- Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01091 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner failed to establish the claimed narrow band-rejection filter or a sufficient reason to add one to Barber’s system.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner assert that construction of any claim term is required to resolve any issues in dispute. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54); PO Resp. 10–11. In our Decision on Institution we invited the parties to address whether the claim term “providing an RF bias that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate” requires that (1) the frequency of the RF bias be the same as the frequency at which the filter operates or whether (2) the frequency of the RF bias could be a shift from the frequency at which the filter operates. Inst. Dec. 37–38. Patent Owner states the term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which the parties in the copending litigation allegedly agreed requires the claimed filter “to have a rejection band set at a frequency of the RF bias power supply.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2021; Ex. 2022, 7–10). Petitioner “disputes PO’s suggestion of ‘agree[ment] (EX 2022, 10)” but argues that Patent Owner’s “positions are not dispositive because they do not distinguish the prior art.” Reply 1. On the full record now before us, we agree that express construction of this term is not necessary as resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias is the same as, or a shift from, the frequency at which the filter operates. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“narrow band-rejection filter (aka notch filter).” Pet. 22–23. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Subramanian, testified that the difference between a narrow band-rejection filter and a band-rejection filter depends on the relationship between the bandwidth and the center frequency. See, e.g., Ex. 2030, 95:15– 21 (explaining that the bandwidth is “much, much, much smaller than the center frequency”). There is inadequate evidence that the bandwidth of Hirose’s filter is sufficiently narrow to constitute a narrow band-rejection filter. Rather, the evidence of record shows that Hirose’s filter is a band-rejection filter, not a narrow band-rejection filter.” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached
“Petitioner met its burden of production to demonstrate that Hirose, which has a filing date prior to the filing date of the ’657 patent, was prior art by asserting Hirose was prior art under § 102(e). See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. Hirose’s earlier filing date shifts the burden of production to Patent Owner to produce evidence supporting a date of invention before Hirose’s filing date. See id. With its Response, Patent Owner presents evidence it contends shows a date of conception of claims 1–8 and 10–21 prior to July 18, 2001, followed by reasonably continuous diligence. For the purposes of this decision, we need not determine whether Hirose qualifies as prior art, because, as explained below, even if Hirose qualifies as prior art, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that all of the asserted claims would have been obvious over the grounds asserting Hirose.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,381,657 - Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-00104 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish the asserted obviousness grounds, including the required narrow band-rejection filter and motivation to modify Barber.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“whether the claim term “providing an RF bias that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate” requires that (1) the frequency of the RF bias be the same as the frequency at which the filter operates or whether (2) the frequency of the RF bias could be a shift from the frequency at which the filter operates. Inst. Dec. 37–38. Patent Owner states the term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which the parties in the copending litigation allegedly agreed requires the claimed filter “to have a rejection band set at a frequency of the RF bias power supply.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2021; Ex. 2022, 7–10). Petitioner “disputes PO’s suggestion of ‘agree[ment] (EX 2022, 10)” but argues that Patent Owner’s “positions are not dispositive because they do not distinguish the prior art.” Reply 1. On the full record now before us, we agree that express construction of this term is not necessary as resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias is the same as, or a shift from, the frequency at which the filter operates. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached
“patent. Petitioner, who bears the burden to show Hirose is prior art, asserts that Hirose qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001 is before the March 16, 2002 effective filing date of the ’657 patent. See Pet. 5. Patent Owner responds that Hirose does not qualify as prior art to the ’657 patent because the inventors of the ’657 patent conceived and reduced to practice the ’657 invention on or before Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001, likely as early as June 13, 2001. PO Resp. 12. To support this position, Patent Owner provides argument and evidence relating to the conception of the subject matter recited in claims 1–8 and 10–21. Id. at 15– 39. An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Evidence of such conception and reduction to practice must be provided on a claim-by-claim basis.” slip op. at 18
- BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable
“It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that the cited art teaches each limitation of the challenged claims and to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d 1378. Here, Petitioner does not sufficiently demonstrate that Hirose teaches or suggests a narrow band-rejection filter as recited in claim elements 2[c] and 2[d]. See Pet. 21–22.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,381,657 - Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01030 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner did not prove claims 1–13 unpatentable because the grounds failed to establish the claimed filter limitations or a reason to combine Barber and Hirose.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:10–14, 2:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–19). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached
“An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Just the knowledge, however, that a filter can be used to protect or isolate one power supply from another in various types of plasma systems is not sufficient to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a filter in Barber’s system to protect Barber’s pulsed DC power source from its RF power supply. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). In an inter partes review, “the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363. In support of its challenge, Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert may rely on general knowledge, supported by evidence, to argue that a challenged claim would be obvious in light of the general knowledge of a skilled artisan. Koninklijke Philips v. Google, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (stating that although the prior art that can be considered in inter partes review is limited to patents and printed publications, “it does not follow that we ignore the skilled artisan’s knowledge when determining whether it would have been obvious to modify the prior art”). Although the Petition on its face relies on Barber and Hirose to meet the limitations of claim 1[f] (Pet. 24–36), Petitioner’s arguments rely not only on Barber and Hirose, but on numerous additional references, ostensibly to demonstrate the general knowledge of a skilled artisan. Id. For example, Petitioner cites to a number of references (i.e., Licata (Ex. 1010), Joo (Ex. 1014), Celestino (Ex. 1016), Quon (Ex. 1017), Johnson (Ex. 1018), Hong (Ex. 1019), Ohmi (Ex. 1020), and Keller (Ex. 1021)) that use different types of filters in various plasma systems for the “known use and benefits of filters in plasma systems for blocking interference/current of one power supply from another.” Pet. 32–33. Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have understood that choosing to reject a narrow band of frequencies depending on the bandwidth of Barber’s RF supply, was a known way to achieve “the benefits” of Hirose. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1023 (Miller), 7:51–61; Ex. 1057 (Sill), 7:23–34; Ex. 1058 (Zennamo), 1:63–2:1). Petitioner also relies on a number of manuals (i.e. Exs. 1025, 1026, 1062, 1067, 1024, 1065, 1066) that illustrate “design concepts/guidance associated with use of such supplies in a plasma system with an RF power source.” Id. at 34–35. Even considering all the references in the Petition and the declaration, Petitioner does not adequately explain how the filters and principles in these relied-upon references and manuals would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to use a filter, let alone a narrow-band rejection filter, in Barber’s system.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 7,544,276 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,544,276 - Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01090 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–13 not unpatentable because Petitioner failed to show the asserted combinations disclosed or motivated use of the claimed narrow band-rejection filter.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:10–14, 2:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–19). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10. 14 Because we determine Petitioner has not sufficiently shown the challenged claims would have been obvious, we do not reach Patent Owner’s asserted objective evidence of non-obviousness. PO Resp. 70–72. Patent Owner does not appear to dispute this definition. See generally PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we retain our modified adoption of Petitioner’s definition. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to construe any claim term expressly, because resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias power supply is the same as, or offset from, the frequency at which the filter operates. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in an inter partes review).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artNot reached
“Petitioner met its burden of production to demonstrate that Hirose, which has a filing date prior to the filing date of the ’276 patent, was prior art by asserting Hirose was prior art under § 102(e). See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. Hirose’s earlier filing date shifts the burden of production to Patent Owner to produce evidence supporting a date of invention before Hirose’s filing date. See id. With its Response, Patent Owner presented evidence it contends shows a date of conception prior to July 18, 2001, followed by reasonably continuous diligence. PO Resp. 11– 41. For the purposes of this decision, we do not determine whether Hirose qualifies as prior art to claims 1–13, because, as explained below, even if Hirose qualifies as prior art, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that any of the asserted claims would have been obvious over the grounds asserting Hirose.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“frequency response and that a POSITA would have understood that Hirose’s filter is “tuned to reject a narrow band of frequency,” which operates “like a narrow band-rejection filter (aka notch filter).” Pet. 28–29. Petitioner’s argument that Hirose discloses or suggests a narrow band-rejection filter is contained in this short portion of the Petition and relies on an inference that a V-shaped curve necessarily signifies a narrow band-rejection filter. Any such inference that a V-shaped curve is sufficient to characterize a filter as a narrow band-rejection filter, however, is belied by Dr. Subramanian’s own testimony. Indeed, Dr. Subramanian explains that the shape of a curve alone, including the shape of the curves of Figures 2–9(G) and (H) of Gibilisco, is not sufficient on its own to determine whether a filter corresponding to that curve is a narrow band-rejection filter or a broad bandrejection filter. See, e.g., Ex. 2030, 69:13–18 (stating, just looking Figure 2– 9(H), he could not tell if the figure corresponds to a narrow band-rejection filter because “I don’t have enough information”). Dr. Subramanian further testified that additional information beyond the mere shape of the curve is required to determine if the curve represents a narrow band-rejection filter; for example, Dr. Subramanian states that it was Gibilisco’s characterization of Figure 2–9(G) as having a sharp band rejection response that led him to conclude it was a narrow band-rejection filter. See Ex. 2030, 68:20–69:4 (Dr. Subramanian testifying that he would not “characterize the figure depicted in G as a narrow band” based just on the figures, but “on all the information that’s given,” which includes “this reference specifically [stating] at G, ‘sharp band rejection response’”); see also id. at 60:24–61:23, 62:7–63:11. Significantly, Petitioner does not point to statements in Hirose itself” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,544,276 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,544,276 - Bluecatbio Ma Inc. v. Yantai Ausbio Laboratories Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2021 · PGR2020-00051 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · PGR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 3–5, 7, 10–12, and 14–20 unpatentable because the Gyro Washer was not shown to drive all or nearly all expelled liquid to the drain.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We find that Patent Owner’s additions are supported by the ’063 Patent. Patent Owner directs us to portions of the Specification that discuss immunoassays, magnetic bead assays, and cellular assays, as well as the need to avoid cross-contamination for these types of reactions. PO Resp. 14; Ex. 1001, 1:24–28, 3:43–45; 3:63–66, 4:25–32, 13:25–50, 15:52– 16:2, 19:41–59. We find that these disclosures support Patent Owner’s contention that a POSA would have been aware of the operational requirements of reaction vessel unit washing devices, methods used to cross-contamination. For these reasons, we apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSA as modified by Patent Owner’s additions. Pet. 16; PO Resp. 15.4” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that its proposed construction stays true to the claim language. PO Sur-reply 5. As just discussed, “the expelled liquid on the inner surface of the housing” refers back to an earlier part of the claim that recites that rotating the rotor (referred to in claim 12 as inner surface of the housing. Ex. 1001, 24:5–8, 25:5–7. Claims 1 and 12 recite “the expelled liquid” without any modifier, such as “at least some.” In our view, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the claim language because the antecedent for “the expelled liquid” is the liquid that is expelled from the reaction vessel onto the inner surface of the housing, not merely some portion of that liquid. Nothing in the claim language suggests that “the expelled liquid on the inner surface of the housing” is divisible, with some of the liquid being driven by the wind to the drain and some of the liquid not being driven by the wind to the drain. For example, we see no support in the claim language for Petitioner’s argument that “the first expelled milliliter qualifies as ‘liquid . . . expelled,’ and the second milliliter also qualifies as ‘liquid . . . expelled,’ and so on.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 65). Although “all or nearly all” is not expressly recited in the claim, neither is “some.” As between these two constructions, “all or nearly all” more closely aligns with the language and structure of claims 1 and 12, including the antecedent for “the expelled liquid on the inner surface of the housing,” which in our view refers to the undivided whole of the liquid.6” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“5. Weighing the Evidence For all of the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that the Gyro Washer generates a wind that drives to the drain “all or nearly all of the liquid expelled from the reaction vessel onto the inner surface of the housing,” as required by our claim construction. More particularly, we find that the photos and observations of the Gyro Washer and microplates after completion of a wash cycle, as discussed in subsection 2 above, show that a substantial amount of the liquid expelled from a microplate onto the inner surface of the housing is not driven by the wind to the drain of the Gyro Washer. We find that this evidence outweighs the other evidence relied upon by Petitioner to show that the wind limitation is met, including the videos and observations of the Gyro Washer in operation, as discussed in subsection 1 above, Petitioner’s droplet experiments, as discussed in subsection 3 above, and Petitioner’s bucket experiments, as discussed in subsection 4 above.” slip op. at 48
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“dependent claim 10, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to use an aspiration pump with the Gyro Washer. Pet. 104–105 (relying on evidence that a Gyro Washer was sold with an aspiration pump). For dependent claims 7 and 17, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to modify the Gyro Washer so that the rotor is rotated in a second rotational direction. Pet. 105–108, 114. For method claims 12 and 14–17, Petitioner contends that, even in the absence of Mr. Yagi’s demonstrations of the Gyro Washer at the 2009 and 2010 trade shows, the method of using the Gyro Washer would have been obvious in view of the device itself and that the limitations claims 12 and 14–16 are satisfied by the natural, ordinary, and intended use of the Gyro Washer. Pet. 108–114. Petitioner’s contentions do not remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s arguments and evidence addressing the wind limitation, as discussed above. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claims 7, 10, 12 and 14–17 would have been obvious in view of the Gyro Washer.” slip op. at 51
Patent outcomesUS 10,338,063 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,338,063 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00813 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 8–12, and 18–20 are unpatentable: Okamoto anticipates some claims, and the asserted Okamoto- and Miyahara-based combinations render the claims obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Both parties appear to be in general agreement regarding the level of skill, and neither party contends that any differences between their proposals would have any effect on our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. Although we encouraged the parties (Institution Dec. 7–8) to address any material differences between the two proposals in post-institution briefing, neither party addressed the issue. See generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-Reply. We, therefore, adopt a level of ordinary skill that encompasses a person with a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and the equivalent of several years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As detailed below, we determine that Patent Owner has not shown that the term “lead frame,” as recited by the challenged claims, requires that any component lead provide support to the LED chip. Instead, we maintain our construction from the Institution Decision that “lead frame” in this context means a support structure for providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the lead frame structure, as a whole, provides the support to the semiconductor die.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree that Okamoto shows the claimed lead frame, as a whole, providing support to the LED chip as required by claims 1 and 13. As shown in Okamoto’s Figure 1, reproduced above, “lead frame 8 is attached to the wiring pattern 6 drawn around an end of the glass substrate 2 with a solder material 9.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 29. According to Patent Owner, Okamoto’s transparent plate “supports the lead frame,” (PO Resp. 10) and as agreed upon by the parties, the claimed lead frame includes the transparent plate. Okamoto also discloses that the LED chip is on transparent glass substrate 2. Id. ¶ 27 (stating that LED elements “are disposed in a row on a front face of a light-transmissive glass substrate 2.”). Based on this disclosure, we find Okamoto teaches or suggests a lead frame that includes a transparent plate supporting an LED chip.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In sum, on the complete record, we find that the combination of Okamoto and Shimizu teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 11, and we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine Okamoto and Shimizu.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 9,859,464 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,859,464 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 12, 2021 · IPR2020-00780 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5–7, 9, 13, 14, 18–20, 22, and 26 are unpatentable based on anticipation by Okamoto or Miyahara and obviousness over the asserted combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“construction requiring at least one lead to provide structural support to the LED chip. First, Patent Owner contends that the plain meaning of the term “lead frame” requires that the leads must form “the structural frame supporting the LED chip.” Sur-Reply 4. According to Patent Owner, “[o]n its face, the meaning is clear” that “‘lead frame’ is a frame formed by leads.” Id. We do not find this conclusory statement helpful in determining whether the leads in a lead frame are required to provide structural support to the LED chip. Patent Owner does not identify any evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, that the plain meaning of the term “lead frame” requires that any leads provide direct or indirect support to the LED chip. In fact, Patent Owner refers to several dictionary definitions of the term “lead frame,” none of which makes any reference to support. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 1023, 4 (“Lead Frame. The metallic portion of a component package that is used to interconnect with semiconductor die by wire bonding and to provide output terminal leads.”); Ex. 1024, 4 (“lead frame— . . . 2. The metal part of a solid-state device package that achieves electrical connection between the die and other parts of the system of which the IC is a component. . . .); Ex. 1026, 3 (“lead frame the metallic portion of the device package that makes electrical connections from the die to other circuitry.”).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“The fundamental error in Petitioner’s argument on this point, however, is that the claims at issue in this proceeding do not require “a lead frame including a transparent plate,” but instead “a lead frame having a transparent plate therein.” Petitioner must do more than show that Okamoto discloses that “the transparent plate is part of the lead frame,” as argued in the Petition. And, as we pointed out in our Institution Decision, Petitioner concedes that “Okamoto’s lead frame sits on its transparent plate, rather than the transparent plate being in the lead frame.” Institution Dec. 17 (citing Pet. 39; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 34, 36). During the trial, Petitioner did not engage with this issue or provide any reason for us to diverge from our prior conclusion that, because “the plain language of the claims requires that the lead frame have a transparent plate ‘therein’ . . . [b]y Petitioner’s own admission . . . Okamoto does not anticipate.” Id. In other words, because Petitioner concedes that Okamoto’s transparent plate is not in its lead frame, it cannot meet the requirement of claims 1 and 14 that the lead frame have a transparent plate therein. For this reason, we maintain our prior determination that Okamoto does not disclose a lead frame having a transparent plate therein, and as a result, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 14 are anticipated.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner also asserts that “Petitioner fails to explain how its proposed modification of wrapping the wiring pattern 6 around the ends of the substrate results in a lower-profile.” PO Resp. 17. According to Patent Owner, “Okamoto already provides the alleged lower-profile benefits of Shimizu, as seen by comparing figure 2 of each reference.” Id. at 18. But Dr. Dupuis supports Petitioner’s contention by stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to use a “chip-type” package instead of a “lead-type” package in applications where a lower profile is needed. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–134 (citing Ex. 1017, 8:31–67; Ex. 1016, Fig. 1, 33–35; Ex. 1022, Figs. 1–3, 6–8, 13, ¶¶ 2–14). Also, Okamoto states that Figure 2 is “a planar view of the light source device of” Figure 1. Ex. 1008 ¶ 43. And Figure 1 of Okamoto, reproduced above, clearly shows protruding lead frame 8. Id. at Fig. 1, ¶ 29. Figure 2 of Okamoto, however, does not show lead frame 8. See id. at Fig. 2. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Figure 2 of Okamoto shows a package with a lower profile. Instead, the record supports Petitioner’s position that the modified device created using the disclosures of Okamoto and Shimizu has a lower profile (i.e., leads wrapped around substrate 2 as opposed to protruding as shown by Okamoto Figures 1 and 8). See Pet. 42–43; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 138–142. Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner ignores Dr. Schubert’s explanation that Shimizu was directed towards general illumination, while Okamoto is directed towards a signaling light source” so a person of ordinary skill would not combine the two references. Sur-Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1044, 93:15–96:13). Because we do not see this argument in Patent Owner’s Response, nor do we see anything in Dr. Schubert’s declaration to support such an argument, we do not agree that Petitioner improperly failed to respond to an argument. See PO Resp. 12–21; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 112–120. Moreover, we find that both Shimizu and Okamoto disclose methods of creating white light using an LED and, therefore, the evidence supports a finding that both references are relevant to a consideration of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“In order to rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of the applicant’s invention, the reference must either be in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.”). In sum, on the complete record, we find that the combination of Okamoto and Shimizu teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 14, and we find that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine Okamoto and Shimizu.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Upon further review, and in light of the arguments in Petitioner’s Reply (Reply 21–24), we conclude that our preliminary determination in the Institution Decision was in error, to the extent that we agreed with Patent Owner’s arguments that claims 13 and 26 require “all layers” of the LED to be transparent. The claims recite “a plurality of III-nitride layers, including an active region that emits light, wherein all of the layers except for the active region are transparent.” Ex. 1001, 21:46–52. The second half of this phrase, which contains the transparency requirement, recites “the layers,” meaning that it relies on an earlier recitation in the claim for antecedent basis of “layers.” This basis is found in the recitation of “a plurality of III-nitride layers.” In other words, the proper interpretation of “all of the layers” in claims 13 and 26 is that the term refers back to the III-nitride layers, not all of the layers of the LED as a whole (such as, for example, a mirror). And the parties agree that the mirror of a conventional LED is not a III-nitride layer. Tr. 18:15–18; 45:4–13. As a result, our preliminary determination that the non-transparent mirror of the APA LEDs prevented a finding of obviousness was incorrect. We agree with Petitioner that the ’916 patent admits that LEDs having transparent III-nitride layers were conventional in the art, and that these are “all of the layers except for the active region” as required in claims 13 and 26. Notably, during the trial Patent Owner did not attempt to defend against Petitioner’s ground for the same reason it raised in the Preliminary Response; instead, Patent Owner now argues that because of the mirror on conventional LEDs, these devices would not meet the claim limitation that “light is extracted effectively through all the layers.” PO Resp. 21. But this reflects a misunderstanding of Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability, which does not rely on the APA for this limitation. Petitioner’s ground is based on the argument that, while Okamoto discloses an LED without a mirror, it does not “specifically describe the layers of its blue LEDs, other than to say that it is a GaN-based LED.” Pet. 61. Petitioner turns to the APA for this missing information regarding the layers that were conventionally used in LEDs; but notably, the Petition does not rely on the APA’s mirror. Id. All Petitioner concludes from the APA is that a person of skill in the art “would reasonably expect the GaN-based LEDs of Okamoto to include multiple layers, which layers would at least include an active layer sandwiched between a p-side layer and an n-side layer.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 203– 205; Ex. 1001, 10:20–31). Patent Owner’s argument that the application of the APA’s layers to Okamoto would have brought along the mirror of the APA LED’s is therefore misguided and unpersuasive. In sum, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to conventional LEDs, such as those admitted to be prior art in the ’916 patent, when determining the layers of Okamoto’s LED. And according to the ’916 patent, these conventional III-nitride layers would have been understood to be transparent to an emission wavelength. As a result, we conclude that claims 13 and 26 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Okamoto and Shimizu in light of the APA.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 10,217,916 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,217,916 - PTAB · Sep 24, 2021 · IPR2021-00646 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claim 20 based on a reasonable likelihood that Ter-Hovhannisyan anticipates or renders it obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we determine the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect claim 20. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“After the Petition was filed, Patent Owner disclaimed claims 1–19 of the ’816 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 3; Ex. 2001. Thus, this decision addresses only claim 20 of the challenged patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“The patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) . . . disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“’816 patent would have [had] at least a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline and approximately three years of experience working on LED lighting technology and designs, including experience with thermal design and heat dissipation.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53). Petitioner further asserts that “[r]elevant work experience could substitute for formal education and post-graduate education could substitute for work experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53).” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Ter-Hovhannisyan discloses the annulus limitation, we consider claim 20’s remaining limitations. Petitioner asserts that Ter-Hovhannisyan discloses or would have rendered obvious claim 20’s remaining limitations. Pet. 43–44, 46 (citing Pet. 12, 20–28, 40–42 (Petitioner’s analysis for similar claim limitations recited in claim 1)). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not separately address these limitations. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments (in the context of claim 20) and Dr. Bretschneider’s testimony and find that Petitioner shows sufficiently that Ter-Hovhannisyan anticipates or would have rendered obvious claim 20. Thus, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,985,816 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2020-00695 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8–10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20–22, and 24 are unpatentable, primarily as obvious over the asserted combinations including Okamoto, Shimizu, and Miyahara.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“been knowledgeable regarding conventional designs and fabrication techniques pertaining to LEDs, including LED package designs, and would have had at least 2 years of experience in LED design and fabrication as well as at least a master’s degree in a relevant field (e.g., chemical engineering, materials engineering, or electrical engineering), or alternatively would have an equivalent combination of advanced education and practical experience.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). Patent Owner contends that the person of ordinary skill “would have had at least a B.S. degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field, and three years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” Prelim. Resp. 2; Ex. 2006 ¶ 25. Patent Owner adds that “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience (for example, an M.S. in any of the above fields and two years of practical experience would qualify one as a [person of ordinary skill in the art] (POSITA).” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 67); Ex. 2006 ¶ 25. Both parties appear to be in general agreement regarding the level of skill, and neither party contends that any differences between their proposals would have any effect on our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. Although we encouraged the parties to explain any material differences between the two proposals in post-institution briefing (see Institution Dec. 8), neither party addressed the issue. See generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-Reply. We, therefore, adopt a level of ordinary skill that encompasses a person with a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and the equivalent of several years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As detailed below, we disagree with Patent Owner that the term “lead frame,” as recited in the challenged claims, requires that any component lead provide support to the LED chip. Instead, we maintain our construction from the Institution Decision that “lead frame” in this context means a support structure for providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the lead frame structure, as a whole, provides the support to the semiconductor die.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“would have understood that “white light can be created by combining the three primary colors of light” (PO Resp. 11), we disagree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use one of the three disclosed LEDs (the blue LED) with phosphor to create white light as disclosed by Shimizu. Ex. 1017, 4:50–67. We find, based on Petitioner’s evidence, that “it was common well before the priority date of the ’529 patent to use appropriate phosphors in combination with blue LEDs to create white light.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1007, 246, 248; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–114, 117; Ex. 1006); Ex. 1044, 100:23–103:10 (Dr. Schubert acknowledging that using Shimizu’s phosphor technique was well known and commonly used to create white light at the relevant time).” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not reached
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions, the testimonial evidence, and the disclosure of Miyahara, and determine that the record provides substantial evidence supporting Petitioner’s assertions of obviousness of claims 1 and 13 over Miyahara. Because we agree with Petitioner that claims 1 and 13 would have been obvious over Miyahara, we do not address whether the claims are anticipated by Miyahara.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 9,240,529 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,240,529 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2020-00579 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 28, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, and 56 are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Both parties appear to be in general agreement regarding the level of skill, and neither party contends that any differences between their proposals would have any effect on our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. Although we encouraged the parties to address any material differences between the two proposals in post-institution briefing (see Institution Dec. 8), neither party addressed the issue. See generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-Reply. We, therefore, adopt a level of ordinary skill that encompasses a person with a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and the equivalent of several years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As detailed below, we disagree with Patent Owner that the term “lead frame,” as recited in the challenged claims, requires that any component lead provide support to the LED chip. Instead, we maintain our construction from the Institution Decision that “lead frame” in this context means a support structure for providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the lead frame structure, as a whole, provides the support to the semiconductor die.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“between Basin’s device and that of the ’789 patent.14 Because, as above, we see no evidence that the only difference between those two devices is whether or not the leads provide support to the LED chip, we do not find Dr. Schubert’s conclusion persuasive. We, therefore, agree with Petitioner that Basin does not support Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Patent Owner also relies on testimony from Dr. Schubert (PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 63–69, 75–86)) stating that “[t]he leads either directly support the LED chip (in the absence of a transparent plate) or indirectly support the LED chip through the transparent plate (in the presence of a transparent plate).” Ex. 2006 ¶ 86. However, Dr. Schubert does not cite to any evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, supporting this statement. Id. In fact, earlier in the same section of his testimony, Dr. Schubert states that (1) “[a] lead frame in the context of LEDs is understood by those of skill in the art as a support structure for an LED chip that comprises at least two conductive leads, an anode lead and cathode lead that are structurally stable and do not require support from another component” (Ex. 2006 ¶ 63); (2) “[t]he term ‘lead frame’ is a very commonly used term in the field of LEDs” that “refers to a frame (support structure) for LEDs that includes leads (electrodes) for making electrical connections between an LED and other structures (e.g., an LED driver or power supply)” (id. ¶ 76); and (3) “[i]n the context of the 14 Dr. Schubert also refers to the devices of Shimizu and Ishizaka, which are similar to the device in Basin in that they allegedly use chip-on-board packaging instead of a lead frame. Id. at 69 (citing Ex. 1017, 8:51–54; Ex. 1016 ¶ 33). However, as with Basin, Dr. Schubert does not address the other differences between the devices of Shimizu and Ishizaka or explain why support provided by leads is the relevant factor distinguishing a lead frame package from a chip-on-board package. Id. claims at issue and in light of the specification, the ’789 Patent (and related patents) teach that the transparent plate, with the leads is involved in the support of the LED chip” (id. ¶ 84). However, all of these statements support a finding that the lead frame supports the LED chip, but they do not require that any leads support the LED chip. Dr. Schubert does not explain the logical step between the requirement of the lead frame providing support and the leads of the lead frame providing support except to state that “[i]n the context of the claims at issue and in light of the specification, the ’789 (and related patents) teach that the transparent plate, with the leads, is involved in the support of the LED chip” and “[t]herefore, in my opinion a POSITA reading the ’789 patent would understand that the lead frame recited in the claims include[s] a transparent plate, where both the transparent plate and conductive leads provide [structural] support to the LED.” Id. ¶¶ 84–85. Because this conclusion is not supported by intrinsic or extrinsic evidence, we are not persuaded that Dr. Schubert’s testimony provides significant support to Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 15
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 28, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, and 56 of the ‘789 patent are unpatentable. Claims Claims Not 35 Shown Shown Claim(s) U.S.C. § Reference(s) Unpatentable Unpatentable 1, 9, 29, 37 102(b) Nishida 1, 9, 29, 37” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 7,781,789 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,781,789
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.