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. 7,384,177
`
`Issued: June 10, 2008
`
`
`Inventor: Jeffery R. Parker
`
`
`Application No. 11/244,544
`
`
`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. 7,384,177
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. (“Toyota” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 (“the ’177 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.
`
`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
`
`Page 1 of 67
`
`TOYOTA EXHIBIT 1026
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 2 of 67
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 3
`Real Party-in-Interest .............................................................................. 3
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................... 4
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ............................ 8
`
`III. THE ’177 PATENT ....................................................................................... 8
`A. Overview of the Disclosure .................................................................... 8
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING...................................................................12
`V.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
`EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED ...............................................................13
`Claims for Which Review is Requested .................................................13
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ...........................................................13
`
`Claim Construction ..............................................................................14
`C.
`VI. CLAIMS 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, and 22 OF THE ’177 PATENT
`ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................................................15
`A. Ground 1: Endo anticipates claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, and 22 .........15
`
`B. Ground 2: Musaka anticipates claims 1 and 13-14 .................................34
`
`C. Ground 3: Musaka renders claims 6-7, 9-10, 15, and 22 obvious ...........43
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 6 .......................................................................................43
`
`Claim 7 .......................................................................................47
`
`Claim 9 .......................................................................................48
`
`Claim 10 .....................................................................................49
`
`iii
`
`Page 3 of 67
`
`

`

`5.
`
`6.
`
`Independent Claim 15 ................................................................50
`
`Claim 22 .....................................................................................52
`
`D. Ground 4: Musaka in combination with Tsunoda and Pristash
`renders claim 19 obvious ......................................................................53
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 4 of 67
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ex Parte Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing L.P., No. 2008-005127,
`2010 WL 1003878, at *3-4 (BPAI Mar. 15, 2010) ..................................................... 14
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..................................................................................... 45, 46, 55, 56
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................................... 14
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102............................................................................................. 13, 15, 34, 55, 57
`
`35 U.S.C § 103....................................................................................................................... 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112...................................................................................................................... 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311...................................................................................................................... 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................................................................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Page 5 of 67
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Petition Exhibit 1001:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 to Parker.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1002:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,064,276 to Endo et al. (“Endo”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1003:
`
`JP 03H-5725 to Musaka with certified translation.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1004: Declaration of Dr. Zane Coleman.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1005:
`
`JP 06-051130 to Tsunoda with certified translation.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1006:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 to Pristash et al. (“Pristash”).
`
`Petition Exhibit 1007:
`
`IPR2014-01362, Paper No. 7, “Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`response to Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,384,177.”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1008:
`
`IPR2015-00489, Paper No. 1, “Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177.”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1009:
`
`IPR2015-00359, Paper No. 1, “Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177.”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1010: Case No. 2:13-CV-00522-JRG: “Plaintiff’s Notice of
`Compliance Regarding Submission of Response to Letter
`Brief, Dkt. No. 174-1.”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1011:
`
`IPR2014-01362, Paper No. 1, “Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177.”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1012:
`
`IPR2015-00756, Paper No. 2, “Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177.”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1013:
`
`Complaint filed in Innovative Display Technologies LLC v.
`Toyota Motor Corp., 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., Case No. 2:14-cv-
`00200-JRG.
`
`Petition Exhibit 1015: Certified Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No.
`7,384,177 (U.S. Application No. 11/244,544).
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Page 6 of 67
`
`

`

`IDT’s preliminary infringement contentions vs. Toyota:
`Exhibit B2: Exemplary claim chart for U.S. Pat. No.
`7,384,177.
`
`IPR2014-01362, Paper No. 12, “Decision Institution of
`Inter Partes Review.”
`
`Petition Exhibit 1016:
`
`
`Petition Exhibit 1017:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Page 7 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, and 22 are directed to a light emitting assembly.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:21-32, 43-48, 51-54; 10:4-23, 32-36. The patent specification
`
`acknowledges that light emitting panel assemblies, including a transparent light
`
`emitting panel, one or more light sources, and a light transition member or area were
`
`well known in the art. Id. at 1:24, 2:64-7:4, and Fig. 1. The only purported
`
`improvement claimed is a light emitting assembly comprising “a tray having a back
`
`wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow cavity or recess completely
`
`surrounded by the side walls” in which at least one light source is positioned, wherein
`
`the tray “acts as at least one of a back, side edge, and end edge reflector and has . . . .
`
`surfaces” to: “redirect at least a portion of the light emitted by the light source in a
`
`predetermined manner within the cavity or recess” (claim 1) or “facilitate better
`
`mixing of light rays within the cavity or recess to produce a desired light output color
`
`or uniformity” (claim 15).
`
`In fact, after the Examiner rejected the original claims of the application,
`
`Applicant amended the claims to add the above-identifed features to independent
`
`claims 1 and 15. See Ex. 1015 at 43-48, First Office Action (October 3, 2007) and at
`
`55-61, 65-68 Response to Office Action (January 22, 2008). Following these
`
`amendments, the Examiner allowed all pending claims without further substantive
`
`comments. Id. at 75-77, Notice of Allowability (February 20, 2008).
`
`1
`
`Page 8 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`As this Petition demonstrates, prior art references not considered by the PTO
`
`including Endo (Ex. 1002) and Musaka (Ex. 1003) taught the distinguishing features
`
`argued by the Applicant and anticipate the claimed light emitting assembly.
`
`For example, Endo discloses a liquid crystal display device including a
`
`transparent plate 4A, a lower side frame 1, an upper side frame 2, a reflecting plate 4C,
`
`and a reflecting plate 4D. Ex. 1002 at 2:49-66; 3:46-59; 4:50-55; 5:41-51, 59-64, Figs.
`
`1-3, 9. The frames 1, 2 form a hollow cavity completely surrounded by continuous
`
`side walls and the frames 1, 2, and together with the aluminum reflecting plates 4C
`
`and 4D function collectively as a tray to securely hold and support the light source 4B
`
`and the transparent plate 4A further within the cavity. Id.
`
`Additionally, Endo discloses that at least the interior side surfaces of the frame 2
`
`and the reflecting plate 4D act as exemplary side edge and back reflectors,
`
`respectively, and that the interior surfaces of the overhangs of the frame 2 and the
`
`reflecting plates 4C act as exemplary secondary reflective or refractive surfaces to
`
`redirect at least a portion of the light emitted by the light source 4B in a
`
`predetermined manner within the cavity as well as facilitate better mixing of light rays
`
`within the cavity to produce a desired light uniformity within the cavity. Id. at 2:58-66
`
`(disclosing that the frame 2 is made, for example, of a metallic material such as
`
`aluminum alloy; and the reflecting plates 4C and 4D are formed, for example, by an
`
`aluminum plate coated with white paint (acrylic resin paint)), Figs. 1-3.
`
`2
`
`Page 9 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`Similarly, Musaka discloses a back light for a liquid crystal display (LCD)
`
`including a housing 5 having a back wall and continuous side walls that form a hollow
`
`cavity completely surrounded by the side walls. Ex. 1003 at 3-5, Fig. 1. Musaka also
`
`discloses that the housing 5 acts to redirect at least a portion of the light emitted by a
`
`light source 2 in a predetermined manner within the cavity or recess of the housing 5
`
`that facilitates better mixing of light rays within the cavity or recess to produce a
`
`desired light output color or uniformity. Id. Musaka explains, “[t]he transparent
`
`substrate 1 described by the aforementioned light reflecting layer 3, the light source 2
`
`and the light diffusion sheet 4 are enclosed by the housing 5, excluding the front
`
`surface. The housing 5 has the function of returning light that had leaked from the
`
`transparent substrate 1 or the light source 2 to the transparent substrate 1, the
`
`function of blocking the leakage of light from the unit other than from the front, and
`
`the heat dissipation function involving the external diffusion of heat generated from
`
`the light source. Consequently, it is made of plastic or metal whose inner surface had
`
`been subjected to treatment to provide high reflectance.” Id.
`
`As discussed below, the disclosures of Endo and Musaka as well as those of
`
`other references, warrant the cancellation of claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, and 22.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`Page 10 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`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. 8,215,816,
`
`7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; and 7,434,9741 against at least 35 different
`
`companies. The lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corp. is captioned: Innovative Display
`
`Technologies LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., Case No. 2:14-cv-200-JRG (ED TX.).
`
`Innovative Display also asserted the ’177 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.
`
`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.
`
`2:14-cv-00222, EDTX
`
`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
`
`
`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 ’177 patent: 8,215,816, 7,404,660; 7,434,974, and 7,300,194.
`
`4
`
`Page 11 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`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. 7,384,177
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`2:13-cv-00783, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00144, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00145, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00202, EDTX
`
`2:13-cv-00784, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00721, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00723, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00146, EDTX
`
`Page 12 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`IDT v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et. al.
`
`IDT v. Volkswagen AG, et. al.
`
`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.
`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-2106, D.Del.
`
`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 prior inter partes review petitions challenge the patentability of the ’177
`
`patent. LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. (“LGD”), challenged
`
`claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, 21, and 23-27 of the ’177 patent in IPR2014-01362,
`
`filed August 22, 2014, Ex. 1011; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz US
`
`International, Inc. (“Mercedes”), challenged claims 1-5, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, 21, and
`
`23-27 of the ’177 patent in IPR2015-00359, filed December 4, 2014, Ex. 1009; LG
`
`Electronics (“LGE”), challenged claims 1-5, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, 21, and 23-27 of the
`
`’177 patent in IPR2015-00489, filed December 29, 2014, Ex. 1008; and Sony Corp.
`
`challenged claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, 21, and 23-27 of the ’177 patent in
`
`IPR2015-00756, filed February 17, 2015, Ex. 1012.
`
`6
`
`Page 13 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`On March 2, 2015, the Board granted institution of IPR2014-01362. Ex. 1017.
`
`As of the filing date of this petition, the Board has not rendered institution decisions
`
`in IPR2015-00359, IPR2015-00489, or IPR2015-00756. Notwithstanding the Board’s
`
`decision instituting trial in IPR2014-01362, and regardless of whether the Board
`
`institutes trial on any grounds in IPR2015-00359, IPR2015-00489, or IPR2015-00756,
`
`the Board should grant this petition and institute trial on all grounds because the
`
`primary and secondary references relied on here disclose features of the claims Patent
`
`Owner argued the references in IPR2014-01362 lacked.2 As explained below in
`
`Section VI, the primary references relied on here disclose these features and more
`
`clearly show how the references disclose or suggest these features. Moreover, the
`
`Board should grant this petition and institute trial on all grounds because claim 22 in
`
`this petition was not addressed in the earlier petitions.
`
`And although the present petition asserts in part the same Pristash reference
`
`asserted in the above-identified petitions, the grounds presented in this petition are
`
`distinct and substantially different from the grounds presented in the above-identified
`
`petitions. Furthermore, the present petition serves the important purpose, unique to
`
`Petitioner, to preserve the grounds of invalidity based in part on Pristash so that they
`
`
`2 Specifically, Patent Owner argued in its preliminary response that the references did
`
`not disclose or suggest “a hollow cavity or recess completely surrounded by the side
`
`walls.” Ex. 1007 at 4-7.
`
`7
`
`Page 14 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`may be pursued should any one of the above parties (e.g., LGD, Mercedes, LGE,
`
`and/or Sony) reach a settlement, or should the case otherwise be terminated, prior to
`
`the Board issuing a final written determination. (Petitioner’s time window under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b) will expire on April 28, 2015—the date one year after Patent Owner
`
`filed a waiver of service of the complaint against Petitioner.)
`
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information
`Lead Counsel: P. Andrew Riley (Reg. No. 66,290), Finnegan, Henderson,
`
`Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
`
`20001 (202.408.4266; e-mail: andrew.riley@finnegan.com; fax: 202.408.4400).
`
`Backup Counsel: Thomas W. Winland (Reg. No. 27,605), Finnegan,
`
`Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW,
`
`Washington, DC 20001 (202.408.4085; e-mail: tom.winland@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.
`
`III. THE ’177 PATENT
`A. Overview of the Disclosure
`Part of a large family, the ’177 patent is one of several continuations,
`
`continuation-in-part, and/or divisions stemming from U.S. Patent No. 5,613,751. Ex.
`
`8
`
`Page 15 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`1001 at 1:6-15. These patents, including the ’177 patent, are directed to light emitting
`
`assemblies. Id. at title.
`
`The background of the ’177 disclosure acknowledges that light emitting panel
`
`assemblies are generally known. Id. at 1:24. In particular, the disclosure recognizes the
`
`following functionality and structure of prior art light emitting panel assemblies: a
`
`transparent light emitting panel 2 and one or more light sources 3 which emit light in
`
`a predetermined pattern and a light transition member or area 4 used to make the
`
`transition from the light source 3 to the light emitting panel 2, “as well known in the
`
`art.” Id. at 2:64-3:4 and Fig. 1 (describing these elements and their functionalities as
`
`being “well known in the art”). The ’177 disclosure further describes that the 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 as desired to produce a desired light
`
`output distribution to fit a particular application. Id. at 3:4-9 and Fig. 1.
`
`Figure 1 below shows the well-known light emitting panel assembly 1, light
`
`emitting panel 2, light source 3, and light transition member or area 4:
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 16 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`Purportedly to improve control and utilization of light output from such
`
`assemblies, the ’177 patent discloses a light emitting panel assembly 32 including a
`
`panel member 33, one or more light sources 3, 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
`
`6:62-7:-3 and Fig. 6 (copied below – the only figure of the patent showing a tray). The
`
`’177 disclosure describes the tray 35 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 ’177 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 to
`
`reflect a portion of the light around one or more corners or curves in a non-
`
`rectangular shaped panel member 33. Id. at 7:3-7. The ’177 patent further discloses
`
`that the secondary reflective/refractive surfaces 38 may be flat, angled, faceted or
`
`curved, and may be used to extract a portion of the light away from the panel member
`
`in a predetermined pattern. Id. at 7:7-10.
`
`Figure 6 shows the light emitting panel assembly 32, panel member 33,
`
`“secondary” reflective or refractive surfaces 38, and tray 35:
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 17 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`The ’177 patent discloses in another embodiment (without any tray), a light
`
`emitting panel assembly 11 (Fig. 3 – shown below) 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 3:45-56 and Fig. 3. The ’177 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 6:18-24 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. at 6:29-38.
`
`The ’177 disclosure describes that the member 27 may be used to further improve the
`
`uniformity of the light output distribution and indicates that the member 27 may be a
`
`colored film, a diffuser, or a label or display, a portion of which may be a transparent
`
`overlay that may be colored and/or have text or an image thereon. Id.
`
`Figure 3 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:
`
`11
`
`Page 18 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`Figure 5 below shows the light emitting panel assembly 11, light emitting panel
`
`14, back reflector 26, transparent film 27, and adhesive 28:
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’177 specification 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 florescent tube, a fiber optic light pipe, a laser or laser diode, or any other
`
`suitable light source. Id. at 4:24-30.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies the ’177 patent is available for inter partes review and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the ’177
`
`patent challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this petition. This
`
`Petition is timely filed under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because it is filed within one year of
`
`12
`
`Page 19 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`the service of the complaint alleging infringement of the ’177 patent by Innovative
`
`Display. See Exs. 1013-1014.
`
`Additionally, the primary references relied on here disclose, for example,
`
`features of the claims Patent Owner argued the references in IPR2014-01362 lacked,
`
`and more clearly show how the references disclose or suggest these features. Also,
`
`claim 22 in this petition was not addressed in the earlier petitions. Furthermore, the
`
`primary references are non-duplicative of those cited in recently instituted IPR2014-
`
`01362. See Ex. 1017.
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`A.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested
`Petitioner respectfully requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 1, 6-7, 9-
`
`10, 13-15, 19, and 22 of the ’177 patent, and the cancellation of these claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, and 22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`
`and 103. The claim construction, reasons for unpatentability, and specific evidence
`
`supporting this request are detailed below.
`
`13
`
`Page 20 of 67
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`C.
`Claim Construction
`Claim terms in an expired patent are given their ordinary and accustomed
`
`
`
`
`
`meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,3 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 ’177 patent will expire on April 4, 2016,
`
`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 ’177 patent requires construction for
`
`this proceeding.4 All other terms should be given their ordinary and accustomed
`
`meanings.
`
`
`3 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 of continuing education toward a
`
`graduate degree in a field related to optical technology. Petitioner applies this level of
`
`ordinary skill in this petition.
`
`4 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.
`
`14
`
`Page 21 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`“deformities” (Claim 14)
`
`The specification of the ’177 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 4:44-48.
`
`Accordingly, in light of the express definition provided by the ’177 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 ¶31.
`
`VI. CLAIMS 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, and 22 OF THE ’177 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Endo anticipates claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, and 22
`U.S. Patent No. 5,064,276 to Endo issued on November 12, 1991. Ex. 1002.
`
`Endo is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), because the earliest effective priority date
`
`of claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, and 22 is June 27, 1995.
`
`As shown below in annotated Figures 1 and 2, Endo discloses a liquid crystal
`
`display device including a transparent plate 4A (in light purple), a lower side frame 1
`
`(in yellow), an upper side frame 2 (in orange), a reflecting plate 4C (in blue), a
`
`reflecting plate 4D (in teal), and a diffusing plate (not labeled, in red). Ex. 1002 at
`
`2:49-66; 3:46-59; 4:50-55; 5:41-51, 59-64; 6:1-5, Figs. 1-3, 9.
`
`15
`
`Page 22 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`
`The frames 1, 2 collectively form a hollow cavity completely surrounded by
`
`continuous side walls. Id. For example, the frame 1 has a back wall and the frames 1
`
`and 2 each have continuous side walls. Id. Endo further discloses that the reflecting
`
`plate 4C (which covers the light source 4B) and the reflecting plate 4D (located
`
`underneath the transparent substrate 4A) effectively reflect the light of light source 4B
`
`toward the transparent plate 4A. Id. Accordingly, the frames 1, 2, together with the
`
`aluminum reflecting plates 4C and 4D function collectively as a tray to securely hold
`
`and support the light source 4B and the transparent plate 4A further within the cavity.
`
`See id.; see also Ex. 1004 at ¶34 (citing 2:49-66; 3:46-59; 4:50-55; 5:41-51, 59-64; 6:1-5,
`
`Figs. 1-3, 9.).
`
`Furthermore, Endo discloses that at least the frame 2, reflecting plate 4C, and
`
`reflecting plate 4D act as at least one of a back, side edge, and end edge reflector and
`
`have one or more secondary flat, angled, or curved reflective or refractive surfaces to
`
`redirect at least a portion of the light emitted by the light source 4B (in green) in a
`
`16
`
`Page 23 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`predetermined manner within the cavity and further facilitate better mixing of light
`
`rays within the cavity to produce a desired light output uniformity within the cavity.
`
`Id. at 2:49-66; 3:46-59; 4:50-55; 5:41-51, 59-64; 6:1-5, Figs. 1-3, 9; see also Ex. 1004 at
`
`¶35 (citing id.).
`
`
`
`For example, as shown in annotated Figure 2, above, Endo discloses that each
`
`end face (see exemplary light purple surface) of transparent plate 4A is positioned
`
`adjacent interior side surfaces of the frames 1, 2. To help keep the light within the
`
`device and from escaping through the interior side surfaces of the frames 1, 2 (and
`
`thus preventing an inadvertent decrease in the overall brightness, uniformity, and
`
`luminance of the device), Ex. 1004 at ¶36 (citing 2:58-66; 5:45-51, 59-64), one having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the interior side surfaces of the frames 1,
`
`2 would have reflective or refractive properties so as to help deter light from escaping
`
`to the outside of the display device from the side walls of the transparent substrate
`
`4A. Id. In fact, Endo discloses that the frame 2 is made, e.g., of a metallic material such
`
`17
`
`Page 24 of 67
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`as aluminum alloy (see id. at 2:58-66). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`further recognize that the frame 1, disclosed as being formed, e.g., out of a resin
`
`material, (see id. at 2:58-59) also has reflective and/or refractive properties so as to
`
`further assist with preventing light escaping from the side walls of the transparent
`
`substrate 4A to the outside of the display device. Ex. 1004 at ¶36 (citing 2:59-66; 5:45-
`
`51, 59-64). Endo also discloses that the reflecting plates 4C and 4D are made, e.g., by
`
`an aluminum plate coated with white paint (acrylic resin paint) (see id. at 5:45-51, 59-