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 IPR2014-01097
`U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2006: DECLARATION OF MR. KENNETH WERNER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`IDT00268
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`IDT00269
`
`

`
`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 ’194 PATENT ......................................................................................................... 12 
`A. Overview of the ‘194 Patent ....................................................................................... 12 
`B. Claim Construction ..................................................................................................... 14 
`1. 
`“Deformities” ...................................................................................................... 15 
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................................... 15 
`ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 16 
`A. Obviousness of Claims 1, 4–6, and 28 over Pristash .................................................. 16 
`B. Anticipation of Claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 by Funamoto and Obviousness of
`Claims 4-6 in view of Funamoto ................................................................................ 18 
`C. Anticipation of claim 28 by Kobayashi ...................................................................... 27 
`D. Anticipation of claims 1, 4–6, and 28 by Nishio ........................................................ 28 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 32 
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`IDT00270
`
`

`
`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 U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 (hereinafter,
`
`“the ’194 Patent”) in IPR2014-01097.
`
`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 the instituted claims of the ’194 patent on the specific grounds
`
`for which they were 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
`
`
`
`IDT00271
`
`

`
`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.
`
`
`
`IDT00272
`
`

`
`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).
`
`
`
`IDT00273
`
`

`
`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.
`
`
`
`IDT00274
`
`

`
`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 ’194 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 ’194 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.
`
`
`
`IDT00275
`
`

`
`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 claimed invention. 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 may be prior art if it was filed before the
`
`
`
`IDT00276
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`IDT00277
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`IDT00278
`
`

`
`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 grounds instituted in this IPR are on both
`
`anticipation and obviousness grounds.
`
`III.
`THE ’194 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ‘194 Patent
`The ’194 patent relates generally, to “light emitting panel assemblies”
`
`28.
`
`including a transparent panel member for efficiently conducting light, and
`
`
`
`IDT00279
`
`

`
`controlling the light conducted by the panel member to be emitted from one or more
`
`light output areas along its length. (’194 patent, Ex. 1001, 1:19-29.)
`
`29.
`
`Although light emitting panel assemblies were known, the ’194 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.
`
`In particular, the ’194 patent relates to a light emitting assembly
`
`configurations that can provide very efficient panel assemblies that have increased
`
`uniformity and higher light output from the panel members with lower power
`
`requirements, allowing the panel members to be made thinner and/or longer, and/or
`
`of various shapes and sizes. (Id. at col. 2, ll. 1-6.)
`
`31.
`
`The Petition attempts to characterize the ’194 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.” (Petition, Paper 2 at 6.) The Petition alleges that various claimed
`
`light emitting panel assemblies would have been anticipated and/or obvious in view
`
`of Pristash, Funamoto, Kobayashi, or Nishio. (Petition, Paper 2 at 10-11.)
`
`
`
`IDT00280
`
`

`
`32.
`
`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 ’194 patent as
`
`required to find obviousness by Pristash or Funamoto.
`
`33.
`
`Further, for the first ground initiated, the Petition relies on the Pristash
`
`reference that was both disclosed to the Examiner and that the Examiner expressly
`
`considered during the prosecution of the ’194 patent. (List of References Cited by
`
`Applicant and Considered by Examiner 04-2-2007, Ex. 1002 at LGD_000060.)
`
`After having considered each of these references, the Examiner chose to allow the
`
`claims of the ’194 patent.
`
`34.
`
`The petition also fails to show each and every element as required to
`
`find anticipation by Funamoto, Kobayashi, or Nishio.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`I understand that the scope of claims are not determined solely on the
`
`35.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IDT00281
`
`

`
`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.
`
`1. “Deformities”
`For the purposes of institution, the Board construed the term
`
`36.
`
`“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 9 at 4, 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 deter-
`
`37.
`
`mined 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.
`
`38.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IDT00282
`
`

`
`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.”
`
`39.
`
`I consider myself to exceed such “ordinary skill in the art” with respect
`
`to the subject matter of the ʼ194 patent at the time of the invention.
`
`IV.
`ANALYSIS
`A. Obviousness of Claims 1, 4–6, and 28 over Pristash
`The Petition fails to show that Pristash teaches and/or renders obvious
`
`40.
`
`each and every limitation of the Asserted Claims of the ’194 Patent. Specifically, the
`
`Petition does not show that Pristash discloses “a reflective or refractive surface”
`
`having “well defined optical elements or deformities for controlling the emitted light
`
`such that at least some of the light is redirected to pass through a liquid crystal
`
`display with low loss.” This limitation is required by independent Claim 1 and
`
`therefore also dependent Claims 4-6. Likewise, the Petition does not show that
`
`Pristash discloses “a plurality of optical elements or deformities of well defined
`
`shape on or in the top and bottom surfaces, at least some of the optical elements or
`
`deformities on or in at least one of the top and bottom surfaces having one or more
`
`reflective or refractive surfaces for controlling the emitted light such that at least
`
`some of the light is redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss”
`
`as recited in claim 28.
`
`
`
`IDT00283
`
`

`
`41.
`
`As shown in Figure 7, Pristash teaches “a light emitting panel 50 . . .
`
`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.” (Pristash, 5:6-10.) “In
`
`addition, the panel 50 includes a second prismatic film 60 disposed in close
`
`proximity to the panel prismatic surface 52 to shift the angular emission of light
`
`toward a particular application.” (Pristash, 5:22-25.)
`
`42.
`
`The Petition fails to show that Pristash teaches that the second prismatic
`
`film 60 includes a “reflective or refractive surface” having “well defined optical
`
`elements or deformities for controlling the emitted light such that at least some of
`
`the light is redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss.”
`
`43.
`
`Further, to meet the requirement of “well defined optical elements or
`
`deformities for controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the light is
`
`redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss,” Dr. Escuti ties
`
`general disclosure in the background of Pristash to the discussion five columns later
`
`about deformities. (Escuti Decl. at ¶ 52) Dr. Escuti stated in deposition that there is
`
`no explicit disclosure in Pristash that the well-defined deformities control the
`
`emitted light such that at least some of the light is redirected to pass through a liquid
`
`crystal display with low loss. (Escuti Dep. Ex. 2005 at 151-152) (“Well, he may not
`
`be saying it there, but a person of ordinary skill in the art knows that that’s what’s
`
`going to happen.”). Accordingly, Dr. Escuti’s conclusory arguments fail.
`
`
`
`IDT00284
`
`

`
`44.
`
`In a similar manner, Dr. Escuti concludes that the second prismatic film
`
`has well-defined optical elements or deformities. (Escuti Decl. at ¶ 74.) Again, he
`
`states generally, and without reference to Pristash, that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand the prismatic film to include well-defined optical elements
`
`or deformities. (Id.) But he does not describe how the unidentified optical elements
`
`or deformities of Pristash control the emitted light. Thus, the Petition is lacking
`
`evidence that the second prismatic film of Pristash discloses this limitation of claim
`
`28.
`
`45.
`
`The Petition does not show that Pristash discloses that “light from at
`
`least two light sources partially mixes in at least a portion of the light emitting
`
`assembly,” as recited by claim 4. While Pristash does disclose the possible use of
`
`multiple light sources, the Petition does not show where Pristash discloses that the
`
`light from these sources is mixed anywhere within the disclosed light emitting
`
`assembly.
`
`B. Anticipation of Claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 by Funamoto and
`Obviousness of Claims 4-6 in view of Funamoto
`
`46.
`
`The Petition fails to show that Funamoto teaches each and every
`
`limitation of the instituted claims of the ’194 Patent. Specifically, the Petition fails
`
`to show that Funamoto discloses “at least a light emitting panel member having a
`
`light emitting surface.” This limitation is required by independent Claim 1. The
`
`Petition also fails to show that Funamoto discloses a film, sheet, plate, or substrate
`
`
`
`IDT00285
`
`

`
`with “a reflective or refractive surface” having “well defined optical elements or
`
`deformities for controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the light is
`
`redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss” (claims 1 and 16)
`
`or “well defined optical elements or deformities for controlling the light output ray
`
`angle distribution of the light emitted to suit a particular application” (claim 31).
`
`Because those limitations are required by independent Claims 1, 16, and 31, they are
`
`therefore also required by dependent claims 4-6, 22, 23 and 27 of the ’194 Patent.
`
`47.
`
`Funamoto discloses a polarizer 21. (Funamoto, 6:24-26.) And Dr.
`
`Escuti alleges that the polarizer 21 of Funamoto is the panel member recited in claim
`
`1. (Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 101-103.) But, a polarizer operates to filter out a portion of
`
`incident unpolarized light so as to provide polarized light. One of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would appreciate that the polarizer 21 of Funamoto would result in a
`
`significant light loss as the portion of incident light not having the desired
`
`polarization would be filtered out. With this understanding, the Petition does not
`
`show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to consider the polarizer
`
`21 of Funamoto as a light emitting panel member as recited in claim 1 of the ’194
`
`patent.
`
`48.
`
`In support of this theory, Dr. Escuti refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,108,060
`
`(‘the ’060 patent”) in an attempt to substitute Funamoto’s teaching of a polarizer 21
`
`with language in the ’060 patent. (Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 101-103.) I understand that the
`
`
`
`IDT00286
`
`

`
`’060 patent is a divisional grandchild of Funamoto. Dr. Escuti alleges that the ’060
`
`Patent replaced the term “polarizer” with the phrase “light guide plate.” (Id.) He
`
`then goes on to import the phrase “light guide plate” into Funamoto in place of the
`
`term “polarizer” relying merely on a conclusory statement that the term “polarizer”
`
`as used in Funamoto “must be a translation error.” (Id.)
`
`49.
`
`Dr. Escuti does not allege the teachings of Funamoto would lead one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to understand the term “polarizer” differently from its
`
`ordinary meaning. Dr. Escuti, by importing the language from the ’060 patent,
`
`disregards the plain language in Funamoto. The term “polarizer” is a term of art. It
`
`is unlikely that the meanings of the term “polarizer” and phrase “light guide plate”
`
`would be confused or used in error by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`50.
`
`Moreover, as admitted by Dr. Escuti, the ’060 patent resulted from an
`
`intervening patent, the U.S. Patent No. 5,949,505 (“the ’505 patent”), but he ignores
`
`the language used in the ’505 patent without explanation and focuses only on the
`
`’060 patent. (Id.) But the term “polarizer” is consistently used in both Funamoto
`
`and the ’505 patent during the lengthy prosecution of Funamoto and the ’505 patent,
`
`spanning more than 5 years from 1994 to 1999.
`
`51.
`
`Even if the term “polarizer” was, in fact, a translation error, Funamoto
`
`would have been a non-enabling disclosure at the time of the present invention. The
`
`’060 patent was published on August 22, 2000 – more than 5 years after the effective
`
`
`
`IDT00287
`
`

`
`filing date of the ’194 patent. Although Funamoto was alleged to have a priority date
`
`of May 10, 1994, the alleged corrected translation was not available to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art until more than 6 years later – well after the effective filing
`
`date of the ’194 patent. Dr. Escuti has failed to explain how one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would be enabled to arrive at the claimed subject matter without undue
`
`experimentation despite the alleged translation error for one of the key components
`
`of Funamoto.
`
`52.
`
`For at least the above discussed reasons, the Petition does not show that
`
`Funamoto teaches the claimed light emitting panel member or was an enabling
`
`disclosure at the time of the present invention. Accordingly, the Petition does not
`
`show that Funamoto discloses this limitation of Claims 1 and 4-6 of the ’194 Patent.
`
`53.
`
`Funamoto discloses a “diffusion sheet 26” and a “prism sheet 27” which
`
`are “arranged on the upper portion of upper surface 21a” of polarizer 21. (Funamoto,
`
`7:2-10.) But the Petition cites to nowhere in Funamoto where the diffusion sheet 26
`
`or the prism sheet 27 are described in any detail. Therefore the Petition does not
`
`show that either sheet in Funamoto includes deformities or elements “for controlling
`
`the emitted light such that at least some of the light is redirected to pass through a
`
`liquid crystal display with low loss” (claims 1 and 16) or “for controlling the light
`
`output ray angle distribution of the light emitted to suit a particular application”
`
`(claim 31). Diffusion sheet 26 is only described as “diffus[ing] the light that is
`
`
`
`IDT00288
`
`

`
`reflected by diffusion pattern 50 and radiated from upper surface 21a.” (Funamoto,
`
`7:17-19.)
`
`54.
`
`Similarly, prism sheet 27 is only described as being “made up of very
`
`small linear prisms lined in a cross-sectional array.” (Funamoto, 7:30-32.) Further,
`
`though “brightness can be improved through prism sheet 27, when sufficient
`
`brightness is achieved through diffusion sheet 26, prism sheet 27 can be omitted.”
`
`(Funamoto, 7:34-38.) But, Petitioner does not cite to any part of Funamoto that
`
`would indicate that the prisms are “for controlling the emitted light such that at least
`
`some of the light is redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss”
`
`(claims 1 and 16) or “for controlling the light output ray angle distribution of the
`
`light emitted to suit a particular application” (claim 31).
`
`55.
`
`Dr. Escuti provides only conclusory statements in support of his
`
`argument that Funamoto discloses those limitations. With regard to the diffusion
`
`sheet of Funamoto, Dr. Escuti speculates that “diffusion sheet 26 can inherently
`
`include reflective and refractive surfaces because the primary way most diffusers
`
`operate to redirect light is by modifying the surface shape or geometry.” (Escuti
`
`Decl. at ¶ 110.) Dr. Escuti’s inherency argument—that it can or even if it is likely
`
`included—is contrary to my understanding that a feature is inherent only if it must
`
`be necessarily present. Further, he provides