DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner VIZIO’s
`Demonstrative Slides
`
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Nichia Corp.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos.
`9,490,411 and 9,537,071
`
`IPR2018-00386 and IPR2018-00437
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`March 5, 2019
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1043 Page 00001
`
`

`

`Table of Abbreviations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Description
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 1 (Petition)
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 8 (POPR)
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 15 (Inst. Dec.)
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 20 (POR)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No. 9,490,411
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Institution Decision
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply) Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 28 (PO Sur-
`Patent Owner's Sur-Reply
`Reply)
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 35 (PO RRSR) Response to Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 2 (Petition)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No. 9,537,071
`
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 17 (Inst. Dec.)
`
`Institution Decision
`
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 22 (POR)
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 31 (Pet. Reply) Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 39 (PO Sur-
`Reply)
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 46 (Pet. RSR)
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 47 (PO RRSR) Response to Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner's Sur-Reply
`
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 24 (PO Mot.
`Amend)
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 32 (Pet. Opp.
`Mot. Amend)
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 34 (PO Reply
`Mot. Amend)
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 42 (Pet. Sur-
`Reply Mot. Amend)
`
`Patent Owner's Contingent Motion to Amend Claims
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend Claims
`
`Reply to Petitioner's Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`Claims
`Petitioner’s Sur-Reply to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend Claims
`
`Note: Where only an exhibit number is cited, exhibit is identical in both proceedings (e.g., Ex. 1003 (Loh))
`
`2
`
`

`

`Instituted Grounds in IPR2018-00386 and IPR2018-00437
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable As Anticipated and/or Obvious
`Over:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`’411 Claims Challenged
`
`’071 Claims Challenged
`
`IPR2018-00386
`
`IPR2018-00437
`
`Loh
`
`Loh
`
`§ 102
`
`1-3, 5-8, 13, 15, 19-20
`
`1, 4, 8-9, 11-12, 15-18, 25
`
`§ 103
`
`1-3, 5-8, 13, 15, 19-20
`
`1, 4, 8-9, 11-12, 15-18, 25
`
`Loh and Mori
`
`§ 103
`
`10
`
`Loh and Wang
`
`§ 103
`
`16-18
`
`Loh, Wang, and Oshio
`
`§ 103
`
`16-18
`
`2, 19
`
`5-7, 21-23
`
`5-7, 21-23
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 15 (Inst. Dec.), 21; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 17 (Inst. Dec.), 18.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Overview Of The Issues
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`• Whether Loh discloses “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”
`
`• Whether Loh discloses “a resin package comprising a resin part and a
`metal part”
`
`• Whether Patent Owner’s proposed amended ’071 patent claims lack
`written description support under 35 U.S.C. ¶112
`
`• Whether Patent Owner’s proposed amended ’071 patent claims are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. ¶103
`
`4
`
`

`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00386
`
`“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”
`
`5
`
`

`

`The Term “…disposed in a region below an upper surface of the
`metal part, on four outer lateral surfaces of the resin package”
`Should Be Given Its Plain And Ordinary Meaning
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘411 Patent, Claim 1:
`
`1. A light emitting device comprising:
`
`a resin package comprising a resin part and a metal
`part including at least two metal plates, said resin
`package having four outer lateral surfaces and
`having a concave portion having a bottom surface;
`and
`
`a light emitting element mounted on the bottom
`surface of the concave portion and electrically
`connected to the metal part,
`
`wherein at least a portion of an outer lateral surface
`of the resin part and at least a portion of an outer
`lateral surface of the metal part are coplanar at an
`outer lateral surface of the resin package,
`
`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, and
`
`wherein a notch is formed in the metal part at each
`of the four outer lateral surfaces of the resin
`package.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), cl. 1.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), Fig. 1.
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶20-38; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24
`(Pet. Reply), 3-17; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 1-2.
`
`6
`
`

`

`The Term “…disposed in a region below an upper surface of the
`metal part, on four outer lateral surfaces of the resin package”
`Should Be Given Its Plain And Ordinary Meaning
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`• A part of the metal part and a part of the resin part are disposed “in a
`region”
`
`“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”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411) Claim 1.
`
`• The claim language itself specifies the
`“region”:
`
`• The “region” is “below an upper
`surface of the metal part”
`
`• The “region” is “on four outer lateral
`surfaces of the resin package”
`
`• The plain meaning of “below” is “at a lower level than”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 1.
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶20-25, 31-33; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet.
`Reply), 3-7, 12-13; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 1.
`
`7
`
`

`

`The Term “…disposed in a region below an upper surface of the
`metal part, on four outer lateral surfaces of the resin package”
`Should Be Given Its Plain And Ordinary Meaning
`
`• The figures for all embodiments disclose resin that is disposed in a “region” that
`is “below” (i.e., at a lower level than) “an upper surface of the metal part”:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 6.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 12.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 1.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 9.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 11.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 13.
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶21-24; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 3-7; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 1-2.
`
`8
`
`

`

`The Plain Meaning Of “below” Is “at a lower level than”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`• The claims and specification repeatedly refer to a surface of the resin
`package or leads as having a “level”
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), 4:63-65, 16:30-33, 17:3-6, 17:44-46, 20:23-26.
`
`• Consistent with the claims and specification, contemporaneous
`dictionary definitions confirm the plain meaning of “below” is “at a lower
`level than”:
`
`“below…prep...at a lower level
`than”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1026 (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary), 202.
`
`“below…preposition…Lower in
`position than, at less elevation than”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1027 (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary), 217.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 1.
`
`Dr. Shanfield:
`
`“[A] POSITA would have understood that when resin is ‘below’ an upper surface, as
`in claim 1, it is at a lower level than the upper surface.”
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶22; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 4-5; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 1-2.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶22
`9
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Construction Improperly Narrows The Meaning Of
`“Below” And Omits Words From The Claim
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Alleged plain and ordinary meaning
`
`disposed in a region below (i.e., at a
`lower level than) an upper surface of
`the metal part, on four outer lateral
`surfaces of the resin package
`
`disposed in a region below (i.e.,
`underneath) an upper surface of the
`metal part, on four outer lateral
`surfaces of the resin package
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 3-7.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 20 (POR), 8, 11-12, 51.
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶25-38; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 8-17; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 1-2.
`
`10
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 1.
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Construction Improperly Excludes The Preferred
`Embodiments From The Scope Of The Claim
`Patent Owner argues: “[T]he proper interpretation...must, at a minimum, require that there is actually resin
`below (i.e., underneath) the upper surface of the metal part at four outer lateral surfaces.”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 20 (POR), 11-12.
`• BUT, none of the ’411 patent figures shows resin underneath an upper surface of the
`metal part:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 6.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 12.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 1.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 9.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 11.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 13.
`
`“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).
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), 6:21-18:5, Figs. 1, 6, 9, 11-13; IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield
`11
`Decl.) ¶¶24-25; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 3-8; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 1-2.
`
`

`

`Etched Concavities/Convexities Are Side Surfaces
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Patent Owner argues: “[T]he disclosures of the ’411 Patent relating to etching a lead frame result in
`concavities and convexities in the cross-sectional surface of the notch part, thereby resulting in a singulated
`device that has resin beneath metal at four outer lateral surfaces.”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 20 (POR), 20.
`
`• BUT, the claims require resin “disposed in a region below an upper surface of
`the metal part” and the etched concavities/convexities are side surfaces
`
`‘411 Patent:
`
`“Further, not only the upper
`surface of the lead frame 21,
`but also the side surfaces
`corresponding to the notch
`parts 21a adhere to the resin-
`molded body 24, so that the
`adhesion strength between the
`lead frame 21 and resin
`molded body 24 is improved.”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), 13:37-41.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), Fig. 11.
`
`Dr. Shanfield:
`
`“[T]he concavity/convexity…is a side surface, and is a different surface distinct from the
`upper surface.”
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶26-29; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 9-11; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 1-2.
`
`12
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶28.
`
`

`

`Etched Concavities/Convexities Are Side Surfaces
`
`• Patent Owner and Dr. Schubert admit that etched concavities/convexities are
`“side surfaces” that are below the upper surface of the metal part:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`“etching may result in concavities in the side surfaces of the notches”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 8 (POPR), 7.
`
`Dr. Schubert:
`“In other words, as a result of etching notches in the lead frame, concavities or convexities are
`formed in the regions below the upper surfaces of the exposed leads, which then fill with
`resin during processing. See Ex. 1001, 18:50-53 (“The lead frame is provided with the notch
`parts 21a by etching. Although not illustrated, a concavity and convexity are formed in the
`cross-sectional surface of the notch part 21a.”)…13:37-41 (“[N]ot only the upper surface of
`the lead frame 21, but also the side surfaces corresponding to the notch parts 21a adhere to
`the resin-molded body 24, so that the adhesion strength between the lead frame 21 and resin
`molded body 24 is improved”).”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 2011 (Schubert Decl.) ¶50 (quoting IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), 13:37-41).
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶26-29; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 9-11; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 1-2.
`
`13
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 11.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.2011 (Schubert Decl.), ¶51.
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Construction Improperly Narrows The Claimed “Region”
`
`Patent Owner argues: “[T]he proper interpretation…must, at a minimum, require that there is actually resin
`below (i.e., underneath) the upper surface of the metal part at four outer lateral surfaces.”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 20 (POR),11-12.
`
`• BUT, the patent expressly uses a different term when requiring that a
`claimed “region” be underneath:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’411 Patent, Claim 1:
`“in a region below”
`
`’411 Patent, Claim 6:
`“in a region directly under”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), cl. 1.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), cl. 6.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 1.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 2.
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶33; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 13; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 2.
`
`14
`
`

`

`The Prosecution History Supports Petitioner’s Construction
`
`Patent Owner argues: “With respect to the cited Sorg reference, … the Examiner equated the disputed
`claim term to resin under metal, consistent with Patent Owner’s position.”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 20 (POR), 26.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`• BUT, Sorg discloses chip encapsulation 6 and carrier 9 (i.e., resin part) (in
`green) located entirely above the upper surface of connection conductors 2
`and 3 (i.e., metal part) (in blue):
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1024 (Sorg), Fig. 1, ¶¶7-8, 41, 48.
`
`• Thus, the Examiner found that 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’”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1002 (’411 File History), 243.
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶37; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 16-17; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 2.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Extrinsic Evidence Is Irrelevant
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Patent Owner argues: “By way of analogy, one would not say that their next-door neighbor’s basement is
`‘disposed in a region below’ their own house.”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 20 (POR), 12-14; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 35 (PO RRSR), 1.
`• BUT, Patent Owner’s analogies and hypothetical illustrations are irrelevant extrinsic evidence
`
`• There is no requirement that the metal and resin parts in “a region below an upper surface of
`metal part” be stacked vertically, or that the region be bounded by a portion of the metal plate
`
`• The actual patent figures show that the preferred embodiments are consistent with
`Petitioner’s construction
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex.1001 (‘411), Fig. 1.
`
`“[T]he examiner erred by resorting to extrinsic evidence that was inconsistent with the more
`reliable intrinsic evidence.”
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶35; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 15; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 2.
`
`16
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F. 3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 20 (POR), 13.
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Figures With Differences In Level Are Irrelevant,
`and Regardless Are Consistent With Petitioner’s Construction
`
`Patent Owner argues: Petitioner’s construction “fails to account for” embodiments having “differences in
`level.”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 28 (PO Sur-Reply), 1-2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`• BUT, neither the patent figures nor Loh show differences in level “on an upper surface,”
`so the issue is irrelevant
`
`• PO’s hypothetical illustrations are extrinsic attorney argument that do not make sense
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 28 (PO Sur-Reply), 2.
`
`• Regardless, to the extent PO argues there are multiple upper surfaces, the claim only
`requires that resin be disposed in a region below (i.e., at a lower level than) “an” upper
`surface of the metal part
`
`• Petitioner’s construction is consistent with Patent Owner’s hypotheticals having
`differences in level
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 2.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Argument Regarding The “Notch” Limitation Is
`Incorrect And Irrelevant
`
`Patent Owner argues: “Petitioner’s construction renders the disputed term superfluous” because the notch
`limitation of claim 1 requires a “notch” that is “resin-filled.”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 28 (PO Sur-Reply), 4-5.
`
`• BUT, the limitation requiring a “notch” in the metal part does not refer to resin:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claim 1:
`1. A light emitting device comprising:
`
`… w
`
`herein 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, and
`
`wherein a notch is formed in the metal part at
`each of the four outer lateral surfaces of the
`resin package.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), cl. 1.
`
`• Patent Owner’s construction of “notch” in the litigation:
`
`Patent Owner: “[T]he most appropriate construction of the phrase ‘a notch is formed in the
`metal part’ is that ‘there is an opening or indentation in the metal part.’”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1012 (Plaintiff Nichia Corporation’s P.R. 4-5(a) Opening Claim Construction Brief), 16;
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1003 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶49; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 1 (Petition), 12-13.
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 2.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Loh Discloses A Part Of The Resin Part “disposed in a region below an upper
`surface of the metal part, on four outer lateral surfaces of the resin package”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`• Consistent with the ’411 patent disclosure and claims, Loh discloses “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 [e.g., outlined in blue], on four
`outer lateral surfaces of the resin package”:
`
`‘411 Patent:
`
`Loh:
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), Fig. 1.
`
`Ex. 1004 (Loh), Fig. 7.
`
`E.g., Ex. 1004 (Loh), ¶¶75-76, 88, 93, Figs 5-7; IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1003 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶85-89; IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017
`(Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶53-54; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 24-26; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 1 (Petition), 29-32.
`
`19
`
`

`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-00386 and IPR2018-00437
`
`“a resin package comprising a resin
`part and a metal part”
`
`20
`
`

`

`The Term “a resin package comprising a resin part and a metal
`part” Should Be Given Its Plain And Ordinary Meaning
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‘411 Patent, Claim 1:
`
`‘071 Patent, Claim 1:
`
`1. A light emitting device comprising:
`
`a resin package comprising a resin part and a
`metal part including at least two metal plates, said
`resin package having four outer lateral surfaces and
`having a concave portion having a bottom surface;
`and
`
`a light emitting element mounted on the bottom
`surface of the concave portion and electrically
`connected to the metal part,
`
`wherein at least a portion of an outer lateral surface
`of the resin part and at least a portion of an outer
`lateral surface of the metal part are coplanar at an
`outer lateral surface of the resin package,
`
`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, and
`
`wherein a notch is formed in the metal part at each
`of the four outer lateral surfaces of the resin
`package.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (‘411), cl. 1.
`
`1. A light emitting device comprising:
`
`a resin package comprising a resin part and a
`metal part including at least two metal plates, said
`resin package having four outer lateral surfaces and
`having a concave portion having a bottom surface;
`and
`
`a light emitting element mounted on the bottom
`surface of the concave portion and electrically
`connected to the metal part,
`
`wherein at least a portion of an outer lateral surface
`of the resin part and at least a portion of an outer
`lateral surface of the metal part are coplanar at an
`outer lateral surface of the resin package,
`
`wherein a notch is formed in the metal part at each
`of the four outer lateral surfaces of the resin
`package,
`
`wherein the resin part is located at left and right
`sides of a portion of the metal part at at least two of
`the four outer lateral surfaces of the resin package,
`and
`
`wherein each of the first and second metal plates is
`substantially flat.
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶39-51; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 17-24;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶19-31; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 31 (Pet. Reply), 3-9.
`
`21
`
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (‘071), cl. 1.
`
`

`

`The Term “a resin package comprising a resin part and a metal
`part” Should Be Given Its Plain And Ordinary Meaning
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`“A light emitting device comprising: a resin package
`comprising a resin part and a metal part”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (‘411) cl. 1;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (‘071) cl. 1.
`
`Patent Specification:
`
`"A light emitting device 100 … has a
`resin package 20 … resin part 25
`and leads 22."
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), 6:38-47;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (‘071), 6:34-43.
`
`"The resin package 20 is formed with
`a resin part 25 which mainly contains
`a light reflecting material 26, and the
`leads 22."
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (‘411), Fig. 1;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (‘071), Fig. 1.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), 6:53-55;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (‘071), 6:49-51.
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶39-41; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 17-18;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶19-21; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 31 (Pet. Reply), 3-4.
`
`22
`
`

`

`The Term “a resin package comprising a resin part and a metal
`part” Should Be Given Its Plain And Ordinary Meaning
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`“A light emitting device comprising: a resin package
`comprising a resin part and a metal part”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (‘411) cl. 1;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (‘071) cl. 1.
`
`Chia Figure 5A:
`
`Examiner:
`
`“Chia et al discloses a light
`emitting device, as Chia et al
`disclose an LED (para. 0002),
`including a resin package
`including a resin part, as Chia et
`al disclose a resin portion 525,
`which may be epoxy (para. 0031)
`a first lead 520 (Fig. 5A) a
`second lead 515 (Fig 5A)…”
`
`Ex. 1018 (‘870 Patent Prosecution History), 8-9.
`
`Ex. 1020 (Chia), Fig. 5A.
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶42; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 19-20;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶22; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 31 (Pet. Reply), 4-5.
`
`23
`
`

`

`The Use Of The Term “a resin package comprising a resin part
`and a metal part” Is Consistent With A POSITA’s
`Understanding Of The Plain Meaning
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Shanfield:
`
`“[T]he figures in the specification that show ‘a resin package’ are consistent with my
`understanding of the plain meaning of the term as used in the field.” E.g., Ex.
`1001 (’071 patent), 6:37 (‘a resin package 20’), Figs. 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13; Ex. 1039
`(IEEE Standard Glossary of Computer Hardware Terminology (1995)), 66 (‘package:
`An external container, substrate, or platform used to hold a semiconductor or circuit.’).”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶41;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶21.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (‘411), Fig. 1;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (‘071), Fig. 1.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (‘411), Fig. 2;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (‘071), Fig. 2.
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶41-42; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 19-20;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶21-22; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 31 (Pet. Reply), 4-5.
`
`24
`
`

`

`The Claims Do Not Require A “Singulated” Light Emitting Device
`Formed From “Multiple Light Emitting Devices”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`a resin package comprising a resin part
`and a metal part
`
`a resin package comprising a resin part
`and a metal part (leads) of a singulated
`light emitting device formed from
`multiple light emitting devices
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 17-19;
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 31 (Pet. Reply), 3-5.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 20 (POR), 31;
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 22 (POR), 6-7.
`
`• Applicant did not redefine the term or disavow its full claim scope
`
`• Patent Owner’s construction would improperly narrow the scope of the
`apparatus claims to depend on how the light emitting device is manufactured
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶43-50; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 18-24; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 3;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶23-30; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 31 (Pet. Reply), 4-9; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 46 (Pet. RSR), 3.
`
`25
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Did Not Redefine “a resin package comprising a
`resin part and a metal part” Or Disavow Its Full Scope
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Patent Owner argues: The terms “resin package,” “resin part” and “metal part (leads)” are defined in the
`specification.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 20 (POR), 31;
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 22 (POR), 7.
`
`• BUT,
`
`• Patent Owner’s citation is not
`definitional
`
`• Merely provides context for the
`specification’s discussion of those
`terms
`
`“In this description, terms such as
`leads, a resin part, and resin
`package are used for a singulated
`light emitting device ....”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (‘411), 3:33-36;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (‘071), 3:33-36.
`
`Zelinski v. Brunswick Corp.:
`
`“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.”
`
`185 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶44-50; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 17-21;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶24-30; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 31 (Pet. Reply), 3-6.
`
`26
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Construction Of “a resin package comprising a
`resin part and a metal part” Improperly Reads A Manufacturing
`Process Limitation Into The Apparatus Claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`a resin package comprising a resin part
`and a metal part
`
`a resin package comprising a resin part
`and a metal part (leads) of a singulated
`light emitting device formed from
`multiple light emitting devices
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 17-19;
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 31 (Pet. Reply), 3-5.
`
`IPR2018-00386, Pap. 20 (POR), 31-32;
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 22 (POR), 6-8.
`
`• All of the claims at issue are apparatus claims, not method of manufacture
`claims
`
`• The claims recite the structure of a light emitting device, not the
`manufacturing process of singulating a light emitting device from multiple
`light emitting devices
`
`• PO’s construction would improperly narrow the scope of the apparatus claims
`to depend on how the light emitting device is manufactured
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶48-49; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 18-22; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 3;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶28-29; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 31 (Pet. Reply), 4-8; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 46 (Pet. RSR), 3.
`
`27
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Construction Of “a resin package comprising a
`resin part and a metal part” Improperly Reads A Manufacturing
`Process Limitation Into The Apparatus Claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Vanguard Products Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp:
`
`“We agree with the district court that the word ‘integral’ describes the relationship between the
`elastomeric layers, not the means of joining them. This word did not limit the claim to the
`manufacturing process [co-extrusion] set forth in the specification.”
`
`“A novel product that meets the criteria of patentability is not limited to the process by which it
`was made.”
`
`234 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.:
`
`“Claim 29 does not require an application of a blue noise filter to create a blue noise mask.... [The claim]
`is a pure apparatus claim and has no process limitations. Thus, [the claim] is not limited to any
`particular process or method of making the claimed [apparatus].”
`
`627 F.3d 859, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.:
`
`“[T]he district court erred in limiting ‘reduced air content cleaning fabric’ to ‘a fabric whose air content has
`been reduced by some method prior to being wound on a roll.’ ... [The district court] blurred an
`important difference between the two independent claims, namely that claim 1 is an apparatus
`claim and claim 14 is a method claim. Despite their similarities, these claims are directed toward
`different classes of patentable subject material under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶48-49; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 18-22; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 3;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶28-29; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 31 (Pet. Reply), 4-8; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 46 (Pet. RSR), 3.
`
`28
`
`512 F.3d 1338, 1344 (2008).
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Construction Of “a resin package comprising a
`resin part and a metal part” Improperly Reads A Manufacturing
`Process Limitation Into The Apparatus Claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Patent Owner argues: The ’250 patent Final Written Decision supports Patent Owner’s argument regarding
`singulated light emitting device.
`
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 39 (PO SR), 2.
`
`• BUT, Patent Owner ignores the Board’s statement regarding the ’250
`apparatus claims:
`
`“Independent claim 17 of the ’250 patent is an apparatus claim drawn to a light
`emitting device. Being drawn to the light emitting device itself, claim 17 does
`not recite limitations concerning assembly methods, such as transfer
`molding with an upper and lower mold or cutting the resin package and the lead
`frame along a notch provided in the lead frame, as recited in claim 1.”
`
`IPR2017-1608, Pap. 72, 41; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 3;
`IPR2018-00437, Pap. 46 (Pet. RSR), 3.
`
`• The ’250 patent Final Written Decision is consistent with Petitioner’s
`construction.
`
`29
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Construction Of “a resin package comprising a
`resin part and a metal part” Improperly Reads A Process
`Limitation Into The Apparatus Claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Specification:
`
`“cutting and singulating the resin-molded body…[t]he cutting method uses a
`singulation saw, and starts singulation”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), 13:18-30, 11:47-48 (“Method for Manufacturing Light Emitting Device According to First Embodiment”);
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (’071), 13:18-30, 11:45-46 (“Method for Manufacturing Light Emitting Device According to First Embodiment”).
`
`“when the resin package 20 is singulated”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), 18:61-62, 18:65-66, 18:6 (“Example”);
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (’071), 18:46-47, 18:50-51, 17:60 (“Example”).
`
`“when singualtion [sic] is performed using a singualtion [sic] saw”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), 14:44-45, 14:3-4 (“Method for Manufacturing Light Emitting Device According to Second Embodiment”);
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (’071), 14:42-43, 14:1-2 (“Method for Manufacturing Light Emitting Device According to Second Embodiment”).
`
`“singulation is started from the outer upper surface of the resin package 220
`using the singualtion [sic] saw”
`
`IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1001 (’411), 15:13-15;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1001 (’071), 15:9-10.
`
`E.g., IPR2018-00386, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶46-49; IPR2018-00386, Ex. 2011 (Schubert Decl.) ¶76; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 24 (Pet. Reply), 22; IPR2018-00386, Pap. 34 (Pet. RSR), 3;
`IPR2018-00437, Ex. 1017 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶26-29; IPR2018-00437, Ex. 2008 (Schubert Decl.) ¶42; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 31 (Pet. Reply), 7-8; IPR2018-00437, Pap. 46 (Pet. RSR), 3.
`
`30
`
`

`

`Loh Discloses “a resin package comprising a resin part and a metal part”
`
`• Loh discloses a resin package (“package 260”) comprising a resin part (“package
`body 230”) and a metal part (“leads 204, 206”)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1004 (Loh), Fig. 5.
`
`Loh:
`
`“[t]he package 260 includes a
`leadframe 200 including a plurality of
`die mounting regions 202 located in
`a central region of the leadframe 200
`and a plurality of electrical leads
`204, 206”
`
`Ex. 1004 (Loh), ¶74.
`
`“[a] package body 230 is f