UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2015-00755
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
`_______________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,434,974
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 62
`
`TOYOTA EXHIBIT 1015
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................. iii
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT LIST ...................................................................................... iv
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ...................................................................................... 1
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES ............................................................................................... 3
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`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 ............................................................................... 4
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The '974 Patent ................................................ 6
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Standards For Claim Construction .............................................................. 6
`
`"deformities" (Claims 1, 7, 13, 17) ............................................................... 7
`
`"air gap" (Claim 17) ....................................................................................... 8
`
`"a film . . . for changing the output ray angle
`distribution of the emitted light" (Claims 5, 11) ........................................ 9
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART RELIED UPON IN THIS PETITION ......... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`JP H06-230378 ("Kisoo") (Ex.1005) ......................................................... 10
`
`JP H06-025802 ("Yoshikawa") (Ex.1008) ................................................. 11
`
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM ....................... 11
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 13, And 17 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Kisoo ...................... 11
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 62
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, And 13 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Yoshikawa ............. 34
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 62
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Arris Group, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00747, Decision (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014) ................................................... 7
`
`Page(s)
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................... 7, 8, 9, 10
`
`In re Rambus Inc.,
`753 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus. Inc.,
`199 F.3d 1295, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................... 8
`STATUTES, RULES & OTHER AUTHORITIES
`35 U.S.C. § 102...................................................................................................................... 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103............................................................................................................ 1, 12, 34
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112........................................................................................................................ 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 301(a)(2) .............................................................................................................. 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................................. 6
`
`MPEP 2111.01 IV .................................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 62
`
`

`

`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 Richard A. Flasck ("Flasck Decl.")
`English Translation of JP H06-230378 ("Kisoo")
`Japanese Version of JP H06-230378
`Translation Certificate of JP H06-230378
`English Translation of JP H06-025802 ("Yoshikawa")
`Japanese Version of JP H06-025802
`Translation Certificate of JP H06-025802
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, IDT v. Acer Inc. et al., Case
`No. 2:13-cv-00522, Aug. 26, 2014 [Dkt. 101]
`Decision, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, January 13, 2015,
` 2014-01092 , Patent 7,434,974 (Paper 9)
`Patent Owner's Opening Claim Construction Brief, IDT v. Acer Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 2:13-cv-00522, June 16, 2014 [Dkt. 69]
`English Translation of JP H06-242731 ("Mino")
`Japanese Version of JP H06-242731
`Translation Certificate of JP H06-242731
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 ("Ciupke")
`English Translation of JP H06-003526 ("Nagatani")
`Japanese Version of JP H06-003526
`Translation Certificate of JP H06-003526
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,405 ("Takeuchi")
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,808,784 ("Ando")
`3M product brochure, 75-0500-0403-7, "Brightness Enhancement Film
`(BEF)" (1993)
`English Translation of JP H05-69732 ("Seraku")
`Japanese Version of JP H05-69732
`Translation Certificate of JP H05-69732
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 5 of 62
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`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 patents and publications
`
`identified and applied in this Petition.
`
`LG Display, Ltd. also challenged the '974 Patent in IPR2014-01092, and its
`
`petition was denied on January 13, 2015. (Ex.1012.) The present petition does not rely
`
`on any of the references asserted in IPR2014-01092, and instead presents new
`
`grounds of unpatentability based on two different and stronger prior art references,
`
`Kisoo (Ex.1005) and Yoshikawa (Ex.1008). Notably, both Kisoo and Yoshikawa
`
`expressly disclose LED light sources, a claim element the Board found to be missing
`
`from both the primary Funamoto reference relied upon in all three asserted grounds
`
`of IPR2014-01092, as well as the secondary Nakayama reference. In addition, Kisoo
`
`and Yoshikawa also both disclose light extracting deformities that are projections or
`
`depressions, which the Board found to be missing from the Nakayama reference.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest: Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America,
`
`Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Mobile
`
`Communications Inc., and Sony Mobile Communications AB.
`
`Page 6 of 62
`
`

`

`B. Related Matters: Litigation: 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 TechS. LLC v. Sony Corp., Sony Corp. of America,
`
`Sony Elecs.Inc., and Sony Mobile Commn'cns(USA) Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-02111. The
`
`'974 Patent is also asserted in at least these actions:
`
`Description
`Innovative Display Technologies LLC ("IDT") v. Acer Inc.
`et al.
`IDT v. AT&T Inc., et. al.
`IDT v. BMW of North America, LLC et. al.
`IDT v. Research in Motion Limited et al.
`IDT v. Dell Inc.
`IDT v. Hewlett-Packard Corporation
`IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group et. al.
`IDT v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. et. al.
`IDT v. Nissan Motor, Co., Ltd. et. al.
`IDT v. Sprint Corporation et. al.
`IDT v. Toyota Motor Corporation et. al.
`IDT v. Volkswagen AG, et. al.
`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
`2:13-cv-00522, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00720, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00106, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00526, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00523, EDTX
`2:13-cv-00524, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00201, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00535, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00202, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00721, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00200, EDTX
`2:14-cv-00300, EDTX
`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.
`
`Page 7 of 62
`
`

`

`Existing Related IPRs: IPR2014-01092; IPR2015-00368; and IPR2015-00497.
`
`Concurrently Filed Related IPRs: Petitioner is concurrently filing petitions to
`
`review U.S. Patent Nos. 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,537,370; 7,914,196; and
`
`8,215,816. For efficiency, the Board may consider assigning these proceedings to a
`
`common panel of Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information.
`LEAD COUNSEL
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Gregory S. Gewirtz
`Jonathan A. David (Reg. No. 36,494)
`Registration No. 36,522
`Robert B. Hander (Reg. No. 65,849)
`LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
`LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
` KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP
` KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP
`600 South Avenue West
`600 South Avenue West
`Westfield, NJ 07090
`Westfield, NJ 07090
`Tel:
`908-518-6343
`Tel:
`908-518-6331/6342
`Fax:
`908-654-7866
`Fax:
`908-654-7866
`E-mail: GGewirtz.ipr@ldlkm.com
`E-mail: JDavid.ipr@ldlkm.com
`
`RHander.ipr@ldlkm.com
`Scott A. McKeown (Reg. No. 42,866)
`OBLON, McCLELLAND,
` MAIER & NEUSTADT LLP
`1940 Duke St.
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Tel:
`703-412-6297
`Fax:
`703-413-2220
`E-mail: CPDocketMcKeown@oblon.com
`
`
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103(a), the Office is authorized to charge the fee set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 12-1095 as well as any
`
`additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition.
`
`Page 8 of 62
`
`

`

`IV. 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.
`
`V. REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW 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
`
`as the alleged invention of the '974 Patent was described by others prior to the
`
`effective filing date of the '974 Patent.
`
`A. Technology Background
`Flat panel displays for TVs, computers, etc. were pioneered in the 1980s, with
`
`active matrix liquid crystal display (LCD) technology dominating the market by the
`
`early 1990s. (Flasck Decl. ¶ 39.) LCDs comprise an array of pixels that act as a large
`
`matrix of shutters that modulate light passing through the display panel. (Id. ¶ 40.)
`
`LCDs typically need a light generating structure, commonly called a backlight unit
`
`(BLU), positioned beneath the liquid crystal panel. (Id. ¶¶ 41-42.) Partially collimated
`
`light from the BLU enters the LCD panel from the bottom and exits the top to be
`
`viewed by the user. Each pixel in the LCD matrix individually modulates the light
`
`from the BLU to present text, graphic, or video images to the user. (Id. ¶ 63.)
`
`Since the mid-1990s, the typical BLU found in commercially available products
`
`included a light source, a reflector to concentrate the light, a light guide with
`
`Page 9 of 62
`
`

`

`deformities on the lower surface, a set of light re-directing films, sheets or plates
`
`between the light guide and the LCD panel, and a tray, case or frame. (Id. ¶¶ 43-44.)
`
`The most common light sources used were Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamps
`
`(CCFLs) and light emitting diodes (LEDs), with the design choice between the two
`
`being based on desired thinness profile, brightness, and power consumption. (Id.
`
`¶¶ 45-48.)
`
`The typical light guide was generally constructed from a transparent plastic
`
`plate that would transport the light from the input edge adjacent to the lamp, to the
`
`output surface, typically the top surface of the light guide plate. (Id. ¶ 49.) The light
`
`injected into the input edge would be captured in, and uniformly distributed
`
`throughout, the light guide by the principle of Total Internal Reflection (TIR). (Id.)
`
`However, when the light encountered the deformities on the bottom surface of
`
`the light guide, the light would become scattered and redirected at such angles that the
`
`TIR condition would be defeated and the scattered light would exit through the top
`
`exit surface of the light guide. (Id. ¶¶ 50-53.)
`
`It was also common to include a set of light re-directing films for changing the
`
`angle of the emitted light so that it would be more nearly perpendicular to the light
`
`emitting surface, and thus provide a brighter image and enable lower power
`
`consumption. (Id. ¶¶ 54-60.) In addition, the components of the LCD module were
`
`Page 10 of 62
`
`

`

`often physically held in place by a metal tray, which could include a reflective bottom
`
`and sides and an open top. (Id. ¶¶ 61-62.)
`
`B. The Alleged Invention Of The '974 Patent
`The '974 Patent relates generally 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 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" utilization of light, thereby
`
`resulting in greater light output from the panel assembly. (Id. 1:24-28.) The '974 Patent
`
`discloses light emitting assemblies having a light emitting panel member with a pattern
`
`of light extracting deformities on or in at least one surface that is received in a cavity
`
`or recess of a reflective tray or housing, and an LED light source. (Ex.1001 Abstract.)
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Standards For Claim Construction
`The '974 Patent expires on June 27, 2015. An unexpired claim subject to inter
`
`partes review is given its "broadest reasonable construction ['BRI'] in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears." 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). If a
`
`reexamination (or here inter partes review) involves claims of an expired patent, a
`
`patentee is unable to make claim amendments, and the Board applies the claim
`
`Page 11 of 62
`
`

`

`construction principles outlined in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005), that the words of a claim "are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning" as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time
`
`of the invention. See In re Rambus Inc., 753 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see, e.g.,
`
`Arris Group, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00747, Decision (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24,
`
`2014), Paper 22, at 10. Here, as shown below, constructions under either the BRI or
`
`Phillips standard would lead to the same result.
`
`Moreover, as shown below, those constructions further comport with positions
`
`that Patent Owner has taken in its prior claim construction briefing and infringement
`
`contentions in related Federal Court litigations. In that regard, Petitioner notes that 35
`
`U.S.C. § 301(a)(2) permits citation of Patent Owners' statements regarding claim
`
`scope, to prevent patentees from arguing broad constructions in Federal Court
`
`litigation while using narrow constructions in proceedings before the Office.
`
`Petitioner also notes that while
`
`it advances the following proposed
`
`constructions for the purposes of this petition, it reserves the right (not available to it
`
`in the present proceeding) to assert in any copending or future litigation that one or
`
`more of the following claim terms is indefinite or lacks written description support
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`B.
`"deformities" (Claims 1, 7, 13, 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
`
`Page 12 of 62
`
`

`

`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.) Where
`
`an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will
`
`control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consol.
`
`Indus. Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999); MPEP
`
`2111.01 IV. In addition, in the 2:13-cv-00522 case, the Patent Owner agreed with, and
`
`the court adopted, this same construction. (Ex.1011, at 58.) Accordingly, Petitioner
`
`submits that the term "deformities" should at least include "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," regardless of whether the Phillips standard or the broader BRI
`
`standard is applied.
`
`C.
`"air gap" (Claim 17)
`The specification of the '974 Patent only discloses one embodiment in which
`
`an "air gap" exists. Fig. 5 shows two air gaps 30, one between the bottom surface of
`
`the panel and the back reflector 26, and the other between the top surface of the
`
`panel and film 27. (Ex.1001, 6:37-45, Fig.5.) However, while Fig. 5 shows a
`
`continuous layer of air between those surfaces with no points of contact other than
`
`those at the very edges of the panel, Patent Owner argued against limiting "air gap" to
`
`such an embodiment in its opening claim construction brief in the 2:13-cv-00522 case
`
`(though claim 17 of the '974 Patent was not asserted in that action, the parties
`
`proposed constructions of similar terms "an air gap therebetween" and "an air gap
`
`Page 13 of 62
`
`

`

`between the film, sheet, plate or substrate and the panel member" found in related
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,755,547 and 7,300,194,
`
`respectively). (Ex.1013, at 14-16.) Indeed, the
`
`Patent Owner asserted that "one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood that an
`
`air gap between a film and a panel member
`
`need not be a continuous layer of air between the two," and instead "would have
`
`understood that an intermittent air gap between two things remains an air gap." (Id.
`
`at 16.) The Patent Owner also asserted that "one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that an air gap would exist between a film and a panel member even
`
`if they touch in some parts," and relied on the illustrative figure shown above to make
`
`this argument. (Id.) Accordingly, given the Patent Owner's position regarding the
`
`meaning of the words "air gap" in related patents, the term "air gap" in claim 17 of the
`
`'974 Patent should at least include situations in which the two bodies in question have
`
`points of contact, regardless of whether the Phillips standard or the broader BRI
`
`standard is applied.
`
`D.
`
`"a film . . . for changing the output ray angle
`distribution of the emitted light" (Claims 5, 11)
`Claims 5 and 11 both recite "a film . . . for changing the output ray angle
`
`distribution of the emitted light." The '974 Patent specification only discusses
`
`changing the output ray angle distribution in column 5, line 17, through column 6,
`
`Page 14 of 62
`
`

`

`line 30. (Ex.1001.) That section lists a number of types of "deformities" that may be
`
`used on the panel member for changing the output ray angle distribution, but only
`
`discusses potential films that can do so beginning at column 6, line 20. The ensuing
`
`disclosure explains that "a transparent film, sheet or plate 27 may be attached or
`
`positioned against the side or sides of the panel member from which light is
`
`emitted . . . in order to produce a desired effect," and that "[t]he member 27 may be
`
`used to further improve the uniformity of the light output distribution." (Id.
`
`at 6:20-26.) The next sentence then lists several examples, stating that "the member 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 6:26-29.) Accordingly, Petitioner submits that the phrase "a film . . . for changing
`
`the output ray angle distribution of the emitted light" should at least include "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," regardless of
`
`whether the Phillips standard or the broader BRI standard is applied.
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART RELIED UPON IN THIS PETITION
`A.
`JP H06-230378 ("Kisoo") (Ex.1005)
`Kisoo qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because it was
`
`published on August 19, 1994, before the June 27, 1995 filing date of the earliest
`
`application to which the '974 Patent may potentially claim priority. Kisoo was not
`
`cited or considered during prosecution of the application that led to the '974 Patent.
`
`Page 15 of 62
`
`

`

`B.
`JP H06-025802 ("Yoshikawa") (Ex.1008)
`Yoshikawa qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was
`
`published on April 8, 1994, more than one year before the June 27, 1995 filing date of
`
`the earliest application to which the '974 Patent may potentially claim priority.
`
`Yoshikawa was not cited or considered during prosecution of the application that led
`
`to the '974 Patent.
`
`1
`2
`
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM
`Ground
`Prior art
`Exhibit
`Claims
`§ 103(a)
`Kisoo
`1005
`1, 3, 7, 8, 13, 17
`§ 103(a)
`Yoshikawa
`1008
`1, 3-5, 7-11, 13
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 13, And 17 Are Unpatentable
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Kisoo
`The objective of Kisoo is to provide a thin LCD backlight apparatus with
`
`uniform light output. (Ex.1005, at 1.) In describing means for achieving that objective,
`
`Kisoo discloses or suggests each and every limitation of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 13, and 17.
`
`Moreover, as already noted, Kisoo discloses a backlight apparatus that employs an
`
`LED light source, and thus addresses the main shortcoming of the primary Funamoto
`
`reference relied upon in IPR2014-01092.
`
`Page 16 of 62
`
`

`

`
`Common Elements Of Independent Claims 1, 7, 13, 17: Independent
`
`claims 1, 7, 13, and 17 all share the same first five claim elements, labeled "a" through
`
`"e" in the charts below. Kisoo expressly discloses each of those elements in a single
`
`embodiment, describing a backlight apparatus 1 that has: (a) a light emitting panel
`
`member, i.e., "a light conductor (light guiding plate) 11," with an "edge portion"
`
`through which light enters, and a "light emission surface 11a" through which it is
`
`emitted (Ex.1005 ¶¶ 10, 12, see also Figs.2, 4, 5, 6, above); (b) at least one LED light
`
`source, i.e., "a molded resin LED lamp (light source) 10 in which plural LEDs are
`
`aligned and connected in series as light emitting elements," which is "inserted at one
`
`edge portion of the light conductor 11" (id. ¶¶ 10, 12, see also Figs.2, 4, 5 above);
`
`(c) a tray or housing, i.e., "a reflector (reflection plate) 12, which surrounds the
`
`surfaces (sides and back) of the light conductor 11 excluding the light emission
`
`surface thereof," and into which "[t]he light conductor 11 is fitted" (id. ¶¶ 10, 14, see
`
`Page 17 of 62
`
`

`

`also Figs.2, 4, 5, 6 above); (d) a pattern of light extracting deformities, i.e., a "serrated"
`
`surface on the back side of the light conductor 11 with "recessed optical paths 11b
`
`ha[ving] a triangular shape in cross section" (id. ¶ 13, see also Fig.6 above); and
`
`(e) reflective end walls and side walls on the tray, i.e., within reflector 12, a "housing
`
`space 12a" with "inner surfaces . . . [that] are formed as reflection surfaces for
`
`reflecting light going out through the sides and back of the light conductor 11" (id.
`
`¶ 14, see also Fig.4 above). (Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 87-93.)
`
`The Tray Provides Structural Support To The Panel Member ("1.f" and
`
`"7.g"): Independent claims 1 and 7 also share an additional identical element, labeled
`
`"1.f" and "7.g" in the charts below, which requires that "the tray or housing provides
`
`structural support to the panel member." This feature is suggested by Kisoo's figures
`
`and would have been further obvious in view of Kisoo's own teachings. (Flasck Decl.
`
`¶¶ 94-97.) In that regard, Kisoo describes the light conductor 11 being "fitted into the
`
`housing space 12a" of reflector 12. (Ex.1005
`
`¶ 14.) In addition, each of Figs. 1-6 (shown
`
`above) depict reflector 12 as a robust structure
`
`with walls at least as thick as circuit board 2, the
`
`legs that support liquid crystal device 3, and
`
`cover 4. (Id. Figs.1-6.) For example, in the
`
`highlighted version of Fig. 2 at right, the walls of reflector 12 are shown in red, the
`
`Page 18 of 62
`
`

`

`circuit board 2 is shown in yellow, the legs of the liquid crystal device 3 are shown in
`
`green, and cover 4 is shown in blue. Thus, although Kisoo does not expressly state
`
`that the reflector 12 provides structural support to the light conductor 11, it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fashion reflector 12 from a
`
`material of suitable thickness and strength such that it would provide structural support
`
`to light conductor 11. (Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 94-97.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to do so based on Kisoo's teaching that the backlight
`
`apparatus 1 is to be "mounted" to circuit board 2, thus indicating that reflector 12,
`
`which envelopes the rest of backlight apparatus 1, must be robust enough to restrict
`
`lateral movement of the light conductor 11. (Ex.1005 ¶ 9; Flasck Decl. ¶ 97.) In
`
`addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would also have been motivated to select a
`
`suitably strong and thick material for reflector 12 in order to ensure rigidity despite
`
`the notch-shaped cutout (shown in yellow in the
`
`highlighted version of Fig.4, at right) formed in the
`
`wall of reflector 12 in order to accommodate LED
`
`lamp 10. (Ex.1005 ¶ 14, Fig.4; Flasck Decl. ¶ 97.) In
`
`short, it would have been obvious to fashion the tray
`
`(reflector 12) in the manner depicted in Kisoo's
`
`Figs. 1-6 so that it would provide structural support to the panel member (light
`
`conductor 11). (Id. ¶¶ 94-97)
`
`Page 19 of 62
`
`

`

`The Tray Or Housing Has Posts, Tabs, Or "Other Structural Features"
`
`That Provide A Mount For Mounting Of The Assembly Into A Larger
`
`Assembly Or Device ("1.g"): Beyond the foregoing,
`
`the only remaining element of independent claim 1 is
`
`that the "tray or housing . . . has posts, tabs, or other
`
`structural features that provide a mount for mounting
`
`of the assembly into a larger assembly or device." This
`
`element also would have been obvious in view of
`
`Kisoo's own
`
`teachings.
`
`(Flasck Decl.
`
`¶ 98.)
`
`Figs. 1 and 2 of Kisoo, highlighted versions of which
`
`are shown at right, depict an assembly comprised of a
`
`backlight apparatus 1 (red/pink/purple), over which a
`
`liquid crystal device 3 (green) is "bridged," which is then further covered by cover 4
`
`(blue). (Ex.1005 ¶ 9.) Kisoo also discloses that each of those elements must be
`
`"mounted" to circuit board 2 (yellow). (Id.) Thus, as reflector 12 (tray or housing, in
`
`red) completely envelops the rest of backlight apparatus 1 (light conductor 11 (pink)
`
`and LED lamp 10 (purple)), and as reflector 12 is the part of backlight apparatus 1
`
`that is actually in contact with circuit board 2, reflector 12 would have to be the part
`
`of backlight apparatus 1 actually "mounted" to circuit board 2 in the assembly
`
`depicted in Figs. 1 and 2 above. (Flasck Decl. ¶ 98; see also Ex.1005 Figs.1, 2.)
`
`Page 20 of 62
`
`

`

`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that
`
`reflector 12 would need to have some kind of posts, tabs, or "other structural
`
`features" for mounting backlight apparatus 1 to circuit board 2, as Kisoo requires.
`
`(Flasck Decl. ¶ 98.)
`
`The Tray Or Housing Has Posts, Tabs, Or "Other Structural Features"
`
`That Provide A Mount Or Structural Support For At Least One Other Part Or
`
`Component ("7.f"): Beyond the foregoing,
`
`the only remaining element of independent
`
`claim 7 ("7.f") requires that "the tray or
`
`housing has posts, tabs or other structural
`
`features that provide a mount or structural
`
`support for at least one other part or
`
`component." This feature is also suggested by Kisoo's figures and would have been
`
`obvious in view of Kisoo's own teachings. (Flasck Decl. ¶¶ 100, 101.) In that regard,
`
`Kisoo teaches that LCD 30 (shown in dark green in the above highlighted version of
`
`Fig.2) is sandwiched between two polarization plates 31 and 32 (shown in lighter
`
`green). (Ex.1005 ¶ 11.) In addition, Kisoo's Fig. 2 depicts the lower polarization
`
`plate 31 (light green) resting on top of reflector 12 (the tray or housing, in red) and
`
`light conductor 11 (pink). (Id. Fig.2.) Kisoo does not disclose whether or not the
`
`polarization plates 31 and 32 would be attached in any way to LCD 30, but in either
`
`Page 21 of 62
`
`

`

`case, in the assembly depicted in Fig. 2, the walls of reflector 12 would at least provide
`
`additional structural support to polarization plate 31 (and, in turn, LCD 30 and upper
`
`polarization plate 32). (Flasck Decl. ¶ 100.) Accordingly, Kisoo discloses a tray
`
`(reflector 12) with structural features (walls) that are depicted as providing at least
`
`some support to another part or component (polarization plate 31). (Flasck Decl.
`
`¶ 100.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
`
`walls of reflector 12 should be fashioned to provide the structural support that they
`
`are depicted as providing to polarization plate 31. (Id.)
`
`In
`
`addition, Kisoo
`
`also discloses
`
`that
`
`reflector 12 has a notch-shaped cutout in one wall to
`
`accommodate LED lamp 10, as shown in yellow in the
`
`highlighted version of Fig. 4 at right. Kisoo's Fig. 3(a)
`
`(above) also depicts a
`
`top view of backlight
`
`apparatus 1, in which it is clear that there is to be a
`
`tight fit between LED lamp 10 and that notch-shaped
`
`cutout, with virtually no clearance (the gap being
`
`faintly visible as white space between the walls of
`
`reflector 12 (red) and the protruding portion of LED
`
`lamp 10 (purple)). (Id. ¶ 14, Figs.3, 4.) Thus, Kisoo also depicts a second structural
`
`feature (a notch-shaped cutout) of the tray (reflector 12) that would provide some
`
`Page 22 of 62
`
`

`

`amount of structural support to another part or component (LED lamp 10). (Flasck
`
`Decl. ¶ 101.) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art that reflector 12 should be fashioned so as to include a notch-shaped cutout capable
`
`of providing the structural support suggested by Figs. 3 and 4, as doing so would
`
`serve to further secure the contents of backlight apparatus 1. (Id.)
`
`An Additional Component Overlaying The Panel Member ("13.f" and
`
`"17.f"): In addition to the five elements shared by all
`
`independent claims of the '974 Patent, claims 13
`
`and 17 both share an element ("13.f" and "17.f") that
`
`requires "an additional component overlaying the
`
`panel member." This element is expressly met by
`
`polarization plate 31 (and, more generally, liquid crystal device 3), which is shown in
`
`green in the highlighted version of Fig. 2 at right, and which rests on top of
`
`reflector 12 (red) and light conductor 11 (pink). (Ex.1005 ¶ 11, Fig.2; Flasck Decl.
`
`¶ 103.)
`
`At Least One Of A Tab, Hole, Cavity, Or Protrusion That Positions The
`
`Tray Or Housing Relative To The Panel Member ("13.g"): The final element of
`
`claim 13 ("13.g") requires that the panel member have "at least one of a tab, hole,
`
`cavity, or protrusion that positions th