Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 54
`Date: June 6, 2020
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COOLER MASTER CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AAVID THERMALLOY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, KEN B. BARRETT, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`Denying-in-Part, Dismissing-in-Part Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 54
`Date: June 6, 2020
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COOLER MASTER CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AAVID THERMALLOY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, KEN B. BARRETT, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`Denying-in-Part, Dismissing-in-Part Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Cooler Master Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”)1 filed a Petition requesting
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,100,680 B2 (“the ’680 patent,”
`Ex. 1101). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenges the patentability of
`claims 5–8 of the ’680 patent. We instituted an inter partes review of all
`challenged claims on all proposed grounds of unpatentability. Paper 7
`(“Dec. to Inst.”), 24. Aavid Thermalloy LLC (“Patent Owner”)2 filed a
`Response to the Petition. Paper 27 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply
`(Paper 33, “Pet. Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 39, “PO
`Sur-Reply”). The parties filed papers addressing Patent Owner’s
`identification of allegedly improper arguments and evidence in Petitioner’s
`Reply. Papers 39 (PO Sur-Reply Appendix listing allegedly new theories
`and new evidence in the Reply), 42 (Petitioner’s Response to the same),
`Paper 48 (Petitioner’s Notice of Supplemental Authority), Paper 49 (Patent
`Owner’s Notice of Supplemental Authorities).
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 45, “PO
`Mot. Excl.”), to which Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 47, “Pet. Opp.
`Mot. Excl.”), and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 50).
`
`An oral hearing was held on March 5, 2020, and a transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 53 (“Tr.”).
`
`
`1 Petitioner identifies Cooler Master Co., Ltd. and CMI USA, Inc. as real
`parties-in-interest. Paper 36.
`2 Patent Owner identifies Aavid Thermalloy LLC as the real party-in-
`interest, and further states that “Aavid is wholly owned by LTI Holdings Inc.
`(d/b/a Boyd Corporation), which is wholly owned by Basilisk Holdings Inc.”
`Paper 4, 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claim 5 of the ’680 patent is
`unpatentable, but Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 6, 7, and 8 of the ’680 patent are unpatentable. We also
`deny-in-part and dismiss-in-part Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`One or both parties identify, as matters involving or related to the
`
`’680 patent, Aavid Thermalloy LLC v. Cooler Master Co., Case No. 4:17-cv-
`5363 (N.D. Cal.), and Patent Trial and Appeal Board cases IPR2019-00144,
`IPR2019-00145, IPR2019-00146, IPR2019-00147, IPR2019-00333,
`IPR2019-00334, and IPR2019-00337. Papers 4; 36.
`
`C. The ’680 Patent
`The ’680 patent is titled “Integrated Circuit Heat Pipe Heat Spreader
`
`with Through Mounting Holes.” Ex. 1001, code (54). According to the
`Specification, “[t]his invention relates generally to active solid state devices,
`and more specifically to a heat pipe for cooling an integrated circuit chip,
`with the heat pipe designed to be held in direct contact with the integrated
`circuit.” Id. at 1:18–21.
`
`The disclosed heat pipe “is constructed to assure precise flatness and
`to maximize heat transfer from the heat source and to the heat sink, and has
`holes through its body to facilitate mounting.” Id. at 1:66–2:2. The heat
`pipe “requires no significant modification of the circuit board or socket
`because it is held in intimate contact with the integrated circuit chip by
`conventional screws attached to the integrated mounting board.” Id. at 2:3–
`7. “[T]he same screws which hold the heat spreader against the chip can
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`also be used to clamp a finned heat sink to the opposite surface of the heat
`spreader.” Id. at 2:9–11.
`
`The internal structure of the heat pipe is an evacuated
`vapor chamber with a limited amount of liquid and includes a
`pattern of spacers extending between and contacting the two
`plates or any other boundary structure forming the vapor
`chamber. The spacers prevent the plates from bowing inward,
`and therefore maintain the vital flat surface for contact with the
`integrated circuit chip. These spacers can be solid columns,
`embossed depressions formed in one of the plates, or a mixture
`of the two.
`Id. at 2:12–20. The spacers “support the flat plates and prevent them from
`deflecting inward and distorting the plates to deform the flat surfaces which
`are required for good heat transfer.” Id. at 2:26–29.
`
`The spacers also make it possible to provide holes into
`and through the vapor chamber, an apparent inconsistency since
`the heat pipe vacuum chamber is supposed to be vacuum tight.
`This is accomplished by bonding the spacers, if they are solid,
`to both plates of the heat pipe, or, if they are embossed in one
`plate, bonding the portions of the depressions which contact the
`opposite plate to that opposite plate. With the spacer bonded to
`one or both plates, a through hole can be formed within the
`spacer and it has no effect on the vacuum integrity of the heat
`pipe vapor chamber, from which the hole is completely
`isolated.
`Id. at 2:36–46.
`
`Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 shows “a cross section view of the preferred embodiment of a flat
`plate heat pipe 10 of the invention with through holes 12 through its vapor
`chamber 14 and in contact with finned heat sink 16.” Id. at 3:28–31. “When
`heat pipe 10 is used to cool an integrated circuit chip (not shown) which is
`held against contact plate 18, cover plate 20 is held in intimate contact with
`fin plate 38, to which fins 16 are connected.” Id. at 4:15–18. “Heat pipe 10
`is constructed by forming a boundary structure by sealing together two
`formed plates, contact plate 18 and cover plate 20.” Id. at 3:32–34.
`“Contact plate 18 and cover plate 20 are sealed together at their peripheral
`lips 22 and 24 by conventional means, such as soldering or brazing, to form
`heat pipe 10.” Id. at 3:34–37.
`The entire assembly of heat pipe 10, frame 34, and fin plate 38
`is held together and contact plate 18 is held against an
`integrated circuit chip by conventional screws 40, shown in
`dashed lines, which are placed in holes 42 in fin plate 38 and
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`
`through holes 12 in heat pipe 10, and are threaded into the
`mounting plate (not shown) for the integrated circuit chip.
`Id. at 4:18–24.
`
`Holes 12 penetrate heat pipe 10 without destroying its
`vacuum integrity because of their unique location. Holes 12 are
`located within sealed structures such as solid columns 44, and
`since columns 44 are bonded to cover plate 20 at locations 46,
`holes 12 passing through the interior of columns 44 have no
`affect on the interior of heat pipe 10.
`Id. at 4:25–30.
`
`The Specification describes an alternate embodiment. Id. at 2:47–59.
`This [alternate] embodiment forms the through holes in the
`solid boundary structure around the outside edges of the two
`plates. This region of the heat pipe is by its basic function
`already sealed off from the vapor chamber by the bond between
`the two plates, and the only additional requirement for forming
`a through hole within it is that the width of the bonded region
`be larger than the diameter of the hole.
`Id. at 2:50–57. The Specification explains that, “with the holes located in
`the peripheral lips, the heat pipe boundary structure can be any shape.” Id.
`at 2:57–59. Figure 2 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 “is a cross section view of an alternate embodiment of the flat plate
`heat pipe 11 of the invention with through holes 48 located within peripheral
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`lips 22 and 24 of the heat pipe and hole 50 shown in another sealed
`structure, one of the depressions 26.” Id. at 4:42–46. “Of course, the region
`of the peripheral edges is also a sealed structure since bonding between
`lips 22 and 24 is inherent because heat pipe 11 must be sealed at its edges to
`isolate the interior from the outside atmosphere.” Id. at 4:49–53.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims of the ’680 patent, claim 5 is the sole
`
`independent claim. That claim is reproduced below and is illustrative of the
`claimed subject matter:
`5. An integrated circuit chip cooling structure comprising:
`
`a top plate having an edge lip that bounds a top surface
`and a bottom surface;
`
`a bottom plate having an edge lip that bounds a top
`surface and a bottom surface, said edge lips of said top and
`bottom plates being bonded together so as to define a vapor
`chamber;
`
`a capillary wick provided within said vapor chamber;
`
`wherein said top plate and said bottom plate each define
`at least one opening such that the at least one opening of said
`top plate and the at least one opening of said bottom plate are
`vertically aligned;
`
`at least one hollow column extending between said top
`plate and said bottom plate, said at least one hollow column
`having a top end sealed to a periphery of said opening defined
`in said top plate and a bottom end sealed to a periphery of said
`opening defined in said bottom plate, said at least one hollow
`column having a central passageway sized to receive a fastener.
`Ex. 1101, 6:43–62.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`
`
`
`E. Evidence
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Reference
`
`Japanese Examined Utility Model Application Publication
`No. S53-32387 Y; Title: Heat Pipe; Published Aug. 11,
`1978; Inventor: Takao Morikawa, Mitsuhiko Nakata (as
`translated (“Morikawa”)
`Japanese Unexamined Utility Model Application S50-
`55262; Asserted Year of Publication: 1975; Inventor:
`Kazuo Nakamura (as translated) (“Nakamura”)3
`Japanese Examined Utility Model Application Publication
`No. H8-10205; Published March 27, 1996; Inventors:
`Tadahito Takahashi, Kaoru Hasegawa, Muneaki Sokawa
`(as translated) (“Takahashi”)
`US 6,082,443; filed Feb. 13, 1998; issued July 4, 2000
`(“Yamamoto”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1124
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Himanshu Pokharna
`
`(Ex. 1102) and the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Himanshu Pokharna
`(Ex. 1132) in support of its arguments and Patent Owner relies on the
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri (Ex. 2102) in support of its arguments. The
`parties rely on other exhibits as discussed below.
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`
`following grounds (Pet. 6):
`
`
`3 We list here Petitioner’s assertion as to the publication date of Nakamura.
`Because of the outcome in this case, we do not need to address the disputed
`issue of whether Nakamura is a printed publication. Patent Owner moved to
`exclude Nakamura as irrelevant. We, for the reasons discussed below, deny
`Patent Owner’s motion.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`5, 8
`103(a)
`5, 8
`103(a)
`5, 8
`103(a)
`6, 7
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Morikawa
`Morikawa, Takahashi
`Morikawa, Takahashi, Nakamura
`Morikawa, Takahashi, Nakamura,
`Yamamoto
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Principles of Law
`Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability of
`
`the claims challenged in the Petition, and that burden never shifts to Patent
`Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2018).
`
`A patent 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. 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) any objective evidence of
`non-obviousness.4 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`
`4 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of
`non-obviousness.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`
`B. The 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)
`(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`Petitioner, relying on Dr. Pokharna’s testimony, asserts that the person
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would:
`have earned at least a graduate degree, such as an M.S., Ph.D.,
`or equivalent thereof, in mechanical engineering or a closely-
`related field and possessed at least three years of specialized
`experience in designing and developing heat pipes or other heat
`transfer devices for thermal management in electronics and
`computer systems.
`Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 8–10).
`
`Relying on Dr. Faghri’s testimony, Patent Owner argues for a lower
`level of skill in the art than that proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 10–11. In
`particular, Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s requirement for an
`advanced degree in mechanical engineering or a closely-related field as it
`would, for example, exclude both the named inventors of the ’680 patent as
`well as “a large majority of active workers in the field at the time of the
`invention.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 2102 ¶ 83). Rather, Patent Owner contends
`that the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`have “a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering and at least 3 years of
`experience working or studying in the field of heat pipes; or an equivalent
`level of education, training, and work experience.” Id. at 10–11 (citing
`Ex. 2102 ¶¶ 80–82).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`We determine that the definition offered by Petitioner and
`
`Dr. Pokharna comports with the qualifications a person would have needed
`to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 patent and the prior
`art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of
`skill in the art). Moreover, Petitioner concedes that this dispute as to the
`appropriate level of skill in the art “is immaterial because the challenged
`claims are invalid under both sides’ definitions.” Pet. Reply 1 n.2. We
`agree with Petitioner that the outcome of this proceeding is not dependent on
`our application of one party’s definition as compared to the other.
`Nevertheless because Petitioner’s and Dr. Pokharna’s definition better
`reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art, we adopt and apply it here.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review requested in a petition filed on or after
`
`November 13, 2018, we apply the same claim construction standard used in
`district courts, namely that articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). The
`Petition in this case was filed November 14, 2018.
`
`In applying that standard, claim terms generally are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning as would have been 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, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining
`the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the
`intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written
`description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1105, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
`1. “hollow column”
`Petitioner initially proposed that “hollow column” be interpreted as a
`
`“cylindrical structure surrounding a void or cavity,” and argued that the
`proposed construction advocated by Patent Owner in the district court
`litigation—“a columnar structure defining an unfilled or empty space”—
`should not be adopted. See Pet. 14 (quoting Ex. 1119, 6 (Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction in the District Court); citing, inter alia, Ex. 1102 ¶ 33
`(Dr. Pokharna testifying that Patent Owner’s litigation construction is
`“unhelpful” and “is vague and too broad, and goes beyond what has been
`disclosed by the specification of the patents-in-suit.”)). However, Petitioner,
`in applying its proposed combination of prior art to independent claim 5,
`argues that the prior art discloses the recited “hollow column” under both
`parties’ proposed interpretations. See id. at 49 (Morikawa), 72 (Nakamura).
`Petitioner, in its articulation of one ground, points to Figure 1 of the
`challenged patent in arguing that “the ’680 patent discloses the hollow
`column as ‘columns 44’ in which ‘holes 12’ are located.” Pet. 61.
`
`In the Institution Decision in a related case, we determined that the
`’680 patent describes two distinct types of spacers, those formed by a solid
`column bonded to one or both plates and hollowed via the formation of a
`through hole, and those formed by a depression embossed in a plate, with the
`bottom of the depression bonded to the inner surface of the opposite plate,
`and having a hole formed at that bonded contact surface. IPR2019-00334,
`Paper 7, 30–31. We found that Petitioner had failed to “reconcile adequately
`its reliance on a type of prior art depression-like spacer that the Specification
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`[of the ’680 patent] appears to distinguish from the recited hollow column.”
`Id. at 31–32.
`
`Patent Owner, in its Response, argues that the term “hollow column”
`needs no construction because it “is not a technical term and is used in the
`specification simply to refer to a column that is hollow.” PO Resp. 23
`(citing Ex. 1101, 1:66–2:2, 2:16–18, 2:36–39, 2:43–46, 3:28–31, 4:26–30;
`Ex. 2102 ¶ 122). Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner’s initial
`construction (“cylindrical structure surrounding a void or cavity”) is
`incorrect, and that “the specification [of the ’680 patent] differentiates
`depressions and columns as separate types of spacers.” Id. at 23–24
`
`Petitioner, in its Petitioner Reply, argues that we should adopt Patent
`Owner’s litigation position, because “Patentee’s litigation construction . . .
`should be applied against the Patentee” and because the ’680 patent “does
`not expressly define ‘hollow column.’” Pet. Reply 19. Petitioner also points
`to depictions of solid columns 44 in Figure 2 of the ’680 patent as support
`for this interpretation. Id. at 19‒20.
`
`In its Sur-Reply, Patent Owner argues that its district court litigation
`contentions are just that—contentions—and do not constitute a proper claim
`construction analysis to satisfy Petitioner’s burden. PO Sur-Reply 7
`(quoting St. Jude Med., LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC, IPR2018-00106,
`Paper 58 at 30 (PTAB May 2, 2019)). Patent Owner, “[f]or avoidance of
`any doubt, . . . expressly acquiesces to the distinction between ‘depressions’
`and ‘hollow columns’ that the Board has identified in related IPR
`proceedings,” and relies on its expert’s deposition testimony as support for
`the proposition that columns and depressions are completely different things.
`Id. (quoting Ex. 1133, 30:20–24, 41:6–14). Patent Owner concludes by
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`asserting that this distinction “is consistent with the Board’s interpretation in
`the institution decisions, which [Patent Owner] agrees stays true to the claim
`language and naturally aligns with the specification.” Id.
`
`We have reviewed the description provided in the ’680 patent,
`including the portions cited by Patent Owner in support of its proposition
`that the term “hollow column” “is used in the specification simply to refer to
`a column that is hollow.” PO Resp. 27. For the reasons discussed below,
`we are not persuaded that our understanding of “hollow column” in the
`Institution Decision is incorrect or that we should adopt the broader
`construction proffered by Petitioner.
`
`The cited portions of the ’680 patent do not use the term “hollow
`column.” In fact, the term is not used anywhere in the ’680 patent except for
`the claims. The ’680 patent uses “columns,” however, to discuss one type of
`spacer, e.g., a spacer formed by a solid column with a hole passing through
`it. Ex. 1101, 2:18–20, 4:26–30.
`
`Specifically, as discussed in our Institution Decision in the related
`case, IPR2019-00334, the Specification of the ’680 patent discusses and
`distinguishes two types of spacers that extend between the plates and
`through which a fastener hole may be drilled without breaking the air-tight
`seal of the vapor chamber. See id., 2:12–46.
`These spacers [between plates] can be solid columns, embossed
`depressions formed in one of the plates, or a mixture of the
`two.[5] . . .
`
`The spacers also make it possible to provide holes into
`and through the vapor chamber, an apparent inconsistency since
`
`5 We understand that the phrase “a mixture of the two” means that a given
`vapor chamber may utilize the different types of spacers, not that a single
`spacer may be a mixture of the two types.
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`
`the heat pipe vacuum chamber is supposed to be vacuum tight.
`This is accomplished by bonding the spacers, if they are solid,
`to both plates of the heat pipe, or, if they are embossed in one
`plate, bonding the portions of the depressions which contact the
`opposite plate to that opposite plate. With the spacer bonded to
`one or both plates, a through hole can be formed within the
`spacer and it has no effect on the vacuum integrity of the heat
`pipe vapor chamber, from which the hole is completely
`isolated.
`Id. at 2:18–20, 2:36–46. Thus, the ’680 patent describes one embodiment of
`a spacer as a depression embossed in a plate, with the bottom of the
`depression bonded to the inner surface of the opposite plate, and having a
`hole formed at that bonded contact surface. See id. at 4:46–49, Fig. 2
`(hole 50 in bottom of depression 26 that is bonded to inner surface 28 of
`contact plate 18). A second embodiment of a spacer is a solid column
`bonded to one or both plates and that is hollowed via the formation of a
`through hole. See id. at 2:36–46, 4:26–30, Fig. 1 (solid column 44 bonded
`to cover plate 20 at location 46 with hole 12 through the interior of
`column 44). The Figures of the ’680 patent also distinguish between
`columns 44, which extend from contact plate 18 to the outer surface of cover
`plate 20, and depressions 26, which extend from cover plate 20 to the inner
`surface of contact plate 18. Ex. 1101, Figs. 1, 2. In other words, “the
`bottom of depression 26 must be bonded to inner surface 28 of contact
`plate 18.” Ex. 1101, 4:47–48.
`
`The claim language of the ’680 patent matches this distinction made
`in the written description. For instance, claim 2 recites a heat pipe
`comprising “at least one hollow column” and claims 1 and 3 recite a heat
`pipe comprising “a depression.” Ex. 1101, 5:39, 5:56, 6:6–7. Based on the
`claim language and the description of spacers provided in the ’680 patent,
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`we do not construe “hollow column” to encompass depressions that are
`described in the ’680 patent as embossed in and extending from one plate to
`the inner surface of the opposite plate.
`2. Vapor Chamber
`Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood “vapor chamber” to mean an enclosed and hermetically
`sealed void or cavity in which a working fluid is present to be evaporated (or
`vaporized) and condensed to transport or spread heat. See Pet. 16, 19–20;
`PO Response 14 (Patent Owner arguing that Petitioner’s proposed
`construction is “inappropriately broadening the meaning of ‘vapor chamber’
`to encompass devices that merely ‘transport’ heat.”). Patent Owner
`proposes a construction of “vapor chamber” to mean “a vacuum sealed
`chamber, wherein a heat transfer fluid is evaporated and condensed and
`capillary forces are utilized to spread heat.” PO Resp. 12–13.
`
`In contrast to Petitioner’s proposed aspect of being “hermetically
`sealed,” Patent Owner argues that “the term ‘vapor chamber’ refers to a
`chamber that is vacuum sealed consistent with the term’s plain and ordinary
`meaning, and this is confirmed by the context of the ’680 Patent.” PO
`Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2102 ¶¶ 33–36, 44, 93–96; Ex. 1101, 2:12–13, 2:20–46,
`3:37–41, 4:46–49; Ex. 2105, 104:19–24). The parties do not identify a
`distinction pertinent to any dispositive issue in this case. Accordingly, we
`need not reach the disputed issue as to whether a “vapor chamber” is
`hermetically or vacuum sealed.
`
`Patent Owner notes that Petitioner’s proposed construction of “vapor
`chamber” does not refer to capillary forces. PO Resp. 16. Patent Owner
`argues that the use of capillary forces to spread heat is consistent with the
`manner in which heat pipes operated at the time of the invention and is
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`acknowledged in the ’680 patent as important to spreading heat. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1101, 1:66–2:2, 2:20–46, 3:54–4:8; Ex. 2102 ¶¶ 45, 99). Patent Owner
`argues that Dr. Pokharna acknowledges that “[a]s a general matter, [heat
`pipes] utilize capillary forces which may be produced by wick or by
`grooves.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 2105, 126:8–128:4) (alterations in original).
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence may pertain to an understanding of the term
`“heat pipe heat spreader” in the art, but it does not provide adequate
`evidence that “vapor chamber” is understood in the art to require the use of
`capillary forces to spread heat. We do not find that the portions of the ’680
`patent cited in Dr. Faghri’s testimony require construction of “vapor
`chamber” to include the use of capillary forces. For instance, one portion of
`the ’680 patent relied on by Patent Owner, describes that “the heat pipe heat
`spreader is constructed to assure precise flatness and to maximize heat
`transfer from the heat source and to the heat sink, and has holes through its
`body to facilitate mounting.” Ex. 1101, 1:66–2:2. This description makes
`no mention of capillary forces. Another cited portion of the ’680 patent
`describes the function of the spacers as providing support for portions of a
`capillary wick. Id. at 2:20–46. This description pertains to an embodiment
`of the heat pipe that includes a wick. The description does not support an
`interpretation of “vapor chamber” as requiring the use of a wick. Likewise,
`another portion of the ’680 patent cited by Patent Owner describes an
`embodiment of the heat pipe that uses a capillary wick. Id. at 3:54–4:8.
`The ’680 patent describes the heat transfer as follows:
`As is well understood in the art of heat pipes, a capillary wick
`provides the mechanism by which liquid condensed at the
`cooler condenser of a heat pipe is transported back to the hotter
`evaporator where it is evaporated. The vapor produced at the
`evaporator then moves to the condenser where it again
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`
`condenses. The two changes of state, evaporation at the hotter
`locale and condensation at the cooler site, are what transport
`heat from the evaporator to the condenser.
`Id. at 3:56–64. Thus, these portions of the ’680 patent are describing one
`embodiment of a heat pipe that uses a wick. These descriptions do not
`define or limit “vapor chamber” to use of such a wick. Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction requiring the use of “capillary forces” to spread heat
`imparts an additional structural requirement of a wick or grooves within the
`vapor chamber. We see no reason to read these additional structural
`requirements into the claim term “vapor chamber,” particularly when the
`claims separately recite a wick positioned within the vapor chamber. See,
`e.g., Ex. 1101, 5:50–53 (claim 1), 6:51 (claim 5: “a capillary wick provided
`within said vapor chamber”).
`
`Both parties provide constructions of “vapor chamber” to include
`some aspect of heat transfer. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s
`construction is too broad because it refers to evaporation and condensation
`of a heat transfer fluid to transport or spread heat. See PO Resp. 14–15.
`Patent Owner urges a narrower definition of “vapor chamber” that requires
`evaporation and condensation of a heat transfer fluid to “spread heat.” Id.
`Patent Owner argues that heat spreading refers to two- or three-dimensional
`heat flow and is one of the key attributes of a vapor chamber heat pipe that
`distinguishes it from conventional heat pipes, which, according to Patent
`Owner, mainly transport heat in one dimension. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2102
`¶ 91). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction “disregards the
`significant difference between vapor chamber heat pipes and conventional
`heat pipes that would have been understood by a [person of ordinary skill in
`the art] at the time of the invention and does not account for the text of the
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`specification that repeatedly refers to spreading heat.” Id. at 14–15 (citing
`Ex. 2102 ¶ 92).
`
`As reproduced above, the ’680 patent describes operation of the heat
`pipe to “transport heat from the evaporator to the condenser.” Ex. 1101,
`3:56–64. Thus, Petitioner’s proposed construction of “vapor chamber” to
`encompass evaporation and condensation of a heat transfer fluid to transport
`or spread heat is consistent with the description provided in the ’680 patent.
`Accordingly, we adopt and employ this aspect of Petitioner’s interpretation
`of “vapor chamber.”
`
`D. The Alleged Obviousness of
`Claims 5 and 8 over Morikawa (Ground 1)
`Petitioner, in the Petition, argued that independent claim 5 and
`
`dependent claim 8 of the ’680 patent would have been obvious over
`Morikawa alone. Pet. 6, 22–58. In the Decision instituting an inter partes
`review in a related case, we determined that Petitioner had not demonstrated
`a likelihood of prevailing on this challenge. IPR2019-00334, Paper 7, 13–
`14. Specifically, we determined that Petitioner had not made an adequate
`threshold showing with regard to the limitation reciting edge lips being
`bonded together. Id. After institution, Patent Owner opposed Petitioner’s
`challenge. See, e.g., PO Resp. 43–45 (addressing the “edge lips” limitation).
`In its Reply Brief, under the heading “GROUND 1 – RETRACTED,”
`Petitioner states: “While Petitioner maintains that both Morikawa and
`Nakamura disclose the claimed ‘lips,’ Petitioner no longer relies on Ground
`1 for this IPR.” Pet. Reply 22 (bolding omitted). Petitioner does not explain
`what it means by the term “retracted,” and we have not been presented with,
`for example, a motion for partial adverse judgment or a joint motion to
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00338
`Patent 7,100,680 B2
`
`withdraw Ground 1 from this proceeding or otherwise limit the Petition. We
`proceed to reanalyze Ground 1 on the full record developed during trial.
`1. Overview of Morikawa (Ex. 1103)
`
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
