`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (jkimble@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`
`2200 Ross Ave.
`
`Suite 4500 – West
`
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Tel: 214.785.6670
`
`Fax: 214.786.6680
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Delaware Display Group LLC (“DDG” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`hereby files this preliminary response (“Preliminary Response”) to the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review (the “Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,973 (the “’973 patent”)
`
`in IPR2015-01666 filed by LG Electronics Inc. (“LGE” or “Petitioner”).
`
`This Response is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, as it
`
`is filed within three months of the August 14, 2015, date of the Notice of Filing Date
`
`Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper
`
`No. 4).
`
`The PTAB should deny the Petitioner’s request to institute an inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of the ’973 patent because the grounds in the Petition do not
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of any claims being invalid.
`
`A. The ’973 Patent – General Overview
`
`The ’973 patent “relates generally … to light emitting panel assemblies.” ’973
`
`patent, Ex. 1001, at 1:19-20. The ’973 patent’s written description notes that “the
`
`present invention 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.” Id.
`
`at 1:22-26. Three examples of the “different forms of light emitting panel assemblies
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`in accordance with this invention” (Id. at 2:40-42) are shown in Figures 1-3 of the
`
`’973 patent.
`
`
`
`The ’973 patent’s “Summary of the Invention” notes that “[i]n accordance
`
`with one aspect of the invention, the light emitting panel assemblies include a light
`
`emitting panel member having a pattern of individual light extracting deformities of
`
`well defined shapes on or in one or more surface areas of the light emitting panel
`
`member. Id. at 1:30-34. The “Summary of the Invention” section of the ’973 patent
`
`further notes that “in accordance with another aspect of the invention, the pattern of
`
`light extracting deformities may be uniform or variable as desired to obtain a desired
`
`light output distribution form the panel surface areas.” Id. at 2:1-4.
`
`The “Summary of the Invention” section of the ’973 patent also states that the
`
`“various light emitting panel assemblies of the present invention are relatively
`
`efficient panel assemblies that may be used to produce increased uniformity and
`
`higher light output from the panel members with lower power requirements, and
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`allow the panel members to be made thinner and/or longer, and/or of various shapes
`
`and sizes.” Id. at 2:23-28. Regarding making the panels thinner, the ’973 patent
`
`explains that “the panel members of the present invention may be made very thin,
`
`i.e., 0.125 inch thick or less.” Id. at 9:59-60.
`
`The ’973 patent describes that a “pattern of light extracting deformities or
`
`disruptions may be provided on one or both sides of the panel members or on one or
`
`more selected areas on one or both sides of the panel members, as desired.” Id. at
`
`6:1-4.
`
`The ’973 patent also describes more about the kinds of deformities, their sizes,
`
`their shapes, their positioning, their effects, and other specific details about the
`
`deformities: “Print patterns of light extracting deformities 21 may vary in shapes
`
`such as dots, squares, diamonds, ellipses, stars, random shapes, and the like, and are
`
`desirably 0.006 square inch per deformity/element or less. Also, print patterns that
`
`are 60 lines per inch or finer are desirably employed, thus making the deformities or
`
`shapes 21 in the print patterns nearly invisible to the human eye in a particular
`
`application thereby eliminating the detection of gradient or banding lines that are
`
`common to light extracting patterns utilizing larger elements. Additionally, the
`
`deformities may vary in shape and/or size along the length and/or width of the panel
`
`members. Also, a random placement pattern of the deformities may be utilized
`
`throughout the length and/or width of the panel members. The deformities may have
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`shapes or a pattern with no specific angles to reduce moire or other interference
`
`effects. Examples of methods to create these random patterns are printing a pattern
`
`of shapes using stochastic print pattern techniques, frequency modulated half tone
`
`patterns, or random dot half tones. Moreover, the deformities may be colored in
`
`order to effect color correction in the panel members. The color of the deformities
`
`may also vary throughout the panel members, for example to provide different colors
`
`for the same or different light output areas.” Id. at 7:4-26.
`
`The ’973 patent further discloses varying the deformities to affect the light
`
`output of the panels: “By varying the density, opaqueness or translucence, shape,
`
`depth, color, area, index of refraction, or type of deformities 21 on an area or areas
`
`of the panels, the light output of the panels can be controlled. The deformities or
`
`disruptions may be used to control the percent of light emitted from any area of the
`
`panels. For example, less and/or smaller size deformities 21 may be placed on panel
`
`areas where less light output is wanted. Conversely, a greater percentage of and/or
`
`larger deformities may be placed on areas of the panels where greater light output is
`
`desired.” Id. at 6:32-41.
`
`The ’973 patent goes into even more depth on varying the deformities,
`
`describing, for example, that denser deformities may be used farther away from light
`
`source to provide a more uniform light output distribution: “Varying the percentages
`
`and/or size of deformities in different areas of the panel is necessary in order to
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`provide a uniform light output distribution. For example, the amount of light
`
`traveling through the panels will ordinarily be greater in areas closer to the light
`
`source than in other areas further removed from the light source. A pattern of light
`
`extracting deformities 21 may be used to adjust for the light variances within the
`
`panel members, for example, by providing a denser concentration of light extracting
`
`deformities with increased distance from the light source 3 thereby resulting in a
`
`more uniform light output distribution from the light emitting panels.” Id. at 6:42-
`
`53.
`
`
`
`The ’973 patent also includes other illustrative figures such as Figures 39A
`
`and 39B, which depict arrangements of deformities on the panels. Figure 39B shows
`
`a “top plan view similar to FIG. 39A but showing a plurality of light sources
`
`optically coupled to different portions of the width of the input edge of the panel …
`
`."surface with the reflective or refractive light extracting surfaces of the deformities
`
`at different locations across the width of the panel surface oriented to face the
`
`different portions of the width of the input edge to which the different light sources
`
`are optically coupled and the deformities in close proximity to the input edge
`
`increasing in density, size and depth or height as the distance of the deformities from
`
`the respective light sources increases across the width of the panel surface.” Id. at
`
`3:64 through 4:8.
`
`
`
`Below, Figure 39B (annotated) describes an embodiment relevant to this IPR:
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`
`
`
`Figure 39B “shows a plurality of light sources 3 optically coupled to different
`
`portions of the width of the input edge of the panel surface area 22 and the reflective
`
`or refractive light extracting surfaces 101' of different ones of the deformities 135 at
`
`different locations across the panel surface area oriented at different angles to face
`
`different portions of the input edge to which the respective light sources are optically
`
`coupled. Also FIG. 39B shows the deformities in close proximity to the input edge
`
`increasing in density, size and depth or height as the distance of the deformities [see
`
`arrows] from the respective light sources increases across the width of the panel
`
`surface.” Id. at 12:42-52 (brackets added).
`
`B. Grounds in Petition
`
`The Petition includes two grounds of alleged invalidity against claims 1-5 of
`
`the ’973 patent:
`
` Ground 1: 103(a) over Ex. 1040 U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`No. 20040012946A1 to Parker et al. (“Parker”) in view of Ex. 1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,473,554 to Pelka et al. (“Pelka”); and
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
` Ground 2: 102(b) over Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,167,182 to
`
`Shinohara et al. (“Shinohara”).
`
`As detailed in this response, neither of those grounds demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing against any of the challenged claims.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The ’973 patent has expired. For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995,
`
`35 U.S.C. § 154 provides that the term of a patent ends on the date that is twenty
`
`years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United
`
`States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application
`
`or applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), twenty years from the filing
`
`date of the earliest of such application(s). See also MPEP § 2701. Here, the ’973
`
`patent contains a specific reference to U.S. Patent Application No. 08/495,176 (see
`
`Ex. 1001 at (60)), which was filed on June 27, 1995. During prosecution of the ’973
`
`patent, the inventors explicitly claimed priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 08/495,176. Ex. 1002 at LGD_000089. According to those facts,
`
`the ’973 patent has expired.
`
`The ’973 patent has expired and was expired when Petitioner filed this IPR.
`
`The Petition is deficient because Petitioner fails to addresses claim construction
`
`under the standard applied in the district courts – the correct standard for an expired
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`patent in IPR. Visa Inc. v. Leon Stambler, IPR2014-00694 (Paper 10, October 31,
`
`2014) (citing In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`A petition for inter partes review must identify how the challenged claim is
`
`to be construed. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner has not set forth how the
`
`challenged claims should be construed, and thus Petitioner has not met a threshold
`
`requirement for the content of a petition. Id. Accordingly, the Board here cannot
`
`determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
`
`Cf. Toyota Motor Corp. IPR2015-00633, Paper 11 at *4 (Aug. 14, 2015) (where the
`
`Petitioner advanced claim constructions under the Phillips standard for an
`
`imminently-expiring patent and the Board held, “[i]n order to determine if Petitioner
`
`has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in this proceeding, given
`
`the patent’s pending expiration, we will analyze Petitioner’s arguments through the
`
`lens of the claim construction standard that will apply to our final written decision.
`
`Thus, we construe the claims in accordance with the standard set forth in Phillips.”).
`
`Because Petitioner did not identify how the challenged claims should be
`
`construed under the correct standard, the Petition is deficient on its face, and
`
`therefore this inter partes review should not be instituted.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`A. “Each of the deformities has a length and width substantially smaller
`than the length and width of the panel surface”
`
`Petitioner did not present a construction for this term under either the
`
`“broadest reasonable interpretation” or the correct standard applied by the district
`
`courts. By failing to offer a construction for this term, Petitioner has failed to meet
`
`the burden of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).
`
`Patent Owner offers the following construction for this 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.” Under the district courts’ claim construction
`
`standard, this construction is supported by the ’973 patent, e.g., particularly the
`
`following passage from the specification: “Print patterns of light extracting
`
`deformities 21 may vary in shapes such as dots, squares, diamonds, ellipses, stars,
`
`random shapes, and the like, and are desirably 0.006 square inch per
`
`deformity/element or less. Also, print patterns that are 60 lines per inch or finer are
`
`desirably employed, thus making the deformities or shapes 21 in the print patterns
`
`nearly invisible to the human eye in a particular application thereby eliminating the
`
`detection of gradient or banding lines that are common to light extracting patterns
`
`utilizing larger elements.” ’973 patent at 7:4-12 (emphasis added).
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`The ’973 patent puts the example of relative size of “0.006 square inch per
`
`deformity/element or less” into perspective when it describes that the panel members
`
`may be “very thin” at 0.125 inch thick or less. ’973 patent at 9:59-60 (“For example
`
`the panel members of the present invention may be made very thin, i.e., 0.125 inch
`
`thick or less.”). One of ordinary skill would understand that the length and width of
`
`the panels would far exceed the thickness (see, e.g., ’973 patent at Figs. 1-3), and
`
`thus 0.006 square inch per deformity would be substantially smaller than the length
`
`and width of the panel.
`
`The ’973 patent also depicts deformities having “a length and width
`
`substantially smaller than the length and width of the panel surface” in Fig. 4A.
`
`“FIG. 4a is an enlarged plan view of a portion of a light output area of a panel
`
`assembly showing one form of pattern of light extracting deformities on the light
`
`output area.” ’973 patent at 2:43-45.
`
`Figure 4a shows a zoomed view of the panel surface, so that the “substantially
`
`smaller” deformities may be seen.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`
`Both the explicit examples in the written description (“0.006 square inch per
`
`deformity/element or less” and “nearly invisible to the human eye in a particular
`
`application”) as well as the depiction in Fig. 4a both support Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction.
`
`B. “Deformities”
`
`Under the claim construction standard applied by a district court, the term
`
`“deformities” should be construed as “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.” The ’973 patent defines deformities as follows: “[a]s used herein, the term
`
`deformities or disruptions are used interchangeably to mean any change in the shape
`
`or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a
`
`portion of the light to be emitted.” Ex. 1001 at 6:6-10. The district courts “recognize
`
`that the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the
`
`patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the
`
`inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Here, the inventors’
`
`lexicography governs, and it dictates the construction offered by Patent Owner.
`
`Patent Owner notifies the Board that the district court in Innovative Display
`
`Technologies v. Acer, Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-522 (E.D. Tex. 2013) (Dkt. No. 101)
`
`(Ex. 2001) and Innovative Display Technologies v. Hyundai Motor Co., et al., No.
`
`2:14-cv-201 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (Dkt. No. 244) (Ex. 2002) entered an agreed
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`construction of “deformities” for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177;
`
`7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; and 8,215,816 (all of which include the same
`
`passage above defining “deformities”) that tracks the construction offered here. Ex.
`
`2001 at DDG_000058; Ex. 2002 at DDG_000067.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The claims should be construed based on how the challenged patent would be
`
`understood by a person of “ordinary skill in the art.” Factors such as the education
`
`level of those working in the field, the sophistication of the technology, the types of
`
`problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the
`
`speed at which innovations are made may help establish the level of skill in the art.
`
`Patent Owner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’973
`
`patent would hold an undergraduate degree in physics, material science, electrical
`
`engineering, or mathematics and have one or both of the following: (1) three or more
`
`years of work experience in a field related to optical technology; or (2) a graduate
`
`degree in a field related to optical technology.
`
`IV. PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’973 PATENT
`
`A. The Petition Fails to Establish That the ’973 Patent Should Receive a
`Later Priority Date
`
`The Petition alleges that Parker, Pelka, and Shinohara qualify as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because they were either filed or published “over a year
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`before the February 9, 2007 priority date to which the ’973 Patent may be entitled.”
`
`Petition, Paper 2 at 16-17. Petitioner relies on the priority date the Board used in its
`
`institution decision in IPR2015-00506. But the Board expressly stated in its decision
`
`that its determination was based on the record that was before the Board and for that
`
`proceeding only. IPR2015-00506, Paper 8 at 10. Petitioner makes no separate
`
`argument as to why claims 1-5 of the ’973 patent should receive a priority date of
`
`February 9, 2007, and fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`such a belated priority date is appropriate. Just as a petitioner has the ultimate burden
`
`to prove that a reference qualifies as prior art, and accordingly, “[w]ith respect to
`
`entitlement to any earlier effective priority date, … must identify, specifically, the
`
`disclosure in ancestral applications ‘that do not share the same disclosure,’ and
`
`which allegedly show § 112 support for the relied upon priority date” (see
`
`Amazon.com Inc. v. Personalized Media Commc’ns LLC., IPR2014-01533, Paper 16
`
`at 6 (April 20, 2015)), so too does Petitioner bear the burden of demonstrating that
`
`the ’973 patent is not entitled to its June 27, 1995 priority date.
`
`Petitioner actually argues for a priority date of November 28, 2007, which is
`
`the date of an amendment during the prosecution of the ’973 patent. As the Board
`
`pointed out in its institution decision in IPR2015-00506, the issue that Petitioner
`
`“raises is not a filing date issue, but instead the question of whether the originally-
`
`filed disclosure for the ’973 patent supports the amended claims filed on November
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`28, 2007.” See IPR2015-00506, Paper 8 at *9 (citing R.R. Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki
`
`Co., 727 F.2d 1506, 1517 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). As the Board held in IPR2015-00506,
`
`“[t]hat question is ultimately a written description issue under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`which we do not address in an inter partes review.” Id.
`
`In the alternative, Petitioner argues that the claims are only entitled to a
`
`priority date of February 23, 1999. Petition, Paper 2 at 13. Nonetheless, in arguing
`
`that the ’973 Patent is not entitled to its June 27, 1995 priority date, Petitioner fails
`
`to consider the whole disclosure set forth in the ’973 Patent and its priority
`
`applications. As Patent Owner shows below, the ’973 Patent is entitled to its original
`
`priority date of June 27, 1995.
`
`B. The ’973 Patent is Entitled to a Priority Date of June 27, 1995
`
`The ’973 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 08/495,176
`
`(the “’176 grandparent application”) (Ex. 2003), which issued into U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,613,751 (the “’751 patent”) (Ex. 1006). The ’176 grandparent application was filed
`
`on June 27, 1995. The ’176 grandparent application explicitly and inherently
`
`discloses all of the limitations that the Petitioner challenges as unsupported. For
`
`simplicity of citation, Patent Owner sometimes cites to ’751 patent in this
`
`preliminary response for the corresponding parts of the written description of the
`
`’176 grandparent application. The corresponding parts of the ’176 grandparent
`
`application are found in the tables below each section.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`A patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier
`
`filed application “if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the
`
`claims of the later application.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d
`
`1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To satisfy the written description requirement, the
`
`disclosure of the prior application must “convey with reasonable clarity to those
`
`skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of
`
`the invention.” Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
`
`But written description does not equal literal support. To the contrary, “The test …
`
`is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys
`
`to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject
`
`matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the specification
`
`for the claim language.” In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
`
`(emphasis added); see also, Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570,
`
`1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “[T]his court has often observed that minutiae of descriptions
`
`or procedures perfectly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art yet unfamiliar to
`
`laymen need not be set forth.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`(citing In re Eltgroth, 57 C.C.P.A. 833, 419 F.2d 918, 921 (CCPA 1970)).
`
`Petitioner identifies only three limitations from the ’973 patent that are
`
`allegedly not found in the ’176 grandparent application: (1) “a pattern of individual
`
`light extracting deformities associated with respective light sources”; (2) “wherein
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`each of the deformities has a length and width substantially smaller than the length
`
`and width of the panel surface”; and (3) “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.” Petition, Paper
`
`2 at 14-15. Yet, as discussed below, each of those limitations is found in the ’176
`
`grandparent application.
`
`1. “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”
`
`Patent Owner addresses this term first because, in the institution decision of
`
`IPR2015-00506, the Board found that is term is not disclosed by the ’176
`
`grandparent application. But as shown below, the term “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” is disclosed
`
`by the ’176 grandparent application.
`
`The ’176 grandparent application discloses elements that support this
`
`limitation such: (1) deformities that can differ/vary as claimed; (2) a pattern of
`
`deformities placed in areas as desired, including at an input edge; (3) several light
`
`sources used for the same panel assembly on the same input edge; (4) less and/or
`
`smaller size deformities placed on panel areas where less light output is wanted and
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`greater percentage of and/or larger deformities placed on areas of the panels where
`
`greater light output is desired; and (5) manipulating the deformities as the distance
`
`from the light source increases in order to create a more uniform light output
`
`distribution from the light emitting panels. One 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.
`
`The ’176 grandparent application explicitly states that the deformities may
`
`vary by density, shape, or depth: “[b]y varying the density, opaqueness or
`
`translucence, shape, depth, color, area, index of refraction, or type of deformities
`
`21 on an area or areas of the panels, the light output of the panels can be controlled.”
`
`’751 patent at 4:58-61 (emphasis added); ’176 grandparent application at 8:20-23
`
`(Ex. 2003, DDG_000145).
`
`The ’176 grandparent application further describes that the size of the
`
`deformities can be varied: “[t]he deformities or disruptions may be used to control
`
`the percent of light emitted from any area of the panels. For example, less and/or
`
`smaller size deformities 21 may be placed on panel areas where less light output is
`
`wanted. Conversely, a greater percentage of and/or larger deformities may be placed
`
`on areas of the panels where greater light output is desired.” Id. at 4:61-67 (emphasis
`
`added); ’176 grandparent application at 8:23-30 (Ex. 2003, DDG_000145).
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`The ’176 grandparent application includes more details about various kinds
`
`of deformities and how they can differ (’751 patent at 5:54 through 6:5 (brackets
`
`added)), including the following passage that describes varying the height of the
`
`deformities: “other light extracting deformities including prismatic surfaces,
`
`depressions or raised surfaces of various shapes” and that “the angles of the prisms,
`
`depressions or other surfaces may be varied [height] to direct the light in different
`
`directions to produce a desired light output distribution or effect.” Thus, the ’176
`
`grandparent application also explicitly discloses varying the height of the
`
`deformities to produce a desired light output. For reference, the entire passage from
`
`the ’751 patent at 5:54 through 6:5 (’176 grandparent application at 10:16-35 (Ex.
`
`2003, DDG_000147) is reproduced below:
`
`In addition to or in lieu of the patterns of light extracting deformities 21
`
`shown in FIG. 4a, other light extracting deformities including prismatic
`
`surfaces, depressions or raised surfaces of various shapes using more
`
`complex shapes in a mold pattern may be molded, etched, stamped,
`
`thermoformed, hot stamped or the like into or on one or more areas of
`
`the panel member. FIGS. 4b and 4c show panel areas 22 on which
`
`prismatic surfaces 23 or depressions 24 are formed in the panel areas,
`
`whereas FIG. 4d shows prismatic or other reflective or refractive
`
`surfaces 25 formed on the exterior of the panel area. The prismatic
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`surfaces, depressions or raised surfaces will cause a portion of the light
`
`rays contacted thereby to be emitted from the panel member. Also, the
`
`angles of the prisms, depressions or other surfaces may be varied to
`
`direct the light in different directions to produce a desired light output
`
`distribution or effect. Moreover, the reflective or refractive surfaces
`
`may have shapes or a pattern with no specific angles to reduce moire or
`
`other interference effects.
`
`The ’176 grandparent application discloses patterns of deformities placed in
`
`any location on the panel, e.g., in one or more selected areas, as desired: “[a] pattern
`
`of light extracting deformities or disruptions may be provided on one or both sides
`
`of the panel members or on one or more selected areas on one or both sides of the
`
`panel members, as desired. FIG. 4a schematically shows one such light surface area
`
`20 on which a pattern of light extracting deformities or disruptions 21 is
`
`provided.” ’751 patent at 4:27-32; ’176 grandparent application at 7:22-28 (Ex.
`
`2003, DDG_000144).
`
`The ’176 grandparent application also shows deformities in close proximity
`
`to an input edge at Fig. 4a. And the application also mentions the input edge as it
`
`relates to Figs. 1-3. ’751 patent at 3:5-6 (“light input surface 13 of the panel
`
`member”) (’176 grandparent application at 4:33-34 (Ex. 2003, DDG_000141); ’751
`
`patent at 3:18-19 (“light input surface 18 at one end of the light emitting panel 7”)
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`(’176 grandparent application at 5:10-12 (Ex. 2003, DDG_000142); ’751 patent at
`
`3:44-45 (“the light input surface 19 of the light emitting panel 14”) (’176 grandparent
`
`application at 6:2-3 (Ex. 2003, DDG_000143).
`
`The ’176 grandparent application also discloses several light sources: “[t]he
`
`panel assemblies shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 include a single light source 3, whereas
`
`FIG. 3 shows another light emitting panel assembly 11 in accordance with this
`
`invention including two light sources 3. Of course, it will be appreciated that the
`
`panel assemblies of the present invention may be provided with any number of light
`
`sources as desired, depending on the particular application.” ’751 patent at 3:26-32;
`
`’176 grandparent application at 5:19-26 (Ex. 2003, DDG_000142). Those light
`
`sources are shown in the same assembly on the same edge of the panel in Figures 3,
`
`6, 7, 10, and 12 of the ’176 grandparent application (Ex. 2003, DDG_000166-168).
`
`The ’176 grandparent application explains that
`
`[v]arying the percentages and/or size of deformities in different areas
`
`of the panel is necessary in order to provide a uniform light output
`
`distribution. For example, the amount of light traveling through the
`
`panels will ordinarily be greater in areas closer to the light source than
`
`in other areas further removed from the light source. A pattern of light
`
`extracting deformities 21 may be used to adjust for the light variances
`
`within the panel members, for example, by providing a denser
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`concentration of light extracting deformities with increased distance
`
`from the light source 3 thereby resulting in a more uniform light output
`
`distribution from the light emitting panels.
`
`’751 patent at 5:1-12; ’176 grandparent application at 8:31 through 9:8 (Ex. 2003,
`
`DDG_000145-146).Thus, the ’176 grandparent application explicitly describes that
`
`the amount of light in the panel is greater near the light source, and that (for example)
`
`to create more uniform light output from the panel, more deformities should be used
`
`at farther distances away from light source. That disclosure includes the area of the
`
`input edge between two light sources.
`
`As shown in the table below, the interim priority patents between the ’176
`
`grandparent application and the ’973 patent contain similar or identical disclosures
`
`to those cited in the arguments above.
`
`’176
`grandparent
`application
`DDG_000141
`
` U.S.
`Patent No.
`5,613,751
`3:5-6
`
`U.S.
`Patent No.
`6,079,838
`3:5
`
`U.S.
`Patent No.
`6,712,481
`4:28
`
`U.S.
`Patent No.
`7,195,389
`4:58-59
`
`U.S.
`Patent No.
`7,434,973
`4:48-49
`
`at 4:33-34
`
`DDG_000142
`
`3:18-19
`
`3:17-18
`
`4:40-41
`
`5:4-5
`
`4:60-61
`
`at 5:10-12
`
`DDG_000142
`
`3:26-32
`
`3:25-31
`
`4:48-54
`
`5:12-18
`
`5:1-7
`
`at 5:19-26
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01666
`Patent 7,434,973
`DDG_000143
`
`at 6:2-3
`
`3:44-45
`
`3:42-43
`
`4:65-66
`
`5:29-30
`
`5:18-19
`
`DDG_000144
`
`4:27-32
`
`4:26-31
`
`5:49-54
`
`6:12-17
`
`6:1-6
`
`at 7:22-28
`
`DDG_000145
`
`4:58-67
`
`4:57-66
`
`6:13-22
`
`6:43-52
`
`6:32-41
`
`at 8:20-30
`
`DDG_000145-
`
`5:1-12
`
`4:67 - 5:10 6:23-34
`
`6:55-64
`
`6:42-53
`
`146 at 8:31
`
`through 9:8
`
`DDG_000147
`
`5:54 - 6:5 5:52 - 6:3 7:10-28
`
`7:39-57
`
`7:27-44
`
`at 10:16-35
`
`DDG_000166-
`
`Figu