throbber
Case IPR2015-00360
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket