`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`Nichia Corporation
`v.
`Document Security Systems, Inc.
`
`IPR2018-00966 (USP 7,652,297)
`
`Oral Hearing Date: July 30, 2019
`
`Before Hon. Sally C. Medley, Scott C. Moore, and Brent M. Dougal,
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`
`
`Summary of Asserted Grounds and Prior Art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`Paper 14, pp. 4-5
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`Overview of Oral Hearing Issues
`
`Issue
`
`Did Petitioner Demonstrate a Reflector
`“Extending From” a Substrate in Loh ’842 or a
`Reflector Forming A Cavity “In Conjunction With” The
`Substrate as Recited In Independent Claims 1, 10,
`And 15?
`Did Petitioner Establish Loh ’819 as Satisfying “A
`Reflector Extending From Said Substrate” as Recited
`in Independent Claims 1, 10, And 15
`Did Petitioner Satisfy the Requirements of Claims 3, 4,
`13, and 14?
`Did Petitioner Satisfy the Requirements of Claims 6, 9,
`15-17?
`Did Petitioner Satisfy the Requirements of Claims 9
`and 15?
`Did Petitioner Show Loh ’842 Has a Light
`Emitter Electrically Connected to the Substrate as
`Recited in Claim 5?
`Did Petitioner Show That Loh ’819 in View of
`Andrews Includes a Light Emitter Electrically
`Connected to the Substrate as Recited in Claim 5?
`
`Pet.
`Ground(s)
`1-4
`
`DI
`Ground(s)
`1-4
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1-17
`
`5-8
`
`5-11
`
`1-17
`
`1, 2, and
`5, 6
`1-8
`
`1, 2, and 5-
`7
`1-11
`
`2-4, 6-8
`
`2-4, 6-11
`
`3, 4, 13,
`and 14
`7, 8, 10-
`17
`9, 15
`
`1, 2
`
`1, 2
`
`5-6
`
`5-7
`
`5
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,652,297 B2
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 1001, p. 1; 3:36-47
`Paper 21, pp. 4-5
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 1001, p. 2;
`Paper 21, p. 4
`
`’297 Fig. 1
`’297 Patent, Fig. 1
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 1001, p. 3;
`Paper 21, p. 4
`
`’297 Patent, Fig. 2
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`Issue #1:
`
`Issue
`
`Did Petitioner Demonstrate a Reflector
`“Extending From” a Substrate in Loh ’842 or a
`Reflector Forming A Cavity “In Conjunction With” The
`Substrate as Recited In Independent Claims 1, 10,
`And 15?
`
`Pet.
`Ground(s)
`1-4
`
`DI
`Ground(s)
`1-4
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1-17
`
`Answer: No
`
`See Pet., pp. 28-29, 52-53, 55-57;
`Paper 21 (PO’s Response), pp. 11-14, 36-38;
`Paper 26 (PO’s Sur-Reply), pp. 1-3.
`
`
`
`
`EIXL
`
`L]
`LL]
`2'—
`<:D:
`'—V)
`
`Zo 2L
`
`L]
`0
`
`8
`
`00
`
`Loh ’842
`Loh ’842
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s\\AA \“
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`404 y...»-
`
`
`
`
`_.._ ._
`_ _ _ _
`a?! _'_; __
`:;._.,..,--_......... ..
`--1....__.'7-._ ..... ,.._..
`F .......:.;.,_.._.......-.--_-_
`
`
`102
`
`.....
`,-._-...;-.
`_'.._'.;-._........-.,'_:.
`
`
`
`
`109 Ill(
`110
`
`FIG. 33
`403
`
`Mounting pad 109 may be
`mounted to substrate 102 with electrical connections being
`made to LED 110 for applying an electrical bias.Atop surface
`of LED 110 may be connected to electrical connections Via
`one or more conductive bond Wires 112.
`
`f_\
`
`Ex. 1004, p. 13; 5:27-31;
`EX. 1004, p. 13; 5:27—31;
`Paper 21, pp. 12-13, 28
`Paper 21, pp. 12—13, 28
`
`\_J
`
`LL]
`
`L]
`
`9>L
`
`L]
`'—
`
`0Z |
`
`|:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`UZL
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 2009, ¶23;
`Paper 21, p. 12
`
`Credelle Declaration
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`Issue #2:
`
`Issue
`
`Did Petitioner Establish Loh ’819 as Satisfying “A
`Reflector Extending From Said Substrate” as Recited
`in Independent Claims 1, 10, And 15
`
`Pet.
`Ground(s)
`5-8
`
`DI
`Ground(s)
`5-11
`
`Claim(s)
`
`1-17
`
`Answer: No
`
`See Pet., pp. 62-63, 81, 84;
`Paper 21 (“PO’s Response”), pp. 40-42, 48-50, 60;
`Paper 26 (PO’s Sur-Reply), pp. 3-8.
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`Pet., p. 61;
`Paper 21, pp. 40-41; Ex. 1006, 8;
`
`“substrate”
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 1006, 10:43-45;
`Paper 21, p. 42
`
`Loh ’819
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`Credelle Testimony
`
`
`Exhibit 2009, 124:16-126:16;
`Paper 26, p. 5
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 1006, 11:45-52;
`Paper 26, p. 8, 49
`
`Loh ’819
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 1006, 11:53-62;
`Paper 21, p. 49
`
`Loh ’819
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 1006, 9:52-62;
`Paper 21, p. 40
`
`Loh ’819
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 1006, 9:63-10:3;
`Paper 21, p. 60
`
`Loh ’819
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`Exhibit 1006, 10:8-10;
`Paper 21, pp. 40, 50
`
`Loh ’819
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`Exhibit 2009, ¶39;
`Paper 21, p. 50;
`Paper 26, p. 8
`
`Credelle Declaration
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`Issue #3:
`
`Issue
`
`Did Petitioner Satisfy the Requirements of Claims 3, 4,
`13, and 14?
`
`Pet.
`Ground(s)
`1, 2, and
`5, 6
`
`DI
`Ground(s)
`1, 2, and 5-
`7
`
`Claim(s)
`
`3, 4, 13,
`and 14
`
`Answer: No
`
`See Pet., pp. 36-41, 54-55, 68-69, 81, 84;
`Paper 21 (“PO’s Response”), pp. 15-20, 37, 45-46, 60;
`Paper 26 (PO’s Sur-Reply), pp. 9-15.
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`Exhibit 1001, p. 2;
`Paper 21, p. 16
`
`’297 Patent, Fig. 1
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Exhibit 2009, ¶29;
`Paper 21, p. 46
`
`Credelle Declaration
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`Petitioner’s depiction of ’297 Fig. 1
`
`
`Pet., p. 15;
`Paper 21, p. 16
`Paper 26, p. 9
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`Petitioner’s Construction: Requires two
`
`notches in the reflector
`
`
`Pet., p. 16;
`Paper 21, pp. 16-17
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`Pet., p. 43;
`Paper 21, p. 13
`
`Figs. 8C and 8E in Loh ’842
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`Paper 14, p. 7;
`Paper 21, p. 17
`
`Institution Decision
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`Exhibit 2011, p. 3;
`Paper 21, p. 17
`
`“portion”
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`Exhibit 1001, 1:42-44, 1:63-65;
`Paper 21, p. 18
`
`’297 Patent
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Exhibit 2011, p. 4;
`Paper 21, p. 18
`
`“proximate”
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`Exhibit 2009, ¶24;
`Paper 21, p. 19
`
`Credelle Declaration
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`Exhibit 2009, ¶25;
`Paper 21, p. 19
`
`Credelle Declaration
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`Exhibit 2009, ¶25;
`Paper 21, p. 19
`
`Credelle Declaration
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`Exhibit 2009, ¶30;
`Paper 21, p. 46
`
`Credelle Declaration
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`Exhibit 2009, ¶32;
`Paper 21, p. 48
`
`Credelle Declaration
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`Exhibit 2009, 81:11-23;
`Paper 26, p. 12
`
`Credelle Testimony
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`Exhibit 2008, 86:5-10;
`Paper 21, p. 31
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Testimony
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`Exhibit 2008, 85:18-22;
`Paper 21, p. 25
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Testimony
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Exhibit 2008, 61:9-18;
`Paper 21, p. 25
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Testimony
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`Exhibit 2008, 64:2-14;
`Paper 21, p. 25
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Testimony
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`Issue #4:
`
`Issue
`
`Did Petitioner Satisfy the Requirements of Claims 6, 9,
`15-17?
`
`Pet.
`Ground(s)
`1-8
`
`DI
`Ground(s)
`1-11
`
`Claim(s)
`
`7, 8, 10-
`17
`
`Answer: No
`
`See Pet., pp. 42-43, 45-49, 55-57, 70-71, 74-78, 81, 84;
`Paper 21 (PO’s Response), pp. 21-28, 29-34, 37-38, 39,
`52-57, 60, 61;
`Paper 26 (PO’s Sur-Reply), pp. 15-17.
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`Exhibit 1001, p. 2;
`Paper 21, p. 22
`
`’297 Patent, Fig. 1
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`Shealy Declaration on ’297 Patent, Fig. 1
`
`
`Exhibit 1003, ¶49;
`Paper 21, p. 23
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`Exhibit 2009, ¶33;
`Paper 21, p. 48
`
`Credelle Declaration
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`Pet., p. 43;
`Paper 21, p. 24
`
`Fig. 8E in Loh ’842
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`Pet., p. 71;
`Paper 26, p. 16
`
`Loh ’819 Fig. 8
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`Issue #5:
`
`Issue
`
`Did Petitioner Satisfy the Requirements of Claims 9
`and 15?
`
`Pet.
`Ground(s)
`2-4, 6-8
`
`DI
`Ground(s)
`2-4, 6-11
`
`Claim(s)
`
`9, 15
`
`Answer: No
`
`See Pet., pp. 46-49, 70-71, 75-78, 81, 84;
`Paper 21 (PO’s Response), pp. 31-34, 37-38, 39, 54-57, 60, 61;
`Paper 26 (PO’s Sur-Reply), pp. 19-20.
`.
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`Exhibit 2008, 97:4-15;
`Paper 21, p. 55
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Testimony
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`Pet., p. 77;
`Paper 26, p. 19
`
`Petition
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`Issue #6:
`
`Issue
`
`Did Petitioner Show Loh ’842 Having a Light
`Emitter Electrically Connected to the Substrate as
`Recited in Claim 5?
`
`Pet.
`Ground(s)
`1, 2
`
`DI
`Ground(s)
`1, 2
`
`Claim(s)
`
`5
`
`Answer: No
`
`See Pet., pp. 41-42, 45;
`Paper 21 (PO’s Response), pp. 20, 28-29;
`Paper 26 (PO’s Sur-Reply), pp. 17-18.
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`Figs. 5 and 7 in Loh ’842
`
`
`Exhibit 1004, pp. 9, 11;
`Paper 26, p. 17
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Exhibit 1004, 7:57-67;
`Paper 26, p. 17
`
`Loh ’842
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`Exhibit 1004, 8:13-23;
`Paper 26, p. 17
`
`Loh ’842
`
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`Issue #7:
`
`Issue
`
`Did Petitioner Show That Loh ’819 in View of
`Andrews Includes a Light Emitter Electrically
`Connected to the Substrate as Recited in Claim 5?
`
`Pet.
`Ground(s)
`5-6
`
`DI
`Ground(s)
`5-7
`
`Claim(s)
`
`5
`
`Answer: No
`
`See Pet., pp. 69-70, 73;
`Paper 21 (PO’s Response), p. 52;
`Paper 26 (PO’s Sur-Reply), pp. 18-19.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 25, 2019, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits was served via email, by
`
`consent, to Petitioner by serving the correspondence email addresses of record as
`
`follows:
`
`
`Patrick R. Colsher (Reg. No. 74,955)
`patrick.colsher@shearman.com
`Eric S. Lucas (Reg. No. 76,434)
`eric.lucas@shearman.com
`Thomas R. Makin
`thomas.makin@shearman.com
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`599 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`
`Matthew G. Berkowitz (Reg. No. 57,215)
`matthew.berkowitz@shearman.com
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`1460 El Camino Real
`Menlo Park, California 94025
`
`Email: nichia-dss@shearman.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Wayne M. Helge
`Wayne M. Helge (Reg. No. 56,905)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`Dated: July 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
