Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. 2018-00437
`Patent 9,537,071
`____________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. 2018-00437
`Patent 9,537,071
`____________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`APPLICABLE LAW ....................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 3
`A.
`The Term “Resin Package Comprising a Resin Part and A Metal
`Part” Should Be Given Its Plain and Ordinary Meaning and Is
`Not Limited to an LED “Singulated” From “Multiple Devices” .......... 3
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 10
`A.
`Loh Discloses “a Resin Package Comprising a Resin Part and a
`Metal Part” .......................................................................................... 10
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`V.
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 6
`Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 8
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 6
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 8
`Sinorgchem Co. v. ITC,
`511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 6
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 6
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 3
`Vanguard Products Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp.,
`234 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................ 1, 7
`Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`IPR2013-00170, Paper 14 (PTAB July 29, 2013) ................................................ 2
`Zelinski v. Brunswick Corp.,
`185 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 3
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`Description
`Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11-12, 15–19, 21–23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No.
`9,537,071
`
`Shorthand
`Claims
`
`IPR
`
`BRI
`
`Pet.
`
`DI
`
`PO
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`IPR2018-00437, Paper 2, Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`United States Patent No. 9,537,071
`
`IPR2018-00437, Paper 17, Decision Granting Institution of Inter
`Partes Review
`
`Patent Owner
`
`POSA
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`POR
`
`Pap.
`
`Loh
`
`IPR2018-00437, Paper 22, Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Paper
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0012036 (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`Note: All emphasis herein added unless otherwise stated.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071 File History
`Declaration of Dr. Stanley R. Shanfield
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0012036 (“Loh”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0211991 (“Mori”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0073662 (“Wang”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0280017 (“Oshio”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0261339 (“Koung”)
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2006-093697 (“Park ’697”)
`with Certified English Translation
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0126020 (“Lin”)
`PCT Patent Publication No. WO2007/055486 (“Park ’486”)
`Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01453-JRG, D.I.152,
`Plaintiff Nichia Corporation’s P.R. 4-5(a) Opening Claim
`Construction Brief (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2017)
`Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01453-JRG, D.I.186,
`Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief (E.D. Tex.
`Dec. 13, 2017)
`Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01453-JRG, D.I.211,
`Joint Claim Construction Chart P.R. 4-5(D) (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8,
`2018)
`Declaration of Mary Oros in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`Conference Call Transcript in IPR2018-00437 dated November
`7, 2018
`Declaration of Dr. Stanley R. Shanfield in Support of
`Petitioner’s Reply and Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent
`Motion to Amend Claims
`Excerpts from the File History of U.S. Patent Application No.
`15/360,316 (U.S. Patent No. 10,115,870)
`Reserved
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1020
`Ex. 1021
`Ex. 1022
`Ex. 1023
`Ex. 1024
`Ex. 1025
`Ex. 1026
`Ex. 1027
`Ex. 1028
`
`Ex. 1029
`Ex. 1030
`Ex. 1031
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`Ex. 1033
`
`Ex. 1034
`Ex. 1035
`
`Ex. 1036
`
`Ex. 1037
`
`Ex. 1038
`Ex. 1039
`
`Ex. 1040
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0151149 (“Chia”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0126913 (“Loh ’913”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0269587 (“Loh ’587”)
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-246-JRG, (E.D. Tex.),
`Plaintiff Nichia Corporation’s Submissions Pursuant to Local
`Patent Rules 3-1 and 3-2, dated October 20, 2016
`U.S. Patent No. 10,115,870
`U.S. Patent No. 6,770,498 (“Hsu”)
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2007-235085 (“Urasaki”) with
`Certified English Translation
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2006-156704 (“Kuramoto”)
`with Certified English Translation
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2001-036154 (“Suenaga”)
`with Certified English Translation
`U.S. Patent No. 6,433,277 (“Glenn”)
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH7-99345 (“Matoba”) with
`Certified English Translation
`IPR2017-01623, Exhibit 2727; Hirofumi Ichikawa’s Laboratory
`Notebook (public version of IPR2017-01623, Exhibit 2350)
`IPR2017-01623, Exhibit 2748; Second Declaration of Daisuke
`Yagi
`IPR2017-01623, Exhibit 2407; Patent Drawings
`IEEE Standard Glossary of Computer Hardware Terminology,
`IEEE Std 610.10-1994, October 12, 1995
`Declaration of Drago N. Gregov
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner (“PO”) raises a single validity argument in this proceeding, but
`
`it depends on an unreasonably narrow claim construction that is unsupported by the
`
`Claims and specification, and is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”) standard applicable in this proceeding. Conversely,
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the intrinsic evidence,
`
`including the language of the Claims when read in light of the specification and
`
`prosecution history.
`
`PO’s proposed construction of “resin package comprising a resin part and a
`
`metal part” improperly narrows the term to be limited to a “singulated” device
`
`formed from “multiple light emitting devices,” which directly conflicts with the
`
`Claims and intrinsic record. The claims are directed to “a light emitting device,”
`
`not a “singulated” device formed from “multiple light emitting devices.” Moreover,
`
`all of the claims at issue are apparatus claims. PO’s proposed construction would
`
`improperly change the scope of the apparatus claims to depend on how the light
`
`emitting device is manufactured by reading process limitations into the apparatus
`
`claims. Vanguard Products Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 234 F.3d 1370, 1372
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000) (rejecting a construction that would depend on how the product was
`
`made and explaining that “[a] novel product that meets the criteria of patentability
`
`is not limited to the process by which it was made.”). Applicant did not explicitly
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`or implicitly define the term “resin package” in the specification to require
`
`singulation. Rather, the specification and prosecution history confirm that the term
`
`“resin package” was understood to have its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Under the proper construction of “resin package comprising a resin part and a
`
`metal part,” there is no dispute that Loh (Ex. 1004) discloses the claim elements at
`
`issue, rendering the Claims unpatentable.
`
`II. APPLICABLE LAW
`Claim terms in this proceeding are to be given their BRI in light of the
`
`specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Pet. 12. Under this standard, while an inventor
`
`may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the specification
`
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision, claim terms are presumed to
`
`be given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. E.g., Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen.
`
`Elec. Co., IPR2013-00170, Pap. 14 at 5; Pet. 12.1
`
`
`1 The Board need not address the competing POSA definitions, which do not change
`
`the outcome of the proceeding. Ex. 1017, ¶7.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. The Term “Resin Package Comprising a Resin Part and A Metal
`Part” Should Be Given Its Plain and Ordinary Meaning and Is Not
`Limited to an LED “Singulated” From “Multiple Devices”
`The term “resin package comprising a resin part and a metal part” should be
`
`given its plain and ordinary meaning. The patentee used the term consistent with
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning, and neither redefined the term nor disavowed claim
`
`scope. Ex. 1017 ¶19. PO’s proposed construction improperly departs from the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning by reading in additional limitations found nowhere in the
`
`claim—that the resin package must be for “a singulated light emitting device”
`
`formed from “multiple devices.” POR 7. As the Board correctly found at institution,
`
`the term “resin package” does not require singulation or a post-singulation device.
`
`DI 9; see also IPR2018-00386, Pap. 15, 11; Ex. 1017 ¶¶20-31.
`
`Broad terms such as “resin package” are given their full scope “unless the
`
`patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full scope.” Thorner v. Sony
`
`Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Zelinski
`
`v. Brunswick Corp., 185 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“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.”). Here, PO
`
`did not define “resin package” or disavow its full scope, and therefore the term
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`
`should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The claim language supports the plain meaning. All of the Claims are
`
`apparatus claims that recite the structure of “a light emitting device” comprising “a
`
`resin package comprising a resin part and a metal part.” Ex. 1001, 19:16-35. The
`
`Claims do not recite “singulated” and do not recite forming a light emitting device
`
`from “multiple devices.” The patentee was clearly aware of the word “singulated”
`
`and the concept of forming a single LED from multiple LED devices, because they
`
`are discussed in the specification, but the patentee did not include the word or
`
`concept in the Claims. Ex. 1017 ¶20. In contrast, during prosecution of related U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,115,870 (“the ’870 patent”), unlike here, PO introduced and obtained
`
`a patent for claims directed to cutting a structure “to thereby obtain a plurality of
`
`light emitting devices” (plural). Ex. 1029, 19:35-20:18. This further confirms that
`
`PO knows how to draft claims directed to that concept, but chose not to here. The
`
`Claims do not recite singulation, or the general concept of cutting to obtain multiple
`
`devices, and it would be improper to read such a requirement into the Claims. Ex.
`
`1017 ¶20.
`
`The intrinsic record also supports the plain meaning. Nowhere does the
`
`specification define the terms “resin package,” “resin part,” or “metal part.” Ex.
`
`1017 ¶21. Rather, the specification is consistent with the plain meaning. The figures
`
`in the specification show a light emitting device with “a resin package” consistent
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`with how a POSITA would have understood 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,
`
`66 (“package: An external container, substrate, or platform used to hold a
`
`semiconductor or circuit.”). Moreover, during prosecution of the ’071 patent, PO
`
`cited references that disclose only a single LED resin package. See, e.g., Ex. 1002,
`
`87 (citing U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0151149 (“Chia”), Ex. 1020); Ex. 1017
`
`¶22. Additionally, in prosecuting the ’870 patent (which is in the same family as
`
`the ’071 patent), PO did not dispute the Examiner’s finding that a single LED has a
`
`“resin package.” The Examiner found that Chia discloses an LED “including a resin
`
`package including a resin part.” Ex. 1018, 8. Specifically, the Examiner found that
`
`Chia discloses a resin portion 525 and first and second leads 520 and 515. Id., 8-9.
`
`Even though Chia includes no disclosure of multiple devices or singulation, PO in
`
`its response did not dispute that the reference discloses a “resin package.” Id., 18-
`
`32. Thus, consistent with the prosecution history and the term’s plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, the term “resin package” does not require singulation, a post-singulation
`
`device, or a resin package formed from multiple light emitting devices.
`
`PO incorrectly asserts that the terms “resin package,” “resin part,” and “metal
`
`part” were expressly defined as referring to parts of a singulated light emitting device
`
`(POR 7), but the ’071 patent does not define those terms. Ex. 1017 ¶24. The portion
`
`of the specification relied on by PO merely provides context for the specification’s
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`discussion of the terms by introducing the concept of singulation. Ex. 1001, 3:33-
`
`36; Ex. 1017 ¶24; Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 808-09 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007) (rejecting a lexicography argument where the cited description “merely
`
`introduces [a] useful abstract concept”).2 Significantly, PO’s proposed construction
`
`is inconsistent with its claims to a single “light emitting device”—not multiple. Ex.
`
`1017 ¶¶23, 26. Indeed, PO’s briefing repeatedly relies on disclosures of multiple,
`
`pre-singulation light emitting devices—demonstrating that PO could have tried to
`
`claim multiple devices, but elected not to do so. POR 7 (“manufacturing…multiple
`
`light emitting devices”), 8 (“manufacturing…multiple light emitting devices”), 12
`
`(“molded with multiple, pre-singulation devices), 13 (“manufacturing…multiple
`
`light emitting devices”), 15 (“manufacture multiple light emitting devices”).
`
`Moreover, the specification uses the term “resin package” in a way that is
`
`
`2 The cases cited by PO are inapposite. POR 8-9. Sinorgchem and Martek involved
`
`express definitions. Sinorgchem, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (“A ‘controlled amount’ of
`
`protic material is….”); Martek, 579 F.3d 1363, 1380 (“The term ‘animal’
`
`means….”). And unlike here, SkinMedica involved “repeated and definitive
`
`statements” of disclaimer, and the difference between the claimed and excluded
`
`subject matter was a point of novelty relied upon during prosecution to avoid
`
`anticipatory art. 727 F.3d 1187, 1202-03.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`inconsistent with PO’s proposed construction. For example, the patent discloses that
`
`“singulation is started from the outer upper surface of the resin package” (Ex. 1001,
`
`15:9-13), which indicates that “resin package” can refer to a device that has not yet
`
`been singulated. Ex. 1017 ¶27. This usage confirms that the patentee did not
`
`understand the terms to be defined in the way now proposed by PO. Indeed, in
`
`PO’s ’071 patent infringement contentions served in district court litigation against
`
`Petitioner, which provide a notice function regarding PO’s infringement theories and
`
`therefore its understanding of the patent, PO pointed to only a single light emitting
`
`device for a “resin package” and provided no assertion or evidence relating to
`
`“singulation.” Ex. 1028, 55-56. Furthermore, as explained above, multiple other
`
`parts of the intrinsic record, including the file history, support the plain meaning and
`
`are inconsistent with PO’s impermissibly narrow proposal. Ex. 1017 ¶20-.
`
`PO’s proposed construction would also improperly change the scope of the
`
`apparatus claims to depend on how the light emitting device is manufactured. Ex.
`
`1017 ¶28. PO repeatedly acknowledges that “singulation” or “singulating” is a
`
`manufacturing process. POR 7 (“[t]he patent’s use of a singulation process”), 12
`
`(“a device singulated from a lead frame molded with multiple, pre-singulation
`
`devices”), 12 (“after singulation”), 14 (“upon singulation into separate packages”).
`
`But it is improper to construe an apparatus claim in a way that would depend on how
`
`the light emitting device is manufactured. Vanguard, 234 F.3d at 1372-73 (rejecting
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`a construction that would depend on how the product was made and explaining that
`
`“[a] novel product that meets the criteria of patentability is not limited to the process
`
`by which it was made.”); Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d
`
`1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Courts must generally take care to avoid reading
`
`process limitations into an apparatus claim, because the process by which a product
`
`is made is irrelevant to the question of whether that product infringes a pure
`
`apparatus claim.”); see also Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d
`
`859, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[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].”).
`
`On the other hand, if PO asserts that it is not attempting to read a
`
`manufacturing process into the claims, then PO’s proposed construction fails to
`
`provide identifiable boundaries for the scope of the claims, because it is unclear—
`
`and PO does not even attempt to explain—what would be required by the structure
`
`of a resin package for “a singulated light emitting device” beyond what is already
`
`expressly stated in the claims. Ex. 1017 ¶29. For example, PO has not asserted that
`
`the final structure of a resin package, resin part, or metal part themselves would
`
`necessarily be any different depending on whether or not the device was singulated
`
`from multiple light emitting devices. To the contrary, the claimed light emitting
`
`device could be manufactured without singulating from “multiple, pre-singulation
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`
`devices.” Ex. 1017 ¶29.
`
`PO also argues that the terms “resin package,” “resin part,” and “metal part”
`
`are “implicitly defined” through consistent use in the specification (POR 10-15), but
`
`even if PO used the terms consistently (which it did not, as explained above),
`
`consistent usage cannot override the express claim language directed to a single
`
`device, or the fact that the claims are apparatus claims. Ex. 1017 ¶30. None of the
`
`cases cited by PO (POR 10-12) involved construing a claim in a way that is
`
`inconsistent with the express language of the claim, or reading into an apparatus
`
`claim a construction that would depend on how the apparatus was manufactured.3
`
`Because the patentee did not redefine the term “resin package comprising a
`
`resin part and a metal part” or disavow its full scope, this claim term should be given
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning, and PO’s attempt to improperly read in a requirement
`
`that the device be “singulated” from “multiple light emitting devices” should be
`
`rejected.
`
`
`3 PO also misstates Dr. Shanfield’s testimony (POR 9-10)—he did not agree that the
`
`specification defines the term “resin package.” Ex. 2009, 46:18-47:1, 47:14-21; Ex.
`
`1017 ¶25.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`IV. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Loh Discloses “a Resin Package Comprising a Resin Part and a
`Metal Part”
`Under the plain and ordinary meaning, there is no dispute that Loh discloses
`
`a “resin package comprising a resin part and a metal part.” As set forth in the Petition
`
`and shown in the figures below, Loh discloses a resin package (e.g., “package 260”)
`
`comprising a resin part (e.g., “package body 230,” in green) and a metal part
`
`including at least two metal plates (e.g., “leads 204a-d and 206a-d,” in blue). Pet.
`
`22-23; Ex. 1004 ¶¶74-77, 79-80, 103, Figs. 5-8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶82-86.
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 5.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 7; Ex. 1017 ¶¶33-34.
`
`Loh also discloses a “resin package comprising a resin part and a metal part”
`
`even under PO’s incorrect proposed construction, which would require that the resin
`
`package must be for “a singulated light emitting device” formed from “multiple
`
`devices.” For example, Loh repeatedly discloses “package(s).” Ex. 1004 ¶¶2, 7, 17,
`
`37, 85, 87. Loh further discloses that its leadframe “may be made, for example, by
`
`milling, stamping, and/or rolling a metal strip to form a leadframe having areas of
`
`different cross-sectional thickness.” Id. ¶93. A POSA would have understood from
`
`the 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.
`
`Ex. 1017 ¶35. This is confirmed by Loh’s incorporation by reference of U.S. Patent
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`Application Publications 2004/0126913 and 2005/0269587 (also both to Loh),
`
`which each depict examples of such metal strips and show that the final device is
`
`singulated from a strip containing multiple devices. Ex. 1004 ¶3; Exs. 1021, 1022;
`
`Ex. 1017 ¶35.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For at least these reasons, the Challenged Claims should be found
`
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted by:
`
`/Gabrielle E. Higgins/
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`
`
`
`December 11, 2018
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE complies with the type-volume limitation in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.24(c)(1). According to the word-processing system’s word count, the
`
`brief contains 2,446 words, including annotations, and excluding the parts of the
`
`brief exempted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c).
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`/s/ Christopher M. Bonny
`Christopher M. Bonny
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00437
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,071
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE was served by filing this document through the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E) as well as providing a
`
`courtesy copy via electronic mail to the following attorneys of record for the Patent
`
`Owner listed below:
`
`Martin M. Zoltick
`mzoltick@rfem.com
`Robert P. Parker
`rparker@rfem.com
`Derek F. Dahlgren
`ddahlgren@rfem.com
`Michael H. Jones
`mjones@rfem.com
`Mark T. Rawls
`mrawls@rfem.com
`
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: +1-202-783-6040
`Fax: +1-202-783-6031
`litigationparalegals@rothwellfigg.com
`
`
`Dated: December 11, 2018
`
`
`By: /Crena Pacheco/
`Name: Crena Pacheco
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
