[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
20-2115, Hanwha, QCELS versus the ITC.

[00:00:05] Speaker 00:
Mr. Pak, please proceed.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court, Sean Pak, for the appellants.

[00:00:12] Speaker 04:
The key issue on appeal today is whether the International Trade Commission erred in its claim construction of the terms related to silicon substrate.

[00:00:21] Speaker 04:
If so, the ITC's summary determination of non-infringement must be vacated

[00:00:26] Speaker 04:
And that can be done without reaching either the second claim instruction issues relating to the interposed between terms or the alleged prosecution history disclaimer.

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
The principal error that commissions claim instructions is that they exclude all disclosed embodiments of the ways in which the dielectric layers are deposited to create passivation effect.

[00:00:50] Speaker 04:
And that's because they ignore all of the intrinsic record evidence showing

[00:00:56] Speaker 04:
that oxidation of silicon material in the substrate, or basically rusting of that silicon substrate, occurs no matter what steps are taken, including the optional step of cleaning the surface.

[00:01:11] Speaker 04:
Like an exposed iron surface, your honors, silicon rust will form because pure silicon is highly reactive to oxygen.

[00:01:20] Speaker 04:
So whether, as you have the wafers being processed, being exposed to oxygen,

[00:01:26] Speaker 04:
or through the deposition processes themselves, which involve different forms of oxygen sources, you will have the rusting of silicon material forming silicon oxide.

[00:01:38] Speaker 04:
And that is true in each of the disclosed embodiments, including Jung, which is appendix 9385, which talks about a silicon oxide substrate, or in the Ritala reference, appendix 8893, which talks about

[00:01:56] Speaker 04:
the easy formation of silicon oxide using these oxygen sources as well as the... Let's go back.

[00:02:06] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:02:09] Speaker 06:
Just so I understand your claim construction argument, are you saying that a silicon substrate inherently always has a silicon oxide layer laying on top of it such that that layer of silicon oxide

[00:02:26] Speaker 06:
is the actual surface of the silicon substrate?

[00:02:32] Speaker 04:
So what the ALJ found is that silicon substrate, as understood by Dr. Scalia, points to impurities and dopants.

[00:02:41] Speaker 06:
Mr. Pack?

[00:02:41] Speaker 06:
Yes.

[00:02:41] Speaker 06:
I just need your answer to that question.

[00:02:44] Speaker 06:
Is that your understanding, is that your conception of the claim term, silicon substrate, and surface of the silicon substrate?

[00:02:53] Speaker 04:
You are in the disclosed embodiments that involve oxygen sources.

[00:02:57] Speaker 04:
All of them involve oxygen sources.

[00:02:58] Speaker 06:
Is it yes or no?

[00:02:59] Speaker 06:
I'm sorry, Mr. Pack.

[00:03:00] Speaker 06:
Is it yes or no?

[00:03:01] Speaker 06:
And let me repeat the question.

[00:03:03] Speaker 06:
Is it your conception of a silicon substrate that inherently it always has a layer of silicon oxide sitting on top such that it's actually the silicon oxide layer itself that is the surface of a silicon substrate?

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
Yes, in the silicon substrates at issue in this case, that is our position.

[00:03:26] Speaker 06:
That's your position, okay.

[00:03:29] Speaker 06:
I thought your side in prosecution history worked long and hard to distinguish away prior references that in fact had a silicon oxide layer sitting on top of their substrates.

[00:03:47] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor, I think that we, if you look at the prosecution history and we'll take you to that, Your Honor, appendix, for example, looking at the amendments relating to the Agostinelli reference, Your Honor, this is 1036, well, 136 to 137, all of the prosecution history arguments were about the relative sequencing of the layers and the thickness of the layers.

[00:04:14] Speaker 04:
It was not about whether the substrate itself has any type of impurity at the surface.

[00:04:20] Speaker 04:
And even the Commission's findings did not find that there was any prosecution history disclaimer on the presence of silicon oxide at the surface of the substrate.

[00:04:30] Speaker 05:
What about distinguishing Schmidt?

[00:04:34] Speaker 04:
Same thing, Your Honor.

[00:04:35] Speaker 04:
It was talking specifically about older thick layers of silicon dioxide that is grown as a passivation layer.

[00:04:43] Speaker 04:
But he was not mentioning whatsoever the presence of impurities such as silicon oxide as part of the substrate.

[00:04:51] Speaker 06:
So just so I understand it, your theory of your claim, even if we understand your claim to require and demand a layer of aluminum oxide should be applied directly on top of the surface of the substrate,

[00:05:10] Speaker 06:
Nevertheless, if there is a layer of silicon oxide underneath that aluminum oxide layer, that still infringes the claim?

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:05:23] Speaker 04:
And obviously, we disagree with the first point about the directly language, which is now present in the claims.

[00:05:28] Speaker 04:
But Your Honor's understanding is exactly right.

[00:05:31] Speaker 04:
We believe that silicon substrate.

[00:05:33] Speaker 06:
Therefore, any product that has the silicon substrate

[00:05:41] Speaker 06:
an order of layers that silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, and maybe silicon nitride, that would infringe your patent?

[00:05:49] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor.

[00:05:51] Speaker 04:
Our position is that silicon oxide, the specific form of silicon oxide called interfacial oxide is formed as part of the silicon substrate, which can include impurities.

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
Obviously, the claim language talks about deposition of additional dielectric layers on top of the substrate.

[00:06:09] Speaker 04:
But our position is that the silicon substrate itself can and must include impurities at the surface based on the disclosures.

[00:06:17] Speaker 01:
Mr. Pack, this is Judge Lin.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
So as I understand it, you are arguing that silicon comes with a layer inherently.

[00:06:27] Speaker 04:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:06:28] Speaker 04:
And we see that in the ALJ's construction, that silicon substrate includes impurities as well as dopants.

[00:06:35] Speaker 01:
So any argument that

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
an effective solar cell should have two layers on top of this silicon really means three layers, because silicon comes with a layer.

[00:06:54] Speaker 04:
That's right, Your Honor, and that's exactly what all the intrinsic records show, is that in every disclosed embodiment, you have a silicon oxide as an interfacial material impurity at the surface of the substrate itself.

[00:07:07] Speaker 04:
That includes Ritala, Zhang, and Hoax.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
Isn't there a distinction, Mr. Pack, you should listen to the question.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
Isn't there a distinction between impurities that may exist and a layer which to me suggests something deliberate?

[00:07:34] Speaker 01:
I just find your argument a stretch at best.

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I think it's clear in the 215 patent that silicon oxide is described as a contamination.

[00:07:49] Speaker 04:
That contamination is exactly the type of impurity that will be formed as part of the oxygen-based deposition process here.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
Yeah, and it seems to me that a contamination is different from a layer which, in my way of thinking, suggests something deliberate

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
that is put in place to have some sort of effect.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
And in fact, the specification does suggest in a few places that you, in the process of making this multilayer structure, you should start with the silicon substrate and clean it.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
Which again, is consistent with the notion that whatever silicon oxide might exist is an impurity or a contaminant

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
that could be washed off before the deliberate layers are put in place.

[00:08:43] Speaker 01:
But it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're arguing that no, the silicone in every case comes with a layer.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
And clean or not, it comes with a layer and always comes with a layer.

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor, what we're saying is the following.

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
Even if you were to take the optional step of cleansing the silicon oxide that has formed as part of the substrate, all of the references cited in the patent teach the silicon oxide will grow back, because the deposition processes involved using oxygen sources that will re-expose the surface to oxygen.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
So our perspective, Your Honor, is that you will have silicon oxide in the final structure.

[00:09:31] Speaker 01:
It grows back.

[00:09:33] Speaker 01:
in the time that it takes to take the substrate from the cleansing station to the layer application station?

[00:09:44] Speaker 04:
That and also, Your Honor, more specifically, all of the embodiments for depositing the first dielectric layer, which is the aluminum oxide, involve using sources of oxygen in the deposition process.

[00:09:57] Speaker 04:
So even after you cleanse it, and this is shown in HOAC as well as in RITALA,

[00:10:02] Speaker 04:
you will have the growth of that silicon dioxide layer because the silicon is, again, exposed to oxygen as part of the definition.

[00:10:12] Speaker 01:
Is there expert testimony to that effect in the record?

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I don't believe that any of the parties here are cited to extrinsic evidence.

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
But this is all cited in the intrinsic record.

[00:10:25] Speaker 04:
And I can give you your honor of the fight, which is HOEX at 9370.

[00:10:30] Speaker 04:
and 9371.

[00:10:33] Speaker 04:
It says that specifically it was verified that the oxide layer formed during the O2 plasma exposure itself does not yield any surface passivation.

[00:10:42] Speaker 04:
And that is at the second column of Appendix 9371.

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
Counsel, this is such more, you cited Riccola.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
Yes, ma'am.

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
But Riccola doesn't show a silicon oxide layer.

[00:10:57] Speaker 00:
If we look, for example, at

[00:10:58] Speaker 00:
Figure one, it shows a silicon substrate and an aluminum oxide film, and it shows no silicon oxide layer.

[00:11:06] Speaker 04:
Actually, Your Honor, if you turn to appendix 9366, it specifically states that even in the chemical process, which uses metal forms of oxygen sources, quote, even if the interface does have oxidized silicon,

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
only one monolayer thick and thus represents an atomic-level interface between Al2O3 and silicon, which is oxidized only from its topmost layer.

[00:11:36] Speaker 04:
So even in the chemical process used in Ritala, you will have a silicon dioxide layer or impurity that is formed as part of the deposition process.

[00:11:50] Speaker 04:
And it is also shown, Your Honor, in Figure 1, if you see that white line

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
that is separating the two films, that is the silicon dioxide.

[00:12:02] Speaker 00:
All right, council, do you want to save the rest of your time for rebuttal?

[00:12:09] Speaker 00:
Council?

[00:12:13] Speaker 00:
Council?

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
Mike, is he still on the call?

[00:12:21] Speaker 00:
Mr. Pack?

[00:12:22] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:12:22] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
I am reserving the rest of my time.

[00:12:24] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:12:25] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
And let's hear from opposing counsel, please.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

[00:12:34] Speaker 03:
Please, the court.

[00:12:35] Speaker 03:
Just to address the points made by Appellant's counsel, I believe if the court agrees that any of the student claim constructions that issue, any of the terms that issue,

[00:12:47] Speaker 03:
agrees that prosecution has some disclaimer applies to any one of these terms, you can affirm the commission's determination here.

[00:12:57] Speaker 03:
If you agree that prosecution disclaimer that the patentee here simply limited the cloned solar cells, anything but the specific two-layer dielectric stack,

[00:13:09] Speaker 03:
and disclaim integrating the layer between the silicon substrate and the first dielectric layer of aluminum oxide, particularly silicon oxides.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
Just addressing the points raised.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
There's no support here that all embodiments are excluded from the construction.

[00:13:32] Speaker 00:
Rather we have... Can you just focus on the argument that Mr. Pax spent his whole period focusing on, please?

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
which is that I didn't even hear him say it doesn't have to be directly.

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
I think that at least for purposes of his argument he didn't focus on that at all.

[00:13:53] Speaker 00:
He focused on the idea that the silicon substrate automatically includes a silicon dioxide cover on it and that is part of the silicon substrate.

[00:14:04] Speaker 00:
So I think his argument is there still

[00:14:07] Speaker 00:
in the two-layer zone, because layer one is a silicon substrate, which automatically has a little bit of silicon dioxide on it, which is part of the silicon substrate.

[00:14:19] Speaker 00:
So I don't think he spent his argument saying it's okay to have three layers instead of two.

[00:14:25] Speaker 00:
I think he spent his argument saying silicon dioxide is still part of a two-layer process.

[00:14:32] Speaker 03:
Thank you for the clarification.

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
That is simply not supported by the prosecution history.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
The prosecution history repeatedly, consistently, in detail, disclaims this native silicon oxide layer.

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
On page 14 of our brief, we explain that this native silicon oxide layer is considered this oxidation impurity that occurs on the layer of the silicon substrate.

[00:14:57] Speaker 03:
This was simply disclaimed throughout the prosecution history, particularly

[00:15:02] Speaker 03:
The patent here went into great detail about these native silicon oxides.

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
It's well known in the art for more than 20 years to have native silicon oxide followed by silicon nitride.

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
It was clearly stated this was not their invention, that they just towed away from the invention.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
The clean solar cell goes away from all these advantageous properties of using native silicon oxide and rather... Do you have a particular quote from the JA?

[00:15:31] Speaker 05:
You said 136, 137?

[00:15:37] Speaker 03:
Yes, particularly at Appendix Page 136 specifically states, it is well known in the art that native silicon oxide may provide for very good surface captivation.

[00:15:48] Speaker 03:
Are you on the page?

[00:15:49] Speaker 03:
Yeah, I'm on Appendix Page 136.

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
Right, where?

[00:16:00] Speaker 02:
Particularly

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
It's right in the middle paragraph there.

[00:16:07] Speaker 03:
It specifically states, in the second sentence of the middle paragraph, it is well known the arc and native silicon oxides they provide for very good surface passivation characteristics.

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
And that surface passivation characteristics of the silicon oxides may be improved and stabilized and additionally deposit a silicon nitride layer on top of the silicon oxide layer.

[00:16:28] Speaker 03:
Such double layer stacks have been applied to solar cells for more than 20 years.

[00:16:33] Speaker 03:
So they considered that a double layer stack.

[00:16:35] Speaker 03:
They counted it as a layer.

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
And they repeatedly stated this was not their invention.

[00:16:40] Speaker 03:
Rather, further on, on appendix page 137, they state, unquote, one skill in the art, we have no rationale to transfer of knowledge about the effects of silicon oxide.

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
Oxide should be thin in order to reduce negative effects.

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
It will affect passivation to aluminum oxide.

[00:16:59] Speaker 03:
Clearly, they state, again, this is repeated throughout the process of history,

[00:17:03] Speaker 03:
It is well known to use silicon ox, native silicon oxide as an intervening layer.

[00:17:09] Speaker 03:
But this is not their invention.

[00:17:11] Speaker 03:
And they repeat this.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
This is in the... Would it be your view that throughout the entire prosecution they always refer to the silicon oxide as a layer and they never refer to it as the silicon substrate?

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
They always refer to it as a layer.

[00:17:32] Speaker 03:
They always refer to it as something that's well-known in the art and that they're going... This is not their claim to mention.

[00:17:38] Speaker 03:
It was well-known for more than 20 years.

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
Also, that appendix page is 9870 to 9871.

[00:17:46] Speaker 03:
They clearly acknowledge that first of all, in the skill and the art, this is a very precise art in this manufacturing process for the solar cell.

[00:17:54] Speaker 03:
And one of the skills of the art is to understand every compound, every element, every combination, every processing step is critical.

[00:18:01] Speaker 03:
We cannot randomly substitute process steps for one another.

[00:18:06] Speaker 03:
So what I've always told you about reading the prostitution history, the Tendrick record as a whole would understand that you cannot simply substitute one for another and critically understand there has to be this direct interface between the silicon substrate and the aluminum oxide.

[00:18:24] Speaker 03:
Again, you repeat this repeatedly throughout the prostitution history.

[00:18:28] Speaker 03:
Again, this is in their response to the sixth office action here at 136, 137.

[00:18:34] Speaker 03:
The exact language is repeated at 10541, 10542, and the request for an interview following the seventh office action, and also repeated in their PTAP appeal brief at 10665, 10666, and their PTAP appeal brief.

[00:18:53] Speaker 03:
The exact same language, disclaiming, intervening,

[00:18:57] Speaker 03:
And then the silicon oxide, I'd rather to replace it with the aluminum oxide.

[00:19:06] Speaker 03:
I'm just further addressing their points about retaliation.

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
Again, the prosecution history record here, as I stated, this is a very precise art.

[00:19:17] Speaker 03:
It states in the specification as well, that appendix page 227 lines.

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
11 through 16, that it's all about correct selection of processing parameters.

[00:19:30] Speaker 03:
And retaliation does have embodiments that do not include any silicon oxide as an intervening layer.

[00:19:37] Speaker 03:
Also, regarding all embodiments points, this is the contradicted strongly by the full figure.

[00:19:46] Speaker 03:
It does not show any intervening layer of native silicon oxide.

[00:19:49] Speaker 03:
And again, the spec goes into great detail regarding

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
The chemical reaction that occurs is this critical interface between the silicon substrate and the first dielectric layer of aluminum oxide.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
Also, many of these points regarding impurities are moved here because the Dependence Page 65 that is undisputed on the record and the judge ruled that the accused, all accused products here have an intentional layer, integrating layer between the silicon substrate and the

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
first dielectric layer of aluminum oxide.

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
Are there any further questions from the court?

[00:20:33] Speaker 00:
Hearing none, why don't we hear from Mr. Horowitz.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
Mr. Horowitz, do you have anything that you need to add to what Mr. Jeradine just argued?

[00:20:44] Speaker 07:
Briefly, Your Honor, and just so you know, REC has yielded its time because the REC-specific issues haven't come up.

[00:20:52] Speaker 07:
I just want to follow up on a question that Judge Lynn asked, which is isn't there a distinction between an impurity and a deliberate layer?

[00:21:00] Speaker 07:
And as Mr. Jordan just pointed the court to, there is.

[00:21:04] Speaker 07:
The ALJ in this case found specifically that there were intentional layers of silicon oxide added between the silicon substrate and the first dielectric layer of aluminum oxide in all of the accused products.

[00:21:19] Speaker 07:
And it's important to remember this was once a factual dispute.

[00:21:22] Speaker 07:
We have the record sites for that in footnote two at page 26 of the green brief.

[00:21:27] Speaker 07:
There was a time when Hanwha argued that there was a fact dispute as to whether the material in question was an impurity or an interfacial oxide on the one hand or instead an intervening layer as we argued on the other.

[00:21:41] Speaker 07:
They gave up that dispute, that factual dispute to streamline their path to appeal.

[00:21:47] Speaker 07:
So as the case comes to this court,

[00:21:49] Speaker 07:
There is no question we have an intentionally applied layer of dielectric material that functions the same way as it functioned in the prior art, providing passivation to the silicon substrate.

[00:22:00] Speaker 07:
It's a separate intentional layer of material.

[00:22:04] Speaker 07:
So if that's the only issue that Mr. Popp would like to argue today, the court doesn't actually have to resolve any claim construction question because the fact dispute was resolved by waiver in our favor below.

[00:22:17] Speaker 07:
Now, in terms

[00:22:19] Speaker 07:
Yes.

[00:22:20] Speaker 07:
Does intent matter?

[00:22:23] Speaker 07:
I don't think it should, although there was a specific finding on the point.

[00:22:27] Speaker 07:
I guess it matters only insofar as if you think of the word impurity, which wasn't something that was sort of disputed below, you might think of impurity as something that's there, but you don't mean it to be there.

[00:22:39] Speaker 07:
So maybe if it's unintentional, that's a way to figure out whether it's an impurity.

[00:22:43] Speaker 07:
So to the extent that that's a way you think about impurity here,

[00:22:47] Speaker 07:
It's not an accident.

[00:22:48] Speaker 07:
It's not accidentally there.

[00:22:50] Speaker 07:
It's intentionally there.

[00:22:51] Speaker 07:
It's grown.

[00:22:52] Speaker 07:
And, you know, they say it comes with the silicon.

[00:22:55] Speaker 07:
Mr. Park says that.

[00:22:57] Speaker 07:
And they say it's a contamination.

[00:22:58] Speaker 07:
But the 215 patent says if you've got that contamination, you can clean it off to achieve that key interface between the silicon of the silicon substrate and the aluminum oxide.

[00:23:09] Speaker 07:
And then Mr. Park says that it excludes all embodiments of the invention.

[00:23:14] Speaker 07:
Well, with respect to the embodiment, the only solar cell that's actually depicted is in figure one.

[00:23:19] Speaker 07:
And there's no intervening layer of silicon material there.

[00:23:23] Speaker 07:
And then with respect to the methods, first you've got Ritala that was mentioned.

[00:23:27] Speaker 07:
Ritala is all about excluding a silicon oxide layer.

[00:23:31] Speaker 07:
That's the point of Ritala.

[00:23:33] Speaker 07:
It's right there in the abstract.

[00:23:34] Speaker 07:
And it's true that Ritala can't categorically exclude the possibility that there's a single monolayer thick, indistinguishable oxidized silicon at the interface.

[00:23:44] Speaker 07:
Maybe that's an impurity, but we have an intentional layer and that's different.

[00:23:49] Speaker 07:
And with respect to Hooks 2006, which Mr. Pak mentioned during argument, that isn't even a disclosed embodiment.

[00:23:55] Speaker 07:
Recall that that reference isn't cited anywhere in the specification of this patent.

[00:24:00] Speaker 07:
It's only in the intrinsic record by virtue of the fact that Hanwha dumped it on the patent examiner during prosecution.

[00:24:07] Speaker 07:
There is certainly no principle of law that tells you that claims must be interpreted to encompass every embodiment of anything in an IDS ever submitted by an applicant.

[00:24:17] Speaker 07:
The embodiments in the specification teach you that you can avoid the silicon oxide layer, and that's precisely what these inventors claimed.

[00:24:26] Speaker 07:
And frankly, Zheng, which was also mentioned, Zheng says you can put aluminum oxide on either a silicon substrate or silicon oxide, which tells you there's a difference.

[00:24:37] Speaker 07:
And the difference is here, we have that intentional layer of silicon oxide, which is precisely what the applicants repeatedly displayed.

[00:24:49] Speaker 07:
With that, if there are no further questions, I'd yield the balance of my time.

[00:24:53] Speaker 00:
Mr. Pack, you have some rebuttal time.

[00:24:55] Speaker 00:
Please proceed.

[00:24:56] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:24:57] Speaker 04:
So first of all, Jung does not say that, Your Honor.

[00:25:00] Speaker 04:
What Jung actually says is that you will be depositing on either a silicon oxide substrate

[00:25:07] Speaker 04:
or a different type of substrate.

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
It doesn't talk about having a pure silicon being exposed at the surface, number one.

[00:25:15] Speaker 04:
Number two, Your Honor, with respect to this idea that we waved anything, there was no investigation into whether this silicon oxide material that is found at the interface between the first dielectric layer and the surface and the substrate, whether that interface is an interfacial film

[00:25:36] Speaker 04:
that is created as part of the normal oxygen-based deposition processes, or whether it's grown as it was done in the prior art to provide passivation effects.

[00:25:45] Speaker 04:
That issue was never addressed, Your Honor, because this case was dismissed after claim construction and doesn't matter under Her Honor's construction, which excludes all forms of impurities at the surface, whether it's an intentional layer or not.

[00:26:01] Speaker 04:
What we are arguing today, Your Honors, is that the ALJ found

[00:26:06] Speaker 04:
that the substrate will consist of impurities and dopants.

[00:26:11] Speaker 04:
And in every single instance, including the Ritala processes, and there are two processes.

[00:26:17] Speaker 04:
There's chemical, and there's also this thermal processes.

[00:26:21] Speaker 04:
You will have silicon dioxide going back, because you either have free-form oxygen, plasma-based oxygen, or metal oxygen sources that are interacting with the silicon substrate.

[00:26:34] Speaker 04:
A claim structure basis here

[00:26:36] Speaker 04:
exclude impurities that are being formed.

[00:26:39] Speaker 04:
And the underlying question of whether the silicon dioxide that we're seeing in the accused products is an intentional layer that was created to provide passivation effects or it is a byproduct of these oxygen deposition processes, that's an issue left for investigation.

[00:26:55] Speaker 04:
The case should be remanded based on a claim instruction that encompasses a broad understanding of what a substrate can be.

[00:27:10] Speaker 00:
Okay, well, hearing no further argument, I thank both counsel for their argument in this case, and the case is taken under submission.

[00:27:20] Speaker 07:
The Honorable Court is adjourned from day to day.