KINGBRIGHT ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., KINGBRIGHT CORP., SUNLED CORP., KINGBRIGHT CO. LLC, SUNLED CO. LLC, and SUNSCREEN CO. LTD.v.CREE, INC.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2015

13040088 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10
571–272–7822 Entered: September 24, 2015
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

KINGBRIGHT ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., KINGBRIGHT CORP.,
SUNLED CORP., KINGBRIGHT CO. LLC, SUNLED CO. LLC, and
SUNSCREEN CO. LTD.,
Petitioner,

v.

CREE, INC.,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2015-00748
Patent 8,766,298 B2
_______________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Request for Rehearing
37 C.F.R. § 42.71

IPR2015-00748
Patent 8,766,298 B2

I. INTRODUCTION
Kingbright Electronics Co. Ltd., Kingbright Corp., SunLED Corp.,
Kingbright Co. LLC, SunLED Co. LLC, and Sunscreen Co. Ltd.
(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 9, “Req.
Reh’g”) of the Decision (Paper 8, “Dec.”) denying institution of an inter
partes review of claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,766,298 B2 (Ex. 1001,
“the ’298 patent”). In the Request for Rehearing, Petitioner argues that the
Decision misapprehended or overlooked several matters in the Petition. For
the reasons set forth below, the Request for Rehearing is denied.
II. ANALYSIS
When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its
decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party
requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be
modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party
believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
Each of the challenged independent claims recites an encapsulant with
a meniscus or curved surface that is within about 50 microns of a top surface
of a light emitting diode (“LED”) package. Dec. 5. In the Decision, we
referred to this limitation as the “50-micron limitation.” Id. We explained
that Petitioner did not show sufficiently that the ’298 patent creates an
equivalence between the descriptors “very slight,” “moderate,” or “modest,”
and the specific measurement of the 50-micron limitation. Id. at 6.
Petitioner argues that we overlooked portions of the ’298 patent that
expressly characterize a meniscus that satisfies the 50-micron limitation as
“very slight,” “moderate,” or “modest.” Req. Reh’g 3–4. Petitioner’s
argument is not persuasive. Just because the ’298 patent describes a
2
IPR2015-00748
Patent 8,766,298 B2

meniscus that satisfies the 50-micron limitation as “very slight,” “moderate,”
or “modest” does not mean that every single meniscus described generally as
“very slight,” “moderate,” or “modest” necessarily satisfies the specific
measurement of the 50-micron limitation.
In the Decision, we explained that Petitioner did not provide a specific
explanation or identify specific evidence showing that a fluid encapsulant
innately forms a meniscus that is within about 50 microns of a top surface of
an LED package. Dec. 5. Petitioner argues that we overlooked evidence
showing that a fluid encapsulant can be made into a meniscus of any desired
shape and size. Req. Reh’g. 4–7. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive.
Even if true, Petitioner’s argument that a fluid encapsulant can be made into
a meniscus of any desired size only further demonstrates that the specific
measurement of the 50-micron limitation is not an innate or otherwise
inherent property of a fluid encapsulant.
In the Decision, we explained that Petitioner’s reliance on certain
figures in the alleged prior art as teaching the 50-micron limitation was not
persuasive because Petitioner did not provide a specific explanation or
identify specific evidence showing that the figures were drawn to scale.
Dec. 7–10. Petitioner argues that we misapprehended the significance of the
cited figures because, even if not drawn to scale, we must consider what the
figures disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art. Req. Reh’g 8–11.
According to Petitioner, the cited figures disclose to one of ordinary skill in
the art a “very slight,” “moderate,” or “modest” meniscus. Id. Petitioner’s
argument is not persuasive. Petitioner does not identify evidence showing
what the cited figures disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art, but, rather,
relies solely on its attorneys’ characterization of those figures. Id.; Pet. 15–
3
IPR2015-00748
Patent 8,766,298 B2

22. Further, as discussed above, even if the cited figures disclose a “very
slight,” “moderate,” or “modest” meniscus, Petitioner does not show
sufficiently that a “very slight,” “moderate,” or “modest” meniscus teaches
the 50-micron limitation of the challenged claims. Dec. 6.
In the Decision, we explained that Petitioner’s comparison of Figure 1
and Figure 3 in the ’298 patent was not persuasive because the ’298 patent
expressly distinguishes the meniscus in Figure 1 from the meniscus in
Figure 3. Dec. 7. Specifically, the ’298 patent states that Figure 1 shows a
conventional LED package with a meniscus that reduces uniformity,
whereas Figure 3 shows an LED package with a meniscus that is maintained
within about 50 microns of the top surface of the package so that it improves
uniformity. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 39–44, col. 4, ll. 25–34).
Petitioner argues that we misapprehended the ’298 patent because it actually
distinguishes Figures 1 and 3 based on the direction of curvature of the
meniscus, not the size of the meniscus. Req. Reh’g 11–13. Specifically,
Petitioner argues that the meniscus in Figure 1 is concave, and the meniscus
in Figure 3 is convex. Id. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because
the ’298 patent expressly states that the meniscus in Figure 3 can be
concave. Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 31–32. Further, regardless of whether the ’298
patent distinguishes Figures 1 and 3, Petitioner’s comparison of Figures 1
and 3 is not persuasive because Petitioner does not identify evidence
showing that Figures 1 and 3 are drawn to scale. Dec. 7.
III. CONCLUSION
The Request for Rehearing does not demonstrate that the Decision
misapprehended or overlooked any matters raised in the Petition.
4
IPR2015-00748
Patent 8,766,298 B2

IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Request for Rehearing is denied.
5
IPR2015-00748
Patent 8,766,298 B2

PETITIONER:

Thomas S. Reynolds II
Marlee A. Jansen
Jeremy Adelson
HANSEN REYNOLDS DICKINSON CRUEGER LLC
treynolds@hrdclaw.com
mjansen@hrdclaw.com

PATENT OWNER:

Rodger Carreyn
David Pekarek Krohn
Christopher G. Hanewicz
PERKINS COIE LLP
rcarreyn@perkinscoie.com
Kingbright-Cree-IPR@perkinscoie.com

6