Filed on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies, LLC
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (jkimble@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-01096
`U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2005: DECLARATION OF MR. KENNETH WERNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`
`
`IDT00071
`
`
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (jkimble@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-01096
`U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2005: DECLARATION OF MR. KENNETH WERNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`
`
`IDT00071
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
`Declaration of Mr. Kenneth Werner
`
`I, Kenneth Werner, do hereby declare and state, that all statements made
`
`herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information
`
`and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with
`
`the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by
`
`fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`Executed April 6, 2015, in Norwalk, Connecticut, United States of America.
`
` _________________________
`Mr. Kenneth Werner
`
`IDT00072
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 4
`A. Engagement................................................................................................................... 4
`B. Background and Qualifications ..................................................................................... 4
`C. Compensation ............................................................................................................... 7
`D. Information Considered and Basis of Opinions Formed .............................................. 7
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 8
`THE ’370 PATENT ......................................................................................................... 12
`A. Overview of the ‘370 Patent ....................................................................................... 12
`B. Claim Construction ..................................................................................................... 14
`1.
`“Deformities” ...................................................................................................... 15
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................................... 15
`ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 16
`A. Claims 15 and 27 Are Not Obvious over Pristash ...................................................... 16
`B. Claims 15 and 27 Are Not Obvious over Kobayashi in view of Pristash ................... 22
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 23
`
`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`IDT00073
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`1.
`The facts set forth below are known to me personally and I have
`
`firsthand knowledge of them. I am a U.S. citizen over eighteen years of age. I am
`
`fully competent to testify as to the matters addressed in this Declaration. I understand
`
`that this Declaration is being submitted along with Patent Owner’s response to the
`
`Decision entered January 13, 2015 on Institution of Inter Partes Review by the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for US Patent No. 7,537,370 (hereinafter, “the
`
`’370 Patent”) in IPR2014-01096.
`
`A. Engagement
`I have been retained as a technical expert by Patent Owner to study and
`
`2.
`
`provide my opinions on the technology claimed in, and the patentability or
`
`nonpatentability of claims 15 and 27 of the ’370 patent on the grounds that the Board
`
`has instituted.
`
`B. Background and Qualifications
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, work
`
`3.
`
`experience, and other relevant qualifications. A true and accurate copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A. Appendix A also includes a list of all
`
`other cases in which I testified as an expert at trial or by deposition.
`
`4.
`
`I have over twenty-seven years of experience in the electronic display
`
`industry. I am currently founder and Principal of Nutmeg Consultants. In my
`
`current role I regularly address technical and trade organizations in the Americas
`
`
`
`IDT00074
`
`
`
`and Asia, and am routinely consulted by financial advisors, analysts, attorneys,
`
`members of the international press corps, and by companies entering or repositioning
`
`themselves in the industry, or wishing consulting services on display technology, the
`
`display industry, or display sourcing. I speak frequently with senior executives of
`
`large, mid-sized, and small display-related companies in Asia, Europe, and the
`
`Americas, as well as government officials and academic researchers. At BRDisplay
`
`II (July 2004, Recife, Brazil), I served as a consultant to the working groups
`
`developing a national strategy for the growth of display-related industry in Brazil
`
`and wrote the introduction to their report.
`
`5.
`
`I also currently serve as Marketing Director for Tannas Electronic
`
`Displays (Orange, California) and Senior Analyst for MEKO, Ltd. As Marketing
`
`Director for Tannas Electronic Displays, I have done extensive research on markets
`
`for custom-sized and bar-type displays, particularly for signage applications. I am a
`
`founding co-editor of MEKO’s Display Daily, and a regular contributor to
`
`HDTVexpert.com.
`
`6.
`
`I began my career as a semiconductor device design engineer for RCA.
`
`I hold a B.A. in physics from Rutgers University and an M.S. in solid-state physics
`
`from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And I have taken graduate
`
`management courses at the University of Connecticut.
`
`
`
`IDT00075
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I have been an active participant in the display industry since 1987.
`
`From 1987-2005 I was the Editor of Information Display Magazine. I have given
`
`keynote presentations at LCD/PDP International 2001 (Yokohama, Japan),
`
`InfoDisplay VI (2003, Fortaleza, Brazil), and invited presentations at the Consumer
`
`Electronics Show 2002 (Las Vegas), the International Display Manufacturing
`
`Conference 2002 (Seoul), the Liquid Crystal Institute (2002, Kent, Ohio), IMID
`
`2005 (Seoul), the Signage and Graphics Summit (2007, Tucson), LatinDisplay 2007
`
`and 2008 (Campinas, Brazil), LatinDisplay 2009 (Sao Paulo), and Technologies for
`
`Custom Display Modules (SID-LA, 2010). I was a referee for the Display Invention
`
`Competition held in August 2003 in Korolev, Russia.
`
`8.
`
`Recently, I have delivered invited papers at CVCE 2010 (Asan, Korea);
`
`LatinDisplay 2010 (Sao Paulo, Brazil); and Organic Displays, Lighting, and
`
`Electronics (SID-LA, 2011). I delivered keynote addresses on OLED displays at
`
`the Nomura Pan-Asia Technology Forum (2011 and 2012, Hong Kong) and an
`
`invited presentation on 3D displays at Display Taiwan (June 2011, Taipei). I
`
`delivered a presentation on OLED displays at CVCE 2012 (Sept. 2012, Cheonan,
`
`Korea), one on Internet TV at LatinDisplay/IDRC (Nov. 2012, Sao Paulo), and one
`
`on Technologies for Advanced Television (SID-NE, May 2014, Framingham,
`
`Massachusetts).
`
`
`
`IDT00076
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I was program chair for the One Day Symposium on Emerging Display
`
`Technologies sponsored by the LA Chapter of SID (Feb. 2012), and for the SID-LA
`
`One Day Conference on Advanced Television Technologies (Feb. 2014). I am a
`
`member of the Society for Information Display (SID) and IEEE, and was Chairman
`
`of the Advisory Board for the award-winning IEEE Circuits & Devices magazine.
`
`C. Compensation
`I am being compensated for the time I spend on this case at my normal
`
`10.
`
`consulting rate of $350 an hour. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and
`
`customary expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation.
`
`My compensation is not contingent upon the outcome of this matter or the substance
`
`of my testimony.
`
`D. Information Considered and Basis of Opinions Formed
`My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`11.
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this declaration and those
`
`listed in Appendix B.
`
`12.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Petitioner. I may also consider additional documents and
`
`information in forming any necessary opinions – including documents that may not
`
`yet have been provided to me.
`
`
`
`IDT00077
`
`
`
`13.
`
`My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and
`
`on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`14.
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ’370 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that counsel
`
`has explained to me.
`
`15.
`
`First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what was
`
`known before the invention was made.
`
`16.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and generally
`
`includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal publications, articles
`
`on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`17.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Petitioner has the burden of proving
`
`that the claims of the ’370 patent are obvious in view of the prior art by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance of the evidence”
`
`is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`
`
`IDT00078
`
`
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims after
`
`being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in the
`
`prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the art that may be evaluated is
`
`limited to patents and printed publications. My analysis below compares the claims
`
`to patents and printed publications that are alleged prior art to the claims.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the claim.
`
`Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`21.
`
`I set forth my understanding of the anticipation standard as follows: I
`
`understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if a prior art reference discloses
`
`every element of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently and that those
`
`elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as the claim. I further
`
`understand that being arranged or combined in the same way does not require an
`
`identity of terminology.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that “prior art” includes patents and printed publications
`
`that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”) of the claim in
`
`the patent. I also understand that a patent will be prior art if it was filed before the
`
`
`
`IDT00079
`
`
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention, while a printed publication will be
`
`prior art if it was publicly available before that date.
`
`23.
`
`It is my further understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable
`
`if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the ultimate conclusion of whether a claim is (non)
`
`obvious should be based upon a determination of several factual considerations: (1)
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention that someone would have had
`
`at the time the claimed invention was made. I describe elsewhere in this Declaration
`
`the factors that I considered in connection with assessing the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. (2) The scope and content of the prior art. I understand that in order to be
`
`considered as prior art to a patent, the prior art references must be reasonably related
`
`to the claimed invention of that patent. I understand that a reference is reasonably
`
`related if it is in the same field as the claimed invention or is from another field to
`
`which a person of ordinary skill in the field would look to solve a known problem.
`
`(3) What difference, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the existence of each and every element of the claimed
`
`invention in the prior art does not necessarily prove obviousness and that most, if
`
`not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior art. In considering whether a
`
`
`
`IDT00080
`
`
`
`claimed invention is obvious, I understand that one may find obviousness if at the
`
`time of the claimed invention there was a reason that would have prompted a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the field to combine the known elements in a way the
`
`claimed invention does, taking into account such factors as (1) whether the claimed
`
`invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to
`
`their known function(s); (2) whether the claimed invention provides an obvious
`
`solution to a known problem in the relevant field; (3) whether the prior art teaches
`
`or suggests the desirability of combining elements claimed in the invention; (4)
`
`whether the prior art teaches away from combining elements in the claimed
`
`invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the combinations of
`
`elements, such as when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions; and (6) whether the
`
`change resulted more from design incentives or other market forces. I understand
`
`that to find it rendered the invention obvious, one must find that the prior art
`
`provided a reasonable expectation of success and that each claim must be considered
`
`separately.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that one should not use hindsight when considering
`
`obviousness. I also understand that in assessing obviousness, that one should take
`
`into account any objective evidence (sometimes called “secondary considerations”)
`
`that may have existed at the time of the invention and afterwards that may shed light
`
`
`
`IDT00081
`
`
`
`on the obviousness or not of the claimed invention, such as: (a) Whether the
`
`invention was commercially successful as a result of the merits of the claimed
`
`invention (rather than the result of design needs or market-pressure advertising or
`
`similar activities); (b) Whether the invention satisfied a long-felt need; (c) Whether
`
`others had tried and failed to make the invention; (d) Whether others invented the
`
`invention at roughly the same time; (e) Whether others copied the invention; (f)
`
`Whether
`
`there were changes or
`
`related
`
`technologies or market needs
`
`contemporaneous with the invention; (g) Whether the invention achieved
`
`unexpected results; (h) Whether others in the field praised the invention; (i) Whether
`
`persons having ordinary skill in the art of the invention expressed surprise or
`
`disbelief regarding the invention; (j) Whether others sought or obtained rights to the
`
`patent from the patent holder; and (k) Whether the inventor proceeded contrary to
`
`accepted wisdom in the field.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the only grounds instituted in this IPR are on
`
`obviousness grounds.
`
`III.
`THE ’370 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ‘370 Patent
`The ’370 patent relates generally, to “light emitting panel assemblies”
`
`28.
`
`including a transparent panel member for efficiently conducting light, and
`
`
`
`IDT00082
`
`
`
`controlling the light conducted by the panel member to be emitted from one or more
`
`light output areas along its length. (’370 patent, Ex. 1001, Col. 1, ll. 19-29.)
`
`29.
`
`Although light emitting panel assemblies were known, the ’370 patent
`
`relates to different light emitting panel assembly configurations that 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.
`
`(Id.)
`
`30.
`
`The Petition attempts to characterize the ’370 patent as merely
`
`describing “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.” (Corrected Petition (“Petition”), Paper 4 at 6.) The Petition alleges
`
`that the claimed light emitting panel assemblies would have been obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over Pristash (U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”), Ex. 1006) and
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kobayashi (U.S. Pat. No. 5,408,388
`
`(“Kobayashi”), Ex. 1008) in view of Pristash. (Petition, Paper 4 at 9.)
`
`31.
`
`However, the Petition fails to demonstrate (1) that the combination of
`
`these references would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of invention and (2) that the modifications and combinations suggested
`
`would result in the light emitting panel assemblies disclosed by the ’370 patent.
`
`
`
`IDT00083
`
`
`
`Moreover, the Petition improperly relies on impermissible hindsight in an effort to
`
`re-create the novel light emitting panel assemblies disclosed by the ’370 patent.
`
`32.
`
`Further, for each ground initiated, the Petition relies primarily on the
`
`Pristash reference that was both disclosed to the Examiner and that the Examiner
`
`expressly considered during the prosecution of the’370 patent. (List of References
`
`Cited by Applicant and Considered by Examiner 03-23-2009, ’370 File History, Ex.
`
`1002 at LGD_000095.) After having considered this reference, the Examiner chose
`
`to allow the claims of the ’370 patent.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`I understand that the scope of claims are not determined solely on the
`
`33.
`
`basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Additionally, I understand that the words of the claim must be given
`
`their plain meaning that is consistent with the specification. I understand that the
`
`plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the
`
`term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I understand
`
`that the ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of
`
`sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings,
`
`and prior art.
`
`
`
`IDT00084
`
`
`
`1. “Deformities”
`For the purposes of institution, the Board construed the term
`
`34.
`
`“deformities” to include “any change in the shape or geometry of a surface and/or
`
`coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of light to be emitted.” (Institution
`
`Decision, Paper 11 at 4, 12, 18.) The positions in this Declaration stand in light of
`
`that construction and in light of the Board’s constructions upon institution.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that the broadest reasonable construction is also
`
`35.
`
`determined based on how the challenged patent would be read by a person of
`
`“ordinary skill in the art.” It is my understanding that the factors such as the
`
`education level of those working in the field, the sophistication of the technology,
`
`the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems,
`
`and the speed at which innovations are made may help establish the level of skill in
`
`the art.
`
`36.
`
`In this declaration, I rely on the following definition of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art: “a person of ordinary skill in the art of the patents would
`
`hold an undergraduate degree in physics, material science, electrical engineering, or
`
`mathematics and have one or both of the following: (1) three or more years of work
`
`experience in a field related to optical technology; or (2) a graduate degree in a field
`
`related to optical technology.”
`
`
`
`IDT00085
`
`
`
`37.
`
`I consider myself to exceed such “ordinary skill in the art” with respect
`
`to the subject matter of the ʼ370 at the time of the invention.
`
`IV.
`ANALYSIS
`A. Claims 15 and 27 Are Not Obvious over Pristash
`The Petition fails to show that Pristash teaches and/or renders obvious
`
`38.
`
`each and every limitation of the Asserted Claims of the ’370 Patent. Specifically, the
`
`Petition does not show that Pristash discloses “the panel member has a transition
`
`region between the at least one input edge and the patterns of light extracting
`
`deformities to allow the light from the at least one light source to mix and spread,”
`
`and “at least one side of the transition region contains optical elements for reflecting
`
`or refracting light from the at least one light source.” These limitations are required
`
`by independent claim 27 of the ’370 Patent.
`
`39.
`
`The Petition alleges that Pristash teaches “a transition device … for
`
`converting light and is positioned between input edge 10 and deformities on panel
`
`2…” (Petition at p. 13). The claim chart identifies transition device 5 as allegedly
`
`meeting this limitation. (Id. at 21.) Both the argument in the Petition and in its chart
`
`miss a crucial point of this limitation: “the panel member has a transition region . . .
`
`to allow the light from the at least one light source to mix and spread.” That means
`
`that the transition region must be part of the panel member such that the light can
`
`mix and spread. Here, Petitioner fails to show or explain how the alleged Pristash
`
`
`
`IDT00086
`
`
`
`transition device would mix the light. Further, the analogized transition region does
`
`not have “optical elements for reflecting or refracting light from the at least one light
`
`source.” The Petition does not show that Pristash discloses optical elements for
`
`reflecting or refracting light in its “transition device.” Dr. Escuti focuses on
`
`language in Pristash that claims that its transition device “spreads the light evenly
`
`across such surfaces.” But he completely ignores the claim requirement that the
`
`transition region “mix and spread” as required in claim 27. (Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 109-
`
`111.) Additionally, the Petition does not show that Pristash discloses that its
`
`“transition region” “contains optical elements for reflecting or refracting light from
`
`the at least one light source.” Instead Dr. Escuti cites Pristash Fig. 19 reproduced
`
`below “with a lens 141 at the input surface 142 shaped to spread the light evenly
`
`across its output surface 143.” (Id. at ¶ 112.)
`
`But claim 27 recites “at least one side of the transition region contains optical
`
`elements for reflecting or refracting light from the at least one light source.” The
`
`Petition alleges that Pristash teaches “a transition device … which can have lens 141
`
`
`
`
`
`IDT00087
`
`
`
`at input surface 143 …” (Petition at p. 13, emphasis added). But this allegation is
`
`deficient as the Petition entirely disregards the plain claim language of having
`
`“optical elements” – in the plural.
`
`40.
`
`Further, the Petition does not show that Pristash discloses the “pattern
`
`of light extracting deformities on or in the at least one side has at least two different
`
`types of light extracting deformities and at least one of the types of deformities on
`
`or in the at least one side varies along at least one of the length and width of the
`
`panel member” that is required in both claims 15 and 27.
`
`41.
`
`Neither the Petition nor Dr. Escuti provide evidence that these
`
`limitations are met by Pristash other than citing the statement above: “both of the
`
`light emitting panels 40 and 49 shown in FIGS. 5 and 6 may have prismatic surfaces
`
`on both the top and bottom surfaces rather than on just one surface as shown.”
`
`(Pristash, 4:66-5:5.). From that lone statement, Dr. Escuti concludes that “[t]he
`
`disruptions of Pristash are a pattern of light extracting deformities that may be
`
`formed on both the front and back sides of the light emitting panels” and that “[t]hese
`
`deformities cause light to be emitted from the panel member in a predetermined
`
`output distribution.” (Escuti decl., Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 77-78.). Those are simply
`
`conclusory statements.
`
`42.
`
`As the Board recognized in its institution decision denying claims 1 and
`
`13, Pristash is “insufficient to establish a disclosure or suggestion” “of having
`
`
`
`IDT00088
`
`
`
`different deformities on both sides of the panel.” Likewise, Petitioner has not shown
`
`that Pristash is sufficient to establish different deformities on or in the at least one
`
`side of the panel. Petitioner argues that the “roughened surfaces” are the different
`
`“type” of deformity that varies.
`
`For independent Claim 15, the additional limitations, Pristash discloses
`one side having prismatic cuts and roughened surfaces with the
`roughened surfaces varying. Ex. 1006, Fig. 6; see also Escuti Decl.,
`¶¶115-123. For independent Claim 27, the additional limitations,
`deformities on one side are disclosed as discussed for claim 1, different
`types of deformities are discussed for claim 15, and the transition region
`limitations are disclosed as discussed for Claim 13. See Escuti Decl.,
`¶¶125-133. (Petition at 13.)
`
`
`
`43.
`
`Dr. Escuti states that “Pristash discloses ‘where the pattern of light
`
`extracting deformities on or in the at least one side has at least two different types of
`
`light extracting deformities and at least one of the types of deformities on or in the
`
`at least one side varies along at least one of the length and width of the panel
`
`member,’” (Escuti Decl., Ex. 1004 at ¶ 121.) But Pristash merely discloses that the
`
`
`
`IDT00089
`
`
`
`deformities may generally be of any desired shape. (Pristash, 4:49-54.) The Petition
`
`does not explain why that statement can be read to mean that different types of
`
`deformities could be used on or in the at least one side. Indeed claim 15 dictates that
`
`the different types of deformities need to be shown to be used on one side at the
`
`same time (“where the pattern of light extracting deformities on or in the at least one
`
`side has at least two different types of light extracting deformities”). Not merely that
`
`they can. Instead, the Petition and Dr. Escuti draw a conclusion based on
`
`assumptions and conjecture.
`
`44.
`
`Because the above analysis shows that Pristash fails to disclose each
`
`and every limitation of independent Claims 15 and 27, Pristash also fails to disclose
`
`each and every element of dependent Claims 16-26 and 28 of the ’370 Patent.
`
`45.
`
`The Petition does not show that Pristash discloses that “the panel
`
`member has a transition region between the at least one input edge and the patterns
`
`of light extracting deformities to allow the light from the at least one light source to
`
`mix and spread,” as recited by Claim 27. Because the light emitting panel 2 disclosed
`
`by Pristash does not have a transition region between the input edge of the panel
`
`member and the patterns of light extracting deformities, this limitation is not
`
`disclosed.
`
`46.
`
`Pristash discloses 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
`
`
`
`IDT00090
`
`
`
`4 shape as shown.” (Pristash, 2:65-3:4.) Thus, element 5 cannot be the claimed
`
`transition region because it is not “between the at least one input edge and the
`
`patterns of light extracting deformities.” Instead, the alleged transition region 5
`
`comes first, then followed by light emitting panel input edge 4, then followed by the
`
`alleged deformities (see Fig. 1 below).
`
`
`
`47.
`
`Dr. Escuti does not even analyze the transition regions of Pristash
`
`against this positional requirement of the claims. And, accordingly, Dr. Escuti’s
`
`conclusory arguments fail.
`
`
`
`
`
`IDT00091
`
`
`
`B. Claims 15 and 27 Are Not Obvious over Kobayashi in view of
`Pristash
`
`48.
`
`The Petition fails to show that Kobayashi teaches and/or renders
`
`obvious each and every limitation of the instituted claims of the ’370 Patent that are
`
`likewise absent in Pristash as shown above. Specifically, the Petition fails to show
`
`that Kobayashi discloses the following limitation, with Petitioner never arguing that
`
`it does: “where the pattern of light extracting deformities on or in the at least one
`
`side has at least two different types of light extracting deformities and at least one of
`
`the types of deformities on or in the at least one side varies along at least one of the
`
`length and width of the panel member” as required by claims 15 and 27. Instead,
`
`Petitioner relies on Pristash to show this limitation with identical arguments as
`
`above. (See Petition at 53-56.) For the reasons explained above, the Petition does
`
`not show that Pristash discloses, teaches, or suggests this limitation, and therefore
`
`does not show that the combination of Pristash and Kobayashi discloses this
`
`limitation.
`
`49.
`
`Additionally, like for Pristash, the Petition does not show that
`
`Kobayashi teaches or suggest “the panel member has a transition region between the
`
`at least one input edge and the patterns of light extracting deformities to allow the
`
`light from the at least one light source to mix and spread,” as recited by Claim 27.
`
`The Petition does not discuss Kobayashi as showing any portion of light transmitting
`
`plate 2 that is between the at least one input edge and the patterns of light extracting
`
`IDT00092
`
`
`
`deformities. Notably the Petition does not cite to any support from Kobayashi to
`
`establish disclosure of a transition region. (See Petition at 47 (“A transition region
`
`is not explicitly disclosed in Kobayashi.”).) Instead, Petitioner relies on Pristash.
`
`(Id.) As claimed, the transition region needs to be between the at least one input
`
`edge and the patterns of light extracting deformities. The Petition does not show that
`
`Kobayashi discloses a transition region meeting these requirements. And thus,
`
`neither Kobayashi alone nor the combination of Kobayashi with Pristash are
`
`described in the Petition as disclosing a transition region as recited by Claim 27.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`It is my opinion that the proposed Grounds of invalidity based on
`50.
`
`obviousness of the ’370 Patent by are not met by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`for any of the instituted claims of the ’370 patent.
`
`IDT00093
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Kenneth I. Werner
`2 Shady Brook Lane, Norwalk, CT 06854 ٠ 203/644-2156 ٠ kwerner@nutmegconsultants.com
`
`MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS
`
`Have established broad and deep connections in the display industry.
`
`Founded Nutmeg Consultants 1987
`
`As Editor of Information Display from 1987 to 2005, developed that magazine into the
`world’s leading monthly display publication. As Editor, often served as SID’s de facto
`international representative. Monthly editorials provided ongoing observation and analysis
`of the display industry. Recruited authors from among the world’s leading display
`technology and business professionals.
`
`Managed Insight Media’s Consulting Services as they became an increasingly important part
`of Insight Media’s business.
`
`Created and Managed Display Technology Showcase, a show within the SID Show that
`compared the performance of different display technologies using the same programming
`and environment. Popular event created substantial press and industry attention.
`
`Established and managed highly effective promotion and press relations program for the
`Society for Information Display International Symposium and Exhibition, during which time
`press and analyst coverag
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
