`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: February 8, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD and LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-013621
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00489 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. filed a Petition seeking to institute an inter
`partes review of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21, and 23–27 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,384,177 (“the ’177 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Innovative
`Display Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a), the Board instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims.
`Paper 12 (“Institution Decision”). Following institution, the proceeding was
`joined with IPR2015-00489, filed by LG Electronics, Inc., challenging the
`same claims of the ʼ177 patent on the same grounds as in this proceeding.
`For the purpose of this Decision, we will refer to LG Display Co., Ltd. and
`LG Electronics, Inc., jointly, as “Petitioner.”
`During the trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 20, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 24, “Pet. Reply”). An oral hearing was held on November,
`20, 2015, and a copy of the transcript has been made part of the record.
`Paper 31 (“Hearing Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the
`claims on which we instituted trial. Based on the record before us, Petitioner
`has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10,
`13–15, 19, 21, 23–25, and 27 of the ʼ177 patent are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) and claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 26 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. The ʼ177 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ʼ177 patent is titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies.” The
`Abstract describes the subject matter as follows:
`Light emitting assemblies include a tray that forms a
`cavity or recess containing one or more light sources. A sheet,
`film or substrate is positioned over the cavity or recess for
`controlling the light emitted from the assembly. The tray acts as
`a back, side or edge reflector, and has one or more secondary
`reflective or refractive surfaces.
`Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`The ʼ177 patent has two independent claims. They are reproduced
`here, with emphasis added to certain elements that will be discussed infra.
`1. A light emitting assembly comprising a tray having a
`back wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow cavity
`or recess completely surrounded by the side walls, at least one
`light source located, mounted or positioned in the cavity or
`recess, and at least one sheet, film or substrate overlying the
`assembly for controlling the light emitted from the assembly to
`fit a particular application, wherein the tray acts as at least one
`of a back, side edge, and end edge reflector and has one or more
`secondary flat, angled, faceted or curved reflective or refractive
`surfaces to redirect at least a portion of the light emitted by the
`light source in a predetermined manner within the cavity or
`recess.
`15. A light emitting assembly comprising a tray having a
`back wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow cavity
`or recess completely surrounded by the side walls, at least two
`light sources located, mounted or positioned in the cavity or
`recess, and at least one sheet, film or substrate overlying the
`assembly for controlling the light emitted from the assembly to
`fit a particular application, wherein the tray acts as at least one
`of a back, side edge and end edge reflector and has at least one
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`
`secondary flat, angled, faceted or curved reflective or refractive
`surface to facilitate better mixing of light rays within the cavity
`or recess to produce a desired light output color or uniformity.
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`Patent Owner states that it has asserted infringement of the ʼ177
`patent by Petitioner in the following proceeding: Delaware Display Group
`LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02109 (D. Del., filed Dec. 31,
`2013). Paper 5. Patent Owner identifies numerous other civil actions in
`which it has asserted infringement of the ʼ177 patent by other defendants.
`See Paper 5 for a listing.
`
`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). The only claim term
`the Board construed in its Institution Decision is the term “deformities,”
`appearing in all challenged claims. We construed the term as “any change in
`the shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or surface
`treatment that causes a portion of light to be emitted.” Paper 12, 4 (citing
`ʼ177 patent, Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 44–48). Neither party has proposed any
`other constructions. In light of the foregoing, we see no reason to modify
`our previous construction of “deformities” or to construe any other terms.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Melby
`
`Nakamura
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19,
`21, 23–25, and 27
`1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19,
`21, 23, 24, and 26
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`
`E. References
`Petitioner relies on the following two references from the Petition:2
`Melby
`US 5,054,885
`Oct. 8, 1991
`Ex. 1006
`Nakamura et al., US 5,453,855
`Dec. 9, 1993
`Ex. 1007
`
`Petitioner relies also on a Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti
`Decl.”). Ex. 1004. Likewise, Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 24) is
`accompanied by a Declaration of Mr. Kenneth Werner (Werner Decl.”).
`Ex. 2016. Deposition transcripts for those witnesses have been entered in
`the record as Exhibits 1026 (“Werner Dep.”) and 2015 (“Escuti Dep.”).
`F. Grounds Asserted
`We instituted trial on the following grounds:
`References
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Overview — Obviousness
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), an invention is not patentable if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`
`2 The references are ordered by exhibit number with effective dates
`asserted by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and, (4) where in evidence, so-called
`secondary considerations, including commercial success, long-felt but
`unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected results. Graham v. John
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 1718 (1966).
`B. Asserted Obviousness Based On Melby
`(Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21, 23–25, and 27)
`
`1. Background
`Petitioner contends that these claims would have been obvious over
`the teachings of Melby. Pet. 13–22. In support of this contention, Petitioner
`provides detailed claim charts and expert testimony through the Escuti
`Declaration. Pet. 12–22; Escuti Decl. ¶¶ 69–152. Through the claim charts
`and expert testimony, Petitioner asserts that Melby’s embodiments
`(particularly, Figures 1 and 3) disclose “all the limitations” of the challenged
`claims. Pet. 13. Moreover, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary
`skill would have been motivated to combine those embodiments. Id.
`In response, Patent Owner challenges the sufficiency of Petitioner’s
`proofs in several respects that we discuss infra. We note, however, that
`most of the claim elements are undisputed. Patent Owner challenges
`Petitioner’s assertions only as to certain claim elements, and does not
`challenge Petitioner’s presentation of the rationale to combine various
`embodiments of Melby in addressing the obviousness challenge to any of
`these challenged claims. Pet. 13; Escuti Decl. ¶¶ 67–68. As Petitioner
`points out, Melby’s embodiments are taught within the same patent. Pet. 13.
`Moreover, they are described as alternatives. Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 63. Melby
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`explains that the structured surface of the Figure 3 embodiment, discussed
`infra, may be replaced by the planar surface of Figure 1. Ex. 1006, col. 3, ll.
`1–6. Further supporting reasons for combining the embodiments are
`presented in the Escuti Declaration, at paragraphs 67–68, which we credit
`and adopt, and which are not challenged by Patent Owner. We determine
`that, for these reasons, a person of ordinary skill would have combined these
`embodiments.
`Patent Owner has not presented any evidence of secondary
`considerations. We, therefore, have not been given evidence of commercial
`success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, or unexpected results
`to consider.
`The relatively high level of skill in the art is another consideration we
`have taken into account. In this determination, we were aided by expert
`testimony. According to Dr. Escuti, “a person of ordinary skill in the art
`relevant to the ’177 patent would have at least an undergraduate degree in
`physics, optics, electrical engineering, or applied mathematics AND 3 years
`of work experience (or a graduate degree) in a field related to optical
`technology.” Escuti Decl. ¶ 23. Mr. Werner does not take issue with this
`testimony, and in fact proposes a similar standard:
`In this declaration, I rely on the following definition of a person
`of ordinary skill in the art: “a person of ordinary skill in the art
`of the patents would hold an undergraduate degree in physics,
`material science, electrical engineering, or mathematics and
`have one or both of the following: (1) three or more years of
`work experience in a field related to optical technology; or (2) a
`graduate degree in a field related to optical technology.”
`
`Werner Decl. ¶ 36. We find that Mr. Werner’s definition is too limited, in
`that it does not include a person with an undergraduate degree in optics.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`We, therefore, do not accept his standard and adopt instead Dr. Escuti’s
`more complete definition.
`2. Melby Overview
`Melby describes a thin light fixture for a backlit flat panel display.
`Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 14–16. In one embodiment, the fixture includes a
`housing with walls that define an optical cavity having an optical window.
`This is illustrated in Figure 3 of Melby, reproduced here:
`
`
`Figure 3 of Melby shows an embodiment of a lighting fixture wherein a
`housing 30, including sidewalls 32, 34, 36, and 38, define an “optical
`cavity.” Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 63–65. Light from two partially collimated
`light sources 42 and 44 is directed to the prisms of a structured surface 46.
`Id. at col. 2, l. 67–col. 3, l. 1.
`In another embodiment, a housing, including its walls, defines an
`optical cavity. Id. at Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 6–8. The optical cavity has an optical
`window with a light transmitting member. Id. at col. 2, ll. 9–11. The light
`transmitting member may be transparent or translucent or it may include
`structures. Id. at col. 2, ll. 11–14.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`
`We turn now to the individual claims being challenged. We note that
`Patent Owner’s Response presents separate arguments for independent
`claims 1 and 15, and dependent claims 9, 14, and 23 only. Accordingly, we
`address only those claims in this Decision. Because they are not separately
`argued, the other claims will stand or fall with the claims from which they
`depend.
`
`3. Claims 1 and 15
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of claim 1 in relation to Melby appears at pages
`13–17 of the Petition and in paragraphs 69–81 of the Escuti Declaration.
`Petitioner shows where each element of the clam is found in Melby. Patent
`Owner contends that Petitioner’s analysis is deficient in several respects.
`PO Resp. 9–13. First, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to
`demonstrate that the sheet or film substrate disclosed in Melby meets the
`requirement of claim 1, i.e., that it control “the light emitted from the
`assembly to fit a particular application.” Id. at 9. Petitioner responds that
`this limitation is satisfied by the disclosure in Melby regarding “a particular
`application,” namely, flat panel displays. Pet. Reply. 5. This conclusion is
`supported by the Melby specification. Ex. 1006, col. 1, ll. 14–16. We
`therefore agree with Petitioner.
`Petitioner further points out that Melby meets this limitation because
`sheet 40 overlying the assembly in Melby has pillow optics and Fresnel
`prisms that reflect light and provide for light mixing. Pet. Reply 5–6. We
`agree also with this conclusion. See Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 11–14, 30–33;
`Escuti Decl. ¶¶ 84, 88, 92–94, 114–16. As Dr. Escuti specifically testifies:
`“Melby is directed to a light fixture with a light source of partially
`collimated light in a housing with a cavity having a structured surface with a
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`plurality of prisms for reflecting light form [sic] the light source out of the
`cavity.” Escuti Decl. ¶65 (citing Ex. 1006, Abstract). Finally, Petitioner
`demonstrates that this information was presented in the Petition. Pet. Reply
`5–7. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis and conclusion
`regarding this element. As shown above, they are supported by Melby’s
`disclosure and Dr. Escuti’s testimony, and for at least those reasons we
`determine that Melby meets this limitation.
`
`Next, Patent Owner argues that Melby does not show “a tray having a
`back wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow cavity or recess
`completely surrounded by the side walls,” required by claim 1. PO Resp.
`12–13. Patent Owner contends that Figure 3 of Melby, reproduced above,
`does not meet this requirement because the fourth wall that completely
`surrounds the cavity is missing. Id. at 11–13. Petitioner responds that
`Patent Owner’s argument assumes, incorrectly, that Figure 3 of Melby is not
`a cross-sectional view. Pet. Reply 7. As Petitioner explains: “Nowhere does
`Patent Owner explain how the light fixture of Melby could actually function
`as a light fixture according to the invention with an opening on one side.”
`Id.
`
`We agree with the reasoning set forth by Petitioner and Petitioner’s
`expert, Dr. Escuti, and for those reasons we conclude that a person of
`ordinary skill would have recognized that Figure 3 of Melby is a cross-
`sectional view, and that the walls of Melby’s fixture meet this claim
`requirement. Pet. Reply 9; Escuti Decl. ¶ 71. We are persuaded by, among
`other things, Melby’s description of Figure 3 as showing a “housing’ whose
`walls 32, 34, 36, and 38 define an “optical cavity.” Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 64–
`66. We have considered Patent Owner’s other arguments on this issue and
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`for reasons to those set forth above and in the Petition and Reply, find them
`unpersuasive. PO Resp. 12–13. We conclude, therefore, that this element is
`described by Melby.
`Patent Owner relies on the same unpersuasive arguments for claim 15
`proffered with respect to claim 1. PO Resp. 15–16. For the foregoing
`reasons, we conclude that claims 1 and 15 are obvious over Melby.
`4. Claim 9
`Petitioner’s analysis of claim 9 in relation to Melby appears at pages
`19 of the Petition and in paragraphs 105–09 of the Escuti Declaration. For
`this claim, Patent Owner contends that the requirement, that the “light
`emitted from the light sources mixes in the cavity or recess,” is not met by
`Melby. PO Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner asserts that in Figures 1 and 3 of
`Melby, the light rays are not shown mixing. Id.
`Petitioner responds that the light from Melby’s partially collimated
`light sources collimates in the cavity and mixes. Pet. Reply (citing Escuti
`Decl. ¶ 107). Petitioner further asserts that light from the light sources is
`also reflected in the cavity and the reflected light is also mixed. Id.
`Petitioner relies also on admissions from Patent Owner’s expert, Mr.
`Werner. Id. at 10–11. We note that Mr. Werner testified the light rays in
`Figure 3 are “representative.” Werner Dep. 60:3–8. He also agreed that the
`light rays emitted from the light sources shown in Figure 3 of Melby could
`cross: “That might be - - that might be possible, but it - - that does not
`change the conclusions I come to.” Id. at 76:12–16. We find that testimony
`compelling evidence that Melby’s figures are not intended to show all light
`rays. This was confirmed by Patent Owner’s counsel at oral argument:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`
`[THE BOARD]: Well, isn't what is happening in the cavity a lot
`more complicated than what is shown in Melby, and a physicist
`would know that?
`[PATENT OWNER’S COUNSEL:] Yeah, look, I think that
`that's right. I think that that's right. But I still -- but it is not – it
`is not described as, and our expert doesn't understand it to say
`that that figure is showing you mixing of light.
`Hearing Tr. 28:3–9.
`Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Figures 1 and 3 of Melby
`are simplified diagrams that do not show all light rays from partially
`collimated light sources 42. Furthermore, we determine that a person of
`ordinary skill would recognize that the light rays from the partially
`collimated light sources in Melby mix, as called for in the claim. On this
`point, in addition to the above evidence, we credit Dr. Escuti’s testimony
`that partially collimated light from the light sources, as well as light reflected
`from the prisms, mixes in the cavity. Escuti Decl. ¶¶ 105–09. We determine
`that this limitation is met and claim 9 is obvious over Melby.
`5. Claims 14 and 23
`Petitioner’s analysis of claim 14 in relation to Melby appears at page
`20 of the Petition and in paragraphs 118–21 of the Escuti Declaration.
`Patent Owner contends that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Melby
`discloses that the “sheet, film or substrate has deformities for controlling the
`light output ray angle distribution to fit a particular application.” PO Resp.
`15 (citing Werner Decl. 49).
`Patent Owner makes the same argument with respect to Petitioner’s
`analysis of claim 23. Id. at 17. Petitioner answers by referring to its
`response for claim 1, as the same argument is presented by Patent Owner for
`that claim. See supra.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`
`For the reasons stated above, we determine that claims 14 and 23 are
`obvious over Melby.
`C. Asserted Anticipation Based on Nakamura
`(Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 26)
`“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
`the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
`art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21, 23, 24,
`and 26 are anticipated by Nakamura. Pet. 22–32. In support of this
`contention, Petitioner provides detailed claim charts and expert testimony
`through the Escuti Declaration. Pet. 25–32; Escuti Decl. ¶¶ 155–224.
`Through the claim charts and expert testimony, Petitioner asserts that
`Nakamura meets each element of the challenged claims. Pet. 24
`In response, Patent Owner again challenges the sufficiency of
`Petitioner’s proof in several respects that we discuss infra. PO Resp. 17–19.
`We note, however, that, as was the case for the challenge based on Melby,
`supra, most of the claim elements are undisputed. Thus, Patent Owner
`challenges Petitioner’s assertions only as to certain claim elements. The
`unchallenged elements will not be discussed, nor will claims that have not
`been separately argued by Patent Owner. See Paper 13, 2–3. Based on the
`arguments and evidence presented in the Petition, we conclude that
`Petitioner has met its burden of proving anticipation of these claims by
`Nakamura.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`
`1. Nakamura Overview
`Nakamura describes a liquid crystal display device that is back-
`illuminated by means of LEDs. Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 9–10. Nakamura
`describes a shallow box-form holder and a liquid crystal panel installed in
`the front surface opening of the holder. Id. col. 2, ll. 51–54; col. 4, ll. 49–55.
`Nakamura also describes a light source mounted in the cavity of the holder.
`Id. col. 2, ll. 59–60; col. 4, ll. 51–53. The inside surface of the holder is
`reflection-treated and a light diffusing plate is installed in the opening of the
`holder. Id. col. 2, ll. 60–64, col. 4, ll. 54–65.
`This is illustrated by Figure 2 of Nakamura, reproduced here:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`
`Figure 2 of Nakamura shows a liquid crystal display device having
`LEDs 2, liquid crystal display panel 3, and shallow box-form holder 24. Ex.
`1007, col. 2, ll. 10–55.
`We turn now to the individual claims being challenged. We note that
`Patent Owner’s Response presents separate arguments for independent claim
`1 and 15, and dependent claims 14 and 23 only. Accordingly, we address
`only those claims in this Decision.
`2. Claims 1 and 15
`Petitioner’s analysis of these claims in relation to Nakamura appears
`at pages 23–28 and 30–31 of the Petition and in paragraphs 155–67 and
`198–203 of the Escuti Declaration.
`
`Patent Owner contends that the Petition does not identify the claimed
`“continuous side walls” and “back wall” in Nakamura. PO Resp. 17–18
`(citing Werner Decl. ¶ 55). Petitioner responds by pointing out that
`Nakamura’s shallow box-form holder 24 depicted in Figure 2, supra, has
`“continuous” side walls 24a and 24b and only has an opening on the front
`surface. Pet. Reply 14–16. Petitioner also identifies the bottom surface of
`the holder as the back wall. Id. at 15–16. These assertions are supported by
`the Escuti Declaration (¶ 157).
`Petitioner further points out that Patent Owner’s expert should not be
`credited on this issue. PO Reply 15. Specifically, Mr. Werner admitted that
`his testimony was intended to rebut the Petition, and, therefore, it was not
`necessary for him to determine whether Nakamura shows four continuous
`walls. Werner Dep. 141:1–16. Instead of discussing what is disclosed in
`Nakamura, Mr. Werner’s declaration focuses on alleged deficiencies in the
`Petition. Werner Decl. ¶¶ 54–55. Under our rules, expert testimony that
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`does not have a proper basis is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.65(a).
`Under the circumstances, we credit Dr. Escuti’s opinion on this issue
`over Mr. Werner’s. We determine that for the reasons presented by
`Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill would understand Nakamura’s holder
`shown in Figure 2 to have a back wall and continuous side walls. We
`conclude, therefore, that claims 1 and 15 are anticipated by Nakamura.
`2. Claims 14 and 23
`Petitioner’s analysis of these claims in relation to Nakamura appears
`at pages 29–30 and 31–32 of the Petition and in paragraphs and 193–197 and
`212–216 of the Escuti Declaration.
`Patent Owner contends that the Petition fails to demonstrate that
`Nakamura discloses a “sheet, film or substrate has deformities for
`controlling the light output ray angle distribution to fit a particular
`application.” PO Resp. 18. According to Patent Owner, there is no
`“particular application” mentioned in the Petition. Id.
`Petitioner responds that Nakamura discloses a particular application,
`namely, a liquid crystal display device that is backlit with LEDs. Pet. Reply
`16. We agree. This conclusion is supported by the record including Dr.
`Escuti’s testimony (Escuti Decl. ¶ 196–97) as well as the Nakamura
`specification. Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 9–10 (“The present invention relates to a
`liquid crystal display device which is back-illuminated by means of LEDs”).
`Petitioner further explains that Nakamura discloses a film with a diffusing
`effect for controlling the emitted light. Pet. Reply at 17. We agree with this
`conclusion, which is supported by Dr. Escuti’s testimony (Escuti Decl.
`¶ 195) as well as the Nakamura specification. Ex. 1007, col. 6, ll. 43–61.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`We determine that for at least for these reasons and those set forth by
`Petitioner, this element is met by Nakamura. We conclude, therefore, that
`Nakamura anticipates these claims.
`D. Real Party-in-Interest and Statutory Bar
`Patent Owner contends that the Petition is insufficient for failure to
`name two real parties-in-interest: LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics
`U.S.A. Inc. PO Resp. 20–21. Patent Owner also contends that the Petition
`is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Id. at 21–27. The same arguments were
`raised in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 26–34. We
`determined in our Institution Decision that Patent Owner failed to provide
`convincing evidence that LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A.
`Inc. are real parties-in-interest. Paper 12, 5–6. We also determined that
`Patent Owner failed to provide sufficient evidence of a bar under § 315(b).
`Id. at 6–7.
`Patent Owner’s Response relies on the same evidence and arguments
`that we considered in our Institution Decision. For the reasons stated in our
`Institution Decision, we determine that Patent Owner fails to prove that the
`Petition does not name the real parties-in-interest or that it is barred under
`§ 315(b). Paper 12, 5–7.
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`ORDERED that this is a final written decision of the Board under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the
`decision must comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`§ 90.2;
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21,
`23–25, and 27 of U.S. Patent 7,384,177 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a); and
`FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13–15, 19, 21, 23,
`24, and 26 of U.S. Patent 7,384,177 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(e).
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01362
`Patent 7,384,177 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Robert G. Pluta
`Amanda K. Streff
`Baldine B. Paul
`Anita Y. Lam
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`alam@mayerbrown.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Justin B. Kimble
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone
`BRAGALONE CONROY P.C.
`jkimble@bcpc-law.com
`jbragalone@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`
`19