`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: October 4, 2018
`____________
`
`Before BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, STACEY G. WHITE (via video), and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL (via video), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`GABRIELLE E. HIGGINS, ESQUIRE
`JAMES L. DAVIS, ESQUIRE
`CHRISTOPHER M. BONNY, ESQUIRE
`ALLEN CROSS, ESQUIRE
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`1900 University Avenue
`6th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94303
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MARTIN M. ZOLTICK, ESQUIRE
`
`
`ROBERT PARKER, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Rothwell Figg
`
`
`607 14th Street, N.W.
`
`
`Suite 800
`
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, October
`4, 2018, commencing at 1:30 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`THE CLERK: All rise.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Please be seated. Good afternoon,
`everybody.
`VOICES: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: That was very good. I wasn’t waiting
`for that, actually. I was waiting for the monitors to come on. But I
`appreciate that. One more time --
`(Laughter.)
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. This is going to be the oral
`hearing in two cases. It’s a consolidated hearing, IPR 2017-01608 and IPR
`2017-01623. Beginning with the Petitioner, could we have counsel
`introduce yourselves, please?
`MS. HIGGINS: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Gabrielle
`Higgins. With me is Jim Davis and Chris Bonny and Allen Cross, all of
`Ropes & Gray, on behalf of Petitioner Vizio, Inc.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Thank you. And Patent Owner?
`MR. ZOLTICK: Yes, good afternoon, Your Honors. On behalf
`of Patent Owner Nichia, Marty Zoltick, my colleague Robert Parker, on
`behalf of Nichia.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Great. Well thank you. Welcome to
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Just a couple of preliminaries. As I
`understand it, the parties have agreed they’re going to just go through the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`two of the cases together and so each side will have 75 minutes total
`argument time. We’ll hear from the Petitioner first present your case on
`your case in chief. You can reserve as much as half of your time for
`rebuttal, but no more than that. And then we’ll hear from the Patent Owner
`in opposition to the Petitioner’s case. And then the Petitioner can then use
`any time it used for rebuttal. And then we’ll have, we have a short rebuttal
`from the Patent Owner. This is the way we’re doing it now. And so let me
`know how much time you want to reserve for that if you want to do that.
`There’s been no requests for live testimony. The hearing is
`going to be open to the public. It’s not confidential. We did have a pre-
`hearing conference. And could one of you tell me, maybe Petitioner, did we
`have a court reporter on the line for that pre-hearing conference?
`MS. HIGGINS: Yes, we did, Your Honor. And there was a
`transcript. I don’t believe we filed it yet.
`MR. ZOLTICK: Yeah, we have the, there were some
`corrections that needed to be made. They have been made. And we have
`the final transcript and I have some notices and we’ll file it tomorrow.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Great. That’s fine. I think I forgot to
`ask you to file it. That’s why I was, that’s why I brought it up. So --
`MR. ZOLTICK: Yes.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Other than that, I think we are all ready
`to go. So we’ll proceed with the Petitioner first.
`MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Oh, by the way, we have Judges
`Dougal and White participating remotely. And because of that I want to
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`make sure that whenever you are referring to an exhibit, that you identify the
`exhibit you are referring to so that the remote judges will get, will pull it up
`and have it in front of them.
`MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor, may I approach the bench --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Please.
`MS. HIGGINS: -- with a copy of the slides?
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Sure. Does the court reporter have a
`
`copy?
`
`MS. HIGGINS: Yes, sir.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Great. Thank you.
`MS. HIGGINS: So Your Honors, before we get started with the
`Board’s permission, I will address the Park grounds in the 1608 proceeding.
`My colleague Mr. Davis will address the Koung grounds and other issues in
`the 1623 proceeding. And then our colleague Mr. Bonny will address the
`secondary considerations issues that are common to both proceedings. Is
`that acceptable, Your Honor?
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Oh that’s fine, sure. And how much
`time do you want to reserve?
`MS. HIGGINS: Twenty-five minutes, please.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. So that means we’ll have 50
`minutes to begin.
`MS. HIGGINS: And can we please turn to Slide 4? So starting
`out with the 1608 proceeding, with respect to this IPR the challenged claims
`are unpatentable as obvious over the Park grounds. There are two main
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`issues in dispute. First, the molding and cutting limitations of Claim 1 are
`obvious in view of Park 697 and Park 697 in view of Park 486. Second, the
`plating limitations of Claim 17 are obvious over Park 697 and Park 697 in
`view of Oshio.
`Now in view of some of the Board’s questionings at the pre-
`hearing conference, as I walk through the disputed limitations, I will explain
`that the outcome of the proceeding is not impacted by Patent Owner’s
`translation issue because one, it would have been obvious and a beneficial
`design choice to plat all surfaces of the leadframe; and two, a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Oshio’s
`teaching of plating all surfaces of the leadframe in implementing Park 697.
`Turn to the next Slide 5, please. Now I’ll first address the
`molding and cutting limitations of Claim 1, which are the only limitations
`that Patent Owner disputes for Claim 1. First, with respect to Element 1-C,
`Park 697 renders obvious transfer molding a thermosetting resin to form a
`resin molded body. For example, Park 697 Paragraph 12 expressly discloses
`forming a transfer mold type reflector with a white thermosetting resin. And
`as we can see on the slide on the right, Figure 7 shows a resin molded body
`colored in green formed on the leadframe by transfer molding a
`thermosetting resin.
`Slide 6, please. As Dr. Shanfield explained, it would have been
`obvious and a straightforward and beneficial design choice to transfer mold
`a thermosetting resin to form a resin molded body. It was well known to
`transfer mold a thermosetting resin to form a resin molded body and in fact
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`the 250 Patent itself, Column 2, admits that it was conventional, for example
`as taught by Urasaki.
`Slide 7, please. Now turning to Element 1-D, Park 697 renders
`obvious the cutting, the molding body and plated leadframe along the at least
`one notch to form a resin package. Park 697, Paragraph 12 expressly
`discloses performing a sawing process to individualize after the step of
`transfer molding.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Could you please explain to me this
`business about the notch? Because that appears to be a significant issue as
`to where the plating takes place. And so the notch, I want to make sure I
`understand what you are, envision the notch to be in the patent itself and in
`the reference.
`MS. HIGGINS: Sure. Absolutely, Your Honor. So let’s start
`with if we can turn to the next slide, Slide 8. And I’m going to start with
`Park 697. And I think as an initial matter before we get there, the term notch
`was initially construed in this proceeding -- and let me quickly bring that up.
`I think it was as an opening that penetrates the leadframe.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Mm-hmm.
`MS. HIGGINS: And consistent with that, we have on the left
`Figure 5 of the Park 697 reference. And we see that we have colored in red
`and labeled on the top and bottom, and let’s focus in on the horizontal line
`on the top, and the horizontal line on the bottom, that we have called the
`notch or notches. And consistent with the claim construction in Park 697,
`the notch is an opening in the leadframe and it also separates the anode and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`the cathode consistent with the disclosure in the 250 Patent. Did you want
`more with respect to notch, Your Honor?
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: No, I just, I understand that’s how
`we’ve construed it. And I just, you just noted that it separates the anode and
`the cathode. Can the notch appear anywhere? I mean, that’s kind of
`required. Can it be anywhere on the leadframe? Because it’s construed to
`be just an opening in the leadframe.
`MS. HIGGINS: The notch can appear anywhere. But of course
`the claim also has a requirement that you are cutting the resin molded body
`and the leadframe along the at least one notch. So in terms of the claim
`language, Park has a notch and as Dr. Shanfield explained there’s a notch
`that penetrates through the leadframe. And he also testified that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that when I cut along that
`notch horizontally that I am reducing the cutting area of the metal.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. Thank you.
`MS. HIGGINS: You’re welcome, Your Honor. So let’s just
`continue, then, with respect to Slide 8. So we just talked about Figure 5.
`Then turning to Figure 7, the notch, Figure 7 then shows a subsequent step
`in the production process in which the resin, which has been colored in
`green, is filled over the notches and forms a resin molded body. Figure 1.A
`shows the simulated --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: My apologies.
`MS. HIGGINS: No worries, Your Honor. Figure 1.A shows
`the singulated LED after the resin molded body and the plated leadframe are
`cut along the notch. And a person of ordinary skill would have understood
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`that to individualize the LED package by sawing as taught by Park 697, the
`resin molded body and the plated leadframe are cut along the notch to form a
`resin package.
`Now turning to Slide 10, Patent Owner argues that the LEDs in
`Park 697 are individually molded and the resin is not cut. But Figure 7 of
`Park shows that the resin extends beyond a single device and as Dr.
`Shanfield explained it’s clear from Figure 7 that the resin molded body
`extends beyond the tabs, indicated by wavy lines, and therefore beyond
`where the device is singulated. In fact, the tabs in Figure 7 we see on the
`outer left and right side of Figure 7 are sized for two LED chips per device,
`as shown in Figure 1.A. And this confirms that for the device shown in
`Figure 1.A the resin is cut during the process of sawing theindividualize or
`singulate.
`
`Slide 11, please. Now Patent Owner argues that Park 697 does
`not disclose the molding and cutting limitation. But to make its arguments
`Patent Owner had to alter Park 697's figures, contradicting what Park
`actually discloses. We can see Dr. Schubert’s altered figures in the top row
`and they completely ignore and are inconsistent with Figure 7. The actual
`Park 697 figures are in the second row and they show that the resin in Figure
`7, that’s the figure in the middle, extends actually up and down beyond the
`lines drawn by Patent Owner. In the bottom row we see that Dr. Schubert
`has also changed the size of the outer leads in a way that’s inconsistent with
`the actual Figure 1.A.
`Turning to Slide 12, please.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. Let me just ask you a quick
`
`question.
`
`MS. HIGGINS: Sure.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: On that figure we were just looking at
`on Slide 11?
`MS. HIGGINS: Yeah.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: You said the resin extends beyond the
`lines drawn by Patent Owner. Which lines? I want to make sure I’ve got the
`right line.
`
`MS. HIGGINS: Sure. So in the top row, Your Honor, the third
`diagram in --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Mm-hmm.
`MS. HIGGINS: -- Dr. Schubert has imposed his own dotted
`line across the top of the diagrams and the bottom of the diagrams.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: And that’s the dotted line that you’ve
`got labeled, or that’s labeled cutting line does not cut through resin? Is that
`the dotted line you’re talking about?
`MS. HIGGINS: That is the dotted line and that is Dr.
`Schubert’s argument --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay.
`MS. HIGGINS: -- on that. And basically what he did, Your
`Honor, is he took the Figure 1.A post-singulation, and he took that and then
`he superimposed it on leadframe, of the leadframe in Figure 5. And in doing
`so he completely ignored Figure 7, which we see from the actual Park
`figures actually extends and as Dr. Shanfield testified the wavy lines indicate
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`that you’re extending further. You’re continuing further. It’s conventional
`for showing that you’re continuing further in the up and down direction.
`Turning to Slide 12, please. In addition, Dr. Schubert’s
`proposed cutting lines, and I’m talking about that same line, red line, let’s
`take the line across the top. And you’ll notice that Dr. Schubert drew the
`line to avoid the notch. And in doing so, it’s illogical because that cutting
`line cuts through as much metal as possible and disadvantageously lowers
`cutting speeds, increases ware on the saw blade, and increased leadframe
`heating. Now contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have understood from the actual Park 697 figure that
`the notches are used for cutting and reduce the cutting area of the metal.
`And so therefore, Dr. Shanfield explained that a person of ordinary skill
`would have started his cut inside the indentation, not on the outside, not
`above it. Because actually where Dr. Schubert cuts, I’m going to get these,
`that little extra piece of metal at the top left there which is nowhere in the
`finished singulated device. But Dr. Shanfield explains that if I start at the
`indentation, and I follow horizontally across, I’m going to cut along the
`notch and I’m going to cut through the leadframe and through the resin
`molded body.
`Now turning to Slide 13, now --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Before you go on there, there was
`another element that was involved here, wasn’t there? There were the, as I,
`and I’m trying to remember this, but I think they are kind of shown in Slide
`12. Are they, are you only cutting -- okay. Now I get it. You’re cutting
`through the notch. I guess the other element, there was another element that
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`was put in there. And how is it that you’re not cutting through that other
`element? That’s what I’m trying to figure.
`MS. HIGGINS: Your Honor, maybe if we bring up Slide 13
`
`real quick?
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay.
`MS. HIGGINS: And Your Honor, can you tell me what element
`you’re referring to?
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: No, maybe I’m just simply
`misremembering it. I’m looking, let’s go back and look at Slide 11.
`MS. HIGGINS: Okay.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: On Figure 7, what is that dark element
`that’s below --
`MS. HIGGINS: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: That’s the thing --
`MS. HIGGINS: Yes.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: That’s the thing I’m talking about.
`MS. HIGGINS: Yes. Okay. So --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: I just can’t remember the name of it.
`MS. HIGGINS: Absolutely. It’s an ESD --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay.
`MS. HIGGINS: -- device, electrostatic discharge --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Yes.
`MS. HIGGINS: -- protection device.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: That’s right.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`MS. HIGGINS: And what Park discloses, and it’s actually in
`the Board’s institution decision. What Park discloses his, and it’s actually
`sort of central to Park, is that I’m going to have my ESD protection device in
`the reflector cup and I’m going to put it on the leadframe underneath resin.
`And so let me find another example where we can see the -- so if you turn
`for instance to Figure 5, Slide 5, quickly, you can see that on the right hand
`side. We see a side view of Figure 7 and you can see it shows three ESD --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Yes.
`MS. HIGGINS: -- devices underneath the resin, on the surface
`of the device. And so if we go back to Slide 13, as Dr. Shanfield explained,
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if you started
`on the left hand side inside the indentation then you cut horizontally across
`the notch, and we see that same indentation on Figure 7, now of course the
`notch is underneath the resin.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Right.
`MS. HIGGINS: And so I’m cutting straight across and I’m
`actually cutting in between the blue, the two blue things are the LED chips --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Right.
`MS. HIGGINS: -- with the three ESDs. And Dr. Shanfield
`explained you’d be cutting in between the LED chip and the ESD. You of
`course wouldn’t cut through it and destroy the ESD device. And then we see
`the singulated device on the left. And we can see the post-singulated device.
`You can still see in Figure 1.A the sort of corners of the indentations on each
`of the four corners where Figure 1.A was cut. And so Dr. Shanfield
`reviewed Park’s disclosure of the production process of Park 697 and he
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`studied the figures and then testified as to what a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would understand from the figures.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. I appreciate that explanation.
`Because I just wanted to make sure you’re not actually cutting through the
`ESD.
`
`MS. HIGGINS: No, Your Honor. We’re not proposing -- in
`fact, we say not to.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: It would kind of defeat the purpose.
`MS. HIGGINS: Absolutely, Your Honor. I agree. So we’re on
`Slide 13, yes? So Patent Owner makes another argument. They argue that
`Figure 7 has no relationship to Figure 5. And we disagree that Figure 7 and
`Figure 5 are different embodiments. And because as we see they are
`showing, and in fact Paragraph 32 of Park expressly states that Figures 5
`through 7 are diagrams of the production process. And they are referring
`back to configuring the earlier described figures. And in fact, Paragraph 35
`of Park also expressly links Figure 7 to Figure 5. And so we disagree with
`any attempt by Patent Owner to simply ignore Figure 5 as if it’s not part of
`the process. It clearly is.
`You’ll also hear from Patent Owner that Dr. Shanfield refused
`to identify the cutting line on the leadframe. And this is simply not so.
`You’ll see in his declaration, it’s actually Paragraph 34 of his declaration, as
`well as testimony at Exhibit 2738, Page 43 Line 2 to Page 46 Line 5, Dr.
`Shanfield gave a detailed description in words of how he understood a
`person, how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`cutting to take place. It is true that at the deposition he didn’t feel
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`comfortable actually drawing on the figures. And he admittedly said that the
`figures are not exactly to scale.
`Turning to Slide 14, so now I’m turning to our alternative
`argument that to the extent further express disclosure of the cutting
`limitation is required, Park 486 discloses providing a leadframe with at least
`one notch and cutting the resin molded body and the plated leadframe along
`the notch to form a resin package. Indeed we can see both from the express
`language, we can see from the express language of Park 486 that the
`leadframe and the walls, that’s of the resin molded body, are sawed and they
`are sawed along cutting line C. And we can see in Figure 7, which is the
`plane view so I’m looking down at the device. First of all the black
`rectangular square, that is the resin molded body. In red we have the notch,
`the notches on the leadframe. And as described in Park 486, and the cutting
`lines are actually labeled on the figure. They are called in the patent cutting
`grooves 115. And so they are similar to the indentations that we see in Park
`697. Here we have cutting grooves 115 and we can see that we’re cutting
`along the notch, through the leadframe, and through the resin molded body.
`It’s shown and described in Park. And in fact, Patent Owner does not
`dispute these disclosures.
`
`Slide 15, please. Now a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have been motivated to apply Park 486's teaching in implementing
`Park 697. Park expressly teaches that cutting the resin molded body and the
`plated leadframe along the at least one notch advantageously improves the
`stability of the resin package around the leadframe. And we see language
`from Park 486 in the middle where Park states that the molds forming the
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`reflector 120, that’s the resin molded body, surrounds the leadframes such
`that the leadframes are stably supported. So we have express motivation
`directly within Park. And then in addition to that, a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would have also understood that cutting the resin molded body and
`the plated leadframe along the at least one notch advantageously reduces
`cutting area of the leads. And that thereby provides higher cutting speeds,
`extended cutting blade lifetime, reducing leadframe heating, and reducing
`resin cracking and delamination, as was known in the art.
`Next slide, please. Slide 16. Now Patent Owner argues that a
`person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to use Park 486's
`teachings because Park 697 is a top view device and the Park 486 is a side
`view device. And Patent Owner argues there’s no need to thin any side
`walls. But as Dr. Shanfield explained, both references are in the same field
`of art and disclose notches that penetrate the leadframe. Park 486's express
`teaching of improved stability is present as well as the known benefits of
`reducing cutting area of the leads.
`Now turn to Slide 18. So Patent Owner argues that the
`motivation to combine with 486 is hindsight. We disagree. As I just
`explained, Patent Owner ignores that the benefit of improved stability
`around the leadframe is explicitly disclosed in Park. And in addition, Dr.
`Shanfield provided detailed analysis not found in the 250 Patent regarding
`the known benefits of reducing the cutting area of the leads. Exhibit 1053 at
`the bottom of the page, the Japanese publication, also expressly discloses the
`benefit of reducing metal area.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`Now let’s turn to the plating limitations, Slide 19. So the
`plating limitations of Claim 17, with respect to them Park 697 renders
`obvious Elements 17.C and 17.E. There’s no dispute that Park 697 discloses
`plating the leadframe before transfer molding. As expressly stated in Park
`Paragraph 12, which describes the steps of the production process, plating
`occurs first and then transfer molding a thermosetting resin. There is no
`dispute as to when plating occurs. All of those Park translations agree that
`we have plating before transfer molding. The only dispute is where the
`leadframe is plated, i.e. all surfaces of the leadframe versus the ESD die pad
`portion of the leadframe. However, as set forth in the petition, it would have
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to plate all surfaces of the
`leadframe in implementing Park 697. As explained in the petition Slide 20,
`a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that at minimum it would
`have been obvious and a straightforward and beneficial design choice to
`plate all surfaces of the leadframe in implementing Park. And there’s no
`dispute that it was well known to plate all surfaces of the leadframe before
`the claimed priority date.
` Now turning to Slide 21, in Slide 21 we see that there are many
`benefits, many known benefits for plating all surfaces of the leadframe. The
`first two are express from the Oshio reference and by coating all surfaces of
`the leadframe as disclosed in Oshio, the benefits of increased reflectivity and
`solderability are provided where needed. And we see further benefits that
`have been outlined on Slide 21.
`Now turning to Slide 23, Patent Owner argues that spot plating
`was well known and preferred over plating the entire leadframe due to cost
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`and adhesion. But Patent Owner’s own Exhibit 2016 at 17 admits that
`changing from entire surface plating to partial plating results in cost
`increase. And silver plated leadframes can provide better adhesion than
`unplated leadframes due to oxidation of the unplated leadframe. And
`regardless, Patent Owner’s spot plating arguments merely concern a design
`choice between spot plating and plating all surfaces, which was indisputably
`a well-known design choice.
`The Federal Circuit, and I think the Board quoted language like
`this in their institution decision, has held that simultaneous advantages and
`disadvantages do not necessarily obviate motivation to combine. And so in
`view of the well-known benefits of plating the entire leadframe, and the
`finite number of options, plating Park’s entire leadframe would have been
`obvious.
`
`Now turning to Slide 25, and the alternative ground of Park 697
`in view of Oshio, to the extent further disclosure is required, Park 697 in
`view of Oshio renders obvious Elements 17.C and 17.E. Once again,
`Paragraph 12 discloses plating before transfer molding, and that’s not
`disputed. Oshio discloses plating all surfaces of the leadframe. We see a
`quote here from Oshio Paragraph 69, and Oshio expressly discloses a pair of
`leads, 20 and 30, and coating its surface by plating. Coating refers back to
`the entire leads and we can see this if we look in Figure 1 or Figure 4 in
`Park. We can see that leads 20 and 30 are the entire anode and cathode.
`And so when Oshio is referring to coating a pair of leads, it’s referring to
`coating all surfaces of the leads as opposed to specific regions. And Oshio
`also uses 20.A, 30.A, 30.B. But here it’s referring to the whole leads.
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`Turning to Slide 28. Now Patent Owner argues that Oshio is
`silent regarding plating the entirety of the leadframe. We disagree. As I just
`explained, Paragraph 69 supports that. In addition, Paragraph 114 also
`discloses that if the leadframe is plated with silver or the like, an unplated
`surface of the base material is disclosed at the cut section which may cause
`deterioration of solderability.
`Slide 24, please. Now Patent Owner sets forth a whole host of
`arguments regarding motivation to combine. They all fail. The first is that
`increased solderability and reflectivity does not relate to plating all surfaces.
`But it would have been obvious to plate everywhere, which would provide
`the benefits of plating where needed, as Dr. Shanfield explained.
`Next Dr. Schubert argued that a plating layer would reduce
`electrical resistance. But it actually directly contradicts Dr. Schubert’s
`acknowledgment that even spot plating reduces electrical resistance. Patent
`Owner argues that plating all surfaces would reduce adhesion. But it was
`actually preferable to plate all surfaces in order to prevent debonding failures
`caused by oxidation of bare copper. In fact, Patent Owner’s inventor, Mr.
`Miki, admits that plating of the leadframe prior to molding prevents
`deterioration of bonding property due to oxidation, thereby providing more
`reliable bonding. That’s Exhibit 2033, Paragraph 19. And finally, Patent
`Owner argues that plating all surfaces is more expensive. But Patent Owner
`admitted that spot plating increases costs.
`Now very quickly I’d like to turn to the translation issue,
`starting at Slide 30. So Petitioner maintains its position that Park discloses a
`silver plated leadframe. Independent certified translations obtained by both
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`parties, that’s the Geotext and TransPerfect translation on this page,
`confirmed that Park 697 discloses a silver plated leadframe. I bolded it.
`Slide 31. Patent Owner’s linguist confirmed that Translation A,
`that’s the one that says leadframe is silver plated, is the most natural and
`preferable interpretation because the modifier silver plated is closer in
`proximity to leadframe than the alternative die pad. So syntactically --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Excuse me.
`MS. HIGGINS: Yes?
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Before we get into the linguistics of it,
`just so I don’t lose track, on Slide 30 there was a Geotext translation and a
`TransPerfect translation. Who got which translation?
`MS. HIGGINS: So Geotext’s translation, Exhibit 1004, Your
`Honor, is the independent translation that Petitioner got first.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay.
`MS. HIGGINS: The TransPerfect translation, Exhibit 2040,
`was procured by Patent Owner. We have a dispute over the timing of it. It
`was issued last. And everything else is Patent Owner argument.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: When you say it was issued last, it was
`the last translation obtained?
`MS. HIGGINS: If you look at the date, if you look at the date
`on the translation, it’s dated last. And indeed we know from the record that
`the translator attended the deposition with Patent Owner’s counsel and then
`signed that declaration afterwards.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: The translator that translated, that
`provided the TransPerfect translation?
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2017-01608
`Case IPR2017-01623
`Patent 8,530,250 B2
`MS. HIGGINS: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay.
`MS. HIGGINS: And then turning to Slide 33, because I want to
`leave time for my colleagues, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Absolutely, sure.
`MS. HIGGINS: So I just want to end with Slide 33, please. So
`on Slide 33, we see all three translations. And I’m told by my colleague that
`TransPerfect was the first Patent Owner translation. I may have misspoke.
`JUDG
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
