Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. 2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`____________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`APPLICABLE LAW ....................................................................................... 2 
`II. 
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 3 
`A. 
`The Term “Wherein 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” Should Be Given its Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation Consistent With the Specification .................................. 3 
`1. 
`The Specification Supports Giving Meaning to All of the
`Terms, Including “Region” and “Below an Upper
`Surface” ....................................................................................... 3 
`By Requiring Resin Directly Under Metal, PO’s
`Proposed Construction Improperly Reads the Preferred
`Embodiments Out of the Claims ................................................. 8 
`PO’s Alleged Specification Support Is Not “An Upper
`Surface of the Metal Part, on Four Outer Lateral Surfaces
`of the Resin Package” ................................................................. 9 
`PO’s Proposal Improperly Omits Words from the Claim ........ 11 
`4. 
`PO’s Remaining Arguments Are Incorrect and Irrelevant ....... 13 
`5. 
`The Term “Resin Package Comprising a Resin Part and A
`Metal Part” Should Be Given Its Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`and Is Not Limited to an LED “Singulated” From “Multiple
`Devices” .............................................................................................. 17 
`IV.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 24 
`A. 
`Loh Discloses “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” .............................................................................................. 24 
`Loh Discloses “a Resin Package Comprising a Resin Part and a
`Metal Part” .......................................................................................... 26 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 28 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 8
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 20
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co.,
`811 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 11
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 13
`Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC,
`474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 14
`Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 22
`Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 15
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................................................................... 20
`MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 8
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 11
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 22
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 20
`Sinorgchem Co. v. ITC,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 20
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am.,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) .......................................................... 13
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`742 F. 3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 15
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 17
`Vanguard Prods. Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp.,
`234 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ...................................................................... 2, 22
`Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`IPR2013-00170, Paper 14 (PTAB July 29, 2013) ................................................ 2
`Zelinski v. Brunswick Corp.,
`185 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 17
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Shorthand
`Claims
`
`Description
`Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 13, and 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`IPR
`
`BRI
`
`Pet.
`
`DI
`
`PO
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`IPR2018-00386, Paper 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`United States Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`IPR2018-00386, Paper 15, Decision Granting Institution of Inter
`Partes Review
`
`Patent Owner
`
`POSA
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`POR
`
`Pap.
`
`Loh
`
`IPR2018-00386, Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Paper
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0012036 (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`Note: All emphasis herein added unless otherwise stated.
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411 File History
`Declaration of Dr. Stanley R. Shanfield
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0012036 (“Loh”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0211991 (“Mori”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0073662 (“Wang”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0280017 (“Oshio”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0261339 (“Koung”)
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2006-093697 (“Park ’697”)
`with Certified English Translation
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0126020 (“Lin”)
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO2007/055486 (“Park ’486”)
`Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01453-JRG, D.I.152,
`Plaintiff Nichia Corporation’s P.R. 4-5(a) Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2017)
`Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01453-JRG, D.I.186,
`Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief (E.D. Tex.
`Dec. 13, 2017)
`Declaration of Mary Oros in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Declaration of Dr. Stanley R. Shanfield in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply
`Excerpts from the File History of U.S. Patent Application No.
`15/360,316 (U.S. Patent No. 10,115,870)
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0151149 (“Chia”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0126913 (“Loh ’913”)
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`Ex. 1016
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`Ex. 1020
`Ex. 1021
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0269587 (“Loh ’587”)
`Ex. 1022
`Reserved
`Ex. 1023
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0106234 (“Sorg”)
`Ex. 1024
`IPR2017-02011, Paper 12, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Ex. 1025
`Ex. 1026 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Merriam-
`Webster, Incorporated, 2002
`Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press,
`Sixth Edition, 2007
`Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-246-JRG, (E.D. Tex.),
`Plaintiff Nichia Corporation’s Submissions Pursuant to Local
`Patent Rules 3-1 and 3-2, dated October 20, 2016
`U.S. Patent No. 10,115,870 (“Ichikawa”)
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`IEEE Standard Glossary of Computer Hardware Terminology,
`IEEE Std 610.10-1994, October 12, 1995
`Declaration of Drago N. Gregov in Support of Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Ex. 1029
`Ex. 1030
`Ex. 1031
`Ex. 1032
`Ex. 1033
`Ex. 1034
`Ex. 1035
`Ex. 1036
`Ex. 1037
`Ex. 1038
`Ex. 1039
`
`Ex. 1040
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner (“PO”) raises two validity arguments, but both depend on
`
`unreasonably narrow claim constructions that are unsupported by the Claims and
`
`specification, and are inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(“BRI”) standard applicable in this proceeding. Conversely, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`constructions are consistent with the intrinsic evidence, including the language of
`
`the Claims when read in light of the specification and prosecution history.
`
`PO’s proposed constructions violate several well-established claim
`
`construction principles. First, PO’s proposed construction of “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” disregards the
`
`specification’s use of the term “surface,” excludes all of the preferred embodiments
`
`of the ’411 patent as shown in the figures, and fails to give meaning to all of the
`
`words in the claim including “region” and “upper surface.” Indeed, PO’s
`
`interpretation rewrites the claim limitation to require a part of the resin part to be
`
`directly under the metal part.
`
`Second, PO’s proposed construction of “resin package comprising a resin part
`
`and a metal part” improperly narrows the term to be limited to a “singulated” device
`
`formed from “multiple light emitting devices,” which directly conflicts with the
`
`Claims and intrinsic record. PO’s proposal also improperly seeks to introduce
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`process limitations (i.e., manufacturing steps) into the apparatus claims. Vanguard
`
`Prods. Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 234 F.3d 1370, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Under the proper constructions, there is no dispute that Loh (Ex. 1004)
`
`discloses the claim elements at issue, rendering the Claims unpatentable.
`
`II. APPLICABLE LAW
`Claim terms in this proceeding are to be given their BRI in light of the
`
`specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Pet. 12. Under this standard, while an inventor
`
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the specification
`
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision, claim terms are presumed to
`
`be given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. E.g., Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen.
`
`Elec. Co., IPR2013-00170, Pap. 14 at 5; Pet. 12.1
`
`
`1 The Board need not address the competing POSA definitions, which do not change
`
`the outcome of the proceeding. Ex. 1017 ¶¶7-8.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. The Term “Wherein 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” Should Be Given its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`Consistent With the Specification
`The plain meaning of this term requires—as expressly recited in claim 1 and
`
`shown in the figures—resin in a “region” that is “below an upper surface” of the
`
`metal part. PO’s proposed construction, on the other hand, rewrites claim 1 to
`
`require the resin to be directly under metal—failing to give meaning to the terms
`
`“region” and “below an upper surface.” Ex. 1017 ¶20. Indeed, PO’s proposal
`
`rewrites the claim to require resin “disposed in a region directly under below an
`
`upper surface of the metal part.” As set forth below, Petitioner’s proposal is the only
`
`construction consistent with the intrinsic record. Ex. 1017 ¶¶20-38.
`
`1.
`
`The Specification Supports Giving Meaning to All of the
`Terms, Including “Region” and “Below an Upper Surface”
`The specification supports giving the term “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” its plain meaning.
`
`Consistent with that meaning, the figures for all embodiments in the ’411 patent
`
`disclose resin that is disposed in a “region” that is “below an upper surface” of the
`
`metal part, and none shows it directly under the upper surface of a metal part. Ex.
`
`1017 ¶21.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`For example, Figure 1, which corresponds to the first embodiment, discloses
`
`a part of the metal part (shown in blue) and a part of the resin part (shown 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 (outlined in red):
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1. No portion of resin part 25 is located directly under metal on the
`
`four outer lateral surfaces. Ex. 1017 ¶21.
`
`Consistent with the plain meaning of “below an upper surface,” Figure 1
`
`shows a part of the metal part and a part of the resin part below (i.e., at a lower level
`
`than) an upper surface of the metal part. Ex. 1017 ¶22. The specification repeatedly
`
`refers to surfaces of the resin package or leads as having a “level” or “levels.” Ex.
`
`1001, 4:63-65, 15:2-5, 16:30-33, 17:3-6, 17:44-46. And claim 14 recites “a distance
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`between said surfaces at two or more different levels is in a range of about 1/4 to
`
`about 4/5 of a thickness of the metal part,” id., 20:23-26, which confirms that
`
`position relative to a surface is determined with respect to the level of that surface.
`
`Similarly, a POSA would have understood that when resin is “below” an upper
`
`surface, as in claim 1, it must be at a lower level than the upper surface.2 Ex. 1017
`
`¶22. Additionally, consistent with the plain meaning of “region,” Figure 1 shows
`
`that the “region” extends beyond the metal leads to include both metal and resin
`
`below an upper surface of the metal part (as outlined in blue). Id. ¶22. There is no
`
`requirement that the metal and resin parts in the region be stacked vertically, or that
`
`the region be bounded by a portion of a metal plate (as in PO’s house analogy, POR
`
`12-13). Id. ¶23.
`
`Each of the remaining preferred embodiments of the patent are in agreement.
`
`The corresponding figures show resin in a “region” that is “below an upper surface”
`
`of the metal part:
`
`
`2 PO argues incorrectly that the plain meaning of “below” must be “underneath.”
`
`POR 12. However, consistent with the Claims and specification, contemporaneous
`
`dictionaries confirm that the patentee was using a broader plain meaning of “below.”
`
`Ex. 1026, 202 (“at a lower level than”); Ex. 1027, 217 (“Lower in position than, at
`
`less elevation than.”); Ex. 1017 ¶22.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`Figure
`
`Embodiment
`Second
`Embodiment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 6.
`
`Third
`Embodiment
`
`Id., Fig. 9.
`
`Fourth
`Embodiment
`
`Id., Fig. 11.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Embodiment
`Fifth
`Embodiment
`
`Id., Fig. 12.
`
`Sixth
`Embodiment
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`Figure
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 13.
`
`
`Thus, consistent with the plain meaning, all of the embodiments in Figures 1, 6, 9,
`
`and 11-13 depict “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.” None shows any resin directly
`
`under an upper surface of the metal part. Ex. 1017 ¶24.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`2.
`
`By Requiring Resin Directly Under Metal, PO’s Proposed
`Construction Improperly Reads the Preferred Embodiments
`Out of the Claims
`PO’s argues that “below an upper surface of the metal part” requires resin
`
`“underneath” or directly under metal. POR 8, 11-12, 14, 51; Ex. 2011 ¶¶41-42.
`
`However, PO’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the specification because
`
`it improperly excludes the preferred embodiments of the ’411 patent. As discussed
`
`above, and as shown in the figures, none of the preferred embodiments have resin
`
`located directly under an upper surface of the metal part on four outer lateral surfaces
`
`of the resin package. E.g., Ex. 1001, 6:21-18:5, Figs. 1, 6, 9, 11-13; Ex. 1017 ¶24.
`
`The Federal Circuit has made it clear that “a claim construction that excludes a
`
`preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.” Accent
`
`Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see
`
`also MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007) (reversing district court’s claim construction for the term “adjacent” where
`
`the construction excluded two different preferred embodiments shown in the
`
`figures). Thus, PO’s proposed construction should be rejected because by reading
`
`in the requirement that resin be located directly under metal, the patent’s preferred
`
`embodiments would not be covered by the claims. Ex. 1017 ¶¶24-25.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`3.
`
`PO’s Alleged Specification Support Is Not “An Upper
`Surface of the Metal Part, on Four Outer Lateral Surfaces of
`the Resin Package”
`As purported support in the specification for its proposed construction, PO
`
`argues that the concavity/convexity disclosed in the specification “has resin beneath
`
`metal at
`
`four outer
`
`lateral surfaces”
`
`(POR 17-22), but
`
`the alleged
`
`concavity/convexity is irrelevant because it is not tied to the claim language: it is
`
`not “an upper surface” of the metal part and is not “on four outer lateral surfaces of
`
`the resin package.” Ex. 1017 ¶26.
`
`With respect to the “an upper surface” limitation, the specification fails to
`
`contain any disclosure of the concavity/convexity as being “an upper surface.” The
`
`specification shows the concavity/convexity of etched leads 322 in Figure 11, but
`
`does not describe it as “an upper surface” of the metal part. Id. ¶27. Instead, the
`
`specification makes clear that when a feature such as a step, concave, or convex
`
`portion is formed, it creates additional, distinct surfaces. For example, the
`
`specification discloses that the step in Figure 11 has a “first surface which is
`
`provided in the outer bottom surface 320a,” a “second surface which is formed at a
`
`substantially right angle from the outer bottom surface,” a “third surface which is
`
`formed at a substantially right angle from the second surface,” and “a fourth surface
`
`of the outer side surface of the resin package”:
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:33-44, Fig. 11; Ex. 1017 ¶27.
`
`The concavity/convexity shown in Figure 11 is a side surface, a different
`
`surface distinct from the upper surface:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:51-54, Fig. 11; Ex. 1017 ¶28. Contrary to the specification, Dr.
`
`Schubert incorrectly asserts that the concavity/convexity is part of the “upper
`
`surface.” Ex. 2011 ¶51; see also IPR2018-00437, Ex. 2019 ¶115 (“etched concave
`
`portion on an upper surface”). However, it is actually a side surface. Indeed, in a
`
`related ’250 patent proceeding, PO distinguished “concave portions on ‘a[n] inner
`
`side wall surface’” from “a top surface of the lead frame.” Ex. 1025, IPR2017-
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`02011, Pap. 12 at 7, 46-47. Thus, the concavity/convexity is not the claimed “upper
`
`surface.” Ex. 1017 ¶28.
`
`The patent also fails to disclose that the concavity/convexity is “on four outer
`
`lateral surfaces” as required by the claims. Figure 11 shows this feature on only two
`
`outer lateral surfaces of the resin package, and the other figures do not show the
`
`feature at all. Id. ¶29. Thus, Dr. Schubert improperly speculates about what the
`
`devices in the figures “would include”—not what the figures actually show—and
`
`created a new figure found nowhere in the specification. POR 21-22. PO relies on
`
`the disclosure of “a concavity and convexity…in the cross-sectional surface of the
`
`notch part” (POR 16-20), but the specification does not disclose what part of the
`
`notch part is etched, or that there is a concavity/convexity on four outer lateral
`
`surfaces. Id. ¶29.
`
`4.
`PO’s Proposal Improperly Omits Words from the Claim
`PO argues that its construction requires “resin below metal” (POR 8, 51), but
`
`this improperly omits the relevant claim language “an upper surface” and “region”
`
`contrary to the rule that a proper construction should give meaning to all the terms
`
`of the claim. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1340
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (adopting a construction that “gives [a term] proper meaning in
`
`context” and rejecting a construction that “would render [that term] entirely
`
`superfluous”); Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is
`
`preferred over one that does not do so.”); see also Ex. 1017 ¶30.
`
`First, claim 1 recites resin “below an upper surface of the metal part” rather
`
`than simply “below a metal part.” DI 9. To give meaning to the phrase “upper
`
`surface,” a part of the resin part need only be at a lower level than the upper surface
`
`of the metal part. As explained above, this interpretation is consistent with all of the
`
`preferred embodiments of the patent.3 Ex. 1017 ¶31.
`
`Second, claim 1 recites that the resin is disposed in a “region below an upper
`
`surface of the metal part.” The “region” need only be “below an upper surface” of
`
`the metal part on four outer lateral surfaces of the resin package. As explained
`
`above, the preferred embodiments confirm that the “region” extends beyond the
`
`upper surface of the metal leads in order to include both metal and resin below an
`
`upper surface of the metal part. There is no requirement that the metal and resin
`
`parts in the region be stacked vertically, or that the region be bounded by a portion
`
`
`3 PO asserts that “upper surface” is included in the claim “to account for the fact that
`
`the metal part has a thickness” (POR 30), but there will always be metal below an
`
`upper surface of a metal part. The claim requires both a part of the metal part and a
`
`part of the resin part to be in a region “below an upper surface” of the metal part.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`of a metal plate. Thus, PO’s proposal fails to give meaning to all words of the claim.
`
`Id. ¶32.
`
`In addition, claim 6 expressly uses a different term—“in a region directly
`
`under”—when requiring that the claimed region be located directly underneath
`
`another structure, as opposed to merely below an upper surface. Ex. 1001, 19:65-
`
`67. Claim 1, on the other hand, does not require that the claimed region be located
`
`“directly under.” Ex. 1017 ¶33. Therefore, it would be improper to read such a
`
`requirement into the claim. SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d
`
`1107, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“It is settled law that when a patent claim
`
`does not contain a certain limitation and another claim does, that limitation cannot
`
`be read into the former claim in determining either validity or infringement.”);
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`5.
`PO’s Remaining Arguments Are Incorrect and Irrelevant
`PO argues that Petitioner’s reading would “render this claim term meaningless
`
`by eliding the word ‘below’” (POR 10-11), but “below” has meaning under
`
`Petitioner’s reading, and a clear impact on the scope of the claim. For example, the
`
`claim would not be met where resin is located only above the top surface of the metal
`
`part on any of the four outer surfaces. Moreover, PO’s argument ignores the
`
`distinction between the word “below,” used in claim 1, and the different, narrower
`
`term(s) “under” or “directly under” in claim 6.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`PO is also wrong that Petitioner equates “region below” with “region
`
`between” in its analysis of Loh. POR 9. The Petition expressly sets forth that Loh
`
`discloses part of the resin part disposed in a region “below” an upper surface of the
`
`metal part. See, e.g., Pet. 29-30; see also Pet. 30, 31, 32, 15; Ex. 1003 ¶¶85-90; Ex.
`
`1017 ¶34. PO asserts that the feature covered by Petitioner’s interpretation is
`
`claimed in a different, related patent (POR 22-25), but the claim limitations in the
`
`two patents are different limitations with different wording and different scope. In
`
`the ’071 patent, location of resin is limited with respect to “left and right sides” on
`
`“two of the four” outer lateral surfaces, whereas in the ’411 patent location of resin
`
`is limited with respect to an “upper surface” on “four” outer lateral surfaces.4
`
`Moreover, it is irrelevant whether Petitioner pointed to the same feature in Loh for
`
`both patents. POR 23-24. Two different, non-coextensive claim limitations can
`
`overlap in claim scope, and the same feature can satisfy two different claim elements.
`
`Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`(“overlapping patent claims are not unusual, and the overlap does not require us to
`
`
`4 The figures illustrate the difference and overlap: Figs. 1, 6 and 12 have a resin part
`
`“disposed in a region below an upper surface of the metal part,” whereas only Fig.
`
`12 has the resin part “located at left and right sides of a portion of the metal part.”
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`construe the…claims to cover subject matter that differs from the subject matter
`
`covered by the other…claims”).
`
`PO’s house and mineral rights analogies (POR 12-14) are irrelevant extrinsic
`
`evidence and unsupported attorney argument that cannot be used to contradict the
`
`figures and preferred embodiments of the patent. Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli,
`
`LLC, 742 F. 3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he examiner erred by resorting to
`
`extrinsic evidence that was inconsistent with the more reliable intrinsic evidence.”);
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001). As discussed above, the actual figures show that all of the preferred
`
`embodiments are consistent with Petitioner’s reading of the claim, and it would be
`
`improper to read out those embodiments. Moreover, PO ignores that the claims
`
`include the terms “region” and “an upper surface.”5 Ex. 1017 ¶35.
`
`
`5 PO’s analogies break down when applied in the context of the Claims. For
`
`example, contrary to the Claims, PO’s analogy incorrectly depicts two separate
`
`houses with two separate regions, as opposed to “a region” that extends beyond the
`
`metal leads to include both metal and resin in a region below an upper surface of
`
`“the metal part” as shown in all the figures of the ’411 patent. The analogy further
`
`incorrectly requires metal (sub-floor) directly under the upper surface of a metal
`
`plate and resin (basement) directly under that metal. Ex. 1017 ¶35.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`PO’s argument regarding adhesion (POR 14-16) is irrelevant because the Loh
`
`reference that PO is attempting to distinguish provides the same benefit. The ’411
`
`patent explains that concavities and convexities provide “better adhesion” by
`
`“increas[ing] a bonding area.” Ex. 1001, 9:28-41. Loh provides this same benefit
`
`by having resin in a region below an upper surface of the metal part, which improves
`
`the stability of the package by increasing the bonding area of the leads to the resin
`
`part. Ex. 1004, Fig. 7; Pet. 16, 29-32; Ex. 1003 ¶61, 84; Ex. 1017 ¶36.
`
`Finally, PO is incorrect that the file history supports its proposed construction
`
`(POR 25-26). PO points to the Examiner’s discussion of U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 2004/0106234 (“Sorg”) (Ex. 1024), but Sorg discloses chip encapsulation 6 and
`
`carrier 9 (i.e., resin part) (in green), which are located entirely above the upper
`
`surface of connection conductors 2 and 3 (i.e., metal part) (in blue):
`
`Ex. 1024, Fig. 1, ¶¶7-8, 41, 48; Ex. 1002 at 243 (“Sorg et al disclose in Fig. 1 the
`
`resin part 6 which is an encapsulation material (paragraph 0008)…above the metal
`
`part 2 and 3 (paragraph 0007)”); Ex. 1017 ¶37. Therefore, the Examiner found that
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`Sorg “does not disclose or suggest the limitation ‘wherein 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.’” Ex. 1002, 243.
`
`The file history is consistent with Petitioner’s reading, and the term should be
`
`construed under the BRI to give meaning to all of the words of the claim. Ex. 1017
`
`¶37.
`
`B.
`
`The Term “Resin Package Comprising a Resin Part and A Metal
`Part” Should Be Given Its Plain and Ordinary Meaning and Is Not
`Limited to an LED “Singulated” From “Multiple Devices”
`The term “resin package comprising a resin part and a metal part” should be
`
`given its plain and ordinary meaning. The patentee used the term consistent with
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning, and neither redefined the term nor disavowed claim
`
`scope. Ex. 1017 ¶39. PO’s proposed construction improperly departs from the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning by reading in additional limitations found nowhere in the
`
`claim—that the resin package must be for “a singulated light emitting device”
`
`formed from “multiple devices.” POR 31. As the Board correctly found at
`
`institution, the term “resin package” does not require singulation or a post-
`
`singulation device. DI 11; see also IPR2018-00437, Pap. 17, 9; Ex. 1017 ¶¶39-51.
`
`Broad terms such as “resin package” are given their full scope “unless the
`
`patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full scope.” Thorner v. Sony
`
`Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Zelinski
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00386
`U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411
`
`v. Brunswick Corp., 185 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Absent an express
`
`definition in the specification of a particular claim term, the words are given their
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning; if a term of art, it is given the ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Here, PO
`
`did not define “resin package” or disavow its full scope, and therefore the term
`
`should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The claim language supports the plain meaning. All of the Claims are
`
`apparatus claims that recite the structure of “a light emitting device” comprising “a
`
`resin package comprising a resin part and a metal part.” Ex. 1001, 19:33-50. The
`
`Claims do not recite “singulated” and do not recite forming a light emitting device
`
`from “multiple devices.” The patentee was clearly aware of the word “s