trials@uspto.gov
`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.
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
