BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KINGBRIGHT ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`KINGBRIGHT CORP., SUNLED CORP.,
`KINGBRIGHT COMPANY LLC, SUNLED COMPANY LLC, and
`SUNSCREEN CO. LTD.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`CREE, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00750, IPR2015-00751
`Patent 8,362,605
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER CREE, INC.’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LEONARD W. SCHAPER
`
`!
`
`
`
`!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`I, Leonard W. Schaper, declare and state on oath as follows:!
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Plaintiff Cree, Inc. I submit
`
`this declaration in support of Cree’s position that the claims of the 8,362,605
`
`patent are valid.
`
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications and Experience
`
`2.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae (“CV”) and list of prior expert
`
`testimony is attached hereto as Appendix A. As demonstrated by my CV, I
`
`hold a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology (“MIT”) (1968), where I received the National
`
`Defense Education Act Title IV Fellowship. I also hold a Doctorate in
`
`Engineering Science from the New Jersey Institute of Technology (1973). I
`
`was a Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Arkansas from
`
`1992 to 2008. In 2009, I became Professor Emeritus of Electrical
`
`Engineering at the University of Arkansas. From 1992 to 2002, I also served
`
`as the Director of the High Density Electronics Center (HiDEC) at the
`
`University of Arkansas. Before joining the University of Arkansas in 1992,
`
`I worked in industry at AT&T Bell Laboratories for more than a decade. I
`
`am a Fellow of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
`
`3.
`
`I have extensive experience with chip packages, including
`
`leadframe-based surface mount packages. I was an expert witness in a
`
`!
`!
`
`1!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`leadframe packaging case involving quad flat no leads (QFN) packages, ITC
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-501, filed 12/19/2003. I was engaged as an expert
`
`witness on behalf of Amkor. I wrote an expert report, was deposed, and
`
`testified.
`
`4.
`
`For many years I taught the graduate course sequence in
`
`electronic packaging, including the material on single chip packaging, at the
`
`University of Arkansas. I have two patents in optoelectronic components:
`
`4,896,937 and 5,000,532.
`
`5.
`
`I also have over 320 journal articles, proceedings papers, and
`
`presentations that I have authored or co-authored.
`
`II.
`
` The ’605 Patent
`6.
`
`US Patent 8,362,605 (the ’605 patent) was applied for on
`
`November 9, 2009, and issued on January 29, 2013. The patent claims
`
`priority to an earlier application date of April 26, 2006. The inventors are
`
`Jian Hui Xhi and Siu Cheong Cheng. The patent has 38 claims.
`
`7. The abstract of the ’605 patent is reproduced below:
`
`!
`!
`
`2!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`8.
`
`In general terms, the patent claims describe the geometry of the
`
`leadframe parts (plurality of electrodes) both inside and outside the casing.
`
`A representative view of these parts within the casing is shown in Figure 2,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`!
`!
`
`
`
`3!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`9.
`
`In this figure element 100 refers to the surface mount device,
`
`105 is the casing (shown with dotted lines,) 110 the first electrode to which
`
`the chip will be mounted, 115 the second electrode, and 135 the first surface
`
`of casing 105. After they emerge from the casing, electrodes 110 and 115 are
`
`bent around the casing so that their ends, such as element 205, lie underneath
`
`the first surface 135. These lead ends are designed to be soldered to a PWB.
`
`A recess 125 (shown in Fig 1) extends from the front of the device into
`
`casing 105 to expose parts of electrodes 110 and 115.
`
`10. Figure 3 shows the geometric details of elements 110 and 115:
`
`11.
`
`In order to keep the two electrodes separate, there is an
`
`
`
`insulation gap 370 between them. First electrode 110 includes a “chip carrier
`
`part” 120 where the chip will be mounted. In this embodiment, it includes
`
`!
`!
`
`4!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`protrusions or extension portions 335 and 340, first and second lead portions
`
`320 and 325, separated by aperture 345, and a joined lead portion 330 that is
`
`bent at 305 and 310 after exiting the casing 105. The width of this joined
`
`portion is element 331; this width is maintained after the joined lead portion
`
`exits the casing.
`
`12. The second electrode 115 includes first and second lead
`
`portions 322 and 327, and joined lead portion 332 that is bent at 307 and
`
`312. The width of this joined portion is element 333; this width is
`
`maintained after the joined lead portion exits the casing. Elements 337 and
`
`342 are called the “head ends” of lead portions 352 and 357, which are
`
`separated by “inlet” 347.
`
`13. The electrodes in this embodiment also have “indentations”
`
`360, 365, 362 and 367, which narrow the width of the electrodes in the
`
`vicinity of aperture 345 and inlet 347.
`
`III.
`
` Opinion Regarding Patentability of ’605 Patent Over Asserted
`Prior Art
`
`14.
`
`I have reviewed the following materials filed in IPR2015-00750
`
`(“750 IPR”) and IPR2015-00751 (“751 IPR”):
`
`a. Petitions (Papers 3 in their respective matters)
`
`!
`!
`
`b. Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Papers 7 in their
`
`respective matters)
`
`5!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`c. Institution Decision (Papers 8 in their respective matters)
`
`d. U.S. Patent No. 6,376,902 B1 (“Arndt I”) (Ex. 1002 (750
`
`IPR), Ex. 1102 (751 IPR))
`
`e. U.S. Publication No. 2004/0188790 A1 (“Arndt II”) (Ex.
`
`1003 (750 IPR), Ex. 1103 (751 IPR))
`
`f. PCT Publication No. WO 2004/027882 A2 (“Sorg”) (Ex.
`
`1004 (750 IPR), Ex. 1104 (751 IPR))
`
`g. U.S. Publication No. 2004/0262717 A1 (“Arndt III”) (Ex.
`
`1005 (750 IPR), Ex. 1105 (751 IPR))
`
`h. 605 File History 2012-3-12 Rejection (Ex. 2001)
`
`i. 605 File History 2012-5-31 Reply (Ex. 2002)
`
`j. 605 File History 2012-9-17 Notice of Allowance (Ex.
`
`2003)
`
`15. Based on these documents, it is my understanding that
`
`Petitioners have asserted that various claims of the ’605 Patent are
`
`anticipated or obvious over a number of references. Further, it is my
`
`understanding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has
`
`instituted inter partes review on a subset of these grounds. Specifically, the
`
`PTAB has instituted inter partes review on the following grounds:
`
`!
`!
`
`6!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`a. Claims 18-21, 24-31, 34, and 36-38 as unpatentable
`under § 102(b) as anticipated by Arndt I.
`b. Claims 25-31, 33-36, and 38 as unpatentable under §
`102(b) as anticipated by Arndt II.
`c. Claims 1, 2, 9-12, and 15 as unpatentable under § 102(b)
`as anticipated by Arndt III.
`d. Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 13-16, 25-29 and 31-38 as unpatentable
`under § 102(b) as anticipated by Sorg.
`
`16. Based on my review of these references, the ’605 Patent, and
`
`the items listed above, it is my opinion that none of these references
`
`anticipate any of the claims of the ’605 Patent on which the PTAB has
`
`instituted inter partes review. In addition to these particular references, my
`
`opinion is based on my experience in the field of the invention.
`
`17.
`
`It is my understanding that for a claim to be anticipated, each
`
`and every limitation of that claim must be disclosed in a single prior art
`
`reference. As detailed below, I have determined that at least one limitation
`
`of each relevant claim is not disclosed by the asserted prior art reference.
`
`The fact that I do not specifically address a particular limitation does not
`
`mean I am of the opinion that it is disclosed by the reference.
`
`18.
`
`It is my understanding that if a claim is not anticipated, no
`
`claim that depends from that claim is anticipated.
`
`7!
`
`!
`!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`A.
`
` Arndt I does not anticipate claims 18, 25, and 29 or their
`dependent claims.
`
`19. Arndt I was raised by the examiner during prosecution of the
`
`’605 Patent, as part of a rejection that included claims 18, 25, and 29. Ex.
`
`2001 at 6-7 (Mar. 12, 2012 Non-Final Rejection).
`
`20. At the time of the rejection, claim 18 included the following
`
`language:
`
`“said first electrode comprising a plurality of leads
`extending away from said chip carrier part, with a
`first and second of said leads generally extending
`in a first direction away from said chip carrier part,
`and a third lead extending in a second direction
`away from said chip carrier part.”
`Ex. 2002 at 6.
`
`21. At the time of the rejection, claim 25 included the following
`language:
`
`“a plurality of electrodes at least partially encased
`by said casing, wherein at least one of said
`electrodes divides into a plurality of leads;”
`Ex. 2002 at 7.
`
`22. At the time claim 29 included the following language:
`
`
`“a plurality of electrodes at least partially encased
`by said casing,”
`Ex. 2002 at 8.
`
`!
`!
`
`8!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`23.
`
`In rejecting these claims, the examiner referred, in part, to
`
`Figure 1A of Arndt I:
`
`
`
`See Ex. 2001 at 6-7.
`
`24. The examiner noted that the specification of Arndt I described
`
`leads extending from the chip carrier part as recited in claims 18, 25, and 29,
`
`as they were then written. Ex. 2001 at 7-8.
`
`25.
`
`In response to the examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 25, and 29,
`
`the applicants amended them to include the limitation that “such that said
`
`chip carrier part widens as said chip carrier part extends toward and into said
`
`leads.” Ex. 2002 at 6-8. As noted by the applicants, Arndt I does not
`
`describe or depict such widening. Id. at 13-15. Figure 4 of the ’605 Patent,
`
`reproduced below with added annotations, shows an exemplary embodiment
`
`of the chip carrier part widening as it splits into the leads.
`
`9!
`
`!
`!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`26. Another embodiment of widening is shown in Figure 8 of the
`
`’605 Patent. The applicants pointed out that “[t]he widening of this
`
`particular region of the first electrode is beneficial as it can positively affect
`
`heat dissipation, allow for formation of additional structures such as an
`
`extension indentation (746), and can assist in the positioning and/or maintain
`
`of the structural integrity of the surface mounted device.” Ex. 2002 at 13.
`
`Along with this amendment, applicants noted that Arndt I was “relatively
`
`silent as to dimensions regarding the chip carrier part of the electrode” and
`
`“[t]he figures in Arndt also do not depict such widening.” Id. at 12-13.
`
`With this amendment, claims 18, 25, and 29 were allowed. Ex. 2003 (Sept.
`
`17, 2012 Notice of Allowance). Figure 8 is reproduced below.
`
`!
`!
`
`10!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`27.
`
`It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
`
`account the prosecution history, would understand that the chip carrier part
`
`of Arndt I does not widen as it splits into leads. Instead as shown below, the
`
`purported “widening” asserted by Petitioners is merely the result of the
`
`splitting of the chip carrier part into a plurality of leads. The leads in
`
`question are elements 4, 5, and 6. They split off from the chip carrier part,
`
`which is shaded below in red. It is the leads themselves that widen, not the
`
`chip carrier part.
`
`!
`!
`
`11!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`
`
`28. The widening limitation added to claims 18, 25, and 29 requires
`
`a widening of the chip carrier part before the leads split off at an angle or to
`
`the side. This widening described in the claims is shown in Figure 4 of the
`
`’605 Patent, reproduced below with widening identified in red.
`
`!
`!
`
`12!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`29. The structure shown in Arndt I does not achieve the benefits of
`
`the widened structure described in the claims, such as providing increased
`
`stability or heat dissipation from the electronic element. ’605 Patent, col. 3,
`
`ll. 24-26, col. 12, ll. 21-24, 52-57. For example, the area identified as
`
`widening by Petitioners does not allow for an extension indention, depicted
`
`as 746 in Figure 8 of the ’605 Patent, reproduced below.
`
`!
`!
`
`13!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`30. Thus, for the reasons described above, Arndt I does not
`
`anticipate claims 18-21, 24-31, 34, and 36-38.
`
` Arndt II does not anticipate claims 25 and 29 or their B.
`
`
`dependent claims.
`
`31. Petitioners point to Figure 1a of Arndt II as purportedly
`
`disclosing the widening limitation of claims 25 and 29. Paper 3 (751 IPR) at
`
`14. That figure is reproduced below.
`
`!
`!
`
`14!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`32. As with Arndt I, Figure 1a of Arndt II does not disclose an
`
`electrode that widens as it extends into the plurality of leads. Instead, the
`
`purported widening is the result of the splitting into, and turning of, the
`
`plurality of leads. If anything, large electrode 2 narrows as it necks down
`
`and becomes leads 11, which then widen as they turn.
`
`33. As described in detail above, the widening recited in claims 25
`
`and 29 refers to widening beyond the structure that necessarily occurs when
`
`leads split and turn, as shown in Figure 4 of the ’605 Patent, reproduced
`
`below with widening identified in red.
`
`!
`!
`
`15!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`34. As with Arndt I, the structure shown in Arndt II does not
`
`achieve the benefits of the widened structure described in the claims, such as
`
`providing increased stability or heat dissipation from the electronic element.
`
`’605 Patent, col. 3, ll. 24-26, col. 12, ll. 21-24, 52-57. For example, the
`
`widening described in the claims allows for an extension indention, depicted
`
`as 746 in Figure 8 of the ’605 Patent. As would be understood by a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, Arndt II does not disclose an electrode that
`
`widens as it extends into a plurality of leads.
`
`!
`!
`
`16!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`35. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, Arndt II does not
`
`anticipate claims 25-31, 33-36, and 38.
`
`C.
`
` Arndt III does not anticipate claim 1 or its dependent
`claims.
`
`36. Claim 1 recites a first electrode portion “dividing into a first
`
`plurality of leads as it extends away from said chip carrier part toward
`
`the perimeter of said casing, with said first plurality of leads joining into a
`
`single joined lead portion before said first electrode portion projects
`
`outside of said casing.” (emphasis added).
`
`37. Under the proper interpretation of “lead,” a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would not consider Arndt III as disclosing a first electrode
`
`portion dividing into a first plurality of leads as it extends away from said
`
`chip carrier part. Arndt III discloses a single connection strip 2b that
`
`Petitioners characterize as a plurality of leads based on the presence of holes
`
`6b and 6c in connection strip 2b. These are depicted in Figure 2 of Arndt
`
`III, reproduced below.
`
`!
`!
`
`17!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`38. Arndt III does not describe connection strip 2b as having a
`
`plurality of leads, however, and it is relatively silent on the dimensions of
`
`the holes relative to the connection strip. Based on the disclosure of Arndt
`
`III, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not view holes 6b and 6c in
`
`connection strip 2b as creating the plurality of leads required by claim 1.
`
`Thus, Arndt III does not anticipate claims 1, 2, 9-12, and 15.
`
`39.
`
`!
`!
`
`In addition, Arndt III does not disclose “said first plurality of
`
`18!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`leads joining into a single joined lead portion before said first electrode
`
`portion projects outside of said casing.” An example of such a single joined
`
`lead portion is depicted in Figure 4. As shown below, the dotted line depicts
`
`the casing.
`
`40. Figure 4 depicts the division into a plurality of leads, with the
`
`
`
`leads identified in red below.
`
`!
`!
`
`19!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`41. Figure 4 depicts this plurality of leads joining into a “single
`
`joined lead portion, identified in red below.
`
`
`
`!
`!
`
`20!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`42. As is clear from the above image, the plurality of leads join into
`
`the single joined lead portion before “said first electrode portion” projects
`
`outside of the casing. In other words, the electrode splits into leads, those
`
`leads rejoin into a single joined lead portion, and that single joined lead
`
`portion projects outside of the casing.
`
`43. According to Petitioners, Figure 2 of Arndt III discloses “a first
`
`electrode (2b) that divides into a plurality of leads (divided by holes 6b and
`
`6c) as it extends towards the perimeter of housing 80, the plurality of leads
`
`!
`!
`
`21!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`rejoining into a single joined lead before a portion of first electrode (2b)
`
`projects outside of housing 80.” Paper 3 (750 IPR) at 14. But this analysis
`
`ignores that the purported “single joined lead portion” exists between holes
`
`6b and 6c, not after hole 6c. In other words, to the extent hole 6c has the
`
`effect of dividing the electrode into a plurality of leads, those leads rejoin
`
`after hole 6c, as illustrated below.
`
`
`
`
`
`44. The purported single
`
`joined
`
`lead portion
`
`identified by
`
`Petitioners does not project outside of the casing of Arndt III, as is required
`
`by claim 1. Under Petitioners’ theory, that joined lead portion would then
`
`!
`!
`
`22!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`divide into a second plurality of leads, illustrated below, but not recited in
`
`the claim.
`
`
`
`
`
`45. That second plurality of leads would then join into a second
`
`“joined lead portion,” illustrated below, but again not recited in the claim.
`
`!
`!
`
`23!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`46.
`
`It is this second joined lead portion that projects outside the
`
`casing of Arndt III. Therefore, Arndt III does not disclose the required
`
`single joined lead portion that projects outside of the casing as required by
`
`
`
`claim 1.
`
`47. Thus, for the reasons described above, Arndt III does not
`
`anticipate claims 1, 2, 9-12, and 15.
`
`!
`!
`
`24!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`D.
`
`
`
`Sorg does not anticipate claims 1, 16, 25, and 29 or their
`dependent claims.
`
`48. Under the proper interpretation of “lead,” a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would not consider the identified figures in Sorg as disclosing
`
`an electrode dividing into a plurality of leads as required by independent
`
`claims 1, 16, 25, and 29. Instead, Sorg discloses a single connection strip
`
`that Petitioners characterize as a plurality of leads based on the presence of
`
`small holes in the connection strip. Sorg does not describe the connection
`
`strip as having a plurality of leads, however, and it is relatively silent on the
`
`dimensions of the holes relative to the connection strip. Based on the
`
`disclosure of Sorg, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not view the
`
`holes in the connection strip as creating the required plurality of leads.
`
`49. Thus, for the reasons described above, Sorg does not anticipate
`
`claims 1-3, 8, 9, 13-16, 25-29 and 31-38.
`
`
`E.
`
`Sorg does not anticipate claims 1 and 16 or their dependent
`claims.
`
`50. As described above, and illustrated with reference to Figure 4
`
`of the ’605 Patent, claim 1 recites a first electrode portion “dividing into a
`
`first plurality of leads as it extends away from said chip carrier part toward
`
`the perimeter of said casing, with said first plurality of leads joining into a
`
`single joined lead portion before said first electrode portion projects
`
`!
`!
`
`25!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`outside of said casing.” (emphasis added). This limitation also exists in
`
`claim 16 of the ’605 Patent. But this limitation is not disclosed by Sorg.
`
`51. Petitioner asserts that the “single joined lead portion” depicted
`
`in Figures 2B and 3A of Sorg disclose the single joined lead portion
`
`projecting outside of the casing. Paper 3 (750 IPR) at 15.1
`
`
`
`
`
`52.
`
`It should be noted that Figure 3A of Sorg depicts almost the
`
`same structure as Figure 2 of Arndt III, discussed above.
`
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`!
`!
`
`1 The text of the Petition refers to “Figs. 3A and 3B,” but the figures
`displayed are Figures 2B and 3A.
`
`26!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`53. Figure 3A of Sorg, therefore suffers from the same problems as
`
`Figure 2 of Arndt III, that the purported first joined lead portion splits into a
`
`second plurality of leads—around the unnumbered hole in Figure 3A of
`
`Sorg—and that second plurality of leads join together to form a second
`
`joined lead portion that projects from the casing. Sorg does not disclose the
`
`required single joined lead portion that projects outside of the casing.
`
`54. Even under Petitioners’ apparent interpretation of “lead,”
`
`Figure 2B of Sorg suffers from a similar problem as Arndt III and Figure 3A
`
`of Sorg, in that the first joined lead splits into a second plurality of leads.
`
`The purported plurality of leads formed by injection window 24 rejoin into a
`
`joined lead portion, as illustrated below.
`
`!
`!
`
`27!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`55. That purported single joined lead portion then divides into a
`
`second plurality of leads around hole 21.
`
`
`
`56. This purported second plurality of leads then joins into a second
`
`joined lead portion, illustrated below.
`
`
`
`!
`!
`
`28!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`57. The embodiment depicted in Figure 2B is also depicted in
`
`Figures 2A and 2C. Ex. 1004 at 39 (“Figure 2b depicts an enlarged
`
`schematic top view of two connection strips of the lead frame from Figure
`
`2a that belong together . . . Figure 2c depicts a schematic top view of a lead
`
`frame strip according to Figure 2a with inventive housing base bodies that
`
`are formulated in the injection process”).
`
`!
`!
`
`29!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`58. Figure 2C, therefore, overlays the casing 100 over the
`
`underlying lead frame structure. As can be seen in Figure 2C, what is
`
`projecting from the housing is not the required single joined lead, but an
`
`electrode with rectangular hole 21 of Figure 2B. Thus, even if the
`
`rectangular hole 21 did split the electrode into a plurality of leads, the
`
`required single joined lead portion is not projecting from the housing. This
`
`plurality of leads is illustrated below in an annotated excerpt from Figure
`
`2C. These leads rejoin after exiting from the casing, not before, as required
`
`by the claim.
`
`!
`!
`
`30!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`59. The importance of these rectangular holes is highlighted in
`
`Sorg. Exhibit 1004 at 41 (“In addition, the connection strips 2a and 2b
`
`preferably have rectangularly formulated holes 21 which are suitable for the
`
`relief of the load on the component housing with the bending of the
`
`connection strips . . . .”). Therefore, not only does Sorg fail to disclose the
`
`required single joined lead portion projecting through the casing, it actually
`
`teaches away from the concept of having a single joined lead portion
`
`projecting through the casing, noting the importance to Sorg of the
`
`rectangular holes to allow bending of the electrodes.
`
`Sorg does not anticipate claim 13 or its dependent claim.
`
`
`F.
`60. Claim 13 (and claim 14, which depends from claim 13) requires
`
`that “said first electrode widens as it extends from said chip carrier part
`
`toward the perimeter of said casing.” Petitioners assert that Figure 2B of
`
`Sorg discloses such a widening. Paper 3 (750 IPR) at 37. But, even under
`
`Petitioners’ apparent interpretation of “lead,” the area they claim is widening
`
`!
`!
`
`31!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`is an area after the electrode has already purportedly split into a plurality of
`
`leads. Contrast that with the language of claim 13, which explicitly states
`
`that the electrode “narrows as it splits into said first plurality of leads.” The
`
`claims, therefore, recite that the widening occurs before the electrode splits
`
`into a plurality of leads.
`
`61. Figure 4 of the ’605 Patent, reproduced below, illustrates the
`
`widened area (highlighted in red) between the chip carrier part and the
`
`plurality of leads.
`
`!
`!
`
`32!
`
`
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`62. The purportedly widening area of Sorg identified by Petitioners,
`
`outlined in red below, is not in the area before the electrode splits into a
`
`plurality of leads, but after the electrode has split into a plurality of leads
`
`(applying Petitioners’ view of “lead”).
`
`63. Therefore, Sorg does not meet the widening limitation of claims
`
`13 and 14 and cannot anticipate those claims.
`
`
`
`G.
`
`Sorg does not anticipate claim 25 or its dependent claims.
`
`
`64. Claim 25 recites “one or more of said electrodes and said leads
`
`comprising one or more gaps between them, with at least a portion of at least
`
`one of said gaps exposed through said recess.” Petitioner argues that this
`
`limitation is disclosed in Figure 2C by the “gap between connection strips 2a
`
`and 2b exposed through the radiation exit window 12.”). The relevant
`
`portion of the figure is extracted below.
`
`!
`!
`
`33!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`65.
`
`It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the “gap” referenced in the limitation, which must be exposed
`
`through the recess, as being between the leads, not between the electrodes,
`
`as is disclosed by Sorg. The claim already requires a plurality of electrodes.
`
`This inherently requires a gap between the electrodes, because without such
`
`a gap, the two elements would be mechanically and electrically contacting,
`
`and would be considered a single electrode. The specification of the ’605
`
`Patent refers specifically to the gap between electrodes as an “insulation
`
`gap.” ’605 Patent, col. 3, ll. 63-66. As shown in Figure 4, the ’605
`
`discloses a gap between the leads that are part of a single electrode that is
`
`exposed through the recess, as highlighted in red below.
`
`!
`!
`
`34!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`
`
`66.
`
`It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the separation that necessarily occurs between the plurality
`
`of electrodes already recited in the claims is different from the gap recited in
`
`claim 25, which occurs within an electrode or between the leads formed as
`
`part of a single electrode.
`
`67. Thus, for the reasons described above, Sorg does not anticipate
`
`claims 25 - 28.
`
`!
`!
`!
`
`
`
`35!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`!
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`
`
`Executed at ______________________, this ____ day of November, 2015.
`
`
`
`By:
`
`___________________________
`
`Leonard W. Schaper
`
`!
`!
`
`36!
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Cree, Inc.
`IPR2015-00751
`
`

`
`Leonard W. Schaper Jr.
`516 Neapolitan Lane
`Naples, FL 34103
`(479) 200-5369 (Cell)
`schaper@uark.edu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
`
`2012 to present Schaper Consulting, Inc. (Naples, FL)
`President
`• Leonard Schaper, consulting in electronic packaging.
`• Louise Schaper, consulting in library design and operations.
`
`2003 to 2006 Xanodics, LLC (Fayetteville, AR)
`Founder and CEO
`• With Prof. Rick Ulrich, initiated start-up company to commercialize
`UA-developed thin film capacitor technology.
`• Had several successful contracts to supply prototype components.
`• Dissolved company when customer program needs changed.
`
`1992 to present University of Arkansas (Fayetteville, AR)
`Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering (2009 to present)
`Professor of Electrical Engineering (2002 to 2008)
`• Directed research program in through-silicon vias for 3-D VLSI
`packaging.
`• Developed fabrication methods for multilayer thin film capacitors.
`• Taught undergraduate courses in electronics and graduate courses in
`electronic packaging.
`• Fall, 2005 semester, sabbatical assignments: 6 weeks at the
`Fraunhofer Institute IZM in Berlin and Munich; 4 weeks at NEC in
`Sagamihara, Japan.
`
` Director, High Density Electronics Center and Professor, Electrical
`Engineering (1992 to 2002)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cree, Inc. - Ex. 2004
`IPR2015-00751
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`

`
`• Directed large ($3M annual) research program in Multichip Module
`technology. Led efforts of 15 faculty, 4 - 6 post-docs, 8 staff, and
`25 graduate students. Ran a 4000 square foot clean room dedicated
`to MCM research.
`• Developed the interconnected mesh power system topology for MCM
`cost reduction.
`• Developed new, low inductance, thin-film decoupling capacitors.
`• Led development of integral passive components on polyimide film.
`• Formulated national policy on advanced packaging R&D working
`through the EIA MCM division and consulting for DARPA.
`• Led efforts resulting in the successful merger of IEPS and ISHM to
`form IMAPS.
`
`1990 to 1992 Alcoa Electronic Packaging (San Diego, CA)
`Director, Thin Film Product Programs (1991 to 1992)
`• Directed product and market development for thin film multichip
`modules. Oversaw applications engineering, product engineering, and
`design effort on various implementations of MCM technology.
`Consulted extensively with customers on the tradeoffs affecting their
`MCM designs. Was corporate spokesman at many conferences,
`workshops, and
`industry seminars on MCMs. Successfully
`led
`prototype development for several satisfied customers. Represented
`Alcoa on the industry-wide team seeking enlarged Federal support of
`MCM technology.
`
`Director, Thin Film Technology Development (1990 to 1991)
`• Led technology development for thin film multichip modules.
`Transferred the AT&T MCM technology licensed to Alcoa. Led a team
`of materials scientists and engineers in correcting reliability problems.
`Refined the modeling approaches for MCM power distribution.
`
`
`1978 to 1990 AT&T BELL LABORATORIES (Murray Hill, New Jersey)
`Head, Technical Program Analysis Department (1986 to 1990)
` Managed the department responsible for the coherence of the Bell
`Laboratories technical program. Reviewed project expenses and
`program content, and projected future needs.
`• Served as chief technologist for the AT&T 21st Century Project, a
`year long effort to define future scenarios for AT&T. Gained extensive
`
` •
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cree, I