Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:956
`
`
`
`[See signature blocks for counsel information]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS,
`INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO.,
`LTD., and SEOUL
`SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS,
`INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`CREE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS,
`INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD., and EVERLIGHT AMERICAS,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS,
`INC.,
`
`
` Case No. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`STATEMENT
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:17-cv-04273-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:17-cv-06050-JVS-JCG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 2 of 35 Page ID #:957
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`LITE-ON, INC., and LITE-ON
`TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 3 of 35 Page ID #:958
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Order Setting Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference1, the Court’s
`
`Order Continuing Claim Construction Deadlines2, and Northern District of
`
`California's Patent L.R. 4-3, Plaintiff Document Security Systems, Inc. (“DSS”) and
`
`Defendants Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., Seoul Semiconductor, Inc., Cree, Inc.,
`
`Everlight Electronics Co., Everlight Americas, Inc., Lite-On, Inc., Lite-On
`
`Technology Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) (DSS and Defendants are
`
`referred to collectively as the “Parties”) hereby provide their Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart and Prehearing Statement.
`
`
`I. AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS.
`
`The Parties anticipate continuing to meet and confer to narrow the issues for claim
`
`construction. At this time, the Parties have not agreed on the construction of any
`
`terms.
`
`
`1 Dkt. No. 11 (Case No. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JEMx); Dkt. No. 14 (Case No. 2:17-cv-4263-JVS-
`JEMx); Dkt. No. 14 (Case No. 2:17-cv-06050-JVS-JEMx); Dkt. No. 29 (Case No. 2:17-cv-
`04273-JVS-JEMx).
`2 Dkt. No. 74 (Case No. 8:17-cv-00981-JVS-JCG); Dkt. No. 60 (Case No. 2:17-cv-4263-JVS-
`JEMx); Dkt. No. 58 (Case No. 2:17-cv-06050-JVS-JEMx); Dkt. No. 69 (Case No. 2:17-cv-
`04273-JVS-JEMx).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 4 of 35 Page ID #:959
`
`
`
`II. DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS.
`
`1.
`“platform”
`
`
`Claims 1-
`4, 6, and 7.
`
`A. U.S. Patent 6,949,771.
`Term
`DSS’s Proposal
`flat
`“the
`horizontal
`single
`portion of
`a
`structure
`providing
`support to the LED die”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’771 patent specification
`including at Figs. 2, 8, 15,
`and 19 (and associated
`discussion in the written
`description);
`2:1-23;
`2:31-44; 2:49-62; 3:56-
`4:12; 4:20-33; 6:1-11;
`6:45-57;
`and
`claim
`language.
`
`’771 patent file history
`including
`08/23/2004
`Amendment.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Declaration
`and/or
`testimony of R. Jacob
`Baker
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`cited
`by
`Defendants.
`
`flat
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning
`(i.e.,
`horizontal
`surface)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’771 patent, Figs. 2, 8, 17,
`23.
`’771 patent specification:
`Abstract, 1:39-67, 2:2-9,
`2:10-21, 2:24-30, 2:35-
`44, 2:49-59, 3:29-38,
`3:56-4:11, 4:7-9, 4:25-29,
`4:66-5:8,
`5:13-41.
`
`History:
`Prosecution
`Office Action Response,
`p.5
`(Nov. 17, 2003);
`Office Action Response,
`p.8 (Aug. 23, 2004).
`
`IPR2018-00265, Patent
`Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at 1, 3, 6, 13,
`14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24-28
`(PTAB Mar. 13, 2018)
`(Paper 6).
`
`IPR2018-00265,
`Institution Decision at 5-
`6 (PTAB June 7, 2018)
`(Paper 8).
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Webster’s II New College
`Dictionary (2001), ISBN
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 5 of 35 Page ID #:960
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`0-395-96214-5, p. 844.
`
`and/or
`Declaration
`testimony of Dr. M.
`Lebby.
`
`
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence presented by
`Plaintiff.
`
`2. “within
`the
`aperture”
`
`
`Claims 1-
`4, 6, and 7.
`
`“wholly contained in the
`horizontal and vertical
`bounds of the aperture”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’771 patent specification
`including
`at
`abstract;
`Figs. 2 and 17 (and
`associated discussion in
`the written description);
`2:1-30; 2:35-62; 3:55-65;
`4:20-33; 5:19-43; 6:1-11;
`and claim language.
`
`’771 patent file history
`including appeals brief, p.
`5.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Exhibit A
`(Merriam-
`Webster’s Dictionary of
`Basic English, “within.”)
`Declaration
`and/or
`
`and
`
`ordinary
`
`Plain
`meaning
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’771 patent, Figs. 2, 8, 17,
`23.
`
`’771 patent specification:
`Abstract, 1:39-67, 2:2-9,
`2:10-21, 2:24- 30, 2:35-
`44, 2:49-59, 3:29-38,
`3:56-4:11, 4:7-9, 4:25-29,
`4:66-5:8, 5:13-41.
`
`History:
`Prosecution
`Office Action Response,
`p.5
`(Nov. 17, 2003);
`Office Action Response,
`p.8 (Aug. 23, 2004).
`
`IPR2018-00265, Patent
`Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at 1, 3, 6, 13,
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 6 of 35 Page ID #:961
`
`
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`testimony of R. Jacob
`Baker.
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`cited
`by
`Defendants.
`
`3. “a substrate having
`opposing first and second
`surfaces, the substrate
`defining an aperture
`extending from the first
`surface to the second
`surface”
`
`Claims 1- 4, 6, and 7.
`
`ordinary
`
`and
`Plain
`meaning.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’771 patent specification
`including at Figs. 1, 2, 8,
`and 17; 2:1-44; 2:49-59;
`3:28-65; 4:44-52; 5:19-
`38; 6:1-11; and claim
`language.
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`cited
`by
`Defendants.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Declaration
`and/or
`testimony of R. Jacob
`Baker
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24-28
`(PTAB Mar. 13, 2018)
`(Paper 6).
`
`IPR2018-00265,
`Institution Decision at 8-
`9 (PTAB June 7, 2018)
`(Paper 8).
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Declaration
`and/or
`testimony of Dr. M.
`Lebby.
`
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence presented by
`Plaintiff.
`“A supporting board with
`first and second outside
`surfaces on opposite sides
`of the supporting board,
`with
`a
`passageway
`extending from the first
`surface
`to
`the second
`surface”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’771 patent, Figs. 2-5, 17,
`23.
`
`’771 patent specification:
`Abstract, 1:39-67, 2:2-9,
`2:10-23, 2:24-30, 2:35-
`44, 2:49-59, 3:24-38,
`3:56-4:12, 4:25-29, 4:53-
`5:43, 6:1-12.
`
`History:
`Prosecution
`Office Action Response,
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 7 of 35 Page ID #:962
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`p.5
`(Nov. 17, 2003);
`Office Action Response,
`p.8 (Aug. 23, 2004).
`
`IPR2018-00265, Patent
`Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at 1, 3, 6, 13,
`14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24-28
`(PTAB Mar. 13, 2018)
`(Paper 6).
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`The
`IEEE
`100,
`Authoritative Dictionary
`of IEEE Standards Terms
`(2000 7th ed.), ISBN 0-
`7381-2601-2, p. 1123.
`
`Modern Dictionary of
`Electronics
`(1999 7th
`ed.), ISBN 0-7506-9866-
`7,
`p.
`745.
`
`ASTM Dictionary of
`Engineering Science &
`Technology
`(2000 9th
`ed.), p. 559.
`
`Chambers Dictionary of
`Science and Technology
`(1999),
`ISBN 0-550-
`14110-3, p. 1123.
`
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary
`of
`Scientific
`and
`Technical Terms (6th
`ed.), ISBN 0-07-042313,
`p. 2061.
`
`https://www.semiconduct
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 8 of 35 Page ID #:963
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`
`of
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`ors.org/faq/glossary/
`(definition
`“substrate”).
`
`Optical Communication
`Systems,
`John Gowar
`(1983),
`ISBN
`0-13-
`638056-5, p. 247.
`
`Fiber
`of
`Handbook
`Communications, Edited
`by DeCusatis, Clement,
`Lasky, Maass
`(1997),
`ISBN
`0-12-437162-0,
`pp.43, 51, 72, 183, 537,
`553, 558, 713.
`
`Physics of semiconductor
`devices, S M Sze (1981
`2nd ed.), pp. 701, 703,
`717, 726.
`
`Optoelectronic Packaging
`Edited by Mickelson,
`Basavanhally,
`Lee
`(1997),
`ISBN 0-471-
`11188-0, p. 152.
`
`Light Emitting Diodes, E.
`Fred Schubert
`(2006),
`ISBN 978-0-521-86538-
`8, pp. 114, 137, 142, 171,
`195, 261, 387.
`
`and
`Reliability
`of
`Degradation
`semiconductor lasers and
`LEDs, Mitsuo Fukuda
`(1991), ISBN 0-89006-
`465-2, pp. 30, 31, 44.
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 9 of 35 Page ID #:964
`
`
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`
`4. “platform covering
`said first opening, said
`platform being located
`outside of said aperture”
`
`Claims 1- 4, 6, and 7.
`
`“no part of the horizontal
`flat portion providing
`support to the LED die
`may
`lie
`inside
`the
`aperture” (see “platform”
`above)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’771 patent specification
`including at Figs. 2, 8, 15,
`and 19 (and associated
`discussion in the written
`description);
`2:1-23;
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`Shorter Oxford English
`Dictionary (2002 5th ed.),
`ISBN 0-19-860575-7, pp.
`2005, 2009.
`
`The American Heritage
`Dictionary of the English
`Language (2000 4th ed.),
`ISBN 0-395-82517-2, pp.
`83, 1232.
`
`House
`Random
`Dictionary
`Webster’s
`(2001 4th ed.), ISBN 0-
`345-44725-5, pp. 31,
`504-505.
`
`and/or
`Declaration
`testimony of Dr. M.
`Lebby.
`
`
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence presented by
`Plaintiff.
`
`“a platform positioned
`outside the bounds of the
`substrate surfaces
`that
`covers the aperture’s first
`opening”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’771 patent, Figs. 2, 4, 5,
`17, 23.
`
`’771 patent specification:
`Abstract, 2:2-9, 2:31-45,
`2:49-59, 3:56-4:11, 5:13-
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 10 of 35 Page ID #:965
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`2:31-44; 2:49-62; 3:56-
`4:12; 4:20-33; 6:1-11;
`6:45-57;
`and
`claim
`language.
`
`’771 patent file history
`including
`08/23/2004
`Amendment.
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`cited
`by
`Defendants.
`
`
`the
`of
`“component
`encapsulant that permits
`passage of light”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’771 patent specification
`including
`at
`abstract;
`Figs. 1, 2, 7, 23 (and
`associated discussion in
`the written description);
`1:26-55; 2:1-9; 2:49-59;
`4:12-20; 5:49-67; and
`claim language.
`
`’771 patent file history
`including
`08/23/2004
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`41.
`
`History:
`Prosecution
`Office Action Response,
`p.5
`(Nov. 17, 2003);
`Office Action Response,
`p.8 (Aug. 23, 2004).
`
`IPR2018-00265, Patent
`Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at 1, 3, 6, 13,
`14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24-28
`(PTAB Mar. 13, 2018)
`(Paper 6).
`
`IPR2018-00265,
`Institution Decision at 4-
`6 (PTAB June 7, 2018)
`(Paper 8).
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence presented by
`Plaintiff.
`
`material
`“encapsulant
`capable of transmitting
`light so that objects can
`be seen as if there was no
`intervening material (i.e.,
`clear
`encapsulant
`material)”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’771 patent, Figs. 2, 17,
`23.
`
`’771 patent specification:
`Abstract, 2:2-9, 2:21-23,
`2:49-59, 4:12-33, 4:45-
`52, 7:6-37.
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Term
`
`5. “transparent
`encapsulant material”
`
`Claims 1-4, 6, and 7.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 11 of 35 Page ID #:966
`
`
`
`Term
`
`6. “wherein the platform
`extends over the side
`wall”
`
`Claim 1.
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`Amendment.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Declaration
`and/or
`testimony of R. Jacob
`Baker;
`Exhibit
`A
`(Merriam-Webster’s
`Dictionary
`of Basic
`English, “transparent.”)
`Exhibit B (McGraw-Hill
`Dictionary of Scientific
`and Technical Terms,
`“transparent.”)
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`cited
`by
`Defendants.
`
`
`“wherein [the horizontal
`flat portion of a single
`structure
`providing
`support to the LED die]
`extends laterally beyond
`the bound(s) of
`the
`sidewall”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’771 patent specification
`including at Figs. 2, 8, 15,
`and 19 (and associated
`discussion in the written
`description);
`2:24-62;
`3:28-38; 3:56-65; 4:20-
`33; 6:1-11; 6:45-57; and
`claim language.
`
`’771 patent file history
`including
`08/23/2004
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`The American Heritage
`Science
`Dictionary,
`(2005 1st ed.), pp. 444,
`638, 639.
`
`Webster’s II New College
`Dictionary (2001), ISBN
`0-395-96214-5, pp. 1171-
`1172.
`
`and/or
`Declaration
`testimony of Dr. M.
`Lebby.
`
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence presented by
`Plaintiff.
`“the platform extends as a
`layer along
`the
`side
`surface of the aperture to
`form the sidewall”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’771 patent, Figs. 2, 8, 17,
`23.
`
`’771 patent specification:
`Abstract, 1:39-67, 2:2-9,
`2:10-21, 2:24-30, 2:35-
`44, 2:49-59, 3:29-38,
`3:56-4:11, 4:7-9, 4:25-29,
`4:66-5:8,
`5:13-41.
`
`History:
`Prosecution
`Office Action Response,
`p.5
`(Nov. 17, 2003);
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 12 of 35 Page ID #:967
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`Amendment.
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`cited
`by
`Defendants.
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Office Action Response,
`p.8 (Aug. 23, 2004).
`
`IPR2018-00265, Patent
`Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at 1, 3, 6, 13,
`14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24-28
`(PTAB Mar. 13, 2018)
`(Paper 6).
`
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence presented by
`Plaintiff.
`
`B. U.S. Patent 7,256,486.
`
`Term
`“the metallized
`7.
`bottom major surface
`comprising one of an
`anode and a cathode of
`the LED”
`
`
`Claims 1-3.
`
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`“substantially all of the
`surface of the LED facing
`the mounting pad
`is
`metallized and at least a
`portion of that metallized
`surface
`comprises
`an
`anode and/or cathode of
`the LED”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’486 patent specification
`including
`at
`1:17-32;
`1:49-65; 4:29-57; 5:4-29;
`5:42-55; 6:5-28; 8:21-40;
`10:4-19; 11:3-19; and
`claim language.
`
`’486 patent file history
`including
`08/23/04
`Amendment.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“the metallized bottom
`major surface comprising
`only one of the set of an
`anode and a cathode of the
`LED”
`
`term
`Disclaimer: The
`“metallized” cannot be a
`metal layer on only a
`portion of
`the major
`surface
`because DSS
`clearly and unmistakably
`disclaimed,
`in
`its
`Preliminary Response to
`IPR2018-00333,
`metallization on only a
`portion of
`the major
`See Aylus
`surface.
`
`Networks, Inc. v. Apple
`Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1362
`(Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 13 of 35 Page ID #:968
`
`and/or
`Declaration
`testimony of R. Jacob
`Baker
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`cited
`by
`Defendants.
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`IPR2018-00333, Patent
`Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at 3-7, 9-20, 22-
`24 (PTAB Mar. 28, 2018)
`(Paper 6).
`
`’486 patent at 5:10-12,
`5:20-22, 5:49–55, 6:19–
`28, 8:26–34, 11:7-14,
`Figs. 1A–1F, 2A-2F, 3A-
`3E, 4A–4F, 6A-6D
`
`and/or
`Declaration
`testimony of Dr. M.
`Lebby.
`
`
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence presented by
`Plaintiff.
`
`
`11
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 14 of 35 Page ID #:969
`
`
`
`C. U.S. Patent 7,524,087.
`Term
`DSS’s Proposal
`8. “a plurality of lead
`“one or more cavities that
`receiving compartments
`allow for and limit inward
`are
`formed
`in
`the
`deflection of the leads are
`peripheral sidewall” /
`formed in the exterior of
`“said peripheral sidewall
`the peripheral wall”
`having a plurality of lead
`
`receiving compartments
`Intrinsic Evidence
`formed therein”
`’087 patent specification
`
`including at abstract; Figs.
`Claims 1, 6, 7, 8-10, 13,
`2, 11
`(and associated
`15, 17, and 18.
`discussion in the written
`description); 2:35-3:16;
`and claim language.
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`cited
`by
`Defendants.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Declaration
`and/or
`testimony of R. Jacob
`Baker
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“compartments formed in
`the exterior face of the
`peripheral sidewall and
`adjacent the leads, the
`compartments spanning a
`majority of a vertical
`length of the leads”
`
`a “peripheral sidewall” is
`a wall-like structure
`/
`sidewall located along the
`periphery of the reflector
`housing, wherein the inner
`portions of the wall-like
`structure / sidewall form
`the pockets / cavities
`
`Disclaimer 1: The term
`“lead
`receiving
`compartments” cannot be
`created by an injection
`molding process resulting
`in a housing
`forming
`around
`the
`leads
`as
`opposed
`to a housing
`receiving
`the
`leads
`because DSS clearly and
`unmistakably disclaimed,
`in
`its
`Preliminary
`Response
`to
`IPR2018-
`00522,
`lead
`receiving
`compartments that were
`created
`through
`an
`injection molding process
`around the leads rather
`than receiving the leads.
`See Aylus Networks, Inc.
`v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 15 of 35 Page ID #:970
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
`2017).
`
`Disclaimer 2: The term
`“formed in the peripheral
`sidewall” cannot mean
`formed in only one side of
`the peripheral sidewall
`because DSS clearly and
`unmistakably disclaimed,
`in
`its
`Preliminary
`Response
`to
`IPR2018-
`00522,
`lead
`receiving
`compartments that were
`formed on only one side
`of the exterior surface of
`the peripheral sidewall.
`See Aylus Networks, Inc.
`v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d
`1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
`2017)
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Abstract.
`
`Figs. 2, 3, 4.
`
`Written description at
`1:27-28, 1:29-31, 2:6-9,
`2:12-17, 2:35-44, 2:52-59,
`2:64 – 3:16.
`
`Office Action 3-4 (Aug.
`25, 2008); Notice of
`References Cited (Aug.
`25, 2008); U.S. Pat. No.
`7,282,740 (Chikugawa et
`al.) at 3:27-33, 4:27-31,
`6:6-32 and Figs. 3, 4;
`Response to Office Action
`
`13
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 16 of 35 Page ID #:971
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Mailed August 25, 2008,
`at 8-12 (Nov. 25, 2008).
`
`
`IPR2018-00522, Patent
`Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at 2-3, 13-17,
`18-26 (PTAB April 30,
`2018) (Paper 6).
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Merriam
`Webster’s
`Collegiate
`Dictionary
`234, 865, 975, 1090 (10th
`ed. 1997).
`
`Webster’s Encyclopedic
`Unabridged Dictionary of
`the English Language
`416, 1441, 1610, 1777
`(New
`Deluxe
`ed.,
`Thunder Bay Press 2001).
`
`U.S. Pat. App. No.
`2009/0129073 (Yaw et
`al.) at [0002] and [0020]
`and Fig. 1.
`
`U.S. Pat. App. No.
`2008/0170391
`(Norfidathul et al.) at
`[0007], [0008] and [0015]
`to [0019] and Figs. 1 to 3.
`
`and/or
`Declaration
`testimony of Dr. M.
`Lebby.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 17 of 35 Page ID #:972
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence presented by
`Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`9. “formed around the
`lead frame” / “molded on
`a lead frame”
`
`Claims 1, 6, 7, 8-10, 13,
`15, 17, and 18.
`
`
`
`“manufactured [utilizing a
`mold]
`such
`that
`the
`structure is created while
`in contact with a lead
`frame”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’087 patent specification
`including at abstract; Figs.
`1, 7-11 (and associated
`discussion in the written
`description); 2:5-26; 2:35-
`63; 3:62-4:10; 4:41-5:29;
`5:55-6:7;
`and
`claim
`language.
`
`’087 patent file history
`including
`8/23/2004
`Amendment.
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`cited
`by
`Defendants.
`15
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`ordinary
`and
`except
`for
`
`Plain
`meaning
`disclaimer.
`
`terms
`Disclaimer: The
`“formed around the lead
`frame” and “molded on a
`lead frame” cannot refer
`to being created by an
`injection molding process
`resulting
`in a housing
`forming around the leads
`as
`opposed
`to
`compartments that receive
`a
`lead, because DSS
`clearly and unmistakably
`disclaimed,
`in
`its
`Preliminary Response to
`IPR2018-
`00522,
`the
`creation of lead receiving
`compartments through an
`injection molding process
`resulting
`in a housing
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 18 of 35 Page ID #:973
`
`
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Declaration
`and/or
`testimony of R. Jacob
`Baker
`
`10. “pocket/cavity”
`
`Claims 1, 6, 7, 8-10, 13,
`15, 17, and 18.
`
`“a hollow space that is
`more
`than
`a minor
`depression left over as a
`manufacturing artifact”
`
` Intrinsic Evidence
`’087 patent specification
`including at abstract, Fig.
`1
`(and
`associated
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`forming around the leads.
`See Aylus Networks, Inc.
`v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d
`1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
`2017).
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Abstract
`
`Figs. 3, 4, 8, 11
`
`Written description at
`1:29-31, 1:38, 1:43-44,
`4:46-49, 4:56-61, 4:65 –
`5:3, 5:7-13, 5:61-64,
`IPR2018-00522, Patent
`Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at 17, 22-23
`(PTAB April 30, 2018)
`(Paper 6).
`
`and/or
`Declaration
`testimony of Dr. M.
`Lebby.
`
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence presented by
`Plaintiff.
`
`space
`hollow
`“a
`surrounded on all four
`sides by the peripheral
`sidewall that is more than
`a minor depression left
`over from the injection
`molding process”
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 19 of 35 Page ID #:974
`
`
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`discussion in the written
`description); 2:5-34; 2:64-
`4:10 and claim language.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Declaration
`and/or
`testimony of R. Jacob
`Baker.
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence
`cited
`by
`Defendants.
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Disclaimer: The
`terms
`“pocket” and “cavity”
`must be more than a small
`depression left over from
`the
`injection molding
`process or vestige from
`the manufacturing process
`because DSS clearly and
`unmistakably disclaimed
`these in its Preliminary
`Response
`to
`IPR2018-
`See
`Aylus
`00522.
`Networks, Inc. v. Apple
`Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1362
`(Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Abstract
`
`Figs. 1-6
`
`Written description at
`1:25-35, 2:17-19, 2:21-26,
`2:27-34, 3:17-61, 4:11-40,
`4:53-56, 6:2-5
`
`IPR2018-00522, Patent
`Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at 3-5, 9-17, 20-
`22, 29-31 (PTAB April
`30, 2018) (Paper 6).
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Webster’s
`Merriam
`Dictionary
`Collegiate
`183, 897 (10th ed. 1997).
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 20 of 35 Page ID #:975
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Webster’s Encyclopedic
`Unabridged Dictionary of
`the English Language
`331, 1491 (New Deluxe
`ed., Thunder Bay Press
`2001).
`
`Douglas M. Bryce, Plastic
`Injection Molding 8, 29
`(1998).
`
`Robert A. Malloy, Plastic
`Part Design for Injection
`Molding 3, 12, 171-72
`(1994).
`
`and/or
`Declaration
`testimony of Dr. M.
`Lebby.
`
`
`
`Intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence presented by
`Plaintiff.
`
`18
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 21 of 35 Page ID #:976
`
`
`
`D. U.S. Patent 7,919,787.
`Term
`DSS’s Proposal
`layer
`11. “metallization
`“one or more
`regions
`formed on
`the bottom
`comprising one or more
`major surface”
`layers of metallization
`
`located on the surface of
`Claims 1, 5, 6, and 7.
`the LED
`facing
`the
`substrate”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’787 patent specification
`including at Figs. 6A, 7A-
`7B 8A-8C (and associated
`discussion in the written
`description);
`1:14-29;
`1:46-62; 5:19-43; 5:49-67;
`6:18-41; 8:33-52; 11:11-
`27; 12:6-13:50 and claim
`language.
`
`Intrinsic
`evidence
`Defendants.
`
`
`extrinsic
`and
`cited
`by
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“a metal layer positioned
`on
`a
`bottom major
`surface”
`
`term
`Disclaimer: The
`“metallized” cannot be a
`metal layer on only a
`portion of
`the major
`surface
`because DSS
`clearly and unmistakably
`disclaimed,
`in
`its
`Preliminary Response to
`IPR2018-00333,
`metallization on only a
`portion of
`the major
`See
`Aylus
`surface.
`Networks, Inc. v. Apple
`Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1362
`(Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`Figs 1A-1F, 2A-2F, 3A-
`3E, 4A-4F, 6A-6D, 7A-
`7B, 8A-8C
`
`‘787 Specification: Col. 5:
`25-27, 33-37, 61-67, Col.
`8: 38-46.
`
`’486 patent at Abstract,
`5:10-12, 5:20-22, 5:49–
`55, 6:19–28, 8:26–34,
`11:7-14, Figs. 1A–1F, 2A-
`2F, 3A-3E, 4A–4F. 6A-
`6D
`
`
`Patent
`IPR2018-00333,
`Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at 8-24 (PTAB
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 22 of 35 Page ID #:977
`
`
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Mar. 28, 2018) (Paper 6).
`
`
`extrinsic
`and
`Intrinsic
`evidence presented by
`Plaintiff.
`
`the
`“wherein
`12.
`bottom major surface of
`the
`light
`emitting
`semiconductor die is a
`bottom surface of a
`substrate of the die”
`
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 5, 6, and 7.
`
`“the surface of the
`emitting
`light
`semiconductor die facing
`the substrate is a bottom
`surface of one or more
`substrates of the die”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’787 patent specification
`including at abstract; Figs.
`1A- 3A, 4B-4E, 6A, 7A-
`8C
`(and
`associated
`discussion in the written
`description);
`1:14-29;
`1:46-62; 2:5-3:7; 3:57-
`4:46; 4:63-5:6; 5:19-43;
`5:49-67; 6:1-41; 7:4-8:19;
`8:33-52; 9:11-48; 11:11-
`27; 12:6-13:50 and claim
`language.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`bottom
`the
`“wherein
`major surface of the light
`emitting
`semiconductor
`die is the surface of the
`LED substrate
`that
`is
`remote from the surface of
`the LED substrate on
`which the light emitting
`layers are formed”
`
`Figs. 2A-F; 7A–B, 8A–C
`
`‘787 Specification: Col. 5:
`11-27; 33-43; 49-64; Col.
`8: 33-52; Col. 12: 6-11;
`19-21; 31-34; 35-63; Col.
`13: 1-13.
`
`‘787 File History, Office
`Action, dated August 24,
`2009,
`Restriction
`Requirement
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 23 of 35 Page ID #:978
`
`
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`Declaration
`and/or
`testimony of R. Jacob
`Baker; Exhibit C (CMOS,
`Circuit Design, Layout
`and Simulation, R. Jacob
`Baker, Chapter 2).
`
`Intrinsic
`evidence
`Defendants.
`
`
`extrinsic
`and
`cited
`by
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`‘787
`File
`History,
`Response
`to
`Office
`Action, dated September
`23, 2009, Election of
`Species
`
`‘787 File History, Office
`Action, dated January 6,
`2010, pp. 2-5
`
`History,
`File
`‘787
`Disclaimer,
`Terminal
`dated April 5, 2010.
`
`History,
`File
`‘787
`Office
`Response
`to
`Action, dated April 5,
`2010, pp. 10-17
`‘787 File History, Office
`Action, dated July 8, 2010,
`Final Rejection
`
`History,
`File
`‘787
`Interview
`Examiner
`Summary, dated August
`23, 2010
`
`
`History,
`File
`‘787
`Applicant’s appeal brief,
`Dated 10/8/2010, Section
`VII (Arguments)
`
`History,
`File
`‘787
`Interview
`Examiner
`Summary Record, dated
`November
`30,
`2010,
`including
`Examiner’s
`amendment
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 24 of 35 Page ID #:979
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`‘787 File History, Notice
`of Allowance
`dated
`November
`30,
`2010,
`including
`Examiner’s
`Amendment.
`
`
`Patent
`IPR2018-00333,
`Owner
`Preliminary
`Response at 4-5 (PTAB
`Mar. 28, 2018) (Paper 6).
`
`
`Industry
`Semiconductor
`Association, Glossary of
`Terms,
`(https://www.semiconduc
`tors.org/faq/glossary/),
`“Substrate”; “The body or
`base layer of an integrated
`circuit, onto which other
`layers are deposited to
`form
`the circuit. The
`substrate
`is
`usually
`silicon, although sapphire
`is
`used
`for
`certain
`applications, particularly
`military, where radiation
`resistance
`is
`important.
`The substrate is originally
`part of the wafer from
`which the die is cut. It is
`used as
`the electrical
`ground for the circuit.”
`
`Optical Communication
`Systems,
`John Gowar,
`1983 ISBN 0-13- 638056-
`5, page 247
`
`
`22
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-04263-JVS-JEM Document 64 Filed 06/12/18 Page 25 of 35 Page ID #:980
`
`Term
`
`DSS’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`Handbook
`of
`Fiber
`Communications, Edited
`by DeCusatis, Clement,
`Lasky, Maass, 1997 ISBN
`0-12-437162-0, pp.43, 51,
`72, 183,537, 553, 558,
`713.
`
`Physics of semiconductor
`devices, S M Sze, 2nd
`Edition, 1981, pp. 701,
`703, 717, 726
`
`Optoelectronic Packaging
`Edited
`by Mickelson,
`Basavanhally, Lee, 1997,
`ISBN 0-471- 11188-0, p.
`152
`
`Light Emitting Diodes, E.
`Fred Schubert,
`2006,
`ISB