UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`AVX CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,661,639
`Issue Date: December 9, 2003
`Title: SINGLE LAYER CAPACITOR
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Deborah Chung
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`AVX CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,661,639
`Issue Date: December 9, 2003
`Title: SINGLE LAYER CAPACITOR
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Deborah Chung
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by AVX Corp. as an expert witness in the above-
`
`captioned proceeding. I have been asked to render an opinion regarding the
`
`patentability of U.S. Patent No. 6,661,639 (hereinafter the “’639 patent”), which is
`
`submitted herewith as Exhibit 1001.
`
`B. Background and Qualifications
`
`2. My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1011.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering and Applied Science in
`
`1973 from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California. I also
`
`received a Master’s Degree in Engineering Science in 1973 from the California
`
`Institute of Technology. I received a Master’s Degree in Materials Science in 1975
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I
`
`also received a Doctorate in Materials Science in 1977 from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
`
`at the University of Buffalo, State University of New York, in Buffalo, New York.
`
`I am also the Founding Director of the Composite Materials Research Laboratory
`
`at the University of Buffalo.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I was a Teaching Assistant in the Department of Materials Science
`
`and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1973 to 1974.
`
`I was a Research Assistant in the Department of Materials Science and
`
`Engineering and the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1974 to 1977. I was an
`
`Assistant Professor of Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science and
`
`Electrical Engineering at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
`
`from 1977 to 1982. I was an Associate Professor of Metallurgical Engineering and
`
`Materials Science at Carnegie-Mellon University from 1982 to 1986. I have been
`
`a Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Buffalo
`
`since 1986. I became a Founding Director of the Composite Materials Research
`
`Laboratory at the University of Buffalo in 1989.
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony
`
`6.
`
`I am being compensated on a per hour basis for my study and
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my
`
`testimony.
`
`7.
`
`I have been retained as an expert in various other cases from 1990 to
`
`the present.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Information Considered
`
`8. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered each of Exhibits 1001-1014, including U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,661,639 to Devoe (Ex. 1001), the file history of U.S. Patent No. 6,661,639
`
`(Ex. 1002), U.S. Patent No. 6,690,572 to Liebowitz (Ex. 1004), U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,366,443 to Devoe et al. (Ex. 1005), U.S. Patent No. 3,581,167 to Veater et al.
`
`(Ex. 1006), U.S. Patent No. 4,882,212 to SinghDeo et al. (Ex. 1007), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 4,953,273 to Insetta et al. (Ex. 1008), Plastics Encyclopedia and Dictionary
`
`(Ex. 1009), Polymer Technology Dictionary (1010), P. Yih & D.D.L. Chung,
`
`Titanium Diboride Copper-Matrix Composites, J. Materials Science 32, at 1703
`
`(1997) (Ex. 1012), American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Ex.
`
`1013), and Larousse Dictionary of Science and Technology (Ex. 1014).
`
`9.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to rebut
`
`arguments raised by the patentee. Further, I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions, including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`10. My analysis of the materials in this proceeding is ongoing and I will
`
`continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration represents
`
`only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already or newly provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`11.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ’639 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that
`
`Counsel has explained to me.
`
`A. Obviousness
`
`12.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the ’639 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at
`
`the time of the alleged invention. It is my understanding that a patent claim is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the subject matter
`
`sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was made to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. I further
`
`understand that an obviousness analysis takes into consideration factual inquiries
`
`such as the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`the differences between the prior art and the patent claim, and any objective
`
`evidence indicating either obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`13. Counsel has explained to me that the U.S. Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references and for modifying a
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`reference as part of an obviousness analysis. These rationales include combining
`
`prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple
`
`substitution of a known element for another to obtain predictable results, a
`
`predictable use of prior art elements in accordance with their established functions,
`
`applying a known technique to improve a known device (or process) and yield
`
`predictable results, and choosing from a finite number of known predictable
`
`solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. It is further my understanding
`
`that there must be an identified rationale for combining multiple references to
`
`render a patent claim obvious, and an obviousness analysis takes into consideration
`
`whether the prior art provides a teaching, suggestion, motivation, or other rationale
`
`for combining the teachings of multiple prior art references to arrive at the patent
`
`claim.
`
`B. The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`14.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims through the eyes of “one of ordinary skill in the art” at
`
`the time when the patent application was filed. I was told by Counsel to consider
`
`factors such as the educational level and years of experience of those working in
`
`the pertinent art; the types of problems encountered in the art; the teachings of the
`
`prior art; patents and publications of other persons or companies; and the
`
`sophistication of the technology. I understand that the person of ordinary skill in
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`the art is not a specific real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having
`
`the qualities reflected by the factors discussed above.
`
`15.
`
`In my opinion, based on my experience in research and product
`
`development of capacitors, and my understanding of the skills and background that
`
`graduates of engineering programs should possess, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art of capacitors at the time of filing of application for the ’639 patent is generally
`
`one who has a Bachelor’s degree in material science along with several years of
`
`relevant applied research or industry work experience in the field of capacitors.
`
`III. THE ’639 PATENT
`
`A. Technical Overview of the ’639 Patent
`
`16. Generally, the ’639 patent is directed to “single layer capacitors, and
`
`in particular, surface mountable single layer capacitors and a method of making the
`
`capacitors.” Col. 1, lines 5-7. More specifically, that patent is directed to
`
`“monolithic or essentially monolithic single layer capacitors” in which “green-state
`
`ceramic dielectric material and ceramic/metal composite material are laminated
`
`together, diced into individual chips, and fired to sinter the ceramic together.” Col.
`
`3, lines 3-10. The ’639 patent explains that “the composite material may comprise
`
`an amount of metal sufficient to render the composite conductive whereby the
`
`composite may be used for one or both electrodes and for mounting the capacitor
`
`to the pc board.” Col. 3, lines 10-13. Or in the alternative, the ’639 patent
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`explains that “the composite material may comprise an amount of metal
`
`insufficient to render the composite conductive but sufficient to act as seed points
`
`for an electroplating process wherein the composite is preferentially coated with
`
`conductive metal, and the coated composite is mounted to the pc board and the
`
`coating provides an electrical connection to an internal electrode.” Col. 3, lines
`
`13-19.
`
`17. The ’639 patent indicates that “[m]ost ceramic chip capacitors
`
`currently offered are made by metallizing two faces of a thin sheet of sintered
`
`ceramic.” Col. 1, lines 26-27. The ’639 patent goes on to explain that “[w]hile the
`
`form factor of these simple devices . . . is highly desirable, the amount of
`
`capacitance that can be achieved and quality of the devices realizing maximum
`
`capacitance is starting to limit their usefulness in certain applications” Col. 1, lines
`
`34-38. “The design of single layer capacitors in general is a compromise between
`
`the use of thicker ceramic layers for greater strength and thinner ceramic layers for
`
`greater capacitance.” Col. 1, lines 53-56. The ’639 patent also indicates that
`
`single layer capacitors can be “difficult to attach automatically to a pc board.” Col.
`
`1, lines 59-60. The ’639 patent indicates that the capacitor disclosed in “U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 6,208,501, wherein metal or metal-coated ceramic end blocks are soldered to a
`
`vertically-oriented dielectric chip sandwiched there between . . . is an improvement
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`over the prior art,” but that the fabrication process can be “slow, intricate, and
`
`expensive.” Col. 2, lines 38-47.
`
`18. According to the ’639 patent, “[t]here is thus a need to provide a
`
`surface mountable single layer ceramic capacitor that may be easily assembled and
`
`inexpensively manufactured, and that has high capacitance and good structural
`
`strength.” Col. 2, lines 64-67. The ’639 patent asserts that the capacitor it
`
`describes fulfills this need because:
`
`By virtue of at least one composite block mountable to the pc board, a
`thin dielectric may be used while maintaining high structural integrity
`for the capacitor. Moreover, by assembling the portions of the
`capacitor in the green-state, and co-firing the assembly, a monolithic
`or essentially monolithic structure is formed having no preformed
`parts and containing no epoxy, glue, solder, or attachment means
`within the capacitor body thus further providing high structural
`integrity for the capacitor and simplifying the manufacturing process
`while allowing for further miniaturization of capacitors. The green-
`state method further provides flexibility that allows for a broad range
`of capacitor values to be obtained as desired by the consumer.
`
`Col. 3, lines 27-40.
`
`19. The ’639 patent includes four independent claims and twenty-one
`
`claims in total. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 13 are directed to “[a] capacitor” and
`
`independent Claim 19 is directed to “[a] surface mountable, monolithic capacitor.”
`
`Claim 1 of the ’639 patent requires:
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`1. A capacitor comprising:
`an essentially monolithic structure comprising at least one
`composite portion sintered with a ceramic dielectric portion,
`a buried metallization in the dielectric portion and at least one
`conductive metal-filled via extending from the buried metallization to
`the composite portion,
`wherein the composite portion includes a ceramic and a
`conductive metal, the capacitor further characterized by a feature
`selected from the group consisting of:
`(a) the composite portion comprises the conductive metal in an
`amount sufficient to render the composite portion conductive, wherein
`the composite portion provides an electrical lead for attaching the
`capacitor to a metallic surface trace on a printed circuit board; and
`(b) a metallization area partially between the composite portion
`and the ceramic dielectric portion, and a conductive metal coating on
`faces of the composite portion not sintered to the ceramic dielectric
`portion, whereby the conductive metal coating provides an electrical
`lead for attaching the capacitor to a metallic surface trace on a printed
`circuit board.
`
`20. Claim 1, therefore, requires “an essentially monolithic structure
`
`comprising at least one composite portion sintered with a ceramic dielectric
`
`portion,” and the claim requires that “the composite portion includes a ceramic and
`
`a conductive metal.” Claim 1 also requires “a buried metallization in the dielectric
`
`portion and at least one conductive metal-filled via extending from the buried
`
`metallization to the composite portion.” Claim 1 also requires one of two
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`alternative embodiments. The first alternative requires that “the composite portion
`
`comprises the conductive metal in an amount sufficient to render the composite
`
`portion conductive.” The second alternative requires “a metallization area partially
`
`between the composite portion and the ceramic dielectric portion, and a conductive
`
`metal coating on faces of the composite portion not sintered to the ceramic
`
`dielectric portion.” These elements are illustrated in Figs. 7A (the second
`
`alternative) and 7B (the first alternative), reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`21. Claim 1 requires “an essentially monolithic structure comprising at
`
`least one composite portion sintered with a ceramic dielectric portion.” Fig. 7A
`
`shows reference numeral 38, which is described as “[m]etal/ceramic composite end
`
`block[] 38,” Col. 5, line 53, while Fig. 7B shows reference numeral 38’, which is
`
`described as “[c]onductive metal/ceramic composite end block[] 38’.” Col. 6, line
`
`10. Both figures show “a dielectric layer 62,” Col. 7, lines 48-49, and the
`
`Specification explains that this structure is sintered together. Col. 4, lines 44-50,
`
`Col. 5, lines 24-31. Claim 1 also requires that “the composite portion includes a
`
`ceramic and a conductive metal,” which is also described in the explanations of
`
`reference numerals 38 and 38’ above.
`
`22. Claim 1 also requires “a buried metallization in the dielectric portion
`
`and at least one conductive metal-filled via extending from the buried metallization
`
`to the composite portion.” Both Figs 7A and 7B show “internal buried electrode[]
`
`64a . . . within the dielectric layer” and “vias 68 connect the buried electrode[] 64a
`
`. . . to respective conductive end blocks.” Col. 7, lines 50-57.
`
`23. Claim 1 also requires one of the two alternatives, and alternative (a)
`
`requires “the composite portion comprises the conductive metal in an amount
`
`sufficient to render the composite portion conductive.” The Specification explains
`
`that the end block 38’, illustrated in Fig. 7B, “comprise[s] a composite
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`metal/ceramic material in which the particles of conductive metal are present in an
`
`amount sufficient to render the composite matrix conductive.” Col. 6, lines 39-43.
`
`24. Alternative (b) requires “a metallization area partially between the
`
`composite portion and the ceramic dielectric portion, and a conductive metal
`
`coating on faces of the composite portion not sintered to the ceramic dielectric
`
`portion.” Fig. 7A shows a “metallization area[] 66a,” Col. 7, line 52, between the
`
`composite and dielectric portions, and the Specification explains that the
`
`“metallizations on the center dielectric layer, i.e., the internal electrodes, cover less
`
`than the entire area of the dielectric layer.” Col. 4, lines 50-53. The Specification
`
`also explains that the faces of end block 38 not adjacent to the metallization
`
`“referred to as the external faces, are coated with a conductive metal 42.” Col. 5,
`
`lines 53-58.
`
`25.
`
`Independent Claims 8, 13, and 19 of the ’639 patent are directed to
`
`different capacitor embodiments, but share many of the same, or similar, elements.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`26.
`
`I have been advised that the “broadest reasonable construction”
`
`standard applies to the claims of an unexpired patent. I have been further advised
`
`that in applying this standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would be understood by one of skill in the art in the context of the
`
`entire patent disclosure. I understand that “extrinsic” evidence, which is evidence
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`external to the patent and the prosecution history, may also be useful in
`
`interpreting patent claim terms where the patent itself does not provide a definition
`
`for a term. Extrinsic evidence can include dictionaries, treatises, textbooks, and
`
`the like.
`
`27. The phrase “essentially monolithic structure” appears in each of
`
`independent Claims 1 and 8. In Claim 1, the phrase is used in the context of “an
`
`essentially monolithic structure comprising at least one composite portion sintered
`
`with a ceramic dielectric portion.” I believe that one of skill in the art would
`
`understand that an “essentially monolithic structure” means a structure of materials
`
`that are partially or completely sintered together, thereby eliminating
`
`boundaries/joints within the structure, and the structure contains no epoxy, glue,
`
`solder or other attachment means between layers. This construction is informed by
`
`the claim terms themselves, the specification of the ’639 patent, and my experience
`
`with capacitors, composites, and electronics in general.
`
`28. The term essentially monolithic is used in various parts of the
`
`Specification, and is explained in a number of different ways. First, the
`
`Specification explains that “essentially monolithic structure” means “an essentially
`
`solid structure of materials that are sintered together, thereby eliminating
`
`boundaries/joints within the structure and the structure contains no epoxy, glue,
`
`solder, or other attachment means between layers.” Col. 4, line 65 - Col. 5, line 3.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`The Specification then further explains that the term “monolithic is generally
`
`understood to refer to an object comprised entirely of one single piece (although
`
`polycrystalline or even heterogeneous) without joints or seams as opposed to being
`
`built up of preformed units.” Col. 5, lines 3-7. The Specification then states that
`
`“[b]y ‘essentially’ we refer to the presence of the internal metallizations that create
`
`a partial boundary or seam within the structure, but because the metallizations do
`
`not cover the entire area of the dielectric layer, the ceramic materials sinter
`
`together around the edges of the metallizations to essentially form a monolithic
`
`structure.” Col. 5, lines 10-16. In a further effort to explain these terms, the
`
`Specification states that “by monolithic, we refer to the absence of a complete or
`
`continuous boundary or seam within the specified structure, with no boundary at
`
`all being completely monolithic and a partial boundary being essentially
`
`monolithic.” Col. 5, lines 16-20.
`
`29. Claim 1 also uses the phrase “essentially monolithic structure.” As
`
`explained in further detail below, Claim 1 describes two distinct embodiments by
`
`using the language “a feature selected from the group consisting of (a) . . . or (b).”
`
`The first of these options provides for an embodiment where there is no
`
`metallization area between the dielectric and the composite portion, while the
`
`second option does require a metallization area. The phrase “essentially
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`monolithic structure,” however, applies to both according to the language of the
`
`claim.
`
`30. Reading the various ways in which the term “essentially monolithic
`
`structure” is used in the patent, a person of ordinary skill would understand that the
`
`term is used broadly. While at times an essentially monolithic structure is
`
`described as having a partial boundary, Claim 1 demonstrates that a partial
`
`boundary is not necessary. The capacitor of Claim 1 option (a) does not have a
`
`metallization between the dielectric and the composite and therefore there is no
`
`partial boundary between them. The Specification discloses several embodiments
`
`in which there is no metallization between the dielectric and the composite, for
`
`example Figs. 4A and 4B, described at column 6, lines 5-21 and 39-57, discloses
`
`“conductive metal/ceramic composite end blocks” sintered with a “dielectric
`
`layer.” In fact, the Specification repeatedly distinguishes between embodiments in
`
`which there is a metallization area between the dielectric and the composite and in
`
`which the composite is then plated with conductive metal, such as the
`
`embodiments disclosed in Figs. 3A and 3B and described at column 5, lines 43-66,
`
`and embodiments in which there is no metallization, just a conductive composite
`
`end block sintered with a ceramic dielectric. For example, the Specification makes
`
`this distinction at Col. 3, lines 9-19, and again at Col. 4, lines 45-48 and Col. 5,
`
`lines 24-27. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1, option (a), is directed to these embodiments in which there is no
`
`metallization.
`
`31. Because Claim 1 claims an “essentially monolithic structure,” and yet
`
`option (a) does not require a partial metallization, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would interpret the term broadly enough to encompass both structures that do not
`
`have a partial metallization, and therefore, do not have a partial boundary, and
`
`those that do. The first explanation of an “essentially monolithic structure”
`
`provided in the Specification provides a definition that does not require a
`
`metallization: “an essentially solid structure of materials that are sintered together,
`
`thereby eliminating boundaries/joints within the structure and the structure
`
`contains no epoxy, glue, solder, or other attachment means between layers.” Col.
`
`4, line 65 - Col. 5, line 3. In addition, independent Claim 8 also uses the phrase
`
`“essentially monolithic structure,” and yet it claims a “ceramic dielectric portion . .
`
`. at least partially sintered to . . . composite end blocks.” One of ordinary skill
`
`would interpret Claim 8 to include structures in which the dielectric and the
`
`composite are partially sintered together, and those in which they are fully sintered
`
`together.
`
`32. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that each
`
`embodiment described in the Specification, or claimed, as essentially monolithic is
`
`a “structure of materials that are sintered together.” While boundaries/joints are not
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`always completely eliminated, they are at least partially eliminated, and in each
`
`embodiment “the structure contains no epoxy, glue, solder, or other attachment
`
`means between layers.” The broadest reasonable interpretation, therefore is: a
`
`structure of materials that are partially or completely sintered together, thereby
`
`eliminating boundaries/joints within the structure, and the structure contains no
`
`epoxy, glue, solder or other attachment means between layers.
`
`33. The term “composite” appears in each of independent Claims 1, 8, 13,
`
`and 19, and many of the dependent claims. In Claim 1, the term is used in the
`
`context of a “composite portion.” Claim 8 requires “first and second composite
`
`end blocks,” Claim 13 requires “a first composite end block,” and Claim 19
`
`requires “a pair of composite end portions.” I believe that one of skill in the art
`
`would understand that the term “composite” means a combination of two or more
`
`materials each of which retains its identity in the finished component. See Ex.
`
`1009, DOMINICK V. ROSATO, ROSATO’S PLASTICS ENCYCLOPEDIA AND DICTIONARY
`
`126 (1993) (“composites are considered to be combinations of materials differing
`
`in composition or form on a micro-scale, and the constituents retain their identities
`
`in the composite”). See also, Ex.1010, TONY WHELAN, POLYMER TECHNOLOGY
`
`DICTIONARY 83 (1994) (defining composite material as a “complex material:
`
`sometimes simply referred to as a composite. A combination of two or more
`
`materials each of which retains its identity in the finished component”)..
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`34. This construction is informed by the claim term itself, the
`
`specification of the ’639 patent, the aforementioned dictionary definitions, and my
`
`experience with capacitors, composites, and electronics in general. This
`
`construction is supported by the claims of the ’639 patent because each of
`
`independent Claims 1, 8, 13, and 19 requires a composite portion that includes or
`
`comprises “a ceramic and a conductive metal.” In addition, dependent Claims 3, 4,
`
`10, 11, and 15 require that the composite comprises “a matrix of the ceramic, and
`
`particles of the conductive metal are dispersed in the matrix,” while dependent
`
`Claims 5, 12, and 14 require that the composite portion comprises “a plurality of
`
`ceramic layers [or sheets] in alternating relation with a plurality of conductive
`
`metal layers [or sheets].” In each of the above embodiments, one of ordinary skill
`
`would recognize a combination of two or more materials each of which retains its
`
`identity in the finished component.
`
`35. The phrase “wherein the composite portion provides an electrical lead
`
`for attaching the capacitor to a metallic surface trace on a printed circuit board,”
`
`appears in independent Claim 1, and similar phrases appear in each of independent
`
`Claims 8, 13, and 19. I have been informed that a claim term that merely recites
`
`the outcome of a step or explains what a structure does should be accorded no
`
`patentable weight. I believe that one of skill in the art would understand that this
`
`phrase, and those similar to it, merely explains the purpose of the structure – it
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`simply explains that the composite portion already required by the claim would be
`
`attached to a metallic surface trace and therefore would serve as the electrical lead.
`
`The phrase and its variations, therefore, deserves no patentable weight. This
`
`construction is informed by the claim term itself, the specification of the ’639
`
`patent, my experience with capacitors, composites, and electronics in general, and
`
`the explanation provided to me regarding patentable weight of terms that merely
`
`recite what a structure does.
`
`36. Similarly, I believe the phrase “the metallization adapted to be wire
`
`bonded to a pc board,” appearing in dependent Claim 7, would be understood by
`
`one of skill in the art as merely explaining the purpose of the structure.
`
`37. The term “matrix” appears in each of dependent Claims 3-4, 10-11,
`
`and 15. In each of these claims the term is used in the context of “a matrix of the
`
`ceramic, and particles of the conductive metal are dispersed in the matrix.” I
`
`believe one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term “matrix”
`
`means a surrounding substance within which something else is contained. Such a
`
`definition is consistent with dictionary definitions of the term. See Ex. 1013 at
`
`1081; Ex. 1014 at 681. This construction is informed by the claim term itself, the
`
`specification of the ’639 patent, the dictionaries referenced above, and my
`
`experience with capacitors, composites, and electronics in general. This
`
`construction is supported by the Claims and Specification of the ’639 patent
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`because the Claims refer to a “matrix of the ceramic, and particles of the
`
`conductive metal are dispersed in the matrix,” (Ex. 1001, Claims 3-4, 10-11, and
`
`15), and the Specification refers to a “composite metal/ceramic material in which
`
`particles of conductive metal are dispersed in a ceramic matrix. . . . The metal
`
`particles may be in the form of a powder or flakes, for example. The powder or
`
`flakes are added to the ceramic, and the mixture is formed into a green-state tape or
`
`sheet . . .” (Ex. 1001, 6:23-31). In other words, the metal particles are embedded
`
`or contained within the surrounding ceramic. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that these embodiments are consistent with the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the term matrix: a surrounding substance within which something else
`
`is contained.
`
`IV. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE ’639 PATENT
`
`38. The background section of the ’639 patent identifies a number of
`
`problems with what it calls the “prior art.” The ’639 patent asserts that “[t]he
`
`design of single layer capacitors in general is a compromise between the use of
`
`thicker ceramic layers for greater strength and thinner ceramic layers for greater
`
`capacitance.” Col. 1, lines 53-56. The ’639 patent also indicates that single layer
`
`capacitors can be “difficult to attach automatically to a pc board.” Col. 1, lines 59-
`
`60. The ’639 patent also indicates that a prior art capacitor that addresses some of
`
`these concerns “is an improvement over the prior art,” but that the fabrication
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`process can be “slow, intricate, and expensive.” Col. 2, lines 38-47. The ’639
`
`patent concludes that “[t]here is . . . a need to provide a surface mountable single
`
`layer ceramic capacitor that may be easily assembled and inexpensively
`
`manufactured, and that has high capacitance and good structural strength.” Col. 2,
`
`lines 64-67.
`
`39. The ’639 patent contends that it provides a novel solution to these
`
`problems by using “at least one composite block mountable to the pc board.” Col.
`
`3, lines 27-28. The ’639 patent explains that this composite block allows for a thin
`
`dielectric while maintaining high structural integrity. Col. 3, lines 27-30. The
`
`’639 patent also contends that “by assembling the portions of the capacitor in the
`
`green-state, and co-firing the assembly, a monolithic or essentially monolithic
`
`structure is formed . . . thus further providing high structural integrity for the
`
`capacitor and simplifying the manufacturing process.” Col. 3, lines 30-37.
`
`40. The use of a composite block mountable to the pc board and the
`
`assembly of such a structure in the green-state, however, was known at the time the
`
`’639 patent was filed. U.S. Patent No. 6,690,572 (hereinafter “Liebowitz,” Ex.
`
`1004) describes a capacitor that includes a composite block mountable to the pc
`
`board and assembled in the green state. Additional features and options described
`
`and claimed in the ’639 patent were also known at the time it was filed. For
`
`example, the ’639 patent claims include buried metallizations and vias within the
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`dielectric portion. These buried metallizations and vias were well known in the art
`
`at the time and are disclosed in at least U.S. Patent No. 6,366,443 (hereinafter
`
`“Devoe,” Ex. 1005). The ’639 patent claims also include metallization areas
`
`partially covering the dielectric. U.S. Patent No. 3,581,167 (hereinafter “Veater,”
`
`Ex. 1006) describes a capacitor that includes a metallization area partially covering
`
`the dielectric.
`
`41. Furthermore, several dependent claims of the ’639 patent require
`
`either a composite portion comprising glass sintered with the dielectric or a
`
`composite portion comprising a plurality of ceramic layers in alternating relation
`
`with a plurality of conductive metal layers. U.S. Patent No. 4,882,212 (hereinafter
`
`“SinghDeo,” Ex. 1007) describes a composite material that comprises ceramic,
`
`metal, and glass, while U.S. Patent No. 4,953,273 (hereinafter “Insetta,” Ex. 1008)
`
`describes a ceramic block in which there are spaced metallic layers. In addition,
`
`one of the dependent claims of the ’639 patent req
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
