throbber
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
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`Patent Owner Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“IDT”) hereby files this
`
`
`
`response (“Response”) to the Petition (Paper 2) (the “Petition”) for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 (the “ʼ974 patent”) in IPR2015-01868 filed by
`
`KJ Pretech Co., Ltd. (“KJ” or “Petitioner”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should confirm patentability of all challenged claims. Further,
`
`Patent Owner renews its argument that Petitioner was time-barred in filing the
`
`Petition because it is in privity with LG, the real party in interest who is also time-
`
`barred. LG’s conduct in the litigation following institution provides further evidence
`
`that Petitioner is acting at LG’s behest.
`
`Regarding the instituted grounds, first, Petitioner has not demonstrated that JP
`
`H7-64078A (“Kisou”) anticipates several limitations of challenged claims 1, 5, 7, 8,
`
`10, and 11. Kisou does not disclose a light emitting panel that has a pattern of light
`
`extracting deformities for causing light to be emitted from the light emitting surface
`
`of the panel, as required by challenged claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11. Petitioner also
`
`fails to demonstrate that Kisou discloses end or side edge reflectors that reflect light
`
`towards such a pattern of light extracting deformities. Additionally, Kisou does not
`
`disclose a tray or housing with structural features for providing structural support
`
`for other components. Finally, Kisou does not disclose a separate film over the panel
`
`as required by dependent claims 5, 10, and 11.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`Second, Petitioner has not satisfied its burden to demonstrate that dependent
`
`claims 5, 10, and 11 are obvious in view of Kisou. In this alternative argument,
`
`Petitioner tellingly argues that a person of skill in the art would be motivated to
`
`replace the diffusing surface of the panel of Kisou with a separate film. However,
`
`Kisou teaches against such a modification, and a person of skill in the art would
`
`understand that such a modified device would not function properly.
`
`Third, Petitioner has not demonstrated that a person of skill in the art would
`
`have combined Kisou with U.S. Patent No. 4,017,155 (“Yagi”), or that such a
`
`combination would disclose the limitations of dependent claims 3 or 4. Kisou, filed
`
`in 1993, utilizes special light-emitting diode (“LED”) lamps that direct light
`
`downward to tunnel under the light guide. In contrast, Yagi, filed in 1974, uses a
`
`parabolic reflector to direct more of the light of an incandescent bulb into a reflecting
`
`plate and the bottom glass of a liquid crystal display. A person of ordinary skill
`
`would not look to Yagi to modify Kisou as Petitioner suggest.
`
`Finally, Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that a person of ordinary
`
`skill would have combined JP 6-214230 (“Furuya”) and JP H5-45651 (“Niizuma”)
`
`to render claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 obvious. Petitioner first fails to demonstrate
`
`that a person of ordinary skill would combine the two very different approaches of
`
`Furuya, which Furuya describes as alternatives to one other. In one approach, Furuya
`
`uses a reflector, and in the other Furuya uses a light guide to achieve the same result.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`There is no suggestion that the approaches could be combined. Further, a person of
`
`skill would not look to Niizuma to modify Furuya, because those references use
`
`wholly different approaches that teach away from one another. Furuya seeks a
`
`uniform display, while Niizuma intentionally seeks a non-uniform display.
`
`Thus, the Board should confirm patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`A. Ground 1—Kisou Does Not Anticipate Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, or 11
`
`Kisou does not disclose each and every limitation of the challenged claims as
`
`arranged in the claim, as required by Federal Circuit law. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union
`
`Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v.
`
`Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner fails to
`
`demonstrate that Kisou discloses multiple claim limitations, as set forth below.
`
`1.
`
`Kisou Does Not Disclose a Pattern of Light Extracting
`Deformities to Cause Light to be Emitted from the Light
`Emitting Surface as Required by Elements [1.d] and [7.d]
`
`Kisou does not disclose the following element of independent claims 1 and 7:
`
`
`
`“wherein the panel member has a pattern of light extracting deformities on or in at
`
`least one surface to cause light to be emitted from the light emitting surface of the
`
`panel member.” Ex. 1001, ʼ974 patent at 9:14-17 and 9:48-51. Thus, Kisou does not
`
`anticipate independent claims 1 and 7, or dependent claims 5, 8, 10, or 11.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`Claims 1 and 7 expressly require that the “pattern of light extracting
`
`deformities” must be for “caus[ing] light to be emitted from the light emitting surface
`
`of the panel member.” Id. at 9:14-17 and 9:48-51; see also Ex. 2006, Declaration of
`
`Ken Werner (“Werner Dec.”) at ¶80. Further, the specification of the ʼ974 patent is
`
`replete with support for this requirement. See ʼ974 patent at 1:50-55; 1:18-22; 2:65-
`
`3:3; 4:48-5:4; 7:1-9; 7:30-33; 7:55-58; and Figs. 4a, b, c, d, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 see also
`
`Werner Dec. at ¶80. Petitioner’s expert, Thomas Credelle, agrees that the ʼ974 patent
`
`describes that light is emitted from the top surface of the assembly, towards the LCD
`
`and towards the viewer. See Ex. 2007, Deposition of Thomas Credelle (“Credelle
`
`Dep.”) at 73:1-74:18; 78:11-20; 80:12-81:23; 128:16-129:20.
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that the light paths 31 of Kisou are the “pattern of light
`
`extracting deformities . . . to cause light to be emitted from the light emitting
`
`surface.” See Petition, Paper 2 at 20. However, as shown below in Fig. 9 of Kisou,
`
`the light paths 31 are only the spaces between the light conductor 30 and the reflector
`
`40, not the surface of the light conductor 30. See Ex. 1006, Kisou at Fig. 9; see also
`
`Werner Dec. at ¶¶81-83. Kisou describes that “light progressing into the light paths
`
`31 on the rear side of conductor 30 is split and diffused” and that “these gaps
`
`substantially constituting light paths stably transmit the light from the lamp units L
`
`to greater distances.” Kisou at [0026]-[0027] (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`
`Thus, the light paths 31 are not light extracting deformities, and are not used to cause
`
`light to be emitting from the light emitting surface 32. See Werner Dec. at ¶¶81-83.
`
`In fact, Kisou’s light paths are an alternative to the use of light extracting
`
`deformities as set forth in the ʼ974 patent. See id. at ¶83. While the bottom surface
`
`of the light conductor 30 will emit some light downward, towards the reflector 40,
`
`the purpose of the bottom surface is to create the light pathways 31. See Kisou at
`
`[0026]-[0027] (“[T]he recessed light paths 31 impart the light conductor 30 with a
`
`corrugated shape.”); Werner Dec. at ¶84. The lamp units L are constructed to divide
`
`the light into light progressing obliquely downward and forward, so that the light
`
`will tunnel under the light conductor 30 into the light pathways 31. See Kisou at
`
`[0013], [0023], [0027], Figs. 4 and 8; Werner Dec. at ¶84. Figs. 4 and 8 of Kisou are
`
`below:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`
`
`After the light is spit and diffused, it is then the reflector 40 and the scatterer
`
`32 that causes light to be emitted from the light emitting surface of the panel: “Light
`
`progressing into the light paths 31 and diffusely reflected by the reflector 40,
`
`scattering the light . . . ultimately scattered and emitted by the scatterer 32 when
`
`passing through the light-emitting surface.” Kisou at [0027] (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`“[T]he reflective effects of the reflector 40 and the diffusive effects of the scatterer
`
`32 combine to yield high-brightness, even, uniform light emission, providing a
`
`superior illumination light source.” Kisou at [0028] (emphasis added).
`
`Therefore, Kisou does not disclose a panel member that “has a pattern of light
`
`extracting deformities on or in at least one surface to cause light to be emitted from
`
`the light emitting surface of the panel member.” Because both independent claims 1
`
`and 7 require this limitation, Kisou cannot anticipate those independent claims, or
`
`their dependent claims 5, 8, 10, or 11.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Does Not Establish that Kisou Discloses End or Side
`Edge Reflectors that Reflect Light Toward the Pattern of Light
`Extracting Deformities for Causing Additional Light to be
`Emitting from the Light Emitting Surface as Required by
`Elements [1.e] and [7.e].
`
`Elements [1.e] and [7.e] necessarily include the limitations of elements [1.d]
`
`
`
`and [7.d]—namely the presence of light extracting deformities for causing additional
`
`light to be emitted from the light emitting surface of the panel—and thus Kisou also
`
`does not disclose elements [1.e] and [7.e].
`
`Additionally, even assuming the light path 31 did satisfy elements [1.d] and
`
`[7.d], Kisou does not disclose that the end walls or side walls of reflector 60, or the
`
`rear and side surfaces of lamp units L, reflect light towards the light paths 31. Werner
`
`Dec. at ¶ 90. Petitioner cites to disclosure within Kisou that certain surfaces are
`
`reflective, but does not cite any disclosure that those surfaces reflect light toward the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`light paths 31. Essentially, Petitioner merely argues that the reflective surfaces may
`
`function in the required manner, which is legally insufficient. See In re Robertson,
`
`169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The mere fact that a certain thing may result
`
`from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).
`
`Thus, Petitioner has not established that Kisou discloses “the tray or housing
`
`includes end walls and side walls that act as end edge reflectors and side edge
`
`reflectors for the panel member to reflect light that would otherwise exit the panel
`
`member through an end edge and/or side edge back into the panel member and
`
`toward the pattern of light extracting deformities for causing additional light to be
`
`emitted from the light emitting surface of the panel member.” Because both
`
`independent claims 1 and 7 require this limitation, Kisou cannot anticipate those
`
`independent claims, or their dependent claims 5, 8, 10, or 11.
`
`3.
`
`Kisou Does Not Disclose a Tray or Housing with Structural
`Features for Providing Structural Support as Required by
`Elements [1.f] and [1.g] and [7.f] and [7.g]
`
`Kisou also does not disclose the following limitations of independent claim 1
`
`
`
`(which Patent Owner combined from the elements Petitioner designated as [1.f] and
`
`[1.g]): “wherein the tray or housing provides structural support to the panel member
`
`and has posts, tabs, or other structural features that provide a mount for mounting of
`
`the assembly into a larger assembly or device.” Independent claim 7 includes a
`
`substantially limitations (which were combined from the elements Petitioner
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`designated as [7.f] and [7.g]): “wherein the tray or housing has posts, tabs or other
`
`structural features that provide a mount or structural support for at least one other
`
`part or component, and that tray or housing provides structural support to the panel
`
`member.” Patent Owner discusses of the absence of these limitations from claims 1
`
`and 7 together below.
`
`
`
`As expressly provided by the claims, the tray or housing must have “structural
`
`features” that provide a mount for mounting the panel assembly into a larger
`
`assembly. Claim 1 requires that “the tray or housing provides structural support to
`
`the panel member and has posts, tabs, or other structural features” and claim 7
`
`similarly requires that “the tray or housing has posts, tabs or other structural features
`
`. . . and that tray or housing provides structural support.” See ʼ974 patent at 9:24-27
`
`and 9:58-61; see also ‘974 patent at 6:46-52; 7:30-38. Petitioner identifies the
`
`reflector 60 of Kisou as the required tray or housing, which is shown Figure 10 of
`
`Kisou, below. See Petition at 19-20. Thus, the structural features required by the
`
`claims must be part of the reflector 60. See Werner Dec. at ¶94.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`While it is not clear, to the extent Petitioner contends that Kisou’s rubber joint
`
`
`
`connectors 4 disclose the required structural support, those connectors are not part
`
`of the reflector 60. Instead, they are part of the driver board 2, which is even not part
`
`of the backlight device 1. See Kisou at [0017] (“[T]he LCD 3 is electrically
`
`connected to the board 2 by rubber joint connectors 4.”); see also Kisou at Figs. 1,
`
`2, and 10; see also Werner Dec. at ¶94. Further, Petitioner incorrectly states that “the
`
`LCD 3 [is] mounted onto the driver board 2.” Petition at 14. Instead, “LCD backlight
`
`device 1 is mounted on an LCD control driver board 2” and then “an LCD 3 is placed
`
`upon the backlight device 1.” Kisou at [0017]; see also Werner Dec. at ¶94.
`
`Further, Petitioner’s argument that this limitation is met by the “‘mounting
`
`holes’ used in conjunction with the lead wires 22/23, and solder” also fails. Petition
`
`at 15. Kisou does not disclose the lead wires and the solder as structural elements;
`
`instead, they are electrical elements. See Kisou at [0009], [0010], [0014], [0015],
`
`and [0030]; see also Werner at ¶96. The reason Kisou does not disclose the lead
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`wires and solder as being structural is because using them as structural components
`
`could damage the electrical connection and cause the light source to fail. See Werner
`
`at ¶96. Thus, Kisou would want to minimize the stress on the solder. See id.
`
`Moreover, the lead wires are part of the lamp unit L, not the reflector 60, which is
`
`another reason the lead wires cannot be the required structural support. See Kisou at
`
`[0015] (“. . . the lamp units can be easily mounted to the lamp holders by inserting
`
`the lead wires of the lamp unit into the mounting holes . . .”) (emphasis added); see
`
`also Werner Dec. at ¶96.
`
`
`
`Revealingly, Petitioner’s expert opinioned in another proceeding for the ʼ974
`
`patent that element [1.g] was not expressly met by Kisou. Less than five months
`
`before authoring his declaration in this case, Mr. Credelle authored an opinion for
`
`another petitioner that Kisou rendered claim 1 obvious, and the only element that
`
`Mr. Credelle did not find anticipated was element [1.g]. See Ex. 2008, Credelle
`
`Declaration, Ex. 1004 from IPR2015-01115 at 44-46; see also Credelle Dep. at
`
`135:24-136:3. During his deposition in this case, Mr. Credelle would not explain
`
`why he reached a different conclusion in the previous case, saying only that “it was
`
`based on attorney-client communications.” Credelle Dep. at 136:20-137:5. This
`
`unexplained shifting of positions undermines the credibility of Mr. Credelle’s
`
`opinions generally, and particularly with respect to this element.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`Therefore, because Kisou does not disclose limitations [1.f] and [1.g] and [7.f]
`
`and [7.g], Kisou cannot anticipate independent claims 1 or 7, or their dependent
`
`claims 5, 8, 10, or 11.
`
`4.
`
`Kisou Does Not Disclose a Separate Film Over the Panel as
`Required by Dependent Claims 5, 10, and 11
`
`In addition to failing to disclose the requirements of independent claims,
`
`
`
`Kisou also fails to disclose the limitations of dependent claims 5, 10, and 11. Claims
`
`5 and 11 additionally require, “a film positioned near the light emitting surface of
`
`the panel member for changing the output ray angle distribution of the emitted light
`
`to fit a particular application.” ʼ974 patent at 9:36-39 and 10:1-4. Similarly,
`
`dependent claim 10 requires “the film is at least one of a diffuser and a brightness
`
`enhancing film.” ʼ974 patent at 9:66-67. As Petitioner’s expert agrees, the ʼ974
`
`patent describes that this film is a separate component from the panel. See Credelle
`
`Dep. at 97:3-10.
`
`
`
`Kisou does not disclose an embodiment with a separate film positioned near
`
`the light emitting surface of the panel member. See Werner Dec. at ¶99. Instead,
`
`Kisou discloses that “the light conductor 30 constitutes a light diffuser layer
`
`(scatterer) 32 that increases light diffusing effects.” Kisou at [0027]. “[L]ight
`
`progressing toward the light-emitting surface of the light conductor 30 is ultimately
`
`scattered and emitted by the scatterer 32 when passing through the light-emitting
`
`surface.” Id. at [0027]. “The front surface of the light conductor is a light-diffusing
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`layer.” Id. at [Effect of the Invention] at (7). In other words, Kisou discloses that the
`
`light conductor 30 (which Petitioner identifies as the claimed panel member) has a
`
`surface that is a diffusing layer. See Werner Dec. at ¶99. Kisou does not disclose or
`
`even imply that an additional diffusing film be used with the devices that Kisou
`
`claims to have invented. Id.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s only support for the idea that Kisou discloses a separate film
`
`comes from paragraph [0003], which is part of Kisou’s discussion of prior art, not
`
`the invention. See Petitioner at 17-18; see also Werner Dec. at ¶100. In that
`
`discussion, Kisou generally discusses “edge-lit backlighting devices,” and says that
`
`“a diffuser layer (scatterer) may be provided to the inside of the light-emitting
`
`surface, or a translucent diffuser sheet may be applied to the outside of the light-
`
`emitting surface.” Kisou at [0003]. Kisou then explains the problems with the prior
`
`art, including those with “complicated structures” (i.e., more components) and a
`
`desire for “modular design.” Kisou at [0004]-[0006]. In light of the prior art, Kisou
`
`describes the invention, which does not include an external diffuser film, but instead
`
`a scatterer that is built-in to the panel, which eliminates an additional component.
`
`See Werner Dec. at ¶100. “[T]he front surface of the light conductor 30 constitutes
`
`a light diffusing layer (scatterer) 32 that increases light diffusing effects, ultimately
`
`improving the homogeneity of the light emitted by the backlight device.” Kisou at
`
`[0027].
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`As with claim 1, Mr. Credelle has previously rendered an opinion in which he
`
`did not find that claim 5 was anticipated by Kisou. In that matter, IPR2015-01115,
`
`Mr. Credelle opined that claim 5 was obvious in view of Kisou, not that the required
`
`separate film was present. See Ex. 2008 at p. 47; see also Credelle Dep. at 137:15-
`
`138:6. And again, Mr. Credelle would not explain why he reached a different
`
`conclusion here, saying only that “[m]y reason for choosing obviousness was a based
`
`on attorney-client communications.” Credelle Dep. at 138:7-15.
`
`
`
`Thus, in addition to the reasons provided above with respect to independent
`
`claims 1 and 7, Kisou does not anticipate all of the limitations of dependent claims
`
`5, 10, and 11.
`
`B. Ground 2—Kisou Does Not Render Claims 5, 10, and 11 Obvious
`
`
`
`Petitioner alternatively argues that dependent claims 5, 10, and 11 are obvious
`
`in view of Kisou. However, Petitioner’s arguments for modifying Kisou to meet
`
`claims 5, 10, and 11 are unavailing. Further, Patent Owner notes that because the
`
`underlying independent claims are not anticipated for several reasons, and because
`
`Petitioner does not argue that those claims are obvious in view of Kisou, claims 5,
`
`10, and 11 are also neither anticipated nor obvious.
`
`
`
`First, Petitioner again argues that Kisou discloses “an embodiment in which
`
`the function of the light diffuser layer (scatterer) 32 is performed by a separate
`
`translucent diffuser sheet applied to the outside of the light emitting surface.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`Petition at 25-26. As explained above, that argument is incorrect, as the only
`
`reference to such a translucent diffuser sheet is in the description of the prior art. See
`
`Kisou at [0003]; see also Werner Dec. at ¶102.
`
`
`
`Though it is not clear, it appears that Petitioner next contends that it would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace the light diffusing
`
`layer (scatterer) 32 with a separate film. See Petition at 25-26. This argument also
`
`fails.
`
`
`
`Kisou’s layer 32 serves two purposes. First, it extracts light from the panel
`
`that hits the scatterer. See Werner Dec. at ¶103. Second, it diffuses the light to create
`
`a more uniform output. See id. In sum, Kisou uses the scatterer to simplify the
`
`structure of the device by making a separate diffusing film unnecessary. See id.
`
`Kisou explicitly acknowledges his desire to avoid “complicated structures.” Kisou
`
`at [0005].
`
`
`
`If the top surface of the light conductor 30 of Kisou were smooth, such that a
`
`separate light diffuser were needed above it, some portion of the light will not hit the
`
`surface at a sufficient angle to be refracted (i.e., emitted), and instead will reflect.
`
`See Werner Dec. at ¶104. Some portion of that light will then continue to reflect
`
`within the light conductor, which would reduce efficiency. See id. This is in direct
`
`contradiction to what Kisou teaches. See Kisou at [0028] and [Effect of the
`
`Invention] at (7) (“[T]he reflective effects of the reflector and the diffusive effects
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`of the light-diffusing layer combine to efficiently scatter and emit light, eliminating
`
`differences between the central and peripheral sections of the light-emitting surface,
`
`and yielding an illumination light source offering high-brightness, even, uniform
`
`light emission.”). Furthermore, a person of skill in the art would not then be
`
`motivated to add a separate diffusing film above a smooth surface of the light
`
`conductor 30, as some of the light still would not be emitted and would not get the
`
`benefit of being diffused by the separate diffuser. See Credelle Dep. at 147:22-
`
`148:23. (“If it was smooth, light entering the conductor, not below the conductor,
`
`but entering the conductor would be trapped.”).
`
`
`
`Thus, in addition to the arguments presented above, Kisou does not render
`
`obvious claims 5, 10, and 11.
`
`C. Ground 3—Kisou Cannot Be Combined with Yagi to Render
`Claims 3 and 4 Obvious
`
`Petitioner’s argument that Kisou can be combined with Yagi to render claims
`
`
`
`3 and 4 obvious fails because the combination would not disclose each required
`
`element, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to
`
`combine the references.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dependent claim 3 requires, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, “the
`
`assembly of claim 1 wherein the tray or housing provides a support for supporting
`
`and/or positioning a film near the panel member.” ʼ974 patent at 9:31-33. Dependent
`
`claim 4 requires, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, “the assembly of claim 3
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`wherein the film is at least one of a diffuser and a brightness enhancing film.” Id. at
`
`9:34-35.
`
`
`
`Again, as explained above, Petitioner argument that Kisou “discloses an
`
`embodiment in which the function of the light diffuser layer (scatterer) 32 is
`
`performed by a separate translucent diffuser sheet” is incorrect. Petition at 26.
`
`Instead, Kisou discusses such a separate diffuser sheet in general with respect to the
`
`prior art, not with respect to any particular embodiment within Kisou. See Kisou at
`
`[0003]; see also Werner Dec. at ¶108. Furthermore, as explained above, a person of
`
`skill in the art would not substitute a separate diffuser sheet for the diffuser layer
`
`(scatterer) of the light conductor 30. See Werner Dec. at ¶110. Thus, a person of skill
`
`in the art would also not be motivated to modify Kisou with the structural
`
`components of Yagi, as Petitioner proposes. See Petition at 27-28. In other words, a
`
`person of skill would not modify the reflector of Kisou to hold a separate film, with
`
`structure disclosed by Yagi, because such a device would not achieve the uniform
`
`and enhanced brightness that Kisou intends. See Werner Dec. at ¶111. Such a device
`
`would teach away from Kisou. See id.
`
`Moreover, Kisou and Yagi address different problems in different ways, and
`
`thus a person of skill in the art would not look to Yagi to modify Kisou. See Werner
`
`Dec. at ¶112. Notably, Petitioner’s expert testified that he did not even know what
`
`problem Yagi was trying to solve, which further undermines Mr. Credelle’s
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`credibility. See Credelle Dep. at 151:19-24 (“I didn’t really pay attention to that so
`
`much.”). Petitioner failed to consider the teachings of Kisou and Yagi as a whole,
`
`and instead just cherry-picked elements from each to combine, which is contrary to
`
`Federal Circuit law. See W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); see also Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz,
`
`Inc., 544 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“in addressing the question of
`
`obviousness a judge must not pick and choose isolated elements from the prior art
`
`and combine them so as to yield the invention in question if such a combination
`
`would not have been obvious at the time of the invention.”) (citing Dennison Mfg.
`
`Co. v. Panduit Corp., 475 U.S. 809, 810 (1986)).
`
`
`
`Yagi, filed in 1974, describes a liquid crystal display for a wristwatch. See
`
`Yagi at 1:7-9. The problem Yagi faced was how to spread light from an incandescent
`
`bulb to more uniformly illuminate the input edge of the transparent reflecting plate
`
`without increasing the thickness of the device. See, e.g., Yagi at 1:37-41; 1:46-49;
`
`1:50-53; 2:27-40; see also Werner Dec. at ¶112. Yagi utilizes a parabolic reflector
`
`(focusing hood 9) along the length of the input edge and optical plugs, each of which
`
`Yagi calls a “light-distributing device,” and numbers as elements 14 and 15 in Fig.
`
`4 and element 14 in Fig 5, on either side of the bulb to redirect light that would
`
`otherwise be directed parallel to the input edge into the input edge. See Yagi at Figs.
`
`1-3; 2:27-40; 2:51-55; see also Werner Dec. at ¶112. Figs 1 and 2 of Yagi are below:
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`Yagi does not disclose any way of extracting the light from the transparent
`
`
`
`reflecting plate 7, or of making its emission more uniform. See Werner Dec. at ¶112.
`
`Yagi specifies that the plate 7 is to be placed directly beneath the liquid crystal
`
`display. See Yagi at Fig. 1; 2:10-26. Yagi does not teach that any kind of sheet should
`
`intervene between the plate 7 and the LCD. See Werner Dec. at ¶112. Yagi also does
`
`not address whether the reflecting plates 10, 11, 12, and 13 are capable of holding a
`
`diffusion sheet under the LCD. See id. Yagi shows the reflector plates positioning
`
`the LCD over the transparent reflecting plate 7, but does not show or mention any
`
`provision for positioning another element between them. See id. Yagi specifies only
`
`one light-management feature on or near the top surface of reflecting plate 7, which
`
`is a roughened top surface. See Yagi at 2:24-26; see also Werner Dec. at ¶112.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`In contrast, Kisou, filed nearly 20 years later in 1993, describes a device in
`
`which the light source directs light into gaps under the light conductor so that the
`
`light can travel farther away from the light source before being emitted from the face
`
`of the light guide. See supra; see also Werner Dec. at ¶113. Kisou functions with
`
`specific LEDs that emit light in the forward and downward direction so that the light
`
`travels away from the LEDs. See e.g., Kisou at [0023] (“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.”); see also id. at
`
`[0026], [0027], [0004].
`
`
`
`Kisou also describes that one object of the invention is to have a slimmer
`
`profile. See Kisou at Abstract (“[Object] To provide an LCD backlight device that
`
`allows for a light-emitting surface free of brightness irregularities, a stable supply of
`
`light, prevention of degradation in properties, a slimmer profile, and modular
`
`design.”); see also Werner Dec. at ¶114. Thus, to add the elements 10a, 11a, and 12a
`
`of Yagi, which are relatively thick, to Kisou would detract from making a device
`
`with a slimmer profile. See Werner Dec. at ¶114. Therefore, one skilled in the art
`
`would not be motivated to use Yagi's reflecting plates to hold a diffusing sheet over
`
`Kisou's light conductor because (1) Yagi does not use a diffusing sheet and makes
`
`no provision for such a structure to be used for that purpose, and (2) that purpose is
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`one that Kisou specifically rejects. See id. Petitioner’s argument that a person of
`
`ordinary would have looked to Yagi to modify Kisou with components that Kisou
`
`does not need is just the sort of impermissible hindsight reconstruction that the
`
`Federal Circuit rejects. See Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678
`
`F.3d 1280, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The inventor’s own path itself never leads to a
`
`conclusion of obviousness; that is hindsight.”); Zoltek Corp. v. U.S., 815 F.3d 1302,
`
`1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (reversing obviousness ruling due to use of hindsight bias and
`
`ex post reasoning).
`
`
`
`Thus, the combination of Kisou and Yagi do not render claims 3 and 4
`
`obvious.
`
`D. Ground 4—The Combination of Furuya and Niizuma Do Not
`Render Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 Obvious
`
`When the teachings of Furuya and Niizuma are considered as a whole, as
`
`
`
`required, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Furuya as
`
`Petitioner contends, or combined the modified Furuya with Niizuma as Petitioner
`
`additionally contends. Thus, neither Furuya nor the combination of Furuya and
`
`Niizuma render claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the ʼ974 patent obvious.
`
`
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Not Combine the Embodiments of
`Furuya
`
`
`
`Petitioner first combines two embodiments of Furuya and then combines that
`
`device with Niizuma; however, Furuya’s two embodiments are not combinable. See
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01868
`Patent 7,434,974
`Werner Dec. at ¶117. Furuya’s first embodiment uses a reflector plate to direct light
`
`to a liquid crystal display board, and the second uses a light guiding plate to direct
`
`light to the liquid crystal display board. See, e.g., Furuya at [Claim 1], [0001], and
`
`[0005]; see also Werner Dec. at ¶117. Furuya does not describe or suggest
`
`combining the two embodiments, and a person of skill in the art would not have done
`
`so. See Werner Dec. at ¶117.
`
`In attempt to demonstrate disclose of the ʼ974 claim elements that involve a
`
`light emitting panel, or light guide, Petitioner relies on the second embodiment,
`
`which has a light guide. See Petition at 31-34 (discussing elements [1.a], [1.b], and
`
`[1.d]). Then, to attempt to satisfy other elements, Petitioner relies on the first
`
`embodiment, which does not have a light guide. See id. at 32-37 (discussing elements
`
`[1.c], [1.e], [1.f], and [1.g]). Petitioner suggests that a person of skill in the art would
`
`have placed the light guiding plate 55 of the second embodiment onto the reflector
`
`plate 24 of

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