears in the
`claim body, it relates to the "oxide material," not the "insulating film" from the preamble. Instead,
`the claim body recites that "the insulating film is formed by reactive sputtering." Ex. 2, cl. 2.
`DEMARAY'S REPLY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- 7 -
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 12 of 20
`
`"[T]he invention claimed…is [thus] structurally complete without the ["depositing"] language."
`TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph, 790 F.3d 1315, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In other words, the full method
`can be practiced without adding the "depositing" limitation from the preamble. Applied does not
`appear to dispute this. Applied is left with conflating the "oxide material" element with the
`"insulating film" element, but these are two separate claim elements.
`Demaray has already distinguished the case cited by Applied, Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X
`Genomics Inc., 967 F.3d 1353, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2020). That case did not deal with unnecessary
`language from a preamble and the Bio-Rad court specifically relied upon the prosecution history to
`find the preamble limiting. Id., 1371, n.4. Here, Applied has no such support.
`D.
`"an RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate"/"an RF bias power
`supply coupled to provide an RF bias to the substrate"
`Applied seeks to add new limitations to the claims, rather than interpret them as written,
`which is contrary to the most elementary patent law. In so doing, Applied does not dispute that
`there is "a 'heavy presumption' that claim terms carry their full ordinary and customary meaning unless
`the patentee unequivocally imparted a novel meaning to those terms or expressly relinquished claim
`scope during prosecution." Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`Even if Applied could rewrite claims after the fact (which it cannot do), there are not "words or
`expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope" here
`supporting adding new limitations. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002). If the challenged statements are ambiguous or amenable to multiple reasonable
`interpretations, prosecution disclaimer is not established. Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 812
`F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, there is no clear disavowal of claim scope.
`1.
`Applied's Proposed Additions To The Claims Are Ambiguous
`Applied's "constructions" for the disputed claim terms tack on—for each claim term—the
`following 21 new and unsupported narrowing words: "such that the pulsed DC power source and
`the RF bias power are coupled to different components (target and substrate respectively)." Resp.,
`15. Applied's proposed additions introduce ambiguities that are not present in the plain and
`ordinary meaning of the claim language.
`For example, the statements Applied points to do not address, inter alia, whether (a) the
`DEMARAY'S REPLY CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- 8 -
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 239 Filed 04/03/23 Page 13 of 20
`
`claims require "direct" coupling and preclude "indirect" coupling; see Section II.D.2, (b) the
`claims preclude other forms of coupling (such as capacitive coupling); see Br., 19-20, or (c) the
`claims require that the RF bias power source be coupled to a component that is "remote from" (or
`that the RF bias power source is itself "remote from") the pulsed DC power source, see Section
`II.D.3. Applied argues that this is not a problem because the additions purportedly come from the
`prosecution histories. Resp., 24. This is wrong for multiple reasons: First, one cannot "interpret"
`otherwise broader claim language in a limiting manner based on prosecution history without clear
`and unmistakable disavowals of claim scope. Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc., 839 F.3d
`1111, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Second, one cannot inject