`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.