Opinion ID: 807210
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: JP-456, Alone or in Combination

Text: Carsem conceded below that, under the Commission’s claim construction, JP-456 does not anticipate the asserted claims because it discloses a fused lead interrupting the lip of the die pad, and thus “lacks a lip fully around the die pad.” Second ID at 53. Because we have now affirmed the Commission’s claim construction, this court affirms the Commission’s determination on anticipation. Carsem also argues that claims 2-4 and 21-23 of the ’277 Patent are obvious in view of JP-456 alone, or JP-456 in view of JP-964, JP-284, or both. Amkor argues that Carsem waived the right to argue obviousness based on JP-456 alone and the combination of JP-456 with both JP284 and JP-964 because it never made these arguments before the Commission. Amkor’s waiver argument is not supported by the record, which reveals that the obviousness issues were raised, albeit briefly. See Second ID at 77-79 (explaining that Carsem’s obviousness argument in view of JP-456 alone was already addressed in the anticipation analysis, and considering Carsem’s obviousness arguments “in light of JP[-]456 as modified by the JP[- ]964 . . . [and] JP[-]284 . . . references”). We, therefore, decline to find waiver and turn next to the merits. According to Carsem, JP-456 discloses a lip on all four sides of the die pad, only interrupted by a fused lead. Carsem asserts that the ALJ’s conclusion that JP-456 discloses a lip on only two sides of the die pad is unsupported by substantial evidence and should be reversed. 20 AMKOR TECH v. ITC Even if JP-456 discloses a lip on only two sides, Carsem argues that extending the lip “fully around” the die pad was an “obvious solution” to the known problem of “delamination between the plastic encapsulant material and the metal leadframe components.” Intervenor’s Br. 60. With respect to JP-456 in combination with either JP-964 or JP-284, Carsem argues that these references (1) teach die pads with lips extending “fully around” the die pad and (2) do not include fused leads, and thus “clearly demonstrate[] that, in a top-encapsulated bottom-exposed type package, a fused lead such as the one shown in the exemplary figures of JP-456 is optional.” Intervenor’s Br. 65. Amkor counters that even if JP-964 and JP-284 dis- closed a lip running fully around the die pad—which it does not concede—it would be of no consequence because “one of ordinary skill had no reason to discard the fused lead [of JP-456] because of the ‘special purpose’ it served in ‘smart cards.’” Appellant Reply Br. 29, 31; Second ID at 80 (“Dr. McKluskey testified that smart cards often use fused leads to ensure that the cards remain grounded. Therefore, the evidence suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’277 invention would not wish to discard the fused lead.”). We are not persuaded by Carsem’s argument, which fails to point to any evidence of a motivation or reason to remove the fused lead from the JP-456 reference. Amkor’s expert testimony establishes a purpose for fused leads in the art: [T]he fused leads are often used in order to ground to the substrate for devices where the contacts are made to the top, in order to make sure the sub- strate stays grounded, and this is true in many cases for smart cards, they want to ground the backside as well, so they . . . often use a fused lead there. They also use them . . . in power devices AMKOR TECH v. ITC 21 when they want to make contact to the backside of the device, so those are reasons why you would use fused leads. Trial Tr. 4615:4-15 (McCluskey testimony). Because the fused lead attached to the die pad in JP-456 prevents the lip from extending “fully around the circumference of a die pad” or “fully around the die pad” as required by the claims, Carsem was required to present evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated or found reason to remove the fused lead from the JP-456 reference, or that common sense would have led one of skill in the art to remove the fused lead based on a known problem, design need, or market pressure. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 41820 (2007). Carsem points the court only to the references themselves to support its contention that a fused lead is optional. Carsem argues that both parties’ experts admitted that JP-456 does not require a fused lead. We disagree. Amkor’s expert merely admitted that the only time a fused lead is not present in the JP-456 reference is when there is no die pad at all. Trial Tr. 4618:8-17 (McCluskey testimony). Thus, the ALJ properly found that JP-456, on its face, does not indicate that the fused lead on the die pad is optional. The court is not persuaded that either JP-284 or JP-964 provides a motivation or reason to remove the fused lead from JP-456. In brief, this court finds no basis to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon considering these references, would, in fact, find any reason to remove the fused lead from the die pad in the JP-456 reference. Accordingly, this court declines to affirm the Commission’s invalidity determination on these alternative grounds. 22 AMKOR TECH v. ITC