`
`Filed on behalf of: Toyota Motor Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`By: P. Andrew Riley
`
`Thomas Winland
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`E-mail: andrew.riley@finnegan.com
`
`tom.winland@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Innovative Display Technologies LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00831
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ZANE COLEMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TOYOTA EXHIBIT 1002
`
`Page 1 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. GUIDING LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 1
`
`Anticipation Invalidity ....................................................................................... 2
`
`C. Obviousness Invalidity ...................................................................................... 3
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE ................................................................. 4
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED ........................................................................................ 6
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’974 PATENT ..................................................................... 7
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................... 11
`
`VII. OBVIOUSNESS COMBINATIONS ..................................................................... 12
`
`A. Obviousness of Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 over Plesinger, Pristash and
`Tsunoda ............................................................................................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 19
`
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................... 24
`
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................... 24
`
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................... 24
`
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................... 25
`
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................... 28
`
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 28
`
`B. Obviousness of Claim 13 over Plesinger, Pristash, Tsunoda, and
`Noguchi ................................................................................................................ 29
`
`1.
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 32
`i
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Obviousness of Claim 13 over Plesinger, Pristash, Tsunoda, and
`Sakuma ............................................................................................................... 35
`
`1.
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 39
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 13 over Sakuma, Pristash,
`Tsunoda, and Hathaway ..................................................................................... 42
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 51
`
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................... 55
`
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................... 58
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 59
`
`E. Obviousness of Claim 9 over Sakuma, Pristash, Tsunoda, Hathaway,
`and Plesinger ........................................................................................................ 61
`
`1.
`
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 63
`
`VIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF OBVIOUSNESS ............................ 64
`
`IX. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 64
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Dr. Zane Coleman, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Toyota Motor Corp. (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”)
`
`as an independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office. Although I am being compensated at my usual rate of
`
`$400.00 per hour for the time I spend on this matter, no part of my compensation
`
`depends on the outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other interest in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
`
`(“the ’974 patent”) (attached as Ex. 1001 to the petition). The ’974 patent was filed on
`
`March 17, 2006. I also understand that the ’974 patent is part of a large family and one
`
`of several continuations, continuation-in-part, and/or divisions stemming from U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,613,751, which was filed on June 27, 1995.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to render certain opinions regarding the ’974 patent
`
`and whether certain references disclose or suggest certain features in the claims of
`
`the ’974 patent.
`
`II. GUIDING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`4.
`
`I am informed that a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (“POSITA”)
`
`refers to a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the
`
`time of the invention. Many factors may determine the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`including: (1) the type of problems encountered in the art, (2) prior art solutions to
`
`those problems, (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made, (4) the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and (5) the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field. I understand that a POSITA is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,
`
`meaning that a POSITA may employ inferences and creative steps in their work. I am
`
`informed that the relevant timeframe is prior to June 27, 1995, which is the earliest
`
`priority filing date for the ’974 patent, and the opinions below pertain to that
`
`timeframe.
`
`5.
`
`A POSITA in the art for this patent would have at least an
`
`undergraduate degree in a science or engineering discipline and a few years of work
`
`experience in a field related to optical technology, a graduate degree in a field related
`
`to optical technology, or a few years of continuing education toward a graduate degree
`
`in a field related to optical technology. Accordingly, I have used this definition in my
`
`analysis below.
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation Invalidity
`
`6.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is “anticipated,” and, therefore, invalid,
`
`if a single prior art reference discloses (expressly or inherently) each and every element
`
`of the claimed invention in a manner sufficient to enable a POSITA to practice the
`
`invention, thus placing the invention in possession of the public.
`
`7.
`
`I also understand that under certain circumstances, multiple references
`
`may be used to prove anticipation, specifically to: (a) prove that the primary reference
`2
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`contains an enabled disclosure, (b) explain the meaning of a term used in the primary
`
`reference, or (c) show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent.
`
`C.
`
`Obviousness Invalidity
`
`8.
`
`I understand that even if a prior art reference fails to anticipate a patent
`
`claim, the claim may nonetheless be invalid as “obvious,” if the differences between
`
`the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a POSITA. I
`
`understand that several factual inquiries underlie a determination of obviousness.
`
`These inquiries include the scope and content of the prior art, the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and
`
`any objective “secondary considerations”, discussed below. I understand that a
`
`combination of familiar elements according to known methods may be obvious when
`
`it does no more than yield predictable results. I also understand that common sense
`
`and ordinary creativity of one skilled in the art can be relevant to obviousness.
`
`9.
`
`I have been informed that certain objective secondary considerations
`
`may be relevant to a determination of whether an invention was obvious. Such
`
`secondary considerations may include, e.g., (a) whether there was a long-felt and long-
`
`unmet need for the invention, (b) whether the invention achieved unexpected results,
`
`(c) the commercial success of the invention, and (d) whether the invention was copied
`
`or praised within the industry.
`
`10. My opinions are set forth below.
`3
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`III. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
`
`11. My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of my
`
`background, experience, and publications, is attached as Attachment A to this
`
`Declaration.
`
`12.
`
`In 1992, I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Physics,
`
`including a Certificate in Optics from the Georgia Institute of Technology. I received
`
`my doctorate in Physics at the Loughborough University in the United Kingdom in
`
`1997, focusing on applied rigorous coupled wave diffraction theory to model and
`
`analyze recorded edge-lit holograms. My completed thesis was entitled: Modern
`
`Holographic Recording and Analysis Techniques Applied to Edge-Lit Holograms and their
`
`Applications.
`
`13.
`
`From 1993-1997, I worked as an Optical Engineer at ImEdge
`
`Technology Inc. While at ImEdge Technology I conducted research for a start-up
`
`company developing holographic illumination technology. During this time I also
`
`invented new methods directed to recording edge-lit holograms and edge-lit devices
`
`for display and biometric applications; responsible for seven issued patents.
`
`14.
`
`From 1997 to 2002, I worked as a Senior Physicist for Motorola Labs. I
`
`helped optically design & construct the world’s first personal micro-projector (US
`
`Patent 6,637,896). I also designed reflection and transmission micro-structured optical
`
`films for LCDs as well as 3 new optical film products with suppliers, including an
`
`optical film with 3M, which was shipped in over 100 million cellular phones. During
`4
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`my time at Motorola, I was also responsible for four issued patents and 26 patent
`
`disclosures.
`
`15.
`
`From 2003-2005, I served as the President of Phostech, where my roles
`
`included the optical design & analysis of diffusing films, refractive-TIR films,
`
`projection screens & systems, LCD backlights, lightguides, signs, head-up displays and
`
`light fixtures. I also invented new optical films, projection screens, backlights and
`
`displays, including drafting eight patent applications.
`
`16.
`
`From 2005-2006, I was the Manager of Optical Engineering at Fusion
`
`Optix Inc. where I helped to develop and prototype micro-replicated, multi-functional
`
`optical films for displays and light fixtures through optical modeling prototyping,
`
`analysis, ,and specification. I also analyzed the optical properties of 100 plus polymers,
`
`and the effects of film extrusion; in addition to designing, installing, and managing the
`
`optical film, LED backlight, and light fixture characterization lab. I also led polymer
`
`based optical film research including production and optical characterization.
`
`17.
`
`From 2006-2009, I was the VP of Technology & Director of
`
`Technology at Fusion Optix Inc. In this role, I lead the research strategy and transfer
`
`of technology to product engineering in a fast paced small company providing
`
`innovation in the display and LED lighting industries. I also developed technology
`
`roadmaps, intellectual property strategy, & competitive benchmarking; inventing more
`
`than 35 unique, patentable products in addition to drafting and prosecuting over 60
`
`patent applications. I also oversaw the research and development of optical films,
`5
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`LED backlights, and LED light fixture projects. I also co-developed the optical
`
`system of a Lightfair 2009 Innovation Award-winning light fixture.
`
`18.
`
`In 2009, I rejoined Phostech as President and am presently responsible
`
`for optical consulting and patent strategy & drafting services.
`
`19. Overall, my experience spans more than 25 years embracing relevant
`
`academia and interdisciplinary team innovation which culminated in bringing the
`
`absolute best products to the highly competitive lighting technology display market.
`
`As a result, I am able to pinpoint optimal design and technology directions based on
`
`complex customer needs and dynamic market factors in concert with overall business
`
`needs, marketing collaborates, and the broader product design and engineering groups.
`
`As noted above, I am a named inventor and/or applicant on a substantial number of
`
`patents and patent applications related to the areas of edge-lit holograms, edge-lit
`
`devices for display and biometric applications, optical film for LCD’s, personal micro-
`
`projector, projection screens, backlights and displays, a LED backlights, and other
`
`light fixture devices. I am also a registered patent agent at the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (Reg. No. 65,754). My curriculum vitae also include a more detailed
`
`summary of my background and experience.
`
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`20.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the ’974 patent, the
`
`prosecution history of the ’974 patent, and the following documents:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,146,354 to Plesinger (“Plesinger”);
`6
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 to Pristash et al. (“Pristash”);
`
` Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 06-051130 to Tsunoda et al.
`
`(“Tsunoda”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,504,605 to Sakuma et al. (“Sakuma”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,050,946 to Hathaway et al. (“Hathaway”)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,497,293 to Noguchi et al. (“Noguchi”)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’974 PATENT
`
`21. The ’974 patent describes light emitting panel assemblies. Ex. 1001 at
`
`title. I agree with statements in the ’974 patent acknowledging, that when the
`
`application for the ’974 patent was filed, light emitting panel assemblies were generally
`
`known, and that the following functionality and structure of prior art light emitting
`
`panel assemblies were already known: a transparent light emitting panel and one or
`
`more light sources which emit light in a predetermined pattern and a light transition
`
`member or area used to make the transition from the light source to the light emitting
`
`panel. Id. at 1:23, 2:58-65 and Fig. 1. The ’974 disclosure describes that light is emitted
`
`along the entire length of the light emitting panel 2 or from one or more light output
`
`areas along the length of the panel 2 to produce a desired light output distribution to
`
`fit a particular application. Id. at 2:65-3:3 and Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 74
`
`

`

`22.
`
`I also agree with the ’974 disclosure that the prior art shown in Figure 1
`
`below represents a light emitting panel assembly 1, light emitting panel 2, light source
`
`3, and light transition member or area 4 well known when the application was filed:
`
`
`
`
`23. According to the ’974 patent, to improve on the control and utilization
`
`of light output from such assemblies, the ’974 patent uses a light emitting panel
`
`assembly 32 (Fig. 6) including a panel member 33, one or more light sources 3, and
`
`one or more light output areas 34, and a tray 35 having a cavity or recess 36 in which
`
`the panel assembly 32 is received. Id. at 6:53-60 and Fig. 6. The ’974 disclosure
`
`explains that the tray 35 acts as a back reflector as well as end edge and/or side edge
`
`reflectors for the panel 33 and side and/or back reflectors 37 for the light sources 3.
`
`Id. The ’974 patent also discloses that one or more secondary reflective or refractive
`
`surfaces 38 may be provided on the panel member 33 and/or tray 35. Id. at 6:61-63.
`
`24.
`
`Figure 6 copied below shows the light emitting panel assembly 32, panel
`
`member 33, reflective or refractive surfaces 38, and tray 35:
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`
`25. The ’974 patent discloses in another embodiment, a light emitting panel
`
`assembly 11 (Fig. 3) including a light transition area 12 at one end of a light emitting
`
`panel 14 having reflective and/or refractive surfaces 15 around and behind two light
`
`sources 3. Id. at 3:39-50 and Fig. 3, reproduced below. The ’974 patent discloses
`
`providing reflective materials or coatings on portions of the reflective and/or
`
`refractive surfaces 15 to focus a portion of light emitted from the light sources 3
`
`through the light transition areas 12 into a light input surface 19 of the light emitting
`
`panel 14. Id. A back reflector 26 is attached or positioned against one side of the panel
`
`member 14 using a suitable adhesive 28. Id. at 6:8-24 and Figs. 3 and 5. A transparent
`
`film, sheet or plate 27 is attached or positioned against the side of sides of the panel
`
`member 14 (from which light is emitted) using a suitable adhesive 28. Id. The film,
`
`sheet, or plate 27 “may be a colored film, a diffuser, or a label or display, a portion of
`
`which may be a transparent overlay that may be colored and/or have text or an image
`
`thereon.” Id. at 6:25-29.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 74
`
`

`

`26.
`
`Figure 3 copied below shows the light emitting panel assembly 11, light
`
`emitting panel 14, reflective and/or refractive surfaces 15, back reflector 26, and
`
`transparent film 27:
`
`
`
`
`27. The ’974 patent also discloses a pattern of light extracting deformities 21,
`
`23, 24, and/or 25 being provided on one or both sides of the panel member 14. Id. at
`
`6:15-24, Fig. 4. Figures 4a-4d below show light extracting deformities 21, 23, 24, and
`
`25:
`
`
`28. The ’974 disclosure discloses that each light source 3 may be of any
`
`suitable type including, for example, an arc lamp, an incandescent bulb, a lens end
`
`bulb, a line light, a halogen lamp, a light emitting diode (LED), a chip from an LED, a
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`neon bulb, a fluorescent tube, a fiber optic light pipe, a laser or laser diode, or any
`
`other suitable light source. Id. at 4:12-22; see also id. at 4:22-30 (explaining that the
`
`light source may be a multiple colored LED or a combination of multiple colored
`
`radiation sources).
`
`29.
`
`Figure 9 from the ’974 patent below shows “another form of light
`
`emitting panel assembly 50,” wherein panel member 51 has “multiple light output
`
`areas 52 and mounting posts and/or mounting tabs 53.” Id. at 7:30-33. I agree with
`
`the ’974 patent that by providing holes or cavities 54, 55 in the panel member 51, the
`
`panel assembly 50 acts as a structural member for supporting other parts or
`
`components. Id. at 7:33-38. The holes or cavities 54, 55 “allow for the insertion of
`
`modular components or other parts into the panel member.” Id.
`
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`30.
`
`I have been advised that the first step of assessing the validity of a patent
`
`claim is to interpret or construe the meaning of the claim.
`
`31.
`
`I have been advised that in inter partes review proceedings before the
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, claim terms of an expired patent are given their
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by a POSITA.
`11
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 74
`
`

`

`32.
`
`I discuss below what I understand to be Toyota’s proposed construction
`
`
`
`of the claim term “deformities.”
`
`“deformities” (Claims 1, 7, 13)
`
`33. The specification of the ’974 patent expressly defines the term
`
`“deformities,” as follows: “As 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.” Id. at 4:36-40. Accordingly, in light of the express definition provided by
`
`the ’974 patent, “deformities,” 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.” I agree that this is a reasonable construction for this term.
`
`VII. OBVIOUSNESS COMBINATIONS
`
`A. Obviousness of Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 over Plesinger,
`Pristash and Tsunoda
`
`34.
`
`Plesinger issued on September 8, 1992. I have been informed that Plesinger
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`35.
`
`Plesinger discloses a backlighted liquid crystal display system including a
`
`light pipe 104 having an edge surface 102 and an opposite or front surface 108. Ex.
`
`1003 at 1:8-10; 3:48-56; Figs. 2-4. “A single light source 100, preferably a florescent
`
`[sic] light tube, is attached to one edge surface 102 of a light pipe 104.” Id. at 3:48-50.
`
`“[L]ight from the light source 100 is directed by a back surface 106 which is capable
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`of reflecting and distributing the light from the light source 100 perpendicularly over
`
`an entire opposite, or front surface 108 of the light pipe 104.” Id. at 3:52-56; see also
`
`Figs. 2 and 3.
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement
`
`the light source disclosed by Plesinger as an LED and a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to do so, as discussed below.
`
`37. The use of an LED in lighting apparatuses, in particular, LCD or other
`
`displays, utilizing edge-illuminated light guides where totally internally reflected light is
`
`frustrated to emit light from the light guide was well-known in the industry at that
`
`time. For example, Tsunoda was published on February 25, 1994. Ex. 1011 at p. 2. I
`
`have been informed that Tsunoda is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Tsunoda (Ex.
`
`1011) discloses a surface lighting device including a light-guide plate 4 and a light
`
`source 3 comprising one or more LED’s. Ex. 1011 at ¶¶ 15, 25. Tsunoda’s disclosed
`
`advantages of using an LED for the light source, including, for example, a lower drive
`
`voltage than fluorescent tubes, a simpler and smaller design, and lower power
`
`consumption were known in the industry at that time. Id. at ¶ 8.
`
`Motivation to use an LED light source
`
`38. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the LED of
`
`Tsunoda for the light source of Plesinger in order to provide a liquid crystal display
`
`device with, e.g., a lower drive voltage, simpler and smaller design, and lower power
`
`consumption. Such a modification of Plesinger would constitute no more than an
`13
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`obvious design choice to one skilled in the art at the time the ’974 patent was filed.
`
`Indeed, in my opinion such a modification would simply improve the liquid crystal
`
`display system disclosed by Plesinger in the same way as it improves the apparatus in
`
`Tsunoda (e.g., providing a liquid crystal display device with a light source deriving a
`
`lower drive voltage, a simpler and smaller design, and lower power consumption).
`
`39. Moreover, such a modification and improvement could be achieved by
`
`substituting one light source as discussed by Plesinger (e.g., a fluorescent light tube)
`
`with another known light source (an LED), yielding a predictable result. The use of an
`
`LED as a light source for backlighting liquid crystal displays and other displays was
`
`known in the industry, as acknowledged, e.g., by the ’974 patent’s named inventor, Mr.
`
`Parker, in the prior art Pristash patent (Ex, 1012). I have been informed that Pristash
`
`issued on April 2, 1991, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pristash discloses “an
`
`LED” as one of several interchangeable light sources, including, for example, an
`
`incandescent bulb or a fluorescent tube (notably disclosed by Plesinger) as suitable for
`
`illuminating a panel. Ex. 1012 at 3:9-22 (“[a] light source 3 of any suitable type may be
`
`used . . . . Light source 3 includes a radiation source 8 such as an arc lamp, an
`
`incandescent bulb, a lens end bulb, an LED or a fluorescent tube or the like.”).
`
`40. Based further on the teaching of Pristash of the interchangeably of an
`
`LED with other light sources for backlighting liquid crystal displays, it would have
`
`been obvious to a POSITA to implement the light source of Plesinger as an LED,
`
`yielding the advantages of lower drive voltage, simpler and smaller design, and lower
`14
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`power consumption, leading to a longer life, as taught by Tsunoda. Ex. 1003 at 3:48-56;
`
`Ex. 1011 at ¶ 8, Ex. 1012 at 3:9-22.
`
`41. The backlighted liquid crystal display system of Plesinger further includes
`
`a “plastic enclosure 126 [that] preferably comprises . . . a pan-shaped back member
`
`132 having lip members 134 . . . , wherein the tabs 130 align and snap together with
`
`the lip members 134 such that the front panel 128 attaches to the back member 132
`
`to form the enclosure 126 which encompasses the entire LCD display system.” Ex.
`
`1003 at 4:33-40; see also Figs. 2 and 4. The backlight structure of Plesinger “is more
`
`completely described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 589,325, filed Sep. 27, 1990,
`
`entitled “Faceted Light Pipe” by Hathaway et al., which is assigned to a common
`
`assignee and which is hereby incorporated by reference.” Id. at 3:57-62.
`
`42. Hathaway, which issued on September 24, 1991, discloses a backlight
`
`system where “[i]n the macroscopic view of FIG. 5 the back surface 112 of the light
`
`pipe 100 appears to be a straight wedge or planar surface but in the enlarged views
`
`shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 the stair stepped or faceted structure is clearly shown.” Ex.
`
`1005 at 4:48-52; see also Figs. 5, 10. “The back surface 112 consists of a series of
`
`portions 114 parallel with the front surface 110, with a series of facets 116 leading to
`
`the next parallel portion 114.” Id. at 4:53-55. A POSITA would have understood that
`
`the facets 116 cause light to be emitted from the light emitting surface of the front
`
`surface of the light pipe 100.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Motivation to use a reflective frame
`
`43. As shown below in the annotated version of Fig. 4 of Plesinger (Ex. 1003),
`
`the back member 132 of the plastic enclosure 26 includes end walls and side walls.
`
`Because Fig. 4 is a partial view of the liquid crystal display, one of the end/side walls
`
`of the back member 132 is not shown. Ex. 1003 at 2:53-54. In my opinion, it would
`
`have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the back member 132 taught by
`
`Plesinger as a reflective frame having end edge reflectors and side edge reflectors, as
`
`claimed in the ’974 patent.
`
`
`44. The use of a reflective frame for receiving a light emitting panel member
`
`was well-known in the industry in the mid-1990’s. For example, Tsunoda discloses that
`16
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`“[a] holder (9) may be fabricated out of white material that demonstrates the same
`
`performance as that of reflection film and that incorporates the light-guide plate, as
`
`shown in Figure 10, instead of using reflection film.” Ex. 1011 at ¶ 27. The holder 9 is
`
`a “light-guide plate holder,” id. at ¶ 40 (“Brief Description of Drawings” describing
`
`Figure 10 as a “[p]erspective view illustrating a light-guide plate holder”), and the light
`
`guide plate 4 is shown, for example, in Figs. 1-6. Based on this disclosure of Tsunoda,
`
`in my opinion a POSITA would understand that the holder 9 includes end walls and
`
`side walls that act as end edge reflectors and side edge reflectors for the light guide
`
`plate 4.
`
`45.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would also have been motivated to
`
`implement the reflective properties of Tsunoda for the frame (back member 132) of
`
`Plesinger in order to improve the direction and redirection of light into the light pipe
`
`104. Such a modification of Plesinger would constitute no more than an obvious design
`
`choice to one skilled in the art. Indeed, in my opinion such a modification would
`
`simply improve the liquid crystal display device disclosed by Plesinger in the same way
`
`as it improves the apparatus in Tsunoda (e.g., by providing a liquid crystal display
`
`device with a reflective frame, more light can be directed and redirected to the light
`
`emitting panel member).
`
`46. The disclosure of Plesinger indicates that reflecting light through the front
`
`surface 108 of the light pipe 104 was desired. Ex. 1003 at 1:49-51, 3:52-56, 62-65. For
`
`example, “[l]ight from the light source 100 is directed by a back surface 106 which is
`17
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`capable of reflecting and distributing the
`
`light from the
`
`light source 100
`
`perpendicularly over an entire opposite, or front surface 108 of the light pipe 104.”
`
`Ex. 1003 at 3:52-56.
`
`47. Therefore, based on the further teaching of Tsunoda, and in light of the
`
`desire described in Plesinger to reflect light through the front surface 108 of the light
`
`pipe 104 (Ex. 1003 at Fig. 2), it would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement
`
`the reflective properties of the reflective frames of Tsunoda, yielding the advantages of
`
`reflecting and distributing light, as taught by Plesinger. Ex. 1003 at 1:49-51, 3:52-56, 62-
`
`65; Ex. 1011 at ¶ 27, Fig. 10.
`
`Use of a diffuser
`
`48.
`
`Plesinger, with reference to Hathaway, discloses a film positioned near the
`
`light emitting surface of the panel member. For example, Hathaway discloses that “the
`
`upper surface of the light pipe 100 is planar, specular and is adjacent a low trapping
`
`and low scattering diffuser 111.” Ex. 1005 at 4:37-39. In my opinion, a POSITA
`
`would recognize that diffusion sheets, like the diffuser 111 disclosed by Hathaway, are
`
`necessarily “for changing the output ray angle distribution of the emitted light to fit a
`
`particular application,” e.g., a liquid crystal display as claimed in the ‘974 patent. Ex.
`
`1005 at 4:37-39.
`
`49. Based on the foregoing and the discussion which follows, in my opinion
`
`the subject matter claimed in claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 of the ’974 patent would have
`
`been obvious to a POSITA based on the teachings of Plesinger, with reference to
`18
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`Hathaway as discussed herein, in combination with the teachings of Pristash and
`
`Tsunoda.
`
`1.
`
`50.
`
`Claim 1
`1.1
`
`“A light emitting panel assembly comprising”
`
`It is my opinion that Plesinger discloses to a POSITA a backlighted liquid
`
`crystal display system (the claimed “light emitting panel assembly”) with uniform
`
`brightness of the viewing area. Ex. 1003 at 1:8-10; Figs. 2 and 4.
`
`1.2
`
`“at least a light emitting panel member having a light
`entrance surface and a light emitting surface,”
`
`Plesinger discloses a light pipe 104 (the claimed “light emitting panel
`
`51.
`
`member”) having an edge surface 102 (the claimed “light entrance surface”) and an
`
`opposite or front surface 108 (the claimed “light emitting surface”). Id. at 3:48-56;
`
`Figs. 2 and 3. Plesinger discloses that “[a] single light source 100, preferably a florescent
`
`[sic] light tube, is attached to one edge surface 102 of a light pipe 104.” Id. at 3:48-50.
`
`“[L]ight from the light source 100 is directed by a back surface 106 which is capable
`
`of reflecting and distributing the light from the light source 100 perpendicularly over
`
`an entire opposite, or front surface 108 of the light pipe 104.” Id. at 3:52-56; see also
`
`Figs. 2 and 3.
`
`1.3
`
`“at least one LED light source positioned near or against the
`light entrance surface, and”
`
`52.
`
`Plesinger also discloses “[a] single light source 100, preferably a florescent
`
`
`
`[sic] light tube, is attached to one edge surface 102 of a light pipe 104.” Id. at 3:48-50.
`19
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 74
`
`

`

`
`
`Plesinger is not viewed as disclosing that the at least one light source comprises at least
`
`one LED. However, as discussed above, Tsunoda and