Patents Claiming a Range of Values, Such as Gate Sizes for Semiconductor Chips, Must Enable One of Ordinary Skill to Make and Use the Entire Claimed Range

Jul 6, 2020

Reading Time : 4 min

In December 2018, complainant Tela Innovations, Inc. filed a complaint in the ITC against various semiconductor companies, including Acer, Asus Computer, Intel, Lenovo and Micro-Star (“Respondents”) for importing products that infringe five of Tela’s patents that relate to semiconductor chips with gate structures. On May 22, 2020, after an evidentiary hearing, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot issued an initial determination, finding that claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,141,334 (“the ’334 Patent”) were not enabled because they required undue experimentation to manufacture chips at the low end of the claimed size ranges.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), or pre-AIA § 112, ¶ 1, a valid patent must describe “the manner and process of making and using” the claimed invention. A claim is adequately enabled when the specification teaches “those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” The Federal Circuit has articulated a set of factors to consider in assessing enablement, including: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary; (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (3) the presence or absence of working examples; (4) the nature of the invention; (5) the state of the prior art; (6) the relative skill of those in the art; (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; and (8) the breadth of the claims. In re Wands, 585 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

The ALJ began with claim construction to determine the “full scope” of the claims. The claims recite ranges of gate pitch and width—sizing features of semiconductor chips—and specifically, “a gate pitch of less than or equal to about 193 nanometers” and “a width of less than or equal to about 45 nanometers.” The Respondents indicated, however, that there was a “(yet unknown) physical limit to how small gate widths and pitches can ultimately be.” According to the ALJ, the parties agreed that a “gate pitch” should be construed to range from about 40 to 193 nanometers. With respect to “gate width,” however, the parties did not agree on a lower bound. Because Tela’s expert, Dr. Hook, testified that seven nanometers was within the scope of the claimed range, and the parties agreed that his testimony was authoritative on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill, the ALJ construed “gate width” to range from about 7 to 45 nanometers.

The ALJ then applied the Wands factors to determine whether the full scope of the claimed ranges were enabled for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). To start, the ALJ looked to the related factors (1), the quantity of experimentation necessary, and (6), the relative skill of those in the art. Dr. Hook testified that a seven nanometer node was “beyond today’s manufacturing” abilities and that, to reduce the scale of integrated circuit chips in a single process node, it takes “the full-time effort of at least 1,000 engineers, 95% of whom have doctorates, and ‘billions’ of dollars in research and development expenses.” Although such labors are “commonplace” and “business as usual” in the semiconductor industry, the ALJ found that “they are surely far from ‘routine’ within the meaning of Wands” and “clearly well beyond the capabilities of a POSITA.”

Turning to factor (2), the ALJ weighed the amount of direction or guidance presented. The ALJ noted the ’334 Patent is “silent on the process” of resolving the technological hurdles to scale down chip size. The patent’s disclosure of the standard “CMOS” semiconductor fabrication process provided no guidance to a skilled artisan on how to shrink a chip’s size. According to the ALJ, the specification presupposes that any technological hurdles to shrinking gate width and pitch will be overcome with time, and “leaves entirely to someone else the task of solving the problems preventing a skilled artisan from practicing the full scope of the invention.”

Factors (3), the presence or absence of working examples, and (5), the state of the prior art, also weighed in favor of finding undue experimentation. The working examples in the ’334 Patent did not pertain to the lower bounds of the claimed ranges, and expert testimony confirmed that working examples of the lower bounds of the claimed ranges did not exist. Factor (4), the nature of the invention, however, weighed slightly against a finding of undue experimentation. The ALJ noted that the claimed ranges are not the “heart of the invention,” which is “the combination of various chip layers possessing rectilinear features” as opposed to the size of those features.

Next, the ALJ determined that factor (7), predictability of the art, weighs against undue experimentation based on the concept of Moore’s Law, which provides that integrated circuits halve in area on average once every two years. Finally, factor (8), the breadth of the claims, weighed against a finding of enablement because they included gate width and pitch ranges with lower bounds beyond what could be made and used at the time of the invention and even at the time of the decision.

Having weighed the Wands factors, the ALJ held that the breadth of enablement in the patent specification is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Consequently, the ’334 Patent was found invalid for lack of enablement.

Practice tip: Patent owners should be particularly careful when drafting claims directed to ranges, ensuring that the patent specification enables the full scope of the claimed range. This applies to open-ended ranges with no upper bound, but also, as seen in this investigation, ranges that extend to zero. A POSITA must be able to make and use the full scope of any claimed range at the time of the invention.

Certain Integrated Circuits & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1148 (U.S.I.T.C. May 22, 2020) (ALJ Elliot)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.