Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171-54/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OKI AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,

Defendant. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

___________________________________/

No. C 04-03171 CRB

ORDER

Oral argument on the parties’ partial summary judgment motions is scheduled for

hearing at 2:00 p.m. on Monday, November 6, 2006. At oral argument, the parties should

focus their discussion on the issues raised by the following questions.

Re the Allen patent (US Patent No. 4,518,678):

1. Is there evidence in the record, aside from evidence related to the photographs

produced at the request of Dr. Fair, that Oki’s photoresist coating processes, in which

photoresist is put on one side of the wafer, does not, under any circumstances, also

yield photoresist on the other side of the wafer?

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 561 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Re the Patel patent (US Patent No. 4,737,830):

2. (a) If what matters in the construction of the term “electrode means comprising a

source/drain” is the presence of “distinct regions,” what distinction(s) and lack of

distinction(s) between the “doped region” and the “electrode means” are necessary to

the construction?

(b) Can the fact that a portion of the lower plate is vertically accessible (that is, it

extends horizontally beyond the dimensions of the upper plate) render that portion

“distinct”?

Re the Dixit patent (US Patent No. 4,960,732):

3. (a) Does the “about 2.0 μm2

 in area” narrowing amendment made to claims of the

parent patent similarly limit the scope of claims in the ’732 divisional patent if that

narrower language is not explicitly present in the later claims? Cite cases to support

your argument.

(b) Regardless of the above, is the Dixit ’732 patent still patentable over the Thomas

patent (US Patent No. 4,640,004) in view of the limitation “contact holes of

substantially uniform size” of claim 1?

(c) Provide a construction of the terms “contact holes” and “contact plug” found in

claim 1, with particular focus on physical size and shape.

Re the Kurachi patents (US Patent No.’s 5,739,571 and 5,856,694):

4. (a) On what basis in the record could a trier of fact conclude that AMD’s “lubistor”

performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve

substantially the same result as the protection MOSFET of the claims?

(b) Is substantially the same result achieved by AMD’s lubistor as by the claimed

protection MOSFET under all relevent operating conditions? And is that result

achieved in substantially the same way?

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 561 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2004\3171\orderresjquestions2.wpd 3

(c) Why would, or would not, a reasonable competitor understand that the “lubistor”

structure was disclaimed as a protection element in a protection circuit by Kurachi

during prosecution, and what does the prosecution history and the reasons for

cancellation of the relevant claims indicate about the scope of the disclaimer?

Re the Sawamura patent (US Patent No. 6,495,855):

5. Is the Smithkline Beecham v. Apotex, 439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ruling

regarding product-by-process claims dispositive to the validity of claims 1 and 7?

Each side will be permitted no more than 45 minutes for argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 561 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 3