Filed on behalf of Innovative Display Technologies LLC
`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 IPR2015-01868
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH WERNER
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01868
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
`
`
`
`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. 7,434,974
`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 (“PTAB” or “Board”) for U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 (or, the “’974
`
`patent”) in IPR2015-01868.
`
`A. Engagement
`I have been hired as a technical expert by the owner of the ’974 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 ’974 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 understand that the PTAB has instituted this IPR on four grounds:
`
`• Whether claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are anticipated by JP H7-64078A
`
`(“Kisou”);
`
`• Whether claims 5, 10, and 11 are rendered obvious by Kisou;
`
`• Whether claims 3 and 4 are rendered obvious by a combination of Kisou
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 4,017,155 (“Yagi”); and
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`• Whether claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rendered obvious by a
`
`combination of JP 6-214230 (“Furuya”) and JP H5-45651 (“Niizuma”).
`
`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,
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
`while a printed publication will be prior art if it was publicly available before that
`
`date.
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, Petitioner has the burden of
`
`proving that the claims of the ’974 patent are anticipated or rendered obvious in view
`
`of the prior 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.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`THE ’974 PATENT
`III.
`A. Overview of the ’974 Patent
`The ’974 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.” Ex. 1001, ’974 patent at 1:18 and 1:24-28.
`
`26.
`
`Fig. 2 (reproduced below) from the ’974 patent shows one of the
`
`“different forms of light emitting panel assemblies in accordance with this
`
`invention.” Id. at 2:16-17.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`The ’974 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.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`The ’974 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.
`
`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 ’974 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
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`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 ’974 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.
`
`32.
`
`According to the ’974 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 ’974 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
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`34.
`
`The deformities in the ’974 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 ’974 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
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`of light extracting deformities 21 may be multiple layers or vary in index of
`
`refraction.” Id. at 5:24-33.
`
`36.
`
`The ’974 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
`
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`members, for example to provide different colors for the same or different light
`
`output areas.” Id. at 5:34-56.
`
`37.
`
`The ’974 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
`
`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 ’974 patent, the light sources are almost exclusively
`
`labeled with numeral 3. For example, in the description of Figures 1 and 2, the ’974
`
`patent state as follows: “[in] FIG. 1, there is schematically shown … one or more
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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 ’974 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.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`40.
`
`The ’974 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
`
`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 ’974 patent further describes that, referring to Fig. 2, “the panel
`
`assembly 5 shown therein also includes molded posts 31 at one or more corners of
`
`the panel 7 (four such posts being shown) which may be used to facilitate mounting
`
`of the panel assembly and providing structural support for other parts or components,
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`for example, a display panel such as a liquid crystal display panel as desired.” Id. at
`
`6:46-52.
`
`42.
`
`The ʼ974 patent also describes that “FIG. 9 schematically shows
`
`another form of light emitting panel assembly 50 in accordance With this invention,
`
`including a panel member 51 having multiple light output areas 52, and mounting
`
`posts and/ or mounting tabs 53. This particular panel assembly 50 may serve as a
`
`structural member to support other parts or components as by providing holes or
`
`cavities 54, 55 in the panel member 51 Which allow for the insertion of modular
`
`components or other parts into the panel member.” Id. at 7:22-29.
`
`43.
`
`The ʼ974 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.
`
`B. Overview of Kisou
` “Kisou” was published on March 10, 1995, as an unexamined Japanese
`44.
`
`patent application to several inventors including to Etsuo Kisou.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`45.
`
`Kisou’s “Field of Invention” is a particular edge-lit LCD Backlight. See
`
`Ex. 1006, Kisou at [0001] “[Field of the Invention] The present invention relates to
`
`a backlight device for a liquid crystal display (LCD) requiring an illumination light
`
`source, and more specifically to an edge-lit LCD backlight device in which light
`
`from a light source is guided in a lateral direction (parallel direction) with respect to
`
`a light-emitting surface.”
`
`46.
`
`Kisou describes its light sources in several parts, including the
`
`following passage: “FIG. 3 is a perspective view of a lamp unit L, and FIG. 4 is a
`
`cross-sectional view of the main parts thereof. The lamp unit L comprises two light-
`
`emitting elements (such as LED elements) 20, 21 provided within a lamp case 10
`
`shaped as shown in the drawing, with a pair of lead wires 22, 23 projecting
`
`downward from the lamp case 10. The LED elements 20, 21 are sealed by resin
`
`molding 25 (see FIG. 4).” Id. at [0019]. Figs. 3 and 4 of Kisou are shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`47.
`
`Kisou describes the lamp cases further: “The lamp case 10 comprises a
`
`light-reflecting rear plate 11 positioned behind the LED elements 20, 21, a light-
`
`reflecting upper plate 12 that extends from an upper part of the rear plate 11 in the
`
`direction in which light is emitted from the LED elements 20, 21 (i.e., forward), a
`
`light-reflecting lower plate 13 that extends forward from a lower part of the rear
`
`plate 11 and is shorter than the upper plate 12, and light-reflecting side plates 14, 15
`
`that extend forward from the rear plate 11 toward a distal end of the upper plate 12
`
`and a distal end of the lower plate 13 at both side ends of the rear plate 11, the upper
`
`plate 12, and the lower plate 13. As is apparent from FIG. 3, the upper plate 12 is
`
`longer than the lower plate 13; thus, the side plates 14, 15 are trapezoidal in shape.”
`
`Id. at [0020].
`
`48.
`
`Kisou discusses a shielding plate used to prevent interference between
`
`the LEDs in the lamp case: “In this lamp case 10, a shielding plate 16 is provided in
`
`the center of the rear plate 11; this shielding plate 16 serves to prevent interference
`
`between the light from the LED elements 20, 21, and the provision of the shielding
`
`plate 16 allows for the prevention of light and dark patches caused by light
`
`interference.” Id. at [0021].
`
`49.
`
`Kisou further describes connecting its two LEDs in series to draw a
`
`more stable current to the two: “As is apparent from the shapes of the lead wires 22,
`
`23 in FIG. 5, attached LED elements to the LED element attachment positions 72,
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`73 yields two LED elements connected in series. This arrangement takes advantage
`
`of the property that connecting two LED elements in series yields a more stable
`
`current than when light is emitted using a single LED element in isolation due to the
`
`internal resistance of the LED elements when electrified. As a result, more stable
`
`light can be obtained from the LED elements, that is, the lamp unit L.” Id. at [0022].
`
`50.
`
`Kisou notes that its LED’s light distribution is divided into two
`
`components, light progressing forward and light progressing obliquely downward
`
`and forward: “Because the lamp case 10 of this lamp unit L is constituted by a light-
`
`reflecting rear plate 11, upper plate 12, lower plate 13, and side plates 14, 15, light
`
`exiting the LED elements 20, 21 in FIG. 4 is divided into light progressing forward
`
`and light progressing obliquely downward and forward. That is, the path of the light
`
`is controlled in two directions by the light-reflecting plates 11–15.” Id. at [0023].
`
`51.
`
`Describing the “Effects of the Invention,” Kisou states, “the lamp case
`
`is constituted by a light-reflecting rear plate, upper plate, lower plate, and side plates,
`
`the upper plate extending farther forward than the lower plate (device according to
`
`claim 2), thereby splitting light from the lamp unit into light progressing forward
`
`and light progressing obliquely downward and forward, allowing the path of the light
`
`to optimized for an edge-lit light source.” Id. at [0031, ¶(2)].
`
`52.
`
`Discussing Figs. 8 and 9, Kisou describes its light sources’ distribution,
`
`stating that “Light emitted from the lamp units L on both sides is divided by the
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`light-reflecting plates 11–15 of the lamp case 10 into light progressing forward and
`
`light progressing obliquely downward and forward, as discussed above; light
`
`progressing into the light conductor 30 is scattered in all directions as it progresses
`
`inward. Light progressing into the light paths 31 on the rear side of the light
`
`conductor 30 is split and diffused by the corrugated light paths 31 and diffusely
`
`reflected by the reflector 40, scattering the light.” Id. at [0027]. Figs. 8 and 9 are
`
`shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`53.
`
`Kisou describes the orientation of Figs. 8 and 9: “Next, the operation of
`
`the backlight device 1 configured as described above will be discussed with
`
`reference to FIG. 8 (a cross-sectional view in a direction traversing the area between
`
`the light sources) and FIG. 9 (a crosssectional view in a direction parallel to the light
`
`sources). Id. at [0027].
`
`54.
`
`Kisou describes a “scatterer” as part of the front surface of light
`
`conductor 30: “In addition, the front surface of the light conductor 30 constitutes a
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`light diffuser layer (scatterer) 32 that increases light diffusing effects, ultimately
`
`improving the homogeneity of the light emitted by the backlight device … Naturally,
`
`light passing through the light conductor 30 to the reflector 40 is reflected by the
`
`reflector 40. Direct light and scattere
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
