Opinion ID: 208671
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: substrate

Text: The Commission on review construed the term substrate differently from the ALJ. Commission Opinion on Violation, Remedy, The Public Interest, and Bonding, No. 337-TA-556, slip op. at 8-12 (Int'l Trade Comm'n May 9, 2007) ( Commission Opinion ). The ALJ construed substrate as the supporting material in an LED upon which the other layers of an LED are grown or to which those layers are attached. Id. at 8. Based on the intrinsic evidence, the Commission modified that construction to include the case in which the supporting material functioning as the substrate is grown on top of, or attached to, the other layers. Id. at 12. In construing the term, the Commission rejected Epistar's contention that the substrate is limited to a single layer. The Commission found no support in the specification for Epistar's proposed interpretation. Particularly, the Commission explained that the single layer interpretation of [substrate] is too limiting because we find that this term may include multiple layers (elements). Id. In this regard, the Commission noted that the specification does not contain any disclaimer limiting a `substrate' to a single layer, but rather that the LED structure depicted [in the specification] is described as exemplary, and therefore we view the [substrate] helping to form the LED structure as exemplary as well. Id. Accordingly, the Commission construed substrate to include additional layers beyond a single layer.