Federal Circuit Affirms Despite Claim Construction Error

by | Mar 25, 2025 | Claim Construction, Federal Circuit Appeal, PTAB News

By Alexa Grillis and Matt Johnson –

The Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s decision deeming an integrated circuit connector patent unpatentable for obviousness, despite concluding that the Board’s claim construction was erroneous.  The Court also rejected a challenge to the Board’s motivation to combine findings as to certain dependent claims, concluding that the Board provided a “thorough and well-reasoned explanation,” relying on the testimony of Microchip’s expert.

Microchip Technology, Inc. had petitioned for inter partes review, arguing that all claims of HD Silicon Solutions LLC’s (“HDSS”) ’033 patent were rendered obvious by the “Trivedi” reference.  The ’033 patent was directed to a local interconnect layer in an integrated circuit.  The key claim limitation required “depositing a second film … comprising tungsten.”

The parties disputed the construction of “comprising tungsten” before the PTAB.  HDSS, the patent owner, argued for a narrow construction that would limit the term to elemental tungsten. The Board, however, agreed with Microchip Technology, construed the term broadly to mean “any form of tungsten, including both elemental tungsten and tungsten compounds,” and found the claims obvious.

HDSS argued on appeal that the Board improperly construed “comprising tungsten.”  The Federal Circuit agreed, but determined the Board’s error was harmless and upheld the decision.  The Court found substantial evidence supported the Board’s alternative finding that Trivedi disclosed both tungsten silicide and elemental tungsten layers, with either rendering the claims obvious.  Thus, despite the claim construction error, the Board’s conclusion stood because the Trivedi reference still disclosed sufficient material to render the claims obvious.

The following two tabs change content below.
My LinkedIn profile

Matthew Johnson

Partner at Jones Day
Matt Johnson is one of the Firm's primary contacts on practice before the PTAB. Currently co-chairing the Firm's PTAB subpractice and involved in proceedings at the Board since the first day of their availability in September 2012, Matt regularly represents clients as both petitioners and patent owners at the Board. He further works as an advocate for clients in appeals from Board proceedings at the Federal Circuit.