Free Claim Construction Opening Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 1 of 69

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ON SEMICONDUCTOR CORP. and SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, L.L.C., Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA GENERAL, L.L.C., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR L.L.C., Defendants. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA GENERAL, L.L.C., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR L.L.C., Plaintiffs, v. ON SEMICONDUCTOR CORP. and SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, L.L.C., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 07-449 (JJF)

C.A. No. 06-720 (JJF)

ON SEMICONDUCTOR'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP Karen Jacobs Louden (#2881) Richard J. Bauer (#4828) 1201 N. Market Street, P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for ON Semiconductor Corp. and Semiconductor Components Industries, L.L.C.

Dated: April 14, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 2 of 69 i.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................................................v ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 LEGAL STANDARD......................................................................................................................2 I. U.S. PATENT NO. 5,361,001 .................................................................................4 A. B. Introduction to the Claims ...........................................................................4 The Disputed Claim Construction Issues.....................................................6 1. "Analog Trimming" .........................................................................6 a. b. This Term From the Preamble Does Not Require Construction ...........................................................6 If This Term Requires Construction, It Should Be Construed to Mean "Modifying an Analog Value or Quantity" .............................................7

2. 3. 4. II.

"Control Signal"...............................................................................9 "Fixed Value" ................................................................................11 "Setting Said Control Signal to a Fixed Value".............................13

U.S. PATENT NO. 6,362,644 ...............................................................................14 A. B. Introduction................................................................................................14 The Disputed Claim Construction Issues...................................................15 1. "Terminate," "Termination signal," "Load Elements," and "Loading" .............................................................15 a. b. c. Background on Transmission Lines and Their Termination ..............................................................16 "Load Elements"................................................................20 "Loading"...........................................................................21

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 3 of 69 ii.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

"Pins" .............................................................................................21 "Third and Fourth Pins for Respectively Receiving First and Second Termination Signals" .........................................23 "Coupled" ......................................................................................24 "Programmable Termination"........................................................25 "First and Second Load Elements Are Coupled to Third and Fourth Pins of the Semiconductor Package to Provide a Programmable Termination".......................26

III.

U.S. PATENT NO. 5,563,594 ...............................................................................27 A. B. Introduction................................................................................................27 The Disputed Claim Construction Issues...................................................28 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. "Coupled" ......................................................................................28 "A Register Having an Input Coupled for Receiving Parallel Input Data and Having an Output" ...................................29 "A Multiplexer Having an Input Coupled to Said Output of Said Register for Providing Serial Data".......................31 "Comparator".................................................................................32 Signal Terms ­ "Control Signal," "Clock Signal," and "Transfer Data Signal"............................................................33 a. b. c. 6. "Control Signal".................................................................34 "Clock Signal" ...................................................................35 "Transfer Data Signal".......................................................36

"First and Second Control Signals Match"....................................36

IV.

U.S. PATENT NO. 5,000,827 ...............................................................................38 A. B. Introduction to the Claims .........................................................................38 The Disputed Claim Construction Issues...................................................40 1. "Said Bumps Being of Substantially Uniform Height Across Said Substrate".......................................................40

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 4 of 69 iii.

a.

The Preamble Phrase Merely Recites the Purpose for the Invention, and Is Not a Limitation...........................................................................40 If the Court Finds that the Preamble is a Limitation, It Should Adopt ON Semiconductor's Proposed Construction...........................41

b.

2. 3. V.

"Metallization Bumps" ..................................................................43 "Altering the Flow Rate of Said Solution Through Said Opening"................................................................................45

U.S. PATENT NO. 5.252,177 ...............................................................................46 A. B. Introduction to the Claims .........................................................................46 The Disputed Claim Construction Issues...................................................49 1. "Removing Said Photoresist Pattern Positioned on Said Insulation Layer by Plasma Etching Simultaneously Forming a Protective Oxide Layer" (claim 1) and ..................................................................................49 "removing Remaining Photoresist Positioned on Said Insulation Layer by Plasma Ashing to Simultaneously Form a Protective Oxide Layer" (claim 8) .........................................................................................49 a. b. c. d. 3. "Removing Said Photoresist Pattern;" and "Removing Remaining Photoresist" ..................................49 "Plasma Etching" and "Plasma Ashing"............................50 "Simultaneous Form" and "Simultaneous Forming" ............................................................................52 "Protective Oxide Layer"...................................................53

2.

"Removing Said Oxide Layer Before Forming a Second Conductive Layer on Said Exposed Top Surface of Said First Conductive Layer" (Claims 1 and 8) .............................................................................................56 "Photoresist" ..................................................................................58 "Exposed Top Surface" and "Expose a Top Surface of Said Conductive Layer".............................................................59

4. 5.

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 5 of 69 iv.

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................60

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 6 of 69 v.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Mayne Pharma Inc., 467 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006)......................................................................................... 13 Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................... 13, 31, 35 Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed Cir. 2002)............................................................................................ 4 Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)........................................................................................... 32 Catalina Mktg. Int'l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)......................................................................................... 4, 6 Chef Am., Inc., v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 13 Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989)........................................................................................... 3 CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 1997)......................................................................................... 17 Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int'l, 423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................... 12, 20 Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................. 2 In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 503 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................... 32 In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2000)......................................................................................... 38 Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 11 Intirtool, Ltd. v. Texar Corp., 369 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 42

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 7 of 69 vi.

Klein v. Russell, 86 U.S. 433 (1873)............................................................................................................ 58 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996)............................................................................................................ 2 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)............................................................................................... 2 MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 74 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................................... 23 Nazomi Commc'ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC., 403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 12 Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................... 23 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).................................................................. passim Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999)....................................................................................... 4, 6 Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 38 Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1999)......................................................................................... 58 Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)............................................................................................. 4 Southwall Techs. v. Cardinal IG., 54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995)............................................................................................ 3 Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987)......................................................................................... 12 Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 846 F.2d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1988)......................................................................................... 58 Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................. 2, 3, 25, 59

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 8 of 69 1.

INTRODUCTION ON Semiconductor1 accuses Samsung2 of infringing four ON Semiconductor patents. Three of them ­ U.S. Patent Nos. 5,361,001 (the "'001 patent"), 6,362,644 (the "'644 patent") and 5,563,594 (the "'594 patent") ­ are directed to semiconductor circuits used in electronic devices such as cellular telephones, cameras, computers, and automobiles. The fourth ON Semiconductor patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,000,827 (the "'827 patent"), as well as the one Samsung patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 5,252,177 (the "'177 patent"), generally relate to processes for manufacturing semiconductor chips.3 This is ON Semiconductor's opening claim construction brief in support of its constructions of the disputed claim terms of those patents. ON Semiconductor offers constructions of the disputed claim terms that are based on their plain and ordinary meaning in the light of the intrinsic record. By contrast, Samsung's proposed constructions violate the claim construction principles set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315-1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). These errors include: (1) reading limitations from dependent claims into the independent claims; (2) importing limitations from the specification; (3) construing terms to exclude described embodiments; and (4) relying on extrinsic evidence taken out of context and inconsistent with the intrinsic record to rewrite claim

"ON Semiconductor" refers collectively to ON Semiconductor Corp. and Semiconductor Components Industries, L.L.C. "Samsung" refers collectively to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America General, L.L.C., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.L.C. For the Court's convenience, copies of each of the five patents in suit are attached hereto as Exhibits A-E. Copies of the '001, '644, '594, and '827 patents are also attached as Exhibits 1, 6, 14, and 26 to the accompanying Declaration of Richard Bauer.
3 2

1

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 9 of 69 2.

language.4

The intrinsic record, as confirmed by well established dictionaries and other

scholarly references, demonstrates that ON Semiconductor's constructions are proper and should be adopted over Samsung's proposed constructions. LEGAL STANDARD Claim construction is a matter of law for the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). Because of the public notice function of the claims, "the focus is on the objective test of what one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the term to mean." Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370. To determine the meaning of a patent claim, the Court considers three sources: the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. Id. at 979. The Court looks first to the words of the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. "Although words in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, a patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). "A technical term used in a patent document is interpreted as having the meaning that it would be given by persons experienced in the field of the invention, unless it is apparent from the patent and the prosecution history that the inventor used the term with a different meaning." Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 ("We have viewed extrinsic evidence in general as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms. . . .).

4

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 10 of 69 3.

It is always necessary to review the specification to determine whether the inventor has used any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 13201321. The specification can act as a dictionary when it expressly or impliedly defines terms used in the claims. Id. at 1321. Because the specification must contain a description of the invention that is clear and complete enough to enable those of ordinary skill in the art to make and use it, the specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Id. at 1315. When looking to the specification, however, courts must "avoid the danger of reading limitations from the specification into the claim." Id. 1323. The prosecution history should also be consulted and "is often of critical significance in determining the meaning of the claims." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. Disputed claim terms are construed consistently across all claims within a patent. Southwall Techs. v. Cardinal IG., 54 F.3d 1570, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Extrinsic evidence should be used only if needed to assist in determining the meaning or scope of technical terms in the claims, and may not be used to vary or contradict the terms of the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322. The Court is free to consult technical treatises and

dictionaries, however, to better understand the underlying technology and to rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as they do not contradict any definition found in, or ascertained by, a reading of the patent documents. Id. Whether to treat a preamble as a limitation is a determination "resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In general, a preamble limits the claimed invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is "necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality" to the claim.

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 11 of 69 4.

Catalina Mktg. Int'l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). If the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, then it is of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim limitation. Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1305; see also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Generally, the preamble does not limit the claims."). ARGUMENT I. U.S. PATENT NO. 5,361,001 A. Introduction to the Claims

Claim 4 is being asserted in the present litigation:5 4. A method of analog trimming, comprising the steps of: enabling conduction through a passive element in response to a first state of a control signal; disabling conduction through said passive element in response to a second state of said control signal; activating said control signal in response to a data signal to enable and disable said conduction through said passive element, said activating step including the steps (a) latching said data signal, and (b) logically combining said data signal with a logic signal for providing said control signal; and setting said control signal to a fixed value after removal of said data signal. [ Ex. 1, Col. 5:27-6:7.]6

5 6

Emphasis in the quoted material is added unless otherwise noted.

"Ex. _____" refers to the numbered exhibits attached to the accompanying Declaration of Richard J. Bauer.

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 12 of 69 5.

The '001 patent is generally directed to methods for performing analog trimming. [Id., Col. 1:6-10.] The use of the term "trimming" in the '001 patent relates to tuning or adjusting analog values in a circuit to get them just right for a particular application. [Id., Col. 1:21-24.] Although electronic components are generally made uniformly, trimming is necessary because the manufacturing process introduces some variation in the electrical characteristics of each individual device. [Id., Col. 1:10-23 ("To compensate for the process variability, many

electronic circuits use analog trimming during test to set resistor values as necessary for proper operation of the circuit.")] The '001 patent teaches incorporating multiple analog components, resistors for example, than can be individually turned on and off to create a specific analog value to correct for this variation, or to optimize the component for a particular application. [Id., Col. 2:15-45.] To test the trim amount before applying it, the inventors of the '001 patent devised a method by which they could "preview" the trimming until they got it right. [Id., Col. 1:6-10.] Once the trim value was chosen appropriately, it could be "fixed" for a particular circuit. [Id., Col. 4:14-17.] In this way, the circuit could be customized for a particular application. For example, Figure 1 of the '001 patent shows a series of resistors (resistors 12, 14, 16, and 18) that affect the total resistance from point 19 to point 20. [Id., Col. 2:15-18.] Any one or more of these resistors can be "enabled or disabled" by controlling the corresponding transistor (transistors 26, 30, and 34, respectively). [Id., Col. 2:28-45.] By inputting the appropriate information (DATA) to the CONTROL CIRCUITS, different combinations can be

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 13 of 69 6.

explored (i.e., "previewed"). [Id. Col. 2:37-42.] Once the right combination is found, the control signals to the transistors can be fixed. [Id., Col. 4:14-17.] B. The Disputed Claim Construction Issues 1. "Analog Trimming"

ON Semiconductor Samsung This term appears only in the preamble and is The preamble is a limitation and should be not a claim limitation and therefore does not construed as follows: require construction. If the Court is inclined to construe this term, it should be construed as follows: modifying an analog value or quantity making fine adjustments of capacitance, inductance, or resistance of an analog component.

a.

This Term From the Preamble Does Not Require Construction

The claim phrase "analog trimming" in the preamble is not a limitation because it neither recites essential structure or steps nor is it necessary to give "life, meaning, and vitality" to the claim. Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1305. The preamble does not recite essential steps because the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of its limitations. Aside from the preamble, no further reference is made anywhere in the body of the claim to "analog trimming." This statement of purpose or intended use is not sufficient to make the preamble a claim limitation. Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 808. There also is no evidence from the prosecution history where the '001 inventor distinguished the prior art based on the phrase "analog trimming." construction. Therefore, the preamble phrase "analog trimming" requires no

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 14 of 69 7.

b.

If This Term Requires Construction, It Should Be Construed to Mean "Modifying an Analog Value or Quantity"

If the Court concludes that the term "analog trimming" should be construed, the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The plain meaning of "trimming" is

"modifying." [Ex. 2 at 1259 (defining the term "trimming" as "to adjust to a desired position").] Therefore, the plain meaning of the phrase "analog trimming" would be "modifying an analog value or quantity." The specification supports this plain meaning. It states that "[t]he trimming is temporary and may be modified with different data signals to achieve optimal results." [Ex. 1, Col. 4:3537.] When discussing a particular example of "analog trimming," the specification explains that "[t]he resistor ladder should be adjustable at wafer test over a range from say 10 to 2,560 ohms in 10 ohm increments," where resistance is an analog quantity or value. [Id., Col. 1:36-38.] Thus, the term "analog trimming" is used in the specification to refer to adjusting an analog value or quantity, including resistors, capacitors, transistors, voltages, frequencies, and gain [Id. at 1:12-20.] There is no mention or discussion of the phrase "analog trimming" in the

prosecution history. In addition to the intrinsic evidence, extrinsic evidence also supports ON Semiconductor's interpretation. For example, consistent with the discussion above, the Modern Dictionary of Electronics defines "analog" as "[t]he representation of numerical quantities by means of physical variables, e.g., translation, rotation, voltage, resistance." [Ex. 3 at 39-40.]7

The Court may rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as they do not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Here, contemporaneous references are consistent with the inventors' use of the term in the specification.

7

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 15 of 69 8.

The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary describes "trim" as "to adjust to a desired position." [Ex. 2 at 1258.] Another reference discusses that "[t]he precision of many analog CMOS circuits depends on the matching of MOS transistors" and that "[i]f the required accuracy cannot be achieved by this technique, trimming may help further." [Ex. 4 at 1437-1440.] These statements relate to modifying certain transistor parameters (analog values). The authors'

description of certain known trimming techniques, including "laser trimming, programming of resistor networks (e.g., by Zener zapping [2] or fusible links [3]), and dynamic compensation," is significant because some of these techniques are mentioned in the '001 patent. [See, e.g., Ex. 1, Col. 1:42-43, 1:48-52, and 2:15-18.] Samsung agrees that "trimming" relates to "adjusting," but then improperly seeks to add additional limitations that are inconsistent with the plain meaning of this phrase and the intrinsic evidence. For instance, Samsung's proposed construction would require the "making of a fine adjustment." [D.I. 117 at 8.]8 Not only is this "fine" limitation found nowhere in the claim, specification, or the file history, but the patent teaches a large (not a "fine") range of adjustments from 10 to 2,560 ohms. [Ex. 1, Col. 1:36-38.] Samsung attempts to narrow this limitation even further by proposing to limit the "fine adjustment" to "capacitance, inductance, or resistance." Although these examples are analog quantities or values, they are in no way an exhaustive list. In fact, the specification mentions additional analog values, including voltage, frequency, and gain. [See, e.g., Ex. 1, Col. 1:12-20.] Samsung's proposed construction goes even farther astray, proposing that the term "analog trimming" somehow references an "analog circuit component."

For simplicity, all citations to the record refer to docket entries in C.A. No. 06-720-JJF unless otherwise specified.

8

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 16 of 69 9.

There is, however, no support for adding a circuit limitation to the simple term "analog trimming." 2. "Control Signal"

ON Semiconductor Samsung a signal that conveys information about a signal that enables or disables conduction regulation or guidance through an associated passive element Samsung appears to contend that "signal" need not be construed because it uses the term "signal" in its construction of "control signal." To narrow the issues for the Court, ON

Semiconductor accepts Samsung's position and also includes the word "signal" as part of its construction.9 The remaining issue here is to determine what "control" means. The plain meaning of the term "control signal" is a signal that provides control. The term is consistently used in this manner throughout the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. To provide guidance to the jury, ON Semiconductor proposes that "control signal" be expanded to "a signal that conveys information about regulation or guidance" because "control" in the '001 patent relates to regulation or guidance. Claim 1 itself explains the function of the control signal: "a control signal for enabling and disabling conduction through said passive element." As stated here, "control signal"

conveys information about the regulation of conduction through the passive elements. More specifically, the control signal regulates when the passive elements are to be turned on (enable conduction) or off (disable conduction). ON Semiconductor's construction is fully consistent with this usage and the usage of the term in other claims. [See, e.g., Ex. 1, Col. 6:4-5 (claiming "logically combining said data signal with a logic signal for providing said control signal").] Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (explaining that "the context in which a term is used in the asserted
9

ON Semiconductor does similarly for other terms involving signal, including "clock signal," "transfer data signal," and "termination signal" as discussed further below.

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 17 of 69 10.

claim can be highly instructive" as well as "[o]ther claims . . . , both asserted and unasserted, can [ ] be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term"). Similarly, the specification states that "[c]ontrol circuit 24 provides a control signal to the gate of MOS transistor 26." [Ex. 1, Col. 2:28-29.] This passage explains that the control signal applies a signal to the gate of MOS transistor so as to regulate or guide its operation; in essence the control signal is turning MOS transistor 26 on and off. Other passages of the specification discuss control signals regulating the operation of MOS transistors 30 and 34. [See, e.g., Ex. 1, Col. 2:31-35.] Nothing in the prosecution history contradicts this construction. [See Ex. 5.] Extrinsic evidence further confirms that ON Semiconductor's construction is correct. For example, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "control" as "to exercise restraining or directing influence over: regulate." [Ex. 2 at 252.] Similarly, the IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms defines it as "[b]roadly, the methods and means of governing the performance of any electric apparatus, machine, or system." [Ex. 34, p. 133.] See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 ("[D]ictionaries, and especially technical dictionaries, endeavor to collect the accepted meanings of terms used in various fields of science and technology," and so "those resources have been properly recognized as among the many tools that can assist the court in determining the meaning of particular terminology to those of skill in the art of the invention.") Eschewing this plain meaning, Samsung proposes that "control" should mean "enable or disable conduction through an associated passive element of a trim circuit." That construction, however, not only reads in other limitations from other claim elements (e.g., enable/disable conduction) but also reads in limitations from the specification (e.g., trim circuit), which is improper. [See, e.g., Ex. 1, Abstract; Col. 1:6-9; 2:15-18.] See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 ("[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 18 of 69 11.

warned against confining claims to those embodiments."); Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (rejecting proposed construction that "largely read[ ] the term `operatively' out of the phrase `operatively connected,'" finding "[w]hile not an absolute rule, all claim terms are presumed to have meaning in a claim."). The same term, "control signal," is also disputed in the '594 patent. Because "control signal" is a well-understood term with no special meaning in either patent, ON Semiconductor proposes identical constructions for both; Samsung's are drastically different. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (finding involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words). For example, as discussed below, for the '594 patent, Samsung proposes that "control signal" should mean "a signal for controlling the phase of the transfer data signal." rejected. 3. "Fixed Value" Samsung's proposed constructions are improper in both instances and should be

ON Semiconductor Samsung a state that is not fluctuating or varying during a value that does not change a specified or predetermined time or condition The terms "fixed" and "value" are familiar and the concept of "fixed value" is also wellknown to one skilled in the art. ON Semiconductor's proposed definition is based on the wellunderstood and plain meaning of this phrase. In ordinary usage, "fixed" does not necessarily mean "the same forever." A fixed price contract, for example, eventually expires and a new price may be negotiated for the next fixed price contract. Likewise, even a fixed time for a meeting may be changed to a new fixed time. When used in its ordinary sense, the term "fixed value" can be understood to relate to a state that is not fluctuating or varying, but that can change from time to time or according to changed

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 19 of 69 12.

conditions. Accordingly, "fixed value" should be construed as "a state that is not fluctuating or varying during a specified or predetermined time or condition." The claims' usage of "fixed value" is consistent. For example, claim 4 recites "setting said control signal to a fixed value." [See Ex. 1, Col. 6:6.] This phrase can be understood to mean that the control signal is to be set to a particular state or condition. Nothing in the claim language says that the value, once set, can not be changed again. In contrast to claim 1, dependent claim 5 recites "blowing a fuse to set said control signal at said fixed value." Once a fuse is blown, it cannot be easily restored to its previous state ­ it is essentially an extremely fixed value. [Ex. 1, Col. 4:9-14.] If setting the value in claim 1 were intended to be permanent, claim 5 would be redundant and add no further limitation to the independent claim. Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int'l, 423 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (A "difference in meaning and scope between claims is presumed to be significant `to the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a claim superfluous'") (quoting Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987)); Nazomi Commc'ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC., 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Claim differentiation 'normally means that limitations stated in dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend."). Reference to extrinsic evidence further confirms this construction. For example, a definition for "fixed logic levels" as "[d]igital data with high and low levels that are programmable or adjustable" demonstrates that these levels are fixed, or set, but can be adjusted at different times or for different conditions. [Ex. 3 at 380-381.] Not surprisingly, Samsung's construction attempts to narrow the term's ordinary meaning. By proposing that "fixed value" should be "a value that does not change," Samsung proposes that the term should mean "permanent and never changing." (See also Samsung's

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 20 of 69 13.

proposed construction for "setting said control signal to a fixed value," i.e., "permanently setting the state of the control signal.") Samsung appears to base its construction on an example given in the specification that a fixed value can be achieved by blowing a fuse, which is actually part of dependent claim 5 (discussed above). [See, e.g., Ex. 1, Col. 6:8-12.] Samsung ignores, however, that the specification does not indicate that this was the only manner of setting a fixed value. See Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims"). Indeed, it describes other conditions in which a value is set, such as latch circuits that can hold data and keep it from fluctuating for predetermined times or conditions but can be changed or reset. [See, e.g., Ex. 1, Col. 2:49-52.] Moreover, the registers described for the '594 patent can also hold data and keep it from fluctuating for certain times or conditions but can be reset to other values at a later time. [See Ex. 14, Col. 1:6-60.] Most importantly, there is nothing in the intrinsic evidence that indicates that the inventor was acting as his own lexicographer to re-define an otherwise well-understood term. Indeed, because it is so well-understood, the burden on Samsung is high to demonstrate a deviance from its well understood meaning. See, e.g., Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Mayne Pharma Inc., 467 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (a patentee may "act as his own lexicographer," but must do so clearly "to specifically define terms of a claim contrary to their ordinary meaning") (citing Chef Am., Inc., v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). 4. "Setting Said Control Signal to a Fixed Value" Samsung Permanently setting the state of the control signal Samsung also constructions: proposes the following

ON Semiconductor The Court need not construe this, however, if the Court is inclined to construe this, ON Semiconductor contends that the phrase can be understood with the following constructions:

fixed value ­ separately construed (discussed fixed value - Permanently setting the state of separately above) the control signal (discussed separately above)

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 21 of 69 14.

control signal ­ separately (discussed separately above)

construed control signal - A signal that enables or disables conduction through an associated passive element of a trim circuit (discussed separately above) Having separately construed the terms "control signal" and "fixed value" and because

there is no dispute with the term "setting," there is nothing more to construe here. As discussed above, Samsung should not be permitted to import narrowing limitations into the claims. II. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,362,644 A. Introduction

Independent claim 6 of the `644 patent is exemplary and recites: 6. An integrated circuit, comprising: a semiconductor package having first and second pins respectively adapted for receiving first and second data signals, third and fourth pins for respectively receiving first and second termination signals, and a supply pin coupled for receiving a power supply voltage; and a semiconductor die housed in the semiconductor package for operating from the power supply voltage, and having a first load element coupled between the first and third pins to terminate the first data signal, and a second load element coupled between the second and fourth pins to terminate the second data signal. [Ex. 6, Col. 5:56-6:10.] The general problem addressed in the '644 patent is analogous to that of echoes in a cavernous room. Where a speaker may be trying to convey an important message to a listener across the room, undesirable echoes may make it difficult, if not impossible, to receive the proper message. Indeed, the echoes may even confuse the speaker. A similar thing can happen in an electrical circuit. When sending a fast electrical signal from a driver circuit (e.g., "speaker") to a receiver circuit (e.g., "listener") over relatively long distances along a wire (e.g., "large room"), these electrical signals can bounce back (i.e., be

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 22 of 69 15.

reflected) in a way analogous to an echo. In this undesirable situation, the receiver circuit may not understand or receive the correct information, which can cause problems with the entire circuit. Also, the reflected signals can cause problems with the driver or sending circuit. Just as a room can be acoustically improved to deaden undesirable echoes (for example, with acoustic ceilings or walls), a wire carrying data susceptible to reflections can be "terminated," often times with a resistor as a load element connected to a power supply to achieve the same results electrically. [See, e.g., Ex. 6, Col. 1:21-23.] The '644 patent further provides for programmable terminations that can accommodate different requirements (for example, integrated circuits operating under different conditions). [Ex. 6, Col. 1:67-2:2, 2:2023.] Figure 5 of the '644 patent describes a termination scheme in which load elements (e.g., terminating resistors 108 and 110) residing on a chip 96 (also called a semiconductor die) are connected at one end to power supplies (e.g., VB and VA, respectively) and to data inputs (e.g., IN2 119 and IN1, respectively). [See Ex. 6, Col. 4:16-45.] The semiconductor die 96 is further described as housed within a semiconductor package 90 having various pins (e.g., 97, 99, 117, and 119). [Ex. 6, Col. 4:16-27.] B. The Disputed Claim Construction Issues 1. "Terminate," "Termination signal," "Load Elements," and "Loading"

To properly understand the terms "terminate," "termination signal," "load elements," and loading," it is helpful to have a further foundation on the termination of a circuit.

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 23 of 69 16.

a.

Background on Transmission Lines and Their Termination

Modern digital circuitry operates at very high speeds. This digital circuitry, although representing digital information as 1's and 0's, actually operates by changing voltages over time. [See Ex. 7 at 397.] To represent a logic level 1 in a data bus, for example, a digital circuit may switch a transistor to provide 1.8 volts on the bus. And to later represent a logic level 0, the same transistor may be switched to provide 0 volts. Although the final voltage values are interpreted by the circuits as either a "1" or a "0," the change is not instantaneous and takes time to go from "1" down to "0" or vice versa. [Id. at 397, 399-400.] In rapidly changing voltage levels, complex electrical signals are generated that are much more complicated than the often-shown, simplified square waves of digital circuitry. Close examination of the signals reveals that there may be complex "ringing" within the signal. [Id. at 399-400.] If this ringing is not properly controlled, signals can be reflected along a wire (sometimes referred to as a transmission line) and cause undesirable effects. [Id.] On a data bus transmission line, this type of reflection can cause troublesome interference, drastically affecting the information desired to be conveyed. [Id. at 398.] For example, where a logic level 1 is to be transmitted, the reflections may cause a logic level 0 to be read, or vice versa. In still other situations, the reflections may cause a circuit to be completely inoperable. To eliminate the reflection of unwanted signals, a transmission line, such as a wire or conductive path in a memory circuit, is often terminated by providing a load element (sometimes called just a "load") connected to a power supply that then dissipates the unwanted signal. [See, e.g., Ex. 8 at 12; Ex. 9 at 23.] The specification of the '644 patent describes the connection of the load element to the power supply as termination signals. [Ex. 6, Col. 4:49-54.] Moreover, it

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 24 of 69 17.

explains that the load element may be a resistor, among other things. [Ex. 6, Col. 1:24-27, 2:1820.] As a consequence of the physics involved, an ideal termination is a load that equals the impedance of the transmission line. [See Ex. 6, Col. 1:24-29; Ex. 7 at 397-408.] In the real world however, ideal termination is not always possible. But even if the termination is not exactly equal or if the impedance of the transmission line is only known approximately, some termination is better than no termination. [See Ex. 6, Col. 1:24-26.] (i) ON Semiconductor to dissipate or absorb energy "Terminate"

Samsung The use of a load at the end of a transmission line or other device whose impedance is matched to that of the line One of ordinary skill in the art would read the claims of the '644 patent in the context of

the need for proper termination of electrical signals as generally discussed above. See CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d 1146, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining claims are construed in light of "the problem the inventor was attempting to solve" and in a manner that "is consistent with and furthers the purpose of the invention"), cited with approval in Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. The claims of the '644 are consistent with this understanding, as are the specification and the prosecution history. Samsung's construction is improperly narrow and should be rejected. To terminate a transmission line is to dissipate or absorb unwanted energy on the transmission line so as to prevent reflection by absorbing undesirable signals. Asserted claim 6 demonstrates a consistent usage in reciting "termination signals" that can be power supply voltages as described in the specification. [Ex. 6, Col. 4:46-54.] Moreover, claim 6 recites the termination of data signals ("terminate the first/second data signal") to avoid unwanted reflections. Importantly, there is nothing in the other limitations of claim 6 that narrows a termination to an idealized termination equaling the impedance of a transmission line. All that is

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 25 of 69 18.

recited is that the termination be provided by a load element (claim 6) that may be a resistor (e.g., dependent claim 7), but no mention is made that they must be of idealized values. The specification is fully consistent with this interpretation. It makes clear that not all terminations are chosen to be equal to the impedance of the transmission line: "[t]he resistance is typically chosen to equal the impedance of the interconnect transmission line to help reduce interconnect signal distortion." [Ex. 6, Col. 1:23-27.] Likewise, notwithstanding extensive discussion in the patent prosecution history about the invention and certain prior art references as they relate to termination, the inventors never attempted to limit a termination load to an idealized value. Their usage of the term was consistent with their usage in the specification and the claims and with the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. Samsung argues that "terminate" means "the use of a load at the end of a transmission line or other device whose impedance is matched to that of the line." Thus, Samsung is attempting to limit any "termination" to an idealized situation by first describing "the use of a load at the end of a transmission line or other device" and then limiting its application to where the impedance of the load is "matched to that of the line." inventors' teaching that not all terminations are ideal. This directly contradicts the

[Ex. 6, Col. 1:23-27.] Samsung's

proposed construction contradicts the specification and the teaching of the patent, and should be rejected. (ii) ON Semiconductor a signal that dissipates or absorbs energy "Termination Signal"

Samsung A signal that configures the circuit to receive data signals from one of several available logic families With an understanding of "terminate," as discussed above, "termination signal" is readily

understood, especially since there is no dispute about the meaning of "signal." For that reason,

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 26 of 69 19.

ON Semiconductor refers back to the meaning of "terminate" for its construction of "termination signal": "a signal that dissipates or absorbs energy." The intrinsic evidence with regard to "terminate" similarly applies to this term. Moreover, the specification of the '644 patent describes that "FIG. 1 has external (configuration) termination pins 22, 24 which are configured to receive different termination signals depending on the logic family application." [Ex. 6., Col. 4:49-52.] The described embodiment is adaptable to operate with different types of circuitry such as circuitry operating at different voltages or different speeds. [See Ex. 6, Col. 2:25-33.] But the asserted claims are not limited to these aspects of the described embodiments. Separately, the '644 patent describes that pins 22 and 24 respectively correspond to certain predetermined voltages, VA and VB. [Ex. 6, Col. 2:25-33.] As discussed above, a termination, such as a resistor, must be connected to a power supply to properly dissipate the unwanted signals. Moreover, the specification of the '644 patent explains that certain types of signals should be terminated using particular voltage signals, e.g., termination signals. [See Ex. 6, Col. 2:25-33.] Applicants' comments during prosecution are similarly consistent. [See Ex. 10, at 10-13 "the Kubista termination network is suitable for terminating differential signals, but does not have the flexibility of the claimed invention in terminating signals from a variety of logic families, depending on the value of the first and second termination signal".] By contrast, Samsung proposes an improperly narrow construction that must be rejected. Despite that independent claim 6 makes no mention of logic families, Samsung improperly attempts to import limitations from the dependent claims (e.g., dependent claims 10 and 11) or the specification both of which are improper. [See, e.g., Ex. 6, Col. 1:67-2:2.] See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (instructing that "the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 27 of 69 20.

gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim."); Free Motion Fitness. 423 F.3d at 1351. Proposing that the termination signal is "a signal that configures a circuit to receive data signals" is yet another attempt to read in limitations from the specification that should be rejected. [See Ex. 6, Col. 4:49-62.] See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (cautioning against importing limitations from the specification into the claims). b. "Load Elements"

ON Semiconductor Samsung electrical devices capable of dissipating or An impedance that provides a termination for absorbing electrical energy a logic device transmission line to help reduce interconnect signal distortion As discussed above in the background section, a load element is an electrical device, such as a resistor, that acts in conjunction with a power supply voltage to dissipate unwanted or spurious signals. ON Semiconductor's construction includes the aspects understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The discussion of "terminate" and "termination signal" above is closely related to "load elements" because it is the load elements that operate in conjunction with the terminating signal to dissipate unwanted signals. The same intrinsic evidence supports ON Semiconductor's

construction here. Moreover, the claims make clear that "load elements" (see claim 6) may include resistors (see claim 7), but also may include other things, such as capacitors or inductors. [See Ex. 11 at 389 (defining the term "loading" as "[t]he matching of source impedance to load impedance, usually by means of the introduction of an inductance or capacitance into the load itself").] Samsung's construction, not atypically, is improperly narrow. For example, Samsung's construction includes "interconnect signal distortion." Samsung reads in this language from the background section of the '644 patent that describes a narrow condition. [Ex. 6, Col. 1:27-29.]

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 28 of 69 21.

Nothing in the patent, however, limits the claim to dealings only with this condition. Samsung also reads in a "logic device" from the background section of the specification. [See Ex. 6, Col. 1:8-20.] A "load element" has much broader application, as discussed above, and there is nothing about the term "load elements" that restricts it to a "logic device transmission line." c. "Loading"

ON Semiconductor Samsung applying effects that dissipate or absorb Placing an impedance at the end of a electrical energy transmission line or other device to match that of the line "Loading" is closely related to the above discussed "load element" term. As taught by the `644 patent, "loading" is achieved by applying "load elements." [See, e.g., Ex. 6, Col. 3:1620.] The two terms should be construed consistently. The above-cited intrinsic evidence relating to "terminate," "termination signal," and "load element" likewise support ON Semiconductor's construction . The discussion of "terminate" is particularly relevant since termination is

achieved by loading a transmission line. Samsung offers an overly narrow construction that seeks to include a limitation requiring a matched impedance of the transmission line into this term also. As discussed with reference to "terminate," this contradicts the specification that contemplates terminations that are not always matched. [Ex. 6, Col. 1:21-27.] Samsung's proposed construction should be rejected here also. 2. "Pins"

ON Semiconductor Samsung a conductor configured to make an electrical A small diameter metal rod used as an connection electrical terminal external to the semiconductor package housing In semiconductor devices, connections to the outside world are made through pins. [See Ex. 6, Col. 2:20-28.] ON Semiconductor's construction recognizes the full scope of this term whereas Samsung's construction is too narrow and contradicts the intrinsic evidence.

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 29 of 69 22.

The claims use the term "pin" as it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art with no notable limitations. Also, in the specification, the inventors used the term pin to refer to certain conductors configured to make electrical connections. [See, e.g., Ex. 6, Col. 2:16-44.] Moreover, the inventors provided figures that include pins (see, e.g., Fig. 5, reference numbers 94, 97, 99, 117, 119, 121, 125, and 126) but that do not depict the "small diameter metal rods" suggested by Samsung. The inventor's depiction of pins is shown as rectangular connections rather than metal rods. Thus, under Samsung's proposed construction, the claim would exclude even the preferred embodiment. Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification."); MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("[A] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct."). ON Semiconductor's construction is consistent with the specification and industry usage of the term. A "pin" can refer to different kinds of conductive structures configured to make an electrical connection, including metal pads, conductive tabs, or metallized balls. For example, integrated circuits may include metal tabs, also called pins, that extend from the package and are used for affixing to a receptacle on a circuit board. [See Ex. 12 at 3, 16-18 (note pins are described on pg. 3 but only edge-type connectors are shown in the package drawings of pp. 1618).] Still other types of packages include balls on the underside of a package that are then pressed onto a circuit board so as to make a connection. Samsung itself calls these balls "pins" despite the fact that they are not small diameter metal rods. [See, e.g., Ex. 13, p. 3 (describes the pinout for a 60 ball FBGA (Fine-pitch Ball Grid Array; also note "Pins B3 and A2 have identical capacitance as pins B7 and A8").)] In fact, certain standards setting bodies, including JEDEC,

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 30 of 69 23.

also call these balls pins. [See, e.g., Ex. 9 at 12 ("NOTE 2 Pins B3 and A2 have identical capacitances as pins B7 and A8."), 20 ("The ODT pin [ball K9 of pg. 12] will be ignored if the EMR(1) is programmed to disable ODT.").] The only common feature of all of these connectors called pins is that they are conductors that provide an electrical connection as construed by ON Semiconductor. 3. "Third and Fourth Pins for Respectively Receiving First and Second Termination Signals" Samsung Third and fourth pins that receive different termination signals (e.g., not power supply or ground pins) dependant upon the selected one of several available logic families. Samsung also constructions: proposes the following

ON Semiconductor The Court need not construe this, however, if the Court is inclined to construe this, ON Semiconductor contends that the phrase can be understood with the following constructions:

pins - a conductor configured to make an pins - A small diameter metal rod used as an electrical connection (discussed separately electrical terminal external to the above) semiconductor package housing (discussed separately above) termination signals - an electrical effect that termination signals - A signal that configures terminates (discussed separately above) the circuit to receive data signals from one of several available logic families (discussed separately above) Having already discussed the meaning of "pins" and "termination signals," there is nothing further to construe here. The larger phrase is readily understood with an understanding of its constituent terms. Samsung denies that this phrase can be understood for the sole purpose of seeking to rewrite it. Samsung goes so far as to propose a construction with negative limitations about power supply or ground pins despite the fact that a termination is typically made to a power supply. There is nothing in the claims that restricts this phrase in such a manner. Samsung once again attempts to read in aspects of the dependent claims (claims 10 and 11) and the specification

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 31 of 69 24.

relating to logic families which is improper. [See, e.g., Ex. 6, Col. 1:67-2:12, 6:21-28 (claims 10 and 110).] Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. 4. ON Semiconductor "Coupled" Samsung The meaning of this term requires no construction. To the extent a construction is necessary, the term should be construed as directly connected

linked together The term "coupled" appears in both the '644 and the '594 Patents. This is a very common term in electrical and electronic patents and is used in these patents according to its plain and ordinary meaning exactly as construed by ON Semiconductor. The coupling of circuit components can occur in several ways; it can be achieved by capacitive or inductive coupling or by a direct connection, to name a few. Technical dictionaries further illustrate that "coupling" is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to be broader than a direct connection. For example, the Modern Dictionary of Electronics defines "coupling" as "[a] mutual relation between two circuits that permits energy transfer from one to the other." [Ex. 3, pp. 208-209.] It further clarifies that "[c]oupling may be direct through a wire, resistive through a resistor, inductive through a transformer or choke, or capacitive through a capacitor." It further demonstrates that although a "coupling may be a direct wire" (i.e., a "direct connection"), it also can include capacitive or inductive coupling. No direct connection is made but the physics of electrical signals is utilized to link different parts of a circuit. Likewise, the '644 patent is not limited to couplings that are direct connections. There is no evidence that the inventors acted as their own lexicographers to redefine an otherwise well understood term. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582.

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 32 of 69 25.

5.

"Programmable Termination"

ON Semiconductor Samsung an electrical circuit that can be configured to The capability to configure the circuit to provide various levels or degrees for the receive data signals from one of several dissipation or absorption of electrical energy available logic families The above sections on termination and the related termination terms (e.g., "terminate" and "terminating signal," "load element," and "loading") apply here. From such discussion, it is understood that "termination" relates to the "dissipation or absorption of electrical energy." The only task left is to determine how "programmable" modifies "termination." From its usage in the claims (e.g., claim 12) one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the plain meaning of a "programmable termination" relates to a termination that can be programmed, that is, that can be configured in different ways. The specification clarifies that the inventors contemplated that a "programmable termination" could be configured so as to meet the needs of different types of circuitry, such as from different logic families. [Ex. 6, Col. 1:64-2:2, 2:20-33.] But nothing in the specification or the claims limits programmability to the selection of a logic family. Reference to extrinsic evidence confirms this plain meaning. The Modern Dictionary of Electronics defines "programmable" as "[t]hat characteristic of a device that makes it capable of accepting data to alter the state of its internal circuitry to perform two or more specific tasks." [Ex. 3, pp. 782-785.] This is entirely consistent with the construction that an electrical circuit that can be "configured" in different ways. Samsung's proposed construction attempts to read in limitations from the dependent claims (see, e.g., claim 14) or the specification that address logic families. [Ex. 6, Col. 1:64-2:2, 2:20-33, 6:44-48 (claim 14).] Nothing suggests, however, that the claims are so limited.

Samsung's attempt to read in these limitations is improper and should be rejected. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

Case 1:07-cv-00449-JJF

Document 96

Filed 04/14/2008

Page 33 of 69 26.

6.

"First and Second Load Elements Are Coupled to Third and Fourth Pins of the Semiconductor Package to Provide a Programmable Termination" Samsung The first and second load elements are connected to the third and fourth pins that receive different signals to configure the circuit to receive data signals from one of several available logic families Samsung also constructions: proposes the following

ON Semiconductor The Court need not construe this, however, if the Court is inclined to construe this, ON Semiconductor contends that the phrase can be understood with the following constructions:

load elements - electrical devices capable of load elements - An impedance that provides a dissipating electrical energy (discussed termination for a logic device transmission line to help reduce interconnect signal separately above) distortion (discussed separately above) coupled - linked together (discussed separately coupled - directly separately above) above) connected (discussed

pins - a conductor configured to make an pins - A small diameter metal rod used as an terminal external to the electrical connection (discussed separately electrical semiconductor package housing (discussed above) separately above) semiconductor package - package, such as an semiconductor package - package, such as an enclosure, for a semiconductor device (agreed enclosure, for a semiconductor device (agreed upon construction); upon construction); programmable termination - an electrical programmable termination - The capability to circuit that can be configured to prov