`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01166
`Patent 7,256,486
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Nichia Corporation
`v.
`Document Security Systems, Inc.
`IPR2018-01166 (U.S. Patent No. 7,256,486)
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT – AUGUST 28, 2019
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,256,486
`
`SHEARMAN & STERLING
`
`U.S. PATENT N0. 7,256,486
`
`
`
`D'lZSbJBéBZ
`
`.12] United States Patent
`um— -~ -------
`
`l45| Dale of Filer":
`Aug. 14, 2007
`Lee 2! al.
`l5-l]
`h M 4'4 III '
`"Aillml
`.
`.
`.
`. M? 7m
`rhmmq III -
`film. fill
`..
`..
`.. :c "m
`(nu-35:3 HI
`Mum
`(.3an III
`llauclal
`
`
`
`I15]
`
`I71]
`
`i ‘ _I Nolkc-
`
`IanIIIIn Ku-a Wag L". Pym-III“ (mu, Km
`Van \v, Pom-n3 IMYI. fin (In-II:
`Km. I'mang IM‘I‘I: "I How Inn.
`Pawns (MY; I'm-nu “fly 'l'an.
`Pawns NY)
`
`.\wg.nw Aug“ TI-cllnulvgkn [PB ll‘
`(Magnum Pu, l.Id SIngIIpIn' [5m
`thjcct In an} di~claim¢n Ihc IcI-m nr'thns
`pmnl i\ t'lhmtk‘tl .n «113li min 15
`us I' Istnu hy n d.1_\'~.
`my My," Mr»: [Mons
`
`
`I
`'I""‘"’P“'¢'I‘1“.‘?'§.D_':'
`”‘5‘
`mum-02mm.”
`It“- “1mm ....... ,_
`InLn.
`ISI]
`(200601]
`Imwaz
`..
`.. 25mm 25737114, 2571M]
`I52] Us. ('l. ..
`.
`Flu-Id oH‘l-lemlun Sunni:
`[SK]
`:51 gun
`257,72“. 7m. {IR-I, 77.1. 7R1. W. Im. “1.701,
`JM'WKTN. TIMI. 717, "0
`Sn- .Ipplwznnm IIL- Inr chIpluw .un'h Inn-urg-
`“Glenna-s ('Ilrd
`II S. FAITNI' IXX‘UMI’N’I’H
`IO |v(u Pusan»
`dlwl rum-nun
`IIWI
`\h:
`lel Rapupnuclal
`x I'H‘ KIIIIALIIA :I ll
`(\wlf Sdm I... .3577“
`91997 “nah
`II Wm WM ..
`.
`.MI 104
`3‘ 2000 Humnhl n I]
`257 500
`
`-
`
`‘
`‘
`‘
`
`7"va
`
`.
`
`,
`
`lFfiI
`
`
`2.00103
`"mume I'I". WI
`5.293.531
`
`AA.
`
`\A.
`
`\I
`
`\
`.\.\
` 13.03418“ .
`I
`
`Patent No;
`
`US 792569486 82
`
`PACKAGING DEVICE FOR
`SICMIC'O DUCTOR DII' SEMICONDUCTOR
`DEVICE INFORPORA'I‘ING SAME AND
`METHOD OF MAKING SAME
`
`.-
`
`_
`
`‘ ' ‘ ‘
`
`l‘llcd.
`
`Jun. 27. 2003
`
`
`
`..
`
`..
`
`
`
`"' ‘
`”-‘
`-
`
`hm ‘m III
`‘UNIUIII IL“
`:00: unuwu ,u-
`
`“M”
`-
`“-‘Wd =1
`“III-W
`\n. .1 u
`....... Illsxl
`lug ..
`'iI-chiru a III
`57 In
`
`[L'uIIIInmIJ
`UHII‘R MINI Il‘ \l'ltNH
`Imam. II.
`llnhnu- J
`Ira). ml um I
`“II—m.
`Syd II
`"lbndhml. uanhflnml “mum... rm human-n (‘In'mh - \
`a)“ mu. “rumannl lum‘tl‘nh pp many
`[Consumed]
`Pnn..n-£mm.m Kantian-I
`'fiVi-u...
`_
`.um’mrr
`-- ......
`'Ihc Ncumnp dfllw Incluilcsa sllhsmw. as nInIIlIIIIIg p‘xI.
`-I mumxlmg rml «ml nu Inlnmulccmu: drum"
`11w
`squu—m u mum-mug: plamr and has “ppm-d mam!
`mm.“ “Iv muunlmg pad I! cunJI-rliu- and I! local“! a:
`“warm: mmur mum III: mmmuug Ind h mudmm
`and I:
`lowlcd nII III: "61:! «I IIIr major surfm‘cs
`[11c
`cIIIIlIIuIn-v mlcrcullnwlmg clemml amend: ummyI Ilac
`§th|fill£ and vlwincnuy inluumnwh “15' muImlI
`pm]
`
`and lII: nameding Ind m [ugh
`
`an n.- h.
`
`HIIIII'III.‘
`than i». 0ng a {m rum-s IImI quIn- MTIIIAIIJII'IIVIIJ
`Ida-I
`bu Inhmmml I'mm mumiah lhznl can » Il'hlillkl hxgthmI-
`pmmwdic men pnxwm. In» p.‘ hm. dmiw .m h-
`mIl'rlIIIml 1h lIh. only packapns (In In: mm! in lhr mm-
`uuulIIJII-r Iluicu ur In :- unlunInuIII Fr In ~cIIIIL'nII-Ju-mr Ju-
`IhuI rulmrb :I hlyhlflllpt'flllufl' du- IIIIEK'II pnlhfix
`{I ('IIIIIm. 8 Dunlml Shun
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent)
`
`2
`
`

`

`CLAIMS 1-6 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Claims
`
`1-3
`
`4-5
`
`6
`
`Prior Art Grounds
`
`• Obvious over Nakajima in view of Weeks, Kish, or Edmond
`• Obvious over Rohm in view of Weeks, Kish, or Edmond
`• Obvious over Matsushita in view of Weeks, Kish, or Edmond
`
`• Obvious over Nakajima in view of Weeks, Kish, or Edmond
`• Obvious over Rohm in view of Weeks, Kish, or Edmond, in further view of
`Nakajima
`• Obvious over Matsushita in view of Weeks, Kish, or Edmond, in further view
`of Nakajima
`• Obvious over Nakajima in view of Weeks, Kish, or Edmond, in further view of
`Jochym
`• Obvious over Rohm in view of Weeks, Kish, or Edmond, in further view of
`Nakajima and Jochym
`• Obvious over Matsushita in view of Weeks, Kish, or Edmond, in further view
`of Nakajima and Jochym
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 4-6
`
`3
`
`

`

`CLAIMS 1-6
`
`SHEARMAN & STERLING
`
`CLAIMS 1-6
`
`I. A semiconductor device. comprising:
`a substantially planar substrate having opposed major
`surfaces:
`
`an electrically conductive mounting pad located on one of
`the major surfaces of the substrate;
`a light emitting diode (LED) having a metallized bottom
`major surface that is mounted on the electrically con-
`ductive mounting pad. the metalli7ed bottom ruajor
`surface comprising one of an anode and a cathode of
`the LED:
`
`a first electrically conductive connecting pad located on
`the other of the major surfaces of the substrate: and
`a first electrically conductive intercormecting element
`extending through the substrate and electrically inter-
`connecting the mounting pad and the first electrically
`conductive connecting pad.
`
`2. The semiconductor device of claim 1. further compris-
`ing:
`an electrically conductive bonding pad located on the one
`of the major surfaces of the substrate;
`a bonding wire extending between a metallizcd top major
`snrtlace of the Hi!) and the electrically conductive
`bonding pad:
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`a second electrically conductive connecting pad located
`on the other of the major surfaces of the substrate; and
`a second electrically conductive interconnecting element
`extending through the substrate and electrically inter-
`connecting the bonding pad and the second connecting
`pad.
`
`first electrically conductive connecting pad.
`
`3. The semiconductor device of claim 2 “herein the
`
`metallized top major surface comprises a first electrode of
`the LED and the metallized bottom major surface comprises
`a second electrode of the LED.
`
`4. The semiconductor device of claitn 1 wherein the first
`
`electrically conductive interconnecting element is selected
`to withstand an operating temperature when the LED is
`mounted on the electrically conductive mounting pad and to
`provide a low-resistance electrical connection between the
`mounting pad and the first electrically conductive connect-
`ing pad.
`
`5. The semiconductor device of claim 4. wherein the first
`
`electrically conductive itltercormecting element comprises
`tungsten.
`
`6. The semiconductor device ofclaim 4. wherein the first
`
`electrically conductive interconnecting element comprises a
`slug of electrically conductive material. the slug having a
`Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent), claims 1-6
`diameter selected to press-lit the slug into a through hole
`located in the substrate between the mounting pad and the
`
`4
`
`

`

`THE ’486 PATENT
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 7-9; Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent)
`
`5
`
`

`

`THE “SUBSTRATE PACKAGING ASSEMBLY” PRIOR ART
`
`Nakajima Figure 1
`
`Rohm Figure 1A
`
`Matsushita Figure 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 15-18; Ex. 1004 (Nakajima); Ex. 1005
`(Rohm); Ex. 1006 (Matsushita)
`
`6
`
`

`

`THE “LED” PRIOR ART
`
`Weeks Figure 4
`
`Kish Figure 14
`
`Edmond Figure 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 18-22; Ex. 1007 (Weeks); Ex. 1008
`(Kish); Ex. 1009 (Edmond)
`
`7
`
`

`

`THE “CONDUCTIVE SLUG” PRIOR ART
`
`Jochym Figure 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 23-25; Ex. 1010 (Jochym)
`
`8
`
`

`

`KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`Key Remaining Disputes
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Does Weeks disclose a “metallized bottom major surface” of the LED?
`
`Do Kish and Edmond disclose a “metallized top major surface” of the LED?
`
`Patent Owner’s “separate elements” argument for the packaging art (Nakajima, Rohm, Matsushita):
`• Do the packaging art references disclose an electrically conductive mounting pad; a first
`electrically conductive connecting pad; and a first electrically conductive interconnecting
`element?
`• Do the packaging art references disclose an electrically conductive bonding pad; a second
`electrically conductive connecting pad; and a second electrically conductive interconnecting
`element?
`Would it have been obvious to combine the packaging art (Nakajima, Rohm, or Matsushita) with the
`LED art (Weeks, Kish, or Edmond)?
`Would it have been obvious to form Nakajima’s “first electrically conductive interconnecting
`element” by press-fitting a slug into a through hole located in the substrate?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1, 2
`
`1, 2
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`

`KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`Key Remaining Disputes
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Does Weeks disclose a “metallized bottom major surface” of the LED?
`
`Do Kish and Edmond disclose a “metallized top major surface” of the LED?
`
`Patent Owner’s “separate elements” argument for the packaging art (Nakajima, Rohm, Matsushita):
`• Do the packaging art references disclose an electrically conductive mounting pad; a first
`electrically conductive connecting pad; and a first electrically conductive interconnecting
`element?
`• Do the packaging art references disclose an electrically conductive bonding pad; a second
`electrically conductive connecting pad; and a second electrically conductive interconnecting
`element?
`Would it have been obvious to combine the packaging art (Nakajima, Rohm, or Matsushita) with the
`LED art (Weeks, Kish, or Edmond)?
`Would it have been obvious to form Nakajima’s “first electrically conductive interconnecting
`element” by press-fitting a slug into a through hole located in the substrate?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1, 2
`
`1, 2
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: WEEKS’ LED DOES NOT HAVE A “METALLIZED
`BOTTOM MAJOR SURFACE,” UNDER PATENT OWNER’S CONSTRUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent), claim 1; Paper 13 (POR) at 24-25
`
`11
`
`

`

`CONSTRUCTION OF “MAJOR SURFACE”: IT “NEED NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY
`PLANAR”
`
`Petitioner
`“a face that is greater in size
`than the other faces of the
`element being described”
`
`Patent Owner
`“an outer, substantially planar
`surface of the element being
`described which has the largest
`surface area of any surface of the
`element”
`
`The Board
`“‘an outer portion that is greater
`than the surface area of other
`surfaces,’ which need not be
`substantially planar”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 11-12; Paper 9 (ID) at 12-13; Paper 13
`(POR) at 10-12
`
`12
`
`

`

`THE BOARD: A “MAJOR SURFACE” “NEED NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY PLANAR”
`
`The Board
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 9 (ID) at 12-13
`
`13
`
`

`

`’486 PATENT: “SUBSTANTIALLY PLANAR” “SUBSTRATE 110” WITH
`“OPPOSED MAJOR SURFACES 112 AND 114”
`
`Major surface 112
`
`Substrate 110
`
`Major surface 114
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 32; Paper 15 (Reply) at 3, 5-6;
`Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent) at 3:43-49
`
`14
`
`

`

`’486 PATENT: “SEMICONDUCTOR DIE 250”
`
`* * * *
`
`Semiconductor Die 250
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 8, 11; Paper 15 (Reply) at 4;
`Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent) at 5:7-17, 5:34-55
`
`15
`
`

`

`WEEKS DISCLOSES AN LED HAVING A METALLIZED
`BOTTOM MAJOR SURFACE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 18-20; Paper 15 (Reply) at 4-5;
`Ex. 1007 (Weeks), 3:48-51, 4:19-22
`
`16
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: THROUGH-HOLES DO NOT TRANSFORM MAJOR
`SURFACE INTO A NON-MAJOR SURFACE
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`’486 Patent Figure 2B
`
`Major surface 112
`
`Substrate 110
`Major surface 114
`Weeks Figure 4
`
`Through-holes
`with interconnects
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 31-32; Paper 15 (Reply) at 5-6; Ex. 1003
`(Shealy Decl.) at ¶71; Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent); Ex. 1007 (Weeks)
`
`17
`
`

`

`KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`Key Remaining Disputes
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Does Weeks disclose a “metallized bottom major surface” of the LED?
`
`Do Kish and Edmond disclose a “metallized top major surface” of the LED?
`
`Patent Owner’s “separate elements” argument for the packaging art (Nakajima, Rohm, Matsushita):
`• Do the packaging art references disclose an electrically conductive mounting pad; a first
`electrically conductive connecting pad; and a first electrically conductive interconnecting
`element?
`• Do the packaging art references disclose an electrically conductive bonding pad; a second
`electrically conductive connecting pad; and a second electrically conductive interconnecting
`element?
`Would it have been obvious to combine the packaging art (Nakajima, Rohm, or Matsushita) with the
`LED art (Weeks, Kish, or Edmond)?
`Would it have been obvious to form Nakajima’s “first electrically conductive interconnecting
`element” by press-fitting a slug into a through hole located in the substrate?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1, 2
`
`1, 2
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: KISH’S AND EDMOND’S LEDs DO NOT HAVE A
`“METALLIZED TOP MAJOR SURFACE,” UNDER PATENT OWNER’S CONSTRUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent), claim 2; Paper 13 (POR) at 29
`
`19
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: KISH’S AND EDMOND’S LEDs DO NOT HAVE A
`“METALLIZED TOP MAJOR SURFACE,” UNDER PATENT OWNER’S CONSTRUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Response: Kish
`
`Patent Owner Response: Edmond
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 13 (POR) at 29-30
`
`20
`
`

`

`CONSTRUCTION OF “METALLIZED . . . MAJOR SURFACE”: METAL ONLY
`NEEDS TO COVER “A PORTION” OF THE SURFACE
`
`Petitioner
`“a major surface having
`metal on at least a portion
`thereof”
`
`Patent Owner
`“a major surface (as defined
`above) substantially covered
`with metal”
`
`The Board
`“‘a major surface having metal on
`at least a portion thereof,’ which
`need not necessarily be a
`‘substantial portion’ of the major
`surface”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 12-14; Paper 9 (ID) at 13-15; Paper 13
`(POR) at 12-14
`
`21
`
`

`

`THE BOARD: “METALLIZED … MAJOR SURFACE” REQUIRES ONLY
`“METAL ON AT LEAST A PORTION” OF THE SURFACE
`
`The Board
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent), claim 2; Paper 9 (ID) at 14-15
`
`22
`
`

`

`THE ’486 PATENT: “METALLIZED . . . MAJOR SURFACE” MEANS “A
`MAJOR SURFACE HAVING METAL ON AT LEAST A PORTION THEREOF”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 13-14; Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent) at 1:19-
`22, 5:7-12, 5:18-22, 8:34-37
`
`23
`
`

`

`DICTIONARIES: “METALLIZED . . . MAJOR SURFACE” MEANS “A MAJOR
`SURFACE HAVING METAL ON AT LEAST A PORTION THEREOF”
`
`“Metallization”: “A film pattern (single or multilayer) of conductive
`material deposited onto a substrate to interconnect electronic
`components, or the metal film on the bonding area of a substrate
`that becomes part of the bond and performs both electrical and
`mechanical functions”
`
`“Metallization”: “The selective deposition of metal film on a
`substrate. . . .”
`
`“Metallize”: “to coat, treat, or combine with a metal”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 14; Paper 14 (Reply) at 6-7; Ex. 1013 (Modern Dict.
`of Elec.) at 4; Ex. 1014 (Merriam) at 4
`
`24
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: “METALLIZED . . . MAJOR SURFACE” MEANS
`“A MAJOR SURFACE HAVING METAL ON AT LEAST A PORTION THEREOF”
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Deposition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 14; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶38
`
`25
`
`

`

`CONSISTENCY WITH IPR2018-00333
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00333 Final Written Decision (Paper 33) at 11
`
`26
`
`

`

`KISH AND EDMOND DISCLOSE LEDs HAVING METALLIZED
`TOP MAJOR SURFACES
`
`Kish Figure 14
`
`Edmond Figure 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 21-22, 41-43; Ex. 1008 (Kish);
`Ex. 1009 (Edmond)
`
`27
`
`

`

`KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`Key Remaining Disputes
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Does Weeks disclose a “metallized bottom major surface” of the LED?
`
`Do Kish and Edmond disclose a “metallized top major surface” of the LED?
`
`Patent Owner’s “separate elements” argument for the packaging art (Nakajima, Rohm, Matsushita):
`• Do the packaging art references disclose an electrically conductive mounting pad; a first electrically
`conductive connecting pad; and a first electrically conductive interconnecting element?
`• Do the packaging art references disclose an electrically conductive bonding pad; a second
`electrically conductive connecting pad; and a second electrically conductive interconnecting
`element?
`Would it have been obvious to combine the packaging art (Nakajima, Rohm, or Matsushita) with the LED art
`(Weeks, Kish, or Edmond)?
`Would it have been obvious to form Nakajima’s “first electrically conductive interconnecting element” by
`press-fitting a slug into a through hole located in the substrate?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1, 2
`
`1, 2
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: “SEPARATE ELEMENTS” OF CLAIM 1
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent), claim 1; Paper 13 (POR) at 33
`
`29
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: “SEPARATE ELEMENTS” OF CLAIM 2
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent), claim 2; Paper 13 (POR) at 35-36
`
`30
`
`

`

`THE BOARD: “SEPARATE ELEMENTS” NOT REQUIRED
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 9 (ID) at 32-33
`
`31
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S CONCESSION IN IPR2018-00333
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 15 (Reply) at 19, 23; Ex. 1016 (IPR2018-00333 Oral
`Argument Trans.) at 34:17-35:4
`
`32
`
`

`

`CONSISTENCY WITH IPR2018-00333
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00333 Final Written Decision (Paper 33) at 21
`
`33
`
`

`

`NAKAJIMA FIGURE 1
`
`metallized wiring
`conductor 4b
`
`mounting unit 1a
`
`metallized wiring
`conductor 4b
`
`metallized wiring
`conductor 4b
`
`metallized wiring
`conductor 4a
`
`metallized wiring
`conductor 4a
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 15-16, 27-28, 34-36, 38-40, 43-45;
`Ex. 1004 (Nakajima)
`
`34
`
`

`

`ROHM FIGURE 1A
`
`die bonding electrode
`18
`
`wire bonding
`electrode 20
`
`second connect
`electrode 28
`
`first connect
`electrode 26
`
`electrode for the first
`surface mounting 22
`
`electrode for the second
`surface mounting 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 16-17, 52-53, 55-57, 59-60, 62-63;
`Ex. 1005 (Rohm)
`
`35
`
`

`

`MATSUSHITA FIGURE 2
`
`electrode 3
`
`electrode 3
`
`electrode 2
`
`electrode 2
`
`electrode 3
`
`electrode 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 17-18, 68-69, 71-72, 75-78;
`Ex. 1006 (Matsushita)
`
`36
`
`

`

`KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`Key Remaining Disputes
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Does Weeks disclose a “metallized bottom major surface” of the LED?
`
`Do Kish and Edmond disclose a “metallized top major surface” of the LED?
`
`Patent Owner’s “separate elements” argument for the packaging art (Nakajima, Rohm, Matsushita):
`• Do the packaging art references disclose an electrically conductive mounting pad; a first
`electrically conductive connecting pad; and a first electrically conductive interconnecting
`element?
`• Do the packaging art references disclose an electrically conductive bonding pad; a second
`electrically conductive connecting pad; and a second electrically conductive interconnecting
`element?
`Would it have been obvious to combine the packaging art (Nakajima, Rohm, or Matsushita) with
`the LED art (Weeks, Kish, or Edmond)?
`Would it have been obvious to form Nakajima’s “first electrically conductive interconnecting
`element” by press-fitting a slug into a through hole located in the substrate?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1, 2
`
`1, 2
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`

`THE SUBSTRATE PACKAGING ASSEMBLIES AND LED PRIOR ART
`
`Nakajima Figure 1
`
`Rohm Figure 1A
`
`Matsushita Figure 2
`
`Weeks Figure 4
`
`Kish Figure 14
`
`Edmond Figure 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 15-22; Ex. 1004 (Nakajima); Ex. 1005 (Rohm); Ex. 1006
`(Matsushita); Ex. 1007 (Weeks); Ex. 1008 (Kish); Ex. 1009 (Edmond)
`
`38
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: NO MOTIVATION TO SUBSTITUTE
`THE LEDs OF WEEKS, KISH OR EDMOND
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`* * * *
`
`* * * *
`
`[sic: Matsushita]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 13 (POR) at 26, 41, 52
`
`39
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: THE PACKAGING ART IS SILENT ABOUT THE
`STRUCTURAL DETAILS OF THEIR LEDs
`
`Nakajima
`
`Rohm
`
`Matsushita
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 29, 40, 54, 61, 70, 76; Ex. 1003 (Shealy
`Decl.) at ¶¶65, 90, 123, 143, 175, 195
`
`40
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: “CONVENTIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE[S]”
`INCLUDED AN LED WITH “A METALLIZATION LAYER … ON BOTTOM SURFACE”
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`The ’486 Patent
`
`* * * *
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 8, 30, 54, 70; Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent ) at
`1:20-24, 1:49-52; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶67
`
`41
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: CONVENTIONAL LEDs INCLUDED METAL
`ANODES AND CATHODES ON TOP AND BOTTOM SURFACES
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Weeks Figure 4
`
`Kish Figure 14
`
`Edmond Figure 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 29, 36-38, 45-46; Ex. 1007 (Weeks); Ex.
`1008 (Kish); Ex. 1009 (Edmond); Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.)
`at ¶¶66, 80, 82
`
`42
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: BENEFITS OF METAL ELECTRODES
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`* * * *
`
`Weeks, 2:57-3:2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 19, 37, 58, 74; Ex. 1007 (Weeks) at 2:57-
`3:2; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶83
`
`43
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: THE BENEFITS OF USING THE NAKAJIMA
`PACKAGE WITH THE CONVENTIONAL LEDs OF WEEKS, KISH OR EDMOND
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Nakajima
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 37-38, 46; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at
`¶¶84, 106; Ex. 1004 (Nakajima) at ¶0007
`
`44
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: THE BENEFITS OF USING THE ROHM PACKAGE
`WITH THE CONVENTIONAL LEDs OF WEEKS, KISH OR EDMOND
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Rohm
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 57-59, 64-65; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.)
`at ¶¶137, 157; Ex. 1005 (Rohm) at 7
`
`45
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: THE BENEFITS OF USING THE MATSUSHITA
`PACKAGE WITH THE CONVENTIONAL LEDs OF WEEKS, KISH OR EDMOND
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Matsushita
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 73-74, 79-80; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at
`¶¶189, 209; Ex. 1006 (Matsushita) at ¶0006
`
`46
`
`

`

`KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`Key Remaining Disputes
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Does Weeks disclose a “metallized bottom major surface” of the LED?
`
`Do Kish and Edmond disclose a “metallized top major surface” of the LED?
`
`Patent Owner’s “separate elements” argument for the packaging art (Nakajima, Rohm, Matsushita):
`• Do the packaging art references disclose an electrically conductive mounting pad; a first
`electrically conductive connecting pad; and a first electrically conductive interconnecting
`element?
`• Do the packaging art references disclose an electrically conductive bonding pad; a second
`electrically conductive connecting pad; and a second electrically conductive interconnecting
`element?
`Would it have been obvious to combine the packaging art (Nakajima, Rohm, or Matsushita) with the
`LED art (Weeks, Kish, or Edmond)?
`Would it have been obvious to form Nakajima’s “first electrically conductive interconnecting
`element” by press-fitting a slug into a through hole located in the substrate?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1, 2
`
`1, 2
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIM 6 REQUIRES
`MOTIVATION TO COMBINE USE OF PRESS-FITTING WITH USE OF TUNGSTEN
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`* * * *
`
`* * * *
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent), claim 6; Paper 13 (POR) at 17-18
`
`48
`
`

`

`CLAIMS 4 AND 6 DO NOT REQUIRE TUNGSTEN; ONLY CLAIM 5 DOES
`
`SHEARMAN & STERLING
`
`CLAIMS 4 AND 6 DO NOT REQUIRE TUNGSTEN; ONLY CLAIM 5 DOES
`
`4. line semiconductor device ol‘cluitn I wherein the lirst
`
`electrically conductive interconnecting cletnent is selected
`to withstand nn i'ipernting temperature when the lid) is
`mounted on the electrically conductive mounting pad and to
`provide at Ion-resistance electrical connection hetxt-‘e ‘n the
`mounting pad and the first electrically conductive connect-
`Illg paid.
`
`first electrically conductive connecting pad.
`
`6. The semiconductor device ol'clnim 4. wherein the first
`5. The semiconductor device of claim 4. wherein the first
`electricallv conductive interconnectin element comprises.
`'
`II
`' conductive interconnecting element comprises i the slug having a
`diameter selected to press-tit the slug into il through hole
`located in the substrate between the mounting pad and the
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’486 Patent), claims 4-6
`
`49
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: NAKAJIMA IN VIEW OF WEEKS, KISH, OR
`EDMOND DISCLOSES CLAIM 4
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 50; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶¶110, 113-114;
`Ex. 1004 (Nakajima) at ¶¶0014, 27; Ex. 1015 (Lassner)
`
`50
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: KNOWN ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF CREATING
`ELECTRICALLY CONDUCTIVE INTERCONNECTS
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Jochym
`
`* * * *
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 23-25, 83; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at
`¶¶224-225; Ex. 1010 (Jochym) at 1:48-62
`
`51
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: MOTIVATION TO PRESS FIT
`NAKAJIMA’S (OR ROHM’S OR MATSUSHITA’S) INTERCONNECTS
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Jochym, 1:55-2:4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 23-25, 83-84; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.)
`at ¶¶226-227; Ex. 1010 (Jochym) at 1:55-2:4
`
`52
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: OBVIOUS TO PRESS-FIT NAKAJIMA’S
`TUNGSTEN INTERCONNECTS
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Deposition
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`* * * *
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 13 (POR) at 18, 21; Ex. 2016 (Shealy Depo.) at 77:5-8, 79:10-16;
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 83; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶225
`
`53
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that the foregoing Petitioner’s Demonstratives Exhibits was
`
`
`
`served on August 23, 2019 via electronic mail upon counsel of record for Patent
`
`Owner at the following email addresses:
`
`Wayne M. Helge (Reg. No. 56,905)
`James T. Wilson (Reg. No. 41,439)
`Aldo Noto (Reg. No. 35,628)
`Donald L. Jackson (Reg. No. 41,090)
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey L.L.P.
`whelge@dbjg.com
`jwilson@dbjg.com
`anoto@dbjg.com
`djackson@dbjg.com
`esong@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/Patrick R. Colsher/
`Patrick R. Colsher (Reg. No. 74,955)
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`