`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT,
`INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-cv-130
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`
`
`This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in United States Patent
`
`Nos. 6,784,552 (“the ’552 Patent”) and 5,965,924 (“the ’924 Patent”) asserted in this suit by
`
`Plaintiff DSS Technology Management (“DSS”). On February 9, 2016, the parties presented
`
`oral arguments on the disputed claim terms at a Markman hearing. For the reasons stated below,
`
`the court ADOPTS the following constructions.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The asserted patents generally relate to semiconductor devices and the processes for
`
`making those devices. Both patents claim semiconductor structures that allow for higher
`
`transistor densities. As transistor density increases, so does performance. But that increase in
`
`density can cause problems, especially when transistor components are misaligned during the
`
`semiconductor fabrication process. Misalignment can cause electrical shorts between transistor
`
`components, thus rendering the transistor inoperable. The patents-in-suit seek to prevent these
`
`types of problems using various semiconductor processes.
`
`The ’552 Patent relates to improved methods for etching openings in insulating layers
`
`and creating semiconductor devices with well-defined contact openings. ’552 Patent at 1:9–12.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 12
`
`Intel v. DSS
`IPR2016-00288
`INTEL 1124
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00130-RWS Document 229 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 3501
`
`The ’924 Patent relates to metal plug interconnects, which connect gates with diffusion regions
`
`in a semiconductor device. ’924 Patent at 1:7–8. The method for making the local interconnect
`
`of the ’924 Patent saves processing steps and reduces layout area of traditional prior art methods,
`
`such as a conventional buried contact method. ’924 Patent at 2:33–41.
`
`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,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381
`
`F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court examines a patent’s intrinsic evidence to define
`
`the patented invention’s scope. Id. at 1313–1314; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
`
`Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Intrinsic evidence includes the
`
`claims, the rest of the specification and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13;
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267. The Court gives claim terms their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`Claim language guides the Court’s construction of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1314. “[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id.
`
`Other claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction because “terms are
`
`normally used consistently throughout the patent.” Id. Differences among claims, such as
`
`additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id.
`
`“[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)). “[T]he
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00130-RWS Document 229 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 3502
`
`specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
`
`dispositive; 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). In the specification, a patentee may define his own
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning that it would otherwise possess, or disclaim or
`
`disavow some claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Although the Court generally presumes
`
`terms possess their ordinary meaning, this presumption can be overcome by statements of clear
`
`disclaimer. See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337,
`
`1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This presumption does not arise when the patentee acts as his own
`
`lexicographer. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004).
`
`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. For
`
`example, “[a] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the
`
`claim ‘is rarely, if ever, correct.’” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elam Computer Group Inc., 362
`
`F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583). But, “[a]lthough
`
`the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language in the
`
`claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be
`
`read into the claims.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1988); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`Although “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
`
`meaning of claim language,” the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to “shed useful light on
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00130-RWS Document 229 Filed 03/14/16 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 3503
`
`the relevant art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and
`
`treatises may help the Court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one
`
`skilled in the art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad
`
`definitions or may not be indicative of how terms are used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`expert testimony may aid the Court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the
`
`pertinent field, but “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim
`
`term are not useful.” Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its
`
`prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id.
`
`I.
`
`Agreed Terms
`
`Term
`
`“contact region”
`(‘739 Patent, claims 1, 11, 20)
`
`II.
`
`Claim Construction of Disputed Terms
`
`Agreed Construction
`“contact openings and/or vias”
`
`1. “an etch stop material over said first insulating layer and adjacent to the insulating
`spacer” (’552 Patent, claim 1)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“a material overlying the first insulating layer
`that is not effectively etched by the etchant
`used to create the contact region”
`
`DSS’s Proposed Construction
`“an etch stop material around and/or above
`said first insulating layer”
`
`Generally, an etch stop material has an etch
`rate that is relatively lower than an adjacent or
`underlying material exposed to a specific etch
`process and effectively prevents etching of the
`adjacent or underlying material.
`
`
`
`The parties initially had two disputes with this term. First, Defendants argue that the etch
`
`stop material must be over, rather than around, the first insulating layer. Docket No. 195 at 1.
`
`At the hearing, DSS clarified that it is not arguing that an etch stop material that is exclusively to
`
`the side of an insulating material is “over” that insulating material. Docket No. 222 at 23:22–
`
`25:3. Ultimately, the parties agreed that the claim language mandates the etch stop material is
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00130-RWS Document 229 Filed 03/14/16 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 3504
`
`over the first insulating layer and adjacent to the insulating spacer. Docket No. 222 at 10:18–21,
`
`22:16-19.
`
`
`
`Next, the parties dispute whether the recited etch stop material’s etching rate is relative to
`
`the material to be etched away (as DSS proposes), or the etchant used in creating the contact
`
`openings (as Defendants propose). DSS argues that “an etch stop material has an etch rate that is
`
`relatively lower than an adjacent or underlying material exposed to a specific etch process and
`
`may prevent etching of the adjacent or underlying material.” Docket No. 206-1 at 1.
`
`Defendants, relying on Figs. 4(H) and 4(I) below, argue that “the only etchant that the etch stop
`
`material is described as stopping in the patent is the etchant used to form the contact opening.”
`
`Docket No. 90 at 12. At the hearing, Defendants clarified this further by stating that an etch stop
`
`material can only be defined “with respect to a particular etching process.” Docket No. 222 at
`
`28:20–21.
`
`’552 Patent at 12:35-43 (color and labels added). Figures 4(H) and 4(I), where the etching process removes the
`blanket layer to create the contact openings, yet does not etch away the etch stop layer.
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties’ positions are fairly close. Defendants are correct that the etch stop material
`
`in Figs. 4(H) and 4(I) are defined relative to the etch process used to make the contact opening,
`
`but DSS’s proposed construction accounts for that because the etch stop material lies under the
`
`blanket layer, which is the material etched to create the contact openings. That is, in Figs. 4(H)
`
`and 4(I), the etch stop material can be defined by either the etchant being used in the specific
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00130-RWS Document 229 Filed 03/14/16 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 3505
`
`etching process, or by the etch stop material having a lower etch rate than the material being
`
`etched away in the etching process. However, Defendants’ proposed construction goes a step
`
`further by requiring it to be the etching process that creates the contact regions, as illustrated in
`
`the preferred embodiment of Figs. 4(H) and 4(I). DSS’s understanding does not incorporate the
`
`limitations from this preferred embodiment to the same extent and is therefore preferred. Liebel-
`
`Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is improper to read
`
`limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the only
`
`embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee
`
`intended the claims to be so limited.”).
`
`Further, the claim language implicitly defines the etch stop material by the material
`
`adjacent to it. For example, claim 1 recites “etch stop material over [the] first insulating layer
`
`and adjacent to the insulating spacer” wherein the “first insulating layer” is “on the conductive
`
`layer,” and the contact region is in the “first insulating layer.” Additionally, the specification
`
`states that “[i]t will be appreciated that each of the methods described herein can be utilized on a
`
`variety of structures and oxide layers, to form any type of opening, and each of the insulating
`
`layer etching methods described herein is not necessarily restricted to the structure and/or
`
`insulating layer in conjunction with which it is described.” ’552 Patent at 10:23–28; see also
`
`2:1–21 (describing the relationship between etch rates for silicon nitride and silicon dioxide). It
`
`is more true to the intrinsic evidence to define the etch stop material relative to the etching rate of
`
`the material that is being effectively etched away, rather than the specific etchant used in a single
`
`etching process.
`
`Accordingly, the Court construes “an etch stop material over said first insulating layer
`
`and adjacent to the insulating spacer” as “a material over the first insulating layer and adjacent to
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00130-RWS Document 229 Filed 03/14/16 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 3506
`
`the insulating spacer that is not effectively etched by the etch process used because it has an etch
`
`rate that is relatively lower than the material that is being etched away.”
`
`2. “a side of the insulating spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is
`either a right angle or an acute angle of more than 85º ” (’552 Patent, claim 1)
`
`DSS’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`a side of the insulating spacer has an angle
`relative to the horizontal substrate surface that
`is greater than 85° and less than or equal to 90°
`
`
`The parties dispute whether the recited angle must be relative to a horizontal substrate
`
`surface, as Defendants propose. Docket No. 190 at 15. Defendants contend that the
`
`specification expressly states that the substrate surface is horizontal. Id., citing ’552 Patent at
`
`7:45–48 (“[T]he etchant etches in one direction-in this case, vertically (or perpendicular relative
`
`to the substrate surface) rather than horizontally.”); Figs. 2(B), 4(K) (showing the substrate
`
`surface as horizontal). DSS acknowledges that those figures teach a horizontal substrate surface.
`
`Docket No. 195 at 6. However, DSS contends that “neither the claims nor the specification
`
`limits that substrate surface to one that is horizontal.” Id. DSS submits the specification uses a
`
`disjunctive parenthetical that clarifies the substrate does not necessarily have to be horizontal.
`
`Id., citing ’552 Patent at 7:46–48 (“[T]he etchant etches in one direction-in this case, vertically
`
`(or perpendicular relative to the substrate surface) rather than horizontally.”) (emphasis added
`
`by DSS).
`
`The claim recites that the reference for measuring the angle is the “substrate surface,” not
`
`a “horizontal substrate surface.” There is nothing in the intrinsic record that limits the substrate
`
`surface to one that is horizontal. The closest the specification comes to discussing this
`
`requirement is the section cited by both parties that treats the etching direction as perpendicular,
`
`but this section provides horizontal and vertical as an example. ’552 Patent at 7:46–48. At the
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00130-RWS Document 229 Filed 03/14/16 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 3507
`
`hearing, the parties agreed to use Defendants’ proposal with the word “horizontal” removed.
`
`Docket No. 222 at 29:25–30:22, 60:11–14.
`
`Accordingly, the Court construes “a side of the insulating spacer has an angle relative to
`
`the substrate surface that is either a right angle or an acute angle of more than 85º ” as “a side of
`
`the insulating spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is greater than 85° and less
`
`than or equal to 90°.”
`
`3. “insulating spacer” (’552 Patent, claims 1, 4, and 5)
`
`DSS’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`lateral spacer that electrically isolates the
`conductive layer from the contact region
`
`
`
`At the hearing, the parties disputed whether the insulating spacer is a “lateral” spacer as
`
`Defendants contend. Defendants clarified that “ ‘lateral’ merely means ‘to the side of.’ And that
`
`the lateral spacer is providing spacing or insulation with respect to components on either side of
`
`it.” Docket No. 222 at 35:14–16; see also Docket No. 190 at 21.
`
`
`
`Regarding the insulating spacer’s positional characteristics, “[t]he invention contemplates
`
`that the insulating layer has spacer portions between the conductive layers and the contact
`
`opening.” ’552 Patent at 13:51–33. Specifically, the specification states that “spacers are formed
`
`between the polysilicon layer 415 of the gates and the contact openings by depositing an
`
`additional of conformal layer of TEOS material 430 over the structure and etching spacer
`
`portions extending into the contact openings and adjacent to the polysilicon layer 415 . . . .” ’552
`
`Patent at 11:35–39.
`
`This understanding—that the spacer provides spacing or insulation with respect to the
`
`components on either side of it—addresses Defendants’ main concern. The Court therefore
`
`proposed “insulating material located between the conductive layer and the contact opening.”
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00130-RWS Document 229 Filed 03/14/16 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 3508
`
`DSS agreed with this language, while Defendants agreed to the extent that it requires a lateral
`
`spacer. Defendants then clarified that a lateral spacer separates two components and provides
`
`insulation to either side of the spacer. Docket No. 222 at 31:19–20, 35:14–16. The Court’s
`
`proposal addresses Defendants’ concern without introducing the word “lateral,” which would
`
`necessarily require further construction without providing further clarity.
`
`Accordingly, the specification indicates that the recited “insulating spacer” is an
`
`“insulating material located between the conductive layer and the contact opening.”
`
`4. “diffusion region formed in said substrate” (’924 Patent, claim 1)
`
`DSS’s Proposed Construction
`conductive terminal region such as a source or
`drain formed in said substrate
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`conductive terminal region, such as a source or
`drain, that contains dopants implanted in the
`silicon substrate
`
`5. “diffusion region in a silicon substrate” (’924 Patent, claim 7)
`
`
`
`
`
`DSS’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`conductive terminal region, such as a source or
`drain, that contains dopants implanted in the
`silicon substrate
`
`For “diffusion region formed in said substrate,” the Court proposed “conductive terminal
`
`region such as a source or drain formed in the substrate,” and for “diffusion region in a silicon
`
`substrate,” the Court proposed “conductive terminal region such as a source or drain in a silicon
`
`substrate.” DSS agreed with these proposals; however Defendants want to include the limitation
`
`that the diffusion regions are created by ion implantation.
`
`Specifically, Defendants argue that “[a]t the time of the invention ion implantation was
`
`the way that you created diffusion regions.” Docket No. 222 at 45:7–8. In the briefing,
`
`Defendants rely heavily on the “present invention” language in the ’924 Patent at 3:41–51, which
`
`they allege limits the invention to diffusion regions with implanted dopants:
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00130-RWS Document 229 Filed 03/14/16 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 3509
`
`The present invention provides a semiconductor structure that has a metal plug
`local interconnect (or shunt) for connecting a polysilicon gate to a diffusion
`region in a structure and a method of forming such a semiconductor structure.
`Referring initially to FIGS. 3A and 3B wherein an enlarged top view and a cross-
`sectional view of the present invention metal plug local interconnect is shown,
`respectively. Diffusion regions 70 and 72 of either N+ or P+ doping are first
`formed by an ion implantation process in the surface of the silicon substrate 74.
`
`’924 Patent at 3:41–51.
`
`The present invention, as the above passage makes clear, is a “metal plug local
`
`interconnect.” That is the disclosed and claimed invention. How the diffusion regions are doped
`
`are ancillary to the metal plug local interconnect. The only requirement is that the substrate has
`
`a diffusion region; the claims are agnostic to how it was created. ’924 Patent at 5:26, 6:16–17.
`
`Therefore, the Court rejects Defendants’ argument that the diffusion region must be formed by
`
`ion implantation.
`
`Accordingly, the Court construes “diffusion region formed in said substrate” as
`
`“conductive terminal region such as a source or drain formed in the substrate” and “diffusion
`
`region in a silicon substrate” as “conductive terminal region such as a source or drain in a silicon
`
`substrate.”
`
`6. “conducting plug” (’924 Patent, claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14)
`
`DSS’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`electrically conducting material deposited into
`a via and separate from a strapping shunt layer
`
`
`
`Defendants initially opposed the plain and ordinary meaning because they were
`
`concerned it allows for an electrical communication between the gate and the diffusion region
`
`that can be made through a local interconnect strap similar to the prior art systems. Docket No.
`
`190 at 28 (relying on the specification, ’924 Patent at 2:56–63, that states the “object of the
`
`present invention to provide a metal plug local interconnect between a polysilicon gate and a
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00130-RWS Document 229 Filed 03/14/16 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 3510
`
`diffusion region that does not require the use of a local interconnect strap.”). At the hearing,
`
`DSS agreed that it would not argue that “that the local interconnect strap was part of the
`
`conducting plug.” Docket No. 222 at 59:2–4. With that resolution, the parties agreed to the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 58:5–59:4.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, “conducting plug” is construed consistent with its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, but the Court rejects any argument that the recited electrical communication between
`
`the gate and the diffusion region can be made through a local interconnect strap.
`
`
`
`
`SIGNED this 14th day of March, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________________
`ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00130-RWS Document 229 Filed 03/14/16 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 3511
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Court’s Construction
`“a material over the first insulating layer and
`adjacent to the insulating spacer that is not
`effectively etched by the etch process used
`because it has an etch rate that is relatively
`lower than the adjacent and overlying material”
`“a side of the insulating spacer has an angle
`relative to the substrate surface that is greater
`than 85° and less than or equal to 90° ”
`
`“insulating material located between the
`conductive layer and the contact opening”
`“contact openings and/or vias”*
`
`Court’s Construction
`“conductive terminal region such as a source or
`drain formed in the substrate”
`“conductive terminal region such as a source or
`drain in a silicon substrate”
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`United States Patent Number 6,784,552:
`
`
`Claim Term
`“an etch stop material over said first insulating
`layer and adjacent to the insulating spacer”
`claim 1
`
`“a side of the insulating spacer has an angle
`relative to the substrate surface that is either a
`right angle or an acute angle of more than 85°”
`claim 1
`“insulating spacer”
`claims 1, 4, and 5
`“contact region”
`claim 1
`* Parties agreed construction
`
`United States Patent Number 5,965,924:
`
`
`Claim Terms
`“diffusion region formed in said substrate”
`claim 1
`“diffusion region in a silicon substrate”
`claim 7
`“conducting plug”
`claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 12