Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 27
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD (A
`KOREAN COMPANY), SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
`LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00634-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00636-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF DEMARAY LLC’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`10903152
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`THE DEMARAY PATENTS ............................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ......................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`[DEFENDANTS' TERM]1 “Substrate” (’657 Patent, cls. 1, 2, 7, 11;
`’276 Patent, cls. 1, 2, 6, 10) .................................................................................. 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This Term Does Not Require Construction .............................................. 2
`
`Defendants Seek To Import Narrowing Limitations Contrary to
`Plain Meaning And The Patent Specifications ......................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`[DEFENDANTS' TERM] “A method of depositing a film on an
`insulating substrate, comprising” (’657 Patent, cl. 1) ........................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Preamble Is Not Limiting .................................................................. 4
`
`Defendants Seek To Narrow The Claims To A Subset Of
`Monolithic Substrates ............................................................................... 6
`
`C.
`
`[DEFENDANTS' TERM] “Pulsed DC power” (’657 Patent, cls. 1, 2,
`11; ’276 Patent, cls. 1, 6) ...................................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This Term Does Not Require Construction .............................................. 7
`
`Defendants Seek To Narrow The General Term To A Highly
`Specific Subset Of Pulsed DC Power ....................................................... 8
`
`D.
`
`[DEFENDANTS' TERM] “Pulsed DC power supply” (’276 Patent,
`cls. 1, 6) ............................................................................................................... 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This Term Does Not Require Construction ............................................ 11
`
`Defendants Again Seek To Limit The Term To A Preset,
`Continuous Supply Of Pulsed DC Power ............................................... 12
`
`E.
`
`[DEFENDANTS' TERM] “Narrow band rejection filter” (’657
`Patent, cls. 1, 2, 20; ’276 Patent, cls. 1, 6) .......................................................... 13
`
`
`1 Defendants have proposed ten terms for construction (with a total of twelve terms) in
`excess of the limits on terms in the Court’s Standing Order.
`
`10903152
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 27
`
`Page
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This Term Does Not Require Construction ............................................ 13
`
`Defendants Seek To Add An Extraneous “Passing”
`Requirement Into A Term About “Rejection” ........................................ 14
`
`F.
`
`[DEFENDANTS' TERMS] “Corresponds to” (’657 Patent, cls. 1, 6),
`“Rejects at” (’276 Patent, cl. 1), “Operating at” (’276 Patent, cl. 6) .................. 14
`
`1.
`
`Plain English Words Like “Rejects At,” “Corresponds To,” And
`“Operating At” Do Not Require Rewriting ............................................ 15
`
`G.
`
`[DEFENDANTS' TERM] “Reconditioning the target” (’657 Patent,
`cl. 1) .................................................................................................................... 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This Term Does Not Require Construction ............................................ 16
`
`Defendants Seek To Add An Unsupported Temporal Limitation
`Requiring Multiple Depositions .............................................................. 17
`
`H.
`
`[DEMARAY'S TERMS] “Metallic mode” (’657 Patent, cls. 1, 2),
`“Poison mode” (’657 Patent, cls. 1, 2) ................................................................ 18
`
`1.
`
`Demaray’s Proposed Constructions Are Consistent With Plain
`And Ordinary Meaning ........................................................................... 18
`
`I.
`
`[DEFENDANTS' TERM] “Substantially constant” (’276 Patent, cl.
`10) ....................................................................................................................... 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Term “Substantially Constant” Does Not Require
`Construction ............................................................................................ 20
`
`Defendants Seek To Unnecessarily Rephrase The Claim
`Language ................................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`10903152
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 27
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................4
`
`Asahi Glass Co. v. Guardian Indus. Corp.,
`886 F. Supp. 2d 369 (D. Del. 2012) .........................................................................................19
`
`Asset Guard Prods. v. Sentinel Containment, Inc.,
`2018 WL 6248533 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2018) ..........................................................................5
`
`Aventis Pharms., Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd.,
`715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................1
`
`Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2016 WL 6611487 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2016) ....................................................................12, 13
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................4, 5
`
`Cochlear Bone Anchored Sols. AB v. Oticon Med. AB,
`958 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................6
`
`Embrex, Inc. v. Service Eng’g Corp.,
`216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................1
`
`Harris Corp. v. IXYS Corp.,
`114 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................16
`
`Marrin v. Griffin,
`599 F.3d 1290 (Fed.Cir. 2010)...................................................................................................5
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................1
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................10
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`904 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................11
`
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................2, 5
`
`10903152
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph,
`790 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms ........................................................17
`
`Modern Dictionary of Electronics ...................................................................................................7
`
`New Oxford American Dictionary .............................................................................................2, 14
`
`---------------------------
`
` *
`
` Unless otherwise noted, internal citations and subsequent history are omitted, and emphasis is
`added.
`
`The “Demaray Patents” are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,381,657 and 7,544,276 (“’657 patent” and “’276
`patent,” respectively) (Exs. 1-2). All exhibits are attached to the Declaration of C. Maclain Wells
`(“Wells”) filed herewith. Also referenced is the Declaration of Dr. Alexander Glew (“Glew”) also
`filed herewith.
`
`
`10903152
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The claim interpretation process “is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim
`
`language in order to understand and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.” Embrex,
`
`Inc. v. Service Eng'g Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Claim construction also “is not
`
`an obligatory exercise in redundancy” requiring courts to substitute other language for
`
`understandable claim terms. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351,
`
`1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Only Demaray’s proposed constructions follow those principles.
`
`Defendants seek unnecessary revisions of well-understood terms, most of which either (i)
`
`add new limitations that appear nowhere in the claims themselves, or (ii) seek to alter plain claim
`
`language, often in a manner that is technologically misplaced, disregarding the “heavy
`
`presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” See Aventis
`
`Pharms., Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Indeed, in four recent
`
`inter partes review petitions in which both defendants are real parties in interest, they did not seek
`
`construction of even a single claim term. Wells, ¶ 12.
`
`II.
`
`THE DEMARAY PATENTS
`
`As described in Demaray’s technology tutorial, the Demaray Patents generally concern
`
`equipment and processes used to deposit thin films in the production of semiconductor products.
`
`Layers of those films, which are deposited in chambers within reactors, form structures such as
`
`transistors and electrical interconnections of the sort that make up modern integrated circuits. The
`
`patents focus on a process called physical vapor deposition (PVD) sputtering in which metal
`
`particles from a “target” create a plasma that deposits the films on a semiconductor wafer. The
`
`patents describe approaches for preventing undesired buildup of the deposited material on the
`
`target surface (“poisoning”) and damaging electrical “arcing” that it can cause using pulses of DC
`
`power. These approaches are useful with a broad array of process gasses “includ[ing] combinations
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`of Ar, N2, O2, C2F6, CO2, CO and other process gasses” (Ex. 1, 3:5–9) used in depositing a wide
`
`variety of thin films including “oxides, fluorides, sulfides, nitrides, phosphates, sulfates, and
`
`carbonates, as well as other wide band gap semiconductor materials” (id., 2:55–56, 7:47–52,
`
`16:19–24). An insight of the inventors was that a narrow band rejection filter can be used to protect
`
`the DC power supply from damaging feedback from a RF bias. See Ex. 4 at DEMINT00002521.
`
`III. DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A.
`
`“Substrate” (’657 Patent, cls. 1, 2, 7, 11; ’276 Patent, cls. 1, 2, 6, 10)
`
`Demaray’s Proposal
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning, or
`“material that provides the surface on which something is
`deposited or inscribed, for example a silicon wafer used to
`manufacture integrated circuits”
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`“base support structure”
`
`1.
`This Term Does Not Require Construction
`“Substrate” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which encompasses the
`
`material receiving the thin film. “Because the plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed claim
`
`language is clear,” there is no need to rewrite the term. See Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`
`802 F.3d 1283, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`To the extent a further construction is deemed necessary, a substrate is a “material that
`
`provides the surface on which something is deposited or inscribed, for example a silicon wafer
`
`used to manufacture integrated circuits.” This is consistent with the intrinsic record, which teaches
`
`that a “substrate” is the material that the film is “deposited on.” E.g., Ex. 1, 2:55–56; 5:28–29;
`
`6:24–65; 7:47–50; 8:33–37. The patents also make clear that “[a] substrate can be any material
`
`and, in some embodiments, is a silicon wafer.” Id., 2:61–62; see also 7:62–65 (“Substrate 16 can
`
`be a solid, smooth surface. Typically, substrate 16 can be a silicon wafer or a silicon wafer coated
`
`with a layer of silicon oxide formed by a chemical vapor deposition process ….”).
`
`This construction is also consistent with common dictionary definitions. The New Oxford
`
`10903152
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`American Dictionary, for example, defines “substrate” as “a substance or layer that underlies
`
`something, or on which some process occurs, in particular … a material that provides the surface
`
`on which something is deposited or inscribed, for example the silicon wafer used to manufacture
`
`integrated circuits.” Ex. 5 at DEMINT00003513. Demaray’s proposal tracks the emphasized
`
`language verbatim and is consistent with usage of the term in the art. Glew, ¶¶ 25-27.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants Seek To Import Narrowing Limitations Contrary to Plain
`Meaning And The Patent Specifications
`Defendants’ proposal to redefine “substrate” as a “base support structure” raises numerous
`
`problems. To begin with, it does not clarify the term. Rather, it replaces a well-understood term
`
`with a brand new phrase of uncertain meaning, raising more questions than it resolves.
`
`Nonetheless, in some respects it is plainly overly broad. For example, the foundation of a building
`
`or a television stand would be a “substrate” under defendants’ definition. In other respects, the
`
`proposed construction is plainly too narrow. For example, the “base” modifier could imply that
`
`when a substrate is placed on another support structure (e.g., a mounting block in a reactor), it
`
`would no longer be a “base” structure and therefore not a substrate. That is not how the term is
`
`used in the art or in the Demaray Patents. The patents teach “[s]ubstrate 16 can be supported on a
`
`holder or carrier sheet that may be larger than substrate 16.” Ex. 1, 8:1–3.2 Defendants’ suggestion
`
`that the “holder or carrier sheet” would transform into a substrate as soon as a silicon wafer is
`
`placed upon it, and that the silicon wafer would simultaneously cease to be a substrate when placed
`
`in position for processing, makes no sense and is inconsistent with the patents and ordinary usage.
`
`
`2 Multiple other patents to Dr. Demaray cited on the face of the Demaray Patents (and
`therefore intrinsic evidence), similarly describe a “support structure” that holds a substrate, as
`opposed to requiring the substrate itself to be the “base support structure.” See, e.g., Ex. 8 (Patent
`5,565,071), 2:23–26 (“[In] FIG. 1, the sputtering chamber 60 includes an object (substrate)
`support structure 62 on which rests the substrate to be deposited 61.”); Ex. 9 (Patent
`5,603,816), 2:16–17 (“[In] FIG. 2, the sputtering chamber 30 includes a[n] object substrate
`support structure 32 on which the substrate to be deposited 31 rests.”).
`
`10903152
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`As another example, defendants’ narrowing “base” limitation could be used to erroneously
`
`suggest that a substrate must always be monolithic, and can never include layers of materials
`
`previously deposited that are, in turn, supported by another layer underneath. The ordinary
`
`meaning of the term is certainly not so limited, nor is its usage within the Demaray Patents. To the
`
`contrary, the specifications are clear that such layers often are part of the substrate: “[t]ypically,
`
`substrate 16 can be a silicon wafer or a silicon wafer coated with a layer of silicon oxide.” Ex. 1,
`
`7:62-64; see also 18:10–12 (example deposition on a “6 inch wafer of substrate 16 which includes
`
`a 10 μm thick thermal oxide substrate.”); 18:55-57 (“substrate 16 is a silicon substrate with an
`
`undercladding layer of thermally oxidized SiO2 ….”); Glew, ¶¶ 28-32. Defendants cannot redefine
`
`“substrate” to be inconsistent with the patent and exclude preferred embodiments.
`
`B.
`
`“A method of depositing a film on an insulating substrate, comprising” (’657
`Patent, cl. 1)
`
`Demaray’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`Preamble is not limiting
`
`The Preamble is limiting and “insulating substrate” means
`“insulating base support structure”
`
`1.
`The Preamble Is Not Limiting
`Preambles presumptively do not limit claims. Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d
`
`1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Moreover, “a preamble is not limiting where a patentee defines a
`
`structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or
`
`intended use for the invention.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 289 F.3d 801,
`
`808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In assessing whether the presumption that a preamble is non-limiting can be
`
`overcome, courts consider whether: (1) the preamble provides antecedent basis, (2) the preamble is
`
`essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body, (3) the preamble recites “additional
`
`structure or steps underscored as important by the specification,” and (4) there was “clear reliance
`
`on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish … prior art.” Id. at 808–09. Here, only the first
`
`of these four factors even remotely weighs against the presumption that the preamble of claim 1 is
`
`10903152
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`non-limiting. The preamble uses the term “insulating substrate,” which is related to the “substrate”
`
`referenced later in the claim. Ex. 1, cl. 1. But because this language merely provides context for the
`
`claimed method, all the material steps are recited in the body of the claim. This single factor does
`
`not overcome the presumption, supported by each of the other three factors, that the preamble is
`
`not limiting. See Asset Guard Prods. v. Sentinel Containment, Inc., 2018 WL 6248533, at *4 (S.D.
`
`Tex. Nov. 29, 2018) (“While Sentinel is correct that these terms are introduced with the articles ‘a’
`
`or ‘an’ in the preamble, and later referred to as ‘the’ in the body, this is not dispositive. These
`
`terms are not essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim bodies ….”); see also
`
`Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808 (“Whether a preamble … constitutes a limitation ... is determined on the
`
`facts of each case in light of the overall form of the claim ….”).
`
`The preamble merely provides context for the claimed method steps. See TomTom, Inc. v.
`
`Adolph, 790 F.3d 1315, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Summit 6, 802 F.3d at 1292 (preamble not
`
`limiting where it provided context for the claimed method and all material steps were recited in the
`
`body of the claim). The term “insulating substrate” is not essential to understand terms in the claim
`
`body. The only structure to which it relates is the “substrate,” which as explained above is readily
`
`understandable on its own. The term “insulating” is not repeated in the claim body and is not
`
`necessary for the performance of the method steps, which relate to thin film deposition using a
`
`specific reactor configuration, not a specific type of substrate. Ex. 1, cl. 1. To the contrary, the
`
`specification teaches that the “substrate can be any material and, in some embodiments, is a silicon
`
`wafer.” Id., 2:61–62.
`
`In addition, the preamble was not relied upon to distinguish the claims during prosecution
`
`and is not underscored as important in the specification. It is thus more akin to a statement of
`
`purpose. See Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290, 1295 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (“the mere fact that a
`
`10903152
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`structural term in the preamble is part of the claim does not mean that the preamble’s statement of
`
`purpose or other description is also part of the claim.”); Glew, ¶¶ 33-34. Such “a statement of
`
`intended use” of claimed method steps is non-limiting. See Cochlear Bone Anchored Sols. AB v.
`
`Oticon Med. AB, 958 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (statement of intended use not limiting).
`
`2.
`
`Defendants Seek To Narrow The Claims To A Subset Of Monolithic
`Substrates
`During the meet and confer process, defendants admitted that they are seeking based on the
`
`preamble to narrow the claimed method to deposition of thin films on a monolithic substrate
`
`consisting exclusively of non-conductive material. But neither the preamble, nor the body of the
`
`claims, says anything about the substrate being monolithic or exclusively non-conductive.
`
`Defendants’ position disregards the patents’ teaching that the claimed methods can be used
`
`with “any type” of substrate. Ex. 1, 2:61–62. Defendants’ position also contradicts numerous
`
`preferred embodiments involving substrates that include layers of insulating materials that have
`
`been deposited on top of other materials—as well as materials containing conductive elements
`
`such as traces and transistors—that are also part of the “substrate.” In these preferred
`
`embodiments, for example: “[t]ypically, substrate 16 can be a silicon wafer or a silicon wafer
`
`coated with a layer of silicon oxide formed by a chemical vapor deposition process or by a thermal
`
`oxidation process.” Id., 7:62–65; see also id., 18:10–12 (describing example deposition on a “6
`
`inch wafer of substrate 16 which includes a 10 μm thick thermal oxide substrate.”); Ex. 12 (App.
`
`2002/0140103) ¶ 23 (“A substrate 12 that may include a trace 14 (or the top of a contact) includes
`
`an etch stop layer 18 above and on a diffusion barrier layer 16.”); Ex. 13 (App. 2004/0259305)
`
`(cls. 41 & 81: “wherein the substrate includes a transistor structure.”). Thus, any construction that
`
`suggests the substrate must be monolithic or entirely non-conductive is contrary to both the
`
`intrinsic record and the technology at issue. Glew, ¶¶ 35-37.
`
`10903152
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`“Pulsed DC power” (’657 Patent, cls. 1, 2, 11; ’276 Patent, cls. 1, 6)
`
`Demaray’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning, or
`“direct current power that oscillates between
`positive and negative voltages”
`
`“DC power in the form of a square wave at a
`set frequency, reverse time, and amplitude”
`
`
`1.
`This Term Does Not Require Construction
`There is no need to construe “pulsed DC power.” It should be given its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, which encompasses DC power provided in the form of one or more pulses, as already
`
`described in contextual claim language not in dispute: “alternating negative and positive voltages.”
`
`If further construction is deemed necessary, “pulsed DC power” is “direct current power
`
`that oscillates between positive and negative voltages.” This comes from the patents, which teach
`
`“[f]or pulsed reactive dc magnetron sputtering, as performed by apparatus 10, the polarity of the
`
`power supplied to target 12 by power supply 14 oscillates between negative and positive
`
`potentials.” Ex. 1, 5:36–39. The claims likewise call for the target to be supplied with “pulsed DC
`
`power” that it “alternates between positive and negative voltages.” See, e.g., Ex. 2 (’276 patent), cl.
`
`1. Thus, the “pulsed” nature of the DC power is explained in immediately following claim
`
`language not in dispute—“alternating negative and positive voltages.” Similarly, in prosecution,
`
`“Applicants … explicitly defined pulsed DC power to refer to power that oscillates between
`
`positive and negative voltages.” Ex. 3 (’356 FH) at DEMINT00001305.3
`
`Demaray’s construction addresses characteristics that are definitional, and does not (unlike
`
`Defendants’ proposal discussed below) improperly attempt to smuggle optional implementational
`
`details into the claims. For example, while certain DC power supplies can, where desired, be
`
`
`3 See also, e.g., The Modern Dictionary of Electronics (defining “pulse” as “[a] brief
`excursion of a quantity from normal”—here, an oscillation from a positive to a negative voltage,
`and back). Ex. 6 at DEMINT00003508; Glew, ¶¶ 38-41.
`
`10903152
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`engineered to provide a “square” wave at specific “set” parameters, or to have symmetrically
`
`oscillating waveforms, DC power supplies that provide a wide variety of other wave shapes and
`
`varying parameters are equally commonplace. The patents teach that these sorts of parameters are
`
`adjustable to suit particular implementations and operating conditions occurring in real time, e.g.:
`
`“[t]he reverse pulsing time is determined by the amount of arcing generated during the process.
`
`Longer reverse time means longer discharge time and thus less arcs. However, if the reverse time is
`
`too long, the deposition rate will decrease.” Ex. 1, 10:54–59; see also id., 22:7–11 (“The frequency
`
`of the pulsed DC power is between about 100 and 200 Khz. Some depositions were performed at
`
`200 kHz while others were performed at 100 kHz. The reverse time was varied between about 2 μs
`
`and about 4 μs ….”). The patents also make clear that the power characteristics can vary depending
`
`on the power source: “utilization of other power supplies will lead to different power
`
`characteristics, frequency characteristics and reverse voltage percentages.” Id., 5:51–53. This is
`
`underscored by other intrinsic evidence as well, as discussed below. Ex. 14 (2003/0035906) ¶ 80.
`
`The general term “pulsed DC power” is not restricted to only a single, highly
`
`particularized, pulsed DC waveform geometry, but rather, encompasses a variety of potential
`
`waveforms of the general type claimed. As described in the Demaray Patents, the particular
`
`parameters defendants seek to “fix” for all purposes can, even in preferred embodiments, be
`
`adjusted as dictated by conditions that change during processing.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants Seek To Narrow The General Term To A Highly Specific
`Subset Of Pulsed DC Power
`Defendants seek to import a series of limitations, using terminology such as “square wave,”
`
`“reverse time,” “amplitude,” that are foreign to both the claims and jurors. Making claims harder to
`
`understand by adding concepts they do not contain is not proper claim construction.
`
`Defendants’ proposed “square wave” limitation with preset parameters is not required by
`
`10903152
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`anything in the intrinsic record, and is contrary to common usage of the general term at issue.
`
`Glew, ¶¶ 42-47. Nothing in the claims or specifications mandates that a DC pulse must always
`
`have a particular waveform geometry. To the contrary, as discussed above, the patents teach that
`
`such waveform parameters can be varied depending on the process. Additional intrinsic evidence
`
`reaffirms that a square wave is only one option for pulsed wave shapes: “[a]lthough shown here as
`
`a square wave, any waveform oscillated between a negative voltage portion and a less negative or
`
`zero voltage portion may be used to advantage.” Ex. 10 (Patent 6,350,353), 5:57–63, see also id.,
`
`cls. 3-4 (describing a “pulsed DC power source”). Similarly, other intrinsic evidence underscores
`
`that the pulse parameters can vary and a “bi-polar pulsed DC (square waveform)” can have
`
`“positive and negative pulse widths [that] are adjustable over a considerable range.” Ex. 14
`
`(2003/0035906) ¶ 80. As yet another example, a reactor system can use “pulsed DC power” when
`
`an arc is detected, not at a “set … time.” Ex. 16 at DEFTS-PA_003062, Fig. 5 (showing pulse of
`
`DC power); -3058 (describing pulsed DC power “approach that forcibly reverses the target voltage
`
`to a few tens of volts higher than the plasma potential”). All of this intrinsic evidence contradicts
`
`the defendants’ proposal that pulses be narrowed exclusively to “square” waveforms with “set”
`
`parameters. See also Glew, ¶ 43 (explaining model square wave forms).
`
`Defendants’ construction requiring a set frequency and reverse time also implies that the
`
`waveform never changes and is constantly pulsing. The claims, in contrast, only require, for
`
`example, that the “target alternates between positive and negative voltages” (e.g., Ex. 1, cl. 1);
`
`there is no requirement that pulses be provided constantly. To the contrary, the patents teach that
`
`pulses are provided to the target to prevent arcing: “[t]he reverse pulsing time is determined by the
`
`amount of arcing generated during the process. Longer reverse time means longer discharge time
`
`and thus less arcs. However, if the reverse time is too long, the deposition rate will decrease.” Id.,
`
`10903152
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 15 of 27
`
`
`
`10:54–59; see also id., 5:41–43 (“To obtain arc free deposition, the pulsing frequency exceeds a
`
`critical frequency that depend on target material, cathode current and reverse time.”). Thus, in the
`
`preferred application, DC power is pulsed when arcing is detected, not constantly. See also, Glew,
`
`¶ 44. Other intrinsic evidence is in accord. Ex. 16 at DEFTS-PA_003062, Fig. 5; -3058 (using
`
`pulsed DC power when an arc is detected, and a waveform that is not a square wave).
`
`Defendants seek to import extraneous limitations about “a square wave at a set frequency,
`
`reverse time, and amplitude” from a specific, explicitly non-limiting, example in the specification.
`
`See Ex. 1, Fig. 4 (and associated description). But the specification makes clear that “Figure 4
`
`illustrates an example deposition process only” when it describes the parameters of a particular
`
`pulsed DC power supply in the example as being “set, including the power, frequency, and reverse
`
`pulsing time.” Id., 13:39–46. To avoid any possible doubt, the patents further state that these
`
`examples are “exemplary only and are not intended to be limiting” and should not limit the claims
`
`because “[o]ne skilled in the art can vary the processes specifically described here in various
`
`ways.” Id., 22:59–67. The details in the example defendants seize upon are plainly not the only
`
`way pulsed DC power can be supplied, and nothing in the claims or specification limits the general
`
`term “pulsed” in such a highly specific manner. Defendants’ effort to narrow claims based on
`
`specification examples is contrary to settled law. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1301, 1323
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (courts must “avoid importing limitations from the specification into the claims”).
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction would also exclude preferred embodiments. The patents
`
`teach “[t]he reverse pulsing time is determined by the amount of arcing generated during the
`
`process. Longer reverse time means longer discharge time and thus less arcs. However, if the
`
`reverse time is too long, the deposition rate will decrease.” Ex. 1, 10:54–59. Varying the reverse
`
`pulsing time as described could create a wide variety of shapes other than a square wave. Glew,
`
`10903152
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/16/21 Page 16 of 27
`
`
`
`¶ 45. In addition, the patents address the problem of insulating material buildup on the target
`
`causing voltage drops. Ex. 1, 17:7–10 (“When target 12 under goes the transition from metallic to
`
`poison mode, the target voltage drops ….”). That voltage drop would also naturally result in
`
`waveforms other than square waves. Glew, ¶ 45.
`
`Indeed, defendants seek a construction that fundamentally misdescribes the technology at
`
`issue. Id., ¶¶ 46–47. The intrinsic evidence explains that perfec