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
`
`Patent 7,434,973
`_______________
`
`PETITION FOR INTERPARTESREVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,434,973
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`B.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES.........................................................................1
`I.
`PAYMENT OF FEES ................................................................................3
`II.
`STANDING ................................................................................................3
`III.
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTERPARTESREVIEW OF CLAIMS 1-5 OF THE
`’973 PATENT..............................................................................................3
`A.
`Technology Background ............................................................................... 3
`B.
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’973 Patent................................................ 5
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................5
`A.
`Standards For Claim Construction .............................................................. 5
`B.
`“deformities” (claims 1, 3, 4)........................................................................ 6
`PRIORITY DATE ......................................................................................6
`A.
`Patent Owner Is Not Entitled To A Priority Date Earlier Than
`November 28, 2007 ....................................................................................... 7
`Alternatively, The Earliest Priority Date To Which The Patent Owner
`Is Entitled Is February 23, 1999................................................................. 12
`VII. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’973 PATENT FORMING THE
`BASIS FOR THIS PETITION ................................................................ 14
`A.
`Admitted Prior Art....................................................................................... 14
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,195,389 (“the ’389 Patent”) (Ex. 1007)...................... 14
`C.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,473,554 (“Pelka”) (Ex. 1009) ...................................... 15
`D.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,182 (“Shinohara”) (Ex. 1010) .............................. 15
`E.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,775,791 (“Yoshikawa”) (Ex. 1011)............................. 16
`F.
`EP 0 878 720 (“Funamoto”) (Ex. 1012) ................................................... 16
`G.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,477,422 (“Hooker”) (Ex. 1013) .................................. 16
`H.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,057,974 (“Mizobe”)(Ex. 1014).................................... 17
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM............... 17
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1-5 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As
`Being Obvious Over The ’389 Patent In View Of Pelka ....................... 18
`Ground 2: Claims 1-5 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) As
`Being Anticipated By Shinohara ................................................................ 29
`Ground 3: Claims 1-5 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As
`Being Obvious Over Shinohara In View Of Yoshikawa........................ 38
`Ground 4: Claims 1-5 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As
`Being Obvious Over Pelka In View Of Funamoto................................. 40
`i
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 1-5 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As
`Being Obvious Over Hooker In View Of Mizobe.................................. 49
`IX. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................59
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cont’l Can Co. v. Monsanto, Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Delaware Display Group LLC and Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Lenovo
`Group Ltd., et al.,
`Case No. 1:13-cv-02108................................................................................................... 1
`
`In re Chu,
`66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995)............................................................................................ 6
`
`In re Huston,
`308 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743...................................................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Zletz,
`893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989).......................................................................................... 6
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102............................................................................................... 1, 15, 16, 17, 29
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103............................................................................................... 1, 18, 38, 40, 49
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112.................................................................................................................. 6, 13
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120........................................................................................................................ 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311........................................................................................................................ 1
`
`RULES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8................................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 .................................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .................................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................................................................................. 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2163(II)(A)(3)(b)........................................................................................... 7, 12
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973
`Complaints filed in Related District Court Cases
`Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,613,751 (“the ’751 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,195,389 (“the ’389 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,712,481 (“the ’481 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,473,554 (“Pelka”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,182 (“Shinohara”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,775,791 (“Yoshikawa”)
`EP 0 878 720 (“Funamoto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,477,422 (“Hooker”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,057,974 (“Mizobe”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,241,256 (“Viret”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,896,119 (“Evanicky”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,584,556 (“Yokoyama”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,667,289 (“Akahane”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,160,195 (“Miller”)
`J. A. Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic Press Inc., San
`Diego, 1992, at pp. 9-13 and Ch. 8
`U.S. Patent No. 5,598,280 (“Nishio”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,384,658 (“Ohtake”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,303,322 (“Winston”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,050,946 (“Hathaway”)
`European Patent Application Publication No. EP500960 (“Ohe”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,921,651 (“Ishikawa”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,931,555 (“Akahane”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,488 (“Ouderkirk”)
`3M product brochure 75-0500-0403-7, “Brightness Enhancement Film
`(BEF).” 2 pages (1993)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,919,551 (“Cobb”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,134 (“Konno”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,405 (“Takeuchi”)
`
`v
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`
`1030
`1031
`1032
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,381,309 (“Borchardt”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,600,462 (“Suzuki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,890,791 (“Saito”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,505,959 (“Masaki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,961,198 (“Hira”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,396,350 (“Beeson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,779,338 (“Ishikawa 2”)
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioner hereby respectfully requests inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-5 of Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973 (“the ’973 Patent”) (“Ex.
`
`1001”) which issued on October 14, 2008. The challenged claims are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 over the prior art publications identified and applied
`
`in this Petition.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, Petitioner provides the following mandatory
`
`disclosures:
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest. LG Display America, Inc. is a real party-in-interest
`
`with Petitioner, LG Display Co., Ltd.
`
`B. Related Matters. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner submits that
`
`the ’973 Patent is the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by the Patent
`
`Owner, Innovative Display Technologies LLC (see Ex. 1003), in the United States
`
`District Court for the District of Delaware: Delaware Display Group LLC and Innovative
`
`Display Technologies LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02108.
`
`Petitioner has previously filed petitions to review U.S. Patent Nos. 7,300,194
`
`(IPR2014-01097),
`
`7,434,974
`
`(IPR2014-01092),
`
`7,404,660
`
`(IPR2014-01094 &
`
`IPR2015-00487), 7,537,370 (IPR2014-01096), 8,215,816 (IPR2014-01095), 7,384,177
`
`(IPR2014-01362),
`
`6,755,547 (IPR2014-01357), and 7,914,196 (IPR2014-01359).
`
`Related petitions include: IPR2015-00359, IPR2015-00360, IPR2015-00361, IPR2015-
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`00363, IPR2015-00366, IPR2015-00368, IPR2015-00489, IPR2015-00490, IPR2015-
`
`00492, IPR2015-00493, IPR2015-00495, IPR2015-00496, and IPR2015-00497. The
`
`’973 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,195,389, which is continuation of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,712,481, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,079,838, which is a divisional of U.S. Patent No. 5,613,751.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel.
`
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Robert G. Pluta
`Registration No. 50,970
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-701-8641
`Facsimile:
`312-701-7711
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Amanda K. Streff
`Registration No. 65,224
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-701-8645
`Facsimile:
`312-701-7711
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`
`Baldine B. Paul
`Registration No. 54,369
`Anita Y. Lam
`Registration No. 67,394
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: 202.263.3000
`Facsimile:
`202.263.3300
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`alam@mayerbrown.com
`
`D.
`
`Service Information. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), Petitioners
`
`identify the following service information: Please direct all correspondence regarding
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`this proceeding to lead counsel at the address identified above. Petitioner consents to
`
`electronic service by email:
`
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com, bpaul@mayerbrown.com,
`
`astreff@mayerbrown.com, and alam@mayerbrown.com, with a courtesy copy to
`
`DDGIPR@mayerbrown.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103, $23,000 is being paid at the time of filing this
`
`petition, charged to Deposit Account 130019. Should any further fees be required by
`
`the present Petition, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) is hereby
`
`authorized to charge the above referenced Deposit Account.
`
`III.
`
`STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the patent sought for
`
`review, the ’973 Patent, is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of the patent.
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTERPARTESREVIEW OF CLAIMS 1-5 OF THE
`’973 PATENT
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests that the Board find
`
`unpatentable claims 1-5 of the ’973 Patent. Such relief is justified as the alleged
`
`invention of the ’973 Patent was described by others prior to the effective filing date
`
`of the ’973 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Technology Background
`
`Generally, light emitting panel assemblies are used in conjunction with liquid
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`crystal displays (“LCDs”) and various applications thereof, as a backlight module to
`
`provide light to the display. Ex. 1004, Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti
`
`Decl.”), ¶ 41. The light emitting panel assembly is composed of all the elements of
`
`the LCD other than the liquid crystals themselves. Id. For example, the light emitting
`
`panel assembly is all but element 12 (in yellow) in the annotated figure below from
`
`Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 to Ciupke et. al.
`
`In order to produce surface illumination with the target brightness and
`
`uniformity at the lowest possible electrical power, the light emitting panel assembly
`
`can include features to spatially homogenize and control the angular distribution of
`
`emitted light. Escuti Decl., ¶ 42. Examples of these features include light pipes,
`
`transition area,
`
`reflectors, and various types of microstructured deformities (e.g.,
`
`microprisms, diffusers, and microlenses). Id. at ¶ 45. The light pipe, also sometimes
`
`called a light guide or wave guide, accepts light injected from the side and distributes it
`
`across the emission area. The ’973 Patent calls the light pipe a “back light” (e.g., Ex.
`
`1001, 6:56-60) and “panel member” (e.g.,
`
`id. 1:29-34). See Escuti Decl., ¶ 46.
`
`Deformities or optical elements, such as microprisms, diffusers, and microlenses, are
`
`employed to control the direction and spatial uniformity of light within light emitting
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`panel assemblies. See Escuti Decl., ¶¶ 47-53.
`
`B.
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’973 Patent
`
`The ’973 Patent 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.” Ex.
`
`1001, 1:22-26. More specifically, the alleged invention discloses a light emitting panel
`
`assembly may have several light sources, and the light sources are “optically coupled”
`
`to different portions along the width of the input edge of the panel member. Id. 3:55-
`
`63. The light sources can have a pattern of individual light extracting deformities
`
`associated therewith, with variations in the size and shape as well as the depth or
`
`height and angular orientation and location of the light extracting deformities may
`
`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. 2:2-10. Further, the deformities
`
`can have a length and width much smaller than the length and width of the panel
`
`surface. Id. Abstract. Finally, the deformities can increase 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. Id. 3:66-4:8.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Standards For Claim Construction
`to inter partes review is given its “broadest reasonable
`
`A claim subject
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R.
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`§ 42.100(b). 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.
`
`In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`Petitioners submit, for the purposes of inter partes review only, that the claim terms are
`
`presumed to take on their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
`
`the
`
`specification of the ’973 Patent.
`
`“deformities” (claims 1, 3, 4)
`B.
`The ’973 Patent expressly defines the term “deformities” as follows: “As used
`
`herein, the term [sic] 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, 6:6-10. Thus,
`
`based on the express definition of deformities in the specification, “deformities”
`
`(claims 1, 3, and 4) should be construed to mean “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.” Escuti Decl., ¶ 64.
`
`VI.
`
`PRIORITY DATE
`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). To
`
`satisfy the written description requirement, the prior application must convey with
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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). In addition, “[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)). If a claim limitation is not
`
`explicitly described in the specification, to establish inherency, the specification “must
`
`make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarilypresent 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)). The burden is on the Patent
`
`Owner to show that it meets each of several requirements in order to claim the
`
`benefit of priority of a prior application under § 120. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268,
`
`1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner Is Not Entitled To A Priority Date Earlier Than
`November 28, 2007
`Claims 1-5 of the ’973 Patent are not entitled to a priority date earlier than
`
`November 28, 2007 because limitations of the as-issued independent claim 1 are not
`
`sufficiently described in the disclosure of the originally filed application for the ’973
`
`Patent. See M.P.E.P. § 2163(II)(A)(3)(b).
`
`In order to overcome rejections over the applied prior art references and a
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`pending objection to the drawings for lacking illustration of the subject matter of
`
`original claims 7, 14, 15, 22, and 24, Applicants canceled original claims 1-24, added
`
`new claims 25-47, added new Figs. 39A-B, and amended the specification to add
`
`subject matter relating to the newly added figures. Ex. 1002, Reply to Office Action of
`
`Aug. 29, 2007 (Nov. 28, 2007), LGD_000186-187.
`
`Subsequently, the Examiner
`
`found the subject matter of newly added claims 31 and 36 to be allowable if rewritten
`
`in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
`
`claims. Ex. 1002, Office Action of February 12, 2008, LGD_000224-225. Thereafter,
`
`Applicants combined claims 30 and 31 to form new claim 48 (claim 1, as-issued). Ex.
`
`1002, Compare Reply to Office Action of Aug. 29, 2007 (Nov. 28, 2007),
`
`LGD_000180-181 with Reply to Office Action of Feb. 12, 2008 (June 10, 2008),
`
`LGD_000235-236.
`
`The allowable subject matter of claim 31 and incorporated into claim 1, as-
`
`issued, recites “the density, size, depth and/or height of the deformities in close
`
`proximity to the input edge is greatest at approximate midpoints between adjacent
`
`pairs of light sources.” The subject matter of claim 31 did not appear in the
`
`specification as-filed, nor the originally filed claims 1-24, and the specification fails to
`
`reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that inventors possessed the above-
`
`mentioned allowable subject matter at the time the original specification was filed.
`
`First, Applicants point to no support whatsoever for the claim amendments
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`made to “more clearly patentably distinguish over [the prior art] references.” Ex.
`
`1002, Reply to Office Action of Aug. 29, 2007 (Nov. 28, 2007), LGD_000187. See
`
`Escuti Decl., ¶¶ 67-70. Second, while Applicants cite the specification and new figures
`
`(id. LGD_000186) as purported support for their amendments, the citations do not
`
`provide written support for “the density, size, depth and/or height of the deformities
`
`in close proximity to the input edge is greatest at approximate midpoints between
`
`adjacent pairs of
`
`light sources,” as seen in the citation chart below; See
`
`id.
`
`LGE_000051-074; see also Escuti Decl., ¶ 71:
`
`Citation
`Page 2,
`
`Specification, as-filed
`“In accordance with another aspect of the invention, the size and shape as
`
`lines 27-
`
`well as the depth or height and angular orientation and location of the light
`
`31
`
`extracting deformities may vary along the length and/or width of any given
`
`panel surface area to obtain a desired light output distribution from the
`
`panel member.”
`
`Para.
`
`“Also, the size, including the width, length and depth or height as well as
`
`bridging
`
`the angular orientation and position or location of the light extracting
`
`pages 17
`
`deformities may vary along the length and/or width of any given panel
`
`and 18
`
`surface area to obtain a desired light output distribution from the panel
`
`surface area. FIGS. 36 and 37 show a random or variable pattern of
`
`different sized deformities 105 and 105′ similar in shape to those shown
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`in FIGS. 22 and 23, respectively, arranged in staggered rows on a panel
`
`surface area 22, whereas FIG. 38 shows deformities 126 similar in shape to
`
`those shown in FIG. 29 increasing in size as the distance of the deformities
`
`from the light source increases or intensity of the light decreases along the
`
`length and/or width of the panel surface area 22.”
`
`Page 18,
`
`“Figs. 39 and 40 schematically show different angular orientation of light
`
`lines 9-
`
`extracting deformities 135 of any desired shape along the length and width
`
`17
`
`of a panel surface area 22. In Fig. 39 the light extracting deformities 135
`
`are arranged in straight rows 136 along the length of the panel surface area
`
`but the deformities in each of the rows are oriented to face the light source
`
`3 so that all of the deformities are substantially in line with the light rays
`
`being emitted from the light source. In Fig. 40 the deformities 135 are also
`
`oriented to face the light source 3 similar to Fig. 39. In addition, the rows
`
`137 of deformities in Fig. 40 are in substantial radial alignment with the
`
`light source.”
`
`Claim 7
`
`“The assembly of claim 1 wherein a plurality of light sources are optically
`
`coupled to different portions of the width of the input edge, and at least
`
`one planar light extracting surface of different ones of the deformities at
`
`different locations across the width of the panel surface is angled at
`
`different orientations relative to the input edge to face different portions of
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the input edge to which the different light sources are optically coupled.”
`
`Claim 22 “The assembly of claim 8 wherein a plurality of light sources are optically
`
`coupled to different portions of the width of the input edge, and at least
`
`one of the surfaces of different ones of the deformities at different
`
`locations across the width of the panel surface is angled at different
`
`orientations relative to the input edge to face different portions of the
`
`input edge to which the different light sources are optically coupled.”
`
`Claim 24 “The assembly of claim 23 wherein a plurality of light sources are optically
`
`coupled to different portions of the width of the input edge, and at least
`
`one of the density, size, placement, angle, depth, height or shape of
`
`different ones of at least some of the deformities vary depending on the
`
`location of the deformities on the panel surface relative to the portions of
`
`the input edge to which the different light sources are optically coupled.”
`
`In fact, the only possible support for this limitation is new
`
`figure 39B, reproduced at right, and added on November 28, 2007
`
`with the new claims and the corresponding amendments and
`
`additions to the specification. Ex. 1002, Reply to Office Action of
`
`Aug. 29, 2007 (Nov. 28, 2007), pp. LGD_000177-178; see also Escuti
`
`Decl., ¶ 71. Because the only material
`
`in the specification to
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that inventors possessed “the density,
`
`size, depth and/or height of the deformities in close proximity to the input edge is
`
`greatest at approximate midpoints between adjacent pairs of light sources,” was
`
`introduced by amendment on November 28, 2007, this is the earliest possible date to
`
`which claim 1 of the ’973 can claim priority. See Escuti Decl., ¶¶ 65-73.
`
`B.
`
`Alternatively, The Earliest Priority Date To Which The Patent
`Owner Is Entitled Is February 23, 1999
`To the extent the Board finds support in the specification-as-filed for the new
`
`matter introduced on November 28, 2007, Petitioners maintain that claims 1-5 of the
`
`’973 Patent are not entitled to the priority date of U.S. Patent No. 5,613,751 (“the
`
`’751 Patent”) (“Ex. 1006”), filed on June 27, 1995 because limitations of independent
`
`claim 1 are not sufficiently described in the disclosure of the originally filed
`
`application for the ’751 Patent. See M.P.E.P. § 2163(II)(A)(3)(b).
`
`In this case, the ’973 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,195,389
`
`(“the ’389 Patent”) (“Ex. 1007”), which is continuation of U.S. Patent No. 6,712,481
`
`(“the ’481 Patent”) (“Ex. 1008”). However, the ’481 Patent, filed on February 23,
`
`1999, is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 6,079,838, which is a divisional of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,613,751 (“the ’751 Patent”). The ’481 Patent added a substantial amount
`
`of new matter to both the specification (Ex. 1008, 10:11-14:6) and the figures (id. Figs.
`
`16-47). See Escuti Decl., ¶ 67. The issued claims of the ’973 Patent allegedly draw
`
`from the new matter added in the ’481 Patent. For example, Applicants amended the
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`specification, adding Figs. 39A and 39B, text, and new claims. Ex. 1002, Reply to
`
`Office Action of Aug. 29, 2007 (Nov. 28, 2007), LGD_000176-185. Applicants
`
`argued that the amendments were supported by 2:27-31, 17:32-18:17, and original
`
`claims 7, 22 and 24. Id. pp. 12-13. The cited support in the specification corresponded
`
`to the ’481 Patent at 2:1-6 and 11:59-12:17,1 and is notably absent from the ’751
`
`Patent. See generally, Ex. 1006. Applicants point to no place in the ’751 specification for
`
`support of the ’973 Patent’s claims because the support does not exist. See Escuti
`
`Decl., ¶ 67.
`
`Specifically, the ’751 Patent fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art
`
`that
`
`inventors possessed “a pattern of
`
`individual
`
`light extracting deformities
`
`associated with respective light sources,” “wherein each of the deformities has a
`
`length and width substantially smaller than the length and width of the panel surface,”
`
`and “wherein the density, size, depth and/or height of the deformities in close
`
`proximity to the input edge is greatest at approximate midpoints between adjacent
`
`pairs of the light sources.” See Escuti Decl., ¶¶ 68-71. Thus, the subject matter of
`
`claims 1-5 of the ’973 Patent does not have written support in the ’751 Patent, as
`
`required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 to be entitled the benefit of the filing date of the earlier
`
`filed application. See Escuti Decl., ¶¶ 67-71. At most, the ’973 Patent can only claim
`
`1 The ’973 Patent’s original claims 7, 22, and 24 do not correspond to any support in
`
`the ’481 Patent
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`benefit to the filing date of the ’481 Patent, February 23, 1999 for the claimed subject
`
`matter excluding “the density, size, depth and/or height of the deformities in close
`
`proximity to the input edge is greatest at approximate midpoints between adjacent
`
`pairs of light sources.” See Escuti Decl., ¶ 67.
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’973 PATENT FORMING THE
`BASIS FOR THIS PETITION
`The following documents serve as a basis to show that Petitioner has a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims 1-5 of the
`
`’973 Patent. Petitioner provides a detailed explanation of the pertinence and manner
`
`of applying the cited prior art to claims 1-5 of the ’973 Patent in Section VII, infra. In
`
`light of the prior art references, the light emitting panel assembly in the ’973 Patent is
`
`a function of prior art and obvious design decisions, not innovation or invention.
`
`A.
`
`Admitted Prior Art
`
`The ’973 Patent discusses the following functionality and structure of prior art
`
`light emitting assemblies: (1) a “transparent light emitting panel 2,” (2) “one or more
`
`light sources 3 which emit light in a predetermined pattern,” and (3) “a light transition
`
`member or area 4 used to make the transition from the light source 3 to the light
`
`emitting panel.” Ex. 1001, 4:31-35 (describing these elements and their functionalities
`
`as being “well known in the art”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,195,389 (“the ’389 Patent”) (Ex. 1007)
`B.
`The ’389 Patent discloses light emitting panel assembly configurations which
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“provide for better control of the light output from the panel assembly and more
`
`efficient utilization of light to suit a particular application.” Ex. 1007, 1:18-23. The
`
`’389 Patent qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the application
`
`leading to the ’389 Patent was published on January 22, 2004, over a year before the
`
`November 28, 2007 priority date to which the claims of the ’973 Patent may be
`
`entitled.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,473,554 (“Pelka”) (Ex. 1009)
`C.
`Pelka discloses a low profile lighting apparatus using a waveguide as a backlight
`
`for illuminating a display. Ex. 1009, 1:11-14. Pelka qualifies as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e) because Pelka was filed on September 22, 1997, before either the
`
`November 28, 2007 or the February 23, 1999 priority dates to which the ’973 Patent
`
`may be entitled. Pelka was not cited or considered during prosecution of the
`
`application that led to the ’973 Patent.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,182 (“Shinohara”) (Ex. 1010)
`D.
`Shinohara discloses a surface light source device used for an LCD device where
`
`a smaller light source can be used. Ex. 1010, 1:8-12; 2:52-57. Shinohara qualifies as
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Shinohara was filed on October 27, 1997,
`
`before either the November 28, 2007 or the February 23, 1999 priority date to which
`
`the ’973 Patent may be entitled. Shinohara was not cited or considered during
`
`prosecution of the application that led to the ’973 Patent.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,775,791 (“Yoshikawa”) (Ex. 1011)
`E.
`Yoshikawa discloses “a surface emission apparatus used for illuminating, from
`
`the back, a liquid crystal display panel or the like serving as a body to be illuminated
`
`in.” Ex. 1011, 1:5-8. Yoshikawa qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because
`
`Yoshikawa was filed on October 27, 1994, before the earliest possible priority date
`
`(June 27, 1995) to which the ’973 Patent may be entitled. Yoshikawa was cited as a
`
`reference in an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution, but was not
`
`relied upon as the basis to reject any claim. In fact, Yoshikawa was not discussed on
`
`the record at all during the prosecution proceedings.
`
`EP 0 878 720 (“Funamoto”) (Ex. 1012)
`F.
`Funamoto discloses an illumination device and display device with a light guide
`
`plate arranged at the front f