UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`CASE NO. IPR2018-00966
`U.S. Patent No. 7,652,297
`____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`

`

`Nichia Corporation
`v.
`Document Security Systems, Inc.
`IPR2018-00966 (U.S. Patent No. 7,652,297)
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT – JULY 30, 2019
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,652,297
`
`U.. 'JU- ._ 5 .-'li".-'|1'.-!
`
`.12. United States Patent
`“(In at a].
`
`:'_I:.
`:lfi-
`
`I’JIIL'JlI 30.:
`IJEIH- nf Pull-HI:
`
`L H T'I‘rfill‘il?‘ H3
`.I;1II.II’I_ III |
`|.I
`
` |
`
`Hep.ll,2flfl?
`
`|I.|ll I \‘IIIII\\'.. IJ|_\|I I
`
`|I:\.|_'II|:Ir\.
`
`|\1‘\'I. 'qu
`
`lm- Km.- Hun
`'
`K1|L1JflI-L'n,..
`. \‘ll
`l.|'|'< I|i:Lu .IiII.
`\5 hour l'lumn lu-I
`.
`[11m 513ml:
`Illlu kljlnl Mum |:I.'1['
`I-
`'Jil' ZIPI
`
`11T|Ifuruncnrilrli
`UH |’\|. NI I]lJl".|.\1|'.\.H
`.\.'
`1" a
`.‘\.-
`\,-
`~;
`Dill.
`'(:II.'.! h\ L-cur'nnr
`
`I'lll PHIL-”1 “in:
`
`|4=| anufpalrrll;
`
`LS Tfifillfi? H1
`.Im1.1[1.1[]1[,l
`
`LlGll'l' I-JNll'l'TlNG DEVICE
`
`r Pululiuricm Ilu1a
`._'-'\-|.'1 \I
`Mm I:.:|!L":
`
`|.‘.lllln’: II'.'
`’
`
`|'.\'_3l|l|\-lt
`[lu.('|.
`”0H _-"-',’.f_~
`I'SJI'I.
`
`Fflcd:
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’297 Patent)
`
`2
`
`

`

`CLAIMS 1-17 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`Claims
`
`Prior Art Grounds
`
`1-6
`
`9
`
`• Anticipated by Loh ’842
`• Obvious over Loh ’842
`• Anticipated by Loh ’819
`• Obvious over Loh ’819 alone, or alternatively, with Andrews, if not considered
`incorporated by reference
`
`• Obvious over Loh ’842
`• Obvious over Loh ’819 alone, or alternatively, with Andrews, if not considered
`incorporated by reference
`
`7-8, 10-17*
`
`• Obvious over Loh ’842 and Fujiwara or Uraya
`• Obvious over Loh ’819 and Fujiwara or Uraya, or alternatively, with Andrews,
`if not considered incorporated by reference
`
`*It is not disputed that claims 10-17 rise and fall with claims 1-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 3-4, 52-57; Paper 21 (POR) at 36-38;
`Paper 24 (Reply) at 22
`
`3
`
`

`

`tion.
`
`ti. The light emitting device ofclaim 1, wherein said reflec-
`tor comprises a slanted portion that intersects a platform.
`wherein said platform is located proximate said substrate; and
`wherein said at least one notch is located at the inter section of
`
`said slanted portion and said platfonn.
`
`7. The light emitting device ofclaim 1, wherein said sub-
`strate comprises at least one recessed portion and wherein
`said light emitter is located on said at least one recessed
`portion.
`8. The light emitting device of claim 7 and further com-
`prising an adhesive located in said at least one recessed por-
`tion, said adhesive serving to bond said light emitter to said
`substrate.
`
`9. The light emitting device of claim 1, wherein said reflec-
`tor comprises:
`a first wall extending substantially perpendicular to said
`substrate;
`
`a first platform extending from said first wall;
`a second wall extending from said first platfonn and facing
`said first wall. the space between said first wall and said
`second wall constituting one of said at least one notch;
`a second platform extending from said second wall toward
`the center of said light emitting device;
`a slanted portion extending from said second platform
`toward said substrate; and
`
`a third platform located on said substrate and intersecting
`said slanted portion;
`wherein a second of said at least one notch is located at the
`
`intersection of said third platform and said slanted por-
`
`CLAIMS 1-9
`
`l. A light emitting device comprising:
`
`a substrate;
`
`a reflector extending from said substrate, said reflector
`forming a cavity in conjunction with said substrate;
`
`a light emitter located in said cavity; and
`
`at least one first notch located in said reflector, said at least
`one first notch extending substantially axially around
`said reflector, said at least one first notch being formed
`by a first wall and a second wall wherein said first wall
`and said second wall extend substantially perpendicular
`to said substrate.
`
`2. The light emitting device of claim 1 and further com-
`prising an encapsulant located in said cavity, wherein said
`encapsulant is also located in said at least one first notch.
`
`3. The light emitting device ofclaim 1, wherein said reflec-
`tor has an upper portion and a lower portion, said lower
`portion being located proximate said substrate, said at least
`one first notch being located proximate said upper portion.
`
`4. The light emitting device ofclaim 1, wherein said reflec-
`tor has an upper portion and a lower portion, said lower
`portion being located proximate said substrate, said at least
`one first notch being located proximate said lower portion.
`
`5. The light emitting device of claim 1. wherein said light
`emitter is electrically connected to said substrate.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’297 Patent), claims 1-9
`
`4
`
`

`

`KEY REMAINING DISPUTES – CLAIMS 1-9
`
`Claims
`1
`
`3-4
`
`5
`6
`
`7-8
`
`9
`
`Key Remaining Disputes
`• Does Loh ’842’s reflector “extend[] from” its substrate?
`• Do Loh ’842’s reflector and substrate “form[] a cavity”?
`• Does Loh ’819 have “a reflector extending from [a] substrate”?
`• Otherwise, would it have been obvious to combine Andrews’ substrate package with Loh ’819?
`• Do Loh ’842 and Loh ’819 have “said at least one first notch” that is proximate to the upper
`portion (claim 3) or the lower portion (claim 4)?
`• If Loh ’842’s Figure 8B notches are not proximate the upper/lower portions, would Loh ’842—in
`its entirety—still anticipate?
`• Otherwise, would these claims have been obvious over Loh ’842 or Loh ’819?
`• Is Loh ’842’s light emitter electrically connected to its substrate?
`• Is Loh ’842’s and Loh ’819’s “at least one notch” “at the intersection” of the reflector’s “slanted
`portion” and “platform,” such that claim 6 is anticipated, or otherwise would it have been obvious
`to do so?
`• Does Fujiwara have an adhesive-filled recess in Embodiment 8?
`• Would it have been obvious to combine Loh ’842 or Loh ’819 with Uraya?
`• Would the claimed reflector shape have been obvious in view of Loh ’842 or Loh ’819 (alone or
`combined with Andrews)?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`

`

`CLAIM 1: KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`• Does Loh ’842’s reflector “extend[] from” its substrate?
`• Do Loh ’842’s reflector and substrate “form[] a cavity”?
`• Does Loh ’819 have “a reflector extending from [a] substrate”?
`• Otherwise, would it have been obvious to combine Andrews’
`substrate package with Loh ’819?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: “A REFLECTOR EXTENDING FROM SAID
`SUBSTRATE”
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’297 Patent), claim 1; Paper 21 (POR) at 12-13
`
`7
`
`

`

`THE BOARD’S CONSTRUCTION: “A REFLECTOR EXTENDING FROM SAID
`SUBSTRATE”
`
`The Board
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’297 Patent), claim 1; Paper 14 (ID) at 9
`
`8
`
`

`

`MR. CREDELLE’S TESTIMONY: “A REFLECTOR EXTENDING FROM SAID
`SUBSTRATE” REFERS TO ’297 PATENT’S “MOUNT[ING]” DISCLOSURE
`
`’297 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’297 Patent) at 1:38-41; Ex. 1017 (Credelle
`Depo.) at 112:14-25; Paper 24 (Reply) at 2-3, 11-12
`
`9
`
`

`

`MR. CREDELLE’S TESTIMONY: THE ’297 PATENT’S DISCLOSURE OF
`“MOUNT[ING]”
`
`’297 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’297 Patent) at 1:38-41; Ex. 1017 (Credelle
`Depo.) at 36:12-37:7; Paper 24 (Reply) at 2-3
`
`10
`
`

`

`MR. CREDELLE’S TESTIMONY: MOUNTING A REFLECTOR OR LED TO A
`SUBSTRATE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1017 (Credelle Depo.) at 36:4-11, 37:8-12, 44:24-
`45:10, 49:1-22; Paper 24 (Reply) at 2-3
`
`11
`
`

`

`LOH ’842: “A REFLECTOR EXTENDING FROM SAID SUBSTRATE”
`
`Loh ’842
`
`Reflective Lens
`Coupler 106
`
`Petition
`
`Substrate 102
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 28-29; Paper 24 (Reply) at 2-3, 11-
`12; Ex. 1004 (Loh ’842) at 4:2-6, 6:11-12
`
`12
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: “A REFLECTOR EXTENDING FROM SAID
`SUBSTRATE”
`
`Loh ’842
`
`Reflective Lens
`Coupler 106
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Substrate 102
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 28-29; Ex. 1004 (Loh ’842) at 4:2-6, 6:11-12;
`Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶96
`
`13
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: “A REFLECTOR EXTENDING FROM SAID
`SUBSTRATE”
`
`Loh ’842
`
`Reflective Lens
`Coupler 106
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Deposition
`
`Substrate 102
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 28-29; Paper 24 (Reply) at 2-3, 11-12; Ex. 1004
`(Loh ’842) at 4:2-6, 6:11-12; Ex. 2008 (Shealy Depo.) at 73:6-21
`
`14
`
`

`

`CLAIM 1: KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`• Does Loh ’842’s reflector “extend[] from” its substrate?
`• Do Loh ’842’s reflector and substrate “form[] a cavity”?
`• Does Loh ’819 have “a reflector extending from [a] substrate”?
`• Otherwise, would it have been obvious to combine Andrews’
`substrate package with Loh ’819?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: “SAID REFLECTOR FORMING A CAVITY IN
`CONJUNCTION WITH SAID SUBSTRATE”
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’297 Patent), claim 1; Paper 21 (POR) at 13-14
`
`16
`
`

`

`LOH ’842: “SAID REFLECTOR FORMING A CAVITY IN CONJUNCTION
`WITH SAID SUBSTRATE”
`
`Loh ’842
`
`Reflective Lens
`Cavity Space 400
`Coupler 106
`
`Petition
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Substrate 102
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 29; Paper 24 (Reply) at 12-13; Ex. 1004
`(Loh ’842) at 5:45-49; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶99
`
`17
`
`

`

`CLAIM 1: KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`• Does Loh ’842’s reflector “extend[] from” its substrate?
`• Do Loh ’842’s reflector and substrate “form[] a cavity”?
`• Does Loh ’819 have “a reflector extending from [a] substrate”?
`• Otherwise, would it have been obvious to combine Andrews’
`substrate package with Loh ’819?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: “A SUBSTRATE” AND “A REFLECTOR
`EXTENDING FROM SAID SUBSTRATE”
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’297 Patent), claim 1; Paper 21 (POR) at 41
`
`19
`
`

`

`“SUBSTRATE” = “BASE MATERIAL”
`
`“Substrate – Also called base material”
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Mr. Credelle’s Deposition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 61; Ex. 1014 at 3; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶187;
`Paper 24 (Reply) at 24-25; Ex. 1017 (Credelle Depo.) at 116:2-10
`
`20
`
`

`

`MR. CREDELLE’S TESTIMONY: “REFLECTOR” AND “SUBSTRATE” MAY
`BE “SAME MATERIAL”; CLAIM 1 “IS A DEVICE CLAIM”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 24 (Reply) at 24-25; Ex. 1017 (Credelle Depo.) at
`111:19-22, 114:3-17, 125:4-8
`
`21
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: LOH ’819’s SUBSTRATE
`
`Loh ’819
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 61-62; Ex. 1006 (Loh ’819) at 10:4-59, 11:13-17;
`Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶187; Paper 24 (Reply) at 24-25
`
`22
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: LOH ’819’s REFLECTOR
`
`Loh ’819
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 62-63; Ex. 1006 (Loh ’819) at 10:43-48; Ex.
`1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶190; Paper 24 (Reply) at 24-25
`
`23
`
`

`

`CLAIM 1: KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`• Does Loh ’842’s reflector “extend[] from” its substrate?
`• Do Loh ’842’s reflector and substrate “form[] a cavity”?
`• Does Loh ’819 have “a reflector extending from [a] substrate”?
`• Otherwise, would it have been obvious to combine Andrews’
`substrate package with Loh ’819?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: MOTIVATION TO COMBINE LOH ’819 AND
`ANDREWS
`
`Loh ’819
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 20-21, 71-72; Ex. 1006 (Loh ’819) at 9:11-18;
`Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶221
`
`25
`
`

`

`CONVENTIONAL LIGHT EMITTING DEVICES HAD SUBSTRATES
`
`Andrews
`
`’297 Patent
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Loh ’957
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 20-21, 72; Ex. 1001 (’297 Patent) at 3:4-6; Ex.
`1007 (Andrews) at ¶0003; Ex. 1015 (Loh ’957) at ¶0037; Ex. 1003
`(Shealy Decl.) at ¶222; Paper 24 (Reply) at 27
`
`26
`
`

`

`HEAT-DISSIPATION ADVANTAGES OF CONVENTIONAL SUBSTRATES
`
`Andrews
`
`Loh ’957
`
`Reflector
`Cup
`
`Substrate
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 21, 71-72; Ex. 1007 (Andrews) at ¶0003; Ex.
`1015 (Loh ’957) at ¶0037; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶223;
`Paper 24 (Reply) at 26-27
`
`27
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: COMBINATION OF LOH ’819 AND ANDREWS
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 21 (POR) at 48-49
`
`28
`
`

`

`OBVIOUS TO COMBINE ANDREWS’ SUBSTRATE PACKAGE WITH LOH ’819
`
`Loh ’819
`
`Andrews
`
`The Board
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 19-21, 71-72; Paper 24 (Reply) at 26-27;
`Paper 14 (ID) at 36
`
`29
`
`

`

`CLAIMS 3-4: KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`• Do Loh ’842 and Loh ’819 have “said at least one first notch”
`that is proximate to the upper portion (claim 3) or the lower
`portion (claim 4)?
`• If Loh ’842’s Figure 8B notches are not proximate the
`upper/lower portions, would Loh ’842—in its entirety—still
`anticipate?
`• Otherwise, would these claims have been obvious over Loh
`’842 or Loh ’819?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`

`

`THE BOARD: LOCATION OF THE UPPER AND LOWER PORTIONS
`
`The Board
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’297 patent), claims 3-4; Paper 14 (ID) at 7
`
`31
`
`

`

`THE BOARD: THE NOTCH PROXIMATE TO THE UPPER OR LOWER PORTION
`
`The Board
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’297 patent), claims 3-4; Paper 14 (ID) at 18;
`Paper 21 (POR) at 16
`
`32
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: THE NOTCHES OF LOH ’842
`
`Loh ’842 Figure 8B
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 36-37; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶118-19
`
`33
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: THE NOTCH OF LOH ’819
`
`Loh ’819 Figure 8
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 68-69; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶¶209-10
`
`34
`
`

`

`MR. CREDELLE’S TESTIMONY: LOCATION OF THE UPPER AND LOWER
`PORTION
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Mr. Credelle’s Declaration
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 21 (POR) at 16; Ex. 2009 (Credelle Decl.) at ¶19
`
`35
`
`

`

`MR. CREDELLE’S TESTIMONY: SCOPE OF “PROXIMATE”
`
`Petitioner’s Annotation of Mr. Credelle’s Figure 1 Annotation
`
`Mr. Credelle’s Deposition
`
`Green by Petitioner
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1017 (Credelle Depo.) at 186:7-20; Ex. 2009 (Credelle
`Decl.) at ¶¶19-20; Paper 24 (Reply) at 7-8
`
`36
`
`

`

`CLAIMS 3-4: KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`• Do Loh ’842 and Loh ’819 have “said at least one first notch”
`that is proximate to the upper portion (claim 3) or the lower
`portion (claim 4)?
`• If Loh ’842’s Figure 8B notches are not proximate the
`upper/lower portions, would Loh ’842—in its entirety—still
`anticipate?
`• Otherwise, would these claims have been obvious over Loh
`’842 or Loh ’819?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: THE FIGURES OF LOH ’842
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 21 (POR) at 19-20
`
`38
`
`

`

`LOH ’842 TEACHES TO APPLY SQUARE NOTCHES TO VARIOUS
`LOCATIONS ON VARIOUSLY SHAPED REFLECTORS
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 36-41; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶¶120-29;
`Ex. 1004 (Loh ’842) at 5:32-39, 6:40-51, 8:24-59
`
`39
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: LOH ’842 TEACHES TO APPLY SQUARE
`NOTCHES TO VARIOUS LOCATIONS ON VARIOUSLY SHAPED REFLECTORS
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 36-41; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶¶121-29;
`Ex. 1004 (Loh ’842) at 5:32-39, 6:30-8:65
`
`40
`
`

`

`LOH ’842 TEACHES VARIOUS REFLECTOR AND NOTCH SHAPES
`
`Figure 8B
`
`Figure 8C
`
`Figure 8D
`
`Figure 8E
`
`Figure 8F
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 36-41; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶¶121-29;
`Ex. 1004 (Loh ’842) at 5:32-39, 6:30-8:65
`
`41
`
`

`

`CLAIMS 3-4: KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`• Do Loh ’842 and Loh ’819 have “at least one first notch” that is
`proximate to the upper portion (claim 3) or the lower portion
`(claim 4)?
`• If Loh ’842’s Figure 8B notches are not proximate the
`upper/lower portions, would Loh ’842—in its entirety—still
`anticipate?
`• Otherwise, would these claims have been obvious over Loh
`’842 or Loh ’819?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: MOTIVATION TO ALTER NOTCHES
`
`Loh ’842
`
`Loh ’819
`
`*****
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 21 (POR) at 26-28, 50-51
`
`43
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: VARYING NOTCHES AND REFLECTOR
`SHAPES TO ALTER RADIATION PATTERNS
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 36-41, 44-46, 73; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at
`¶¶121-29, 141, 226; Ex. 1004 (Loh ’842) at 5:32-39, 6:30-
`8:65; Paper 24 (Reply) at 19-20, 27
`
`44
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: VARYING NOTCHES AND REFLECTOR
`SHAPES TO ALTER RADIATION PATTERNS
`
`Loh ’842 at 5:32-43
`
`Discussing Loh ’842 at 5:32-43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 24 (Reply) at 18-20; Ex. 2008 (Shealy Depo.) at
`60:14-61:18; Ex. 1004 (Loh ’842) at 5:32-43
`
`45
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: VARYING NOTCHES AND REFLECTOR
`SHAPES TO ALTER RADIATION PATTERNS
`
`Loh ’842 at 6:30-51
`
`Discussing Loh ’842 at 6:30-8:65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 24 (Reply) at 18-20; Ex. 2008 (Shealy Depo.) at
`61:19-62:10; Ex. 1004 (Loh ’842) at 6:30-8:65
`
`46
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: NII, SQUARE NOTCHES, AND DELAMINATION
`
`Nii
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Trench 24
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Deposition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 22-24, 44-45; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at
`¶142; Ex. 2008 (Shealy Depo.) at 87:1-17; Ex. 1010 (Nii) at
`2:5-20, 10:47-55; Paper 24 (Reply) at 21
`
`47
`
`

`

`CLAIM 5: KEY REMAINING DISPUTE
`
`• Is Loh ’842’s light emitter electrically connected to its
`substrate?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: “SAID LIGHT EMITTER IS ELECTRICALLY
`CONNECTED TO SAID SUBSTRATE”
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 21 (POR) at 20
`
`49
`
`

`

`LOH ’842: “SAID LIGHT EMITTER IS ELECTRICALLY CONNECTED TO SAID
`SUBSTRATE”
`
`Loh ’842
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`’297 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 41-42; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶132; Ex. 1004
`(Loh ’842) at 5:27-31, 7:57-67; Paper 24 (Reply) at 16; Paper 14
`(ID) at 19; Ex. 1001 (’297 Patent) at 2:33-40
`
`50
`
`

`

`CLAIM 6: KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`• Is Loh ’842’s and Loh ’819’s “at least one notch” “at the
`intersection” of the reflector’s “slanted portion” and
`“platform,” such that claim 6 is anticipated, or otherwise
`would it have been obvious to do so?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`

`

`PATENT OWNER’S POSITION: “AT THE INTERSECTION” (CLAIM 6)
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 (’297 Patent), claim 6; Paper 21 (POR) at 22
`
`52
`
`

`

`LOH ’842: “AT THE INTERSECTION”
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Annotation of Loh ’842 Figure 8C*
`
`Mr. Credelle’s Annotation of ’297 Patent Figure 1
`
`*With respect to anticipation or obviousness, as
`previously explained with respect to claims 3-4, a
`POSITA would have understood to apply square-
`shaped notches to Figure 8C
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 42-43; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶¶135-
`139; Ex. 2009 (Credelle Decl.) at ¶21
`
`53
`
`

`

`LOH ’819: “AT THE INTERSECTION”
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Annotation of Loh ’819 Figure 8
`
`Mr. Credelle’s Annotation of ’297 Patent Figure 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 70-71; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶¶217-218;
`Ex. 2009 (Credelle Decl.) at ¶21
`
`54
`
`

`

`THE BOARD’S CONSTRUCTION: “AT THE INTERSECTION”
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`The Board
`
`at: “used as a function word to
`indicate presence or
`occurrence in, on, or near”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 13-14; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶51;
`Ex. 1012 at 4; Paper 14 (ID) at 8-9
`
`55
`
`

`

`CLAIMS 7-8: KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`• Does Fujiwara have an adhesive-filled recess in Embodiment 8?
`• Would it have been obvious to combine Loh ’842 or Loh ’819 with
`Uraya?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`

`

`FUJIWARA HAS AN ADHESIVE-FILLED RECESS IN EMBODIMENT 8
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Petition
`
`Fujiwara at 4:54-63
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 51; Paper 21 (POR) at 36; Paper 24
`(Reply) at 22-23; Ex. 1005 (Fujiwara) at 4:53-63; Ex.
`1003 (Shealy. Decl.) at ¶167
`
`57
`
`

`

`CLAIMS 7-8: KEY REMAINING DISPUTES
`
`• Does Fujiwara have an adhesive-filled recess in Embodiment 8?
`• Would it have been obvious to combine Loh ’842 or Loh ’819
`with Uraya?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`

`

`CAN LOH ’842 AND URAYA BE PROPERLY COMBINED?
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Institution Decision
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 21 (POR) at 38-39; Paper 14 (ID) at 28-29
`
`59
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: LOH ’842 AND URAYA CAN BE COMBINED
`
`Loh ’842
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Uraya
`
`Ceramic Substrate
`
`Adhesive-filled groove
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 57-59; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶¶177-80;
`Ex. 1011 (Uraya) at ¶¶0030-31; Paper 24 (Reply) at 23-24
`
`60
`
`

`

`CAN LOH ’819 AND URAYA BE PROPERLY COMBINED?
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Institution Decision
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 21 (POR) at 60-61; Paper 14 (ID) at 39
`
`61
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: LOH ’819 AND URAYA CAN BE COMBINED
`
`Loh ’819
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Uraya
`
`Adhesive-filled groove
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 81-83; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶¶254-56;
`Ex. 1011 (Uraya) at ¶¶0027-31; Paper 24 (Reply) at 30
`
`62
`
`

`

`CLAIM 9: KEY DISPUTE
`
`• Would the claimed reflector shape have been obvious in view
`of Loh ’842 or Loh ’819 (alone or combined with Andrews)?
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: CLAIM 9 IS OBVIOUS, LIKE CLAIMS 3-4 AND 6
`
`Dr. Shealy’s Declaration
`
`Loh ’842 Figure 8B
`
`Loh ’842 Figure 8C
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 31, 46-49; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶¶160-61; Ex.
`1004 (Loh ’842), Figs. 8B, 8C; Paper 24 (Reply) at 22
`
`64
`
`

`

`DR. SHEALY’S TESTIMONY: CLAIM 9 IS OBVIOUS, LIKE CLAIMS 3-4 AND 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 2 (Pet.) at 75-78; Ex. 1003 (Shealy Decl.) at ¶¶239-41;
`Paper 24 (Reply) at 28-29
`
`65
`
`

`

`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits was served on July 25, 2019, via electronic mail upon the
`
`following:
`
`Wayne M. Helge
`Email: whelge@davidsonberquist.com
`
`James T. Wilson
`Email: jwilson@davidsonberquist.com
`
`Aldo Noto
`Email: anoto@davidsonberquist.com
`
`Donald L. Jackson
`Email: djackson@davidsonberquist.com
`
`Ethan Song
`Email: esong@davidsonberquist.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Patrick R. Colsher/
`Patrick R. Colsher (Reg. No. 74,955)
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`599 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (212) 848-7708
`Email: patrick.colsher@shearman.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Nichia Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`