IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-341-JRG-RSP
`LEAD CASE
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ET AL.,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants
`
`Declaration of A. Bruce Buckman
`
`I, Dr. A. Bruce Buckman, declare that I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this
`
`declaration and, if called to testify as a witness, could and would do so competently.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`1.
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Raytheon Company.
`
`2.
`
`I reside at 1800 Brookhaven Drive, Austin, Texas 78704-2149.
`
`I have been asked to render opinions regarding the interpretation of certain terms in the claims of
`
`United States Patent No. 5,591,678 (“the ’678 Patent”), entitled Process of Manufacturing a
`
`Microelectronic Device Using a Removable Substrate and Etch Stop.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate of $450.00 per hour for my work on this
`
`case. My compensation is not dependent upon my opinions or testimony or the outcome of this
`
`case.
`
`II.
`
`Qualifications
`4.
`I am a retired professor from the University of Texas in Austin, Texas. My
`
`educational background includes a Bachelor’s of Science degree from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology and Masters of Science and Doctorate degrees from the University of
`
`Nebraska, all in electrical engineering.
`
`RAY00011395
`
`Sony Corp. v. Raytheon Co.
`IPR2016-00209
`
`Raytheon2012-0001
`
`

`
`5.
`
`My Ph.D. dissertation and the publications that followed in the years immediately
`
`thereafter focused on the development of techniques for using ellipsometry and polarized light
`
`measurements to determine the voltage-induced refractive index changes and the depth of the
`
`region in a semiconductor material from which an observed light modulation originated. These
`
`techniques that I developed are among the precursors of those currently used for optical
`
`diagnostics and characterization of integrated circuits, including wafers which might later be
`
`attached to each other to form the multilayer circuits envisioned in the ‘678 Patent. For a
`
`number of years I taught an undergraduate course in semiconductor device physics, which
`
`included topics on device fabrication. In 1980, I obtained a grant of equipment from Motorola to
`
`start an undergraduate semiconductor fabrication laboratory.
`
`6.
`
`I taught courses in optics and electrical measurements (including spectrum
`
`analyzer use) in departments of electrical engineering in universities for more than 40 years,
`
`from 1968-2009. I was an Assistant Professor and then an Associate Professor at the University
`
`of Nebraska from 1968-74. I was an Associate Professor and then a full Professor at the
`
`University of Texas at Austin from 1974 until my retirement in 2009.
`
`7.
`
`I am the author of two textbooks, Guided-wave Photonics and Computer-Based
`
`Electronic Measurement, and of many academic papers. I and my coauthors won a best paper
`
`award at the First World Automation Congress in 1994 for a paper titled, “Six Degree-of-
`
`Freedom, Single-Sided, Noncontact, Optical Sensor Suitable for Automated Assembly and
`
`Inspection.” In the Guided-wave Photonics text, I describe techniques for epitaxial growth and
`
`etching.
`
`8.
`
`I have been involved in many consulting projects in the optics and electronics
`
`industries. For example, from 1998-1999, I assisted a small company called Xidex Corporation
`
`with the development of position-sensitive atomic force microscopes used for applications
`
`including the study of integrated circuits.
`
`9.
`
`Since 2000, I have served as a consulting and testifying expert witness in several
`
`patent and other intellectual property cases in the fields of optics and electronics.
`
`
`
`2
`
`RAY00011396
`
`Raytheon2012-0002
`
`

`
`10.
`
`Additional information regarding my background is available in my Curriculum
`
`Vitae, which is attached as Exhibit A to this Declaration.
`
`III. Materials Considered
`11.
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered the following materials:
`• The ’678 Patent, the prosecution history and the cited references for the ’678
`Patent.
`• The extrinsic information identified by Raytheon and the Defendants in their
`PR 4-2 Disclosures.
`
`IV.
`
`Background
`12.
`The ’678 Patent relates to microelectronic devices, and, more particularly, to a
`
`microelectronic device that is moved from one support to another support during fabrication.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent should be construed as they would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the relevant art as of the patent priority date. The priority
`
`date for the ’678 Patent is January 19, 1993.
`
`14.
`
`It is my opinion that for the ’678 Patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`the appropriate priority date would have been someone with a Bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, materials science, or the like, with advanced classwork or industry experience in
`
`fabrication of microelectronic devices.
`
`15.
`
`Unless otherwise stated, my opinions regarding one of ordinary skill in the art for
`
`the ’678 Patent relate to a person as of the appropriate priority date having the education and
`
`experience described above. Based on my experience, teaching, and research, including the
`
`materials identified above, I am familiar with how those of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood the terms used in the ’678 Patent as of the appropriate priority date.
`
`16. Microelectronic devices are normally prepared by a series of steps including
`
`patterning, deposition, implantation, growth, and etching that build up an electronic circuit on or
`
`near the top surface of a thin substrate wafer. Microelectronic devices can be fabricated in two-
`
`dimensional and three-dimensional structures.
`
`
`
`3
`
`RAY00011397
`
`Raytheon2012-0003
`
`

`
`17.
`
`The ’678 Patent describes a method and embodiments to fabricate, stack and
`
`interconnect one or more two-dimensional microelectronic devices on a substrate wafer. The
`
`invention of the ’678 Patent meets the need for a method to fabricate such microelectronic
`
`devices using stacked substrate wafers with circuitry already on them. The ’678 Patent describes
`
`embodiments for fabricating microelectronic devices including the front side and back side of the
`
`device and its portions.
`
`V.
`
`Claim Constructions Of Disputed Terms
`
`“Etch-Stop Layer”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“etch-stop
`layer”
`(Claims 1-5
`and 10-17)
`
`A portion of the first
`substrate
`that is etched less readily
`relative to the etchable
`layer.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Sony, Apple, and OmniVision’s Proposed
`Construction: The phrase “etch-stop layer” means a
`layer of the first substrate, distinct from the
`etchable layer and the wafer, which has an etch rate
`much lower than that for the etchable layer and
`which stops the etching process.
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction: The term “etch-
`stop layer means a layer of the first substrate
`distinct from the etchable layer and the wafer,
`grown upon the etchable layer used for stopping
`the etching process.
`
`18.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand etch stop layer to mean a portion
`
`of the first substrate that is etched less readily relative to the etchable layer.
`
`19.
`
`The term is used in the ’678 Patent in a manner that allows one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to understand it in the context of the claimed inventions.
`
`20.
`
`The specification explains that the terms "etchable" and "etch-stop" are used in
`
`the ’678 Patent “relative to a specific selected etchant. ’678 Patent, 3:15-16. According to the
`
`specification, “There is chosen an etchant that readily etches the etchable layer but has a much
`
`lower etching rate for the etch-stop layer. It is understood, however, that the etch-stop layer may
`
`be generally or selectively etched by yet other techniques, after the etchable layer is removed.”
`
`
`
`4
`
`RAY00011398
`
`Raytheon2012-0004
`
`

`
`Id., 3:16-21; see also, Id., 5:52-54; Claim 10 (“rapidly”). Silicon dioxide is a preferred material
`
`for the etch stop. See e.g., Id., 4:1-5; Figs. 1-4.
`
`21.
`
`The etch stop layer may be any portion of the first substrate that is etched less
`
`readily relative to the etchable layer. While the ’678 Patent discloses silicon dioxide as a
`
`preferred etch stop, one skilled in the art would understand that the etch stop layer may include
`
`any material that is etched less readily relative to the etchable layer.
`
`22.
`
`In the ’678 Patent, the terms layer and portion are used with equal meaning.
`
`Thus, the ’678 Patent states that “The method further includes attaching the wafer portion of the
`
`first substrate to a second substrate” (Id., 2:20-22) and “With the circuit element thus supported,
`
`the etchable portion of the first substrate is removed by etching, down to the etch-stop layer.”
`
`Id., 3:12-14. Moreover, dependent claim 8 refers to the wafer layer as the “wafer portion of the
`
`first substrate.” Id., 4:41-44.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`Dictionaries cited by the parties are consistent with this understanding.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the term to have the meaning
`
`proposed by the defendants. First, one of skill in the art would recognize that the etch stop layer
`
`need not completely “stop the etching process” as would be required using the defendants’
`
`proposed constructions. Rather, the etch stop layer need only slow down the etching process
`
`relative to its speed in the etchable layer. Second, the term “distinct” does not appear in the ’678
`
`Patent.
`
`“Second Substrate”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“second
`substrate”
`(Claims 1, 6-9,
`11, 13, and 18)
`
`A second solid support
`material that is part of the
`complete device.
`
`The term “second substrate” means a structure
`separate and distinct from the first substrate as
`construed that provides
`support to the first substrate through the etching
`process.
`
`
`
`5
`
`RAY00011399
`
`Raytheon2012-0005
`
`

`
`25.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand second substrate to mean a
`
`second solid support material that is part of the complete device.
`
`26.
`
`The term is used in the ’678 Patent in a manner sufficient to permit one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to understand it in the context of the claimed inventions. The
`
`specification explains that the invention relates "to a microelectronic device that is moved from
`
`one support to another support during fabrication." Id., 1:11-12. Accordingly, “The present
`
`approach is based upon the ability to transfer a thin film microelectronic circuit element or
`
`device from one substrate structure to another substrate structure.” Id., 2:59-61.
`
`27.
`
`The ’678 specification discloses that the "second substrate 58 may be any suitable
`
`material, such as silicon or aluminum oxide (specifically sapphire). The second substrate may
`
`optionally include a microelectronic device deposited therein." Id., 5:18-21.
`
`28.
`
`The claims make clear that the second substrate is part of the complete device.
`
`Claim 9, for example, states that the "etching support" is removable, and the "second substrate"
`
`is attached to the wafer. The etching support of claim 9 is exemplified in the specification as the
`
`removable base 62 that is attached to the second substrate to "protect the structure against etch
`
`attack." Id., 5:47-51.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Dictionaries cited by the parties are consistent with this understanding.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the term to have the meaning
`
`proposed by the defendants. Defendants’ proposed construction leaves open the possibility of
`
`the completed device consisting only of thin film integrated circuitry, with no substrate present
`
`for mechanical support. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this is
`
`unworkable, since connecting such a circuit to the outside without protecting such a circuit from
`
`its environment would be extremely difficult.
`
`
`
`6
`
`RAY00011400
`
`Raytheon2012-0006
`
`

`
`“Attaching”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“attaching”
`(Claims 1, 7-9,
`11, 13, and 18)
`
`Joining together two
`surfaces.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`The term “attaching” means fastening or joining.
`
`31.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand attaching to mean joining
`
`together two surfaces.
`
`32.
`
`The term is used in the ’678 Patent in a manner sufficient to permit one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to understand it in the context of the claimed inventions. The
`
`specification explains that the complete surfaces of portions are attached. Thus, the ’678 Patent
`
`states that “The method further includes attaching the wafer portion of the first substrate to a
`
`second substrate” (Id., 2:21-22) and “The method further includes attaching the front surface of
`
`the single-crystal silicon wafer to a first side of a second substrate.” Id., 2:51-53. Among the
`
`functions of the second substrate, the one not etched away, is providing mechanical support for
`
`the integrated circuits fabricated on the first substrate. Id., 1:11-13. Mechanical support for
`
`these integrated circuits is not provided by the second substrate unless the wafer portion of the
`
`first substrate is attached to the second substrate.
`
`33.
`
`The figures and explanatory text show joining completely across two surfaces.
`
`Thus “A second substrate 58 is attached to the structure on the side corresponding to the front
`
`surface 52, numeral 24. Id., 5:14-18, 29-39, Fig. 1. In the “smart board” embodiment of the
`
`’678 invention, components are attached across their entire surfaces. See Id., 7:38-41, 45-47,
`
`Fig. 4.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Dictionaries provided by the parties are consistent with this understanding.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the term to have the meaning
`
`proposed by the defendants. The term “fastening” suggests a mechanical attachment that would
`
`
`
`7
`
`RAY00011401
`
`Raytheon2012-0007
`
`

`
`not be appropriate here. Defendants’ proposed construction also would admit of partial, or even
`
`edge attachment, which would not provide mechanical support for the microelectronic circuit
`
`elements.
`
`“Wafer”
`
`Claim Term
`
`“wafer”
`(Claims 1, 3-5,
`7-8, 11-13, and
`15-17)
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Sony, Apple, and OmniVision’s Proposed
`Construction: The term “wafer” means a layer of
`the first substrate, distinct from the etch-stop layer
`and the etchable layer, and within which some
`portion of microelectronic circuit elements are
`formed.
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Construction: The term
`“wafer” means a layer of the first substrate distinct
`from the etch-stop layer and the etchable layer,
`deposited on or bonded to the etch-stop layer.
`
`36.
`
`The term requires no construction. The term is used in the ’678 Patent in a
`
`manner that allows one of ordinary skill in the art to understand it in the context of the claimed
`
`inventions. I see no indication in the specification and file history material of the ’678 Patent
`
`that the patentee specifically defined the term to have a meaning that is different from the
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`37.
`
`The ’678 Patent uses the term throughout in connection with other terms, for
`
`example, “substrate wafer,” “wafer portion,” “stacked wafers,” “silicon wafer,” and “wafer
`
`layer.” See generally, ’678 Patent specification 1:45-48, 2:8-9, 18-24, 29-35, and 47-50, 4:1-2,
`
`10-11, 27-30, and 37-40, 5:3-6, 6:28-42, 6:59-7:4; 7:5-8. In the Abstract, “A microelectronic
`
`circuit element (50) is formed in the single crystal silicon wafer (46).” See also 2:15-21, 4:38-
`
`40.
`
`
`
`8
`
`RAY00011402
`
`Raytheon2012-0008
`
`

`
`38.
`
`A person of skill in the art reading the ’678 Patent specification would understand
`
`that “wafer” means a portion of the first substrate in or on which the microelectronic circuit
`
`element is formed.
`
`39.
`
`The dictionary definitions identified by the parties are generally consistent with
`
`this understanding.
`
`40.
`
`Samsung’s proposed construction, wherein the “wafer” means any layer whether
`
`or not it contains any microelectronic circuit elements, is inconsistent with patentee’s use of the
`
`term.
`
`41.
`
`If the Court believes this term requires construction, the Court should construe
`
`this term to mean that portion of the first substrate within and/or on which the microelectronic
`
`circuit elements are formed.
`
`“Etchable Layer”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“etchable layer”
`(Claims 1, 5, 10,
`11-13, and 17)
`
`No construction
`necessary. Plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`The term “etchable layer” means a support layer
`of the first substrate, distinct from the etch-stop
`layer and the wafer, having an etch rate much
`higher than that for the etch-stop layer.
`
`42.
`
`The term requires no construction. The term is used in the ’678 Patent in a
`
`manner that allows one of ordinary skill in the art to understand it in the context of the claimed
`
`inventions. I see no indication in the specification and file history material of the ’678 Patent
`
`that the patentee specifically defined the term to have a meaning that is different from the
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`43.
`
`The specification explains that the terms "etchable" and "etch-stop" are used in
`
`the ’678 Patent “relative to a specific selected etchant.” ’678 Patent, 3:15-16. According to the
`
`specification, “There is chosen an etchant that readily etches the etchable layer but has a much
`
`lower etching rate for the etch-stop layer. It is understood, however, that the etch-stop layer may
`
`
`
`9
`
`RAY00011403
`
`Raytheon2012-0009
`
`

`
`be generally or selectively etched by yet other techniques, after the etchable layer is removed.”
`
`Id., 3:16-21; see also, Id., 5:52-54; Claim 10 (“rapidly”).
`
`44.
`
`In the ’678 Patent, the terms “layer” and “portion” are used with equal meaning.
`
`Thus, the ’678 Patent states that “The method further includes attaching the wafer portion of the
`
`first substrate to a second substrate….” (Id., 2:20-22) and “With the circuit element thus
`
`supported, the etchable portion of the first substrate is removed by etching, down to the etch-stop
`
`layer” (Id., 3:12-14). Moreover, dependent claim 8 refers to the wafer layer as the “wafer
`
`portion of the first substrate.” Id., 4:41-44.
`
`45.
`
`The dictionary definitions identified by the parties are generally consistent with
`
`this understanding.
`
`46.
`
`If the Court believes this term requires construction, the Court should construe
`
`“etchable layer” means a portion of the first substrate that is readily etched relative to the etch
`
`stop layer.
`
`“First Substrate”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“first substrate”
`(Claims 1, 6-9, 11,
`13, and 17-18)
`
`A first solid support
`material.
`
`The term “first substrate” means a structure that
`initially has at least three distinct material layers.
`
`47.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand first substrate to mean a first
`
`solid support material. The term is used in the ’678 Patent in a manner sufficient to permit one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art to understand it in the context of the claimed inventions.
`
`48.
`
`The specification uses the term throughout in connection other terms, for example
`
`“substrate wafer,” “substrate structure,” “substrate surface,” “thin substrate,” “thick substrate,”
`
`“stacked substrate,” “support substrate.” See generally, ’678 specification, Figs. 1-4.
`
`49.
`
`Dictionaries provided by the parties are consistent with this understanding.
`
`
`
`10
`
`RAY00011404
`
`Raytheon2012-0010
`
`

`
`50.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the term to have the meaning
`
`proposed by the defendants. The extrinsic evidence cited by defendants does not support a
`
`requirement for “at least three distinct layers.”
`
`“Microelectronic Circuit Element”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“microelectronic
`circuit element”
`(Claims 1, 6-7,
`11, 13, and 15)
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`The term “microelectronic circuit element” means
`active devices or passive structures used for
`circuits.
`
`51.
`
`The term requires no construction. The term is not a term of art in the pertinent
`
`field and does not have any special meaning beyond its ordinary, everyday meaning to those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`52.
`
`In the ’678 Patent, the patentee used the term in the ordinary manner. According
`
`to the ’678 Patent specification, “The microelectronic circuit element 50 may be of any type, and
`
`may itself include multiple layers of metals, semiconductors, insulators, etc. Any combination of
`
`steps can be used, including, for example, deposition, implantation, film growth, etching, and
`
`patterning steps.” Id., 4:39-44.
`
`53.
`
`The ’678 Patent states that the term “is to be interpreted broadly, and can include
`
`active devices and passive structure.” Id., 4:45-46. But this teaching is not without limits. Thus,
`
`the specification gives examples, “the microelectronic circuit element 50 can include many
`
`active devices such as transistors.” Id., 4:47-48. Alternatively, the microelectronic circuit "may
`
`be simply a patterned electrical conductor layer that is used as an interconnect between other
`
`layers of structure in a stacked three-dimensional device.” Id,. at 4:49-51.
`
`54.
`
`The dictionary definitions identified by the parties are generally consistent with
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning, both in general and in the pertinent field.
`
`
`
`11
`
`RAY00011405
`
`Raytheon2012-0011
`
`

`
`55.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction is not one that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would understand. The defendant’s proposal "used for circuits" is overly broad and not
`
`useful to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, a simple wire without connections to
`
`either end is “used for circuits” but is not a circuit element (part of a circuit) unless it connects to
`
`other circuit elements.
`
`56.
`
`If the Court believes this term requires construction, the Court should construe
`
`“microelectronic circuit element” means a patterned element in an electrical circuit.
`
`“Etching”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“etching”
`(Claims 1, 2, 9,
`10, 11, 13, 14,
`and 18)
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`The term “etching” means a subtractive process in
`the course of which a solid is dissolved in liquid
`chemicals (wet etching) or converted into gaseous
`compound (dry etching).
`
`57.
`
`The term requires no construction. The term is not a term of art in the pertinent
`
`field and does not have any special meaning beyond its ordinary, everyday meaning to those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`58.
`
`I see no indication in the specification and file history material of the ’678 Patent
`
`that the patentee specifically defined the term to have a meaning that is different from the
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`59.
`
`The specification explains that the terms "etchable" and "etch-stop" are used in
`
`the ’678 Patent “relative to a specific selected etchant. ’678 Patent, 3:15-16. According to the
`
`specification, “There is chosen an etchant that readily etches the etchable layer, but has a much
`
`lower etching rate for the etch-stop layer. It is understood, however, that the etch-stop layer may
`
`be generally or selectively etched by yet other techniques, after the etchable layer is removed.”
`
`Id., 3:16-21; see also, Id., 5:52-54; Claim 10 (“rapidly”).
`
`
`
`12
`
`RAY00011406
`
`Raytheon2012-0012
`
`

`
`60.
`
`The dictionary definitions identified by the parties are generally consistent with
`
`this understanding.
`
`61.
`
`If the Court believes this term requires construction, the Court should construe
`
`“etching” means removing material with an etchant.
`
`“Etching Away the Etchable Layer . . . Down to the Etch Stop Layer”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`Etching the etchable layer
`to at least the etch-stop
`layer.
`
`The term “etching away the etchable layer […]
`down to the etch-stop layer” means an etching
`process that removes the etchable layer and then is
`stopped by the etch-stop layer.
`
`“etching away
`the etchable
`layer… down to
`the etch stop
`layer”
`(Claims 1, 11,
`and 13)
`
`62.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the clause to mean etching the
`
`etchable layer to at least the etch-stop layer.
`
`63.
`
`The term is used in the ’678 Patent in a manner sufficient to permit one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to understand it in the context of the claimed inventions.
`
`64.
`
`The specification explains that the terms "etchable" and "etch-stop" are used in
`
`the ’678 Patent “relative to a specific selected etchant. ’678 Patent, 3:15-16. According to the
`
`specification, “There is chosen an etchant that readily etches the etchable layer, but has a much
`
`lower etching rate for the etch-stop layer. It is understood, however, that the etch-stop layer may
`
`be generally or selectively etched by yet other techniques, after the etchable layer is removed.”
`
`Id., 3:16-21; see also, Id., 5:52-54; Claim 10 (“rapidly”).
`
`65.
`
`Dictionaries provided by the parties are consistent with this understanding.
`
`
`
`13
`
`RAY00011407
`
`Raytheon2012-0013
`
`

`
`66.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the term to have the meaning
`
`proposed by the defendants. Their terms “removes the etchable layer” and “stopped by the etch-
`
`stop layer” are overly absolute. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`for any given etching process, some of the etch-stop layer may be removed and/or some of the
`
`etchable layer may remain.
`
`“Overlying”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“overlying”
`(Claims 1, 11,
`and 13)
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`The term “overlying” means over or upon.
`
`67.
`
`The term requires no construction. The term is not a term of art in the pertinent
`
`field and does not have any special meaning beyond its ordinary, everyday meaning to those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`68.
`
`I see no indication in the specification and file history material of the ’678 Patent
`
`that the patentee specifically defined the term to have a meaning that is different from the
`
`ordinary meaning. Rather, the ’678 Patent specification states that “The first substrate 40
`
`includes an etchable layer 42, an etch-stop layer 44 grown upon and overlying the etchable layer
`
`42, and a wafer layer 46, bonded to and overlying the etch stop layer 44.” Id., 3:67-4:2. I note
`
`that “overlying” as used in the specification refers to layers that are in direct contact with each
`
`other; that is, the etch-stop layer is overlying the etchable layer, and the wafer layer is overlying
`
`the etch-stop layer.
`
`69.
`
`Also, “The wafer layer 46 is either deposited directly upon the etch-stop layer 44
`
`or fabricated separately and bonded to the etch-stop layer 46 by direct interdiffusion.” Id., 4:27-
`
`31.
`
`
`
`14
`
`RAY00011408
`
`Raytheon2012-0014
`
`

`
`70.
`
`The dictionary definitions identified by the parties are generally consistent with
`
`this understanding.
`
`71.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the term to have the meaning
`
`proposed by the defendants. Their construction eliminates the word “lying.”
`
`72.
`
`If the Court believes this term requires construction, the Court should construe
`
`“overlying” means lying on.
`
`“The Step of Attaching Includes the Step of Making an Electrical Contact…”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“the step of
`attaching
`includes the
`step of making
`an electrical
`contact…”
`(Claim 7)
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`The term “the step of attaching includes the step
`of making an electrical contact” means electrical
`contact between the first and second
`microelectronic circuit elements must be made as
`part of the step of attaching the first and second
`substrates together.
`
`73.
`
`The term requires no construction. The term is not a term of art in the pertinent
`
`field and does not have any special meaning beyond its ordinary, everyday meaning to those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`74.
`
`I see no indication in the specification and file history material of the ’678 Patent
`
`that the patentee specifically defined the term to have a meaning that is different from the
`
`ordinary meaning. As an example, the ’678 Patent specification states that “If the second
`
`substrate itself contains another microelectronic circuit element, interconnections between the
`
`two microelectronic circuit elements are made at this point, as by using an indium-bump
`
`technique/epoxy technique. Id., 3:8-12.
`
`75.
`
`The dictionary definitions identified by the parties are generally consistent with
`
`this understanding.
`
`
`
`15
`
`RAY00011409
`
`Raytheon2012-0015
`
`

`
`76.
`
`If the Court believes this term requires construction, the Court should construe
`
`“the step of attaching includes the step of making an electrical contact…” means making a
`
`contact in which current can flow in either direction with minimal resistance.
`
`“Degassing and Curing the Epoxy”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`The term “degassing and curing the epoxy” means
`drawing gases away from the epoxy during curing.
`
`“degassing and
`curing the
`epoxy”
`(Claims 10 and
`18)
`
`77.
`
`The term requires no construction. The term is not a term of art in the pertinent
`
`field and does not have any special meaning beyond its ordinary, everyday meaning to those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`78.
`
`I see no indication in the specification and file history material of the ’678 Patent
`
`that the patentee specifically defined the term to have a meaning that is different from the
`
`ordinary meaning. See for example, the ’678 Patent at 5:29-37.
`
`79.
`
`The dictionary definitions identified by the parties are generally consistent with
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning, both in general and in the pertinent field.
`
`80.
`
`If the Court believes this term requires construction, the Court should construe
`
`“degassing and curing the epoxy” means to remove gas and harden (i.e., solidify) the epoxy.
`
`
`
`16
`
`RAY00011410
`
`Raytheon2012-0016
`
`

`
`“The Order of the Recited Method Steps”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Raytheon’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`The order of the
`recited method
`steps
`(All claims)
`
`No construction necessary.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`The steps of independent claims 1 and 13 must be
`performed in the order in which they are recited.
`
`81.
`
`No construction is required. The recited steps do not have any special order to
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art beyond their ordinary understanding as set forth in the
`
`specification.
`
`82.
`
`I see no indication in the specification and file history material of the ’678 Patent
`
`that the patentee specifically defined the order of the steps to be different from the ordinary
`
`manner a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on logic and the context of
`
`the language of the claims and the ’678 Patent specification The plain language of the claims is
`
`consistent.
`
`83.
`
`For example, the ’678 Patent specification explains that the invention relates "to a
`
`microelectronic device that is moved from one support to another support during fabrication."
`
`Id., 1:11-12. In addition, “The present approach is based upon the ability to transfer a thin film
`
`microelectronic circuit element or device from one substrate structure to another substrate
`
`structure.” Id., 2:59-61. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the steps of
`
`“furnishing” “forming” and “attaching” could overlap. However, one skilled would understand
`
`that at least these first three steps must necessarily be at least started before starting the “etching
`
`away” step.
`
`84.
`
`If the Court believes this order of steps requires construction, the Court should
`
`consider that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the order of steps is
`
`determined by logic and the context of the language of the claims and the ’678 Patent
`
`specification. The Court should construe that the steps of “furnishing” “forming” and “attaching
`
`
`
`17
`
`RAY0001141