Court Opinion

ID: 9893202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 14:00:49.965381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:28.743170
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1411   Document: 70     Page: 1    Filed: 10/26/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

            MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
                   Appellant

                            v.

           STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
                      Appellee
               ______________________

                  2022-1411, 2022-1770
                 ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 00990, IPR2020-01491, IPR2021-00704, IPR2021-00776.
                  ______________________

                Decided: October 26, 2023
                 ______________________

    KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, ar-
 gued for appellant.

    THERESA H. NGUYEN, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA,
 argued for appellee. Also represented by TYLER R. BOWEN,
 CHAD S. CAMPBELL, Phoenix, AZ; PHILIP ALCIDE MORIN,
 San Diego, CA.
                  ______________________

     Before DYK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1411    Document: 70     Page: 2    Filed: 10/26/2023

 2     MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.

     Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge CHEN.
 Opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part filed by
                    Circuit Judge DYK.
 CHEN, Circuit Judge.
      Monterey Research, LLC (Monterey) appeals the Pa-
 tent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) final written deci-
 sions determining all challenged claims of U.S. Patent
 No. 6,534,805 (’805 patent) unpatentable. Advanced Micro
 Devices, Inc. v. Monterey Rsch., LLC, No. IPR2020-00990,
 2021 WL 6339618 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2021) (990 Decision);
 Qualcomm Inc. v. Monterey Rsch., LLC, No. IPR2020-
 01491, 2022 WL 682743 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2022) (1491 De-
 cision). Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s
 findings and we disagree with Monterey’s claim construc-
 tion argument, we affirm both decisions.
                        BACKGROUND
    The ’805 patent is directed to “an improved Static Ran-
 dom Access Memory (SRAM) cell design and method of
 manufacture.” ’805 patent col. 1 ll. 7–10. The parties’ dis-
 putes concern, inter alia, claim 8, which reads:
     A memory cell comprising:
        a plurality of substantially oblong active
        regions formed in a semiconductor sub-
        strate and arranged substantially in paral-
        lel with one another, and
        a plurality of substantially oblong local in-
        terconnects above said substrate that ex-
        tend only partially across the memory cell
        and are arranged substantially in parallel
        with one another and substantially perpen-
        dicular to said active regions; and
Case: 22-1411      Document: 70     Page: 3    Filed: 10/26/2023

 MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.           3

         a single local interconnect layer comprising
         local interconnects corresponding to bit-
         lines and a global wordline.
 Id. at claim 8.
      The ’805 patent describes a memory cell with multiple
 layers of material containing circuit components. 1491 De-
 cision, 2022 WL 682743, at *2. Local interconnects are
 short runs that connect features within a circuit, such as
 bitlines or a global wordline. ’805 patent col. 11 ll. 18–21,
 col. 13 ll. 12–13, 31–32. Figure 3 of the ’805 patent shows
 a top-down view of a single local interconnect layer as
 claimed in the final limitation of claim 8:

 Id. at Fig. 3. Local interconnects 38 and 39 correspond to
 bitlines and are each associated with a single contact re-
 gion (i.e., regions 16c and 15c). Id. at col. 13 ll. 12–14. Lo-
 cal interconnects 43 and 44 correspond to a global wordline
 are also each associated with a single contact region (i.e.,
 regions 17c1 and 17c4). Id. at col. 13 ll. 31–32.
     At the Board, the parties disputed the meaning of the
 last limitation in claim 8—“a single local interconnect layer
 comprising local interconnects corresponding to bitlines
 and a global wordline.” 1491 Decision, 2022 WL 682743, at
Case: 22-1411     Document: 70      Page: 4    Filed: 10/26/2023

 4       MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.

 *7. 1 While the parties agreed the claimed “single local in-
 terconnect layer” must contain local interconnects for both
 bitlines and a global wordline, they disagreed on whether
 the limitation is further limited. Id. Monterey argued that
 during prosecution the applicant limited the meaning of
 the disputed limitation to the embodiment in Figure 3,
 which, according to Monterey, requires a specific routing of
 signals laterally (i.e, horizontally) along the claimed local
 interconnects corresponding to the bitlines and global
 wordline. Id.; see also id. at *17 (“[T]he arguments are
 based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of ‘a single
 local interconnect layer,’ which requires routing all signals
 laterally along the interconnect layer.”). Petitioner argued
 “neither the claim language nor the Specification support
 Patent Owner’s proposed construction because neither
 uses the word ‘routing’” and “Figure 3 does not ‘illustrate
 any routing along the local interconnect layer’ because the
 ’805 patent does not ‘illustrate any contacts atop the local
 interconnect layer, let alone specific positions that would
 demonstrate routing.’” Id. (quoting J.A. 10134).
     The Board agreed with Petitioner and construed the
 term to mean “one conductive layer containing non-global
 interconnects, including interconnects for bitlines and a
 global wordline, that exclusively performs the function of
 connecting features within a circuit.” Id. at *8. The Board
 concluded neither the specification nor prosecution history
 “limit[s] the single local interconnect layer limitation in the
 manner Patent Owner contends” because “although Figure
 3 shows bitline signals can be routed horizontally . . . nei-
 ther the Specification nor claims require such routing.” Id.
 The Board further held the prosecution history does not
 disclaim any specific routing and instead disclaims the

     1   Citations in this section are to the 1491 Decision.
 The Board’s construction and Monterey’s proposed con-
 struction in the 990 Decision were the same.
Case: 22-1411     Document: 70      Page: 5     Filed: 10/26/2023

 MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.            5

 location of local interconnects in different layers of the cell.
 Id. According to the Board, the prosecution history shows
 Monterey distinguished the claimed memory cell over the
 prior art memory cell because the claimed memory cell lim-
 its the local interconnects corresponding to the bitlines and
 the global wordline to a single layer while the local inter-
 connects in the prior art were found in multiple layers. Id.
 Thus, the Board agreed with Monterey that the disputed
 limitation restricts the local interconnects corresponding to
 the bitlines and the global wordline to one layer in the cell
 but declined to adopt Monterey’s additional limitation of a
 specific lateral routing of signals along these local intercon-
 nects.
     The Board also found the prior art reference Oh 2 dis-
 closed “substantially oblong active regions.” Monterey pri-
 marily argued Oh’s figures fail to provide precise
 dimensions for the active regions shown. Id. at *13. The
 Board disagreed, finding “Petitioner [did] not rely on Fig-
 ure 3 to demonstrate the precise dimensions of Oh’s active
 regions. Instead, Petitioner relie[d] on Figure 3 to show the
 active regions have a ‘substantially oblong’ shape.” Id. (cit-
 ing J.A. 5024–26). The Board found Oh disclosed the gen-
 eral shapes of the illustrated active regions such that it
 taught the limitation. Id.
    Monterey appeals.        We have jurisdiction under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                           DISCUSSION
      “We review claim construction de novo and review any
 subsidiary factual findings based on extrinsic evidence for
 substantial evidence.” Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v.
 Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
 We generally give terms “their plain and ordinary mean-
 ing, which is the meaning one of ordinary skill in the art

     2   U.S. Patent No. 6,417,549.
Case: 22-1411     Document: 70     Page: 6    Filed: 10/26/2023

 6      MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.

 would ascribe to a term when read in the context of the
 claim, specification, and prosecution history.” Id.
     “The ultimate determination of obviousness is a ques-
 tion of law, but that determination is based on underlying
 factual findings,” which we review for substantial evidence.
 In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
 2016). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as
 a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
 conclusion.” Id. at 1379–80.
                               I
     Monterey argues its representations during prosecu-
 tion limited the limitation “a single local interconnect layer
 comprising local interconnects corresponding to bitlines
 and a global wordline” to a specific routing of signals later-
 ally along the horizontal plane of the local interconnects as
 purportedly shown in Figure 3 of the ’805 patent. Appel-
 lant’s Br. 28 (arguing the Board “‘disagreed’ with Appel-
 lant’s construction, ‘which requires routing all signals
 laterally along the interconnect layer’”); id. at 38 (arguing
 Appellant’s construction differentiates claim 8 over the
 prior art because the prior art’s “bitlines are thus routed
 vertically through its layers, rather than laterally along a
 single local interconnect layer”). Monterey argues the
 Board erred by not including such limitation in its con-
 struction. But Monterey is wrong on two fronts—the ap-
 plicant’s representations during prosecution did not
 restrict the disputed limitation to the embodiment in Fig-
 ure 3 of the ’805 patent nor does Figure 3 limit the phrase
 as Monterey alleges.
     Monterey cites a handful of pages in the prosecution
 history purportedly supporting its argument. Appellant’s
 Br. 32–33 (citing J.A. 1262, 1812–13, and 1817–18). How-
 ever, only one of these pages mentions Figure 3 and only
 does so by contrasting the single layer containing local in-
 terconnects in Figure 3 with the multiple layers containing
 local interconnects in the prior art. See J.A. 1262. The
Case: 22-1411    Document: 70      Page: 7    Filed: 10/26/2023

 MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.         7

 other pages continue the same argument—the claimed sin-
 gle local interconnect layer distinguishes the invention
 from the prior art’s local interconnects, which are located
 in multiple layers. See J.A. 1812–13, 1817–18. Thus, it
 appears applicant disclaimed local interconnects spread
 over multiple layers as opposed to locating all local inter-
 connects in one layer. However, none of these prosecution
 statements refer to the relative size or length of the local
 interconnects portrayed in Figure 3. Nor do any of these
 statements suggest that the local interconnects provide
 connections between “laterally displaced” components, as
 Monterey alleges, thereby requiring signals to be routed
 along the length of the interconnects. Monterey simply
 never explains how the inclusion of the local interconnects
 on one layer requires the specific horizontal routing of sig-
 nals along the local interconnect layer as it argues—a ques-
 tion also left unanswered by the dissent.
     Separately, the embodiment shown in Figure 3 does
 not restrict the disputed limitation as Monterey argues.
 Figure 3 only shows a single contact region for each of the
 relevant local interconnects required by the disputed limi-
 tations—local interconnects 38, 39, 43, and 44. ’805 patent
 Fig. 3 (showing contacts 16c, 15c, 17c1, and 17c4). Figure
 3 does not show a second contact region associated with
 these local interconnects and thus is ambiguous as to
 whether their signals must be routed laterally along the
 interconnects. See 1491 Decision, 2022 WL 682743, at *8.
 We agree with the Board’s construction. 3

     3   We acknowledge, as the dissent notes, the Board’s
 statement that Figure 3 illustrates “routing bitline and
 wordline signals along an interconnect layer to connect lat-
 erally displaced bitlines and wordlines.” 1491 Decision,
 2022 WL 682743, at *17. The Board, however, initially
 stated Figure 3 “shows bitline signals can be routed hori-
 zontally and a global wordline signal can be routed
Case: 22-1411    Document: 70      Page: 8   Filed: 10/26/2023

 8     MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.

                              II
     Monterey also argues the Board improperly found that
 Oh disclosed “substantially oblong active regions.” Monte-
 rey contends the Board could properly rely on Oh’s figures
 only if the figures in Oh were drawn to scale, and Oh states
 the figures are not necessarily drawn to scale. We do not
 believe the Board misunderstood our case law and thus
 conclude the Board did not err in finding Oh’s figures and
 specification disclose the general shapes of the claimed ac-
 tive regions. See 990 Decision, 2021 WL 6339618, at *9;
 1491 Decision, 2022 WL 682743, at *13.
                        CONCLUSION
      We have considered Monterey’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
 affirm.
                        AFFIRMED

 vertically.” Id. at *8. When read as a whole in light of the
 thrust of the opinion, the Board’s decision is properly un-
 derstood to mean Figure 3 shows the local interconnects
 may be routed horizontally or vertically, without requiring
 either. That is consistent with our reading of the figure.
Case: 22-1411     Document: 70      Page: 9    Filed: 10/26/2023

         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

             MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
                    Appellant

                               v.

             STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
                        Appellee
                 ______________________

                    2022-1411, 2022-1770
                   ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 00990, IPR2020-01491, IPR2021-00704, IPR2021-00776.
                  ______________________
 DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part and concurring in
 part.
      The majority affirms the Board’s finding that the ’805
 patent is obvious over Oh. While I join part II of the ma-
 jority opinion, I respectfully dissent from part I. Contrary
 to the majority opinion, I think the Board erred in holding
 that amendments made by the patentee during reexamina-
 tion and the statements that accompany them did not nar-
 row “single local interconnect layer” to require that all local
 interconnects be on a single layer that routes both bitline
 signals and a global wordline signal (the lateral construc-
 tion).
Case: 22-1411     Document: 70      Page: 10    Filed: 10/26/2023

 2      MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.

                                I
     Claim 8, as originally drafted, did not recite “single local
 interconnect layer” as a limitation and was not limited to
 the lateral construction. During reexamination, claim 8,
 without this limitation, was rejected as obvious over
 Osada, which all agree is a reference identical to Oh in rel-
 evant aspects. Monterey contends that Osada, like Oh,
 does not disclose a “single local interconnect layer” because
 it does not disclose that all local interconnects correspond-
 ing to the bitlines and a global wordline are in a single
 layer and, therefore, does not satisfy the lateral construc-
 tion.
    The patentee amended claim 8 to recite an additional
 limitation of “a single local interconnect layer comprising
 local interconnects corresponding to bitlines and a global
 wordline.” J.A. 140, col. 1, ll. 33–35. In making this
 amendment, the patentee repeatedly explained the amend-
 ment was made to distinguish Osada. The prosecution his-
 tory states:
     The Patent Owner then directed attention to the
     local interconnect layer of Fig. 3. . . . The Patent
     Owner observed that all the runs [(i.e., local inter-
     connections)] for the bitlines, Vcc, Vss and the
     wordline are provided in the single layer of Fig. 3.
     The Patent Owner contrasted this aspect with
     Osada et al. . . . which shows multiple layers for its
     runs. The Patent Owner noted that this difference
     would lead to disadvantages of a thicker product
     and more processing steps in Osada than could be
     provided by the design in the ’805 [p]atent.
 J.A. 1262 (emphasis in original). The patentee cited Figure
 3 and col. 13, ll. 12–14, 31–32 for support for its amend-
 ment. The patentee later “pointed out that the ’805
 [p]atent discloses local interconnects (LIs) in the same
 layer, as exemplified by LIs 38-39 for bitlines and LIs 43-
Case: 22-1411    Document: 70       Page: 11   Filed: 10/26/2023

 MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.          3

 44 for a global wordline in Fig. 3 of the ’805 [p]atent.” J.A.
 1812 (emphasis in original).
     On its face, the amendments made during reexamina-
 tion and the statements that accompany them appear to
 limit the claim to the lateral construction while referencing
 Figure 3. The Board agreed that without limiting the
 amended claim to this lateral construction the amended
 claim could not be distinguished over Osada (i.e., under the
 Board’s construction the examiner erred in not maintain-
 ing the objection). Given the patentee’s clearly articulated
 objective of overcoming the Osada rejection, I do not see
 how the amendments, and the accompanying statements,
 can be reasonably interpreted to not limit the scope of the
 claim to the lateral construction.
                               II
      The majority urges that even if the prosecution history
 limited the claim to Figure 3, Figure 3 itself is not limited
 to the lateral construction. Maj. Op. at 6–7. But this is
 contrary to what the Board found. The Board found “the
 embodiment shown in Figure 3 of the ’805 patent illus-
 trates routing bitline and wordline signals along an inter-
 connect layer to connect laterally displaced bitlines and
 wordlines.” 1491 Decision, 2022 WL 682743, at *17; see
 also id. at *8. The Board found it was the rest of the spec-
 ification and the claim language that did not limit the scope
 of the claim to the embodiment of Figure 3, not that Figure
 3 was not limited as such. Therefore, under the Board’s
 findings, limiting the scope of the amended claim to the
 embodiment disclosed in Figure 3 would necessarily limit
 the scope to an embodiment that routes bitlines and a
 global wordline signals along an interconnect layer to con-
 nect laterally displaced bitlines and wordlines.
                              III
     Under these circumstances, it seems to me that the
 prosecution history limited the claim to the lateral
Case: 22-1411   Document: 70    Page: 12    Filed: 10/26/2023

 4      MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.

 construction, and thus the Board’s contrary finding is in-
 correct. I respectfully dissent.