Case 2:14-CV-00199-RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 36 Page|D #2 4847
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT,
`INC.,
`
`V"
`
`TAIWAIN SEMICONDUCTOR
`
`MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
`Lll\/IITED, et al.
`
`0O'3Q0300’3C0'3@'3C0'DOO'>f0J
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14—CV—199—RSP
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`DSS Technology Management,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“DSS”) asserts U.S. Patent No. 5,652,084
`
`(hereinafter
`
`the “‘084 patent”)1 against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company,
`
`Limited, TSMC North America, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America L.L.C., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung
`
`Austin Semiconductor LLC, and NEC Corporation of America (collectively, ‘fDefendants”). On
`
`March 3, 2015, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the disputed
`
`claim terms in the ‘084 patent. After considering the arguments made by the parties at the
`
`hearing and in the parties’ claim construction briefing and charts (Dkt. No. Nos. H6, 126, 130,
`
`and 131), the Court issues this Claim Construction Memorandum and Order.
`
`1 References to the ‘084 patent will be made in the format, “Col:Line”
`
`TSMC v. DSS
`IPRZO14-01030 / TSMC—1016
`
`Page 1 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv—O0l99—RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 36 Page|D #: 4848
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The ‘O84 patent is entitled “METHOD FOR REDUCED PITCH LITHOGRAPHY” and
`
`is based upon an application filed October 22, 1996 and claims priority to an application filed
`
`December 22, 1994. Claims 1-7 and 10 are asserted in the litigation. Each disputed claim term is
`
`recited in the first instance in independent claim 1. Defendants assert that one disputed term is
`
`indefinite under 35 USC § 112, 1] 2. The ‘084 patent is the subject of two petitions for inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”): one filed by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, LTD
`
`(“TSMC”) and one filed by the Samsung Electronics Co. Both IPR petitions have been granted
`
`and a consolidated review is proceeding.
`
`The ‘084 patent generally relates to the field of lithography processing for semiconductor
`
`fabrication. 119-12. The disclosed lithographic patterning process uses multiple exposures to
`
`provide a reduced pitch for features of a single pattern layer. Abstract. More particularly, a first
`
`imaging layer is exposed to radiation in accordance with a first pattern and developed. A second
`
`imaging layer is subsequently formed to surround the first patterned layer, exposed to radiation
`
`in accordance with a second pattern, and developed to form a second patterned layer. Id. The
`
`first patterned layer remains with the second patterned layer to produce a single patterned layer.
`
`Id. The techniques provide a reduced pitch for features, denser semiconductor devices, and
`
`smaller—sized semiconductor devices. 1:39-45.
`
`1.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.”’ Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`IPRZO14-01030 /TSMC-1016
`
`Page 2 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-O0199—RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 36 Page|D #: 4849
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start
`
`by considering the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1313; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. US. Surgical Corp, 388
`
`F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad C0mmc’ns Group, Inc.,
`
`262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388
`
`F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm ’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the
`
`claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314-15.
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Id.
`
`(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
`
`“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
`
`dispositiveg it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”’ Id. (quoting Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`Corp, 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own
`
`lPR2014—01030 / TSMC-1016
`
`Page 3 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:l4—cv-00199—RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 36 Page|D #: 4850
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim
`
`or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations,
`
`the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms “where the
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to
`
`permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at
`
`1325. But, “‘[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of
`
`disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification
`959
`Will not generally be read into the claims. Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp, 156 F.3d
`
`1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced l\Jicro—Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560,
`
`1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F .3d at 1323. The prosecution history is another
`
`tool to supply the proper context for claim construction because a patent applicant may also
`
`define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F .3d 1352,
`
`1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the specification, a patent applicant may define a term
`
`in prosecuting a patent”).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is ‘“less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language?” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
`
`understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
`
`claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or
`
`may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
`
`testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
`
`particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`lPR2014-01030/TSMC-1016
`
`Page 4 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv—OO199-RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 5 of 36 PagelD #: 4851
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`2.
`
`Claim Indefiniteness
`
`Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subj ect matter regarded
`
`as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1] 2. Whether a claim meets this definiteness requirement is a
`
`matter of law. Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A party challenging
`
`the definiteness of a claim must show it is invalid by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 1345.
`
`“A determination of claim indefiniteness is a legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s
`
`performance of its duty as the construer of patent claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software,
`
`Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted),
`
`abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014).
`
`The definiteness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 112 1l2 requires that:
`
`a patent’s claims, Viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history,
`inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable
`certainty. The definiteness requirement, so understood, mandates clarity, while
`recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable. The standard we adopt accords
`with opinions of this Court stating that “the certainty which the law requires in
`patents is not greater than is reasonable, having regard to their subj ect—matter.
`
`Nautilus, Inc., 134 S. Ct. at 2l29~30 (intemal citations omitted).
`
`AGREED TERMS
`
`The parties have agreed to the following terms. (Dkt. No. 131-1 at 1-3.)
`
`“first imaging layer”
`
`reed Construction
`“a first layer of photoresist or other radiation-
`sensitive materia ”
`
`sensitive material”
`
`“second imaging layer”
`
`“a second layer of photoresist or other radiation-
`
`|PR2014-01030 / TSMC-1016
`
`Page 5 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv—O0199—RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 6 of 36 Page|D #: 4852
`
`At the oral hearing, the parties also agreed to follow construction as proposed by the Court.
`
`Hearing Tr. at 7-8.
`
`“patterning the [first/second]
`imaging layer”
`
`
`
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`“exposing an imaging layer to radiation in
`accordance with a specific pattern and developing the
`imaging layer so that portions of the imaging layer
`laying outside of the pattern are dissolved in the
`
`developer, thereby forming patterned portions and
`
`spaces of the imaging layer”
`
`
`
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`1. The Layer Disputes
`
`“patterning the [first/second] imaging layer”2
`
`DSS’s Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`“exposing an imaging layer to radiation in
`“patterning” refers to a two-stage process: (1)
`accordance with a specific geometric pattern
`an imaging layer is exposed to radiation in
`and developing the imaging layer so that
`accordance With a specific pattern, and (2) the
`portions of the imaging layer laying outside of
`imaging layer is developed so that portions of
`the geometric pattern are dissolved in
`the imaging layer laying outside of the pattern
`the developer”
`are dissolved in the developer, thereby forming
`
`a patterned layer”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`
`
`
`“first patterned layer having a first feature” / “second patterned layer having a second
`feature”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`DSS’s Construction
`“the portions of the [first/second] imaging
`“a layer containing the pattern defined by the
`layer that remain after the first
`portion of the first imaging layer that
`remains intact after the patterning step having a patterning step”
`first feature”
`
`I
`
`“a layer containing the pattern defined by the
`portion of the second imaging layer that
`
`Alternatively, Defendants propose the
`following modified construction:
`
`2 Though the parties have agreed to the “patterning the [first/second] imaging layer” terms, the
`Court provides the constructions proposed by the parties to provide further context to the
`disputes regarding the layer terms. In addition, much of the arguments for “patterning the
`[first/second] imaging layer,” “first patterned layer having a first feature,” and “second patterned
`layer having a second feature” overlap.
`
`|PR2014—0103O / TSMC-1016
`
`Page 6 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14—cv-OO199—RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 7 of 36 Page|D #: 4853
`
`remains intact after the second patterning step
`having a second feature”
`
`“the portions of the [first/second] imaging
`layer that remain after the [first/second]
`patterning step including the spaces
`therebetween”
`
`A number of disputes raised by the parties with regard to these terms have been resolved
`
`by the parties either in the briefing or at the oral hearing. DSS originally asserted that Defendants
`
`sought to limit “layers” to just the portions of a layer that remain after patterning as opposed to a
`
`construction where the layer can include the material that remains after the patterning and the
`
`spaces between the material. Defendants clarified in their briefing that features can include both
`
`the material remaining and the spaces between the material. (Dkt. No. 126 at 5.) At the oral
`
`hearing, the parties also resolved the dispute regarding DSS’s inclusion of “geometric” by
`
`agreeing not to include such language. Hearing Tr. at 8-10, 31.
`
`With regard to the “patterning the [first/second] imaging layer,” the primary remaining
`
`dispute presented in the briefing related to Defendants’ inclusion of “thereby forming a patterned
`
`layer.” Defendants asserted that this language addressed the real issue between the parties.
`
`Defendants asserted that the dispute related to whether the result of the patterning step is the
`
`patterned layer. (Dkt. No. 126 at 6-7.) That is, whether the first patterned layer is a portion of the
`
`imaging layer that was patterned, or whether the patterned layer can be a sub—layer below the
`
`imaging layer that was subsequently etched and now is patterned with the pattern that was in the
`
`imaging layer. (Id.) As to “patteming the [first/second] imaging layer,” the construction agreed
`
`to by the parties at the oral hearing was proposed by the Court. Hearing Tr. at 7-8. This
`
`construction specifically included a conclusion that substantively matched Defendants’ proposal
`
`by including “thereby forming patterned portions and spaces of the imaging layer.” Id.
`
`At the oral hearing, the Court also proposed a construction for “first patterned layer
`
`having a first feature” and “second patterned layer having a second feature.” The dispute
`
`IPRZO14-01030 / TSMC-1016
`
`Page 7 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv—OO199-RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 8 of 36 Page|D #: 4854
`
`regarding these terms raised the same issue: whether the result of the patterning step is the
`
`patterned layer, and,
`
`thus is the first patterned layer a portion of the imaging layer that was
`
`patterned, or whether the “patterned layer” can include a sub—layer below the imaging layer that
`
`was subsequently etched and now is patterned with the pattern that was in the imaging layer.
`
`(Dkt. No. 126 at 6—7; Dkt. No. 130 at 1-3.) In particular, the Court proposed: “a layer containing
`
`the portions and spaces of the [first/second] imaging layer that remain after the [first/second]
`
`pattern step.” Hearing Tr. at 8.
`
`Again, the Court’s proposal adopted the substance of Defendants’ proposal.3 At the oral
`
`hearing, DSS accepted the Court’s proposal with a caveat that the “layer” did not have to include
`
`tli_e portions (or spaces) o_f the corresponding imaging layer. Hearing Tr. at 8-9. As discussed
`
`below, the Court adopts the construction it proposed at the oral hearing and specifically rejects
`
`DSS’s caveat. Further, to the extent DSS intends to interpret the construction of “patterning the
`
`[first/second] imaging layer” to similarly allow for DSS’s caveat, the'Court rejects such an
`
`interpretation as well.
`
`The construction for “patteming the [first/second] imaging layer” explicitly includes
`
`“exposing an imaging layer .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`, thereby forming patterned portions and spaces of the imaging
`
`layer.” The terms being construed must be read together in the context of the entire step (b) (or
`
`step (e)) (Emphasis added). For example, step (b) recites: “patterning the first imaging layer in
`
`accordance with a first pattern to form a first patterned layer having a first feature.” (Emphasis
`
`added). The constructions adopted by the Court for the sub—parts of these phrases as a whole
`
`indicate that the “patterning” step forms “patterned portions and spaces of the imaging layer.”
`
`Further, the patterned layer that results from the claimed “to form” phrase is a layer that contains
`
`3 Defendants agreed to the Court’s proposal at the oral hearing. Hearing Tr. at 10.
`
`|PR2014—0103O / TSMC-1016
`
`Page 8 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00199-RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 9 of 36 Page|D #: 4855
`
`“t:l1_e portions and spaces o_f the [first/second]
`
`imaging layer.” Thus,
`
`the patterning forms
`
`“patterned portions and spaces of the imaging layer” and the “patterned layer” contains these
`
`same portions: “a layer containing the portions and spaces of the [first/second] imaging layer that
`
`remain after the [first/second] patterning step.”
`
`Positions of the Parties
`
`DSS argues the claims merely require the layers to “have a feature” and, thus, the use of
`
`the word “having” allows each layer to include more than just a feature. (Dkt. No. 116 at 3.) DSS
`
`argues that the claim language does not restrict the location of the “patterned layer” to What
`
`remains of the “imaging layer.” DSS asserts that the claims do not recite a “pattemed image
`
`layer.” (Dkt. No. 130 at 2.) DSS asserts that the use of an “image layer” and a separate
`
`“patterned layer” in the claims strongly suggests that the two layers can be different. (Dkt. No.
`
`130 at 2.) DSS asserts that the claims thus cover both scenarios: Where the image layer and
`
`pattern layer are the same layer and when those layers are different layers. (Id.) DSS asserts that
`
`the claims only require patterning an image layer “to form” a patterned layer and, thus, this
`
`strongly implies that the image layer and the patterned layer do not have to be the same layer.
`
`At the oral hearing, DSS asserted that the specification passages at 1:23~25 and 5:62-63
`support its position that the patterned layer does not have to be the image layer after patterning.
`
`Hearing Tr. at 30. DSS also asserts that dependent claims 4 and 5 recite specific examples of
`
`patterning (e.g., exposing and developing) thus indicating that claim 1
`
`is broader and not
`
`restricted to exposing and developing an image layer to form a patterned image layer. (Dkt. No.
`
`130 at 3.) Defendants further assert that their construction of the first term ends with “thereby
`
`forming a patterned layer” because the surrounding claim language makes clear that the image
`
`patterning process forms the patterned layer. (Dkt. No. 126 at 6-7.)
`
`|PR2014-01030 I TSMC-1016
`
`Page 9 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-CV-OO199—RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 10 of 36 Page|D #2 4856
`
`In particular, Defendants assert
`
`that
`
`the claim language states “patterning the
`
`[first/second] imaging layer in accordance With a [first/second] pattern to form a [first/second]
`
`patterned layer having a [first/second] feature.” Defendants thus assert that the filll claim
`
`language makes clear that it is the patterning of the imaging layer that forms the patterned layer.
`
`Defendants
`
`assert
`
`that DSS’s
`
`constructions of “[f1rst/second” patterned layers”
`
`and
`
`“[first/second] patterned layer having a [first/second] feature” would encompass the layers that
`
`are formed under the respective imaging layers by subsequent steps, such as etching steps. (Dkt.
`
`No. 126 at 6-7.)
`
`Defendants assert that the claims are directed toward forming patterns in the imaging
`
`layers, not the subsequent processing steps. Defendants also assert that the ‘084 patent is directed
`
`toward a lithography method for forming patterns and there is no reason to include non-
`
`lithographic processes in forming the claimed patterned layer. Thus, Defendants assert the
`
`formed “pattern layer” is the patterned imaging layer. (Dkt. No. l26 at 6.) Defendants assert that
`
`the overall claim language is “patterning” the image layers to “form” the patterned layers, and
`
`thus, the first and second patterned layers are the patterned imaging layers, not the underlying
`
`layers. (Dkt. No. 126 at 6-7.)
`
`Defendants also assert that the specification makes clear that the patterned layers are a
`
`portion of the imaging layers that remain after the patterning steps. Defendants assert that the
`
`specification consistently states that “patterning” (e.g., exposing and developing) the image
`
`layers results in the patterned layers. See 3:65—4:6 (imaging layer is “developed in a suitable
`
`developer to form a first patterned layer 232”), 429-24, 6:64-7:12, Figures 2-5. Defendants
`
`assert that the specification never describes the underlying layers as the patterned layer.
`
`IPR2014—0103O / TSMC-1016
`
`Page 10 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00199-RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 11 of 36 PagelD #: 4857
`
`Defendants object to DSS’s construction as defining the patterned layer not as the
`
`portions of the imaging layer, but instead as other layers “defined” by the remaining portions of
`
`the imaging layer. Defendants assert that the specification distinguishes between What “defines”
`
`a layer (i.e., a mask) and the element that contains the pattern (i.e., the patterned imaging layer).
`
`(Dkt. No. 126 at 9.) Defendants fL11'lZhC1' assert that DSS’s construction effectively reads out the
`
`embodiments of Figures 2 through 5 in which the patterned layers are the remaining portions of
`
`the respective imaging layer. (Dkt. No. 126 at 9.)
`
`Analysis
`
`The Court’s analysis begins with the claims themselves. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. The
`
`language of the entirety of the claim phrases in question supports Defendants’ construction. For
`
`example, claim 1 step (b) recites “patterning the first imaging layer .
`
`.
`
`. to form a first patterned
`
`layer.” Step (e) has similar language with regard to the second imaging layer. Thus, the claim
`
`language indicates that the “patterning” of the imaging layer itself “forms the patterned layer.”
`
`DSS’s positions are in conflict with the natural reading of the claims. DSS seeks to have the
`
`“patterned” layer be a layer “containing the pattern defined by” a portion of the first imaging
`
`layer. However, such a construction is in conflict with the claim language that states that the
`
`patterning of the imaging layer actually forms the patterned layer. Furthermore, the specification
`
`also makes clear that the patterning of the image layer forms the patterned layer.
`
`Every example in the specification teaches that the pattern of the imaging layer is what
`
`forms the patterned layer, not some undescribed subsequent etching steps. For example, with
`
`regard to Figure 3, a “portion of image layer 220 .
`
`.
`
`. remains to form first patterned layer 232.”
`
`439-12. Similarly,
`
`in another embodiment
`
`for Figure 3, a “portion of imaging layer
`
`220 .
`
`.
`
`. remains to form first patterned layer 232.” 4:24-27. Likewise in Figures 4 and 5,
`
`IPR2014-01030 / TSMC—1016
`
`Page 11 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-CV-OOl99—RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 12 Of 36 PagelD #2 4858
`
`“imaging layer 240 may then be developed. .
`
`. to form a second patterned layer that includes
`
`features 251
`
`and 253” and “that portion of imaging layer 240 that has not been
`
`exposed. .
`
`. remains to form features 251 and 253 for the second patterned layer.” 6:51-59.
`
`Thus, the specification describes the “pattemed layer” created by the patterning step as the
`
`portions of the image layer that remain after patterning.
`
`As to the underlying layers in the specification examples, the specification states that
`
`such layers “are not necessary to practice” the disclosed method. 3:11-19. Furthermore, though
`
`not shown in the embodiments, subsequent etching of the underlying layer is described as being
`
`separate and distinct from the patterning step: “the single patterned layer illustrated in FIGS. 5,
`
`11, and 16, becomes replicated in the underlying layers.” 12:50-53.4 With regard to DSS’s claim
`
`differentiation argument regarding “patteming” as it applies to dependent claims 4 and 5, such
`
`argument fails for several reasons. First, both parties proposed and agreed to constructions that
`
`indicated that “patterning” related to exposing and developing an image layer. Second, claims 4
`
`and 5 add the particular limitation that the “exposed portion dissolves.” Thus, these dependent
`
`claims add limitations directed toward a positive photoresist system. These claims do not
`
`indicate that “patterning” of the imaging layers “to form” the patterned layers encompasses
`
`subsequent etch steps.
`
`Defendants’ positions conform to the natural reading of the claims. Furthermore, when
`
`looking to the specification to provide context to the claim language, the specification also
`
`4 When asked at the oral hearing to provide examples in the disclosed embodiments that matched
`DSS’s construction, DSS could not cite an embodiment. Rather, DSS cited to one portion of the
`background of the invention as a counter to the totality of the remainder of the disclosure.
`Hearing Tr. at 30. However, even that portion describes the “pattern” as being in the photoresist:
`“the pattern in the photoresist is thus replicated in the underlying layer.” 1:23-28. DSS also cited
`to a portion of the disclosure at 5:62-62. Hearing Tr. at 30. However, that portion of the
`specification relates to the second imaging layer in relation to the pattern formed iii the first
`imaging layer, not the second imaging layer and the second patterned layer. 5:56-5:65.
`
`|PR2014-01030 / TSMC-1016
`
`Page 12 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-CV—OO199-RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 13 Of 36 Page|D #1 4859
`
`supports Defendants’ positions. Finally,
`
`the Court notes Defendants’ arguments are not
`
`inconsistent with DSS’s argument that the imaging layer and the patterned layer are two terms in
`
`the claim, and, thus must be different layers. As shown for example with regard to Figure 2, the
`
`imaging layer 220 (before patterning) is a different layer than the patterned layer 232. Though
`
`both layers may be formed of the photoresist, one layer is not patterned and one layer is
`
`patterned. Thus, the differences provide context for reciting different terminology in the claims.
`
`The same can be said with regard to the second imaging layer and second patterned layer of
`
`Figures 4 and 5.
`
`The Court adopts as its construction, “a layer containing the portions and spaces of the
`
`[first/second] imaging layer that remain after the [first/second] patterning step.” At the oral
`
`hearing, Defendants’ expressed agreement to the construction adopted by the Court herein.
`
`Hearing Tr. at 10. The Court further rejects DSS’s interpretation of the Court’s construction it
`
`proposed at the oral hearing. The Court’s construction explicitly states that the layer contains
`
`“th_e portions and spaces o_f the [first/second] imaging layer that remain. .
`
`. .” (Emphasis added).
`
`DSS’s interpretation is not consistent with the requirements of the Court’s construction.
`
`Accordingly, the Court construes
`
`“first patterned layer having a first feature” / “second patterned layer having a
`
`second feature” to mean “a layer containing the portions and spaces of the [first/second]
`
`imaging layer that remain after the [first/second] patterning step.”
`
`2. Patterns
`
`“first pattern”
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`
`“a pattern in accordance with which the first
`imaging layer is selectively irradiated”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I
`DSS’s Construction
`“a first geometric pattern according with which
`
`the first imaging layer is selectively irradiated”
`
`
`IPRZO14-01030 / TSMC-1016
`
`Page 13 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00199-RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 14 of 36 Page|D #: 4860
`
`“second pattern”
`
`DSS’s Construction
`
`
`
`Defendant’s Construction
`
`
`
`“a pattern in accordance with which the second
`imaging layer is selectively irradiated”
`
`
`
`
`
`“a second geometric pattern— separate from
`the first pattern———in accordance with which,
`the second imaging layer is selectively
`irradiated”
`
`At the oral hearing, DSS agreed to remove “geometric” from its construction. Hearing Tr.
`
`at 31. The only issue remaining between the parties is whether the first pattern and the second
`
`pattern have to be different as, for example, DSS interprets its “separate from the first pattern”
`
`language to require the two patterns to be different.
`
`Positions of the Parties
`
`DSS asserts that by reciting “first” and “second” patterns,
`
`the claims raise a clear
`
`implication that the patterns are different from one another. DSS asserts that the specification
`
`teaches that the first and second patterns are not the same. DSS points to Figure 2 (opaque
`
`feature 222 and clear features 221 and 223) in contrast to Figure 4 (opaque features 242 and 244
`
`and clear features 241, 243, and 245). Thus, DSS asserts the claims and specification show that
`
`the two patterns must have “different” shapes.” (Dkt. No. 116 at 12.) DSS also asserts that the
`
`geometry of each “feature” is determined by the patterns and, thus, the patterns must also be
`
`distinct because, as the claim later recites, that the second pattern layer has “a second feature
`
`distinct from the first feature.” (Id)
`
`Defendants assert that the specification repeatedly states that the first and second imaging
`
`layers may be exposed using “any suitable pattern of opaque and clear features that may depend,
`
`for example, on the desired pattern to be formed in [the] imaging layer.” 3:59-62, 6:23~25,
`
`8:11-14, 8:65—9:1, 10:61-64, and 1l:49~52. Defendants assert that while different shapes would
`
`be allowed, there is no support in the specification requiring the use of different shapes.
`
`IPR2014-01030 / TSMC-1016
`
`Page 14 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14—CV—OOl99-RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 15 of 36 PagelD #: 4861
`
`Defendants assert that in semiconductor lithography, the transferred pattern depends upon
`
`the arrangement of the features in the mask and the orientation of the mask in relation to the
`
`imaging layer. Defendants assert that two masking steps involving the same pattern, but shifted
`
`with respect to each other, could render two sets of patterns on a wafer. (Dkt. No. 126 at 13.)
`
`Defendants assert that just because the “first” and “second” patterns are listed does not
`
`mean that the patterns have to be shaped differently, but rather it merely is a use of common
`
`patent convention for identifying the “first” and “second” elements in a claim. (Dkt. No. 126 at
`
`13-14.) Defendants assert that they do not contest that the first and second patterns are separate
`
`elements; just that the two patterns do not have to be different. (Dkt. No. 126 at 14.) Defendants
`
`assert that is Well recognized in patent law convention that “first” and “second” can mean
`
`repeated instances of an element. (Dkt. No. 126 at 14) (citing Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex,
`
`Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Defendants assert that the claim language
`
`merely associates the first pattern with the first imaging layer and the second pattern with the
`
`second imaging layer. Defendants also assert that “first” and “second” are also used with regard
`
`to the imaging layers and there is no dispute that the two imaging layers can be two similar
`
`layers of the same type of photoresist.
`
`Defendants assert that in the related U.S. Application 08/740,0l4—sharing a common
`
`specification with the ‘O84 patent—-DSS attempted to explicitly require the first and second
`
`patterns be different:
`
`12. A lithography method for semiconductor fabrication using a semiconductor
`Wafer, comprising the steps of: ...(d) patterning the imaging layer in accordance
`with a second pattern to form a patterned layer, said second pattern being
`difierenz than said Zzrst pattern, wherein the patterned layer has adjacent feature
`which are formed relatively closer to one another than is possible through a single
`exposure to radiation.
`
`|PR2014-01030 / TSMC-1016
`
`Page 15 of 36
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv—0O199-RSP Document 168 Filed 04/09/15 Page 16 of 36 PagelD #: 4862
`
`(Dkt. No. 126 EX. F ‘014 File History, at 36) (italics emphasis added). Defendants assert that the
`
`examiner rejected DSS’s amendment under 35 USC § 112 because the specification did not
`
`support a first pattern different from the second pattern. (Id. at 39.) Defendants assert that Court
`
`should not now rewrite the claim to import a limitation that the Patent Office found was not
`
`disclosed in the specification. (Dkt. No. 126 at 15.) Defendants also assert that the PTAB has
`
`also rejected DSS’s proposal, explicitly finding that the first and second patterns did not have to
`
`be a different geometry:
`
`The geometry of the second pattern, however, is not necessarily different from the
`first pattern. See, e.g., Figs. 7-11, 13~l6. The Specification provides, and Patent
`Owner acknowledges, that: “The second mask may include any suitable pattern of
`opaque and clear features that ma