INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC’s
`EXHIBIT 2001
`
`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 IPR2015-00497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2001
`
`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 IPR2015-00497
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 9
` Entered: January 13, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, NEIL T. POWELL, and BEVERLY M.
`BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IDT_00001
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`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, 3–5,
`
`7–11, 13, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 (“the ’974 patent”). Paper 2
`
`(“Pet.”). Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“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, 3–5, 7–11, 13, and 17.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ʼ974 patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ʼ974 patent is entitled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies.” The
`
`Abstract describes the subject matter as follows:
`
`
`Light emitting panel assembly includes a light emitting
`panel member received in a cavity or recess in a tray or
`housing. The panel member has a pattern of light extracting
`deformities on or in at least one surface of the panel member to
`cause light received from at least one LED light source
`positioned near or against the light entrance surface of the panel
`member to be emitted from a light emitting surface of the panel
`member. The tray or housing acts as an end edge and/or side
`edge reflector for the panel member to reflect light that would
`otherwise exit the panel member through the end edge and/or
`side edge back into the panel member for causing additional
`light to be emitted from the panel member.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`IDT_00002
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue:
`
`1. A light emitting panel assembly comprising
`at least a light emitting panel member having a light
`entrance surface and a light emitting surface,
`at least one LED light source positioned near or against
`the light entrance surface, and
`a tray or housing having a cavity or recess in which the
`panel member is entirely received,
`wherein the panel member has a pattern of light
`extracting deformities on or in at least one surface to cause light
`to be emitted from the light emitting surface of the panel
`member, and the tray or housing includes end walls and side
`walls that act as end edge reflectors and side edge reflectors for
`the panel member to reflect light that would otherwise exit the
`panel member through an end edge and/or side edge back into
`the panel member and toward the pattern of light extracting
`deformities for causing additional light to be emitted from the
`light emitting surface of the panel member,
`wherein the tray or housing provides structural support to
`the panel member and has posts, tabs, or other structural
`features that provide a mount for mounting of the assembly into
`a larger assembly or device.
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`
`Patent Owner states that it has asserted infringement by Petitioner of
`
`the ʼ974 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 4.
`
`Patent Owner identifies numerous other proceedings in which it has
`
`alleged infringement of the ʼ974 patent. See Paper 4 for a listing.
`
`
`
`3
`
`IDT_00003
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`In addition, there are four other pending requests for inter partes
`
`review by Petitioner for patents related to the ’974 patent. Those are as
`
`follows:
`
`1. IPR2014-01094 (U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660);
`
`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).
`
`The only claim term for which Petitioner proposes a construction is
`
`the term “deformities,” appearing in all challenged claims. Petitioner asserts
`
`that the ʼ974 patent “expressly defines” the term to mean “any change in the
`
`shape or geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface treatment that
`
`causes a portion of light to be emitted.” Pet. 8 (citing ʼ974 patent, Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 4, ll. 36–40). Patent Owner takes no position on claim construction.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 7. Patent Owner points out, however, that the construction of
`
`“deformities” proffered by Petitioner was agreed to and adopted by the
`
`district court. Id.
`
`We have considered Petitioner’s construction of “deformities” and
`
`determined that at this stage it should be adopted here.
`
`
`
`4
`
`IDT_00004
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`We have further determined that, except as may be indicated in the
`
`discussion below, the remaining terms should be given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references1:
`
`E. References
`
`Funamoto
`Tsuchiyama
`Nakayama
`
`
`US 5,619,351
`US 5,548,271
`US 5,654,779
`
`May 10, 1994
`Jun. 24, 1994
`Dec. 29, 1994
`
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`Petitioner also states that it is relying on Admitted Prior Art (“APA”)
`
`from the ʼ974 patent specification. Pet. 9; Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 58-65.
`
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration from Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti
`
`Decl.”). Ex. 1004.
`
`F. Grounds Asserted
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13, and 17 of ’974 patent on
`
`the following grounds.
`
`References
`
`Funamoto
`Tsuchiyama and Funamoto
`
`Funamoto and Nakayama
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§ 103(a) 1, 3–5, 7–11, and 13
`§ 103(a) 1, 3–5, 7–8, 10–11,
`and 13
`§ 103(a) 13 and 17
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Asserted Grounds Based On Funamoto Alone
`
`(Claims 1, 3–5, 7–11, and 13)
`
`
`1 The references are ordered by exhibit number with effective dates asserted
`by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`5
`
`IDT_00005
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`Petitioner contends that these claims are obvious over Funamoto
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 11–25. For the reasons that follow, we are
`
`not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on this ground.
`
`
`
`1. Funamoto Overview
`
`This patent describes a surface-type illumination device for providing
`
`backlight in a liquid crystal display. Ex. 1007, Abstract. As disclosed, the
`
`device makes use of a fluorescent tube and polarizer. This is illustrated in
`
`Figure 4 of Funamoto, reproduced here:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IDT_00006
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`
`
`In the above Figure 4, polarizer 21 and fluorescent light 22 are shown.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 32–48. Funamoto’s objectives include providing a
`
`surface-type illumination device that displays a brightness higher than
`
`conventional illumination devices without increasing the number of driver
`
`circuits, and restricting heat radiation. Id. col. 2, ll. 10–14.
`
`
`
`2. Discussion
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s discussion of Funamoto acknowledges that Funamoto
`
`does not “explicitly” disclose use of an LED light source, a requirement of
`
`claim 1 and all other challenged claims. Pet. 13. Petitioner contends,
`
`instead, that a person of ordinary skill “would easily substitute an LED for
`
`the fluorescent light source disclosed.” Id. (citing Escuti Decl. ¶¶76–78).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner disagrees, pointing out that “Funamoto explicitly states
`
`that a fluorescent light source is required.” Prelim Resp. 13. Patent Owner
`
`cites to a discussion in Funamoto of the requirement of a “high output
`
`fluorescent light in the illumination device” to achieve sufficient brightness
`
`for the intended application. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 41–42).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to consider Funamoto “as
`
`[a] whole.” Id. at 13–14. Specifically, Patent Owner points out that to
`
`reduce temperature variations without increasing the number of driver
`
`circuits, Funamoto teaches using a single L or U-shaped fluorescent light
`
`source instead of a straight fluorescent light source. Id. Patent Owner
`
`contends that Petitioner has not shown how the “generic” substitution of
`
`LEDs for the fluorescent tube would meet the objectives of Funamoto
`
`discussed supra. Id. at 14.
`
`
`
`7
`
`IDT_00007
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing obviousness of the
`
`challenged claims over Funamoto. In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`
`U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court warned that “a patent composed of
`
`several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of
`
`its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” Id. at 418.
`
`Rather, the Court stated:
`
`[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have
`prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention
`does . . . because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely
`upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed
`discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in
`some sense, is already known.
`
`
`Id. at 418–419 (emphasis added); see also id. at 418 (requiring a
`
`determination of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the
`
`known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Moreover, when evaluating claims for obviousness, “the prior art as a
`
`whole must be considered. The teachings are to be viewed as they would
`
`have been viewed by one of ordinary skill.” In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
`
`1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, “‘[i]t is impermissible within the
`
`framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so
`
`much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts
`
`necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Id. (quoting In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238,
`
`241 (CCPA 1965)).
`
`
`
`8
`
`IDT_00008
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`We are, therefore, not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a
`
`person of ordinary skill “would easily substitute an LED” for the fluorescent
`
`light tube in Funamoto. Petitioner does not provide a convincing rationale
`
`for making the substitution. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (Obviousness
`
`showing requires “some articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In
`
`re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Furthermore, the argument
`
`ignores Funamoto’s stated requirement of a high output fluorescent light in
`
`the disclosed device. See discussion supra.
`
`Patent Owner presents two additional reasons why the challenged
`
`claims are not obvious over Funamoto. First is that Funamoto’s polarizer is
`
`not a “light emitting panel member” as recited in the claims. Prelim. Resp.
`
`10–12. Second is the argument that the recitation in the claim 1 of “posts,
`
`tabs, or other structural features” is not met by Funamoto. According to
`
`Patent Owner, the structural features identified by Petitioner as meeting this
`
`limitation do not result in mounting the tray assembly into a larger assembly,
`
`as is called for in the claim. Id. at 15.
`
`Because of our determination that Petitioner has failed to show that
`
`the use of LEDs in Funamoto would have been obvious, we do not reach
`
`those additional arguments.
`
`B. Asserted Grounds Based On Tsuchiyama and Funamoto
`
`(Claims 1, 3–5, 7–8, 10–11, and 13)
`
`Petitioner contends that these claims are obvious over Tsuchiyama
`
`and Funamoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 26–40. For the reasons that
`
`follow, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on this ground.
`
`
`
`9
`
`IDT_00009
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`1. Tsuchiyama Overview
`
`
`
`This patent describes a miniature data display radio pager having a
`
`liquid crystal display (LCD). Ex. 1008, col. 1, ll. 4–7. The display is
`
`provided with a backlight for illuminating the LCD. Id. The structure
`
`includes a backlight, backlight LEDs, alert LEDs, and a light conducting
`
`plate. Id. col. 2, ll. 29–40. This is illustrated by Figure 2 of Tsuchiyama,
`
`reproduced here:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IDT_00010
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`
`In Figure 2 above, backlight 32, backlight LEDs 12a, alert LEDs 12b,
`
`and light conducting plate 32a are shown. Tsuchiyama describes a structure
`
`that addresses a problem arising when the alert LEDs are placed next to the
`
`LCD display. Id. col. 1, ll. 39–50. This arrangement requires increasing the
`
`dimensions of the pager and prevents miniaturization. Id. Tsuchiyama
`
`avoids this problem by positioning the alert LEDs in the LCD display
`
`instead of next to the display. Id. col. 3, ll. 21–30.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Discussion
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that Tsuchiyama does not “explicitly disclose
`
`the panel member having a pattern of light extracting deformities.” Pet. 29.
`
`To meet this claim element, Petitioner contends that “[a] person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
`
`Tsuchiyama with the teachings of Funamoto because they are both directed
`
`to a thinner and smaller device, including thinner and smaller LCD devices.”
`
`Pet. 28. Petitioner further contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have been motivated to combine the assembly of Tsuchiyama with
`
`the deformities of Funamoto because the deformities are used to control
`
`characteristics of the light, including output, uniformity, etc.” Id. at 29.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s statement as to why
`
`Tsuchiyaman and Funaamoto should be combined “is conclusory and
`
`unsupported by sufficient evidence and analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 21. Patent
`
`Owner asserts that the problem solved by Tsuchiyama (locating the alert
`
`LED in the backlight of a pager) is unrelated to the technical problems
`
`addressed by Funamoto (see discussion supra).
`
`
`
`As discussed above, in determining obviousness, the prior art as a
`
`whole must be considered. Furthermore, a sufficient rationale for combining
`
`
`
`11
`
`IDT_00011
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`the references must be articulated. Petitioner’s argument, that the teachings
`
`of Tsuchiyama and Funamoto can be combined because they are both
`
`directed to thinner, smaller devices, is not convincing. The deformities
`
`missing from Tsuchiyama but present in Funamoto are used to effect control
`
`of characteristics of the light, not miniaturization of the device. Thus, we
`
`are not convinced by Petitioner’s rationale for making the combination.
`
`Alternatively, Patent Owner contends that the Tsuchiyama/Funamoto
`
`combination is lacking the “posts, tabs, or other structural features” recited
`
`in the claims. Prelim. Resp. 23. We agree with Patent Owner that
`
`Petitioner’s argument is unavailing because Patent Owner has not identified
`
`sufficiently the “larger assembly or device” called for in the claims.
`
`C. Asserted Grounds Based on Funamoto and Nakayama
`
`(Claims 13 and 17)
`
`Petitioner contends that these independent claims are obvious over
`
`Funamoto and Nakayama under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 40–51. For the
`
`reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this ground.
`
`
`
`1. Nakayama Overview
`
`This patent describes a liquid crystal display device that includes a
`
`light emitting panel assembly. Figure 1a of Nakayama follows:
`
`
`
`12
`
`IDT_00012
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Figure 1a above, frame 1a and 1b, display panel 2, light panel 4,
`
`lamps 5a and 5b, and lamp holders 10a and 10b are shown.
`
`
`
`2. Discussion
`
`Petitioner contends that Funamoto and Nakayama, together, disclose
`
`all elements of claims 13 and 17 of the ʼ974 patent. Pet. 40. Petitioner
`
`further contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine the teachings of Funamoto and Nakayama because the
`
`patents were directed to the same goals.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner disputes this rationale. Prelim. Resp. 27-28. According
`
`to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s allegations are “contradictory,” and the
`
`Petition describes “two different and unrelated technical problems and
`
`objectives for Funamoto and Nakayama.” Id. at 28. We are persuaded by
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient
`
`rationale for combining the two references. As noted above, Funamoto is
`
`directed to providing a surface-type illumination device that displays a
`
`
`
`13
`
`IDT_00013
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`brightness higher than conventional illumination devices without increasing
`
`the number of driver circuits, and restricting heat radiation. Id. col. 2, ll. 10–
`
`14. As described by Petitioner, “Nakayama is directed to an LCD device
`
`where part of the light guiding board can be removed without varying the
`
`outer dimensions and thickness of the device.” Pet. 40. We agree with
`
`Patent Owner that these are two very different goals, and that Petitioner has
`
`failed to provide a sufficient rationale for combining Funamoto and
`
`Nakayama.
`
`Claims 13 and 17 each recite “at least one LED light source.” As
`
`noted above, Funamoto does not disclose an LED light source. Furthermore,
`
`we concluded above that Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that it
`
`would have been obvious to substitute an LED light source for Funamoto’s
`
`fluorescent tubes. We agree with Patent Owner that for this additional
`
`reason, Petitioner’s obviousness argument directed to claims 13 and 17 is
`
`not persuasive. Prelim. Resp. 28–30, 33–34.
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY
`
`The information presented does not show that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on any of the following challenges to
`
`patentability of the ʼ974 patent:
`
`A. Obviousness of claims 1, 3–5, 7 and 13 over Funamoto;
`
`B. Obviousness of claims 1, 3–5, 7–8, 10–11, and 13 over
`
`Tsuchiyama and Funamoto; and
`
`C. Obviousness of claims 13 and 17 over Nakayama.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`IDT_00014
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
`
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`IDT_00015
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01092
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`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
`BRAGALONE CONROY P.C.
`jkimble@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`IDT_00016
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
