Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`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
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`Patent 7,300,194
`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
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Innovative Display Technologies, LLC, (“IDT” or “Patent
`
`Owner”) hereby files this response (“Response”) to the Petition (Paper 2) (the
`
`“Petition”) for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 (the “’194 patent”)
`
`in IPR2014-01097 filed by LG Display Co., Ltd. (“LGD” or “Petitioner”).
`
`The Petitioner’s challenge to the ’194 patent claims should be rejected
`
`because the prior art lacks several material claim limitations. Even if one of skill in
`
`the art would have combined the references as Petitioner suggests – the combination
`
`would not yield the claimed invention.
`
`A. Instituted Grounds
`The instant inter partes review was instituted on five grounds of alleged
`
`invalidity over four references:
`
`1. Obviousness of claims 1, 4–6, and 28 over Pristash;
`
`2. Anticipation of claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 by Funamoto;
`
`3. Obviousness of claims 4, 5, and 6 over Funamoto;
`
`4. Anticipation of claim 28 by Kobayashi; and
`
`5. Anticipation of claims 1, 4–6, and 28 by Nishio.
`
`Claims 1, 16, 28, and 31 are independent claims. For the first ground, the
`
`Examiner had considered Pristash during prosecution and found the claims
`
`patentable. For the following reasons discussed in more detail below, these grounds
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`do not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the instituted claims of
`
`the ’194 patent are invalid.
`
`B. The ’194 Patent
`The ’194 patent relates generally, to “light emitting panel assemblies”
`
`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 its length. (’194 patent, Ex. 1001, 1:19-29.)
`
`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.; Werner
`
`Decl. at ¶ 29.)
`
`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. (’194 patent at col. 2, ll. 1-6; Werner Decl. at ¶ 30.)
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`‘efficient’ utilization of light, thereby resulting in greater light output from the panel
`
`assembly.” (Petition, Paper 2 at 6; Werner Decl. at ¶ 31.) 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 at 10-11;
`
`Werner Decl. at ¶ 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 ’194 patent as required
`
`to find obviousness by Pristash or Funamoto. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 32.)
`
`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.
`
`The petition also fails to show each and every element as required to find
`
`anticipation by Funamoto, Kobayashi, or Nishio. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 34.)
`
`The ’194 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 11/245,408, which was
`
`filed on October 6, 2005 and claims a priority date of June 27, 1995.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`C. The Prior Art in the Petition
`
`Pristash
`Pristash describes a thin panel illuminator that includes a solid transparent
`
`panel member having one or more deformed output regions. (Ex. 1006, Abstract.)
`
`The arrangement causes light entering the panel to be emitted along its length. (Id.)
`
`.
`
`
`
`Pristash Figure 1 above shows an exemplary panel. Petitioner analogized
`
`Pristash’s “transition device” (reference number 5) as the claimed “transition
`
`region.” (Petition at 13, 21).
`
` Kobayashi
`U.S. Patent No. 5,408,388 to Kobayashi (Exhibit 1011) (“Kobayashi”) Titled
`
`“Planar illuminating device” describes a planar illuminating device that uses “two
`
`sources of light each arranged adjacent to one of the side edges of the plate, a
`
`reflector arranged behind the plate rear face and reflecting rays of light from the
`
`plate to the front face of the plate, a light diffuser arranged in front of the plate and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`diffusing rays of light from the plate. The device comprises a reflecting finish
`
`applied directly to the rear face of the plate.” (Kobayashi, Abstract.)
`
`D. Claim Construction
`For inter partes reviews, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Additionally, the words of the claim must be given their plain
`
`meaning that is consistent with the specification. 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. 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.
`
`a. “Deformities”
`
`For the purposes of institution, the Board construed the term “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, 12, 18.) The positions in this Response stand in light of that construction and
`
`in light of the Board’s constructions upon institution. This Response does not take a
`
`position on claim construction at this point. Patent Owner however, reserves the right
`
`to propose its own construction of any and all claim terms for which an issue arises
`
`in this IPR.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`Patent Owner notifies the Board that the district court in Innovative Display
`
`Technologies v. Acer, Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-522 (E.D. Tex. 2013) (Dkt. No. 101)
`
`(“Claim Construction Order”) (Ex. 2002) has ruled on constructions of terms in this
`
`patent, including entering an agreed construction of “deformities” that Petitioner
`
`adopts in its Petition. (Petition at 7; Ex. 2002 at 58.)
`
`E. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The Board did not make a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art it its institution decision. The broadest reasonable construction of the claims is
`
`determined based on how the challenged patent would be read by a person of
`
`“ordinary skill in the art.” 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.
`
`Patent Owner and its expert, Kenneth Werner 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.” (Werner Decl. at ¶ 38.)
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. Obviousness of Claims 1, 4–6, and 28 over Pristash
`The Petition fails to show that Pristash teaches and/or renders obvious each
`
`and every limitation of the Asserted Claims of the ’194 Patent. (Werner Decl. at ¶
`
`40.) 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.” (Werner Decl. at ¶ 40.) This
`
`limitation is required by independent Claim 1 and therefore also dependent Claims
`
`4-6. Claim 28 recites “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.”
`
`Likewise, the Petition does not show that Pristash discloses this limitation. (Werner
`
`Decl. at ¶ 40.)
`
`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; Werner
`
`Decl. at ¶ 41.) “In addition, the panel 50 includes a second prismatic film 60 disposed
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`in close proximity to the panel prismatic surface 52 to shift the angular emission of
`
`light toward a particular application.” (Pristash, 5:22-25; Werner Decl. at ¶ 41.)
`
`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.” (Werner Decl. at ¶
`
`42.)
`
`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; Werner Decl. at ¶ 43.) 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; Werner Decl. at ¶ 43.) (“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.
`
`In a similar manner, Dr. Escuti concludes that the second prismatic film has
`
`well-defined optical elements or deformities. (Escuti Decl. at ¶ 74; Werner Decl. at
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`¶ 44.) 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.; Werner Decl. at ¶ 44.) But he does not describe
`
`how the unidentified optical elements or deformities of Pristash control the emitted
`
`light. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 44.) Thus, the Petition is lacking evidence that the second
`
`prismatic film of Pristash discloses this limitation of claim 28. (Werner Decl. at ¶
`
`44.)
`
`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. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 45.) 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. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 45.)
`
`B. Anticipation of Claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 by Funamoto and
`Obviousness of Claims 4-6 in view of Funamoto
`
`The Petition fails to show that Funamoto teaches each and every limitation of
`
`the instituted claims of the ’194 Patent. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 46.) Specifically, the
`
`Petition fails to show that Funamoto discloses “at least a light emitting panel member
`
`having a light emitting surface.” (Werner Decl. at ¶ 46.) This limitation is required
`
`by independent Claim 1. The Petition also fails to show that Funamoto discloses a
`
`film, sheet, plate, or substrate with “a reflective or refractive surface” having “well
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`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). (Werner Decl. at ¶ 46.) 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. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 46.)
`
`Funamoto discloses a polarizer 21. (Funamoto, 6:24-26; Werner Decl. at ¶
`
`47.) 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. (Werner
`
`Decl. at ¶ 47.) 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. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 47.)
`
`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. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 47.)
`
`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; Werner Decl. at ¶ 48.) The
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`’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.” (Escuti Decl.
`
`at ¶¶ 101-103; Werner Decl. at ¶ 48.) 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.” (Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 101-103; Werner Decl. at ¶ 48.)
`
`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. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 49.) The term
`
`“polarizer” is a term of art. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 49.) 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. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 49.)
`
`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. (Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 101-103; Werner Decl. at ¶ 50.) 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. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 50.)
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`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. (Werner
`
`Decl. at ¶ 51.) The ’060 patent was published on August 22, 2000 – more than 5
`
`years after the effective filing date of the ’194 patent. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 51.)
`
`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. (Werner
`
`Decl. at ¶ 51.) 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. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 51.)
`
`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 claim 1 or renders obvious claims 4-
`
`6 of the ’194 Patent. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 52.)
`
`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; Werner Decl. at ¶ 53.) But the Petition cites to nowhere in Funamoto where
`
`the diffusion sheet 26 or the prism sheet 27 are described in any detail. (Werner Decl.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`at ¶ 53.) 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). (Werner Decl. at ¶ 53.) Diffusion
`
`sheet 26 is only described as “diffus[ing] the light that is reflected by diffusion
`
`pattern 50 and radiated from upper surface 21a.” (Funamoto, 7:17-19; Werner Decl.
`
`at ¶ 53.)
`
`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; Werner Decl. at
`
`¶ 54.) 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; Werner Decl. at ¶ 54.), 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).
`
`(Werner Decl. at ¶ 54.)
`
`Dr. Escuti provides only conclusory statements in support of his argument that
`
`Funamoto discloses those limitations. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 55.) With regard to the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`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; Werner Decl. at ¶ 55.) Dr. Escuti’s inherency argument—that
`
`it can or even if it is likely included—is contrary to the law of anticipation that a
`
`feature is inherent only if it must be necessarily present. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 55.)
`
`Further, he provides his opinion of how “most diffusers” function, but notably does
`
`not cite to anything in Funamoto that supports his statement. (Escuti Decl. at ¶ 110;
`
`Werner Decl. at ¶ 55.)
`
`Dr. Escuti offers further conclusory statements as to diffusion sheet 26 and
`
`prism sheet 27 of Funamoto having “well-defined optical elements or deformities
`
`for controlling the emitted light.” (Werner Decl. at ¶ 56.) In particular, Dr. Escuti
`
`argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both the
`
`diffusion sheet and prism sheet utilize deformities for controlling the emitted light.
`
`(Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 112-13; Werner Decl. at ¶ 56.) He seems to identify “diffusion
`
`pattern 50” as the deformities. (Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 112-13; Werner Decl. at ¶ 56.) But
`
`diffusion pattern 50 does not even reside on diffusion sheet 27. (Werner Decl. at ¶
`
`56.) It is disclosed to be on pattern sheet 24 which is arranged below polarizer 21.
`
`(Funamoto, 6:40-44; Werner Decl. at ¶ 56.) Thus, without actually identifying any
`
`deformities on the diffusion sheet, he concludes that the diffusion sheet includes
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`deformities designed to randomize the flow of light, increasing its divergence angle
`
`and reducing on-axis brightness. (Funamoto, 6:40-44; Werner Decl. at ¶ 56.) The
`
`Petition does not show that Funamoto discloses this as a function of the diffusion
`
`sheet, nor does Dr. Escuti attempt to find support in Funamoto for this statement
`
`instead he refers to his analysis of Nishio. (Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 113, 47; Funamoto,
`
`6:40-44; Werner Decl. at ¶ 56.) And, finally, Dr. Escuti cites Funamoto 7:32-38 in
`
`support of his conclusion that “diffusion sheet and prism sheet control the emitted
`
`light such that at least some of the light is redirected to pass through an LCD with
`
`low loss.” (Funamoto, 6:40-44; Werner Decl. at ¶ 56.), but that citation from
`
`Funamoto does not discuss the claim limitation. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 56.)
`
`58. Additionally, Dr. Escuti dismisses the polarizer 21 as a “translation
`
`error,” (as discussed above) in part because “nowhere does Funamoto attribute
`
`polarizing attributes to the so-called polarizer 21.” (Escuti Decl. at ¶ 103; Werner
`
`Decl. at ¶ 57.) But Funamoto fails equally in attributing diffusing attributes to the
`
`diffusion sheet 26 and prismatic attributes to prism sheet 27, yet Dr. Escuti relies
`
`almost entirely on the naming of these features by Funamoto to draw his conclusions
`
`regarding their attributes. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 57.) His analysis is particularly flawed
`
`in light of this inconsistency. (Id.)
`
`Thus, the Petition does not show that Funamoto discloses a film, sheet, plate,
`
`or substrate with “a reflective or refractive surface” having deformities or optical
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`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) as recited by Claims 1, 4-6, 16, 22, 23, 27, and
`
`31 of the ’194 Patent. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 58.)
`
`Regarding Claim 4, the Petition does not show that Funamoto discloses that
`
`“light from at least two light sources partially mixes in at least a portion of the light
`
`emitting assembly.” (Werner Decl. at ¶ 59.) While Funamoto does disclose the
`
`possible use of two light sources, the Petition does not point to any disclosure that
`
`the light from these sources is mixed anywhere within the disclosed light emitting
`
`assembly. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 59.) Dr. Escuti fails to cite any support for his
`
`conclusion that Funamoto discloses light propagating across the full width of
`
`polarizer 21 therefore, mixing of the light from two different sources occurs in the
`
`light emitting assembly. (Escuti Decl. at ¶ 144; Werner Decl. at ¶ 59.) His
`
`conclusions and attempted reasoning are based on unsupported assumptions, as
`
`evidenced by his lack of citation to any supporting evidence in Funamoto. (Escuti
`
`Decl. at ¶ 144; Werner Decl. at ¶ 59.) Dr. Escuti attempts to make up for this lack of
`
`support by citing his own annotations to Funamoto Fig. 19. (Escuti Decl. at ¶ 144;
`
`Werner Decl. at ¶ 59.) Both these notations are a fabrication by Dr. Escuti and not
`
`evidence from Funamoto. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 59.) Thus, Dr. Escuti fails to provide
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`credible or sufficient evidence that the limitation of Claim 4 is disclosed by
`
`Funamoto. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 59.)
`
`For similar reasons as I stated for the limitations of Claim 4, the Petition does
`
`not show that Funamoto discloses the limitations of Claim 5 reciting “wherein the
`
`portion of light emitting assembly in which the light partially mixes is the panel
`
`member.” (Werner Decl. at ¶ 60.) Because the Petition does not show that Funamoto
`
`discloses mixing of light from two light sources, it also fails to disclose that the
`
`mixing occurs in the panel member. (Escuti Decl. at 148-150; Werner Decl. at ¶ 60.)
`
`Dr. Escuti does not cite any portion of Funamoto that discloses this limitation.
`
`(Escuti Decl. at 148-150.) Rather, he makes the argument that this limitation could
`
`be met by the Funamoto embodiment having two light sources. (Werner Decl. at ¶
`
`61.) But, his argument is based only on unsupported assumptions and conjecture.
`
`(See Escuti Decl. at 148-150; Werner Decl. at ¶ 61.) The Petition does not show that
`
`Funamoto discloses that the light from two different sources mixes in the panel
`
`member. Dr. Escuti’s fabricated markings on Figure 7 does not change that. (Werner
`
`Decl. at ¶ 61.)
`
`For the same reasons that the Petition does not show that Funamoto discloses
`
`the limitations of Claims 4 and 5, it also does not disclose “wherein the portion of
`
`the light emitting assembly in which the light partially mixes is the air gap,” as
`
`recited by Claim 6. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 62.) Because the Petition fails to disclose
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`Funamoto’s mixing of light from two light sources, it also fails to disclose that the
`
`mixing occurs in the air gap. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 62.)
`
`Dr. Escuti does not cite any portion of Funamoto that discloses this limitation.
`
`Rather, he again makes the argument that this limitation could be met by the
`
`Funamoto embodiment having two light sources. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 63.) But, his
`
`argument is based only on assumptions and conjecture that the light from two
`
`different sources mixes in the air gap. (See Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 153-55; Werner Decl.
`
`at ¶ 63.)
`
`Claims 22, 23, and 27 are dependent from claim 16 and are therefore
`
`patentable for the reasons stated above for independent claim 16.
`
`Claim 31 of the ’194 patent recites “at least one surface of the film, sheet,
`
`plate or substrate has one or more reflective or refractive surfaces that are well
`
`defined optical elements or deformities for controlling the light output ray angle
`
`distribution of the light emitted to suit a particular application.” But the Petition
`
`never shows that Funamoto discloses this limitation. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 65.) Instead
`
`the Petition appears to identify the “prisms” of prism sheet 27 as the well defined
`
`deformities/elements, but then the Petition switches to diffusion sheet 26 for
`
`allegedly meeting the “controlling the light output ray angle distribution of the light
`
`emitted to suit a particular application” part of the limitation (Petition, Paper 2 at
`
`29.). The claim language does not allow the Petitioner to point to one sheet to
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`identify the “well defined optical elements or deformities” and then point to another
`
`sheet to show those deformities/elements “controlling the light output ray angle
`
`distribution of the light emitted to suit a particular application.” (Werner Decl. at ¶
`
`65.) Thus, the Petition has not shown that Funamoto discloses this limitation of
`
`Claim 31. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 65.)
`
`As demonstrated above, the Petition does not show that Funamoto discloses
`
`each and every limitation for any of Claims 1, 4-6, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 of the ’194
`
`patent. Dr. Escuti’s arguments are consistently deficient in that they make
`
`assumptions and unsupported conclusions that do not find support in Funamoto.
`
`(Werner Decl. at ¶ 66.)
`
`C. Anticipation of claim 28 by Kobayashi
`Claim 28 recites:
`
`A light emitting assembly comprising at least one light source and at
`least one transparent film, sheet, plate or substrate having top and
`bottom surfaces, 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.
`
`Petitioner fails to show that Kobayashi discloses the element “one or more
`
`reflective or refractive surfaces for controlling the emitted light such that at least
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`some of the light is redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss”
`
`and therefore does not show how Kobayashi anticipated claim 28. (Werner Decl. at
`
`¶ 68.)
`
`The Petition does not show that Kobayashi explains how the emitted light is
`
`redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss. (Werner Decl. at ¶
`
`69.) Additionally, Dr. Escuti fails to identify evidence that this limitation is disclosed
`
`by Kobayashi. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 69.) He identifies the array of spot shaped
`
`reflective layers 22 and the prismatic cuts 21 as being the claimed reflective or
`
`refractive surfaces as being well defined optical elements for controlling the emitted
`
`light, but fails to provide a link that show that they 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 Decl. at ¶ 195-205; Werner Decl. at ¶ 69.)
`
`D. Anticipation of claims 1, 4–6, and 28 by Nishio
`The Petition does not show that Nishio teaches each and every limitation of
`
`the asserted claims of the ’194 Patent. (Werner Decl. at ¶ 70.) Specifically, the
`
`Petition does not show that Nishio 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.” (Werner Decl. at ¶ 70.) This limitation is required by
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`independent Claims 1 and 28, and therefore also dependent claims 4-6 of the ’194
`
`Patent.
`
`As shown in Figure 8, Nishio teaches a light source comprising “the light
`
`guide plate 1, a linear or point light source 3 located adjacent to at least one spot of
`
`the terminal portion of the plate 1, a light reflecting layer 2 on the reverse side of the
`
`plate 1, the lens sheet 4 on the opposite side of the plate 1 to the layer 2.” (Nishio,
`
`7:5-13; Werner Decl. at ¶ 71.) The len
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
