Opinion ID: 211340
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A centrifugal cleaner for cleaning carriers used in semiconductor processing, comprising:

Text: 17 . . . 18 a processing vessel defining a process chamber therewithin; 19 ... [and] 20 at least one drying gas supply for supplying drying gas to the process chamber . . . . 21 Independent claim 39 of the '113 patent reads: 22 39. A centrifugal cleaner for cleaning carriers used in semiconductor processing, comprising: 23 . . . 24 a processing vessel defining a process chamber therewithin; 25 . . . [and] 26 at least one primary drying gas supply for supplying primary drying gas to the process chamber .... 27 And independent claim 28 from the '127 patent reads: 28 28. A process for cleaning carriers used to hold semiconductor articles, comprising: 29 . . . 30 a processing chamber within the processing vessel; 31 ... [and] 32 supplying drying gas to the processing chamber. 33 Claim 28 of the '127 patent requires a processing chamber within the processing vessel and furthermore supplying drying gas to the processing chamber. Almost identical limitations are found in the rest of the asserted claims. The current dispute centers on defining the processing vessel, the processing chamber, and supplying drying gas to the processing chamber. 34 The district court construed this last claim limitation in its Final Claim Construction Order and held that drying gas meant 35 [a]n air or other gas with a low-contamination level that is capable of readily absorbing evaporated cleaning liquid from the carriers and removing said vapor(s) from the process chamber as the air or other gas is evacuated therefrom. Although it may be treated [i.e., treated by use of a heater], treatment is not a requirement so long as the drying gas is of low-contamination level and capable of readily absorbing evaporated cleaning liquid and removing said vapor(s) from the process chamber as the air or other gas is evacuated therefrom. 36 Semitool Order, 2005 WL 350954, at . The phrase supplying drying gas to the process chamber was construed to mean 37 the introduction of drying gas into the process chamber. Once inside the process chamber, all that is required is that the drying gas has a low-contamination level and is capable of readily absorbing evaporated cleaning liquid from the carriers and removing said vapor(s) from the process chamber as it is evacuated therefrom. Thus, the process chamber may include a device to enhance the absorption/removal capabilities of the drying gas inside the chamber, i.e., a heater inside the process chamber. 38 Id. 39 Based on this claim construction, the district court then turned to the allegations of infringement. The district court noted that the parties disputed two things: (1) whether the condenser [in the Tornado] supplies drying gas to the process chamber and (2) whether the condenser is part of the process chamber or a separate unit. Id. at . 40 As to the second question, the district court observed that Semitool argues that `the condensing unit used in the Tornado system is outside the process chamber.' Meanwhile [DMS] argues that the condenser is not a separate unit . . . . Id. But ultimately, the district court concluded that [i]n light of the ruling below, it is not necessary to reach this issue. Id. In other words, the district court did not delve into the precise definition of the processing chamber, nor did the district court reach the question whether the condenser in the Tornado resides inside or outside the processing chamber. Instead it focused only on the first question and concluded that [r]egardless of whether the condenser is merely an area within the process chamber or a separate unit, it does not `supply a drying gas to the process chamber.' Id. at . NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE 41 In answering the first question, the district court discussed how the admittedly infringing Model 300 supplied drying gas to the processing chamber. 1 In the Model 300 (shown above on left), drying air enters the processing chamber and then is exhausted out of the apparatus in a similar fashion to that described in Semitool's patent. As shown on the right, DMS's Tornado does not have an external air inlet or external air outlet as did the Model 300. As described by the district court, 42 Defendant's design-around product, the Tornado system, differs from the Model 300 in several respects; most importantly, the centrifugal fan that previously supplied clean room air to and the exhaust vent that allowed air to evacuate from the process chamber have been removed. Instead, as air circulates within the Tornado system, it passes a series of condensing plates located at the rear of the process chamber, behind a spray guard; this area of the device was called the condenser during depositions. These condensing plates are kept cool with a cooling liquid, such that the air becomes cooler as it passes, thereby causing moisture to precipitate onto the glass. This cooler and drier portion of air is re-circulated with the rest of the air. The mean humidity gradually decreases as the air in the process chamber absorbs more evaporated cleaning liquid from the carriers. This repeats until all or nearly all of the water vapor is removed from the process chamber. 43 Id. at . The district court held that the Tornado system could not supply drying gas to the processing chamber as required by the claims, concluding that 44 [r]ather, [the condenser in the Tornado] treats drying gas that was already within the process chamber, which is a closed system that merely re-circulates the gas therein. Thus, the Tornado system does not infringe the '113 patent or the '127 patent. Moreover, [the Tornado] is more than colorably different from the Model 300 and Model 310.... 45 Id. at . Accordingly, the district court granted DMS's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and denied Semitool's motion to enforce the settlement agreement and the permanent injunction.