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
`
`Patent 7,300,194
`_______________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,300,194
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`MR. WERNER’S DECLARATION SHOULD BE GIVEN LITTLE TO
`NO WEIGHT .................................................................................................1
`CLAIMS 1, 4-6, AND 28 ARE OBVIOUS OVER PRISTASH ................3
`A.
`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.” ...........................4
`Pristash Discloses “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.”..................................................................................................10
`Pristash Discloses That “Light From at Least Two Light Sources
`Partially Mixes in at Least a Portion of
`the Light Emitting
`Assembly.”.........................................................................................11
`III. CLAIMS 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, AND 31 ARE ANTICIPATED BY
`FUNAMOTO................................................................................................13
`A.
`Funamoto Discloses a “Light Emitting Panel Member Having a Light
`Emitting Surface.”..............................................................................14
`Funamoto 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.” .................15
`Funamoto Discloses “Well Defined Optical Elements or Deformities
`for Controlling the Light Output Ray Angle Distribution of the Light
`Emitted to Suit a Particular Application.” .........................................17
`IV. CLAIMS 4, 5, AND 6 ARE OBVIOUS OVER FUNAMOTO................19
`V.
`CLAIM 28 IS ANTICIPATED BY KOBAYASHI ..................................20
`VI. CLAIMS 1, 4-6, AND 28 ARE ANTICIPATED BY NISHIO ................22
`VII. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST...................................................................24
`VIII. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE ..........................25
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................25
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Bode,
`550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977)....................................................................9, 23
`
`In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d at 1477 .................................................................................................23
`
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529.....................................................................................................2
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)............................................................................................24
`
`Numatics, Inc. v. Balluff, Inc.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176759 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2014) ...............................3
`
`Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus.,
`953 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 817 (1992)...............8, 23
`
`Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co.,
`826 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................3
`
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054.....................................................................................................2
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194
`Complaints filed in Related District Court Cases
`Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,351 (“Funamoto”)
`JP H06-273756 (“Gyoko”) (English)
`JP H06-273756 (“Gyoko”) (Japanese)
`JP H06-273756 (“Gyoko”) (Certification)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,408,388 (“Kobayashi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,598,280 (“Nishio”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,060 (“the ’060 Patent”) and corresponding file
`history
`U.S. Patent No. 5,160,195 (“Miller”)
`J. A. Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic Press
`Inc., San Diego, 1992, at pp. 9-13 and Ch. 8
`U.S. Patent No. 5,384,658 (“Ohtake”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,303,322 (“Winston”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,050,946 (“Hathaway”)
`EP500960 (“Ohe”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,488 (“Ouderkirk”)
`3M product brochure 75-0500-0403-7, “Brightness Enhancement Film
`(BEF)”, 2 pages (1993)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,134 (“Konno”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,405 (“Takeuchi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,381,309 (“Borchardt”)
`Declaration of Jamie Beaber
`Comparison of Patent Owner Response with Werner Declaration
`6/16/2015 Deposition of Mr. Kenneth Werner
`Plaintiff’s Opening Markman Brief in 2:13-cv-522-JRG (EDTX)
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`In its January 13, 2015 Institution Decision on the ’194 Patent, the Board
`
`correctly found that Petitioner LG Display is likely to prevail in showing that (a)
`
`claims 1, 4-6, and 28 are obvious over Pristash; (b) claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31
`
`are anticipated by Funamoto; (c) claims 4, 5, and 6 are obvious over Funamoto; (d)
`
`claim 28 is anticipated by Kobayashi; and (e) claims 1, 4-6, and 28 are anticipated
`
`by Nishio. See Decision, Paper 9, at 17. Patent Owner Innovative Display
`
`Technologies, LLC’s Response does not rebut the Petition or the Board’s Decision.
`
`See Response, Paper 19. Additionally, Patent Owner’s Response is nearly
`
`identical to the declaration of its expert, Mr. Werner, who offers no technical
`
`opinions but rather challenges the sufficiency of the disclosure in the Petition.
`
`Thus, as explained below, it should be given no weight.
`
`I.
`
`MR. WERNER’S DECLARATION SHOULD BE GIVEN LITTLE TO
`NO WEIGHT
`
`Mr. Werner’s declaration should be given little to no weight for at least two
`
`reasons. First, the patent and prior art analysis sections of Mr. Werner’s declaration
`
`are nearly identical to those sections of the Patent Owner Response. Compare
`
`Paper No. 19, at 8-25 with Ex. 2006, at ¶¶40-78; see also Ex. 1026. Indeed, Mr.
`
`Werner admitted during his deposition that
`
`the Patent Owner Response was
`
`identical to his declaration except for the addition of citations to his declaration in
`
`the Response. See Ex.1027, at 22:23-26:21. Because Mr. Werner’s declaration
`
`simply tracks the arguments in the Response and is nearly identical, his declaration
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`is not helpful and should be given no probative weight. See, e.g., Wowza Media
`
`Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., IPR2013-00054, Paper No. 12, at 12 (April 8, 2013)
`
`(“The Declaration . . . appears, for the most part, simply to track and repeat the
`
`arguments for unpatentability presented in the Petition [and] . . . is therefore no
`
`more helpful that [sic] the Petition in determining where the challenged recitation
`
`is found in the references.”); see also Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions,
`
`Inc., IPR2014-00529, Paper No. 8, at 18 (Sept. 23, 2014) (“Paragraphs 28, 29, and
`
`30 of Dr. Mohapatra’s Declaration essentially are identical to the corresponding
`
`text of the Petition. Based on our analysis above, we give Dr. Mohapatra’s
`
`Declaration no probative weight.”).
`
`Second, Mr. Werner’s declaration should be given no weight because he
`
`provides no technical opinions on the prior art. Mr. Werner frequently states that
`
`“the Petition fails to show” or “the Petitioner fails to show,” but offers no
`
`affirmative opinion challenging the disclosure in the prior art and supporting his
`
`conclusory statements. See, e.g., Ex. 2006, at ¶¶40, 46, 68-70. Notably, Mr.
`
`Werner admitted during his deposition that he was only challenging the disclosure
`
`in the Petition and was not addressing the disclosure of claim limitations in the
`
`prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1027, at 83:1-84:10, 102:4-103:11. This is not surprising
`
`because Mr. Werner, when pressed on cross-examination, generally admitted that
`
`most of the elements of the claims at issue were present in the prior art. Because
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`Mr. Werner has not provided any technical expert opinions in his declaration, his
`
`declaration is not helpful and should be given no probative weight. Viterbo v. Dow
`
`Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420, 424 (5th Cir. 1987) (“Dr. Johnson’s testimony is no
`
`more than [plaintiff’s] testimony dressed up and sanctified as the opinion of an
`
`expert. Without more than credentials and a subjective opinion, an expert’s
`
`testimony that ‘it is so’ is not admissible.”); Numatics, Inc. v. Balluff, Inc., 2014
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176759, *6-18 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 16, 2014) (“An expert witness
`
`who is merely a party’s lawyer’s avatar contributes nothing useful to the decisional
`
`process.”)
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Mr. Werner’s declaration should be
`
`afforded little to no weight.
`
`II.
`
`CLAIMS 1, 4-6, AND 28 ARE OBVIOUS OVER PRISTASH
`
`Patent Owner challenges the obviousness of claims 1, 4-6, and 28 over
`
`Pristash in three respects.1 First, Patent Owner argues that Pristash fails to disclose
`
`“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
`
`1 Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Werner, agreed that Pristash discloses all of the
`
`limitation of claims 1 and 28 except the limitation “such that at least some of the
`
`light is redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss.” Ex. 1027,
`
`at 84:11-88:23.
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss.” Response, at 8-9.
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that Pristash fails to disclose “a plurality of optical
`
`elements or deformities of well-defined shape on or in the top and bottom
`
`surfaces” and that “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.” Response, at 8-
`
`10. Finally, Patent Owner argues that Pristash fails to disclose “light from at least
`
`two light sources partially mixes in at
`
`least a portion of the light emitting
`
`assembly.” Response, at 10.
`
`Each of these attacks on Pristash is unavailing. Moreover, other than a
`
`conclusory statement at page 4 of its Response with respect to “the combinations
`
`of these references,” Patent Owner does not challenge the motivation to combine
`
`the embodiments of Pristash to render claims 1, 4-6, and 28 obvious. As such, and
`
`as further set forth in the evidence of record, claims 1, 4-6, and 28 are obvious over
`
`Pristash.
`
`A.
`
`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.”
`
`Patent Owner argues that the second prismatic film 60 of Pristash does not
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`have 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.” Response, at 9.
`
`However, the Petition, Dr. Escuti’s declaration, and Patent Owner’s expert Mr.
`
`Werner were quite explicit that Pristash contains such features.
`
`First, Mr. Werner agreed that the second prismatic film 60 of Pristash had a
`
`“reflective or
`
`refractive surface” having “well defined optical elements or
`
`deformities for controlling the emitted light.” Ex. 1027, at 85:8-86:25.
`
`Second, Petitioner specifically cites to discussion of the second prismatic
`
`film 60 which is disposed in close proximity to the panel prismatic surface 52 to
`
`shift the angular emission of light toward a particular application. Petition, at 16.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner cites to Pristash being directed to provide for better control
`
`over the light output from the panel and more efficient transmission of light from a
`
`light source to the light emitting panel. Id.
`
`Moreover, Dr. Escuti explains that
`
`the second prismatic film 60 is
`
`“prismatic” and generally, microprisms are “small grooves or protrusions with two
`
`or more facets” and that the prismatic film would be understood to be a deformity.
`
`Ex. 1004, at ¶¶73-74, 46. Mr. Werner agreed. See Ex. 1027, at 85:8-86:7.
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`Figure 7 of Pristash clearly illustrates second prismatic film 60 has many
`
`facets, which are microprisms. Ex. 1004, at ¶46. According to Dr. Escuti and Mr.
`
`Werner, these facets are reflective and refractive surfaces. See Ex. 1027, at 85:8-
`
`86:2. On cross-examination, Dr. Escuti explained that “[i]n film 60, the underside
`
`is illustrated to have a plurality of prismatic surfaces in figure 7, and each facet of
`
`those microprisms would serve as the reflective and refractive, in fact, surface of
`
`this claim element.” Ex. 2005, Escuti Dep., at 133:1-13; 135:17-136:1.
`
`Furthermore, because Pristash discloses that the second prismatic film 60 may be
`
`replaced by a diffuser or lenticular lens or the like, and prismatic film 60 is meant
`
`to shift the angular emission of light toward a particular application, prismatic film
`
`60 is composed of deformities, understood to be “any change in the shape or
`
`geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of
`
`the light to be emitted.” Ex. 1004, at ¶¶74-75, 46. Dr. Escuti further explained,
`
`consistent with the Petition (at pp. 13, 16) and his Declaration (¶74), that the
`
`reflective or refractive surfaces have well-defined optical elements or deformities:
`
`Q: So do you not understand that to mean the reflective or refractive
`surfaces themselves must have well-defined optical elements or
`deformities?
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`A. Indeed, the reflective or refractive surface must have the well-
`defined optical elements or deformities, and it does.
`Q. But I thought you said the surface – the reflective or refractive
`surfaces were the surfaces of the prisms on sheet or film 60?
`A. That’s correct, but that is also the surface of the film. They are one
`and the same a little bit like our discussion earlier.
`
`… Q
`
`. Is there any other disclosure in Pristash of some additional well-
`defined optical elements or deformities that are on the reflective or
`refractive surfaces of sixty.
`A. In column 5 starting in line 30 going through 33, there is an
`additional disclosure that gives more detail. It says: Also multiple
`prismatic films may be used in place of the single prismatic film 60 or
`the prismatic film 60 may be replaced by a different – I’m sorry,
`replaced by a diffuser or lenticular lens or the like. So there is indeed
`more than just the prisms disclosed.
`
`Ex. 2005, at 136:6-137:16 (objections omitted). Mr. Werner agreed. Ex. 1027,
`
`86:3-7. Therefore, Pristash discloses second prismatic film 60 which is made up of
`
`facets (reflective or refractive surface, as can be seen from the light rays in Figure
`
`7) which are also deformities.
`
`Furthermore, the deformities control the emitted light such that at least some
`
`of the light is redirected to pass through the liquid crystal display with low loss. Dr.
`
`Escuti explains that “[b]ecause a large portion of the light emitted from a typical
`
`light pipe system is initially sent along oblique directions, the addition of a
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`microprism sheet typically increases/enhances the brightness of the light emitting
`
`panel as seen by a viewer directly observing on-axis.” Ex. 1004, at ¶46. Pristash is
`
`directed to panel illuminator configurations that are “less expensive to make and/or
`
`provide for better control over the light output from the panel. Also, the present
`
`invention provides for more efficient transmission of light from a light source to
`
`the light emitting panel.” Petition, at 16; Ex. 1004, at ¶75 (citing Pristash, at 1:11-
`
`16 (emphasis added)). 2 The efficiency/low loss is specifically tied to the
`
`deformities because “[the prismatic film] directs the light that was going to the
`
`panel already at oblique angles and it directs it toward the on-axis angle toward the
`
`viewer so that the display is seen by the viewer as brighter and essentially in
`
`reducing the display’s loss or leading to the display having a lower loss in
`
`efficiency.” Ex. 2005, at 46:14-21 (emphasis added). This is more than sufficient
`
`disclosure of the low loss limitation. See Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor
`
`Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 817
`
`2 Patent Owner tries to emphasize the location of this disclosure in relation to the
`
`disclosure regarding deformities. Response, at 9. However, Pristash should be read
`
`as a whole, and the entirety of Pristash is directed towards increased efficiency.
`
`The deformities are tied directly to this goal of increased efficiency/low loss. Mr.
`
`Werner also agreed that the deformities of Pristash control the emitted light. See
`
`Ex. 1027, at 86:8-25.
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`(1992) ("An anticipatory reference, however, need not duplicate word for word
`
`what is in the claims); In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977) (anticipation
`
`does not require in haec verba disclosure in a prior art reference).
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner has previously argued that “‘low loss’ goes hand-in-
`
`hand with the efficient use of light (‘the light output will be more efficient if …
`
`they [the light rays] pass through the liquid crystal display with low loss’).” Ex.
`
`1028, Pl. Acer Markman Br., at 28. With reference to the specification, Patent
`
`Owner argued that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have further understood
`
`the scope of ‘low loss’ terms in view of efficiency, which is one of the goals of the
`
`invention.” Id.; see also Ex. 1001, 1:25-29 (“the present invention relates to several
`
`different light emitting panel assembly configurations which provide for better
`
`control of the light output from the panel assemblies and for more efficient
`
`utilization of
`
`light, which results in greater
`
`light output
`
`from the panel
`
`assemblies.” (emphasis added)). As explained by Patent Owner, “the scope of the
`
`‘low loss’ term encompassed the efficient use of the light.” Ex. 1028, at 28.Thus,
`
`as explained by Dr. Escuti and in the Petition, Pristash discloses “low loss.”
`
`Patent Owner mischaracterizes Dr. Escuti’s cross-examination testimony
`
`when it suggests that Dr. Escuti believes Pristash lacks disclosure of the low loss
`
`limitation. Response at 9. In so doing, Patent Owner neglects Dr. Escuti’s full
`
`response that explains “in the discussion earlier about microprisms,
`
`[the
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`microprisms] redirect the light from oblique angles and they send it toward the
`
`normal direction which is toward the direction of the LCD, and the light that was
`
`going at oblique angles wasn’t getting to its viewer, so it – this lowers the loss by
`
`doing this.” Ex. 2005, at 152:17-153:2.
`
`Finally, Mr. Werner’s statements regarding “low loss” during his deposition
`
`should be afforded no weight because they are not provided in his declaration, they
`
`are not supported by the intrinsic evidence, and they are nonsensical, particularly
`
`in view of Dr. Escuti’s opinion on “low loss” and Patent Owners statements during
`
`claim construction proceedings in related district court litigation. Notably, Mr.
`
`Werner’s testimony is completely contradictory to prior opinions regarding low
`
`loss, where he opined that “‘low loss’ is a phrase that is commonly used when
`
`referring to the efficiencies of a back-lighting unit with relation to the transmission
`
`of light through a display.” Ex. 1028 at LGD_001968.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`Pristash discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, including the limitation “at least
`
`one of the reflective or refractive surfaces has 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.”
`
`B.
`
`Pristash Discloses “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
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`Light is Redirected to Pass Through a Liquid Crystal Display
`with Low Loss.”
`
`Patent Owner makes the exact same arguments for the similar limitation in
`
`claim 28. As discussed above, the Petition and Dr. Escuti illustrate clearly how
`
`Pristash discloses these limitations. As such, Petitioner has shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that Pristash discloses all of the limitations of claim
`
`28, including the limitation “at least one of the reflective or refractive surfaces has
`
`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,” of claim 1 and “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.”
`
`C.
`
`Pristash Discloses That “Light From at Least Two Light Sources
`Partially Mixes in at Least a Portion of the Light Emitting
`Assembly.”
`
`Patent Owner concedes Pristash discloses multiple light sources. Response
`
`at 10. Patent Owner contends, however, that Pristash does not disclose that light
`
`from these light sources is partially mixed anywhere within the disclosed light
`
`emitting assembly. Id. at 10. Patent Owner is incorrect. The Petition explains that
`
`“Pristash teaches multiple light sources which may be used with a single panel
`
`when the rays enter the panel from opposite edges (‘Light rays may be caused to
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`enter the panel 50 perpendicular to the wave guide prism edges 54 from one or
`
`both end edges 55, 56 of the panel,’ Id. 5:11-14 (emphasis added), Fig. 7 below),
`
`allowing the light to mix in the panel member or in the air gap (‘internally
`
`reflected until they strike a deformity,’ Id. 5:14-15).” Petition, at 14 (citing Ex.
`
`1004, at ¶¶80-88) (emphasis added).
`
`Additionally, Dr. Escuti, referring to Figure 7 (above), explains thoroughly
`
`that the light rays enter the panel 50 at both end edges 55, 56 of the panel and are
`
`internally reflected until they strike a deformity. Ex. 1004, at ¶81. The location of
`
`the entering light rays and the internal reflection throughout the wave guide 51
`
`render obvious the light rays mixing within the light emitting assembly. Id. at ¶82.
`
`Dr. Escuti, consistent with the Petition and his Declaration, explained further “that
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art understands that there are many more light rays
`
`than are illustrated incident on the panel below, and there is going to be mixing
`
`from those on the one side and those on the other side, and it’s – it’s to be expected
`
`and its inherent to what’s being disclosed here…. it’s apparent that these light rays
`
`are all bouncing around in here, and they are going to mix.” Ex. 2005, Escuti Dep.,
`
`at 153:22-154:17. Therefore, Petitioner has shown that Pristash discloses the
`
`limitations of claims 4-6.
`
`Finally, Mr. Werner agreed that Pristash discloses: (1) using multiple light
`
`sources, (2) light rays entering from both ends of the panel member in Pristash, (3)
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`light rays being internally reflected within the panel member shown in Fig. 7 until
`
`they strike a deformity, (4) the light sources would emit more than two lights on
`
`each end of the panel member, and (5) the structure shown between the light rays
`
`depicted in Fig. 7 is a prismatic structure, which would reflect or refract light,
`
`Notwithstanding these admissions, he incredulously refused to admit that the
`
`internally reflecting light rays within the panel member of Pristash will cross-
`
`paths. See Ex. 1027, at 88:24-94:10.
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`challenged claims 1, 4-6, and 28 of the ’194 Patent be deemed unpatentable as
`
`obvious over Pristash and those claims should be canceled.
`
`III. CLAIMS 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, AND 31 ARE ANTICIPATED BY
`FUNAMOTO
`
`Patent Owner contends that Funamoto does not anticipate claims 1, 16, 22,
`
`23, 27, and 31 for at least three reasons. First, Patent Owner asserts that Funamoto
`
`fails to disclose “a light emitting panel member having a light emitting surface,”
`
`which is required for claim 1. Response, at 10-13. Second, Patent Owner argues
`
`that Funamoto does not disclose “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,” as required by claims 1 and 16 of the ’194 patent. Id. at 13-17. Finally,
`
`Patent Owner believes that Funamoto does not disclose “well-defined optical
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`elements or deformities for controlling the light output ray angle distribution of the
`
`light emitted to suit a particular application,” as required by claim 31 of the ’194
`
`patent. Id.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments fail because Funamoto discloses each and every
`
`limitation of claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 of the ’194 patent. As such, and as
`
`further set forth in the evidence of record, claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 are
`
`anticipated by Funamoto.
`
`A.
`
`Funamoto Discloses a “Light Emitting Panel Member Having a
`Light Emitting Surface.”
`
`The Board previously found that Funamoto’s polarizer 21 is a “light emitting
`
`panel member” as required by the claims of the ’194 Patent because:
`
`the description of the light panel in the Specification of the ʼ194
`patent: “A transparent light emitting material of any suitable type . . .
`may be used for the light emitting panels.’ Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 10–12.
`This description, which would encompass a polarizer, persuades us
`that Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that
`the polarizer in
`Funamoto meets the light emitting panel limitation in the claims.”
`
`Decision, at 9-10. Patent Owner has offered no reasons why polarizer 21 of
`
`Funamoto does not fit
`
`the description of light emitting panel
`
`in the ’194
`
`Specification. See, e.g., Response, at 11-13. Additionally, Mr. Werner agreed that
`
`the positioning of polarizer 21 within the assembly is not typical for a polarizer,
`
`that Funamoto does not address whether the polarizer 21 filters out a portion of the
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`incident light, and does not address whether it provides polarized light as an
`
`output, does not discuss polarized light in the specification. See Ex. 1027, at 94:23-
`
`96:5. For at least these reasons, Funamoto discloses “a light emitting panel
`
`member having a light emitting surface,” as required by claim 1.
`
`B.
`
`Funamoto 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.”
`
`As discussed in the Petition and in the Escuti Declaration, prism sheet 27
`
`inherently includes reflective and refractive surfaces because it is composed of
`
`very small linear prisms lined in a cross-sectional array. Petition, at 23-24; Ex.
`
`1004, at ¶¶110-114. As previously discussed, the microprisms of a prism sheet
`
`with small linear prisms include facets that are reflective and refractive surfaces,
`
`and the microprisms redirect off-axis light toward the on-axis direction making the
`
`light emitting panel assembly appear brighter. Ex. 1004, at ¶46. The reflective and
`
`refractive surfaces are inherently disclosed because “it’s inherent to the definition
`
`of what a prism sheet is. It has prisms and they will have reflective and refractive
`
`surfaces.” Ex. 2005, Escuti Dep., at 156:11-14. Furthermore, “[t]he prisms are the
`
`deformities,” and “the film[,] sheet, plate or substrate has the reflective or
`
`refractive surfaces, and the prisms also have those refractive or reflective surfaces,
`
`and those are the deformities.” Id. at 156:19; 157:15-19.
`
`In coming to this
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`conclusion, Dr. Escuti relied upon the specification of the ’194 Patent for
`
`guidance:
`
`Q. Because the surfaces of the microprisms are both the surface of the
`sheet and the surfaces of each individual microprism, is that right?
`A. Yeah,
`that’s correct, and, of course,
`that’s the same as the
`disclosure in the [’194] patent, for example, in figure 4d.
`
`Id. at 157:20-158:4.
`
`Diffusion sheet 26 of Funamoto also meets this limitation of claim 1 because
`
`“a second common deformity is one that causes a diffusing effect,” and it “diffuses
`
`the light that is reflected by diffusion pattern 50 and radiated from upper surface
`
`21a,” by “caus[ing] a diffusing effect, which at least partially randomizes the
`
`direction of light, increasing its divergence angle and reducing on-axis brightness,”
`
`and “tend[ing] to blur shadows or brightness variations, making light more
`
`uniform.” Petition, at 23; Ex. 1004, at ¶¶47, 113.3
`
`Both the diffusion sheet 26 and the prism sheet 27 include deformities for
`
`controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the light is redirected to pass
`
`through the liquid crystal display with low loss because:
`
`the microprisms function by taking the light that’s in the oblique axes,
`oblique directions, redirecting it toward the viewer in the normal
`
`3 Petitioner never identifies diffusion pattern 50 as the deformities, despite Patent
`
`Owner’s accusation. Response, at 15.
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`direction, and that is clearly through the liquid crystal display, and as
`he is saying in this quoted text, and I think as a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand it, as compared to the case without
`the prism sheet, the configuration with the prism sheet is going to
`have lower loss.
`Ex. 2005, Escuti Dep., at 165:4-13 (citing to Ex. 1004, at ¶113 and Funamoto at
`
`7:32-38). Further, “both of [diffusion sheet 26 and prism sheet 27] are improving
`
`the brightness which in this context is equivalent to improving the efficiency and
`
`achieving low loss.” Ex. 2005, Escuti Dep., at 165:6-9 (citing Funamoto at 7:32-
`
`38).
`
`Additionally, Mr. Werner agrees that Funamoto discloses “a reflective or
`
`refractive surface” having “well defined optical elements or deformities for
`
`controlling the emitted light.” See Ex. 1027, at 99:10-101:22.
`
`Therefore, Funamoto 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,” as required by claims 1 and 16 of the ’194 Patent.
`
`C.
`
`or
`“Well Defined Optical Elements
`Funamoto Discloses
`Deformities
`for Controlling the Light Output Ray Angle
`Distribution of
`the Light Emitted to Suit a Particular
`Application.”
`
`For claim 31, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, Petitioner consistently
`
`refers to the prism sheet when discussing limitations 31.c and 31.d. As can been
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01097: Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`seen clearly from the Petition, limitation 31.c (which refers to limitation 16.c) cites
`
`to prism sheet 27. Petition, at 26, 29. Then limitation 31