Extrinsic evidence that conflicts with the intrinsic evidence is generally disfavored in claim construction. Here, for example, extrinsic evidence relating to the typical location of a “contact” within a microprocessor was not sufficient to outweigh the specification’s more general descriptions. It may therefore be best to include in the claims any specific interpretations desired, rather than relying on extrinsic evidence of such.
Background / Facts: The application on appeal here from rejection at the PTO relates to improving the performance of electronic image sensors in photographic equipment. The claims recite the use of a reflective “contact” adjacent to certain routing wires that surrounds and reflects light back down to a photo-absorption region. The prior art discloses a “reflective layer” that is disposed on a dielectric layer and bounds a light-receiving element of an image sensor.
Issue(s): Whether, based on cited extrinsic evidence, the construction of a “contact” requires it to be a particular chip element that is embedded below a “lowest horizontal metal interconnect layer.”
Holding(s): No. “[T]he language of claim 1 and the specification do not support limiting contact in the manner that [the applicant] suggests. Instead, the specification discloses that a contact can be adjacent to a dielectric layer and on a substrate or on a conductive wire, and that a contact can be adjacent to or below a conductive wire. Accordingly, we reject [the applicant’s] invitation to improperly narrow the construction of contact.”