throbber
Filed on behalf of Delaware Display Group LLC.
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket