`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`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: January 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
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`
`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. 7,384,177
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ......................................................................................... 2
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................................... 2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information ................................ 5
`
`III.
`
`STANDING .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1, 6-7, 9-10,
`13-15, 19, AND 22 OF THE ’177 PATENT ........................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Technology Background ................................................................................... 6
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’177 Patent ................................................... 8
`
`The Prosecution History Of The ’177 Patent ............................................... 8
`
`The Independent Claims Of The ’177 Patent ............................................... 9
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED .......................................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims for Which Review is Requested ........................................................ 10
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ................................................................... 11
`
`Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 11
`
`“deformities” (Claim 14) ................................................................................. 12
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’177 PATENT FORMING
`THE BASIS FOR THIS PETITION ...................................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Admitted Prior Art .......................................................................................... 12
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,054,885 (“Melby”) (Ex. 1006) ......................................... 13
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,453,855 (“Nakamura”) (Ex. 1007) ................................. 13
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM ........................ 13
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, And 19 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) As Being Obvious Over Melby ........................... 13
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, And 22 Are
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §102 As Being Anticipated By
`Nakamura ........................................................................................................... 22
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`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) ....................................................... 11
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ...................................................................... 11
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 1, 11, 13, 21
`
`35 U.S.C § 103. .............................................................................................................. 1, 11, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................................... 8, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ............................................................................................................. i, 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ......................................................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. ........................................................................................................ i, 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................................... ii
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177
`Complaint filed in Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.
`Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00200-JRG
`Declaration of Dr. Zane Coleman (“Coleman Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,054,885 (“Melby”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,453,855 (“Nakamura”)
`IPR2014-01362, Paper No. 2, “Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,384,177”
`IPR2015-00359, Paper No. 1, “Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims
`1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, 21, and 23-27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177”
`IPR2015-00489, Paper No. 2, “Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,384,177”
`IPR2015-00756, Paper No. 2, “Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,384,177”
`U.S. Patent No. 5,160,195 (“Miller”)
`J. A. Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic Press Inc., San
`Diego, 1992, pp. 9-14 and Ch. 8
`U.S. Patent No. 5,598,280 (“Nishio”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,384,658 (“Ohtake”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,303,322 (“Winston”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,050,946 (“Hathaway”)
`European Patent Application Publication No. EP500960 (“Ohe”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,488 (“Ouderkirk”)
`3M product brochure 75-0500-0403-7, “Brightness Enhancement Film
`(BEF).” 2 pages (1993)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,134 (“Konno”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,405 (“Takeuchi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,381,309 (“Borchardt”)
`IPR2014-01362, Paper No. 12, “Decision Granting Institution of Inter
`Partes Review”
`IDT’s preliminary infringement contentions vs. Toyota: Exhibit B2:
`Exemplary claim chart for U.S. Pat. No. 7,384,177
`IPR2015-00835, Paper No. 2, “Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`Patent No. 7,384,177”
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States 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. 7,3084,177 (“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. The challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102 and 103 over the prior art patents and publications identified and applied in
`
`this Petition.
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc. (“LGD”) also challenged
`
`the ’177 patent in IPR2014-01362. Ex. 1008. An inter partes review was instituted on
`
`March 2, 2015, as to claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, 21, and 23-27 in IPR2014-01362.
`
`Ex. 1024. The present petition serves two important purposes unique to Petitioner:
`
`(1) to challenge an additional dependent claim 22 that was not addressed in LGD’s
`
`petition; and (2) to present all of the instituted grounds with respect to claims 1, 6-7,
`
`9-10, 13-15, 19, and 22, should LGD reach a settlement prior to the Board issuing a
`
`final written decision.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8, Petitioner provides the following mandatory
`
`disclosures:
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`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. 8,215,816,
`
`7,300,194; 7,384,1771; 7,404,660; and 7,434,974 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:
`
`Docket Number
`Description
`Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“IDT”) v. Acer Inc. et al. 2:13-cv-522, EDTX
`
`IDT v. Apple Inc.
`
`2:14-cv-00030, 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: 7,300,194; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; and 8,216,816. Petitioner filed a
`
`separate petition (IPR2015-00835) requesting inter partes review of the ’177 patent
`
`based on different grounds than the present petition.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Description
`IDT v. American Honda Motor Co., et al.
`
`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. 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
`
`Docket Number
`2:14-cv-00222, 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-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.
`
`2:13-cv-00783, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00144, EDTX
`
`2:14-cv-00145, EDTX
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Description
`IDT v. Nissan Motor, Co., Ltd., et. al.
`
`IDT v. Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc.
`
`IDT v. Research in Motion Limited et al.
`
`IDT v. Sprint Corporation, et. al.
`
`IDT v. T-Mobile U.S., 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. 7,384,177
`
`Docket Number
`2:14-cv-00202, EDTX
`
`2:13-cv-00784, EDTX
`
`2:13-cv-00526, 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-2106, 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.
`
`Five inter partes reviews challenge the patentability of the ’177 patent. LGD
`
`challenged claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, 21, and 23-27 of the ’177 patent in
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`IPR2014-01362, filed August 22, 2014, Ex. 1008, and instituted March 2, 2015, Ex.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`1024; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz US International, Inc. (“Mercedes”)
`
`challenged claims 1-3, 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 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, 21, and 23-27 of the ’177 patent in
`
`IPR2015-00489, filed December 29, 2014, Ex. 1010; Sony Corporation (“Sony”)
`
`challenged claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, 21, and 23-27 of the ’177 patent in
`
`IPR2015-00756, filed February 18, 2015, Ex. 1011; and Petitioner challenged claims 1,
`
`6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, and 22 of the ’177 patent in IPR2015-00835, filed March 5, 2015,
`
`Ex. 1026.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel, and Service Information
`
`C.
`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: tom.winland@finnegan.com; fax: 202.408.4400).
`
`Backup Counsel: Thomas Winland (Reg. No. 27,605), 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).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petitioner consents to e-mail service at Toyota-IDT-IPR@finnegan.com.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`
`III. 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.
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1, 6-7, 9-10,
`13-15, 19, AND 22 OF THE ’177 PATENT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b), Petitioner requests that the Board find
`
`unpatentable claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, and 22 of the ’177 Patent. Such relief is
`
`justified as the alleged invention of the ’177 Patent was described by others’ patents
`
`prior to the effective filing date of the ’177 Patent.
`
`Technology Background
`
`A.
`Generally, light emitting panel assemblies are used in conjunction with liquid
`
`crystal displays (“LCDs”) and various applications thereof, as a backlight module to
`
`provide light to the display. Ex. 1004, Declaration of Dr. Zane Coleman (“Coleman
`
`Decl.”), ¶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. 1005, U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`
`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, Coleman Decl., ¶25. Examples of these features include light
`
`pipes, a transition area, reflectors, and various types of microstructured deformities
`
`(e.g., microprisms, diffusers, and microlenses). Id. 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. The ’177 Patent calls the light pipe a “transparent panel
`
`member” (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:19-20), “light emitting panel member” (e.g., id. 1:32-33), and
`
`“transparent light emitting panel” (e.g., id. 2:61). See Ex. 1004, Coleman Decl., ¶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. Id. ¶27. The ’177 Patent
`
`refers to a “light transition area or member” that enables emitted light “to make the
`
`transition from the light source to the light emitting panel 2” and that was “well
`
`known in the art.” See Ex. 1001, 2:58-3:3. Deformities, such as microprisms,
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`diffusers, and microlenses, are employed to control the direction and spatial
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`uniformity of light within light emitting panel assemblies. Ex. 1004, Coleman Decl.,
`
`¶¶28-33.
`
`B. The Alleged Invention Of The ’177 Patent
`The ’177 Patent 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, 1:19-23. As the ’177 Patent acknowledges,
`
`“[l]ight emitting panel assemblies are generally known.” Id. 1:24. The purported
`
`advantage of the alleged invention described in the ’177 Patent relates to several
`
`different light emitting assembly configurations which allegedly provide for better
`
`control of light output from the panel assembly and for more “efficient” utilization of
`
`light, thereby resulting in greater light output from the panel assembly. Id. 1:25-29.
`
`Yet, as shown further below, prior art already disclosed such advantages.
`
`The ’177 Patent discloses light emitting assemblies having a tray that forms a
`
`cavity or recess. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The tray acts as a back, side or edge reflector
`
`having one or more secondary reflective or refractive surfaces. Id.
`
`C. The Prosecution History Of The ’177 Patent
`During prosecution, the examiner rejected claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`first paragraph, in the first office action for failing to comply with the written
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`description requirement. Specifically, the examiner did not believe that the tray
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`having “at least one sheet, film or substrate positioned over the cavity or recess of the
`
`tray,” was supported in the specification. In response, the applicant amended Claim 1
`
`to require that the sheet, film or substrate be “overlying the assembly” rather than
`
`“positioned over the cavity or recess.” Ex. 1002, Reply to October 3, 2007 Office
`
`Action, at 2. For alleged support, the applicant pointed to col. 6, ll. 29-33 stating
`
`“Moreover, a transparent film, sheet or plate 27 may be attached or positioned against
`
`the side or sides of the panel member from which light is emitted using a suitable
`
`adhesive 28 or other method in order to produce a desired effect.” Id. at 7.
`
`D. The Independent Claims Of The ’177 Patent
`The ’177 Patent relates to a light emitting assembly having a tray that forms a
`
`cavity or recess containing one or more light sources and “[a] sheet, film or substrate
`
`is positioned over the cavity or recess for controlling the light emitted from the
`
`assembly.” Ex. 1001, Abstract (emphasis added). This is inconsistent, however, with
`
`the independent claims as amended during prosecution. Claim 1 recites:
`
`A light emitting assembly comprising
`[1] a tray having a back wall and continuous side walls that
`form a hollow cavity or recess completely surrounded by
`the side wall,
`[2] at least one light source located, mounted or positioned
`in the cavity or recess, and
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`[3] at least one sheet, film or substrate overlying the
`assembly for controlling the
`light emitted from the
`assembly to fit a particular application . . . .
`
`A plain reading of Claim 1 (and Claim 15) illustrates a light emitting assembly
`
`comprising three elements, one of which is the film, sheet, or substrate. But, as
`
`written and amended, the film, sheet, or substrate of both independent claims must
`
`also overly the assembly of which it is part. The film, sheet, or substrate, however,
`
`cannot both be part of the assembly and at the same time overly the assembly.
`
`Because the independent claims recite a physical impossibility, for the purposes
`
`of this inter partes review only,2 Petitioner will interpret the claims as the Patent
`
`Owner has apparently interpreted them during prosecution and in litigation.
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`A.
`Petitioner respectfully requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 of claims 1, 6-7, 9-
`
`Claims for Which Review is Requested
`
`10, 13-15, 19, and 22 of the ’177 patent, and the cancellation of these claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
` 2
`
` 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.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`B.
`Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 22 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.
`
`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,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.
`
`
`
` 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.
`
`11
`
`

`

`The following term from the claims of the ’177 patent requires construction for
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`
`this proceeding. All other terms should be given their ordinary and accustomed
`
`meanings.
`
`“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, Coleman Decl., ¶46.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’177 PATENT FORMING THE
`BASIS FOR THIS PETITION
`A.
`The ’177 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, 2:64-3:4 (describing these elements and their
`
`functionalities as being “well known in the art”).
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 5,054,885 (“Melby”) (Ex. 1006)
`Melby discloses a light fixture for use in flat panel displays. Ex. 1006, 1:14-16.
`
`Melby qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Melby issued as a patent
`
`on October 8, 1991, more than one year before the June 27, 1995 priority date to
`
`which the ’177 Patent may be entitled. Melby was not cited or considered during
`
`prosecution of the application that led to the ’177 Patent.
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 5,453,855 (“Nakamura”) (Ex. 1007)
`Nakamura discloses a liquid crystal display device that is back illuminated by
`
`LEDs. Ex. 1007, 1:9-10. Nakamura qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)
`
`because Sasuga was filed on December 9, 1993, before the June 27, 1995 priority date
`
`to which the ’177 Patent may be entitled. Nakamura was not cited or considered
`
`during prosecution of the application that led to the ’177 Patent.
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM
`In light of the disclosures detailed below, the ’177 Patent is unpatentable for at
`
`least the reasons summarized in the chart below and discussed in more detail herein.
`
`Ground # Ground Prior Art
`Melby
`1
`103(a)
`
`Exhibit(s)# Claims
`Ex. 1006
`1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15,
`19
`1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15,
`19, 22
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, And 19 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) As Being Obvious Over Melby
`
`2
`
`102(e)
`
`Nakamura
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Melby was a main reference in the petition for IPR2014-01362, which the Board
`
`recently granted on March 2, 2015. Ex. 1024. The Board found that there was a
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`reasonable likelihood that LGD would prevail on each of the claims that it challenged
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`based on Melby (1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, 21, 23-25, and 27). Ex. 1024 at 19. As to
`
`claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, and 19, Petitioner here includes the same charts relied upon
`
`by LGD.
`
`Melby discloses a light fixture for use in flat panel displays. Ex. 1006, 1:14-16.
`
`The “light fixture has a source of partially collimated light for emitting light having an
`
`axis of collimation.” Id. Abstract. Melby also discloses “a housing 30 including walls
`
`32, 34, 36 and 38 defin[ing] an optical cavity having an optical window” as well as a
`
`rear wall. Id. 2:44-45 (emphasis added); 2:63-65.
`
`Melby discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, and 19, but
`
`within both the first and third embodiments. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would be motivated to pick and choose features of the different embodiments to
`
`combine because they are taught within the same patent and there is no disclosure
`
`suggesting that they should not or cannot be combined. See Ex. 1004, Coleman Decl.,
`
`¶¶50-51; see also Ex. 1006, at 3:1-6.
`
`The elements of independent
`
`claims 1 and 15 of the ’177 Patent are
`
`shown in the annotated figure at right,
`
`composed of Figure 1 and 3 of Melby
`
`that are labeled as claim elements.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Regarding claims 1 and 15, Melby discloses a housing 30 with continuous side
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`
`
`walls 32, 34, 36, and back wall 38, which form a cavity completely surrounded by the
`
`side walls. See Ex. 1006, at 2:63-65; see also Ex. 1004, Coleman Decl., ¶54. The
`
`housing includes mounted light sources 42 and 44 (claims 1, 6, 15). The housing is
`
`also reflective, having reflective side walls, and contains secondary surfaces, structured
`
`surface 46 made of prisms, which facilitate better mixing of light from the light
`
`sources (claims 9 and 15), which may be LEDs (claim 19). See Ex. 1006, at 1:57-60,
`
`2:15-17, 2:20-33, 2:67-3:1; see also Ex. 1004, Coleman Decl., ¶¶57-62. Sheet 40 also
`
`overlies the assembly, as required by claims 1 and 15. The sheet may contain pillows
`
`optics or Fresnel prisms as taught by Fig. 1, which are a form of raised or depressed
`
`prismatic deformities (claims 14) and which reflect light, which provides additional
`
`light mixing (claim 10, 13). See Ex. 1006, at 2:11-14, 2:30-33; see also Ex. 1004,
`
`Coleman Decl., ¶¶79-90.
`
`Regarding claim 7, the secondary reflective surfaces referred to as structured
`
`surface 46 in Melby, are in close proximity to the light sources, as can be seen in Fig. 3.
`
`See Ex. 1006, at 3:1-14, 4:5-8, 2:15-20; see also Ex. 1004, Coleman Decl., ¶¶ 71-72.
`
`The claim chart below shows a detailed analysis of how claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-
`
`15, and 19 of the ’177 Patent would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in view of the teachings in Melby. For all these reasons, claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, and
`
`19 are unpatentable in view of Melby and thus, Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`of prevailing with respect to at least one claim, as already found by the Board in
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`instituting IPR2014-01362.
`
`’177 Claim Element
`1. A light emitting
`assembly comprising
`
`[1.a] a tray having a back
`wall and continuous side
`walls that form a hollow
`cavity or recess completely
`surrounded by the side
`walls,
`
`Melby (Ex. 1006)
`“A light fixture has a source of partially collimated light
`for emitting light having an axis of collimation. A
`structured surface has a plurality of prisms that are
`rendered reflective for reflecting light from the light
`source out of the cavity. The peaks of the prisms define
`a surface at least a portion of which makes an acute
`angle with the axis of collimation.” Ex. 1006, Abstract
`See Ex. 1004, Coleman Decl., ¶53.
`“According to the invention a housing defines an optical
`cavity having an optical window.” Ex. 1006, 1:54-55.
`“Fig. 3 illustrates an alternative embodiment wherein a
`housing 30 including walls 32, 34. 36 and 38 defines an
`optical cavity having an optical window.” Ex. 1006,
`2:63-65.
`
`[1.b] at least one light
`source located, mounted
`or positioned in the cavity
`or recess,
`
`
`
`See Ex. 1004, Coleman Decl., ¶¶54-55.
`“A source of partially collimated light 16 is positioned
`inside the optical cavity and adjacent side 10 of the
`housing.” Ex. 1006, 2:15-17.
`“Light from two partially collimated light sources is
`directed from light sources 42 and 44 to structured
`surface 46.” Id. 2:67-3:1.
`See Ex. 1004, Coleman Decl., ¶56.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`’177 Claim Element
`[1.c] and at least one sheet,
`film or substrate overlying
`the assembly for
`controlling the light
`emitted from the assembly
`to fit a particular
`application,
`
`[1.d] wherein the tray acts
`as at least one of a back,
`side edge, and end edge
`reflector and has one or
`more secondary flat,
`angled, faceted or curved
`reflective or refractive
`surfaces to redirect at least
`a portion of the light
`emitted by the light source
`in a predetermined manner
`within the cavity or recess.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,384,177
`
`Melby (Ex. 1006)
`“Light transmitting member 14 may be a transparent or
`translucent material. If desired, light transmitting
`member 14 could include structures such as pillow
`optics or Fres