Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
` Entered: January 13, 2015
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Page 1 of 19
`
`TOYOTA EXHIBIT 1007
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
` Entered: January 13, 2015
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Page 1 of 19
`
`TOYOTA EXHIBIT 1007
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, 16,
`
`22, 23, 27, 28, and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 (“the ’194 patent”).
`
`Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”)
`
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Applying the
`
`standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`one challenged claim, we grant the Petition and institute institute an inter
`
`partes review of all challenged claims.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ʼ194 patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ʼ194 patent is entitled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies.” The
`
`Abstract describes the subject matter as follows:
`
`Light emitting assemblies include at least one light
`source and at least one film, sheet, plate or substrate having
`optical elements or deformities of well defined shape on at least
`one surface that have reflective or refractive surfaces for
`controlling the light output ray angle distribution of the emitted
`light. The film, sheet, plate or substrate may be positioned near
`the light emitting surface of a light emitting panel member with
`an air gap therebetween or over a cavity or recess in a tray
`through which light from a light source in the cavity or recess is
`emitted.
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue:
`
`1. A light emitting assembly comprising at least a light
`emitting panel member having a light emitting surface,
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`
`at least one light source,
`at least one film, sheet, plate or substrate positioned near
`the light emitting surface through which light from the panel
`member is emitted, and
`an air gap between the film, sheet, plate or substrate and
`the panel member, wherein at least one surface of the film,
`sheet, plate or substrate has one or more reflective or refractive
`surfaces, and at least one of the reflective or refractive surfaces
`has well defined optical elements or deformities for controlling
`the emitted light such that at least some of the light is redirected
`to pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss.
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`
`
`
`Patent Owner states that it has asserted infringement by Petitioner of
`
`the ʼ194 patent in the following proceeding: Delaware Display Group LLC
`
`et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-02109 (D. Del., filed Dec.
`
`31, 2013). Paper 5.
`
`Patent Owner identifies numerous other proceedings in which it has
`
`alleged infringement of the ʼ194 patent. See Paper 5 for a listing.
`
`In addition, there are four other pending requests for inter partes
`
`review by Petitioner for patents related to the ’194 patent. Id. Those are as
`
`follows:
`
`1. IPR2014-01092 (U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974);
`
`2. IPR2014-01094 (U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660);
`
`3. IPR2014-01095 (U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816); and
`
`4. IPR2014-01096 (U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370).
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`The only claim term for which Petitioner proposes a construction is
`
`the term “deformities,” appearing in all challenged claims. Petitioner asserts
`
`that the ʼ194 patent “expressly defines” the term to mean “any change in the
`
`shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or surface treatment
`
`that causes a portion of light to be emitted.” Pet. 7 (citing ʼ194 patent, Ex.
`
`1001, col. 4, ll. 44–48). Patent Owner takes no position on claim
`
`construction. Prelim. Resp. 4. Patent Owner points out, however, that the
`
`construction of “deformities” proffered by Petitioner was agreed to and
`
`adopted by the district court. Id. at 5.
`
`We have considered Petitioner’s construction of “deformities” and
`
`determined that at this stage it should be adopted here.
`
`We have further determined that, except as may be indicated in the
`
`discussion below, the remaining terms should be given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references1:
`
`E. References
`
`Pristash
`Funamoto
`Gyoko2
`Kobayashi
`Nishio
`
`
`US 5,005,108
`US 5,619,351
`JP H06-273756
`US 5,408,388
`US 5,598,280
`
`Apr. 2, 1991
`May 10, 1994
`Sep. 30, 1994
`Apr. 18, 1995
`Mar. 22, 1994
`
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`
`
`1 The references are ordered by exhibit number with effective dates asserted
`by Petitioner.
`2 Exhibit 1008 is a certified translation of the original Japanese document,
`Exhibit 1009.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`
`Petitioner also states that it is relying on Admitted Prior Art (“APA”)
`
`from the ʼ194 patent specification. Pet. 8; Ex. 1001, col. 2, l.
`
`64–col. 3, l .4. Petitioner also relies on a Declaration from Michael J.
`
`Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti Decl.”). Ex. 1004.
`
`F. Grounds Asserted
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4–6, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 31 of the
`
`ʼ194 patent on the following grounds.
`
`
`References
`
`Pristash
`Funamoto
`Funamoto
`Gyoko
`Kobayashi
`Nishio
`Nishio and Funamoto
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 4–6, 28
`1, 16, 22, 23, 27, 31
`4, 5, 6
`16, 22, 23, 27, 31
`28
`1, 4–6, 28
`16, 22, 23, 27, 31
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`§ 102(e)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 102(a)
`§ 102(a)
`§ 102(e)
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does not identify any
`
`deficiencies in Petitioner’s arguments for obviousness or anticipation of the
`
`challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 2. Instead, Patent Owner asserts that the
`
`Petition should be denied for failure to name two real parties-in-interest: LG
`
`Display Co., Ltd. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. Id. at 2-3. We therefore
`
`address this challenge to the Petition before turning to the merits.
`
`In its Preliminary Response in related IPR2014 -01096 (Paper 9 in
`
`that proceeding), Patent Owner makes the same argument. For the reasons
`
`stated in our Institution Decision in IPR2014 -01096, we determine that
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the Petition here should be denied
`
`on this ground.
`
`
`
`B. Asserted Grounds Based On Pristash (Claims 1, 4–6, and 28)
`
`Petitioner contends that these claims are obvious over Pristash under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 11–25. For the reasons that follow, we are
`
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on this ground.
`
`
`
`1. Pristash Overview
`
`Pristash describes a “[t]hin panel illuminator [that] includes a solid
`
`transparent panel member having one or more deformed output regions.”
`
`Ex. 1006, Abstract. The arrangement causes light entering the panel along
`
`an input edge to be emitted along the length of the panel. Id.
`
`This is illustrated in Figure 1 of Pristash, reproduced here:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`
`In the above Figure 1, light emitting panel 2 and disruptions 16 in the
`
`exterior surface 18 of the panel are shown. Ex. 1006, col. 3, ll. 9–48.
`
`Figure 7 of Pristash shows another embodiment of the light panel and
`
`is reproduced here:
`
`In the above Figure 7, light emitting panel 50, transparent prismatic
`
`film 51, prismatic surface 52, back reflector 53, second prismatic film 60,
`
`
`
`and air gap 61 are shown.
`
`
`
`2. Discussion
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of claims 1, 4–6, and 28 of the ʼ194 patent in
`
`relation to Pristash appears at pages 11–19 of the Petition and paragraphs
`
`67–96 of the Escuti Declaration. Petitioner asserts that Pristash “teaches
`
`each and every element of Claims 1, 4–6, and 28.” Pet. 12. For example,
`
`Petitioner identifies the claimed “light emitting panel member” with
`
`Pristash’s transparent prismatic film 51. Pet. 13, 15. Petitioner identifies the
`
`claimed “film . . . positioned near the light emitting surface” with Pristash’s
`
`second prismatic film 60. Id. at 15. Further, Petitioner contends that a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the various
`
`embodiments of Pristash. Pet. 12; Escuti Decl. ¶ 66.
`
`We have reviewed the information provided by Petitioner, including
`
`the claim chart analysis (Pet. 15–19) and are persuaded that, based on this
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`record, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`this challenge to claims 1, 4–6, and 28 as obvious over Pristash.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Asserted Grounds Based On Funamoto
`
`
`
`1. Funamoto Overview
`
`This patent describes a surface-type illumination device for providing
`
`
`
`
`
`backlight in a liquid crystal display. Ex. 1007, Abstract. As disclosed, the
`
`device makes use of a fluorescent tube and polarizer. This is illustrated in
`
`Figure 4 of Funamoto, reproduced here:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`
`
`In the above Figure 4, polarizer 21, fluorescent light 22, reflectors 23a
`
`and 23b, pattern sheet 24, and reflecting sheet 25 are shown. Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 6, ll. 32–48.
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Anticipation of Claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31
`
`Petitioner contends that these claims are anticipated by Funamoto
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 19–29. For the reasons that follow, we are
`
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on this ground.
`
`Petitioner asserts that Funamoto “describes each and every element of
`
`Claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31.” Pet. 19; Escuti Decl. ¶¶ 99–139. For
`
`example, Petitioner identifies the claimed “light emitting panel member”
`
`with Funamoto’s polarizer. Pet. 20. Petitioner acknowledges, however, that
`
`“it is not immediately clear that the polarizer is a light emitting panel
`
`member.” Id. Petitioner therefore points to U.S. Patent No. 6,108,060 (Ex.
`
`1013), which it describes as “Funamoto’s child patent.” According to
`
`Petitioner, in that patent, the term “polarizer” is replaced with “light guide
`
`plate.” Pet. 20.
`
`We are not persuaded by this argument. Petitioner has not provided a
`
`sufficient rationale for the Board to consider the “child patent,” which issued
`
`in August 2000, long after the effective filing date of the ʼ194 patent. We
`
`note further that the change in language from “polarizer” to “light guide
`
`plate” is not clear proof that they are the same thing, for it could have
`
`resulted from a desire to broaden the description in the disclosure.
`
`We are, however, more convinced by the description of the light panel
`
`in the Specification of the ʼ194 patent: “A transparent light emitting material
`
`of any suitable type . . . may be used for the light emitting panels.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 10–12. This description, which would encompass a
`
`polarizer, persuades us that Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the
`
`polarizer in Funamoto meets the light emitting panel limitation in the claims.
`
`We have reviewed the other information provided by Petitioner,
`
`including the claim chart analysis (Pet. 23–29), and are persuaded that,
`
`based on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on this challenge to claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 as anticipated
`
`by Funamoto.
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Obviousness of Claims 4, 5, and 6
`
`These claims depend from independent claim 1. Petitioner contends
`
`that these claims are obvious over Funamoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Pet. 29–30. For the reasons that follow, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge.
`
`Petitioner contends that “Funamoto describes each and every element
`
`of independent Claim 1.” Pet. 29. Petitioner argues that the elements added
`
`by claims 4, 5, and 6 are “disclosed within Funamoto in a separate
`
`embodiment.” Id. One example is the requirement of claim 4 for multiple
`
`light sources. Petitioner relies on Figure 19 of Funamoto to meet this
`
`requirement. Id. at 30; Escuti Dec. ¶ 144. Petitioner contends that a person
`
`of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these embodiments.
`
`Id. at 29; Escuti Decl. ¶ 143. Based on this record, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has provided a sufficient rationale for combining the
`
`embodiments.
`
`We have reviewed the other information provided by Petitioner,
`
`including the claim chart analysis (Pet. 28–29), and are persuaded that,
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`based on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on this challenge to claims 4, 5, and 6 as obvious over Funamoto.
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds Based on Gyoko (Claims 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31)
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that these claims are anticipated by Gyoko under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Pet. 30–37. For the reasons that follow, we are not
`
`persuaded that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this
`
`ground.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Gyoko Overview
`
`Gyoko describes an illuminating device suitable for use as a backlight
`
`for illuminating the rear surface of an LCD display. Ex. 1008, [0001].
`
`Figure 1 of Gyoko is reproduced here:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the above Figure 4, light guide body13, light emitting surface 13a,
`
`fluorescent lamps 14a, 14b, lower reflecting sheet 15, diffusing sheet 16, and
`
`rough surface reflecting portions 17 are shown. Ex. 1008, 13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Discussion
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of claims 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 of the ʼ194
`
`patent in relation to Gyoko appears at pages 30–37 of the Petition and
`
`paragraphs 157–188 of the Escuti Declaration. Petitioner asserts that Gyoko
`
`“discloses each and every element of Claims 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`Pet. 31. For example, Petitioner identifies the “film sheet, plate or substrate
`
`positioned over the cavity or recess through which light from the light
`
`source is emitted” in independent claim 16 with the diffusing sheet 16 in
`
`Gyoko. Pet. 34-35; Escuti Decl. ¶ 164. Claim 16 further recites: “wherein
`
`at least one surface of the film sheet . . . has one or more reflective or
`
`refractive surfaces.” Furthermore, the claim recites: “at least one of the
`
`reflective or refractive surfaces has well defined optical elements or
`
`deformities for controlling the emitted light.”
`
`
`
`To meet this limitation of the claim, Petitioner points to the diffusing
`
`sheet in Gyoko. Pet. 34; Escuti Decl. ¶¶ 165–66. According to the Escuti
`
`Declaration: “diffusion sheet (16) can inherently include reflective and
`
`refractive surfaces.” Id. at ¶ 165. The Escuti Declaration concludes that this
`
`element of claim 16 is present in Gyoko. Id. at ¶ 168.
`
`
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that this element is
`
`met by Gyoko. The claim calls for “well defined optical elements or
`
`deformities.” Neither the Petition nor the Escuti Declaration points to such a
`
`description in Gyoko. Instead, the Escuti Declaration opines: “a diffusing
`
`sheet has defusing deformities which can be embodied as nearly any
`
`interruption on the surface of a planar optical sheet.” Id. ¶ 166 (emphasis
`
`added). The Declaration states further, “[a] person of ordinary skill would
`
`understand that the diffusing sheet (16) of Gyoko would cause the light
`
`redirected into the panel member to necessarily interact with the
`
`deformities.” Id. The Escuti Declaration provides no further support for this
`
`conclusion. We are not persuaded by this conclusory analysis that this
`
`element would be met by Gyoko.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`
`
`We are, therefore, not persuaded by the information presented that
`
`Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail on this challenge to claim 16 or its
`
`dependent claims 22, 23, and 27. Independent claim 33 contains similar
`
`language, and Petitioner’s challenge to that claim relies on its analysis of
`
`claim 16. Pet. 36-37. We, therefore, reach the same conclusion as to claim
`
`16, that Petitioner has not shown it is reasonably likely to prevail on this
`
`challenge based on Gyoko.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds Based on Kobayashi (Claim 28)
`
`Petitioner contends that this claim is anticipated by Kobayashi under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 37–41. For the reasons that follow, we are
`
`persuaded that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this
`
`ground.
`
`
`
`1. Kobayashi Overview
`
`This patent describes “planar illuminating device used as a back light
`
`for liquid crystal displays.” Ex. 1011, col.1, ll. 6–9. The device has a
`
`rectangular light transmitting plate of a transparent material. Id., col. 4,
`
`ll. 10–11. One side of the plate has prismatic cuts. Id., col. 4, l. 27. The
`
`other side has a reflecting finish, e.g., an array of spot-shaped light reflecting
`
`layers. Id., col. 4, ll. 28–29. This is illustrated by Figure 2 of Kobayashi,
`
`reproduced here:
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Figure 2 above, light plate 2, fluorescent lamps 3, and array of
`
`spot-shaped reflective layers 22 (e.g., of white paint or aluminum vapor
`
`deposition) are shown. Id., col 4, ll. 45–47.
`
`
`
`2. Discussion
`
`Petitioner contends that Kobayashi discloses all elements of claim 28.
`
`Pet. 39. For example, the claim calls for “deformities of well defined shape
`
`on or in the top or bottom surfaces.” Patent Owner identifies both the
`
`prismatic cuts and the array of spot-shaped light reflecting layers as such
`
`“deformities.” See Pet. 39; Escuti Decl. ¶ 201.
`
`
`
`We have reviewed the other information provided by Petitioner,
`
`including the claim chart analysis (Pet. 39–41) and are persuaded that, based
`
`on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on this challenge to claim 28.
`
`F. Asserted Grounds Based on Nishio (Claims 1, 4–6, and 28)
`
`Petitioner contends that these claims are anticipated by Nishio under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 41–48. For the reasons that follow, we are
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on this ground.
`
`
`
`1. Nishio Overview
`
`This patent described a film lens and surface light source for
`
`back-lighting a liquid crystal display. Ex. 1012, col. 1, ll. 7–10. Figure 6
`
`of Nishio is reproduced here:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Figure 6, light guide plate 1, reflecting layer 2, light source 3, lens
`
`sheet 4, and gap 9 are shown.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Discussion
`
`Petitioner contends that Nishio discloses all elements of claim 1, 4–6,
`
`and 28. Pet. 41. For example, Petitioner identifies the “light emitting panel
`
`member” in the claims as light guide plate 1. Id. at 43. Petitioner identifies
`
`the “at least one film, sheet, plate or substrate” in the claims as lens sheet 4.
`
`Id. at 44. And Petitioner identifies the “reflective or refractive surfaces” in
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`the claims as the triangular shaped deformities 42 shown in Figure 6. Id. at
`
`45; Escuti Decl. ¶ 214.
`
`
`
`We have reviewed the other information provided by Petitioner,
`
`including the claim chart analysis (Pet. 43–48), and are persuaded that,
`
`based on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on this challenge to claims 1, 4–6, and 28.
`
`G. Asserted Grounds Based on Nishio and Funamoto
`
`(Claims 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31)
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that Nishio “alone will render Claims 16, 22, 23, 27,
`
`and 31 obvious.” Pet. 48. However, Petitioner recognizes that because
`
`Nishio does not “expressly describe” a housing, the “tray that forms a cavity
`
`or recess” called for in the claims is not “explicitly shown” in Nishio. Id. at
`
`48-49. Therefore, because Funamoto describes a housing, Petitioner urges
`
`the Board to “combine the teachings” of Nishio and Funamoto. Id. at 49.
`
`
`
`Petitioner proffers the rationale for making this combination as
`
`follows: “Because Nishio teaches a housing containing all the elements of
`
`the assembly, but does not expressly describe a housing, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would look to a reference such as Funamoto to
`
`disclose the housing for the device.” Id. at 49. Petitioner states further, “A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of Nishio and Funamoto because they are both directed to the
`
`improvement of light emitting panel assemblies in terms of uniformity and
`
`efficiency.” Id.
`
`
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. While it is possible
`
`that it would have been obvious to provide Nishio’s light assembly with a
`
`housing, Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that a person of
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`ordinary skill would choose the particular housing taught by Funamoto. The
`
`fact that both Nishio and Funamoto are directed to the general goal of
`
`improving light emitting panel assemblies is insufficient rationale for
`
`making that choice.
`
`
`
`We conclude therefore that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that
`
`Nishio itself meets all elements of the claims, or that there is sufficient
`
`rationale for combining Nishio and Funamoto, Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge to
`
`claims 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31.
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY
`
`The information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail on the following challenges to patentability of the
`
`ʼ194 patent:
`
`A. Obviousness of claims 1, 4–6, and 28 over Pristash;
`
`B. Anticipation of claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 by Funamoto;
`
`C. Obviousness of claims 4, 5, and 6 over Funamoto;
`
`D. Anticipation of claim 28 by Kobayashi; and
`
`E. Anticipation of claims 1, 4–6, and 28 by Nishio.
`
`The information presented does not show there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on any of the following challenges to
`
`patentability of the ʼ194 patent:
`
`F. Anticipation of claims 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 by Gyoko;
`
`G. Obviousness of claims 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 over Nishio alone or
`
`Nishio and Funamoto.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final
`
`determination as to the patentability of any challenged claim or the
`
`construction of any claim term.
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is granted as to all challenged claims;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter
`
`partes review is hereby instituted on the following grounds:
`
`A. Obviousness of claims 1, 4–6, and 28 over Pristash;
`
`B. Anticipation of claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 by Funamoto;
`
`C. Obviousness of claims 4, 5, and 6 over Funamoto;
`
`D. Anticipation of claim 28 by Kobayashi; and
`
`E. Anticipation of claims 1, 4–6, and 28 by Nishio;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other proposed grounds of
`
`unpatentability are authorized; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial
`
`commencing on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01097
`Patent 7,300,194
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Robert G. Pluta
`Amanda K. Streff
`Baldine B. Paul
`Anita Y. Lam
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`alam@mayerbrown.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`BRAGALONE CONROY P.C.
`jkimble@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 19
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
