UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: __________
`
`Patent 7,537,370
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. ESCUTI, PHD
`
`
`
`LGE_000720
`
`LG Electronics Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Background And Qualifications ..................................................................... 1
`B.
`Information Considered .................................................................................. 6
`LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................................ 7
`B.
`Anticipation ....................................................................................................... 8
`C. Obviousness ...................................................................................................... 9
`D.
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 11
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 12
`A.
`Light Emitting Panel Assemblies ................................................................. 12
`B.
`Common Light Control Structures And Films .......................................... 15
`C.
`Low Loss .......................................................................................................... 23
`IV. THE ’370 PATENT ................................................................................................... 24
`A.
`Background Of The ’370 Patent .................................................................. 24
`B.
`Prosecution History ...................................................................................... 26
`C.
`Asserted Claims .............................................................................................. 28
`D.
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 29
`PRIOR ART ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 29
`U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”) ....................................................... 29
`A.
`1.
`Claims 1, 4, 8, 13, 15, 27, 29, And 47 Are Obvious In View Of
`Pristash ................................................................................................... 31
`European Patent Application No. 0 500 960 (“Ohe”) ............................. 58
`1.
`Claims 1, 4, 8, And 29 Are Anticipated By Ohe ............................. 59
`U.S. Patent No. 5,408,388 (“Kobayashi”) .................................................. 72
`1.
`Claims 1, 4, 8, 15, And 29 Are Anticipated By Kobayashi ............ 74
`2.
`Claims 13, 15, 27, And 47 Are Obvious In View Of Kobayashi
`And Admitted Prior Art Or Pristash ................................................ 85
`i
`
`V.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`LGE_000721
`
`

`
`
`
`VI.
`
`VI.
`
`SUPPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................... 106
`
`SUPPLEMENTATI ON ........................................................................................ ..106
`
`
`
`
`LGE_000722
`
`ii
`
`LGE_000722
`
`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`II.
`
`1. My name is Dr. Michael J. Escuti, and I have been retained by the law firm of
`
`Mayer Brown LLP on behalf of LG Electronics, Inc. as an expert in the relevant art.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions and views on the materials I have
`
`reviewed in this case related to Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 (“the ’370
`
`Patent”) (“the patent-at-issue”), and the scientific and technical knowledge regarding
`
`the same subject matter before and for a period following the date of the first
`
`application for the patent-at-issue was filed.
`
`3.
`
`I am compensated at the rate of $330/hour for my work, plus reimbursement
`
`for expenses. My compensation has not influenced any of my opinions in this matter
`
`and does not depend on the outcome of this proceeding or any issue in it.
`
`4. My opinion and underlying reasoning for this opinion is set forth below.
`
`A.
`
`Background And Qualifications
`
`5.
`
`I am currently a tenured Associate Professor at North Carolina State University
`
`(“NCSU”), in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. As detailed
`
`below, I have over 16 years of experience directly relevant to the ’370 Patent,
`
`including in the fields of liquid crystal display (“LCD”) technologies, backlight design,
`
`optical physics, and electronic materials.
`
`6.
`
`I received my PhD in Electrical Engineering from Brown University in
`
`Providence, RI, in 2002. My dissertation topic focused on novel LCD systems and
`
`devices, including both experimental and theoretical study. Upon earning my PhD, I
`
`
`
`1
`
`LGE_000723
`
`

`
`
`
`apprenticed as a Postdoctoral Scholar in the Department of Chemical Engineering at
`
`Eindhoven University of Technology (Netherlands), where my research focused on
`
`LCDs, novel backlight approaches, diffractive optical films/sheets, and polymer-
`
`based organic electronics. Since 2004, I have been on the faculty of NCSU in Raleigh,
`
`NC, currently as a tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering. I have supervised the graduation of seven Ph.D. and three
`
`M.S. students, and currently advise an additional three Ph.D. students. In addition, I
`
`have mentored nineteen undergraduate researchers.
`
`7.
`
`In 2005, I co-founded ImagineOptix Corporation, which commercializes
`
`components, systems, and optical thin-film technology developed within my academic
`
`laboratory. The primary markets are LCDs, projectors, and telecommunications
`
`hardware. Since its inception, I have been a part-time advisor to the company with the
`
`title of Chief Scientific Officer, and in 2013, I joined the Board of Directors.
`
`8. With my students and collaborators, I have authored over 102 publications,
`
`including journal articles, refereed conference proceedings, and book chapters. I am a
`
`named inventor on 11 issued and 19 pending United States patents, and several
`
`additional foreign patents. I have offered 29 invited research presentations.
`
`9.
`
`I have received numerous awards and distinctions, including the following:
`
`a. (2011) Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers
`
`(“PECASE”), the highest award by the U.S. Government for young
`
`researchers;
`
`
`
`2
`
`LGE_000724
`
`

`
`
`
`b. (2011) Alcoa Foundation Engineering Research Achievement Award,
`
`awarded to one faculty NCSU member annually recognizing outstanding
`
`research;
`
`c. (2010) Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Award, from the
`
`National Science Foundation (“NSF”);
`
`d. (2004) Glenn H. Brown Prize for Outstanding Ph.D. Dissertation, from the
`
`International Liquid Crystal Society (“ILCS”);
`
`e. (2002) New Focus Award, Top Winner, from the Optical Society of
`
`America (“OSA”); (2001) Graduate Student Silver Award, from the
`
`Materials Research Society;
`
`f. (2001) Sigma Xi Outstanding Graduate Student Research Award, from
`
`Brown University chapter;
`
`g. (1999) Best Student Paper Award, Society for Information Display (“SID”);
`
`h. Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”),
`
`Society of Photo-optical and Instrumentation Engineers (“SPIE”), OSA,
`
`and SID.
`
`10. My research at NCSU over the last ten years has been supported by more than
`
`$8M in external research funds, in part from several government agencies, including
`
`the NSF, the United States Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), the Defense
`
`Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the National Aeronautics and
`
`Space Administration (NASA). A further part of this support also comes from several
`
`
`
`3
`
`LGE_000725
`
`

`
`
`
`strong partnerships with industry, including Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Teledyne
`
`Scientific & Imaging, Boulder Nonlinear Systems, and ImagineOptix.
`
`11.
`
` My central expertise via training and research experience is in LCD system
`
`design, materials, technology, and optical modeling. I began working with
`
`technologies to improve viewing angle problems in 1998, and in 1999 published my
`
`first journal article on this topic (M.J. Escuti, et al., Enhanced Dynamic Response of
`
`the In-plane Switching Liquid Crystal Display Mode Through Polymer Stabilization,
`
`Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 75, pp. 3264-3266 (1999)). In 2002, I co-authored an invited
`
`chapter reviewing LCD technology (G.P. Crawford and M.J. Escuti, Liquid Crystal
`
`Display Technology, in “Encyclopedia of Imaging Science and Technology,” ed. J.P.
`
`Hornak (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002)). In 2005, I co-authored a journal article
`
`focused on an advanced LCD backlight (C. Sanchez, M.J. Escuti, et al., “An efficient
`
`illumination system for LCDs incorporating an anisotropic hologram,” Appl. Phys.
`
`Lett., vol. 87, art. no. 094101, (2005)), and I currently am leading multiple projects at
`
`NCSU on backlights that are largely unpublished.
`
`12. As a student, I used and reviewed several textbooks and reference books,
`
`including those listed below (a-f). Also listed is an additional book I use in the class I
`
`teach on liquid crystal displays for undergraduate and graduate students that I
`
`developed at NCSU with support from the NSF.
`
`a. J. A. Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic Press Inc., San
`
`Diego (1992);
`
`
`
`4
`
`LGE_000726
`
`

`
`
`
`b. D. E. Mentley and J. A. Castellano, Liquid Crystal Display Manufacturing,
`
`Stanford Resources, Inc., San Jose (1994);
`
`c. Liquid Crystals: Applications and Uses (Vol. 1), edited by B. Bahadur, World
`
`Scientific (1995);
`
`d. P. Collings and J. Patel, eds., Handbook of Liquid Crystal Research, Oxford
`
`University Press, New York (1997);
`
`e. Pochi Yeh and Claire Gu, Optics of Liquid Crystal Displays, Wiley & Sons
`
`(1999);
`
`f. Ernst Lueder, Liquid Crystal Displays: Addressing schemes & electro-optical effects,
`
`New York: Wiley (2001);
`
`g. Willem den Boer, Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays: Fundamentals &
`
`Applications, Elsevier: Newnes (2005).
`
`13.
`
` In my academic research, I direct both applied and fundamental research for
`
`applications including efficient LCDs, backlights, and optical films relevant to both.
`
`We also study techniques for low-loss fiber optic telecommunications switches, laser
`
`beam steering for high energy applications and laser communications, IR/MIR
`
`polarization imaging, opto-fluidics, novel diffractive lenses, and vortex beam optics.
`
`We routinely use and often fabricate our own devices, backlights, compensation films,
`
`and fully functional systems for direct-view and projection-displays and other
`
`applications including telecommunications, remote sensing, and laser beam steering. I
`
`routinely use commercial ray-tracing software for display system modeling. Over the
`
`
`
`5
`
`LGE_000727
`
`

`
`
`
`last 16 years, I have written and used multiple numerical simulation tools for optical
`
`and liquid crystal modeling, including custom code for modeling of optical waves in
`
`stratified birefringent media (matrix methods), exact solutions to Maxwell's equations
`
`in anisotropic media, and liquid crystal alignment physics.
`
`14.
`
` I have served twice as an expert within Inter Partes Review proceedings before
`
`the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, both concluding in 2013, where I was
`
`deposed. In addition, I have previously served three times as an expert before the U.S.
`
`International Trade Commission (“ITC”), beginning in 2011, where I was deposed,
`
`and in two of the cases, testified at the hearing. I have also served as an expert in
`
`several district court cases.
`
`15.
`
` A detailed record of my professional qualifications, including a list of
`
`publications, awards, and professional activities, is set forth in my curriculum vitae,
`
`attached to this report as Appendix A.
`
`B.
`
`Information Considered
`
`16.
`
` In addition to my general knowledge gained as a result of my education and
`
`experience in this field, I have reviewed and considered, among other things, the ’370
`
`Patent, the prosecution history of the ’370 Patent, and the prior art of record.
`
`17. The full list of information that I have considered in forming my opinions for
`
`this report is set forth throughout the report and listed in the attached Appendix B.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`18.
`
`
`
`In forming my opinions and considering the patentability of the claims of the
`
`6
`
`LGE_000728
`
`

`
`
`
`’370 Patent, I am relying upon certain legal principles that counsel has explained to
`
`me.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found patentable, it
`
`must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light of what came before it.
`
`Patents and publications which predated the invention are generally referred to as
`
`“prior art.”
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding the burden is on the party asserting
`
`unpatentability to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a
`
`preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more
`
`likely than not.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims after being
`
`construed in this manner are then to be compared to information that was disclosed
`
`in the prior art.
`
`A.
`
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that the claims of a patent are judged from the
`
`perspective of a hypothetical construct involving “a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.” The “art” is the field of technology to which the patent is related. I understand
`
`that the purpose of using a person of ordinary skill in the art’s viewpoint is objectivity.
`
`Thus, I understand that the question of validity is viewed from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, and not from the perspective of (a) the inventor, (b)
`
`
`
`7
`
`LGE_000729
`
`

`
`
`
`a layperson, or (c) a person of extraordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that
`
`the claims of the patent-at-issue are interpreted as a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood them in the relevant time period (i.e., when the patent
`
`application was filed or earliest effective filing date).
`
`23.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’370
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a “person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity, not an automaton” and that would be especially true of anyone developing
`
`liquid crystal display structures.
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of whether
`
`a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art. I have applied these standards in my
`
`analysis of whether claims of the ’370 Patent were anticipated at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is “anticipated” by a single prior art reference
`
`if that reference discloses each element of the claim in a single embodiment. A prior
`
`art reference may anticipate a claim inherently if an element is not expressly stated,
`
`but only if the prior art necessarily includes the claim limitations.
`
`27.
`
`
`
`I understand that the test for anticipation is performed in two steps. First, the
`
`8
`
`LGE_000730
`
`

`
`
`
`claims must be interpreted to determine their meaning. Second, a prior art reference is
`
`analyzed to determine whether every claim element, as interpreted in the first step, is
`
`present in the reference. If all the elements of a patent claim are present in the prior
`
`art reference, then that claim is anticipated and is invalid.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to examine extrinsic evidence outside the
`
`prior art reference in determining whether a feature, while not expressly discussed in
`
`the reference, is necessarily present within that reference.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a claim can be invalid in view of prior art if the differences
`
`between the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that the claimed 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.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined at 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). I
`
`understand that a claim is obvious over a prior art reference if that reference,
`
`combined with the knowledge of one skilled in the art or other prior art references
`
`disclose each and every element of the recited claim.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that the relevant
`
`inquiry
`
`into obviousness requires
`
`consideration of four factors:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`The knowledge of a person of ordinary sill in the pertinent art; and
`
`9
`
`LGE_000731
`
`

`
`d.
`
`Objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness may be
`
`
`
`
`
`present in any particular case, such factors including commercial success of products
`
`covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by
`
`others to make the invention; copying of the invention by others in the field;
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by the infringer
`
`or others in the field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of
`
`surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and that
`
`the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that when combining two or more references, one should
`
`consider whether a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references
`
`exists so as to avoid impermissible hindsight. I have been informed that the
`
`application of the teaching, suggestion or motivation test should not be rigidly
`
`applied, but rather is an expansive and flexible test. For example, I have been
`
`informed that the common sense of a person of ordinary skill in the art can serve as
`
`motivation for combining references.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the content of a patent or other printed publication (i.e., a
`
`reference) should be interpreted the way a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have interpreted the reference as of the effective filing date of the patent application
`
`for the ’370 Patent. I have assumed that the person of ordinary skill is a hypothetical
`
`person who is presumed to be aware of all the pertinent information that qualifies as
`
`prior art. In addition, the person of ordinary skill in the art makes inferences and
`
`
`
`10
`
`LGE_000732
`
`

`
`
`
`creative steps. He or she is not an automaton, but has ordinary creativity.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed that the application that issued as the ’370 Patent was
`
`filed in 2006. However, the application claims priority to a parent application that was
`
`filed on June 27, 1995. As a result, I will assume the relevant time period for
`
`determining what one of ordinary skill in the art knew is June 27, 1995, the effective
`
`filing date for purposes of this proceeding.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed that a claim subject to inter partes review is given its
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.” I have been informed that this means that the words of the claim are
`
`given their plain meaning from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`unless that meaning is inconsistent with the specification. I understand that 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 and that the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the
`
`words of the claims, the specification, drawings, and prior art.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that in construing claims “[a]ll words in a claim must be
`
`considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” (MPEP §
`
`2143.03, citing In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970)).
`
`37.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence may be consulted for the meaning of a
`
`claim term as long as it is not used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in
`
`
`
`11
`
`LGE_000733
`
`

`
`
`
`light of the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`I also understand that in construing claim terms, the general meanings gleaned from
`
`reference sources must always be compared against the use of the terms in context,
`
`and the intrinsic record must always be consulted to identify which of the different
`
`possible dictionary meanings is most consistent with the use of the words by the
`
`inventor. See, e.g., Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls v. Mega Systems, 350 F.3d 1327,
`
`1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d
`
`1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Light Emitting Panel Assemblies
`
`38. The ’370 Patent discloses a light emitting panel assembly, also called a light
`
`emitting assembly, which according to the ’370 Patent, is a device configured to
`
`produce a uniform illumination from a surface. This is a type of light box or
`
`luminaire, producing surface illumination. See, e.g., Ex. 1009, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,160,195 (“Miller”). While these panel assemblies are used in many application
`
`contexts, e.g., architectural lighting, signage illumination, and x-ray film viewing, the
`
`primary application is in LCDs and the various applications thereof. In the LCD
`
`context, a light emitting panel assembly is usually called the “backlight” module,
`
`which is important since it generates the light needed by the display, and is primarily
`
`responsible for the brightness and power-efficiency of the whole system. The other
`
`
`
`12
`
`LGE_000734
`
`

`
`
`
`major module of an LCD is the “LC panel,” which is non-light emitting and instead
`
`modulates light passing through it to form an image, where each individual pixel acts
`
`as a shutter controlling how much light can pass through it. See Ex. 1010, J. A.
`
`Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic Press Inc., San Diego (1992), at
`
`pp. 9-13 and Ch. 8. A typical cross-section of a light emitting panel assembly by the
`
`time of the ’370 Patent is illustrated in Fig. 2 from Ciupke, where the light emitting
`
`panel assembly includes everything below element 12, and where element 12 is the
`
`LCD. (Fig. 2 from Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”)).
`
`
`39. The principle aim of a light emitting panel assembly is to provide a surface of
`
`illumination that is as smooth as possible across its area, i.e., to emit light uniformly
`
`from its entire spatial extent and into a desired angle distribution. Unfortunately, there
`
`are no bright and efficient light sources that emit inherently from a surface area
`
`commensurate with the size of an LCD, so point- and line-shaped light sources are
`
`used instead. For example, light-emitting-diodes (LEDs) have small emission areas
`
`typically on the order of a few mm2, and fluorescent lamps, with either cold- (CCFL)
`
`or hot- (HCL) cathodes, can be many cm long but only a few mm wide. The most
`
`
`
`13
`
`LGE_000735
`
`

`
`
`
`critical engineering challenge for backlights, therefore, is to produce the surface
`
`illumination with the target brightness and uniformity at the lowest possible electrical
`
`power.
`
`40.
`
` Light emitting panel assemblies are classified into two well-known1 categories:
`
`“edge-lit” and “directly back-lit.” See, e.g., Fig. 9 from Ex. 1011, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,598,280 (“Nishio”), versus Fig. 4 from Ex. 1012, U.S. Patent No. 5,384,658
`
`(“Ohtake”). These two categories are illustrated in Fig. A below, with the light
`
`sources highlighted in each case. In the edge-lit category, the light source is at the
`
`edge, sending light substantially horizontally (in this illustration), which must then be
`
`turned upward to emit upward (in this illustration) through the emitting surface (and
`
`toward the display element in this illustration). In the direct back-lit category, the light
`
`sources are arranged instead directly below the emitting surface, usually with several
`
`films in between. Confusingly, the word “backlight” is commonly applied to both.
`
`The ’370 Patent discloses an edge-lit light emitting panel assembly. Edge-lit light
`
`emitting panel assemblies are often preferred because they can be physically thinner
`
`and lower weight.
`
`
`1 To be clear, when I refer to an element or concept as “well-known” or “known in
`
`the prior art,” I particularly mean to say that the element or concept was well-known
`
`as of June 27, 1995.
`
`
`
`14
`
`LGE_000736
`
`

`
`
`
`Figure A (annotated Fig. 9 of Ex. 1011, Nishio and Fig. 2 of Ex. 1012, Ohtake)
`
`41.
`
`It was known by June 27, 1995 that one or more light sources may be
`
`employed. As representative examples, see Ex. 1005, Ciupke, at Fig. 4 below.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Common Light Control Structures And Films
`
`42.
`
` Many standard optical elements and surfaces within LCDs are used to spatially
`
`homogenize and control the angular distribution of emitted light. These include light
`
`pipes, transition areas, reflectors, and various types of microstructured deformities
`
`(e.g., microprisms, diffusers, and microlenses). See, e.g., Ex. 1013, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,303,322 (“Winston”). We now discuss each of these.
`
`43.
`
` The light pipe, also sometimes called a light guide or wave guide or optical
`
`
`
`15
`
`LGE_000737
`
`

`
`
`
`conductor, accepts light injected from the side and distributes it across the emission
`
`area. See, e.g., Ex. 1014, U.S. Patent No. 5,050,946 (“Hathaway”), at Abstract and 1:56-
`
`59. The light pipe is typically a transparent planar slab that confines the light within it
`
`using the principle of total-internal-reflection, in order to support the persistent goals
`
`in LCDs of thinner and lighter displays. Id. at 5:66-6:2. In some designs the light pipe
`
`has parallel surfaces and in other designs it has a wedge shape. Id. at Figs. 1 and 5.
`
`44. Light will generally only escape from the light pipe into the emission direction
`
`when disturbed by a structure – for example, a pattern of diffusing spots on the back
`
`surface, or microstructures on one or both surfaces. Id. at 7:15-22. For example, in
`
`the annotated Figure B of Ex. 1005, Ciupke below, the ray 24 is shown first emitting
`
`from the light source 18, entering the light pipe 11, bouncing off the top and bottom
`
`surfaces of the light pipe several times, reflecting on the right hand side by the edge
`
`reflector 29, hitting one of the groove 17 deformities, and only then emitting from the
`
`light pipe toward the LCD. Light pipes were generally known in the prior art. It is
`
`important to note that the ’370 Patent employs several terms for the light pipe,
`
`including “transparent panel member” (e.g., Ex. 1001, the ’370 Patent, at 1:20), “light
`
`emitting panel member” (e.g., id. at 1:34-35), and “transparent light emitting panel”
`
`(e.g., id. at 2:67).
`
`
`
`16
`
`LGE_000738
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Figure B ((annotated Fig. 2 of EEx. 1005, CCiupke)
`
`
` AA transitionn area (or
`
`region) is ccommonly
`employed
`
`
`
`
`ource between tthe light so
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`45.
`
`and the
`
`light pipe,
`
`
`
`and is knoown in the
`
`art. Ex. 10
`
`01, the ’37
`
`
`
`0 Patent, aat 2:58-3:3.
`
`This
`
`
`
`is a struucture thatt usually haas at least
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`two functtions: to seecurely po
`sition the
`
`
`
`light
`
`
`
`source rrelative to
`
`the light p
`
`
`
`ipe, and too spread annd transmitt light to pproduce a mmore
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`uniformm input illummination. SSee, e.g., Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1014, Hatthaway, at 66:3-24. Thee transition
`
`
`
`
`
`area
`
`
`
`may takke many shhapes, andd is usuallyy formed uusing a traansparent mmaterial wiith a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`refractivve index simmilar to thee light guidde. For exaample, in tthe annotatted Figure
`
`
`
`
`
`C of
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Ciupke bbelow, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transition aarea 25 couuples the ligght from thhe light souurces
`
`
`
`
`
`18 into tthe light piipe 11. Cf. EEx. 1012, HHathaway, aat Fig. 11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure C ((annotated Fig. 4 of EEx. 1005, CCiupke)
`
`
`
`
` VVarious typpes of defoormities aree employedd to contro
`
`
`
`
`patial l the directtion and sp
`
`
`
`46.
`
`
`
`
`
`uniformmity of light within ligght emittinng panel as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`semblies. TTwo majorr categoriess are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`LGE_000739
`
`

`
`
`
`those that are essentially microstructured grooves or protrusions on a surface, or
`
`those that involve a highly scattering material painted on a surface or formed into a
`
`sheet. It was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’370
`
`Patent that these deformities may be random or regularly arranged, and may have
`
`features which vary spatially across the emitting area (e.g., size, density, type, shape,
`
`etc.). For example, several types of spatial variation in deformities are shown in Fig. 5
`
`of Ex. 1007, European Patent Application Publication No. EP500960 (“Ohe”) below,
`
`where the light source is positioned at side 7.
`
`
`47. One of the most common deformities is a microprism, which is a small groove
`
`or protrusion with two or more facets. These are shown in Figs. B and C above in
`
`paragraphs 43 and 44, respectively, as elements 17, on either side of the light pipe.
`
`When a light ray hits one of these microprisms, its direction can be substantially
`
`changed via refraction and/or reflection, nearly without loss. An illustration of both
`
`behaviors can be seen in Fig. D below, where I have highlighted the rays refracting
`
`
`
`18
`
`LGE_000740
`
`

`
`
`
`(red) and the rays reflecting (blue) because of the microprisms sheet (green) (Fig. 6
`
`from Ex. 1011, Nishio). In fact, the blue ray on the right side is first reflected and
`
`then refracted. In some cases, an entire surface is formed into an array of prisms,
`
`either as a surface of the light pipe or as a separate sheet, but this is not required. In
`
`this configuration, the slanted surfaces are useful to turn light toward useful viewing
`
`directions, e.g., from very oblique angles to on-axis angles, and visa versa. Because a
`
`large portion of the light emitted from a typical light pipe system is initially sent along
`
`oblique directions, the addition of a microprism sheet typically increases/enhances the
`
`brightness of the light emitting panel as seen by a viewer directly observing on-axis.
`
`By the early 1990s, the company 3M commercialized many films based on this effect,
`
`and the terminology of “brightness enhancement/enhancing film” (BEF) became
`
`essentially synonymous with microprism sheets. See, e.g., the extended explanation in
`
`Ex. 1015, U.S. Patent No. 5,828,488 (“Ouderkirk”), at 6:63-8:8; and Ex. 1016, 3M
`
`product brochure 75-0500-0403-7, “Brightness Enhancement Film (BEF),” 2 pages
`
`(1993). Microprism deformities and sheets were generally known in the prior art.
`
`
`
`19
`
`LGE_000741
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Figure D (annotated Fig. 6 of Ex. 1011, Nishio)
`
`48.
`
` A second common deformity is one that causes a diffusing effect, which at
`
`least partially randomizes the direction of light, increasing its divergence angle and
`
`reducing on-axis brightness. This will tend to blur shadows or brightness variations,
`
`making light more uniform. Diffusing deformities may be embodied as nearly any
`
`interruption on the surface of a planar optical sheet, including bumps or indentations
`
`of nearly any shape, microspheres, or white paint. For example: (i) irregular beads
`
`partially embedded on a surface, shown in Fig. E(i); (ii) micro-joints and cracks in the
`
`surface (e.g., of a light pipe), shown in Fig. E(ii); (iii) roughened surface with random
`
`projections, shown in Fig. E(iii); and (iv) fully embedded particles within the bulk of a
`
`polymer binder, shown in Fig. E(iv).
`
`
`
`20
`
`LGE_000742
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure E(i) (Fig. 4A of Ex. 1017,
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,134 (“Konno”))
`
`
`Figu