`Patent 7,300,194
`Filed on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies LLC.
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com)
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Ave.
`Suite 4500 – West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and
`MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,300,194
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“IDT” or “Patent
`
`Owner”) hereby files this Preliminary Response to the Petition (the “Petition” or
`
`“Instant Petition”) for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 (the “’194
`
`patent”) in IPR2015-00360 filed by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz
`
`U.S. International, Inc. (“Mercedes-Benz” or “Petitioner”).
`
`The PTAB should deny the Petition’s request to institute IPR because the
`
`grounds in the Petition do not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of any claims
`
`being invalid. The Petitioner’s challenge to the ’194 patent claims should be rejected
`
`because the prior art lacks several material claim limitations. Even if one of skill in
`
`the art would have combined the references as Petitioner suggests – the combination
`
`would not yield the claimed invention.
`
`Moreover, The PTAB should deny the Petition’s request to institute this Inter
`
`Partes Review because it is 100% duplicative of IPR2014-01097 (the “LGD
`
`Petition”) (Ex. 2001) filed on July 1, 2014 against the ’194 patent by LG Display
`
`Co. Ltd. (“LGD”).
`
`Patent Owner has limited its identification of the deficiencies in Petitioner’s
`
`argument in this Preliminary Response; Patent Owner does not intend to waive any
`
`arguments by not addressing them in this Preliminary Response.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`This Preliminary Response is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.107, as it is filed within the deadline set by the March 17, 2015, date of the New
`
`Filing Date accorded to Petition and the Extended Due Date for filing Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response in accordance with the Conduct of the Proceeding
`
`Order of March 16, 2015. Paper No. 19.
`
`A. Related Petition Decisions
`
`Patent Owner notifies the Board that the instant petition is an essentially
`
`identical petition to the petition filed in IPR2014-01097 by LG Display Co., Ltd.
`
`(“LGD”) on July 1, 2014. LGD Petition, Ex. 2001. See also IPR2015-00490. The
`
`Board denied institution of two of the seven grounds in that proceeding. Namely:
`
`anticipation of claims 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 by Gyoko; and obviousness of claims
`
`16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 over Nishio alone or Nishio and Funamoto. Inter partes review
`
`was instituted on the following five grounds of alleged invalidity over four
`
`references: Obviousness of claims 1, 4–6, and 28 over Pristash; Anticipation of
`
`claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 by Funamoto; Obviousness of claims 4, 5, and 6
`
`over Funamoto; Anticipation of claim 28 by Kobayashi; and Anticipation of claims
`
`1, 4–6, and 28 by Nishio.
`
`For the following reasons discussed in detail below, the Patent Owner shows
`
`that the challenged grounds do not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that
`
`petitioner’s would prevail.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`B.
`The ’194 Patent
`
`The ’194 patent relates generally, to “light emitting panel assemblies”
`
`including a transparent panel member for efficiently conducting light, and
`
`controlling the light conducted by the panel member to be emitted from one or more
`
`light output areas along its length. Ex. 1001, (“’194 patent”) at 1:19-29.
`
`The ’194 patent relates to light emitting panel assemblies with configurations
`
`that provide for better control of the light output from the panel assemblies and for
`
`more efficient utilization of light, which results in greater light output from the panel
`
`assemblies. Id.
`
`In particular, the ’194 patent relates to a light emitting assembly
`
`configurations that can provide very efficient panel assemblies that have increased
`
`uniformity and higher light output from the panel members with lower power
`
`requirements, allowing the panel members to be made thinner and/or longer, and/or
`
`of various shapes and sizes. ’194 patent at 2:1-6
`
`The Petition attempts to characterize the ’194 patent as merely describing
`
`“several different light emitting panel assembly configurations which allegedly
`
`provide for better control of light output from the panel assembly and for more
`
`‘efficient’ utilization of light, thereby resulting in greater light output from the panel
`
`assembly.” Petition, Paper 1 at 6-7. The Petition alleges that various claimed light
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`emitting panel assemblies would have been anticipated and/or obvious in view of
`
`Pristash, Funamoto, Kobayashi, or Nishio. Petition at 11.
`
`However, the Petition fails to demonstrate (1) that the combination of these
`
`references would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of invention and (2) that the modifications and combinations suggested would
`
`result in the light emitting panel assemblies disclosed by the ’194 patent as required
`
`to find obviousness by Pristash or Funamoto.
`
`For the first ground, the Petition relies on the Pristash reference that was
`
`disclosed during prosecution, and Examiner Anabel M Ton expressly considered
`
`Pristash during the prosecution of the ’194 patent. See “List of References Cited by
`
`Applicant and Considered by Examiner 04-2-2007”, Ex. 1002 at MBI_000059-
`
`MBI_000061. After having considered Pristash, the Examiner did not make a
`
`rejection based on Pristash, but rather allowed the claims of the ’194 patent.
`
`The ’194 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 11/245,408, which was
`
`filed on October 6, 2005 and claims a priority date of June 27, 1995.
`
`C.
`
`The Petition References
`
`1.
`
`Pristash
`
`Pristash describes a thin panel illuminator that includes a solid transparent
`
`panel member having one or more deformed output regions. Ex. 1006, Abstract. The
`
`arrangement causes light entering the panel to be emitted along its length. Id.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`Pristash Figure 1 above shows an exemplary panel.
`
`2.
`
`Kobayashi
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,408,388 to Kobayashi (“Kobayashi”) (Exhibit 1011) is titled
`
`“Planar illuminating device” and describes a planar illuminating device that uses
`
`“two sources of light each arranged adjacent to one of the side edges of the plate, a
`
`reflector arranged behind the plate rear face and reflecting rays of light from the
`
`plate to the front face of the plate, a light diffuser arranged in front of the plate and
`
`diffusing rays of light from the plate. The device comprises a reflecting finish
`
`applied directly to the rear face of the plate.” Kobayashi, Abstract.
`
`3.
`
`Alleged Admitted Prior Art
`
`Petitioner states that it relies on admitted prior art as a basis to form its
`
`petition. Petition at 8. But the petition’s validity analysis makes no reference to
`
`admitted prior art. Patent Owner therefore declines to respond to the assertion except
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`to state that Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s analysis of what it claims is
`
`admitted prior art.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For inter partes reviews, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Additionally, the words of the claim must be given their plain
`
`meaning that is consistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term
`
`may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art.
`
`The arguments in this Response stand despite Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction and despite the broadest reasonable construction of the terms. This
`
`Preliminary Response does not take a position on claim construction at this point.
`
`Patent Owner reserves the right to propose its own construction of any and all claim
`
`terms for which an issue arises in the event the PTAB institutes this IPR.
`
`Patent Owner notifies the Board that the district court in Innovative Display
`
`Technologies v. Acer, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-522 (E.D. Tex. 2013) (Dkt. No. 101)
`
`(“Claim Construction Order”) (Ex. 2002) has ruled on constructions of terms in this
`
`patent, including entering an agreed construction of “deformities” that Petitioner
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`adopts in its Petition. Petition at 8; Ex. 2002 at 58. Patent Owner notes that
`
`“deformities” is the only term for which Petitioner offers a construction.
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD DECLINE TO INSTITUTE THE INSTANT
`PETITION BECAUSE THE GROUNDS AND THEIR REFERENCES
`ASSERTED ARE CUMULATIVE AND REDUNDANT
`
`In the Instant Petition, Mercedes-Benz relies on arguments that the Board
`
`considered and rejected in the Petition filed by LG Display on July 1, 2014.
`
`Additionally, Mercedes-Benz has provided no meaningful distinction between the
`
`grounds asserted in the LGD Petition and the instant petition. The Board should
`
`decline to consider the cumulative and redundant grounds.
`
`The authority to manage co-pending proceedings and to deny an AIA trial
`
`because of duplicative arguments in other proceedings allows the PTAB to prevent
`
`the inefficiency, waste, and inequity that naturally result when patent challengers
`
`file needlessly duplicative proceedings against the same patent. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d).
`
`Duplicative USPTO proceedings thwart the goal of reducing the expense of
`
`validity disputes by multiplying the time and expense that both the USPTO and the
`
`parties must expend to resolve validity disputes. By filing duplicative IPRs, the
`
`Petitioner merely seeks to increase the enormous burden on Patent Owners who face
`
`multiple and concurrent AIA trials as well as litigation in district court, and the Board
`
`should not allow it.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`A.
`The Instant Petition Is Cumulative of a Current Office Proceeding
`
`The Instant Petition relies on the very same arguments that LGD presented to
`
`the PTAB in its Petition in IPR2014-01097. Indeed, the arguments presented by
`
`Petitioner are identical to the LGD Petition and reference identical testimony from
`
`the same expert. Under Section 325(d), the Board should deny petitions that
`
`challenge a patent based on previously presented grounds and cumulative and
`
`duplicative art, otherwise petitioners may be given an unwarranted and unfair
`
`procedural advantage in pending infringement litigation. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d);
`
`See also, Unified Patents, IPR2014-00702, Paper 13 at 2, 7-8 (denying third party
`
`IPR petition in view of previous IPR petition citing the same prior art reference).
`
`“In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter,
`
`chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the
`
`petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously were presented to the Office” thus utilizing judicial resources to their best
`
`advantage. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The legislative history of Section 325(d) confirms
`
`that this is also what Congress intended: Section 325(d) “allows the Patent Office to
`
`reject any request for a proceeding, including a request for ex parte reexamination,
`
`if the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were
`
`presented to the Office with respect to that patent.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1042 (daily ed.
`
`Mar. 1, 2011) (Statement of Sen. Kyl).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`B.
`The Board has Already Declined to Institute Review Based on the
`Same Art in the Instant Petition
`
`In the LGD Petition, the Petitioner raised the same arguments as the Petitioner
`
`is raising in the Instant Petition with respect to all Grounds of alleged invalidity.
`
`Most of the Grounds raised were denied institution. In particular, Grounds 4, 6, and
`
`7 were determined to not have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the LGD
`
`Petition. Ex. 2003 (IPR2014-1097, Paper No. 9, Institution Decision) at 17.
`
`Here, Petitioner makes identical arguments to the arguments presented in the
`
`LGD Petition. Petitioner makes no argument or explanation why the art cited or
`
`arguments presented are not “the same or substantially the same” as the LGD
`
`Petition. Accordingly, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny Inter Partes
`
`Review.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT FOUND SOLELY IN THE EXPERT DECLARATION
`IS IMPROPER AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED
`
`Repeatedly the Petition itself fails to identify or argue certain claim elements
`
`and relies on the identification and argument presented solely in the Escuti Expert
`
`Declaration. This does not meet the statutory requirements of IPRs, which requires
`
`that the petition must contain a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested,
`
`including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.22(a)(2).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`For example, the Petition appears to rely on argument appearing solely in the
`
`Escuti Declaration to provide an explanation of the purported “controlling the light
`
`output ray angle distribution of the light emitted to suit a particular application.”
`
`Petition at 22. This however is improper and the Board should decline to review
`
`arguments not expressly included in the Instant Petition. See, e.g., Conopco, Inc. v.
`
`The Procter & Gamble Co., No. IPR2013-00510, Paper No. 9, Decision Denying
`
`Inter Partes Review at 8-9 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2014). The Board found that considering
`
`such information “would encourage the use of declarations to circumvent the page
`
`limits that apply to petitions.” Id. at 8. Further, the Board held that the PTAB’s rules
`
`prohibit arguments made in supporting declarations from being incorporated by
`
`reference into a petition. Id. at 8-9 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)); accord Blackberry
`
`Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas LLC, No IPR2013-00016, Paper No. 32 at 21 (PTAB
`
`Feb. 25, 2014).
`
`V. VALIDITY OVER PRIOR ART
`A.
`Pristash – Obviousness of Claims 1, 4–6, and 28
`
`The Petition fails to show that Pristash teaches and/or renders obvious each
`
`and every limitation of the challenged claims of the ’194 Patent. Specifically, the
`
`Petition does not show that Pristash discloses “a reflective or refractive surface”
`
`having “well defined optical elements or deformities for controlling the emitted light
`
`such that at least some of the light is redirected to pass through a liquid crystal
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`display with low loss.” This limitation is required by independent Claim 1 and
`
`therefore also dependent Claims 4-6. Claim 28 recites “a plurality of optical
`
`elements or deformities of well defined shape on or in the top and bottom surfaces,
`
`at least some of the optical elements or deformities on or in at least one of the top
`
`and bottom surfaces having one or more reflective or refractive surfaces for
`
`controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the light is redirected to pass
`
`through a liquid crystal display with low loss.” Likewise, the Petition does not show
`
`that Pristash discloses this limitation.
`
`As shown in Figure 7, Pristash teaches “a light emitting panel 50 . . . which
`
`also comprises a solid transparent prismatic film 51 having a prismatic surface 52
`
`on one side and a back reflector 53 on the other side.” Pristash, 5:6-10. “In addition,
`
`the panel 50 includes a second prismatic film 60 disposed in close proximity to the
`
`panel prismatic surface 52 to shift the angular emission of light toward a particular
`
`application.” Pristash, 5:22-25.
`
`The Petition fails to show that Pristash teaches that the second prismatic film
`
`60 includes a “reflective or refractive surface” having “well defined optical elements
`
`or deformities for controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the light is
`
`redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss.”
`
`Further, to meet the requirement of “well defined optical elements or
`
`deformities for controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the light is
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss,” Dr. Escuti ties
`
`general disclosure in the background of Pristash to the discussion five columns later
`
`about deformities. Escuti Decl. at ¶ 52. But there is no explicit disclosure in Pristash
`
`that the well-defined deformities control the emitted light such that at least some of
`
`the light is redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss.
`
`Accordingly, Escuti’s conclusory arguments fail.
`
`In a similar manner, Dr. Escuti concludes that the second prismatic film has
`
`well-defined optical elements or deformities. Escuti Decl. at ¶ 74. But he does not
`
`describe how the unidentified optical elements or deformities of Pristash control the
`
`emitted light. Thus, the Petition is lacking evidence that the second prismatic film of
`
`Pristash discloses this limitation of claim 28.
`
`The Petition does not show that Pristash discloses that “light from at least two
`
`light sources partially mixes in at least a portion of the light emitting assembly,” as
`
`recited by claim 4. While Pristash may disclose the possible use of multiple light
`
`sources, the Petition does not show where Pristash discloses that the light from these
`
`sources is mixed anywhere within the disclosed light emitting assembly.
`
`Funamoto – Anticipation of Claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31; and
`B.
`Obviousness of Claims 4-6
`
`The Petition fails to show that Funamoto teaches each and every limitation of
`
`the instituted claims of the ’194 Patent. Specifically, the Petition fails to show that
`
`Funamoto discloses “at least a light emitting panel member having a light emitting
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`surface.” This limitation is required by independent Claim 1. The Petition also fails
`
`to show that Funamoto discloses a film, sheet, plate, or substrate with “a reflective
`
`or refractive surface” having “well defined optical elements or deformities for
`
`controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the light is redirected to pass
`
`through a liquid crystal display with low loss” (claims 1 and 16) or “well defined
`
`optical elements or deformities for controlling the light output ray angle distribution
`
`of the light emitted to suit a particular application” (claim 31). Because those
`
`limitations are required by independent Claims 1, 16, and 31, they are therefore also
`
`required by dependent claims 4-6, 22, 23 and 27 of the ’194 Patent.
`
`Funamoto discloses a polarizer 21. Funamoto, 6:24-26. And Petitioner alleges
`
`that the polarizer 21 of Funamoto is the panel member recited in claim 1. Petition at
`
`20-21; Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 101-103. But, a polarizer operates to filter out a portion of
`
`incident unpolarized light so as to provide polarized light. The polarizer 21 of
`
`Funamoto would result in a significant light loss as the portion of incident light not
`
`having the desired polarization would be filtered out. With this understanding, the
`
`Petition does not show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to
`
`consider the polarizer 21 of Funamoto as a light emitting panel member as recited in
`
`claim 1 of the ’194 patent.
`
`In support of this theory, Dr. Escuti refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,108,060 (‘the
`
`’060 patent”) in an attempt to substitute Funamoto’s teaching of a polarizer 21 with
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`language in the ’060 patent. Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 101-103. The ’060 patent is a
`
`divisional grandchild of Funamoto. Dr. Escuti alleges that the ’060 Patent replaced
`
`the term “polarizer” with the phrase “light guide plate.” Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 101-103.
`
`He then goes on to import the phrase “light guide plate” into Funamoto in place of
`
`the term “polarizer” relying merely on a conclusory statement that the term
`
`“polarizer” as used in Funamoto “must be a translation error.” Escuti Decl. at ¶
`
`103.
`
`Dr. Escuti does not allege the teachings of Funamoto would lead one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to understand the term “polarizer” differently from its
`
`ordinary meaning. Dr. Escuti, by importing the language from the ’060 patent,
`
`disregards the plain language in Funamoto. The term “polarizer” is a term of art and
`
`it is unlikely that the meanings of the term “polarizer” and phrase “light guide plate”
`
`would be confused or used in error by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Moreover, as admitted by Dr. Escuti, the ’060 patent resulted from an
`
`intervening patent, the U.S. Patent No. 5,949,505 (“the ’505 patent”), but he ignores
`
`the language used in the ’505 patent without explanation and focuses only on the
`
`’060 patent. Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 101-103. But the term “polarizer” is consistently used
`
`in both Funamoto and the ’505 patent during the lengthy prosecution of Funamoto
`
`and the ’505 patent, spanning more than 5 years from 1994 to 1999.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`Even if the term “polarizer” was, in fact, a translation error, Funamoto would
`
`have been a non-enabling disclosure at the time of the present invention. The ’060
`
`patent was published on August 22, 2000 – more than 5 years after the effective
`
`filing date of the ’194 patent. Although Funamoto was alleged to have a priority date
`
`of May 10, 1994, the alleged corrected translation was not available to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art until more than 6 years later – well after the effective filing
`
`date of the ’194 patent. Dr. Escuti has failed to explain how one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would be enabled to arrive at the claimed subject matter without undue
`
`experimentation despite the alleged translation error for one of the key components
`
`of Funamoto.
`
`For at least the above discussed reasons, the Petition does not show that
`
`Funamoto teaches the claimed light emitting panel member or was an enabling
`
`disclosure at the time of the present invention. Accordingly, the Petition does not
`
`show that Funamoto discloses this limitation of claim 1 or renders obvious claims 4-
`
`6 of the ’194 Patent.
`
`Funamoto discloses a “diffusion sheet 26” and a “prism sheet 27” which are
`
`“arranged on the upper portion of upper surface 21a” of polarizer 21. Funamoto, 7:2-
`
`10. But the Petition cites to nowhere in Funamoto where the diffusion sheet 26 or
`
`the prism sheet 27 are described in any worthwhile detail. Therefore the Petition
`
`does not show that either sheet in Funamoto includes deformities or elements “for
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the light is redirected to pass
`
`through a liquid crystal display with low loss” (claims 1 and 16) or “for controlling
`
`the light output ray angle distribution of the light emitted to suit a particular
`
`application” (claim 31). Diffusion sheet 26 is only described as “diffus[ing] the light
`
`that is reflected by diffusion pattern 50 and radiated from upper surface 21a.”
`
`Funamoto, 7:17-19.
`
`Similarly, prism sheet 27 is only described as being “made up of very small
`
`linear prisms lined in a cross-sectional array.” Funamoto, 7:30-32. Further, though
`
`“brightness can be improved through prism sheet 27, when sufficient brightness is
`
`achieved through diffusion sheet 26, prism sheet 27 can be omitted.” Funamoto,
`
`7:34-38. But, Petitioner does not cite to any part of Funamoto that would indicate
`
`that the prisms are “for controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the
`
`light is redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss” (claims 1
`
`and 16) or “for controlling the light output ray angle distribution of the light emitted
`
`to suit a particular application” (claim 31).
`
`The Petition does not explain this, but rather relies on incorporating argument
`
`from its expert report. Petition at 24. Dr. Escuti provides only conclusory statements
`
`in support of his argument that Funamoto discloses those limitations. With regard to
`
`the diffusion sheet of Funamoto, Dr. Escuti speculates that “diffusion sheet 26 can
`
`inherently include reflective and refractive surfaces because the primary way most
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`diffusers operate to redirect light is by modifying the surface shape or geometry.”
`
`Escuti Decl. ¶ 110. Dr. Escuti’s inherency argument—that it can or even if it is likely
`
`included—is contrary to the law of anticipation that a feature is inherent only if it
`
`must be necessarily present. Further, he provides his opinion of how “most diffusers”
`
`function, but notably does not cite to anything in Funamoto that supports his
`
`statement. Escuti Decl. ¶ 110.
`
`Dr. Escuti offers further conclusory statements as to diffusion sheet 26 and
`
`prism sheet 27 of Funamoto having “well-defined optical elements or deformities
`
`for controlling the emitted light.” In particular, Dr. Escuti argues that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that both the diffusion sheet and prism
`
`sheet utilize deformities for controlling the emitted light. Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 112-13.
`
`He seems to identify “diffusion pattern 50” as the deformities. Escuti Decl. at ¶¶
`
`112-13. But diffusion pattern 50 does not even reside on diffusion sheet 27. It is
`
`disclosed to be on pattern sheet 24 which is arranged below polarizer 21. Funamoto,
`
`6:40-44. Thus, without actually identifying any deformities on the diffusion sheet,
`
`he concludes that the diffusion sheet includes deformities designed to randomize the
`
`flow of light, increasing its divergence angle and reducing on-axis brightness.
`
`Funamoto, 6:40-44. The Petition does not show that Funamoto discloses this as a
`
`function of the diffusion sheet, nor does Dr. Escuti attempt to find support in
`
`Funamoto for this statement instead he refers to his analysis of Nishio. Escuti Decl.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`at ¶¶ 113, 47; Funamoto, 6:40-44. And, finally, Dr. Escuti cites Funamoto 7:32-38
`
`in support of his conclusion that “diffusion sheet and prism sheet control the emitted
`
`light such that at least some of the light is redirected to pass through an LCD with
`
`low loss.” Funamoto, 6:40-44, but that citation from Funamoto does not discuss the
`
`claim limitation.
`
`Additionally, Dr. Escuti dismisses the polarizer 21 as a “translation error,” (as
`
`discussed above) in part because nowhere does Funamoto attribute polarizing
`
`attributes to the so-called “polarizer 21.” Escuti Decl. at ¶ 103. But Funamoto fails
`
`equally in attributing diffusing attributes to the diffusion sheet 26 and prismatic
`
`attributes to prism sheet 27, yet Dr. Escuti relies almost entirely on the naming of
`
`these features by Funamoto to draw his conclusions regarding their attributes. His
`
`analysis is particularly flawed in light of this inconsistency. Id.
`
`Thus, the Petition does not show that Funamoto discloses a film, sheet, plate,
`
`or substrate with “a reflective or refractive surface” having deformities or optical
`
`elements “for controlling the emitted light such that at least some of the light is
`
`redirected to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss” (claims 1 and 16)
`
`or “for controlling the light output ray angle distribution of the light emitted to suit
`
`a particular application” (claim 31) as recited by Claims 1, 4-6, 16, 22, 23, 27, and
`
`31 of the ’194 Patent.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`Regarding Claim 4, the Petition does not show that Funamoto discloses that
`
`“light from at least two light sources partially mixes in at least a portion of the light
`
`emitting assembly.” While Funamoto may disclose the possible use of two light
`
`sources, the Petition does not point to any disclosure that the light from these sources
`
`is mixed anywhere within the disclosed light emitting assembly. The Petition
`
`improperly relies on its expert report to incorporate its argument. However, Dr.
`
`Escuti fails to cite any support for his conclusion that Funamoto discloses light
`
`propagating across the full width of polarizer 21 therefore, mixing of the light from
`
`two different sources occurs in the light emitting assembly. Escuti Decl. ¶ 144. His
`
`conclusions are based on unsupported assumptions, as evidenced by his lack of
`
`citation to any supporting evidence in Funamoto. Escuti Decl. at ¶ 144. Dr. Escuti
`
`attempts to make up for this lack of support by citing his own annotations to
`
`Funamoto Fig. 19. Escuti Decl. at ¶ 144. Both these notations are a fabrication by
`
`Dr. Escuti and not evidence from Funamoto. Thus, Dr. Escuti fails to provide
`
`credible or sufficient evidence that the limitation of Claim 4 is disclosed by
`
`Funamoto.
`
`For similar reasons as stated for the limitations of Claim 4, the Petition does
`
`not show that Funamoto discloses the limitations of Claim 5 reciting “wherein the
`
`portion of light emitting assembly in which the light partially mixes is the panel
`
`member.” Because the Petition does not show that Funamoto discloses mixing of
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`light from two light sources, it also fails to disclose that the mixing occurs in the
`
`panel member. Escuti Decl. at 148-150. Dr. Escuti does not cite any portion of
`
`Funamoto that discloses this limitation. Escuti Decl. at 148-150. Rather, he makes
`
`the argument that this limitation could be met by the Funamoto embodiment having
`
`two light sources. Again, his argument is based only on unsupported assumptions
`
`and conjecture. See Escuti Decl. at 148-150. The Petition does not show that
`
`Funamoto discloses the light from two different sources mixes in the panel member
`
`and Dr. Escuti’s self-supporting markings on Figure 7 does not change that fact.
`
`For the same reasons that the Petition does not show that Funamoto discloses
`
`the limitations of Claims 4 and 5, it also does not disclose “wherein the portion of
`
`the light emitting assembly in which the light partially mixes is the air gap,” as
`
`recited by Claim 6. Because the Petition fails to disclose Funamoto’s mixing of light
`
`from two light sources, it also fails to disclose that the mixing occurs in the air gap.
`
`In his argument, Dr. Escuti does not cite any portion of Funamoto that
`
`discloses this limitation. Rather, he again makes the argument that this limitation
`
`could be met by the Funamoto embodiment having two light sources. But, his
`
`argument is based only on assumptions and conjecture that the light from two
`
`different sources mixes in the air gap. See Escuti Decl. at ¶¶ 153-55.
`
`Claims 22, 23, and 27 are dependent from claim 16 and are therefore
`
`patentable for the reasons stated above for independent claim 16.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00360
`Patent 7,300,194
`Claim 31 of the ’194 patent recites “at least one surface of the film, sheet,
`
`plate or substrate has one or more reflective or refractive surfaces that are well
`
`defined optical elements or deformities for controlling the light output ray angle
`
`distribution of the light emitted to suit a particular application.” But the Petition
`
`never shows that Funamoto discloses this limitation. Instead the Petition appears to
`
`identify the “prisms” of prism sheet 27 as the well defined deformities/elements, but
`
`then the Petition switches to diffusion sheet 26 for allegedly meeting the “controlling
`
`the light output ray angle distribution of the light emitted to suit a particular
`
`application” part of the limitation. Petition at 29. The claim language does not allow
`
`the Petitioner to point to one sheet to identify the “well defined optical elements or
`
`deformitie