trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-00506, Paper No. 25
`March 31, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., AND LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`vs
`DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-005061
`Patent 7,434,973
`Technology Center 2800
`Oral Hearing Held: Tuesday, March 1, 2016
`
`
`
`Before: THOMAS L. GIANNETTI; BEVERLY BUNTING
`(via video link); and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`March 1, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01666 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-00506, Paper No. 25
`March 31, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., AND LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`vs
`DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-005061
`Patent 7,434,973
`Technology Center 2800
`Oral Hearing Held: Tuesday, March 1, 2016
`
`
`
`Before: THOMAS L. GIANNETTI; BEVERLY BUNTING
`(via video link); and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`March 1, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01666 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ROBERT G. PLUTA, ESQ.
`
`
`AMANDA K. STREFF, ESQ.
`
`
`Mayer Brown LLP
`
`
`71 South Wacker Drive
`
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637
`
`
`312-782-0600
`
`BALDINE B. PAUL, ESQ.
`
`
`JAMIE B. BEABER, ESQ.
`
`
`Mayer Brown LLP
`
`
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`
`
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`
`
`202-263-3000
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUSTIN B. KIMBLE, ESQ.
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`Chase Tower
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4500W
`Dallas, Texas 75201-7924
`214-785-6673
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(10:00 a.m.)
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Good morning. Please
`be seated. This morning we have our final hearing in
`IPR2015- 00506, LG Display Company v. Delaware Display
`Group, which concerns U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973. This case
`is joined with IPR2015- 01666.
`I'm Judge Wormmeester. To my right is Judge
`Giannetti. Judge Bunting is appearing remotely from Detroit
`this morning.
`Let's get the parties' appearances, please. Who do
`we have for Petitioner?
`MS. STREFF: Your Honor, Amanda Streff on
`behalf of Petitioners LG Display and LG Electronics.
`MR. PAUL: Baldine Paul on behalf of Petitioner.
`MR. PLUTA: Robert Pluta on behalf of Petitioner.
`JUDGE BUNTING: Hello. This is Judge Bunting.
`Unless you speak into the microphone, I cannot hear you.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: You will have to speak up.
`We can't hear you very well here on the Bench here either.
`Let's try that again.
`MS. STREFF: Amanda Streff on behalf of the
`Petitioners LG Display and LG Electronics. And with me is
`Baldine Paul and Robert Pluta and Jamie Beaber.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Thank you. And who
`will be presenting the argument?
`MS. STREFF: Your Honor, I will be presenting on
`behalf of the Petitioners.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Good morning,
`counsel. And for the Patent Owner who do we have?
`MR. KIMBLE: Justin Kimble, Your Honor.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Thank you. Welcome.
`Good to have you here.
`We set forth the procedure for today's hearing in
`our trial order, but just to remind everyone the way this will
`work, each party will have 30 minutes to present arguments.
`Petitioner has the burden and will go first, and you
`may reserve time for rebuttal. Patent Owner will then have the
`opportunity to present its response.
`Please remember that Judge Bunting will be unable
`to hear you unless you speak into the microphone. Also, when
`referring to any demonstrative, please state the slide number
`so she can follow along.
`This is a reminder that the demonstrative exhibits
`you submitted are not part of the record. The record of the
`hearing will be the transcript. We will give you a warning
`when you are into your rebuttal time or reaching the end of
`your argument time.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`Any questions before we proceed? Okay. Will you
`be reserving any time?
`MS. STREFF: Yes, Your Honor, I will.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: How much?
`MS. STREFF: 12 minutes, please.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: 12 minutes. Okay.
`Well, you may begin when you are ready.
`MS. STREFF: Your Honor, if you would like we
`have printouts of our demonstratives.
`JUDGE WORMMEESTER: Sure.
`MS. STREFF: May it please the Board. This IPR
`was instituted on claims 1 through 5 as anticipated by
`Shinohara. But this case really boils down to just two
`limitations in dispute.
`Because the evidence of record shows by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Shinohara discloses those
`two limitations, claims 1 through 5 of the '973 patent are
`unpatentable.
`The only other issue in this proceeding is the
`priority date of the '973 patent. However, all Patent Owner
`has done is provide additional citations to the same concepts
`in the '751 patent that the Institution Decision already
`considered.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`So, therefore, there is no evidence to rebut the
`preliminary priority ruling and the '973 claims are not entitled
`to the priority date of the '751 patent.
`Turning to slide 2, the limitations at issue for both
`the priority and the anticipation issues are in independent
`claim 1. With respect to the priority issue, Patent Owner
`challenges whether limitation 1.C, highlighted in orange, is
`disclosed in the '751 patent.
`And with respect to both priority and anticipation,
`Patent Owner challenges whether limitations 1.E and 1.G are
`supported in the '751 and disclosed in Shinohara. But these
`arguments are not consistent with the evidence of record.
`Starting with the priority argument, at institution it
`was found that the '973 claims are not entitled to the filing
`date of the ' 176 application which led to the '751 patent.
`Instead it was found that the '973 claims are entitled to the
`February 9th, 2007 filing date of the '973 patent.
`Patent Owner has provided evidence or testimony
`from his expert, Mr. Werner, but Mr. Werner's testimony does
`not show that the '973 claims are entitled to the '751 date.
`In fact, looking at Mr. Werner's testimony, he
`consistently points to figure 39B in the '973 patent, a figure
`that is not disclosed in the '751 patent.
`So starting with the first limitation in dispute,
`limitation 1.C, which requires "and a pattern of individual
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`light extracting deformities associated with respective light
`sources."
`
`On slide 3 Mr. Werner testified that what
`“associated” means in the claim is “clearly oriented towards
`the position of each of the two light sources,” pointing to
`figure 39B.
`Further, on slide 4 Mr. Werner explained that
`“associated” means a geometric association, again, pointing to
`figure 39B.
`But figure 39B and any type of geometric
`association of deformities is not disclosed in the '751 patent.
`So there is no support for limitation 1.C in the '751 patent.
`Moving to the second limitation, limitation 1.G,
`and moving to slide 5, this limitation requires that density,
`size, depth and/or height of the deformities in close proximity
`to the input edge to be greatest at the approximate midpoints
`between adjacent pairs of light sources.
`Now, there is no dispute that the '751 patent
`discloses deformities that may vary in shape or size along the
`length and width of the panel member, and the Institution
`Decision also found that the '751 patent discloses that the
`deformities can vary along the length of the panel number.
`But none of these disclosures in the '751 patent say
`anything about the size, density, height or depth at the
`approximate midpoints between adjacent pairs of light sources.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Counsel, these figures that
`you are pointing to were added during prosecution; is that
`correct?
`
`MS. STREFF: That's correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So what is your theory as to
`why the Examiner allowed this amendment?
`MS. STREFF: Sorry, I couldn't hear the end of
`your question.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: What is your theory as to
`why the Examiner allowed the amendment?
`MS. STREFF: Your Honor, if you are asking
`personally my theory, it would be that -- on behalf of
`Petitioner -- it would be that figure 39B in the amendment was
`added for providing support for limitation 1.G because that is
`all there is in the '973 patent for that limitation.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, I expect that what we
`might hear from Patent Owner is that the Examiner has
`approved of this and so, therefore, there would be support for
`it in the original application. This was just clarification of
`something that was inherently present.
`What is your theory as to why -- or should we
`consider the fact that the Office did approve of these
`amendments and allowed them to be entered?
`MS. STREFF: Your Honor, I think the issue of
`priority can still be determined after a patent issues. It is a
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`similar concept to patents can still be found indefinite even
`though they were issued by the Examiner.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, the Examiner could
`have said that it was new matter and refused to enter the
`amendments. Correct?
`MS. STREFF: That's correct, Your Honor, and we
`would argue it is new matter here.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So are you taking the
`position that the Examiner erred in allowing this amendment?
`MS. STREFF: That's correct, Your Honor. And
`we would dispute that the claims 1 through 5 have support
`dating back to the '751 application filed in 1995.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right. Thank you.
`MS. STREFF: And so, Your Honor, moving on to
`the third limitation in dispute with respect to the priority
`argument, limitation 1.E. and now on slide 7, this limitation
`requires that the deformities have a length and width
`substantially smaller than the length and width of the panel
`surface.
`
`And all Patent Owner has done here is point to the
`passage that is produced in the bottom right-hand corner of
`slide 7. But this passage in the '751 patent is only directed to
`print pattern deformities.
`Claim 1 of the '973 patent, however, requires
`projection or depression deformities, which are different than
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`print patterns. And, in fact, Mr. Werner testified -- which is
`provided on slide 8 -- that the printing form of creating
`deformities, that printing method cannot form prismatic
`surfaces, depressions, or raised surfaces.
`So the only support that Patent Owner has pointed
`to says nothing about the claimed projection or depression
`deformities and, therefore, nothing about limitation 1.E.
`So the three limitations that Petitioner has
`identified as not being supported in the '751 patent, Patent
`Owner has not put forth any evidence to demonstrate that
`those three limitations are disclosed and, therefore, the '973
`claims are only entitled to the February 9, 2007 filing date of
`the '973 patent.
`Moving on to the anticipation of claims 1 through
`5 in view of Shinohara -- and I'm now on slide 9 -- Patent
`Owner only challenges whether Shinohara discloses two
`limitations, limitation 1.E and 1.G. However, figure 27 in
`Shinohara, and further in view of the goal of Shinohara,
`disclose those two limitations.
`So starting with the first limitation in dispute,
`limitation 1.E on slide 10, Shinohara in figure 9 and the
`disclosure in column 13, which was provided on page 34 of the
`petition, demonstrate that Shinohara discloses a lot of diffuse
`pattern elements which can be seen in figure 9.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`And Dr. Escuti explained in paragraph 72 of his
`declaration -- sorry, paragraphs 125 to 126 of his declaration,
`that the description in column 13 together with figure 9,
`someone of skill in the art would understand that Shinohara
`discloses deformities having a length and width substantially
`smaller than the length and width of the panel surface.
`Now, turning to the final limitation in dispute,
`limitation 1.G, this limitation -- and now I'm on slide 11 -- it
`is clear that this limitation is disclosed in Shinohara when you
`look at the goal that Shinohara sought to solve.
`And looking at figure 5 of Shinohara, this depicts
`the problem that Shinohara recognized. And that problem was
`that when a plurality of point light sources are used along one
`input edge of the panel, as shown in figure 5, that the
`luminance is high at the vicinity of the point light sources, and
`this results in a non- uniform display.
`So Shinohara recognized that the luminance needed
`to be increased at the midpoint between those point light
`sources in order to emit more light at that area to create a
`uniform display.
`One of the ways that Shinohara discloses for
`solving that problem is to increase the density of the diffuse
`elements midway between the point light sources to emit more
`light at that location and create an overall uniform surface
`light source device.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`This is exactly what claim element 1.G requires
`and this is exactly what is shown in figure 39B of the '973
`patent.
`
`This is also what is shown in figure 27 of
`Shinohara on slide 12.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Counsel, I think both sides'
`arguments place a lot of weight on the patent figures. And my
`question to you is how much weight can we give the
`dimensions that are shown in the patent figures?
`Is there anything in Shinohara that suggests that
`there are dimensions attached to these figures that we should
`look at? Because the general rule is that dimensions in patent
`figures are not -- patent figures are not drawn to scale and,
`therefore, you can't take the dimensions into account.
`MS. STREFF: That's right, Your Honor.
`Shinohara and the '973 patent do not provide that the -- or do
`not describe the figures as being drawn to scale and giving
`precise dimensions.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, why should we be
`looking at the figures? What should we be looking at?
`MS. STREFF: Your Honor, we should be looking
`at the figures in view of the description in Shinohara together.
`And that's what Petitioner has relied on for both the size
`limitation and the density limitation.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. So specifically what
`in the specification sheds light on these dimensions?
`MS. STREFF: Sorry, what was the end?
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: What in Shinohara's
`specification sheds light on the dimensions in the drawings?
`MS. STREFF: Sure, Your Honor. So with respect
`to the size of the elements, both patents give a thickness or
`dimension of the panel member, and then they both disclose a
`variety of applications.
`So looking at the applications that are disclosed,
`like telephones and TVs, that gives you a sense of the size that
`we're talking about and the scale.
`In addition, the elements in figures 9 and 27 are
`described as diffuse pattern elements. And so to someone of
`skill in the art, the description of diffuse, to diffuse light
`using a sheet or deformities on a panel requires a lot of small
`elements to do that. You can't just do that with -- in one
`element on a sheet.
`So it is the description of the diffuse pattern
`elements, that there are a lot of diffuse pattern elements, there
`is a description in Shinohara of the dimensions of the point
`light source, so we have a dimension of the point light source
`and we could use that in view of the relative dimensions of the
`diffuse elements shown in the figures 9 and 27.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`So it is a combination of what is described in the
`specification and the figures. And that's just with respect to
`limitation 1.E.
`With respect to 1.G, there is the description in
`column 18, lines 17 to 27, and that discusses that the
`deformities in the vicinity of light source 30, the density is
`zero, and then the density increases linearly as the distance
`from the light source increases.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: That was column 18. What
`
`line?
`
`MS. STREFF: Column 18, and lines 17 to 37. And
`in that paragraph it relates equation 2 which is directed to the
`light output rate to the density of the diffuse pattern elements
`and explains that the density is zero in the vicinity of the light
`source and then linearly increases as the distance from the
`light source increases.
`So, again, this gives a sense of the distribution of
`deformities in relation to the light source which we can read in
`view of figures 9 and 27.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Thank you.
`MS. STREFF: Your Honor, continuing with the
`final limitation in dispute, 1.G on slide 12, Shinohara
`discloses that the diffuse pattern elements 24 are arranged in
`concentric circles around each of the point light source with
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`the vicinity being zero at the light source and increasing as the
`radial distance from the light source increases.
`Now, Mr. Werner confirms in his testimony
`reproduced on slides 13 to 15 -- but I want to stay on slide 12
`right now as I discuss it -- what he confirms is that the R
`represents the radial distance. And so the pattern of diffuse
`elements in figure 27 of Shinohara are distributed in a
`concentric arrangement around each light source.
`And he admits that the pattern elements in figure 9
`of Shinohara are arranged in this concentric circle with the
`center being the light source. And this is also true for the
`diffuse elements in figure 27.
`He also admits that the density of the deformities
`in figure 9 of Shinohara increase in concentric circles around
`the light source. And this is also true for figure 27.
`And so in view of what is shown in figure 27, and
`then the goal of Shinohara to deal with this problem of the
`high luminance at the light source resulting in a non- uniform
`display, Shinohara discloses that the midpoint between the
`point light sources has the greatest density of deformities.
`And that is shown by the highlighted green portion in figure
`27 on slide 12.
`And as a result of this increasing density as the
`distance from the light source increases, with two point light
`sources on one side of the input edge, the density is greatest at
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`the approximate midpoints between those two light sources
`and the goal, and the disadvantage identified in figure 5 of
`Shinohara is satisfied.
`So, therefore, the only two limitations that Patent
`Owner has disputed with respect to Shinohara are disclosed
`and claims 1 through 5 of Shinohara are anticipated.
`Your Honor, I would like to reserve the rest of my
`time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: You have 14 minutes.
`MS. STREFF: Thank you, Your Honor.
`MR. KIMBLE: May it please the Board. Patent
`Owner submits that the Board should find that the claims of
`the '973 patent are patentable for at least four reasons.
`One is the Petitioners did not construe essential
`terms of the '973 patent claims.
`Another is that the Petitioners did not apply the
`correct claim construction standard. Because the '973 patent
`is expired, the BRI standard should not apply. Instead, the
`Phillips standard should apply. And there is no dispute that
`Petitioners did not apply the Phillips standard.
`The third is that the claims of the '973 patent are,
`in fact, entitled to the earliest priority date, the priority date
`of the application that resulted in the grandparent '751 patent.
`And for any of those three reasons, Shinohara and what it
`discloses is not even reached.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`But, in fact, even if those hurdles are cleared,
`Patent Owner contends that Shinohara does not disclose all of
`the elements of the '973 patent claims.
`So going back to my first point as shown on slide
`2, the BRI standard doesn't apply because the '973 patent has
`expired. The applicant, when applying for the '973 patent,
`explicitly claimed priority to the '751 patent, the application
`that resulted in the '751 patent.
`And under 35 U.S.C. 154, as we put forth in our
`papers, the patent will expire, the '973 patent will expire 20
`years from that date. Because it has expired, it is well settled
`that the Board uses the Phillips standard.
`Petitioners haven't analyzed the claims of the '973
`patent under the Phillips standard and, therefore, Petitioners
`haven't satisfied their burden in this IPR.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Counsel, which claim
`element do you contend or claim term do you contend should
`have been construed under the Phillips standard?
`MR. KIMBLE: Well, so first off so --
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: And I want you to point to
`elements where you contend that it would make a difference
`which standard we apply.
`MR. KIMBLE: Yes, Your Honor. So I do think
`that they have to apply that standard to all of the claim terms.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, which one in
`particular?
`MR. KIMBLE: Yes, sir. In particular, as shown
`on slide 3, the claims require "each of the deformities has a
`length and width substantially smaller than the length and
`width of the panel surface."
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay.
`MR. KIMBLE: So there are two issues with this
`term. The Petitioners haven't construed the term at all. That
`was my second point.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: And your side has submitted
`a claim construction?
`MR. KIMBLE: That's right, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay.
`MR. KIMBLE: And so we have construed it under
`
`--
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: In your, what, in your reply
`papers? In your response?
`MR. KIMBLE: In our response, and do you want
`me to just turn to that right now? I have a slide on that as
`well.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Yes, I would like to see
`
`that.
`
`MR. KIMBLE: Okay. So I have turned to slide
`15, and I do want to note that I realized this morning that in
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`the demonstratives that we submitted last Friday there was a
`mistake, and we said under the BRI standard on this slide and
`it is under the Phillips standard, so I'm noting that for the
`record.
`
`So we say that the construction of this term ought
`to be "each of the deformities has a length and width such that
`the pattern is nearly invisible to the human eye when
`incorporated into its application, for example, a print pattern
`of deformities with 0.006 square inch per deformity/element or
`less, or a print pattern element of deformities with 60 lines per
`inch or finer."
`So the last half of that is an example of the type,
`the size range we're talking about.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So you've proposed a
`construction which you contend is under the Phillips standard,
`right?
`
`MR. KIMBLE: Correct, Your Honor.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. And so why can't the
`Board just decide whether that is appropriate or not and just
`go from there?
`MR. KIMBLE: Well, I think the Board ought to do
`
`that.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay.
`MR. KIMBLE: Yes.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Why is that different than
`any other case?
`MR. KIMBLE: Well, I think that in any other case
`you could have, you know, you could have a case where it is
`not an expired patent, both sides agree that the BRI standard
`applies. Both sides -- one side proposes a construction. The
`other side proposes a different one. The Board decides on one
`of them and moves forward.
`That's different than what we have here where we
`have fundamentally different claim construction standards and,
`secondly, the Petitioners don't provide a construction of this
`term.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Maybe their contention is
`that it doesn't need construction.
`MR. KIMBLE: I think that is their contention.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: And we can decide whether
`we want to accept your construction or their construction and
`decide the case on that basis?
`MR. KIMBLE: Well, and I think the Board should
`adopt our construction and should apply the Phillips standard.
`As we understand it, 37 CFR 42.104(b)(3) requires
`that a petition identify a challenged claim is to be construed.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Right.
`MR. KIMBLE: And so when a term is necessary to
`be construed -- and we think this one is -- and the Petitioner
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`hasn't done so and, on top of that, has applied the wrong
`standard in general, we think they have not met their burden.
`So we do think that that is a fundamental failure.
`But, in addition, assuming the Board would not agree with
`that, we would propose that the Board adopt our construction.
`And just to get to that construction -- a little bit
`out of order but just since we are on it -- the construction that
`we have proposed comes straight from the patent specification.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: They say that this
`construction is based upon a type of deformity that is not
`called for in the claims, a print deformity rather than a
`projection or depression.
`What do you say to that?
`MR. KIMBLE: I say, first of all, I don't think their
`contention is that the claims wouldn't cover print deformities.
`I don't think that's their contention.
`I think their contention is that the specification
`talks about different kinds of deformities.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Projections or depressions,
`and that would not cover a print deformity, would it?
`MR. KIMBLE: So the claim -- so they are
`distinguishing between the two types --
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Right.
`MR. KIMBLE: -- of deformities, I agree with that.
`All I'm saying is I think - - I don't think the contention is that
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`the patent claims wouldn't cover either type of deformity
`because the patent claims don't -- they just talk about light
`extracting deformities generally.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: That are projections or
`depressions .
`MR. KIMBLE: No, I think that that would cover
`any type of deformity described in the specification.
`There are claims -- there is not claims that
`specifically --
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: This has come up in other
`cases, as you know.
`MR. KIMBLE: Yes.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Yes.
`MR. KIMBLE: There are -- there aren't claims, I
`don't believe, that are particular to print pattern deformities.
`They are deformities and they would cover any of the kinds
`that are described by the specification.
`Now --
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So how is this construction
`that you are proposing here different from the broadest
`reasonable?
`MR. KIMBLE: Well, so I think on the broadest
`reasonable construction -- I think this is what Petitioners
`say -- is that you just don't construe, you just use plain
`language. So I think that's how it is different.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`And so, you know, Your Honor raised the question
`when they were pointing to Shinohara's figures, well, you
`know, the figures, you asked them, are figures to scale, is
`there anything that provides any more detail about what,
`Shinohara's deformities, what the dimensions are?
`And the answer is there is not. Shinohara doesn't
`talk about the size of its deformities. It talks about the size of
`its light sources relative to the panel but not its deformities.
`In contrast, the '973 and then also the --
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, they can't be larger
`than the panel.
`MR. KIMBLE: Well, that's true.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Otherwise it would be one
`big deformity, right?
`MR. KIMBLE: That's correct.
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So they have to be smaller
`than the panel.
`MR. KIMBLE: Yes, they do. But the claims of the
`'973 require substantially smaller in length and width. And so
`Shinohara doesn't provide any particular dimensions, in
`contrast to the '973, and so, therefore, that's another reason
`why Shinohara doesn't disclose the claims of the '973 patent.
`And just to circle back to the point about whether
`the language we're proposing is limited to print pattern
`deformities, it's not. It's an example.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: It says print pattern
`deformities right there in the excerpt.
`MR. KIMBLE: It sure does. There is no question,
`we don't dispute the '973 patent talks about print pattern
`deformities, and in that discussion talks about dimensions.
`The patent then goes on and it talks about the other
`deformities that are covered by the patent. I think just out of
`a -- because it would be redundant it doesn't say or repeat the
`same dimensions.
`The deformities described in the '973 are very,
`very small deformities. It would be met by this construction.
`They are -- whether they are projections or depressions,
`whether they are dots, they are nearly invisible to the human
`eye when incorporated into its application.
`An example of that is the print pattern deformities,
`but it is not exclusive to that. And so Shinohara --
`JUDGE BUNTING: Counselor, I have a question
`for you before you go on further.
`MR. KIMBLE: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BUNTING: So how would you construe
`substantially smaller?
`MR. KIMBLE: So that's -- oh, well, so we have
`not proposed a construction of that sub- term within this term,
`but I think, I do think that what we are saying, we are
`construing the whole, the larger term, and what we are saying
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00506
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`is it is nearly invisible to the human -- oh, I understand, sorry,
`I was trying to get to Your Honor. You are saying relative to
`what? Is that Your Honor's question?
`JUDGE BUNTING: Yes, yes. I'm looking at your
`construction here in slide number 15, and so you have
`substantially smaller. So what is substantially smaller?
`MR. KIMBLE: The deformities are substantially
`smaller than the length and width of the panel. And so the
`way the patent -- the '973 patent describes that as these
`deformities are nearly invisible to the human eye. And that
`language comes from the patent. And that's how they are
`substantially smaller than the length and width of the panel.
`In contrast, Shinohara says there is a lot of
`deformities. It doesn't talk about any dimensions particularly.
`And it doesn't deal with
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
