UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2014-01092
`
`Patent 7,434,974
`_______________
`
`PETITION FOR INTERPARTESREVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,434,974
`
`TOYOTA EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 1 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES...................................................................................... 1
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES............................................................................................... 4
`
`STANDING................................................................................................................ 4
`
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13,
`and 17 OF THE ’974 PATENT.............................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technology Background ............................................................................... 5
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’974 Patent................................................ 6
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`Standards For Claim Construction .............................................................. 7
`
`1.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Construction.................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`“deformities” (Claims 1, 7, 13, And 17)...................................................... 8
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’974 PATENT FORMING THE
`BASIS FOR THIS PETITION................................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Admitted Prior Art ........................................................................................ 9
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,351 (“Funamoto”) (Ex. 1007)................................ 9
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,548,271 (“Tsuchiyama”) (Ex. 1008)............................. 9
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,654,779 (“Nakayama”) (Ex. 1009).............................. 10
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM....................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, And 13 Are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. §103(a) As Being Obvious Over Funamoto................................. 11
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-11, And 13 Are Unpatentable Under
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) As Being Obvious Over Tsuchiyama In View Of
`Funamoto...................................................................................................... 26
`i
`
`Page 2 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 13 And 17 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) As Being Obvious Over Funamoto In View Of Nakayama. ... 40
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................ 51
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
`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. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,351 (“Funamoto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,548,271 (“Tsuchiyama”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,654,779 (“Nakayama”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,060 (“the ’060 Patent”) and corresponding file
`history
`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”)
`EP500960 (“Ohe”)
`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. 5,706,134 (“Konno”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,405 (“Takeuchi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,381,309 (“Borchardt”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,915,478 (“Lenko”)
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §311, Petitioner hereby respectfully request inter partes
`
`review of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13, and 17 of Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 (“the
`
`’974 Patent”) which issued on October 14, 2008. The challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 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 ’974 Patent is the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by the Patent
`
`Owner, Innovative Display Technologies LLC (see Ex. 1003), against Petitioner in the
`
`United States District Court for the District of Delaware: Delaware Display Group LLC
`
`and Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd., and LG Display America, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-02109. The ’974
`
`Patent is also asserted in at least the actions listed in the chart below.
`
`Description
`Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“IDT”) v. Acer Inc.
`et al.
`IDT v. Apple Inc.
`IDT v. Apple Inc.
`
`Docket Number
`2:13-cv-522, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00030, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00301, EDTX
`
`1
`
`Page 5 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Description
`IDT v. AT&T Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. BMW of North America, LLC, et. al.
`IDT v. Canon U.S.A. Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Research in Motion Limited et al.
`IDT v. Dell Inc.
`IDT v. Garmin International, Inc., et. al.
`
`IDT v. Google Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Hewlett-Packard Corporation
`IDT v. Huawei Investment et al.
`IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group, et. al.
`IDT v. Mazda Motor Corporation, et. al.
`IDT v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Microsoft Corporation
`IDT v. Mitac Digital Corporation, et. al.
`IDT v. Nikon Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Nissan Motor, Co., Ltd., et. al.
`IDT v. Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc.
`IDT v. Sprint Corporation, et. al.
`IDT v. T-Mobile US, Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Tomtom North America Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et. al.
`IDT v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. Volkswagen AG, et. al.
`IDT v. ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Delaware Display Group LLC (“DDG”) and IDT v.
`Amazon.com, Inc.
`DDG and IDT v. HTC Corporation et al.
`
`2
`
`Docket Number
`2:14-cv-00720, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00532, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00106, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00142, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00526, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00523, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00143, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00302, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00524, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00525, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00201, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00624, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00535, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00783, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00144, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00145, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00202, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00784, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00721, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00723, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00146, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00200, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00722, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00300, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00527, EDTX
`1:13-cv-2106, D.Del.
`
`1:13-cv-02107, D.Del.
`
`Page 6 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Description
`DDG and IDT v. Lenovo Group Ltd., et al.
`DDG and IDT v. LG Electronics Inc., et al.
`DDG and IDT v. Pantech Co.,Ltd, et al.
`DDG and IDT v. Sony Corporation et al.
`DDG and IDT v. Vizio, Inc.
`
`Docket Number
`1:13-cv-02108, D.Del.
`1:13-cv-02109, D.Del.
`1:13-cv-02110, D.Del.
`1:13-cv-02111, D.Del.
`1:13-cv-02112, D.Del.
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing petitions to review U.S. Patent Nos. 7,300,194,
`
`7,404,660, 7,537,370, and 8,215,816 which are in the same family as the ’974 Patent.
`
`The ’974 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,160,015.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel.
`
`Petitioner provides 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, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: 202.263.3000
`Facsimile:
`202.263.3300
`
`3
`
`Page 7 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`alam@mayerbrown.com
`
`D. Service Information. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4), Petitioner identifies
`
`the following service information: Please direct all correspondence regarding 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 ’974 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, 3-5, 7-11,
`13, AND 17 OF THE ’974 PATENT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b), Petitioner requests that the Board find
`
`unpatentable Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13, and 17 of the ’974 Patent. Such relief is justified
`
`4
`
`Page 8 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`as the alleged invention of the ’974 Patent was described by others prior to the
`
`effective filing date of the ’974 Patent.
`
`Technology Background
`A.
`Generally, light emitting panel assemblies are used in conjunction with liquid
`
`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.”), ¶38. 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 (“Ciupke”).
`
`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. The light pipe, also sometimes called a
`
`light guide or wave guide, accepts light injected from the side and distributes it across
`
`5
`
`Page 9 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the emission area. The ’974 Patent calls the light pipe a “transparent panel member”
`
`(e.g., 1:19-20), “light emitting panel member” (e.g., 1:33-34), and “transparent light
`
`emitting panel” (e.g., 2:66). Escuti Decl., ¶43. The transition area, which is usually
`
`between the light source and the light pipe, is used to securely position the light
`
`source relative to the light pipe, and to spread and transmit light to produce a more
`
`uniform input illumination. Escuti Decl., ¶44. Deformities, such as microprisms,
`
`diffusers, and microlenses, are employed to control
`
`the direction and spatial
`
`uniformity of light within light emitting panel assemblies. Id. ¶45.
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’974 Patent
`B.
`The ’974 Patent relates “to light emitting panel assemblies each including a
`
`transparent panel member for efficiently conducting light, and controlling the light
`
`conducted by the panel member to be emitted from one or more light output areas
`
`along the length thereof.” Ex. 1001, 1:18-22. The ’974 Patent discloses an edge-lit
`
`light emitting panel assembly, which can also be referred to as a backlight. Edge-lit
`
`light emitting panel assemblies are often preferred because they can be physically
`
`thinner and lower weight. Escuti Decl., ¶40. As the ’974 Patent acknowledges, “[l]ight
`
`emitting panel assemblies are generally known.” Ex. 1001, 1:23. The purported
`
`advantage of the alleged invention described in the ’974 Patent relates to several
`
`different light emitting panel assembly configurations which allegedly provide for
`
`better control of light output from the panel assembly and for more “efficient”
`
`6
`
`Page 10 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`utilization of light, thereby resulting in greater light output from the panel assembly.
`
`Id. 1:24-28. Yet, such advantages are common knowledge, as prior art such as U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”) has already disclosed them. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 1:10-
`
`16.
`
`The ’974 Patent discloses a light emitting assembly including a light emitting
`
`panel member received in a cavity or recess in a tray or housing. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`The panel member has a pattern of light extracting deformities on or in at least one
`
`surface of the panel member to cause light received from at least one LED light
`
`source positioned near or against the light entrance surface of the panel member to be
`
`emitted from a light emitting surface of the panel member. Id. The tray or housing
`
`acts as an end edge and/or side edge reflector for the panel member to reflect light
`
`that would otherwise exit the panel member through the end edge and/or side edge
`
`back into the panel member for causing additional light to be emitted from the panel
`
`member. Id.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Standards For Claim Construction
`1.
`Broadest Reasonable Construction
`
`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.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.100(b). This means that the words of the claim are given their plain meaning
`
`7
`
`Page 11 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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).
`
`Petitioner submits, 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 ’974 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`“deformities” (Claims 1, 7, 13, And 17)
`
`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.” Ex. 1001, 4:36-40. Thus,
`
`based on the express definition of deformities in the specification, “deformities”
`
`(Claims 1, 7, 13, and 17) 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.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’974 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, 3-5, 7-
`
`9, 13, and 17 of the ’974 Patent. Petitioner provides a detailed explanation of the
`
`pertinence and manner of applying the cited prior art to Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13, and
`
`17 of the ’974 Patent in Section VII, infra. It will be shown that, in light of the prior
`
`8
`
`Page 12 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`art references, the light emitting assembly in the ’974 Patent is a function of prior art
`
`and obvious design decisions, not innovation or invention.
`
`Admitted Prior Art
`A.
`The ’974 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, 2:58-65 (describing these elements and their functionalities
`
`as being “well known in the art”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,351 (“Funamoto”) (Ex. 1007)
`B.
`Funamoto discloses a surface-type illumination device suitable for providing a
`
`backlight in an LCD. Ex. 1007, Abstract. Funamoto qualifies as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(e) because Funamoto entered national stage under 35 U.S.C. §371 on
`
`May 10, 1994 before the June 27, 1995 priority date to which the ’974 Patent may be
`
`entitled. Funamoto was not cited or considered during prosecution of the application
`
`that led to the ’974 Patent.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,548,271 (“Tsuchiyama”) (Ex. 1008)
`
`Tsuchiyama discloses a data display radio pager including an LCD provided
`
`with at least one backlight LED for illuminating the LCD, and a backlight structure
`
`for accommodating, together with the backlight LED, at least one alert LED for
`
`alerting a user of the radio pager to an incoming call in the LCD. Ex. 1008, 1:58-62.
`9
`
`Page 13 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Tsuchiyama qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) because Tsuchiyama was
`
`filed on June 24, 1994, before the June 27, 1995 priority date to which the ’974 Patent
`
`may be entitled. Tsuchiyama was not cited or considered during prosecution of the
`
`application that led to the ’974 Patent.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,654,779 (“Nakayama”) (Ex. 1009)
`D.
`Nakayama discloses an LCD device wherein at least a part of the light guiding
`
`board can be removed from the lighting unit section or lighting means can be
`
`removed from the LCD panel section without removing the frames and without the
`
`need of varying the outer dimensions and thickness of the device, utilizing light with
`
`higher efficiency and with lighter weight removable portions. Ex. 1009, 2:12-24.
`
`Nakayama qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) because Nakayama was filed
`
`on December 29, 1994, before the June 27, 1995 priority date to which the ’974
`
`Patent may be entitled. Nakayama was not cited or considered during prosecution of
`
`the application that led to the ’974 Patent.
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM
`In light of the disclosures detailed below, the ’974 Patent is unpatentable for at
`
`least the reasons summarized in the chart below and discussed in more detail herein.
`
`Ground #
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`Ground
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`Prior art
`Funamoto
`Tsuchiyama in
`view of Funamoto
`Funamoto in view
`of Nakayama
`
`10
`
`Exhibit(s) #
`1007
`1008 and 1007
`
`1007 and 1009
`
`Claims
`1, 3-5, 7-11, 13
`1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-11,
`13
`13, 17
`
`Page 14 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, And 13 Are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. §103(a) As Being Obvious Over Funamoto
`It is well known in the light emitting panel assembly field to include a light
`
`emitting panel member and the other structural features, as required by independent
`
`Claims 1 and 13.
`
`Indeed,
`
`in the Background of the Invention, the ’974 Patent
`
`concedes “[l]ight emitting panel assemblies are generally known.” Ex. 1001, 1:23. The
`
`“novel” feature was “light emitting panel assembly configurations which provide for
`
`better control of the light output from the panel assemblies and for more efficient
`
`utilization of light, which results in greater light output from the panel assemblies.” Id.
`
`1:24-28. However, the purportedly “novel” feature was fully described in Funamoto.
`
`Funamoto (Ex. 1007) discloses Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, and 13 of the ’974 Patent
`
`and therefore renders those claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103. According to
`
`Funamoto, the increased use of surface-type illumination devices with a cylindrical
`
`light source and a flat polarizer as backlights for LCD panels in addition to the
`
`increased use of LCD panels for color displays calls for the LCD panels to become
`
`thinner and lighter with less power consumption. Ex. 1007, 1:15-38. Some problems
`
`Funamoto aimed to solve include overheating and the increased number of necessary
`
`driver circuits. Id. 1:42-66. To address these concerns, Funamoto discloses an
`
`illumination device for color LCDs that are small, lightweight, with high and uniform
`
`brightness, which can also be temperature controlled, and without increasing the
`
`number of driver circuits needed. Id. 2:3-23.
`
`11
`
`Page 15 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes ReviewReview
`
`
`
`
`
`The elements of Claim 1 of theThe elements of Claim 1 of the ’974 Patent are shown in the annotated figure’974 Patent are shown in the annotated figure
`
`
`
`
`
`to the right, composed of Figures 14 and 15 of Funamoto the right, composed of Figures 14 and 15 of Funamoto that are labeled as claimto that are labeled as claim
`
`elements.
`
`
`
`
`
`Notably, the “polarizer” of Funamoto is the panel member of theNotably, the “polarizer” of Funamoto is the panel member of theNotably, the “polarizer” of Funamoto is the panel member of the ’974 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Although it is not immediately clear that the polarizer is a light emitting panelAlthough it is not immediately clear that the polarizer is a light emitting panelAlthough it is not immediately clear that the polarizer is a light emitting panel
`
`
`
`
`
`member, consideration of Funamoto’s child patent,member, consideration of Funamoto’s child patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,108,060 (“theU.S. Patent No. 6,108,060 (“the
`
`
`
`
`
`’060 Patent”) (Ex. 1010) illustrates that the(Ex. 1010) illustrates that the ’060 Patent includes the exact same’060 Patent includes the exact same
`
`
`
`
`
`sentence as in Funamoto, but with “polarizer” replaced with “light guide platence as in Funamoto, but with “polarizer” replaced with “light guide platence as in Funamoto, but with “polarizer” replaced with “light guide plate
`
`
`
`(“Illumination device 20 is a surfaceIllumination device 20 is a surface-type illumination device set up with a cylindricallytype illumination device set up with a cylindrically-shaped
`
`
`
`
`
`fluorescent light 22 at the edge of substantially rectangularfluorescent light 22 at the edge of substantially rectangular light guide plate 21.” Ex. 1010, 6:31.” Ex. 1010, 6:31-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33). As previously discussed, a light guide is an example of a light pipe/panel33). As previously discussed, a light guide is an example of a light pipe/panel33). As previously discussed, a light guide is an example of a light pipe/panel
`
`
`
`
`
`member. Therefore, the “polarizer” of Funamoto is the same as the light emittingmember. Therefore, the “polarizer” of Funamoto is the same as the light emittingmember. Therefore, the “polarizer” of Funamoto is the same as the light emitting
`
`
`
`
`
`panel member of the ’974 P’974 Patent because the light polarizer has a light entranceatent because the light polarizer has a light entrance
`
`
`
`
`
`surface and a light emitting surface, as is clear from the assembly structure and thesurface and a light emitting surface, as is clear from the assembly structure and thesurface and a light emitting surface, as is clear from the assembly structure and the
`
`12
`
`Page 16 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes ReviewReview
`
`
`
`function of the polarizer. SeeSee Escuti Decl., ¶¶72-74.
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’974 Patent requires at least one LED light source positioned near or’974 Patent requires at least one LED light source positioned near or’974 Patent requires at least one LED light source positioned near or
`
`
`
`
`
`against the light entrance surface. Although Funamoto does not explicitly disclose anagainst the light entrance surface. Although Funamoto does not explicitly disclose anagainst the light entrance surface. Although Funamoto does not explicitly disclose an
`
`
`
`LED, it does describe a light sourceLED, it does describe a light source (“cylindrically-shaped fluorescent light 2shaped fluorescent light 22,” Ex. 1007,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6:24-25). Funamoto also repeatedly mentions decreased power consumption as a25). Funamoto also repeatedly mentions decreased power consumption as a25). Funamoto also repeatedly mentions decreased power consumption as an
`
`objective.
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. 1:5-12, 12:66-67. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would67. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would67. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`
`
`easily substitute an LED for the fluorescent light source disclosed.n LED for the fluorescent light source disclosed. SeeSee Escuti Decl.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`¶¶76-78. This is particularly true because an LED would have been an obvious designThis is particularly true because an LED would have been an obvious designThis is particularly true because an LED would have been an obvious design
`
`
`
`
`
`choice atchoice atchoice at
`
`
`
`
`
`the time of Funamoto, selected forthe time of Funamoto, selected forthe time of Funamoto, selected for
`
`
`
`
`
`its efficiency and low powerits efficiency and low powerits efficiency and low power
`
`
`
`consumption, among other things.consumption, among other things. See id. ¶77.
`
`
`
`Finally, Funamoto teaches a tray withFinally, Funamoto teaches a tray with
`
`
`
`posts,posts,
`
`
`
`tabs, or other structuraltabs, or other structural
`
`
`
`features thatfeatures that
`
`
`
`provide a mount for mounting of the assemblyprovide a mount for mounting of the assembly
`
`
`
`into a larger assembly or device as seen to theinto a larger assembly or device as seen to the
`
`
`
`
`
`right as element 4, encircled in annotated Figure 1. The structural feature reright as element 4, encircled in annotated Figure 1. The structural feature reright as element 4, encircled in annotated Figure 1. The structural feature represented
`
`
`
`
`
`by element 4 allows for the bottom tray with all of the components within, to beby element 4 allows for the bottom tray with all of the components within, to beby element 4 allows for the bottom tray with all of the components within, to be
`
`
`
`mounted into the top case. SeeSee id. ¶¶79-81.
`
`
`
`
`
`With respect to Claim 7, the annotated figure and explanatWith respect to Claim 7, the annotated figure and explanation above illustratesion above illustrates
`
`
`
`
`
`that Funamoto teaches all the elements of Claim 1, in addition to the tray or housingthat Funamoto teaches all the elements of Claim 1, in addition to the tray or housingthat Funamoto teaches all the elements of Claim 1, in addition to the tray or housing
`
`
`
`
`
`having posts, tabs, or other structural features that provide a mount or structuralhaving posts, tabs, or other structural features that provide a mount or structuralhaving posts, tabs, or other structural features that provide a mount or structural
`
`13
`
`Page 17 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`support for at least one other part or component. Any other component that is
`
`unlabeled within annotated Figures 14 and 15 qualifies as the “at least one other part
`
`or component” that the tray’s structural features provide structural support. See id.
`
`¶¶103-106. This component can be an LCD as required in Claim 8 of the ’974 Patent
`
`as disclosed (“Upper frame 38 acts as a spacer to secure the gap between liquid crystal display
`
`panel 10 and illumination device 60.” Ex. 1007, 13:53-54), and as also seen in lilac in
`
`annotated Figure 2 below, where the other components are colored in accordance to
`
`their labels in annotated Figs. 14 and 15.
`
`The “component” can also be a printed circuit (“Also, at side 10b, which is adjacent
`
`to side 10a, a plurality of driver ICs 14 are installed for latching pixel data for the columns and
`
`sending it to the liquid crystal display panel.” Ex. 1007, 6:3-9), as required by Claim 9 of the
`
`’974 Patent. See Escuti Decl., ¶¶114-115.
`
`Claim 13 of the ’974 is met by Funamoto, as shown above in annotated Figures
`
`14 and 15 of Funamoto. An additional component is overlaying the panel member,
`
`including any element located above the “panel member” in the expanded view in
`
`Figure 15. See id. ¶¶124-128. Further, Funamoto teaches the panel member having at
`
`least one of a tab, hole, cavity, or protrusion that positions the tray or housing relative
`
`14
`
`Page 18 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`to the panel member. The corners of the panel member are removed in order to
`
`install the light source so that the light source and the panel member fit together
`
`appropriately. Ex. 1007, 14:12-27; see also Escuti Decl., ¶¶124-128. The cavity, or
`
`empty space within a solid object, in the corner of the panel allows for positioning of
`
`the panel relative to the light source and into the tray. See id.
`
`The claim chart below shows a detailed analysis of how each element of Claims
`
`1, 3-5, 7-11, and 13 of the ’974 Patent is obvious over Funamoto. For all these
`
`reasons, Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, and 13 are unpatentable in view of Funamoto and thus,
`
`Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim.
`
`’974 Claim Element
`1. A light emitting panel
`assembly comprising
`
`Funamoto (Ex. 1007)
`“In liquid crystal display 1,
`illumination device 20 is
`installed in lower case 3. Above that, liquid crystal display
`panel 10 is installed using frame 30 and 31.” Ex. 1007,
`5:61-67; see also Fig. 2 below.
`
`light
`a
`least
`at
`[1.a]
`emitting panel member
`having a light entrance
`surface
`and
`a
`light
`emitting surface,
`
`See Escuti Decl., ¶71.
`“Illumination device 20 is a surface-type illumination
`device set up with a cylindrically-shaped fluorescent light
`22 at the edge of substantially rectangular polarizer 21.”
`Ex. 1007, 6:24-26.
`“Illumination device 20 is comprised of polarizer 21,
`which is substantially rectangular in shape and is missing
`the corner of edge 40,
`fluorescent
`light 22, which
`encompasses edge 40 in an L-shape, and reflectors 23a
`and 23b, which cover fluorescent light 22 in the direction
`of polarizer 21 and efficiently
`reflect
`