`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01166
`Patent 7,256,486
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Nichia Corporation
`v.
`Document Security Systems, Inc.
`
`IPR2018-01166 (USP 7,256,486 B2)
`
`Oral Hearing Date: August 28, 2019
`
`Before Hon. Scott C. Moore, Amber L. Hagy, and Brent M. Dougal,
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`Paper 9, pp. 7‐9
`
`Summary of Asserted Grounds
`
`
`
`3DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Overview of Oral Hearing Issues
`
`Issue
`
`Grounds
`
`Claims
`
`Do Grounds 16-24 Render Claim 6 Obvious?
`
`Does Petitioner Offer a Correct Construction of
`“Metallized…Major Surface”?
`Does Secondary Reference Weeks Disclose or Suggest a Light
`Emitting Diode Having a Metallized Bottom Major Surface?
`Does either Kish or Edmond Teach or Suggest a “Metallized Top
`Major Surface of the LED” as Recited in Claim 2?
`
`16-24
`
`1-24
`
`1, 4, 7, 10, 13,
`16, 19, 22
`2-3, 5-6, 11-12,
`14-15, 17-18,
`20-21, 23-24
`
`6
`
`1-6
`
`1-6
`
`2-3
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`Issue #1:
`
`Issue
`
`Do Grounds 16-24 Render Claim 6 Obvious?
`
`Grounds
`
`Claims
`
`16-24
`
`6
`
`Answer: No
`
`See Petition (Paper 2), pp. 82-84;
`PO’s Response (Paper 13), pp. 14-24;
`PO’s Sur-Reply (Paper 17), pp. 1-5.
`
`
`
`’087 Fig. 1
`
`’486 Patent: Claim 6’486 Patent: Claim 6
`
`…
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 1001, 12:6‐22, 40‐46, 50‐55;
`Paper 13, p. 14
`
`
`
`
`Nakajima’s Tungsten Relied On Against Nakajima’s Tungsten Relied On Against
`
`Claim 4Claim 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`Petition (Paper 2), 50; see also id., 66, 81
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Substitution Theory For Claim 6Petitioner’s Substitution Theory For Claim 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`Petition (Paper 2), 83‐84
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Substitution Theory for Claim 6Dr. Shealy’s Substitution Theory for Claim 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 227.
`
`
`
`’087 Fig. 1
`
`Jochym Does Not Use TungstenJochym Does Not Use Tungsten
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 1010, 4:15‐17;
`Paper 13, p. 16
`
`
`
`
`Shealy’s Testimony on Jochym:Shealy’s Testimony on Jochym:
`
`“I do not find tungsten in here”“I do not find tungsten in here”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 2016, 75:18‐76:18;
`Paper 13, p. 17
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 2016, 77:5‐8;
`Paper 13, p. 18
`
`
`
`Shealy’s TestimonyShealy’s Testimony
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 2016, 79:10‐16;
`Paper 13, p. 21
`
`
`
`Shealy’s TestimonyShealy’s Testimony
`
`
`
`’087 Fig. 1
`
`Jochym’s Printed Circuit Board DisclosureJochym’s Printed Circuit Board Disclosure
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 1010, p.1; 1:7‐8;
`Paper 13, p. 19
`
`
`
`’087 Fig. 1
`
`Diameter of a Jochym’s Through-Hole Diameter of a Jochym’s Through-Hole
`
`“Stay[s] the Same”“Stay[s] the Same”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 1010, 1:60‐63;
`Paper 13, p. 23
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner: Substitute to “Maintain a Small Petitioner: Substitute to “Maintain a Small
`
`Diameter”Diameter”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 1003, ¶227
`
`
`
`’087 Fig. 1
`
`Diameter of Jochym’s Through-HolesDiameter of Jochym’s Through-Holes
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 1010, 4:50‐56;
`Paper 13, p. 20
`
`
`
`
`Shealy on Diameter of Jochym’sShealy on Diameter of Jochym’s
`
`Through-HolesThrough-Holes
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 2016, 77:9‐20;
`Paper 13, p. 20
`
`
`
`
`Shealy on Diameter of Nakajima’s Shealy on Diameter of Nakajima’s
`
`Through-HolesThrough-Holes
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`Exhibit 2016, 72:1‐21;
`Paper 13, p. 20, 23
`
`
`
`
`Unaddressed Issues with Petitioner’s Unaddressed Issues with Petitioner’s
`
`SubstitutionSubstitution
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`Exhibit 2016, 67:12‐68:15;
`Paper 13, p. 20
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`Issue #2:
`
`Issue
`
`Does Petitioner Offer a Correct Construction of
`“Metallized…Major Surface”?
`
`Grounds
`
`Claims
`
`1-24
`
`1-6
`
`Answer: No
`
`See Petition (Paper 2), pp. 11-14;
`PO’s Response (Paper 13), pp. 10-14;
`PO’s Sur-Reply (Paper 17), pp. 5-8.
`
`
`
`
`
`“Pad” versus “Surface” in ’486 Patent“Pad” versus “Surface” in ’486 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`Exhibit 1001, p. 1; 12:6‐21;
`Paper 13, pp. 7‐8
`
`
`
`’297 Fig. 1
`
`“Pad” versus “Surface” in ’486 Patent“Pad” versus “Surface” in ’486 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Exhibit 1001, Abstract; 1:20‐24;
`Paper 13, p. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`“Pad” versus “Surface” in ’486 Patent“Pad” versus “Surface” in ’486 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`Exhibit 1001, p. 4;
`Paper 13, p. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`“Pad” versus “Surface” in ’486 Patent“Pad” versus “Surface” in ’486 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`Exhibit 1001, p. 5;
`Paper 13, p. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Metal “Portion” is a “Pad”Petitioner’s Metal “Portion” is a “Pad”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`Pet. (Paper 2), 12; Exhibit 1001, p. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`“Surfaces” in the ‘486 Patent Are Not “Pads”“Surfaces” in the ‘486 Patent Are Not “Pads”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`Pet. (Paper 2), 12
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`Issue #3:
`
`Issue
`
`Grounds
`
`Claims
`
`Does Secondary Reference Weeks Disclose or Suggest a Light
`Emitting Diode Having a Metallized Bottom Major Surface?
`
`1, 4, 7, 10, 13,
`16, 19, 22
`
`1-6
`
`Answer: No
`
`See Petition (Paper 2), pp. 18-20, 30-32, 36-38,
`54-55, 57-59, 70, 73-74;
`PO’s Response (Paper 13), pp. 24-26, 39-41, 50-52;
`PO’s Sur-Reply (Paper 17), pp. 8-10.
`
`
`
`
`Weeks Does Not Disclose an LED Having a Weeks Does Not Disclose an LED Having a
`
`Metallized Bottom Major SurfaceMetallized Bottom Major Surface
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`Exhibit 1007, p. 6;
`Paper 13, p. 25
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Issue #4:
`
`Issue
`
`Does either Kish or Edmond Teach or Suggest a “Metallized Top
`Major Surface of the LED” as Recited in Claim 2?
`
`Grounds
`
`Claims
`
`2-3, 5-6, 11-12,
`14-15, 17-18,
`20-21, 23-24
`
`1-6
`
`Answer: No
`
`See Petition (Paper 2), pp. 20-22, 41-43, 64-65, 79-80;
`PO’s Response (Paper 13), pp. 28-30, 43-45, 55-57;
`PO’s Sur-Reply (Paper 17), pp. 10-11.
`
`
`
`
`Kish Does Not Disclose an LED Having a Kish Does Not Disclose an LED Having a
`
`Metallized Top Major SurfaceMetallized Top Major Surface
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`Exhibit 1008, p. 8;
`Paper 13, pp. 29, 44, 56
`
`
`
`
`Edmond Does Not Disclose an LED Having Edmond Does Not Disclose an LED Having
`
`a Metallized Top Major Surfacea Metallized Top Major Surface
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`Exhibit 1009, p. 2;
`Paper 13, pp. 30, 45, 57
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on August 23, 2019, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits was served via email, by
`
`consent, to Petitioner by serving the correspondence email addresses of record as
`
`follows:
`
`
`Patrick R. Colsher (Reg. No. 74,955)
`patrick.colsher@shearman.com
`Eric S. Lucas (Reg. No. 76,434)
`eric.lucas@shearman.com
`Thomas R. Makin
`thomas.makin@shearman.com
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`599 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`
`Matthew G. Berkowitz (Reg. No. 57,215)
`matthew.berkowitz@shearman.com
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`1460 El Camino Real
`Menlo Park, California 94025
`
`Email: nichia-dss@shearman.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 23, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Wayne M. Helge
`Wayne M. Helge (Reg. No. 56,905)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`