UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2015-01666
`
`Patent 7,434,973
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. ESCUTI, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`LGE_000326
`
`LG Electronics Ex. 1004
`
`

`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 
`A. 
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................ 1 
`B. 
`Information Considered ....................................................................... 7 
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 7 
`A. 
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art.................................................... 8 
`B. 
`Anticipation .......................................................................................... 9 
`C. 
`Obviousness ....................................................................................... 10 
`D. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 13 
`E. 
`Priority ................................................................................................ 14 
`III.  TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ............................................................ 15 
`A. 
`Light Redirecting Film System .......................................................... 15 
`B. 
`Common Light Control Structures and Films .................................... 18 
`C. 
`Desired Light Output ......................................................................... 30 
`IV.  THE ’973 PATENT ..................................................................................... 31 
`A. 
`Background of the ’973 Patent .......................................................... 31 
`B. 
`Prosecution History (Ex. 1002) .......................................................... 31 
`C. 
`Asserted Claims ................................................................................. 34 
`D. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 34 
`PRIORITY ................................................................................................... 34 
`V. 
`VI.  PRIOR ART ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 39 
`A.  U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0012946 (“the Parker
`Publication”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,473,554 (“Pelka”) .................... 39 
`1. 
`Claims 1-5 are Obvious Over the Parker Publication in
`View of Pelka ........................................................................... 40 
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,182 (“Shinohara”) ......................................... 64 
`1. 
`Claims 1-5 are Anticipated by Shinohara ............................ 64 
`VII.  SUPPLEMENTATION ............................................................................... 82 
`
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`LGE_000327
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Dr. Michael J. Escuti, and I have been retained by the law firm
`
`of Mayer Brown LLP on behalf of LG Electronics, Inc. as an expert in the relevant
`
`art.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions and views on the materials I have
`
`reviewed in this case related to Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973 (“the ’973
`
`Patent”) (“the patent-at-issue”), and the scientific and technical knowledge
`
`regarding the same subject matter before and for a period following the date of the
`
`first application for the patent-at-issue was filed.
`
`3.
`
`I am compensated at the rate of $330/hour for my work, plus reimbursement
`
`for expenses. My compensation has not influenced any of my opinions in this
`
`matter and does not depend on the outcome of this proceeding or any issue in it.
`
`4. My opinion and underlying reasoning for this opinion are set forth below.
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`
`5.
`
`I am currently a tenured Associate Professor at North Carolina State
`
`University (“NCSU”), in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
`
`As detailed below, I have over 17 years of experience directly relevant to the ’973
`
`Patent, including in the fields of liquid crystal display (“LCD”) technologies,
`
`backlight design, optical physics, and electronic materials.
`
`6.
`
`I received my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Brown University in
`
`1
`
`LGE_000328
`
`

`
`Providence, RI, in 2002. My dissertation topic focused on novel LCD systems and
`
`devices, including both experimental and theoretical study. Upon earning my
`
`Ph.D., I apprenticed as a Postdoctoral Scholar in the Department of Chemical
`
`Engineering at Eindhoven University of Technology (Netherlands), where my
`
`research focused on LCDs, novel backlight approaches, diffractive optical
`
`films/sheets, and polymer-based organic electronics. Since 2004, I have been on
`
`the faculty of NCSU in Raleigh, NC, currently as a tenured Professor in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I have supervised the
`
`graduation of seven Ph.D. and three M.S. students, and currently advise an
`
`additional
`
`three Ph.D. students. In addition, I have mentored nineteen
`
`undergraduate researchers.
`
`7.
`
`In 2005, I co-founded ImagineOptix Corporation, which commercializes
`
`components, systems, and optical thin-film technology developed within my
`
`academic
`
`laboratory. The primary markets are LCDs, projectors, and
`
`telecommunications hardware. Since its inception, I have been a part-time advisor
`
`to the company with the title of Chief Scientific Officer, and in 2013, I joined the
`
`Board of Directors.
`
`8. With my students and collaborators, I have authored over 110 publications,
`
`including journal articles, refereed conference proceedings, and book chapters. I
`
`am a named inventor on 12 issued and 20 pending United States patents, and
`
`2
`
`LGE_000329
`
`

`
`several additional foreign patents. I have offered 30 invited research presentations.
`
`9.
`
`I have received numerous awards and distinctions, including the following:
`
`a. (2011) Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers
`
`(“PECASE”), the highest award by the U.S. Government for young
`
`researchers;
`
`b. (2011) Alcoa Foundation Engineering Research Achievement Award,
`
`awarded to one faculty NCSU member annually recognizing outstanding
`
`research;
`
`c. (2010) Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Award, from the
`
`National Science Foundation (“NSF”);
`
`d. (2004) Glenn H. Brown Prize for Outstanding Ph.D. Dissertation, from
`
`the International Liquid Crystal Society (“ILCS”);
`
`e. (2002) New Focus Award, Top Winner, from the Optical Society of
`
`America (“OSA”); (2001) Graduate Student Silver Award, from the
`
`Materials Research Society;
`
`f. (2001) Sigma Xi Outstanding Graduate Student Research Award, from
`
`Brown University chapter;
`
`g. (1999) Best Student Paper Award, Society for Information Display
`
`(“SID”);
`
`h. Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”),
`
`3
`
`LGE_000330
`
`

`
`Society of Photo-optical and Instrumentation Engineers (“SPIE”), OSA,
`
`and SID.
`
`10. My research at NCSU over the last ten years has been supported by more
`
`than $8M in external research funds, in part from several government agencies,
`
`including the NSF, the United States Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), the
`
`Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the National
`
`Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). A further part of this support also
`
`comes from several strong partnerships with industry, including Raytheon,
`
`Lockheed Martin, Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, Boulder Nonlinear Systems, and
`
`ImagineOptix.
`
`11.
`
` My central expertise via training and research experience is in LCD system
`
`design, materials, technology, and optical modeling. I began working with
`
`technologies to improve viewing angle problems in 1998, and in 1999 published
`
`my first journal article on this topic (M.J. Escuti, et al., Enhanced Dynamic
`
`Response of the In-plane Switching Liquid Crystal Display Mode Through
`
`Polymer Stabilization, Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 75, pp. 3264-3266 (1999)). In 2002, I
`
`co-authored an invited chapter reviewing LCD technology (G.P. Crawford and
`
`M.J. Escuti, Liquid Crystal Display Technology, in “Encyclopedia of Imaging
`
`Science and Technology,” ed. J.P. Hornak (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002)). In
`
`2005, I co-authored a journal article focused on an advanced LCD backlight (C.
`
`4
`
`LGE_000331
`
`

`
`Sanchez, M.J. Escuti, et al., “An efficient illumination system for LCDs
`
`incorporating an anisotropic hologram,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 87, art. no. 094101,
`
`(2005)), and I currently am leading multiple projects at NCSU on backlights that
`
`are largely unpublished.
`
`12. As a student, I used and reviewed several textbooks and reference books,
`
`including those listed below (a-f). Also listed is an additional book I use in the
`
`class I teach on LCDs for undergraduate and graduate students that I developed at
`
`NCSU with support from the NSF.
`
`a. J. A. Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic Press Inc.,
`
`San Diego (1992);
`
`b. D. E. Mentley and J. A. Castellano, Liquid Crystal Display
`
`Manufacturing, Stanford Resources, Inc., San Jose (1994);
`
`c. Liquid Crystals: Applications and Uses (Vol. 1), edited by B. Bahadur,
`
`World Scientific (1995);
`
`d. P. Collings and J. Patel, eds., Handbook of Liquid Crystal Research,
`
`Oxford University Press, New York (1997);
`
`e. Pochi Yeh and Claire Gu, Optics of Liquid Crystal Displays, Wiley &
`
`Sons (1999);
`
`f. Ernst Lueder, Liquid Crystal Displays: Addressing schemes & electro-
`
`optical effects, New York: Wiley (2001);
`
`5
`
`LGE_000332
`
`

`
`g. Willem den Boer, Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays: Fundamentals
`
`& Applications, Elsevier: Newnes (2005).
`
`13.
`
` In my academic research, I direct both applied and fundamental research for
`
`applications including efficient LCDs, backlights, and optical films relevant to
`
`both. We also study techniques for low-loss fiber optic telecommunications
`
`switches,
`
`laser beam steering
`
`for high energy applications and
`
`laser
`
`communications, IR/MIR polarization imaging, opto-fluidics, novel diffractive
`
`lenses, and vortex beam optics. We routinely use and often fabricate our own
`
`devices, backlights, compensation films, and fully functional systems for direct-
`
`view and projection-displays and other applications including telecommunications,
`
`remote sensing, and laser beam steering. I routinely use commercial ray-tracing
`
`software for display system modeling. Over the last 16 years, I have written and
`
`used multiple numerical simulation tools for optical and liquid crystal modeling,
`
`including custom code for modeling of optical waves in stratified birefringent
`
`media (matrix methods), exact solutions to Maxwell's equations in anisotropic
`
`media, and liquid crystal alignment physics.
`
`14.
`
` I have served twice as an expert within inter partes review proceedings
`
`before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, both concluding in 2013, where I
`
`was deposed. I also serve as an expert for petitions to review related U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 6,755,547 (IPR2014-01357), 7,300,194 (IPR2015-00490, IPR2014-01097),
`
`6
`
`LGE_000333
`
`

`
`7,434,974
`
`(IPR2015-00497,
`
`IPR2014-01092), 7,404,660
`
`(IPR2015-00495,
`
`IPR2015-00487, IPR2014-01094), 7,537,370 (IPR2015-00493, IPR2014-01096),
`
`8,215,816
`
`(IPR2015-00496,
`
`IPR2014-01095), 7,384,177
`
`(IPR2015-00489,
`
`IPR2014-01362), 7,914,196 (IPR2015-00492, IPR2014-01359), and 7,434,973
`
`(IPR2015-00506). In addition, I have previously served three times as an expert
`
`before the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), beginning in 2011,
`
`where I was deposed, and in two of the cases, testified at the hearing. I have also
`
`served as an expert in several district court cases.
`
`15.
`
` A detailed record of my professional qualifications, including a list of
`
`publications, awards, and professional activities, is set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae, attached to this report as Appendix A.
`
`B.
`
`Information Considered
`
`16.
`
`In addition to my general knowledge gained as a result of my education and
`
`experience in this field, I have reviewed and considered, among other things, the
`
`’973 Patent, the prosecution history of the ’973 Patent, and the prior art of record.
`
`17. The full list of information that I have considered in forming my opinions
`
`for this report is set forth throughout the report and listed in the attached Appendix
`
`B.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`18.
`
`In forming my opinions and considering the patentability of the claims of the
`
`7
`
`LGE_000334
`
`

`
`’973 Patent, I am relying upon certain legal principles that counsel has explained to
`
`me.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found patentable,
`
`it must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light of what came before
`
`it. Patents and publications which predated the invention are generally referred to
`
`as “prior art.”
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding the burden is on the party asserting
`
`unpatentability to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a
`
`preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more
`
`likely than not.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims after being
`
`construed in this manner are then to be compared to information that was disclosed
`
`in the prior art.
`
`A.
`
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that the claims of a patent are judged from the
`
`perspective of a hypothetical construct involving “a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.” The “art” is the field of technology to which the patent is related. I
`
`understand that the purpose of using a person of ordinary skill in the art’s
`
`viewpoint is objectivity. Thus, I understand that the question of validity is viewed
`
`8
`
`LGE_000335
`
`

`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and not from the
`
`perspective of (a) the inventor, (b) a layperson, or (c) a person of extraordinary
`
`skill in the art. I have been informed that the claims of the patent-at-issue are
`
`interpreted as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood them in
`
`the relevant time period (i.e., when the patent application was filed or earliest
`
`effective filing date).
`
`23.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’973
`
`Patent would have at least an undergraduate degree in physics, optics, electrical
`
`engineering, or applied mathematics AND 3 years of work experience (or a
`
`graduate degree) in a field related to optical technology.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a “person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity, not an automaton” and that would be especially true of anyone
`
`developing LCD structures.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art. I have applied these
`
`standards in my analysis of whether claims of the ’973 Patent were anticipated at
`
`the time of the invention.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is “anticipated” by a single prior art
`
`reference if that reference discloses each element of the claim in a single
`
`9
`
`LGE_000336
`
`

`
`embodiment. A prior art reference may anticipate a claim inherently if an element
`
`is not expressly stated, but only if the prior art necessarily includes the claim
`
`limitations.
`
`27.
`
` I understand that the test for anticipation is performed in two steps. First,
`
`the claims must be interpreted to determine their meaning. Second, a prior art
`
`reference is analyzed to determine whether every claim element, as interpreted in
`
`the first step, is present in the reference. If all the elements of a patent claim are
`
`present in the prior art reference, then that claim is anticipated and is invalid.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to examine extrinsic evidence outside the
`
`prior art reference in determining whether a feature, while not expressly discussed
`
`in the reference, is necessarily present within that reference.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a claim can be invalid in view of prior art if the differences
`
`between the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such that the claimed
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been “obvious” at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined at 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`I understand that a claim is obvious over a prior art reference if that reference,
`
`combined with the knowledge of one skilled in the art or other prior art references
`
`disclose each and every element of the recited claim.
`
`10
`
`LGE_000337
`
`

`
`31.
`
`I also understand that the relevant inquiry into obviousness requires
`
`consideration of four factors:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`The knowledge of a person of ordinary sill in the pertinent art; and
`
`Objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness may be
`
`present in any particular case, such factors including commercial success of
`
`products covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed
`
`attempts by others to make the invention; copying of the invention by others in the
`
`field; unexpected results achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by the
`
`infringer or others in the field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others;
`
`expressions of surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the
`
`invention; and that the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the
`
`prior art.
`
`
`
`32.
`
`I understand that when combining two or more references, one should
`
`consider whether a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references
`
`exists so as to avoid impermissible hindsight. I have been informed that the
`
`application of the teaching, suggestion, or motivation test should not be rigidly
`
`applied, but rather is an expansive and flexible test. For example, I have been
`
`informed that the common sense of a person of ordinary skill in the art can serve as
`
`11
`
`LGE_000338
`
`

`
`motivation for combining references.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the content of a patent or other printed publication (i.e., a
`
`reference) should be interpreted the way a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have interpreted the reference as of the effective filing date of the patent
`
`application for the ’973 Patent. I have assumed that the person of ordinary skill is
`
`a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all the pertinent information
`
`that qualifies as prior art. In addition, the person of ordinary skill in the art makes
`
`inferences and creative steps. He or she is not an automaton, but has ordinary
`
`creativity.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed that the application that issued as the ’973 Patent was
`
`filed in 2007. The application claims priority to a parent application that was filed
`
`on June 27, 1995. However, I have been informed that the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“the Board”) previously found that the Patent Owner is entitled the
`
`effective filing date of February 9, 2007 for the application for the ’973 Patent.
`
`For purposes of my analysis herein, I have adopted that priority date, As I set forth
`
`below, however, it is my opinion that the ’973 Patent may only be entitled to claim
`
`priority to November 28, 2007. I will assume, however, that the relevant time
`
`period for determining what one of ordinary skill in the art knew is June 27, 1995,
`
`the earliest possible filing date for purposes of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`12
`
`LGE_000339
`
`

`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed that a claim subject to inter partes review is given its
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This means that the words of the claim
`
`are given their plain meaning from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art unless that meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
`
`319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). I understand that the “plain meaning” of a term means
`
`the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention and that the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims,
`
`the specification, drawings, and prior art.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that in construing claims “[a]ll words in a claim must be
`
`considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” (MPEP
`
`§ 2143.03, citing In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970)).
`
`37.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence may be consulted for the meaning of a
`
`claim term as long as it is not used to contradict claim meaning that is
`
`unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
`
`1576, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). I also understand that in construing claim terms,
`
`the general meanings gleaned from reference sources must always be compared
`
`13
`
`LGE_000340
`
`

`
`against the use of the terms in context, and the intrinsic record must always be
`
`consulted to identify which of the different possible dictionary meanings is most
`
`consistent with the use of the words by the inventor. See, e.g., Ferguson
`
`Beauregard/Logic Controls v. Mega Systems, 350 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003) (citing Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`E.
`
`Priority
`
`38.
`
`I have been informed that claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date
`
`of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application
`
`provides written support for those claims, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. In re
`
`Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`39.
`
`I have been informed that in order to satisfy the written description
`
`requirement, the prior application must convey with reasonable clarity to those
`
`skilled in the art that, as of the earlier filing date, the inventor was in possession of
`
`the invention. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1991). I was also informed that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to
`
`subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly
`
`disclosed.” In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Lockwood
`
`v. Am. Airlines Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`40.
`
`I was also informed that if a claim limitation is not explicitly in the
`
`14
`
`LGE_000341
`
`

`
`specification, to establish inherency, the specification “must make clear that the
`
`missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the
`
`reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” In re
`
`Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (emphasis added) (quoting Cont’l Can Co. v.
`
`Monsanto, Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A. Light Redirecting Film System
`
`41. The ’973 Patent discloses a light emitting panel assembly, which according
`
`to the ’973 Patent, is a device configured to produce a uniform illumination from a
`
`surface due to deformities angled at different orientations relative to the input edge.
`
`This is a type of light box or luminaire, producing surface illumination. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1012, U.S. Patent No. 5,160,195 (“Miller”). While these panel assemblies are
`
`used in many application contexts, e.g., architectural lighting, signage illumination,
`
`and x-ray film viewing, the primary application is in LCDs and the various
`
`applications thereof. In the LCD context, a light redirecting film system is usually
`
`called the “backlight module,” which is important since it generates the light
`
`needed by the display, and is primarily responsible for the brightness and power-
`
`efficiency of the whole system. The other major part of an LCD is the “LC panel
`
`module,” which is non-light emitting and instead modulates light passing through
`
`it to form an image, where each individual pixel acts as a shutter controlling how
`
`15
`
`LGE_000342
`
`

`
`much light can pass through it. See Ex. 1013, J. A. Castellano, Handbook of
`
`Display Technology, Academic Press Inc., San Diego, 1992, at pp. 9-13 and Ch. 8.
`
`A typical cross-section of a light redirecting film system by the time of the ’973
`
`Patent is illustrated in Fig. 2 from Ciupke, where the light redirecting film system
`
`includes everything below element 12, and where element 12 is the LCD. (Fig. 2
`
`from Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”)).
`
`
`42. The principle aim of a light redirecting film system is to provide a surface of
`
`illumination that is as smooth as possible across its area, i.e., to emit light
`
`uniformly from its entire spatial extent and into a desired angle distribution. In the
`
`case of the ‘973 Patent, this angle distribution is preferably more toward a
`
`direction normal to the plane of the films. Ex. 1001, the ’973 Patent, at 2:44-51.
`
`Unfortunately, there are no bright and efficient light sources that emit inherently
`
`from a surface area commensurate with the size of an LCD, so point- and line-
`
`shaped light sources are used instead. For example, light-emitting-diodes (LEDs)
`
`have small emission areas typically on the order of a few mm2, and fluorescent
`
`lamps, with either cold- (CCFL) or hot- (HCL) cathodes, can be many cm long but
`
`16
`
`LGE_000343
`
`

`
`only a few mm wide. The most critical engineering challenge for backlights,
`
`therefore, is to produce the surface illumination with the target brightness and
`
`uniformity at the lowest possible electrical power.
`
`43.
`
` Light redirecting film systems are classified into two well-known1
`
`categories: “edge-lit” and “directly back-lit.” Compare Fig. 9 from Ex. 1014, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,598,280 (“Nishio”), with Fig. 4 from Ex. 1015, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,384,658 (“Ohtake”). These two categories are illustrated in Fig. A below, with
`
`the light sources highlighted in each case. In the edge-lit category, the light source
`
`is at the edge, sending light substantially horizontally (in this illustration), which
`
`must then be turned upward to emit upward (in this illustration) through the
`
`emitting surface (and toward the display element in this illustration). In the direct
`
`back-lit category, the light sources are arranged instead directly below the emitting
`
`surface, usually with several films in between. Confusingly, the word “backlight”
`
`is commonly applied to both types of systems, and even more confusingly, the
`
`’973 Patent refers to a single component in the edge-lit system as a “backlight”
`
`(discussed further below in ¶ 43). The ’973 Patent discloses an edge-lit light
`
`emitting panel assembly. Edge-lit light emitting panel assemblies are often
`
`1 To be clear, when I refer to an element or concept as “well-known” or “known in
`
`the prior art,” I particularly mean to say that the element or concept was well-
`
`known as of June 27, 1995.
`
`17
`
`LGE_000344
`
`

`
`preferred because they can be physically thinner and lower weight.
`
`Figure A (annotated Fig. 9 of Ex. 1014, Nishio and Fig. 2 of Ex. 1015, Ohtake)
`
`44.
`
`It was known by June 27, 1995 that one or more light sources may be
`
`employed. As representative examples, see Ex. 1005, Ciupke, at Fig. 4 below.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Common Light Control Structures and Films
`
`45. Many standard optical elements and surfaces within LCDs are used to
`
`spatially homogenize and control the angular distribution of emitted light. These
`
`include light pipes and various types of microstructured deformities (e.g.,
`
`microprisms, diffusers, and microlenses). See, e.g., Ex. 1016, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,303,322 (“Winston”). We now discuss each of these.
`
`18
`
`LGE_000345
`
`

`
`46.
`
` The light pipe, also sometimes called a light guide or wave guide or optical
`
`conductor, accepts light injected from the side and distributes it across the emission
`
`area. See, e.g., Ex. 1017, U.S. Patent No. 5,050,946 (“Hathaway”), at Abstract and
`
`1:56-59. The light pipe is typically a transparent planar slab that confines the light
`
`within it using the principle of total-internal-reflection, in order to support the
`
`persistent goals in LCDs of thinner and lighter displays. Id. at 5:66-6:2. In some
`
`designs the light pipe has parallel surfaces and in other designs it has a wedge
`
`shape. Id. at Figs. 1 and 5. Light will generally only escape from the light pipe
`
`into the emission direction when disturbed by a structure – for example, a pattern
`
`of diffusing spots on the back surface, or microstructures on one or both surfaces.
`
`Id. at 7:15-22. For example, in the annotated Fig. B of Ex. 1005, Ciupke below,
`
`the ray 24 is shown first emitting from the light source 18, entering the light pipe
`
`11, bouncing off the top and bottom surfaces of the light pipe several times,
`
`reflecting on the right hand side by the edge reflector 29, hitting one of the groove
`
`17 deformities, and only then emitting from the light pipe toward the LCD. Light
`
`pipes were generally known in the prior art. It is important to note that the ’973
`
`Patent employs several terms for the light pipe, including “backlight BL” (e.g., Ex.
`
`1001, the ’973 Patent, at 5:21-25 and Figs. 1-2), “backlight/panel member BL” (Id.
`
`at 12:1-4), “panel” (e.g., Id. at 11:36-12:36), and “light emitting panel” (Id. at
`
`12:37-45).
`
`19
`
`LGE_000346
`
`

`
`
`
`Figure B (annotated Fig. 2 of Ex. 1005, Ciupke)
`47. Various types of deformities and optical elements of well-defined shape are
`
`employed to control the direction and spatial uniformity of light within light
`
`redirecting film systems. Two major categories are those that are essentially
`
`microstructured grooves or protrusions on a surface, or those that involve a highly
`
`scattering material painted on a surface or formed into a sheet. It was known to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’973 Patent that these
`
`deformities and optical elements of well-defined shape may be random or regularly
`
`arranged, and may have features which vary spatially across the emitting area (e.g.,
`
`size, density, type, shape, etc.). For example, several types of spatial variation in
`
`deformities are shown in Fig. 5 of Ex. 1018, European Patent Application
`
`Publication No. EP500960 (“Ohe”) below, where the light source is positioned at
`
`side 7.
`
`20
`
`LGE_000347
`
`

`
`
`48. As an alternative to the one-dimensional linear variation shown in Fig. 5 of
`
`Ohe above, it was known that in some cases it was preferable to arrange
`
`deformities and optical elements in a pattern including rotational symmetry.
`
`Several examples of this on various light pipes are shown in Fig. C below, which
`
`includes Figs. 4 and 14 of Ex. 1019, U.S. Patent No. 5,921,651 (“Ishikawa”), and
`
`Fig. 9 of Ex. 1020, U.S. Patent No. 5,931,555 (“Akahane”). Optimizing the various
`
`patterns of deformities or optical elements for a desired effect, for example,
`
`specifically for LCDs, was a common aspect of backlight design by the time of the
`
`‘973 Patent.
`
`21
`
`LGE_000348
`
`

`
`Figure C (Figs. 4 and 14 of Ex. 1019, Ishikawa, and Fig. 9 of Ex. 1020, Akahane)
`
`49. One of the most common deformities or optical elements is a microprism,
`
`which is a small groove or protrusion with two or more facets. These are shown in
`
`Fig. B above in paragraph 46, as elements 17. When a light ray hits one of these
`
`microprisms, its direction can be substantially changed via refraction and/or
`
`reflection, nearly without loss. An illustration of both behaviors can be seen in Fig.
`
`D below, where I have highlighted the rays refracting (red) and the rays reflecting
`
`(blue) because of the microprisms sheet (green) (Fig. 6 from Ex. 1014, Nishio). In
`
`fact, the blue ray on the right side is first reflected and then refracted. In some
`
`cases, an entire surface is formed into an array of prisms, either as a surface of the
`
`light pipe or as a separate sheet, but this is not required. In this configuration, the
`
`slanted surfaces are u