Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 42
`Date: July 21, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`SATCO PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SEOUL VIOSYS CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 7, 2021
`__________
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM,
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 42
`Date: July 21, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`SATCO PRODUCTS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SEOUL VIOSYS CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 7, 2021
`__________
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM,
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`HEATH J. BRIGGS, ESQ.
`STEPHEN M. ULLMER, ESQ.
`of: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1144 15th Street
`Suite 3300
`Denver, Colorado 80202
`(303) 685-7418 (Briggs)
`(303) 572-6579 (Ullmer)
`briggsh@gtlaw.com
`ullmers@gtlaw.com
`
`ANDREW SOMMER, ESQ.
`of: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1750 Tysons Boulevard
`Suite 1000
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`(703) 749-1370
`sommera@gtlaw.com
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`CHARLES H. SANDERS, ESQ.
`JONATHAN M. STRANG, ESQ.
`of: Latham & Watkins, LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02116
`(617) 948-6022
`charles.sanders@lw.com
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`July 7, 2021, commencing at 10:00 a.m. EDT, via Videoconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`9:59 a.m.
`
`JUDGE ROESEL: Good morning, everyone. This is
`Administrative Patent Judge Elizabeth Roesel, and with me today are Judges
`Erica Franklin and Jeffrey Abraham. And we're convening by
`videoconference to hear argument in two cases. Both are captioned Satco
`Products v. Seoul Viosys. The first case is IPR2020-00704 concerning
`U.S. Patent 8,860,331. The second case is IPR2020-00750 concerning U.S.
`Patent 8,716,946.
`The cases will be argued sequentially with a ten-minute break after
`the arguments in the '704 case. A court reporter is here to transcribe the
`arguments. The court reporter will prepare a separate transcript for each
`case, which will be entered into the respective record. It's possible that
`members of the public or the press are listening to the arguments today.
`Counsel, would you please introduce yourselves, starting with
`Petitioner?
`MR. BRIGGS: Yes. Good morning, Your Honor. This is Heath
`Briggs from the law firm Greenberg Traurig, lead counsel in both of the
`cases you mentioned. I will not be doing the argument for either case.
`Mr. Drew Sommer will be doing the argument for the first case, and Mr.
`Stephen Ullmer, who's in the same room with me here, will be doing the
`argument for the second case.
`JUDGE ROESEL: Patent Owner?
`MR. SANDERS: Good morning, Your Honors. This is Charles
`Sanders on behalf of Patent Owner, Seoul Semiconductor. I have with me
`my colleagues, Jon Strang, Emre Yuzak, Jeff Miller, and our client
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`
`representative, Eday Han (phonetic). I will be doing the arguments, both of
`them, today.
`JUDGE ROESEL: Thank you. According to our May 26th
`hearing order, each party will have 45 minutes of argument time for each
`case. Petitioner will argue first and may reserve rebuttal time to respond to
`Patent Owner's arguments. Patent Owner will argue second and may
`reserve time to present a surrebuttal limited to responding to Petitioner's
`rebuttal arguments.
`So the parties may present arguments on patentability of the
`challenged claims as well as -- no, there are no others today. Okay. I will
`set a timer and let each counsel know when the allotted time has expired, but
`I will not interrupt your arguments. So please keep track of your own time.
`Each party has filed demonstrative exhibits. Neither party has filed
`objections to the demonstratives. These demonstratives may be used as a
`visual aid in presenting your arguments. However, neither the
`demonstratives nor your oral presentations may be used to advance
`arguments or introduce evidence that is not already in the record. Each
`Judge has the entire record, including the demonstratives. So please do
`refer to your demonstratives, papers, exhibits by number so that we can find
`them.
`
`As a courtesy, counsel should refrain from interrupting the other
`side's presentation. Any objections should be stated as part of your own
`argument. When you are not speaking, please mute your line. If anyone
`has technical difficulties, please let us know immediately by contacting the
`people who set up the videoconference.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`So, with that, if there's no preliminaries, the Petitioner may begin
`with the '704 case.
`MR. SOMMER: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Andrew
`Sommer on behalf of Petitioner, Satco Products, Inc. I'd like to reserve 15
`minutes for rebuttal, please.
`I'd like to start today's presentation with the discussion of the claim
`construction issue that is before Your Honors. And we submit that the
`central point of dispute is whether the claims require the LED chip to
`include the growth substrate. And we submit that the Patent Owner is
`reading this limitation into the claims. The claims themselves do not
`require it, and nothing about the claim language requires the presence of the
`growth substrate.
`And so, if Your Honors would turn to Slide 6, this is a demonstrative
`illustrating what we think the Patent Owner is trying to do. We don't really
`believe that there is a dispute as to what an array or a plurality of light-
`emitting cells happens to be. The Patent Owner has proposed some
`language about it being a discrete light-emitting semiconductor structure,
`and we don't take issue with that.
`The only real dispute here is whether it needs to be on the growth
`substrate on which those cells were grown. And we submit that the
`intrinsic evidence counsels against importing that limitation into the claims.
`Turning to Slide 7 of our demonstrative exhibits, we submit that the
`claims themselves provide substantial reasons for not importing this growth
`substrate limitation. First of all, Claim 1 already recites a single substrate
`limitation in the claim. And like the steel baffles at issue in the en banc
`Phillips decision, the fact that the word single substrate or the phrase single
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`substrate already appears in the claims suggests that the light-emitting diode
`chip, or the LED chip, does not imply a single growth substrate as the Patent
`Owner proposes.
`We also submit that the absence of a substrate requirement in Claim
`11 is quite telling. Here, the Applicant decided not to include a substrate
`limitation. And so the difference between the claims are also very
`informative as to whether a substrate requirement is necessary for finding
`that a device or some assembly of light-emitting cells is a LED chip.
`Additionally, we think that the Patent Owner's construction excludes
`embodiments. And there's a dispute in the record between the reply and the
`surreply as to whether it excludes the embodiment of Figure 6. We think
`that Figure 6 is used to illustrate two different embodiments, one of which is
`described in column 21 of the patent. And I don't think that there's a
`dispute that in that alternative embodiment the substrate has been removed,
`exposing the layers.
`You can see on our Slide 8 -- and this is from Figure 6 of the '331
`patent -- layer 21 and layer 20 are removed, and this allows roughening or a
`texture to be applied to the surface 25. And what that does is it causes the
`light to refract at different angles, and it helps with extraction efficiency in
`terms of the light leaving the LED. We think that this embodiment would
`be excluded if you require a growth substrate to be included as part of the
`limitation for the LED chip-comprising aspect of these claims.
`Now, Patent Owner's expert made some telling admissions about the
`general understanding of what an LED chip is. We asked him about this
`embodiment where the substrate would be removed, and we asked him
`whether -- and this is on Slide 9 of our presentation. We asked him if, in
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`this example described in the '331 patent, once the substrate 20 has been
`removed to allow roughening of the bottom surface of layer 25, is the
`resulting structure no longer an LED chip?
`He said it depends. It very well could still be a chip. And so we
`followed up on that, and if you turn to Slide 10, we asked him why that
`would be. And he said, in its most fundamental meaning, the LED chip is
`some sort of collection of individual cells formed in some other into a
`collection that has some sort of structure to it.
`And we submit that each of our prior art references disclose cells that
`are attached to some form of structure regardless of the claim construction,
`or regardless of whether you apply Patent Owner's construction or not.
`And that includes Nagai and Martin. And I think that's evident from the
`fact that in Patent Owner's response, Patent Owner doesn't argue that we
`failed to prove that Martin discloses this particular aspect of the claim under
`a plain-meaning construction that does not include a requirement of the
`growth substrate.
`Turning to Slide 11, Patent Owner's expert continued to explain his
`understanding of an LED chip. And he said, you know, you could have an
`intermediate carrier or you could have a final mount to the substrate, the
`final substrate of choice, but you're going to have a rigid attachment. We
`think that's all that's really required for this concept of an LED chip. It
`doesn't require the original growth substrate.
`We submit that the specification also shows that chips on a growth
`substrate is a preferred embodiment. And if you turn to Slide 12, some text
`that's called out in the reply at pages 4 to 5 supports that understanding
`because in describing Figure 5, it describes using broader language about
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`how cells can be positioned on the substrate, and then it describes the
`preferred embodiment or a preferred embodiment in which they're formed
`by forming electrode layers on the substrate and patterning using
`photolithography and etching.
`So that's how you could form a number of cells. We actually think
`that this is consistent with what Martin is actually doing, and this can be
`found Exhibit 1001, so the '331 patent, at column 8, lines 30 to 46.
`So the intrinsic record of the patent supports a conclusion that a
`growth substrate is not a requirement of the claims. We also submit that
`the Patent Owner's construction conflicts with claims in the parent patent,
`the '332 patent. And if you turn to Slide 14, we've reproduced the relevant
`claims here.
`Claim 1 recites an LED chip, and that LED chip comprises certain
`features. There is no substrate limitation in this particular claim. Claim
`11 then says that the light-emitting cells are separate from a growth
`substrate. And the point here is that if the phrase LED chip comprising a
`plurality of light-emitting cells necessarily implied that there was a substrate
`present, Claim 11 would make no sense.
`Now, Patent Owner has responded in its surreply saying, oh, in this
`context, separate just means that it could be spaced apart, and there could be
`an intervening layer between the cells and the substrate. That's not how the
`word, separate, is used in the '331 patent.
`If you look at the '331 patent, when it describes the growth substrate
`being separate, it actually talks about a physical separation. It is the
`embodiment in Figure 6 in which the growth substrate is removed, and that's
`found at column 21, lines 36 to 40, of the '331 patent.
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`JUDGE ROESEL: May I interrupt you there, counsel? Would --
`would the Figure 6 embodiment -- would that be covered by Claim 1 of the
`'331 patent, which recites the light-emitting diode chip arranged on a single
`substrate?
`MR. SOMMER: We believe so, Your Honor. The entirety of the
`structure is referred to as the light-emitting diode chip. So that would
`include, although not explicitly shown in Figure 6, the bridge rectifier,
`which the claim requires to be formed on that single substrate, as well as the
`cells. So the entirety of that structure is formed on the single substrate in
`Figure 6.
`JUDGE ROESE: Even after you've removed the cells from the
`substrate? That's where I'm confused.
`MR. SOMMER: Yeah. In Figure 6, the contacts 53 at the top of
`that figure are used to bond to an additional submount, which becomes a
`new substrate after the original substrate is removed to -- to hold everything
`together.
`If you look at some of the testimony that we've cited from Dr.
`Doolittle, if you remove it and you don't have anything holding it together,
`all these, you know, individual cells will simply fall apart. Right? So you
`have to have some carrier, whether it be an intermediate carrier or the final
`carrier, in order to hold this circuitry together. And it's very, very fragile in
`terms of, you know, very thin layers of metal and semiconductor material.
`JUDGE ROESEL: So that concept of attaching the cells to a new
`substrate, that's taught in the '331 patent?
`MR. SOMMER: I believe so, by teaching that it's flip-chip bonded
`to -- or it is in a flip-chip configuration. That's certainly what that means,
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`right? That the chip is flipped upside down and placed on another
`substrate. We believe that is what the '331 patent is teaching in that
`context.
`So, with that, unless there are other questions about the claim
`construction issue, I'd like to move on to -- actually, I'd like to address a
`couple of arguments that the Patent Owner has made regarding claim
`construction and Hattori. Specifically, they've explained in their briefing
`that the light-emitting cell is a coined term, but then they go and look to
`Hattori for what light -- LED chip means.
`And, quite frankly, we don't understand the logic behind doing so.
`If LED chip had some special meaning, they were obligated to put that in the
`patent itself. And if they were coining a term, light-emitting cells, they
`should have explained in the patent what they meant by that. And we
`actually believe they did; it's just simply the junctions or the individual light-
`emitting structures formed and placed or positioned on a substrate.
`So looking to Hattori to determine what a definition of an LED chip
`might be isn't the proper analysis if you're looking at a coined term. In fact,
`if you look at Phillips, what we're supposed to do for claim construction is
`determine if a term has a plain and ordinary meaning in the context of the
`patent you're trying to construe. Okay?
`And we think that there is an ordinary meaning in the context of the
`patent that you're trying to construe, and you don't need to look beyond the
`patent to figure out what that ordinary meaning is.
`Indeed, Hattori is consistent with the notion that an LED chip might
`include a growth substrate, and we don't disagree that it might include the
`substrate. But we don't think that the term has been defined in a manner to
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`require a growth substrate, which is what the Patent Owner's construction
`would have.
`Patent Owner has argued that the lack of a plain and ordinary
`meaning is -- is -- is reflected in Dr. Pattison's testimony. You'll see this in
`Slide 11 of the Patent Owner's demonstratives. It's also at Patent Owner
`Response, page 9, and in the surreply at pages 2 to 3. And if you look at
`the questions that are being asked and the testimony that's given, none of it
`is in the context of the '331 patent. And, in fact, the question says, outside
`of the context of the '331 patent, are you familiar with this term?
`So it doesn't show that the -- Dr. Pattison failed to apply the plain
`meaning within the context of the patent, and we don't think that he did.
`Patent Owner has also cited a case called SIMO Holdings in its
`surreply at pages 4 to 6. Reading that case shows that it stands in stark
`contrast to what's going on here. In SIMO Holdings, the District Court
`construed the word, and, in a patent claim, A-N-D, as meaning and/or.
`And the reason that the District Court rationalized its construction was it
`said it had to include all of the embodiments within the scope of the claim.
`And so it interpreted and to mean and/or.
`The Federal Circuit said, no, that's not correct. Our canon of
`construction regarding interpreting claims to encompass the embodiments
`really gives way to the express language of the claim. And so, if an
`embodiment is not consistent with the natural reading of the claim, you're
`not to try to bend the language to get it to fit, or so to speak.
`So you're not supposed to try to wrap the claim language around all
`embodiments where it otherwise is not a good fit. And that's the primary
`rationale underlying that case. That's not an issue here.
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`So, turning to Martin, we think that Martin discloses the LED chip
`limitations under either construction. And, turning specifically to Slide 25
`of our presentation, Martin teaches a plurality of LEDs formed on a single
`substrate. That's found in paragraph 5. Figure 3 shows this. The
`showing in the petition is undisputed under a claim construction in which
`growth substrate is not a part of the claim.
`Under Patent Owner's interpretation of growth substrate, we still
`think it's taught. And if you turn to Slide 28, Martin teaches forming an
`array of cells or LED 7 on a single substrate 3 and then trenching between
`them. And that's shown as Item 8. And those trenches are formed by
`etching down to the substrate.
`As Your Honors pointed out in the Institution Decision, those
`trenches are given different item numbers depending on which figure you're
`looking at. For example, as reflected in paragraph 20 of Martin, Exhibit
`1004, trenches are labeled as 87 in that particular figure. The fact that
`Martin uses different reference numbers among different figures is not
`dispositive about whether Martin cuts up the chip as Patent Owner proposes
`and then reattaches it to another substrate.
`In fact, if you turn to Slide 29, Martin is discussing a reference called
`Wojnarowski. And what he's saying is one of the problems with
`Wojnarowski is that it includes a bunch of separate LEDs which are
`cumbersome and difficult to build and package because they need to be
`affixed to a common carrier.
`And so what he says is, you know, I solved his problem -- this is
`paragraph 29 of Martin -- by using a single monolithic array on a single
`submount, which simplifies building and packaging. And Patent Owner
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`says, and it argues in its Patent Owner response, that there's one of two ways
`to interpret Martin.
`The way that it chooses to interpret Martin is to interpret it in a way
`that Martin exhibits the same problem that Martin purports to solve. We
`don't think that that's a reasonable interpretation of the Martin reference.
`Turning to Slide 31, we think that the Martin file history also
`supports this, and it certainly supports the distinction that's underscored in
`the background section of the Martin reference, which is it was
`distinguishing a reference during prosecution called Lefebvre. And in
`distinguishing it, they said the prior art includes a plurality of diodes grown
`on a single substrate.
`And that's illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of the prior art. They're
`discrete LEDs mounted on a circuit board. And the way that they tried to
`overcome that is to add a requirement that the light-emitting diodes are
`formed or grown on a single substrate. To make this clear, what they were
`describing is a bunch of LEDs grown on a single monolithic substrate. So
`we believe that that meets the claims under Patent Owner's proposed
`construction.
`So, unless there are questions on that, I'd like --
`JUDGE ROESEL: Yes, I'd like to interrupt you there. And that
`is, in the DI, we identified two theories that were advanced in the petition
`concerning this single substrate and how it reads on Martin. And the first
`theory advanced in the petition was that the single substrate corresponded to
`the submount. And the second theory was that one of ordinary skill in the
`art would have modified Martin to put the bridge rectifier on the same
`substrate as the LED.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`So is Petitioner still pursuing that first theory that we didn't like in
`the DI?
`MR. SOMMER: No, Your Honor. We have not advanced that
`further in this proceeding after considering the DI.
`So I'd like to turn to the discussion of motivation to combine. And
`I think the DI does a good job of paraphrasing the analysis presented in the
`petition as to what the proposed modification is. It's to take diodes that are
`in an array and simply interconnect them to form a bridge rectifier. And so
`this would be, you know, essentially rewiring the array to include a bridge
`rectifier as well as a series -- connected series of LEDs.
`And we think the two references show exactly how to do this, and
`both are consistent with one another in terms of the benefits of doing so.
`So they both point the person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to simplify,
`in certain respects, their system design to put LEDs in the bridge rectifier
`itself.
`
`And so, starting with Uang -- and that is Slide 33 of our presentation
`-- we got this figure from the petition, pages 39 to 40. This is Figure 3 of
`Uang, which is Exhibit 1005, and it shows a plurality of LEDs in the arms of
`the bridge rectifier.
`Masatoshi also describes this technique, and that's shown on Slide
`37. And this is from Figure 1 of Masatoshi as well as Figure 2. And
`Figure 2 of Masatoshi shows how you can arrange these on a single
`substrate, and Masatoshi says, look, you get certain cost benefits when you
`do this.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`So there is explicit motivation in the references for the person of
`ordinary skill in the art to try to implement a bridge rectifier made of LEDs
`from the arrays.
`Uang is summarized on Slide 36 -- Uang, paragraph 9, says, you
`solve a problem of local heat dissipation. You can lower the cost and
`improve efficiency of the LEDs. Masatoshi is summarized on our Slide 38,
`says that you get benefits of light emission characteristics and you get
`economic benefits. You can have an increase in illumination brightness.
`You can reduce the number of components. You can enable efficient use
`of space and a reduction of cost.
`So all of these things
`(Simultaneous speaking.)
`JUDGE ROESEL: Counsel, may I interrupt you there? Let's go
`back to, first, your Slide 33 that you presented. And you've got that figure
`from Uang showing the LEDs as part of the bridge rectifier. Now, Patent
`Owner points out that that figure includes other circuitry in the bridge
`rectifier, but it's not highlighted by Petitioner, including the diodes D1
`through D4, and then there's a resistor.
`That was not mentioned in the petition, as I recall. Whether it's
`Petitioner's contention that only the diodes would be incorporated in the
`bridge rectifier in Martin or -- what about these other circuit components?
`MR. SOMMER: Well, we didn't address the other circuit
`components because they weren't claimed. And, obviously, the law doesn't
`require us to do a physical incorporation of the Uang design into Martin.
`But I think that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have some
`options available to them.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`Obviously, in order to maximize the simplicity or the cost of
`manufacture, you would use just LEDs in the array to wire the bridge
`rectifier. However, if you wanted to drive down the number of LEDs in the
`bridge rectifier, you could add these diodes, which is -- it's why they're
`present, or why we believe they're present, in Uang: because it minimized
`concerns with reverse breakdown. Same thing with the resistor. It
`conditions the power source being applied to the bridge rectifier.
`But in terms of whether you need to, we don't believe you need to
`add any of these components to Martin in order to make a functional device
`that achieves the benefits noted in the prior art.
`JUDGE ROESEL: Now, none of those other components is
`addressed in the petition, right? So the options that are available to the
`person of ordinary skill in the art, as far as those other components, that's not
`discussed, right?
`MR. SOMMER: I don't believe we discussed those components in
`the petition, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ROESEL: And then I would like to ask you a couple
`questions about Slide 36. I think -- so this, again, you're presenting the
`Uang reference. And Uang makes some -- you know, touts the advantages
`of putting the LEDs in the bridge rectifier, but what is the -- so it's making
`some comparisons, right?
`It's saying it solves the problem of local heat dissipation and lowers
`the costs and improves the efficiency, but what's the comparative? Like,
`you're saying that this would improve Martin, right? But is that what Uang
`is saying? Would it improve a circuit like Martin's, or is it improving
`something else?
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`
`MR. SOMMER: I believe it is saying that it would improve a
`circuit like Martin, and that's how a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand it. And I believe you can see that reflected in paragraph 25 of
`Uang, which -- let me just pull it up so that I don't misquote it.
`But it talks about how the working time of the LEDs is less than half
`a cycle, which is something that Patent Owner points out as being a
`drawback. You're not generating as much light. But this is -- Uang says,
`well, that gives it a chance to cool down.
`And if you look at paragraph 205 of Dr. Doolittle's declaration, what
`he says is as these LEDs get hotter, they continue to get less efficient in
`terms of emitting light, and they just generate more heat. So what Uang is
`doing is actually improving the efficiency of the LED by giving it a period
`in which it's not generating so much heat to cool down. Then it powers
`back up; it cools down. And so they do that in an alternating fashion
`through the arms of the bridge rectifier.
`Certainly, then, we submit that that is some benefit to Martin
`because, as Patent Owner points out, Martin would be on most of the time,
`which means Martin's array is generating a tremendous amount of heat,
`which is reducing the internal efficiency of these LEDs.
`So, unless Your Honors have any questions, I'll get back to the
`reasons for combining. And one of those is costs. And we submit that
`both Masatoshi and Uang note that there is this cost benefit. You don't
`need to design a bridge rectifier and have a separate circuit, different
`processes for manufacturing this circuit out of silicon. Instead, you use the
`LEDs of the array in the arms of the bridge rectifier.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`And we think that that's actually confirmed by statements that the
`Patent Owner made, or the Patent Owner's sister company, Seoul
`Semiconductor, made in the European Patent Office when trying to argue for
`patentability of a very similar patent. It's not directly related to this, but
`they did say, look, when you combine everything on a common substrate,
`you reduce manufacturing complexity and cost.
`And that's actually corroborated by Dr. Doolittle's testimony, which
`is summarized on page 40 and is called on in our reply at page 20. There's
`clear benefits of having everything on the same substrate is what he says,
`and he says the whole power of integration that the '331 is trying to address
`both in terms of cost economics, power yield, and reliability.
`So that's exactly what Masatoshi and Uang were teaching the person
`of ordinary skill in the art. The '331 patent wasn't the first to realize that
`the power of integration reduced cost. And so that would have encouraged
`a person of ordinary skill in the art to proceed with implementing Martin to
`have LEDs in the arms of a bridge rectifier.
`JUDGE ROESEL: So, counsel, may I interrupt again? So I'm
`looking at page 15 of the petition, and there I see Petitioner advancing a
`number of reasons for combining Martin with Uang, including increasing
`efficiency, light output by directly driving more LEDs with AC power while
`reducing heat and cost concerns.
`So cost is certainly mentioned, but there are several other reasons
`that I haven't heard you mention today. Is cost now the main motivation
`that Petitioner is relying upon?
`MR. SOMMER: No, Your Honor. And I believe I did mention
`that -- I was describing how the efficiency of the LED can improve and the
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`
`heat dissipation can improve by having LEDs on only part of the time within
`the bridge rectifier. So, you know, Uang's heat dissipation as described in
`paragraph 25 of Uang is also another motivation that would improve
`efficiency. I think you can look at Dr. Doolittle's own testimony at
`paragraph 205 of the declaration where he says LEDs get less efficient as
`they got hotter, and they're hotter when they're on more. That's what Uang
`tells us. So --
`JUDGE ROESEL: May I interrupt again, please? So the -- but
`the theory I see advanced in the petition that efficiency would be increased
`by driving more LEDs with AC power, is that true or not true?
`MR. SOMMER: Yes. That's true, and Masatoshi tells us that, and
`so does Dr. Doolittle's testimony. I think you can even find this argument
`in the Patent Owner's surreply, which is, in order to develop a bridge
`rectifier that can properly rectify the current, you have to add more LEDs.
`That is true. So you end up with -- according --
`(Simultaneous speaking.)
`JUDGE ROESEL: May I interrupt again? Is that putting more
`LEDs in the bridge rectifier, and is taught in the prior art, is that in the
`petition?
`MR. SOMMER: Your Honors, I believe we pointed to the section
`in Masatoshi that talks about a 65 percent power increase. We certainly
`point to Figure 2, which shows the additional LEDs. Where we actually
`mention the 65 percent number I'd have to go back and confirm, but it's
`certainly in our reply as well, you know, that that is what Masatoshi is
`saying.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00704
`Patent 8,860,331 B2
`
`
`
`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
`26
`
`I think the Patent Owner doesn't dispute it. It's called out in the
`surreply saying, look, you add more LEDs, you know, you get more output.
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
