Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 30
`Entered: January 13, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ORSTAR INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COSMO LIGHTING INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JAMES T. MOORE, and JENNIFER S. BISK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 30
`Entered: January 13, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ORSTAR INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COSMO LIGHTING INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JAMES T. MOORE, and JENNIFER S. BISK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Orstar Industrial Co. Ltd. filed a Petition to institute inter partes
`review of claims 1–3 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,926,978
`B2 (“the ’978 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). On January 25, 2016, we granted
`the Petition, instituting trial on whether the challenged claims are
`unpatentable as obvious over Popovich,1 Lin-US,2 and Lin-CN.3 Paper 15
`(“Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”).
`During the trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 19, “PO
`Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 23, “Reply”). We held an oral
`hearing on October 3, 2016. Paper 29 (“Tr.”).
`This is a Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37
`C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons set forth the below, we conclude that
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that the challenged
`claims are unpatentable.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Patent Owner indicates that the ’978 patent is at issue in Cosmo
`Lighting Inc. v. Target Corporation, 2:15-cv-09243-JAK-AJW (C.D. Cal.).
`Paper 12. Another Petition challenging the ’978 patent was terminated on
`September 28, 2016. IPR2016-00296, Paper 18.
`
`
`1 US Patent No. 7,301,174 B1 (Ex. 1012) (“Popovich”).
`2 US 2003/0137839 A1 (Ex. 1016) (“Lin-US”).
`3 CN 1514498 A (Ex. 1018) (“Lin-CN”). Ex. 1019 is an English translation
`of Lin-CN and Ex. 1020 is a certification of this translation. For purposes of
`this Decision, we will refer only to Ex. 1019 when discussing Lin-CN.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`C. The ’978 Patent
`The ’978 patent describes a light set with surface mounted light
`emitting components. Ex. 1001, 1:6–8. According to the ’978 patent, at the
`time of the invention, traditional lighting devices were being replaced with
`semiconductor light emitting components, including the light emitting diode
`(“LED”), because of LED’s many advantages, including easy mass
`production. Id. at 1:12–20. The ’978 patent states that one drawback to
`LEDs, however, is that they have insufficient brightness on their own,
`causing light sets to combine or serially connect multiple LEDS to obtain the
`desired brightness. Id. at 1:32–36.
`The ’978 patent describes a “conventional LED” as including “an
`LED dice encapsulated in a lamp-shape package,” with a pair of leads
`extending from the LED dice through the package to an external power
`source. Id. at 1:21–24. Each of the pair of leads “are separately soldered to
`a positive conductor and a negative conductor.” Id.at 1:24–27. According
`to the ’978 patent, “it is uneasy to control the soldering quality” of these
`separately soldered leads, resulting in both low reliability and a low
`production rate. Id. at 1:37–45.
`The ’978 patent purports to solve these problems with a light set that
`includes two adjacent conducting wires, each of which is enclosed by an
`insulating layer. Id. at 1:56–2:15. Corresponding contact-pad areas are
`formed at predetermined intervals on each wire by exposing the conductor
`from the insulating layer. Id. The light emitting component is then
`straddled between two contact pad areas, one lead connected to each
`conducting wire, thus electrically connecting the two adjacent conducting
`wires. Id. at 2:16–23. In this configuration, “it is not necessary to solder
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`leads of the surface mounted light emitting components to the two
`conducting wires.” Id. at 2:25–27. “Instead, every surface mounted light
`emitting component can be directly straddled” on the contact pads of the two
`wires “via a conductive material,” thus, avoiding the production issues
`discussed above. Id.at 2:27–33. In addition, the ’978 patent states that the
`configuration allows for relatively large contact areas leading to high
`reliability of the end product. Id. at 2:38–44.
`Figure 1, reproduced below, is a perspective view of a light set
`according to a preferred embodiment of the ’978 patent.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’978 patent shows light set 100, including first conducting
`wire 1, second conducting wire 2 “parallelly disposed adjacent to” first
`conducting wire 1, and surface mounted light emitting components 3. Id. at
`3:8–14, 22–24. The conducting wires include conductors 11, 21, and
`insulating layers 12, 22. Id. at 3:15–31.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2, reproduced below, shows, in more detail, the two conducting
`wires of light set 100. Id. at 2:56–57.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’978 patent shows first and second conducting wires 1, 2,
`each with a plurality of adjacent contact-pad areas 13, 23 formed at
`predetermined intervals D. Id. at 3:38–42. Each wire’s conductor 11, 21 is
`exposed at each of the contact-pad areas. Id. at 3:42–47.
`Figure 6, reproduced below, shows an enlarged cross sectional view
`taken along line 6-6 of Figure 1. Id. at 2:66–67.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6, above, shows surface mounted light emitting components 3
`straddling the first and second conducting wires 1, 2 at the contact-pad areas
`13, 23. Id. at 4:63–5:3. “[A] layer of transparent package 5 is further
`applied to an outer side of every paired first and second contact-pad areas
`13, 23 on the first and the second conducting wire 1, 2 and the surface
`mounted light emitting component 3 bonded thereto.” Id. at 5:1–12. This
`packaging: (1) prevents light 3 and conductors 11, 12 from electrically
`contacting with an external environment; (2) protects light 3 against dust and
`particles; and (3) strengthens the connection between light 3 and conducting
`wires 1,2 leading to improved reliability. Id. at 5:1–22.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim of the ’978
`patent. It is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`1. A light set, comprising:
`a first conducting wire having a first conductor and a first
`insulating layer enclosing the first conductor, said first
`insulating layer having a plurality of displaced first openings
`through said first insulating layer, said first openings
`defining a respective plurality of first contact-pad areas
`exposing said first conductor within said plurality of said
`first contact pad areas;
`a second conducting wire being disposed adjacent to the first
`conducting wire, and having a second conductor and a
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`second insulating layer enclosing the second conductor, said
`second insulating layer having a plurality of displaced
`second openings through said second insulating layer
`aligned with said first openings, said second openings
`defining a respective plurality of second contact-pad areas
`exposing said second conductor within said plurality of said
`second contact pad area;
`at least one surface mounted light emitting component being
`straddled on and between respective first and second
`contact-pad areas on the first and the second conducting
`wire; the surface mounted light emitting component having
`a first lead and a second lead, which are electrically
`connected to the first conductor of the first conducting wire
`and the second conductor of the second conducting wire,
`respectively, via a conductive paste sandwiched between
`respective first and second leads and said first and second
`conducting wires; and
`a plurality of transparent packages encapsulating every pair of
`first and second contact-pad areas on the first and second
`conducting wires and the surface mounted light emitting
`component bonded thereto;
`wherein the first and the second conducting wire [sic] are
`enamel-insulated wires; and the at least one surface mounted
`light emitting component is a surface mounted light emitting
`diode.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(citation omitted). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`in the field of the ’978 patent would have had “at least an associate degree in
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`mechanical or electrical engineering and having at least two years of
`experience with electronic packaging or printed wiring board assembly” or
`“at least four years of experience with electronic packaging or printed wiring
`board assembly.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 49).
`Patent Owner does not specifically address Petitioner’s statements
`regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, but asserts that a person of
`ordinary skill “would have at least a Masters in Materials Sciences,
`Electrical Engineering or in Mechanical Engineering with at least 3 years[]
`experience in packaging of optoelectronic devices.” PO Resp. 15.
`The parties’ dispute is relevant to Patent Owner’s contention that
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Viswanadham Puligandla (“Dr. Puligandla”)4, is
`not a person of ordinary skill in the art because he “does not have experience
`in the packaging of light-emitting diodes, in optoelectric packaging, in optic
`packaging or in light strings.” PO Resp. 16.
`The ’978 patent is directed to improving control and manufacture of
`the connection of the light emitting components to the conductors. Ex.
`1001, 1:37–64. It describes the relevant problems encountered in the art as
`those caused by soldering leads from LEDs to conductors. Id.; see also PO
`Resp. 3–4 (“The ’978 patent recognizes the problems caused by soldering
`leads from an LED die to conductors, such as poor lead soldering quality,
`damage based on external force, and low reliability, as well as the need to
`solder each of the elements in a light string one by one.”), id. at 7–8 (“the
`’978 patent accomplishes its primary purpose without soldering the leads of
`the surface mounted light-emitting components” to the conductors, and as a
`
`
`4 Dr. Puligandla’s declaration is Exhibit 1002.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`result “assembly and production of the light set becomes easier”); Ex. 2001
`¶ 21 (“The ’978 Patent was game changing in making LED string light sets
`cheaply and reliably”). The ’978 patent is not explicitly directed to issues
`associated with how light is transmitted, diffracted, and reflected, but instead
`is directed generally to how LEDs, as electronic devices, are packaged. In
`fact, the ’978 states only that “the angle of divergence of the light emitted
`from the surface mounted light emitting components 3 can be adjusted via
`the transparent package 5 to meet a user’s requirement.” Ex. 1001, 5:22–25.
`The rest of the ’978 patent is directed to general packaging of LEDs in the
`manufacturing of a light set. Other than the need for multiple LEDs to
`ensure sufficient brightness of the light set (Ex. 1001, 32–36), the
`Specification identifies no specific problem that stems from the device being
`an optoelectronic device as opposed to other semiconductor electronic
`devices. From this evidence, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art with respect to the ’978 patent would be skilled in the field of
`packaging of semiconductor electronic devices, e.g., manufacturing of light
`sets.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that experience in the field of semiconductor
`packaging “does not translate into knowledge of the state of the art or
`technical requirements regarding optoelectronic packaging or light strings,”
`which use “very different materials” that “exhibit different properties and
`characteristics.” Id. at 16–17; Ex. 2001 ¶ 38. The argument is not
`persuasive, because, on this record, optoelectronic devices are
`semiconductor devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1: 12–13 (“In recent years,
`semiconductor light emitting components have gradually replaced the
`traditional lighting devices”); 1:60–64 (“Another object of the present
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`invention is to provide a light set with surface mounted light emitting
`components, which has stable and firm structure to protect the
`semiconductor light emitting components”); Ex. 1012, 1:14–19
`(“Conventional LEDs generally incorporate a substrate, a light emitting part
`including a light emitting layer formed on a laminated nitride
`semiconductor.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 40; Ex. 2001 ¶ 63 (“LED die refers just to the
`semiconductor chip”).
`Thus, one with ordinary skill in the art in the field of semiconductor
`device packaging would have a basic working knowledge of optoelectronic
`device packaging. The ’978 patent itself does not indicate that there is any
`complexity with respect to choosing the encapsulating material. In fact, the
`only discussion of that material in the ’978 patent is “[i]n this case, it is of
`course a transparent material [that] should be selected for the transparent
`package 5, so that light emitted from the surface mounted light emitting
`components 3 can pass through the transparent package 5.” Ex. 1001, 5:25–
`29.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill “in the area of
`optoelectronics must consider issues associated with how light is
`transmitted, diffracted, reflected, and the like.” The argument is also
`unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the ’978 patent is about the packaging
`of an LED, not about designing an LED with improved optical
`characteristics. Second, Patent Owner has not shown that Dr. Pugliandla did
`not consider how light is transmitted, diffracted, reflected, and the like.
`Moreover, both parties agree that when designing a light set to solve
`the relevant problems, a person of ordinary skill in the art would choose
`materials based on researching the manufacturer’s specifications of various
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`materials—not on any particular knowledge of optoelectronics. Tr. 35:4–9
`(Patent Owner’s counsel stating that a person of ordinary skill “would look
`at the manufacturing tolerances and requirements for light sets and would
`adopt an approach that works for light sets.”); Ex. 10235, 37:22–38:14,
`60:21–61:8.
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the level of
`ordinary skill in the art requires specific experience in the packaging of
`optoelectronic devices as is argued by Patent Owner. We also are not
`persuaded that the level of ordinary skill in the art requires education in the
`form of a Master Degree in Material Sciences, Electrical Engineering, or
`Mechanical Engineering, as is argued by Patent Owner. Instead, we are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`and our finding of the level of ordinary skill is similar to that proposed by
`Petitioner, but with a slight modification, i.e., that a basic level of technical
`education is required, at the level of an Associate Degree (two year college
`program) in Physics, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or
`Industrial Engineering.
`We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is that of one having
`at least an Associate Degree or Bachelor’s Degree in Physics, Mechanical
`Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or Industrial Engineering, plus 1–4
`years of working experience with semiconductor electronic device
`packaging or printed wiring board assembly. A more advanced degree
`would be paired with a shorter period of working experience.
`
`
`5 Exhibit 1023 has two sets of page numbers. For purposes of this Decision,
`we refer to the bottom-most page number in the lower right corner of the
`document. This number appears in the form of Page X of 132.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`B. Expert Testimony
`Patent Owner did not specifically file a motion to exclude Dr.
`Pugliandla’s testimony as inadmissible, but requests, in its Response, that
`we “give little, if any, weight to Dr. Puligandla’s testimony” (PO Resp. 18
`(citing Ex. 1002) because he “does not have experience in the packaging of
`light-emitting diodes, in optoelectric packaging, in optic packaging or in
`light strings” (id. at 16). Patent Owner contends that as a result of this lack
`of experience “Dr. Pugliandla reached several erroneous conclusions.” Id.
`at 17.
`Patent Owner specifically describes only one alleged error in Dr.
`Pugliandla’s deposition testimony—that glass is commonly used as
`transparent material to encapsulate LEDs. Id. (citing Ex. 2002, 38:11–14,
`40:4–6). Dr. Denbaars testifies to the contrary, without pointing to
`supporting evidence, that “[i]n fact, LED’s are never encapsulated in glass
`because the thermal mismatch and strain would crack the LED chip during
`thermal cycles.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 39. Patent Owner also asserts that a person of
`ordinary skill “in the area of optoelectronics must consider issues associated
`with how light is transmitted, diffracted, reflected, and the like.” Id.
`Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for giving Dr.
`Pugliandla’s testimony little or no weight. Petitioner submits other evidence
`contrary to Dr. Denbaars unsupported assertion that LED’s are never
`encapsulated in glass. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1022). For example, Exhibit 1022
`is a journal article, dated 2006 and titled “Optical characteristics of spherical
`glass encapsulated LEDs.” Ex. 1022, Title. Moreover, as discussed above,
`we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’978
`patent would be required to have specific experience in the packaging of
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`optoelectronic devices as opposed to electronic packaging in general. We
`are, thus, not persuaded that Dr. Pugliandla’s answers, during deposition, to
`two questions about the material used for transparent encapsulation is wrong
`or that the entirety of his testimony should be given little or no weight based
`on this disagreement.
`In fact, Dr. Pugliandla is highly qualified in the area of electronic
`packaging. Dr. Pugliandla has several degrees, including a Ph.D. in
`chemistry. Reply 8–9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 9. He spent many years working in the
`areas of electronic packaging and surface mount technology, has taught
`courses in electronic packaging, and has served as a member of the Board of
`Directors for the National Surface Mount Technology Association. Id. at
`¶¶ 12–18. We are persuaded that Dr. Pugliandla’s education and experience
`is relevant to the issues discussed in the ’978 patent. Moreover, given the
`subject matter of the ’978 patent and Dr. Pugliandla’s experience in
`electronic packaging, we do not find his admitted lack of direct experience
`in optoelectronic device packaging (see Ex. 2002, 38:15–22) as basis to
`accord his testimony little or no weight. On this record, we still credit the
`testimony of Dr. Pugliandla over the contrary testimony of Dr. Stephen P.
`Denbaars (Dr. Denbaars)6 about whether glass is commonly used as
`transparent material to encapsulate LEDs or never used to encapsulate LED.
`An expert does not have to have direct hands-on design experience on a
`subject to know what existed as a common technique on that subject.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d), we apply the preponderance of the
`evidence standard in determining whether Petitioner has established
`
`
`6 Ex. 2001.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`unpatentability. In doing so, it is within our discretion to determine the
`appropriate weight to be accorded the evidence presented, including expert
`opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which
`that opinion is based. Thus, we decline to make a determination about Dr.
`Pugliandla’s opinion, as a whole. Rather, in our analysis we will consider,
`as it arises, relevant portions of Dr. Pugliandla’s testimony and determine
`the appropriate weight to accord that particular testimony.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`We construe all terms, whether or not expressly discussed here, using
`the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’978 patent specification.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For purposes of the Institution Decision, we
`expressly construed the following terms: (1) “contact-pad area” as “an
`opening in an insulating layer of a conducting wire where electrical contact
`can be made”; and (2) “encapsulating” as “enclosing.” Decision 8–15. In
`the post-institution briefs, Patent Owner disputes only the construction of
`“encapsulating.” For purposes of this decision, therefore, we continue to
`apply the construction of “contact-pad area” as set forth above and we
`address the construction of the term “encapsulating” below. We construe all
`other terms using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’978
`patent specification.
`Patent Owner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`term “encapsulating” in view of the ’978 specification “requires the
`transparent packages to fully encapsulate the pair of contact pad areas on the
`conducting wires, as well as the surface mounted light-emitting component.”
`PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner, thus, proposes that “‘encapsulation’ be
`construed to mean enclosure on all sides of the surface mounted light-
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`emitting component and the pair of first and second contact-pad areas.” PO
`Resp. 15. In fact, although not expressly articulated in its proposed claim
`construction, Patent Owner would actually require that “encapsulation”
`requires that the enclosure on all sides be made using encapsulating material.
`For example, Patent Owner argues that Lin-US is not encapsulated because
`the components to be encapsulated are mounted on a backing. PO Resp. 33
`(“[w]hile Lin-US describes the use of an epoxy resin to cover the LED die
`and wire bonded assembly, it does not teach the complete enclosure of the
`assembly.”); see also Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”), 12–14 (“Lin-US is a lamp
`on a backing that would not even be exposed to the mechanical impacts of
`the light string of the ’978 Patent.”).
`We do not agree with Patent Owner’s proposed definition for
`encapsulation—“enclosure on all sides of the surface mounted light-emitting
`component and the pair of first and second contact-pad areas.” We also do
`not agree that encapsulation should be construed so narrowly as to require
`the enclosure to be composed solely of encapsulation material.
`First, claim 1, itself, recites “encapsulating every pair of first and
`second contact-pad areas on the first and second conducting wires and the
`surface mounted light emitting component bonded thereto.” Patent Owner’s
`proposal to include “the surface mounted light-emitting component and the
`pair of first and second contact-pad areas” in the construction of
`“encapsulating” would incorporate features already recited in the claims,
`making them redundant. See Apple v. Ameranth, 2016 WL 6958650, *3
`(Fed. Cir. Nov. 2016).
`Thus, the only relevant question is whether we should append the
`phrase “on all sides” to our construction. We are not persuaded that
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`encapsulating components requires that each and every side of the
`components be surrounded by encapsulating material. In other words, when
`only a subset of surfaces of a device is exposed to the environment, the plain
`and ordinary meaning of encapsulate would include covering only those
`exposed surfaces with encapsulating material. The ’978 patent supports this
`understanding by describing the process of encapsulating the components in
`Figure 6 as “a layer of transparent package 5 is further applied to an outer
`side of every paired first and second contact-pad areas 13, 23 on the first and
`second conducting wire 1, 2 and the surface mounted light emitting
`component 3 bonded thereto . . . .” Ex. 1001, 4:63–5:15 (emphasis added).
`This understanding is also consistent with the ’978 patent’s stated goal
`of encapsulation, preventing the components “from electrically contacting
`with an external environment,” “protect[ing] the surface mounted light
`emitting components 3 against failure due to contacting with external dust
`and particles,” and strengthening the connections by “protecting . . . against
`damage and separation . . due to external impact.” Id. Ex. 1002 ¶ 46 (“The
`use of encapsulating materials to [improve the ruggedness and reliability] is
`a common practice in the electronic assembly industry, and was commonly
`practiced for decades prior to the critical date of the ’978 patent.”); see also,
`Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 65–67 (Dr. Denbaars testifying that without full enclosure, a
`device would not be protected from the environment); Ex. 2002, 46:4–19
`(Dr. Puligandla testifying similarly). The relevant components are fully
`protected from the external environment when the surfaces exposed to such
`environment are covered by encapsulating material.
`We, therefore, continue to give the term “encapsulating” its plain and
`ordinary meaning: enclosing the exposed surfaces of the recited components.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`We do not construe the term encapsulating, however, to require covering all
`component surfaces by encapsulating material.
`
`D. Overview of Popovich
`Popovich discloses a light emitting diode (LED) strip lamp. Ex. 1012,
`Title. The lamp contains a current supplying conductor composed of a metal
`wire rod with a painted insulating layer. Id. at Abs. The shaped electrode of
`an LED is “fixed directly to a diode connecting part on [the] current
`supplying conductor, by die bonding or other fixing means,” in places where
`the insulating painted layer is absent. Id.
`Popovich discloses several embodiments of the LED strip. See, e.g.,
`Ex. 1012, 2:10–28 (describing figures showing seven embodiments of the
`invention). The first embodiment is shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Figures 1
`and 2 are reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 of Popovich, above left, shows insulating paint coated wires 2, 3
`connected to LED 1. Id. at 4:35–41. Figure 2, above right, details insulating
`paint layers 21, 31, which are removed at connecting parts 20, 30, exposing
`top surface of conducting wires 22, 32 enabling connection to extruded
`electrodes 11, 12 of LED 1 “by die bonding.” Id. at 4:42–5:2.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`The second embodiment of Popovich is depicted in Figures 5 and 6,
`reproduced below. Id. at 2:16–18.
`
`
`
`Figure 5, above left, shows two current supplying conductors 5, 6 aligned
`and joined together to form cable 7. Id. at 5:52–56. Cable 7 is wound into a
`tube-shaped helical wire with a straight line of grooves or notches 71, with
`insulating paint layer portions 51, 61 exposing the inside of conducting wire
`52, 62, exposed parts 50, 60 connected to a mounting part or parts of the
`LED. Id. at 5:56–6:5.
`
`E. Overview of Lin-US
`Lin-US discloses a method of manufacturing continuous strips of
`lamps, including LED lamps. Ex. 1016 ¶ 5–8. In a first embodiment, a
`laminator presses a continuous strip 20 that includes a conductor assembly
`made up of two conducting foil wires sandwiched between insulating strips.
`Id. ¶ 20. Periodic equally-spaced pairs of holes are formed on the upper
`insulating strip to expose two conducting foil wires. Id. Surface-mount
`device light emitting diodes (SMD LEDs) are mounted across these holes to
`form a continuous strip of lamps. Id. In a second embodiment, LED
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`“dice,”7 as opposed to SMD LEDs, are bonded to the foil wires. Id. ¶ 22.
`The description of this second embodiment includes a further step of sealing
`the LED dice using a layer of epoxy resin. Id.
`Figure 5 of Lin-US is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 5, above, is a cross-sectional view of a lamp created using the second
`embodiment. Id. ¶ 14. A “layer of epoxy resin 321 is sealed and covered on
`LED dice bonding 32, aluminum wire 320, and large hole 213.” Id. ¶ 22
`
`F. Overview of Lin-CN
`Lin-CN is a Chinese patent application publication (the named
`inventor, Hsi Huang Lin, is unrelated to the named inventor of Lin-US,
`Yuan Lin). Ex. 1019. This publication discloses a “method for the parallel
`connection and encapsulation of light-emitting semiconductor dies.” Id. at
`Abs. Figure 5, reproduced below, shows one stage of an embodiment.
`
`
`7 “Dice” are cut semiconductor wafers (individually a “die”) upon which a
`functional circuit is fabricated.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 5, above, shows electrical conductors 3, 4 wound parallely around a
`cylinder 5 (not shown), forming a plurality of conductive rings 31, 41. Id. at
`10. Each conductive ring includes a flattened surface 32, 42 linearly
`arranged axially along cylinder 5. Id. Light-emitting semiconductor dies are
`connected to flattened surface 32 using “silver conductive adhesive 71” and
`wire conductor 72 connects the LED die to respective flattened surface 42.
`Id. at 10–11. Finally, die 6, flattened surface 32, wire conductor 72, and
`flattened surfaces 32 and 42 are encapsulated by transparent insulator 73.
`Id. at 11. Transparent insulator 73 “can be formed by glue dispensing, glue
`soaking or molding.” Id.
`Figure 6, reproduced below, shows another stage of this embodiment.
`
`
`Figure 6, above, shows electrical conductors 3, 4 with wire conductor 72 and
`transparent insulator 73. Id.
`
`G. Obviousness Analysis
`1. Popovich and Lin-US
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`found the challenged claims obvious over the combination of Popovich and
`Lin-US and the combination of Popovich, Lin-US, and Lin-CN. Pet. 32–39,
`49–59 (citing Ex. 1002). In particular, Petitioner asserts that Popovich
`discloses every limitation of claim 1 of the ’978 patent except that it does
`not “expressly disclose application of a material to encapsulate the LED
`components and their respective wire conductors.” Pet. 33, 51. In other
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01787
`Patent 7,926,978 B2
`
`
`
`words, Petitioner concedes that Popovich does not expressly disclose “a
`plurality of transparent packages encapsulating every pair of first and second
`contact-pad areas,” (“the transparent packages limitation”). Id. at 33.
`Petitioner relies on Lin-US for teaching the transparent packages limitation.
`Id. at 33, 37, 51, 56.
`We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis and determine that
`Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Popovich
`discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1 except the transparent
`packages limitation, which would have been obvious to add to Popovich’s
`device based on Lin-US’s disclosure of such encapsulation and the person of
`ordinary skill in the art’s desire to provide mechanical and electrical
`protection of the lighting components. We have reviewed both parties’
`arguments and supporting evidence, including the disclosure of both
`references and the testimony of Dr. Puligandla and Dr. Denbaars. Pet. 32–
`39; PO Resp. 18–38; Reply 9–23; Ex. 1002; Ex. 2001. For the reasons
`discussed below, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments to the
`contrary.
`
`a. “via a conductive paste sandwiched between respective first
`and second leads and said first and second conducting
`wires”
`For disclosure of this limitation, Petitioner relies on Popovich’s
`description of a lighting device as shown in Figures 1 and 3. Pet. 36 (citing
`Ex. 1012, 4:48–61, Figs. 1, 3; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–38, 63, 67, 68, 106).
`According to Petitioner, Popovich discloses “the electrodes are bonded to
`the contact-pad areas using conductive paste sandwiched therebetween.” Id.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not met its burden to show the
`use o
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
