`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 5, 2019
`__________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
`NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`GABRIELLE E. HIGGINS
`CHRISTOPHER M. BONNY
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284
`650-617-4000
`christopher.bonny@ropesgray.com
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MARTIN M. ZOLTICK
`MICHAEL H. JONES
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`202-783-6040
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, March 5,
`
`2019, commencing at 1:01 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE SAINDON: We're here for an oral hearing in two cases,
`IPR 2018-00386 and IPR 2018-00437, involving Petitioner Vizio and Patent
`Owner Nichia.
`I am Judge Saindon and with me here is Judge Medley, and Judge
`Engels is appearing from our Dallas, Texas office. He can only hear you
`through that microphone right there. So please talk only talk when you are
`at the podium.
`All right. We have 75 minutes in total. So each side will have
`their 75 minutes. That will be between your primary time and rebuttal time.
`When you get up, if you want to let me know, to reserve some time for you,
`I will be giving you oral warnings and keeping the clock here. We don't
`have an external clock in this room.
`So with that, Petitioner you are going to go first and you may reserve
`time for rebuttal. We'll do introductions for each side when you first step
`up. So we'll go with Petitioner first. Introduce yourself and your team.
`And then if you have any rebuttal time you want to reserve, let me know.
`MS. HIGGINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Gabrielle Higgins.
`With me today is Christopher Bonny and Allen Cross from Ropes & Gray
`on behalf of Petitioner. We would like to reserve 25 minutes if we may of
`rebuttal time.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. You may begin when ready.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`MS. HIGGINS: Thank you. Slide 4, please. So Petitioner has
`provided our positions and our evidence in our briefing. To assist the board
`in considering the record, we will address today in our opening discussion
`four topics along with any questions the Board may have.
`I will first address the two claim construction issues, and we'll show
`how the prior reference Loh meets those two terms.
`My colleague, Mr. Bonny, will then address the lack of written
`description support for Patent Owner's proposed amended claims in the 071
`patent as well as the unpatentability of Patent Owner's proposed amended
`claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103.
`Slide 5, please. So we're going to start with this disputed claim
`term, which is unique to the 386 proceeding involving the 411 patent.
`Slide 6, please. And we see here independent Claim 1 of the 411
`patent, which recites in the highlighted language both a part of the metal part
`and a part of the resin part are disposed in a region below an upper surface
`of the metal part on four outer lateral surfaces of the resin package.
`Now as shown in Figure 1, which is an annotated figure from the
`Petition, both a part of the metal part, which is colored in blue and a part of
`the resin part, colored in green, are disposed in a region below an upper
`surface of the metal part outlined in blue on four outer lateral surfaces of the
`resin package.
`To be clear, it is the region below an upper surface of the metal part
`that is outlined in blue. The blue line illustrates the upper boundary of the
`region, which is in the resin package.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Turn to Slide 7, please. Now the term disposed in a region below an
`upper surface of the metal part on four outer lateral surfaces of the resin
`package should be given its plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the
`specification under the broadest reasonable interpretation that's applicable in
`this proceeding.
`First, the claim self-requires that a part of the metal part and a part of
`the resin part are disposed in a region. And the claim language itself
`specifies the region. The region must be below an upper surface of the
`metal part. And the region is outlined in blue in Figure 1. And the region
`must also be on four outer lateral surfaces of the resin package, which is
`outlined by the red lines in Figure 1.
`Second, consistent with the patent claims and specification, the plain
`meaning of below is at a lower level than.
`Slide 8, please. Now, as the Federal Circuit case law tells us,
`specification is the single best guide to the meaning of the term. The
`figures for all embodiments disclose both a part of the metal part and a part
`of the resin part disposed in a region that is below, i.e. at a lower level than
`an upper surface of the metal part. All of the figures support the broadest
`reasonable interpretation.
`Slide 9, please. So consistent with the claims and specification,
`contemporary dictionary definitions confirm the plain meaning of below,
`that it's at a lower level than. As Dr. Shanfield explained, a person of
`ordinary skill would have understood that when resin is below an upper
`surface, it is at a lower level than the upper surface.
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Slide 10, please. Now, I have Petitioner's construction on the left.
`Patent Owner's construction on the right. The plain meaning of below
`Petitioner's position is that it is consistent with the specification. Below is
`at a lower level than. That's the plain meaning.
`Patent Owner's construction, on the other hand, should be rejected
`because it improperly narrows the term below to mean underneath and is
`untethered to the specification.
`Patent Owner's construction should also be rejected because it fails
`to give meaning to the words in a region and an upper surface. In fact, in its
`response Patent Owner repeatedly characterized its construction as resin
`below metal and resin under metal, completely omitting the words that we
`have struck through in red.
`For example, you can look at Patent Owner's Response Paper 20 at 8
`in the heading, Page 9, Page 17, Page 26.
`Slide 11, please. Now Patent Owner argues that below means
`underneath. But Patent Owner's narrowing of below to mean underneath is
`not the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
`None of the patent figures show resin underneath an upper surface of
`the metal part as required by the claim and as the Board correctly pointed
`out in the institution decision. Patent Owner's construction narrowing
`below to underneath would improperly exclude all of the figures from the
`specification.
`Slide 12. Now in an attempt to limit below to mean underneath, the
`Patent Owner makes the strained and incorrect argument that the etched
`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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`concavity convexity of the leads in Figure 11 is an upper surface of the
`metal part. But the etched convexities are side surfaces of the leads, not
`upper surfaces. And the patent specification itself in the 411 patent Column
`13, Lines 37 to 41, expressly discloses, as it says in the box, that the side
`surfaces, corresponding to the notch parts 21A adhere to the resin-molded
`body 24 so that the adhesion string between the lead frame 21 and the resin-
`molded body is improved.
`Slide 13. Now moreover, Patent Owner admits the etched
`concavities are side surfaces, not upper surfaces. The first quoting in
`yellow is from Patent Owner's preliminary Response Paper 8 at Page 7.
`And there Patent Owner explicitly stated that etching may result in
`concavities in the side surfaces of the notches.
`In addition, Dr. Schubert, who is Patent Owner's technical expert,
`admitted that as a result of etching notches in the lead frame, concavities or
`convexities are formed in the region below the upper surfaces of the exposed
`leads. That's Exhibit 2011, Paragraph 50.
`As support for the statement. Dr. Schubert cited that same Column
`13 from the patent that expressly refers to the surfaces as side surfaces.
`That's as shown in Figure 11 on the left and Dr. Schubert's annotated image
`on the right. The concavity convexity is a side surface not an upper surface.
`And it is in a region below, i.e. at a lower level than an upper surface of the
`metal part.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Counsel, do we have any idea as to the size of
`this convexity?
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`MS. HIGGINS: My understanding, Your Honor, is that it's very
`small on the lead.
`JUDGE SAINDON: We have just have what's shown in Figure 11?
`MS. HIGGINS: That is correct.
`JUDGE SAINDON: It's just a drawing.
`MS. HIGGINS: In the figures that is the only indication of an
`etched concavity.
`JUDGE SAINDON: What about the experts, as far as how a person
`of ordinary skill would understand, well, these are etched so it might provide
`some sort of basis to understand how big these things are.
`MS. HIGGINS: I don't believe there's anything in the record, Your
`Honor, specifically on that subject. There's stuff about how you would go
`about doing the etching, but I don't remember dimensions.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Thank you.
`MS. HIGGINS: Turning to Slide 14, please. So Patent Owner's
`argument that region below is limited to region underneath fails for another
`reason as well. We looked for the word region in the specification. And it
`appears there but only in connection with, you know, the word wavelength
`so it didn't appear to be relevant.
`This is the one other place actually in the claims where we see the
`word region. And what we see is that when Patent Owner wanted to
`describe a region as underneath, it used different words than in a region
`below.
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Compare Claim 1, which claims in a region below, with Claim 6,
`which claims in a region directly under. Claim 1 broadly claims in a region
`below an upper surface of the metal part, i.e. in a region at a lower level than
`the upper surface.
`In contrast, Claim 6 more narrowly claims a lower surface of the
`metal part exposed in a region directly under the light emitting element.
`Now Patent Owner argues that claim differentiation doesn't apply
`here. But Patent Owner ignores the basic principle that different words or
`phrases are presumed to have a different meaning.
`Slide 6, please. Now, Petitioner's evidence in support of its claim
`construction is grounded in the claims and the specification. You will see
`in Patent Owner's briefing that over and over again Patent Owner is going to
`show you extrinsic evidence and most of it is supported and backed up by
`statements of its expert.
`This house analogy on the right is one such illustration. And Patent
`Owner's analogies -- and they argue that somehow this analogy with these
`two houses analogizes Petitioner's construction to a next door neighbor's
`basement, but none of what Patent Owner argues is tethered to the
`specification.
`Patent Owner's analogies and hypothetical illustrations are irrelevant
`extrinsic evidence and contrary to what the actual figures of the patent show.
`The claim does not require, and the specification does not show, metal and
`resin parts stacked vertically.
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Compare the patent's Figure 1, which shows resin and metal parts in
`a region below an upper surface of the metal but not stacked vertically with
`Patent Owner's house analogy, where it incorrectly argues that the resin and
`metal parts must be stacked vertically.
`So our complaint here is with the scope of what they're arguing their
`construction is. Consistent with the specification it's not. Their definition
`of below as underneath is too narrow and doesn't meet the scope of the
`claims in the specification, and it would be error for the Board to rely on
`Patent Owner's extrinsic evidence over the more reliable intrinsic record.
`Turn to Slide 17, please. Here's another example of one of these
`extrinsic figures that the Patent Owner has dreamed up. Patent Owner
`argues that Petitioner's construction fails to account for differences in level.
`But neither the patent figures nor Loh shows differences in level on an upper
`surface. So this is irrelevant. Patent Owner's illustrations are extrinsic
`attorney evidence that don't correspond to the patent and don't make sense.
`For example, if we look at both figures, the Patent Owner hasn't even
`really explained to us what they are or where they came from. Neither
`figure shows where resin would be located in a complete device, and the
`figure on the right doesn't even show how it's held together.
`Another thing, the Patent Owner is going to get up here and tell you
`that that red line is what Petitioner says is the upper surface of the metal part
`and that we took the position that it is a plane. That is just not correct.
`Okay?
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`So that line, if you notice, the way Patent Owner drew it, they drew
`it extending outside of the box. And that is not how we illustrated the
`region disposed below an upper surface of the metal part because as the
`claim says very clearly, the region does have bounds. The claims itself tells
`you what those bounds are. So that red line is not what we said the upper
`surface is for one.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Is it within that box?
`MS. HIGGINS: So the region --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Is it on --
`MS. HIGGINS: So the region -- we would agree, Your Honor, that
`the region below an upper surface of the metal box -- okay, excuse me, of
`the metal part, we would agree that you can have.
`So a surface has a level. And the focus here, and I think where we
`have a dispute is over what is the region below? Okay? We say that the
`region below an upper surface of the metal part is just that. So if there was
`a blue line and it was bounded within, assuming that thing is even a resin
`package, which they haven't told us, but if it was bounded within that, we
`could have, and I'm holding my pen along the, you know, access of the
`vertical point, we could have resin disposed in a region below an upper
`surface of the metal part.
`But let's start with the fact that if you look through the entire
`specification, you won't find an example of levels on an upper surface.
`There is a disclosure of levels on the lower surface, like a step on the bottom
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`surface. And the reason -- excuse me, a step -- and the reason why that's
`there, the patent says it is preferably to help you with mounting.
`But we really submit that, you know, as the body of case law tells us
`to stick within the scope of the specification. But if you're going to go
`outside the scope of the specification, to the extent that there are multiple
`upper surfaces, the claim only requires that the resin be disposed in a region
`below at a lower level than an upper surface of the metal part.
`And I remind you, if we look back at all those figures that I showed
`you, every single embodiment of the patent, every single one of those
`figures doesn't look anything like that.
`Slide 19, please. Now consistent with patent disclosures and claims,
`Loh discloses, this is the prior art reference, that both part of the metal part,
`also indicated in blue, and a part of the resin part, in green shown in Figure 7
`on the right, are disposed in a region below an upper surface of the metal
`part. Once again, we've outlined the region below an upper surface of the
`metal part in blue, and it's on four outer lateral surfaces of the resin package.
`The arrangement of resin in metal on the outer lateral surface in Loh
`is like the disclosed figures in the 411 patent. For example, if we compare
`the front outer lateral surface of Figure 1 on the left with the outer lateral
`surface of Loh labeled with leads 206, both have a part of the metal part and
`a part of the resin part disposed in a region below, i.e. at a lower level than
`an upper surface of the metal part.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Now Loh also, like the patent, provides the same benefit disclosed in
`the 411 patent of improved adhesion by increasing the bonding area between
`metal and resin and also discloses etching in the lead frame, Paragraph 27.
`For Patent Owner to now argue that Loh is deficient when it is
`consistent with the disclosures in the specification is an incorrect attempt to
`narrow the claim at the 11th hour to preserve validity, and Patent Owner's
`arguments should be rejected.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Counsel, I have a question. So the claim
`limitation that we're talking about, I guess the issue is you read it at first and
`you think it means one thing. And you keep thinking about it and you're
`like, okay, I'm trying to see exactly how much does this cover?
`And the issue with that side of Loh, Figure 7, that has the 206 label
`in it is that there is no resin depicted below metal. And taking aside what
`the patent discloses, just taking the claims at face value, I understand your
`argument about regions and necks, but I'm trying to wrap my head around:
`there's no metal below -- there's no resin below the metal in that side of Loh.
`And I think that's one of Patent Owner's arguments. And I just wondered if
`you could respond to that.
`MS. HIGGINS: Sure. Can you go back to Slide 6, please? So,
`Your Honor, I want to point out that that was exactly the position that Patent
`Owner took that there's no resin below metal, but that's not the language of
`the claim.
`The claim doesn't say resin below metal. It says resin below and --
`excuse me. It says part of the metal part, part of the resin part, are disposed
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`in a region below an upper surface of the metal part on four outer lateral
`surfaces of the resin package.
`So you have to give meaning to each of the words in the claim. And
`we think it's very important to read the claims as a whole. And if you start
`parsing it like Patent Owner has and you leave out words when you just say
`metal below -- excuse me -- resin under metal or resin below metal, you are
`not giving meaning to the word region. You're reading out that word, and
`that is improper as a matter of law. Okay?
`We are giving meaning to the word region. And we're giving it
`meaning consistent with the patent specification and all the figures. And so,
`you know, once again I said that the specification itself is what you look to
`when you're trying to determine what these words mean.
`And the specification shows us that in each and every one of these
`figures, as you all properly pointed out in the institution decision, there isn't
`resin below an upper surface of the metal part in that fashion. You know,
`Patent Owner is trying to narrow that region to that very small space, that
`stacked vertical space. And that's just not what any of the figures show.
`The word below, and we do understand that the word below has
`multiple plain meanings. We're taking the definition of below at a lower
`level than is broader than their definition underneath. And it's entirely
`consistent with the patent disclosure and all the claims. And to limit the
`term by reading out the word region and upper surface, too, when you said
`resin below metal, Your Honor, you didn't take into account an upper
`surface.
`
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Patent Owner also tries to, like, call it the upper surface. It's an
`upper surface. So we believe that when you give meaning to each and
`every word of the claim, consistent with the specification and the claim
`under the BRI, Petitioner's construction is the correct one.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Thank you.
`MS. HIGGINS: Okay. Let's turn to resin package, Slide 21. So
`here we see that Claim 1 of the 411 patent and Claim 1 of the 071 patent are
`apparatus claims that recite the structure of a resin package comprising a
`resin part and a metal part.
`The claim language supports the plain and ordinary meaning of this
`term under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim language itself
`tells us what the resin package is, a resin part and a metal part with at least
`two plates and goes on further to describe its structure.
`Claim 1 does not require a resin package of a singulated light
`emitting device formed from multiple light emitting devices. Patent Owner
`is trying to improperly -- to read in a process limitation into apparatus
`claims.
`Turning to Slide 22. Now the specification supports the plain and
`ordinary meaning. For example, in Figure 1 we see that it shows the
`structure of a light emitting device. The specification describes that the
`light emitting device 100 has a resin package 20, resin part 25 and leads 22.
`Turning to Slide 23. The prosecution history also supports the plain
`and ordinary meaning. For example, during prosecution of a related patent,
`the examiner found that Chia, a reference cited by Patent Owner, disclosed a
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`resin package even though Chia had no disclosure of multiple devices for
`singulation. Patent Owner did not dispute that she had disclosed it as a
`resin package in a resin part and two leads.
`Slide 24, please. Now further the use of the term is consistent with
`a person of ordinary skill's understanding of the plain meaning as used in the
`field. As Dr. Shanfield explained, an IEEE definition, for example, defines
`package as an external container.
`Slide 25. Now once again we have Petitioner's construction on the
`left, Patent Owner's construction on the right. Petitioner says that the term
`should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`Patent Owner's construction, on the other hand, should be rejected
`because it's reading into the claim those red words there, a singulated light
`emitting device from multiple light emitting devices.
`That's wrong because the Applicant did not redefine the term or
`disavow its full claim scope. In addition, Patent Owner's construction
`would improperly narrow the scope of the apparatus claims to depend on
`how the LED is manufactured.
`Slide 26, please. Now Patent Owner argues that applicant acted as
`its own lexicographer and defined the terms resin package, resin part and
`metal part with specification. But the portion of the specification relied on
`by the Patent Owner is not definitional. It merely provides context for the
`specification's discussion of those terms, that is providing context for the
`discussion of the manufacturing process.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`And contrary to its position here, Patent Owner agreed in the
`litigation that the terms resin package, resin part and metal part get their
`plain and ordinary meaning.
`The Petitioner in the Petition, those submitted on Petition Paper 2,
`Pages 12, 13, cited to Exhibit 1014, which is the joint claim construction
`statement from the underlying litigation as well as Patent Owner's claim
`construction brief.
`And if you look at 1014, Exhibit A, you will see that contrary to its
`position here, which is now we're talking lexicography. In the District
`Court, they agreed that these terms get their plain and ordinary meaning.
`And Patent Owner should not be permitted to contradict its prior Phillips
`construction position by taking a narrow position here. I think Judge Moore
`has said that's incorrect.
`Slide 27, please. As an independent reason why Patent Owner's
`construction fails, Patent Owner improperly reads a manufacturing process
`limitation into the apparatus claims.
`All of the claims are apparatus claims, not method of manufacture
`claims. All of the claims recite the structure of a light emitting device not
`the manufacturing process of singulating a light emitting device from
`multiple light emitting devices. Thus, Patent Owner's construction would
`improperly narrow the scope of apparatus claims to depend on how the light
`emitting device is manufactured.
`The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that it's improper to construe
`an apparatus claim to read in a manufacturing limitation.
`17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Can you turn to the next slide, please? First in Vanguard, the
`Federal Circuit rejected the argument that the word integral should be
`limited to a co-extrusion process -- the only co-extrusion process that was
`set forth in that specification.
`Similarly, in Research Corp, the Federal Circuit rejected the
`argument that a blue noise mask should be limited to a blue noise filter
`process. It held that the claim was a pure apparatus claim and is not limited
`to any particular process or method.
`And finally in Baldwin, the Court found that the District Court
`blurred an important distinction between apparatus claims and method
`claims, pointing out that these are two different classes of patentable subject
`matter under 101.
`Now Patent Owner has cited a case In re Norte. That case also
`supports us. In In re Norte, first of all it is different in that the term at issue
`was already in the claim. You don't have that situation here. Here they're
`trying to read the manufacturing step into the claim.
`But in Norte, there were clear structural differences between an
`injection molded brace and one made of fabric. Here the specification
`doesn't disclose any clear structural differences in the final product
`depending on whether or not the LED was singulated or manufactured by
`some other process.
`Slide 31, please. Now Loh discloses a resin package comprising a
`metal part and a resin part. And we can see package 260 in yellow, package
`body 230 in green and the leads 204, 206 in blue. There is no dispute that
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`Loh discloses a resin package comprising a resin part and a metal part under
`the plain and ordinary meaning.
`Slide 32. And even under Patent Owner's permissibly narrow
`reading, which would require a singulated admitting device, Loh discloses a
`resin package comprising a resin part and a metal part.
`For example, Loh discloses a lead frame that's made by, for example,
`rolling a metal strip. And as Dr. Shanfield explained, a person of ordinary
`skill would have understood from Loh's express disclosure of a metal strip
`that Loh's light emitting device is formed from multiple light emitting
`devices on a single lead frame, which are then singulated.
`In addition, Slide 33, Loh incorporates by reference other Loh
`references that confirm that Loh's light emitting device has been singulated.
`And Loh improperly incorporated the Loh publications in their entirety
`using broad and unequivocal language.
`If Your Honors have no questions regarding that limitation, I'll pass
`the podium to my colleague, Mr. Bonny.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Sure. And just for your notice, it's been about
`half an hour.
`MS. HIGGINS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`MR. BONNY: Please turn to Slide 34. So turning to the third
`issue, Patent Owner's proposed amended claims lack written description
`support.
`Slide 34. This issue pertains to all proposed claims and is therefore
`dispositive.
`
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Slide 36, please. First of all, there is no dispute that the proposed
`amended claims require exactly two metal structures.
`Slide 37, please. There was also no dispute that the proposed claims
`require resin to the left and right of the exposed portion of the metal
`structures on first and second outer lateral surfaces.
`Slide 39, please. As a result of those limitations, there is no written
`description support in the priority documents for this specific combination of
`features. The priority documents disclose only one embodiment with resin
`located on the left and right sides of an exposed portion of the metal
`structures and that's shown in Figure 12, which is the fifth embodiment.
`But that embodiment has three metal structures instead of the required two.
`As explained by Dr. Shanfield, a person of skill would have
`understood from Figure 12 that it shows the metal of the resin package is
`divided into three separate metal structures.
`The front and back structures, which are shown in light blue -- and
`by the way, there is no dispute here that this particular device would be
`symmetrical and so you have another light blue structure in the back. And
`then there's a third central metal structure with legs extending to each corner
`of the device shown in dark blue.
`Slide 40, please. Now a side-by-side comparison of the lead frame
`of the fifth embodiment, which is Figure 12, and the lead frames of the other
`embodiments, for example, the first embodiment shown in Figure 1, shows
`that the lead frame of the fifth embodiment is, in fact, different.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`In Figure 12, the light emitting device -- the light emitting element,
`rather, is mounted on a third metal structure. And you can actually see if
`you look in the bottom left of this slide here, you can see that the wires come
`off that third metal structure and go toward the front and back of the device,
`where they connect to two separate metal structures.
`In contrast, if you look at the bottom right of Slide 40, in Figure 1,
`the light emitting device is mounted directly on one of the only two metal
`structures. One wire connects directly to that same metal structure as you
`can see in the figure and another wire, a second wire, comes off to the
`second metal structure.
`So Figure 1 also, by