MYPAQ HOLDINGS LTD. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
Oral Argument — 12/02/2024 · Case 23-2022 · 23:48
0:00
Judge Prost
Final case for argument this morning is 23-2022,
0:04
MyPack Holdings v. Samsung.
0:07
Good morning. Please proceed.
0:09
Appellant Attorney (Minghui Yang)
Good morning, Your Honors.
0:10
May it please the Court, Mitch Yang on behalf of Appellant MyPack,
0:13
and with me today is Jim Carmichael.
0:16
Everyone agrees that monolithically integrated means
0:18
fabricated from a single piece of material.
0:21
The issue here is even though that is the construction the Board should have used,
0:25
the Board's prior analysis used a different construction on a single chip.
0:30
In doing so, the Board implicitly changed the construction of monolithically integrated,
0:34
which under this Court's precedence is a legal error subject to de novo review.
0:40
Based on the brief, I expect my colleague on the other side to come up after me
0:44
and present three reasons to affirm the final decision.
0:48
I will address them in the order that they're briefed,
0:50
unless Your Honors have a different preference.
0:56
Hearing none, the first argument is that these two constructions mean the same thing,
1:01
that essentially fabricated from...
1:03
a single piece of material mean the same thing as on a single chip.
1:07
And to be frank, Your Honor, that is just contrary to the direct meaning of these two terms.
1:13
The word fabricated from indicates the beginning of the process.
1:16
When something is fabricated from, that means you take a single piece of material
1:20
and you use that to create the chip.
1:22
When something is simply on a single chip, that refers to the outcome of the process.
1:27
At the end of the fabrication process, you have a single chip.
1:30
But that speaks nothing of how the fabrication process works.
1:33
Or what kind of materials are used to begin the process.
1:38
If I could give an analogy in the archaeological context where the word monolithic originated,
1:42
there are two kinds of columns in archaeology.
1:47
In ancient Egyptian columns, they would take a single piece of rock, a giant piece of rock,
1:52
and they would chisel a complete column out of this piece of rock.
1:55
And in that case, that column is monolithic.
1:59
It's chiseled out of the single piece of rock.
2:02
If the column cracks...
2:03
If the column cracks during the chiseling process, they would, in fact, throw the column away.
2:07
By contrast to that, Roman columns are made out of stone blocks about this high.
2:12
They're in drums.
2:12
And you would stack each of these drums on top of each other.
2:15
So at the end of the stacking process, you would have a column as well.
2:19
But that column isn't monolithic.
2:20
Because it's made out of all these individual stone blocks stacked on top of each other.
2:25
So in both of these examples, only one column, the one that's made out of a single piece of material, is monolithic.
2:31
The other column, the one that's made out of multiple pieces,
2:34
the materials stacked on top of each other, that is not monolithic.
2:36
And that's the same issue with these two constructions.
2:39
When you begin with a single piece of semiconductor material,
2:43
and you fabricate the chip out of that one single piece,
2:46
then that speaks to the fact that the material is monolithic.
2:50
If at the end of the process you have a single chip,
2:52
that doesn't speak of anything of how this chip was created.
2:56
In fact, we have expert testimony and evidence from textbooks at the time of the invention
3:01
that describes two different types of...
3:04
Integrated circuits, which are a single chip.
3:06
One of these types is the monolithic integrated circuit.
3:09
That is the circuit that's created from, fabricated from, a single piece of material.
3:15
The other type is called a hybrid integrated circuit.
3:17
And that, even though that is also a single chip, at the end of the process,
3:21
the process doesn't start with a single piece of material.
3:24
In a hybrid integrated circuit, you have more than one piece of material.
3:27
Put those together, and you still get a single chip.
3:29
But that single chip isn't made from a single piece of material.
3:32
Judge Prost
Can you just give us a little bit more information about this case
3:39
and the pieces of prior art, and why, under your argument, they...
3:43
Appellant Attorney (Minghui Yang)
Certainly, Your Honor.
3:44
That is actually the third argument, is that...
3:48
Their argument is that the prior art evidence on a single chip
3:52
is equivalent to the agreed construction,
3:56
which is fabricated from a single piece of material.
3:59
So there are two principal pieces of prior art that we're looking at here.
4:02
And the first one...
4:05
Is the Zarev reference.
4:07
In the Zarev reference, what it shows is...
4:10
It has some figures in it, which shows a single chip
4:13
at the end of the fabrication process,
4:15
which appellees have argued shows all of the claim element,
4:21
the circuit element in independent claim one,
4:23
which has now been disclaimed.
4:24
The issue is, I asked director Mr. Elenius directly,
4:28
does Zarev teach how this chip is fabricated?
4:32
And his answer was, no, it doesn't.
4:34
If it doesn't...
4:35
If the prior art doesn't teach how the chip is fabricated,
4:37
then it tells you nothing about whether it's monolithic or not.
4:40
Because the evidence demonstrates that there are two types of chips.
4:44
One is monolithic, the other is not.
4:46
They haven't shown that this particular chip in Zarev is monolithic
4:49
because the illustration only shows
4:51
what the end result of the fabrication process is.
4:54
It doesn't tell you anything about whether this chip is made
4:57
from one piece of material or multiple pieces of material,
5:00
as the field at the time of invention understood.
5:03
There could be both ways of fabricating,
5:05
so it's completely silent as to whether this chip is one piece or multiple pieces.
5:11
All they have is one figure that shows the result.
5:13
But the words monolithically integrated
5:15
is directed to the input of the process, not the result.
5:19
So because it only shows the result,
5:21
and it's silent on the input process,
5:23
it doesn't teach anything about monolithically integrated.
5:27
And the same is true of the other piece of prior art
5:32
that they use in their second ground, which is Lyot.
5:34
Exactly like Zarev,
5:35
Lyot has a single chip at the end of the process,
5:39
and we don't dispute that.
5:40
The problem is it only shows the single chip.
5:43
It doesn't tell you how that chip was made.
5:45
Because it doesn't tell you how that chip was made,
5:48
it doesn't tell you whether the process starts out monolithically
5:51
with a single piece of semiconductor material,
5:53
or if it starts out with multiple pieces of material
5:56
and you put them together like a jigsaw puzzle.
5:58
In either case, you end up with a single chip.
6:01
But only in one case, when you start with a single piece of material,
6:04
does that meet the monolithically integrated rule.
6:07
And so in order to meet this limitation,
6:09
petitioners have to identify somewhere in either of these two references,
6:13
prior art, a teaching that the fabrication process
6:16
started out with a single piece of material.
6:19
And there's simply no teaching whatsoever in either piece of prior art.
6:22
In fact, they asked Mr. Olenius, their expert,
6:24
and he said, no, it doesn't teach anything about how these chips are created.
6:29
Judge Reyna
But as long as they have a limitation,
6:31
why do they have to show how it was,
6:34
as you're terming how it was built?
6:38
I don't see this as a case involving claim construction.
6:42
It seems like your arguments are all about the scope and the content of the prior art.
6:46
But yet, there's an agreement that the prior art all contains the same limitation
6:51
that you're now arguing.
6:53
This is production from a single die.
6:57
Appellant Attorney (Minghui Yang)
Judge Reina, I respectfully disagree with that.
7:00
The issue is that the board changed the claim construction on us
7:03
after we've already done it.
7:04
Our agreed construction is monolithically integrated,
7:08
means you have to start with a single piece of material.
7:11
Judge Reyna
But does Everett and Leal,
7:14
they both disclose a limitation, correctly,
7:17
that this is construction from a single die?
7:19
Appellant Attorney (Minghui Yang)
No, Your Honor, it discloses a single die.
7:22
It doesn't disclose how that die is constructed.
7:24
In fact, I asked Mr. Olenius, their expert, how is this die constructed?
7:28
He said it doesn't disclose anything about the construction.
7:30
Judge Reyna
Why does it have to describe how it is made from a single die?
7:35
Why does it have to describe how it is made from a single die
7:35
if the limitation is manufactured from a single die?
7:40
Appellant Attorney (Minghui Yang)
Because the words fabricated from means that you start the process
7:43
with a single piece of material.
7:45
This, I think, is the other confusion that they're trying to create,
7:48
which is the semiconductor material is not a die.
7:52
The die refers to the chip at the end of the process.
7:55
So when you have a single die, at the end of the process,
7:57
you have a single chip.
7:58
That is what they've shown.
7:59
The problem is that monolithically integrated
8:01
isn't directed to the single die at the end of the process.
8:04
It's directed to the chip at the end of the process.
8:05
It's directed to the single piece of semiconductor material
8:07
at the beginning of the process.
8:09
In order to show monolithically integrated,
8:11
they have to identify a single piece of semiconductor material
8:14
that they're using to create the die
8:16
before any of the fabrication occurs.
8:18
They have not done that.
8:20
All they've shown is that here's this piece of die
8:22
after the fabrication process.
8:23
It's one die.
8:24
We agree with that, but that's not what the word
8:26
monolithically integrated means under the party's construction,
8:29
which the board has adopted.
8:31
Monolithically integrated specifically refers to
8:34
the single piece of material that's being made from a single die.
8:35
That's the material at the beginning of the process.
8:37
That's what they failed to identify in the prior art.
8:40
In fact, that is why the board switched the constructions on us,
8:44
is because the board couldn't find any teaching in the prior art where...
8:48
Judge Reyna
So wasn't there an agreement on monolithically integrated
8:54
as fabricated from a single piece of semiconductor material?
8:57
Appellant Attorney (Minghui Yang)
That's correct.
8:58
That's the construction.
9:00
Correct.
9:01
Judge Reyna
Okay.
9:02
Appellant Attorney (Minghui Yang)
The keywords there are fabricated from.
9:04
The words fabricated...
9:05
Fabricated from mean that you're taking the single piece of material
9:08
and that's what you're making into the die.
9:10
When you're fabricated from a single piece of material,
9:13
you take the single piece of material and you turn that into a die.
9:17
So it's exactly identical to the column analogy I described earlier.
9:23
It means you start with the rock.
9:24
You have to identify what the single piece of rock is.
9:27
You can't look at the column that you've chiseled out of the rock.
9:30
That could or could not be made from a single piece of rock.
9:32
You have to identify the single piece of rock at the beginning.
9:35
What they've in turn identified is the column at the end.
9:38
We don't know if the column at the end is made out of a single piece of rock
9:41
or if it's constructed out of multiple pieces of rock.
9:44
That's not disclosed anywhere in the prior art
9:46
as their expert has testified and agreed to.
9:48
So when they say a single die,
9:50
that's looking at the column or the die
9:52
after the process has been completed.
9:55
Single die has nothing to do with the single piece of semiconductor material
9:58
that's being used to craft the die.
10:01
That is what the prior art needs to teach.
10:07
And I see I'm a few steps...
10:09
seconds close to my rebuttal time.
10:11
I'd like to reserve the rest of it.
10:12
Thank you, Your Honor.
10:13
Appellee Attorney (Eliot Damon Williams)
Good morning, Your Honor.
10:30
May it please the Court.
10:32
This is not a method claim.
10:33
This is a circuit claim.
10:35
The only thing that the parties seem to have a disagreement about
10:38
is whether the PTAB understood the meaning of its construction
10:42
and agreed to.
10:44
And it's clear from reading the Board's opinion
10:45
that the Board certainly did agree.
10:47
Judge Reyna
Can you speak up just a tiny bit?
10:48
Appellee Attorney (Eliot Damon Williams)
Sir, it's clear from reading the Board's opinion
10:50
that it did understand the construction quite well.
10:53
It merely made a factual finding
10:55
that it disagrees with the arguments the patent owner is making.
10:57
So, in particular, the Board was very careful
11:00
to explain, both with respect to Zverev and Liao,
11:04
how the structure and the evidence that is presented to the Board
11:07
met that construction.
11:09
Turning to the analysis of the Zverev reference,
11:14
which begins...
11:17
really, I suppose you could say it begins in earnest
11:19
at page 38 of the appendix,
11:22
the Board carefully stepped through the exact argument
11:25
that patent owners...
11:26
making to this court
11:26
and said that the Board was finding in favor of Petitioner
11:32
because, specifically, it believed
11:34
that what's described in Zverev,
11:38
both in the figures and the text,
11:40
as well as after reviewing and relying on the expert's explanation
11:43
of that prior art,
11:45
the Board found, quote,
11:47
Petitioner demonstrates persuasively
11:49
that switch T2 and sense MOSFET T3
11:52
are monolithically integrated
11:54
on a single semiconductor chip,
11:56
CH1.
11:57
It goes on to say...
11:59
Judge Bryson
What page? I'm sorry.
12:00
Sorry, I'm reading...
12:01
Appellee Attorney (Eliot Damon Williams)
I'm beginning from page 38 of the appendix.
12:04
Judge Bryson
And what line, roughly...
12:07
Ah, I see.
12:08
Petitioner demonstrates persuasively about line 8.
12:11
Appellee Attorney (Eliot Damon Williams)
Correct.
12:13
Then it goes on to say,
12:16
Petitioner also demonstrates persuasively
12:18
that Zverev's use of the term chip,
12:20
i.e. a single chip or die,
12:22
as opposed to package,
12:23
i.e. two chips arranged together,
12:25
shows that the single...
12:27
semiconductor chip
12:28
is synonymous with single semiconductor die,
12:31
i.e. fabricated from a single piece
12:34
of semiconductor material.
12:35
Judge Bryson
Well, the place that I think
12:38
your opposing counsel gets off the train here
12:42
is the IE.
12:44
Appellee Attorney (Eliot Damon Williams)
Well, yeah.
12:44
Judge Bryson
That doesn't follow,
12:46
and therein lies the flaw.
12:49
What is your response to that?
12:51
Appellee Attorney (Eliot Damon Williams)
Well, there's no...
12:52
I mean, the die is the...
12:54
There's no dispute that a die
12:57
is the...
12:58
the end result of a semiconductor manufacturing process.
13:00
Judge Bryson
Right.
13:01
But what he says there is a dispute
13:02
is whether the die,
13:04
or a die in general,
13:06
is necessarily manufactured
13:08
from a single piece of semiconductor material.
13:12
Right.
13:13
Well, there's...
13:13
He disagrees.
13:14
So he says...
13:15
I'm putting words in his mouth,
13:16
but I think he would say
13:17
that the problem with this sentence is the IE.
13:21
That doesn't follow.
13:22
Appellee Attorney (Eliot Damon Williams)
So what's your response to that?
13:23
Well, perhaps,
13:23
but there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary, right?
13:26
There's no evidence that the Rex represented
13:27
that there's a way...
13:28
that there's a way to make a die
13:29
that isn't monolithically integrated.
13:31
In fact,
13:31
the evidence was exactly the opposite.
13:33
I mean, we cataloged...
13:34
Right, okay.
13:34
Judge Bryson
That's what, then,
13:35
we need to know.
13:36
Yeah, yeah.
13:37
Okay, sure.
13:37
Appellee Attorney (Eliot Damon Williams)
So we cataloged that in the brief.
13:39
So, for instance,
13:40
in Appendix 1483,
13:42
this is their expert's testimony to the board.
13:45
He says,
13:46
based on...
13:47
This is paragraph 45 of his declaration.
13:50
Based on figure three
13:51
and the description of a single silicon die,
13:53
a person would understand
13:54
that a single silicon die
13:56
comprises a single piece of silicon.
13:58
Right?
13:59
He's saying exactly what...
14:01
And he goes on in paragraph 46
14:02
to quote from various extrinsic references,
14:04
all of which say the same thing.
14:05
Everyone in the world
14:06
uses this term monolithically integrated
14:08
to mean manufactured in a single piece of silicon.
14:11
And that's exactly the same meaning
14:12
the board applied
14:13
when it interpreted the prior art in Zebra,
14:15
saying,
14:15
aha, I see he uses a chip.
14:17
I see what they've done.
14:18
This is a single piece of silicon.
14:19
Therefore, it's monolithically integrated.
14:21
Judge Bryson
So what you're saying, in effect,
14:22
is that,
14:23
to take his analogy,
14:25
that there's no such thing as Roman columns.
14:28
Well, what I would say...
14:29
In this technology,
14:30
they're all Egyptian columns.
14:32
Appellee Attorney (Eliot Damon Williams)
What I would say is,
14:33
I think neither of those analogies
14:34
is particularly apt
14:34
for how a semiconductor
14:35
is actually manufactured.
14:37
Because how a semiconductor
14:38
is manufactured in general
14:39
starts with a silicon substrate,
14:41
a single piece of crystal,
14:42
and it's built upon that
14:43
to make a bigger crystal.
14:44
Right?
14:45
So you're essentially growing
14:46
the Egyptian column
14:47
starting from a piece
14:48
and growing on top of it.
14:49
You're not just stacking
14:50
individual pieces of silicon together.
14:51
That would make no sense.
14:52
You have to create a single crystal,
14:54
and they do that from the beginning,
14:55
from the bottom.
14:56
The only other point I would make, then,
14:57
is with respect,
14:58
with respect to LIAW,
14:59
you can see this directly
15:00
in the figure of LIAW,
15:02
which is reproduced
15:03
at page 41
15:04
of the board's decision.
15:05
They show figure 4 of LIAW.
15:08
There, they're describing
15:09
our argument,
15:10
the argument Petitioner made
15:11
to the PTAB,
15:12
as saying...
15:13
Again, this is page 41.
15:15
Figure 4 of LIAW
15:17
is presented,
15:18
and the board says,
15:19
Petitioner argues
15:20
that annotated figure 4
15:21
shows each of these
15:22
additional active components
15:23
monolithically integrated
15:25
on high-voltage ship 60
15:27
with a single substrate
15:28
86.
15:29
And you see from that picture there,
15:30
that substrate 86
15:31
is on the bottom.
15:32
That's the base
15:33
that begins this building up process
15:35
of the whole monolithic structure.
15:37
The board then goes on
15:38
in its analysis of page 42
15:44
to find, quote,
15:46
we determine that LIAW's disclosure
15:48
of how its active components
15:49
are integrated
15:50
on a single chip, i.e. die,
15:52
teaches that LIAW's additional
15:53
active components
15:54
are monolithically integrated.
15:55
So, again, it does the same analysis
15:57
with respect to LIAW.
15:58
It looks at,
15:58
with this figure,
15:59
it sees, yep,
15:59
I see a single crystal.
16:00
I see all the pieces,
16:01
all the parts of the circuit
16:02
that we need to see
16:03
monolithically integrated
16:03
on a single crystal.
16:05
That's the construction.
16:06
That's how the board
16:06
reached the final written decision here.
16:08
So all we really have
16:09
is the other side saying,
16:11
well, we disagree
16:11
with its factual finding
16:13
that that's monolithic,
16:14
but the board was free
16:15
to make a factual finding
16:16
as to whether that's monolithic or not.
16:17
In fact,
16:18
there's literally no evidence
16:19
in the record
16:19
that that could be anything
16:20
other than monolithic.
16:21
It's a single crystal.
16:23
LIAW explains
16:24
that's grown
16:24
through epitaxial growth.
16:26
So you start
16:27
with the crystal on the bottom.
16:28
You build a bigger crystal on top,
16:29
and you're done.
16:30
And that's what the claim covers.
16:33
Unless the court
16:34
had any other questions,
16:35
I'll give back
16:36
the balance of my time.
16:46
Appellant Attorney (Minghui Yang)
Thank you, Your Honor.
16:46
I think first we've heard
16:48
my opposing counsel say
16:49
that all semiconductor chips
16:51
are monolithic
16:52
because they're all fabricated
16:53
from a single piece of material.
16:55
First of all,
16:56
I have to point out,
16:56
they've never presented evidence,
16:58
any evidence of that
16:59
in the proceedings below.
17:00
They've never shown
17:01
any evidence of that.
17:02
In an IPR,
17:03
the burden of proof
17:04
is on them.
17:05
And so in order for them
17:06
to establish this fact,
17:09
which has not been established,
17:10
they have to present
17:11
some evidence of it.
17:12
They haven't.
17:12
On the contrary,
17:13
we've presented evidence below
17:15
that's unrebutted
17:16
that a semiconductor chip
17:17
is not always fabricated
17:19
from a single piece of material.
17:20
We presented two types of evidence.
17:21
The first is the declaration
17:23
from our expert,
17:24
Dr. Faris.
17:25
It's at JA 1495,
17:27
where he describes,
17:28
he lays out these two
17:29
separate types
17:30
of integrated circuits.
17:31
Monolithic integrated circuits
17:32
that are made
17:33
from a single piece of material,
17:34
and hybrid integrated circuits
17:35
that are made out
17:36
of more than one piece of material,
17:38
and you put them together.
17:39
But that's not all
17:41
of the evidence that we have.
17:42
We also put in a textbook
17:43
around the time
17:45
of the invention.
17:45
That's at JA 1553.
17:48
And that textbook corroborates
17:51
what our expert has said.
17:52
That textbook also says
17:53
there are two types
17:54
of semiconductor chips.
17:55
There are monolithic ICs,
17:57
which is one chip
17:58
made out of one piece of material,
17:59
and there are hybrid ICs,
18:01
which is,
18:02
and the textbook says
18:04
the defining feature
18:05
of a monolithic chip
18:06
is that this monolithic chip
18:08
is made out of one piece of material.
18:09
So using logic,
18:11
it must mean that a hybrid IC
18:13
is supporting Dr. Faris's conclusion,
18:16
is made out of more than
18:17
one piece of material.
18:18
That is the evidence
18:19
that we presented
18:19
that's been completely unrebutted
18:21
by petitioners.
18:22
And they bear the burden
18:23
of proof in an IPR
18:24
to show that a chip
18:26
is always monolithic.
18:27
They've simply failed
18:28
to present any evidence of that.
18:31
I'm going back
18:32
to the final written decision.
18:33
The other issue
18:34
that they've convinced the board of
18:36
is that,
18:36
the board uses,
18:38
it makes its conclusion
18:40
that the prior art
18:42
is fabricated
18:43
on a single piece of material,
18:44
but that conclusion
18:45
is always premised
18:47
on factual plans
18:48
using a different construction
18:49
on a single chip.
18:51
The board never identifies anywhere
18:53
where any other prior art
18:54
talks about,
18:55
hey, this is where
18:55
we make our chip
18:57
and it's made out of
18:57
a single piece of material.
18:58
The board hasn't identified
18:59
any teaching of that whatsoever
19:01
in the prior art.
19:03
If the board had done that,
19:04
this would have been
19:05
a very different appeal
19:05
and I wouldn't be here.
19:06
That's our master's order
19:08
is for you to require
19:09
the board to identify
19:10
where the prior art teaches
19:11
the fabrication process
19:13
starts from a single piece
19:14
of material.
19:15
They haven't done that.
19:16
All they've done
19:16
is they've looked at figures
19:17
of the prior art
19:18
after the fabrication process.
19:20
Once it is already
19:22
a single chip
19:22
and say,
19:23
this is a single chip
19:24
after the process
19:25
which is on a single chip,
19:26
that's the construction
19:27
they've changed it to.
19:28
Then they've said,
19:29
because the prior art
19:30
shows the result
19:31
of the fabrication process
19:33
is a single chip,
19:34
we're going to conclude
19:34
from that
19:35
that it was fabricated
19:36
from a single piece
19:37
of material.
19:38
That is a logical leap
19:39
that I disagree with
19:40
and I think is legal error.
19:41
They've essentially said
19:42
the prior art teaches X,
19:44
therefore we conclude
19:45
it teaches Y.
19:47
That to me
19:48
is a logical non sequitur
19:50
that shouldn't be allowed.
19:52
If it is,
19:52
then no patent
19:54
at the PTO
19:55
would ever be found valid
19:56
ever again.
19:57
They would be able
19:57
to identify something
19:58
in the prior art
19:59
that has nothing to do
20:00
with what the claims
20:01
are directed towards
20:02
and say,
20:02
this is what the prior art teaches,
20:04
therefore it invalidates
20:05
the claim.
20:05
That's precisely
20:06
what the prior art
20:06
has done.
20:07
If you look at Appendix 38,
20:09
the board's factual findings
20:11
are that
20:12
zero use of the term chip
20:14
as opposed to package
20:15
shows the single
20:16
semiconductor chip
20:17
is synonymous
20:18
with the single
20:19
semiconductor die
20:20
on Appendix 38.
20:21
What the board is saying
20:22
is there's a single
20:23
semiconductor die
20:23
here after the process.
20:25
And then they put
20:26
an IE after that
20:27
to say IE fabricated
20:28
from a single piece
20:29
of material.
20:30
That's the issue we have
20:31
is that they've equated
20:32
the chip at the end
20:34
of the process
20:34
with the single piece
20:36
of material
20:36
at the beginning
20:37
of the process
20:37
when there's evidence
20:38
that the process
20:39
may or may not
20:41
use a single piece
20:41
of material
20:42
to arrive at
20:43
a single chip
20:44
or die at the end.
20:45
That is the error
20:46
that the board has made
20:47
for both Zaref and Leal.
20:49
They've looked at the figures
20:50
in Zaref and Leal.
20:51
They've identified
20:52
where it shows
20:53
a single chip.
20:54
And then they've said
20:55
the single chip
20:55
after the process
20:56
is equivalent
20:57
to monolithically integrated.
20:58
Is it fair to say
20:59
Judge Bryson
based on that
21:02
bit of text
21:03
and the board's opinion
21:04
and others
21:05
that the board
21:06
has made a factual finding
21:07
that a single semiconductor chip
21:13
is the same
21:15
as a single semiconductor die
21:18
which is to be
21:20
something that's fabricated
21:21
from a single piece
21:22
of semiconductor material.
21:24
That's a finding of fact
21:26
and that we would have
21:29
to accept that
21:30
unless we find
21:31
that it's not supported
21:31
by substantial evidence.
21:33
Appellant Attorney (Minghui Yang)
Well, here's the interesting
21:34
thing, Your Honor.
21:35
The board never actually
21:36
said what you just said.
21:37
That a single...
21:38
Well, I would...
21:39
Judge Bryson
Suppose that I read that
21:40
as saying what I just said.
21:42
The board is...
21:43
Would you view that
21:43
as a finding of fact?
21:45
Appellant Attorney (Minghui Yang)
No, because the...
21:48
That's the conclusion
21:49
that's premised
21:50
on its erroneous
21:51
claim construction
21:51
where it says
21:52
that the prior art
21:53
teaches on a single chip
21:55
and then they equate that
21:56
with fabricated from.
21:58
Right.
21:58
But what they're saying
22:00
Judge Bryson
is that
22:02
single semiconductor chip
22:05
is a single semiconductor chip
22:06
which is fabricated
22:08
for a single piece.
22:09
If you...
22:10
Let me put it this way.
22:11
If you accepted
22:12
that as true,
22:14
would you still have
22:16
an argument to make?
22:18
Appellant Attorney (Minghui Yang)
I do, Your Honor,
22:19
because the issue there
22:21
is that the board
22:23
hasn't tied these two
22:25
pieces together.
22:26
They're not saying...
22:27
The IE is what ties them together.
22:29
The IE is saying
22:31
that it's making the conclusion
22:32
that the prior art teaches
22:34
monolithically integrated
22:35
because they're pointing
22:37
to the...
22:37
the evidence
22:38
that they're citing.
22:38
But because evidence
22:39
is that there's a single chip
22:41
at the end of the process.
22:43
That's the evidence
22:43
Judge Bryson
you're looking at.
22:44
That seems...
22:44
sounds to me like an attack
22:46
on the evidence
22:48
that the board is using
22:49
to draw its conclusion.
22:50
What I'm asking is
22:51
does that conclusion,
22:53
if true,
22:54
Appellant Attorney (Minghui Yang)
defeat your argument?
22:56
The problem is
22:57
that that conclusion
22:57
hinges on evidence
22:58
under the wrong
23:00
claim construction.
23:01
The evidence is
23:02
under the construction
23:03
that there's a single piece...
23:05
there's a single chip.
23:06
That's the...
23:06
that's the construction
23:07
the board used
23:08
to analyze the prior art.
23:10
Then from that evidence
23:11
analyzed under this
23:12
incorrect conclusion,
23:13
the board is...
23:14
the board then makes
23:15
the determination
23:16
that the correct construction
23:18
is taught
23:19
because it looked at
23:21
the prior art
23:22
under the wrong construction.
23:23
Like I said,
23:24
if this was allowed to stand,
23:25
the board could change
23:26
constructions willy-nilly
23:27
for whatever reason
23:28
and invalidate
23:29
every single patent
23:30
because it would
23:31
simply be able
23:33
to determine
23:33
the prior art taught
23:34
under one construction
23:35
and then conclude
23:35
that it's...
23:36
that it's...
23:37
conclude that it's there
23:38
under a completely
23:39
different construction.
23:40
The board essentially
23:40
changed constructions.
23:43
Thank you, Your Honor.
23:44
Judge Prost
We thank both sides
23:45
for the case of submitting
23:46
that concludes
23:46
our proceedings.