`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2015-00506
`
`Patent 7,434,973
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. ESCUTI, Ph.D.
`
`LGD_000298
`
`LG Display Ex. 1004
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1
`A.
`Background and Qualifications.................................................................... 1
`B.
`Information Considered................................................................................ 6
`LEGAL STANDARDS................................................................................7
`A.
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art .......................................................... 7
`B.
`Anticipation .................................................................................................... 8
`C.
`Obviousness ................................................................................................... 9
`D.
`Claim Construction...................................................................................... 11
`E.
`Priority........................................................................................................... 12
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ......................................................... 13
`A.
`Light Redirecting Film System ................................................................... 13
`B.
`Common Light Control Structures and Films ......................................... 17
`C.
`Desired Light Output.................................................................................. 28
`IV. THE ’973 PATENT..................................................................................29
`A.
`Background of the ’973 Patent................................................................... 29
`B.
`Prosecution History (Ex. 1002).................................................................. 29
`C.
`Asserted Claims............................................................................................ 32
`D.
`Claim Construction...................................................................................... 32
`PRIORITY ................................................................................................32
`PRIOR ART ANALYSIS ..........................................................................36
`A.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,195,389 (“the ’389 Patent) and U.S. Patent No.
`6,473,554 (“Pelka”)...................................................................................... 36
`1.
`Claims 1-5 are Obvious Over the ’389 Patent in View of
`Pelka ......................................................................................37
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,182 (“Shinohara”) ................................................ 53
`1.
`Claims 1-5 are Anticipated by Shinohara..............................53
`Shinohara and U.S. Patent No. 5,775,791 (“Yoshikawa”)...................... 70
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`LGD_000299
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Claim 1 is Obvious Over Shinohara in View of Yoshikawa .71
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,473,554 (“Pelka”) and EP 0 878 720 (“Funamoto”)73
`1.
`Claims 1-5 are Obvious Over Pelka in View of Funamoto...74
`U.S. Patent No. 5,477,422 (“Hooker”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,057,974
`(“Mizobe”).................................................................................................... 91
`1.
`Claims 1-2 are Obvious Over Hooker and Mizobe ..............91
`VII. SUPPLEMENTATION ......................................................................... 108
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`LGD_000300
`
`
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`My name is Dr. Michael J. Escuti, and I have been retained by the law firm of
`
`Mayer Brown LLP on behalf of LG Display Co., Ltd. as an expert in the relevant art.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions and views on the materials I have
`
`reviewed in this case related to Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973 (“the ’973
`
`Patent”) (“the patent-at-issue”), and the scientific and technical knowledge regarding
`
`the same subject matter before and for a period following the date of the first
`
`application for the patent-at-issue was filed.
`
`3.
`
`I am compensated at the rate of $330/hour for my work, plus reimbursement
`
`for expenses. My compensation has not influenced any of my opinions in this matter
`
`and does not depend on the outcome of this proceeding or any issue in it.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`My opinion and underlying reasoning for this opinion are set forth below.
`
`A.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I am currently a tenured Associate Professor at North Carolina State University
`
`(“NCSU”), in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. As detailed
`
`below, I have over 16 years of experience directly relevant to the ’973 Patent,
`
`including in the fields of liquid crystal display (“LCD”) technologies, backlight design,
`
`optical physics, and electronic materials.
`
`6.
`
`I received my Ph.D.
`
`in Electrical Engineering from Brown University in
`
`Providence, RI, in 2002. My dissertation topic focused on novel LCD systems and
`
`devices, including both experimental and theoretical study. Upon earning my Ph.D., I
`
`1
`
`LGD_000301
`
`
`
`apprenticed as a Postdoctoral Scholar in the Department of Chemical Engineering at
`
`Eindhoven University of Technology (Netherlands), where my research focused on
`
`LCDs, novel backlight approaches, diffractive optical films/sheets, and polymer-
`
`based organic electronics. Since 2004, I have been on the faculty of NCSU in Raleigh,
`
`NC, currently as a tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering. I have supervised the graduation of seven Ph.D. and three
`
`M.S. students, and currently advise an additional three Ph.D. students. In addition, I
`
`have mentored nineteen undergraduate researchers.
`
`7.
`
`In 2005, I co-founded ImagineOptix Corporation, which commercializes
`
`components, systems, and optical thin-film technology developed within my academic
`
`laboratory. The primary markets are LCDs, projectors, and telecommunications
`
`hardware. Since its inception, I have been a part-time advisor to the company with the
`
`title of Chief Scientific Officer, and in 2013, I joined the Board of Directors.
`
`8.
`
`With my students and collaborators, I have authored over 102 publications,
`
`including journal articles, refereed conference proceedings, and book chapters. I am a
`
`named inventor on 11 issued and 19 pending United States patents, and several
`
`additional foreign patents. I have offered 29 invited research presentations.
`
`9.
`
`I have received numerous awards and distinctions, including the following:
`
`a.
`
`(2011) Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers
`
`(“PECASE”),
`
`the highest award by the U.S. Government for young
`
`researchers;
`
`2
`
`LGD_000302
`
`
`
`b. (2011) Alcoa Foundation Engineering Research Achievement Award,
`
`awarded to one faculty NCSU member annually recognizing outstanding
`
`research;
`
`c.
`
`(2010) Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Award, from the
`
`National Science Foundation (“NSF”);
`
`d. (2004) Glenn H. Brown Prize for Outstanding Ph.D. Dissertation, from the
`
`International Liquid Crystal Society (“ILCS”);
`
`e.
`
`(2002) New Focus Award, Top Winner, from the Optical Society of
`
`America (“OSA”);
`
`(2001) Graduate Student Silver Award,
`
`from the
`
`Materials Research Society;
`
`f.
`
`(2001) Sigma Xi Outstanding Graduate Student Research Award, from
`
`Brown University chapter;
`
`g.
`
`(1999) Best Student Paper Award, Society for Information Display (“SID”);
`
`h. Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”),
`
`Society of Photo-optical and Instrumentation Engineers (“SPIE”), OSA,
`
`and SID.
`
`10. My research at NCSU over the last ten years has been supported by more than
`
`$8M in external research funds, in part from several government agencies, including
`
`the NSF, the United States Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), the Defense
`
`Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the National Aeronautics and
`
`Space Administration (NASA). A further part of this support also comes from several
`
`3
`
`LGD_000303
`
`
`
`strong partnerships with industry, including Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Teledyne
`
`Scientific & Imaging, Boulder Nonlinear Systems, and ImagineOptix.
`
`11. My central expertise via training and research experience is in LCD system
`
`design, materials,
`
`technology, and optical modeling.
`
`I began working with
`
`technologies to improve viewing angle problems in 1998, and in 1999 published my
`
`first journal article on this topic (M.J. Escuti, et al., Enhanced Dynamic Response of
`
`the In-plane Switching Liquid Crystal Display Mode Through Polymer Stabilization,
`
`Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 75, pp. 3264-3266 (1999)). In 2002, I co-authored an invited
`
`chapter reviewing LCD technology (G.P. Crawford and M.J. Escuti, Liquid Crystal
`
`Display Technology, in “Encyclopedia of Imaging Science and Technology,” ed. J.P.
`
`Hornak (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002)). In 2005, I co-authored a journal article
`
`focused on an advanced LCD backlight (C. Sanchez, M.J. Escuti, et al., “An efficient
`
`illumination system for LCDs incorporating an anisotropic hologram,” Appl. Phys.
`
`Lett., vol. 87, art. no. 094101, (2005)), and I currently am leading multiple projects at
`
`NCSU on backlights that are largely unpublished.
`
`12.
`
`As a student, I used and reviewed several textbooks and reference books,
`
`including those listed below (a-f). Also listed is an additional book I use in the class I
`
`teach on LCDs for undergraduate and graduate students that I developed at NCSU
`
`with support from the NSF.
`
`a.
`
`J. A. Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic Press Inc., San
`
`Diego (1992);
`
`4
`
`LGD_000304
`
`
`
`b. D. E. Mentley and J. A. Castellano, Liquid Crystal Display Manufacturing,
`
`Stanford Resources, Inc., San Jose (1994);
`
`c. Liquid Crystals: Applications and Uses (Vol. 1), edited by B. Bahadur, World
`
`Scientific (1995);
`
`d. P. Collings and J. Patel, eds., Handbook of Liquid Crystal Research, Oxford
`
`University Press, New York (1997);
`
`e. Pochi Yeh and Claire Gu, Optics of Liquid Crystal Displays, Wiley & Sons
`
`(1999);
`
`f. Ernst Lueder, Liquid Crystal Displays: Addressing schemes & electro-optical effects,
`
`New York: Wiley (2001);
`
`g. Willem den Boer, Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays: Fundamentals &
`
`Applications, Elsevier: Newnes (2005).
`
`13.
`
`In my academic research, I direct both applied and fundamental research for
`
`applications including efficient LCDs, backlights, and optical films relevant to both.
`
`We also study techniques for low-loss fiber optic telecommunications switches, laser
`
`beam steering for high energy applications and laser communications, IR/MIR
`
`polarization imaging, opto-fluidics, novel diffractive lenses, and vortex beam optics.
`
`We routinely use and often fabricate our own devices, backlights, compensation films,
`
`and fully functional systems for direct-view and projection-displays and other
`
`applications including telecommunications, remote sensing, and laser beam steering. I
`
`routinely use commercial ray-tracing software for display system modeling. Over the
`
`5
`
`LGD_000305
`
`
`
`last 16 years, I have written and used multiple numerical simulation tools for optical
`
`and liquid crystal modeling, including custom code for modeling of optical waves in
`
`stratified birefringent media (matrix methods), exact solutions to Maxwell's equations
`
`in anisotropic media, and liquid crystal alignment physics.
`
`14.
`
`I have served twice as an expert within inter partes review proceedings before
`
`the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, both concluding in 2013, where I was
`
`deposed. I also serve as an expert for pending petitions to review U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,300,194 (IPR2014-01097), 7,434,974 (IPR2014-01092), 7,404,660 (IPR2014-01094),
`
`7,537,370 (IPR2014-01096), and 8,215,816 (IPR2014-01095). In addition, I have
`
`previously served three times as an expert before the U.S. International Trade
`
`Commission (“ITC”), beginning in 2011, where I was deposed, and in two of the
`
`cases, testified at the hearing. I have also served as an expert in several district court
`
`cases.
`
`15.
`
`A detailed record of my professional qualifications,
`
`including a list of
`
`publications, awards, and professional activities, is set forth in my curriculum vitae,
`
`attached to this report as Appendix A.
`
`B.
`
`Information Considered
`
`16.
`
`In addition to my general knowledge gained as a result of my education and
`
`experience in this field, I have reviewed and considered, among other things, the ’973
`
`Patent, the prosecution history of the ’973 Patent, and the prior art of record.
`
`17.
`
`The full list of information that I have considered in forming my opinions for
`
`6
`
`LGD_000306
`
`
`
`this report is set forth throughout the report and listed in the attached Appendix B.
`
`II.
`
`18.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`In forming my opinions and considering the patentability of the claims of the
`
`’973 Patent, I am relying upon certain legal principles that counsel has explained to
`
`me.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found patentable, it
`
`must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light of what came before it.
`
`Patents and publications which predated the invention are generally referred to as
`
`“prior art.”
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding the burden is on the party asserting
`
`unpatentability to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a
`
`preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more
`
`likely than not.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims after being
`
`construed in this manner are then to be compared to information that was disclosed
`
`in the prior art.
`
`A.
`
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that the claims of a patent are judged from the
`
`perspective of a hypothetical construct involving “a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.” The “art” is the field of technology to which the patent is related. I understand
`
`7
`
`LGD_000307
`
`
`
`that the purpose of using a person of ordinary skill in the art’s viewpoint is objectivity.
`
`Thus, I understand that the question of validity is viewed from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, and not from the perspective of (a) the inventor, (b)
`
`a layperson, or (c) a person of extraordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that
`
`the claims of the patent-at-issue are interpreted as a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood them in the relevant time period (i.e., when the patent
`
`application was filed or earliest effective filing date).
`
`23.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’973
`
`Patent would have at least an undergraduate degree in physics, optics, electrical
`
`engineering, or applied mathematics AND 3 years of work experience (or a graduate
`
`degree) in a field related to optical technology.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a “person of ordinary skill
`
`is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity, not an automaton” and that would be especially true of anyone developing
`
`LCD structures.
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of whether
`
`a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art. I have applied these standards in my
`
`analysis of whether claims of the ’973 Patent were anticipated at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is “anticipated” by a single prior art reference
`
`if that reference discloses each element of the claim in a single embodiment. A prior
`
`8
`
`LGD_000308
`
`
`
`art reference may anticipate a claim inherently if an element is not expressly stated,
`
`but only if the prior art necessarily includes the claim limitations.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the test for anticipation is performed in two steps. First, the
`
`claims must be interpreted to determine their meaning. Second, a prior art reference is
`
`analyzed to determine whether every claim element, as interpreted in the first step, is
`
`present in the reference. If all the elements of a patent claim are present in the prior
`
`art reference, then that claim is anticipated and is invalid.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to examine extrinsic evidence outside the
`
`prior art reference in determining whether a feature, while not expressly discussed in
`
`the reference, is necessarily present within that reference.
`
`C.
`
`Obviousness
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a claim can be invalid in view of prior art if the differences
`
`between the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that the claimed subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been “obvious” at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined at 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). I
`
`understand that a claim is obvious over a prior art reference if that reference,
`
`combined with the knowledge of one skilled in the art or other prior art references
`
`disclose each and every element of the recited claim.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that
`
`the relevant
`
`inquiry into obviousness
`
`requires
`
`consideration of four factors:
`
`9
`
`LGD_000309
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`The knowledge of a person of ordinary sill in the pertinent art; and
`
`Objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness may be
`
`present in any particular case, such factors including commercial success of products
`
`covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by
`
`others to make the invention; copying of the invention by others in the field;
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by the infringer
`
`or others in the field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of
`
`surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and that
`
`the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that when combining two or more references, one should
`
`consider whether a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references
`
`exists so as to avoid impermissible hindsight.
`
`I have been informed that the
`
`application of the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test should not be rigidly
`
`applied, but rather is an expansive and flexible test. For example, I have been
`
`informed that the common sense of a person of ordinary skill in the art can serve as
`
`motivation for combining references.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the content of a patent or other printed publication (i.e., a
`
`reference) should be interpreted the way a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have interpreted the reference as of the effective filing date of the patent application
`
`10
`
`LGD_000310
`
`
`
`for the ’973 Patent. I have assumed that the person of ordinary skill is a hypothetical
`
`person who is presumed to be aware of all the pertinent information that qualifies as
`
`prior art. In addition, the person of ordinary skill in the art makes inferences and
`
`creative steps. He or she is not an automaton, but has ordinary creativity.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed that the application that issued as the ’973 Patent was
`
`filed in 2007. The application claims priority to a parent application that was filed on
`
`June 27, 1995. However, it is my opinion that the ’973 Patent may only be entitled to
`
`claim priority to November 28, 2007 or as early as an application filed February 23,
`
`1999. I will assume, however, that the relevant time period for determining what one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art knew is June 27, 1995, the earliest possible filing date for
`
`purposes of this proceeding. Furthermore, I will provide an analysis based on prior art
`
`for each of the three possible priority dates.
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed that a claim subject to inter partes review is given its
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.” I have been informed that this means that the words of the claim are
`
`given their plain meaning from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`unless that meaning is inconsistent with the specification. I understand that the “plain
`
`meaning” of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and that the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the
`
`11
`
`LGD_000311
`
`
`
`words of the claims, the specification, drawings, and prior art.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that
`
`in construing claims “[a]ll words in a claim must be
`
`considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” (MPEP §
`
`2143.03, citing In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970)).
`
`37.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence may be consulted for the meaning of a
`
`claim term as long as it is not used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in
`
`light of the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`I also understand that in construing claim terms, the general meanings gleaned from
`
`reference sources must always be compared against the use of the terms in context,
`
`and the intrinsic record must always be consulted to identify which of the different
`
`possible dictionary meanings is most consistent with the use of the words by the
`
`inventor. See, e.g., Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls v. Mega Systems, 350 F.3d 1327,
`
`1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d
`
`1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`E.
`
`Priority
`
`38.
`
`I have been informed that claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of
`
`an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides
`
`written support for those claims, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. In re Chu, 66 F.3d
`
`292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`39.
`
`I have been informed that
`
`in order
`
`to satisfy the written description
`
`12
`
`LGD_000312
`
`
`
`requirement, the prior application must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled
`
`in the art that, as of the earlier filing date, the inventor was in possession of the
`
`invention. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). I was
`
`also informed that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter
`
`which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” In re
`
`Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines Inc., 107
`
`F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`40.
`
`I was also informed that
`
`if a claim limitation is not explicitly in the
`
`specification, to establish inherency, the specification “must make clear that the
`
`missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the
`
`reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” In re
`
`Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (emphasis added) (quoting Cont’l Can Co. v. Monsanto, Co.,
`
`948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Light Redirecting Film System
`
`41.
`
`The ’973 Patent discloses a light emitting panel assembly, which according to
`
`the ’973 Patent, is a device configured to produce a uniform illumination from a
`
`surface due to deformities angled at different orientations relative to the input edge.
`
`This is a type of light box or luminaire, producing surface illumination. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1012, U.S. Patent No. 5,160,195 (“Miller”). While these panel assemblies are used in
`
`many application contexts, e.g., architectural lighting, signage illumination, and x-ray
`
`13
`
`LGD_000313
`
`
`
`film viewing, the primary application is in LCDs and the various applications thereof.
`
`In the LCD context, a light redirecting film system is usually called the “backlight
`
`module,” which is important since it generates the light needed by the display, and is
`
`primarily responsible for the brightness and power-efficiency of the whole system.
`
`The other major part of an LCD is the “LC panel module,” which is non-light
`
`emitting and instead modulates light passing through it to form an image, where each
`
`individual pixel acts as a shutter controlling how much light can pass through it. See
`
`Ex. 1013, J. A. Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic Press Inc., San
`
`Diego, 1992, at pp. 9-13 and Ch. 8. A typical cross-section of a light redirecting film
`
`system by the time of the ’973 Patent is illustrated in Fig. 2 from Ciupke, where the
`
`light redirecting film system includes everything below element 12, and where element
`
`12 is the LCD. (Fig. 2 from Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”)).
`
`42.
`
`The principle aim of a light redirecting film system is to provide a surface of
`
`illumination that is as smooth as possible across its area, i.e., to emit light uniformly
`
`from its entire spatial extent and into a desired angle distribution. In the case of the
`
`‘973 Patent, this angle distribution is preferably more toward a direction normal to the
`
`14
`
`LGD_000314
`
`
`
`plane of the films. Ex. 1001, the ’973 Patent, at 2:44-51. Unfortunately, there are no
`
`bright and efficient
`
`light
`
`sources
`
`that emit
`
`inherently from a surface area
`
`commensurate with the size of an LCD, so point- and line-shaped light sources are
`
`used instead. For example, light-emitting-diodes (LEDs) have small emission areas
`
`typically on the order of a few mm2, and fluorescent lamps, with either cold- (CCFL)
`
`or hot- (HCL) cathodes, can be many cm long but only a few mm wide. The most
`
`critical engineering challenge for backlights, therefore,
`
`is to produce the surface
`
`illumination with the target brightness and uniformity at the lowest possible electrical
`
`power.
`
`43.
`
`Light redirecting film systems are classified into two well-known1 categories:
`
`“edge-lit” and “directly back-lit.” Compare Fig. 9 from Ex. 1014, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,598,280 (“Nishio”), with Fig. 4 from Ex. 1015, U.S. Patent No. 5,384,658
`
`(“Ohtake”). These two categories are illustrated in Fig. A below, with the light
`
`sources highlighted in each case. In the edge-lit category, the light source is at the
`
`edge, sending light substantially horizontally (in this illustration), which must then be
`
`turned upward to emit upward (in this illustration) through the emitting surface (and
`
`toward the display element in this illustration). In the direct back-lit category, the light
`
`1 To be clear, when I refer to an element or concept as “well-known” or “known in
`
`the prior art,” I particularly mean to say that the element or concept was well-known
`
`as of June 27, 1995.
`
`15
`
`LGD_000315
`
`
`
`sources are arranged instead directly below the emitting surface, usually with several
`
`films in between. Confusingly, the word “backlight” is commonly applied to both
`
`types of systems, and even more confusingly, the ’973 Patent refers to a single
`
`component in the edge-lit system as a “backlight” (discussed further below in ¶ 43).
`
`The ’973 Patent discloses an edge-lit light emitting panel assembly. Edge-lit light
`
`emitting panel assemblies are often preferred because they can be physically thinner
`
`and lower weight.
`
`Figure A (annotated Fig. 9 of Ex. 1014, Nishio and Fig. 2 of Ex. 1015, Ohtake)
`
`44.
`
`It was known by June 27, 1995 that one or more light sources may be
`
`employed. As representative examples, see Ex. 1005, Ciupke, at Fig. 4 below.
`
`16
`
`LGD_000316
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Common Light Control Structures and Films
`
`45. Many standard optical elements and surfaces within LCDs are used to spatially
`
`homogenize and control the angular distribution of emitted light. These include light
`
`pipes and various types of microstructured deformities (e.g., microprisms, diffusers,
`
`and microlenses). See, e.g., Ex. 1016, U.S. Patent No. 5,303,322 (“Winston”). We now
`
`discuss each of these.
`
`46.
`
`The light pipe, also sometimes called a light guide or wave guide or optical
`
`conductor, accepts light injected from the side and distributes it across the emission
`
`area. See, e.g., Ex. 1017, U.S. Patent No. 5,050,946 (“Hathaway”), at Abstract and 1:56-
`
`59. The light pipe is typically a transparent planar slab that confines the light within it
`
`using the principle of total-internal-reflection, in order to support the persistent goals
`
`in LCDs of thinner and lighter displays. Id. at 5:66-6:2. In some designs the light pipe
`
`has parallel surfaces and in other designs it has a wedge shape.
`
`Id. at Figs. 1 and 5.
`
`Light will generally only escape from the light pipe into the emission direction when
`
`disturbed by a structure – for example, a pattern of diffusing spots on the back
`
`surface, or microstructures on one or both surfaces. Id. at 7:15-22. For example, in
`
`the annotated Fig. B of Ex. 1005, Ciupke below, the ray 24 is shown first emitting
`
`from the light source 18, entering the light pipe 11, bouncing off the top and bottom
`
`surfaces of the light pipe several times, reflecting on the right hand side by the edge
`
`reflector 29, hitting one of the groove 17 deformities, and only then emitting from the
`
`light pipe toward the LCD. Light pipes were generally known in the prior art. It is
`
`17
`
`LGD_000317
`
`
`
`important to note that the ’973 Patent employs several terms for the light pipe,
`
`including “backlight BL” (e.g., Ex. 1001, the ’973 Patent, at 5:21-25 and Figs. 1-2),
`
`“backlight/panel member BL” (Id. at 12:1-4), “panel” (e.g., Id. at 11:36-12:36), and
`
`“light emitting panel” (Id. at 12:37-45).
`
`Figure B (annotated Fig. 2 of Ex. 1005, Ciupke)
`Various types of deformities and optical elements of well-defined shape are
`
`47.
`
`employed to control
`
`the direction and spatial uniformity of light within light
`
`redirecting film systems. Two major categories are those that are essentially
`
`microstructured grooves or protrusions on a surface, or those that involve a highly
`
`scattering material painted on a surface or formed into a sheet.
`
`It was known to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’973 Patent that these deformities
`
`and optical elements of well-defined shape may be random or regularly arranged, and
`
`may have features which vary spatially across the emitting area (e.g., size, density, type,
`
`shape, etc.). For example, several types of spatial variation in deformities are shown in
`
`Fig. 5 of Ex. 1018, European Patent Application Publication No. EP500960 (“Ohe”)
`
`below, where the light source is positioned at side 7.
`
`18
`
`LGD_000318
`
`
`
`48.
`
`As an alternative to the one-dimensional linear variation shown in Fig. 5 of
`
`Ohe above, it was known that in some cases it was preferable to arrange deformities
`
`and optical elements in a pattern including rotational symmetry. Several examples of
`
`this on various light pipes are shown in Fig. C below, which includes Figs. 4 and 14 of
`
`Ex. 1019, U.S. Patent No. 5,921,651 (“Ishikawa”), and Fig. 9 of Ex. 1020, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,931,555 (“Akahane”). Optimizing the various patterns of deformities or optical
`
`elements for a desired effect, for example, specifically for LCDs, was a common
`
`aspect of backlight design by the time of the ‘973 Patent.
`
`19
`
`LGD_000319
`
`
`
`Figure C (Figs. 4 and 14 of Ex. 1019, Ishikawa, and Fig. 9 of Ex. 1020, Akahane)
`
`49. One of the most common deformities or optical elements is a microprism,
`
`which is a small groove or protrusion with two or more facets. These are shown in
`
`Fig. B above in paragraph 43, as elements 17. When a light ray hits one of these
`
`microprisms,
`
`its direction can be substantially changed via refraction and/or
`
`reflection, nearly without loss. An illustration of both behaviors can be seen in Fig. D
`
`below, where I have highlighted the rays refracting (red) and the rays reflecting (blue)
`
`because of the microprisms sheet (green) (Fig. 6 from Ex. 1014, Nishio). In fact, the
`
`blue ray on the right side is first reflected and then refracted. In some cases, an entire
`
`surface is formed into an array of prisms, either as a surface of the light pipe or as a
`
`separate sheet, but this is not required. In this configuration, the slanted surfaces are
`
`useful to turn light toward useful viewing directions, e.g., from very oblique angles to
`
`on-axis angles, and vice versa. Because a large portion of the light emitted from a
`
`typical light pipe system is initially sent along oblique directions, the addition of a
`
`microprism sheet typically increases/enhances the brightness of the light emitting
`
`panel as seen by a viewer directly observing on-axis. By the early 1990s, the company
`
`20
`
`LGD_000320
`
`
`
`3M commercialized many f