DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Intel Corporation et al

Filing 229

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The Court adopts the constructions as set forth in this Order. Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 03/14/16. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INTEL CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-cv-130

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in United States Patent
Nos. 6,784,552 (“the ’552 Patent”) and 5,965,924 (“the ’924 Patent”) asserted in this suit by
Plaintiff DSS Technology Management (“DSS”). On February 9, 2016, the parties presented
oral arguments on the disputed claim terms at a Markman hearing. For the reasons stated below,
the court ADOPTS the following constructions.
BACKGROUND
The asserted patents generally relate to semiconductor devices and the processes for
making those devices.

Both patents claim semiconductor structures that allow for higher

transistor densities. As transistor density increases, so does performance. But that increase in
density can cause problems, especially when transistor components are misaligned during the
semiconductor fabrication process. Misalignment can cause electrical shorts between transistor
components, thus rendering the transistor inoperable. The patents-in-suit seek to prevent these
types of problems using various semiconductor processes.
The ’552 Patent relates to improved methods for etching openings in insulating layers
and creating semiconductor devices with well-defined contact openings. ’552 Patent at 1:9–12.
Page 1 of 12

The ’924 Patent relates to metal plug interconnects, which connect gates with diffusion regions
in a semiconductor device. ’924 Patent at 1:7–8. The method for making the local interconnect
of the ’924 Patent saves processing steps and reduces layout area of traditional prior art methods,
such as a conventional buried contact method. ’924 Patent at 2:33–41.
APPLICABLE LAW
“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381
F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court examines a patent’s intrinsic evidence to define
the patented invention’s scope. Id. at 1313–1314; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad
Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Intrinsic evidence includes the
claims, the rest of the specification and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13;
Bell Atl. Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267. The Court gives claim terms their ordinary and
customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
Claim language guides the Court’s construction of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1314. “[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id.
Other claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction because “terms are
normally used consistently throughout the patent.” Id. Differences among claims, such as
additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id.
“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “[T]he

Page 2 of 12

specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.

Usually, it is

dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’ ” Id. (quoting Vitronics
Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the specification, a patentee may define his own
terms, give a claim term a different meaning that it would otherwise possess, or disclaim or
disavow some claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Although the Court generally presumes
terms possess their ordinary meaning, this presumption can be overcome by statements of clear
disclaimer. See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337,
1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This presumption does not arise when the patentee acts as his own
lexicographer. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and
accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of
the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. For
example, “[a] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the
claim ‘is rarely, if ever, correct.’” Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elam Computer Group Inc., 362
F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583). But, “[a]lthough
the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language in the
claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be
read into the claims.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
1988); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
Although “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative
meaning of claim language,” the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to “shed useful light on

Page 3 of 12

the relevant art.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and
treatises may help the Court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one
skilled in the art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad
definitions or may not be indicative of how terms are used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
expert testimony may aid the Court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the
pertinent field, but “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim
term are not useful.” Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its
prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id.
I.

Agreed Terms
Term

Agreed Construction
“contact openings and/or vias”

“contact region”
(‘739 Patent, claims 1, 11, 20)
II.

Claim Construction of Disputed Terms
1. “an etch stop material over said first insulating layer and adjacent to the insulating
spacer” (’552 Patent, claim 1)

DSS’s Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
“an etch stop material around and/or above “a material overlying the first insulating layer
said first insulating layer”
that is not effectively etched by the etchant
used to create the contact region”
Generally, an etch stop material has an etch
rate that is relatively lower than an adjacent or
underlying material exposed to a specific etch
process and effectively prevents etching of the
adjacent or underlying material.
The parties initially had two disputes with this term. First, Defendants argue that the etch
stop material must be over, rather than around, the first insulating layer. Docket No. 195 at 1.
At the hearing, DSS clarified that it is not arguing that an etch stop material that is exclusively to
the side of an insulating material is “over” that insulating material. Docket No. 222 at 23:22–
25:3. Ultimately, the parties agreed that the claim language mandates the etch stop material is
Page 4 of 12

over the first insulating layer and adjacent to the insulating spacer. Docket No. 222 at 10:18–21,
22:16-19.
Next, the parties dispute whether the recited etch stop material’s etching rate is relative to
the material to be etched away (as DSS proposes), or the etchant used in creating the contact
openings (as Defendants propose). DSS argues that “an etch stop material has an etch rate that is
relatively lower than an adjacent or underlying material exposed to a specific etch process and
may prevent etching of the adjacent or underlying material.”

Docket No. 206-1 at 1.

Defendants, relying on Figs. 4(H) and 4(I) below, argue that “the only etchant that the etch stop
material is described as stopping in the patent is the etchant used to form the contact opening.”
Docket No. 90 at 12. At the hearing, Defendants clarified this further by stating that an etch stop
material can only be defined “with respect to a particular etching process.” Docket No. 222 at
28:20–21.

’552 Patent at 12:35-43 (color and labels added). Figures 4(H) and 4(I), where the etching process removes the
blanket layer to create the contact openings, yet does not etch away the etch stop layer.

The parties’ positions are fairly close. Defendants are correct that the etch stop material
in Figs. 4(H) and 4(I) are defined relative to the etch process used to make the contact opening,
but DSS’s proposed construction accounts for that because the etch stop material lies under the
blanket layer, which is the material etched to create the contact openings. That is, in Figs. 4(H)
and 4(I), the etch stop material can be defined by either the etchant being used in the specific
Page 5 of 12

etching process, or by the etch stop material having a lower etch rate than the material being
etched away in the etching process. However, Defendants’ proposed construction goes a step
further by requiring it to be the etching process that creates the contact regions, as illustrated in
the preferred embodiment of Figs. 4(H) and 4(I). DSS’s understanding does not incorporate the
limitations from this preferred embodiment to the same extent and is therefore preferred. LiebelFlarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is improper to read
limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the only
embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee
intended the claims to be so limited.”).
Further, the claim language implicitly defines the etch stop material by the material
adjacent to it. For example, claim 1 recites “etch stop material over [the] first insulating layer
and adjacent to the insulating spacer” wherein the “first insulating layer” is “on the conductive
layer,” and the contact region is in the “first insulating layer.” Additionally, the specification
states that “[i]t will be appreciated that each of the methods described herein can be utilized on a
variety of structures and oxide layers, to form any type of opening, and each of the insulating
layer etching methods described herein is not necessarily restricted to the structure and/or
insulating layer in conjunction with which it is described.” ’552 Patent at 10:23–28; see also
2:1–21 (describing the relationship between etch rates for silicon nitride and silicon dioxide). It
is more true to the intrinsic evidence to define the etch stop material relative to the etching rate of
the material that is being effectively etched away, rather than the specific etchant used in a single
etching process.
Accordingly, the Court construes “an etch stop material over said first insulating layer
and adjacent to the insulating spacer” as “a material over the first insulating layer and adjacent to

Page 6 of 12

the insulating spacer that is not effectively etched by the etch process used because it has an etch
rate that is relatively lower than the material that is being etched away.”
2. “a side of the insulating spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is
either a right angle or an acute angle of more than 85º ” (’552 Patent, claim 1)
DSS’s Proposed Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning

Defendants’ Proposed Construction
a side of the insulating spacer has an angle
relative to the horizontal substrate surface that
is greater than 85° and less than or equal to 90°

The parties dispute whether the recited angle must be relative to a horizontal substrate
surface, as Defendants propose.

Docket No. 190 at 15.

Defendants contend that the

specification expressly states that the substrate surface is horizontal. Id., citing ’552 Patent at
7:45–48 (“[T]he etchant etches in one direction-in this case, vertically (or perpendicular relative
to the substrate surface) rather than horizontally.”); Figs. 2(B), 4(K) (showing the substrate
surface as horizontal). DSS acknowledges that those figures teach a horizontal substrate surface.
Docket No. 195 at 6. However, DSS contends that “neither the claims nor the specification
limits that substrate surface to one that is horizontal.” Id. DSS submits the specification uses a
disjunctive parenthetical that clarifies the substrate does not necessarily have to be horizontal.
Id., citing ’552 Patent at 7:46–48 (“[T]he etchant etches in one direction-in this case, vertically
(or perpendicular relative to the substrate surface) rather than horizontally.”) (emphasis added
by DSS).
The claim recites that the reference for measuring the angle is the “substrate surface,” not
a “horizontal substrate surface.” There is nothing in the intrinsic record that limits the substrate
surface to one that is horizontal.

The closest the specification comes to discussing this

requirement is the section cited by both parties that treats the etching direction as perpendicular,
but this section provides horizontal and vertical as an example. ’552 Patent at 7:46–48. At the

Page 7 of 12

hearing, the parties agreed to use Defendants’ proposal with the word “horizontal” removed.
Docket No. 222 at 29:25–30:22, 60:11–14.
Accordingly, the Court construes “a side of the insulating spacer has an angle relative to
the substrate surface that is either a right angle or an acute angle of more than 85º ” as “a side of
the insulating spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is greater than 85° and less
than or equal to 90°.”
3. “insulating spacer” (’552 Patent, claims 1, 4, and 5)
DSS’s Proposed Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning

Defendants’ Proposed Construction
lateral spacer that electrically isolates the
conductive layer from the contact region

At the hearing, the parties disputed whether the insulating spacer is a “lateral” spacer as
Defendants contend. Defendants clarified that “ ‘lateral’ merely means ‘to the side of.’ And that
the lateral spacer is providing spacing or insulation with respect to components on either side of
it.” Docket No. 222 at 35:14–16; see also Docket No. 190 at 21.
Regarding the insulating spacer’s positional characteristics, “[t]he invention contemplates
that the insulating layer has spacer portions between the conductive layers and the contact
opening.” ’552 Patent at 13:51–33. Specifically, the specification states that “spacers are formed
between the polysilicon layer 415 of the gates and the contact openings by depositing an
additional of conformal layer of TEOS material 430 over the structure and etching spacer
portions extending into the contact openings and adjacent to the polysilicon layer 415 . . . .” ’552
Patent at 11:35–39.
This understanding—that the spacer provides spacing or insulation with respect to the
components on either side of it—addresses Defendants’ main concern. The Court therefore
proposed “insulating material located between the conductive layer and the contact opening.”

Page 8 of 12

DSS agreed with this language, while Defendants agreed to the extent that it requires a lateral
spacer. Defendants then clarified that a lateral spacer separates two components and provides
insulation to either side of the spacer. Docket No. 222 at 31:19–20, 35:14–16. The Court’s
proposal addresses Defendants’ concern without introducing the word “lateral,” which would
necessarily require further construction without providing further clarity.
Accordingly, the specification indicates that the recited “insulating spacer” is an
“insulating material located between the conductive layer and the contact opening.”
4. “diffusion region formed in said substrate” (’924 Patent, claim 1)
DSS’s Proposed Construction
Defendants’ Proposed Construction
conductive terminal region such as a source or conductive terminal region, such as a source or
drain formed in said substrate
drain, that contains dopants implanted in the
silicon substrate
5. “diffusion region in a silicon substrate” (’924 Patent, claim 7)
DSS’s Proposed Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning

Defendants’ Proposed Construction
conductive terminal region, such as a source or
drain, that contains dopants implanted in the
silicon substrate

For “diffusion region formed in said substrate,” the Court proposed “conductive terminal
region such as a source or drain formed in the substrate,” and for “diffusion region in a silicon
substrate,” the Court proposed “conductive terminal region such as a source or drain in a silicon
substrate.” DSS agreed with these proposals; however Defendants want to include the limitation
that the diffusion regions are created by ion implantation.
Specifically, Defendants argue that “[a]t the time of the invention ion implantation was
the way that you created diffusion regions.” Docket No. 222 at 45:7–8. In the briefing,
Defendants rely heavily on the “present invention” language in the ’924 Patent at 3:41–51, which
they allege limits the invention to diffusion regions with implanted dopants:

Page 9 of 12

The present invention provides a semiconductor structure that has a metal plug
local interconnect (or shunt) for connecting a polysilicon gate to a diffusion
region in a structure and a method of forming such a semiconductor structure.
Referring initially to FIGS. 3A and 3B wherein an enlarged top view and a crosssectional view of the present invention metal plug local interconnect is shown,
respectively. Diffusion regions 70 and 72 of either N+ or P+ doping are first
formed by an ion implantation process in the surface of the silicon substrate 74.
’924 Patent at 3:41–51.
The present invention, as the above passage makes clear, is a “metal plug local
interconnect.” That is the disclosed and claimed invention. How the diffusion regions are doped
are ancillary to the metal plug local interconnect. The only requirement is that the substrate has
a diffusion region; the claims are agnostic to how it was created. ’924 Patent at 5:26, 6:16–17.
Therefore, the Court rejects Defendants’ argument that the diffusion region must be formed by
ion implantation.
Accordingly, the Court construes “diffusion region formed in said substrate” as
“conductive terminal region such as a source or drain formed in the substrate” and “diffusion
region in a silicon substrate” as “conductive terminal region such as a source or drain in a silicon
substrate.”
6. “conducting plug” (’924 Patent, claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14)
DSS’s Proposed Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning

Defendants’ Proposed Construction
electrically conducting material deposited into
a via and separate from a strapping shunt layer

Defendants initially opposed the plain and ordinary meaning because they were
concerned it allows for an electrical communication between the gate and the diffusion region
that can be made through a local interconnect strap similar to the prior art systems. Docket No.
190 at 28 (relying on the specification, ’924 Patent at 2:56–63, that states the “object of the
present invention to provide a metal plug local interconnect between a polysilicon gate and a
Page 10 of 12

diffusion region that does not require the use of a local interconnect strap.”). At the hearing,
.
DSS agreed that it would not argue that “that the local interconnect strap was part of the
conducting plug.” Docket No. 222 at 59:2–4. With that resolution, the parties agreed to the
plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 58:5–59:4.
Accordingly, “conducting plug” is construed consistent with its plain and ordinary
meaning, but the Court rejects any argument that the recited electrical communication between
the gate and the diffusion region can be made through a local interconnect strap.
SIGNED this 14th day of March, 2016.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 11 of 12

APPENDIX A
United States Patent Number 6,784,552:
Claim Term
“an etch stop material over said first insulating
layer and adjacent to the insulating spacer”
claim 1
“a side of the insulating spacer has an angle
relative to the substrate surface that is either a
right angle or an acute angle of more than 85°”
claim 1
“insulating spacer”
claims 1, 4, and 5
“contact region”
claim 1
* Parties agreed construction

Court’s Construction
“a material over the first insulating layer and
adjacent to the insulating spacer that is not
effectively etched by the etch process used
because it has an etch rate that is relatively
lower than the adjacent and overlying material”
“a side of the insulating spacer has an angle
relative to the substrate surface that is greater
than 85° and less than or equal to 90° ”
“insulating material located between the
conductive layer and the contact opening”
“contact openings and/or vias”*

United States Patent Number 5,965,924:
Claim Terms
“diffusion region formed in said substrate”
claim 1
“diffusion region in a silicon substrate”
claim 7
“conducting plug”
claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14

Court’s Construction
“conductive terminal region such as a source or
drain formed in the substrate”
“conductive terminal region such as a source or
drain in a silicon substrate”
plain and ordinary meaning

Page 12 of 12