`
`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
`
`
`IPR2015-00832
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ZANE COLEMAN
`
`Page 1 of 43
`
`TOYOTA EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`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 COMBINATION ....................................................................... 12
`
`A. Obviousness of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 13 over Tsuchiyama and
`Abdala ................................................................................................................. 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 19
`
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................... 24
`
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................... 24
`
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................... 24
`
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................... 25
`
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................... 27
`
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 27
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 28
`
`VIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF OBVIOUSNESS ............................ 32
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 43
`
`

`

`IX. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 32
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 32
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 43
`
`ii
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
`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 opinion 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 43
`
`

`

`
`
`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 43
`
`

`

`
`
`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 43
`
`

`

`
`
`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 43
`
`

`

`
`
`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 43
`
`

`

`
`
`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 for this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’974
`
`patent, the prosecution history of the ’974 patent, and the following documents:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,548,271 to Tsuchiyama et al. (Ex. 1003, “Tsuchiyama”);
`6
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,630,895 to Abdala, Jr. et al. (Ex. 1011, “Abdala”)
`
`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.
`
`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:
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
`
`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 43
`
`

`

`
`
`
`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 43
`
`

`

`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.
`
`and 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 chop from an LED,
`
`a neon bulb, a fluorescent tube, a fiber optic light pipe, a laser or laser diode, or any
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
`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 7:33-36. The holes or cavities 54, 55 “allow for the insertion of
`
`modular components or other parts into the panel member.” Id. at 7:35-38.
`
`
`
`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 43
`
`

`

`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 COMBINATION
`A.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 13 over Tsuchiyama
`and Abdala
`
`34. Tsuchiyama discloses a data display radio pager 10 having an LCD 12 and
`
`backlights 32, 32A. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 2:15-28; 3:31-32; Figs. 1, 2, 4. The backlight 32
`
`includes a light conducting plate 32a that is received in reflection frame 30 over LEDs
`
`12a and 12b. Id. at 2:29-38. “When the backlight LEDs 12a are turned on, light
`
`emitted therefrom is extended to around the LEDs 12a by the light conducting plate
`
`32a and then diffused by the diffusion sheet 32b.” Id. at 2:43-46. In my opinion, a
`
`POSITA would understand that the diffusion sheet contains deformities for causing
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 43
`
`

`

`light to be emitted from the surface of the light conducting plate/diffusion sheet
`
`combination. As shown in the annotated version of Fig. 3B, below, the light
`
`conducting plate 32a includes a light entrance surface and a light emitting surface.
`
`
`
`
`35. As another example, the backlight 32A shown in Fig. 4 of Tsuchiyama has
`
`a reflection frame 36 and a light conducting plate 38, which are formed integrally with
`
`each other. Id. at 3:32-34, Fig. 4. “The light conducting plate 38 is formed with
`
`openings 38a and 38b at opposite ends thereof,” in which “[t]he backlight LEDs 12a
`
`and alert LEDs 12b are securely received.” Id. at 3:36-38. “The backlight 32A is
`
`located at the rear of the LED 12 for illuminating it, as shown in FIG. 3B.” Id. at
`
`3:39-40. A diffusion sheet 40 is positioned on the light conducting plate 38, id. at 3:32-
`
`39, and, as shown in the annotated version of Fig. 4, the light conducting plate 38
`
`includes light entrance surfaces and a light emitting surface.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
`
`36. As discussed below, in my opinion it would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA to implement either light conducting plate 32a (Fig. 3B) or light conducting
`
`plate 38 (Fig. 4) of Tsuchiyama with light extracting deformities and a POSITA would
`
`have been motivated to do so, as explained below.
`
`37. The use of deformities on or in light emitting panel members, in
`
`diffusion sheets, and on the surface of light guide plates was well-known in the art.
`
`For example, Abdala issued on December 23, 1986, and I am informed it is prior art.
`
`Ex. 1011. It discloses a backlighted LCD display for pocket pagers, calculators, etc.,
`
`and a light guide for backlighting the display. Id. at 1:5-7, 4:47-52, Fig. 3. The light
`
`guide, or slab 100, includes a front surface 102 adjacent an LCD and an opposing rear
`
`surface 104. Id. at 4:58-60, Fig. 3. “Optionally, a centrally textured area 176 bounded
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
`by lines 178 and 180 may be utilized to improve the light distribution.” Id. at 5:42-44;
`
`Fig. 3. “The preferred shape for the boundary lines 178 and 180 is parabolic.” Id. at
`
`5:44-45. In my opinion, the textured area 176 would be recognized by a POSITA as a
`
`pattern of light extracting deformities on the front surface 102 of the slab 100. Ex.
`
`1011 at Fig. 3.
`
`Motivation to implement light extracting deformities
`
`38. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the textured
`
`surface (i.e., surface deformities) of Abdala into either light conducting plate 32a, 38 of
`
`Tsuchiyama in order to improve light distribution, Ex. 1011 at 5:42-44, and maintain
`
`light intensity through and out of the light conducting plates 32a, 38, id. at 7:33-44 and
`
`Fig. 7. Such a modification would improve the display disclosed in Tsuchiyama in the
`
`same way as it improves the LCD display system in Abdala (e.g., providing a panel
`
`member with light extracting deformities can improve light distribution and maintain
`
`light intensity, Ex. 1011 at 5:42-44, 7:33-44).
`
`39.
`
`In the Decision Denying the Petition for inter partes review in IPR2014-
`
`01092 (Ex. 1006), the Board stated the following:
`
`Tsuchiyama describes a structure that addresses a problem arising when
`the alert LEDs are placed next to the LCD display. Id. col. 1, ll. 39-50.
`This arrangement requires increasing dimensions of the pager and
`prevents miniaturization. Id. Tsuchiyama avoids this problem by
`positioning the alert LEDs in the LCD display instead of next to the
`display.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
`* * *
`
`Petitioner’s argument, that the teachings of Tsuchiyama and Funamoto
`can be combined because they are both directed to thinner, smaller
`devices, is not convincing. The deformities missing from Tsuchiyama
`but present in Funamoto are used to effect control of characteristics of
`the light, not miniaturization of the device. Thus, we are not convinced
`by Petitioner’s rationale for making the combination.
`
`Ex. 1006 at pp. 11-12. I also understand that the Board focused on the proposed
`
`combination of the primary reference, Funamoto, with the secondary reference,
`
`Tsuchiyama, and did not find that Tsuchiyama in any way rules out implementing
`
`deformities in either of light conducting plate 32a or 38.
`
`40.
`
`Similar to Tsuchiyama’s concern with minimizing the size of the pager,
`
`Abdala explains that “[t]hinness is extremely important in the design of small watches,
`
`pocket calculators, pocket pagers, portable radios and any other device in which small
`
`packaging size is paramount.” See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at abstract, 1:4-7, 53-56, 3:21-28, 50-
`
`53; Ex. 1011 at 1:62-66. Thus, in my opinion, like Tsuchiyama, the display device of
`
`Abdala also avoids the problems of increasing dimensions and an inability to achieve
`
`miniaturization.
`
`41. Therefore, based further on the teaching of Abdala of the slab 100
`
`having a centrally textured area 176, Ex. 1011 at 5:42-44, it would have been obvious
`
`to a POSITA to implement either light conducting plate 32a, 38 of Tsuchiyama with a
`
`textured area, i.e., a pattern of surface deformities. This would yield the advantages of
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
`improved light distribution and the ability to maintain light intensity through and out
`
`of the light conducting plates 32a, 38, as taught by Abdala. Ex. 1003 at 2:29-31, 3:31,
`
`Figs. 2, 4; Ex. 1011 at 5:42-44, 7:33-44 and Fig. 7.
`
`42. Tsuchiyama further discloses that reflection frames 30 (Fig. 3B), 36(Fig. 4)
`
`each include end walls and side walls that act as end edge reflectors and side edge
`
`reflectors. Ex. 1003 at 2:37-38, 3:31-34; see also annotated Figs. 2 and 4 below.
`
`
`43. According to Tsuchiyama, “the LEDs 12a and 12b are mounted on a
`
`printed circuit board 28.” Id. at 2:31-32. The reflection frame 30 “is formed with
`
`windows 30a through the bottom thereof,” and “LEDs 12a and 12b each protrudes
`
`into the frame 30 via one of the windows 30a.” Id. at 2: 32-37; see also Fig. 2. Also, as
`
`shown in the annotated version of Fig. 3B, in my opinion a POSITA would recognize
`
`that the bottom of the reflection frame 30 includes a first surface and a second surface,
`17
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 43
`
`

`

`where the light conducting plate 32a is disposed on the first surface, and the second
`
`surface contacts printed circuit board (“PCB”) 28. See Ex. 1003 at 2:29-40.
`
`44. An annotated version of Tsuchiyama’s Figure 3B appears below.
`
`
`
`
`45. Tsuchiyama further discloses that “[t]he light conducting plate 38 is
`
`formed with openings 38a and 38b at opposite ends thereof.” Id. at 3:34-36. “The
`
`backlight LEDs 12a and alert LEDs 12b are securely received in the openings 38a and
`
`38b, respectively.” Id. at 3:36-38. In my opinion and as shown in the annotated
`
`version of Fig. 4 below, a POSITA would recognize that the light conducting plate 38
`
`has tabs or protrusions (highlighted in orange) that position the reflection frame 36
`
`relative to the light conducting plate 38.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
`
`46. Based on the foregoing and the discussion which follows, in my opinion
`
`the subject matter claimed in claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 13 of the ’974 patent would have
`
`been obvious to a POSITA based on the teachings of Tsuchiyama in combination with
`
`the teachings of Abdala..
`
`1.
`
`47.
`
`Claim 1
`1.1
`
`“A light emitting panel assembly comprising”
`
` In my opinion, Tsuchiyama discloses a backlight 32 corresponding to the
`
`claimed “light emitting panel assembly.” Ex. 1003 at 2:29-31; 3:31-33; Figs. 2, 3B.
`
`1.2
`
`“at least a light emitting panel member having a light
`entrance surface and a light emitting surface,”
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
`48. Tsuchiyama discloses that the backlight 32 includes a light conducting
`
`plate 32a (the claimed “light emitting panel member”) that is received in reflection
`
`frame 30 over LEDs 12a and 12b. Id. at 2:37-38. “When the backlight LEDs 12a are
`
`turned on, light emitted therefrom is extended to around the LEDs 12a by the light
`
`conducting plate 32a and then diffused by the diffusion sheet 32a.” Id. at 2:43-46. As
`
`shown in the annotated version of Fig. 3B above, the light conducting plate 32a
`
`includes a light entrance surface and a light emitting surface.
`
`1.3
`
`“at least one LED light source positioned near or against the
`light entrance surface, and”
`
`49. Tsuchiyama discloses also that “light conducting plate 32a is received in
`
`
`
`the reflection frame 30 over the LEDs 12a and 12b.” Id. at 2:37-38; see also Figs. 2 and
`
`3B.
`
`1.4
`
`“a tray or housing having a cavity or recess in which the
`panel member is entirely received,”
`
`50. Tsuchiyama discloses “[a] rectangular saucer-like reflection frame 30.” Id.
`
`at 2:33-34; see also Figs. 2, 3B. The “light conducting plate 32a is received in the
`
`reflection frame 30.” Id. at 2:37-38.
`
`1.5
`
`“wherein the panel member has a pattern of light extracting
`deformities on or in at least one surface to cause light to be
`emitted from the light emitting surface of the panel member,
`and”
`
`In my opinion, to the extent Tsuchiyama is not viewed as disclosing that
`
`51.
`
`the light conducting plate 32a (the claimed “panel member”), shown in Figs. 2 and 3B,
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
`has a pattern of light extracting deformities on or in at least one surface to cause light
`
`to be emitted from the light emitting surface of the panel member, a POSITA would
`
`understand that Abdala discloses this feature and would be motivated to implement it
`
`in Tsuchiyama. For example, Abdala discloses backlighted LCD display system,
`
`particularly a light guide manufactured from a transparent slab 100. Ex. 1011 at 1:5-7,
`
`4:47-52, Fig. 3. The slab 100 includes a front surface 102 adjacent an LCD and an
`
`opposing rear surface 104. Id. at 4:58-60, Fig. 3. “Optionally, a centrally textured area
`
`176 bounded by lines 178 and 180 may be utilized to improve the light distribution.”
`
`Id. at 5:42-44; Fig. 3. “The preferred shape for the boundary lines 178 and 180 is
`
`parabolic.” Id. at 5:44-45. In my opinion, a POSITA would understand that the
`
`textured area 176 corresponds to the claimed pattern of light extracting deformities,
`
`which are on front surface 102 of slab 100. Ex. 1011 at Fig. 3. And, as discussed
`
`above, implementing light extracting deformities would cause light to be emitted from
`
`the surface of the light conducting plate/diffusion sheet combination.
`
`52. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the textured
`
`surface (i.e., surface deformities) of Abdala into either light conducting plate 32a, 38 of
`
`Tsuchiyama in order to improve light distribution, Ex. 1011 at 5:42-44, and maintain
`
`light intensity through and out of the light conducting plates 32a, 38, id. at 7:33-44 and
`
`Fig. 7. Such a modification would improve the display disclosed in Tsuchiyama in the
`
`same way as it improves the LCD display system in Abdala (e.g., providing a panel
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 24 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
`member with light extracting deformities can improve light distribution and maintain
`
`light intensity, Ex. 1011 at 5:42-44, 7:33-44).
`
`53.
`
`Similar to Tsuchiyama’s concern with minimizing the size of the pager,
`
`Abdala explains that “[t]hinness is extremely important in the design of small watches,
`
`pocket calculators, pocket pagers, portable radios and any other device in which small
`
`packaging size is paramount.” See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at abstract, 1:4-7, 53-56, 3:21-28, 50-
`
`52; Ex. 1011 at 1:62-66. Thus, in my opinion, like Tsuchiyama, the display device of
`
`Abdala also avoids the problems of increasing dimensions and an inability to achieve
`
`miniaturization.
`
`54. Therefore, based further on the teaching of Abdala of the slab 100
`
`having a centrally textured area 176, Ex. 1011 at 5:42-44, it would have been obvious
`
`to a POSITA to implement either light conducting plate 32a, 38 of Tsuchiyama with a
`
`textured area, i.e., a pattern of surface deformities. This would yield the advantages of
`
`improved light distribution and the ability to maintain light intensity through and out
`
`of the light conducting plates 32a, 38, as taught by Abdala. Ex. 1003 at 2:29, 3:32, Figs.
`
`2, 4; Ex. 1011 at 5:42-44, 7:33-44 and Fig. 7.
`
`1.6
`
`“the tray or housing includes end walls and side walls that
`act as end edge reflectors and side edge reflectors for the
`panel member to reflect light that would otherwise exit the
`panel member through an end edge and/or side edge back
`into the panel member and toward the pattern of light
`extracting deformities for causing additional light to be
`emitted from the light emitting surface of the panel member,”
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 25 of 43
`
`

`

`
`
`55.
`
`In my opinion and as shown in the annotated versio