`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`) PER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(1)
`)
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`Issued: November 27, 2007
`
`
`Inventor: Jeffery R. Parker
`
`
`Application No. 11/245,408
`
`
`Filed: October 6, 2005
`
`
`For: LIGHT EMITTING PANEL
`ASSEMBLIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,300,194
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”) requests 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”) (Ex. 1001), now assigned to Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`(“Innovative Display” or “Patent Owner”), in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`An electronic payment in the amount of $23,000.00 for the inter partes review
`
`fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) is being paid at the time of filing this petition. If
`
`there are any additional fees due in connection with the filing of this paper, please
`
`charge the required fees to our Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................. 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ....................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ......................................................................................... 2
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................................... 2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ................................ 5
`
`III. THE ’194 PATENT ................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technology Background ................................................................................... 6
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’194 Patent ................................................... 7
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................................................. 8
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED .............................................................. 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims for Which Review is Requested .......................................................... 8
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ..................................................................... 8
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 9
`
`“deformities” (Claims 1, 16, 28, 31) .............................................................. 10
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART RELIED UPON IN THIS
`PETITION .............................................................................................. 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Admitted Prior Art .......................................................................................... 10
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”) (Ex. 1016) ...................................... 11
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,351 (“Funamoto”) (Ex. 1017) ................................... 11
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 5,598,280 (“Nishio ’280”) (Ex. 1019) ................................ 11
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,332 (“Nishio ’332”) (Ex. 1020) ................................ 11
`
`JP H06-250178 (“Matsuoka”) (Exs. 1021-1023) .......................................... 12
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`G. U.S. Patent No. 5,408,388 (“Kobayashi”) (Ex. 1018) ................................... 12
`
`VII. CLAIMS 1, 4-6, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28, AND 31 OF THE ’194 PATENT
`ARE UNPATENTABLE ......................................................................... 12
`
`A. Ground 1: Pristash renders claims 1, 4-6, and 28 obvious ......................... 12
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Funamoto anticipates claims 1, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 .............. 19
`
`C. Ground 3: Funamoto renders claims 4-6 obvious ......................................... 29
`
`D. Ground 4: Nishio ’280 anticipates claims 1, 4-6, and 28 ............................ 31
`
`E. Ground 5: Nishio ’332 anticipates claims 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 ............... 38
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Matsuoka anticipates claims 16, 22, 23, 27, and 31 .................. 44
`
`G. Ground 7: Kobayashi anticipates claim 28 ..................................................... 50
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Ex Parte Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing L.P., No. 2008-005127,
`2010 WL 1003878, at *3-4 (BPAI Mar. 15, 2010) ......................................................... 9
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ........................................................................ 9
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 1, 8, 11, 12
`
`35 U.S.C § 103. ....................................................................................................................... 1, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ............................................................................................................. i, 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. ........................................................................................................ i, 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................................... ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`Petition Exhibit 1001:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 to Parker.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1002:
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1003:
`
`Reserved.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1004: Declaration of Dr. Zane Coleman.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1005:
`
`Reserved.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1006:
`
`IPR2014-01097, Paper No. 2, “Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194.”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1007:
`
`IPR2014-01097, Paper No. 9, “Decision Granting
`Institution of Inter Partes Review.”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1008:
`
`IPR2015-00749, Paper No. 2, “Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194.”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1009:
`
`IPR2015-00360, Paper No. 1, “Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of Claims 1, 4-6, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 31 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,300,194.”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1010:
`
`IPR2015-00490, Paper No. 2, “Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194.”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1011:
`
`Reserved.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1012: Claim Construction Memorandum and Order issued in
`Case No. 2:13-cv-00522.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1013:
`
`Complaint filed in Innovative Display Technologies LLC v.
`Toyota Motor Corp. Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00200-JRG.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1014: Wavier of the Service of Summons filed in Innovative Display
`Technologies LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
`00200-JRG.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1015:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1016:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”).
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`Petition Exhibit 1017:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,619,351 (“Funamoto”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1018:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,408,388 (“Kobayashi”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1019:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,598,280 (“Nishio ’280”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1020:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,332 (“Nishio ’332”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1021:
`
`Japanese Version of JP H06-250178 (“Matsuoka”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1022:
`
`English Translation of JP H06-250178.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1023:
`
`Translation Certificate of JP H06-250178.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1024:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,060 (“the ’060 patent”) and
`corresponding file history.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1025:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,160,195 (“Miller”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1026:
`
`J. A. Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic
`Press Inc., San Diego, 1992, at pp. 9-14 and Ch. 8.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1027:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,384,658 (“Ohtake”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1028:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,303,322 (“Winston”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1029:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,050,946 (“Hathaway”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1030:
`
`EP500960 (“Ohe”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1031:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,488 (“Ouderkirk”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1032:
`
`3M product brochure 75-0500-0403-7, “Brightness
`Enhancement Film (BEF)”, 2 pages (1993).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1033:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,134 (“Konno”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1034:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,405 (“Takeuchi”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1035:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,381,309 (“Borchardt”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”) requests 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”) (Ex. 1001), now assigned to Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`
`(“Innovative Display” or “Patent Owner”), in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. The challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102 and 103 over the references identified and applied in this Petition.
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. (“LGD”) and Sony
`
`Corporation (“Sony”) challenged the ’194 patent in IPR2014-01097 and IPR2015-
`
`00749, respectively. Ex. 1006; Ex. 1008. An inter partes review was instituted on
`
`January 13, 2015, as to claims 1, 4-6, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 31 in IPR2014-01097. Ex.
`
`1007. An institution decision has not yet issued in IPR2015-00749. The present
`
`petition serves two important purposes unique to Petitioner: (1) to present all of the
`
`instituted grounds should LGD reach a settlement prior to the Board issuing a final
`
`written decision; and (2) to present the additional grounds raised by Sony should
`
`Sony’s grounds be instituted and Sony reaches a settlement prior to the Board issuing
`
`a final written decision.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The real party-in-interest is Toyota Motor Corp., which is the sole owner of
`
`Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and the ultimate corporate parent for Toyota Motor
`
`Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc., Toyota
`
`Motor Manufacturing, Texas, Inc., and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Mississippi, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Innovative Display has asserted five patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 7,300,194;
`
`7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; and 8,216,816 (collectively the “asserted Innovative
`
`Display patents”)1—against at least 35 different companies in the automotive
`
`industry. The lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corp. is captioned: Innovative Display
`
`Technologies LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00200-JRG (ED TX.).
`
`Innovative Display also asserted the ’194 patent in at least the actions listed in the
`
`below chart:
`
`Description
`
`Docket Number
`
`Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“IDT”) v. Acer Inc. et al. 2:13-cv-00522, EDTX
`
`IDT v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.
`
`2:14-cv-00222, EDTX
`
`
`1 In addition to this petition, Petitioner is concurrently requesting inter partes review of
`
`the following other asserted Innovative Display patents, which are in the same family
`
`as the ‘194 patent: 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; and 8,216,816.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Description
`
`IDT v. Apple Inc.
`
`IDT v. Apple Inc.
`
`IDT v. AT&T Inc., et. al.
`
`IDT v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et. al.
`
`IDT v. BMW of North America, LLC, et. al.
`
`IDT v. Canon U.S.A. Inc., et. al.
`
`IDT v. Research in Motion Limited et al.
`
`IDT v. Dell Inc.
`
`IDT v. Ford Motor Company
`
`IDT v. Garmin International, Inc., et. al.
`
`IDT v. General Motor Company
`
`IDT v. Google Inc., et. al.
`
`IDT v. Hewlett-Packard Corporation
`
`IDT v. Huawei Investment et al.
`
`IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group, et. al.
`
`IDT v. Mazda Motor Corporation, et. al.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`Docket Number
`
`2:14-cv-00030, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00301, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00720, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00532, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00106, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00142, EDTX
`
`2:13-cv-00526, EDTX
`
`2:13-cv-00523, EDTX
`
`1:14-cv-00849, D. Del.
`
`2:14-cv-00143, EDTX
`
`1:14-cv-00850, D. Del.
`
`2:14-cv-00302, EDTX
`
`2:13-cv-00524, EDTX
`
`2:13-cv-00525, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00201, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00624, EDTX
`
`IDT v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., et. al.
`
`2:14-cv-00535, EDTX
`
`IDT v. Microsoft Corporation
`
`IDT v. Mitac Digital Corporation, et. al.
`
`2:13-cv-00783, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00144, EDTX
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Description
`
`IDT v. Nikon Inc., et. al.
`
`IDT v. Nissan Motor, Co., Ltd., et. al.
`
`IDT v. Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc.
`
`IDT v. Sprint Corporation, et. al.
`
`IDT v. T-Mobile US, Inc., et. al.
`
`IDT v. Tomtom North America Inc., et. al.
`
`IDT v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et. al.
`
`IDT v. Volkswagen AG, et. al.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`Docket Number
`
`2:14-cv-00145, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00202, EDTX
`
`2:13-cv-00784, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00721, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00723, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00146, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00722, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00300, EDTX
`
`IDT v. ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`2:13-cv-00527, EDTX
`
`Delaware Display Group LLC (“DDG”) and IDT v.
`
`1:13-cv-02106, D.Del.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`DDG and IDT v. HTC Corporation 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.
`
`1:13-cv-02107, D.Del.
`
`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.
`
`
`Four inter partes reviews challenge the patentability of the ’194 patent. LGD
`
`challenged claims 1, 4-6, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 31 of the ’194 patent in IPR2014-
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`01097, filed July 1, 2014, Ex. 1006, and instituted January 13, 2015, Ex. 1007;
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz US International, Inc. (“Mercedes”)
`
`challenged claims 1, 4-6, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 31 of the ’194 patent in IPR2015-
`
`00360, filed December 4, 2014, Ex. 1009; LG Electronics (“LGE”) challenged claims
`
`1, 4-6, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 31 of the ’194 patent in IPR2015-00490, filed December
`
`29, 2014, Ex. 1010; and Sony challenged claims 1-6, 10-12, 14-18, 22-24, 26-28, and
`
`31 of the ’194 patent in IPR2015-00749, filed February 17, 2015, Ex. 1008.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information
`
`C.
`Lead Counsel: Thomas Winland (Reg. No. 27,605), Finnegan, Henderson,
`
`Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
`
`20001 (202.408.4266; e-mail: tom.winland@finnegan.com; fax: 202.408.4400).
`
`Backup Counsel: P. Andrew Riley (Reg. No. 66,290), Finnegan, Henderson,
`
`Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
`
`20001 (202.408.4085; e-mail: andrew.riley@finnegan.com; fax: 202.408.4400).
`
`Backup Counsel: David C. Reese (Reg. No. 67,942), Finnegan, Henderson,
`
`Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
`
`20001 (202.408.6098; e-mail: david.reese@finnegan.com; fax: 202.408.4400).
`
`Petitioner consents to e-mail service at Toyota-IDT-IPR@finnegan.com.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`III. THE ’194 PATENT
`A.
`Generally, light emitting panel assemblies are used in conjunction with liquid
`
`Technology Background
`
`crystal displays (“LCDs”) and various applications thereof, as a backlight module to
`
`provide light to the display. Ex. 1004, Declaration of Dr. Zane Coleman, at ¶ 21. The
`
`light emitting panel assembly is composed of all the elements of the LCD other than
`
`the liquid crystals themselves. Id. For example, the light emitting panel assembly is all
`
`but element 12 (in yellow) in the annotated figure below from Ex. 1015, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”).
`
`
`
`In order to produce surface illumination with the target brightness and
`
`uniformity at the lowest possible electrical power, the light emitting panel assembly
`
`can include features to spatially homogenize and control the angular distribution of
`
`emitted light. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 25. Examples of these features include light pipes,
`
`transition area, reflectors, and various types of microstructured deformities (e.g.,
`
`microprisms, diffusers, and microlenses). See, e.g., Ex. 1028; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 26. The light
`
`pipe, also sometimes called a light guide or wave guide, accepts light injected from the
`
`side and distributes it across the emission area. See, e.g., Ex. 1029. The ’194 patent calls
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`the light pipe a “transparent panel member” (e.g., 1:20-21), “light emitting panel
`
`member” (e.g., 1:34-35), and “transparent light emitting panel” (e.g., 2:67). See Ex. 1004
`
`at ¶ 26. The transition area, which is usually between the light source and the light
`
`pipe, is used to securely position the light source relative to the light pipe, and to
`
`spread and transmit light to produce a more uniform input illumination. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1029, at 6:3-24; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 27. Deformities, such as microprisms, diffusers, and
`
`microlenses, are employed to control the direction and spatial uniformity of light
`
`within light emitting panel assemblies. Id. at ¶¶ 28-33; see, e.g., Ex. 1030 at Fig. 5.
`
`B. The Alleged Invention Of The ’194 Patent
`The ’194 patent generally relates to “light emitting panel assemblies each
`
`including a transparent panel member for efficiently conducting light, and controlling
`
`the light conducted by the panel member to be emitted from one or more light output
`
`areas along the length thereof.” Ex. 1001 at 1:19-23. The purported advantage of the
`
`alleged invention described in the ’194 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. Ex. 1001 at 1:24-29. Yet, as
`
`shown further below, prior art such as U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”) already
`
`disclosed such advantages. See, e.g., Ex. 1016 at 1:10-16.
`
`The ’194 patent discloses light emitting assemblies having a light source and a
`
`film, sheet, plate, or substrate with optical elements or deformities of “well defined”
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`shape on at least one surface that have reflective or refractive surfaces for controlling
`
`the light output ray angle distribution of the emitted light. Ex. 1001 at Abstract. 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. Id.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the patent sought for
`
`review, the ’177 Patent, is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of the patent. Ex. 1013; Ex.
`
`1014.
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`A.
`Petitioner respectfully requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 1, 4-6,
`
`Claims for Which Review is Requested
`
`16, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 31 of the ’194 patent, and the cancellation of these claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`B.
`Claims 1, 4-6, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 31 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`
`and/or 103. The claim construction, reasons for unpatentability, and specific evidence
`
`supporting this request are detailed below.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`Claim Construction
`
`C.
`Claim terms in an expired patent are given their ordinary and accustomed
`
`
`
`
`
`meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,2 consistent with the
`
`standard expressed in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(en banc). Ex Parte Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing L.P., No. 2008-005127, 2010 WL
`
`1003878, at *3-4 (BPAI Mar. 15, 2010). The ’194 patent will expire on October 12,
`
`2015, before a final decision is expected in this IPR, and should thus be construed
`
`under these principles.
`
`The following term from the claims of the ’194 patent requires construction for
`
`this proceeding.3 All other terms should be given their ordinary and accustomed
`
`meanings.
`
`
`2 Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) 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 in continuing education toward a graduate
`
`degree in a field related to optical technology. Petitioner applies this level of ordinary
`
`skill in this petition.
`
`3 Because the IPR procedure does not permit challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`Petitioner has not included any indefiniteness arguments herein. Petitioner will,
`
`however, raise such arguments in other proceedings.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`“deformities” (Claims 1, 16, 28, 31)
`
`
`The specification of the ’194 patent expressly defines the term “deformities,” as
`
`follows: “As used herein, the term deformities or disruptions are used interchangeably
`
`to mean any change in the shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or
`
`surface treatment that causes a portion of the light to be emitted.” Ex. 1001 at 4:44-
`
`48. Accordingly, in light of the express definition provided by the ’194 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.” See also Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 36, 45. In addition, in the 2:13-cv-00522 case, the
`
`Patent Owner agreed with, and the court adopted, this same construction. Ex. 1012 at
`
`58. This is also the same construction proposed by LGD in IPR2014-01097 and
`
`adopted by the Board in that proceeding. Ex. 1006 at 7; Ex. 1007 at 4.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART RELIED UPON IN THIS PETITION
`A.
`The ’194 patent discusses the following functionality and structure of prior art
`
`Admitted Prior Art
`
`light emitting assemblies: (1) a “transparent light emitting panel 2,” (2) “one or more
`
`light sources 3 which emit light in a predetermined pattern,” and (3) “a light transition
`
`member or area 4 used to make the transition from the light source 3 to the light
`
`emitting panel.” Ex. 1001 at 2:64-3:4 (describing these elements and their
`
`functionalities as being “well known in the art”).
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”) (Ex. 1016)
`Pristash qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it issued as a
`
`patent on April 2, 1991, more than one year before the June 27, 1995 filing date of the
`
`earliest application to which the ’194 patent may potentially claim priority. Pristash was
`
`cited as a reference in an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution, but
`
`was not relied upon as a basis for rejecting any claim. In fact, Pristash was not
`
`discussed on the record at all during the prosecution proceedings.
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 5,619,351 (“Funamoto”) (Ex. 1017)
`Funamoto qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it entered
`
`national stage under 35 U.S.C. § 371 on May 10, 1994, before the June 27, 1995 filing
`
`date of the earliest application to which the ’194 patent may potentially claim priority.
`
`Funamoto was not cited or considered during the prosecution of the application that
`
`led to the ’194 patent.
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 5,598,280 (“Nishio ’280”) (Ex. 1019)
`Nishio ’280 qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed on
`
`March 22, 1994, before the June 27, 1995 filing date of the earliest application to
`
`which the ’194 patent may potentially claim priority. Nishio ’280 was not cited or
`
`considered during the prosecution of the application that led to the ’194 patent.
`
`E. U.S. Patent No. 5,592,332 (“Nishio ’332”) (Ex. 1020)
`Nishio ’332 qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed on
`
`December 27, 1993, before the June 27, 1995 filing date of the earliest application to
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`which the ’194 patent may potentially claim priority. Nishio ’332 was not cited or
`
`considered during the prosecution of the application that led to the ’194 patent.
`
`JP H06-250178 (“Matsuoka”) (Exs. 1021-1023)
`
`F.
`Matsuoka qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because it was published
`
`on September 9, 1994, before the June 27, 1995 filing date of the earliest application
`
`to which the ’194 patent may potentially claim priority. Matsuoka was not cited or
`
`considered during the prosecution of the application that led to the ’194 patent.
`
`G. U.S. Patent No. 5,408,388 (“Kobayashi”) (Ex. 1018)
`Kobayashi qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because it issued on
`
`April 18, 1995, before the June 27, 1995 filing date of the earliest application to which
`
`the ’194 patent may potentially claim priority. Kobayashi was not cited or considered
`
`during the prosecution of the application that led to the ’194 patent.
`
`VII. CLAIMS 1, 4-6, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28, AND 31 OF THE ’194 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Pristash renders claims 1, 4-6, and 28 obvious
`Pristash was a main reference in the petition for IPR2014-01097, which the
`
`Board recently granted on January 13, 2015. Ex. 1007. The Board found that there
`
`was a reasonable likelihood that LGD would prevail on each of the claims that it
`
`challenged based on Pristash (1, 4-6, and 28). Ex. 1007 at 17. As to those claims,
`
`Petitioner here includes the same charts relied upon by LGD.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`
`
`Each of the elements of
`
`independent claims 1 and 28 are called
`
`out in the annotated versions of Pristash
`
`FIGS. 1 and 7, shown to the right.
`
`With respect to claim 1, Pristash
`
`teaches a light emitting assembly
`
`including a solid transparent prismatic film 51, light source 3, a second prismatic film
`
`60 which can be replaced by a diffuser or lenticular lens, and an air gap 61. Ex. 1016
`
`at 2:68, 5:6-9, 5:22-33. Here, the solid transparent prismatic film 51 functions as a
`
`panel member, as required by the claim language. See Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 47-61.
`
`Additionally, the object of Pristash is to provide a panel assembly with more efficient
`
`use of light, i.e., one that has low loss. Ex. 1016 at 1:16-16.
`
`With respect to claim 28, the solid transparent prismatic film 51 functions as
`
`the transparent film, sheet, plate, or substrate having top and bottom surfaces, a
`
`plurality of optical elements or deformities of well-defined shape on or in the top and
`
`bottom surfaces. Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 73-81. In that regard, Pristash teaches that the “light
`
`emitting panels 40 and 49 shown in Figs. 5 and 6 may have prismatic surfaces on both
`
`the top and bottom surfaces” and further teaches that additional deformities can be
`
`“cut, molded, or otherwise formed along the top of the prism edges 43 . . . . to
`
`produce a desired light output distribution.” Ex. 1016 at 4:45-54, 4:66-5:5.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`With respect to dependent claims 4, 5, and 6, Pristash teaches multiple light
`
`sources which may be used with a single panel when the rays enter the panel from
`
`opposite edges, see Ex. 1016 at 5:11-14, allowing the light to mix in the panel member
`
`or in the air gap, see id. at 5:14-15, FIG. 7. See also Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 62-72.
`
`In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`combine elements of the various embodiments disclosed in Pristash for several
`
`reasons. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 49. First, all of the configurations taught by Pristash are aimed at
`
`providing cost efficiency, “better control over the light output from the panel,” and
`
`“more efficient transmission of light from a light source to the light emitting panel.”
`
`Ex. 1016 at 1:10-16. Second, Pristash specifically, acknowledges that “it is obvious that
`
`equivalent alteration and modifications will occur to others skilled in the art upon
`
`reading and understanding of the specification.” Ex. 1016 at 9:3-5. Therefore, it would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to alter one embodiment
`
`with a feature taught in the same patent but from a different embodiment. Finally,
`
`Pristash does not limit the combination of any of the elements for the embodiments.
`
`Specifically, Pristash does not teach away from any combinations of embodiments
`
`presented herein. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 49.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner submits that claims 1, 4-6, and 28 are obvious in view
`
`of Pristash.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`’194 Claim Element
`1. A light emitting
`assembly comprising
`
`[1.a] at least a light
`emitting panel member
`having a light emitting
`surface,
`
`[1.b] at least one light
`source,
`
`[1.c] at least one film,
`sheet, plate or substrate
`positioned near the light
`emitting surface through
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`Pristash(Ex. 1016)
`“FIG. 7 schematically shows another form of light emitting
`panel 50 in accordance with this invention which also
`comprises a solid transparent prismatic film 51 having a
`prismatic surface 52 on one side and a back reflector 53
`on the other side, similar to the light emitting panel 2
`shown in FIG. 1.” Ex. 1016 at 5:6-11, see also Figs. 1, 7
`below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Ex. 1004 at ¶ 51.
`
`“FIG. 7 schematically shows another form of light
`emitting panel 50 in accordance with this invention which
`also comprises a solid transparent prismatic film 51 having
`a prismatic surface 52 on one side and a back reflector 53
`on the other side, similar to the light emitting panel 2
`shown in FIG. 1.” Ex. 1016 at 5:6-11.
`
`“The second prismatic film 60 may be separated from the
`first prismatic film or wave guide 51 by air or an epoxy
`filled gap 61.” Id. at 5:25-27.
`
`See Ex. 1004 at ¶ 52.
`“Referring now in detail to the drawings, and initially to
`FIG. 1, there is schematically shown one form of thin
`panel illuminator in accordance with this invention
`including a solid transparent light emitting panel 2 and a
`light source 3 which generates and focuses light . . . . ”
`Ex. 1016 at 2:64-68.
`
`See Ex. 1004 at ¶ 53.
`“In addition, the panel 50 includes a second prismatic film
`60 disposed in close proximity to the panel prismatic
`surface 52 to shift the angular emission of light toward a
`particular application.” Ex. 1016 at 5:22-25.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,300,194
`
`’194 Claim Element
`which light from the
`panel member is emitted,
`and
`[1.d] an air gap between
`the film, sheet, plate or
`substrate and the panel
`member,
`
`[1.e] wherein at least one
`surface of the film,
`sheet, plate or substrate
`has one or more
`reflective or refractive
`surfaces, and
`[1.f] 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.
`
`4. The assembly of
`claim 1 wherein