UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2014-01094
`
`Patent 7,404,660
`_______________
`
`PETITION FOR INTERPARTESREVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,404,660
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ................................................................................... 4
`
`STANDING................................................................................................... 5
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 10, 16,
`17, 25, 33, AND 34 OF THE ’660 PATENT................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technology Background...................................................................... 5
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’660 Patent ......................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION........................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Standards For Claim Construction ...................................................... 8
`
`Broadest Reasonable Construction............................................. 8
`1.
`“deformities” (Claims 1 And 33) ......................................................... 8
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’660 PATENT FORMING THE
`BASIS FOR THIS PETITION ...................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Admitted Prior Art.............................................................................. 9
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”) (Ex. 1006)............................... 9
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,359,691 (“Tai”) (Ex. 1007) .................................... 10
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”) (Ex. 1005) .............................. 10
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,351 (“Funamoto”) (Ex. 1008)......................... 10
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, And 34 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) As Being Anticipated By Pristash............... 11
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, And 25 Are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. §102(b) As Being Anticipated By Tai...................................... 21
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, And 34 Are Unpatentable
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) As Being Anticipated By Ciupke ................ 29
`Ground 4: Claim 25 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) As
`Being Obvious Over Tai In View Of Funamoto.............................. 38
`
`D.
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 44
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,440,660
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,440,660
`Complaints filed in Related District Court Cases
`Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,359,691 (“Tai”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,351 (“Funamoto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,160,195 (“Miller”)
`J. A. Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic Press
`Inc., San Diego, 1992, at pp. 9-13 and Ch. 8
`U.S. Patent No. 5,598,280 (“Nishio”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,384,658 (“Ohtake”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,303,322 (“Winston”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,050,946 (“Hathaway”)
`EP500960 (“Ohe”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,488 (“Ouderkirk”)
`3M product brochure 75-0500-0403-7, “Brightness Enhancement
`Film (BEF)”, 2 pages (1993)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,134 (“Konno”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,405 (“Takeuchi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,381,309 (“Borchardt”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,915,478 (“Lenko”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §311, Petitioner hereby respectfully requests inter partes
`
`review of Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 of Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,404,660 (“the ’660 Patent”) which issued on July 29, 2008. The challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 over the prior art publications
`
`identified and applied in this Petition.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8, Petitioner provides the following mandatory
`
`disclosures:
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest. LG Display America, Inc. is a real party-in-interest
`
`with Petitioner, LG Display Co., Ltd.
`
`B. Related Matters. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2), Petitioner submits that
`
`the ’660 Patent is the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by the Patent
`
`Owner, Innovative Display Technologies LLC (see Ex. 1003), against Petitioner in the
`
`United States District Court for the District of Delaware: Delaware Display Group LLC
`
`and Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd., and LG Display America, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-02109. The ’660
`
`Patent is also asserted in at least the actions listed in the chart below.
`
`Description
`
`Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“IDT”) v. Acer Inc.
`et al.
`IDT v. Apple Inc.
`
`Docket Number
`
`2:13-cv-522, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00030, EDTX
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Description
`
`IDT v. Apple Inc.
`IDT v. AT&T Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. BMW of North America, LLC, et. al.
`IDT v. Canon U.S.A. Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Research in Motion Limited et al.
`IDT v. Dell Inc.
`IDT v. Garmin International, Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Google Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Hewlett-Packard Corporation
`IDT v. Huawei Investment et al.
`IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group, et. al.
`IDT v. Mazda Motor Corporation, et. al.
`IDT v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Microsoft Corporation
`IDT v. Mitac Digital Corporation, et. al.
`IDT v. Nikon Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Nissan Motor, Co., Ltd., et. al.
`IDT v. Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc.
`IDT v. Sprint Corporation, et. al.
`IDT v. T-Mobile US, Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Tomtom North America Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et. al.
`IDT v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et. al.
`
`2
`
`Docket Number
`
`2:14-cv-00301, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00720, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00532, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00106, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00142, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00526, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00523, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00143, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00302, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00524, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00525, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00201, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00624, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00535, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00783, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00144, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00145, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00202, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00784, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00721, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00723, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00146, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00200, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00722, EDTX
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Description
`
`IDT v. Volkswagen AG, et. al.
`IDT v. ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Delaware Display Group LLC (“DDG”) and IDT v.
`Amazon.com, Inc.
`DDG and IDT v. HTC Corporation et al.
`DDG and IDT v. Lenovo Group Ltd., et al.
`DDG and IDT v. LG Electronics Inc., et al.
`DDG and IDT v. Pantech Co.,Ltd, et al.
`DDG and IDT v. Sony Corporation et al.
`DDG and IDT v. Vizio, Inc.
`
`Docket Number
`
`2:14-cv-00300, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00527, EDTX
`1:13-cv-2106, D.Del.
`
`1:13-cv-02107, D.Del.
`1:13-cv-02108, D.Del.
`1:13-cv-02109, D.Del.
`1:13-cv-02110, D.Del.
`1:13-cv-02111, D.Del.
`1:13-cv-02112, D.Del.
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing petitions to review U.S. Patent Nos. 7,300,194,
`
`7,434,974, 7,537,370, 8,215,816 which are in the same family as the ’660 Patent. The
`
`’660 Patent is a divisional of U.S. Patent No. 7,160,015.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel.
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Robert G. Pluta
`Registration No. 50,970
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-701-8641
`Facsimile:
`312-701-7711
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Amanda K. Streff
`Registration No. 65,224
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-701-8645
`Facsimile:
`312-701-7711
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Baldine B. Paul
`Registration No. 54,369
`Anita Y. Lam
`Registration No. 67,394
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: 202.263.3000
`Facsimile:
`202.263.3300
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`alam@mayerbrown.com
`
`D. Service Information. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4), Petitioner identifies
`
`the following service information: Please direct all correspondence regarding this
`
`proceeding to lead counsel at the address identified above. Petitioner consents to
`
`electronic service by email:
`
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com, bpaul@mayerbrown.com,
`
`astreff@mayerbrown.com, and alam@mayerbrown.com, with a courtesy copy to
`
`DDGIPR@mayerbrown.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.103, $23,000 is being paid at the time of filing this
`
`petition, charged to Deposit Account 130019. Should any further fees be required by
`
`the present Petition, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) is hereby
`
`authorized to charge the above referenced Deposit Account.
`
`III.
`
`STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the patent sought for
`
`review, the ’660 Patent, is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of the patent.
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTERPARTESREVIEW OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 10, 16,
`17, 25, 33, AND 34 OF THE ’660 PATENT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b), Petitioner requests that the Board find
`
`unpatentable Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 of the ’660 Patent. Such relief is
`
`justified as the alleged invention of the ’660 Patent was described by others prior to
`
`the effective filing date of the ’660 Patent.
`
`Technology Background
`A.
`Generally, light emitting panel assemblies are used in conjunction with liquid
`
`crystal displays (“LCDs”) and various applications thereof, as a backlight module to
`
`provide light to the display. Ex. 1004, Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D.
`
`(“Escuti Decl.”), ¶38. The light emitting panel assembly is composed of all the
`
`elements of the LCD other than the liquid crystals themselves. Id. For example, the
`
`light emitting panel assembly is all but element 12 (in yellow) in the annotated figure
`
`below from Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 to Ciupke et. al.
`
`In order to produce surface illumination with the target brightness and
`
`uniformity at the lowest possible electrical power, the light emitting panel assembly
`
`can include features to spatially homogenize and control the angular distribution of
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`emitted light. Escuti Decl., ¶39. Examples of these features include light pipes, a
`
`transition area, reflectors, and various types of microstructured deformities (e.g.,
`
`microprisms, diffusers, and microlenses). Escuti Decl., ¶42. The light pipe, also
`
`sometimes called a light guide or wave guide, accepts light injected from the side and
`
`distributes it across the emission area. The ’660 Patent calls the light pipe a
`
`“transparent panel member” (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:20-21), “light emitting panel member”
`
`(e.g., id. 1:34-35), and “transparent light emitting panel” (e.g., id. 2:67). Escuti Decl.,
`
`¶43. The transition area, which is usually between the light source and the light pipe, is
`
`used to securely position the light source relative to the light pipe, and to spread and
`
`transmit light to produce a more uniform input illumination. Escuti Decl., ¶44. As
`
`the ’660 Patent notes, such transition areas are “well known in the art.” Ex. 1001,
`
`2:64-66. Deformities, such as microprisms, diffusers, and microlenses, are employed
`
`to control the direction and spatial uniformity of light within light emitting panel
`
`assemblies. Escuti Decl., ¶45.
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’660 Patent
`B.
`The ’660 Patent relates “to light emitting panel assemblies each including a
`
`transparent panel member for efficiently conducting light, and controlling the light
`
`conducted by the panel member to be emitted from one or more light output areas
`
`along the length thereof.” Ex. 1001, 1:19-23. As the ’660 Patent acknowledges,
`
`“[l]ight emitting panel assemblies are generally known.” Id. 1:24. The purported
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`advantage of the alleged invention described in the ’660 Patent relates to several
`
`different light emitting panel assembly configurations which allegedly provide for
`
`better control of light output from the panel assembly and for more “efficient”
`
`utilization of light, thereby resulting in greater light output from the panel assembly.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:25-30. Yet, as shown further below, prior art such as U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,005,108 to Pristash already disclosed such advantages. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 1:10-16.
`
`The ’660 Patent discloses light emitting assemblies including at least one input
`
`edge with a greater cross-sectional width than thickness and at least one light source
`
`having a light output distribution with a greater width than height located near the
`
`input edge for directing light into the optical conduction and for emitting light from at
`
`least one output region of the optical conductor. Ex. 1001, Abstract. A transition
`
`region is located between the light source and the output region for spreading and
`
`transmitting the light by the light source to the output region. Id. The ’660 Patent also
`
`discloses faceted surfaces close to the light source for maximizing or changing the
`
`light emitted from the light source. Id.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Standards For Claim Construction
`1.
`Broadest Reasonable Construction
`to inter partes review is given its “broadest reasonable
`A claim subject
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.100(b). This means that the words of the claim are given their plain meaning
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`from the perspective of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art unless that meaning is
`
`inconsistent with the specification.
`
`In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`Petitioner submits, for the purposes of inter partes review only, that the claim terms are
`
`presumed to take on their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
`
`the
`
`specification of the ’660 Patent.
`
`“deformities” (Claims 1 And 33)
`B.
`The ’660 Patent expressly defines the term “deformities” as follows: “As used
`
`herein, the term deformities or disruptions are used interchangeably to mean any
`
`change in the shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or surface
`
`treatment that causes a portion of the light to be emitted.” Ex. 1001, 4:36-40. Thus,
`
`based on the express definition of deformities in the specification, “deformities”
`
`(Claims 1 and 33) should be construed to mean “any change in the shape or geometry
`
`of a surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of the light to
`
`be emitted.”
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’660 PATENT FORMING THE
`BASIS FOR THIS PETITION
`A.
`Admitted Prior Art
`The ’660 Patent discusses the following functionality and structure of prior art
`
`light emitting assemblies: (1) a “transparent light emitting panel 2,” (2) “one or more
`
`light sources 3 which emit light in a predetermined pattern,” and (3) “a light transition
`
`member or area 4 used to make the transition from the light source 3 to the light
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`emitting panel.” Ex. 1001, 2:59-66 (describing these elements and their functionalities
`
`as being “well known in the art”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”) (Ex. 1006)
`B.
`Pristash discloses a thin panel illuminator for more efficient light transmission
`
`from the light source to the light emitting panel. Ex. 1006, Abstract. Pristash qualifies
`
`as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because Pristash issued as a patent on April 2,
`
`1991, more than one year before the June 27, 1995 priority date to which the ’660
`
`Patent may be entitled. Pristash was relied upon as a basis to reject claims under 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(b). As demonstrated below in Section VII.A, however, Pristash is
`
`presented in a new light and based on different arguments than those previously
`
`before the Examiner. Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing with respect to at least one claim based on Pristash.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,359,691 (“Tai”) (Ex. 1007)
`
`Tai discloses an assembly for backlighting an LCD using an assembly of
`
`microprisms for efficiently backlighting the display. Ex. 1007, Abstract, 1:40-48.. Tai
`
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) because Tai
`
`issued as a patent on
`
`October 25, 1994, before the June 27, 1995 priority date to which the ’660 Patent may
`
`be entitled. Tai was not cited or considered during the prosecution of the application
`
`that led to the ’660 Patent.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”) (Ex. 1005)
`D.
`Ciupke discloses a flat panel display lighting system employing microgrooves
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`for extracting light introduced into the light guide for providing substantially uniform
`
`emission of light. Ex. 1005, 1:62-2:15. Ciupke qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(e) because Ciupke was filed on July 20, 1993, before the June 27, 1995 priority
`
`date to which the ’660 Patent may be entitled. Ciupke was not cited or considered
`
`during prosecution of the application that led to the ’660 Patent.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,351 (“Funamoto”) (Ex. 1008)
`E.
`Funamoto discloses a surface-type illumination device suitable for providing a
`
`backlight in an LCD. Ex. 1008, Abstract. Funamoto qualifies as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(e) because Funamoto entered national stage under 35 U.S.C. §371 on
`
`May 10, 1994 before the June 27, 1995 priority date to which the ’194 Patent may be
`
`entitled. Funamoto was not cited or considered during prosecution of the application
`
`that led to the ’660 Patent.
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM
`
`In light of the disclosures detailed below, the ’660 Patent is unpatentable for at
`
`least the reasons summarized in the chart below and discussed in more detail herein.
`
`Ground #
`1
`
`Ground
`102(b)
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`102(a)
`102(e)
`
`103(a)
`
`Prior art
`Pristash
`
`Tai
`Ciupke
`
`Exhibit(s) #
`1006
`
`1007
`1005
`
`Tai and Funamoto
`
`1007 and 1008
`
`Claims
`1, 3, 10, 16, 17,
`25, 33, 34
`1, 3, 10, 16, 25
`1, 3, 10, 16, 17,
`25, 33, 34
`25
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, And 34 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) As Being Anticipated By Pristash
`The alleged invention set forth in the ’660 Patent “Background of the
`
`Invention” is substantially similar to that in Pristash:
`
`Pristash Background of the Invention
`Light panel
`illuminators are generally
`known. However, the present invention
`relates
`to
`several
`different
`panel
`illuminator configurations which are less
`expensive to make and/or provide for
`better control over the light output from
`the panel. Also,
`the present
`invention
`provides more efficient transmission of
`light from a light source to the light
`emitting panel.
`
`’660 Background of the Invention
`Light
`emitting panel
`assemblies
`are
`generally known. However, the present
`invention relates to several different light
`emitting panel assembly configurations
`which provide for better control of the
`light output from the panel assemblies
`and for more efficient utilization of light,
`which results in greater light output from
`the panel assemblies.
`
`The similarities between the Pristash and ’660 Patent do not end in their
`
`recognition of the prior art and the objectives of the purported inventions. The two
`
`patents have a common inventor: Jeffrey Parker who is a co-inventor of Pristash and
`
`the sole inventor for the ’660 Patent. Further, Fig. 10 of Pristash and Fig. 6 of the
`
`’660 Patent appear strikingly similar in shape and in common elements such as the
`
`“light output” regions/areas (green), “light sources” (orange), and “reflective”
`
`coatings/surfaces (purple).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`
`Petition for Inter Partes ReviewReview
`Pristash
`
`
`
`’660 Patent’660 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`Even the claim language of the two patents are identical in several places, asEven the claim language of the two patents are identical in several places, asEven the claim language of the two patents are identical in several places, as
`
`
`
`depicted in the short claim comparison chart below.depicted in the short claim comparison chart below.
`
`
`Pristash (Ex.1006)(Ex.1006)
`
`1. A panel illuminator comprising a solid1. A panel illuminator comprising a solid
`
`transparent panel memberpanel member having a
`
`greatergreater
`
`crosscross
`
`sectional width thansectional width than
`thickness. . .
`
`
`21. The illuminator of claim 16, wherein21. The illuminator of claim 16, wherein
`
`said output surface of saidsaid output surface of said transition
`
`means is integral with said input edge ofmeans is integral with said input edge of
`said panel member.
`
`
`’660 Claim Element’660 Claim Element
`
`
`
`1. A light1. A light
`emitting panelemitting panel
`assemblyassembly
`
`comprising a generally planarcomprising a generally planar optical
`
`conductor having at least one input edgehaving at least one input edge
`
`with a greater cross-sectional width thansectional width than
`thickness . . .
`
`3. The assembly of claim 1claim 1 wherein the
`
`transition region is integral with thetransition region is integral with the
`optical conductor.
`
`
`
`
`
`Pristash describes each and every element of Claimsdescribes each and every element of Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and
`
`
`
`
`
`34 of the ’660 Patent and therefore, in’660 Patent and therefore, invalidates those claims under 35 U.S.C. §102.35 U.S.C. §102.
`
`
`
`
`
`Elements of independent Claims 1 and 33 of theindependent Claims 1 and 33 of the ’660 Patent are shown in the’660 Patent are shown in the
`
`
`
`
`
`annotated figure below, composed of Figures 1 and 7 of Pristash that are labeled asow, composed of Figures 1 and 7 of Pristash that are labeled asow, composed of Figures 1 and 7 of Pristash that are labeled as
`
`claim elements:
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes ReviewReview
`
`
`
`
`
`With respect to independent Claim 1, PristashWith respect to independent Claim 1, Pristash teaches a light emitting panelteaches a light emitting panel
`
`
`
`
`
`assembly including a solid transparent panel member 51, with a prismatic surface 52,a solid transparent panel member 51, with a prismatic surface 52,a solid transparent panel member 51, with a prismatic surface 52,
`
`
`
`
`
`having a greater cross sectional width than thickness and top and bottom surfaces andeater cross sectional width than thickness and top and bottom surfaces andeater cross sectional width than thickness and top and bottom surfaces and
`
`
`
`
`
`an input edge, a plurality of light sources adjacent to the input edge, and a transitiona plurality of light sources adjacent to the input edge, and a transitiona plurality of light sources adjacent to the input edge, and a transition
`
`
`
`
`
`device 5 used to make the transition from light source 3 to input edge 4.device 5 used to make the transition from light source 3 to input edge 4.device 5 used to make the transition from light source 3 to input edge 4. Ex. 1006,
`
`
`
`2:64-3:4, 3:29-35, 5:6-11, 5:1111, 5:11-16, Claims 1, 72; see Escuti Decl., ¶¶ 68Escuti Decl., ¶¶ 68-79. For
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`independent Claim 33, Pristash additionally teaches a plurality of LED light sources.Claim 33, Pristash additionally teaches a plurality of LED light sources.Claim 33, Pristash additionally teaches a plurality of LED light sources.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006, 3:9-21; see Escuti Decl., ¶Escuti Decl., ¶¶101-107.
`
`
`
`
`
`As for dependent ClaimsAs for dependent Claims 3, 10, 16, 17, and 34, Pristash teaches each and every3, 10, 16, 17, and 34, Pristash teaches each and every
`
`
`
`
`
`limitation of independent Claims 1 and 33. Further, Pristash teaches thelimitation of independent Claims 1 and 33. Further, Pristash teaches thelimitation of independent Claims 1 and 33. Further, Pristash teaches the transition
`
`
`
`
`
`means being integral with said input edge of said panel member, the output surfacemeans being integral with said input edge of said panel member, the output surfacemeans being integral with said input edge of said panel member, the output surface at
`
`
`
`
`
`another end having a shape substantially corresponding in shape to said input edge ofanother end having a shape substantially corresponding in shape to said input edge ofanother end having a shape substantially corresponding in shape to said input edge of
`
`
`
`said panel member and connected thereto, LED light sources,said panel member and connected thereto, LED light sources, and thatand that each light
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`source has a light output distribution with a greater width component than heightsource has a light output distribution with a greater width component than heightsource has a light output distribution with a greater width component than height
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`component Ex. 1006, 3:9-22, 7:64-8:1, Claims 1, 21, Fig. 18; see Escuti Decl., ¶¶80-95;
`
`109-11. Regarding Claim 25, the tray or housing is inherently disclosed based on the
`
`usage of the panel illuminator for applications including backlighting of LCDs, task
`
`lighting, safety lighting, automotive applications, display lighting, and infrared heating.
`
`See Escuti Decl., ¶¶97-99.
`
`In light of the above, the table below demonstrates how each limitation of
`
`Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 of the ’660 Patent is disclosed by Pristash. For
`
`all these reasons, Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 are unpatentable in view of
`
`Pristash and thus, Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to
`
`at least one claim.
`
`’660 Claim Element
`1. A light emitting panel
`assembly comprising:
`
`Pristash (Ex.1006)
`“Referring now in detail to the drawings, and initially to
`FIG. 1, there is schematically shown one form of thin
`panel
`illuminator
`in accordance with this invention
`including a solid transparent light emitting panel 2 and a
`light source 3 which generates and focuses light,
`in a
`predetermined pattern, either directly on a panel
`input
`edge 4 or on a transition device 5 which is used to make
`the transition from the light source 3 target shape to the
`light emitting panel input edge 4 shape as shown. The
`light that is transmitted from the light source 3 to the
`light emitting panel 2 may be emitted along the length of
`the panel as desired to produce a desired light output
`distribution to fit a particular application.” Ex. 1006,
`2:64-3:8.
`light
`“FIG. 7 schematically shows another form of
`emitting panel 50 in accordance with this invention which
`also comprises a solid transparent prismatic film 51
`having a prismatic surface 52 on one side and a back
`reflector 53 on the other side, similar to the light emitting
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`’660 Claim Element
`
`Pristash (Ex.1006)
`panel 2 shown in FIG. 1.” Id. 5:6-11; see also Figs. 1, 7
`below.
`
`[1.a] a generally planar
`optical conductor having
`at
`least one input edge
`with
`a
`greater
`cross-
`sectional
`width
`than
`thickness; and
`
`[1.b] a plurality of light
`sources
`configured
`to
`generate light having an
`output
`distribution
`defined by a greater width
`component
`than height
`component,
`the
`light
`sources
`positioned
`adjacent
`to the
`input
`edge,
`thereby directing
`light
`into
`the
`optical
`conductor;
`
`See Escuti Decl., ¶68.
`“Light emitting panel 2 comprises a solid transparent or
`translucent wave guide 15 made of glass, plastic or other
`suitable
`transparent or
`translucent material, with
`disruptions 16 on at least one side 17 formed as by
`cutting, molding, coating, forming or otherwise causing
`mechanical, chemical or other deformations
`in the
`exterior surface 18 thereof.” Ex. 1006, 3:29-35; see also
`Fig. 1.
`“A panel illuminator comprising a solid transparent panel
`member having a greater cross sectional width than
`thickness and top and bottom surfaces and an input edge.
`. . .” Id. Claims 1, 72.
`See Escuti Decl., ¶¶69-70.
`“Moreover, more than one transition device may be used
`to transmit light from more than one light source to a
`single panel . . .” Id. 2:8-12.
`the panel 50
`“Light rays may be caused to enter
`perpendicular to the wave guide prism edges 54 from one
`or both end edges 55, 56 of the panel.” Id. 5:11-16; see
`also Fig. 7 below.
`“Although the respective input and output surfaces of
`the various transition devices are shown as square, round
`or rectangular, they may be elliptical or any other shape
`necessary to fit a particular application.” Id. 7:60-63.
`“a light source 3 which generates and focuses light, in a
`predetermined pattern, either directly on a panel
`input
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`’660 Claim Element
`
`Pristash (Ex.1006)
`edge 4 or on a transition device 5 which is used to make
`the transition from the light source 3 target shape to the
`light emitting panel input edge 4 shape as shown.” Id.,
`2:64-3:4.
`Ex.1006, Figs. 1, 7.
`
`[1.c] the optical conductor
`having at least one output
`region
`and
`a
`predetermined pattern of
`deformities configured to
`cause light to be emitted
`from the output region,
`
`the
`
`optical
`[1.d]
`having
`a
`conductor
`transition region disposed
`between the light source
`and the output region.
`
`See Escuti Decl., ¶¶71-73.
`light
`“FIG. 7 schematically shows another form of
`emitting panel 50 in accordance with this invention which
`also comprises a solid transparent prismatic film 51
`having a prismatic surface 52 on one side and a back
`reflector 53 on the other side, similar to the light emitting
`panel 2 shown in FIG. 1.” Ex. 1006, 5:6-11.
`“Light emitting panel 2 comprises a solid transparent or
`translucent wave guide 15 made of glass, plastic or other
`suitable
`transparent or
`translucent material, with
`disruptions 16 on at least one side 17 formed as by
`cutting, molding, coating, forming or otherwise causing
`mechanical, chemical or other deformations
`in the
`exterior surface 18 thereof.” Id. 3:29-35.
`See Escuti Decl., ¶¶74-76.
`“In accordance with another aspect of the invention, a
`transition device is provided for converting easily focused
`light received from a light source to the shape of the
`panel input surface.” Ex. 1006, 1:59-62.
`“Referring now in detail to the drawings, and initially to
`FIG. 1, there is schematically shown one form of thin
`panel
`illuminator
`in accordance with this invention
`including a solid transparent light emitting panel 2 and a
`light source 3 which generates and focuses light,
`in a
`predetermined pattern, either directly on a panel
`input
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,404,660
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`’660 Claim Element
`
`3. The assembly of claim
`1 wherein the transition
`region is integral with the
`optical co