[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
case, which is number 22-1422, Loto-Kesha, IP Bridge 1 versus Micron.

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
Okay, Mr. Davis.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor, may I please record?

[00:00:23] Speaker 03:
The sole issue on appeal here is one of claim construction, whether the term memory storage portion requires access circuitry, and particularly in the context of DRAM, which is the sole basis for each and every one of the grounds below, whether a transistor is required to be part of that memory storage portion.

[00:00:43] Speaker 03:
If so, Micron concedes that reversal here is appropriate, and the 04-1 claims should be upheld.

[00:00:50] Speaker 00:
You agree that the transistor itself doesn't do any storage, right?

[00:00:56] Speaker 03:
On its own, yes, Your Honor, it does not.

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
It is in conjunction with the capacitor in the context of a DRAM that the two of them together perform the storage.

[00:01:06] Speaker 03:
Because the specification equates that term memory storage portion with the term memory cell portion,

[00:01:14] Speaker 03:
And in the context of a DRAM, the memory cell portion includes and requires a transistor.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
A reversal here is appropriate.

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
So just so I understand, in your view, in the context of this patent, memory storage portion is coextensive with memory cell portion?

[00:01:37] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:38] Speaker 03:
Memory cell portion through each of the IE statements.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
Coextensive, right?

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
And those two terms are likewise coextensive with memory storage region?

[00:01:50] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:52] Speaker 01:
Why would a patent drafter make up all these different terms and then

[00:01:59] Speaker 01:
then force us to conclude that they all actually just mean the same thing.

[00:02:04] Speaker 01:
Why wouldn't the more logical way of reading the patent be when a patent drafter makes up a bunch of terms that suggest they actually have different meanings?

[00:02:15] Speaker 03:
Because, Your Honor, the usage of that IE is what's critical here, as the support is recognized in Rembrandt versus Samsung, the usage of IE.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
It seems to me really answer that question as to why you would use memory storage portion when you have memory cells.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, they're equated in the specifications, so every time you define anything in the specification, that definition is what is supposed to then govern.

[00:02:43] Speaker 03:
That IE language is what defines memory storage portion to be a memory cell portion.

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
Yeah, but your cases don't support you on that.

[00:02:55] Speaker 00:
What comes after the IE defines what comes before, rather than the other way around.

[00:03:01] Speaker 03:
I would disagree respectfully because they're equated.

[00:03:06] Speaker 03:
It should be the same in both directions.

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
And I think in general what's required here is we should be looking at this issue in the context of the whole patent.

[00:03:14] Speaker 03:
Those two terms are equated.

[00:03:17] Speaker 03:
twice, and on either side of that equal sign the terms would mean the same thing.

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
Read in context of the patent, they're talking about a memory cell portion, they say IE, a memory storage portion, and then in the claims they recite the memory storage portion.

[00:03:31] Speaker 03:
So read in order, it even makes sense there as well in the context of the whole patent.

[00:03:36] Speaker 03:
That is how they decided to claim the memory storage portion.

[00:03:41] Speaker 03:
They set that definition out in the specification a couple different times, and that is what it should govern, particularly because it's consistent with the rest of the specification here.

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
I don't know if I can agree that it's consistent with the rest of the specification because there's other portions of the specification that seem to be using this term memory storage portion to describe a storage element like a capacitor.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
In fact, the specification seems to be very capacitor-centric.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
in terms of thinking about what we're trying to protect from copper atom diffusion and specifically not just the capacitor but the charges, i.e.

[00:04:28] Speaker 01:
the information that the capacitors

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
are storing, and so in that way, there are aspects of this specification that are really tying the term memory storage portion to the capacitors, i.e.

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
the storage elements themselves, as opposed to some broader region of a semiconductor device that includes not only capacitors, but also transistors.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
I think you're referring to a couple different portions of the specification, Your Honor.

[00:04:59] Speaker 03:
kind of try to address each of them.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
Well, there's the paragraph at column three, right?

[00:05:04] Speaker 01:
First full paragraph where it looks like the specification is about to become, about to provide some lexicography as to how it's going to attempt to use the term memory storage portion.

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
it stores information.

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
It's of the type that stores information corresponding to the presence slash absence of charges.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
And then it says, of course, its invention is not limited to this, but then it goes right back to talking about

[00:05:35] Speaker 01:
various memories that hold charges.

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
And so, again, this paragraph leads one to start thinking very much in a focused way about the capacitors themselves, the storage elements themselves that are holding the bits of information in a broader semiconductor device.

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
And focusing in on that paragraph starting around line 25, it says,

[00:06:05] Speaker 03:
The DRAM stores one bit information according to the presence slash absence of accumulated charges in the capacitor provided for each transistor.

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
The capacitor alone doesn't control the presence or absence of that charge.

[00:06:19] Speaker 03:
It's the transistor that controls it.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
Without the transistor there, all the charge leaves the capacitor.

[00:06:25] Speaker 03:
So it can't store any information.

[00:06:27] Speaker 03:
It can't act as memory.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
The transistor is required to be part of that.

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
It then goes on to say more specifically in the DRAM capacitors in a memory cell portion, i.e.

[00:06:37] Speaker 03:
in the memory storage portion.

[00:06:40] Speaker 03:
That i.e.

[00:06:40] Speaker 03:
there is one of the critical i.e.s I was referring to before, but were the patentee to have meant that it's the capacitors that are in the memory storage portion, you'd have to delete the second in in that phrase.

[00:06:58] Speaker 03:
it would have to read capacitors in a memory cell portion, i.e., the memory storage portion.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
But it doesn't say that.

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
That in, after the i.e., is what ties that memory cell concept to the memory storage portion concept.

[00:07:11] Speaker 03:
It's not the capacitors alone.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
It is that memory cell as a whole.

[00:07:17] Speaker 03:
And throughout the specification, that memory cell as a whole is described as having, in the context of DRAM, both a transistor and a capacitor.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
What about the abstract?

[00:07:30] Speaker 01:
The abstract is short and it uses both terms, memory storage region and memory cell portion.

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
It suggests that these two things are not the same thing.

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
One is used in the first sentence and the other is used in the second sentence.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
I mean, it would be hard for a reader to read this abstract and think that these two terms are identical.

[00:08:02] Speaker 03:
We don't read the abstract in isolation.

[00:08:05] Speaker 03:
We read it in the context of the rest of the specification.

[00:08:08] Speaker 03:
And in column seven, lines one to seven, it says memory cell portion, i.e., memory storage region.

[00:08:15] Speaker 03:
So it does equate the two.

[00:08:17] Speaker 03:
But that concept is

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
Those are related concepts.

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
Those are used interchangeably there.

[00:08:24] Speaker 03:
They're talking about avoiding diffusion into a memory storage region.

[00:08:28] Speaker 03:
And then more specifically, they talk about how to do that.

[00:08:32] Speaker 03:
You protect the entire memory cell portion.

[00:08:35] Speaker 03:
You protect the entire memory cell, which has both a transistor and a capacitor.

[00:08:42] Speaker 03:
And I think you had referenced

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
another portion of the specification that... Column 5, right?

[00:08:51] Speaker 03:
Yeah, Column 5, lines 35 or so where there is a word as there.

[00:08:56] Speaker 03:
It says, high density capacitors can be used as memory cells.

[00:09:02] Speaker 03:
That word as is the only instance that they can point to in the entire specification where they can say, all right, well, a capacitor therefore is a memory cell.

[00:09:10] Speaker 03:
But look at the rest of the context of that paragraph.

[00:09:13] Speaker 03:
It's talking about DRAM.

[00:09:15] Speaker 03:
I believe it's undisputed between the parties that in DRAM, a memory cell has both a transistor

[00:09:22] Speaker 03:
and a capacitor.

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
But this paragraph seems again to be capacitor centric.

[00:09:27] Speaker 01:
Memory storage portion for accumulating and releasing charges.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
The DRAM accumulates and releases the charges in and from capacitors so as to store the one bit information per capacitor.

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
By providing the copper diffusion-preventing film, the conveniently formed high-density capacitors can be used as memory cells.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
I mean, I grant you these IEs are a little confusing, but, you know, overall, I don't think this patent has a model of clarity.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
And there's still enough in here for the board to have concluded fairly reasonably that

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
Whatever memory storage portion means, it can be just the storage element itself, but doesn't necessarily preclude other components such as a transistor from also being encompassed by the term memory storage portion.

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
A couple of points, John.

[00:10:34] Speaker 03:
As you're reading through that paragraph from Column 5, it's talking about what's

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
accumulating and releasing the charges.

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
What is doing that?

[00:10:41] Speaker 03:
It's undisputed.

[00:10:42] Speaker 03:
That's the transistor.

[00:10:43] Speaker 03:
The capacitor itself can't do that.

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
And without the transistor, you can't store memory.

[00:10:49] Speaker 03:
You can't store information.

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
Referring, Your Honor, as part of the issue of what is the purpose of the patent, I'll direct the court to column four, lines one to four.

[00:11:03] Speaker 03:
There it's talking about

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
It says every part of the wiring portion cannot literally lead to any part of the memory storage portion without passing through, and then it summarizes the blocking means used there.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
It's referring to not just the capacitors, but any part of the memory storage portion, which is going to be both the transistors and the capacitors.

[00:11:27] Speaker 03:
As this court has recognized, both in Rembrandt versus Samsung, as well as Interfold,

[00:11:33] Speaker 03:
licensing versus AOL, that usage of the IE is important, particularly in patents, and particularly when you juxtapose it against EG's, which are also used in the specification.

[00:11:47] Speaker 03:
The applicants and the patentee did not mean that as an example, as Micron would argue.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
They didn't use the EG signal, they used the IE instead.

[00:12:00] Speaker 01:
This patent's expired, right?

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
Yes, sir.

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
Is it being asserted against anyone else other than Micron?

[00:12:08] Speaker 03:
I believe the only lie of litigation, Your Honor, is the Micron one, and that it's stayed pending this appeal, Your Honor.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
What was the construction that you requested?

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
The construction that we had requested was also the construction that the district court adopted was memory storage portion is a portion of a semiconductor device that includes at least a storage element, e.g.

[00:12:34] Speaker 03:
a capacitor, an access circuitry, e.g.

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
a transistor that together form a memory.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
And the particular issue here is limited to DRAM, but that's the only basis they have in each and every one of the grounds below.

[00:12:47] Speaker 03:
And then DRAM

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
the structure that would be those two components are a capacitor and a transistor.

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
If there aren't any further questions, Your Honor, I'll reserve the remaining time for rebuttal.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:13:00] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Mr. Davis.

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
Mr. Manas.

[00:13:14] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, Robbie Manas for Micron.

[00:13:17] Speaker 02:
The board's construction is correct.

[00:13:21] Speaker 02:
The term memory storage portion, consistent with its focus on storage, it's necessary and sufficient for a storage element alone to read on that term.

[00:13:30] Speaker 01:
If the claims had said memory cell portion instead of memory storage portion, do you agree that the patent owner's proposed construction would be correct?

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
No, we don't.

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
And that's because at column five, lines 37 to 38,

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
The patent states that high-density capacitors can be used as memory cells.

[00:13:49] Speaker 01:
The figures talk about memory cell portions through and through and illustrate how

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
The memory cell portion 30 includes an entire region that has both capacitors and transistors.

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
Well, harkening back to your questions and Judge Dyke's questions, it would be surpassingly odd to use those different terms if they were coextensive.

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
There would need to be a very specific... I've got a hypothetical here, which is what if the claims had just said memory cell portion and did not say storage portion?

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
And the written description did not mention the terminal.

[00:14:23] Speaker 01:
Memory cell portion?

[00:14:24] Speaker 02:
No, the alternating usage between

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
memory cell portion and memory storage portion and all these different terms.

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
That's what I'm drawing upon.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
It indicates, you know, a difference, but... You consistently use memory cell instead of memory cell, memory storage portion.

[00:14:44] Speaker 00:
You agree.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
right, that the patent-based construction was correct?

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:14:51] Speaker 00:
Even if we scrubbed out all of this language, it's confusing.

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
And they've been clear and consistent that they were talking about a memory cell.

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
So no, because of column five, line three.

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
Are you fighting the hypothetical?

[00:15:08] Speaker 02:
No, I don't think I am.

[00:15:09] Speaker 02:
Sorry.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
That portion, that column, doesn't mention the term memory storage portion.

[00:15:14] Speaker 02:
It only mentions

[00:15:15] Speaker 02:
memory cells, and it says capacitors can be used as memory cells.

[00:15:19] Speaker 02:
So even if that's the only term used, memory cell,

[00:15:22] Speaker 02:
even then the patent states that a capacitor's device is.

[00:15:26] Speaker 02:
So I'm not rejecting the hypothetical, I'm just simply pointing out a disclosure.

[00:15:28] Speaker 01:
So what if we deleted that sentence from respect to, and now all, what if we deleted that sentence from respect to, and then all we have are all these references, memory cell portion, memory description, and all the figures that talk about memory cell portion 30, which encompasses a big region of the semiconductor device that has both capacitors and transistors.

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
If you pair back all contexts from the patent that's relevant here, I agree that they have a much easier time making their argument.

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
I do want to point, though, to one thing that is a piece of context that doesn't rely on this confusing usage issue.

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
And that's sort of twofold.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
It's one, it's the column one to column two disclosures where it's talking about the purpose of the invention and making clear that the purpose is to prevent copper from getting into the capacitors.

[00:16:14] Speaker 02:
So column one, starting at line 35 all the way to column two, line eight,

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
sets up this background problem in the art that's solved by the prior art, which is copper gets into the active region or the active layer, which is undisputedly where the transistors are, but not where the capacitors are.

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
And it says these prior art methods solve that problem.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
It prevents copper diffusion from getting in there.

[00:16:36] Speaker 02:
Then starting at column two, line nine, it says, but that's not enough in the modern day because as these devices are shrunk, there's a new problem of copper diffusion, and that's

[00:16:46] Speaker 02:
copper getting into the capacitors, which again, undisputedly, aren't part of the active region, and that's why the prior art methods don't address this problem.

[00:16:54] Speaker 02:
They don't help the capacitors because they're not focused on that issue.

[00:16:57] Speaker 02:
And so that column two is quite explicit.

[00:16:59] Speaker 02:
The problem is copper getting into the capacitors.

[00:17:02] Speaker 02:
It says on line 40 to 42, the capacitors are destroyed even when the above-mentioned conventional letters are taken.

[00:17:09] Speaker 02:
And I can't help but note that Heidkieper's opening brief quotes that says, memory storage portions are destroyed even when

[00:17:16] Speaker 02:
above mentioning conventional measures are taken.

[00:17:19] Speaker 02:
Well, that gives away the game, because if capacitors are memory storage portions or memory cell portions, then that just is the board's reading in this case.

[00:17:27] Speaker 02:
The other thing that I think is pretty striking is if you look at Appendix 86, that's Figure 22, which is the figure that Column 2 is describing.

[00:17:37] Speaker 02:
It has the symbol for copper as CU.

[00:17:40] Speaker 02:
And it has that symbol.

[00:17:42] Speaker 02:
And all the arrows drawn from copper wiring 116 lead directly to the capacitor 112.

[00:17:47] Speaker 02:
They don't go anywhere else.

[00:17:49] Speaker 02:
It's all going straight to the capacitor.

[00:17:52] Speaker 02:
So clearly, the capacitor is the focus of this invention.

[00:17:54] Speaker 02:
And protecting the capacitor is the focus of this invention.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
I want to return, though, to the actual claim language we have here, which is memory storage portion.

[00:18:07] Speaker 02:
I just want to point out that there's sort of two main interrelated defects with IP bridges reading.

[00:18:13] Speaker 02:
First, it gives short shrift to the word storage in memory storage portion.

[00:18:17] Speaker 02:
And then it proves way too much by fixating on the word memory in memory storage portion.

[00:18:22] Speaker 02:
And so we heard from opposing counsels in their briefs that 29, 32, 42 of their opening brief, their whole claim language argument reduces the idea that a capacitor alone can't act as memory.

[00:18:34] Speaker 02:
It can't form memory.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
It can't function memory.

[00:18:36] Speaker 02:
In short, a capacitor isn't memory, and you need access circuitry to have a memory.

[00:18:42] Speaker 02:
Well, that runs headlong into this first problem, which is the claim isn't drawn to a memory.

[00:18:48] Speaker 02:
It nowhere recites a full-blown memory.

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
It recites a memory storage portion.

[00:18:52] Speaker 02:
And it's undisputed, as to DRAM, that a capacitor is where information is stored.

[00:18:58] Speaker 02:
It's the location, but also the thing that stores.

[00:19:01] Speaker 02:
and my friend on the other side indicated that, tried to hedge this a bit and say, well, the capacitor is involved and maybe access circuitry is also involved in storage.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
But their expert conceded at 1737 to 38 that the capacitor is what's stored, the transistor is what transfers the data.

[00:19:21] Speaker 02:
Similarly, at their brief at 31, they admit that they say the board's error is construing the terms to focus on what stores, as opposed to other components like access circuitry.

[00:19:30] Speaker 02:
So it's conceded that this capacitor is what stores, and that's what the claim focuses on.

[00:19:35] Speaker 02:
And then the second issue is this proving too much problem.

[00:19:39] Speaker 02:
They have this arbitrary line drawing problem.

[00:19:41] Speaker 02:
If everything that's required is everything that's needed for a memory, well, then why draw the line at a storage element and access circuitry?

[00:19:52] Speaker 02:
And they try to hide behind this principle that the court doesn't need to construe the claims to its outer boundaries, just the dispute at hand.

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
They can't hide behind that principle because as

[00:20:00] Speaker 02:
opposing counsel just admitted, they've offered the same construction in the district court and here.

[00:20:05] Speaker 02:
And in the district court, if everything that's required for a memory is a memory storage portion, Micron doesn't infringe.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
So they can't have it both ways.

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
They can't offer an argument that would prove so that we wouldn't infringe.

[00:20:16] Speaker 02:
And then also here try and say, well, you don't have to decide the precise parameters of this claim term.

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
Can you get to the IE statements in the written description?

[00:20:27] Speaker 01:
I know there have been times where we've read prior patents and seen the term IE as a signal in a written description as providing the meaning of a term that comes before the IE.

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
Why isn't that true here?

[00:20:44] Speaker 02:
So to be crystal clear, every single case they've cited and every single case I'm aware of that uses IE simply says

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
But the term on the left is defined by the thing on the right.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
The narrower term on the left is defined by the broader term.

[00:20:57] Speaker 02:
That's made abundantly explicit in the Skimmedica case as we laid out in our brief.

[00:21:00] Speaker 02:
But Edwards Life Sciences, even the AOL interval licensing case they cite in their reply brief, which talks about EG, it all makes the same point.

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
Rembrandt, the same.

[00:21:11] Speaker 02:
So, and this goes precisely to the surpassing oddity we were talking about before.

[00:21:15] Speaker 02:
Why would you use IE if it's just coextensive both ways, if it's an equal sign like the opposing council said, because then you wouldn't have varied usage.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
And the reason is because, you know, you can say something like, pigeons, IE birds.

[00:21:32] Speaker 02:
Pigeons are a type of birds.

[00:21:33] Speaker 02:
A bird that is a pigeon.

[00:21:36] Speaker 02:
It doesn't mean that they're totally coextensive in both directions, it just means one is

[00:21:40] Speaker 02:
collaborating on the other.

[00:21:42] Speaker 02:
And so that sort of solves this riddle of why there's this different usage.

[00:21:46] Speaker 02:
And if the patentee had wanted to claim a memory cell portion or whatnot, they could have written the claims in those ways.

[00:21:53] Speaker 02:
This is just like the Acumet case where the claim transversals weren't limited to the described perpendicular holes.

[00:21:59] Speaker 02:
Here, the claimed memory storage portion shouldn't be limited to a memory cell portion or whatever other term exists in the patent.

[00:22:08] Speaker 02:
Varied usage represents breadth, not limited definition.

[00:22:13] Speaker 02:
And I just want to make this one last point that I think is important on this sort of necessity argument they have.

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
They say, well, what's required is what's necessary for a memory.

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
I just want to be clear about two reasons why that argument can't obtain.

[00:22:30] Speaker 02:
One's conceptual, and that's a point that many things may be required for something else, but that doesn't mean that the former needs to be included in the latter.

[00:22:38] Speaker 02:
So, for example, a door is required for a door lock to lock a door, but that doesn't mean you need a door to have a door lock.

[00:22:48] Speaker 02:
If I go to the hardware store and ask for a door lock, they're going to direct me to door locks that are sold separately and apart from doors.

[00:22:56] Speaker 02:
In fact, I'd be kind of annoyed if they directed me to a full-blown door and tried to do some sort of convoyed sale.

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
It's a perfectly natural usage of

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
a term to, you know, there might be necessary elements for it to work, but that doesn't mean that you must include those in the term itself.

[00:23:11] Speaker 02:
And then the second point is legal.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
It's just black letter law that you don't read things into a claim just because they're necessary for an operative or working device.

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
This whole argument can't get off the ground given that legal principle, and as discussed, where they draw the line is absolutely arbitrary.

[00:23:28] Speaker 01:
why the door lock door example helped you here on the facts of this case?

[00:23:36] Speaker 01:
I got lost.

[00:23:37] Speaker 02:
Oh, just because a memory storage, so I'm responding to the argument that, as I understand the other side's argument, everything that's necessary for a memory must be included in memory storage portion.

[00:23:50] Speaker 02:
That just is counter to ordinary usage of language.

[00:23:53] Speaker 02:
We're saying all that's required is a storage element.

[00:23:56] Speaker 02:
And yes, we agree.

[00:23:57] Speaker 02:
It may be necessary for a functional memory to have access circuitry and tons of other things.

[00:24:03] Speaker 02:
It may even be necessary to successfully store information within the capacitor.

[00:24:07] Speaker 02:
But it's still undisputed that the capacitor is the thing that's stored and where location is stored.

[00:24:10] Speaker 02:
So it's just like a door lock going to a hardware store.

[00:24:13] Speaker 02:
Yet another example in which an analogy confuses things rather than clarify.

[00:24:18] Speaker 02:
Well, I think I didn't tee it up well enough.

[00:24:20] Speaker 02:
So maybe if I'd given my preface beforehand, Judge Chen wouldn't have been as confused.

[00:24:24] Speaker 01:
Sorry, I'm kind of sleepy.

[00:24:26] Speaker 01:
So maybe that's the problem.

[00:24:29] Speaker 02:
So if there's no further questions here, I'm happy to answer any on the written description or the claim language.

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
But otherwise, we would ask that the Board's decision be affirmed.

[00:24:43] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:24:43] Speaker 00:
Mr. Davis.

[00:24:47] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor, may it please the Court.

[00:24:50] Speaker 03:
I do want to start off with the inconsistencies in Micron's positions.

[00:24:54] Speaker 03:
Micron's petition here, and this is at Appendix 200 to 201, said the OPR 1 pattern recognizes

[00:25:00] Speaker 03:
that a memory circuit is synonymous with the claimed memory storage portion.

[00:25:04] Speaker 03:
They're equivalent, citing to column seven lines one to five, citing to that same IE sentence that we've been pointing to before.

[00:25:13] Speaker 03:
Now that they've seen the error in their ways, they couldn't find any prior art that had a

[00:25:18] Speaker 03:
cooperative use and blocking means that surrounded the entire memory cell, that surrounded the entire memory storage portion.

[00:25:25] Speaker 03:
They're trying to pivot on what they told the board at the very outset of this proceeding.

[00:25:31] Speaker 03:
In fact, if you go through the petition

[00:25:33] Speaker 03:
They have that same figure that they're referencing from the patent.

[00:25:37] Speaker 03:
They draw a red dotted box around the entire memory storage portion each time, the entire memory cell portion, saying, that's the memory storage portion.

[00:25:47] Speaker 03:
That is the portion that is supposed to be protected.

[00:25:50] Speaker 03:
And yet, when they look at their prior art, it's just not there.

[00:25:53] Speaker 03:
They don't have it.

[00:25:55] Speaker 03:
I do want to harken back to a point that opposing counsel seems to be referencing, which is a misinterpretation of the claim language.

[00:26:03] Speaker 03:
which the board made, and I believe is undisputed, the board adopting Micron's argument said, memory storage portion by its very words requires only the portion of a memory that stores.

[00:26:14] Speaker 03:
But when read in the context of the entire claim, that word portion is referring to portions of the claim device, not a portion of the memory that stores, which is what Micron is hinging its argument on.

[00:26:25] Speaker 03:
That's at Appendix 9.

[00:26:30] Speaker 03:
And this issue of column five, lines 37 to 38, came up again, the use of the word as, that opposing counsel would like to focus on.

[00:26:40] Speaker 03:
You have to read that sentence in the context of the rest of that paragraph, which is talking about DRAM, where there's both transistors and capacitors required in their memory cells, and in the context of the rest of the specification, where it repeatedly says, capacitors of a memory cell portion, capacitors in the memory cell portion, having memory cells including capacitors,

[00:27:00] Speaker 03:
Capacitors are not the only thing in the memory cells, it is the transistors as well that are required, and that's why each and every one of petitioner's grounds fails.

[00:27:09] Speaker 03:
For that reason, we ask you to reverse the findings below.

[00:27:13] Speaker 00:
Okay, thank you.

[00:27:14] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Excellency.