UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`VIZIO, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-_____
`
`Patent 7,434,974
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,434,974
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Real Parties-In-Interest .......................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel ................................................................... 3
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3
`II.
`STANDING ..................................................................................................... 3
`III.
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1, 3-5, 7-8,
`AND 10-11 OF THE ’974 PATENT ......................................................................... 4
`A.
`Technology Background ..................................................................... 4
`B.
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’974 Patent ....................................... 6
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`A.
`Standards For Claim Construction ................................................... 7
`B.
`“deformities” (claims 1 and 7)............................................................ 8
`VI. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’974 PATENT FORMING
`THE BASIS FOR THIS PETITION .......................................................................... 8
`A.
`JP H7-64078A (“Kisou”) (Ex. 1006) .................................................. 9
`B.
`JP H5-45651 (“Niizuma”) (Ex. 1007) ................................................ 9
`C. U.S. Patent No. 4,017,155 (“Yagi”) (Ex. 1008) .................................. 9
`D.
`JP 6-214230 (“Furuya”) (Ex. 1009) ................................................. 10
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM ..................... 10
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 Are Unpatentable Under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) As Being Anticipated By Kisou ........................ 10
`1. Kisou anticipates claim 1 ............................................................. 11
`2. Kisou anticipates claim 7 ............................................................. 17
`3. Kisou anticipates claim 8 ............................................................. 18
`4. Kisou anticipates claims 5, 10, and 11 ........................................ 18
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 5, 10 and 11 Are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Kisou ............................... 26
`C. Ground 3: Claims 3-4 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) As Being Obvious Over Kisou In View of Yagi .................. 27
`1. Claim 3 is obvious over Kisou in view of Yagi .......................... 27
`2. Claim 4 is obvious over Kisou in view of Yagi .......................... 29
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 10-11 Are Unpatentable
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Obvious Over Furuya In View
`Of Niizuma ......................................................................................... 31
`1. Furuya in view of Niizuma renders obvious independent
`claim 1 ......................................................................................... 32
`2. Motivation to combine Furuya and Niizuma .............................. 38
`3. Furuya in view of Niizuma renders obvious dependent
`claim 3 ......................................................................................... 42
`4. Furuya in view of Niizuma renders obvious dependent
`claim 4 ......................................................................................... 43
`5. Furuya in view of Niizuma renders obvious dependent
`claim 5 ......................................................................................... 43
`6. Furuya in view of Niizuma renders obvious independent
`claim 7 ......................................................................................... 44
`7. Furuya in view of Niizuma renders obvious dependent
`claim 8 ......................................................................................... 44
`8. Furuya in view of Niizuma renders obvious dependent
`claims 10 and 11 .......................................................................... 45
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 55
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Arris Group, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00747, Paper 22 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014)) ......................................... 7
`
`K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd, v. Innovative Display Techs., Ltd.,
`IPR2015-01868, Paper 2 (Sept. 11, 2015). ........................................................... 1
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................ 1, 26, 27, 31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ............................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 301(a)(2) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`iii
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
`Complaints filed in Related District Court Cases
`Declaration of Tom Credelle, Ph.D. (“Credelle Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”)
`JP H7-64078A (“Kisou”) (Translation, Certification, Japanese version)
`JP H5-45651
`(“Niizuma”)
`(Translation, Certification,
`Japanese
`version)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,017,155 (“Yagi”)
`JP 6-214230 (“Furuya”) (Translation, Certification, Japanese version)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,160,195 (“Miller”)
`J. A. Castellano, Handbook of Display Technology, Academic Press
`Inc., San Diego, 1992
`U.S. Patent No. 5,598,280 (“Nishio”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,384,658 (“Ohtake”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,303,322 (“Winston”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,050,946 (“Hathaway”)
`European Patent Application Publication No. EP 500960 (“Ohe”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,488 (“Ouderkirk”)
`3M Product Brochure 75-0500-0403-7, “Brightness Enhancement Film
`(BEF), 1993
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,134 (“Konno”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,405 (“Takeuchi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,381,309 (“Borchardt”)
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`v
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioner hereby respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review of claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 (“the
`
`’974 Patent”) (“Ex. 1001”) which issued on October 14, 2008. The challenged
`
`claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 over the prior art
`
`publications identified and applied in this Petition. Concurrent with this Petition,
`
`Petitioner is requesting that this Petition be joined with IPR2015-01868, which the
`
`Board instituted on March 17, 2016. The grounds of unpatentability presented in
`
`this Petition are identical to the grounds presented in IPR2015-01868. See K.J.
`
`Pretech Co., Ltd, v. Innovative Display Techs., Ltd., IPR2015-01868, Paper 2
`
`(Sept. 11, 2015).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, Petitioner provides the following mandatory
`
`disclosures:
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest. VIZIO, Inc. is the real-party-in-interest for
`
`this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner
`
`submits that the ’974 Patent is the subject of patent infringement lawsuits brought
`
`by the Patent Owner, Innovative Display Technologies LLC (see Ex. 1003), an IPR
`
`brought by LG Display Co. Ltd., and an IPR brought by K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd.,
`
`which are respectively listed in the chart below.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Description
`
`Docket Number
`
`DDG and IDT v. Lenovo Group Ltd., et al.
`
`1:13-cv-02108, D.Del.
`
`DDG and IDT v. LG Electronics Inc., et al.
`
`1:13-cv-02109, D.Del.
`
`DDG and IDT v. VIZIO, Inc.
`
`LG Display Co. Ltd, v. Innovative Display
`Technologies, Ltd.
`
`K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd, v. Innovative Display
`Technologies, Ltd.
`
`1:13-cv-02112, D.Del.
`
`IPR2014-01092
`
`IPR2015-01868
`
`
`
`Petitioner is also concurrently filing a petition to review U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,434,974 (“the ’974 Patent”), which is in the same family as the ’370 Patent. In
`
`addition, Petitioner provides the following listing of inter partes reviews before the
`
`Board relating to the ’974 and ’370 Patents.
`
`Proceeding
`
`Patent No.
`
`Filing Date
`
`IPR2014-01092
`
`IPR2015-00368
`
`IPR2015-00497
`
`IPR2015-00755
`
`IPR2015-00831
`
`IPR2015-00832
`
`IPR2015-01115
`
`IPR2015-01868
`
`IPR2014-01096
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,537,370
`
`2
`
`07/01/2014
`
`12/04/2014
`
`07/15/2015
`
`02/18/2015
`
`03/06/2015
`
`03/05/2015
`
`04/27/2015
`
`09/11/2015
`
`07/01/2014
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`IPR2015-00493
`
`IPR2015-00753
`
`IPR2015-01867
`
`7,537,370
`
`7,537,370
`
`7,537,370
`
`12/29/2014
`
`02/17/2015
`
`09/11/2015
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel. Petitioner provides the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Brian Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125)
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
`T: 202.955.8541
`F: 202.530.4222
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Blair Silver (Reg. No. 68,003)
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
`T: 202.955.8690
`F: 202.530.4222
`bsilver@gibsondunn.com
`
`
`A Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(b). Service via hand delivery may be made at the addresses of the lead and
`
`back-up counsel above. Petitioner hereby consents to electronic service.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103, $23,000 is being paid at the time of filing
`
`this petition.
`
`III. STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the patent sought
`
`for review, the ’974 Patent, is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of the patent
`
`because Petitioner is seeking joinder with instituted IPR2015-01868 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The substance of this petition follows
`
`that raised in IPR2015-01868, which the Board instituted.
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1, 3-5, 7-8,
`AND 10-11 OF THE ’974 PATENT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests that the Board find
`
`unpatentable claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 10-11 of the ’974 Patent. Such relief is
`
`justified as the alleged invention of the ’974 Patent was described by others prior
`
`to the effective filing date of the ’974 Patent.
`
`A. Technology Background
`
`Generally, light emitting panel assemblies are used in conjunction with
`
`liquid crystal displays (“LCDs”) and various applications thereof, as a backlight
`
`module to provide light to the display. Ex. 1004, Declaration of Tom Credelle,
`
`Ph.D. (“Credelle Decl.”), ¶¶40, 48. The light emitting panel assembly is composed
`
`of all the elements of the LCD other than the liquid crystals themselves. For
`
`example, the light emitting panel assembly is all but element 12 (in yellow) in the
`
`annotated figure below from Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”). Ex.
`
`1004, ¶48.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`In order to produce surface illumination with the target brightness and
`
`uniformity at the lowest possible electrical power, the light emitting panel
`
`assembly can include features to spatially homogenize and control the angular
`
`distribution of emitted light. Ex. 1004, ¶52. Examples of these features include
`
`light pipes, transition area, reflectors, and various types of microstructured
`
`deformities (e.g., microprisms, diffusers, and microlenses). Id. The light pipe,
`
`also sometimes called a light guide or wave guide, accepts light injected from the
`
`side and distributes it across the emission area. Id. at ¶53. The ’974 Patent calls the
`
`light pipe a “transparent panel member” (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:19-20), “light emitting
`
`panel member” (e.g., id. at 1:33-34), and “transparent light emitting panel” (e.g.,
`
`id. at 2:66). Ex. 1004, ¶53. The transition area, which is usually between the light
`
`source and the light pipe, is used to securely position the light source relative to the
`
`light pipe, and to spread and transmit light to produce a more uniform input
`
`illumination. Id. at ¶54. Deformities, such as microprisms, diffusers, and
`
`microlenses, are employed to control the direction and spatial uniformity of light
`
`within light emitting panel assemblies. Id. at ¶¶55-59.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`B.
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’974 Patent
`
`The ’974 Patent relates “to light emitting panel assemblies each including a
`
`transparent panel member for efficiently conducting light, and controlling the light
`
`conducted by the panel member to be emitted from one or more light output areas
`
`along the length thereof.” Ex. 1001, 1:18-22. The ’974 Patent discloses an edge-lit
`
`light emitting panel assembly, which can also be referred to as a backlight. Edge-lit
`
`light emitting panel assemblies are often preferred because they can be physically
`
`thinner and lower weight. Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 40, 62. As the ’974 Patent acknowledges,
`
`“[l]ight emitting panel assemblies are generally known.” Ex. 1001, 1:23. The
`
`purported advantage of the alleged invention described in the ’974 Patent relates to
`
`several different light emitting panel assembly configurations which allegedly
`
`provide for better control of light output from the panel assembly and for more
`
`“efficient” utilization of light, thereby resulting in greater light output from the
`
`panel assembly. Id. at 1:24-28; Ex. 1004, ¶62.
`
`The ’974 Patent discloses a light emitting assembly including a light
`
`emitting panel member received in a cavity or recess in a tray or housing. Ex.
`
`1001, Abstract. The panel member has a pattern of light extracting deformities on
`
`or in at least one surface of the panel member to cause light received from at least
`
`one LED light source positioned near or against the light entrance surface of the
`
`panel member to be emitted from a light emitting surface of the panel member. Id.;
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶62. The tray or housing acts as an end edge and/or side edge reflector
`
`for the panel member to reflect light that would otherwise exit the panel member
`
`through the end edge and/or side edge back into the panel member for causing
`
`additional light to be emitted from the panel member. Ex. 1001, Abstract; Ex.
`
`1004, ¶63.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Standards For Claim Construction
`The ’974 Patent expired on June 27, 2015. If an inter partes review involves
`
`claims of an expired patent, a patentee is unable to make claim amendments, and
`
`the Board applies the claim construction principles outlined in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) that the words of a claim “are generally
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. In re Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1280, n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Rambus Inc.,
`
`753 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see, e.g., Arris Group, Inc. v. C-Cation
`
`Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00747, Decision (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014) (Paper 22, at 10).
`
`Moreover, as shown below, those constructions further comport with
`
`positions that Patent Owner has taken in its prior claim construction briefing in
`
`related Federal Court litigations. In that regard, Petitioner notes that 35 U.S.C. §
`
`301(a)(2) permits citation of Patent Owner’s statements regarding claim scope, to
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`prevent patentees from arguing broad constructions in Federal Court litigation
`
`while using narrow constructions in proceedings before the Office.
`
`Petitioner also notes that while it advances the following proposed
`
`constructions for the purposes of this petition, it reserves the right (not available to
`
`it in the present proceeding) to assert in any litigation that one or more of the
`
`following claim terms is indefinite or lacks written description support under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112.
`
`“deformities” (claims 1 and 7)
`
`B.
`The ’974 Patent expressly defines the term “deformities” as follows: “As
`
`used herein, the term [sic] deformities or disruptions are used interchangeably to
`
`mean any change in the shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or
`
`surface treatment that causes a portion of the light to be emitted.” Ex. 1001, 4:36-
`
`40. Thus, based on the express definition of deformities in the specification,
`
`“deformities” (claims 1 and 7) 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 the light to be emitted.” Ex. 1004, ¶75.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’974 PATENT FORMING THE
`BASIS FOR THIS PETITION
`
`The following documents serve as a basis to show that Petitioner has a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims 1, 3-5,
`
`and 7-8 of the ’974 Patent. Petitioner provides a detailed explanation of the
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`pertinence and manner of applying the cited prior art to claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 of
`
`the ’974 Patent in Section VII, infra. In light of the prior art references, the light
`
`emitting panel assembly in the ’974 Patent is a function of prior art and obvious
`
`design decisions, not innovation or invention.
`
`JP H7-64078A (“Kisou”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`A.
`Kisou qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because Kisou was
`
`published on March 10, 1995, before the June 27, 1995 priority date to which the
`
`’974 Patent may be entitled. Kisou was not cited or considered during prosecution
`
`of the application that led to the ’974 Patent.
`
`JP H5-45651 (“Niizuma”) (Ex. 1007)
`
`B.
`Niizuma qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Niizuma
`
`was published on June 18, 1993, more than one year before the June 27, 1995
`
`priority date to which the ’974 Patent may be entitled. Niizuma was not cited or
`
`considered during prosecution of the application that led to the ’974 Patent.
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 4,017,155 (“Yagi”) (Ex. 1008)
`Yagi qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Yagi was
`
`patented on April 12, 1977, more than one year before the June 27, 1995 priority
`
`date to which the ’974 Patent may be entitled. Yagi was not cited or considered
`
`during prosecution of the application that led to the ’974 Patent.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`JP 6-214230 (“Furuya”) (Ex. 1009)
`
`D.
`Furuya qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because Furuya was
`
`published on August 5, 1994, before the June 27, 1995 priority date to which the
`
`’974 Patent may be entitled. Furuya was not cited or considered during
`
`prosecution of the application that led to the ’974 Patent.
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM
`In light of the disclosures detailed below, the ‘370 Patent is unpatentable for
`
`at least the reasons summarized in the chart below and discussed in more detail
`
`herein.
`
`Ground # Ground
`1
`102(a)
`2
`103(a)
`3
`103(a)
`4
`103(a)
`
`Exhibit(s) #
`Prior art
`1006
`Kisou
`1006
`Kisou
`1006 & 1008
`Kisou + Yagi
`Furuya + Niizuma 1009 & 1007
`
`Claims
`1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11
`5, 10, 11
`3-4
`1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-11
`
`
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 Are Unpatentable Under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(a) As Being Anticipated By Kisou
`
`Kisou discloses an LCD backlight device 1 that comprises light conductor
`
`30, reflector 60, which contains and holds light conductor 30 and lamp units L.
`
`Ex. 1006, at [0029]. The LCD backlight device 1 “is mounted on an LCD control
`
`driver board 2 of a suitable size, an LCD 3 is placed upon the backlight device 1,
`
`and the LCD 3 is electrically connected to the board 2 by rubber joint connectors 4.
`
`The backlight device 1 and the LCD 3 are held together as a single piece by an
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`LCD anchoring bracket 5 mounted to the board 2.” Ex. 1006, at [0017]. Kisou
`
`anticipates each and every element of claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 of the ’974 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶78.
`
`1. Kisou anticipates claim 1
`
`Kisou discloses, for example in Figs. 10-12, a light emitting assembly. Figs.
`
`11-12 shows a backlight device (including light conductor 30, lamp units L in a
`
`reflector 60) while Fig. 10 shows the backlight device incorporated in a larger
`
`assembly of an LCD. See Ex. 1006, at [0029] (“Another examples of backlight
`
`devices is shown in FIG. 10 (a cross-sectional view of the main parts of an LCD
`
`into which a backlight device has been incorporated), FIG. 11 (a partially exploded
`
`perspective view), and FIG. 12 (a partially exploded perspective view). Parts
`
`identical to those of the example described above are labeled identically.”). The
`
`backlight device of Kisou is the claimed light emitting assembly. Ex. 1004, ¶79.
`
`The interpretation of a backlight device as a light emitting assembly is
`
`consistent with the specification of the ’974 Patent. The ’974 Patent describes that
`
`“the panel assemblies are used to provide a liquid crystal display backlight.” Ex.
`
`1001, 5:19-20. Moreover, the ’974 Patent discloses that the light emitting panel
`
`assembly can be used to transmit light to another part or component, such as a
`
`liquid crystal display panel. See id. at 6:45-52. Thus, a backlight device that emits
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`light toward a liquid crystal device falls within the scope of the claimed light
`
`emitting assembly. Ex. 1004, ¶¶80-81.
`
`Regarding claim element [1.a], the backlight device 1 of Kisou contains a
`
`light conductor 30. Ex. 1006, at [0029]. The light conductor 30 of Kisou is a light
`
`emitting panel member. The light conductor 30 has an input edge as a light
`
`entrance surface. See id. at [0030]. Moreover, Kisou explains that “[i]n edge-lit
`
`backlighting devices, the front surface of the light conductor is generally a light-
`
`emitting surface.” Id. at [0003]; see also Figs. 8-9. Thus, Kisou discloses claim
`
`element [1.a]. Ex. 1004, ¶82.
`
`Regarding claim element [1.b], Kisou discloses that lamp units L are
`
`disposed near the light entrance of the light conductor 30. See Ex. 1006, at [0030].
`
`Also, Kisou discloses that each of the lamp units L include LEDs. See id. at [0019].
`
`Thus, Kisou discloses claim element [1.b]. Ex. 1004, ¶83.
`
`Regarding claim element [1.c], Kisou discloses a reflector 30 that contains
`
`the light conductor 30. Id. at [0030] (“Specifically, the light conductor 30 is fitted
`
`into and held by the reflector 60, and the lamp units L are disposed on both sides of
`
`the light conductor 30.”). Kisou explains that “the reflector 60 has not only a light
`
`reflecting function, but also a function of containing the light conductor 30 and the
`
`lamp units L.” Id. at [0030]. Thus, the reflector 60 of Kisou functions as “a tray or
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`housing having a cavity or recess in which the panel member is entirely received.”
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶84.
`
`Regarding claim element [1.d], Kisou discloses, for example in Figs. 8-9,
`
`recessed light paths 31 having a triangular cross-section on a rear surface of the
`
`light conductor 30. See Ex. 1006, at [0026]. The recessed light paths 31 of Kisou
`
`are deformities that impart a corrugated shape to the rear surface of the light
`
`conductor 30. Id. See Ex. 1004, ¶85. Moreover, the recessed light paths 31 extract
`
`light toward the light-emitting surface of the light conductor 30. Ex. 1006, at
`
`[0027] (“Light progressing into the light paths 31 on the rear side of the light
`
`conductor 30 is split and diffused by the corrugated light paths 31.”). Furthermore,
`
`a person of skill in the art would understand that the recessed light paths 31 apply
`
`equally to the light conductor 30 in Figs. 10-12 as to light conductor 30 in Figs. 1-
`
`9. See id. at [0029] (“Parts identical to those of the example described above are
`
`labeled identically.”). Thus, Kisou discloses claim element [1.d]. Ex. 1004, ¶86.
`
`Regarding claim element [1.e], the reflector 60 has a “light-reflecting
`
`surface 61.” Ex. 1006, at [0029]. Moreover, reflector 60 has a “light reflecting
`
`function” that “yield[s] comparable light-reflecting effects” to an alternative
`
`arrangement where reflectors are directly attached to light conductor 30 and lamp
`
`units L. Id. at [0030]. The end walls and side walls of reflector 60 act as end edge
`
`reflectors and side edge reflectors that reflect light back into light conductor 30
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`towards the recessed light paths 31 to cause the light to be emitted from the top
`
`surface of light conductor 30. Ex. 1004, ¶87. Moreover, Kisou discloses that the
`
`lamp units L attached to the reflector 30 additionally have reflecting rear and side
`
`surfaces for directing light toward the light conductor 30. Ex. 1006, at [0023] (“. . .
`
`the lamp case 10 of this lamp unit L is constituted by a light-reflecting rear plate
`
`11, upper plate 12, lower plate 13, and side plates 14, 15 . . . ”). Ex. 1004, ¶88.
`
`Thus, Kisou discloses the claim element [1.e].
`
`Regarding claim element [1.f], Kisou discloses that “the light conductor 30
`
`is fitted into and held by the reflector 60, and the lamp units L are disposed on both
`
`sides of the light conductor 30. The lead wires of the lamp units L are inserted into
`
`mounting holes 62 formed on both sides of the reflector 60, and soldered to the
`
`driver board 2.” Ex. 1006, at [0027]. Thus, the reflector 60 has a function of fitting
`
`and holding the light conductor 30. Moreover, the soldering of the lamp units to
`
`the driver board 2 through the mounting holes of the reflector 60 secures the light
`
`conductor 30 tightly against the reflector 60. Id. at [0016]. Moreover, as shown in
`
`Fig. 12, above, light conductor 30 rests on light reflecting surface 61 of reflector 60
`
`and has its sides surrounded by the walls of reflector 60. This configuration
`
`permits reflector 60 to provide direct structural support to light conductor 30 and
`
`“allow[] for a reduced number of parts compared” to Kisou’s first embodiment.
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ex. 1006, at [0030]; Ex. 1004 at ¶89. Thus, Kisou discloses “the tray or housing
`
`provides structural support to the panel member” as recited in claim element [1.f].
`
`Regarding claim element [1.g], Kisou discloses that the backlight device 1
`
`(including reflector 60, light conductor 30, and lamp units L) is incorporated into a
`
`larger device, which is an LCD device. See Ex. 1006, at [0029] (“a cross-sectional
`
`view of the main parts of an LCD into which a backlight device has been
`
`incorporated,”). Moreover, the LCD 3 mounted onto the driver board 2 is one of
`
`the “main parts” of the larger LCD device or assembly which also includes the
`
`rubber joint connectors 4. See id. at [0017]; see annotated Fig. 10 below. Thus,
`
`backlight device 1 (the light emitting assembly) is incorporated into the LCD
`
`device of Fig. 10, which constitutes a larger assembly or larger device (including
`
`the driver board 2, LCD 3, and rubber joint connectors 4). Ex. 1004, ¶90.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Still, regarding claim element [1.g], Kisou also discloses that the reflector 60
`
`has “mounting holes” used in conjunction with lead wires 22/23, and solder to
`
`mount the backlight device 1 to a larger assembly or device. Ex. 1006, at [0027].
`
`The “mounting holes” together with the lead wires and the solder represent “other
`
`structural features” for mounting the light emitting panel assembly (e.g., backlight
`
`device 1) of Kisou to the larger assembly or larger LCD device (including the
`
`driver board 2). Ex. 1004, ¶91. Indeed, the specification of the ’974 Patent
`
`discloses holes as example of structural features for mounting other components.
`
`For example, Figure 9 of the ’974 Patent shows that “panel assembly 50 may serve
`
`as a structural member to support other parts or components as by providing holes
`
`or cavities 54,55 in the panel member 51 which allow for the insertion of modular
`
`components or other parts into the panel member.” Ex. 1001, 7:34-38; see also id.
`
`at Fig. 9; Ex. 1004, ¶92. The mounting holes, lead wires and solder represent
`
`structural features for mounting the backlight device 1 into the larger assembly
`
`(e.g., the driver board 2 to which the LCD 3 is also mounted using the anchoring
`
`bracket 5). Thus, Kisou discloses that “the tray or housing . . . has posts, tabs, or
`
`other structural features that provide a mount for mounting of the assembly into a
`
`larger assembly or device,” as recited in claim element [1.g]. Ex. 1004, ¶92.
`
`In view of the above, Kisou discloses all of the limitations of independent
`
`claim 1. Thus, Kisou anticipates independent claim 1 of the ’974 Patent.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,434,974
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`2. Kisou anticipates claim 7
`
`Regarding claim 7, claim elements [7.a] to [7.e] are substantially identical to
`
`claim elements [1.a] to [1.e], respectively. Thus, Kisou discloses the features
`
`recited in claim elements [7.a] to [7.e] for the reasons set forth above in regard to
`
`claim elements [1.a] to [1.e], respectively. Also, claim element [7.g] is
`
`substantially identical to claim element [1.f]. Thus, Kisou discloses the features
`
`recited in claim element [7.g] for the reasons set forth above in regard to claim
`
`elements [1.f]. Ex. 1004, ¶95.
`
`Regarding clai