throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 26
`Entered: June 23, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-005061
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01666 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. filed a Petition seeking inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’973 patent”).
`
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Delaware Display Group LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to § 314(a), we
`
`instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims 1–5 on one ground
`
`of unpatentability. Paper 8 (“Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner filed a Patent
`
`Owner Response (Paper 17, “PO Response”), and LG Display Co., Ltd. filed
`
`a Reply (Paper 20, “Reply”).
`
`Following institution, LG Electronics, Inc. filed timely a Petition and
`
`Motion for Joinder in Case IPR2015-01666, challenging the same claims of
`
`the ’973 patent on the same ground as that on which we instituted review in
`
`this proceeding, plus one additional ground. See Paper 24, 2. LG
`
`Electronics, Inc. agreed to abandon the additional ground should IPR2015-
`
`01666 be joined with this proceeding. See id. at 2 n.1. To administer the
`
`proceedings more efficiently, we granted LG Electronics, Inc.’s Motion for
`
`Joinder, joining Case IPR2015-01666 with the instant proceeding. Id. at 5.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we refer to LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., jointly, as “Petitioner.”
`
`An oral hearing was held on March 1, 2016, and a copy of the
`
`transcript is included in the record (Paper 25, “Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §6(c). This final written
`
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 as to
`
`the patentability of the challenged claims of the ’973 patent.
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`
`
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–5 of the
`
`’973 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Patent Owner states that it has asserted infringement of the ’973
`
`patent in the following proceeding: Delaware Display Group LLC v.
`
`Lenovo Holding Co., Case No. 1:13-cv-02108 (D. Del., filed Dec. 31, 2013).
`
`Paper 4, 2.
`
`
`
`B. The ʼ973 Patent
`
`The ’973 patent is titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies.” The
`
`Abstract describes the subject matter as follows:
`
`Light emitting panel assemblies include a light emitting
`panel member having at least one light source optically coupled
`to a portion of an input edge of the panel member. A plurality of
`individual light extracting deformities on or in at least one panel
`surface of the panel member are of well defined shape and have
`a length and width substantially smaller than the length and width
`of the panel surface. At least some of the deformities have at least
`one surface that is angled at different orientations relative to the
`input edge depending on the location of the deformities on the
`panel surface to face a portion of the input edge to which a light
`source is optically coupled.
`
`Ex. 1001, at [57].
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’973 patent recites:
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`1. A light emitting panel assembly comprising
`
`
`
`a light emitting panel member having at least one input
`
`edge,
`
`a plurality of light sources optically coupled to different
`portions of the width of the input edge, and
`
`a pattern of individual light extracting deformities
`associated with respective light sources,
`
`wherein the deformities are projections or depressions on
`or in at least one surface of the panel member for producing a
`desired light output from the panel member,
`
`wherein each of the deformities has a length and width
`substantially smaller than the length and width of the panel
`surface,
`
`wherein the deformities that are in close proximity to the
`input edge increase in density, size, depth and/or height as the
`distance of the deformities from the respective light sources
`increases across the width of the panel member, and
`
`wherein the density, size, depth and/or height of the
`deformities in close proximity to the input edge is greatest at
`approximate midpoints between adjacent pairs of the light
`sources.
`
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`Patent Owner asserts that the ’973 patent has expired and that we
`
`should use the claim construction standard of the district courts, specifically
`
`the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). PO Resp. 21; Tr. 16:17–19. Petitioner
`
`contends that the ’973 patent has not expired and that “regardless of the
`
`claim construction standard that is applied, the constructions put forth by
`
`Petitioner should not change.” Reply 1. For the reasons that follow, we
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`need not decide, for purposes of this Decision, whether the ’973 patent has
`
`
`
`expired.
`
`
`
`1. “deformities”
`
`In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of the term “deformities”: “any change in the shape or
`
`geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a
`
`portion of the light to be emitted.” Dec. on Inst. 4. Petitioner asserts that its
`
`proposed construction is based on the “express definition” of the term
`
`provided in the ’973 patent. Pet. 6. Patent Owner does not oppose that
`
`construction. PO Resp. 24. Like Petitioner, Patent Owner also does not
`
`specify how our construction of “deformities” would be different under the
`
`standard for expired patents. Nor do we discern the construction of the term
`
`to be different under the two standards. Indeed, both parties point out in
`
`their submissions that our construction reflects “an agreed upon construction
`
`entered by the district court in a related proceeding.” Reply 2; see PO Resp.
`
`24 (“Patent Owner’s proposed definition is the same as the Board’s
`
`construction in the institution decision. Patent Owner notifies the Board that
`
`the district court in [related cases] has enter[ed] an agreed construction of
`
`‘deformities’ from patents related to this patent that mimics the construction
`
`offered here.”).
`
`The parties agree that a claim construction under either a Phillips
`
`interpretation or a broadest reasonable interpretation would not impact the
`
`scope of the claim. See Pet. 5–6; PO Resp. 24; see also Prelim. Resp. 2–3
`
`(“the district court in [a related case] has ruled on constructions of terms that
`
`appear in this patent . . . , including entering an agreed construction of
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`‘deformities,’ which Petitioner adopts in its Petition.”). In view of the
`
`
`
`record developed during trial, we confirm that the construction of
`
`“deformities” agreed to by the parties is the correct construction, namely,
`
`“any change in the shape or geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface
`
`treatment that causes a portion of the light to be emitted.” Dec. on Inst. 4.
`
`Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the
`
`Petition “fails on its face” for failure to construe the claims properly.
`
`
`
`2. “each of the deformities has a length and width substantially smaller
`than the length and width of the panel surface”
`
`Claim 1 of the ’973 patent recites, in relevant part, “each of the
`
`deformities has a length and width substantially smaller than the length and
`
`width of the panel surface.” In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner
`
`proposed the following construction for this claim term:
`
`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, e.g., a print pattern of deformities with
`0.006 square inch per deformity/element or less, or a print
`pattern of deformities with 60 lines per inch or finer.
`
`PO Resp. 23.
`
`Patent Owner repeats its unsuccessful argument that, “[w]ithout
`
`offering a construction for this term, the Petitioner has failed to meet the
`
`burden of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” Id. Petitioner responds that this term
`
`(1) does not require construction; (2) is limited to a specific embodiment in
`
`the specification; (3) and imports a limitation from the specification into the
`
`claims. Reply 3–4. Having considered the full record developed during
`
`trial, we agree with Petitioner that this term does not require construction.
`
`See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed.
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary
`
`
`
`to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`distinguishing the prior art do not rely on a particular construction for this
`
`term. See infra.
`
`
`
`E. References
`
`Petitioner relies on the following reference: Shinohara, US 6,167,182,
`
`issued December 26, 2000 (Ex. 1010). Petitioner also relies on a
`
`Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (Ex. 1004, “Escuti Decl.”).
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 17) is accompanied by a Declaration
`
`of Mr. Kenneth Werner (Ex. 2010, “Werner Decl.”).
`
`Deposition transcripts for the witnesses have been entered in the
`
`record as Exhibits 1040 (“Werner Dep.”) and 2007 (“Escuti Dep.”).
`
`
`
`F. Ground of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted trial on one ground of unpatentability: anticipation of
`
`claims 1–5 by Shinohara.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Effective Filing Date for Claims 1–5
`
`As a preliminary matter, we first consider Patent Owner’s contention
`
`that the ’973 patent is entitled to an effective filing date of June 27, 1995.
`
`PO Resp. 25. If this contention were to succeed, the Shinohara reference,
`
`which has an effective date of October 27, 1997, would not qualify as prior
`
`art. See Res. Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 870 (Fed.
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`Cir. 2010) (“patentee must show that the prior art . . . is not prior art because
`
`
`
`the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date”).
`
`Through a chain of continuing applications, the application for the
`
`’973 patent claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 08/495,176 (“the ’176 grandparent application”), which has
`
`a filing date of June 27, 1995. Id. at [60]; Ex. 1002, 89. In our Decision on
`
`Institution, we determined that the challenged claims of the ’973 patent are
`
`not entitled to the benefit of the June 27, 1995 filing date of the ’176
`
`grandparent application because that application does not disclose at least
`
`the following disputed limitation recited in the challenged claims: “wherein
`
`the density, size, depth and/or height of the deformities in close proximity to
`
`the input edge is greatest at approximate midpoints between adjacent pairs of
`
`the light sources.” Dec. on Inst. 8–10. For purposes of the Decision on
`
`Institution, we thus determined that Patent Owner is instead entitled only to
`
`the filing date of the application for the ʼ973 patent, February 9, 2007. Id.
`
`Accordingly, we considered Shinohara as prior art. See id. at 12–17.
`
`In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner maintains its position
`
`that the ’176 grandparent application provides sufficient written description
`
`support for the challenged claims of the ’973 patent. PO Resp. 27. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner argues that the ’176 grandparent application
`
`discloses five elements that support the disputed limitation: (1) placing
`
`multiple light sources along an edge of the panel; (2) placing deformities in
`
`areas of the panel as desired; (3) increasing the density and/or size of
`
`deformities in areas of the panel where greater light output is desired; (4)
`
`increasing the density of deformities in areas of the panel as the distance
`
`from the light source increases; and (5) varying the deformities on the panel
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`to control light output. PO Resp. 27–32; Tr. 34:1–22. According to Patent
`
`
`
`Owner, these disclosure elements “necessarily taught the [disputed]
`
`limitation” because “[t]he ’176 grandparent application discloses deformities
`
`placed anywhere on the panel as desired, which includes in close proximity
`
`to an input edge,” and “[o]ne of ordinary skill reading the ’176 grandparent
`
`application would know that, along the input edge, the approximate
`
`midpoint between the two light sources is an area farther away from a light
`
`source, and thus is an area of the input edge in which the light would be less
`
`plentiful.” PO Resp. 28, 33.
`
`In response, Petitioner argues that “[a]ll Patent Owner attempts to
`
`show is that the challenged limitations would have been obvious over the
`
`disclosure, not that the challenged limitations are expressly disclosed or
`
`necessarily present.” Reply 6. In support of its argument, Petitioner relies
`
`on Mr. Werner’s testimony regarding the disclosure of element (4) discussed
`
`above, which relates to increasing the density of deformities in areas of the
`
`panel as the distance from the light source increases. Id. at 11 (citing Ex.
`
`1040, 115:2–116:25). Petitioner points out that Mr. Werner testified that
`
`“the increased distance from the light source is not limited to a distance
`
`along the length of the panel member, along the width of the panel member,
`
`or along any direction at all.” Id. Given this testimony, Petitioner contends
`
`that the “the disclosure in the [’176 grandparent application] does not show
`
`that the density, size, depth and/or height of the deformities in close
`
`proximity to the input edge is greatest at approximate midpoints between
`
`adjacent pairs of light sources is necessarily present.” Id. at 11–12.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner contends, the ’176 grandparent application does not
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`even mention deformities, or the need for deformities, when discussing
`
`
`
`panels with multiple light sources. Tr. 42:24–44:11.
`
`We agree with Petitioner that, for the reasons given, the disclosure of
`
`the ’176 grandparent application is insufficient. “Entitlement to a filing date
`
`does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be
`
`obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines Inc.,
`
`107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Reply 5–6. We find that
`
`the cited disclosures in the ’176 grandparent application do not describe the
`
`density, size, depth, or height of the deformities at approximate midpoints
`
`between adjacent pairs of light sources. As discussed above, Patent Owner
`
`maintains that a skilled artisan reading the ’176 grandparent application
`
`would know that “the approximate midpoint between the two light sources is
`
`an area farther away from a light source.” PO Resp. 28 (emphasis added).
`
`We are not persuaded by this argument, for it does not establish that the
`
`approximate midpoint between adjacent pairs of light sources is the only
`
`area farther away from a light source. As Petitioner points out, “the
`
`increased distance from the light source is not limited to a distance along the
`
`length of the panel member, along the width of the panel member, or along
`
`any direction at all.” Reply 11. Thus, Patent Owner fails to meet its burden
`
`under Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
`
`1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (burden of production shifted to patent owner to
`
`prove entitlement to earlier filing date).
`
`We note Patent Owner’s reliance on the testimony of Mr. Werner, and
`
`further argument that the “‘minutiae of descriptions or procedures perfectly
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art yet unfamiliar to laymen need not
`
`be set forth.’” PO Resp. 26–27, 34 (quoting Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348,
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998)), 27–34 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 72–82). We are not
`
`
`
`persuaded by this argument and supporting testimony, however, for the
`
`Hyatt court explained that “when an explicit limitation . . . is not present in
`
`the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent
`
`application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt,
`
`146 F.3d at 1353 (emphasis added). Based on the record before us,
`
`including the arguments presented by Petitioner, we are not persuaded that
`
`the ’176 grandparent application requires all the recited features of the
`
`disputed limitation.
`
`In view of the foregoing, we determine that Patent Owner has not
`
`demonstrated that the ’176 grandparent application, as originally filed,
`
`provides written description support for the disputed limitation. Therefore,
`
`we determine that claims 1–5 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date
`
`of the ’176 grandparent application and Patent Owner is thus entitled only to
`
`the effective filing date of the application for the ʼ973 patent, February 9,
`
`2007. As a consequence, we find that Shinohara qualifies as prior art.
`
`
`
`B. Anticipation by Shinohara
`
`A claim is anticipated if each limitation of the claim is disclosed in a
`
`single prior art reference arranged as in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
`
`VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). As recently reiterated
`
`by the Federal Circuit, “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes]
`
`not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the
`
`claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once
`
`envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v.
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In
`
`re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). We analyze this ground
`
`based on anticipation in accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that Shinohara anticipates claims 1–5 of the ’973
`
`patent. Pet. 29–38. We have reviewed the Petition, the Patent Owner
`
`Response, and Reply, as well as relevant evidence discussed in each of those
`
`papers. Based on our review, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Shinohara anticipates
`
`claims 1–5.
`
`
`
`1. Shinohara
`
`Shinohara describes a surface light source device with a plurality of
`
`point light sources spaced apart along an optical guide plate. Ex. 1010, Fig.
`
`27. Figure 27 of Shinohara is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 27 shows an optical guide plate 22 in a surface light source device.
`
`Id. at 11:23–25. The optical guide plate 22 is divided into areas
`
`corresponding to point light sources 30. Id. at 20:1–4. Each area includes a
`
`diffuse pattern 24. Id. Each diffuse pattern 24 includes diffuse pattern
`
`elements 24a that are arranged concentrically around the point light source
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`30. Id. at 13:41–43. A diffuse pattern element 24a may be a recess formed
`
`
`
`on the lower surface of the optical guide plate 22. See id., Fig. 10. The
`
`density of the diffuse pattern elements 24a increases as the distance from the
`
`point light source 30 increases. Id. at 13:47–49, 20:9–11. Thus, “the
`
`luminance distribution is uniform with respect to the corresponding point
`
`light source 30, and the luminance of the surface light source device is
`
`increased.” Id. at 20:6–8.
`
`
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends that Shinohara discloses every element of claim 1.
`
`Pet. 29–38. In support of its contention, Petitioner provides detailed claim
`
`charts and expert testimony through the Escuti Declaration. See id. For the
`
`most part, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of claim 1 in
`
`relation to Shinohara. See Paper 9, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that
`
`any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed
`
`waived.”). We therefore focus our discussion on the disputed elements of
`
`the claim.
`
`
`
`a. “the density, size, depth and/or height of the deformities in close
`proximity to the input edge is greatest at approximate midpoints
`between adjacent pairs of the light sources”
`
`Claim 1 recites “the density, size, depth and/or height of the
`
`deformities in close proximity to the input edge is greatest at approximate
`
`midpoints between adjacent pairs of the light sources.” For this disputed
`
`limitation, Petitioner directs us to Shinohara’s equation (2) that represents
`
`the density of pattern elements (i.e., deformities) as a function of the radial
`
`distance “r” from a light source. Pet. 35–36; Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1010,
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`18:27–37). Equation (2) follows: ρ=Q/S=2·(R2–r2). Shinohara explains
`
`
`
`that, in accordance with equation (2), “[t]he density of the diffuse pattern
`
`elements is zero at the position of the point light source 30, while linearly
`
`increasing with the distance r in the vicinity of the point light source 30.”
`
`Ex. 1010, 18:32–35. Referring to Figure 27 (reproduced supra), Shinohara
`
`further explains:
`
`When the plurality of point light sources 30 are arranged so as to
`be spaced apart from each other, an optical guide plate 22 may
`be divided for each of the point light sources 30, to respectively
`design diffuse patterns 24 such that for each of areas obtained by
`the division, the luminance distribution is uniform with respect
`to the corresponding point light source 30, and the luminance of
`the surface light source device is increased, that is, the equation
`(2) is satisfied. Particularly, it is desirable that the density of the
`diffuse pattern 24 is zero in the vicinity of each of the point light
`sources 30.
`
`Id. at 20:1–11 (cited at Pet. 35–36; Reply 17).
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that equation (2) in conjunction with Figure 27
`
`and the other disclosures in Shinohara meets the density distribution
`
`limitations of the challenged claims. Reply 16–18; see Pet. 35–36.
`
`Petitioner explains that “[b]ecause the density distribution in each of the
`
`areas . . . satisfies equation (2), the diffuse pattern 24 in each of the areas
`
`also has a density of zero at the light source (i.e., smaller density near light
`
`source) and increasing linearly with the radial distance “r” in the vicinity of
`
`the light source.” Reply 17; see Pet. 35–36. Petitioner also points out that
`
`“[b]ecause the density increases in each of the respective areas as the radial
`
`distance from the light source increases, it will be maximum at the
`
`boundaries between the adjacent areas, that is at the midpoint between
`
`adjacent light sources.” Reply 17; see also Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1010,
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`18:32–35, 20:1–11, Fig. 27; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 132–133). Thus, Petitioner
`
`
`
`concludes, Figure 27 of Shinohara discloses the disputed limitation. Reply
`
`17–18; see Pet. 35–36.
`
`Patent Owner makes four arguments in response. First, Patent Owner
`
`argues that Shinohara does not disclose “the part of the limitation that
`
`requires the deformities to be in ‘close proximity’ to the input edge.” PO
`
`Resp. 45. Patent Owner refers to Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 27
`
`of Shinohara, which is reproduced below. See id.
`
`
`
`Figure 27 of Shinohara shows a diffuse pattern on an optical guide plate.
`
`Ex. 1010, 11:23–25. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner is focusing on
`
`a midpoint that is not in close proximity to the input edge” because “[t]he
`
`red box added by Petitioner is at an area not in close proximity to the input
`
`edge.” PO Resp. 45. Moreover, Patent Owner contends, “Shinohara shows
`
`other deformities in close proximity to the input edge that are greater in
`
`density and size than the deformities at the approximate midpoint between
`
`light sources 30 at the input edge.” Id. at 46. To illustrate this point, Patent
`
`Owner refers to its annotated version of Figure 27 of Shinohara, which is
`
`reproduced below. Id.
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As discussed above, Figure 27 of Shinohara shows a diffuse pattern on an
`
`optical guide plate. Ex. 1010, 11:23–25. Patent Owner explains that the red
`
`circle represents the midpoint between the two light sources 30, the blue
`
`circle represents a point where the density of elements is greater than the
`
`density of elements at the midpoint, and the green circle represents a point
`
`where the elements are larger than the elements at the midpoint. PO Resp.
`
`46.
`
`In response, Petitioner points out that Shinohara describes the density
`
`of the pattern elements (i.e., deformities) as being “zero at the position of the
`
`point light source 30, while linearly increasing with the distance r in the
`
`vicinity of the point light source 30.” See Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1010, 18:33–
`
`35). Petitioner contends that this description in Shinohara satisfies the
`
`“close proximity” feature because “the variation in density in Fig. 9 and Fig.
`
`27 expressly applies to ‘the vicinity of the point light source.’” Id.
`
` We find Petitioner’s arguments to be persuasive on this issue.
`
`Figures 9 and 27 of Shinohara are reproduced below.
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Each of these figures shows a diffuse pattern formed on an optical guide
`
`plate in a surface light source device. Ex. 1010, 10:41–42, 11:23–25. The
`
`point light sources 30 are located along a light incidence surface 26. Id.,
`
`Figs. 9, 27. Thus, we find that Shinohara discloses pattern elements 24a
`
`(i.e., deformities) that are in the vicinity of a point light source 30, which is
`
`located along a light incidence surface (i.e., input edge).
`
`Patent Owner does not rebut Petitioner’s persuasive evidence that the
`
`pattern elements in the vicinity of a point light source in Shinohara meet the
`
`recited claim element of “deformities in close proximity” to an input edge.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions based on the
`
`appearance of these features in Figure 27 of Shinohara. See PO Resp. 46.
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledged at oral hearing that Shinohara’s figures
`
`are not drawn to scale. See Tr. 26:1–2. Such “arguments based on drawings
`
`not explicitly made to scale in issued patents are unavailing.” See Nystrom
`
`v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we
`
`are persuaded that Shinohara discloses the “close proximity” feature recited
`
`in claim 1.
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that Shinohara’s discussion of
`
`
`
`equation (2) (see Ex. 1001, 18:32–35) does not disclose the disputed
`
`limitation because Figure 27 of Shinohara shows “points in close proximity
`
`to the input edge that are farther away from the light source than the
`
`midpoint,” and “at the area of the input edge at the ends of the plate 22, the
`
`density of diffuse pattern elements 24 is greater than at the midpoint of two
`
`light sources 30 on the input edges.” PO Resp. 51–52. We are unpersuaded
`
`by this argument for reasons discussed above, namely, “arguments based on
`
`drawings not explicitly made to scale in issued patents are unavailing.” See
`
`Nystrom, 424 at 1149. Moreover, also as discussed above, Shinohara
`
`teaches that the plate 22 is divided into areas, one for each light source. Ex.
`
`1010, 20:3–4. Shinohara also teaches that for each area, equation (2) is
`
`satisfied (i.e., the density of the diffuse pattern elements is zero at the light
`
`source, while linearly increasing with the distance “r”). Id. at 18:30–35,
`
`20:5–9. As Petitioner explains, “[b]ecause the density increases in each of
`
`the respective areas as the radial distance from the light source increases, it
`
`will be maximum at the boundaries between the adjacent areas, that is at the
`
`midpoint between adjacent light sources.” Reply 17; see also Pet. 35–36
`
`(citing Ex. 1010, 18:32–35, 20:1–11, Fig. 27; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 132–133). We
`
`find this explanation persuasive.
`
`Third, Patent Owner argues that Shinohara’s discussion of Figure 27
`
`(see Ex. 1001, 20:1–11) does not disclose the disputed limitation, but instead
`
`“discloses that the light guide is divided, and the diffuse patterns are
`
`mirrored such that each light source has its own diffusion pattern similar to
`
`the pattern afforded to a single point source” and such that “the luminance
`
`distribution is uniform with respect to the corresponding point light source.”
`
`18
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`PO Resp. 48–49. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]his is fundamentally different
`
`from the disclosure of the ’973 patent, which is directed to making the
`
`distribution of two combined light sources uniform.” Id. at 50. According
`
`to Patent Owner, such mirrored patterns “would yield an uneven combined
`
`light distribution, and an uneven distribution of densities in the elements.”
`
`Id. at 49. Patent Owner further explains that “because of the mirroring of
`
`the patterns [in Shinohara], one of ordinary skill in the art would see a hole
`
`of deformities in close proximity to the input surface” that “create[s] a dark
`
`area where light is not uniformly diffused.” Id. at 50.
`
`We do not find this argument to be persuasive. Patent Owner’s
`
`argument is not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 1 and
`
`relies on distinctions not present in the claim. Claim 1 requires “producing a
`
`desired light output.” There is nothing in the claim that suggests how the
`
`light is distributed, much less requiring that the combined light from two
`
`sources (as opposed to the light from individual sources) be distributed
`
`uniformly. Nor is there any language in claim 1 that excludes the use of
`
`divided light guides, mirrored diffuse patterns, or holes, as Petitioner points
`
`out. See Reply 20–21. Moreover, we note that claim 1 recites “wherein the
`
`deformities . . . increase in density . . . as the distance of the deformities
`
`from the respective light sources increases across the width of the panel
`
`member.” Patent Owner fails to explain persuasively why this language
`
`would not encompass “an uneven distribution of densities in the elements.”
`
`See PO Resp. 50.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s reliance on Shinohara
`
`“is improper for anticipation because it relies on the embodiment shown [in]
`
`Fig. 9, and that figure relates to only single light source panels.” PO Resp.
`
`19
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`47; see id. at 44 (“Fig. 27, which shows multiple light sources” and “Figure
`
`
`
`9, which is an embodiment without multiple light sources”); Prelim. Resp. 9.
`
`Patent Owner points out that “[t]he PTAB has regularly found that an
`
`examiner erred when combining various passages from different
`
`embodiments to support an anticipation rejection.” PO Resp. 48; accord
`
`Prelim. Resp. 10. We are not persuaded by this argument. As we explained
`
`in our Decision on Institution, “[a]lthough Figures 9 and 27 of Shinohara
`
`describe different embodiments as a whole, Petitioner relies on Figure 9 for
`
`illustrating a particular aspect of the diffuse pattern elements 24a, which is
`
`present in both embodiments.” Dec. on Inst. 13–14.
`
`In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has presented persuasive evidence
`
`to support a finding that Shinohara discloses the limitation “the density, size,
`
`depth and/or height of the deformities in close proximity to the input edge is
`
`greatest at approximate midpoints between adjacent pairs of the light
`
`sources” recited in independent claim 1.
`
`
`
`b. “each of the deformities has a length and width substantially smaller
`than the length and width of the panel surface”
`
`Claim 1 further recites “each of the deformities has a length and width
`
`substantial

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket