Opinion ID: 806686
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prosecution History and Related Patents

Text: Rambus argues that it distinguished U.S. Patent No. 4,315,308 (“Jackson”) during prosecution of the ’918 Patent based on the number of chips in a memory device. The PTO counters that the distinctions Rambus drew to overcome Jackson did not limit the term to a single chip. According to the PTO, Rambus distinguished Jackson on other grounds. The PTO is correct; Rambus distinguished Jackson during prosecution on the basis that the “memory device” of the ’918 Patent did not perform the functions performed by Jackson’s BIU—an argument we analyze in more detail, infra, in connection with the “memory controller” issue. The PTO also asserts a claim differentiation argument, directing the court to other patents in the ’898 family where Rambus used the term “memory device” in some claims but specifically claimed single chip components in others. The parties agree that “unless otherwise compelled . . . the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In related U.S. Patent No. 5,638,334 (“’334 Patent) independent claim 1 recites a “memory 12 IN RE RAMBUS device” while dependent claim 6 covers memory devices “formed on a single semiconductor substrate.” Compare ’334 Patent col. 25 ll. 2-17, with ’334 Patent col. 26 ll. 1-2. Rambus argues that because dependent claim 6 adds the limitation that the substrate be a semiconductor, the word single does not necessarily limit the term “memory device,” which, according to Rambus, already indicates a single chip. But if a memory device were always a single chip there would be no need to use the word “single” in claim 6, but not claim 1, regardless of any limitation regarding the substrate. Similarly, claim 1 of related U.S. Patent No. 5,954,804 (“’804 Patent”) refers to a memory device, and claim 15 refers to an “integrated circuit device” with a “plurality of memory cells” (i.e., a single chip). Compare ’804 Patent col. 24 l. 43, with ’804 Patent col. 25 l. 62. See also Infineon, 318 F.3d at 1091; Appellant’s Br. at 22. In sum, “memory device” is a broad term which has been used consistently in the ’918 patent and in the family of patents related to it to encompass a device having one or more chips. Moreover, and consistent with the district court’s opinion in Micron, there is no basis to find a disavowal or redefinition that would limit the term “memory device” to a single chip.