UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,919,787
`Issue: April 5, 2011
`Filed: August 14, 2007
`Inventors: Kohn Weng Lee, et al.
`
`
`Title: SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH A LIGHT EMITTING
`SEMICONDUCTOR DIE
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2018-01260
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,919,787
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. §42.8) ............................................................... 1
`
`A. Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ...................................... 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §§42.8(b)(2)) ............................................... 1
`
`Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ............ 2
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103) ............................................................... 3
`II.
`III. Requirements for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. §42.104) ...................... 3
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)) ........................................ 3
`B.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(2)) and
`Relief Requested (37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1)) ............................................. 3
`IV. Relevant Information Concerning the Contested Patent ................................ 4
`
`A.
`
`The Effective Filing Date of the ’787 Patent .......................................... 4
`
`B. Overview of the ’787 Patent .................................................................... 6
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................... 9
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3)) ................................... 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`“[top] major light emitting surface” ............................................ 11
`
`“an oppositely-disposed [bottom] major surface" ...................... 12
`“the [bottom] major surface ... is a bottom surface of a
`substrate of the die” ..................................................................... 13
`
`Relevant Prosecution History ........................................................................... 13
`V.
`VI. Patentability of Specific Grounds for Petition ............................................ 14
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art .................................................................................................. 14
`
`1.
`
`Lumbard ....................................................................................... 14
`
`i
`
`

`

`2.
`3.
`
`Ishidu .......................................................................................... 15
`Ogawa ........................................................................................ 15
`
`4. Weeks ......................................................................................... 15
`
`B.
`
`5. Wirth .......................................................................................... 15
`6.
`Negley ........................................................................................ 16
`Grounds 1-3: Lumbard, in view of Weeks, Wirth, or Negley,
`renders obvious claims 1-14................................................................. 16
`1.
`Claim 1 ....................................................................................... 16
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`8.
`
`Claim 2 ....................................................................................... 41
`Claim 3 ....................................................................................... 42
`
`Claim 4 ....................................................................................... 43
`Claim 5 ....................................................................................... 44
`Claim 6 ....................................................................................... 47
`
`Claim 7 ....................................................................................... 47
`Claim 8 ....................................................................................... 50
`
`9.
`Claim 9 ....................................................................................... 50
`10. Claim 10 ..................................................................................... 51
`
`11. Claim 11 ..................................................................................... 52
`12. Claim 12 ..................................................................................... 54
`
`13. Claim 13 ..................................................................................... 55
`14. Claim 14 ..................................................................................... 55
`Grounds 4-6: Ishidu, in view of Weeks, Wirth, or Negley, renders
`obvious claims 1, 5, 6, and 7 ................................................................ 56
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 56
`
`ii
`
`

`

`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 64
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 65
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 65
`
`D. Grounds 7-9: Ogawa in view of Weeks, Wirth, or Negley, renders
`
`obvious claims 1-14 ............................................................................ 66
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`8.
`9.
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 66
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 74
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 75
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 76
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 76
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 77
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 77
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 78
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 78
`
`10. Claim 10 ................................................................................... 78
`11. Claim 11 ................................................................................... 78
`
`12. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 79
`13. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 79
`14. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 79
`
`VII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 79
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ....................................... 10
`
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995). ......................................................... 9
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................. 10
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..................... 10
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §102 ................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §112 ....................................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,919,787
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,919,787
`Declaration of Eric Bretschneider, PhD
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/608,605
`U.S. Patent No. 7,256,486
`U.S. Patent No. Re. 36,614 (“Lumbard”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,002 (“Weeks”)
`International Patent App. Pub. No. WO 2005/081319 with
`Certified Translation (“Wirth”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0217360 (“Negley”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0198162 (“Ishidu”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0113906 (“Ogawa”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,518,155
`U.S. Patent No. 7,714,345
`U.S. Patent No. 8,835,937
`
`v
`
`

`

`Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,919,787 (Exhibit 1001,
`
`“the ’787 patent”), currently assigned to Document Security Systems, Inc. (“Patent
`
`Owner”). There is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will prevail on at least one
`
`challenged claim.
`
`I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. §42.8)
`A.
`
`Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties in interest are Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. and Everlight
`
`Americas, Inc.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §§42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’787 patent has been asserted by Patent Owner against Everlight
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Everlight Americas, Inc. in Document Security Systems,
`Inc. v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al., No. 2:17-cv-04273, pending in the
`Central District of California and Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Electronics
`Co., Ltd. et. al., No. 2:17-cv-00310, (Eastern District of Texas)(voluntarily
`dismissed).
`
`The ’787 patent has also been asserted by Patent Owner in the following
`
`actions: Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00309 (Eastern
`
`District of Texas)(voluntarily dismissed); Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Cree,
`
`Inc., No. 2:17-cv-04263 (Central District of California); and Document Security
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Nichia America Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-08849 (Central District of
`
`1
`
`

`

`California).
`
`In addition, this Petition is substantively identical to the Petition in IPR2018-
`
`00965 filed by Nichia Corporation. ("Nichia's IPR").
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Petitioner designates the following lead and back-up counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`John F. Rabena (Reg. No. 38,584; Tel. (202) 293-7060;
`
`jrabena@sughrue.com), attorney at Sughrue Mion PLLC, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave.
`
`NW, Washington, DC 20037-3213.
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`William H. Mandir (Reg. No. 32,156; Tel. (202) 293-7060;
`
`wmandir@sughrue.com), attorney at Sughrue Mion PLLC, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave.
`
`NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20037-3213.
`
`2
`
`

`

`II.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103)
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the filing fee for this Petition, as well as
`
`any other fees that may be required in these proceedings, to Deposit Account
`
`19-4880.
`
`III. Requirements for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. §42.104)
`A.
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that the ’787 patent is available for IPR and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the claims
`
`on the grounds identified in herein.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)-(2)) and
`Relief Requested (37 C.F.R. §42.22(a)(1))
`Petitioner requests that the Board institute IPR on claims 1-14 of the ’787
`
`patent because they are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Prior Art
`
`1
`
`2
`
`U.S. Patent No. Re. 36,614 (Ex. 1006,
`“Lumbard”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,611,002
`(Ex. 1007, “Weeks”)
`Lumbard in view of International Patent App. Pub.
`No. WO 2005/081319 (Ex. 1008 with certified
`translation, “Wirth”)
`
`Basis Claims
`Challenged
`
`§103 1-14
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Ground
`
`Prior Art
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`7
`
`Lumbard in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2004/0217360 (Ex. 1009, “Negley”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0198162 (Ex.
`1010, “Ishidu”) in view of Weeks
`Ishidu in view of Wirth
`Ishidu in view of Negley
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0113906 (Ex.
`1011, “Ogawa”) in view of Weeks
`Ogawa in view of Wirth
`Ogawa in view of Negley
`
`Basis Claims
`Challenged
`
`
`
`§103 1, 5-7
`
`§103 1-14
`
`8
`9
`
`IV. Relevant Information Concerning the Contested Patent
`
`A. The Effective Filing Date of the’787 Patent
`
`The ’787 patent (Ex. 1001) was filed August 14, 2007, as a continuation-in-
`
`part of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/608,605 (Ex. 1004), now U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,256,486 (Ex. 1005).
`
`However, the ’787 patent is entitled only to the benefit of its actual filing
`
`date, and not the filing date of the ’605 application. Ex. 1003, ¶¶25-34.1 The ’605
`
`application does not provide written description support for, or enable, the claims
`
`of the ’787 patent because the ’605 application does not disclose the claimed
`
`1 Declaration of Dr. Eric Bretschneider.
`
`4
`
`

`

`details of, e.g., the “light emitting semiconductor die” of claims 1-14 or the claimed
`
`sidewall-interconnects of claims 2-4 and 8-14. Id.
`
`Every claim of the ’787 patent, either explicitly or through dependency,
`
`claims “a light emitting semiconductor die comprising a top major light emitting
`
`surface and an oppositely-disposed bottom major surface, the light emitting
`
`semiconductor die having an anode and a cathode on the bottom major surface of
`
`the light emitting semiconductor die ... wherein the bottom major surface ... is a
`
`bottom surface of a substrate of the die.” Ex. 1001, claims 1-14. The ’605
`
`application discloses a light emitting semiconductor die (“LED”)2 with an anode
`
`on one surface and a cathode on an opposed surface of the LED, and not an LED
`
`with both of the anode and cathode located on the bottom major surface of the LED
`
`that is the bottom surface of a substrate of the LED. Ex. 1003, ¶¶30-31; Ex. 1004 at
`
`9, 14, 25, 27, 32. The claimed LED (as well as the claimed sidewall-interconnects,
`
`added in, e.g., Figures 8A-8C) are clearly new matter, and thus the specification of
`
`the ’605 application does not provide adequate support for the claims of the ’787
`
`patent. Ex. 1003, ¶¶25-33.
`
`2 Petitioner uses “LED” in this Petition to refer to a light emitting semiconductor
`
`die.
`
`5
`
`

`

`B. Overview of the ’787 Patent
`The ’787 patent explains that conventional LED devices are unsuitable for
`
`use in high packing density applications, and that “what is needed is a
`
`semiconductor packaging device that is comparable in volume with the
`
`semiconductor die and that is compatible with conventional printed circuit board
`
`assembly processes.” Ex. 1001 at 1:36-45.3 The ’787 patent purports to solve this
`
`problem through the use of an LED having both a cathode and an anode on a
`
`substrate on the bottom surface of the LED opposite to the LED’s major light
`
`emitting surface. Further, according to the ’787 patent, the cathode and anode of
`
`the LED are mounted on a substrate packaging assembly,4 wherein the wiring on
`
`the substrate packaging assembly is either through cylindrical vias therein, or along
`
`the sidewalls—(e.g., along semi-cylindrical channels therein). See generally id. at
`
`2:6-3:12.
`
`3 For ease of reference, patent citations are to column and line numbers,
`
`and citations to patent application publications are to paragraph numbers. All
`
`other citations are to the exhibit page numbers in the lower right hand corner.
`
`4 Petitioner uses the term “substrate packaging assembly” in this Petition to
`
`refer to the portion of the claimed device on which the LED is mounted. See infra
`
`Figure 7B on page 7.
`
`6
`
`

`

`During prosecution, applicants admitted that LEDs according to the invention
`
`were known in the prior art, and that the field of the invention is a predictable one.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 144-48.
`
`Figure 7B below represents one embodiment of the ’787 patent, discussion of
`
`which highlights the claimed features.5
`
`
`
`The ’787 patent teaches that the substrate packaging assembly on which the
`
`LED is mounted includes two bonding pads (enumerated 730 and 732, and colored
`
`purple, above) on its upper surface. Ex. 1001 at 12:19-34; Ex. 1003, ¶38. It is to
`
`5 The labeling follows the conventions for this Petition set forth in Footnotes 2 and
`
`4. Unless otherwise noted, all coloring and descriptions have been added to the
`
`figures.
`
`7
`
`

`

`these two bonding pads” that the anode bond pad (760) and cathode bond pad
`
`(762) (colored green) of the LED are mounted and electrically connected. Ex.
`
`1001 at 12:35-44; Ex. 1003, ¶39. The ’787 patent notes that either of the electrical
`
`contacts 760 or 762 may be considered the anode bond pad or the cathode bond
`
`pad, and vice versa. Ex. 1001 at 12:42-44; Ex. 1003, ¶39. The substrate packaging
`
`assembly also includes, on its lower surface, two “connecting pads” (enumerated
`
`740 and 742, and colored orange), and interconnecting elements (enumerated 720
`
`and 722, and colored yellow) that electrically connect the connecting pads to the
`
`bonding pads. Ex. 1001 at 12:47-63; Ex. 1003, ¶40. In the embodiment depicted
`
`in Figure 7B, the interconnecting elements run through cylindrical holes in the
`
`substrate packaging assembly. Ex. 1001 at 12:13-14; Ex. 1003, ¶40.
`
`The ’787 patent discloses another embodiment where the interconnecting
`
`elements are located on the sidewalls of the substrate packaging assembly. Ex.
`
`1001 at 13:17-28; Ex. 1003, ¶41. Compare Figure 7A, which depicts a plan view
`
`of the previously described embodiment (with interconnecting elements 720 and
`
`722 running through the substrate), with Figure 8A, which depicts a plan view of
`
`the other embodiment (with interconnecting elements 770 and 772 running along
`
`the sidewalls of the substrate packaging assembly):
`
`8
`
`

`

`C. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Several factors may be considered in determining the proper skill level:
`
`The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. Factors
`that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art
`may include: (A) “type of problems encountered in the art;” (B) “prior art
`solutions to those problems;” (C) “rapidity with which innovations are
`made;” (D) “sophistication of the technology; and” (E) “educational level of
`active workers in the field. In a given case, every factor may not be present,
`and one or more factors may predominate.”
`
`M.P.E.P. §2141.03.
`
`Here, the level of skill in the art is apparent from the cited art. See In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner submits that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) for the ’787 patent would have had at least a
`
`B.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field, and four years’
`
`experience designing LED packages. Ex. 1003, ¶¶22-24. This description is
`
`9
`
`

`

`approximate, and a higher level of education or skill might make up for less
`
`experience, and vice-versa. Id.
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))
`
`A claim subject to IPR is to be given its broadest reasonable construction
`
`(“BRI”) in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016). Only terms subject to a legitimate dispute
`
`need to be construed. See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521
`
`F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008); U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d
`
`1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Petitioner notes that the top and bottom major surfaces of the claimed LED
`
`are distinguishable from the first and second major surfaces of the claimed
`
`“substantially planar substrate” (the substrate packaging assembly, discussed
`
`herein). While the claimed LED itself also has a “substrate” (as described in, e.g.,
`
`the last limitations of claims 1, 7, and 11: “wherein the bottom major surface of the
`
`light emitting semiconductor die is a bottom surface of a substrate of the die”), it
`
`should not be confused with the substrate packaging assembly. Ex. 1003, ¶48.
`
`Petitioner’s three proposed constructions below are with respect to
`
`limitations of the LED, not the substrate packaging assembly.
`
`10
`
`

`

`“[top]6 major light emitting surface”
`1.
`The ’787 patent is consistent in its usage of “major surface” to refer, as a
`
`matter of geometric orientation, to a face that is greater in size than the other faces
`
`of the element being described. Ex. 1003, ¶¶49-51. For example, with respect to
`
`LED 750, the patent describes that it has two opposed major surfaces (Ex. 1001 at
`
`12:35-42; see also 5:22-25), shown in Figure 7B:
`
`top major surface of
`LED 750
`
`
`
`Further, in an appeal brief submitted during prosecution (discussed below),
`
`applicants included the following figure to orient the Board with respect to the top
`
`major light emitting surface of LED 750:
`
`6 The word “top” is bracketed because it was plainly used as a prosecution device
`
`for establishing clear antecedent basis.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002 at 147.
`
`Therefore, under BRI, “[top] major light emitting surface” as recited in claims
`
`1, 7, and 11, means: “of the two largest faces of the LED, the face through which
`
`light is emitted.” Ex. 1003, ¶¶49-51; Ex. 1001 at 5:22-25, 12:35-42; Ex. 1002 at
`
`147.
`
`
`
`“an oppositely-disposed [bottom]7 major surface”
`2.
`Similarly, the phrase “an oppositely-disposed [bottom] major surface” as
`
`recited in the same claims means: “of the two largest faces of the LED, the face
`
`opposite the light emitting face.” Ex. 1003, ¶¶52-53; Ex. 1001 at 5:22-25, 12:35-
`
`42; Ex. 1002 at 147 (“The originally-filed application also provides that an anode
`
`and cathode can be formed on the bottom major surface of an LED die, where the
`
`7
`
` The word “bottom” was used as a prosecution device for establishing clear
`
`antecedent basis.
`
`12
`
`

`

`bottom major surface refers to the surface which faces the substrate onto which the
`
`LED die is mounted.”).8
`
`3.
`
`“the [bottom]9 major surface ... is a bottom surface of a
`substrate of the die”
`The phrase “the [bottom] major surface ... is a bottom surface of a substrate
`
`of the die” as recited in claims 1, 7, and 11 means: “the face of the LED opposite
`
`the light emitting face is on the substrate side of the LED.” Ex. 1003, ¶54; Ex.
`
`1001 at 5:22-25, 12:35-42; Ex. 1002 at 187-95 (Examiner’s Amendment).
`
`V. Relevant Prosecution History
`
`On July 8, 2010, the examiner issued a final rejection of originally-filed
`
`claims 1, 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §112 with respect to the limitation “a light
`
`emitting semiconductor die comprising a top major light emitting surface and an
`
`oppositely-disposed bottom major surface, the light emitting semiconductor die
`
`having either both, or at least one, of an anode and a cathode on the bottom major
`
`surface of the light emitting die” because the original disclosure “never adequately
`
`8
`
` The “substrate” to which applicants were referring in this quotation from the
`
`prosecution history is the substrate of the substrate packaging assembly—not the
`
`substrate of the LED. Ex. 1003, ¶53.
`
`9 The word “bottom” was used as a prosecution device for establishing clear
`
`antecedent basis.
`
`13
`
`

`

`discloses that the recited anode and cathode are formed at a same bottom surface
`
`that opposites [sic] a light emitting top surface.” Ex. 1002 at 128-29.
`
`In an appeal brief, to overcome that § 112 rejection, applicants submitted the
`
`figure reproduced above, and admitted that it “was known as of the filing date of
`
`the present application to construct a light emitting semiconductor die with an
`
`anode and cathode on one surface of the semiconductor die and a light emitting
`
`surface on the opposite surface of the semiconductor die.” Ex. 1002 at 146-47.
`
`They further stated “that it was well within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to construct a light emitting semiconductor die as claimed.” Id. In that
`
`same brief, applicants admitted that “the semiconductor arts are a well-established
`
`and predictable field. Furthermore, light-emitting semiconductor dies and their
`
`behavior are well established and predictable.” Id. at 148.
`
`VI. Patentability of Specific Grounds for Petition
`
`A. Prior Art
`With the exception of Lumbard, no prior art relied upon in the Grounds was
`
`cited during prosecution.
`
`Lumbard
`1.
`Lumbard is entitled “Modular Surface Mount Component for an Electrical
`
`Device or LED’s.” Ex. 1006. U.S. Patent No. 4,843,280, the patent from which
`
`Lumbard re-issued, was cited during prosecution of the ’787 patent—but there were
`
`no rejections based on it, and it was not discussed. See generally Ex. 1002.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Lumbard was filed January 15, 1988, and re-issued March 14, 2000. Ex. 1006.
`
`Accordingly, it is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`2 .
`Ishidu
`Ishidu, entitled “Light Emitting Element Mounting Member, and
`
`Semiconductor Device Using the Same,” was filed March 15, 2004, and published
`
`September 7, 2006.10 Ex. 1010. Accordingly, it is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a).
`
`3 . Ogawa
`Ogawa, entitled “Light Emitting Device and Method for Manufacturing
`
`Thereof,” published June 1, 2006. Ex. 1011. Accordingly, it is prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`4 . Weeks
`Weeks, entitled “Gallium Nitride Material Devices and Methods Including
`
`Backside Vias,” issued August 26, 2003. Ex. 1007. Accordingly, it is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`5 . Wirth
`
`Wirth, entitled “Optoelectronic Component, Device Comprising a Plurality
`
`of Optoelectronic Components, and Method for the Production of an
`
`10 Ishidu issued on April 14, 2009, as U.S. Patent No. 7,518,155 (Ex. 1012).
`
`15
`
`

`

`Optoelectronic Component,” published September 1, 2005.11 Ex. 1008.
`
`Accordingly, it is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Negley
`6.
`Negley, entitled “Light-Emitting Devices Having Coplanar Electrical
`
`Contacts Adjacent to a Substrate Surface Opposite an Active Region and Methods
`
`of Forming the Same,” published November 4, 2004.12 Ex. 1009. Accordingly, it
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`B. Grounds 1-3: Lumbard, in view of Weeks, Wirth, or Negley,
`renders obvious claims 1-14
`1.
`Claim 1
`
`1 [Preamble] “A semiconductor device”
`If the preamble is limiting, Lumbard discloses a semiconductor device. Ex.
`
`1003, ¶90. Lumbard’s “invention relates to electro-optical displays, and other
`
`modular compact components.” Ex. 1006 at 1:9-11; Ex. 1003, ¶90. The “invention
`
`provides an inexpensive technique for making surface mounted semiconductor
`
`packages.” Ex. 1006 at 5:66-67; Ex. 1003, ¶90. Figure 1 (below) depicts “a
`
`perspective view of a modular compact component including a light
`
`11 Wirth was later entered as a national stage application in the United States and
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,835,937 (Ex. 1014). The citations to Wirth herein are to
`
`the Bates stamped page numbers in the bottom right hand corner of the exhibit.
`
`12 Negley issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,714,345 (Ex. 1013).
`16
`
`

`

`emitting diode which is encapsulated in transparent epoxy.” Ex. 1006 at 2:43-45;
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶90.
`
`
`1[a] “a substantially planar substrate having first and second major
`surfaces, the first and second major surfaces being opposed
`surfaces”
`Lumbard discloses a substantially planar substrate that has first and second
`
`opposed major surfaces. Ex. 1003, ¶¶91-92. As shown in Figure 1 below,
`
`Lumbard discloses a “flat substrate 12” with an “upper side 11” (which
`
`corresponds to the claimed “first major surface”) and a “back side 18” (which
`
`corresponds to the claimed “second major surface”). Ex. 1006 at 2:64-3:13; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶91.
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`flat substrate 12
`
`1[b] “a light emitting semiconductor die comprising a top major
`light emitting surface and an oppositely-disposed bottom major
`surface, the light emitting semiconductor die having an anode
`and a cathode on the bottom major surface of the light emitting
`semiconductor die”
`
`As shown in Figure 1 below, Lumbard discloses that “[a] light-emitting
`
`diode 15 is mounted on the land area 13 so that its terminal on the underneath or
`
`back side is electrically and mechanically coupled to the land area 13. The upper
`
`side of the light emitting diode 15 is provided with a terminal 16 which is
`
`electrically conductive and connected with the connection pad 14 via a bonding
`
`wire 17.” Ex. 1006 at 3:4-10; Ex. 1003, ¶93.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`However, Lumbard does not expressly disclose that light-emitting diode 15 is
`
`configured such that, of the two major LED surfaces, the top is the one through
`
`which light is emitted—although a POSITA would have understood that Lumbard
`
`functioned that way. Ex. 1003, ¶94. Nor does Lumbard disclose that the
`
`oppositely-disposed LED surface (i.e., the bottom surface or backside) has both an
`
`anode and a cathode on it; rather, as discussed above, Lumbard employs a
`
`wire-bonding method for connecting its top electrode to its connection pad. Ex.
`
`1006 at 3:4-10; Ex. 1003, ¶95.
`
`But, as discussed above, applicants admitted that “it was known as of the
`
`filing date of the [’787 patent application] to construct a light emitting
`
`semiconductor die with an anode and cathode on one surface of the semiconductor
`
`die and a light emitting surface on the opposite surface of the semiconductor die.”
`
`Ex. 1002 at 146; Ex. 1003, ¶96.
`
`Three such LEDs—Weeks, Wirth, and Negley—are discussed below.
`
`19
`
`

`

`The Weeks LED
`
`Weeks’ LED has a top major light emitting surface and an oppositely-
`
`disposed bottom major surface—having a cathode and an anode thereon—on the
`
`substrate side of the LED. Ex. 1003, ¶¶97-102.
`
`Weeks explains that, “[i]n some embodiments, such as when device 10 is an
`
`opto-electronic device, backside contact 20 can function as a reflective layer. By
`
`efficiently reflecting internally emitted light away from substrate 12, backside
`
`contact 20 can direct the emitted light out of topside 18 and sides 30 of device 10.”
`
`Ex. 1007 at 6:53-57; Ex. 1003, ¶98. While this portion of Weeks only explicitly
`
`references Figures 4 and 5, a POSITA would have understood it to apply to all
`
`embodiments that include device 10, a backside contact 20, a substrate 12, and
`
`topside 18, including Figure 8. Ex. 1003, ¶98.
`
`Weeks discloses a cathode and an anode (referred to as “n-type” and
`
`“p-type” backside contacts) on “backside 22” of its LED, which refers to the
`
`bottom of “silicon substrate 12”—i.e., the side opposite to the light emitting
`
`side. Ex. 1007 at 10:34-54; Fig. 8; Ex. 1003, ¶99. Weeks explains that
`
`“[a]n n-type backside contact 20a is formed within via 24a and a p-type backside
`
`contact 20b is formed within via 24b.” Ex. 1007 at 10:49-50; Ex. 1003, ¶99. Weeks
`
`explains that “[a]ny suitable conducting material known in the art may be used” for
`
`the “electrical contacts,” including metal. Ex. 1007 at 6:7-21; Ex. 1003, ¶99.
`
`20
`
`

`

`“Suitable metals for n-type contacts include titanium, nickel, aluminum, gold,
`
`copper, and alloys thereof. Suitable metals for p-type contacts include nickel, gold,
`
`and titanium, and alloys thereof.” Ex. 1007, at 6:17-21; Ex. 1003, ¶99.
`
`As shown in Figure 8 below, Weeks discloses topside 18 (which
`
`corresponds to the claimed “top major light emitting surface”), backside 22 on the
`
`side of the LED that includes substrate 12 (which correspond to the claimed
`
`“oppositely-disposed bottom major surface ... [that] is a bottom surface of a
`
`substrate of the die”), backside contact 20a (which corresponds to the claimed
`
`“cathode”), and 20b (which corresponds to the claimed “anode”). Ex. 1003, ¶100.
`
`
`
`topside 18
`topside 18
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`The Wirth LED
`
`Wirth’s LED has a top major light emitting surface and an oppositely-
`
`disposed bottom major surface—having a cathode and an anode thereon—on the
`
`substrate side of the LED. Ex. 1003, ¶¶103-07.
`
`Wirth explains that “[t]he semiconductor function region comprises an
`
`active zone 400 provided to generate ... radiation ....” Ex. 1008 at 187; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶104. Wirth discloses that active zone 400 “comprises for example a plurality of
`
`semiconductor layers and/or is based for example on GaN or GaP” and that “a
`
`current spreading layer 5,” that is highly transparent, is disposed on the active
`
`region. Ex. 1008 at 187-88; Ex. 1003, ¶104. Wirth discloses a cathode and an
`
`anode—i.e., that portion of the “first connection” and “second connection” that are
`
`exposed on the bottom major surface of its die (i.e., at the location of “carrier 3,”
`
`which “contains a material suitable for use as a