Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 46 PageID# 19587
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-757-REP
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`-v.-
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, VELOCITY
`MICRO, INC. D/B/A VELOCITY MICRO,
`AND VELOCITY HOLDINGS, LLC,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANTS’ [CORRECTED] OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 46
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 200(cid:21)
`NVIDIA v. SAMSUNG
`Trial IPR2015-01316
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 46 PageID# 19588
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS..................................................................1
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES .........................................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`’675 Patent – U-Shaped Metal Gate Patent .............................................................2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`’675 Patent: “depositing a second metal gate electrode layer onto
`inner sidewalls of the spacers and onto an upper surface of the
`patterned first metal gate electrode layer” (all asserted claims) ..................3
`
`’675 Patent: “depositing a third metal gate electrode layer onto the
`second metal gate electrode layer” (all asserted claims) .............................5
`
`’675 Patent: “a gate insulating layer” (all asserted claims) .........................7
`
`B.
`
`’902 Patent – Etch Inhibiting Layer Patent ..............................................................8
`
`1.
`
`’902 Patent: “insulating spacer along a sidewall of the [second]
`patterned conductive layer” (all asserted claims) ........................................9
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Defendants’ construction properly reflects Samsung’s
`disclaimers. .......................................................................................9
`
`Samsung’s construction improperly rewrites claim
`language. ........................................................................................10
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`’902 Patent: “an insulating layer” (all asserted claims) .............................11
`
`’902 Patent: “forming a trench in said substrate, and wherein said
`field isolation layer fills said trench” (claim 6) .........................................12
`
`C.
`
`’158 Patent – Cache Controller Patent ...................................................................13
`
`1.
`
`’158 Patent: “request ID [value]” (all asserted claims) .............................14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The cache controller, not the requesting device, provides
`the request ID value. ......................................................................14
`
`Samsung’s construction improperly imports a limitation
`from the specification into the claims. ...........................................16
`
`D.
`
`’602 Patent – Dual-Use Buffer Patent ...................................................................16
`
`1.
`
`’602 Patent: “controlling propagation delay time” (claims 26-29) ............17
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 3 of 46 PageID# 19589
`
`2.
`
`’602 Patent: “reference voltage” (all asserted claims) ...............................19
`
`E.
`
`’938 Patent – Posted CAS Latency Patent .............................................................20
`
`1.
`
`’938 Patent: “determin[ed/ing]” (all asserted claims) ................................21
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The preambles of the asserted claims are limiting. ........................21
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic evidence support Defendants’
`construction. ...................................................................................24
`
`2.
`
`’938 Patent: “shift register for delaying” (claim 17) .................................25
`
`F.
`
`’724 Patent – External Display Patent ...................................................................26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`’724 Patent: “sending parallel digital video data” (all asserted
`claims) ........................................................................................................27
`
`’724 Patent: “means for generating . . . thereby informing . . .” (all
`asserted claims) ..........................................................................................30
`
`G.
`
`’854 Patent – Flexible Contacts Patent ..................................................................33
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`’854 Patent: “contacts” (all asserted claims) .............................................33
`
`’854 Patent: “sufficient flexibility” (claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 15) .........................34
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................35
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 4 of 46 PageID# 19590
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................... 27
`
`C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos,
`702 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................... 17
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................... 31
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................. 22
`
`Datamize, LLC. v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................... 35
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................... 1, 16
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc.,
`222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................. 10
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Acer Am. Corp.,
`No. CIV A 6:07CV125, 2009 WL 68896 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2009) ....................................... 26
`
`Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`732 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................... 32
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................... 35
`
`JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................... 32
`
`MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................... 32
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................... 31
`
`Nuance Commun., Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, Inc.,
`No. C 08-02912, 2011 WL 3816908 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2011) .............. 24
`
`Philips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 2
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 5 of 46 PageID# 19591
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................... 21
`
`Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P.,
`323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................................... 3, 4
`
`Terlep v. Brinkmann Corp.,
`418 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................... 18
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 1
`
`TomTom, Inc. v. AOT Sys., GmbH,
`17 F. Supp. 3d 545 (E.D. Va. 2014) ......................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ..........................................................................................................................31
`
`Statutes
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 6 of 46 Page|D# 19592
`
`ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 15. 16 (10 claims)
`
`Page 6 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 7 of 46 PageID# 19593
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`A1 ’675 FH, Feb. 28, 2012 Applicant Remarks
`
`B1 ’902 FH, 12/5/2000 Office Action
`
`B2 ’902 FH, 3/5/
`
`2001 Amendment
`
`B3 ’902 FH, 5/2/2001 Reasons for Allowance
`
`B4 U.S. Patent No. 5,365,111
`
`B5 U.S. Patent No. 5,436,188
`
`B6 (a) Collins Concise English Dictionary (3d ed. 1993)
`(b) American Heritage College Dictionary (3d ed. 1993)
`
`B7 American Heritage College Dictionary (3d ed. 1993)
`
`B8 (a) Collins English Dictionary (3d ed. 1994)
`(b) Collins Concise English Dictionary (3d ed. 1993)
`
`B9 Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1999)
`
`B10 Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2d ed. 1993)
`
`C1 ’158 FH, 6/2/1998 Applicant Remarks
`
`D1 IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (7th ed. 2000)
`
`D2 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (6th ed. 2002)
`
`D3 Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary (2004)
`
`D4 Brendan Whelen, “How to Choose a Voltage Reference,” Linear Tech. Magazine (2009)
`
`D5 U.S. Patent No. 6,414,517
`
`D6 U.S. Patent No. 6,512,704
`
`D7 U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. 2003/0090294
`
`E1 ’938 FH, 1/16/2001 Response to Office Action
`
`E2 American Heritage Dictionary (3d ed. 1992)
`
`E3 Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed. 1999)
`
`E4 Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1995)
`
`E5 Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1995)
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 8 of 46 PageID# 19594
`
`E6 IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (7th ed. 2000)
`
`E7 Sajjan G. Shiva, Introduction to Logic Design (2d ed. 1998)
`
`E8 Microsoft
`
` Press Computer Dictionary (3d ed. 1997)
`
`F1 The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (6th ed.)
`
`F2 VESA Plug and Display Standard (1997)
`
`F3 Kim et al., Interface Issues in Displaying Graphics and Video on High Resolution Flat
`Panel Displays (1997)
`
`F4 Samsung’s ’724 Patent Infringement Contentions
`
`G1 ’854 FH, 10/15/1996 Response to Office Action
`
`vii
`
`Page 8 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 9 of 46 PageID# 19595
`
`Defendants’ constructions properly reflect the well-known meaning of the disputed terms
`
`in the context of the patents and, where appropriate, the express disclaimers made by Samsung
`
`during prosecution to obtain allowance of its patents. In contrast, Samsung’s constructions
`
`ignore the well-known meanings of the terms, and attempt to recapture the very subject matter
`
`Samsung disclaimed to overcome prior art. Defendants’ constructions should be adopted.
`
`I.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`Samsung asserts eight patents in this litigation, involving a variety of different
`
`technologies. Defendants anticipate that by the time of the claim construction hearing, only six
`
`patents will be at issue. 1 In the meantime, the parties have agreed to construe terms from seven
`
`of the patents.
`
` Two patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,252,675 and 6,287,902—relate to
`
`semiconductor manufacturing.
`
` Three patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 5,860,158, 6,819,602,
`
`6,262,938—relate to cache and SDRAM (parts of a memory system). The remaining two
`
`patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,724 and 5,777,854—relate to connecting a laptop to an external
`
`monitor and a computer chassis (computer case), respectively.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
` “Claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meanings to one of skill in the
`
`art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc.
`
`v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “There are only two exceptions to this
`
`general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2)
`
`when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during
`
`prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). It is well-settled that “in construing a claim [the court] is to ‘exclude any interpretation
`
`1 At the June 3, 2015 hearing, Defendants reiterated the de minimis damages associated with U.S.
`Patent Nos. 5,777,854 and 7,073,054. Samsung has now agreed to drop those patents and the
`parties are working on mutually agreeable language for a stipulation to that effect.
`
`1
`
`Page 9 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 10 of 46 PageID# 19596
`
`that was disclaimed during prosecution.’” Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (citation omitted).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`’675 Patent – U-Shaped Metal Gate Patent
`
`The ’675 patent is directed toward a specific way of forming the metal layers of a gate
`
`electrode of a transistor, a common circuit used in microchips. The ’675 patent teaches and
`
`claims using a
`
`single “conformal” ( i.e., “U-shaped”) metal layer when forming the gate
`
`electrode. Figure 17 (excerpted below) illustrates the allegedly novel gate electrode (46). It has
`
`three metal layers (20, 36, and 42). Layer 36 is a single conformal, or “U-shaped,” layer that
`
`conforms to the contour of the space defined by the spacers (28) and bottom surface (20) onto
`
`which 36 is applied.
`
`
`
`During prosecution, the Patent Office rejected the claims of the ’675 patent because a
`
`prior art patent by Lim disclosed using multiple conformal, or “U-shaped,” metal layers to form
`
`a gate electrode. In response, and to get the ’675 patent allowed, Samsung amended its claims to
`
`distinguish Lim, expressly stating that unlike its alleged invention, Lim “illustrates conformal
`
`deposition of multiple metal layers . . . to define composite metal gate electrodes.” Ex. A1 at 7-
`
`8. Samsung then explained that depositing multiple conformal layers was a problem with the
`
`prior art because it can cause “void formation,” and that Samsung’s single conformal deposition
`
`avoids that problem. Specifically, Samsung stated:
`
`2
`
`Page 10 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 11 of 46 PagelD# 19597
`
`Lim et al. merely illustrates conformal deposition of multiple metal layers in
`sequence into pre-fonned recesses in order to define composite metal gate
`electrodes. But this method of Lim et al. is prone to voidformation when used to
`fabricate relatively narrow gate electrodes associated with highly integrated
`transistors. This void formation may result from a premature closure of the recess
`during each conformal metal deposition step.
`
`Id.2 Afler Samsung made this disclaimer and amended the claims, the ’675 patent issued.
`
`As set forth below, this disclaimer applies squarely to the first disputed term concerning
`
`deposition of the “second” metal gate electrode layer. That layer must be restricted to a single
`
`conformal, or “U-shaped,” metal layer, and cannot include the “multiple metal layers” that
`
`Samsung expressly disclaimed.
`
`Samsung’s construction, which permits the deposition of
`
`multiple conformal layers, improperly seeks to recapture precisely what Samsung disclaimed
`
`during prosecution.
`
`1.
`
`’675 Patent: “depositing a second metal gate electrode layer onto
`inner sidewalls of the spacers and onto an upper surface of the
`patterned first metal gate electrode layer” (all asserted claims)
`
` Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction
`“applying. using confomlal (i.e. . U-shaped)
`“creating a structure comprising one or more metal
`
`deposition, one metal gate electrode layer to the
`
`sublayers each formed by a deposition process onto
`
`inner sidewalls of the spacers and to the upper
`
`inner sidewalls of the spacers and onto an upper
`
`surface of the patterned first metal gate electrode
`
`surface of the patterned first metal gate electrode
`
`layer”
`
`layer”
`
`This term appears in independent claim 6 from which asserted claims 12-14 depend. The
`
`term describes the deposition of the second metal gate electrode layer. The last clause of claim 6
`
`(1229-10) expressly states that the second layer is the conformal U-shaped layer: “the second
`
`metal gate electrode layer having a U-shaped cross-section.” In view of the prosecution history
`
`disclaimer that disallows use of “multiple” conformal
`
`layers,
`
`the claimed second layer is
`
`restricted to one—and only one—confonnal layer. Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus,
`
`2 Emphasis added throughout unless otherwise indicated.
`
`Page 11 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 12 of 46 PageID# 19598
`
`L.P., 323 F.3d 989, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Because the patentee explicitly stated during
`
`prosecution that his claims differed from a single plate with multiple cutting edges, we construe
`
`the disputed claims to exclude the disclaimed single plate device.”);
`
`see also TomTom, Inc. v.
`
`AOT Sys., GmbH , 17 F. Supp. 3d 545, 549 (E.D. Va. 2014) (holding that “an applicant who
`
`argues during prosecution that a claim possesses a feature that the prior art does not possess in
`
`order to overcome a prior art rejection is bound by that representation.”) (citation and quotation
`
`marks omitted).
`
`Other claim language confirms that the second metal layer is restricted to a single layer.
`
`Specifically, the asserted claims expressly require that the second metal gate electrode layer be
`
`“deposited . . . onto” the inner sidewalls of the spacers and the upper surface of the patterned first
`
`metal gate electrode layer. Only one layer can be “deposited onto” these surfaces because once a
`
`layer is deposited “onto” these surfaces, any additional layer(s) would necessarily have to be
`
`deposited onto that layer. The additional layer(s) could not be deposited onto the surfaces of the
`
`spacers and patterned first metal gate electrode layer.
`
`The specification also supports the conclusion that the second metal gate electrode layer
`
`is just one conformal layer. First, it always describes the claimed second metal gate electrode
`
`layer3 as a single conformal “U-shaped” layer. See, e.g., ’675 patent at 5:5-8 (describing layer
`
`36 as “a titanium nitride layer”), 5:42-44 (“the first metal layer 36 may be remained [sic] in the
`
`first trench 35 to form a first metal pattern with a ‘U’ shaped section”), Figs. 11-17 (showing
`
`layer 36 as a single conformal layer). It never mentions using multiple conformal layers.
`
`Second, the specification explains that conformal depositions into spaces for gate electrodes
`
`(referred to as trenches in the specification) may cause a “void,” which can negatively affect
`
`
`3 The ’675 specification sometimes refers to the “second metal gate electrode layer” of asserted
`claim 6 as the “first metal layer,” depending on context, such as at 5:11-14.
`
`4
`
`Page 12 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 13 of 46 PagelD# 19599
`
`operation of the gate.
`
`’675 patent at 5:11-14, 6:36-38. This ‘fiIoid” problem is the exact same
`
`problem Samsung told the Patent Office was caused by Lirn’s multiple conformal depositions.
`
`Ex. A1 at 7-8 (“But [the multiple conformal deposition] method of Lirn et al. is prone to void
`
`formation”). Accordingly,
`
`the specification supports Samsung’s clear and unmistakable
`
`statement during prosecution that its invention does not cover multiple conformal depositions.
`
`Separately, there are at least three reasons why Samsung’s proposed construction cannot
`
`be correct. First, it contradicts the prosecution history by allowing for multiple conformal metal
`
`layers. Second, it is unsupported and confusing because it uses the term “sublayer” which never
`
`appears in the patent. Third, it reads the words “deposited onto” out of the claims by allowing
`,1
`
`for the deposition of “one or more metal sublayers.
`
`Indeed, Samsung’s proposal leads to an
`
`impossible result.
`
`According to Samsung, sublayers deposited upon one another can
`
`nevertheless be said to be “deposited onto” the inner sidewalls of the spacers and the upper
`
`surface of the patterned first metal gate electrode layer. That is wrong and not how the English
`
`language works.
`
`2.
`
`’675 Patent: “depositing a third metal gate electrode layer onto the
`second metal gate electrode layer” (all asserted claims)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction
`
`the second metal gate electrode layer”
`
`“applying. without using conformal deposition. a
`
`“creating a structure comprising one or more metal
`
`metal gate electrode layer to the one conformal
`
`sublayers each formed by a deposition process onto
`
`metal gate electrode layer”
`
`This term appears in independent claim 6. It is directed to the deposition of a third metal
`
`gate electrode layer onto the second conformal “U-shaped” metal gate electrode layer. This third
`
`layer cannot be a conformal layer because, as discussed above, Sarnsung disclaimed depositing
`
`multiple conformal
`
`layers to “define composite metal gate electrodes.”
`
`Ex. A1 at 7-8.
`
`Samsung’s proposed construction, once again, improperly permits multiple conformal layers.
`
`Page 13 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 14 of 46 PageID# 19600
`
`As before, the claims and the specification support Defendants’ construction: the third
`
`metal gate electrode layer cannot be a conformal layer. The claim language requires that the
`
`third metal gate electrode layer “fill a space between the inner sidewalls of the spacers,” in
`
`contrast with the conformal “U-shaped” deposition of the second metal gate electrode layer.
`
`’675 patent at 11:58-12:3. Indeed, the limitation “filling a space between the inner sidewalls of
`
`the spacers” was added during prosecution at the same time that Samsung disparaged multiple
`
`conformal depositions. Ex. A1 at 3, 5. In other words, Samsung made plain that the deposition
`
`of the third metal gate electrode layer fills the space between the sidewall spacers and is not an
`
`additional conformal deposition.
`
` Next, the specification always shows the third metal gate electrode layer as a non-
`
`conformal layer that is deposited onto the conformal “U-shaped” layer. See, e.g., ’675 patent at
`
`5:64-66, Figs. 16-17 (showing layer 42 as a non-conformal layer). It never describes the third
`
`metal layer as conformal. The third metal gate electrode layer is illustrated below in an excerpt
`
`of Figure 17 where, consistent with the claim language and every description in the specification,
`
`the third metal gate electrode layer (42) is deposited onto the conformal “U-shaped” layer (36) to
`
`fill the remaining space between the spacers (28).
`
`
`
` Samsung’s proposed construction is flawed because it ignores Samsung’s own statements
`
`to the Patent Office in the prosecution history, and improperly allows for multiple conformal
`
`layers. Once again, Samsung erroneously asks the Court to adopt the ambiguous term
`
`“sublayers,” ignoring that the third metal layer must be “deposited onto” the second conformal
`
`6
`
`Page 14 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 15 of 46 PagelD# 19601
`
`layer. And, as discussed above, Samsung’s proposed construction allows for the impossible (and
`
`nonsensical) result that every sublayer deposited onto another sublayer is nevertheless “deposited
`
`onto” the second metal gate electrode layer.
`
`3.
`
`’675 Patent: “a gate insulating layer” (all asserted claims)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction plain meaning
`
`“a structure comprising one or more dielectric
`
`sublayers”
`
`The parties dispute whether any construction of this term is necessary. Defendants
`
`maintain that the term “gate insulating layer” can be readily understood by a jury without any
`
`construction.
`
`In contrast, Samsung attempts to import limitations and needlessly complicate this
`
`simple term. According to Samsung, the Court should substitute for the single word “layer” the
`
`following prolix, seven-word definition: “a structure comprising one or more .
`
`.
`
`. sublayers.”
`
`And in place of the ordinary word “insulating” that jurors can readily understand, Sarnsung
`
`proposes an undefined technical term, “dielectric,” that most jurors have never heard of.
`
`In
`
`short, Samsung’s proposal confuses (presumably by design, for validity purposes), rather than
`
`clarifies, the term at issue. It also completely ignores the word “gate” that appears in the term.
`
`Moreover, Sams1mg’s proposal is made out of whole cloth. Nowhere did the patentee act
`
`as a lexicographer to define this term, much less define the tenn in any pre-litigation context in
`
`the manner now proposed by Samsung. At best, Samsung’s proposal seems to be based, at least
`
`in part, on a portion of a permissive embodiment disclosed in the specification. Specifically, the
`
`specification states that the “gate insulating layer 18 may be formed of a high-k dielectric layer.”
`
`’675 patent at 3:30-32, 7:3-5. But neither the specification nor other intrinsic evidence ever
`
`states that the insulating layer must be a dielectric, to the exclusion of any other type of
`
`insulating layer. The Court should reject Samsung’s attempt to rewrite the claim.
`
`Page 15 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 16 of 46 PagelD# 19602
`
`B.
`
`’902 Patent — Etch Inhibiting Layer Patent
`
`The ’902 patent,
`
`titled “Methods of Forming Etch Inhibiting Structures on Field
`
`Isolation Regions,” purports to provide a solution for preventing damage to the “field isolation
`
`region” of a transistor if a contact hole (a hole used to make electrical connections) is misaligned
`
`during manufacturing. Figure 7 (below lefi) illustrates a properly aligned contact hole (50),
`
`which only exposes the “active region” (43) of a transistor. Figure 8 (below right) illustrates the
`
`claimed invention, which uses a dummy transistor, comprised of a metal layer (44a) and special
`
`spacers (46a) on both sides of the metal layer, to prevent damage to the field isolation region (42)
`
`during etching of the contact hole if the contact hole is misaligned.
`
`
`
`During prosecution, Samsung made significant concessions to obtain the ’902 patent.
`
`Specifically, during prosecution, the examiner rejected the claims in view of the Michihiro
`
`patent, and explicitly stated that using insulating spacers along a sidewall was obvious:
`
`[It] would have been obvious to modify the device structure of Michihiro by
`forming the insulating spacers along a sidewall of the first and second patterned
`layers, because as is well known, the insulating sidewall spacers would protect
`and prevent the first patterned conductive layer (gate electrode) and the second
`patterned conductive layer from contacting with the other adjacent elements.
`
`Ex. Bl at 5-6.
`
`In response, Samsung represented to the Patent Office that the spacers in the ’902 patent
`
`were not just well-known insulating spacers, but rather that the ’902 spacers were special
`
`because they “prevent damage to the field oxide layer in the event the contact hole is
`
`misaligne .” Ex. B2 at 8-9. Samsung’s representation was relied on by the examiner to allow
`
`Page 16 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 17 of 46 PagelD# 19603
`
`the ’902 patent to issue.
`
`In his Reasons for Allowance, the examiner explained that he was
`
`holding Samsung to its word, and allowing the patent to issue because, according to Samsung,
`
`the prior art did not disclose “spacers that will prevent damage to the field oxide layer in the
`
`event the contact hole is misaligned.” Ex. B3 at 2. Samsung never disputed the examiner’s
`
`Reasons for Allowance.
`
`1.
`
`’902 Patent: “insulating spacer along a sidewall of the [second]
`patterned conductive layer” (all asserted claims)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction
`
`contact hole is misaligned”
`
`“an insulating spacer, along a sidewall of the
`
`“an insulating sidewall spacer adjacent to the
`
`[second] patterned conductive layer, that prevents
`
`[second] patterned conductive layer”
`
`etch damage to the field isolation layer if the
`
`There are three primary disputes about this term. First, Defendants maintain that the
`
`claimed insulating spacer must prevent etch damage to the field isolation layer if the contact hole
`
`is misaligned, just as Samsung stated during prosecution.
`
`In contrast, Samsung 111118 from the
`
`prosecution history. Second, Defendants maintain that Samsung is improperly rewriting the
`
`phrase “along a sidewall of the second patterned conductive layer” to mean “adjacent to the
`
`second patterned conductive layer.” And third, Defendants maintain that Samsung is improperly
`
`attempting to rewrite the claim so that the word “sidewall” is converted from a noun (which
`
`identifies the location of the spacer) to an adjective (which merely modifies the word “spacer,”
`
`i. e., a “sidewall spacer,” without identifying any location).
`
`a.
`
`Defendants’
`disclaimers.
`
`construction
`
`properly
`
`reflects
`
`Samsung’s
`
`Defendants’ construction, which requires that
`
`the insulating spacers “prevent[] etch
`
`damage to the field isolation layer if the contact hole is misaligned,” adopts essentially verbatim
`
`Sa1nsung’s representations to the Patent Office during prosecution and the examiner’s Reasons
`
`Page 17 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 18 of 46 PageID# 19604
`
`for Allowance. This is consistent with black-letter claim construction law: “an applicant who
`
`argues during prosecution that a claim possesses a feature that the prior art does not possess in
`
`order to overcome a prior art rejection
`
`is bound by that representation .” TomTom, Inc., 17 F.
`
`Supp. 3d at 549 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
`
` Samsung’s proposal must be rejected because it ignores the express disclaimers Samsung
`
`made to the Patent Office during prosecution. It is well-settled that an argument “that would
`
`erase from the prosecution history the inventor’s disavowal of a particular aspect of a claim
`
`term’s meaning” is “inimical to the public notice function provided by the prosecution history.”
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc.
`
`, 222 F.3d 951, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Samsung’s proposal would recapture spacers that
`
`do not prevent etch damage to the field
`
`isolation layer if the contact hole is misaligned, which is the exact opposite of what it told the
`
`Patent Office to obtain allowance of the ’902 patent. It also is the opposite of what Samsung
`
`said in the patent specification itself, where Samsung unequivocally stated that “spacers protect
`
`the field isolation layer from the etch used to form the contact hole.” ’902 patent at 6:9-13.
`
` Samsung’s proposed construction omits a key aspect of the invention and ignores the
`
`applicant’s disclaimer. For this reason alone, it must be rejected.
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Samsung’s construction improperly rewrites claim language.
`
`The parties further dispute whether, as Samsung proposes, (i) the phrase “along a
`
`sidewall of” should be replaced by the words “adjacent to,” and (ii) the word “spacer” should be
`
`rewritten as “sidewall spacer.” There is no support for these changes.
`
`The term “along a sidewall of” is unambiguous and does not need to be construed. The
`
`plain and unambiguous meaning is illustrated by Figure 6, and its description:
`
`A nitride layer can then be formed over the surface of the patterned conductive
`layers . . . . This nitride film can be isotropically etched to form the nitride spacers
`
`10
`
`Page 18 of 46
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 206 Filed 06/23/15 Page 19 of 46 PagelD# 19