`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 26
`Entered: June 23, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-005061
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01666 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. filed a Petition seeking inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’973 patent”).
`
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Delaware Display Group LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to § 314(a), we
`
`instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims 1–5 on one ground
`
`of unpatentability. Paper 8 (“Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner filed a Patent
`
`Owner Response (Paper 17, “PO Response”), and LG Display Co., Ltd. filed
`
`a Reply (Paper 20, “Reply”).
`
`Following institution, LG Electronics, Inc. filed timely a Petition and
`
`Motion for Joinder in Case IPR2015-01666, challenging the same claims of
`
`the ’973 patent on the same ground as that on which we instituted review in
`
`this proceeding, plus one additional ground. See Paper 24, 2. LG
`
`Electronics, Inc. agreed to abandon the additional ground should IPR2015-
`
`01666 be joined with this proceeding. See id. at 2 n.1. To administer the
`
`proceedings more efficiently, we granted LG Electronics, Inc.’s Motion for
`
`Joinder, joining Case IPR2015-01666 with the instant proceeding. Id. at 5.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we refer to LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., jointly, as “Petitioner.”
`
`An oral hearing was held on March 1, 2016, and a copy of the
`
`transcript is included in the record (Paper 25, “Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §6(c). This final written
`
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 as to
`
`the patentability of the challenged claims of the ’973 patent.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`
`
`demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–5 of the
`
`’973 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Patent Owner states that it has asserted infringement of the ’973
`
`patent in the following proceeding: Delaware Display Group LLC v.
`
`Lenovo Holding Co., Case No. 1:13-cv-02108 (D. Del., filed Dec. 31, 2013).
`
`Paper 4, 2.
`
`
`
`B. The ʼ973 Patent
`
`The ’973 patent is titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies.” The
`
`Abstract describes the subject matter as follows:
`
`Light emitting panel assemblies include a light emitting
`panel member having at least one light source optically coupled
`to a portion of an input edge of the panel member. A plurality of
`individual light extracting deformities on or in at least one panel
`surface of the panel member are of well defined shape and have
`a length and width substantially smaller than the length and width
`of the panel surface. At least some of the deformities have at least
`one surface that is angled at different orientations relative to the
`input edge depending on the location of the deformities on the
`panel surface to face a portion of the input edge to which a light
`source is optically coupled.
`
`Ex. 1001, at [57].
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’973 patent recites:
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`1. A light emitting panel assembly comprising
`
`
`
`a light emitting panel member having at least one input
`
`edge,
`
`a plurality of light sources optically coupled to different
`portions of the width of the input edge, and
`
`a pattern of individual light extracting deformities
`associated with respective light sources,
`
`wherein the deformities are projections or depressions on
`or in at least one surface of the panel member for producing a
`desired light output from the panel member,
`
`wherein each of the deformities has a length and width
`substantially smaller than the length and width of the panel
`surface,
`
`wherein the deformities that are in close proximity to the
`input edge increase in density, size, depth and/or height as the
`distance of the deformities from the respective light sources
`increases across the width of the panel member, and
`
`wherein the density, size, depth and/or height of the
`deformities in close proximity to the input edge is greatest at
`approximate midpoints between adjacent pairs of the light
`sources.
`
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`Patent Owner asserts that the ’973 patent has expired and that we
`
`should use the claim construction standard of the district courts, specifically
`
`the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). PO Resp. 21; Tr. 16:17–19. Petitioner
`
`contends that the ’973 patent has not expired and that “regardless of the
`
`claim construction standard that is applied, the constructions put forth by
`
`Petitioner should not change.” Reply 1. For the reasons that follow, we
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`need not decide, for purposes of this Decision, whether the ’973 patent has
`
`
`
`expired.
`
`
`
`1. “deformities”
`
`In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of the term “deformities”: “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.” Dec. on Inst. 4. Petitioner asserts that its
`
`proposed construction is based on the “express definition” of the term
`
`provided in the ’973 patent. Pet. 6. Patent Owner does not oppose that
`
`construction. PO Resp. 24. Like Petitioner, Patent Owner also does not
`
`specify how our construction of “deformities” would be different under the
`
`standard for expired patents. Nor do we discern the construction of the term
`
`to be different under the two standards. Indeed, both parties point out in
`
`their submissions that our construction reflects “an agreed upon construction
`
`entered by the district court in a related proceeding.” Reply 2; see PO Resp.
`
`24 (“Patent Owner’s proposed definition is the same as the Board’s
`
`construction in the institution decision. Patent Owner notifies the Board that
`
`the district court in [related cases] has enter[ed] an agreed construction of
`
`‘deformities’ from patents related to this patent that mimics the construction
`
`offered here.”).
`
`The parties agree that a claim construction under either a Phillips
`
`interpretation or a broadest reasonable interpretation would not impact the
`
`scope of the claim. See Pet. 5–6; PO Resp. 24; see also Prelim. Resp. 2–3
`
`(“the district court in [a related case] has ruled on constructions of terms that
`
`appear in this patent . . . , including entering an agreed construction of
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`‘deformities,’ which Petitioner adopts in its Petition.”). In view of the
`
`
`
`record developed during trial, we confirm that the construction of
`
`“deformities” agreed to by the parties is the correct construction, namely,
`
`“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.” Dec. on Inst. 4.
`
`Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the
`
`Petition “fails on its face” for failure to construe the claims properly.
`
`
`
`2. “each of the deformities has a length and width substantially smaller
`than the length and width of the panel surface”
`
`Claim 1 of the ’973 patent recites, in relevant part, “each of the
`
`deformities has a length and width substantially smaller than the length and
`
`width of the panel surface.” In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner
`
`proposed the following construction for this claim term:
`
`each of the deformities has a length and width such that the
`pattern is nearly invisible to the human eye when incorporated
`into its application, e.g., a print pattern of deformities with
`0.006 square inch per deformity/element or less, or a print
`pattern of deformities with 60 lines per inch or finer.
`
`PO Resp. 23.
`
`Patent Owner repeats its unsuccessful argument that, “[w]ithout
`
`offering a construction for this term, the Petitioner has failed to meet the
`
`burden of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” Id. Petitioner responds that this term
`
`(1) does not require construction; (2) is limited to a specific embodiment in
`
`the specification; (3) and imports a limitation from the specification into the
`
`claims. Reply 3–4. Having considered the full record developed during
`
`trial, we agree with Petitioner that this term does not require construction.
`
`See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary
`
`
`
`to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`distinguishing the prior art do not rely on a particular construction for this
`
`term. See infra.
`
`
`
`E. References
`
`Petitioner relies on the following reference: Shinohara, US 6,167,182,
`
`issued December 26, 2000 (Ex. 1010). Petitioner also relies on a
`
`Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (Ex. 1004, “Escuti Decl.”).
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 17) is accompanied by a Declaration
`
`of Mr. Kenneth Werner (Ex. 2010, “Werner Decl.”).
`
`Deposition transcripts for the witnesses have been entered in the
`
`record as Exhibits 1040 (“Werner Dep.”) and 2007 (“Escuti Dep.”).
`
`
`
`F. Ground of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted trial on one ground of unpatentability: anticipation of
`
`claims 1–5 by Shinohara.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Effective Filing Date for Claims 1–5
`
`As a preliminary matter, we first consider Patent Owner’s contention
`
`that the ’973 patent is entitled to an effective filing date of June 27, 1995.
`
`PO Resp. 25. If this contention were to succeed, the Shinohara reference,
`
`which has an effective date of October 27, 1997, would not qualify as prior
`
`art. See Res. Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 870 (Fed.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`Cir. 2010) (“patentee must show that the prior art . . . is not prior art because
`
`
`
`the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date”).
`
`Through a chain of continuing applications, the application for the
`
`’973 patent claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 08/495,176 (“the ’176 grandparent application”), which has
`
`a filing date of June 27, 1995. Id. at [60]; Ex. 1002, 89. In our Decision on
`
`Institution, we determined that the challenged claims of the ’973 patent are
`
`not entitled to the benefit of the June 27, 1995 filing date of the ’176
`
`grandparent application because that application does not disclose at least
`
`the following disputed limitation recited in the challenged claims: “wherein
`
`the density, size, depth and/or height of the deformities in close proximity to
`
`the input edge is greatest at approximate midpoints between adjacent pairs of
`
`the light sources.” Dec. on Inst. 8–10. For purposes of the Decision on
`
`Institution, we thus determined that Patent Owner is instead entitled only to
`
`the filing date of the application for the ʼ973 patent, February 9, 2007. Id.
`
`Accordingly, we considered Shinohara as prior art. See id. at 12–17.
`
`In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner maintains its position
`
`that the ’176 grandparent application provides sufficient written description
`
`support for the challenged claims of the ’973 patent. PO Resp. 27. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner argues that the ’176 grandparent application
`
`discloses five elements that support the disputed limitation: (1) placing
`
`multiple light sources along an edge of the panel; (2) placing deformities in
`
`areas of the panel as desired; (3) increasing the density and/or size of
`
`deformities in areas of the panel where greater light output is desired; (4)
`
`increasing the density of deformities in areas of the panel as the distance
`
`from the light source increases; and (5) varying the deformities on the panel
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`to control light output. PO Resp. 27–32; Tr. 34:1–22. According to Patent
`
`
`
`Owner, these disclosure elements “necessarily taught the [disputed]
`
`limitation” because “[t]he ’176 grandparent application discloses deformities
`
`placed anywhere on the panel as desired, which includes in close proximity
`
`to an input edge,” and “[o]ne of ordinary skill reading the ’176 grandparent
`
`application would know that, along the input edge, the approximate
`
`midpoint between the two light sources is an area farther away from a light
`
`source, and thus is an area of the input edge in which the light would be less
`
`plentiful.” PO Resp. 28, 33.
`
`In response, Petitioner argues that “[a]ll Patent Owner attempts to
`
`show is that the challenged limitations would have been obvious over the
`
`disclosure, not that the challenged limitations are expressly disclosed or
`
`necessarily present.” Reply 6. In support of its argument, Petitioner relies
`
`on Mr. Werner’s testimony regarding the disclosure of element (4) discussed
`
`above, which relates to increasing the density of deformities in areas of the
`
`panel as the distance from the light source increases. Id. at 11 (citing Ex.
`
`1040, 115:2–116:25). Petitioner points out that Mr. Werner testified that
`
`“the increased distance from the light source is not limited to a distance
`
`along the length of the panel member, along the width of the panel member,
`
`or along any direction at all.” Id. Given this testimony, Petitioner contends
`
`that the “the disclosure in the [’176 grandparent application] does not show
`
`that the density, size, depth and/or height of the deformities in close
`
`proximity to the input edge is greatest at approximate midpoints between
`
`adjacent pairs of light sources is necessarily present.” Id. at 11–12.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner contends, the ’176 grandparent application does not
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`even mention deformities, or the need for deformities, when discussing
`
`
`
`panels with multiple light sources. Tr. 42:24–44:11.
`
`We agree with Petitioner that, for the reasons given, the disclosure of
`
`the ’176 grandparent application is insufficient. “Entitlement to a filing date
`
`does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be
`
`obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines Inc.,
`
`107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Reply 5–6. We find that
`
`the cited disclosures in the ’176 grandparent application do not describe the
`
`density, size, depth, or height of the deformities at approximate midpoints
`
`between adjacent pairs of light sources. As discussed above, Patent Owner
`
`maintains that a skilled artisan reading the ’176 grandparent application
`
`would know that “the approximate midpoint between the two light sources is
`
`an area farther away from a light source.” PO Resp. 28 (emphasis added).
`
`We are not persuaded by this argument, for it does not establish that the
`
`approximate midpoint between adjacent pairs of light sources is the only
`
`area farther away from a light source. As Petitioner points out, “the
`
`increased distance from the light source is not limited to a distance along the
`
`length of the panel member, along the width of the panel member, or along
`
`any direction at all.” Reply 11. Thus, Patent Owner fails to meet its burden
`
`under Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
`
`1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (burden of production shifted to patent owner to
`
`prove entitlement to earlier filing date).
`
`We note Patent Owner’s reliance on the testimony of Mr. Werner, and
`
`further argument that the “‘minutiae of descriptions or procedures perfectly
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art yet unfamiliar to laymen need not
`
`be set forth.’” PO Resp. 26–27, 34 (quoting Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348,
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998)), 27–34 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 72–82). We are not
`
`
`
`persuaded by this argument and supporting testimony, however, for the
`
`Hyatt court explained that “when an explicit limitation . . . is not present in
`
`the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent
`
`application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt,
`
`146 F.3d at 1353 (emphasis added). Based on the record before us,
`
`including the arguments presented by Petitioner, we are not persuaded that
`
`the ’176 grandparent application requires all the recited features of the
`
`disputed limitation.
`
`In view of the foregoing, we determine that Patent Owner has not
`
`demonstrated that the ’176 grandparent application, as originally filed,
`
`provides written description support for the disputed limitation. Therefore,
`
`we determine that claims 1–5 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date
`
`of the ’176 grandparent application and Patent Owner is thus entitled only to
`
`the effective filing date of the application for the ʼ973 patent, February 9,
`
`2007. As a consequence, we find that Shinohara qualifies as prior art.
`
`
`
`B. Anticipation by Shinohara
`
`A claim is anticipated if each limitation of the claim is disclosed in a
`
`single prior art reference arranged as in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
`
`VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). As recently reiterated
`
`by the Federal Circuit, “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes]
`
`not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the
`
`claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once
`
`envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In
`
`re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). We analyze this ground
`
`based on anticipation in accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that Shinohara anticipates claims 1–5 of the ’973
`
`patent. Pet. 29–38. We have reviewed the Petition, the Patent Owner
`
`Response, and Reply, as well as relevant evidence discussed in each of those
`
`papers. Based on our review, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Shinohara anticipates
`
`claims 1–5.
`
`
`
`1. Shinohara
`
`Shinohara describes a surface light source device with a plurality of
`
`point light sources spaced apart along an optical guide plate. Ex. 1010, Fig.
`
`27. Figure 27 of Shinohara is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 27 shows an optical guide plate 22 in a surface light source device.
`
`Id. at 11:23–25. The optical guide plate 22 is divided into areas
`
`corresponding to point light sources 30. Id. at 20:1–4. Each area includes a
`
`diffuse pattern 24. Id. Each diffuse pattern 24 includes diffuse pattern
`
`elements 24a that are arranged concentrically around the point light source
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`30. Id. at 13:41–43. A diffuse pattern element 24a may be a recess formed
`
`
`
`on the lower surface of the optical guide plate 22. See id., Fig. 10. The
`
`density of the diffuse pattern elements 24a increases as the distance from the
`
`point light source 30 increases. Id. at 13:47–49, 20:9–11. Thus, “the
`
`luminance distribution is uniform with respect to the corresponding point
`
`light source 30, and the luminance of the surface light source device is
`
`increased.” Id. at 20:6–8.
`
`
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends that Shinohara discloses every element of claim 1.
`
`Pet. 29–38. In support of its contention, Petitioner provides detailed claim
`
`charts and expert testimony through the Escuti Declaration. See id. For the
`
`most part, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis of claim 1 in
`
`relation to Shinohara. See Paper 9, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that
`
`any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed
`
`waived.”). We therefore focus our discussion on the disputed elements of
`
`the claim.
`
`
`
`a. “the density, size, depth and/or height of the deformities in close
`proximity to the input edge is greatest at approximate midpoints
`between adjacent pairs of the light sources”
`
`Claim 1 recites “the density, size, depth and/or height of the
`
`deformities in close proximity to the input edge is greatest at approximate
`
`midpoints between adjacent pairs of the light sources.” For this disputed
`
`limitation, Petitioner directs us to Shinohara’s equation (2) that represents
`
`the density of pattern elements (i.e., deformities) as a function of the radial
`
`distance “r” from a light source. Pet. 35–36; Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1010,
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`18:27–37). Equation (2) follows: ρ=Q/S=2·(R2–r2). Shinohara explains
`
`
`
`that, in accordance with equation (2), “[t]he density of the diffuse pattern
`
`elements is zero at the position of the point light source 30, while linearly
`
`increasing with the distance r in the vicinity of the point light source 30.”
`
`Ex. 1010, 18:32–35. Referring to Figure 27 (reproduced supra), Shinohara
`
`further explains:
`
`When the plurality of point light sources 30 are arranged so as to
`be spaced apart from each other, an optical guide plate 22 may
`be divided for each of the point light sources 30, to respectively
`design diffuse patterns 24 such that for each of areas obtained by
`the division, the luminance distribution is uniform with respect
`to the corresponding point light source 30, and the luminance of
`the surface light source device is increased, that is, the equation
`(2) is satisfied. Particularly, it is desirable that the density of the
`diffuse pattern 24 is zero in the vicinity of each of the point light
`sources 30.
`
`Id. at 20:1–11 (cited at Pet. 35–36; Reply 17).
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that equation (2) in conjunction with Figure 27
`
`and the other disclosures in Shinohara meets the density distribution
`
`limitations of the challenged claims. Reply 16–18; see Pet. 35–36.
`
`Petitioner explains that “[b]ecause the density distribution in each of the
`
`areas . . . satisfies equation (2), the diffuse pattern 24 in each of the areas
`
`also has a density of zero at the light source (i.e., smaller density near light
`
`source) and increasing linearly with the radial distance “r” in the vicinity of
`
`the light source.” Reply 17; see Pet. 35–36. Petitioner also points out that
`
`“[b]ecause the density increases in each of the respective areas as the radial
`
`distance from the light source increases, it will be maximum at the
`
`boundaries between the adjacent areas, that is at the midpoint between
`
`adjacent light sources.” Reply 17; see also Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1010,
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`18:32–35, 20:1–11, Fig. 27; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 132–133). Thus, Petitioner
`
`
`
`concludes, Figure 27 of Shinohara discloses the disputed limitation. Reply
`
`17–18; see Pet. 35–36.
`
`Patent Owner makes four arguments in response. First, Patent Owner
`
`argues that Shinohara does not disclose “the part of the limitation that
`
`requires the deformities to be in ‘close proximity’ to the input edge.” PO
`
`Resp. 45. Patent Owner refers to Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 27
`
`of Shinohara, which is reproduced below. See id.
`
`
`
`Figure 27 of Shinohara shows a diffuse pattern on an optical guide plate.
`
`Ex. 1010, 11:23–25. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner is focusing on
`
`a midpoint that is not in close proximity to the input edge” because “[t]he
`
`red box added by Petitioner is at an area not in close proximity to the input
`
`edge.” PO Resp. 45. Moreover, Patent Owner contends, “Shinohara shows
`
`other deformities in close proximity to the input edge that are greater in
`
`density and size than the deformities at the approximate midpoint between
`
`light sources 30 at the input edge.” Id. at 46. To illustrate this point, Patent
`
`Owner refers to its annotated version of Figure 27 of Shinohara, which is
`
`reproduced below. Id.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As discussed above, Figure 27 of Shinohara shows a diffuse pattern on an
`
`optical guide plate. Ex. 1010, 11:23–25. Patent Owner explains that the red
`
`circle represents the midpoint between the two light sources 30, the blue
`
`circle represents a point where the density of elements is greater than the
`
`density of elements at the midpoint, and the green circle represents a point
`
`where the elements are larger than the elements at the midpoint. PO Resp.
`
`46.
`
`In response, Petitioner points out that Shinohara describes the density
`
`of the pattern elements (i.e., deformities) as being “zero at the position of the
`
`point light source 30, while linearly increasing with the distance r in the
`
`vicinity of the point light source 30.” See Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1010, 18:33–
`
`35). Petitioner contends that this description in Shinohara satisfies the
`
`“close proximity” feature because “the variation in density in Fig. 9 and Fig.
`
`27 expressly applies to ‘the vicinity of the point light source.’” Id.
`
` We find Petitioner’s arguments to be persuasive on this issue.
`
`Figures 9 and 27 of Shinohara are reproduced below.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Each of these figures shows a diffuse pattern formed on an optical guide
`
`plate in a surface light source device. Ex. 1010, 10:41–42, 11:23–25. The
`
`point light sources 30 are located along a light incidence surface 26. Id.,
`
`Figs. 9, 27. Thus, we find that Shinohara discloses pattern elements 24a
`
`(i.e., deformities) that are in the vicinity of a point light source 30, which is
`
`located along a light incidence surface (i.e., input edge).
`
`Patent Owner does not rebut Petitioner’s persuasive evidence that the
`
`pattern elements in the vicinity of a point light source in Shinohara meet the
`
`recited claim element of “deformities in close proximity” to an input edge.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions based on the
`
`appearance of these features in Figure 27 of Shinohara. See PO Resp. 46.
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledged at oral hearing that Shinohara’s figures
`
`are not drawn to scale. See Tr. 26:1–2. Such “arguments based on drawings
`
`not explicitly made to scale in issued patents are unavailing.” See Nystrom
`
`v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we
`
`are persuaded that Shinohara discloses the “close proximity” feature recited
`
`in claim 1.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that Shinohara’s discussion of
`
`
`
`equation (2) (see Ex. 1001, 18:32–35) does not disclose the disputed
`
`limitation because Figure 27 of Shinohara shows “points in close proximity
`
`to the input edge that are farther away from the light source than the
`
`midpoint,” and “at the area of the input edge at the ends of the plate 22, the
`
`density of diffuse pattern elements 24 is greater than at the midpoint of two
`
`light sources 30 on the input edges.” PO Resp. 51–52. We are unpersuaded
`
`by this argument for reasons discussed above, namely, “arguments based on
`
`drawings not explicitly made to scale in issued patents are unavailing.” See
`
`Nystrom, 424 at 1149. Moreover, also as discussed above, Shinohara
`
`teaches that the plate 22 is divided into areas, one for each light source. Ex.
`
`1010, 20:3–4. Shinohara also teaches that for each area, equation (2) is
`
`satisfied (i.e., the density of the diffuse pattern elements is zero at the light
`
`source, while linearly increasing with the distance “r”). Id. at 18:30–35,
`
`20:5–9. As Petitioner explains, “[b]ecause the density increases in each of
`
`the respective areas as the radial distance from the light source increases, it
`
`will be maximum at the boundaries between the adjacent areas, that is at the
`
`midpoint between adjacent light sources.” Reply 17; see also Pet. 35–36
`
`(citing Ex. 1010, 18:32–35, 20:1–11, Fig. 27; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 132–133). We
`
`find this explanation persuasive.
`
`Third, Patent Owner argues that Shinohara’s discussion of Figure 27
`
`(see Ex. 1001, 20:1–11) does not disclose the disputed limitation, but instead
`
`“discloses that the light guide is divided, and the diffuse patterns are
`
`mirrored such that each light source has its own diffusion pattern similar to
`
`the pattern afforded to a single point source” and such that “the luminance
`
`distribution is uniform with respect to the corresponding point light source.”
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`
`PO Resp. 48–49. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]his is fundamentally different
`
`from the disclosure of the ’973 patent, which is directed to making the
`
`distribution of two combined light sources uniform.” Id. at 50. According
`
`to Patent Owner, such mirrored patterns “would yield an uneven combined
`
`light distribution, and an uneven distribution of densities in the elements.”
`
`Id. at 49. Patent Owner further explains that “because of the mirroring of
`
`the patterns [in Shinohara], one of ordinary skill in the art would see a hole
`
`of deformities in close proximity to the input surface” that “create[s] a dark
`
`area where light is not uniformly diffused.” Id. at 50.
`
`We do not find this argument to be persuasive. Patent Owner’s
`
`argument is not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 1 and
`
`relies on distinctions not present in the claim. Claim 1 requires “producing a
`
`desired light output.” There is nothing in the claim that suggests how the
`
`light is distributed, much less requiring that the combined light from two
`
`sources (as opposed to the light from individual sources) be distributed
`
`uniformly. Nor is there any language in claim 1 that excludes the use of
`
`divided light guides, mirrored diffuse patterns, or holes, as Petitioner points
`
`out. See Reply 20–21. Moreover, we note that claim 1 recites “wherein the
`
`deformities . . . increase in density . . . as the distance of the deformities
`
`from the respective light sources increases across the width of the panel
`
`member.” Patent Owner fails to explain persuasively why this language
`
`would not encompass “an uneven distribution of densities in the elements.”
`
`See PO Resp. 50.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s reliance on Shinohara
`
`“is improper for anticipation because it relies on the embodiment shown [in]
`
`Fig. 9, and that figure relates to only single light source panels.” PO Resp.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00506
`Patent 7,434,973 B2
`
`
`47; see id. at 44 (“Fig. 27, which shows multiple light sources” and “Figure
`
`
`
`9, which is an embodiment without multiple light sources”); Prelim. Resp. 9.
`
`Patent Owner points out that “[t]he PTAB has regularly found that an
`
`examiner erred when combining various passages from different
`
`embodiments to support an anticipation rejection.” PO Resp. 48; accord
`
`Prelim. Resp. 10. We are not persuaded by this argument. As we explained
`
`in our Decision on Institution, “[a]lthough Figures 9 and 27 of Shinohara
`
`describe different embodiments as a whole, Petitioner relies on Figure 9 for
`
`illustrating a particular aspect of the diffuse pattern elements 24a, which is
`
`present in both embodiments.” Dec. on Inst. 13–14.
`
`In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has presented persuasive evidence
`
`to support a finding that Shinohara discloses the limitation “the density, size,
`
`depth and/or height of the deformities in close proximity to the input edge is
`
`greatest at approximate midpoints between adjacent pairs of the light
`
`sources” recited in independent claim 1.
`
`
`
`b. “each of the deformities has a length and width substantially smaller
`than the length and width of the panel surface”
`
`Claim 1 further recites “each of the deformities has a length and width
`
`substantial