`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-00966
`Patent 7,652,297
`
`____________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS L. CREDELLE
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Thomas L. Credelle, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`A. QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`I have more than 40 years of deep and extensive experience in the
`
`research and development, product development and marketing of Liquid Crystal
`
`Display (LCD) technology, other flat panel display technologies, Light Emitting
`
`Diode (LED) technology, and optical systems.
`
`2.
`
`I received my M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970, with an emphasis on Electro-optics
`
`and Solid-State Materials. I received my B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering in
`
`1969 from Drexel University.
`
`3.
`
`I was employed by RCA at Sarnoff Labs in Princeton, NJ from 1970
`
`through 1986 at first as a Member of the technical Staff and later as a Group
`
`Manager in charge of all Active Matrix LCD research. During my time at RCA, I
`
`participated in research and development projects relating to optical materials and
`
`flat panel displays, including LCD devices. I researched optical materials for
`
`photodetectors and holography before joining a team developing flat panel
`
`displays. In 1983, I established the Thin-Film Transistor (TFT) LCD Program at
`
`Sarnoff Labs. As a Group Manager, I led a project that resulted in the
`
`development of the first poly-Silicon TFT LCD at Sarnoff Labs. I received the
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Sarnoff Outstanding Achievement Award for Large-Area Flat Panel TV
`
`Developments.
`
`4.
`
`From 1986 to 1991, I was employed by GE as the Manager of TFT
`
`LCD Research and Development at the GE Research and Development Center in
`
`Schenectady, NY. My duties included managing research and development efforts
`
`relating to TFT and LCD technology for avionics applications. While employed
`
`by GE, I led the team that built the world’s first 1-million-pixel color LCD. I also
`
`led development of numerous other display devices utilizing LCD technology. As
`
`with the earlier work at RCA, a key part of this effort was the development of drive
`
`electronics for both the LCD and the backlighting system, including ruggedization
`
`for military use.
`
`5.
`
`From 1991 to 1994, I was employed by Apple Computer as the
`
`Manager of Display Engineering. In my role at Apple, I supervised all LCD
`
`design, engineering, and qualification for the first PowerBook notebook computers
`
`introduced to market in the United States.
`
`6.
`
`From 1994 to 1996, I was employed as the Director of Advanced
`
`Product Marketing by Allied Signal, where I was involved with the design and
`
`engineering of optical films and custom focusing backlight designs for improving
`
`the viewing angle performance of LCD devices.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`From 1996 to 1999, I was employed as the Director of Product
`
`Marketing for Motorola’s Flat Panel Display Division, where I worked in the
`
`development of new flat panel technology, and I also worked closely with
`
`Motorola groups responsible for integrating LCD technology into mobile phone
`
`products, which were some of the first products to incorporate LED devices into
`
`the backlight system.
`
`8.
`
`From 1999 to 2001, I served as the Vice President of Operations of
`
`Alien Technology Corporation. During my time at Alien Technology, I was
`
`involved with the design and architecture of drive-electronics and LED packaging
`
`technology suitable for flexible display devices.
`
`9.
`
`From 2001 to 2007, I served as the Vice President of Engineering for
`
`Clairvoyante, Inc. My responsibilities as the VP of Engineering included
`
`managing research, development, engineering, and marketing of technologies for
`
`improving the resolution and power consumption of color flat panel displays.
`
`During my time at Clairvoyante, I was heavily involved with the design of LCD
`
`driving circuitry and image processing circuitry, including image processing
`
`algorithms. My work resulted in the issuance of multiple patents relating to
`
`display technology.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`10. From 2007 to 2008, I served as the Senior VP of Engineering for
`
`Puredepth, Inc. My responsibilities included the design of hardware and software
`
`to create 3D images on LCDs.
`
`11.
`
`In 2008, I founded TLC Display Consulting, a company that provides
`
`technical consulting in the areas of flat panel displays, liquid crystal displays,
`
`LEDs, and related electronics as well as expert reports for patent litigation. One of
`
`my key technical consulting projects (Display Engineering, Inc.) was the design
`
`and development of high-brightness LED-backlit LCDs for digital signage and
`
`other outdoor applications. A key issue with LEDs in this application was heat
`
`management; our team made significant advancements in heat flow and
`
`weatherproofing for these products. We also developed controllable-brightness
`
`circuits for LEDs using commercial LED driver circuits and upgraded power
`
`supplies.
`
`12. From 2012 through 2015, I served as the VP of Application
`
`Engineering and Device Performance for Innova Dynamics, Inc., a nanotechnology
`
`company developing materials to be used in LCDs and touch sensors.
`
`13.
`
`I have been a member of the Society for Information Display for over
`
`40 years. I was a member of the Society for Information Display’s Program
`
`Committee for 15 years, and the Director of the Society for Information Display’s
`
`Symposium Committee for 10 years. In 1984, I was awarded the title of Society
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`for Information Display Fellow in recognition of my achievements and
`
`contributions to flat panel display technology.
`
`14.
`
`I am a named inventor on over 80 patents relating to flat panel display
`
`and LCD technology. I have also authored a number of articles relating to LCD
`
`technology and flat panel displays that were published by industry periodicals such
`
`as Information Display and peer-reviewed journals such as the Society for
`
`Information Display’s Digest of Technical Papers.
`
`15. A copy of my current CV, publications, and prior testimonial or
`
`litigation-related activities as an expert is filed herewith as Exhibit 2010.
`
`B.
`
`BACKGROUND
`16. The ‘297 Patent discloses an improvement to existing LED packages
`
`wherein notches are added to prevent delamination of the encapsulant used to
`
`protect LEDs. “Encapsulants tend to delaminate or pull away from the reflector
`
`walls. Once the delamination has started on a small section of the wall, the
`
`delamination typically continues rapidly. The delaminated areas may enable
`
`contaminants to enter the light-emitting device and either cause failure or a
`
`reduction in the efficiency of the light-emitting device. The delamination may also
`
`adversely affect the light pattern proximate the delaminated wall, which may
`
`reduce or diffract the emitted light. Eventually, the delamination may spread to the
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`LED, which may cause damage to the LED and failure of the light-emitting
`
`device.” Ex. 1001 at 1:10-20.
`
`1.
`Substrate
`17. The ‘297 Patent further discloses an LED structure with a substrate
`
`and a reflector (“The light-emitting device 100 includes a substrate 110 on which a
`
`Light Emitting Diode (LED) 112 and a reflector 114 are mounted.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:39-41.) These components are shown in Fig.1 (reproduced below). The
`
`substrate (colored in green) is a physical part to which the reflector and LED are
`
`directly mounted with no interleaving materials shown. In addition, the substrate
`
`has a gap 152 that “exists between the reflector 114 and the LED 112. The
`
`gap 152 may contain contacts used to supply power to the LED 112.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:33-35. An example wire bond is shown connecting the LED to the substrate 110
`
`in the figure below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`Reflector with notches
`18. The reflector 114 is mounted to the substrate and is therefore a
`
`separate part, as shown in Fig. 1 (colored red). Two notches are shown in Fig. 1
`
`above, 134 and 146. The notches are added to prevent delamination of the
`
`encapsulant within the cavity 118. The ‘297 Patent teaches that the location of the
`
`notches are important to prevent delamination; “the reflector 114 has many
`
`recessed portions and the like that secure the encapsulant. These recessed portions
`
`also reduce delamination and the probability of delamination between the
`
`reflector 114 and the encapsulant… The portion of the reflector 114 proximate the
`
`upper edge 124 is sometimes referred to as the upper portion. Light emitted from
`
`the light-emitting device exits the opening in the reflector 114 located proximate
`
`the upper portion.” Ex. 1001 at 1:55-68, emphasis added. Merriam-Webster’s Web
`
`Dictionary1 defines “proximate” as “very near”, which is consistent with the
`
`teachings of the ‘297 Patent. The ‘297 Patent also discloses that an “upper
`
`portion” is proximate i.e. “very near” the upper edge 124 of the LED device (“[a]n
`
`upper edge 124 extends around the circumference of the reflector 114 and may
`
`form the highest point of the light-emitting device 100. The portion of the reflector
`
`114 proximate the upper edge 124 is sometimes referred to as the upper portion.
`
`Light emitted from the light-emitting device exits the opening in the reflector 114
`
`
`1https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/proximate (Ex. 2013).
`Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`located proximate the upper portion.” Ex. 1001 at 1:61-67, emphasis added.
`
`Further, the ‘297 Patent teaches that “[t]he portion of the reflector 114 located
`
`proximate the substrate 110 is sometimes referred to as the lower portion.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:42-44, emphasis added. Thus, is would have been obvious to a POSITA
`
`in 2007 that the upper portion and lower portion are distinct regions located very
`
`near the top of the LED device and very near the substrate of the LED device,
`
`respectively (see annotated Fig. 2 below). Further, Merriam-Webster’s Web
`
`Dictionary defines “portion” as “an individual’s part or share of something, such as
`
`a share received by gift or inheritance.2” Thus, a POSITA would reject the notion
`
`proposed by Dr. Shealy that the upper and lower portions can “overlap.” For
`
`example, if a person receives a portion of an inheritance, it belongs to that person
`
`and isn’t shared with another.
`
`19. The upper notch 134 (colored blue below) is located proximate, i.e.
`
`very near, the upper edge of the LED device (see Figure 1, 2, reproduced below)
`
`and is located in the upper portion of the LED device. (“The combination of the
`
`first inner wall 126, the first platform 128 and the second inner wall 130 forms a
`
`first notch 134. The first notch 134 extends axially around the reflector 114.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:6-9) The notch 134 is clearly proximate (very near) the outer and upper
`
`
`2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/portion (Ex. 2012).
`Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`edge of the LED 100. The lower notch 146 (colored in purple) is clearly proximate,
`
`i.e. very near, the substrate and is located in the lower portion of the LED device.
`
`Upper portion
`
`Lower portion
`
`
`
`20. The ‘297 Patent teaches that the reason for these locations on either
`
`side of the slanted portion of the reflector is to prevent delamination.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`“Delamination between the reflector and the encapsulant may start near the top of
`
`the reflector and continue down the reflector toward the substrate. Delamination
`
`near the top of the light emitting device will adversely affect the brightness and
`
`beam pattern of the light emitting device.” Ex. 1001 at 2:43-47, emphasis added.
`
`Since delamination that adversely affects the brightness and beam pattern occurs
`
`on the reflector walls, the notch 134 must be located proximate (very near) the
`
`upper edge of the LED 100, where delamination begins. This would be obvious to
`
`a POSITA in 2007 since he/she would know that delamination begins at the
`
`exposed junction between the encapsulant in the cavity and the reflector wall (see
`
`Fig. 1, annotated below). Further, the shape of the notch 134 e.g. with parallel side
`
`walls will enhance adhesion of the encapsulant and be more effective in stopping
`
`delamination.
`
`Start of
`delamination
`
`Notch stops
`delamination
`
`
`
`21. Likewise, the second notch 146 must be proximate (very near) the
`
`substrate to prevent delamination starting at the substrate. Further, the location of
`
`the lower notch 146 is at the intersection of the slanted wall 140 and the platform
`Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`148, which is proximate (very near) the substrate 110. A POSITA in 2007 would
`
`realize that the notch should be at the intersection (not just near) to best prevent
`
`delamination since the added surface area at the intersection will better stop
`
`delamination from the substrate. With respect to the phrase “at the intersection,”
`
`which is used in claims 6, 9, and 15, I disagree with the analysis put forth in the
`
`Petition and by Dr. Shealy (Shealy Declaration at ¶¶49-54). He claims that “at”
`
`means “near” and that the ‘297 Patent only depicts a notch 146 “near the
`
`intersection” since he points to two surfaces (red and yellow dotted lines), not two
`
`solid elements in his annotated Fig 1 (Shealy Declaration at ¶49) reproduced
`
`below. A POSITA in 2007 would understand that a “platform” is a solid element
`
`with a non-zero thickness and a reflector slanted portion is a solid element with a
`
`non-zero thickness. The correct interpretation of the notch 146 is that it is “at the
`
`intersection” of two solid surfaces; see illustration below.
`
`Notch at intersection
`of slanted portion and
`platform
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Shealy annotated Fig. 1
`
`
`Credelle annotated Fig. 1
`
`Page 12 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Notch stops
`delamination
`
`Start of
`delamination
`
`
`22.
`
`In summary, the ‘297 Patent teaches a new reflector 114 with at least
`
`one notch that “serves to prevent delamination or stop delamination after it has
`
`started. If delamination starts proximate the top or upper edge 124 of the
`
`reflector 114, the delamination may progress down the first inner wall 126, but it
`
`will be stopped by the first notch 134. Therefore, the delamination will not be able
`
`to proceed down the slanted wall 140. The first notch 134 also serves to anchor the
`
`encapsulant to the reflector 114, which further serves to prevent delamination.
`
`“The same occurs with the second notch 146.” Ex. 1001 at 2:52-61, emphasis
`
`added. The at least one notch must therefore be located very near the top edge of
`
`the device or very near the substrate of the LED device to prevent delamination of
`
`the encapsulant 118 from the reflector 114. A POSITA in 2007 would know that
`
`any other location of a notch, e.g. in the middle of the reflector, will not have the
`
`desired effect of stopping adverse delamination.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Loh ‘842 (Ex. 1004)
`23. Loh ‘842 describes a stacked LED device structure with a substrate,
`
`an intermediate layer, a lens coupler, and a lens. Notches are added to align a lens
`
`assembly. Figures 8A, B, C, F, and G show two intermediate layers between lens
`
`coupler 106 and substrate 102. These are additional layers added on top of the
`
`substrate after the substrate has been fabricated. The Loh ‘842 patent states that
`
`“[m]ounting pad 109 may be mounted to substrate 102 with electrical connections
`
`being made to LED 110 for applying an electrical bias.” Loh ‘842 at 5:27-31.
`
`This indicates that even layers such as a mounting pad located on top of a substrate
`
`are not part of the substrate. The slanted sidewalls have little or no effect on beam
`
`formation as they are hidden by the edge of the lens coupler 106. Instead, the
`
`depressions in the slanted sidewalls are used to shape the encapsulant deposited
`
`thereon (Ex. 1004 at 6:40-51) and lens 104 is the main beam shaping element.
`
`Figures 8D and 8E show one intermediate layer (e.g. conductors) between the lens
`
`coupler and substrate. Thus, the reflector does not extend from the substrate;
`
`instead it extends from adhesive layers and/or conductive layers. Further Loh ‘842
`
`discloses that the “substrate may also include traces or metal leads…” Ex. 1004 at
`
`1:37-38. A POSITA in 2007 would not consider adhesive layers and/or conductive
`
`layers “the substrate” because they are deposited on the substrate after it has been
`
`fabricated. A POSITA in 2007 would not consider any layer grown, deposited or
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`formed on the substrate to be part of the substrate. Also, Loh ‘842 at 5:5-15 says
`
`the substrate may be formed of many different materials, but focuses on insulating
`
`materials. A POSITA in 2007 would assume that the substrate is the insulating
`
`component since it has conductors deposited on it (e.g. Loh ‘842, Fig.6).
`
`24. All the various notches shown are midway between the substrate and
`
`upper edge of lens coupler 106. A POSITA in 2007 would know that this would
`
`not prevent harmful delamination, e.g. delamination that affects reliability or beam
`
`shape (Ex. 1001 at 1:10-20). This can be seen more clearly by comparing the
`
`structure of the ‘297 Patent LED device shown in Fig. 1 with that of Loh ‘842
`
`(excerpt of Fig. 8B annotated by Dr. Shealy (Ex. 1003 at ¶104)). The notch 406 or
`
`408 of Loh ‘842 will not stop delamination along the sloped portion or at the
`
`platform and thus will not prevent harmful delamination effects on beam
`
`formation.
`
`25. Moreover, claims 3 and 4 of the ‘297 patent require that “at least one
`
`first notch [is] located proximate said upper portion” and “at least one first notch
`
`[is] located proximate said lower portion,” respectively. The Petition cites to Loh
`
`‘842’s Figure 8B as disclosing the subject matter of claims 3 and 4. But the
`
`depressions in Figure 8B are vertically located in the middle of lens coupler 106.
`
`The Petition makes this same point. Petition at 37. As a result, neither depression
`
`is “located proximate said upper portion,” or “located proximate said lower
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`portion,” as required by the claims. The Petition also cites to other, distinct
`
`embodiments from Loh ‘842 as support. Those embodiments are from Figures 8C,
`
`8D, 8E, and 8F. Petition at 37-41. But none of those embodiments disclose the
`
`subject matter of claims 3 and 4. Even though the center points of the depressions
`
`are vertically spaced, the depressions are located closer to the vertical center line,
`
`and not proximate the upper or the lower portions of the lens coupler.
`
`Start of
`delamination
`
`Notch stops
`delamination
`
`
`
`‘297 Patent, Fig. 1 (annotated in red)
`
`Start of
`delamination
`
`Notch
`
`
`
`Loh ‘842 Fig. 8B (annotated by Dr. Shealy with added comments by
`Credelle)
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 16 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Loh ‘819 (Ex. 1006)
`26. Loh ‘819 discloses an LED device with one or more LEDs mounted
`
`on a lead frame and surrounded by an injection molded part. The Petition asserts
`
`that Loh ‘819 discloses “a substrate” and “a reflector extending from said
`
`substrate.” The Petition states “Loh ’819 teaches ‘leadframe 200’ that ‘may be
`
`made of metal having a low resistance such as copper’ with a ‘package body …
`
`formed on/around the lead frame’ (purple in Figure 8 below), which a POSITA in
`
`2007 would have understood to constitute the claimed substrate.” Petition at 61.
`
`What Petitioner has highlighted includes leadframe 200 and only part of the
`
`package body 230. But neither the Petitioner nor Dr. Shealy explains how the
`
`highlighted “substrate” meets any of its purported definitions.
`
`27.
`
`Indeed, Loh ’819 consistently describes the leadframe as being
`
`constructed of electrical leads made of metal (e.g., copper). Ex. 1006 at 9:52-62.
`
`The package body 230 is formed around the leadframe by, for example, transfer or
`
`injection molding. Ex. 1006 at 10:8-10. Figure 8 from Loh ’819 has been
`
`highlighted to show the leadframe 200 in yellow, and the package body 230 in
`
`green.
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 17 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28. Package body 230 is a single structure. Ex. 1006 at 10:8-53. If it is part of
`
`the substrate, as Petitioner contends, then the entire package body 230 is part of the
`
`substrate. The ‘297 patent consistently refers to the substrate and the reflector as
`
`two different structures. According to the ‘297 patent, “[t]he light-emitting device
`
`100 includes a substrate 110 on which a Light Emitting Diode (LED) 112 and a
`
`reflector 114 are mounted.” Ex. 1001 at 1:39-41. The reflector 114 is mounted on
`
`substrate 110. The claims refer to the reflector and the substrate as two different
`
`structures in which the reflector extends from the substrate. Ex. 1001 at 3:37-39.
`
`Petitioner alleges that Loh ‘819’s package body 230 corresponds to the substrate.
`
`Because upper sidewalls 234 are part of the package body 230, there is no
`
`“reflector” that extends from the substrate. Ex. 1006 at 10:43-45 (“The package
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 18 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`body 230 may include opposing upper sidewalls 234 that define an optical cavity
`
`250 above the die mounting regions 202.”). Therefore it is my opinion that Loh
`
`‘819 does not disclose a reflector extending from a substrate.
`
`29. The Petition also asserts that Loh ‘819 discloses the subject matter of
`
`claims 3 and 4. Claim 3 requires a notch to be located proximate or very near the
`
`upper portion of the reflector (see annotated Fig. 2 after ¶19). Claim 4 requires a
`
`notch to be located proximate or very near the lower portion of the reflector (see
`
`annotated Fig. 2 after ¶19). Petitioner claims that a single moat, located midway
`
`up what Petitioner calls the “reflector,” is located both proximate the upper portion
`
`and proximate the lower portion. Petition at 68-69. This is obviously wrong.
`
`Even Petitioner admits “[t]hese claims differ … by notch location.” Petition at 68.
`
`The notch in Loh ’819 does not move—it is in a single location—and, thus, cannot
`
`satisfy claims reciting different notch locations.
`
`30. Moreover, the Petition contends that the moat “approximately bisects
`
`the reflector vertically.” Petition at 69. Being in the middle, the moat is not very
`
`near the upper portion of the so-called reflector, nor is it very near the lower
`
`portion. Accordingly, the notch of Loh ’819 satisfies neither claim 3 nor claim 4.
`
`31. With respect to claim 6, the following image, which was taken from
`
`the Petition at page 71, allegedly shows a platform located proximate the substrate,
`
`and a notch located “at the intersection” of the slanted portion and the platform.
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 19 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`32. According to Petitioner, the platform is at the blue dashed line. But
`
`that “platform” is clearly not “proximate (i.e. very near) said substrate,” even
`
`assuming that Loh ’819 discloses a “substrate.” As Petitioner admitted with
`
`respect to claims 3 and 4, the alleged notch “approximately bisects the reflector
`
`vertically.” Petition at 69. Thus, the “platform” is neither proximate the substrate
`
`nor proximate the top of 234. It is in the middle.
`
`33.
`
`In addition, the “notch” is not “at the intersection” of the slanted wall
`
`and the “platform.” For a notch to be “at the intersection” means that the notch has
`
`to overlap the point of intersection. That plainly does not occur, even based on
`
`Petitioner’s graphical depiction above.
`
`E. Andrews (Ex. 1007)
`34. Andrews discloses an LED package with additional notches to act as
`
`“moats” to capture excess encapsulant during fabrication of an LED device with a
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 20 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`lens. The notches are also described as affecting the shape of the meniscus formed.
`
`The notches are not proximate or “very near” either the top of the LED device or
`
`the substrate, they are not at the intersection of slanted portion and platform near
`
`substrate, and they do not have parallel sidewalls. Further, the location of the
`
`notches disclosed in Andrews have nothing to do with delamination, and a
`
`POSITA in 2007 would not look to Andrews (or Loh ‘819) for proper notch size,
`
`shape and location to prevent delamination. With respect to claim 1, Petitioner
`
`argues that if Loh ’819 does not disclose a “substrate,” Loh ’819 renders claims 1-
`
`6 obvious alone or in combination with Andrews. Petition at 72. Petitioner argues
`
`that it would have been obvious to substitute Loh ’819’s leadframe with Andrew’s
`
`substrate. Petition at 72.
`
`35. Petitioner’s proposed combination goes against the choice made by
`
`Loh ’819 to provide an improved leadframe package and instead proposes a slab
`
`substrate with a completely different fabrication. Indeed, Loh ’819 discusses the
`
`disadvantages of prior art, Loh ’819, 1:13-2:4, and discloses various embodiments
`
`of leadframe-based packages for solid state emitting devices. In fact, that is the
`
`title of Loh ’819.
`
`36. With these leadframe-based devices, Loh ’819 states that
`
`“[e]mbodiments of the invention may permit the formation of packages for solid
`
`state light emitting devices in which multiple high-power devices are arranged in
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 21 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`close proximity, which results in a higher optical quality emission with better color
`
`mixing. Furthermore, assembly of a package according to embodiments of the
`
`invention may be simplified, since the package body may be formed through
`
`injection molding techniques.” Ex. 1006 at 11:45-52.
`
`37. Loh ‘819 goes on to state that “[a]ccording to some embodiments of
`
`the invention, a leadframe-based package for one or more solid state light emitting
`
`devices may provide a short thermal path between the solid state light emitting
`
`devices and an external heatsink, since the light emitting devices are mounted on
`
`one side of the heatsink [sic: leadframe], while the opposite side of the leadframe is
`
`used to contact an external heatsink. Furthermore, the surface area of the
`
`leadframe through which heat is extracted may be larger than the die mounting
`
`area, which may improve heat extraction.” Ex. 1006 at 11:53-62.
`
`38. Loh ‘819’s focus on the advantages of its leadframe-based
`
`construction coupled with the advantages of heat extraction achieved using Loh
`
`‘819’s leadframe-based packages are not consistent with the substrate-based
`
`packages of Andrews. With Andrews’ package, the substrate has a substantial
`
`thickness that is the opposite of the “short thermal path” that Loh ‘819 touts as a
`
`significant advantage of its leadframe-based packages.
`
`39. Moreover, Loh ‘819’s leadframe-based package has the additional
`
`benefit that the package body 230, which holds the leadframe in place, also
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 22 of 23
`
`
`
`conveniently form sidewalls, including upper sidewall 234, which hold the lens in
`
`place. All of this structure is formed in a single transfer or injection molding step.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 1028—10. Substituting Andrews” substrate in place of Loh ‘819’s
`
`leadframe would require at least two production steps to form the substrate and
`
`sidewalls. This is a disadvantage over Loh ‘819’s package, which can be
`
`fabricated in a single step. Thus, a POSITA in 2007 would not have looked to
`
`substitute the leadframe of Loh ‘8 19 with Andrews’ substrate.
`
`40.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true;
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated: February 12, 2019
`
`""157 ”/
`’
` ,
`
`1‘
`,2
`'5? // //l//L
`. Credelle
`
`Page 23 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`
`Page 23 of 23
`
`Patent Owner's Exhibit 2009
`Page 23 of 23
`
`
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
