PTAB

IPR2020-00695

Satco Products Inc v. Regents Of University Of California

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Light Emitting Device And Method Of Fabricating The Same
  • Brief Description: The ’529 patent discloses a light-emitting diode (LED) device and manufacturing methods designed for enhanced light extraction. The core concept involves mounting an LED chip on or above a transparent plate within a lead frame, which allows emitted light to be extracted from both the front and back sides of the LED chip.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Okamoto and Shimizu (under Patentee’s “Package” Construction) - Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, and 24 are obvious over Okamoto in view of Shimizu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Okamoto (Japan Patent App. Pub. No. 2000/277808) and Shimizu (Patent 5,998,925).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Okamoto disclosed the core limitations of independent claim 1. Okamoto taught an LED device with a GaN blue LED chip mounted on a light-transmissive glass substrate, enabling omnidirectional light emission. This structure inherently allows light extraction from both the front and back sides of the LED chip. Under the Patentee’s broad proposed construction of "lead frame" as "a support structure formed by leads and a transparent plate," Petitioner asserted that Okamoto’s combination of its lead frame (8) and glass substrate (2) met this limitation. The combination with Shimizu, which taught creating white light by adding YAG phosphors to an epoxy encapsulant, rendered the phosphor limitation obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Shimizu’s well-known technique for creating white light with Okamoto’s omnidirectional device to improve it for general illumination applications. Both references addressed LED packaging, and modifying Okamoto’s single-color device to produce white light using Shimizu’s established phosphor-in-epoxy method was a predictable design choice to enhance its utility.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a standard phosphor-conversion technique to a known LED package configuration without changing the fundamental principles of either.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Okamoto and Shimizu (under Petitioner’s “Traditional” Construction) - Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, and 24 are obvious over Okamoto in view of Shimizu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Okamoto and Shimizu.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground relied on Petitioner’s narrower, "traditional" construction of "lead frame" as a "conductive support structure...that provides an interface for an external electrical connection." Under this construction, the claim requires a transparent plate to be in the conductive lead frame. While Okamoto’s "lead-type" package did not meet this limitation, Petitioner argued that Shimizu disclosed an alternative "chip-type" package where the lead frame partially surrounds a mounting plate. Modifying Okamoto’s device with Shimizu’s "chip-type" package would result in a structure where the transparent plate from Okamoto is situated within the conductive lead frame from Shimizu, thereby satisfying the claim limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to substitute Okamoto’s cumbersome "lead-type" frame with Shimizu’s more compact and lower-profile "chip-type" frame to create a less cumbersome device suitable for a wider range of applications. This was presented as a simple substitution of one known, conventional package type for another to achieve a predictable improvement in form factor.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in implementing Okamoto’s omnidirectional light emission concept within Shimizu’s chip-type package, as it was a straightforward integration of known packaging alternatives.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Okamoto, Shimizu, and Lester/Tadatomo - Claims 9, 10, 21, and 22 are obvious over the combination of Okamoto, Shimizu, and either Lester or Tadatomo.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Okamoto, Shimizu, Lester-085 (Patent 6,091,085), and Tadatomo (a 2004 SPIE paper).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted claims requiring the LED’s transparent substrate to be roughened, textured, or patterned (e.g., a patterned sapphire substrate or PSS) to increase light extraction. Petitioner argued that while the base combination of Okamoto and Shimizu taught an LED with a sapphire substrate, the additional step of modifying that substrate was obvious in light of Lester-085 and Tadatomo. Both secondary references explicitly taught that roughening or patterning a sapphire substrate at the GaN interface was a well-known method to disrupt the waveguide effect and significantly improve light extraction efficiency.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to improve the light output of the omnidirectional device described by Okamoto and Shimizu, would naturally look to known efficiency-enhancing techniques. Lester-085 and Tadatomo provided an explicit rationale for roughening or patterning the exact type of substrate (sapphire) used in the primary references to achieve the desired, predictable result of increased brightness.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was reasonably expected because applying a well-documented surface modification technique to a standard LED substrate was within the skillset of a POSITA.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including anticipation and obviousness grounds based primarily on Miyahara (Japan Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/035864A), which also taught an LED on a transparent substrate for omnidirectional light emission.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • The petition centered on the construction of the term "lead frame." This term was pivotal, as Petitioner presented alternative grounds based on competing constructions.
    • Petitioner's "Traditional" Construction: "a conductive support structure in an LED package that provides an interface for an external electrical connection." Under this view, the lead frame is only the metallic, conductive component.
    • Patentee's "Package" Construction: "a support structure formed by leads and a transparent plate." Petitioner argued this construction was improper because it conflated the lead frame with the separate "transparent plate" element, effectively reading the "in the lead frame" limitation out of the claim.
  • The outcome of this construction dispute directly impacted the obviousness analysis, particularly whether Okamoto alone met the structural limitations or if a modification with Shimizu’s package was required.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20-22, and 24 of the ’529 patent as unpatentable.