throbber
Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`Filed on behalf of Delaware Display Group LLC
`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`
`T. William Kennedy (bkennedy@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00506
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Delaware Display Group LLC, (“DDG” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`hereby files this response (“Response”) to the Petition (Paper 2) (the “Petition”) for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973 (the “’973 patent”) in IPR2015-
`
`00506 filed by LG Display Co., Ltd. (“LGD” or “Petitioner”).
`
`The Petitioner’s challenge to the ’973 patent claims should be rejected
`
`because (1) the claims of the ’973 patent are entitled a priority date that predates the
`
`Shinohara reference, and thus Shinohara does not qualify as prior art; and (2) even
`
`if the Shinohara reference were prior art, it fails to disclose several claim limitations.
`
`A. Instituted Grounds
`The Board instituted this inter partes review on one ground of alleged
`
`invalidity: anticipation of claims 1-5 by Shinohara. For the reasons discussed in
`
`more detail below, this ground does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that the instituted claims of the ’973 patent are invalid.
`
`B. The ’973 Patent
`The ’973 patent “relates generally … to light emitting panel assemblies.” ’973
`
`patent, Ex. 1001, at 1:19-20. The ’973 patent’s written description notes that “the
`
`present invention relates to several different light emitting panel assembly
`
`configurations which provide for better control of the light output from the panel
`
`assemblies and more efficient utilization of light to suit a particular application.” Id.
`
`at 1:22-26.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`Three examples of the “different forms of light emitting panel assemblies in
`
`accordance with this invention” (Id. at 2:40-42) are shown in Figures 1-3 of the ’973
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`The ’973 patent’s “Summary of the Invention” notes that “[i]n accordance
`
`with one aspect of the invention, the light emitting panel assemblies include a light
`
`emitting panel member having a pattern of individual light extracting deformities of
`
`well defined shapes on or in one or more surface areas of the light emitting panel
`
`member. Id. at 1:30-34. The “Summary of the Invention” section of the ’973 patent
`
`further notes that “in accordance with another aspect of the invention, the pattern of
`
`light extracting deformities may be uniform or variable as desired to obtain a desired
`
`light output distribution form the panel surface areas.” Id. at 2:1-4.
`
`The ’973 patent also notes that “the size and shape as well as the depth or
`
`height and angular orientation and location of the light extracting deformities may
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`vary along the length and/or width of any given panel surface area to obtain a desired
`
`light output distribution from the panel member.” Id. at 2:5-10.
`
`The summary of the invention of the ’973 patent also states that the “various
`
`light emitting panel assemblies of the present invention are relatively efficient panel
`
`assemblies that may be used to produce increased uniformity and higher light output
`
`from the panel members with lower power requirements, and allow the panel
`
`members to be made thinner and/or longer, and/or of various shapes and sizes.” Id.
`
`at 2:23-28.
`
`The ’973 patent describes that a “pattern of light extracting deformities or
`
`disruptions may be provided on one or both sides of the panel members or on one or
`
`more selected areas on one or both sides of the panel members, as desired.” Id. at
`
`6:1-4. The ’973 patent continues, stating that “FIG. 4a schematically shows one such
`
`light surface area 20 on which a pattern of light extracting deformities or disruptions
`
`21 is provided.” Id. at 6:4-6.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`
`
`The ’973 patent describes the deformities available for use on its panel
`
`assemblies in great detail. The ’973 patent asserts that a “pattern of light extracting
`
`deformities or disruptions may be provided on one or both sides of the panel
`
`members or on one or more selected areas on one or both sides of the panel members,
`
`as desired.” Id. at 6:1-4. The ’973 patent continues by disclosing that “[t]he pattern
`
`of light extracting deformities 21 shown in FIG. 4a includes a variable pattern which
`
`breaks up the light rays such that the internal angle of reflection of a portion of the
`
`light rays will be great enough to cause the light rays either to be emitted out of the
`
`panel through the side or sides on which the light extracting deformities 21 are
`
`provided or reflected back through the panel and emitted out the other side.” Id. at
`
`6:10-17.
`
`The ’973 patent also describes many ways for producing the deformities in
`
`the invention: “These deformities or disruptions 21 can be produced in a variety of
`
`manners, for example, by providing a painted pattern, an etched pattern, a machined
`
`pattern, a printed pattern, a hot stamped pattern, or a molded pattern or the like on
`
`selected light output areas of the panel members. An ink or printed pattern may be
`
`applied for example by pad printing, silk screening, ink jet, heat transfer film process
`
`or the like. The deformities may also be printed on a sheet or film which is used to
`
`apply the deformities to the panel member.” Id. at 6:18-26.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`The ’973 patent further discloses varying the deformities to affect the light
`
`output of the panels: “By varying the density, opaqueness or translucence, shape,
`
`depth, color, area, index of refraction, or type of deformities 21 on an area or areas
`
`of the panels, the light output of the panels can be controlled. The deformities or
`
`disruptions may be used to control the percent of light emitted from any area of the
`
`panels. For example, less and/or smaller size deformities 21 may be placed on panel
`
`areas where less light output is wanted. Conversely, a greater percentage of and/or
`
`larger deformities may be placed on areas of the panels where greater light output is
`
`desired.” Id. at 6:32-41.
`
`The ’973 patent goes into even more depth on varying the deformities:
`
`“Varying the percentages and/or size of deformities in different areas of the panel is
`
`necessary in order to provide a uniform light output distribution. For example, the
`
`amount of light traveling through the panels will ordinarily be greater in areas closer
`
`to the light source than in other areas further removed from the light source. A
`
`pattern of light extracting deformities 21 may be used to adjust for the light variances
`
`within the panel members, for example, by providing a denser concentration of light
`
`extracting deformities with increased distance from the light source 3 thereby
`
`resulting in a more uniform light output distribution from the light emitting panels.”
`
`Id. at 6:42-53.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`The ’973 patent also describes that the deformities can be used to control the
`
`output ray angle distribution of the panels: “The deformities 21 may also be used to
`
`control the output ray angle distribution of the emitted light to suit a particular
`
`application. For example, if the panel assemblies are used to provide a liquid crystal
`
`display back light, the light output will be more efficient if the deformities 21 cause
`
`the light rays to emit from the panels at predetermined ray angles such that they will
`
`pass through the liquid crystal display with low loss.” Id. at 6:54-60.
`
`The ’973 patent discloses even more detail about the uses of the deformities
`
`and the various ways they are applied to the panel: “the pattern of light extracting
`
`deformities may be used to adjust for light output variances attributed to light
`
`extractions of the panel members. The pattern of light extracting deformities 21 may
`
`be printed on the light output areas utilizing a wide spectrum of paints, inks, coatings,
`
`epoxies, or the like, ranging from glossy to opaque or both, and may employ half-
`
`tone separation techniques to vary the deformity 21 coverage. Moreover, the pattern
`
`of light extracting deformities 21 may be multiple layers or vary in index of
`
`refraction.” Id. at 6:61 through 7:3.
`
`The ’973 patent also describes more about the kinds of deformities, their sizes,
`
`their shapes, their positioning, their effects, and other specific details about the
`
`deformities: “Print patterns of light extracting deformities 21 may vary in shapes
`
`such as dots, squares, diamonds, ellipses, stars, random shapes, and the like, and are
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`desirably 0.006 square inch per deformity/element or less. Also, print patterns that
`
`are 60 lines per inch or finer are desirably employed, thus making the deformities or
`
`shapes 21 in the print patterns nearly invisible to the human eye in a particular
`
`application thereby eliminating the detection of gradient or banding lines that are
`
`common to light extracting patterns utilizing larger elements. Additionally, the
`
`deformities may vary in shape and/or size along the length and/or width of the panel
`
`members. Also, a random placement pattern of the deformities may be utilized
`
`throughout the length and/or width of the panel members. The deformities may have
`
`shapes or a pattern with no specific angles to reduce moire or other interference
`
`effects. Examples of methods to create these random patterns are printing a pattern
`
`of shapes using stochastic print pattern techniques, frequency modulated half tone
`
`patterns, or random dot half tones. Moreover, the deformities may be colored in
`
`order to effect color correction in the panel members. The color of the deformities
`
`may also vary throughout the panel members, for example to provide different colors
`
`for the same or different light output areas.” Id. at 7:4-26.
`
`The ’973 patent discloses further detail about the kinds of deformities that
`
`may be employed by in the invention: “In addition to or in lieu of the patterns of
`
`light extracting deformities 21 shown in FIG. 4a, other light extracting deformities
`
`including prismatic surfaces, depressions or raised surfaces of various shapes using
`
`more complex shapes in a mold pattern may be molded, etched, stamped,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`thermoformed, hot stamped or the like into or on one or more areas of the panel
`
`member. FIGS. 4b and 4c show panel areas 22 on which prismatic surfaces 23 or
`
`depressions 24 are formed in the panel areas, whereas FIG. 4d shows prismatic or
`
`other reflective or refractive surfaces 25 formed on the exterior of the panel area.
`
`The prismatic surfaces, depressions or raised surfaces will cause a portion of the
`
`light rays contacted thereby to be emitted from the panel member. Also, the angles
`
`of the prisms, depressions or other surfaces may be varied to direct the light in
`
`different directions to produce a desired light output distribution or effect. Moreover,
`
`the reflective or refractive surfaces may have shapes or a pattern with no specific
`
`angles to reduce moire or other interference effects.” Id. at 7:4-26.
`
` Figures 22 through 30 show several of the patterns of light extracting
`
`deformities of well-defined shapes as disclosed by the ’973 patent. Figure 25 is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`The ’973 patent also includes several other illustrative figures such as Figures
`
`39 and 40. As the ’973 patent states, “FIGS. 39 and 40 schematically show different
`
`angular orientations of light extracting deformities 135 of any desired shape along
`
`the length and width of a panel surface area 22. For example the deformities 135
`
`may be of the shape shown in FIGS. 16-21 each including a reflective or refractive
`
`light emitting surface 101' and an end wall surface 104', both of which intersect the
`
`panel surface 22 and intersect each other to form a ridge 136 as shown in FIGS. 39A
`
`and 39B. In FIG. 39 the light extracting deformities 135 are arranged in straight rows
`
`136 along the length of the panel surface area but the reflective or refractive surfaces
`
`101' of the deformities in each of the rows are oriented to face the light source 3 so
`
`that the reflective or refractive surfaces 101' of all of the deformities are substantially
`
`in line with the light rays being emitted from the light source 3 across the width and
`
`length of the panel surface as schematically shown in FIG. 39A. Also FIG. 39A
`
`shows the deformities 135 in close proximity to the input edge increasing in density,
`
`size and depth or height as the distance of the deformities from the light source
`
`increases across the width of the panel surface. In FIG. 40 the deformities 135 are
`
`also oriented so that the reflective or refractive surfaces of the deformities face the
`
`light source 3 across the width and length of the panel surface similar to FIG. 39. In
`
`addition, the rows 137 of deformities in FIG. 40 are in substantial radial alignment
`
`with the light source.” Id. at 12:17-41.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`Figure 39B shows a “top plan view similar to FIG. 39A but showing a
`
`plurality of light sources optically coupled to different portions of the width of the
`
`input edge of the panel surface with the reflective or refractive light extracting
`
`surfaces of the deformities at different locations across the width of the panel surface
`
`oriented to face the different portions of the width of the input edge to which the
`
`different light sources are optically coupled and the deformities in close proximity
`
`to the input edge increasing in density, size and depth or height as the distance of the
`
`deformities from the respective light sources increases across the width of the panel
`
`surface.” Id. at 3:64 through 4:8.
`
`Figure 39 “shows a plurality of light sources 3 optically coupled to different
`
`portions of the width of the input edge of the panel surface area 22 and the reflective
`
`or refractive light extracting surfaces 101' of different ones of the deformities 135 at
`
`different locations across the panel surface area oriented at different angles to face
`
`different portions of the input edge to which the respective light sources are optically
`
`coupled. Also FIG. 39B shows the deformities in close proximity to the input edge
`
`increasing in density, size and depth or height as the distance of the deformities from
`
`the respective light sources increases across the width of the panel surface.” Id. at
`
`12:42-52.
`
`Figure 39B is reproduced below, rotated to be depicted horizontally.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`
`
`
`Moreover, the ’973 patent includes Figures 41 and 42, which “are enlarged
`
`perspective views schematically showing how exemplary light rays emitted from a
`
`focused light source are reflected or refracted by different individual light extracting
`
`deformities of well defined shapes in accordance with this invention.” Id. at 4:9-13.
`
`The ’973 patent includes the following five claims at issue in this proceeding:
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`close proximity to the input edge is greatest at approximate midpoints between
`
`adjacent pairs of the light sources.
`
`2.
`
`The assembly of claim 1 wherein the light sources are light emitting
`
`diodes.
`
`3.
`
`The assembly of claim 1 wherein different ones of at least some of the
`
`deformities have at least one light extracting surface that is oriented to face the
`
`respective light sources depending on the location of the deformities across the width
`
`of the panel member.
`
`4.
`
`The assembly of claim 1 wherein at least some of the deformities have
`
`two or more intersecting surfaces that intersect the panel surface and intersect each
`
`other.
`
`5.
`
`The assembly of claim 4 wherein the surfaces of at least some of the
`
`deformities are multi-segment, curved or flat.
`
`C. The Alleged Prior Art in the Instituted Ground - Shinohara
`Shinohara, U.S. Patent No. 6,167,182, describes a surface light source device
`
`used for a liquid crystal display device. Ex. 1010, (“Shinohara”) at 1:8-10. Shinohara
`
`discusses several “objects of the present invention” including increasing “utilization
`
`efficiency of light from a light source” such as a point light source used in a “surface
`
`light source” (Ex. 1002 at 2:47-52); making “it possible to make the luminance
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`distribution on a light output surface uniform in a surface light source device using
`
`a smaller light source” (Ex. 1002 at 2:53-57).
`
`Shinohara repeatedly mentions the size of its light source as compared to the
`
`size of the light incidence surface of the optical guide plate. See, e.g., Ex. 1010 at
`
`3:18-27 (“It is preferable that the size of the light source (the length, along the width
`
`of the light incidence surface, of the light source) is not more than one-half the width
`
`of the light incidence surface. It is more desirably not more than approximately one-
`
`fifth the width of the light incidence surface because the light source can be
`
`substantially handled as a point light source. In a case where a plurality of light
`
`sources are disposed, close to one another, the length of the whole of a range in
`
`which the light sources are disposed can be set to the size of the light sources.”); id.
`
`at 2:66 through 3:1 (“a light source, smaller than the width (the length of a side on
`
`which the light output surface and the light incidence surface meet) of the light
`
`incidence surface.”); id. at 5:22-25 (“a light source, smaller than the width of the
`
`light incidence surface of the optical guide plate, disposed on the side of the light
`
`incidence surface of the optical guide plate”); id. at 6:42-44 (“In the surface light
`
`source device using the smaller light source, as compared with the width of the light
`
`output surface of the optical guide plate”).
`
`Shinohara, however, does not compare the size of the elements in its “diffuse
`
`patterns” to the length and width of the “light incidence surface.” At most, Shinohara
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`discloses that the length of diffuse pattern elements generally can get shorter as
`
`elements are located closer to the light source. See, e.g., id. at 4:24-26 (“[i]n a further
`
`mode of the present invention, the length of the diffuse pattern element decreases as
`
`the distance from the light source decreases”); id. at 4:39-44 (“If the nearer the
`
`diffuse pattern element is positioned to the light source, the shorter the length thereof
`
`is, the intensity and the direction of emitted light which are caused by the diffuse
`
`pattern element can be made uniform, thereby contributing to the uniformity of the
`
`light intensity in the whole of the surface light source device.”).
`
`The only absolute dimensions mentioned in Shinohara are the thickness of an
`
`optical guide plate (id. at 18:41-43; 21:44-46) and the light output rate of a panel at
`
`specific distances from a point light source (id. at 18:65 through 19:4).
`
`Shinohara includes the following formulas regarding the density of the light
`
`diffuse pattern, the thickness of the optical guide plate, and the distance from the
`
`light source: “In the vicinity of the light source, {(the density of the diffuse
`
`pattern)/[(the thickness of the optical guide plate)x(the distance from the light
`
`source)]} is approximately constant. As the distance from the light source increases,
`
`{(the density of the diffuse pattern)/[(the thickness of the optical guide plate)x(the
`
`distance from the light source)]} increases.” Id. at 6:63 through 7:2.
`
`Shinohara also describes embodiments such as that depicted in Fig. 9.
`
`Shinohara describes the diffuse pattern in Fig. 9 as follows: “The diffuse pattern 24
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`formed on the optical guide plate 22 includes a lot of diffuse pattern elements 24a,
`
`and the diffuse pattern elements 24a are arranged concentrically around the point
`
`light source 30 in correspondence with the light propagating while being radially
`
`spread. When the diffuse pattern 24 is viewed as a whole, the spacing between the
`
`adjacent diffuse pattern elements 24a narrows as the distance from the point light
`
`source 30 increases, and the density of existence of diffuse pattern elements
`
`gradually increases as the distance from the point light source 30 increases.” Id. at
`
`13:39-49. Notably the size of the diffuse pattern elements 24 in relation to the size
`
`of the optical guide plate 22 is not discussed, and thus not disclosed, by Shinohara.
`
`In Fig. 11, Shinohara depicts a single diffuse pattern element 24a, but
`
`Shinohara does not disclose the size of that element. Instead Shinohara merely labels
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`the dimensions of the element 24a with variables “L” and “W.” The only disclosure
`
`as to their actual size is this statement “[t]he length L of the diffuse pattern element
`
`24a is not less than twice the width W thereof (L ≧ 2W).” Id. at 13:64-66. Again,
`
`this does not inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the size of the diffuse pattern
`
`elements in relation to the size of the optical guide plate.
`
`
`
`Shinohara further describes the use of point light sources and their relation to
`
`the output rate of guide plates with deformities. See generally, id. at 17:29 through
`
`19:3. Shinohara states that “when the point light source 30 is used, the relationship
`
`expressed by the equation (2) also almost holds with respect to the density of the
`
`diffuse pattern elements, similarly to the output rate ρ. That is, the output rate ρ can
`
`be replaced with the density of the diffuse pattern elements in the equation (2). The
`
`density of the diffuse pattern elements is zero at the position of the point light source
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`30, while linearly increasing with the distance r in the vicinity of the point light
`
`source 30. The density of the diffuse pattern elements in the diffuse pattern 24 shown
`
`in FIG. 9 almost satisfies the equation (2).” Id. at 18:27-37.
`
`Shinohara also discloses an embodiment in which there are several point light
`
`sources that are close to one another, and thus regarded as one point light source.
`
`See id. at 19:56-62 (“the point light sources 30 are disposed, relatively close to one
`
`another. When the plurality of point light sources 30 are thus disposed, close to one
`
`another, the plurality of point light sources 30 can be regarded as one point light
`
`source. Therefore, a diffuse pattern 24 may be designed, considering that one point
`
`light source exists at the central position of the point light sources 30.”). This
`
`arrangement, depicted by Fig. 26, does not show any diffuse elements between the
`
`light sources at the light incidence surface.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`Shinohara discloses another embodiment with two point light sources as
`
`depicted in Fig. 27. Describing, Fig. 27, Shinohara states, “The surface light source
`
`device comprises a plurality of point light sources 30, and the point light sources 30
`
`are spaced apart from each other. 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 19:65 through 20:11. That
`
`description of Fig. 27 never mentions the size of the diffuse pattern elements, nor
`
`does it mention the density or size of those elements when positioned near the light
`
`incidence surface, other than to mention that the “density of the diffuse pattern 24 is
`
`zero in the vicinity of each of the point light sources 30.”
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the patent specification. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). The Petitioner applied the broadest reasonable interpretation. Petition at
`
`5-6. But when a patent expires after institution, but before trial, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation is no longer used. See Toyota Motor Corp. v. Leroy G.
`
`Hagenbuch, Case No. IPR2013-00483, (Paper 19, April 15, 2014) (“At the time of
`
`institution of this trial, the involved patent was not expired. The patent, however,
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`expired subsequent to institution of trial. At the time of rendering of a final written
`
`decision in this case, it appears that the ‘broadest reasonable construction’ rule
`
`should not apply.”) (citing In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`Instead, upon expiration, the Board uses the claim construction standard of the
`
`district courts. Visa Inc. v. Leon Stambler, IPR2014-00694 (Paper 10, October 31,
`
`2014) (citing In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`Under the district courts’ standard, a claim term is generally given its ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as that the term would have been understood to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective
`
`filing date of the patent application. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). Phillips “acknowledged the maxim that claims should be construed
`
`to preserve their validity.” Id. at 1327 (emphasis added).
`
`The district courts use two types of evidence for claim construction – intrinsic
`
`and extrinsic. Intrinsic evidence includes the patent’s claims, specification, and
`
`prosecution history. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1996). Extrinsic evidence “consists of all evidence external to the patent and
`
`prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and
`
`learned treatises.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citations omitted). But extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally
`
`operative meaning of claim language.” Id. (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`The “specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
`
`Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
`
`term.” Id. at 1315 (citations omitted).
`
` The ’973 patent has expired.
`For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, 35 U.S.C. § 154 provides that
`
`the term of a patent ends on the date that is twenty years from the date on which the
`
`application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains
`
`a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under 35 U.S.C.
`
`120, 121, or 365(c), twenty years from the filing date of the earliest of such
`
`application(s). See MPEP § 2701. Here, the ’973 patent contains a specific reference
`
`to U.S. Patent Application No. 08/495,176 (see Ex. 1001 at (60)), which was filed
`
`on June 27, 1995. During prosecution of the ’973 patent, the inventors explicitly
`
`claimed priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to U.S. Patent Application No. 08/495,176.
`
`Ex. 1002 at LGD_000089. According to those facts, the ’973 patent has expired.
`
`The Petition is deficient because the ’973 patent has expired, and the
`
`Petitioner never addresses claim construction under the standard of the district
`
`courts. A petition for inter partes review must identify how the challenged claim is
`
`to be construed. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Because the Petitioner did not identify
`
`how the challenged claims should be construed under the correct standard, the
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`Petition fails on its face, and therefore this inter partes review cannot result in a
`
`cancellation of any claims.
`
`
`
`“each of the deformities has a length and width substantially
`smaller than the length and width of the panel surface”
`
`Petitioner did not present a construction for this term under either the
`
`“broadest reasonable interpretation” or the district courts’ standard. Without offering
`
`a construction for this term, the Petitioner has failed to meet the burden of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(3).
`
`Patent Owner offers the following construction for this 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.” This construction is amply supported by the ’973
`
`patent, i.e., particularly the following passage from the specification: “Print patterns
`
`of light extracting deformities 21 may vary in shapes such as dots, squares,
`
`diamonds, ellipses, stars, random shapes, and the like, and are desirably 0.006 square
`
`inch per deformity/element or less. Also, print patterns that are 60 lines per inch or
`
`finer are desirably employed, thus making the deformities or shapes 21 in the print
`
`patterns nearly invisible to the human eye in a particular application thereby
`
`eliminating the detection of gradient or banding lines that are common to light
`
`extracting patterns utilizing larger elements.” ’973 patent at 7:4-12.
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973
`
` “Deformities”
`Under the district court’s claim construction standard, the term “deformities”
`
`should be construed as “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.” The
`
`’973 patent defines deformities as follows: “[a]s used herein, the term deformities or
`
`disruptions are used interchangeably to mean any change in the shape or geometry
`
`of the panel surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of the
`
`light to be emitted.” Ex. 1001 at 6:6-10. The district courts “recognize that the
`
`specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee
`
`that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the
`
`inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Here, the inventors’
`
`lexicography governs, and it dictates the construction offered by Patent Owner.
`
`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
`
`Innovative Display Technologies v. Acer, Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-522 (E.D. Tex.
`
`2013) (Dkt. No. 101) (Ex. 2008) and Innovative Display Technologies v.

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