Home Semiconductor Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
701 F. App'x 1006
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Home Semiconductor owns U.S. Patent No. 6,146,997, which claims a simplified method for forming a self‑aligned contact hole by "forming an oxide layer over the diffusion region and on the sidewalls of the gate electrode by thermal oxidation."
- Samsung petitioned for inter partes review (IPR), arguing claims 1–14 were anticipated by Doshi; the Board instituted review on the Doshi anticipation ground and found claims 2 and 9–14 anticipated.
- Central dispute: the meaning of the term "over" in the claim phrase "forming an oxide layer over the diffusion region." The Board construed "over" to mean "above," while Home urged it means "covering."
- Doshi discloses oxidizing sides of a polysilicon layer and depositing/etching silicon nitride to form sidewall filaments; the Board concluded Doshi disclosed an oxide layer "above" the diffusion region and thus anticipated the claims under its construction.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s BRI claim construction de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence, ultimately reversing the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Home) | Defendant's Argument (Samsung) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of "forming an oxide layer over the diffusion region" | "Over" means "covering" the diffusion region (connotes significant overlap) | "Over" should be given its ordinary broad meaning as "above" (no covering requirement) | The Board erred in equating "over" with "above." The claim must be read in context to require an oxide formed over the diffusion region in addition to on gate sidewalls; "above" is unreasonably broad and renders other claim language superfluous. The court declined to adopt an unqualified "covering" construction proposed by Home. |
| Whether Doshi anticipates claims 2 and 9–14 under the Board's construction | Doshi does not disclose an oxide formed over the diffusion region in addition to on gate sidewalls | Doshi’s sidewall/oxide structures are at least "above" and arguably include oxide overlapping the diffusion region | Anticipation finding reversed: substantial evidence does not support that Doshi teaches forming an oxide layer over the diffusion region (the oxidation in Doshi occurs at the gate side and is merely off to the side or insignificantly overlapping). |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) (Board applies broadest reasonable interpretation in IPRs)
- Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (2015) (limits on BRI; constructions cannot be legally incorrect or divorced from specification)
- Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283 (2015) (anticipation requires each claim element in a single prior art reference)
- In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305 (2000) (substantial evidence standard described)
- Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (2016) (claim construction should give meaning to all claim terms)
- Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364 (2005) (avoid rendering claim language superfluous)