`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2014-01362, Paper No. 31
`January 5, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD, AND
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC,
`Petitioner
`vs.
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`- - - - - -
`Case No. IPR2014-013621
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`- - - - - -
`Oral Hearing Held: November 20, 2015
`
`
`Before: THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, MIRIAM L. QUINN (via video),
`
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING (via video), Administrative Patent Judges
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, November
`20, 2015 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia in Hearing Room A, at 1:00 p.m.
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00489 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT G. PLUTA, ESQ.
`AMANDA K. STREFF, ESQ.
`Mayer Brown LLP
`71 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606-4637
`312-701-8641
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`
`ANITA Y. LAM, ESQ.
`BALDINE PAUL, ESQ.
`Mayer Brown LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`202-263-3146
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUSTIN B. KIMBLE, ESQ.
`Bragalone Conroy P.C.
`Chase Tower
`2000 Ross Avenue, Suite 4500W
`Dallas, TX 75201-7924
`214-785-6670
`jkimble@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:00 p.m.)
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Please be seated. So good
`afternoon, everyone. We are here for a final hearing in case
`IPR2014- 01362, which has been joined with IPR2015-00489.
`The caption of the case is LG Display and LG Electronics
`versus Innovative Display Technologies.
`Let me introduce the panel. I am Judge Giannetti.
`I will be presiding today. And participating remotely we have
`Judge Quinn, who is on the screen to my left, Judge Quinn
`from the Dallas office and Judge Bunting from the Detroit
`office.
`
`With that, let me get your appearances. Who is
`appearing today for the Petitioner?
`MR. PLUTA: Thank you, Your Honor, Robert
`Pluta on behalf of LG Display and LG Electronics. With me
`is Amanda Streff, Anita Lam, and Baldine Paul.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Thank you very much. And
`who is appearing today on behalf of Patent Owner?
`MR. KIMBLE: Justin Kimble, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. All right. Before we
`get started, I wanted to run over the ground rules for the
`hearing today. Each side will have 30 minutes to present
`argument. The Petitioner may reserve time for rebuttal. And
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`Petitioner can do that either at the beginning of the argument
`or at the end, whatever you prefer.
`I want to say a word about demonstratives. Both
`sides have provided copies of the demonstratives they
`intended to use and both sides have objected to the others'
`demonstratives.
`We're not going to rule on those objections at this
`point, but we will not authorize you to file the demonstratives
`at this point. You may use them as aids to your argument, but
`until you receive notice, further notice from the Board, the
`demonstratives are not to be filed in view of the objections
`that the parties have made.
`I will say another thing about demonstratives.
`Because we have two judges appearing remotely today, it is
`vitally important that when you do refer to a demonstrative,
`please use the slide number so that the remote judges can
`follow along with your presentation. We all have copies, the
`electronic copies of the demonstratives that you have
`provided.
`
`I will say that in view of the fact that
`demonstratives are not going to be entered into the record, the
`transcript is the record of this proceeding, so if you want
`something to be in the record, put it on the transcript. The
`demonstratives will not be part of the record of the
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`All right. Any questions from either party about
`the ground rules? Petitioner, anything further?
`MR. PLUTA: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Patent Owner?
`MR. KIMBLE: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Who will be making
`the presentation for the Petitioner?
`MR. PLUTA: Your Honor, I will, Robert Pluta.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Mr. Pluta. Okay.
`Mr. Pluta, you have 30 minutes and you may
`proceed whenever you are ready.
`MR. PLUTA: Thank you, Your Honor. I have a
`hard copy of the presentation. I don't know whether you
`would like it or not.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: You can hand it up. That
`would be fine. We also have our electronic copies. Okay,
`Mr. Pluta, whenever you are ready.
`MR. PLUTA: Thank you, Your Honor. May it
`please the Board, institution was granted on two grounds. I
`am on slide 2.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Yes.
`MR. PLUTA: Directed at 18 claims, but the
`dispute actually is quite narrow. It boils down to just a few
`limitations in dispute. And those few limitations are
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`disclosed, at least by a preponderance of the evidence, in the
`evidence of record.
`All Patent Owner has done here is respond with
`attorney argument. Patent Owner only challenges three
`limitations with respect to the Melby ground and two
`limitations with respect to the Nakamura ground. But the crux
`of Patent Owner's arguments rest on abandonment of common
`sense.
`
`Slide 3, the three limitations at issue here are the
`tray limitation, the particular application limitation, and one
`limitation from the dependent claim 9. For the first ground
`Patent Owner challenges all three limitations, but for the
`second ground, Patent Owner only challenges the tray
`limitation and the particular application limitation with
`respect to only claims 14 and 23.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Let me just pause, Mr.
`Pluta. Can our remote judges hear? Judge Quinn, Judge
`Bunting, can you hear?
`JUDGE QUINN: Yes, I can hear.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Great.
`JUDGE BUNTING: I can hear.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay, Mr. Pluta. Just be
`sure to keep your voice up so we can all hear.
`MR. PLUTA: I will try, Your Honor.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Maybe get a little closer to
`the microphone.
`MR. PLUTA: Okay. Thank you. Turning to slide
`6, and the first ground, Melby, Melby discloses a light fixture
`for use in flat panel displays. The light fixture has a light
`source of partially collimated light for emitting light having
`an access of collimation. Melby also discloses a housing.
`Moving to slide 7, specifically to the tray
`limitations, Melby discloses a housing 30 with continuous
`sidewalls 32, 34, 36 and a back wall 38. Nothing in Melby
`says that housing 30, which is explicitly called a housing, is
`anything but a continuous four-wall housing as the name
`suggests.
`
`And on slide 8, further illustrated in figure 3 of
`Melby, showing that the housing defines an optical cavity
`having an optical window. And Melby illustrates light rays
`emitted through overlying film 40, not out of the side.
`And the Institution Decision correctly noted that
`figure 3 would have been recognized by a person of ordinary
`skill in the art as a cross-sectional view, even though it is not
`described as such.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Counsel, what record
`support is there for that? I know that is your expert's opinion,
`but what is there in the record that would suggest that this is a
`cut-away view, cross- sectional view?
`
`
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`MR. PLUTA: Sure. In Melby, Melby is directed
`to a light fixture. So the context of Melby and its context
`with a light fixture and for use in flat panel displays suggests
`there is four walls in figure 3 of Melby, because if there were
`not that fourth wall, the light would escape outside of that --
`of that opening.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: But I thought Melby's
`intended use was in an automobile light. Is that correct?
`MR. PLUTA: That's another use of Melby. Melby
`explicitly talks about automobile lights and flat panel
`displays. So even in the context of an automobile light, you
`need a full enclosure.
`Now, whether an automobile light or not requires
`four walls, it is unclear, but with respect to Melby and figure
`3 and its use in a flat panel display, one of skill in the art
`certainly would recognize that that's a cross- sectional view.
`And this is --
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, does Melby say
`anywhere that flat panel displays is one of the intended uses?
`MR. PLUTA: Yes.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: It does?
`MR. PLUTA: Specifically at column 1, line 14
`through 16, and that was cited at petition page 10.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`MR. PLUTA: And the cross-sectional issue with
`respect to Melby was really an issue that Patent Owner raised
`in its response. And we put in the record in our reply as well
`specific paragraphs as we did in our petition with respect to
`Dr. Escuti's opinion that one of skill in the art would
`recognize that although not shown in cross-sectional view of
`figure 3, the housing 30 would include a fourth wall adjoining
`walls 32 and 36 of figure 3 to form the optical cavity that
`opens with the optical window covered in the transparent
`cover 40.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Mr. Pluta, usually in patent
`drawings when there is a cross-sectional view, the description
`of the figures usually identifies it as such.
`Why do you think that there is no such indication
`here in Melby that this is a cross-sectional view?
`MR. PLUTA: Well, first, I don't think there is any
`requirement that it would have to show it as a -- explicitly say
`it is a cross-sectional view, particularly in this case, where it
`would have been obvious to one of skill in the art that it is.
`There is -- it is disclosing uses of a flat panel -- it
`is called a housing. Housings are going to be full enclosures.
`It discloses the three walls and the back wall. It is a
`cross-sectional view because it is showing the internal
`workings of the optical cavity.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`So the fact that it is not drawn specifically as a
`cross-sectional view wouldn't lead one of skill in the art to
`not interpret that way when reading Melby.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: But you will agree with me
`that nothing in Melby specifically identifies that as a
`cross-sectional view? I'm referring to figure 3.
`MR. PLUTA: There is no specific words that
`cross-sectional view is in Melby. But as we put forth in our
`petition, in Dr. Escuti testified that one of skill in the art
`would recognize figure 3 of Melby as a cross-sectional view.
`So certainly given the preponderance of evidence
`standard, we would suggest that the Melby housing contains
`continuous sidewalls and a back wall that form a hollow
`cavity or recess completely surrounded by the sidewalls.
`JUDGE QUINN: I have a question about that.
`MR. PLUTA: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE QUINN: Melby describes its improvement
`over the art as improving the right angle film. So isn't there
`an argument that because you are focusing on the right angle
`film performance, that really the enclosure on the sides is not
`really that important?
`MR. PLUTA: I think the enclosure on the side
`would be particularly important with respect to figure 3.
`Melby discusses improving the uniformity of the light. The
`uniformity of the light would only be improved to the extent
`
`
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`that there is the fourth wall in figure 3. And then the light
`would be exiting out of element 40, the translucent cover.
`JUDGE QUINN: But Melby doesn't describe to my
`knowledge that uniformity is achieved by having light
`reflected off of the sides, only reflected off of the prisms.
`MR. PLUTA: The problem is if the figure 3 only
`had three walls, a lot of the light would escape outside the
`wall that apparently isn't there.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, the diagram doesn't
`show that, to follow up on Judge Quinn's question, the
`diagram shows the light making a right angle, the light ray
`making a right angle as it hits the -- those stepped
`deformities. It doesn't show the light reflecting off the
`sidewalls.
`MR. PLUTA: Your Honor, the light ray as shown
`in Melby are representative. Melby describes the light
`sources 42 and 44 as partially collimated light sources.
`So the light wouldn't behave in an arrow-like
`manner like it is set forth in figure 3. Rather, it would spread
`in a partially collimated way, either by, you know, fluorescent
`light, which is disclosed in Melby, even an LED would spread,
`so it would mix in the cavity and then when it would hit the
`prisms, it would go out of the device.
`JUDGE QUINN: Well, do you have any evidence
`either from Melby itself or an expert or maybe other treatise
`
`
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`on light dissipation that the source of light will essentially be
`uniform in this situation because it is reflecting off of
`surfaces other than just the prisms as taught by Melby?
`MR. PLUTA: So column 2 of Melby at line 60
`states because the light beam will naturally expand as it
`progresses to locations distanced from the sort. The curvature
`helps to maintain uniformity of illumination.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: That's referring to figure 2?
`MR. PLUTA: Correct.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: How does that apply to
`
`figure 3?
`
`MR. PLUTA: I think the same principles would
`apply to figure 3 because you have got the same light source.
`It is partially collimated light sources that would go outside
`the light source, hit the prisms, and uniformly emit through
`the translucent cover 40.
`So moving on to particular --
`JUDGE QUINN: I'm sorry, I thought that you
`were going to tie that into the answer -- the question I asked,
`which was what evidence do you have that there is a wider
`angle of the incident light coming in such that it will matter
`whether you have the side wall, also because the light is being
`reflected off of those sidewalls?
`MR. PLUTA: Yes, Your Honor. So the evidence
`is the identification of a light sources of Melby as being
`
`
`
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`partially collimated. Melby gives several examples of
`partially collimated light sources. For example, fluorescent
`tube or gas discharge lighting elements, as well as LEDs.
`So that would provide the evidence as well as the
`citations from Dr. Escuti's declaration that illustrate that the
`partially collimated light would spread after it exits the light
`source into the optical cavity.
`JUDGE QUINN: And you have -- I'm sorry, you
`had Dr. Escuti testify to that?
`MR. PLUTA: That's correct.
`JUDGE QUINN: And where is that testimony?
`MR. PLUTA: At least at paragraph 73 of his
`declaration, as well as paragraphs 106 through 109, as well as
`paragraphs 111 through 113. At least at those locations, Your
`Honor.
`
`So moving on, moving on to particular application,
`this is on slide 9, claims 1.C and 15.C require at least one
`sheet film or substrate overlying the assembly for controlling
`the light emitted for assembly -- from the assembly to fit a
`particular application. Here the translucent cover 40 overlies
`the assembly and lies in the optical window.
`And this can be specifically seen in figure 3. A
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a
`transparent or translucent cover is usually implemented as a
`sheet film or substrate. And figure 1 also discloses a light
`
`
`
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`transmitting member 14 that could include deformities, such
`as pillow optics or Fresnel prisms.
`Going to slide 10, both cover 40 and light
`transmitting member 14 control light to fit a particular
`application. Melby discloses a light fixture for use in flat
`panel displays, and the particular application was recognized
`in the Institution D ecision.
`The Patent Owner also acknowledges in its
`response at page 5 that Melby describes particular
`applications, such as thin light fixtures for automobile tail
`lights and back-light displays.
`At slide 11, with respect to claims 14 and 23, the
`sheet film or substrate must have deformities for controlling
`the light output ray angle distribution. Here the sheet 14
`disclosed in Melby contains pillow optics or Fresnel prisms,
`which are deformities according to the '177 patent.
`I would like to move on to the second ground, if I
`may, that Nakamura anticipates the challenged claims.
`Nakamura anticipates and discloses a liquid crystal
`display that is back-illuminated by LEDs. The illuminator is
`made of a shallow box form holder having a reflective inner
`surface.
`
`Here Patent Owner -- I am on slide 15 --
`challenges two limitations; the tray limitation and the
`particular application limitation.
`
`
`
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`And slide 16, turning to the tray limitation,
`Nakamura discloses a tray in the form of a shallow box form
`holder 24 with its surface open. And the Institution decision
`determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand such a holder to have a back wall and continuous
`sidewalls.
`Moving to slide 19 and the particular application
`limitation for Nakamura, Nakamura discloses at least one film
`sheet or substrate overlying the assembly for controlling the
`light emitted from the assembly. A Patent Owner is really
`only challenging claims 14 and 23 with respect to this ground,
`but there is enough overlap that we can go through the
`particular application as to claims 1 and 15 as well because it
`is the same for claims 14 and 23.
`And Nakamura expressly ties the light output of
`the particular application in that it is a sheet film or substrate
`that controls the light. So specifically looking at slide 20,
`Nakamura discloses that the two types of light 4A and 4B are
`diffused when they pass through the light diffusing plate and
`air layer 37. And, as a result, the entire display part 3a of the
`liquid crystal display panel is back- illuminated.
`And, more particularly, with respect to the
`limitations of claims 14 and 23 that require the light output
`ray angle distribution to fit a particular application, if we read
`-- if we continue to read that cite at Nakamura, column 7,
`
`
`
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`lines 31 through 34, Nakamura discloses the light diffusing
`plate 25 and air layer 37 to prevent flickering of the light in a
`specified direction by diffusing the light from the LEDs.
`Moving to slide 21, diffusing film 25 is a diffuser
`which would have deformities for controlling the output of the
`light. And diffusing film 25b is obtained, for example, by
`subjecting the surface of a polyester film, for example, to a
`light diffusing treatment by means of sand blasting, blast
`being to metal particles.
`So unless the Board has any further questions, I
`would like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. You have about 13
`minutes left.
`MR. PLUTA: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Mr. Kimble, whenever you
`are ready.
`MR. KIMBLE: Yes, Your Honor, just one moment
`to set up, please.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Take your time.
`MR. KIMBLE: Your Honor, may it please the
`Board, again, I am Justin Kimble on behalf of the Patent
`Owner.
`
`I will get right to it. I want to start with slide 3 of
`our presentation. I am going to focus with respect to the
`Melby reference on three elements.
`
`
`
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`For claims 1 and 15, it is that Melby doesn't
`disclose continuous sidewalls that completely surround. For
`claim 9, it is that Melby doesn't disclose mixing in the cavity.
`And for claims 14 and 23, it is that Melby doesn't disclose
`controlling light output ray angle distribution to fit a
`particular application.
`So I am going to move to slide 5 of our
`presentation. Here we have a picture, a figure from Melby,
`figure 3. Of course this was just discussed with Mr. Pluta
`previously.
`We do contend that this figure, nor any figure in
`Melby, shows continuous sidewalls that completely surround.
`Obviously it is missing from this drawing and from the other
`figure, and there is no disclosure, as I think was apparent
`from Mr. Pluta's answers of a suggestion that Melby intended
`for there to be a fourth wall.
`So looking at --
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Mr. Kimble, let me ask you
`this: Would you agree that just looking at the figure itself,
`without looking at the specification, is not the right approach
`to interpreting what this figure shows?
`MR. KIMBLE: I think that's right. I think in
`general you always have to look at the specification, in
`addition to figures, yes, sir.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So let's look at some of the
`words that the specification uses in connection with that
`figure. The first one is the term "housing." Doesn't that
`suggest four walls to you?
`MR. KIMBLE: No, not necessarily. I don't think
`
`so.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: My house has four walls,
`and I am happy for that. Doesn't that suggest the term
`housing, doesn't that suggest a four-walled structure?
`MR. KIMBLE: Look, obviously there are plenty
`of houses that has four walls. But I think a housing --
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Do you know of any that
`don't have four walls?
`MR. KIMBLE: Not modern houses, no, I don't
`think that I do. Now, with that said, I think that in certain
`applications -- and of course this isn't talking about a
`residence, this is talking about something that holds
`components for a light fixture -- a housing may be an
`enclosure, right?
`And particularly because of the design of the
`components in Melby, looking again at figure 3, and the fact
`that two things, one is that the light is partially collimated
`from the source and that it hits prisms that are described as
`turning the light at a right angle.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`So this light comes at the prisms and they turn the
`light up, as it were, as it shows there, to be diffused through
`the diffuser.
`And so there just is no need for the fourth wall.
`So, no, I don't think that the use of the word "housing" is --
`means that there must be a fourth wall.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, do you think that that
`-- that this drawing is accurate and attempting to be accurate
`in its portrayal of how the light travels?
`MR. KIMBLE: Yes.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: You think so?
`MR. KIMBLE: Yes. I think it travels from the
`light, so there is light sources on either side, they travel
`towards the prism, towards the prismatic surfaces, and then
`they are directed up.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So you don't think that this
`is a simplified diagram?
`MR. KIMBLE: Well, sure, but they are not -- the
`light is generally going towards those prisms because that's
`what they are there to do.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Do you attach any
`significance to the fact that the light source is partially
`collimated?
`MR. KIMBLE: No. I mean -- no, I don't. I think
`
`--
`
`
`
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Why not?
`MR. KIMBLE: Because, because, again, because
`of the purpose of the prism. So there is no discussion of
`using the edges to reflect the light back towards the prisms.
`The prisms are situated perpendicular to the light source, so
`that the light hits the prism and is turned at a right angle to go
`up.
`
`So I think that the use of the term, it is not
`partially that is an important term there, it is collimated. So
`the light is columnar -- traveling in a column-like fashion, and
`then it is turned up by the prisms and then directed through
`the diffuser sheet.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, if it is partially
`collimated, then it doesn't travel in that pattern?
`MR. KIMBLE: Well, it does, in general. And, I
`mean, it is not -- it is not said that it is just sprayed all over
`the place. It is directed towards the prisms and turned up.
`That is -- that is the whole purpose of this design.
`And as Your Honor recognized, if you look at the
`specification, there is no discussion of cross-section. There is
`no cross-sectional drawings, which as we all know are
`common in patent drawings.
`And as our inventor -- sorry -- our expert testified
`in deposition, engineers -- and I think we all recognize this --
`are loathe to add components that don't need to be there.
`
`
`
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`So if they needed it, if they needed a wall there,
`they would have mentioned it. But they didn't need it because
`of the way that this is designed.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, they do mention the
`
`wall.
`
`MR. KIMBLE: Not that wall.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, yeah, they mention
`four walls. The question is whether this drawing shows the
`walls.
`
`MR. KIMBLE: No, no. They mention three walls
`around the sides. And the back wall is 38, the one that is on
`the bottom there.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: They call walls 32, 34, 36,
`
`and 38.
`
`not --
`
`it?
`
`MR. KIMBLE: Right. And 38 is underneath. It is
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: That's not a wall, though, is
`
`MR. KIMBLE: Yeah, it is the back wall. It is
`underneath. It is the wall underneath. I mean, there is no --
`it is the wall that holds the prismatic surfaces.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: I see the arrow for 38
`pointing to that triangular structure. Isn't that pointing to the
`side wall there?
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`MR. KIMBLE: I understood it to be pointing at
`the entire back wall, the underneath there that forms the
`bottom of the fixture.
`JUDGE QUINN: But if you had a "wall" per se,
`then you wouldn't be able to see the details on the prism, so
`isn't this a technique of just engineering drawing that you can
`specify that there is a wall there, but to see how the prisms
`are organized and structured inside the cavity, which is how
`Melby describes that area as a cavity, then you can presume
`there is no wall there? It seems reasonable. Why wouldn't it?
`MR. KIMBLE: Well, I think -- I think the answer
`to that is the fact that it is not shown as a cross- section.
`Usually what I see in patent drawings is they do the, you
`know, the dotted engineer lines to show cross- section and they
`say, you know, this is a cross-section. This is cutting between
`it.
`
`Well, what -- what seems to be the argument here
`is not really that it is a cross-section, it is just that the wall
`was pulled off in this picture, but not named because, again, I
`think 38 --
`JUDGE QUINN: But it is also described. I mean,
`if we look at the description, which is what really controls
`here and the diagrams shed light into that description. It does
`say there are four walls, there is 32, 34, 36, and 38. And they
`define an optical cavity having an optical window.
`
`
`
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`So what -- where is this cavity then?
`MR. KIMBLE: Well, there is a cavity, whether
`there is a fourth wall or not. There is still an enclosed area.
`And in getting to your point, I am trying to find in
`Melby, I was certain that 38 is referred to as a back wall or
`perhaps --
`
`JUDGE QUINN: No, at column 2, lines 64 and 65,
`it calls them walls.
`MR. KIMBLE: That's right, Your Honor. I did --
`I located that right as you said it. One moment, please.
`So I think that's right. It does call them walls. As
`I, again, as I understood the drawing, and have always
`understood the drawing, it was referring to the bottom of
`the -- of the figure. In any event, it doesn't -- I don't think
`this figure is shown as a cross- section.
`And I think we're being asked then to assume that
`it just doesn't show the side, you know, what might be a side
`wall. And as Mr. Werner described --
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Counsel, what you call an
`assumption, though, might be simply the knowledge brought
`to this by a person of ordinary skill, as Dr. Escuti says.
`MR. KIMBLE: That's right. That can happen.
`But there is a dispute here. And so Mr. Werner, our expert, in
`his deposition testimony at page 50, line 20 through 51, line
`18, talked about why in his view it -- that it does make sense
`
`
`
`23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`-- I will say it in a better way -- that it does not make sense to
`make that assumption.
`And he says, and I sum it up here and I will show
`you the quote, and I am on slide 8, he said that the light does
`not move laterally towards the sides in Melby's structures,
`that the principles of Melby will work with as few as one
`wall, and that the engineers do not use unnecessary
`components in general.
`And so on slide -- I apologize -- slide 9, I have
`broken out this testimony. He says, he points out -- he says
`first, the petition doesn't even argue that there is a fourth wall
`in his view. Then he goes on to say the light-emitting surface
`means that the light rays never move out laterally towards the
`sides.
`
`He goes on to say: "So there, you know, so
`Melby's principles will work with as few as one wall and the
`physics of this device show no indication that a fourth wall is
`needed or desired."
`And then he says, finally, "engineers are loathe to
`utilize unnecessary components or amounts of material they're
`not needed to."
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So doesn't this come down
`to a question about whether we credit your expert or whether
`we credit Petitioner's expert?
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`Case No. IPR2014-01362
`Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`MR. KIMBLE: I think that that is a determination
`you have to make. And I think also to determine whether the
`absence of the description of the figure as a cross-section or
`the absence of cross-sectional markings can be disregarded.
`So if I might, I want to move to claim 9.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay.
`MR. KIMBLE: Melby does not disclose a portion
`of the light emitted from the light sources mixes in the cavity
`or recess. I am on slide 10. This is related to the issue of the
`collimated light.
`So the petit