Filed on behalf of: Nichia Corporation Paper ____
`
`
`
`
`By: Martin M. Zoltick, Lead Counsel
`
`Robert P. Parker, Back-up Counsel
`Derek F. Dahlgren, Back-up Counsel
`Michael H. Jones, Back-up Counsel
`
`Mark T. Rawls, Back-up Counsel
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-783-6040
`Facsimile: 202-783-6031
`Emails: mzoltick@rfem.com
`
` rparker@rfem.com
`
` ddahlgren@rfem.com
`
` mjones@rfem.com
`
` mrawls@rfem.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Date filed: September 18, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................................ vi
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`THE ’411 PATENT ......................................................................................... 2
`
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The ’411 Patent Claims ......................................................................... 4
`
`Prosecution History of the ’411 Patent ................................................. 4
`
`III.
`
`INSTITUTION DECISION ............................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`Instituted Grounds ................................................................................. 6
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 6
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`The Proper Scope of the Term “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” Requires Resin Below
`Metal on Four Outer Lateral Surfaces ................................................... 8
`
`(i)
`
`The Plain Language of the Claim Requires Resin
`“Below” the Upper Surface of the Metal Part ................10
`
`(ii) Nichia’s Construction is Consistent with the
`Specification and Stated Benefits of the Claimed
`Invention .........................................................................14
`
`(iii) The Feature Covered by Petitioner’s Construction is
`Claimed in a Different, Related Patent ...........................22
`
`(iv) The Prosecution History is Consistent with Nichia’s
`Interpretation and Supports Rejecting Petitioner’s
`Broadening Construction of the Term ............................25
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`(v) Response to Questions Raised by the Board in the
`Institution Decision .........................................................26
`
`B.
`
`The Term “A Resin Package Comprising a Resin Part and a
`Metal Part” is Defined in the Specification of the ’411 Patent as
`for “A Singulated Light Emitting Device”..........................................31
`
`(i)
`
`Each of the Terms “Resin Package,” “Resin Part,”
`and “Metal Part” (Leads) is Expressly Defined in the
`Specification ...................................................................31
`
`(ii) The Term “a Resin Package Comprising a Resin Part
`and a Metal Part” is also Implicitly Defined in the
`Specification Through Its Use ........................................34
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF RELIED-UPON REFERENCES .......................................39
`
`A.
`
`Loh (Ex. 1004) ....................................................................................39
`
`B. Mori (Ex. 1005) ...................................................................................41
`
`C. Wang (Ex. 1006) .................................................................................41
`
`D. Oshio (Ex. 1007) .................................................................................41
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’411 PATENT ARE NOT
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................42
`
`A.
`
`Claim 1 is Not Anticipated by Loh (Ground 1) ..................................42
`
`(i)
`
`Loh Does Not Disclose “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” .........................................................................42
`
`(ii) Loh’s References to “Etching” do not Disclose or
`Suggest the Claimed Feature ..........................................47
`
`(iii) Loh Does Not Disclose “a Resin Package Comprising
`a Resin Part and a Metal Part” ........................................49
`
`B.
`
`Claim 1 Would Not Have Been Obvious in view of Loh
`(Ground 2) ...........................................................................................51
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`(i)
`
`Loh Would Not Have Suggested “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” ...............................................................51
`
`(ii) Loh Would Not Have Suggested “a Resin Package
`Comprising a Resin Part and a Metal Part” ....................54
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`AVX Corp. v. Greatbatch, Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00697, Paper 57 (Oct. 21, 2015) ............................................................. 7
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................34
`
`Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................11
`
`Cutsforth, Inc. v. Motivepower, Inc.,
`643 F. App'x 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................10
`
`Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C. v. Meyer Prods. LLC,
`2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 12979 (P.T.A.B. March 1, 2017).....................................36
`
`Edward Lifescienes LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................36
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 36, 39
`
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 35, 36
`
`In re Power Integrations, Inc.,
`884 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................10
`
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................35
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..............................................................................................55
`
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................33
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................11
`
`Miken Composites, L.L.C. v. Wilson Sporting Goods, Co.,
`515 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................11
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.
`686 F. Appx. 917 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................32
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, Inc.,
`855 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................7, 36
`
`Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................... 18, 32, 33
`
`Pride Mobility Prod. Corp. v. Permobil, Inc.,
`818 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................10
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................34
`
`Sinorgchem Co. v. ITC,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................32
`
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................32
`
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................35
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`MPEP 2111.01 § IV .................................................................................................32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Declaration of Dr. Stanley R. Shanfield, dated June 16, 2017, in
`IPR2017-01608 (Ex. 1003 in that IPR).
`
`Declaration of Dr. Stanley R. Shanfield, dated June 16, 2017, in
`IPR2017-01623 (Ex. 1103 in that IPR).
`
`Dandan Zhu and Colin J. Humphreys, Solid-State Lighting Based
`on Light Emitting Diode Technology, Chapter 5 (2016).
`
`Sheng Liu and Xiaobing Luo, LED Packaging for Lighting
`Applications: Design, Manufacturing and Testing, Chemical
`Industry Press (2011).
`
`Exhibit
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071 in
`IPR2018-00437, dated January 12, 2018.
`
`2006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071.
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`Vizio Holdings, Inc.’s Amendment No. 3 to Form S-1 Registration
`Statement, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
`October 22, 2015 (retrieved from
`http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FilingID=1096439
`2&RcvdDate=10/22/2015&CoName=VIZIO%20HOLDINGS%2
`C%20INC.&FormType=S-
`1/A&View=html%20September%2026,%202016%20Disc\Internet
`%20articles\FetchF%20VIZIO(4).pdf).
`
`Westlaw Company Investigator Reports for Vizio, Inc., AmTran
`Logistics Company and AmTran Logistics Inc. Company.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Stanley R. Shanfield, dated January 12, 2018, in
`IPR2018-00437 (Ex. 1003 in that IPR).
`
`Transcript of Teleconference in IPR2017-01608 and IPR2017-
`01623, dated February 28, 2018 (Ex. 2029 and Ex. 2129
`respectively, in those IPRs).
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2011
`
`Declaration of Dr. E. Fred Schubert, dated September 18, 2018.
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2007-235085 (“Urasaki”) with
`Certified English Translation in IPR2017-01608 and IPR2017-
`01623 (Exs. 1007 and 1107 respectively, in those IPRs).
`
`Transcript of Stanley R. Shanfield, Ph.D. Deposition, dated May
`21, 2018, taken in IPR2017-01608, IPR2017-01623, IPR2018-
`00893, IPR2017-02011, IPR2017-02014 (Ex. 2710 in IPR2017-
`01608 and IPR2017-01623).
`
`E. Chen, “III. Wet and Dry Etching,” Harvard University Center
`for Imaging and Mesoscale Structures (2004) (retrieved from
`https://www.mrsec.harvard.edu/education/ap298r2004/Erli%20che
`n%20Fabrication%20III%20-%20Etching.pdf).
`
`Exhibit B to Complaint for Patent Infringement, Nichia Corp. v.
`Vizio, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00246, Dkt. 1-2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21,
`2016 ) [Copy of Memorandum Opinion and Order, Nichia Corp. v.
`Everlight Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-00702-JGR, Dkt. 193 (E.D.
`Tex. Jan. 26, 2016)].
`
`vii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.120(a), Patent Owner, Nichia Corporation
`
`(“Nichia” or “Patent Owner”), submits this Response to the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411 (the “ʼ411 Patent”) (Ex.
`
`1001) filed by Petitioner, Vizio, Inc. (“Vizio” or “Petitioner”) challenging claims
`
`1-3, 5-8, 10, 13, and 15-20 (the “Challenged Claims”). Patent Owner respectfully
`
`requests that the Board find that all challenged claims are patentable for at least the
`
`following two, independent reasons.
`
`First, all of the Challenged Claims require that “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.” Ex. 1001, 19:45-
`
`48 (emphasis added). When this term is given its proper construction, U.S. Patent
`
`Publication No. 2008/0012036 (“Loh”) (Ex. 1004) does not disclose this limitation,
`
`and Petitioner does not assert that any of the other art of record cures this
`
`deficiency. See Section VI.A.i-ii and VI.B.i; Ex. 2011, ¶¶ 105-123 (Declaration of
`
`Dr. E. Fred Schubert (the “Schubert Decl.”).
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that the meaning of resin “disposed in a region below an
`
`upper surface of the metal part” encompasses resin located next to the metal part
`
`(i.e., “between the leads”). See, e.g., Petition, pp. 30-32 (“resin fills the gaps
`
`between the leads at the outer lateral surfaces”); Institution Decision, pp. 8-9
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`(“Petitioner’s arguments implicitly advance an interpretation that includes resin
`
`between the side surfaces of metal leads.”). This is contrary to the plain meaning
`
`of the words of the claim and inconsistent with the specification and purpose of the
`
`’411 Patent. See Section IV.A. The term “region below” is neither the same as,
`
`nor does it include, the “region between.” Accordingly, the Board should reject
`
`Petitioner’s attempt to broaden the meaning of this term beyond its reasonable
`
`scope and find all Challenged Claims patentable.
`
`Second, all of the Challenged Claims require “a resin package comprising a
`
`resin part and a metal part.” This term is defined – both expressly and through its
`
`consistent use – as referring to a resin package, a resin part, and a metal part
`
`(leads) of “a singulated light emitting device.” See Ex. 1001 at 3:33-36; see also
`
`Section IV.B. Loh does not disclose a singulated light emitting device and
`
`Petitioner does not assert that any of the other art of record cures this deficiency.
`
`See Sections VI.A.iii and VI.B.ii; see also Schubert Decl., ¶¶ 124-127. Thus, the
`
`Challenged Claims are patentable for this additional reason.
`
`II. THE ’411 PATENT
`
`A. Overview
`
`
`
`The ʼ411 Patent claims novel, non-obvious singulated light emitting devices,
`
`which are made using a simple, low-cost method that is significantly more efficient
`
`than prior methods. Schubert Decl., ¶¶ 21-26; Ex. 1001, 3:25-30 (“In view of the
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`above problems, an object of the present invention is to provide a simple and low-
`
`cost method for manufacturing, in a short time, multiple light emitting devices
`
`which has high adhesion between a lead frame and a thermosetting resin
`
`composition.”). Not only is the disclosed method more efficient, but the resultant
`
`devices do not suffer from delamination problems that existed at the time of the
`
`invention. Ex. 1001, 2:32-37, 3:51-55, 6:12-16, 16:51-54; Schubert Decl., ¶¶ 21-
`
`26, 44-56.
`
`According to some embodiments, the lead frame used to form the devices
`
`has etched notches, which have concavities/convexities in their sidewall surfaces.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:37-39; Schubert Decl., ¶¶ 25-26 and 44-56; see also
`
`discussion regarding “region below” in Section IV.A. Due to these
`
`concavities/convexities of the notches, when the lead frame is singulated along the
`
`notches to form the individual devices, resin is present in the regions below the
`
`exposed metal leads at the outer lateral surfaces. See id. This improves adhesion
`
`of the resin part to the metal leads, which is one of the stated goals of the ʼ411
`
`Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 16:51-54 (“An etched lead frame is used for the leads
`
`322. In the cut surface of the resin-molded body, the etched leads 322 have a
`
`concavity and convexity. This concavity and convexity improve adhesion between
`
`the resin part and leads.”); 9:37-42 (“However, etching can form concave-convex
`
`shapes in the entire sectional (etched part) part of the lead frame, so that it is
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`possible to increase a bonding area between the lead frame and resin-molded body
`
`and mold a resin package of better adhesion”); 2:32-37; Schubert Decl., ¶ 26.
`
`B. The ’411 Patent Claims
`
`Claim 1 is the only challenged independent claim of the ’411 Patent and
`
`reads:
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 19:33-50 (emphasis added).
`
`C. Prosecution History of the ’411 Patent
`
`The ’411 Patent was filed October 30, 2015, and issued November 8, 2016.
`
`The ’411 Patent is a continuation of application No. 13/969,182, filed August 16,
`
`2013, which is a continuation of application No. 12/737,940, filed as application
`
`No. PCT/JP2009/004170 on August 27, 2009, now U.S. Patent No. 8,530,250 (the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`“’250 Patent”). The ’411 Patent also claims the benefit of JP 2008-2254408, filed
`
`September 3, 2008.
`
`A Notice of Allowance was issued on October 12, 2016, and provided the
`
`following:
`
`The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance….
`
`Sorg et al US (2004/0106234 Al) … 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”, because Sorg et al
`
`disclose in Fig. 1 the resin part 6 which is an encapsulation material
`
`(paragraph 0008) which transmits electromagnetic radiation
`
`(paragraph 0053) above the metal part 2 and 3 (paragraph 0007), and
`
`Sorg et al also disclose a carrier 9 (paragraph 0008) which is a
`
`polyimide in an embodiment (paragraph 0021) and Sorg et al also
`
`discloses that it is not desirable to have encapsulation material on the
`
`underside of the leadframe (paragraph 0060), which is a disclosure
`
`that it is not desirable to have encapsulation material below the upper
`
`surface of the metal part. Urasaki (JP2007/235085) was also cited in
`
`citation C3 of the IDS filed 9/29/2016. Urasaki does not disclose all
`
`of the limitations of the allowed claims for example Urasaki does not
`
`disclose or suggest the limitation “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” as
`
`seen in the Figures.
`
`Ex. 1002, pp. 243-44.
`
`5
`
`

`

`III.
`
`INSTITUTION DECISION
`
`A. Instituted Grounds
`
`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`The Board instituted inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on
`
`Grounds 1-5, as summarized below:
`
`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Ground 1 Loh
`
`Ground 2 Loh
`
`§ 102
`
`1-3, 5-8, 13, 15 and 19-20
`
`§ 103
`
`1-3, 5-8, 13, 15 and 19-20
`
`Ground 3 Loh and Mori
`
`§ 103
`
`10
`
`Ground 4 Loh and Wang
`
`§ 103
`
`16-18
`
`Ground 5 Loh, Wang, and Oshio
`
`§ 103
`
`16-18
`
`
`Institution Decision, pp. 6, 21. Thus, the only challenge to independent claim 1 is
`
`based on Loh alone.
`
`B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The Institution Decision does not specifically define the level of skill and
`
`education of a Person of Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention.
`
`Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this
`
`proceeding. See Petition, p. 13.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner notes that Petitioner has opted for a lower level of skill than as
`
`set forth in the definition adopted by the district court in the Everlight case. “[I]n
`
`general, a lower level of skill in the art favors a determination of nonobviousness,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`while a higher level of skill favors a finding of obviousness.” AVX Corp. v.
`
`Greatbatch, Ltd., IPR2014-00697, Paper 57 at 8 n.4 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2015) (citing
`
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of
`
`nonobviousness, and thus the patentee, while a higher level of skill favors the
`
`reverse.”)). This is particularly true in a challenging field like LED design where
`
`there are a multitude of considerations ranging from heat, optical and electrical
`
`conduction and mechanical challenges, not to mention manufacturing issues.
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, Inc., 855 F.3d 1328, 1332-33, 1337 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017).
`
`In particular, the field of the invention relates to LED package design, where
`
`multiple design challenges must be addressed, including electrical, optical, heat
`
`conduction, adhesion, and mechanical challenges. See Nichia Corp., 855 F.3d at
`
`1332-33. These competing considerations can often be contradictory and can pull
`
`the design in different directions. Id. Moreover, at the time of the invention,
`
`textbooks on LED package design were very limited, and Patent Owner is not
`
`aware of any seminal text focusing on LED packaging applications. Ex. 2004 at
`
`15. Indeed, the field of invention was very unpredictable at the time of the
`
`invention of the ʼ411 Patent. Nichia Corp., 855 F.3d at 1339 (district court’s
`
`finding on a motivation to combine was not clearly erroneous because “artisans in
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`this field face myriad design challenges because small design changes may cause
`
`unpredictable results and because design considerations often pull in multiple
`
`directions.”); see also Schubert Decl., ¶¶ 27-33.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`There are two limitations of claim 1 – “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 “a resin package
`
`comprising a resin part and a metal part” – that, when properly construed, are
`
`neither disclosed nor would have been suggested by the Loh reference. As
`
`Petitioner has made no obviousness arguments that would remedy these
`
`deficiencies of Loh, adoption of Nichia’s proposed construction of either term
`
`would mean that all Challenged Claims are patentable.
`
`A. The Proper Scope of the Term “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” Requires
`Resin Below Metal on Four Outer Lateral Surfaces
`
`
`
`Through its application of the prior art, the Petition seeks to broaden the
`
`meaning of “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” beyond its reasonable scope.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`
`
`Specifically, the Petition argues that the meaning of resin “disposed in a
`
`region below an upper surface of the metal part” encompasses resin located next to
`
`the metal part (i.e., “between the leads”). See, e.g.:
`
`
`
`Petition, pp. 30-32 (“resin fills the gaps between the leads at the outer lateral
`
`surfaces”) (annotated with red dashed-line by Patent Owner); Institution Decision,
`
`pp. 8-9 (“Petitioner’s arguments implicitly advance an interpretation that includes
`
`resin between the side surfaces of metal leads.”). There is no assertion in the
`
`Petition that there is actually resin below metal on two sides of the Loh device, and
`
`Petitioner affirms its position by stating: “at minimum, and alternatively, as
`
`discussed … it would have been obvious to a POSITA, that the region between the
`
`leads (see Figure 7) are filled with resin.” Petition, p. 32 (emphasis added). The
`
`Petition improperly equates “region below” with “region between.”
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`
`
`This is contrary to the plain meaning of the words of the claim, and
`
`inconsistent with the specification and purpose of the ’411 Patent. See Sections
`
`IV.A.i-ii; Schubert Decl., ¶¶ 36-56. Adoption of Petitioner’s broadening
`
`interpretation would, in effect, render this claim term meaningless by eliding the
`
`word “below.” Resin to the left and right of the leads is a different design, claimed
`
`in a different patent of the family. See discussion below regarding the ’071 Patent,
`
`Section IV.A.iii.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner submits that the scope of this term should be limited to what is
`
`claimed (i.e., “below”), and not expanded to cover alternative designs, as
`
`suggested in the Petition. See Cutsforth, Inc. v. Motivepower, Inc., 643 F. App'x
`
`1008, 1010-11 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (construction of term that exceeded the scope of its
`
`plain meaning was “unreasonable”); Pride Mobility Prod. Corp. v. Permobil, Inc.,
`
`818 F.3d 1307, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (departure from the express geometry of
`
`the claim limitation was an error).
`
`(i)
`
`The Plain Language of the Claim Requires Resin
`“Below” the Upper Surface of the Metal Part
`
`
`
`“[C]laim construction must begin with the words of the claims themselves,”
`
`and here, by its plain terms, claim 1 requires that there be resin “disposed in a
`
`region below” the upper surface of the metal part. In re Power Integrations, Inc.,
`
`884 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`Roussel, Inc., 457 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); Miken Composites, L.L.C. v.
`
`Wilson Sporting Goods, Co., 515 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008). And this
`
`specific requirement of the claim would be rendered superfluous if resin next to
`
`and “between” the leads were somehow encompassed by “below.” Id.; see also
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A
`
`claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over
`
`one that does not do so.”); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d
`
`1371, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[O]rdinary, simple English words whose
`
`meaning is clear and unquestionable,” absent any indication that their use in a
`
`particular context changes their meaning, are construed to “mean exactly what they
`
`say.”).
`
`
`
`The scope of this claim term should not be broadened beyond its plain
`
`meaning, and one of skill in the art would understand that the plain meaning of
`
`resin “disposed in a region below” means that there is resin “in a region below,”
`
`not merely next to or “between.” Schubert Decl., ¶¶ 40-43; Nystrom v. Trex Co.,
`
`Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1145-46 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Broadening of the ordinary
`
`meaning of a term in the absence of support in the intrinsic record indicating that
`
`such a broad meaning was intended violates the principles articulated in Phillips.”).
`
`That is, the proper interpretation of resin disposed “in a region below an upper
`
`surface of the metal part” must, at a minimum, require that there is actually resin
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`below (i.e., underneath) the upper surface of the metal part at four outer lateral
`
`surfaces.
`
`
`
`By way of analogy, one would not say that their next-door neighbor’s
`
`basement is “disposed in a region below” their own house. For instance, consider
`
`the illustration below:
`
`house
`
`main floor
`
`basement
`
`Upper
`surface of
`the main
`floor
`
`
`
`In this example, the sub-floor portion (or thickness) of the main floor (other than
`
`the main floor’s upper surface) and the basement are both disposed in a region
`
`below the upper surface of the main floor:
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`upper surface of
`the main floor
`
`a region below the
`upper surface of the
`main floor
`
`
`
`As shown above, both the sub-floor and basement are disposed in the annotated
`
`region (identified by the red-dashed line) below the upper surface of the main
`
`floor. However, as shown below, it would be contrary to the plain meaning of
`
`“below” to say that a neighbor’s basement is located in that same region below
`
`the upper surface of the main floor:
`
`House 1
`
`upper surface of the
`main floor of House 1
`
`Neighbor’s basement is not
`disposed in a region below
`the upper surface of the
`main floor of House 1
`
`House 2
`(Neighbor)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As another example, a landowner may own mineral rights to minerals below
`
`their own land, but would not own rights to minerals below a neighbor’s land.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`That is, even if the properties are adjacent, the neighbor’s minerals are not below
`
`the landowner’s land.
`
`
`
`In sum, “next to” is different than “below.” Below means underneath. Just
`
`because something is “next to” something else – or as stated in the Petition, “in
`
`between” – does not mean that it is disposed in a region below it. Schubert Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 40-43.
`
`(ii)
`
`Nichia’s Construction is Consistent with the
`Specification and Stated Benefits of the Claimed
`Invention
`
`
`
`As explained in the background of the ’411 Patent, there was a detachment
`
`problem with certain prior art designs that used a flat, printed-wiring board as the
`
`substrate:
`
`However, these wiring board and lead frame have a flat plate shape
`
`and have a small adhering area because a thermosetting resin
`
`composition is arranged on this flat shape, and therefore there is a
`
`problem that, for example, a lead frame and thermosetting resin
`
`composition are likely to be detached upon singulation.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:32-37 (emphasis added); Schubert Decl., ¶¶ 44-49. Accordingly “an
`
`object of the present invention” is to provide LED devices with “high adhesion
`
`between” the resin part and leads. See Ex. 1001, 3:26-30.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00386
`Patent 9,490,411
`
`
`
`
`This portion of the background is referring to Japanese Appl. No. 2007-
`
`235085 to Urasaki, a translation of which is provided as Ex. 2012.1 In Urasaki,
`
`there was no resin located below the leads at the outer surfaces, and as such, “a
`
`lead frame and thermosetting resin composition are likely to be detached upon
`
`singulation” in the Urasaki design. Ex. 1001, 2:35-37;
`
`
`
`Ex. 2012, FIGs. 2(a), 3, and 6 (annotated to show metal in blue, resin in green); see
`
`also Schubert Decl., ¶¶ 48-49. That is, while Urasaki had resin above the metal
`
`105 (see, e.g., Figure 6), and between the metal 105 (see, e.g., Figures 2 and 3),
`
`the