INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC’s
`EXHIBIT 2001
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and
`MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-00363
`U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2001
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC and
`MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-00363
`U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 10
` Entered: January 13, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG DISPLAY, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, NEIL T. POWELL, and BEVERLY M.
`BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`IDT_00001
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`
`LG Display Co, Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 10, 16,
`
`17, 25, 33, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’660
`
`patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response on October 16, 2014. See Paper 8
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`
`which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we deny the
`
`Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 10, 16,
`
`17, 25, 33, and 34 of the ’660 patent based on any of the asserted grounds.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ʼ660 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ʼ660 patent is directed to a light emitting panel assembly 60
`
`having a transparent light emitting panel 62 with a “greater cross-sectional
`
`width than thickness” (Ex. 1001, Abstract) as illustrated below in Fig. 10.
`
`
`
`Fig. 10 is a schematic top view of a light emitting panel assembly.
`
`The light emitting panel assembly includes one or more light sources 3 that
`
`emit light in a predetermined pattern in light transition member 63, such that
`
`the light source has “a light output distribution with a greater width
`
`component than height component positioned adjacent to the input edge for
`
`directing light into the optical conductor and emission of the light from at
`
`
`
`2
`
`IDT_00002
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`least one output region of the optical conductor.” Id. at 2:61–65; Abstract;
`
`see also 7:57–58; Fig. 10. The transition member 63, described as “an
`
`integral extension of one end of the light emitting panel [2] and as being
`
`generally rectangular in shape,” is configured to spread and transmit the
`
`light by the light source to the output region. Id. at 3:5–7; Abstract. The
`
`transition member “may be a separate piece suitably attached to the light
`
`input surface [13] of the panel member.” Id. at 3:11–13. Light extracting
`
`deformities “may be provided on one or both sides of the panel members or
`
`on one or more selected areas on one or both sides of the panel members.”
`
`Id. at 4:31–34.
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue:
`
`1. A light emitting panel assembly comprising:
`a generally planar optical conductor having at least
`one input edge with a greater cross-sectional width than
`thickness; and
`a plurality of light sources configured to generate
`light having an output distribution defined by a greater
`width component than height component, the light
`sources positioned adjacent to the input edge, thereby
`directing light into the optical conductor;
`the optical conductor having at least one output
`region and a predetermined pattern of deformities
`configured to cause light to be emitted from the output
`region,
`the optical conductor having a transition region
`disposed between the light source and the output region.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`IDT_00003
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`
`Patent Owner indicates that it has asserted infringement of the ’660
`
`patent in the following proceeding: Delaware Display Group LLC et al. v.
`
`LG Electronics Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-02109 (D. Del., filed Dec. 31, 2013).
`
`Paper 6, 2. In addition, Patent Owner lists other proceedings in which it has
`
`alleged infringement of the ʼ660 patent. Id. at 2–5. Petitioner concurrently
`
`filed additional petitions challenging the patentability of the following
`
`related patents:
`
`1. IPR2014-01092 (U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974);
`
`2. IPR2014-01095 (U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816);
`
`3. IPR2014-01096 (U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370); and
`
`4. IPR2014-01097 (U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194).
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Petitioner proposes a
`
`construction for the term “deformities” appearing in claims 1, and 33. Pet.
`
`8. Patent Owner takes no position on claim construction, other than pointing
`
`out that the parties agreed to the construction of “deformities” proffered by
`
`Petitioner in the district court. Prelim. Resp. 4–5; citing Ex. 2002, 8.1
`
`
`1 The district court construed the phrase “pattern of deformities” and
`similarly “pattern of light extracting deformities” to mean “a random
`placement pattern or a variable pattern.” Ex. 2002, 11.
`
`
`
`4
`
`IDT_00004
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`
`For purposes of this decision, having considered the evidence
`
`presented, we see no need to construe expressly “deformities” or any of the
`
`other terms in the challenged claims at this time.
`
`
`
`E. References
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references (Pet. 8–10), the Admitted
`
`Prior Art (“APA”) discussed in the ’660 patent (Pet. 8–9) and the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael J. Escuti (Ex. 1004):
`
`Patents/Printed
`Publications
`US 5,461,547
`US 5,005,108
`US 5,359,691
`US 5,619,351
`
`Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`Oct. 24, 19952
`April 2, 1991
`Oct. 25, 1994
`April 8, 19973
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`References
`
`Ciupke
`Pristash
`Tai
`Funamoto
`
`
`
`
`F. Grounds Asserted
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 of the
`
`’660 patent on the following grounds. Pet. 10.
`
`References
`Pristash
`Tai
`Ciupke
`Tai and Funamoto
`
`Basis
`§ 102(b)
`§ 102(a)
`§ 102(e)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34
`1, 3, 10, 16, and 25
`1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Petitioner relies on the July 20, 1993 filing date of Ciupke. Pet. 10.
`3 Petitioner relies on the May 10, 1994 35 U.S.C. § 371 date of Funamoto.
`Id.
`
`
`
`5
`
`IDT_00005
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Anticipation Ground Based on Pristash
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 are
`
`anticipated by Pristash under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Pristash discloses
`
`each of the limitations of claim 1. Pet. 11–20. Petitioner cites the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Escuti in support of the analysis advocated in the Petition.
`
`Ex. 1004. Patent Owner counters that Pristash does not disclose expressly
`
`the “plurality of light sources configured to generate light having an output
`
`distribution defined by a greater width component than height component”
`
`limitation. Prelim. Resp. 5–7. Having considered the arguments and
`
`evidence presented, we are not persuaded that Pristash teaches the “plurality
`
`of light sources” limitation. A detailed analysis of our determination follows
`
`after a brief overview of Pristash.
`
`1. Pristash Overview
`
`Pristash describes a panel illuminator having “a solid transparent light
`
`emitting panel 2 and a light source 3 which generates and focuses light, in a
`
`predetermined pattern, either directly on a panel input edge 4 or on a
`
`transition device 5 which is used to make the transition from the light source
`
`3 target shape to the light emitting panel input edge 4 shape.” Ex. 1006
`
`2:67–3:4. Disruptions or deformities 16 may be located on the exterior
`
`surface of the light emitting panel. Id. at 3:29–35. In the embodiment
`
`illustrated in Figs. 8–10, light sources 64, 64’ are positioned on each end of
`
`the panel. Id. at 5:36–40. Pristash discloses different forms of transition
`
`devices, and teaches that the transition devices may be separate from the
`
`light emitting panel, or “formed as an integral part of the panels.” Id. at 8:6–
`
`10. While the input and output surfaces of the various transition devices
`
`
`
`6
`
`IDT_00006
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`shown are square, round or rectangular, “they may be elliptical or any other
`
`shape necessary to fit a particular application.” Id. at 7:60–63.
`
`2. Discussion
`
`The Petitioner provides a brief summary of the Pristash reference,
`
`including annotations of Figures 1 and 7 of Pristash, and claim charts
`
`identifying quotations in Pristash that correspond with claim elements. Pet.
`
`12–20. Petitioner asserts generally that “Pristash describes each and every
`
`element of Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and invalidates those claims under
`
`35 U.S.C. §102.” Id. at 12. Petitioner presents annotated Figures 1 and 7 of
`
`Pristash to support its contention that Pristash discloses the limitations of
`
`claim 1 because “Pristash teaches a light emitting panel assembly including
`
`a solid transparent panel member 51, with a prismatic surface 52, having a
`
`greater cross sectional width than thickness and top and bottom surfaces and
`
`an input edge, a plurality of light sources adjacent to the input edge, and a
`
`transition device 5 used to make the transition from light source 3 to input
`
`edge 4.” Pet. 13, citing Ex. 1006, 2:64–3:4, 3:29–35, 5:6–11, 5:11–16;
`
`claims 1, 72. The Petitioner also refers to multiple paragraphs in the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Escuti to support its position. Id., citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 68–
`
`79.
`
`For independent claim 33, Petitioner refers also to multiple paragraphs
`
`in the Escuti declaration to support its contention that Pristash “additionally
`
`teaches a plurality of LED light sources.” Id., citing Ex. 1006, 3:9–21; Ex.
`
`1004 ¶¶ 101–107. Petitioner similarly points to multiple paragraphs in the
`
`Escuti Declaration to support its assertion that in addition to teaching the
`
`features of independent claims 1 and 33, Pristash teaches the limitations of
`
`dependent claims 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, and 34. Id. at 13–14, citing Ex. 1006,
`
`
`
`7
`
`IDT_00007
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`3:9–22, 7:64–8:1, Claims 1, 21, Fig. 18; see also Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 80–95, 109–
`
`111. Finally, Petitioner refers to multiple paragraphs in the Escuti
`
`Declaration to support its argument that Pristash inherently discloses the tray
`
`limitation of dependent claim 25. Id. at 14, citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97–99.
`
`In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner characterizes Petitioner’s
`
`analysis of the claim limitation “a plurality of light sources configured to
`
`generate light having an output distribution defined by a greater width
`
`component than height component” as conclusory, because Petitioner
`
`proffers “no substantive analysis” in support of its position. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 5–6. Patent Owner contends the citations to the Escuti Declaration in
`
`the claim chart “cannot revive the Petition’s incomplete analysis” because
`
`“information presented in the Escuti Declaration in relation to claim 1 that is
`
`not sufficiently included in the Petition itself should not be considered”
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). Id. at 6. Patent Owner argues that even if
`
`considered, the Escuti Declaration “identifies ‘transition devices’ – not light
`
`sources – as the elements that allegedly have the light output distribution
`
`recited in limitation [1.b].” Id., citing Pet. at 15–16, Ex. 1004 ¶ 72. Patent
`
`Owner asserts that Petitioner does not explain why the transition device 5
`
`“should be considered a light source” given that Pristash defines separate
`
`element 3 as the light source. Id.
`
`The referred-to paragraphs of the Escuti Declaration present
`
`approximately 14 pages of figures and arguments in further support of the
`
`unpatentability challenges that rely on Pristash. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 68–111. We
`
`agree with Patent Owner that it is improper under our rules to incorporate by
`
`reference arguments from one document into another document. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(3); see also Rules of Practice for Trials Before The Patent Trial
`
`
`
`8
`
`IDT_00008
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Decisions; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,617 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`(prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses that
`
`arise from incorporation). Through incorporation by reference of the
`
`arguments from the Pristash Declaration into the Petition, Petitioner
`
`circumvents essentially the page limits imposed on petitions for inter partes
`
`review. For this reason, information that is not provided explicitly in the
`
`Petition, but is instead incorporated by reference to cited paragraphs in the
`
`Pristash Declaration, is given minimal consideration.
`
`A petition for inter partes review must identify how the construed
`
`claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds on which the petitioner
`
`challenges the claims, and must specify where each element of the claim is
`
`found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4). Similarly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) states that each petition
`
`must include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence
`
`including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” With
`
`respect to the unpatentability ground relying on Pristash, the Petition does
`
`not: (1) specify sufficiently where each element of the claims is found in the
`
`applied references, and (2) include a detailed explanation of the significance
`
`of the quotations and citations from the applied references. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.104(b)(4), 42.22(a)(2).
`
`We agree that Petitioner’s annotations of Figure 7 and cited passages
`
`of Pristash in the claim chart demonstrate that Pristash describes the claim
`
`element of “a plurality of light sources.” Nonetheless, this evidence does
`
`not demonstrate adequately that the plurality of light sources are “configured
`
`to have an output distribution having a greater width component than height
`
`
`
`9
`
`IDT_00009
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`component.” We are not persuaded a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the relevant time period would have understood the annotated portions of
`
`Figure 7 or quoted passages of Pristash as teaching that the plurality of light
`
`sources are “configured to have an output distribution with a greater width
`
`component than height component.” Moreover, Petitioner does not provide
`
`a detailed explanation of the significance of the quotations and citations
`
`from Pristash, and other than annotating Figures 1 and 7 of Pristash,
`
`Petitioner does not otherwise specify sufficiently how this limitation is met.
`
`Also, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s
`
`declarant does not explain adequately how the shape of the input end of the
`
`transition device relates to the output distribution of the plurality of light
`
`sources. See Prelim. Resp. 6–7.
`
`Accordingly, on the record before us, the information presented in the
`
`Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail with respect to its contention that claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and
`
`34 are anticipated by Pristash.
`
`
`
`B. Anticipation Ground Based On Tai
`
`Next, Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3, 10, 16 and 25 are
`
`anticipated by Tai under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (Pet. 20–28) because Tai
`
`discloses each of the limitations of these claims.4 Petitioner also cites the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Escuti in support of the analysis advocated in the Petition.
`
`Ex. 1004. Patent Owner counters that Tai does not expressly disclose the
`
`
`4 We presume the assertion that the claims are anticipated by Tai under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b) is in error based on the identification of grounds elsewhere
`in the Petition. See Pet. 9–10, 20.
`
`
`
`10
`
`IDT_00010
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`“output distribution defined by a greater width component than height
`
`component” element of the plurality of lights limitation of independent
`
`claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 14. We have considered the arguments and evidence
`
`presented, and are not persuaded that Tai teaches this limitation. A detailed
`
`analysis of our determination follows after a brief overview of Tai.
`
`1. Tai Overview
`
`Tai discloses “an assembly for backlighting a liquid crystal flat panel
`
`display” that may use up to four light sources 64. Ex. 1007, Abstract; Fig. 1.
`
`The assembly 10 includes a rectangular backlighting pipe 14 having two
`
`light collimating assemblies 28, 28´ for directing light into and through the
`
`light pipe. Id. at 4:29–41. The assembly includes an arrangement of
`
`microprisms 36 along the surface of the pipe. Id. at 4:45–51.
`
`2. Discussion
`
`
`
`Petitioner provides a brief summary of the Tai reference, including
`
`annotations of Figure 1 of Tai, and claim charts identifying quotations in Tai
`
`that correspond with claim elements to support its argument that “Tai
`
`describes each and every limitation of claims 1, 3, 10, 16, and 25.” Pet. 21.
`
`As with the ground based on Pristash, Petitioner refers to multiple
`
`paragraphs in the Escuti Declaration to support its arguments. Pet. 22–23,
`
`25, 27–28, citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 118–132, 134–150. Specifically, Petitioner
`
`asserts that the teachings of “a plurality of light sources 64 adjacent to the
`
`input edge, and a collimating assembly 28 used to make the transition from
`
`light source 64 to input edge 60” meet the limitations of claim 1. Id. at 22,
`
`citing Ex. 1007, Abstract, 2:10–23, 4:27–35, Fig. 2; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 118-132.
`
`With regards to the dependent claims, Petitioner asserts that Tai teaches that
`
`the collimating assembly is integral with the input edge of the light pipe (Id.
`
`
`
`11
`
`IDT_00011
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`citing Ex. 1007, Figs., 1–4; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 134–142); the light sources 64 are
`
`focused light sources (Ex. 1007, 5:49–59; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 143–146); and that
`
`the tray is inherently disclosed based on the usage of the backlighting
`
`assembly (Id., citing Ex. 1007, Abstract, 13:20–23; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 147–150).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner counters that the Petition does not identify specifically
`
`the teachings in Tai showing the output distribution portion of the plurality
`
`of light sources limitation, i.e. “having an output distribution defined by a
`
`greater width component than height component.” Prelim. Resp. 14.
`
`According to Patent Owner, the “citation to the Escuti Declaration in the
`
`claim [chart] cannot replace what is missing in the Petition itself.” Id. In
`
`addition, Patent Owner asserts that the cited portion of the Escuti
`
`Declaration “refers to and emphasized Tai’s teaching of the light collimating
`
`assemblies 28 and 28’ – not light sources 64 and 64’– for controlling the
`
`light output distribution from the light source and allowing for ‘receiving
`
`light from sources 64 and 64’ with a greater width than height.’” Id. at 15,
`
`citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 123. Patent Owner notes that the light collimating
`
`assemblies are also identified by Petitioner’s declarant as the “transition
`
`region” and contends that “[t]he assemblies 28 and 28’ cannot be both part
`
`of the light source limitation [1.b] and the transition region limitation [1.d].”
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`We initially note that the paragraphs of the Escuti Declaration
`
`Petitioner refers to encompass approximately 11 pages of figures and
`
`arguments in further support of the unpatentability challenges that rely on
`
`Tai. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 118–150. For the reasons stated above in the discussion
`
`directed to Pristash, information not provided expressly in the Petition, but
`
`instead incorporated by reference to the cited paragraphs in the Escuti
`
`
`
`12
`
`IDT_00012
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`Declaration, is given minimal consideration. With respect to the
`
`unpatentability ground based on Tai, the Petition does not (1) specify
`
`sufficiently where each element of the claims is found in Tai, and (2) include
`
`a detailed explanation of the significance of the quotations and citations
`
`from Tai.
`
`
`
`We agree that Petitioner demonstrates adequately that Tai describes
`
`the claim element of “a plurality of light sources,” as shown in Petitioner’s
`
`annotations of Figure 1 and the cited passages of Tai referenced in the claim
`
`chart. Nonetheless, the proffered evidence does not demonstrate sufficiently
`
`the further requirement that the plurality of light sources are “configured to
`
`have an output distribution having a greater width component than height
`
`component.” We are not persuaded a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the relevant time period would have understood the annotated portions of
`
`Figure 1 or quoted passages of Tai as teaching that the plurality of light
`
`sources are “configured to have an output distribution with a greater width
`
`component than height component.” Moreover, Petitioner does not provide
`
`a detailed explanation of the significance of the quotations and citations
`
`from Tai, and other than marking up Figure 1 of Tai, Petitioner does not
`
`otherwise establish sufficiently how this limitation is met. Moreover, we are
`
`persuaded also by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s declarant does
`
`not explain adequately how the light collimating assemblies of Tai are a
`
`light source having an output distribution defined by a greater width
`
`component than height component, based on Tai’s disclosure of a transition
`
`region disposed between the light source and output region of the panel. See
`
`Prelim. Resp. 14–15.
`
`
`
`13
`
`IDT_00013
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`
`
`For these reasons, based on the record before us, Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its
`
`contention that claims 1, 3, 10, 16, and 25 are anticipated by Tai.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Anticipation Ground Based on Ciupke
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 are
`
`anticipated by Ciupke under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Ciupke discloses
`
`each of the limitations of these claims.5 Pet. 28–37. Petitioner cites the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Escuti in support of the analysis advocated in the Petition.
`
`Ex. 1004. Patent Owner counters that Ciupke does not expressly disclose
`
`the “output distribution defined by a greater width component than height
`
`component” portion of the plurality of lights limitation of claim 1. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 20. We have considered the arguments and evidence presented, and
`
`are not persuaded that Ciupke teaches this limitation. A detailed analysis of
`
`our determination follows after a brief overview of Ciupke.
`
`1. Ciupke Overview
`
`Ciupke describes a lighting system for illuminating flat panel displays
`
`having a light pipe 11 that includes opposed planar surfaces 13, 14. One
`
`planar surface includes facets 16. Ex. 1005, 1:5–7, 2:42–46. The lighting
`
`system also includes a light source 18, which directs light into the light
`
`guide or pipe in a direction generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis
`
`of the v-grooves. Id. at 2:62–63, 4:6–11. Ciupke discloses that the space
`
`between the lamp, light pipe and reflector “is filled with a transparent,
`
`
`5 We again presume the assertion that the claims are anticipated by Ciupke
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is in error based on the identification of grounds
`elsewhere in the Petition. See Pet. 10, 28.
`
`
`
`14
`
`IDT_00014
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`flexible, reflective index matching material 25 which holds the lamp and
`
`cushions it from any shock and efficiently couples the light from the source
`
`into the light pipe.” Id. at 3:1–5.
`
`2. Discussion
`
`Petitioner provides a brief summary of the Ciupke reference, and
`
`presents annotations of Figure 2 of Ciupke and claim charts identifying
`
`quotations in Ciupke that correspond with the claim elements of the ’660
`
`patent. Pet. 28–37. Petitioner asserts generally that “Ciupke describes each
`
`and every limitation of Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 33, and 34 of the ’660
`
`Patent.” Id. 29. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that Ciupke discloses the
`
`claim 1 limitation of “a plurality of light sources 18 adjacent to the input
`
`edge, and a transparent flexible, refractive index matching material 25
`
`(transition region) used to make the transition from light source 18 to the
`
`input edge of lit guide 11.” Id. at 30, citing Ex. 1005, 1:5–9, 2:42–44,
`
`4:6–10, 3:1–6, 3:40–45, Figs. 1–2, 4; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 159–165. As to claim 33,
`
`Petitioner asserts that Ciupke discloses that the light sources may include
`
`other types of light sources, which would include a plurality of LED light
`
`sources. Id., citing Ex. 1005, 4:6–11; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 190–196. For dependent
`
`claims 3, 10, 16, 17, and 34, Petitioner asserts that Ciupke also teaches that
`
`the transition region means is integral with the light pipe, the light sources
`
`may be of other types including LEDs, and each light source has a light
`
`output distribution with a greater width component than height component.
`
`Id. at 30–31, citing Ex. 1005, 3:1–6, 3:40–45, 4:6–11, Figs. 2, 4; Ex. 1004
`
`¶¶ 167–174. Regarding claim 16, Petitioner asserts that the u-shaped
`
`reflector 23 surrounds the light source 18 to focus the light into the light
`
`pipe. Id. at 31, citing Ex. 1005, 2:62–3:1; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 176–179. Finally,
`
`
`
`15
`
`IDT_00015
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`regarding claim 25, Petitioner asserts that tray 25 is inherently disclosed
`
`based on the usage of such light systems for backlighting purposes. Id. at
`
`31, citing Ex. 1005, 1:12–17; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 186–188.
`
`Patent Owner characterizes Petitioner’s statement “that ‘each light
`
`source [of Ciupke] has light output distribution with a greater width
`
`component than height component’” as “conclusory.” Prelim. Resp. 20.
`
`Patent Owner again argues that information presented in the Escuti
`
`Declaration should not be considered if not sufficiently included in the
`
`Petition. Id. at 21. Notwithstanding this position, Patent Owner asserts that
`
`both the Petition and the Escuti Declaration fail to identity specifically the
`
`light output distribution of light sources 18, such that the light sources
`
`generate light having an output distribution defined by a greater width
`
`component than height component. Id. at 21.
`
`We note that the paragraphs of the Escuti Declaration Petitioner refers
`
`to represent approximately 12 pages of figures and arguments in further
`
`support of the unpatentability challenges that rely on Ciupke. Ex. 1004
`
`¶¶ 159–200. For the reasons stated above in the discussion directed to
`
`Pristash, information not provided explicitly in the Petition, but instead
`
`incorporated by reference to cited paragraphs in the Escuti Declaration, is
`
`given minimal consideration. As to this ground of unpatentability based on
`
`Ciupke, the Petitioner does not specify sufficiently where the element of the
`
`light output distribution is found in the applied references, and nor does
`
`Petitioner include a detailed explanation establishing the significance of the
`
`quotations and citations to Ciupke.
`
`While we agree with Petitioner that Ciupke describes a plurality of
`
`light sources, we are more persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that
`
`
`
`16
`
`IDT_00016
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated or explained sufficiently how Ciupke
`
`discloses the light source output distribution limitations of the claims.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Escuti, does not explain adequately
`
`how the light sources in Ciupke generate light having an output distribution
`
`defined by a greater width component than height component. See Ex. 1004,
`
`¶ 161. We are not persuaded a person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`relevant time period would have understood the annotated portions of Figure
`
`2 or quoted passages of Ciupke in the claim charts as teaching that the
`
`plurality of light sources are “configured to have an output distribution with
`
`a greater width component than height component.” The Petition does not
`
`provide a detailed explanation of the significance of the quotations and
`
`citations from Ciupke, and other than annotating Figure 2 of Ciupke,
`
`Petitioner does not otherwise explain sufficiently how this limitation is met.
`
`We are persuaded also by Patent Owner’s argument that the conclusory
`
`statement of Petitioner’s declarant “that ‘the light sources are configured to
`
`direct light into the optical conductor or light pipe 11, …, [a]ccordingly,
`
`Ciupke discloses a plurality of light sources configured to generate light
`
`having an output distribution defines by a greater width component than
`
`height component”’ does not explain adequately how the this claim
`
`limitation is met. Prelim. Resp. 21, citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 161.
`
`Based on the current record, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its contention that
`
`claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 are anticipated by Ciupke.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`IDT_00017
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`
`D. Obvious Ground Based on Tai and Funamoto
`
`Petitioner contends that claim 25 is obvious over Tai and Funamoto
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 37–41. Petitioner cites the Declaration of Dr.
`
`Escuti in support of the analysis advocated in the Petition. Ex. 1004. In
`
`response to this asserted ground based in part on Tai, Patent Owner argues
`
`that Petitioner fails to identify any disclosure in Funamoto directed to the
`
`light “having an output distribution defined by a greater width component
`
`than height component” element that is missing from Tai.
`
`Having considered Petitioner’s arguments concerning the combination
`
`of Tai with Funamoto, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated
`
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating obviousness of
`
`the challenged claims. For the reasons provided above with regards to the
`
`anticipation analysis of Tai, we determine that Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated sufficiently that Tai discloses a light having an output
`
`distribution defined by a greater width component than height component.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner does not rely on any disclosure within the secondary
`
`reference of Funamoto to solve the noted deficiency of Tai.
`
`Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to its further
`
`contention that claim 25 would have been obvious over the combination of
`
`Tai with Funamoto.
`
`
`
`E. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`Patent Owner proffers arguments asserting that the Petition is time-
`
`barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the Petitioner failed to name two
`
`
`
`18
`
`IDT_00018
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01094
`Patent 7,404,660 B2
`
`other parties as real parties-in-interest, i.e. LG Electronics Inc., and LG
`
`Electronics U.S.A., Inc. Prelim. Resp. 27–29.
`
`Because the information presented in the Petition does not
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the challenged claims, we exercise our discretion
`
`and do not address Patent Owner’s assertions that the Petition is time-barred
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) based on real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable based on the asserted grounds. We, therefore, do not institute
`
`an inter partes rev
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
