`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