`By:
`Justin B. Kimble (JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com)
`
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone (jbragalone@bcpc-law.com)
`Bragalone Conroy P.C.
`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
`
`K.J. PRETECH CO., LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01867
`U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH WERNER
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
`Declaration of Kenneth Werner
`
`I, Kenneth Werner, do hereby declare and state, that all statements made
`
`herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information
`
`and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with
`
`the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by
`
`fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`Executed July 1, 2016, in Norwalk, Connecticut, United States of America.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`Mr. Kenneth Werner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`The facts set forth below are known to me personally and I have
`
`firsthand knowledge of them. I am a United States citizen over eighteen years of age.
`
`I am fully competent to testify on the matters in this Declaration. I understand that
`
`this Declaration is being submitted along with the Patent Owner’s response to the
`
`Decision in the Institution of Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) by the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“Board”) for U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 (or, the “’370 patent”) in
`
`IPR2015-01867.
`
`A. Engagement
`I have been hired as a technical expert by the owner of the ’370 patent
`
`2.
`
`to study it and certain prior art and provide my opinions on whether that prior art
`
`discloses the limitations of the claims of the ’370 patent at issue in this IPR
`
`proceeding. In particular, I have been asked to review the Declaration of Thomas L.
`
`Credelle (“Credelle Declaration”) and provide my opinions about that declaration.
`
`Further, I have read the Institution Decision and understand that the Board has only
`
`instituted this IPR on two grounds: whether claim 29 of the ʼ370 patent is obvious
`
`in light of JP H03-189679 (“Suzuki”) and whether claim 47 of the ʼ370 patent is
`
`obvious in light of Suzuki and US 5,005,108 (“Pristash”).
`
`B. Background and Qualifications
`In this section, I discuss my educational background, work experience,
`
`3.
`
`and other relevant qualifications. My curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A,
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`which also includes a list of all other cases in which I have testified as an expert at
`
`trial or by deposition.
`
`4.
`
`I have over twenty-seven years of experience in the electronic display
`
`industry. I am currently founder and Principal of Nutmeg Consultants. In my current
`
`role I regularly address technical and trade organizations in the Americas and Asia,
`
`and I am routinely consulted by financial advisors, analysts, attorneys, members of
`
`the international press corps, and by companies entering or repositioning themselves
`
`in the display industry. I speak frequently with senior executives of large, mid-sized,
`
`and small display-related companies in Asia, Europe, and the Americas, as well as
`
`government officials and academic researchers. At BRDisplay II (July 2004, Recife,
`
`Brazil), I served as a consultant to the working groups developing a national strategy
`
`for the growth of a display-related industry in Brazil and wrote the introduction to
`
`their report.
`
`5.
`
`I also serve as Senior Analyst for Meko, Ltd. Until recently I served as
`
`Marketing Director for Tannas Displays (Orange, California). In that positon, I did
`
`extensive research on markets for custom-sized and bar-type displays, particularly
`
`for signage applications. I am a founding co-editor of MEKO’s Display Daily, and
`
`a regular contributor to HDTVexpert.com.
`
`6.
`
`I began my career as a semiconductor device design engineer for RCA.
`
`I hold a B.A. in physics from Rutgers University and an M.S. in solid-state physics
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And I have taken graduate
`
`management courses at the University of Connecticut.
`
`7.
`
`I have been an active participant in the display industry since 1987.
`
`From 1987-2005, I was the Editor of Information Display Magazine. I have given
`
`keynote presentations at LCD/PDP International 2001 (Yokohama, Japan),
`
`InfoDisplay VI (2003, Fortaleza, Brazil), and invited presentations at the Consumer
`
`Electronics Show 2002 (Las Vegas), the International Display Manufacturing
`
`Conference 2002 (Seoul), the Liquid Crystal Institute (2002, Kent, Ohio), IMID
`
`2005 (Seoul), the Signage and Graphics Summit (2007, Tucson), LatinDisplay 2007
`
`and 2008 (Campinas, Brazil), LatinDisplay 2009 (Sao Paulo), and Technologies for
`
`Custom Display Modules (SID-LA, 2010). I was a referee for the Display Invention
`
`Competition held in August 2003 in Korolev, Russia.
`
`8.
`
`Recently, I have delivered invited papers at CVCE 2010 (Asan, Korea);
`
`LatinDisplay 2010 (Sao Paulo, Brazil); and Organic Displays, Lighting, and
`
`Electronics (SID-LA, 2011). I delivered keynote addresses on OLED displays at the
`
`Nomura Pan-Asia Technology Forum (2011 and 2012, Hong Kong) and an invited
`
`presentation on 3D displays at Display Taiwan (June 2011, Taipei). I delivered a
`
`presentation on OLED displays at CVCE 2012 (Sept. 2012, Cheonan, Korea), one
`
`on Internet TV at LatinDisplay/IDRC (Nov. 2012, Sao Paulo), and one on
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Technologies for Advanced Television (SID-NE, May 2014, Framingham,
`
`Massachusetts).
`
`9.
`
`I was program chair for the One Day Symposium on Emerging Display
`
`Technologies sponsored by the LA Chapter of SID (Feb. 2012), and for the SID-LA
`
`One Day Conference on Advanced Television Technologies (Feb. 2014). I am a
`
`member of the Society for Information Display (SID) and IEEE, and was Chairman
`
`of the Advisory Board for the award-winning IEEE Circuits & Devices magazine.
`
`C. Compensation
`I am being compensated for the time I spend on this case at my normal
`10.
`
`consulting rate of $350 an hour. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and
`
`customary expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation.
`
`My compensation is not contingent upon the outcome of this matter or the substance
`
`of my testimony.
`
`D. Information Considered and Basis of Opinions Formed
`My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`11.
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this declaration and those
`
`listed in Appendix B.
`
`12.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Petitioner. I may also consider additional documents and
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`information in forming any necessary opinions – including documents that may not
`
`yet have been provided to me.
`
`13.
`
`My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing,
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and
`
`on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`14.
`
`claims of the ’974 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that counsel
`
`has explained to me.
`
`15.
`
`First, I understand that for something to be found patentable, it must be,
`
`among other things, new and not obvious from what was known before.
`
`16.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and generally
`
`includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal publications, articles
`
`on websites, product manuals, etc.) that existed before the earliest filing date (the
`
`“effective filing date”) of the claim in the patent. I also understand that a patent may
`
`be prior art if it was filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`while a printed publication will be prior art if it was publicly available before that
`
`date.
`
`17.
`
`I set forth my understanding of the anticipation standard as follows: I
`
`understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if a prior art reference discloses
`
`every element of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently and that those
`
`elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as the claimed invention. I
`
`further understand that being arranged or combined in the same way does not require
`
`an identity of terminology.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that “prior art” includes patents and printed publications
`
`that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”) of the claim in
`
`the patent. I also understand that a patent may be prior art if it was filed before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention, while a printed publication will be
`
`prior art if it was publicly available before that date.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the claim.
`
`Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, Petitioner has the burden of
`
`proving that the claims of the ’974 patent are rendered obvious in view of the prior
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`art by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance of the
`
`evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`21.
`
`It is my further understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable
`
`for the reason of obviousness if the differences between the invention and the prior
`
`art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
`
`the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
`
`subject matter pertains.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the ultimate conclusion of whether a claim is (non)
`
`obvious should be based upon a determination of several factual considerations: (1)
`
`Determining the scope and content of the prior art; (2) Ascertaining the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (3) Resolving the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art. I understand that when considering those factors
`
`both the claimed invention and the scope and content of the prior art must be
`
`considered as a whole, including disclosures in the references that diverge from and
`
`teach away from the invention at hand. I understand that it is improper to limit the
`
`obviousness inquiry to a difference from the prior art and then to show that that
`
`difference alone would have been obvious.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the existence of each and every element of the claimed
`
`invention in the prior art does not necessarily prove obviousness and that most, if
`
`not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior art. In considering whether a
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`claimed invention is obvious, I understand that one may find obviousness if at the
`
`time of the claimed invention there was a reason that would have prompted a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the field to combine the known elements in a way the
`
`claimed invention does, taking into account such factors as (1) whether the claimed
`
`invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to
`
`their known function(s); (2) whether the claimed invention provides an obvious
`
`solution to a known problem in the relevant field; (3) whether the prior art teaches
`
`or suggests the desirability of combining elements claimed in the invention; (4)
`
`whether the prior art teaches away from combining elements in the claimed
`
`invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the combinations of
`
`elements, such as when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions; and (6) whether the
`
`change resulted more from design incentives or other market forces. I understand
`
`that to find it rendered the invention obvious, one must find that the prior art
`
`provided a reasonable expectation of success and that each claim must be considered
`
`separately.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that one should not use hindsight when considering
`
`obviousness. I also understand that in assessing obviousness, that one should take
`
`into account any objective evidence (sometimes called “secondary considerations”)
`
`that may have existed at the time of the invention and afterwards that may shed light
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`on the obviousness or not of the claimed invention, such as: (a) Whether the
`
`invention was commercially successful as a result of the merits of the claimed
`
`invention (rather than the result of design needs or market-pressure advertising or
`
`similar activities); (b) Whether the invention satisfied a long-felt need; (c) Whether
`
`others had tried and failed to make the invention; (d) Whether others invented the
`
`invention at roughly the same time; (e) Whether others copied the invention; (f)
`
`Whether
`
`there were changes or related
`
`technologies or market needs
`
`contemporaneous with the invention; (g) Whether the invention achieved
`
`unexpected results; (h) Whether others in the field praised the invention; (i) Whether
`
`persons having ordinary skill in the art of the invention expressed surprise or
`
`disbelief regarding the invention; (j) Whether others sought or obtained rights to the
`
`patent from the patent holder; and (k) Whether the inventor proceeded contrary to
`
`accepted wisdom in the field.
`
`III. THE ’370 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’370 Patent
`The ’370 patent relates generally, to “light emitting panel assemblies”
`25.
`
`including “several different light emitting panel assembly configurations which
`
`provide for better control of the light output from the panel assemblies and for more
`
`efficient utilization of light, which results in greater light output from the panel
`
`assemblies.” ’370 patent at 1:18 and 1:24-28.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`26.
`
`Fig. 2 (reproduced below) from the ’370 patent shows one of the
`
`“different forms of light emitting panel assemblies in accordance with this
`
`invention.” Id. at 2:16-17.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`The ’370 includes a discussion that “[i]n accordance with one aspect of
`
`the invention, the light emitting panel assemblies include a light emitting panel
`
`member having a light transition area in which at least one light source is suitably
`
`mounted for transmission of light to the light input surface of the panel member.”
`
`Id. at 1:32-36.
`
`28.
`
`The ’370 patent discusses light emitting panel assemblies with panel
`
`members with “a pattern of light extracting deformities or disruptions which provide
`
`a desired light output distribution from the panel members by changing the angle of
`
`refraction of a portion of the light from one or more light output areas of the panel
`
`members.” Id. at 1:51-55.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Fig. 4A (reproduced below) shows 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.” Id. at 2:18-20.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`The summary of the invention of the ’370 patent concludes by stating
`
`that the “various light emitting panel assemblies of the present invention are very
`
`efficient panel assemblies that may be used to produce increased uniformity and
`
`higher light output from the panel members with lower power requirements, and
`
`allow the panel members to be made thinner and/or longer, and/or of various shapes
`
`and sizes.” Id. at 1:65 through 2:3.
`
`31.
`
`The ’370 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
`
`4:29-34.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`According to the ’370 patent, deformities may be varied to affect the
`
`light output of the panels: “[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. 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 4:62 through 5:3.
`
`33.
`
`Further describing the varying of deformities, the ’370 patent states as
`
`follows: “[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
`
`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 5:5-16.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`34.
`
`The deformities in the ’370 patent can control the output ray angle
`
`distribution of light emitting from the panels so that the light output is suitable for
`
`use in applications such as LCDs: “[t]he deformities 21 may also be used to control
`
`the output ray angle distribution of the emitted light to suit a particular application.
`
`For example, if the panel assemblies are used to provide a liquid crystal display
`
`backlight, the light output will be more efficient if the deformities 21 cause the light
`
`rays to emit from the panels at predetermined ray angles such that they will pass
`
`through the liquid crystal display with low loss.” Id. at 5:17-23.
`
`35.
`
`The ’370 patent describes other details about the uses of the deformities
`
`and how they may be printed on the panels: “the pattern of light extracting
`
`deformities may be used to adjust for light output variances attributed to light
`
`extractions of the panel members. The pattern of light extracting deformities 21 may
`
`be printed on the light output areas utilizing a wide spectrum of paints, inks, coatings,
`
`epoxies, or the like, ranging from glossy to opaque or both, and may employ half-
`
`tone separation techniques to vary the deformity 21 coverage. Moreover, the pattern
`
`of light extracting deformities 21 may be multiple layers or vary in index of
`
`refraction.” Id. at 5:24-33.
`
`36.
`
`The ’370 patent includes further discussion on the various shapes of the
`
`deformities, their density of placement, their varying in shape and/or size along the
`
`length and/or width of the panel, and other details: “Print patterns of light extracting
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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 5:34-56.
`
`37.
`
`The ’370 patent further discloses that other deformities may be used in
`
`the panels of the invention: “[i]n addition to or in lieu of the patterns of light
`
`extracting deformities 21 shown in FIG. 4a, other light extracting deformities
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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.” Id. at 5:57 through 6:7.
`
`38.
`
`In the figures of the ’370 patent, the light sources are almost exclusively
`
`labeled with numeral 3. For example, in the description of Figures 1 and 2, the ’370
`
`patent state as follows: “[in] FIG. 1, there is schematically shown … one or more
`
`light sources 3 which emit light in a predetermined pattern in a light transition
`
`member” (id. at 2:58-62); “FIG. 2 shows another form of light emitting panel
`
`assembly 5 in accordance with this invention including a panel light transition area
`
`6 at one end of the light emitting panel 7 with sides 8, 9 around and behind the light
`
`source 3 shaped to more efficiently reflect and/or refract and focus the light emitted
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`from the light source 3 that impinges on these surfaces back through the light
`
`transition area 6 …” (id. at 3:16-22). Below I show Figs. 1 and 2, zoomed-in on their
`
`light sources:
`
`
`
`39.
`
`The ’370 patent further states that “[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.” Id. at 3:32-38.
`
`40.
`
`The ’370 patent further describes the various options for light source 3,
`
`including incorporating by reference several of the inventor’s patents: “Each light
`
`source 3 may also be of any suitable type including, for example, any of the types
`
`disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,897,771 and 5,005,108, assigned to the same assignee
`
`as the present application, the entire disclosures of which are incorporated herein by
`
`reference. In particular, the light sources 3 may be an arc lamp, an incandescent bulb
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`which also may be colored, filtered or painted, a lens end bulb, a line light, a halogen
`
`lamp, a light emitting diode (LED), a chip from an LED, a neon bulb, a fluorescent
`
`tube, a fiber optic light pipe transmitting from a remote source, a laser or laser diode,
`
`or any other suitable light source. Additionally, the light sources 3 may be a multiple
`
`colored LED, or a combination of multiple colored radiation sources in order to
`
`provide a desired colored or white light output distribution. For example, a plurality
`
`of colored lights such as LEDs of different colors (red, blue, green) or a single LED
`
`with multiple colored chips may be employed to create white light or any other
`
`colored light output distribution by varying the intensities of each individual colored
`
`light.” Id. at 4:12-30.
`
`41.
`
`The ʼ370 patent also discloses light output areas, or light emitting
`
`surfaces. “In accordance with another aspect of the invention, the light emitting
`
`panel members include a pattern of light extracting deformities or disruptions which
`
`provide a desired light output distribution from the panel members by changing the
`
`angle of refraction of a portion of the light from one or more light output areas of
`
`the panel members.” Id. at 1:50-55; see also id. at 1:18-22; 2:65-3:3; 4:48-5:4; 7:1-
`
`9; 7:30-33; 7:55-58; Figs. 4a, b, c, d, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`I understand that for an expired patent, such as the ’370 patent, the
`42.
`
`appropriate claim construction is that the claim terms are generally given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention. Under this standard of claim construction, in the case
`
`of ambiguity, terms are construed with an eye toward preserving validity. I
`
`understand that, in this analysis, the specification is always highly relevant and that
`
`it is often times the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. I also
`
`understand that one must look to the claims themselves and the prosecution history
`
`as further intrinsic evidence of the meaning of a disputed claim term. I further
`
`understand that that one can look to extrinsic evidence during claim construction,
`
`but that extrinsic evidence is given less weight than intrinsic evidence. Extrinsic
`
`evidence includes things like expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and
`
`learned treatises.
`
`43.
`
`Given that claim terms are understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention, a definition of one of ordinary skill in the art must
`
`be established to construe the claims of the ’370 patent. I understand that 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
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`those problems, and the speed at which innovations are made may help establish the
`
`level of skill in the art.
`
`44.
`
`In this declaration, I rely on the following definition of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art: a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’370 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.
`
`45.
`
`I consider myself to have exceeded such “ordinary skill in the art” with
`
`respect to the subject matter of the ʼ370 patent at the time of the invention.
`
`46.
`
`I agree with Credelle and the Board that the construction of deformities
`
`should be “any change in the shape or geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface
`
`treatment that causes a portion of light to be emitted.” Credelle at ¶ 75; Institution
`
`Decision at 4.
`
`47.
`
`I recognize that the court in the Eastern District of Texas held that the
`
`term “transition region” means “a region configured to transmit light.” Credelle at ¶
`
`77; Ex. 1012 at 18-22. I agree with that construction. I do not, however, agree with
`
`Credelle that the term includes any “region configured to transmit light [between the
`
`at least one input edge and the patterns of light extracting deformities to allow the
`
`light from the at least one light source to mix and spread].” Credelle at ¶ 77.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`48.
`
`The only claim at issue in this proceeding that uses the term “transition
`
`region” is claim 47. I reproduce that claim language below:
`
`47. A light emitting panel assembly comprising at least one light source,
`an optical panel member having at least one input edge for receiving
`light from the at least one light source, the panel member having front
`and back sides and a greater cross sectional width than thickness, both
`the front and back sides having a pattern of light extracting deformities
`that are projections or depressions on or in the sides to cause light to be
`emitted from the panel member in a predetermined output distribution,
`where the pattern of light extracting deformities on or in at least one of
`the sides varies along at least one of the length and width of the panel
`member and at least some of the light extracting deformities on or in
`one of the sides vary in a different way or manner than the light
`extracting deformities on or in the other side of the panel member,
`wherein the panel member has a transition region between the at
`least one input edge and the patterns of light extracting deformities
`to allow the light from the at least one light source to mix and spread,
`and at least one side of the transition region contains optical elements
`for reflecting or refracting light from the at least one light source.
`
`
`ʼ370 Patent at 12:20-39 (emphasis added). This language makes clear that the
`
`transition region must be positioned between the input edge of the panel member
`
`and the pattern of light extracting deformities that are on or in a side of the panel
`
`member. In other words, the input edge must be part of the panel member. I
`
`understand Mr. Credelle agreed with this interpretation at his deposition. See Ex.
`
`2007, Credelle Dep. at 166:15-23.
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`In my opinion, claims 29 and 47 of the ʼ370 patent are valid. I have
`49.
`
`reviewed the Declaration of Thomas L. Credelle (“Credelle” or “Credelle
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration”), and I do not agree with his opinion that the disputed claims are
`
`invalid. Below are my opinions about why I disagree that the instituted grounds
`
`support a finding of unpatentability.
`
`A. Claim 29 Is Not Obvious In View Of Suzuki.
`In my opinion, Suzuki does not describe providing patterns of
`50.
`
`deformities on each side of the light guide, in which those patterns each vary
`
`differently, which Credelle identifies as element [29.e].
`
`51.
`
`Claim 29 requires that both sides of the panel member have a pattern of
`
`light extracting deformities and that “at least some of the light extracting deformities
`
`on or in one of the sides vary in a different way or manner than the light extracting
`
`deformities on or in the other side.” ʼ370 patent at 11:15-19. The ʼ370 patent
`
`describes that “[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.” ʼ370 patent at 4:62-65.
`
`52.
`
`Suzuki describes certain embodiments in Table 1. For one of those,
`
`Suzuki describes that “Fig. 5 shows an example in which the pitch is gradually
`
`changed.” Suzuki at 14. Suzuki further describes that “[e]mbossed patterns having
`
`different pitches may be formed on the front and back surfaces of the transparent
`
`light guide layer 2.” Id. In my opinion, this disclosure does not teach that the pattern
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`of deformities in each side of the panel member vary in a different way or manner
`
`than the pattern of deformities in the other side, as required by claim 29.
`
`53.
`
`In Suzuki, the “pitch” is the one dimensional spacing of the grid in
`
`which the elements are placed. This is consistent with what Mr. Credelle testified
`
`was the meaning of pitch in the field of LCD backlighting: “the distance from the
`
`center to center of a feature on the backlight.” Credelle Dep. at 169:15-23. Where
`
`Suzuki describes that the pitch in Fig. 5 is grad