`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: March 5, 2019
`__________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
`NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`GABRIELLE E. HIGGINS
`CHRISTOPHER M. BONNY
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284
`650-617-4000
`christopher.bonny@ropesgray.com
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MARTIN M. ZOLTICK
`MICHAEL H. JONES
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`202-783-6040
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, March 5,
`
`2019, commencing at 1:01 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE SAINDON: We're here for an oral hearing in two cases,
`IPR 2018-00386 and IPR 2018-00437, involving Petitioner Vizio and Patent
`Owner Nichia.
`I am Judge Saindon and with me here is Judge Medley, and Judge
`Engels is appearing from our Dallas, Texas office. He can only hear you
`through that microphone right there. So please talk only talk when you are
`at the podium.
`All right. We have 75 minutes in total. So each side will have
`their 75 minutes. That will be between your primary time and rebuttal time.
`When you get up, if you want to let me know, to reserve some time for you,
`I will be giving you oral warnings and keeping the clock here. We don't
`have an external clock in this room.
`So with that, Petitioner you are going to go first and you may reserve
`time for rebuttal. We'll do introductions for each side when you first step
`up. So we'll go with Petitioner first. Introduce yourself and your team.
`And then if you have any rebuttal time you want to reserve, let me know.
`MS. HIGGINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Gabrielle Higgins.
`With me today is Christopher Bonny and Allen Cross from Ropes & Gray
`on behalf of Petitioner. We would like to reserve 25 minutes if we may of
`rebuttal time.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. You may begin when ready.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`MS. HIGGINS: Thank you. Slide 4, please. So Petitioner has
`provided our positions and our evidence in our briefing. To assist the board
`in considering the record, we will address today in our opening discussion
`four topics along with any questions the Board may have.
`I will first address the two claim construction issues, and we'll show
`how the prior reference Loh meets those two terms.
`My colleague, Mr. Bonny, will then address the lack of written
`description support for Patent Owner's proposed amended claims in the 071
`patent as well as the unpatentability of Patent Owner's proposed amended
`claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103.
`Slide 5, please. So we're going to start with this disputed claim
`term, which is unique to the 386 proceeding involving the 411 patent.
`Slide 6, please. And we see here independent Claim 1 of the 411
`patent, which recites in the highlighted language 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.
`Now as shown in Figure 1, which is an annotated figure from the
`Petition, both a part of the metal part, which is colored in blue and a part of
`the resin part, colored in green, are disposed in a region below an upper
`surface of the metal part outlined in blue on four outer lateral surfaces of the
`resin package.
`To be clear, it is the region below an upper surface of the metal part
`that is outlined in blue. The blue line illustrates the upper boundary of the
`region, which is in the resin package.
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Turn to Slide 7, please. Now 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 consistent with the
`specification under the broadest reasonable interpretation that's applicable in
`this proceeding.
`First, the claim self-requires that a part of the metal part and a part of
`the resin part are disposed in a region. And the claim language itself
`specifies the region. The region must be below an upper surface of the
`metal part. And the region is outlined in blue in Figure 1. And the region
`must also be on four outer lateral surfaces of the resin package, which is
`outlined by the red lines in Figure 1.
`Second, consistent with the patent claims and specification, the plain
`meaning of below is at a lower level than.
`Slide 8, please. Now, as the Federal Circuit case law tells us,
`specification is the single best guide to the meaning of the term. The
`figures for all embodiments disclose both a part of the metal part and a part
`of the resin part disposed in a region that is below, i.e. at a lower level than
`an upper surface of the metal part. All of the figures support the broadest
`reasonable interpretation.
`Slide 9, please. So consistent with the claims and specification,
`contemporary dictionary definitions confirm the plain meaning of below,
`that it's at a lower level than. As Dr. Shanfield explained, a person of
`ordinary skill would have understood that when resin is below an upper
`surface, it is at a lower level than the upper surface.
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Slide 10, please. Now, I have Petitioner's construction on the left.
`Patent Owner's construction on the right. The plain meaning of below
`Petitioner's position is that it is consistent with the specification. Below is
`at a lower level than. That's the plain meaning.
`Patent Owner's construction, on the other hand, should be rejected
`because it improperly narrows the term below to mean underneath and is
`untethered to the specification.
`Patent Owner's construction should also be rejected because it fails
`to give meaning to the words in a region and an upper surface. In fact, in its
`response Patent Owner repeatedly characterized its construction as resin
`below metal and resin under metal, completely omitting the words that we
`have struck through in red.
`For example, you can look at Patent Owner's Response Paper 20 at 8
`in the heading, Page 9, Page 17, Page 26.
`Slide 11, please. Now Patent Owner argues that below means
`underneath. But Patent Owner's narrowing of below to mean underneath is
`not the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
`None of the patent figures show resin underneath an upper surface of
`the metal part as required by the claim and as the Board correctly pointed
`out in the institution decision. Patent Owner's construction narrowing
`below to underneath would improperly exclude all of the figures from the
`specification.
`Slide 12. Now in an attempt to limit below to mean underneath, the
`Patent Owner makes the strained and incorrect argument that the etched
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`concavity convexity of the leads in Figure 11 is an upper surface of the
`metal part. But the etched convexities are side surfaces of the leads, not
`upper surfaces. And the patent specification itself in the 411 patent Column
`13, Lines 37 to 41, expressly discloses, as it says in the box, that the side
`surfaces, corresponding to the notch parts 21A adhere to the resin-molded
`body 24 so that the adhesion string between the lead frame 21 and the resin-
`molded body is improved.
`Slide 13. Now moreover, Patent Owner admits the etched
`concavities are side surfaces, not upper surfaces. The first quoting in
`yellow is from Patent Owner's preliminary Response Paper 8 at Page 7.
`And there Patent Owner explicitly stated that etching may result in
`concavities in the side surfaces of the notches.
`In addition, Dr. Schubert, who is Patent Owner's technical expert,
`admitted that as a result of etching notches in the lead frame, concavities or
`convexities are formed in the region below the upper surfaces of the exposed
`leads. That's Exhibit 2011, Paragraph 50.
`As support for the statement. Dr. Schubert cited that same Column
`13 from the patent that expressly refers to the surfaces as side surfaces.
`That's as shown in Figure 11 on the left and Dr. Schubert's annotated image
`on the right. The concavity convexity is a side surface not an upper surface.
`And it is in a region below, i.e. at a lower level than an upper surface of the
`metal part.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Counsel, do we have any idea as to the size of
`this convexity?
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`MS. HIGGINS: My understanding, Your Honor, is that it's very
`small on the lead.
`JUDGE SAINDON: We have just have what's shown in Figure 11?
`MS. HIGGINS: That is correct.
`JUDGE SAINDON: It's just a drawing.
`MS. HIGGINS: In the figures that is the only indication of an
`etched concavity.
`JUDGE SAINDON: What about the experts, as far as how a person
`of ordinary skill would understand, well, these are etched so it might provide
`some sort of basis to understand how big these things are.
`MS. HIGGINS: I don't believe there's anything in the record, Your
`Honor, specifically on that subject. There's stuff about how you would go
`about doing the etching, but I don't remember dimensions.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Thank you.
`MS. HIGGINS: Turning to Slide 14, please. So Patent Owner's
`argument that region below is limited to region underneath fails for another
`reason as well. We looked for the word region in the specification. And it
`appears there but only in connection with, you know, the word wavelength
`so it didn't appear to be relevant.
`This is the one other place actually in the claims where we see the
`word region. And what we see is that when Patent Owner wanted to
`describe a region as underneath, it used different words than in a region
`below.
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Compare Claim 1, which claims in a region below, with Claim 6,
`which claims in a region directly under. Claim 1 broadly claims in a region
`below an upper surface of the metal part, i.e. in a region at a lower level than
`the upper surface.
`In contrast, Claim 6 more narrowly claims a lower surface of the
`metal part exposed in a region directly under the light emitting element.
`Now Patent Owner argues that claim differentiation doesn't apply
`here. But Patent Owner ignores the basic principle that different words or
`phrases are presumed to have a different meaning.
`Slide 6, please. Now, Petitioner's evidence in support of its claim
`construction is grounded in the claims and the specification. You will see
`in Patent Owner's briefing that over and over again Patent Owner is going to
`show you extrinsic evidence and most of it is supported and backed up by
`statements of its expert.
`This house analogy on the right is one such illustration. And Patent
`Owner's analogies -- and they argue that somehow this analogy with these
`two houses analogizes Petitioner's construction to a next door neighbor's
`basement, but none of what Patent Owner argues is tethered to the
`specification.
`Patent Owner's analogies and hypothetical illustrations are irrelevant
`extrinsic evidence and contrary to what the actual figures of the patent show.
`The claim does not require, and the specification does not show, metal and
`resin parts stacked vertically.
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Compare the patent's Figure 1, which shows resin and metal parts in
`a region below an upper surface of the metal but not stacked vertically with
`Patent Owner's house analogy, where it incorrectly argues that the resin and
`metal parts must be stacked vertically.
`So our complaint here is with the scope of what they're arguing their
`construction is. Consistent with the specification it's not. Their definition
`of below as underneath is too narrow and doesn't meet the scope of the
`claims in the specification, and it would be error for the Board to rely on
`Patent Owner's extrinsic evidence over the more reliable intrinsic record.
`Turn to Slide 17, please. Here's another example of one of these
`extrinsic figures that the Patent Owner has dreamed up. Patent Owner
`argues that Petitioner's construction fails to account for differences in level.
`But neither the patent figures nor Loh shows differences in level on an upper
`surface. So this is irrelevant. Patent Owner's illustrations are extrinsic
`attorney evidence that don't correspond to the patent and don't make sense.
`For example, if we look at both figures, the Patent Owner hasn't even
`really explained to us what they are or where they came from. Neither
`figure shows where resin would be located in a complete device, and the
`figure on the right doesn't even show how it's held together.
`Another thing, the Patent Owner is going to get up here and tell you
`that that red line is what Petitioner says is the upper surface of the metal part
`and that we took the position that it is a plane. That is just not correct.
`Okay?
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`So that line, if you notice, the way Patent Owner drew it, they drew
`it extending outside of the box. And that is not how we illustrated the
`region disposed below an upper surface of the metal part because as the
`claim says very clearly, the region does have bounds. The claims itself tells
`you what those bounds are. So that red line is not what we said the upper
`surface is for one.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Is it within that box?
`MS. HIGGINS: So the region --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Is it on --
`MS. HIGGINS: So the region -- we would agree, Your Honor, that
`the region below an upper surface of the metal box -- okay, excuse me, of
`the metal part, we would agree that you can have.
`So a surface has a level. And the focus here, and I think where we
`have a dispute is over what is the region below? Okay? We say that the
`region below an upper surface of the metal part is just that. So if there was
`a blue line and it was bounded within, assuming that thing is even a resin
`package, which they haven't told us, but if it was bounded within that, we
`could have, and I'm holding my pen along the, you know, access of the
`vertical point, we could have resin disposed in a region below an upper
`surface of the metal part.
`But let's start with the fact that if you look through the entire
`specification, you won't find an example of levels on an upper surface.
`There is a disclosure of levels on the lower surface, like a step on the bottom
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`surface. And the reason -- excuse me, a step -- and the reason why that's
`there, the patent says it is preferably to help you with mounting.
`But we really submit that, you know, as the body of case law tells us
`to stick within the scope of the specification. But if you're going to go
`outside the scope of the specification, to the extent that there are multiple
`upper surfaces, the claim only requires that the resin be disposed in a region
`below at a lower level than an upper surface of the metal part.
`And I remind you, if we look back at all those figures that I showed
`you, every single embodiment of the patent, every single one of those
`figures doesn't look anything like that.
`Slide 19, please. Now consistent with patent disclosures and claims,
`Loh discloses, this is the prior art reference, that both part of the metal part,
`also indicated in blue, and a part of the resin part, in green shown in Figure 7
`on the right, are disposed in a region below an upper surface of the metal
`part. Once again, we've outlined the region below an upper surface of the
`metal part in blue, and it's on four outer lateral surfaces of the resin package.
`The arrangement of resin in metal on the outer lateral surface in Loh
`is like the disclosed figures in the 411 patent. For example, if we compare
`the front outer lateral surface of Figure 1 on the left with the outer lateral
`surface of Loh labeled with leads 206, both have a part of the metal part and
`a part of the resin part disposed in a region below, i.e. at a lower level than
`an upper surface of the metal part.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Now Loh also, like the patent, provides the same benefit disclosed in
`the 411 patent of improved adhesion by increasing the bonding area between
`metal and resin and also discloses etching in the lead frame, Paragraph 27.
`For Patent Owner to now argue that Loh is deficient when it is
`consistent with the disclosures in the specification is an incorrect attempt to
`narrow the claim at the 11th hour to preserve validity, and Patent Owner's
`arguments should be rejected.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Counsel, I have a question. So the claim
`limitation that we're talking about, I guess the issue is you read it at first and
`you think it means one thing. And you keep thinking about it and you're
`like, okay, I'm trying to see exactly how much does this cover?
`And the issue with that side of Loh, Figure 7, that has the 206 label
`in it is that there is no resin depicted below metal. And taking aside what
`the patent discloses, just taking the claims at face value, I understand your
`argument about regions and necks, but I'm trying to wrap my head around:
`there's no metal below -- there's no resin below the metal in that side of Loh.
`And I think that's one of Patent Owner's arguments. And I just wondered if
`you could respond to that.
`MS. HIGGINS: Sure. Can you go back to Slide 6, please? So,
`Your Honor, I want to point out that that was exactly the position that Patent
`Owner took that there's no resin below metal, but that's not the language of
`the claim.
`The claim doesn't say resin below metal. It says resin below and --
`excuse me. It says part of the metal part, part of the resin part, are disposed
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`in a region below an upper surface of the metal part on four outer lateral
`surfaces of the resin package.
`So you have to give meaning to each of the words in the claim. And
`we think it's very important to read the claims as a whole. And if you start
`parsing it like Patent Owner has and you leave out words when you just say
`metal below -- excuse me -- resin under metal or resin below metal, you are
`not giving meaning to the word region. You're reading out that word, and
`that is improper as a matter of law. Okay?
`We are giving meaning to the word region. And we're giving it
`meaning consistent with the patent specification and all the figures. And so,
`you know, once again I said that the specification itself is what you look to
`when you're trying to determine what these words mean.
`And the specification shows us that in each and every one of these
`figures, as you all properly pointed out in the institution decision, there isn't
`resin below an upper surface of the metal part in that fashion. You know,
`Patent Owner is trying to narrow that region to that very small space, that
`stacked vertical space. And that's just not what any of the figures show.
`The word below, and we do understand that the word below has
`multiple plain meanings. We're taking the definition of below at a lower
`level than is broader than their definition underneath. And it's entirely
`consistent with the patent disclosure and all the claims. And to limit the
`term by reading out the word region and upper surface, too, when you said
`resin below metal, Your Honor, you didn't take into account an upper
`surface.
`
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Patent Owner also tries to, like, call it the upper surface. It's an
`upper surface. So we believe that when you give meaning to each and
`every word of the claim, consistent with the specification and the claim
`under the BRI, Petitioner's construction is the correct one.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Thank you.
`MS. HIGGINS: Okay. Let's turn to resin package, Slide 21. So
`here we see that Claim 1 of the 411 patent and Claim 1 of the 071 patent are
`apparatus claims that recite the structure of a resin package comprising a
`resin part and a metal part.
`The claim language supports the plain and ordinary meaning of this
`term under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim language itself
`tells us what the resin package is, a resin part and a metal part with at least
`two plates and goes on further to describe its structure.
`Claim 1 does not require a resin package of a singulated light
`emitting device formed from multiple light emitting devices. Patent Owner
`is trying to improperly -- to read in a process limitation into apparatus
`claims.
`Turning to Slide 22. Now the specification supports the plain and
`ordinary meaning. For example, in Figure 1 we see that it shows the
`structure of a light emitting device. The specification describes that the
`light emitting device 100 has a resin package 20, resin part 25 and leads 22.
`Turning to Slide 23. The prosecution history also supports the plain
`and ordinary meaning. For example, during prosecution of a related patent,
`the examiner found that Chia, a reference cited by Patent Owner, disclosed a
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`resin package even though Chia had no disclosure of multiple devices for
`singulation. Patent Owner did not dispute that she had disclosed it as a
`resin package in a resin part and two leads.
`Slide 24, please. Now further the use of the term is consistent with
`a person of ordinary skill's understanding of the plain meaning as used in the
`field. As Dr. Shanfield explained, an IEEE definition, for example, defines
`package as an external container.
`Slide 25. Now once again we have Petitioner's construction on the
`left, Patent Owner's construction on the right. Petitioner says that the term
`should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`Patent Owner's construction, on the other hand, should be rejected
`because it's reading into the claim those red words there, a singulated light
`emitting device from multiple light emitting devices.
`That's wrong because the Applicant did not redefine the term or
`disavow its full claim scope. In addition, Patent Owner's construction
`would improperly narrow the scope of the apparatus claims to depend on
`how the LED is manufactured.
`Slide 26, please. Now Patent Owner argues that applicant acted as
`its own lexicographer and defined the terms resin package, resin part and
`metal part with specification. But the portion of the specification relied on
`by the Patent Owner is not definitional. It merely provides context for the
`specification's discussion of those terms, that is providing context for the
`discussion of the manufacturing process.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`And contrary to its position here, Patent Owner agreed in the
`litigation that the terms resin package, resin part and metal part get their
`plain and ordinary meaning.
`The Petitioner in the Petition, those submitted on Petition Paper 2,
`Pages 12, 13, cited to Exhibit 1014, which is the joint claim construction
`statement from the underlying litigation as well as Patent Owner's claim
`construction brief.
`And if you look at 1014, Exhibit A, you will see that contrary to its
`position here, which is now we're talking lexicography. In the District
`Court, they agreed that these terms get their plain and ordinary meaning.
`And Patent Owner should not be permitted to contradict its prior Phillips
`construction position by taking a narrow position here. I think Judge Moore
`has said that's incorrect.
`Slide 27, please. As an independent reason why Patent Owner's
`construction fails, Patent Owner improperly reads a manufacturing process
`limitation into the apparatus claims.
`All of the claims are apparatus claims, not method of manufacture
`claims. All of 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. Thus, Patent Owner's construction would
`improperly narrow the scope of apparatus claims to depend on how the light
`emitting device is manufactured.
`The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that it's improper to construe
`an apparatus claim to read in a manufacturing limitation.
`17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Can you turn to the next slide, please? First in Vanguard, the
`Federal Circuit rejected the argument that the word integral should be
`limited to a co-extrusion process -- the only co-extrusion process that was
`set forth in that specification.
`Similarly, in Research Corp, the Federal Circuit rejected the
`argument that a blue noise mask should be limited to a blue noise filter
`process. It held that the claim was a pure apparatus claim and is not limited
`to any particular process or method.
`And finally in Baldwin, the Court found that the District Court
`blurred an important distinction between apparatus claims and method
`claims, pointing out that these are two different classes of patentable subject
`matter under 101.
`Now Patent Owner has cited a case In re Norte. That case also
`supports us. In In re Norte, first of all it is different in that the term at issue
`was already in the claim. You don't have that situation here. Here they're
`trying to read the manufacturing step into the claim.
`But in Norte, there were clear structural differences between an
`injection molded brace and one made of fabric. Here the specification
`doesn't disclose any clear structural differences in the final product
`depending on whether or not the LED was singulated or manufactured by
`some other process.
`Slide 31, please. Now Loh discloses a resin package comprising a
`metal part and a resin part. And we can see package 260 in yellow, package
`body 230 in green and the leads 204, 206 in blue. There is no dispute that
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`Loh discloses a resin package comprising a resin part and a metal part under
`the plain and ordinary meaning.
`Slide 32. And even under Patent Owner's permissibly narrow
`reading, which would require a singulated admitting device, Loh discloses a
`resin package comprising a resin part and a metal part.
`For example, Loh discloses a lead frame that's made by, for example,
`rolling a metal strip. And as Dr. Shanfield explained, a person of ordinary
`skill would have understood from Loh's express disclosure of a metal strip
`that Loh's light emitting device is formed from multiple light emitting
`devices on a single lead frame, which are then singulated.
`In addition, Slide 33, Loh incorporates by reference other Loh
`references that confirm that Loh's light emitting device has been singulated.
`And Loh improperly incorporated the Loh publications in their entirety
`using broad and unequivocal language.
`If Your Honors have no questions regarding that limitation, I'll pass
`the podium to my colleague, Mr. Bonny.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Sure. And just for your notice, it's been about
`half an hour.
`MS. HIGGINS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`MR. BONNY: Please turn to Slide 34. So turning to the third
`issue, Patent Owner's proposed amended claims lack written description
`support.
`Slide 34. This issue pertains to all proposed claims and is therefore
`dispositive.
`
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`Slide 36, please. First of all, there is no dispute that the proposed
`amended claims require exactly two metal structures.
`Slide 37, please. There was also no dispute that the proposed claims
`require resin to the left and right of the exposed portion of the metal
`structures on first and second outer lateral surfaces.
`Slide 39, please. As a result of those limitations, there is no written
`description support in the priority documents for this specific combination of
`features. The priority documents disclose only one embodiment with resin
`located on the left and right sides of an exposed portion of the metal
`structures and that's shown in Figure 12, which is the fifth embodiment.
`But that embodiment has three metal structures instead of the required two.
`As explained by Dr. Shanfield, a person of skill would have
`understood from Figure 12 that it shows the metal of the resin package is
`divided into three separate metal structures.
`The front and back structures, which are shown in light blue -- and
`by the way, there is no dispute here that this particular device would be
`symmetrical and so you have another light blue structure in the back. And
`then there's a third central metal structure with legs extending to each corner
`of the device shown in dark blue.
`Slide 40, please. Now a side-by-side comparison of the lead frame
`of the fifth embodiment, which is Figure 12, and the lead frames of the other
`embodiments, for example, the first embodiment shown in Figure 1, shows
`that the lead frame of the fifth embodiment is, in fact, different.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00386 (Patent 9,490,411 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00437 (Patent 9,537,071 B2)
`
`
`In Figure 12, the light emitting device -- the light emitting element,
`rather, is mounted on a third metal structure. And you can actually see if
`you look in the bottom left of this slide here, you can see that the wires come
`off that third metal structure and go toward the front and back of the device,
`where they connect to two separate metal structures.
`In contrast, if you look at the bottom right of Slide 40, in Figure 1,
`the light emitting device is mounted directly on one of the only two metal
`structures. One wire connects directly to that same metal structure as you
`can see in the figure and another wire, a second wire, comes off to the
`second metal structure.
`So Figure 1 also, by
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
