throbber
Paper 20
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Date: January 10, 2020
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`OSRAM OPTO SEMICONDUCTORS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Denying Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`Nichia Corporation and OSRAM Opto Semiconductors, Inc.
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an
`inter partes review of claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–24, and 26–30 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,095,053 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’053 patent”). Petitioner filed
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`Declarations of Phillip Wright, Ph.D. (Exs. 1003, 1025) with its Petition.
`Patent Owner, Contemporary Display LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 15, “Prelim. Resp.”). Petitioner also filed a
`motion to join this case with IPR2019-01261.1 Paper 5.
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information
`in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we do not
`institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Real-Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies Nichia Corporation, Nichia America Corporation,
`OSRAM GmbH, OSRAM Licht AG, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors
`GmbH, and OSRAM Opto Semiconductors, Inc. as real-parties-in-interest.
`Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies Lighting Science Group Corporation as the
`real-party-in-interest. Paper 7, 1.
`
`Related Proceedings
`The parties identify the following proceedings related to the
`’053 patent (Pet. 1–2; Paper 7, 1–3):
`Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp. v. Acuity Brands, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00805
`(D. Del. filed May 1, 2019);
`
`1 Based on our disposition below, Petitioner’s motion for joinder is denied.
`
`B.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 1:19-cv-00806 (D.
`Del. filed May 1, 2019);
`Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp. v. Signify N.V., No. 1:19-cv-00807 (D. Del.
`filed May 1, 2019);
`Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp. v. Eaton Corp., No. 1:19-cv-00808 (D. Del.
`filed May 1, 2019);
`Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp. v. Lumileds Holdings BV, No. 1:19-cv-00809
`(D. Del. filed May 1, 2019);
`Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp. v. OSRAM GmbH, No. 1:19-cv-00797 (D.
`Del. filed Apr. 30, 2019);
`Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp. v. MLS Co., No. 1:19-cv-00798 (D. Del. filed
`Apr. 30, 2019);
`Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp. v. Nichia Corp., No. 1:19-cv-01948 (N.D.
`Ga. filed Apr. 30, 2019);
`Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp. v. Cree Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00632 (E.D. Wis.
`filed Apr. 30, 2019); and
`Certain Light Emitting Diode Products, Systems, and Components
`Thereof (I), U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n Inv. No. 337-TA-1163 (instituted
`June 20, 2019).
`
`We identified the following additional proceedings related to the
`’053 patent:
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp., No. 1:19-cv-05365
`(S.D.N.Y. filed June 7, 2019);
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`Certain Light Emitting Diode Products, Systems, and Components
`Thereof (II), U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n Inv. No. 337-TA-1164 (instituted
`June 20, 2019); and
`Certain Light Emitting Diode Products, Systems, and Components
`Thereof (III), U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n Inv. No. 337-TA-1168 (instituted
`June 20, 2019).
`
`In addition, Petitioner has filed another petition for inter partes review
`of the ’053 patent in IPR2019-01261. Paper 5, 1. Petitioner seeks joinder of
`this case to IPR2019-01261. Id. at 1–2. Petitioner also has filed petitions
`for inter partes review against other patents owned by Patent Owner in
`IPR2019-01259, IPR2019-01260, and IPR2019-01487. Paper 7, 1.
`
`The ’053 patent
`The ’053 patent relates to light emitting diodes (LEDs) packaged for
`high temperature operation. Ex. 1001, 1:15–17. The ’053 patent states that
`then-existing plastic LED packages had operational temperature limitations,
`and that there was “a need for an improved light emitting diode packaged for
`high temperature operation.” Id. at 1:32–37. The ’053 patent proposes an
`LED package made using the low temperature co-fired ceramic on metal
`technique (LTCC-M). Id. at 1:54–57. Among other considerations for using
`the LTCC-M technique, the ’053 patent notes that the ceramic layers of the
`LTCC-M structure must be matched to the thermal coefficient of expansion
`of a metal support board. Id. at 7:25–27.
`Figure 6 of the ’053 patent is reproduced below.
`
`C.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`
`
`Figure 6 depicts a cross-section of an LED packaged for high temperature
`operation. Id. at 1:66–67, 2:5–8, 4:1–2, 4:20. LED 10 is mounted on
`ceramic layer 17, which conforms to coined metal base 51 and acts as a light
`reflector. Id. at 4:21–54. Top electrode 53 of LED 10 can be connected by
`bonding wire 54 to top bonding pad 55 on ceramic 17 and through via
`section 56 to bonding pad 15A underlying metal base 51. Id. at 4:7–11. The
`bottom electrode of LED 10 can be connected to metal base 51 by way of
`bonding pad 60 and electrically and thermally conductive vias through
`ceramic 17 to metal base 51. Id. at 4:24–28. Underlying bonding pads 15A,
`l5B are coplanar with thermal base connector 16 to allow a surface-mount
`connection onto a PC board. Id. at 4:14–19.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 7, 16, and 22 are independent.
`Claims 2–6 depend from claim 1; claims 8, 9, and 11–15 depend directly or
`indirectly from claim 7; claims 17–20 depend from claim 16; and claims 23,
`
`D.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`24, and 26–30 depend directly or indirectly from claim 22. Claim 16 is
`illustrative of the challenged claims and recites:
`16. A packaged LED for high temperature operation
`comprising:
`a metal base, the metal base including an underlying
`thermal connection pad and a pair of underlying electrical
`connection pads;
`a layer of electrically insulating material overlying the
`metal base; and
`an LED mounted on the layer of electrically insulating
`material, wherein the LED includes a pair of electrodes
`electrically connected to respective underlying electrical
`connection pads, and wherein the LED is thermally coupled to
`the metal base by one or more thermal vias, and thermally
`coupled through the metal base to the thermal connection pad.
`Id. at 10:10–23.
`
`Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`U.S. Patent No. 6,744,135 B2, filed May 17, 2002, issued
`June 1, 2004 (Ex. 1004, “Hasebe”);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,498,355, filed Oct. 9, 2001, issued
`Dec. 24, 2002 (Ex. 1005, “Harrah”);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,707,069 B2, filed June 18, 2002, issued
`Mar. 16, 2004 (Ex. 1006, “Song”);
`Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) Patent Application
`Publication No. WO 02/089221 A1, published Nov. 7, 2002
`(Ex. 1007, “Hashimoto”);2
`
`E.
`
`
`2 Hashimoto is a Japanese-language publication (Ex. 1007, 1–36) that was
`filed with an English-language translation (id. at 37–72) and a declaration
`attesting to the accuracy of the translation (id. at 73). Our citations to
`Hashimoto herein refer to the translation.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`PCT Patent Application Publication No. WO 02/084750
`A1, published Oct. 24, 2002 (Ex. 1026, “Sugimoto”);3
`PCT Patent Application Publication No. WO 02/089219
`A1, published Nov. 7, 2002 (Ex. 1020, “Suenaga”);4 and
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2001-
`168443, published June 22, 2001 (Ex. 1021, “Oike”).5
`
`
`F.
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–24, and 26–30 of the
`’053 patent on the following grounds (Pet. 4–5):
`Claims Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`3, 6, 18
`103(a)6
`3, 6, 18
`103(a)
`3, 6, 8, 9, 18, 23, 24
`103(a)
`
`References
`Hasebe, Harrah
`Hasebe, Song
`Hasebe, Hashimoto
`
`
`3 Sugimoto is a Japanese-language publication (Ex. 1026, 1–78) that was
`filed with an English-language translation (id. at 79–156) and a declaration
`attesting to the accuracy of the translation (id. at 157). Our citations to
`Sugimoto herein refer to the translation. Petitioner notes that it asserted a
`U.S. patent (Ex. 1019) corresponding to Sugimoto in IPR2019-01261.
`Paper 4, 3–5.
`4 Suenaga is a Japanese-language publication (Ex. 1020, 1–54) that was filed
`with an English-language translation (id. at 55–106) and a declaration
`attesting to the accuracy of the translation (id. at 107). Our citations to
`Suenaga herein refer to the translation.
`5 Oike is a Japanese-language publication (Ex. 1021, 1–6) that was filed with
`an English-language translation (id. at 7–12) and a declaration attesting to
`the accuracy of the translation (id. at 13). Our citations to Oike herein refer
`to the translation.
`6 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the
`’053 patent was filed before March 16, 2013 (the effective date of the
`relevant amendment), the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`Claims Challenged
`1–9, 11–20, 22–24,
`26–30
`1–9, 11–20, 22–24,
`26–30
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)
`
`References
`Sugimoto, Suenaga
`
`103(a)
`
`Sugimoto, Oike
`
`
`G. Claim Interpretation
`Because this inter partes review is based on a petition filed after
`November 13, 2018,7 we construe each claim “in accordance with the
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Accordingly, our claim construction standard
`is the same as that of a district court. See id. Under the standard applied by
`district courts, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary
`meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure.
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`“There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets
`out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee
`disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`
`7 On October 11, 2018, the USPTO revised its rules to harmonize the
`Board’s claim construction standard with that used in federal district courts.
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial
`Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340
`(Oct. 11, 2018) (codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42). This rule change applies to
`petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`Petitioner contends that the term “base” should be construed to mean
`“support or foundation.” Pet. 9–11. Patent Owner contends that no
`construction of this term is necessary. Prelim. Resp. 7. Based on the current
`record, we determine that no terms require explicit construction. See, e.g.,
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013,
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’
`. . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`
`A.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`We now consider Petitioner’s asserted grounds and Patent Owner’s
`arguments in the Preliminary Response to determine whether Petitioner has
`met the “reasonable likelihood” standard for institution under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a).
`
`Legal Standards
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
`
`9
`
`

`

`B.
`
`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together
`with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d
`559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Citing testimony from Dr. Wright, Petitioner contends a person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a B.S. in mechanical
`or electrical engineering or a related field, and four years’ experience
`designing semiconductor—including LED—packages.” Pet. 8–9 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions at
`this time. Prelim. Resp. 7.
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art without the qualifier “at least,” which
`introduces ambiguity. On the present record, we are satisfied that this
`definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and
`implement the teachings of the ’053 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`C. Obviousness Grounds Based on Hasebe and Any of Harrah, Song, or
`Hashimoto
`Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 3, 6, and 18 would
`have been obvious over Hasebe and any of Harrah, Song, or Hashimoto.
`Pet. 24–48. Petitioner additionally contends the subject matter of claims 8,
`9, 23, and 24 would have been obvious over Hasebe and Hashimoto. Id. at
`48–58. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contentions. Prelim. Resp. 7–23.
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`Hasebe
`1.
`Hasebe is a U.S. patent directed to “a structure of an electronic
`apparatus provided with a metal core substrate mounting electronic parts
`thereon.” Ex. 1004, 1:7–10. Figure 25 of Hasebe is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 25 is a cross-sectional view of an electronic substrate. Id. at 5:46–48.
`Semiconductor part 2501 is mounted on metal core substrate 2502, which
`includes internal layer metal plate 2506 and electrode 2503. Id. at 20:38–47.
`Heat radiating electrode 2507 is connected to internal layer metal plate 2506,
`which in turn is connected and mounted via solder 2509 to heat radiating
`electrode 2508 in ceramic substrate 2504. Id.
`Metal core substrate 2502 may be formed by laminating and bonding
`“a copper foil with resin . . . or a resin pre-preg and a copper foil” to internal
`layer metal plate 2506. Id. at 11:1–4.
`
`
`Harrah
`2.
`Harrah is a U.S. patent directed to arrays of light emitting diodes.
`Ex. 1005, 1:6–7. Figure 2 of Harrah is reproduced below.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates a portion of an LED array. Id. at 2:26–28. In LED
`array 2, LED 28 is attached to submount 30. Id. at 4:36–38. Submount 30
`includes thermal contact 46 (e.g., a metal pad) disposed on the bottom side
`of submount 30 adjacent to electrical contacts 42 and 44. Id. at 4:55–57.
`Thermally conductive material 24 in via 12 is in direct contact with thermal
`contact 46 on submount 30 and in thermal contact with LED 28 through
`submount 30 and solder bumps 32. Id. at 4:66–5:2. Typically, submount 30
`is thin and formed from a thermally conductive material (e.g., silicon or
`ceramic materials) in order to reduce the thermal resistance provided by
`submount 30 to the flow of heat from LED 28 to metal substrate 6. Id. at
`4:38–40, 5:8–12.
`
`
`Song
`3.
`Song is a U.S. patent directed to “a light emission diode package
`provided with a reflective plate of metal for accomplishing an improved heat
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`dissipation effect.” Ex. 1006, 1:7–12. Figure 4a of Song is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Figure 4a depicts a cross-section of an LED package having first ceramic
`substrate 151 and second ceramic substrate 152 mounted to the top surface
`of first ceramic substrate 151. Id. at 6:21–27. First ceramic substrate 151
`has a chip mounting area on its top surface for seating LED chip 155
`thereon. Id. at 6:27–29. Electrode 153 is formed on the top surface of first
`ceramic substrate 151 at a position around the mounting area for LED
`chip 155. Id. at 6:29–32. Electrode 153 is connected to LED chip 155
`through a plurality of wires 157. Id. at 6:32–34. Heat dissipating hole H1 is
`formed through first ceramic substrate 151 to dissipate heat from LED
`chip 155 to the outside of the LED package. Id. at 6:46–50.
`
`
`Hashimoto
`4.
`Hashimoto is a PCT patent application publication directed to “an
`LED chip mounted face down on a mounting substrate, wherein a p-type
`semiconductor layer and an n-type semiconductor layer are formed on a
`crystal of a translucent substrate.” Ex. 1007, 39. Figure 23 of Hashimoto is
`reproduced below.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`
`
`Figure 23 depicts a cross-sectional view of a light-emitting device. Id. at 43.
`Conductor layer 12 is connected to each electrode of LED chip 1 on
`mounting substrate 8. Id. at 50. Thermal conductive member 28, which has
`high thermal conductivity compared to insulating layer 13, is connected to
`LED chip 1 and the conductor plate 11. Id. at 51. Heat is transferred from
`LED chip 1 to conductor plate 11 through thermal conductive member 28,
`which improves heat dissipation of LED chip 1. See id. at 41.
`
`
`Claim 18
`5.
`Petitioner’s obviousness analysis for claim 18 builds upon an analysis
`of the limitations in claim 16. Pet. 24 n.7. The preamble of claim 16 recites
`“[a] packaged LED for high temperature operation.” Ex. 1001, 10:10–11.
`Petitioner concedes Hasebe does not disclose an LED package, so Petitioner
`relies on the teachings in Harrah, Song, and Hashimoto for teaching an LED
`package. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:5–6, Figs. 1–7; Ex. 1006, 3:17–26,
`Figs. 3–8; Ex. 1007, 39–42, 51, Figs. 23, 30). Petitioner additionally notes
`that Hasebe pertains to improvements in heat radiating performance. Id. at
`24 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:26–30, Fig. 25).
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`Claim 16 further recites “a metal base, the metal base including an
`underlying thermal connection pad and a pair of underlying electrical
`connection pads.” Ex. 1001, 10:12–14. To explain its mapping of this
`limitation, Petitioner provides an annotated version of Hasebe’s Figure 25,
`which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Pet. 26. Hasebe’s Figure 25 depicts a cross-section of an electronic
`substrate, and Petitioner has highlighted internal layer metal plate 2506
`(which is part of metal core substrate 2502) in green, heat radiating
`electrode 2507 in purple, and electrode 2503 in orange. Id. at 25 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–87; Ex. 1004, 20:40–44). Petitioner maps the recited “metal
`base” to internal layer metal plate 2506, the recited “thermal connection
`pad” to heat radiating electrode 2507, and the recited “electrical connection
`pads” to electrode 2503. Id.
`Claim 16 further recites “a layer of electrically insulating material
`overlying the metal base.” Ex. 1001, 10:15–16. Petitioner cites Hasebe’s
`teachings on “‘a copper foil with resin’ or ‘a resin pre-preg and a copper
`foil,’ which ‘is individually laminated and bonded’ to both surfaces of
`Hasebe’s metal plate [2506].” Pet. 27 (quoting Ex. 1004, 11:1–4).
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`Petitioner contends that certain portions of the resin layers overlie metal
`plate 2506. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1004, Fig. 25 (annotated)).
`Claim 16 further recites “an LED mounted on the layer of electrically
`insulating material.” Ex. 1001, 10:17–18. Although Petitioner
`acknowledges that Hasebe does not teach this limitation, Petitioner relies on
`LED dies in Harrah, Song, and Hashimoto for teaching this limitation.
`Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 93); see also id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:36–54,
`Figs. 1, 2) (Harrah’s LED 28), 29 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:21–40, Fig. 4a)
`(Song’s LED chip 155), 29–30 (citing Ex. 1007, 39–42, 52–53, Figs. 23, 30)
`(Hashimoto’s LED chip 1).
`Claim 16 further recites “the LED includes a pair of electrodes
`electrically connected to respective underlying electrical connection pads.”
`Ex. 1001, 10:18–20. Petitioner cites Hasebe’s teachings of semiconductor
`part 316 being connected to electrodes 308 and 317. Pet. 33 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 11:35–39, Fig. 3). Petitioner also explains its contentions using
`another annotated version of Hasebe’s Figure 25, which is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Id. at 34. In this annotated version of Hasebe’s Figure 25, Petitioner has
`indicated the electrodes of Hasebe’s semiconductor part (i.e., a “pair of
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`electrodes”) in orange in the upper portion of the figure. Id. (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 107; Ex. 1004, Fig. 25). Petitioner also highlights underlying electrical
`connection pads 2503 in orange in the lower portion of the figure. Id.
`Petitioner contends the electrodes and pads are electrically connected via an
`electrical connection shown in blue. Id.
`Claim 16 further recites “the LED is thermally coupled to the metal
`base by one or more thermal vias.” Ex. 1001, 10:20–21. Petitioner cites
`Hasebe’s “heat radiating electrode 2507 connected to an internal metal plate
`2506 of the metal core substrate.” Pet. 35 (quoting Ex. 1004, 20:43–44).
`Petitioner explains its contentions using yet another annotated version of
`Hasebe’s Figure 25, which is reproduced below.
`
`
`Id. at 36. In this annotated version of Hasebe’s Figure 25, Petitioner has
`indicated heat radiating electrode 2507 (i.e., a “thermal via”) in pink and the
`flow of heat with red arrows from semiconductor part 2501 to metal plate
`2506 (in green). Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 111; Ex. 1004, Fig. 25).
`Claim 16 further recites the LED is “thermally coupled through the
`metal base to the thermal connection pad.” Ex. 1001, 10:22–23. To explain
`its contentions for this limitation, Petitioner provides still another annotated
`version of Hasebe’s Figure 25, which is reproduced below.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`
`
`Pet. 38. In this annotated version of Hasebe’s Figure 25, Petitioner has
`indicated with red arrows the flow of heat from Hasebe’s metal plate 2506
`(i.e., the “metal base,” in green) to heat radiating electrode 2507 (i.e., the
`“thermal connection pad,” in purple). Id. at 36–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 114;
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 25).
`Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have found it
`obvious to mount any of [Harrah’s, Song’s, or Hashimoto’s] LEDs on the
`insulating layers of Hasebe’s package—the simple, predictable use of an
`LED as Hasebe’s semiconductor.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50, 72–78,
`97). Petitioner notes common teachings in Hasebe, Harrah, Song, and
`Hashimoto on heat dissipation. Id. at 30–31 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003
`¶ 98). Petitioner further contends that each of Harrah’s, Song’s, and
`Hashimoto’s LED chips is compatible with Hasebe’s package. Id. at 31–32
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–103). According to Petitioner, an “[ordinarily
`skilled artisan] designing a heat dissipating LED package would have been
`aware of all four references and would have had the technical know-how to
`combine the prior art LEDs with Hasebe’s package.” Id. at 32–33 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 104).
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`Petitioner puts forth further analysis for the limitations in claim 18
`that are added to claim 16 (see Pet. 38–39), but we need not discuss it,
`because our disposition turns on Petitioner’s underlying analysis of claim 16.
`Patent Owner argues “the Petition does not allege that a[n ordinarily
`skilled artisan] would have been motivated to make the proposed
`combinations, nor does the Petition provide any reason why the [artisan]
`would have been so motivated, as the law of obviousness requires.” Prelim.
`Resp. 19 (citing Pet. 28–33). In particular, Patent Owner argues that
`Petitioner provides no explanation why or how its proposed modification of
`Hasebe would have been simple or predictable. Id. at 19–20. Patent Owner
`also argues that Petitioner’s allusion to common teachings in the references
`on heat dissipation undermines the proposed combination because, as
`acknowledged by Petitioner, the secondary references “already had thermal
`solutions to the reality of heat created by LED die[s].” Id. at 20 (citing
`Pet. 30–31). Patent Owner also cites Petitioner’s contentions that “Harrah,
`Song, and Hashimoto could be physically connected to Hasebe’s
`semiconductor package” and contends these “amount to allegations of what
`the [ordinarily skilled artisan] could have done, not a reason why the
`[artisan] would have done so.” Id. at 23 (citing Pet. 30–33).
`We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. “[O]bviousness
`concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have
`been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to
`arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d
`1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, Petitioner puts forth evidence that
`Hasebe’s semiconductor package might be combinable with the LEDs taught
`by the Harrah, Song, and Hashimoto (see Pet. 30–32), but this does not mean
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reason to do so. Moreover,
`Petitioner relies on Dr. Wright’s testimony that the combinations would have
`been simple and predictable (see Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50, 72–78, 97)),
`but Dr. Wright does not provide a reason why this would have been so.
`Dr. Wright’s general statements about the state of the art (see Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 50, 72–75) and his background information about the secondary
`references (see id. ¶¶ 76–78) do nothing to support the simplicity or
`predictability of the combination.
`In addition, Dr. Wright’s opinion on the alleged obviousness and
`simplicity of the combination (see id. ¶ 97) appears to be based on nothing
`more than his ipse dixit; he provides no explanation why an ordinarily
`skilled artisan would have made the combination. We also agree with Patent
`Owner (Prelim. Resp. 20) that the references’ common teachings on heat
`dissipation do not amount to a reason to combine the references. See
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp., 701 F. App’x 971, 977 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017) (agreeing with the Board that a broad characterization of two
`references falling within the same alleged field, without more, is not a
`sufficient rationale to support an obviousness conclusion); Microsoft Corp.
`v. Enfish, LLC, 662 F. App’x 981, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming the
`Board’s finding that two references addressing the same technical issues,
`without more, is insufficient to show persuasively that a relevant artisan
`would have recognized some deficiency in one reference or had some other
`reason to motivate looking to the other and combining them). For these
`reasons, we find insufficient Petitioner’s purported rationale to combine
`Harrah, Song, or Hashimoto with Hasebe.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`Thus, Petitioner’s analysis for claim 16 is deficient. Because
`Petitioner’s analysis of dependent claim 18 builds about its analysis for
`claim 16 (see Pet. 38–39), Petitioner’s further analysis is similarly deficient.
`Based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has not established
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject
`matter of claim 18 would have been obvious over the combination of Hasebe
`and any of Harrah, Song, or Hashimoto.
`
`Claims 3, 6, 8, 9, 23, and 24
`6.
`Petitioner’s obviousness contentions for claims 3, 6, 8, 9, 23, and 24
`incorporate the same deficient analysis discussed above with respect to
`claim 18. See Pet. 39–58. Petitioner’s analysis of these claims does not cure
`the deficiencies. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter
`of 3, 6, 8, 9, 23, and 24 would have been obvious over the combination of
`Hasebe and any of Harrah, Song, or Hashimoto.
`
`D. Obviousness Grounds Based on Sugimoto and Suenaga or Oike
`Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–24,
`and 26–30 would have been obvious over Sugimoto and Suenaga or Oike.
`Pet. 58–89. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contentions. Prelim.
`Resp. 24–34.
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`Sugimoto
`1.
`Sugimoto is a PCT patent application publication directed to a light
`source device using a light emitting diode. Ex. 1026, 81. Figure 16 of
`Sugimoto is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 16 is a cross-sectional view of light source device 1. Id. at 93, 110.
`Two LED chips 2 are installed on radiator plate 3 and are electrically
`connected in series via wiring 8. Id. at 110. Wiring 8 is provided on the
`upper side of insulating member 4, which is separated into three sections by
`LED chips 2. Id. at 111. Opening 3c is provided in each end of radiator
`plate 3 and hole 4e is provided in each end of insulating member 4. Id.
`Substantially rod-shaped electrode pin 23, which is made of an
`electroconductive material, is inserted into hole 4e in insulating member 4
`and opening 3c in the radiator plate 3 until its distal end protrudes from the
`lower surface of radiator plate 3. Id.
`
`
`Suenaga
`2.
`Suenaga is a Japanese patent application publication directed to “a
`light-emitting device used for various light sources such as a backlight light
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`source, display, or illumination, and optical sensors.” Ex. 1020, 57.
`Figure 1B of Suenaga is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1B is a schematic cross-sectional view illustrating a light-emitting
`device. Id. at 60. Metal package 5 has concave portion a to contain light-
`emitting element 1. Id. at 61. Each base portion b of metal package 5 has
`through holes bounded by insulation member 3. Id. Lead electrode pins 2
`are inserted in the through holes. Id. The electrodes of light-emitting
`element 1 are electrically connected to lead electrode pins 2 via wires 4. Id.
`The bottom/mounting surface of lead electrode pins 2 may have an inverted
`T-shape, an open-fan-type shape, or an inverse tapered-type shape. Id. at
`68–69.
`
`Oike
`3.
`Oike is a Japanese patent application publication directed to an optical
`package housing an optical semiconductor element that effectively dissipates
`heat. Ex. 1021, Abstr. Figure 2 of Oike is reproduced below.
`
`23
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`
`
`Figure 2 is a cross-sectional view of an optical package having base 1,
`frame 2, and cover 3. Id. ¶ 17, p. 11. Base 1, frame 2, and cover 3 form a
`container that houses optical semiconductor element 4 and drive circuit
`element 5. Id. ¶ 17. Optical semiconductor element 4 is mounted on the
`upper surface of base 1, which also includes substantially circular electrode
`pads 10 on its lower surface for connection to the outside. Id. ¶ 19. Base 1
`may include opening 21 in which heat sink 20 is disposed. Id. ¶ 26. Drive
`circuit element 5 is mounted on heat sink 20, and heat sink 20 includes
`electrode pads 10 on its lower surface. Id. Electrode pads 10 dissipate heat
`and transmit signals to external electric circuit substrate 11, which may
`include metallized layers made of tungsten or molybdenum-manganese. See
`id. ¶ 19.
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01488
`Patent 7,095,053 B2
`Claim 16
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket