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
`Patent 7,434,974 B1
`October 3, 2016
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 ARE ANTICIPATED BY KISOU .............. 1
`A.
`Kisou discloses a pattern of light extracting deformities to cause light to be
`emitted from the light emitting surface in accordance with claim elements
`[1.d] and [7.d] .......................................................................................................... 2
`Kisou discloses the end and side reflectors to reflect light that would
`otherwise exit the panel member through an end edge and/OR side edge in
`accordance with claim elements [1.e] and [7.e] ...................................................... 6
`Kisou discloses a tray or housing with posts, tabs or other structural
`features that provide a mount or structural support in accordance with [1.f]-
`[1.g] and [7.f]-[7.g] .................................................................................................. 7
`Kisou discloses a film positioned near the light emitting surface of the
`panel in accordance with dependent claims 5, 10, 11 ............................................ 10
`GROUND 2: CLAIMS 5, 10, and 11 ARE OBVIOUS OVER KISOU ........................... 11
`A.
`Kisou renders obvious positioning a film near the light emitting surface of
`the panel in accordance with dependent claims 5, 10, 11 ...................................... 11
`GROUND 3: CLAIMS 3 AND 4 ARE OBVIOUS OVER KISOU AND YAGI ............. 12
`A.
`Yagi renders obvious positioning a film near the light emitting surface of
`the panel in accordance with dependent claims 3 and 4 ........................................ 12
`GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10, and 11ARE OBVIOUS OVER FURUYA
`AND NIIZUMA ................................................................................................................ 14
`A.
`The proposed combination is explicitly disclosed by Niizuma ............................. 14
`B.
`The light conductor and the reflector of Furuya are combinable .......................... 18
`VI. MR. WERNER’S TESTIMONY IS ENTITLED TO LITTLE OR NO WEIGHT
`UNDER 37 CFR § 42.65(A) ............................................................................................. 20
`VII. PETITIONER IS NOT TIME BARRED UNDER 35 U.S.C ............................................ 21
`VIII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 23
`
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`GEA Process Eng’g, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00041 ......................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................................................................................................................ 1, 21, 23
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.12 ............................................................................................................................. 14
`
`37 CFR § 42.65(A) ......................................................................................................................... 20
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 B2 .................................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`In its March 17, 2016 Institution Decision on U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 B2
`
`(the “’974 Patent”), the Board found that Petitioner K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd.
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all four Grounds based on
`
`all challenged claims and that the Petition is not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(b). See Institution Decision (“Dec.”), Paper 15, at 10, 13, 17, 23, 24-25.
`
`Patent Owner filed a response on July 1, 2016 (“Resp.”). The Response is just a
`
`rehash of arguments that the Board addressed while making the above-referenced
`
`findings in the Institution Decision. Nothing in the Response should disturb these
`
`findings. Thus, for the reasons set forth in the Petition (“Pet.”) and further
`
`explained below, the challenged claims of the ’974 Patent are unpatentable.
`
`II. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 ARE ANTICIPATED BY
`KISOU
`
`Patent Owner argues that Kisou does not anticipate claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and
`
`11 because Kisou does not disclose claim elements [1.d]/[7.d], [1.e]/[7.e], [1.f]-
`
`[1.g]/[7.f]-[7.g], and a separate film as required by dependent claims 5, 10, and 11.
`
`See Resp. at 2. As explained below, however, these arguments are based on
`
`improper characterizations or misunderstanding of Kisou.
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Kisou discloses a pattern of light extracting deformities to cause
`light to be emitted from the light emitting surface in accordance
`with claim elements [1.d] and [7.d]
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Kisou’s disclosure of claim elements
`
`[1.d] and [7.d] ignore the Board’s construction of the term “deformities” and rest
`
`on the false premise that “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.”
`
`Resp. at 5 (emphasis added).
`
`In its Institution Decision, the Board agreed that “deformities” should be
`
`construed to mean “any change in the shape or geometry of a surface and/or
`
`coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of light to be emitted.” Dec. at 5
`
`(citing Pet. at 7 (citing ʼ974 patent, Ex. 1001, 4:36–40)). Patent Owner has not
`
`disputed this. Indeed, the paragraphs of Kisou cited by Patent Owner explicitly
`
`disclose how Kisou’s recessed light paths 31 meet this construction.
`
`First, as demonstrated by the paragraphs in Kisou cited by Patent Owner, the
`
`recessed light paths 31 are changes in shape of the surface of light conductor 30.
`
`Kisou places “the light paths 31 on the rear side of conductor 30.” Kisou at
`
`[0027]; Resp. at 5 (emphasis added); Ex. 1026, 53:9-12; 58:9-12. Kisou discloses
`
`that the “recessed light paths 31 [] are formed on a rear surface of the light
`
`conductor 30.” Kisou at [0026] (emphasis added); see Pet. at 20. Moreover, Kisou
`
`emphasizes that “the recessed light paths 31 impart the light conductor 30 with a
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`corrugated shape.” Kisou at [0026] (emphasis added). Mr. Werner confirmed that
`
`the corrugated shape represents a change in shape of the rear surface of the light
`
`conductor 30. See Ex. 1026, 58:9-59:1; 63:9-20. Kisou then states that “[g]aps are
`
`thus formed between the recessed light paths 31and the reflector 40 . . . .” Kisou
`
`at [0026] (emphasis added). That is, Patent Owner’s assertion that the recessed
`
`light paths 31 are the gaps/spaces and not the triangular shapes formed into the
`
`light conductor 30 is directly contradicted by these disclosures in Kisou and Mr.
`
`Werner’s admissions during deposition. Resp. at 5-6. Kisou makes clear that the
`
`triangular recessed light paths 31 are formed into the light conductor, impart light
`
`conductor 30 with a corrugated shape and that, as a result, gaps are formed
`
`between the recessed light paths 31 formed in light conductor 30 and the back
`
`reflector 40. Thus, the triangular recessed light paths 31 are changes in shape of the
`
`light conductor surface meeting the first part of the Board’s construction of
`
`“deformities.” Ex. 1006 at [0026]; see Pet. at 20; Ex. 1026, 53:9-12.
`
`Second, the triangular recessed light paths 31 cause at least a portion of light
`
`to be emitted. Patent Owner incorrectly argues that the light paths 31 “are not used
`
`to cause light to be emitted from the light emitting surface 32.” Resp. at 6. Most of
`
`the light from the lamps L, particularly from the upper part of the lamps L, will
`
`enter the input edge of the light conductor 30 as shown in Fig. 8. See Ex. 1006 at
`
`[0027]; Ex. 1026, 44:12-45:3; id. 67:16-25. Figs. 8-9 of Kisou show that light from
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the lamps L entering the input edge of the light conductor 30 progresses into the
`
`light conductor 30, and is internally reflected by the internal surfaces of the light
`
`paths 31 toward the light emitting surface of the light conductor 30. See Kisou,
`
`Figs. 8-9; see also Pet. at 20; Ex. 1026, 63:15-64:16; id. 68:25-69:12. As stated by
`
`Kisou, “light progressing into the light conductor 30 is scattered in all
`
`directions as it progresses inward.” Kisou at [0027] (emphasis added). While some
`
`light from the LEDs, for example, from the bottom part of lamps L, will enter the
`
`gaps under the light conductor 30, this is not shown in Figs 8 and 9. Ex. 1026,
`
`64:64:17-65:3.
`
`Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that “Kisou’s light paths are an alternative
`
`to the use of light extracting deformities” contradicts the explicit teachings of
`
`Kisou, and in view of Fig. 8 and 9, which are cross-sectional views of the backlight
`
`device 1 in orthogonal directions. See Kisou at [0027]; Pet. at 20. Fig. 8 shows
`
`light emitted by the light sources L and progressing into the light conductor 30 and
`
`scattered in all directions by the internal surface of the triangular light paths 31.
`
`Similarly, Fig. 9 provides a cross-sectional view of the internal scattering of light
`
`at the internal surfaces of the triangular light paths 31 toward the light emitting
`
`surface of the light conductor 30. See Pet. at 12. Figs. 8-9 show that the scattering
`
`inside the light guide occurs at the internal surface of the triangular light paths 31as
`
`light progresses inward within the light conductor 30. See Ex. 1026, 68:25-69:12.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`eformities tracting deas light extpaths act aular light pThus, thhe triangu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to direct llight
`
`
`
`
`toward the light emmitting surrface of thee light connductor 30.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owwner pointss to Kisou
`
`at [0028]
`
`
`
`to focus aattention onn the reflecctive
`
`
`
`
`
`effects
`
`
`
`of the refflector 40
`
`and the
`
`diffusive
`
`
`
`effects of f the scatteerer 32 att the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`exclusioon of the corrugated
`
`
`
`
`
`light pathss 31 on the light condductor 30. SSee Resp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 7-
`
`
`
`8. Howwever, Kisoou also disscloses in
`
`
`
`
`
`the same
`
`
`
`paragraphh that “somme of the
`
`
`
`light
`
`
`
`from thhe lamp unnits L reaches all pparts of thhe entire
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`effective
`
`
`
`light-emittting
`
`
`
`31.” Kisoou at [00228] (emphhasis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`surfacee thanks tto the recessed ligght paths
`
`
`
`effect of tthe inventiion, Kisouu discloses
`
`that
`
`added).
`
`
`
`Moreoverr, in descrribing the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“[t]he ffront surfacce of the llight conduuctor is a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`light-diffuusing layer,, and receessed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`light paaths are foformed in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the rear ssurface thhereof, therreby allowwing light ffrom
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the lammp unit to bbe distribuuted to alll parts of tthe entire
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`effective
`
`
`
`light-emittting
`
`
`
`surfacee by the liight pathss.” Kisou
`
`
`
`
`
`at [0031]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(emphasiss added). TThat is, KKisou
`
`explicit
`
`
`
`ly states tthat the reecessed ligght paths 331 distribuute the lighht to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`emittingg surface oof the light
`
`
`
`
`
`conductorr 30 and caause at leasst a portionn of the lig
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`light
`
`ht to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be emittted from tthe light eemitting suurface as rrequired byy the secoond half off the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Board’s construction. Thus, the light paths 31 of Kisou meet the agreed
`
`construction of “deformities.” See Pet. at 12-13; see also Werner Dec. at 54; see
`
`Ex. 1026, 63:12-20.
`
`B. Kisou discloses the end and side reflectors to reflect light that
`would otherwise exit the panel member through an end edge
`and/OR side edge in accordance with claim elements [1.e] and
`[7.e]
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Kisou’s disclosure of claim elements
`
`[1.e] and [7.e] rest in part on the assumption that Kisou does not disclose claim
`
`elements [1d] and [7d]. See Resp. at 8; Werner Dec. at ¶ 89. Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments should fail for at least the reasons set forth above. Moreover, Patent
`
`Owner argues that Petitioner “does not cite any disclosure that those surfaces
`
`reflect light toward the light paths 31.” Id. This is not true, as discussed below.
`
`As recognized by Patent Owner’s expert, the path of light from the LED
`
`elements 20, 21 is controlled by light-reflecting plates 11-15 to include light
`
`progressing forward and light progressing obliquely downward. See Pet. at 21;
`
`Kisou at [0023]; see also Werner Dec. at ¶¶50-51; Ex. 1026, 74:25-75:9; 75:19-
`
`76:1. As explained in the Petition, Kisou discloses that the end and side edges of
`
`the reflector 60 yield comparable light-reflecting effects compared to the reflectors
`
`on the lamp unit L. See Pet. at 13; Kisou at [0030]. Thus, the light progressing in
`
`the light conductor 30 toward the internal surfaces of the light paths 31 includes
`
`light reflected by the light-reflecting plates such as rear plate 11 and plates 14, 15
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and/or the reflector 60. See Pet. at 13; see Ex. 1026, 75:22-76:1. Therefore, Kisou
`
`discloses end and side edge reflectors for reflecting light towards the deformities
`
`for causing additional light to be emitted.
`
`C. Kisou discloses a tray or housing with posts, tabs or other
`structural features that provide a mount or structural support in
`accordance with [1.f]-[1.g] and [7.f]-[7.g]
`
`In its arguments regarding Kisou’s disclosure of combined claim elements
`
`[1.f] and [1.g] (respectively [7.f] and [7.g]), Patent Owner improperly recast the
`
`claimed limitations to require “structural features for providing a structural
`
`support.” See Resp. at 9. In addition, Patent Owner failed to properly address the
`
`differences in claims 1 and 7 in regard to limitations [1.g] and [7.f].
`
`Claim element [1.g] only requires that the posts, tabs, or other structural
`
`features to “provide a mount for mounting of the assembly into a larger assembly
`
`or device.” There is no additional requirement to provide structural support. See
`
`Ex. 1026, 34:21-22 (“mounting suggests that fastening of two parts or assemblies
`
`is going”). Claim element [7.f] only requires the structural features to provide, in
`
`the alternative, “a mount or structural support.” See Ex. 1001 at 9:24-27; id. at
`
`9:58-61; see also Ex. 1026, 34:23-35:2. Thus, disclosure of a mounting feature is
`
`all that is required by both [1.g] and [7.f].
`
`The improper mischaracterization of the claimed limitations is reflected in
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that “the lead wires cannot be the required structural
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`support.” Resp. at 12 (emphasis added). The same limitation is also injected in
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding whether “Kisou’s rubber joint connectors 4
`
`disclose the required structural support.” Resp. at 11. For at least this
`
`mischaracterization of the claimed limitations, the Board should reject Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments regarding limitations [1.f]-[1.g] (respectively [7.f]-[7.g]).
`
`Regarding claim elements [1.f] and [7.g], Patent Owner does not challenge
`
`that the reflector 60 provides structural support to the panel member. Resp. at 10;
`
`see Pet. at 13-14, 16-17, 21, 24. The Petition cited several reasons that the reflector
`
`60 provides structural support to the panel member. See Pet. at 21. This evidence
`
`as well as Petitioner’s argument that reflector 60 provides “direct structural support
`
`to light conductor 30” remain undisputed. See Pet. at 14.
`
`Regarding claim elements [1.g] and [7.f], the Petition identifies “mounting
`
`holes 62” in reflector 60 in conjunction with lead wires 22/23 and solder as
`
`structural features that provide a mount for mounting because the mounting holes
`
`62 are used in conjunction with lead wires 23/23 and solder to mount the backlight
`
`device 1 to a larger assembly or device. See Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not
`
`challenge that the “mounting holes 62” of Kisou represent features for mounting
`
`or features that provide a mount. Indeed, as discussed in the Petition, the mounting
`
`holes in reflector 60 fall within the scope of the structural features for mounting
`
`disclosed in the specification of the ’974 Patent. See Pet. at 15-16 (citing Ex. 1001,
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7:34-38 and Fig. 9; Ex. 1004, ¶92). Patent Owner argues that lead wires and solder
`
`are not a structural elements. See Resp. at 11-12. However, solder also represents a
`
`structural feature for mounting another component or device to the reflector 60
`
`through the mounting holes. See Pet. at 15-16. Thus, the “mount for mounting”
`
`limitations of claim elements [1.g] and [7.f] are disclosed in Kisou. See Pet. at 14-
`
`17.
`
`Regarding claim element [1.g], the mounting holes allow mounting of the
`
`backlight device 1 to the driver board 2, which is part of the larger assembly. See
`
`Pet. at 14-15, 21. Indeed, Patent Owner agrees that the driver board is “not part of
`
`the backlight device,” and thus, Patent Owner does not dispute that the driver
`
`board is part of the larger assembly. Resp. at 11. Regarding claim element [7.g],
`
`because the driver board 2 is not part of the backlight device, it is also another part
`
`or component mounted to the reflector 60 via the mounting holes 62, in accordance
`
`with dependent claim 9 of the ’974 Patent, which states that “the other part or
`
`component is a printed circuit.” See Pet. at 16-17; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 96.
`
`Therefore, as explained above and in the Petition, Kisou discloses the only
`
`limitations Patent Owner disputes, and thus claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are
`
`unpatentable as anticipated by Kisou.
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Kisou discloses a film positioned near the light emitting surface of
`the panel in accordance with dependent claims 5, 10, 11
`
`Claims 5 and 11 require a “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.” Ex. 1001, claims 5, 11. Kisou discloses “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. Ex. 1006, Kisou, at [0003] (emphasis added). Patent Owner
`
`emphasizes that the diffuser film has to be separate from the panel. Resp. at 13.
`
`However, Mr. Credelle testified that the ’974 Patent discloses that the claimed
`
`diffuser film can be attached to the panel. Ex. 2007, 97:3-98:2. Indeed, “a
`
`transparent film, sheet or plate 27 may be attached or positioned against the side
`
`or sides of the panel member from which light is emitted using a suitable
`
`adhesive 28 or other method in order to produce a desired effect.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`6:20-24 (emphasis added). Specifically, “the member 27 may be . . . a diffuser.”
`
`Id. at 6:26-27.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the film disclosed in Kisou at [0003] should not be
`
`considered as an embodiment because Kisou identified problems with the prior art.
`
`See Resp. at 13-14. However, Kisou’s references to “complicated structures” does
`
`not relate to a diffuser sheet. Instead, Kisou discusses problems associated with
`
`disposing a reflector behind the light conductor, increasing the number of LEDs,
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`providing a divider plate on the light conductor or reflector. See Kisou at [0004]-
`
`[0006]. None of the problems identified in the cited paragraphs of Kisou relates to
`
`applying a translucent diffuser sheet to the outside of the light-emitting surface,
`
`“for the sake of more efficient light diffusion.” Kisou at [0003]. Mr. Werner
`
`agreed. Ex. 1026, 106:8-16.
`
`III. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 5, 10, and 11 ARE OBVIOUS OVER KISOU
`A. Kisou renders obvious positioning a film near the light emitting
`surface of the panel in accordance with dependent claims 5, 10, 11
`
`As demonstrated in the Petition, to the extent it is found that Kisou does not
`
`explicitly disclose applying a diffuser sheet to the outside of the light emitting
`
`surface, a “person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to follow the
`
`teachings of Kisou to provide the diffusion sheet to the outside of the light emitting
`
`surface, for example, to improve the diffusing effect of a light guide that does not
`
`already have a diffuser layer formed on its surface.” Pet. at 25-26. Patent Owner
`
`appears to suggest that if a diffuser layer (scatterer) is not an integral part of the
`
`light conductor 30, light would be trapped inside the light conductor. Resp. at 16-
`
`17. This contradicts the explicit teachings of Kisou, which disclose that “a
`
`translucent diffuser sheet may be applied to the outside of the light-emitting
`
`surface” to achieve a more efficient light diffusion. Kisou at [0003]. As explicitly
`
`disclosed by Kisou, the diffuser layer can be provided to the inside of the light-
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`emitting surface or the translucent diffuser sheet may be applied to the outside of
`
`the light-emitting surface.
`
`Patent Owner also appears to suggest that the diffusion sheet or layer is
`
`solely responsible for light extraction inside the light guide. See Resp. at 16.
`
`However, light reflected at the top surface of the light conductor would be
`
`redirected toward the light paths 31which, as shown in Figs. 8-9 of Kisou, scatters
`
`and diffuses the light (for example light progressing downward and forward) in all
`
`directions including toward the light emitting surface of the light conductor 30. See
`
`Kisou at [0027]; Ex. 1026, 70:1-13. Moreover, light that enters the light conductor
`
`at an angle that exceeds a condition for total internal reflection “TIR” would not be
`
`trapped. See Ex. 2007, 148:20-23.
`
`IV. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 3 AND 4 ARE OBVIOUS OVER KISOU AND
`YAGI
`A. Yagi renders obvious positioning a film near the light emitting
`surface of the panel in accordance with dependent claims 3 and 4
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments that the combination of Kisou and Yagi does not
`
`discloses a separate translucent diffuser layer should fail for at least the reasons set
`
`forth above in relation to claims 5, 10, and 11. See Resp. at 18. Patent Owner also
`
`states that “Yagi does not disclose any way of extracting the light from the
`
`transparent plate 7.” Resp. at 20. This is irrelevant. Yagi explicitly discloses that
`
`“a roughened surface 7a which scatters light is located at the top of the plate 7
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by fluid horning or chemical etching.” Ex. 1008 at 2:24-26 (emphasis added); see
`
`Resp. at 20 (citing Yagi at 2:10-26 and Fig. 1). The ’974 Patent discloses that
`
`“etched patterns” are deformities for extracting light. See Ex. 1001 at 4:48-50. Mr.
`
`Werner agreed that these roughened surfaces are a type of deformity according to
`
`the ’974 Patent. Ex. 1026, 113:10-16.
`
`Patent Owner’s attempt to distinguish Kisou from Yagi also fails because
`
`both Kisou and Yagi rely on light scattering deformities to achieve uniformity. See
`
`Ex. 1008 at 2:24-26 (“a roughened surface 7a which scatters light”); see Ex. 1009
`
`at [0027] (“corrugated light paths 31”). Mr. Werner agreed that both Kisou and
`
`Yagi disclose the goal of light output uniformity. Ex. 1026, 112:18-22 (agreeing
`
`one goal of Yagi uniform illumination all over the display); 41:3-11, 42:1-4
`
`(agreeing one of the features of Kisou’s device is uniform light emission). Mr.
`
`Werner also acknowledged both Kisou and Yagi are directed to the goal of creating
`
`thin devices or devices with a slimmer profile. Ex. 1026, 40:25-41:2 (Kisou
`
`discloses a device with a slimmer profile); 111:9-112:17 (Yagi discloses a thin
`
`device). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to provide
`
`additional structures on the reflector 60 for supporting or positioning a film near
`
`the light conductor 30 in view of the teachings of Yagi disclosing projections 10a,
`
`11a, and 12a on the tray/housing shown in Yagi Fig. 2 for receiving and holding
`
`the liquid crystal panel. Pet. at 27-28.
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner states that Yagi “does not show or mention any provision for
`
`positioning another element between” the LCD and the transparent reflecting plate
`
`7. See Resp. at 20. Yet, within the same paragraphs from Yagi cited in the
`
`Response, Yagi explicitly discloses that “a crossed analyzer 6 is disposed under
`
`the glass plate 2. Moreover, a transparent reflecting plate 7 made of a material
`
`having a high refractive index is disposed under the analyzer 6.” Ex. 1008 at
`
`2:17-21. The crossed analyzer disposed between the LCD and the transparent
`
`reflecting plate 7 appears to be what Patent Owner refers to as “one light-
`
`management feature on or near the top surface of reflecting plate 7.” Resp. at 20.
`
`Patent Owner’s statement is misleading, frivolous, and a misrepresentation of the a
`
`fact. See 37 C.F.R § 42.12.
`
`V. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10, and 11ARE OBVIOUS OVER
`FURUYA AND NIIZUMA
`
`The claim elements of challenged claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 remain
`
`unchallenged. See Resp. at 22-30. Instead, Patent Owner challenges the motivation
`
`to combine of Furuya and Niizuma. However, Patent Owner just regurgitates the
`
`same arguments about the respective devices operating on different principles
`
`without pointing to anything in Furuya or Niizuma that criticizes, discredits, or
`
`discourages the proposed combination. The Board rejected these same arguments
`
`at Institution. Dec. at 21.
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The proposed combination is explicitly disclosed by Niizuma
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would combine the light guide plate with the reflector of Furuya because Niizuma
`
`explicitly discloses the benefits of placing a light guide plate in a reflective holder.
`
`See Pet. at 47-48 (citing Ex. 1007 at [0012], [0019], [0020]); see also Ex. 1004,
`
`¶¶134-140.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the “second embodiment illustrated in Figure 8
`
`differs from the first embodiment.” See Resp. at 25. However, considered as a
`
`whole, the two embodiments emit light similarly because, as stated by Furuya,
`
`“[w]ith this structure, as in the foregoing embodiments, it is possible to obtain
`
`uniform planar illumination with high brightness.” Ex. 1009 at [0018]; see Pet. at
`
`48. Indeed, Mr. Werner agreed that Furuya discloses that the same LEDs 2 are
`
`used in both embodiments and would provide the same light distribution. See Ex.
`
`1026, 120:24-121:3. Fig. 8 of Furuya also shows light being reflected by dot
`
`pattern recesses 57 on the bottom surface of the light guide 55, just as it would be
`
`reflected by the reflector 24. See Pet. at 33; Ex. 1009 at [0018]. Moreover, in the
`
`combination expressly disclosed in Niizuma, the light guide 55 and the reflector 24
`
`of Furuya will continue to function as intended by Niizuma to redirect light toward
`
`the liquid crystal display board 10. Mr. Werner explained that not placing a light
`
`guide in a reflective environment could result in light loss. See Ex. 1026, 153:17-
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`154:1. He also admitted that placing a light guide in a reflective holder that
`
`matched the shape of the light guide would be a simpler structure. Id. 154:25-
`
`155:6.
`
`Patent Owner points to the fitting of LEDs 2 in concave portions of the light
`
`guiding plate and failed to explain why this would negatively affect the proposed
`
`combination. See Resp. at 24, 25; Ex. 1009 Fig. 2. Rather than being an
`
`impediment, the concave portions 56 would facilitate the positioning of the light
`
`guide 55 of Furuya on the reflector 22 of Furuya. See Pet. at 32; Ex. 1009 at
`
`[0018]. Niizuma explicitly discloses a similar arrangement by positioning lamps 6
`
`within grooves (4a, 4a) on the light conductor (4). See Niizuma, Ex. 1007 at
`
`[0011], [0016], Figs. 1-2. The concave portions 56 of Furuya are recesses like the
`
`grooves 4a of Niizuma for housing the light sources as close to the light guide as
`
`possible. Thus, in the combination expressly disclosed in Niizuma and with the
`
`LEDs mounted to the reflector 24, the concave portions 56 of Furuya will continue
`
`to function as intended by both Furuya and Niizuma to house the LEDs near the
`
`light guide.
`
`Patent Owner refers to a clearance “d” in Fig. 2 between the liquid crystal
`
`display board 10 and the upper edge of the reflector 24 (e.g., at 24D and 24E). See
`
`Resp. at 25, 26. This is achieved by positioning the liquid crystal display board 10
`
`on top of electrically conductive rubber members 21. See Ex. 1009 at [0013]. A
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`similar clearance is achieved in Fig. 8 between the liquid crystal display board 10
`
`and the light guide 55 with the liquid crystal display board 10 also positioned on
`
`top of electrically conductive rubber members 21. Indeed, Furuya discloses that
`
`“[t]he other structural features are the same as those of the foregoing
`
`embodiments.” Ex. 1009 at [0018]. In the combination expressly disclosed in
`
`Niizuma, the light guide 55 of Furuya would just fit into the empty space between
`
`the reflector 24 and the light diffusing plate 25 of Furuya with enough clearance to
`
`the surface of the light diffusing plate 25 and the LCD board 10 as shown in Fig. 8.
`
`Mr. Werner agreed. See Ex. 1026, 142:18-143:4.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Furuya avoids leakage of light by using small dot-
`
`pattern recesses 57. See Resp. at 26. However, as cited in the Petition, Niizuma
`
`also discloses similar deformities in the form of “serrated or ridged grooves (not
`
`shown) formed on the back surface (4c) of the light conductor (4).” See Pet. at 47.
`
`As also noted in the Petition, Niizuma expressly discloses that, even with such
`
`deformities, a reflecting holder is still needed “to reflect light leaked from the light
`
`conductor (4) to the holder (5) back into the light conductor (4), making it possible
`
`to reduce the attenuation of light emitted form the lamps.” Pet. at 47-48 (citing Ex.
`
`1007 at [0020]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
`
`that the light guide of Furuya would also benefit from addition of a reflecting
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`holder under the light guide as expressly disclosed by Niizuma to reduce light
`
`leakage issues reported by Niizuma. See Pet. at 38-39.
`
`The light conductor and the reflector of Furuya are combinable
`
`B.
`Patent Owner advances additional arguments highlighting differences
`
`between Furuya and Niizuma that are either irrelevant to the proposed combination
`
`or mischaracterize the teachings of Niizuma and Furuya.
`
`Patent Owner suggests that Furuya teaches away from using light sources
`
`along the short ends of the display to obtain a uniform luminance. See Resp. at 27-
`
`28. This argument is irrelevant because, in the proposed combination of the light
`
`guiding plate 55 of Furuya and the reflector plate 24 of Furuya, the LEDs remain
`
`on the longer side of the display along the light entrance of the light-guiding plate,
`
`which matches the shape of the reflector plate 24. See Pet. at 32-33. Indeed, the
`
`LEDs are housed in “recesses in the edge face of each of two longer side edges of
`
`the light guiding plate 55.” Ex. 1009 at [0018] (emphasis added).
`
`Patent Owner contrasts Furuya with Niizuma, which arranges light sources
`
`along the shorter side of the display. See Resp. at 28. This is also irrelevant to the
`
`proposed combination because the reflector plate 24 of Furuya and the reflective
`
`holder 5 of Niizuma reflect light toward the LCD irrespective of which side, longer
`
`or shorter, the LEDs are positioned against. See Pet. at 48, Ex. 1009 at [0010]
`
`(“said surface is formed as a reflection surface”); see also Pet. at 47, Ex. 1007 at
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[0020] (“reflect light leaked from the light conductor”). Moreover, in the proposed
`
`combination of the light guiding plate 55 of Furuya and the reflector plate 24 of
`
`Furuya, the reflector plate 24 will perform the intended function of reflecting any
`
`light incident upon it toward the L