IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`GREENTHREAD, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00147-JRG
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`ET AL.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is the opening claim construction brief of Greenthread, LLC (“Plaintiff”)
`
`(Dkt. No. 46, filed on February 19, 2020),1 the response of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`Samsung Semiconductor Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Austin
`
`Semiconductor, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) (Dkt. No. 50, filed on March 4, 2020), and
`
`Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. No. 52, filed on March 11, 2020). The Court held a hearing on the issues of
`
`claim construction and claim definiteness on April 2, 2020. Having considered the arguments and
`
`evidence presented by the parties at the hearing and in their briefing, the Court issues this Order.
`
`1 Citations to the parties’ filings are to the filing’s number in the docket (Dkt. No.) and pin cites
`are to the page numbers assigned through ECF.
`
`1
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 1 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term ........................................ 7
`
`III. AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS........................................................................................ 9
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“single drift layer . . . having a graded concentration of dopants [. . . said
`drift layer further having / generating] a first static unidirectional electric
`drift field”.............................................................................................................. 10
`
`“disposed therein” ................................................................................................. 18
`
`“separating said plurality of well regions” ............................................................ 22
`
`“emitter” and “collector” ...................................................................................... 26
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`2
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 2 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff alleges infringement of four U.S. Patents: No. 8,106,481 (the “’481 Patent”), No.
`
`8,421,195 (the “’195 Patent”), No. 9,190,502 (the “’502 Patent”), and No. 9,647,070 (the “’070
`
`Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The patents are related through priority claims: the
`
`’481 Patent purports to be a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/934,915 (the
`
`“’915 Application”), the ’195 Patent purports to be a divisional of the ’915 Application, and the
`
`’502 and ’070 are related to the ’195 Patent through a chain of continuation applications. The ’915
`
`Application was filed on September 3, 2004.
`
`In general, the Asserted Patents are directed to technology for improving the function of a
`
`variety of semiconductor devices. The abstracts of the Asserted Patents are identical and provide:
`
`today, have uniform dopant
`Most semiconductor devices manufactured
`concentration, either in the lateral or vertical device active (and isolation) regions.
`By grading the dopant concentration, the performance in various semiconductor
`devices can be significantly improved. Performance improvements can be obtained
`in application specific areas like increase in frequency of operation for digital logic,
`various power MOSFET and IGBT ICS, improvement in refresh time for DRAM's,
`decrease in programming time for nonvolatile memory, better visual quality
`including pixel resolution and color sensitivity for imaging ICs, better sensitivity
`for varactors in tunable filters, higher drive capabilities for JFET's, and a host of
`other applications.
`
`The following are exemplary claims from each of the Asserted Patents, with claim language
`
`in dispute emphasized:
`
`’481 Patent Claim 1. A CMOS IC device comprising:
`a non-epitaxial substrate having a surface area;
`a plurality of well regions fabricated on said non-epitaxial substrate and
`arranged in said surface area, each one of said plurality of well regions
`comprising 2-way graded dopants disposed therein and at least one of said
`plurality of well regions further comprising at least one first isolation region
`disposed therein;
`at least one second isolation region fabricated on said non-epitaxial substrate
`separating said plurality of well regions; and
`wherein in each one of said plurality of well regions said 2-way graded dopants
`create a plurality of electric fields for aiding the movement of a first plurality
`
`
`
`3
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 3 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`
`of carriers up towards said surface area and a second plurality of carriers
`down towards said substrate.
`
`’195 Patent Claim 1. A CMOS Semiconductor device comprising:
`a surface layer;
`a substrate;
`an active region including a source and a drain, disposed on one surface of said
`surface layer;
`a single drift layer disposed between the other surface of said surface layer
`and said substrate, said drift layer having a graded concentration of
`dopants extending between said surface layer and said substrate, said drift
`layer further having a first static unidirectional electric drift field to aid the
`movement of minority carriers from said surface layer to said substrate; and
`at least one well region disposed in said single drift layer, said well region
`having a graded concentration of dopants and a second static unidirectional
`electric drift field to aid the movement of minority carriers from said surface
`layer to said substrate.
`
`’502 Patent Claim 7. A semiconductor device comprising:
`a surface layer;
`a substrate;
`an active region including a source and a drain, disposed on one surface of said
`surface layer;
`a single drift layer disposed between the other surface of said surface layer
`and said substrate, said drift layer having a graded concentration of
`dopants generating a first static unidirectional electric drift field to aid the
`movement of minority carriers from said surface layer to said substrate; and
`at least one well region disposed in said single drift layer, said well region
`having a graded concentration of dopants generating a second static
`unidirectional electric drift field to aid the movement of minority carriers
`from said surface layer to said substrate.
`
`
`’070 Patent Claim 1. A semiconductor device, comprising:
`a substrate of a first doping type at a first doping level having first and second
`surfaces;
`an active region disposed adjacent the first surface of the substrate with a
`second doping type opposite in conductivity to the first doping type;
`circuitry formed in a portion of the active region disposed away from the first
`surface of the substrate and having at least one region of higher conductivity
`of the second doping type relative to the doping level in the remainder of the
`active region proximate the at least one region;
`at least a portion of the active region proximate the first surface of the substrate
`and not containing the at least one region defined with a graded dopant
`concentration, to aid carrier movement from an emitter in the active region
`to a collector in the substrate, the graded dopant concentration greater
`proximate the first surface of the substrate.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 4 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“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) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by
`
`considering the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1313; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d
`
`858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d
`
`1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at
`
`861. The general rule—subject to certain specific exceptions discussed infra—is that each claim
`
`term is construed according to its ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d
`
`at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Azure
`
`Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“There is a heavy presumption
`
`that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.”)
`
`(vacated on other grounds).
`
` “The claim construction inquiry … begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of the
`
`claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[I]n
`
`all aspects of claim construction, ‘the name of the game is the claim.’” Apple Inc. v. Motorola,
`
`Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998)). First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can be instructive. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1314. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s meaning, because
`
`claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among the claim
`
`
`
`5
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 5 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`
`terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For example, when a dependent claim
`
`adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim does not
`
`include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id. (quoting
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). “[T]he
`
`specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is 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). But, “‘[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in
`
`interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples
`
`appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns, Inc.
`
`v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-
`
`Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “[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.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
`
`898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction
`
`because, like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the inventor understood the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO
`
`and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the
`
`specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. at 1318; see also Athletic
`
`
`
`6
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 6 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`
`Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (ambiguous prosecution
`
`history may be “unhelpful as an interpretive resource”).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can also be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
`
`understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
`
`claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or
`
`may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony
`
`may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the particular
`
`meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported assertions as to a
`
`term’s definition are not helpful to a court. Id. Extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent
`
`and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id. The Supreme Court has
`
`explained the role of extrinsic evidence in claim construction:
`
`In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s
`intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for
`example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during
`the relevant time period. See, e.g., Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 546 (1871)
`(a patent may be “so interspersed with technical terms and terms of art that the
`testimony of scientific witnesses is indispensable to a correct understanding of its
`meaning”). In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to
`make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the
`“evidentiary underpinnings” of claim construction that we discussed in Markman,
`and this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 331–32 (2015).
`
`B.
`
`Departing from the Ordinary Meaning of a Claim Term
`
`There are “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according
`
`to their plain and ordinary meaning: “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
`
`
`
`7
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 7 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`
`specification or during prosecution.”2 Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758 F.3d 1362, 1365
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012)); see also GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (“[T]he specification and prosecution history only compel departure from the plain meaning
`
`in two instances: lexicography and disavowal.”). The standards for finding lexicography or
`
`disavowal are “exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., 750 F.3d at 1309.
`
`To act as his own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id. (quoting Thorner, 669
`
`F.3d at 1365); see also Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249. The patentee’s lexicography must appear
`
`“with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249.
`
`To disavow or disclaim the full scope of a claim term, the patentee’s statements in the
`
`specification or prosecution history must amount to a “clear and unmistakable” surrender. Cordis
`
`Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Thorner, 669 F.3d at
`
`1366 (“The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning
`
`of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
`
`representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”). “Where an applicant’s statements are amenable
`
`to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M
`
`Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`
`2 Some cases have characterized other principles of claim construction as “exceptions” to the
`general rule, such as the statutory requirement that a means-plus-function term is construed to
`cover the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`
`8
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 8 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`III. AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`The parties have agreed to the following constructions set forth in their Revised Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart Pursuant to P.R. 4-5 (Dkt. No. 60).
`
`“isolation region”
`
`Term3
`
`Agreed Construction
`region that electrically isolates
`
`•
`
`’481 Patent Claims 1, 5
`
`“a substrate of a first doping type”
`
`•
`
`’070 Patent Claim 1
`
`“disposed adjacent”
`
`•
`
`’070 Patent Claim 1
`
`a substrate with either p-type doping or n-type
`doping
`
`next to or close to
`
`“at least a portion of the active region
`proximate the first surface of the substrate and
`not containing the at least one region defined
`with a graded dopant concentration”
`
`at least a portion of the active region that is
`proximate the first surface of the substrate and
`has a graded dopant concentration, but that
`does not contain the at least one region of
`higher conductivity
`
`•
`
`’070 Patent Claim 1
`
`“2-way graded dopants”
`
`•
`
`’481 Patent Claims 1, 5
`
`dopants with increasing concentration in one
`area, and decreasing concentration in a second
`area
`
`“unidirectional electric drift field to aid the
`movement of minority carriers from said
`surface layer to said substrate”
`
`no construction necessary
`
`•
`•
`
`’195 Patent Claim 1
`’502 Patent Claim 7
`
`Having reviewed the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence of record, the Court hereby adopts the
`
`parties’ agreed constructions.
`
`
`3 For all term charts in this order, the claims in which the term is found are listed with the term
`but: (1) only the highest-level claim in each dependency chain is listed, and (2) only asserted claims
`identified in the parties’ Revised Joint Claim Construction Chart Pursuant to P.R. 4-5 (Dkt. No.
`60) are listed.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 9 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
`
`
`
`A.
`
`“single drift layer . . . having a graded concentration of dopants [. . . said
`drift layer further having / generating] a first static unidirectional electric
`drift field”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`no construction necessary
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`single layer whose
`concentration of dopants
`either increases across the
`layer or decreases across the
`layer
`
`Disputed Term
`
`“single drift layer … having a
`graded concentration of
`dopants … said drift layer
`further having a first static
`unidirectional electric drift
`field”
`
`•
`
`’195 Patent Claim 1
`
`“single drift layer … having a
`graded concentration of
`dopants generating a first
`static unidirectional electric
`drift field”
`
`•
`
`’502 Patent Claim 7
`
`Because the parties’ arguments and proposed constructions with respect to these terms are
`
`related, the Court addresses the terms together.
`
`The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff submits: These terms are understandable without construction when taken in the
`
`context of the surrounding claim language. For example, the claims require a “well region disposed
`
`in” the single drift layer. In order for the drift layer to include a well region, the “graded
`
`concentration of dopants” of the drift layer is necessarily not only increasing or only decreasing,
`
`the graded concentration has both increasing and decreasing components. The Asserted Patents
`
`also describe exemplary grading that includes both increasing and decreasing dopant-
`
`concentration components, such as retrograding and quasilinear grading. As explained in the
`
`Asserted Patents, the recited “unidirectional” character of these terms explicitly refers to the
`
`
`
`10
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 10 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`
`“electric drift field,” not to the “graded concentration of dopants.” The slope of the graded
`
`concentration need not be solely decreasing or solely increasing to yield the recited “unidirectional
`
`electric drift field.” Further, the claims allow for more than one “unidirectional electric drift field”
`
`and in fact specify a second “unidirectional electric drift field” in the well region disposed in the
`
`“drift layer.” Finally, the “single drift layer” necessarily allows for another layer in that the claims
`
`require the well region in the drift layer. Dkt. No. 46 at 8–16.
`
`In addition to the claims themselves, Plaintiff cites the following intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence to support its position: Intrinsic evidence: ’195 Patent col.2 ll.40–42, col.3 ll.38–40,
`
`col.3 ll.55–58; ’195 Patent File Wrapper January 26, 2011 Response to Notice of Non-Compliant
`
`Amendment at 6–7 (Plaintiff’s Ex. 8, Dkt. No. 46-9 at 7–8), October 12, 2011 Request for
`
`Continued Examination Amendment D at 3 (Plaintiff’s Ex. 9, Dkt. No. 46-10 at 5), October 15,
`
`2012 Response Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 Amendment F at 3, 6–7 (Plaintiff’s Ex. 10, Dkt. No.
`
`46-11 at 4, 7–8); Kamins4 (Plaintiff’s Ex. 7, Dkt. No. 46-8). Extrinsic evidence: Glew Report5 ¶¶
`
`33–39, 42, 44–46, 70–71 (Plaintiff’s Ex. 5, Dkt. No. 46-6); Shanfield Decl.6 ¶¶ 39, 41–42, 46
`
`(Plaintiff’s Ex. 6, Dkt. No. 46-7).
`
`Defendants respond: The “single drift layer” terms are not terms of art but rather were coined
`
`during prosecution and therefore should be construed. During prosecution, the patentee clarified
`
`that the single drift layer is a single unidirectional layer, meaning the slope of the dopant
`
`concentration is of one direction across the layer. In fact, as the patentee explained during
`
`prosecution, the “‘direction’ of the electric field . . . depends solely on the slope of the graded
`
`concentration of dopant[s]”; therefore, the dopant concentration must be solely increasing or solely
`
`
`
`4 U.S. Patent No. 4,160,985.
`5 Expert Report of Alexander D. Glew, Ph.D. Regarding Claim Construction.
`6 Declaration of Stanley Shanfield Regarding Claim Construction.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 11 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`
`decreasing to yield the recited unidirectional electric drift field (quoting ’195 Patent File Wrapper
`
`April 17, 2012 Response Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 Amendment E at 6–7, Dkt. No. 50-12 at 59–
`
`60 (Defendants’ modifications)). That the claims recite a well region disposed in the drift layer
`
`does not require both an increasing and decreasing dopant concentration in the drift layer as the
`
`well region may have the same doping type as the drift layer. Further, as explained in prior-art of
`
`record in the ’195 Patent’s file wrapper, “a retrograded well means a doped region with ‘a
`
`vertically graded dopant concentration that is lowest at the substrate surface [], and highest at the
`
`bottom of the well,’” and a “‘p-well is retrograded so that the doping concentration increases with
`
`depth’” (quoting Rhodes7 at ¶ [0055] and Harris8 at col.4 ll.37–39). This means that the Asserted
`
`Patents, though they disclose a retrograded concentration, do not disclose a graded concentration
`
`of dopants that includes both increasing and decreasing dopant concentration. Dkt. No. 50 at 7–
`
`16.
`
`In addition to the claims themselves, Defendants cite the following intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence to support their position: Intrinsic evidence: ’195 Patent col.3 ll.30–33; ’195 Patent File
`
`Wrapper July 28, 2008 Office Action (Defendants’ Ex. 36, Dkt. No. 50-36), June 13, 2011
`
`Response to Final Office Action Amendment C9 at 3, 6 (Defendants’ Ex. 11, Dkt. No. 50-12 at 36,
`
`39), April 17, 2012 Response Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 Amendment E10 at 6–7 (Defendants’ Ex.
`
`
`7 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0042511 (Defendants’ Ex. 20, Dkt. No. 50-21).
`Defendants cite the abstract, but quote a passage found in paragraph [0055] but not in the abstract.
`8 U.S. Patent No. 6,465,862 (Defendants’ Ex. 34, Dkt. No. 50-34).
`9 Defendants present this document as “Amend. & Remarks,” but the only document dated June
`13, 2011 that is part of the file-wrapper excerpts submitted by Defendants as their Exhibit 11 is
`entitled Response to Final Office Action Amendment C. This response is at pages 34–41 of Dkt.
`No. 50-12.
`10 Defendants present this document as “Amend. & Remarks” and do not provide a pin cite within
`their Exhibit 11, which is a collection of excerpts from the file wrapper. The exhibit does not
`include a document facially dated April 17, 2012. With cross-reference to the file wrapper
`accessible to the public on the USPTO’s Public Pair site (https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair),
`
`
`
`12
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 12 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`
`11, Dkt. No. 50-12 at 59–60); Rhodes, at [57] Abstract (Defendants’ Ex. 20, Dkt. No. 50-21 at 2);
`
`Harris11 col.4 ll.37–39 (Defendants’ Ex. 34, Dkt. No. 50-34); Kamins figs.2–3 (Plaintiff’s Ex. 7,
`
`Dkt. No. 46-8). Extrinsic evidence: Shanfield Decl.12 ¶¶ 24–29, 42–43, 74 (Defendants’ Ex. 39,
`
`Dkt. No. 50-39).
`
`Plaintiff replies: The prosecution history does not suggest a disclaimer of multi-directional
`
`grading of dopant concentration. Rather, the patentee stated that the electric field and carrier
`
`movement in the drift layer is unidirectional. This unidirectional field and carrier movement may
`
`be accomplished with a graded concentration of dopants that includes both increasing and
`
`decreasing portions. Further, “[t]he claim as written already requires a ‘single’ layer . . . [and]
`
`[t]here is no need to drop ‘drift’ from ‘single drift layer’ to convey this point.” Dkt. No. 52 at 4–8.
`
`Plaintiff cites further extrinsic evidence to support its position: ’195 Patent File Wrapper
`
`October 12, 2011 Request for Continued Examination Amendment D at 6 (Plaintiff’s Ex. 9, Dkt.
`
`No. 46-10 at 8), April 17, 2012 Response Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 Amendment E at 6–7
`
`(Defendants’ Ex. 11, Dkt. No. 50-12 at 59–60); Rhodes (Defendants’ Ex. 20, Dkt. No. 50-21).
`
`Analysis
`
`The dispute distills to two issues. First, whether “graded concentration of dopants” necessarily
`
`means the concentration only decreases or only increases across the layer. It does not (subject to
`
`the other claim limitations, such as the static unidirectional electric drift field to aid movement of
`
`minority carriers from the surface layer to the substrate). Second, whether the “single drift layer”
`
`
`the Court understands the document identified by Defendants is the response at pages 54–63 of
`Dkt. No. 50-12.
`11 Defendants present this as “extrinsic evidence,” but this reference is cited on the face of the’070
`Patent and thus is “intrinsic evidence.” ’070 Patent, at [56] References Cited; V-Formation, Inc. v.
`Benetton Grp. SpA, 401 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`12 This is the same declaration as submitted by Plaintiff at Dkt. No. 46-7.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 13 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`
`is necessarily a single layer. It is, but this is plain from “single drift layer” and the parties agree
`
`that it is a single layer; thus, this does not need to be clarified through claim construction.
`
`The Court is not convinced that “graded concentration” should be construed to require that
`
`the concentration is only increasing or only decreasing. The prosecution history does not mandate
`
`such a construction. During prosecution of the ’195 Patent, the patentee stated:
`
`Claim 10 stands rejected as obvious in view of the combined teachings of Kamins-
`Pat. No. 4,160,985 and Bamji-Pub. No. 2002/0084430. Kamins discloses a
`photosensing device in which selective doping of a semiconductor substrate of the
`device produces electric fields in the substrate which accelerate photogenerated
`charge carriers toward or away from the surface of the device. Abstract, Fig. 3. In
`particular, Kamins’ disclosure further states that “[t]he carriers therefore tend to be
`accelerated either toward the nearest photosensor or away from the surface. More
`specifically, carriers created below the maximum dopant concentration are
`accelerated into the substrate [ . . . ], while carriers created above the maximum
`dopant concentration are accelerated toward the surface [ . . . ].” Col. 3, Lines 6-13,
`Fig. 2 (showing minority carries accelerated into the substrate and the surface layer,
`depending on the location of the carriers relative to the maximum dopant
`concentration within the “buried layer” 21) and Fig. 3 (showing two electrical fields
`with opposing directions, away from the area of maximum dopant concentration
`towards both the surface layer and the substrate, respectively).
`
`The amendments to claim 10 further clarify that Applicant's claimed “drift layer”
`is a single unidirectional layer with a graded dopant concentration which draws all
`minority carriers away from the surface layer to the substrate - none of the carriers
`is drawn from the substrate to the surface layer. The amendments to claim 18 further
`clarify that Applicant's claimed “drift layer” is a single unidirectional layer with a
`graded dopant concentration that, which draws all minority carriers away from the
`substrate to the surface layer - none of the carriers is drawn from the surface layer
`to the substrate.
`
`’195 Patent File Wrapper June 13, 2011 Response to Final Office Action Amendment C at 6–7,
`
`Dkt. No. 50-12 at 39–40. In context, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that “unidirectional layer”
`
`refers to the direction of the drift electric field and the movement of the carriers rather than the
`
`slope of the dopant concentration. In another prosecution-history statement, the patentee provided:
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees with this position because (as previously argued
`by Applicant) a unidirectional drift (electric) field necessarily affects all the present
`minority carriers in the same way - moving all minority carriers in the same
`direction because of the unidirectional drift due to the existence of the electric field.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Greenthread Ex. 2082, p. 14 of 32
`Semiconductor v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`
`See “Physics and Technology of Semiconductor Devices,” A.S. Grove, pp. 224-
`225, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1st Edition 1967 (“This same electric
`field will then be of such direction as to aid the motion of injected holes. Thus the
`injected minority carriers will now move not only by diffusion but also by drift due
`to the existence of this electric field.”). Depending on the particular slope of the
`graded concentration of dopant, all minority carriers are either swept “down” (from
`the surface layer to the substrate) or “up” (from the substrate to the surface layer).
`See Applicant’s Figs. 5(b) and 5(c).
`
`The Office Action also states that “such a unidirectional drift field may attempt to
`apply a force on all minority carriers in a specific direction, it does not appear to
`ensure (without knowing other parameters of the device) that it will draw ‘all’
`minority carriers . . .” Yet, this argument appears to not consider that the graded
`dopant concentration itself creates a “built-in” electrical field that forces the
`movement of carriers into a particular direction, whereby the “direction” of the
`electrical field and the resulting direction of the carrier movement depends solely
`on the slope of the graded concentration of dopant. With regard to the existence of
`a “built-in” electric field created by a graded dopant density, see, e.g., Jastrzebski
`(US 4,481,522) col. 5, lines 11-13 (cited in Office Action). Applicant respectfully
`submits that this inherent “built-in” unidirectional electric field is the additional
`parameter for ensuring that all minority carriers are being moved in one direction
`and which parameter the Office Action deemed to be missing from the disclosure.
`
`’195 Patent File Wrapper April 17, 2012 Response Pursuant to 3