Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 1 of 73 Page ID
` #:2033
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Counsel List on Next Page
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`Case No.: SACV 12-0021-JST (JPRx)
`SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY
`
`LABORATORY CO., LTD.,
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`Plaintiff,
`PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Claim Construction
`Hearing: March 5, 2013
`Time: 10:00 am
`Place: Courtroom 10A
`Judge: Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker
`
`vs.
`CHIMEI INNOLUX
`CORPORATION, et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`Doc. # 8106254
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 1
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 2 of 73 Page ID
` #:2034
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`Semiconductor Energy
`Laboratory Co., Ltd.
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`CHIMEI INNOLUX
`CORPORATION
`CHIMEI OPTOELECTRONICS
`USA, INC.
`ACER AMERICA
`CORPORATION
`VIEWSONIC CORPORATION
`VIZIO, INC.
`Attorney for Defendant
`WESTINGHOUSE DIGITAL,
`LLC
`
`
`
`Douglas R. Peterson (SBN 215949)
`dpeterson@steptoe.com
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
`Los Angeles, California 90067-5052
`Tel.: (310) 734-3200; Fax: (310) 734-3300
`Stanley A. Schlitter (admitted pro hac vice)
`sschlitter@steptoe.com
`Taras A. Gracey (admitted pro hac vice)
`tgracey@steptoe.com
`Brandon C. Helms (admitted pro hac vice)
`bhelms@steptoe.com
`Amanda K. Streff (admitted pro hac vice)
`astreff@steptoe.com
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`115 South La Salle Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Tel.: (312) 577-1300; Fax: (312) 577-1370
`Daniel A. Kopp (admitted pro hac vice)
`dkopp@steptoe.com
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington DC 20036
`Tel.: (202) 429-3000; Fax: (202) 429-3902
`
`
`
`Stanley M. Gibson (SBN 162329)
`sgibson@jmbm.com
`Gregory S. Cordrey (SBN 190144)
`gcordrey@jmbm.com
`Andrew S. Dallmann (SBN 206771)
`adallmann@jmbm.com
`JEFFER MANGLES BUTLER &
`MITCHELL LLP
`3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`Irvine, CA 92614-2592
`Ph.: (949) 623-7200; Fax: (949) 623-7202
`Kyle B. Fleming
`kfleming@rennerotto.com
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR,
`LLP
`1621 Euclid Avenue, Nineteenth Floor
`Cleveland, OH 44115
`
`
`
`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
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
` 1
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 2
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 3 of 73 Page ID
` #:2035
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3, Plaintiff Semiconductor Energy Laboratory,
`Co., Ltd. (“SEL”) and Defendants Chimei Innolux Corporation, Chi Mei
`Optoelectronics USA, Inc., Acer America Corporation, ViewSonic Corporation,
`VIZIO, Inc., and Westinghouse Digital, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) through
`their respective counsel, hereby jointly submit the following “Joint Claim
`Construction and Prehearing Statement.”
`
`A. Agreed Claim Constructions (L.R. 4-3(a))
`
`The parties’ counsel have met and conferred and believe that the following
`terms have an agreed construction:
`
`Claim Terms
`overetching
`
`(‘311 patent, claim 11)
`
`Agreed Constructions
`Overetching should be given the same construction
`given in Judge Patel’s March 27, 2006 claim
`construction order of the same term in US Patent No.
`6,756,258 and her June 19, 2007 summary judgment
`order:
`
`“‘overetched’ … is not confined to a particular type
`of etching … or a particular timing for etching” See
`Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. v. Chi
`Mei Optoelectronics Corp. et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-
`4675 in the Northern District of California, Dkt. 111,
`Memorandum and Order dated March 27, 2006, at
`page 17.
`
`“overetching can be performed either as a separate
`
`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
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
` 2
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 3
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 4 of 73 Page ID
` #:2036
`
`
`
`
`step, involving the application of additional etchant,
`or by extending the original etching such that the
`etchant undercuts the mask” See Semiconductor
`Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei
`Optoelectronics Corp. et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-4675
`in the Northern District of California, Dkt. 111,
`Memorandum and Order dated March 27, 2006, at
`page 17.
`
`“the process of overetching … [is] well known as part
`of every etching process” See Semiconductor Energy
`Laboratory Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics
`Corp. et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-4675 in the Northern
`District of California, Dkt. 386, Memorandum and
`Order dated June 19, 2007, at page 29.
`
`“the distance between adjacent ones of the plurality of
`second conductive lines”
`
`a pitch of adjacent ones
`of the plurality of
`second conductive lines
`
`(‘978 patent, claims 7
`and 17)
`
`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
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
` 3
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 4
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 5 of 73 Page ID
` #:2037
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`Proposed Claim Constructions (L.R. 4-3(b))
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,404,480
`
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`a first
`interlayer
`insulating film
`provided over
`said first
`substrate
`
`(claims 1, 6,
`11)
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`Preliminary Construction:
`The phrase is unambiguous and
`therefore requires no
`construction.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Abstract; col. 3, ll. 35-36; col.
`3, l. 55; col. 4, ll. 10-11; col. 4,
`ll. 27-31; col. 4, ll. 34-35; col.
`4, ll. 58-62; col. 5, ll. 54-56;
`col. 6, ll. 47-50; col. 7, ll. 11-
`12; col. 8, ll. 38-40;col. 14, ll.
`30-31; col. 14, ll. 66-67; col.
`15, ll. 39-40; col. 16, ll. 12-13;
`col. 16, ll. 50-51; col. 17, ll.
`24-25; Figs. 1, 5A-5G, 6-10,
`and 13.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/734,177:
`Original Claims of December
`12, 2000; Office Action, July 5,
`2001.
`
`
`Preliminary Construction:
`Not in direct contact
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Claims 1, 6, 11.
`
`See, e.g., Figs 1, 5A-5G; 6,
`13.
`
`See, e.g., Col. 3, line 29 - col.
`5, line 2; col. 6, lines 1-8.
`
`10/22/07 Response to
`Reexamination Office Action
`at 20 ("[T]he metal particle
`16 in Figure 7(a) of
`Moriyama '333 on makes
`contact with layer 4. If one
`were to argue that film 4
`corresponds with the second
`conductive film of the present
`claims, then film 4 is not
`
`
`1 Defendants also reserve the right to rely on evidence cited by SEL in support of Defendants'
`proposed claim constructions. Defendants also reserve the right to rely on additional intrinsic
`and extrinsic evidence in response to positions SEL takes in its opening claim construction brief.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
` 4
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 5
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 6 of 73 Page ID
` #:2038
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`Prosecution History of Control
`No. 90/007,985: Request for
`Reexamination, March 24,
`2006; Office Action, July 10,
`2007.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 10/125,394:
`Office Action, August 13,
`2003; Office Action, December
`1, 2004; Office Action,
`September 25, 2006.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Semiconductor Energy
`Laboratory Company, LTD.’s
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims
`and Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions, April 21, 2005,
`Case No. C 04-04675 MHP,
`Northern District of California.
`
`Memorandum & Order Re:
`Motions for Summary
`Judgment, June 19, 2007, Case
`No. C 04-04675 MHP,
`Northern District of California.
`
`Request for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,404,480 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §
`42.100 et seq., filed October
`
`formed "on" film 1 ….")
`
`
`
`
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/734,177.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Control No. 90/007,985:
`Request for Reexamination,
`March 24, 2006.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 10/125,394.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/361,218.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 11/199,125.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 12/257,521.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 12/257,514.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/046,685.
`
`Prosecution History of
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
` 5
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 6
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 7 of 73 Page ID
` #:2039
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`Application No. 10/453,684.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 12/480,716.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 11/199,135.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`19, 2012 with the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office
`and assigned Trial Number
`2013-00028.
`
`Declaration of Miltiadis
`Hatalis, Ph.D., Exhibit 1007 to
`Request for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,404,480 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §
`42.100 et seq., filed October
`19, 2012 with the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office
`and assigned Trial Number
`2013-00028.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,219,124
`
`PCT Publication No. WO
`97/10530
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`No. 5-243,333
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`No. 6-289,415
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,757,456
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,625,474
`
`Expert Testimony
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`
`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
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
` 6
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 7
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 8 of 73 Page ID
` #:2040
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`Preliminary Construction:
`The phrase is unambiguous and
`therefore requires no
`construction.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Abstract; col. 1, ll. 12-13; col.
`1, ll. 25-47; col. 2, ll. 55-59;
`col. 3, ll. 29-60; col. 4, ll. 3-58;
`col. 6, ll. 1-10; col. 6, ll. 19-24;
`col. 7, ll. 10-18; col. 7, ll. 31-
`35; col, 8. ll. 19-21; col. 10, ll.
`61-63; col. 11, ll. 37-46; col.
`12, ll. 22-24; col. 12, ll. 29-30;
`col. 14, ll. 7-12; col. 14, ll. 32-
`35; col. 14, ll. 37-38; col. 14, ll.
`40-41; col. 15, ll. 1-4; col. 15,
`ll. 6-7; col. 15, ll. 9-10; col. 15,
`ll. 41-44; col. 15, ll. 46-47; col.
`15, ll. 49-50; col. 16, ll. 14-17;
`col. 16, ll. 20-21; col. 16, l. 23;
`col. 16, ll. 52-55; col. 16, ll.
`58-59; col. 16, l. 61; col. 17, ll.
`26-29; col. 18, ll. 1-2; col. 18,
`l. 4; Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5G, 6-10 and
`13.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/734,177:
`Original Claims, December 12,
`2000; Office Action, July 5,
`2001.
`
`Prosecution History of Control
`
`Preliminary Construction:
`in direct contact
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`Claims 1, 6, 11.
`
`See, e.g., Figs 1, 5A-5G; 6,
`13.
`
`See, e.g., Col. 3, line 29 - col.
`5, line 2; col. 6, lines 1-8.
`
`10/22/07 Response to
`Reexamination Office Action
`at 20. (see above)
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/734,177.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Control No. 90/007,985:
`Request for Reexamination,
`March 24, 2006.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 10/125,394.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/361,218.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 11/199,125.
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
` 7
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`a first
`conductive
`film provided
`on said first
`interlayer
`insulating film
`
` a
`
` second
`interlayer
`insulating film
`provided on
`said first
`conductive
`film
`
`(claims 1, 6,
`11)
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 8
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 9 of 73 Page ID
` #:2041
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 12/257,521.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 12/257,514.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/046,685.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 10/453,684.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 12/480,716.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 11/199,135.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Expert Testimony
`
`No. 90/007,985: Request for
`Reexamination, March 24,
`2006; Office Action, July 10,
`2007.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 10/125,394:
`Office Action, December 1,
`2004; Office Action, December
`29, 2005; Office Action,
`September 25, 2006.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Semiconductor Energy
`Laboratory Company, LTD.’s
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims
`and Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions, April 21, 2005,
`Case No. C 04-04675 MHP,
`Northern District of California.
`
`Memorandum & Order Re:
`Motions for Summary
`Judgment, June 19, 2007, Case
`No. C 04-04675 MHP,
`Northern District of California.
`
`Request for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,404,480 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §
`42.100 et seq., filed October
`19, 2012 with the United States
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
` 8
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 9
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 10 of 73 Page ID
` #:2042
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`Patent and Trademark Office
`and assigned Trial Number
`2013-00028.
`
`Declaration of Miltiadis
`Hatalis, Ph.D., Exhibit 1007 to
`Request for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,404,480 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §
`42.100 et seq., filed October
`19, 2012 with the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office
`and assigned Trial Number
`2013-00028.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,219,124
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`No. 5-243,333
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`No. 6-289,415
`
`Expert Testimony
`Preliminary Construction:
`The phrase is unambiguous and
`therefore requires no
`construction.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Abstract; col. 1, ll. 11-15; col.
`3, l. 29 – col. 5, l. 2; col. 5, l.
`61 – col. 6, l. 29; col. 7, ll. 10-
`
`Preliminary Construction:
`A layer of a single conductive
`material.
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`See, e.g., Figs 1, 5A-5G; 6,
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
` 9
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`
`a first
`conductive
`film provided
`on said first
`interlayer
`insulating film
`
` a
`
` second
`conductive
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 10
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 11 of 73 Page ID
` #:2043
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`39; col. 8, ll. 19-21; col. 8, ll.
`26-32; col. 9, ll. 62-67; col. 10,
`ll. 1-14; col. 10, ll. 33-36; col.
`10, ll. 50 – col. 12, l. 9; col. 12,
`ll. 39-41; col. 12, ll. 59-60; col.
`12, l. 65 – col. 13, l. 10; col.
`14, ll. 32-50; col. 15, ll. 1-21;
`col. 15, ll. 41-59; col. 16, ll.
`14-33; col. 16, ll. 52-67; col.
`17, ll. 5-6; col. 17, ll. 26-29;
`col. 18, ll. 1-12; and Figs 1, 3,
`5E – 5G, and 6-10.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/734,177:
`Original Claims, December 12,
`2000.
`
`Prosecution History of Control
`No. 90/007,985: Response,
`September 10, 2007; Interview
`Summary, September 19, 2007;
`Supplemental Response,
`October 22, 2007; Notice of
`Intent to Issue, September 3,
`2008.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 11/199,125:
`Office Action, May 31, 2007.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Semiconductor Energy
`Laboratory Company, LTD.’s
`
`13.
`
`See, e.g., Col. 3, line 29 - col.
`5, line 2; col. 6, lines 1-33;
`col. 7, lines 10-16; col. 9, line
`60 -col. 10, line 7.
`
`9/13/07 Response to
`Reexamination Office Action
`at 9 "A second conductive
`film in Moriyama '333 is a
`laminated structure of two
`conductive films."
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/734,177.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Control No. 90/007,985:
`Request for Reexamination,
`March 24, 2006.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 10/125,394.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/361,218.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 11/199,125.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 12/257,521.
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`10
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`film provide
`on said second
`interlayer
`insulating film
`
` a
`
` third
`conductive
`film provide
`on said second
`substrate
`
`(claims 1, 6,
`11)
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 11
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 12 of 73 Page ID
` #:2044
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims
`and Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions, April 21, 2005,
`Case No. C 04-04675 MHP,
`Northern District of California.
`
`Semiconductor Energy
`Laboratory Company, LTD.’s
`Opposition to CMO’s Motion
`for Summary Judgment of
`Non-Infringement and
`Invalidity of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
`11, 12, 14 and 15 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,404,480, January
`9, 2007, Case No. C 04-04675
`MHP, Northern District of
`California.
`
`Memorandum & Order Re:
`Defendants’ Motions for
`Summary Judgment, April 19,
`2007, Case No. C 04-04675
`MHP, Northern District of
`California.
`
`Memorandum & Order Re:
`Motions for Summary
`Judgment, June 19, 2007, Case
`No. C 04-04675 MHP,
`Northern District of California.
`
`Request for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,404,480 Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 12/257,514.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/046,685.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 10/453,684.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 12/480,716.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 11/199,135.
`
`
`Extrinsic evidence:
`
`
`As shown in the figure, metal
`particle 16 contacts
`transparent conductive layer 4
`that is formed over metal
`layer 3. Metal layer 3
`contacts base metal layer 1.
`Dr. Kohl explained in his
`expert report in rebuttal to
`Mr. Schott’s report that
`“[m]etal layer 3 is not in
`contact with the metal
`particle 16. Only transparent
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`11
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 12
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 13 of 73 Page ID
` #:2045
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §
`42.100 et seq., filed October
`19, 2012 with the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office
`and assigned Trial Number
`2013-00028.
`
`Declaration of Miltiadis
`Hatalis, Ph.D., Exhibit 1007 to
`Request for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,404,480 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §
`42.100 et seq., filed October
`19, 2012 with the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office
`and assigned Trial Number
`2013-00028.
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`No. 5-243,333
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`No. 6-289,415
`
`Expert Testimony
`Preliminary Construction:
`Directly touching
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Col. 1, ll. 42-47; col. 1, ll. 54-
`56; col. 2, ll. 1-3; col. 2, ll. 7-9;
`col. 2, ll. 24-27; col. 3, ll. 43-
`44; col. 3, ll. 62-65; col. 4, ll.
`
`metal layer 4 is in contact
`with metal particle 16.” Kohl
`Decl., Ex. 1, Kohl Rebuttal
`Report, at 3. Layers 3 and 4
`of the ‘333 reference are
`distinct layers. Id. They are
`made of different materials,
`they are patterned to have
`different layouts, and they are
`sized differently. Id. Layer 3
`acts an intervening layer that
`prevents a direct connection
`between metal layer 1 and
`transparent conductive layer
`4. Id. Therefore, the ‘333
`reference does not disclose a
`second conductive layer that
`is both connected to a first
`conductive layer and in
`contact with a conductive
`particle. Id. SEL 1/9/07 MSJ
`Reply at 31:11-25.
`
`Expert Testimony
`
`
`Preliminary Construction:
`in direct contact
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`
`See, e.g., Figs 1, 5A-5G; 6,
`13.
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`12
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`
`wherein said
`first
`conductive
`film is
`connected
`with said
`second
`conductive
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 13
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 14 of 73 Page ID
` #:2046
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`19-20; col. 4, ll. 45-47; col. 6,
`ll. 17-18; col. 7, ll. 28-30; col.
`8, ll. 10-12; col. 8, ll. 23-25;
`col. 8, ll. 30-32; col. 10, ll. 10-
`12; col. 11, ll. 37-45; col. 14, ll.
`44-45; col. 15, ll. 14-15; col.
`15, ll. 54-55; col. 16, ll. 28-29;
`col. 16, ll. 66-67; col. 18, ll. 8-
`9; Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5G, 6-10, 12,
`13.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/734,177:
`Original Claims, December 12,
`2000.
`
`Prosecution History of Control
`No. 90/007,985: Response,
`September 10, 2007; Interview
`Summary, September 19, 2007;
`Supplemental Response,
`October 22, 2007.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 10/125,394:
`Office Action, December 29,
`2005; Response, June 29, 2006;
`Office Action, September 25,
`2006.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Semiconductor Energy
`Laboratory Company, LTD.’s
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims
`
`See, e.g., Col. 3, line 29 - col.
`5, line 2; col. 6, lines 1-33;
`col. 7, lines 10-16; col. 9, line
`60 -col. 10, line 7.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/734,177.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Control No. 90/007,985:
`Request for Reexamination,
`March 24, 2006.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 10/125,394.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/361,218.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 11/199,125.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 12/257,521.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 12/257,514.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/046,685.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 10/453,684.
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`13
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`film in said
`openings;
`
`(claims 1, 6,
`11)
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 14
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 15 of 73 Page ID
` #:2047
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`and Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions, April 21, 2005,
`Case No. C 04-04675 MHP,
`Northern District of California.
`
`Semiconductor Energy
`Laboratory Company, LTD.’s
`Opposition to CMO’s Motion
`for Summary Judgment of
`Non-Infringement and
`Invalidity of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
`11, 12, 14 and 15 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,404,480, January
`9, 2007, Case No. C 04-04675
`MHP, Northern District of
`California.
`
`Memorandum & Order Re:
`Defendants’ Motions for
`Summary Judgment, April 19,
`2007, Case No. C 04-04675
`MHP, Northern District of
`California.
`
`Memorandum & Order Re:
`Motions for Summary
`Judgment, June 19, 2007, Case
`No. C 04-04675 MHP,
`Northern District of California.
`
`Request for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,404,480 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 12/480,716.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 11/199,135.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Samsung Electronics Co.
`LTD. v. Matsushita
`Electronics, 06-00154 (E.D.
`Tex. Nov. 14, 2007).
`
`
`
`As shown in the figure, metal
`particle 16 contacts
`transparent conductive layer 4
`that is formed over metal
`layer 3. Metal layer 3
`contacts base metal layer 1.
`Dr. Kohl explained in his
`expert report in rebuttal to
`Mr. Schott’s report that
`“[m]etal layer 3 is not in
`contact with the metal
`particle 16. Only transparent
`metal layer 4 is in contact
`with metal particle 16.” Kohl
`Decl., Ex. 1, Kohl Rebuttal
`Report, at 3. Layers 3 and 4
`of the ‘333 reference are
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`14
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 15
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 16 of 73 Page ID
` #:2048
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`distinct layers. Id. They are
`made of different materials,
`they are patterned to have
`different layouts, and they are
`sized differently. Id. Layer 3
`acts an intervening layer that
`prevents a direct connection
`between metal layer 1 and
`transparent conductive layer
`4. Id. Therefore, the ‘333
`reference does not disclose a
`second conductive layer that
`is both connected to a first
`conductive layer and in
`contact with a conductive
`particle. Id. SEL 1/9/07 MSJ
`Reply at 31:11-25.
`
`Expert testimony
`
`Preliminary Construction:
`Indefinite
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Expert testimony
`
`42.100 et seq., filed October
`19, 2012 with the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office
`and assigned Trial Number
`2013-00028.
`
`Declaration of Miltiadis
`Hatalis, Ph.D., Exhibit 1007 to
`Request for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,404,480 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §
`42.100 et seq., filed October
`19, 2012 with the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office
`and assigned Trial Number
`2013-00028.
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`No. 5-243,333
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`No. 6-289,415
`
`Expert Testimony
`Preliminary Construction:
`The phrase is unambiguous and
`therefore requires no
`construction.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Abstract; col. 3, ll. 36-44; col.
`3, ll. 56-67; col. 4, ll. 11-20;
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`15
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`
`openings
`
`(Claims 1, 6,
`11)
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 16
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 17 of 73 Page ID
` #:2049
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`col. 4, ll. 36-50; col. 4, l. 59 –
`col. 5, l. 1; col. 5, l. 66 – col. 6,
`l. 8; col. 6, ll.13-18; col. 6, ll.
`34-39; col. 6, ll. 51-52; col. 7,
`ll. 2-3; col. 7, ll. 12-16; col. 10,
`ll. 27-36; col. 13, ll. 47-49; col.
`14, ll. 35-38; col. 14, ll. 44-45;
`col. 15, ll. 4-7; col. 15, ll. 14-
`15; col. 15, ll. 44-47; col. 15, ll.
`54-55; col. 15, ll. 60-61; and
`Figs. 1, 2A, 5F-G, 6-11 and 13.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/734,177:
`Original Claims, December 12,
`2000.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 10/125,394:
`Original Claims of April 19,
`2002; Preliminary Amendment,
`March 3, 2003; Office Action,
`August 13, 2003; Office
`Action, December 1, 2004;
`Office Action, September 25,
`2006.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Semiconductor Energy
`Laboratory Company, LTD.’s
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims
`and Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions, April 21, 2005,
`Case No. C 04-04675 MHP,
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`16
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 17
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 18 of 73 Page ID
` #:2050
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`Northern District of California.
`
`Memorandum & Order Re:
`Motions for Summary
`Judgment, June 19, 2007, Case
`No. C 04-04675 MHP,
`Northern District of California.
`
`Request for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,404,480 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §
`42.100 et seq., filed October
`19, 2012 with the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office
`and assigned Trial Number
`2013-00028.
`
`Declaration of Miltiadis
`Hatalis, Ph.D., Exhibit 1007 to
`Request for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,404,480 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §
`42.100 et seq., filed October
`19, 2012 with the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office
`and assigned Trial Number
`2013-00028.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,219,124
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`No. 5-243,333
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`17
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 18
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 19 of 73 Page ID
` #:2051
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`Preliminary Construction:
`Indefinite
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`Expert testimony
`
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`No. 6-289,415
`
`Expert Testimony
`Preliminary Construction:
`The phrase is unambiguous and
`therefore requires no
`construction.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence:
`Col. 6, ll. 34-39; col. 7, ll. 44-
`50; col. 10, ll. 24-33; col. 10,
`ll. 36-41; col. 14, 60-62; and
`Figs. 1, 2A, 9, and 10.
`
`Prosecution History of
`Application No. 09/734,177:
`Original Claims, December 12,
`2000.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Semiconductor Energy
`Laboratory Company, LTD.’s
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims
`and Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions, April 21, 2005,
`Case No. C 04-04675 MHP,
`Northern District of California.
`
`Memorandum & Order Re:
`Motions for Summary
`Judgment, June 19, 2007, Case
`No. C 04-04675 MHP,
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`18
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`
`occupies an
`area
`
`(claim 11)
`
`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
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 19
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 20 of 73 Page ID
` #:2052
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support1
`
`Northern District of California.
`
`Request for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,404,480 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §
`42.100 et seq., filed October
`19, 2012 and assigned Trial
`Number 2013-00028.
`
`Declaration of Miltiadis
`Hatalis, Ph.D., Exhibit 1007 to
`Request for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No.
`6,404,480 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §
`42.100 et seq., filed October
`19, 2012 and assigned Trial
`Number 2013-00028.
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`No. 5-243,333
`
`Japanese Patent Publication
`No. 6-289,415
`
`Expert Testimony
`
`‘480 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in
`Bold)
`
`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
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`19
`
`
`Exhibit 1015, page 20
`
`

`
`Case 8:12-cv-00021-JST-JPR Document 101 Filed 11/12/12 Page 21 of 73 Page ID
` #:2053
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,697,102
`
`‘102 Patent
`Claim
`Language
`(Disputed
`Terms in Bold)
`an extractor
`terminal
`including a
`common
`terminal and a
`contact hole
`formed over
`the substrate
`
`(Claims 15, 27,
`39)
`
`SEL’s Proposed Construction
`and Evidence
`in Support
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction and Evidence in
`Support
`
`Preliminary Construction:
`Indefinite; lack of enablement
`
`Extrinsic evidence:
`Expert testimony
`
`Preliminary Construction:
`The phrase is unambiguous
`and therefore requires no
`construction.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence