Ex. 2006, para 40
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 8
`
`LGD_001766
`
`LG Display Ex. 1026
`
`

`
`41.
`
`As showri in Figure I", Pristash teaches “a light emitting panel 50- .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`41. As shown in Figure T. Pristash reaches "a light erniliing panel 50 .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`which also comprises a solid transparent prismatic filin 51 having a prisinatic surface
`
`which also comprises a solid transparentprisrnatic film 5] having a prismatic surface
`
`51 on one side and a back reflector 53 on the other side.” {Pristash S:fi—10_j "in
`
`52 on one side and a back reflector 53 on the other side." (Pristash, 5:-5-10; Werner
`
`addition,
`
`the panel 5!} includes :1 second prisinatic film 50 disposed in close
`
`proximigr to the panel prismatic surface 52 to shift the aaigular emission of light
`
`toward a particular appfication." (Pristash 5:22-25.}
`
`Decl.at1I41.)“I11 a-idition. iiie panel 50 includes a secondprismatic filin 60 disposed
`
`in close proximity to the panel prisixiatic surface 52 to shift the angular emission of
`
`light toward. a particular application." (Pristash 5:12-25: Werner Dec}. at '5' 41.)
`
`Ex. 2006, para 41
`Ex. 2006, para 41
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 8-9
`Patent Owner Response, p. 8-9
`
`LGD_001767
`
`

`
`42.
`
`The Petition mils to show that Ptistash teaches that the second piimnatic
`
`The Petition fails to show that Pristash teaches that the second prismatic film
`
`film :50 includes a "reflective or rei:'tactit.'e surface" having ‘well defined optical
`
`60 includes a "reflective or refractive surface?‘ having “well defined optical elernents
`
`elements or deformities for controlling the emitted light such that at least some of
`
`or defoririities for controlling the emitted light much that at least some of the light is
`
`the light is redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss.”
`
`redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss." (Vi-rerner Decl. at 1]
`
`43.
`
`Further. to meet the requirement of "well defined optical elements or
`
`42.)
`
`deformities for controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the light is
`
`Further.
`
`to meet
`
`the requirement of “well defined optical elements or
`
`redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss," Dr. Escuti ties
`
`deformities for controlling the emitted lifit such that at least some of the light is
`
`general disclosure in the background of Pristash to the discussion five cohtnins later
`
`about deformities. {Escuti Decl. at T 52) Dr. Escttti 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 ofthe light is redirected to pass thrnugha liquid
`
`crystal display with low loss. {Escuti Dep. Ex. 2005 at 131-152) ["‘i.TiTell. 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 fiil.
`
`redirected to pass throng a liquid crystal display with low loss," Dr. Escuti ties
`
`general disclosure in the baclcgroimd of Pristash to the discussion five columns later
`
`about deformities. (Escuti Decl. at 1] 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 more 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.) C‘Well. he may not be saying it there. but a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art knows that thatis wl1at"s going to happenf’). Accordingly.
`
`Dr. Escuti’s coriclusory arguments fail.
`
`Ex. 2006, para 42-43
`Ex. 2006, para 42-43
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 9
`Patent Owner Response, p. 9
`
`LGD_001768
`
`

`
`44.
`
`In a similar manner, Dr. Escnti c onclndes that the second prismatic film
`
`In a similar manner. Dr. Escuti concludes that the second prismatic film has
`
`has well-defined optical elements or deformities. (Escuti Decl. at T 3'4.) Again, he
`
`well—d.efirLed optical elements or deformities. [Escuti Decl. at " 74: "Werner Dec]. at
`
`states generally, and without reference to Pristash, that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`1] 44.) Again. he states generally. and without reference to Pristash. that a person of
`
`the art would understand the prismatic 131111 to include well-defined optical elements
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the prismatic film to include well—defi.ned
`
`or deformities. Gd.) But he does not describe how the unidentified optical elements
`
`optical elements or deformities.
`
`Wuner Decl. at '7
`
`But he does not describe
`
`or deformities of Pristash control the emitted light. Thus. the Petition is lacking
`
`how the unidentified optical elements or deformities ofPristash control the emitted
`
`evidence that the second prismatic film of Pristash discloses this limitation of claim
`
`light. I_'W'emer Dec]. at ‘T
`
`Thus, the Petition is lacking evidence that the second
`
`23.
`
`prismatic film of Pristash discloses this limitation of cllairn 28. (Werner Dec]. at 1]
`
`45.
`
`The Petition does not show that Pristash discloses that “light from at
`
`44.}
`
`least two light sources partially mixes in at least a portion of the light emittllg
`
`The Petition does not show that Pristash discloses that “light fi'om. at least two
`
`assembly.” as recited ‘of: claim 4. While Pristash does disclose the possible use of
`
`light sources partially mixes in at least a portion of the light emitting assen:|bl}'.'° as
`
`mitltiple light sources. the Petition does not show where Pristash discloses that the
`
`recited by claitn 4. nV£!'II1Bl' Decl. at " 45.) ‘Whi.le Pristash does disclose the possible
`
`light from these sources is mixed anywhere within the disclosed light entitling
`
`use of multiple light sources. the Petition does not show Wl:r.ere Pristash discloses
`
`assembly.
`
`Ex. 2006, para 44-45
`Ex. 2006, para 44-45
`
`that the light fro-n1 these sources is mixed t!1l.}"WlZl.f.'1'B within the disclosed liflt
`
`entitling assembly. ("Werner De-cl. at r 45-.)
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 9
`Patent Owner Response, p. 9
`
`LGD_001769
`
`

`
`445.
`
`The Petition fails to show that Funainoto teaches each and eves}:
`
`The Petition fails to slaow that Funamoto teaches each and eirer'_i,' limitation of
`
`limitation of the instituted claims of the "194 Patent. Specifically. the Petition fails
`
`the ictstituted claims of the "194 Patent. [Werner Decl. at T 46.} S-pecifically, the
`
`to show that Funinnoto 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 filni. sheet, plate. or substrate
`
`with "a reflective or refractive surface" having "well defined optical elements or
`
`deformities for concmlling the emitted lipt 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 distnhution of the light emitted to suit a particular application" (claim 31}.
`
`Because those limitations are required In: independent Claims 1. 16- and 31. they are
`
`Petition fails to show that Funamoto discloses “at least alight
`
`panel member
`
`having a light emitting su.-rfice." (‘Werner Decl. at 11 46.) This limitation is required
`
`by indep-endent Claim 1. The Petition also fails to show that Funamoto discloses a
`
`film. sheet, plate. or substrate will: “a reflective or refiactive suiface" having ""\sre1l
`
`defined optical elements or deformities for controlling the emitted light such that at
`
`least some oftlie 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
`
`therefore also required by dependent claims 4-6. 22, 23 and 2? of the ’19='l Patent.
`
`paiticular application" (claim 31). (‘Nether Decl. at " 46.) Because those limitations
`
`are required by independent Claims 1, 15, and 31. they are therefore also required
`
`by dependent claims 4-6, 22. 23 and 27 of the "194 Patent. ('Werner Dec]. at 9746.)
`
`Ex. 2006, para 46
`Ex. 2006, para 46
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 10-11
`Patent Owner Response, p. 10-11
`
`LGD_001770
`
`

`
`4?.
`
`Fnnanzu:-to discloses a polarizer 31. {Fnna.moto. 6:24-25.] And Dr.
`
`Funamoto discloses a pularizer 21. (Funamoto, 5:24-26: Werner Dee}. at ll
`
`Escuti alleges that the polarizer 21 ofFunan.1oto is the panel member recited in claim
`
`47-} Afld DE E-‘fllli 311936‘? that the P013IiZET 31 0fF11flfi1fl0t0 i‘? the P3116! mffllbflf
`
`1_ [Eseuti Dee1_ at ‘fit 101-1CI3_} But, a pulagizer operates to filter out :1 portion of
`
`recited in claim 1. (Escuti Decl. at 1]‘ 101-103.) But, a polarizer operates to filter
`
`incident unpolarized light so 15'l't] provide polarized light. One of ordinary slcil] in
`
`out a portion of incident unpolarized light so as to provide polarized light. (Werner
`
`the an would appreciate that the polarizer El of Funainoto would result in :1
`
`Deel_ atfll-47.) One of ordinary" skill intheartwould appreciate thatthe polarizer 21
`
`significant
`
`ligl:it
`
`loss as the portion of incident
`
`light not having the desired
`
`of Funamoto would result in a significant light loss as the portion of incident light
`
`polarization would he filtered out. With this understanding, the Petition does not
`
`not having the desired polarization would be filtered out (Werner Deal. at ‘ll 47.)
`
`Show that one of ordinary skill in the int would have reason to consider the polarizer
`
`With this understanding, the Petition does not show that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`21 of Fun:-Inzloto as a light emitting panel member as recited in claim 1 of the "194
`
`an would have reason to consider the polarizer 21 of Funamoto as a light emitting
`
`patent.
`
`panel member as recited in claim 1 of the ‘194 patent. (‘Werner Decl. at ‘7 4?.)
`
`Ex. 2006, para 47
`EX- 2005, Para 47
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 11
`Patent Owner Response, p. 11
`
`LGD_001771
`
`

`
`48.
`
`In support of this theory. Dr. Esenti refers to US. Patent No. 6,103,060
`
`In support ofthis theory, Dr. Escuti refers to US. Patent No. 6__lU3_fl'6O (‘the
`
`(‘the 'l'.]fi{J patent”) in an attempt to substitute Fu11an1ptp"5 teaching nfa pnlarizer 21
`
`‘D60 patent) in an attempt to substitute Funanlotois teaching of a polarizer 31 with
`
`with language in the "060 patent. I{EscutiDee1. at 1‘;'[ 101-103.} I understand that the
`
`language in the ‘D60 patent. (Escuti Decl_ at M 101-103; ‘Werner Deel_ at1I 48.) The
`
`’Dt'5t'.l patent is a divisional granttchjld of Funamoto. Dr. Eseuti alleges that the ‘D60
`
`Patent replaced the term "'po1::.rizer” w'rth the phrase “light guide plate." [Iii] He
`
`then goes on to import the phrase “light guide plate“ into Funamu-to in place of the
`
`term
`
`relying merely on :1 eonJ:lLI5:1r;e' statement that the term "'ptJ1arizer""
`
`as used in Fnnamoto “must be a translation
`
`Ifld.)
`
`'05.} patent is a divisional grandchild of Fun.aJ:m)to_ Dr. Eseuti alleges that the U60
`
`Patent rep-iaced the term '"'poiarizer"’ with the phrase “light guide plate. " (Escuti Dec].
`
`at W 101-103; Werner Decl. atfii 43.) He then goes on to import the phrase "light
`
`guide plate" into Funain-2-to in place of the term "polan'_zer" relying merely on a
`
`eonclusozy statement that the term "polarizer" as used in Funamoto “must be a
`
`tmttslation
`
`(Escuti De-cl. at 1]‘ 101-103; Wema Dec}. at 1] 43.)
`
`Ex. 2006, para 48
`Ex. 2006, para 48
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 11-12
`Patent Owner Response, p. 11-12
`
`LGD_001772
`
`

`
`49.
`
`Dr. Eseuti does not allege the teachings ofFunau1oto would lead one of
`
`Dr. Eseuti does not allege the teachings of Funamoto would lead one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to understand the term “po1arizer"' differently from its
`
`ordinary skill in the art to understand the term "polarizer°' differently fions its
`
`ordinary meaning. Dr. Esenti, hry importing the language from the ‘D60 patent.
`
`disregards the plain language in Funarnoto. The term "'p-olarizer" is a term of art It
`
`is unlikely? that the meanings of the term
`
`and phrase ‘1ight guide plate"
`
`would be confused or used in error by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`SCI.
`
`Moreover. as admitted by Dr. Eseuti, the "DIED patent resulted from an
`
`intervening patent. the U5. Patent No. 5_949.5lII5 ("the "505 patient‘’}. but he ignores
`
`the language used in the "505 patent without exp-1:-ruation and focuses only on the
`
`use patent. (Id) But the term "polari.zer” is consistently used in both Funarnoto
`
`and the "EDS patent during the length}? prosecution of Funau:r.o‘to and the ‘S05 patent,
`
`spanningn:|orethan5years from 1994 to 1999.
`
`ordinary meaning. Dr. Eseuti= by inaponing the language from the T160 patent,
`
`disregards the plain language in Fllrranloto.
`
`If'iVerner Dee]. at 1] 49.) The term
`
`”po1arizer” is a term of art. (Werner Dee1_ at 1] 49.) It is lanlikely that the meanings
`
`ofthe term “polarized and phrase "light guide plate" would he eonfilsed or used in
`
`error by one of ordinary skill in the art. (Werner Dee]. at 1} 49.)
`
`Moreo\*er_ as admitted by Dr. Eseuti,
`
`the ‘060 patent resulted lrorn an
`
`intervening patent, the U_S_ Patent No. 5,949,505 (“the "505 patent"), but he ignores
`
`the language used in the ‘S03 patent Wir.l1out explanation and focuses only on the
`
`'l}6U patent. (Escuti Decl at M 101-103: Werner Deel_ at " 50.) But the term
`
`"polarized is consistently used in both Funarnoto and the 505 patem:
`
`the
`
`lengthy prosecution ofFunan.1oto and the T505 patent. spanning more than 5 years
`
`from 1994 to 1999. (Werner Deel. atll :39.)
`
`Ex. 2006, para 49-50
`Ex. 2006, para 49-50
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 12
`Patent Owner Response, p. 12
`
`LGD_001773
`
`

`
`51.
`
`Even if the tern1 "polarizer” was. in fact. a translation error. Funanioto
`
`Even if the term “polarizerv was, in fact. a translation error. Funainotao would
`
`would have been a non-enabling disclosure at the time ofthe present invention. The
`
`laax-‘e been a non—ena'oling disclosure at the time of the present invention. ("Nerriaer
`
`‘U63 patent was ptiblished on August 12. 2000 — more than 5 years after the effective
`
`filing date of the ’l94 patent. Although Funamoto was alleged to have a priority date
`
`of llrlay 112}. 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. Escuri has failed to explain how one of ordniarjr 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
`
`ofF1.:.namnto.
`
`Decl. at ‘ 51.) The ‘O60 patent was published on August 22. 2000 - more than 5
`
`years after the effective filing date of the "1943 patent. (Werner Decl. at " 51.)
`
`Although Funarnoto 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 afier the effective filing date of the 'l94 pate-nt. (“Terrier
`
`Decl. at fil 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 cornponents
`
`52.
`
`For at least the above discussed reasons. the Petition does not show that
`
`ofFunamoto. (‘Werner Decl. at 1] 51.)
`
`Funamoto teaches the claimed light emitting panel member or was an enabling
`
`disclosure at the tinie of the present invention. Accordingly. the Petition does not
`
`show that Funamoto discloses this limitation of Claims 1 and 4-6 ofthe ’ 194 Patent.
`
`For at least the above discussed reasons, the Petition does not show that
`
`I-"unanioto teaches the claimed liflt emitting panel member or was an enabling
`
`disclosure at the time of the present invention Accordingly. the Petition does not
`
`show that FU.tlfllIlDl:I2I discloses this limitation ofclaim 1 or renders obvious claims 4-
`
`6 ofthe " 194 Patent. (Werner Decl. atfll 52.)
`
`Ex. 2006, para 51-52
`Ex. 2006, para 51-52
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 13
`Patent Owner Response, p. 13
`
`LGD_001774
`
`

`
`53.
`
`Funamoto discloses a "diffusion sheet 25' and a "prism sheet ET" which
`
`Funamotuo discloses a “diffusion sheet 26" and a
`
`sheet 27" which are
`
`are "arranged on the upper portion ofupper surface 21a" ofpolarizer 21. [Funarnoto__
`
`"arranged on the upper portion of upper surface 21a" of polarizer 21. fFunar.uoto,
`
`T:2-10.) But the Petition cites to riowhere in Funanioto where the di.Efi.ision sheet 3-6
`
`72-10; X-'t7er1:I.er Decl. at '7 53.) But the Petition cites to nowhere inFunar.t:uoto where
`
`or the -prism sheet 27 are described in any detail. Therefore the Petition does not
`
`the {l.‘lfl'l.iSl{)11 sheet 26 or the
`
`sheet 2? are described in any detail. (‘Werner Decl.
`
`show that either sheet in Funamoto includes deformities or elements “for confiolling
`
`at 1] 33.) Therefore the Petition does. not show that either sheet in Funanroto includes
`
`the emitted light such that at least some of the light is redirected to pass through a
`
`liquid IIIj,'Sl'3l display with low loss” {claims 1 and 16) or “for controlling the Fig!
`
`output ray angle distribution of the light emitted to suit a particular application"
`
`{claim 31). Diffusion sheet 2-6 is only described as “diffirs[ing] the light that is
`
`reflected by difiusion pattern 50 and radiated from upper surface 213." (Funanioto.
`
`?JlwJ
`
`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 3}}. (Werner Decl. at 1] 53.] Diffusion
`
`sheet 26 is only described as "diffi1s[ir1g] the light that is reflected by diffusion
`
`pattern 50 and radiated fi'-3:11 upper surface 21a." (Funanroto, 721119; ‘Werner Decl.
`
`mess)
`
`Ex. 2006, para 53
`Ex. 2006, para 53
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 13-14
`Patent Owner Response, p. 13-14
`
`LGD_001775
`
`

`
`54.
`
`Sinnlarly. prism sheet 3? is only described as being "made up of very
`
`Siinilarlsr, prism sheet 2? is only described as being "made up of very small
`
`small linear prisms lined in a cross-sectional array." (Funamoto. 7:30-32.} Further.
`
`linear prisms lined in a cross—section.al array." (hnnanioto, 7:30-32; Werner Decl. at
`
`though ‘lzvriglitness can be improved Through prism sheet 2?, when s'u:fl.'1cier1t
`
`1} 54.] Further, ‘though “brightness can be improved through prism sheet 27, when
`
`brightness is achieved through diffusion sheet 25. prism sheet 2? can be omitted."
`
`(Funamoto. T23-4-38.) But Petitioner does not cite to any part of Funanioto that
`
`would indicate that the prisms are “for controlling the emitted Fight 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
`
`sufficient brightness is achieved through diffusion sheet 26, prism sheet 27 can he
`
`oniittedf’
`
`(Funnmoto, 7:34-38; ‘Werner Decl. at 1] 54.), Petitioner does not cite to
`
`any part of Funarnoto that would indicate that the prisms are “for controlling the
`
`emitted liflt such that at least some of the liflt is redirected to pass through a liquid
`
`light emitted to suit a particular application“ (claim 31).
`
`crystal display with low loss" [claims 1 and 16) or “for controlling the light output
`
`55.
`
`Dr. Escuti provides only conclusory statements in support of his
`
`ray angle distribution oftiie light emitted to suit a particular applic ation“ {claim 31).
`
`argument that Funarnoto discloses those limitations. With regard to the diffusion
`
`(Werner Dec]. at ‘ 54.)
`
`sheet of Funamoto, Dr. Escuti speculates that "difiusion sheet 25 can inherently
`
`Dr. Escuti provides only coriclusory statements in suppon ofhis argument that
`
`include reflective and refiactitre surfaces because the
`
`way most diffiisers
`
`Fiinamnno discloses those limitations. {Waner Dec]. at ‘Q 55.) With regard to the
`
`operate to redirect light is by modifying the surface shape or geometry." (Escuti
`
`difliusion sheet of I-'una.moto_ Dr. Escitti speculates that "diffiision sheet 26 can
`
`Decl. at ‘I 110.) Dr. Escutfs inherency argument—tha1 it can or even if it is t.i:tei'_\'
`
`incl‘uded—is contrary to my understanding that a feature is inherent only if it must
`
`be necessarily present. Further: he provides his opinion of how “most diffusers’
`
`function. but notably does not cite to anything in Funarnoto that supports his
`
`statement. (Id)
`
`inherently include refiective and refractive smtfaces because the pri.ma.r_v way most
`
`diffiisers operate to redirect light is by rnodifying the surface shape or geometry.°'
`
`Ciscuti Dec}. at 1] 110; Werner Decl. at 1] 55.) Dr. Escutfs inherent}-' argun1ent—thar
`
`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 premt. ['W'erri.er Decl. at '1] 55.)
`
`Furtlier, he provides his opinion ofhow "most di.i‘fusers°‘ function, but notably does
`
`not cite to anything in Funanioto that supports his statement. (Escuti Decl. at '- 1101.
`
`‘Werner Decl. at 1] 55.)
`
`Ex. 2006, para 54-55
`Ex. 2006, para 54-55
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 13-14
`Patent Owner Response, p. 13-14
`
`LGD_001776
`
`

`
`56.
`
`Dr. Escuti offers further conclusorjg statements as to diffitsion sheet ‘.16
`
`Dr. Escuti offers further CDI.'r.I2l1J.5Df_V statements as to diifiision sheet 26 and
`
`and prism sheet 2? of Funamoto having ‘ttrell-defined optical elements or
`
`prism sheet 27 of Funamoto having “welhdefined optical elements or deformities
`
`deformities for controlling the emitted light." In particular, Dr. Esctrti argues that a
`
`for controlling the emitted light-" (Werner Decl. at fl 55.) In particular. Dr. Escuti
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both the difinsion sheet and
`
`prism sheet utilize deformities for controlling the emitted fight. (Escnti Decl. at ‘P’
`
`112-13.} He seems to identify
`
`pattern 50" as the deformities. {Id} But
`
`diffiision pattern 50 does not even reside on diflfuscion sheet 27''. It is disclosed to he
`
`on pattern sheet 24 rvliich is arranged below polarizer 21. (Funarnnto. I5:4ll-4-1.}
`
`Thus, witlrout actually identifying any deformities on the difiusion sheet, he
`
`argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both the
`
`diffiuion sheet and prism sheet utilize deformities for controlling the emitted liflt.
`
`(Escuti Dec]. at {HT 112-13: ‘Werner Dec]. at 1T 56.] He seems to identify "difirsion
`
`pattern. 50" as the deformities. (Escuti Decl. at 1]‘ ll2—l3; Werner Decl. at r 56.} But
`
`difliusie-r1 pattern 50 does not even reside on diffusion sheet 2?. (‘Werner Decl. at 1]
`
`concludes that the diffusion sheet includes deformities designed to rand-rnnize the
`
`56.} It i.s disclosed to he on pattern sheet 24 which is arranged below polarizer 21.
`
`flow of light. increasing its divergence angle and reducing on-as-ris brightness. (ld.}
`
`(Fucliamoto. 6:40-44; W'ern.er Dec 1. at ll 56.) Thus, witltout actttally identifying any
`
`Tl1ePetition does not show that Funamoto discloses this as a firnction ofthe dl.fil.15i.I}Il
`
`deformities on the diffusion sheet. he ooi:tcl'udes that the diffirsion sheet includes
`
`sheet. nor does Dr. Escuti attempt to find support in Funainoto for this statement
`
`deformities designed to randomize the flow of light, increasing its divergence angle
`
`instead he refers to his analysis ot'Nishio. [Escuti Dec}. at ‘ET 113. 4?.) And. finalljtr.
`
`and reducing on—a.xis brightness. (Funarnoto. 6:4il-44; ‘Werner Decl. at ‘fl 56.) The
`
`Dr. Escuti cites Funarnoto 7:32-33 in support of his conclusion that "diffusion sheet
`
`Petition does not show that Funamoto discloses this as a firnction of the diffusion
`
`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." (Id). but that citation finni
`
`Eunarnoto does not discuss the claim limitation.
`
`Ex. 2006, para 56
`Ex. 2006, para 56
`
`sheet, nor does Dr. Es-cuti attempt to find support in Fttnainoro for this statement
`
`instead he refers to his analysis of Nishio. (Escuti Dec]. at
`
`113. 47: Funannoto.
`
`6:4-U=4l4; ‘Werner Dec]. at ll 56.} And, finally’. Dr. Escttti cites Furramoto 7532-38 in
`
`support of his conclusion that “dif‘fusion 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." [Fu:r1.an1oto, 6:40-44; ‘Werner Decl. at 1] 56.), but that citation fi'or.'-n
`
`Funarnoto does not discuss the claim limitation. (Werner Decl. .at1I 55.)
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 15-16
`Patent Owner Response, p. 15-16
`
`LGD_001777
`
`

`
`5?.
`
`.-lidditionallgr,
`
`I note that Dr. Escuti dismisses the polarizer 21 as a
`
`53. Additionally. Dr. Escuti dismisses the polarizer 21 as a “translation
`
`“translation
`
`(as discussed above) in part b-ecause “nowhere does Funamoto
`
`attribute polarizing attributes to the so—called polarizer 21." {EscutiDec1. at
`
`103.}
`
`But Funamoto fails equally in attributing diffusing attributes to the difiusion sheet
`
`26 and prismatic attributes to prism sheet 1?. {vet Dr. Escuti relies almost entirely on
`
`the naming of these features by Fuaanloto to -draw his comzlusions regarding their
`
`attributes. His analysis is parti-:ularlj,' flawed in light of this l.11Ct]II5lSlE'11C}'.
`
`error," [as discussed above) in part because “norwhere does Furiamoto attribute
`
`polarizing attributes to the so-called polarizer 31." (Escuti Decl. at 1] 103: Wenier
`
`Dec}. at 1T 57.) But Funamoto fails equally in attributing diffusing attributes to the
`
`diffusion sheet 25 and prismatic attributes to prism. sheet 2?. yet Dr. Escuti rehes
`
`ahnost entirely on the naming of these features by Funamoto to draw his conclusions
`
`58.
`
`Thus, the Petition does not show that Punamoto discloses a film, sheet.
`
`regarding their attributes. {Werner Dec}. at '7 57.) His analysis is particularly flawed
`
`plate. or substrate with “a refloctive or refractive surface" having "deformities or
`
`in light of this inconsistency. Gd.)
`
`optical elements "for controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the light
`
`Thus. the Petition does not show that Funanioto discloses a film, sheet, plate,
`
`is redirected to pass through a liquid c:|'_t-‘stat display with low 1oss"'(c1ain1s l and 16}
`
`or substrate with "a reflective or rei'ractit:e surface" having deformities or optical
`
`or "for controlling I:he light output raj,’ angle distribution of the light emitted to suit
`
`elements “for controlling the emitted light such. that at least some of the light is
`
`a particular application" (claim 31}.
`
`as recited b'5-' Claims 1_. 4-6. 16: 22. ‘.237 2?.
`
`redirected to pass tlzrrorugh a liquid crystal display with low loss" (claims 1 and 16}
`
`and 31 ofthe " 194 Patent.
`
`or ‘for controlling the light output ray angle distribution of the light emilrterl. to suit
`
`a particular application" (claim 31) as recited by Clainis 1. 4-6, l6, 23. 23, 2?, and
`
`3l oftlle "194 Patent. Ci-Verner Dec]- at ‘ll 58.)
`
`Ex. 2006, para 57-58
`Ex. 2006, para 57-58
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 16-17
`Patent Owner Response, p. 16-17
`
`LGD_001778
`
`

`
`59-
`
`Rtguding Claim 4. 111'? Pfilfi-tiflfl VIBES DDT S31DW fllfit F111‘-|flJ11U't0 515510535
`
`Regarding Claim 4. the Petition does not Show that Fttnamoto discloses that
`
`lhflt ‘fight fiflfll 3? IRES? W-'0 light SDll‘.l'I!f.'S P3153113’ IIIJKES ill at IEEST ii Pflfiiflfl Of thfl
`
`“light from at least two light sources partially mixes in at least a portion ofthe light
`
`lightetnitting asse|1Jh1}r."‘Vi.’hi]e Funsmotn does disclose the possible use of two light
`
`emitting assembly.” (Werner Deal. at ‘fl 59.) While Ftmamoto does disclose the
`
`sources. the Petition does not point to any disclosure that the light from these sources
`
`P059519 1159 Of ‘W0 light 5°“fC€5- The pefitiofl (1095 1101 P0131‘ "3 311?’ di-‘="=1°5~'W3 that
`
`is mixed anjmrhere within the disclosed light emitting assembly. Dr. Esouti fails to
`
`the ugh‘ 30“ 3355': 5°“"C'35 is mixed “Wt”? ""“hj‘1 the di5°1°-555 ugh‘ Bfllminfi
`
`cite any mpport for his co11e1nsionfl:|atIFut1an1oto discloses light propagating across
`
`assembly‘ whim” DEL at 1T 59') Dr‘ Esmfi fails t° Ci“? 3117'’ 5"P1:'°” for his
`
`the full Width of polatizer El therefore-
`
`ofthe ligl1tfi'Gt.t1 ht-‘D tiifferent sounces
`
`conclusion that Funamoto discloses light propagating across the fill.‘-1 width of
`
`occurs in the light en.I.itti.ng assembly. {Escuti Dec}. at f 144.} His conchisions and
`
`1J01flIiZ€I 31 lhefsfflm 91135113 0591? light from W0 dififffiflf -‘'rG111'€€S
`
`0901-15 ill the
`
`attempted reasoning are based onunsuppofied assuniptions. as evidenced 133-‘ his lack
`
`E131“ emitting 355€'fl-‘1b1}’-
`
`(ESCUH D691 at
`
`'7 1441 Wflfflef D"-"CL at 1] 59-J H13
`
`Bf-titan-Du to an), Suppom-_ng E.i_,idEm:e 1-nFuna_mDm__
`
`D1._ Egtmiatttmyts In make
`
`conclusions and attempted reasoning are based on unsupported assumptions. as
`
`up fin this lack of Support by citing his aw” afinommms to Flmammo Hg 19-
`
`evidenced by his lack of citation to any supporting evidence in Funamoto. (Escltti
`
`Both these notations are a fabiieationhy Dr. Esouti and not et-‘itience from Fuuamoto.
`..
`.
`.
`.
`.
`...
`Tl1us_.Dr_Escuttfa1Isto provide credible or ntfficientevidence thatthelnmtatronof
`_
`_
`_
`|I'l:n.o1 4 1S disciosed by Funamoto.
`
`D651‘ at 11 144: Wemef Dad‘ at 11 59') Dr‘ Emmi anempm to make up for this ifick of
`'
`b
`"
`h".
`r
`"-3
`F
`F'.19.
`"D 1.
`144;
`Support ycmng E Gun mmowmm to lmammo lg
`{Esflm cc aw
`Werner Decl. at '11 59.) Both these notations are a fabrication by Dr. Escuti and not
`
`evidence from Funaiznoto. (Werner Dec]. at "_ 59.) Thus. 31'. Escuti fails to provide
`
`credible or sufiicieut evidence that the ].imitation of Clairtzt 4 is disclosed by
`
`Ftmanloto ("Werner Decl. at "T 59.)
`
`Ex. 2006, para 59
`EX- 2005, Para 59
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 17-18
`Patent Owner Response, p. 17-18
`
`LGD_001779
`
`

`
`tit].
`
`For similar reasons as I stated for the limitations ofClaim 4. the Petition
`
`For similar reasons as I stated for the limitations of Claim 4- the Petition does
`
`does not show that Funamoto discloses the limitations of Claim 5 reciting "wherein
`
`not show that Furiamoto discloses the limitatinms of C-laint 5 reciting "wherei.n. the
`
`the portion of light emitting asseinbly in which the light partially mii-res is the panel
`
`portion of light emitting assembly in which the light partially‘ mixes is the panel
`
`member." Because the Petition does not show that Funainoto discloses mixing of
`
`3:ne1.u]:Ier." (Werner Dec]. at ll 60.) Because the Petition does not show that Funamoto
`
`light from two light sources. it also fails to disclose that the mixing occurs in the
`
`discloses mixing of light from two liflt sources. it also fails to disclose that the
`
`panel member. {Escuti Dec]. at 143-150.}
`
`mixing occurs in the panel member. (Escttti Decl- at 143-150; ‘Werner Decl. at 1] 60.)
`
`til.
`
`Dr. Escuti does not cite any‘ portion of Flmamoto that discloses this
`
`Dr. Escuti does not cite any portion of Funatnoto that discloses this limitation.
`
`limitation. Rather, he makes the argument that this limitation could be met by the
`
`(Escuti Dec]. at 143-150.} Earlier: he makes the argument that this limitation could
`
`Funamoto embodiment lJ:vWl.11_li__' two light sources. But. his argument is based only on
`
`he met by the Funamoto embodiment 113‘.-‘illg two light sources. (llterner Decl. at 1]
`
`unsupported assumptions and conjecture. ifSee Id.) Funainoto does not disclose that
`
`til.) But. his argument is hased only on unsupported assumptions and conjecture.
`
`the light fi‘om two dfierent sources mixes -in the panel member. Dr. Escutis
`
`thhricateti markings on Figure T does not change that.
`
`(See Escuti Decl. at 143-150; Werner Decl- at ‘-7 61.) The Petition does not show that
`
`Ftmamoto discloses that the light from two diflerent sources mixes in the panel
`
`62.
`
`For the same reasons that the Petition does not show that Funamoto
`
`member. Dr. Escuti‘ s fahricatedmarlcings on Figure 7" does not change that. (Werner
`
`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. Because the Petition fails to disclose Funamoto's mixing
`
`of light from two light sources. it also fails to disclose that the mixing occurs in the
`
`air gap.
`
`Ex. 2006, para 60-62
`Ex. 2006, para 60-62
`
`Dec]. .1111 61.}
`
`For the same reasons that the Petition does