Opinion ID: 613056
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Harari v. Lee

Text: In Lee, the Board determined that, if all of the ’579 application was incorporated by reference, then Micron failed to show that Harari’s claims 63-66 lack written description support. Harari’s independent claim 63, which Harari asserted is a “substantial cop[y]” of Lee’s claim 1, recites: A method of treating healing at least one over- erased EEprom memory cell, comprising: a) accessing a number of control gates and ac- cessing a bit digit line, thereby activating a said number of memory cells, each of said memory cells having a source, a drain, and a control gate; b) subsequent to accessing said bit digit line, sensing the presence of at least one over erased activated cell from said number of memory cells that is erased to a state other than one of at least two data states; and HARARI v. LEE 18 c) subsequent to sensing the presence of said over erased cell, applying a first voltage to said bit digit line, a second voltage to said control gate of at least said over-erased cell, and a third voltage to said source of at least said over-erased cell, said first and second voltages being higher than said third voltage. Lee J.A. 657, 759; Lee patent claim 1. 3 The Board determined that the broadest reasonable construction of Harari’s claim 63 encompassed accessing more than one bit line to activate multiple memory cells. Lee J.A. 35-36. The Board reasoned that nothing in the claim language precluded such a meaning, and viewed using a single bit line as a species within the genus of using one or more bit lines. Lee J.A. 36-37. The Board concluded that Micron failed to show that Harari’s disclosure of accessing multiple bit lines does not provide written description support. Lee J.A. 37. As an alternative ground for affirming, Micron argues on appeal that the Board’s claim construction is incorrect, and that under the correct claim construction Harari’s claims lack written description support. According to Micron, the plain language of Harari’s claim 63 requires that multiple memory cells are activated by accessing their control gates and a single bit line. Harari replies that because “a bit line” means one or more bit lines, the Board’s claim construction is correct.
Claim construction is a matter of law we review de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Because this is an 3 The strikethroughs and underlines reflect Ha- rari’s edits to Lee’s claim. 19 HARARI v. LEE interference and Harari substantially copied Lee claim 1, we give the claim its broadest reasonable construction in light of the Lee patent specification. Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (discussing the rule of In re Spina, 975 F.2d 854, 856 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). To satisfy the written description requirement, the properly construed claim must be supported by Harari’s specification. Id. at 1378-79. Micron, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that Harari’s claims as properly construed lack written description support. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(b). Compliance with the written description requirement is a question of fact that we review under the substantial evidence standard. Chen v. Bouchard, 347 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Harari’s arguments rely on our rule that the indefinite article “a” means “‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” Lee Appellant’s Br. 21 (quoting Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). In Baldwin, we construed a claim reciting a system comprising “a pre-soaked fabric roll” and a “means for locating said fabric roll.” 512 F.3d at 1340. We concluded that the claim encompassed systems with more than one fabric roll. Id. at 1343. Baldwin, however, does not set a hard and fast rule that “a” always means one or more than one. Instead, we read the limitation in light of the claim and specification to discern its meaning. Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., 99 F.3d 1098, 1105-06 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (analyzing the “claims, specification and file history” to determine that “a vacuum cup” means one and only one vacuum cup). When the claim language and specification indicate that “a” means one and only one, it is appropriate HARARI v. LEE 20 to construe it as such even in the context of an open-ended “comprising” claim. In this case, the relevant independent claim does not recite a memory device having “a” bit line. Instead, it recites a method comprising accessing a number of control gates and a bit line to activate a number of cells. The plain language of the claim clearly indicates that only a single bit line is used when accessing a number of cells. As in Insituform, nothing in the text of Harari’s claim 63 suggests accessing more than one bit line when activating the number of memory cells. For example, step a) expressly distinguishes between the singular and plural by reciting “accessing a number of control gates” while “accessing a bit line” to activate “a number of memory cells.” Step b) further reinforces the difference between singular and plural by reciting “subsequent to accessing said bit line, sensing the presence of at least one activated cell.” And finally, step c) again distinguishes between singular and plural by applying “a first voltage to said bit line,” while applying other voltages to the source and control gate of “at least said erased cell.” We also note that Lee’s claim 1 recites “accessing a number of control gates and accessing a digit line, thereby activating said number of memory cells.” Lee patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). Lee’s claim 1 expressly links the number of activated cells to the number of control gates accessed in the row corresponding to the accessed digit 4 line. Therefore, the number of memory cells activated must be the same as the number of control gates accessed. The Lee patent explains that the drains of the cells in one row are all connected to a single digit line. A subset of the cells in the row can be accessed by applying 4 Lee’s digit lines are called bit lines in Harari’s ’398 application. 21 HARARI v. LEE a voltage to the control gates of only some of the cells in the row via their control lines, which are connected to the cells in columns. Lee patent col.3 ll.33-40. Lee further explains that if any one or more of the cells in the row are over-erased, the drain voltage (VD) sensed at that row’s digit line will be positive. Id. col.3 ll.49-50. If only some of the cells in the row are selected, a positive drain voltage on the digit line reveals if any of the selected cells are over-erased. The Lee patent also discloses, but does not recite in claim 1, finding which cell of the selected cells is over-erased. Id. col.3 l.51-64. Lee explains that an overerased cell can be “healed” by applying a healing voltage for a short time to its drain via the digit line and to its control gate while applying 0 volts to its source. Id. col.3 l.65 - col.4 l.18. Lee does not consider accessing more than one digit line at a time but instead describes traversing through memory, digit line by digit line. Id. col.3 ll.31-32, col.4 ll.15-20; FIG. 4. The number of cells activated corresponds to the number of control gates accessed. Accordingly, we conclude that the correct and only reasonable construction of the claim terms “a bit line” and “said bit line” as read in light of the Lee specification is that Harari’s claim 63 requires that a single bit line activates multiple memory cells.
This written description decision turned almost entirely on the claim construction. As Micron explains, the ’579 application discloses selecting a single memory cell by row and column. In short, there is no disclosure in Harari of a single bit line activating multiple memory cells. On appeal, Harari argues that the ’579 specification describes selecting a plurality of bit lines simultaneously using a drain multiplexer. Lee Appellant’s Br. 36 (citing HARARI v. LEE 22 Lee J.A. 330). According to Harari, when multiple bit lines are selected using the drain multiplexer, the bit lines become electrically connected. The Board, however, made a factual determination that the ’579 application does not disclose electrically connecting multiple bit lines to form one bit line. Lee J.A. 38-39. The Board rejected Harari’s argument as unsupported by the testimony of any expert witness. The Board, relying on the testimony of Micron’s expert, found that the ’579 application does not disclose electrically connecting multiple bit lines to form one bit line. We conclude that this fact finding is supported by substantial evidence. On appeal, Harari asserts that Micron’s expert testimony is “squarely contradicted” by the specification, and thus “is simply not credible on this point.” Lee Appellant’s Br. 37. We disagree. The Board’s factual finding is supported by substantial evidence, namely, expert testimony that the ’579 application does not disclose or even suggest that a plurality of bit lines can be electrically connected together. Lee J.A. 39, 803. Harari points to no section of its disclosure explaining that such selecting electrically connects the bit lines. Moreover, accessing multiple bit lines simultaneously with a multiplexer is not accessing a single bit line. Similarly, calling multiple bit lines a “composite bit line” as Harari does in its briefs does not make it so. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s decision granting Lee’s threshold motion alleging unpatentability for lack of written description and its judgment on priority against Harari.