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
`_______________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,434,973
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`Page
`MANDATORY NOTICES ...........................................................................1
`I.
`PAYMENT OF FEES ...................................................................................3
`II.
`STANDING ....................................................................................................3
`III.
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1-5 OF THE
`’973 PATENT.................................................................................................3
`A.
`Technology Background......................................................................4
`B.
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’973 Patent..........................................5
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION..........................................................................6
`A.
`Standards For Claim Construction.......................................................6
`B.
`“deformities” (claims 1, 3, 4)...............................................................6
`VI. PRIORITY DATE .........................................................................................7
`A.
`The Board’s Adoption of a February 9, 2007 Effective Filing Date...8
`B.
`Patent Owner Is Not Entitled To A Priority Date Earlier Than
`November 28, 2007..............................................................................8
`Alternatively, The Earliest Priority Date To Which The Patent Owner
`Is Entitled Is February 23, 1999.........................................................13
`VII. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’973 PATENT FORMING THE
`BASIS FOR THIS PETITION...................................................................15
`A.
`Admitted Prior Art .............................................................................15
`B.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0012946 (“the Parker
`Publication”) (Ex. 1040) ....................................................................16
`U.S. Patent No. 6,473,554 (“Pelka”) (Ex. 1009) ...............................16
`C.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,182 (“Shinohara”) (Ex. 1010)........................17
`D.
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM................17
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1-5 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over The Parker Publication In View Of Pelka..17
`1.
`The Parker Publication……………………………………..17
`2.
`Pelka………………………………………………………….23
`3. Motivation to Combine the Parker Publication with Pelka24
`Ground 2: Claims 1-5 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`As Being Anticipated By Shinohara..................................................39
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................49
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Cont’l Can Co. v. Monsanto, Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................7
`
`Page(s)
`
`Delaware Display Group LLC and Innovative Display Technologies LLC v.
`Lenovo
`Group Ltd., et al.,
`Case No. 1:13-cv-02108 .......................................................................................1
`
`In re Chu,
`66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................6
`
`In re Huston,
`308 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................7
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................7
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 .........................................................................................................7
`
`In re Zletz,
`893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ..............................................................................6
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................7
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................7
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102..................................................................................1, 15, 16, 17, 29
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103..................................................................................1, 18, 38, 40, 49
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112....................................................................................................6, 13
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120..........................................................................................................7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311..........................................................................................................1
`
`RULES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .....................................................................................................1, 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 .....................................................................................................5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .....................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .....................................................................................................3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2163(II)(A)(3)(b)...............................................................................7, 12
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973
`Complaints filed in Related District Court Cases
`Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,613,751 (“the ’751 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,195,389 (the ’389 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,712,481 (“the ’481 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,473,554 (“Pelka”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,182 (“Shinohara”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,775,791 (“Yoshikawa”)
`EP 0 878 720 (“Funamoto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,477,422 (“Hooker”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,057,974 (“Mizobe”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,241,256 (“Viret”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,896,119 (“Evanicky”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,584,556 (“Yokoyama”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,667,289 (“Akahane”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,160,195 (“Miller”)
`J. A. Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic Press
`Inc., San Diego, 1992, at pp. 9-13 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. 5,921,651 (“Ishikawa”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,931,555 (“Akahane”)
`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. 5,919,551 (“Cobb”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,134 (“Konno”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,405 (“Takeuchi”)
`
`iv
`
`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
`1027
`1028
`1029
`
`1030
`1031
`1032
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,381,309 (“Borchardt”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,600,462 (“Suzuki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,890,791 (“Saito”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,505,959 (“Masaki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,961,198 (“Hira”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,396,350 (“Beeson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,779,338 (“Ishikawa 2”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0012946 (“the Parker
`Publication”)
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`1040
`
`v
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioner hereby respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-5 of Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973 (“the ’973
`
`Patent”) (“Ex. 1001”) which issued on October 14, 2008. The challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 over the prior art publications
`
`identified and applied in this Petition.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, Petitioner provides the following mandatory
`
`disclosures:
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is a real party-in-
`
`interest with Petitioner, LG Electronics, Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner submits
`
`that the ’973 Patent is the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by the
`
`Patent Owner, Innovative Display Technologies LLC (see Ex. 1003), in the United
`
`States District Court for the District of Delaware: Delaware Display Group LLC
`
`and Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., et al., Case No.
`
`1:13-cv-02108.
`
`Petitioner has previously filed petitions to review U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,300,194 (IPR2015-00490), 7,434,974 (IPR2015-00497), 7,404,660 (IPR2015-
`
`00495), 7,537,370 (IPR2015-00493), 8,215,816 (IPR2015-00496), 7,384,177
`
`(IPR2015-00489), and 7,914,196 (IPR2015-00492). Related petitions include:
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IPR2015-00359,
`
`IPR2015-00360,
`
`IPR2015-00361,
`
`IPR2015-00363,
`
`IPR2015-
`
`00366,
`
`IPR2015-00368
`
`IPR2014-01092,
`
`IPR2014-01094,
`
`IPR2014-01095,
`
`IPR2014-01096, IPR2014-01097, IPR2014-01357, IPR2014-01359, and IPR2014-
`
`01362. The ’973 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,195,389, which is
`
`continuation of U.S. Patent No. 6,712,481, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,079,838, which is a divisional of U.S. Patent No. 5,613,751.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel.
`
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Robert G. Pluta
`Registration No. 50,970
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-701-8641
`Facsimile: 312-701-7711
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Amanda K. Streff
`Registration No. 65,224
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-701-8645
`Facsimile: 312-701-7711
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`
`Baldine B. Paul
`Registration No. 54,369
`Anita Y. Lam
`Registration No. 67,394
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: 202.263.3000
`Facsimile: 202.263.3300
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`alam@mayerbrown.com
`
`D. Service Information. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), Petitioners
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`identify the following service information: Please direct all correspondence
`
`regarding this proceeding to lead counsel at
`
`the address identified above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email: rpluta@mayerbrown.com,
`
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com,
`
`astreff@mayerbrown.com,
`
`and
`
`alam@mayerbrown.com, with a courtesy copy to DDGIPR@mayerbrown.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103, $23,000 is being paid at the time of filing
`
`this petition, charged to Deposit Account 130019. Should any further fees be
`
`required by the present Petition, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) is
`
`hereby authorized to charge the above referenced Deposit Account.
`
`III.
`
`STANDING
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the patent sought
`
`for review, the ’973 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 1-5 OF THE
`’973 PATENT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests that the Board find
`
`unpatentable claims 1-5 of the ’973 Patent. Such relief is justified as the alleged
`
`invention of the ’973 Patent was described by others prior to the effective filing
`
`date of the ’973 Patent.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`
`Technology Background
`
`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 Michael J. Escuti,
`
`Ph.D. (“Escuti Decl.”), ¶ 41. 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 to Ciupke et. al.
`
`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. Escuti Decl., ¶ 42. Examples of these features
`
`include light pipes, transition area, reflectors, and various types of microstructured
`
`deformities (e.g., microprisms, diffusers, and microlenses). Id. at ¶ 45. 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 ’973 Patent calls the light
`
`pipe a “back light” (e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:56-60) and “panel member” (e.g., id. 1:29-
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`34). See Escuti Decl., ¶ 46. Deformities or optical elements, such as microprisms,
`
`diffusers, and microlenses, are employed to control
`
`the direction and spatial
`
`uniformity of light within light emitting panel assemblies. See Escuti Decl., ¶¶ 47-
`
`53.
`
`B.
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’973 Patent
`
`The ’973 Patent relates to “several different light emitting panel assembly
`
`configurations which provide for better control of the light output from the panel
`
`assemblies and more efficient utilization of light to suit a particular application.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:22-26. More specifically,
`
`the alleged invention discloses a light
`
`emitting panel assembly may have several light sources, and the light sources are
`
`“optically coupled” to different portions along the width of the input edge of the
`
`panel member. Id. 3:55-63. The light sources can have a pattern of individual light
`
`extracting deformities associated therewith, with variations in the size and shape as
`
`well as the depth or height and angular orientation and location of the light
`
`extracting deformities may vary along the length and/or width of any given panel
`
`surface area to obtain a desired light output distribution from the panel member. Id.
`
`2:2-10. Further, the deformities can have a length and width much smaller than the
`
`length and width of the panel surface. Id. Abstract. Finally, the deformities can
`
`increase in density, size and depth or height as the distance of the deformities from
`
`the light source increases across the width of the panel surface. Id. 3:66-4:8.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Standards For Claim Construction
`A.
`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). Petitioners submit, for the purposes of inter partes review only, that the
`
`claim terms are presumed to take on their broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the specification of the ’973 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`“deformities” (claims 1, 3, 4)
`
`The ’973 Patent expressly defines the term “deformities” as follows: “As
`
`used herein, the term [sic] deformities or disruptions are used interchangeably to
`
`mean any change in the shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or
`
`surface treatment that causes a portion of the light to be emitted.” Ex. 1001, 6:6-10.
`
`Thus, based on the express definition of deformities in the specification,
`
`“deformities” (claims 1, 3, and 4) 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.” Escuti Decl., ¶ 64.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VI. PRIORITY DATE
`
`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). 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). In addition, “[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)).
`
`If a claim limitation is not explicitly described in the
`
`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)). The burden is on the Patent
`
`Owner to show that it meets each of several requirements in order to claim the
`
`benefit of priority of a prior application under § 120. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d
`
`1268, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`
`The Board’s Adoption of a February 9, 2007 Effective Filing Date
`
`The Board previously found in IPR2015-00506 that the Patent Owner is
`
`entitled the effective filing date of February 9, 2007 for the application for the ’973
`
`Patent. LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, IPR2015-
`
`00506, Paper No. 8 (July 6, 2015) at 10. Petitioner, for purposes of the grounds set
`
`forth herein, applies that effective filing date and is concurrently filing a Motion
`
`for Joinder to join this proceeding with IPR2015-00506. Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests adoption of the February 9, 2007 effective filing date for the instant
`
`proceeding. See Escuti Decl., ¶ 65.
`
`To the extent the Board does not adopt the effective filing date as set forth in
`
`IPR2015-00506, Petitioner sets forth its arguments regarding alternative effective
`
`filing dates below.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner Is Not Entitled To A Priority Date Earlier Than
`November 28, 2007
`
`Claims 1-5 of the ’973 Patent are not entitled to a priority date earlier than
`
`November 28, 2007 because limitations of the as-issued independent claim 1 are
`
`not sufficiently described in the disclosure of the originally filed application for the
`
`’973 Patent. See M.P.E.P. § 2163(II)(A)(3)(b).
`
`In order to overcome rejections over the applied prior art references and a
`
`pending objection to the drawings for lacking illustration of the subject matter of
`
`original claims 7, 14, 15, 22, and 24, Applicants canceled original claims 1-24,
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`added new claims 25-47, added new Figs. 39A-B, and amended the specification to
`
`add subject matter relating to the newly added figures. Ex. 1002, Reply to Office
`
`Action of Aug. 29, 2007 (Nov. 28, 2007), LGE_000186-187. Subsequently, the
`
`Examiner found the subject matter of newly added claims 31 and 36 to be
`
`allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base
`
`claim and any intervening claims. Ex. 1002, Office Action of February 12, 2008,
`
`LGE_000224-225. Thereafter, Applicants combined claims 30 and 31 to form new
`
`claim 48 (claim 1, as-issued). Ex. 1002, Compare Reply to Office Action of Aug.
`
`29, 2007 (Nov. 28, 2007), LGE_000180-181 with Reply to Office Action of Feb.
`
`12, 2008 (June 10, 2008), LGE_000235-236.
`
`The allowable subject matter of claim 31 and incorporated into claim 1, as-
`
`issued, 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 light sources.” The subject matter of claim 31 did not appear in the
`
`specification as-filed, nor the originally filed claims 1-24, and the specification
`
`fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that inventors possessed the
`
`above-mentioned allowable subject matter at the time the original specification
`
`was filed.
`
`First, Applicants point to no support whatsoever for the claim amendments
`
`made to “more clearly patentably distinguish over [the prior art] references.” Ex.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1002, Reply to Office Action of Aug. 29, 2007 (Nov. 28, 2007), LGE_000187. See
`
`Escuti Decl., ¶¶ 67-70. Second, while Applicants cite the specification and new
`
`figures (id. LGE_000186) as purported support for their amendments, the citations
`
`do not provide written support for “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,” as seen in the citation chart
`
`below; See id. LGE_000051-074; see also Escuti Decl., ¶ 71:
`
`Citation
`Page 2,
`
`Specification, as-filed
`“In accordance with another aspect of the invention, the size and shape
`
`lines 27-
`
`as well as the depth or height and angular orientation and location of
`
`31
`
`the light extracting deformities may vary along the length and/or width
`
`of any given panel surface area to obtain a desired light output
`
`distribution from the panel member.”
`
`Para.
`
`“Also, the size, including the width, length and depth or height as well
`
`bridging
`
`as the angular orientation and position or location of the light extracting
`
`pages 17
`
`deformities may vary along the length and/or width of any given panel
`
`and 18
`
`surface area to obtain a desired light output distribution from the panel
`
`surface area. FIGS. 36 and 37 show a random or variable pattern of
`
`different sized deformities 105 and 105′ similar in shape to those shown
`
`in FIGS. 22 and 23, respectively, arranged in staggered rows on a panel
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`surface area 22, whereas FIG. 38 shows deformities 126 similar
`
`in
`
`shape to those shown in FIG. 29 increasing in size as the distance of the
`
`deformities from the light source increases or intensity of the light
`
`decreases along the length and/or width of the panel surface area 22.”
`
`Page 18,
`
`“Figs. 39 and 40 schematically show different angular orientation of
`
`lines 9-
`
`light extracting deformities 135 of any desired shape along the length
`
`17
`
`and width of a panel surface area 22. In Fig. 39 the light extracting
`
`deformities 135 are arranged in straight rows 136 along the length of
`
`the panel surface area but the deformities in each of the rows are
`
`oriented to face the light source 3 so that all of the deformities are
`
`substantially in line with the light rays being emitted from the light
`
`source. In Fig. 40 the deformities 135 are also oriented to face the light
`
`source 3 similar to Fig. 39. In addition, the rows 137 of deformities in
`
`Fig. 40 are in substantial radial alignment with the light source.”
`
`Claim 7
`
`“The assembly of claim 1 wherein a plurality of light sources are
`
`optically coupled to different portions of the width of the input edge,
`
`and at least one planar light extracting surface of different ones of the
`
`deformities at different locations across the width of the panel surface is
`
`angled at different orientations relative to the input edge to face
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`different portions of the input edge to which the different light sources
`
`are optically coupled.”
`
`Claim 22 “The assembly of claim 8 wherein a plurality of light sources are
`
`optically coupled to different portions of the width of the input edge,
`
`and at least one of the surfaces of different ones of the deformities at
`
`different locations across the width of the panel surface is angled at
`
`different orientations relative to the input edge to face different portions
`
`of the input edge to which the different light sources are optically
`
`coupled.”
`
`Claim 24 “The assembly of claim 23 wherein a plurality of light sources are
`
`optically coupled to different portions of the width of the input edge,
`
`and at least one of the density, size, placement, angle, depth, height or
`
`shape of different ones of at
`
`least some of the deformities vary
`
`depending on the location of the deformities on the panel surface
`
`relative to the portions of the input edge to which the different light
`
`sources are optically coupled.”
`
`In fact, the only possible support for this limitation is new figure 39B,
`
`reproduced below, and added on November 28, 2007 with the new claims and the
`
`corresponding amendments and additions to the specification. Ex. 1002, Reply to
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Office Action of Aug. 29, 2007 (Nov. 28, 2007), pp.
`
`LGE_000177-178; see also Escuti Decl., ¶ 71. Because the only
`
`material in the specification to reasonably convey to those skilled
`
`in the art that inventors possessed “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,” was introduced by amendment on November 28, 2007,
`
`this is the earliest possible date to which claim 1 of the ’973 can claim priority. See
`
`Escuti Decl., ¶¶ 66-73.
`
`C.
`
`Alternatively, The Earliest Priority Date To Which The Patent
`Owner Is Entitled Is February 23, 1999
`
`To the extent the Board finds support in the specification-as-filed for the
`
`new matter introduced on November 28, 2007, Petitioners maintain that claims 1-5
`
`of the ’973 Patent are not entitled to the priority date of U.S. Patent No. 5,613,751
`
`(“the ’751 Patent”) (“Ex. 1006”), filed on June 27, 1995 because limitations of
`
`independent claim 1 are not sufficiently described in the disclosure of the
`
`originally filed application for the ’751 Patent. See M.P.E.P. § 2163(II)(A)(3)(b).
`
`In this case, the ’973 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,195,389
`
`(“the ’389 Patent”) (“Ex. 1007”), which is continuation of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,712,481 (“the ’481 Patent”) (“Ex. 1008”). However, the ’481 Patent, filed on
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`February 23, 1999, is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 6,079,838, which is
`
`a divisional of U.S. Patent No. 5,613,751 (“the ’751 Patent”). The ’481 Patent
`
`added a substantial amount of new matter to both the specification (Ex. 1008,
`
`10:11-14:6) and the figures (id. Figs. 16-47). See Escuti Decl., ¶ 67. The issued
`
`claims of the ’973 Patent allegedly draw from the new matter added in the ’481
`
`Patent. For example, Applicants amended the specification, adding Figs. 39A and
`
`39B, text, and new claims. Ex. 1002, Reply to Office Action of Aug. 29, 2007
`
`(Nov. 28, 2007), LGE_000176-185. Applicants argued that the amendments were
`
`supported by 2:27-31, 17:32-18:17, and original claims 7, 22 and 24. Id. pp. 12-13.
`
`The cited support in the specification corresponded to the ’481 Patent at 2:1-6 and
`
`11:59-12:17,1 and is notably absent from the ’751 Patent. See generally, Ex. 1006.
`
`Applicants point to no place in the ’751 specification for support of the ’973
`
`Patent’s claims because the support does not exist. See Escuti Decl., ¶ 68.
`
`Specifically, the ’751 Patent fails to reasonably convey to those skilled in the
`
`art that inventors possessed “a pattern of individual light extracting deformities
`
`associated with respective light sources,” “wherein each of the deformities has a
`
`length and width substantially smaller than the length and width of the panel
`
`1 The ’973 Patent’s original claims 7, 22, and 24 do not correspond to any support
`
`in the ’481 Patent
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`surface,” 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.” See Escuti Decl., ¶¶ 69-72. Thus, the subject
`
`matter of claims 1-5 of the ’973 Patent does not have written support in the ’751
`
`Patent, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 to be entitled the benefit of the filing date of
`
`the earlier filed application. See Escuti Decl., ¶¶ 66-71. At most, the ’973 Patent
`
`can only claim benefit to the filing date of the ’481 Patent, February 23, 1999 for
`
`the claimed subject matter excluding “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.” See Escuti Decl., ¶ 68.
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’973 PATENT FORMING THE
`BASIS FOR THIS PETITION
`
`The following documents serve as a basis to show that Petitioner has a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims 1-5 of
`
`the ’973 Patent. Petitioner provides a detailed explanation of the pertinence and
`
`manner of applying the cited prior art to claims 1-5 of the ’973 Patent in Section
`
`VII, infra. In light of the prior art references, the light emitting panel assembly in
`
`the ’973 Patent is a function of prior art and obvious design decisions, not
`
`innovation or invention.
`
`A.
`
`Admitted Prior Art
`
`The ’973 Patent discusses the following functionality and structure of prior
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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, 4:31-35 (describing these elements and their
`
`functionalities as being “well known in the art”).
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0012946 (“the
`Parker Publication”) (Ex. 1040)
`
`The Parker Publication
`
`discloses
`
`light
`
`emitting
`
`panel
`
`assembly
`
`configurations which “provide for better control of the light output from the panel
`
`assembly and more efficient utilization of light to suit a particular application.” Ex.
`
`1040, [0003]. The Parker Publication qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) because it was published on January 22, 2004, over a year before the
`
`February 9, 2007 priority date to which the claims of the ’973 Patent may be
`
`entitled.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,473,554 (“Pelka”) (Ex. 1009)
`
`Pelka discloses a low profile lighting apparatus using a waveguide as a
`
`backlight for illuminating a display. Ex. 1009, 1:11-14. Pelka qualifies as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Pelka was published on October 29, 2002, over a
`
`year before the February 9, 2007 priority date to which the ’973 Patent may be
`
`entitled. Pelka was not cited or considered during prosecution of the application
`
`that led to the ’973 Patent.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,973
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,182 (“Shinohara”) (Ex. 1010)
`
`Shinohara discloses a surface light source device used for an LCD device
`
`where a smaller light source can be used. Ex. 1010, 1:8-12; 2:52-57. Shinohara
`
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Shinohara was filed on
`
`October 27, 1997, over a year before the February 9, 2007 priority date to which
`
`the ’973 Patent may be entitled. Shinohara was not cited or considered during
`
`prosecution of the application that led to the ’973 Patent.
`
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM
`
`In light of the disclosures detailed below, the ’973 Patent is unpatentable for
`
`at least the reasons summarized in the chart below and discussed in more detail
`
`herein.
`
`Ground # Ground
`1
`103(a)
`
`102(b)
`
`2
`
`A.
`
`Prior art
`The Parker
`Publication and
`Pelka
`Shinohara
`
`Exhibit(s) #
`1040 and 1009
`
`Claims
`1-5
`
`1010
`
`1-5
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-5 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over The Parker Publication In View Of Pelka
`
`1.
`
`The Parker Publication
`
`Under a priority date of February 9, 2007, claims 1-5 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the Parker Publication in view of Pelka.
`
`The Parker Publication, like the ’973 Patent, discloses light emitting panel
`
`assembly configurations which “provide for better control o