Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 1 of 28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`GREENTHREAD, LLC
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, DELL INC., AND
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-105-ADA
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 2 of 28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS .......................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`“surface layer” and related terms ............................................................................ 1
`
`“substrate” ............................................................................................................... 5
`
`“active region” ........................................................................................................ 6
`
`“unidirectional electric drift field” terms ................................................................ 8
`
`“to aid the movement of minority carriers from … to …” / “to aid carrier
`movement from … [to/towards] …” ..................................................................... 10
`
`“well region” ......................................................................................................... 14
`
`“active region … within which transistors can be formed” .................................. 15
`
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 3 of 28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................2
`
`Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd.,
`78 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................6
`
`Infinity Computer Prod., Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc.,
`987 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................17
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................10, 13
`
`Nautilus Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Apllera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................13
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp.,
`948 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................4
`
`Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc.,
`987 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................16
`
`Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc.,
`290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................6
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Automotive Systems, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 4 of 28
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`A
`
`B
`
`C
`
`D
`
`E
`
`F
`
`G
`
`H
`
`I
`
`J
`
`K
`
`L
`
`M
`
`N
`
`O
`
`P
`
`Q
`
`R
`
`S
`
`T
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8.421,195
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,190,502
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,121,222
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,316,014
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/854,319
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,160,985
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,684,971
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0183856 A1.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0042511 A1.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0045682 A1
`
`Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era (2000) Volumes 1-4
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No. 8,421,195
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319, 37 C.F.R. § 42, Samsung Electronics Co.
`Ltd., v. Greenthread LLC, IPR2020-00289
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response Under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R.
`§42.107, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., v. Greenthread LLC, IPR2020-
`00289
`
`Declaration of Alexander D. Glew, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., v.
`Greenthread LLC, IPR2020-00289
`
`McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 6th Ed. (2003)
`
`Microchip Manufacturing, S. Wolf, (2004)
`
`Semiconductor Devices, Physics and Technology, S.M. Sze 2nd Ed., (2001)
`
`iii
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 5 of 28
`
`U
`
`V
`
`W
`
`X
`
`Y
`
`Z
`
`AA
`
`BB
`
`CC
`
`DD
`
`EE
`
`FF
`
`GG
`
`HH
`
`II
`
`JJ
`
`KK
`
`LL
`
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 6th Ed.,
`(2003).
`
`Declaration of Scott Thompson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,106,481
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,633,066
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,930,336
`
`Lin, W., A Simple Method for Extracting Average Doping Concentration in
`the Polysilicon and Silicon Surface Layer near the Oxide in Polysilicon-Gate
`MOS Structures
`
`Baker, R. J., CMOS Circuit Design, Layout, and Simulation, IEEE (1998)
`
`Chen, J. Y., CMOS Devices and Technology for VLSI, Prentice-Hall (1990)
`
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language
`Unabridged, Merriam-Webster, Inc. (2002),
`
`Weste, N. H. E et al., CMOS VLSI Design: A Circuits and Systems
`Perspective, Addison-Wesley (2011),
`
`Greenthread’s Disclosure of Extrinsic Evidence
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,536,962
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/854,319
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, Office Action, dated July 17,
`2018.
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, Amendment, dated September
`16, 2019
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, Amendment, dated January 16,
`2019
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, Notice of Allowance, dated
`November 5, 2019
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 11,121,222, Notice of Allowance, dated
`August 11, 2021
`
`MM
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 11,316,014, Notice of Allowance, dated
`
`iv
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 6 of 28
`
`NN
`
`OO
`
`PP
`
`QQ
`
`RR
`
`SS
`
`August 11, 2021
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481, Notice of Allowance, dated
`April 7, 2020
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, Office Action, dated August 11,
`2021.
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, Application, dated May 9, 2017.
`
`Wang, F., Single Event Upset: An Embedded Tutorial, 21 International
`Conference on VLSI Design, IEEE (2008)
`
`Excerpts from Samsung’s Invalidity and Ineligibility Contentions and
`Disclosure, Greenthread v. Samsung, 2-19-cv-00147 (E.D. Tex. 2019), Dkt.
`97-9 and 97-10
`
`Excerpts from Samsung’s Supplemental Invalidity and Ineligibility
`Contentions dated June 9, 2020, Greenthread v. Samsung, 2-19-cv-00147
`(E.D. Tex. 2019), Dkt. 97-8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 7 of 28
`
`Term
`
`“surface layer” / “an
`active region . . .
`disposed on one
`surface of said surface
`layer” / “a single drift
`layer disposed
`between the other
`surface of said surface
`layer and [said/the]
`substrate”
`
`“substrate”
`
`“active region”
`
`“said [drift layer
`further/well region]
`having a [first/second]
`static unidirectional
`electric drift field”
`
`“said [drift layer/well
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Defendants
`
`Indefinite
`
`Claims
`
`’195: 1
`’502: 7
`’222: 44
`
`Greenthread
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, where the
`plain and ordinary
`meaning is “a layer at
`the surface”
`
`
`’195: 1
`’502: 7
`’842: 1, 2, 4, 9-10,
`12, 17
`’481: 1-3, 8, 15,
`20, 22-23, 32
`’222: 1-3, 8, 15,
`21, 23-24, 33, 39-
`42, 44
`’014: 1-3, 8, 15,
`21, 23-24
`’195: 1
`’502: 7
`’842: 1, 5-7, 9, 13-
`15, 17-18
`’481: 1, 4-6, 8-9,
`13, 20, 24-27
`’222: 1, 4-6, 8, 13,
`20-21, 25-28, 35,
`38-42, 44
`’014: 1, 4-6, 8-9,
`13, 20-21, 25-28
`’195: 1
`’502: 7
`’222: 44
`
`“the initial material within
`which or on which the
`semiconductor device is
`fabricated”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, where the
`plain and ordinary
`meaning is an
`“underlying layer”
`
`“Region that forms the
`current path of a device” or
`“the source, drain and
`channel region of a device”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`
`“said [drift layer
`further/well region . . .]
`having a [first/second]
`static electric drift field
`that is unidirectional over
`the [drift layer/well
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 8 of 28
`
`Term
`
`Claims
`
`region] having a
`graded concentration
`of dopants generating
`a [first/second] static
`unidirectional electric
`drift field”
`
`“To aid the movement
`of minority carriers
`from … to …”
`
`“To aid carrier
`movement from …
`[to/towards] …”
`
`“well region”
`
`“active region …
`within which
`transistors can be
`formed”
`
`’195: 1
`’502: 7
`’842: 1, 9
`’481: 1, 20
`’222: 1, 21, 39, 41,
`42, 44
`’014: 1, 21
`
`’195: 1
`’502: 7
`’481: 1, 20
`’222: 1, 21, 40, 44
`’014: 1, 21
`
`’842: 1, 9
`’481: 1, 20
`’222: 1, 21, 39, 41,
`42
`’014: 1, 21
`
`Defendants
`
`region]”
`
`“said [drift layer/well
`region] having a graded
`concentration of dopants
`generating a [first/second]
`static electric drift field
`that is unidirectional over
`the [drift layer/well
`region]”
`Indefinite.
`Alternative construction:
`“to sweep the minority
`carriers from … to …”
`
`Indefinite.
`Alternative construction:
`“to sweep the carriers from
`… [to/towards] …”
`
`Greenthread
`
`
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`“A well, whether formed
`by single or multiple
`implants. Portions of a well
`are not well regions.”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, where portions
`of a well are not well
`regions.
`
`Indefinite.
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Greenthread urges that all disputed terms be construed as “plain meaning,” but its
`
`responsive brief confirms either that the term has no such meaning and is indefinite, that
`
`Greenthread’s “plain meaning” fails to resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the legal scope of the
`
`claims, or that Greenthread’s alleged “plain meaning” improperly attempts to recapture claim
`
`scope that Greenthread surrendered at the USPTO.
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`A.
`
`“surface layer” and related terms
`
`Greenthread’s alleged “plain meaning” is “a layer at the surface.” Resp. Br. at 9. But as
`
`Defendants demonstrated (Op. Br. at 3-7), no “layer at the surface” that meets the spatial
`
`relationships defined by the claims is disclosed in the specification and those claimed relationships
`
`are inconsistent with any such layer. See also Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF
`
`No. 81. Faced with these inconvenient facts, Greenthread concocts an alleged “surface layer” by
`
`annotating Figure 5B of the patents with an arbitrary box drawn around the active region depicted
`
`in that figure. A comparison of the unmodified Figure 5B with the Greenthread’s depiction of its
`
`alleged “surface layer” (in blue and labeled “1”) appears below.
`
`Original Figure 5B
`
`Greenthread’s Modified Figure 5B
`(Resp. Br. at 12)
`
`
`
`
`
`Greenthread’s annotation confirms that “surface layer” lacks any discernable meaning
`
`because the depth of what constitutes the “surface” is undefined. No layer, or any other structure,
`
`
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 10 of 28
`
`appears in Figure 5B or is otherwise described in the specification that corresponds to
`
`Greenthread’s newly minted “surface layer.” Figure 5B reveals no such layer, but rather depicts
`
`the active region to be disposed in what Greenthread concedes is the well region, both of which
`
`are other claim elements. Indeed, Greenthread admits that its “surface layer” is not an actual
`
`physical layer by referring to it as nothing more than the “blue region.” Resp. Br. at 12. To the
`
`extent it includes physical structures, Greenthread has drawn its alleged “surface layer” as co-
`
`extensive with what it elsewhere defines as the active region—“source and drain and silicon
`
`between them” (Resp. Br. at 20)—thereby effectively eliminating “surface layer” as a separate
`
`claim element. Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n. 3 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings . . .
`
`.”). Tellingly, Greenthread provides no justification or citation for why the bottom of its “surface
`
`layer” coincides with the bottom of the source and drain of the active region, or any explanation
`
`of how a POSITA could discern the boundaries of this layer from the surrounding well region.
`
`Greenthread’s construction is contrary to the claim language. Greenthread argues that
`
`“active region . . . disposed on one surface of the surface layer” means that the “active region” is
`
`part of the “surface layer” “just like the ‘well region’ is part of the ‘single drift layer.’” Resp. Br.
`
`at 11. Greenthread’s analogy to the “well region” illustrates its error. The asserted claims use
`
`“disposed in” to describe the well region’s relationship with the “single drift layer” but use
`
`“disposed on” to describe the active region’s relationship to the surface layer. See Applied Med.,
`
`448 F.3d at 1333 n. 3. Moreover, Greenthread’s argument that the active region is part of the
`
`surface layer is not supported by any evidence beyond the conclusory testimony of its expert. Resp.
`
`Br. at 11. This interpretation is wholly unsupported by the specification, which instead only shows
`
`the active region disposed in the well region. Ex. V, ¶¶ 32-33 (annotating ’195 Patent at Fig. 5B).
`
`2
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 11 of 28
`
`Greenthread’s construction is contrary to the specification. Unable to point to any use
`
`in the specification of the term “surface layer,” Greenthread attempts to rely on various references
`
`to “surface” by contending that “‘surface’ is often used as a shorthand for ‘surface layer.’” Resp.
`
`Br. 13-14. But Greenthread fails to support this claim with anything other than its expert’s
`
`conclusory assertion. Id. In any event, as Defendants established (Op. Br. at 5-6; Ex. V, ¶ 34), none
`
`of the references to “surface” in the specification correspond to the “surface layer” required by the
`
`claims and, tellingly, none correspond to Greenthread’s newly concocted “blue region.” Ex. V, ¶
`
`34.
`
`Greenthread’s reliance on the prosecution history is misplaced. Greenthread argues
`
`that claims of the original priority application support its interpretation (Resp. Br. at 13) but
`
`Greenthread ignores that the applicant amended the claims to include both “a surface region” and
`
`“an active channel region” (Ex. G at 123 (amendments to Cl. 3)), which confirms those regions
`
`are distinct. The subsequent change from “surface region” to “surface layer” and “active channel
`
`region” to “active region” in no way implies the active region is part of the surface layer, as
`
`Greenthread now argues. Moreover, the Examiner’s mapping of “surface layer” to Kamins does
`
`not aid Greenthread. The Examiner identified the entire “silane epitaxial film 23” in Kamins as a
`
`“surface layer.” Ex. G at 182 (“surface layer (23)”); Ex. I at 2:51-53 (“silane epitaxial film 23”),
`
`Fig. 2. Kamin’s film 23 is an actual physical layer that is analogous to what Greenthread concedes
`
`is the well region of Fig. 5B of the Asserted Patents, and not the arbitrary “blue region” that
`
`Greenthread now asserts to be a “surface layer.” Ex. I at Fig. 2 (illustrating film 32), 2:51-53.
`
`Greenthread’s construction is contrary to the extrinsic evidence. As Defendants
`
`demonstrated (Op. Br. at 6-7), “surface layer” has no commonly accepted meaning. The art uses
`
`“surface layer” as a nonce word to refer to many different layers depending on context. Id.
`
`3
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 12 of 28
`
`Greenthread cherry-picks one from Wolf, but even that example is inconsistent with Greenthread’s
`
`interpretation of “surface layer.” There, Wolf uses the term “surface layer” to refer to doping of
`
`the channel. Ex. V, ¶ 41 (discussing Ex. N3 at 295 (*11); Ex. N4 at 192, 195 (*7, *10)). But as
`
`shown below, even a cursory comparison reveals that Wolf’s “surface layer” (yellow) does not
`
`correspond to Greenthread’s alleged “blue region” “surface layer” of the Asserted Patents since
`
`Wolf’s surface layer does not include the source and drain (red) and all the silicon in-between.
`
`Wolf Figure 5-57 (Ex. N at 295 (*11))
`
`Greenthread’s “blue region”
`
`
`
`
`
`Nor could Greenthread reasonably argue to the contrary: the “active region” shown in Wolf is not
`
`disposed on the surface of Wolf’s “surface layer” (id. ¶ 41 (annotating Fig. 5-57 of Wolf)), but is
`
`the opposite: Wolf’s “surface layer” is disposed in the “active region.” Id.; Ex. V. ¶ 41.
`
`Greenthread’s reliance on the Samsung litigation is misplaced. Greenthread asserts that
`
`“[d]uring the Markman process in the Samsung litigation, Defendants’ counsel never argued that
`
`‘surface layer’ was indefinite or not disclosed in the specification.” Resp. Br. at 15. That is simply
`
`not true. Samsung argued “surface layer” lacked written description and was indefinite throughout
`
`that case. Ex. RR at 198-99; Ex. SS at 259-60, 263. Moreover, statements by Samsung’s IPR
`
`expert—an expert never retained by any Defendant or its counsel here—are irrelevant, especially
`
`as indefiniteness arguments are not available in IPR. See Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g
`
`Corp., 948 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In any event, Dr. Smith’s testimony is consistent
`
`with Defendants’ indefiniteness assertions here. Dr. Smith expressly stated that the “specification
`
`does not disclose details regarding the ‘surface layer’” (Resp. Br., Ex. 6, ¶ 49), and that as a result
`
`4
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 13 of 28
`
`he presented multiple “possible mappings” of “surface layer” (id., ¶¶ 51, 53, 57) to the prior art,
`
`confirming that a POSITA could not discern the objective metes and bounds of the term.
`
`B.
`
`“substrate”
`
`Greenthread argues that “substrate” is “readily understood” as “simply an ‘underlying
`
`layer.’” Resp. Br. at 15. This proposed construction—which comes from two non-technical
`
`dictionary definitions (id.)—would untether the term from its technical meaning in the
`
`semiconductor field and would arguably encompass almost any layer or combination of layers.
`
`First, Greenthread contends (incorrectly) that its construction reflects “how the term is
`
`consistently used in the claims, specification, and prosecution history.” Resp. Br. at 15-16. To the
`
`contrary, when Dr. Rao amended the claims to require an “active region” on a “surface layer” and
`
`a “drift layer” including a “well region” between the “surface layer” and the “substrate,” he argued
`
`that a “critical feature of the invention” is that these layers and regions are “distinct” from (not part
`
`of) the “substrate.” Ex. G at 174; see also id. at 162, 164-65, 167. Accordingly, the figures depict
`
`“wells,” “regions,” and “layers” below the surface of the device, but describe the “substrate” as
`
`being only the initial supporting foundation on which those structures are fabricated. Ex. A, ’195
`
`Patent at 1:50-51, 1:61-63, 2:16-22, 2:27-28, 3:30-43, Figs. 2-5. The specification’s description of
`
`a “substrate with two wells, and, an underlying layer” (Resp. Br. at 16, emphasis added),
`
`confirms these different terms mean different things and not all “underlying layers” are substrates.
`
`The relevant extrinsic evidence also supports Defendants’ construction.1 Because
`
`“substrate” is a technical term, these technical dictionaries and semiconductor publications are “a
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Ex. R at INTEL_GREENTHREAD00015553 (defining “substrate” as the “physical
`material on which a microcircuit is fabricated”); Resp. Br., Ex. 13 at 327-28, 383 (describing the
`“starting material” for a CMOS device as being the “silicon wafer (substrate)”); id., Ex. 14 at 523
`(distinguishing the “starting substrate” from “wells,” and explaining that “[t]he well-formation
`process starts with a uniform, lightly doped p- or n-type substrate”).
`
`5
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 14 of 28
`
`better source to inform the meaning of the term” than the general-purpose dictionaries Greenthread
`
`relies on for its construction. See Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364,
`
`1375 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1580 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1996) (“a general dictionary definition is secondary to the specific meaning of a technical term
`
`as it is used and understood in a particular technical field”). Moreover, Greenthread acknowledges
`
`it is “customary” to construe structures in a semiconductor device according to their “relative
`
`position.” See Resp. Br. at 10. Defendants do exactly that by construing “substrate” as “the initial
`
`material within which or on which the semiconductor device is fabricated.”
`
`C.
`
`“active region”
`
`The parties appear to agree on what is the “active region” in the CMOS (or MOSFET)
`
`devices at issue in this case. Greenthread concedes that in such a device the active region is “the
`
`source and drain of a MOSFET, and the silicon between the source and drain.” Resp. Br. at 20.
`
`But that region is the “region that forms the current path of a” CMOS transistor, which Defendants’
`
`construction captures. Ex. N2 at 299; Ex. S at INTEL_GREENTHREAD 00015584; Ex. V, ¶¶ 49-
`
`56; Op. Br. at 11, 12. Indeed, Defendants’ opening brief expressly stated that “in a CMOS
`
`transistor, the current path of that transistor is the source, drain, and channel of the device” and
`
`illustrated the “channel” as existing in the silicon between the source and drain. Op. Br. at 12, 13.
`
`Despite this apparent agreement, Greenthread incorrectly argues that Defendants’
`
`construction requires voltage to be actually applied and current to be actually flowing in a
`
`transistor. Id. at 19. To the contrary, Defendants’ construction refers to
`
`the “region” that forms the current path in a transistor, regardless of
`
`whether “a sufficient voltage is applied” to make current flow. Resp.
`
`Br. at 19; see also Op. Br. at 11-13; Ex. H at 149; Ex. G at 123; Ex. N2
`
`at 299; Ex. N4 at 197; Ex. S at INTEL_GREENTHREAD 00015595;
`
`6
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 15 of 28
`
`Ex. T at INTEL_GREENTHREAD00015737; Ex. V, ¶¶ 49-56. Nevertheless, Defendants are
`
`willing to adopt Greenthread’s formulation of “source, drain, and silicon between them,” with one
`
`clarification:2 the “silicon between” the source and drain that is “active” when the transistors is
`
`on, i.e., the region that forms the current path, is the “channel region,” as Greenthread
`
`acknowledges. Resp. Br. at 20 (citing Ex. 4 (Chen), 239); Op. Br. at 12-14; Ex. N2 at 299; Ex. N4
`
`at 197. This channel region will typically exist in only the upper portion of the silicon between the
`
`source and drain in the transistor. For example, Greenthread and its expert, Dr. Giapis, refer to the
`
`channel region as the “thin layer below the surface (shaded red),” labelled “channel” in the figure
`
`to the right from Greenthread’s Exhibit 4. Resp. Br. at 4-5 (citing Dkt. 96-4 (Chen) at 19); Dkt.
`
`96-1 (Giapis Decl.) ¶18 (“The current flow occurs in a thin layer of silicon near the surface,
`
`called the ‘channel’, located between two terminals called the source and the drain.”). Thus, the
`
`precise meaning of “active region” in a CMOS device is “the source, drain, and channel region.”
`
`Ex. N2 at 299; Ex. S at INTEL_GREENTHREAD 00015584; Ex. V, ¶¶ 49-56.
`
`Greenthread’s alternative characterization of “active region” as “a doped silicon region at
`
`the surface of a semiconductor device where a transistor can be formed” fails to provide any
`
`meaning for “active region,” but rather just incorporates limitations already found in other
`
`elements of the relevant claims. See, e.g., Ex. A at 4:25-27 (claiming a “well region having a
`
`graded concentration of dopants”); Ex. D (claiming a “first surface of the substrate with a second
`
`doping type” and an “active region . . . within which transistors can be formed”). Greenthread’s
`
`own proffered evidence defines an “active region” as the source, drain, and channel region, i.e. the
`
`region forming the current path in a CMOS device, and this Court should construe it accordingly.
`
`
`2 The asserted claims focus on CMOS (MOSFET) devices and all accused products are such
`devices. See. e.g., Ex. A, ’195 Patent at 4:14-29.
`
`7
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 16 of 28
`
`D.
`
`“unidirectional electric drift field” terms
`
`Greenthread confirms its belief that its “plain meaning” construction of this term covers an
`
`electric field in any portion of the recited drift layer or well region regardless of the presence of
`
`other fields of opposing direction. But Greenthread surrendered such an interpretation when it
`
`amended the claims to require a “unidirectional” electric drift field—an electric field of a single
`
`direction over the recited layer or region—to overcome Kamins during prosecution. Greenthread
`
`now argues that “Kamins did not disclose ‘a single layer’ with graded dopants; instead Kamins
`
`has three layers with uniform dopants.” Op. Br. at 23. Reproducing an annotated version of
`
`Kamins’ Figure 2 showing “lightly doped layer 23, a heavily doped layer 21, and a lightly doped
`
`layer 19,” Greenthread contends that each of these layers have uniform rather than graded dopants:
`
`“None of these layers have a graded concentration of dopants where the dopants gradually
`
`change from heavily doped to lightly doped or vice versa. Instead, each layer has a uniform
`
`concentration of dopants, where the concentration of dopants abruptly changes where the layers
`
`meet.” Id. Representing that “[t]he Examiner did not disagree with [this] assessment of Kamins,”
`
`Greenthread argues that “‘unidirectional’ was added to clarify there was a single layer of graded
`
`dopant (as opposed to two layers of uniform dopants)” in the claimed invention. Id. at 22, 23.
`
`But Greenthread’s characterization of Kamins, along with its assertion that the Examiner
`
`agreed with that characterization, cannot withstand even the barest scrutiny. After the Examiner
`
`rejected pending claim 10 (now Claim 1), Ex. G at 164; Ex. G at 182; Ex. G at 222, Greenthread
`
`initially made the very same argument that it makes now, namely that Kamins merely disclosed
`
`multiple layers of different uniform dopant concentrations “and not a single layer with a gradient
`
`established in donor [sic] concentration as required by the claim element.” Ex. G at 214. But the
`
`Examiner expressly rejected this characterization of Kamins, pointing out that Kamins did in
`
`fact disclose a single layer with a dopant gradient. Ex. G at 226-27:
`
`8
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 17 of 28
`
`Further, [Kamins] Figure 3 shows that the N+ buried layer of Figure
`2 (i.e. layer 21, which is the drift layer as explained in the rejection
`of claim 10) does have a variable doping profile represented by the
`central hump of the dopant profile 24 of Figure 3 (y-axis of Figure
`3 representing doping concentration). As can be seen, this dopant
`profile has a gradient.
`
`Kamins Figure 3—which Greenthread tellingly omits from its brief—confirms the
`
`Examiner’s understanding. As shown below, Kamins’ single “N+ Buried Layer” (annotated in
`
`green below in Kamins’ Figure 2) employs a bidirectional graded concentration (annotated in
`
`green below in Kamins’ Figure 3) that creates two electric fields (annotated in yellow) with
`
`opposing directions. Ex. I at 2:32-35, 2:64-3:18, FIGS. 2-3.
`
`
`Although Greenthread attests here that it “never distinguished a single layer with multiple electric
`
`fields” (Resp. Br. at 24), this is not true. It was the above Kamins disclosure of a single layer
`
`having two electric fields of “opposing directions” that force Greenthread to amend pending claim
`
`10 to require a “unidirectional drift layer.” Ex. G, 234, 237. Noting that the two fields of Kamins’
`
`“N+ Buried Layer” accelerated carriers to the surface and accelerated carriers to the substrate,
`
`Greenthread distinguished Kamins on the basis that the field of the claimed drift layer was
`
`“unidirectional,” permitting carriers to move in only one direction. Id. at 237.
`
`Moreover, contrary to its present contention that it “never said the claims require the
`
`electric field to be unidirectional over any of the layers, much less the entire layer” (Resp. Br. at
`
`22), Greenthread said exactly that during prosecution: “In other words, the drift field for the holes
`
`(minority carriers) is unidirectional, i.e., from the emitter (surface layer) to the collector
`
`9
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 18 of 28
`
`(substrate) . . . moving all minority carriers in the same direction because of the unidirectional
`
`drift . . .” Ex. G at 254-55. Indeed, any other interpretation of “unidirectional” is nonsensical—
`
`permitting multiple fields of different direction within the same layer or region would render the
`
`term “unidirectional” superfluous.
`
`Finally, Greenthread contends that “[i]n the Samsung litigation, Judge Gilstrap already held
`
`that there was no prosecution disclaimer.” Resp. Br. at 25. These arguments were not before Judge
`
`Gilstrap and he considered a different term—“graded concentration of dopants.” There, Samsung
`
`argued that “graded concentration of dopants” required a concentration that “only decreases or
`
`only increases across the layer.” Resp. Br. Ex. 5, at 10, 13. Judge Gilstrap held that nothing in the
`
`term “graded concentration of dopants” itself required that construction. Id. at 17. Instead, Judge
`
`Gilstrap found that “unidirectional” referred “to the direction of the drift electric field and the
`
`movement of carriers rather than the slope of the dopant concentration.” Id. at 14; see also id. at
`
`17. That is precisely Defendants’ position here: “unidirectional” imposes the requirement that the
`
`electric field and resultant carrier movement be of a single direction across the layer.
`
`E.
`
`“to aid the movement of minority carriers from … to …” / “to aid carrier
`movement from … [to/towards] …”
`
`Greenthread insists that “the words ‘to aid movement’ should be given the full scope of
`
`their plain meaning.” Resp. Br. at 30. But under plain meaning, the “to aid movement” claim
`
`phrases, in view of the specification and prosecution history, are “facially subjective claim
`
`language without an objective boundary” and are indefinite. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`
`766 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Greenthread’s bald contention that the claims are “not
`
`referring to any movement” and “do not require … a particular result” in spite of the “to aid
`
`movement” terms confirm the lack of objective boundaries. Resp. Br. at 28.
`
`Greenthread in fact concedes the “to aid movement” phrases are nondescript and provide
`
`10
`
`Dell Ex. 1021
`Page 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00105-ADA Document 100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 19 of 28
`
`no guidance regarding claim scope: “Any question about what is meant by ‘to aid the movement’
`
`is answered by the preceding claim language.” Id. at 26. But the “preceding claim language”
`
`recites graded dopant(s) without guidance as to what particular graded dopant profile would fall
`
`within (or outside) the scope of the claims. According to Greenthread, a graded dopant
`
`concentration is the “who [th