N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant

v.
SATCO PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee

______________________
2022

- 1106, 2022

- 1107, 2022

- 1108, 2022

- 1109

______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . IPR2020

- 00579, IPR2020

- 00695, IPR2020

- 00780, IPR2020

- 00813.

______________________ Decided: May 16, 2023

______________________
J ENNIFER H AYES , Nixon Peabody LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by S HAWN G. H ANSEN , S ETH D. L EVY ; A NGELO C HRISTOPHER , Chicago, IL.

N ICHOLAS A. B ROWN , Greenberg Traurig
, LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by S COTT J OSEPH B ORNSTEIN , B RIAN J OSEPH P REW , New York, NY; H EATH B RIGGS , S TEPHEN U LLMER , Denver, CO; R OBERT P. L YNN , J R

. , Lynn Gartner Dunne & Fri genti, LLP, Mineola, NY. Case: 22-1106 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 05/16/2023THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. SATCO PRODUCTS , INC

. 2

______________________

Before M OORE , Chief Judge
, T ARANTO and C HEN , Circuit Judges

. C HEN , Circuit Judge

. Regents of the University of California (Regents) timely appeals four decisions by the Patent and Tr ial Appeal Board (Board ) determining that certain claims of U.S. Patent No s . 7,781,789 ; 9,240,529 ; 9,859,464 ; and 10,217,916 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 over Japanese Patent Application No. 2005/035864 (Miyahara) , alone and in combination with other references. 1 W e have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) . Because we adopt the Board’s construction of “lead frame
, ” we affirm. The only issue before us on the Miyahara

- based rejections is the construction of “lead frame. ” We agree with the Board that “lead frame” means “a support structure for providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the lead frame structure, as a whole, provides support to the semiconductor die.” The parties agree, as they did in front of the Board, “that the transparent plate may be considered a part of the lead frame,” but disagree “whether the leads themselves must provide support to the LED chip.” J.A. 54; Appellant’s Br. 3 7– 39; Appellee’s Br. 1 4–19 ; Oral Arg

. a t 1:01

– 1:12

. Specifical ly, Regents argues that a “lead frame” requires at least one of the leads to provide

1 Although Regents raises other prior art references and multiple dependent claims on appeal , Appellant ’ s Br. 26

– 27 , the parties agree that resolution of the claim construction issue with respect to the Miyahara

- based rejections disposes of the entire appeal

. Oral Arg. at 9:53

– 10:28; 14:26

– 14:39 ; 16:21

– 16:31

. See also Appellant’s Br. 51, 55

– 56, and 65. Case: 22-1106 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 05/16/2023THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. SATCO PRODUCTS , INC

. 3

structural support to the LED chip and the support cannot come from the transparent plate alone . Appellant’s Br. 41

– 42. We disagree and conclude that the term “lead fra me” permits any part of the “lead frame,” including a transparent plate, to provide support to the LED chip. Nothing in the claim s or specification of any of the four patent s , nor in the extrinsic evidence, requires the leads of the lead frame, as that term is used in the context of the patents, to support the LED chip

. At best, the specification discloses that the LED chip is attached or wire bonded to the lead s , not that the leads provide support

. Regents a lso p oint s to th e specification’s discussion of prior art lead frames to support its argument that the lead must support the LED chip

. Appellant’s Br. 42

– 43 ; Oral Arg. at 9:2 1– 9:44

. However, unlike the prior art discussed in the specification, th e se patents cover a different type of lead frame that includes a transparent plate

. Accordingly , we adopt the Board’s construction of “lead frame.” 2 We have considered Regents’s remaining arguments

a nd find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm

. AFFIRMED

2 Regents does not dispute the Board’s factual findings on the Miyahara

- based rejections under this construction . Oral Arg. at 9:53

– 10:38 ; see also Appellant ’ s Br. 51, 55

– 56 , 65. Case: 22-1106 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 05/16/2023