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 7,537,370
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,537,370
`
`
`
`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. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`Page
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`I.
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 4
`II.
`STANDING ..................................................................................................... 4
`III.
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 29 AND 47 OF
`THE ’370 PATENT ......................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 4
`B.
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’370 Patent ........................................... 6
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`A.
`Standards For Claim Construction ........................................................ 7
`B.
`“deformities” (claims 29 and 47) .......................................................... 8
`C.
`“transition region” (claim 47) ............................................................... 8
`VI. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’370 PATENT FORMING THE
`BASIS FOR THIS PETITION ........................................................................ 9
`A. Admitted Prior Art............................................................................... 10
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”) (Ex. 1007) ............................. 10
`C.
`JP H03-189679 (“Suzuki”) (Ex. 1008, 1009, 1010) ........................... 10
`VII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM ..................... 11
`A. Ground 3: Claim 29 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over Suzuki .......................................................... 11
`Ground 4: Claim 47 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Being Obvious Over Suzuki In View Of Pristash ......................... 20
`C. Motivation to combine Suzuki with Pristash ...................................... 21
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 24
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Arris Group, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00747 ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 7
`
`K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd, v. Innovative Display Techs., Ltd.,
`IPR2015-01867, Institution Decision, Paper 15 (Mar. 17, 2016) .................. 1, 20
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Techs. LLC,
`IPR2014-01096, Final Written Decision, Paper 40 (Dec. 18, 2015) .................. 20
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 1, 11, 19
`
`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
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
`Complaints filed in Related District Court Cases
`Declaration of Credelle (“Credelle Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 (“Ciupke”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,408,388 (“Kobayashi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”)
`English translation of JP H03-189679 (“Suzuki”)
`JP H03-189679 (“Suzuki JP”)
`Translation Certificate for JP H03-189679 (“Suzuki Cert.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,929,866 (“Murata”)
`Claim Construction Order, Innovative Display Technologies LLC v.
`Acer, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-00522 (E.D. TEx. Aug. 26, 2014), ECF
`No. 101
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Innovative Display
`Technologies LLC v. Acer, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-00522 (E.D. Tex.
`June 16, 2014), ECF No. 69
`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. EP500960 (“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”)
`Excerpt from Werner Deposition
`IPR2014-01096, Paper No. 11
`
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioner hereby respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review of claim 29 and 47 of Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 (“the
`
`’370 Patent”) (“Ex. 1001”), which issued on May 26, 2009. The challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 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 IPR2015-01867, which the Board instituted on
`
`March 17, 2016. This Petition is limited to only those grounds instituted by the
`
`Board in its institution decision. See K.J. Pretech Co., Ltd, v. Innovative Display
`
`Techs., Ltd., IPR2015-01867, Institution Decision, Paper 15 (Mar. 17, 2016) (the
`
`“K.J. Pretech Institution Decision”).1
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, Petitioner provides the following mandatory
`
`disclosures:
`
`
`1 This Petition raises the same arguments for institution raised by the Petition in
`
`IPR2015-01867 that were accepted by the Board, but arguments that were not
`
`grounds for institution are not reasserted here. For clarity of comparison, this
`
`Petition retains the formatting and numbering from the Petition in IPR2015-01867
`
`(Paper 2).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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 ’370 Patent is the subject of patent infringement lawsuits brought
`
`by the Patent Owner, Innovative Display Technologies LLC (see, e.g., Ex. 1003),
`
`an inter partes reviews brought by LG Display Co. Ltd., and K.J. Pretech Co.,
`
`Ltd.:
`
`Description
`
`DDG and IDT v. Lenovo Group Ltd., et al.
`DDG and IDT v. LG Electronics Inc., et al.
`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.
`
`Docket Number
`
`1:13-cv-02108, D.Del.
`1:13-cv-02109, D.Del.
`1:13-cv-02112, D.Del.
`IPR2014-01096
`
`IPR2015-01867
`
`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 post-issuance reviews before
`
`the Board relating to the ’974 and ’370 Patents.
`
`Proceeding
`
`Patent No.
`
`IPR2014-01092
`
`IPR2015-00368
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`Filing Date
`
`07/01/2014
`
`12/04/2014
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`IPR2015-00497
`
`IPR2015-00755
`
`IPR2015-00831
`
`IPR2015-00832
`
`IPR2015-01115
`
`IPR2015-01868
`
`IPR2014-01096
`
`IPR2015-00493
`
`IPR2015-00753
`
`IPR2015-01867
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,434,974
`
`7,537,370
`
`7,537,370
`
`7,537,370
`
`7,537,370
`
`07/15/2015
`
`02/18/2015
`
`03/06/2015
`
`03/05/2015
`
`04/27/2015
`
`09/11/2015
`
`07/01/2014
`
`12/29/2014
`
`02/17/2015
`
`09/11/2015
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel. Petitioners provide 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
`
`A Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`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
`
`
`
`§ 42.10(b). Service via hand delivery may be made at the addresses of the lead and
`
`back-up counsels above. Petitioner hereby consents to electronic service.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 ’370 Patent, is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of the patent,
`
`because Petitioner is seeking joinder with instituted IPR2015-01867 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 29 AND 47
`OF THE ’370 PATENT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests that the Board find
`
`unpatentable claims 29 and 47 of the ’370 Patent. Such relief is justified as the
`
`alleged invention of the ’370 Patent was described by others prior to the effective
`
`filing date of the ’370 Patent. Petitioner also files herewith a request for joinder
`
`with IPR2015-01867, which the Board instituted on March 17, 2016.
`
`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 Credelle
`
`(“Credelle Decl.”), ¶40. The light emitting panel assembly is composed of all the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`elements of the LCD other than the liquid crystals themselves. Id. 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,
`
`¶¶40-41, 49.
`
`
`
`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. See id. at ¶50. Examples of these features include
`
`light pipes, a 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. The ’370 Patent calls the light pipe a
`
`“transparent panel member” (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:19-20), “light emitting panel
`
`member” (e.g., id. at 1:32-33), and “transparent light emitting panel” (e.g., id. at
`
`2:61). See Ex. 1004, ¶46. 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`illumination. Id. at ¶45. The ’370 Patent refers to a “light transition area or
`
`member” that enables emitted light “to make the transition from the light source to
`
`the light emitting panel 2” and was “well known in the art.” See Ex. 1001, 2:58-
`
`3:3. See also Ex. 1004, ¶56. Deformities, such as microprisms, diffusers, and
`
`microlenses, are employed to control the direction and spatial uniformity of light
`
`within light emitting panel assemblies. Ex. 1004, ¶¶46-51.
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ’370 Patent
`
`B.
`The ’370 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. As the ’370 Patent acknowledges,
`
`“[l]ight emitting panel assemblies are generally known.” Id. at 1:23. The purported
`
`advantage of the alleged invention described in the ’370 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. Yet, as shown further below, prior art such as Ex. 1007,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”) already disclosed such advantages. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1007, 1:10-16. See also Ex. 1004, ¶¶63-73.
`
`The ’370 Patent discloses light emitting assemblies having a pattern of light
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`extracting deformities on or in one or both sides for emitting light in a
`
`predetermined output distribution. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The pattern of light
`
`extracting deformities may have one or more different types or shapes of
`
`deformities. Id. See also Ex. 1004, ¶65.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`Standards For Claim Construction
`The ’370 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 Owners’ statements regarding claim scope, to
`
`prevent patentees from arguing broad constructions in Federal Court litigation
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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 29 and 47)
`
`B.
`The ’370 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, 6:6-10.
`
`Thus, based on the express definition of deformities in the specification,
`
`“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 the light to
`
`be emitted.” Ex. 1004, ¶75.
`
`“transition region” (claim 47)
`
`C.
`Claim 47 contains a limitation directed to “a transition region between the at
`
`least one input edge and the patterns of light extracting deformities to allow the
`
`light from the at least one light source to mix and spread.” In the ’370 Patent, a
`
`light “transition area” 4 (see Ex. 1001, Fig.1, at right) is shown and discussed as an
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`area between the light sources and light emitting panel “used to make the transition
`
`from the light source 3 to the light emitting panel 2, as well known in the art.” Id.
`
`at 2:63-66. Based in part on this teaching, the Eastern District of Texas in the
`
`2:13-cv-00522 case held that “transition region” means simply “a region
`
`configured to transmit light.” Ex. 1012, at 18-22. Accordingly, for purposes of this
`
`proceeding, Petitioner submits that the term “a transition region between the at
`
`least one input edge and the patterns of light extracting deformities to allow the
`
`light from the at least one light source to mix and spread” should at least include
`
`any “region configured to transmit light [between the at least one input edge and
`
`the patterns of light extracting deformities to allow the light from the at least one
`
`light source to mix and spread].” Ex. 1004, ¶¶76-78.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’370 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 29 and
`
`47 of the ’370 Patent. Petitioner provides a detailed explanation of the pertinence
`
`and manner of applying the cited prior art to claims 29 and 47 of the ’370 Patent in
`
`Section VII, infra. In light of the prior art references, the light emitting panel
`
`assembly in the ’370 Patent is a function of prior art and obvious design decisions,
`
`not innovation or invention.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`A. Admitted Prior Art
`The ’370 Patent discusses the following functionality and structure of prior
`
`art light emitting assemblies: (1) a “transparent light emitting panel 2,” (2) “one or
`
`more light sources 3 which emit light in a predetermined pattern,” and (3) “a light
`
`transition member or area 4 used to make the transition from the light source 3 to
`
`the light emitting panel.” Ex. 1001, 2:58-65 (describing these elements and their
`
`functionalities as being “well known in the art”). Ex. 1004, ¶¶42-44, 46, 48-50, 53-
`
`57, 64.
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 (“Pristash”) (Ex. 1007)
`Pristash discloses a thin panel illuminator for more efficient light
`
`transmission from the light source to the light emitting panel. Ex. 1007, Abstract.
`
`Pristash qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Pristash issued as a
`
`patent on April 2, 1991, more than one year before the June 27, 1995 priority date
`
`to which the ’370 Patent may be entitled. Pristash was cited as a reference in an
`
`Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution, but was not relied upon as
`
`the basis to reject any claim. In fact, Pristash was not discussed on the record at all
`
`during the prosecution proceedings. Ex. 1004, ¶¶111-114.
`
`JP H03-189679 (“Suzuki”) (Ex. 1008, 1009, 1010)
`
`C.
`Suzuki qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was
`
`published on August 19, 1991, more than one year before the June 27, 1995 filing
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`date of the earliest application to which the ’370 Patent may potentially claim
`
`priority. Suzuki was not cited or considered during prosecution of the application
`
`that led to the ’370 Patent. Ex. 1008 refers to the certified English translation of
`
`Suzuki. Copies of the Japanese document and the translation certification are
`
`attached as Ex. 1009 and Ex. 1010, respectively. Ex. 1004, ¶¶126, 131.
`
`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, using numbering matching IPR2015-01867. Grounds and claims not
`
`instituted by the Board in IPR2015-01867 have been omitted and are not addressed
`
`below. The discussion of the grounds has been consolidated to address only the
`
`arguments and grounds instituted by the Board, with the grounds asserted below
`
`being identical to those instituted in IPR2015-01867.
`
`Ground # Ground
`3
`103(a)
`4
`103(a)
`
`Prior art
`Suzuki
`Suzuki in view of
`Pristash
`
`Exhibit(s) #
`1008
`1008 and 1007
`
`Claims
`29
`47
`
`A. Ground 3: Claim 29 Is Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As
`Being Obvious Over Suzuki
`
`Suzuki renders obvious claim 29. Suzuki has been presented to the Board in
`
`connection with IPR2015-00753 for inter partes review of the ’370 Patent.
`
`IPR2015-00753 was terminated due to a settlement prior to any issuance of an
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`institution decision. Nevertheless, the presentation of Suzuki in this petition is
`
`distinct from the Suzuki-based arguments presented in the aforementioned
`
`petitions for inter partes review. This is at least because in the previous petition,
`
`Suzuki was used as an anticipatory reference. Here, Petitioner is presenting an
`
`obviousness ground in view of Suzuki.
`
`The objective of Suzuki is to provide a surface light source device that
`
`provides brightness levels equal to or greater than prior art devices, but which
`
`nevertheless has an extremely thin transparent light guide layer (i.e., optical panel
`
`member), and which is small, light, easy to manufacture, and inexpensive. (Ex.
`
`1008, at 5.) In describing means for achieving that objective, Suzuki discloses
`
`each and every limitation of claim 29. Ex. 1004, ¶125.
`
`Suzuki discloses each and every limitation of independent claim 29. Ex.
`
`1004, ¶¶ 126-133 and 141 (discussing shared elements in context of claim 1), 150
`
`(incorporating that discussion of shared elements as relevant to claim 29), 151-153
`
`(discussing claim element 29.e).
`
`Regarding claim element [29.a], Suzuki discloses two tubular light sources
`
`4. Ex. 1008, at 7. See Ex. 1004, ¶¶128, 150.
`
`Regarding claim element [29.b], Suzuki discloses a transparent light guide
`
`layer 2 with a greater cross-sectional width (260 mm) than thickness (4-5 mm),
`
`that has front and back surfaces and light input edges. Ex. 1008, at 7-8. See Ex.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1004, ¶¶ 129, 150.
`
`Regarding claim element [29.c], Suzuki discloses a pattern of embossed
`
`elements that are projections and/or depressions (Ex. 1008, at 13-14) and may be
`
`on one or both sides of the panel member. Indeed, Suzuki discloses “[e]xamples of
`
`the transparent light guide layer 2 were produced by forming an embossed pattern
`
`21 on both sides of acrylic resin plates.” Id. at 8. Moreover, Suzuki discloses that
`
`“the quadrangular-pyramid-shaped elements may either be projections, whose
`
`apices project outward, or recesses.” Id. at 13. Further, Suzuki explains that the
`
`pattern of projections or recesses may be adjusted “so that a uniform surface light
`
`source can be provided.” Id. at 7. Thus, Suzuki discloses claim element [29.c].
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 130, 150.
`
`Regarding claim element [29.d], Suzuki discloses that the deformities may
`
`vary along the length of the panel in that “the projection area of the embossed
`
`elements [may be] gradually increase[d] along with the distance from each light
`
`source, as illustrated in Fig. 10” (Ex. 1008, at 14-15; see also Fig.10, above) or
`
`“changed in units of blocks” instead of gradually (id. at 19; see also Fig.13), or
`
`“the pitch of the embossed elements is gradually changed” (id. at 20; see also Fig.
`
`19), and that the angle of the oblique surfaces of the embossed elements may also
`
`be increased as the distance from the light source decreases (id. at 19-20; see also
`
`Fig.15). ¶¶131-133, 150. Thus, Suzuki discloses claim element [29.d].
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Regarding claim element [29.e], Suzuki discloses in Figures 2-20 various
`
`types or shapes of deformities that can be variously formed on one or both surfaces
`
`of a light guide. Ex. 1008 at Figs. 2-20; see also Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 134–35. For
`
`example, Suzuki discloses that the embossed elements on the first surface (from
`
`Fig. 10) have a constant pitch of 0.5 mm and oblique surfaces at an angle of 45°.
`
`Ex. 1008, at 16. In contrast, the pitch of the embossed elements on the second
`
`surface can be gradually changed. Id. at 20, Fig. 19. So, consistent with the
`
`discussion set forth in relation to claim element [1.e] in Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 134–139,
`
`pitch of the mixed projections and recesses (from Ex. 1008, Fig. 12) on the second
`
`surface of the light guide in Fig. 12 could be gradually increased, while the pitch of
`
`the recesses from Fig. 10 on the first surface of the light guide remains constant.
`
`In addition, Suzuki discloses that the angle of the oblique surfaces of the
`
`deformities may be increased as a function of the distance from the light source, as
`
`seen in Fig. 15. Ex. 1008, at 19-20. Thus, the angle of the oblique surfaces on the
`
`first surface can remain constant at 45° while the angle of the oblique surfaces on
`
`the second surface (from Fig. 12) can gradually change in accordance with the
`
`teachings of Suzuki in Fig. 19. Indeed, Suzuki further states that “[a]ll or some of
`
`these examples may also be employed in combination.” Id. at 20. Thus, the
`
`deformities on one side of the light guide of Suzuki can also vary in a different
`
`way than those on the other side (i.e., constant pitch vs. gradually increasing pitch,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`or while keeping the angles of the oblique surfaces constant vs. changing the
`
`angles as a function of distance from the light source). Ex. 1004, ¶¶151-154.
`
`Thus, Suzuki renders obvious claim element [29.e].
`
`Regarding claim element [29.f], Suzuki discloses a light diffusion layer 1,
`
`which is described as a “a milk-white sheet or plate composed of an acrylic resin or
`
`a polycarbonate resin containing an appropriate light diffusing agent.” Ex. 1008, at
`
`7-8; Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 141, 150. Suzuki discloses that the diffusing agent has to be
`
`appropriate to prevent “a risk that the diffusing effect or the surface brightness will
`
`be reduced due to small transmittance.” Ex. 1008, at 8. Suzuki also discloses that
`
`the device can be used as a backlight for a liquid crystal display and a primary
`
`objective is to obtain high brightness. Id. at 2-3, 4-5. Moreover, Suzuki discloses
`
`that because of the disclosed arrangement of components, “loss of light in the
`
`regions near the light sources was reduced, and high brightness was obtained.” Id.
`
`at 18. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`
`diffusing agent of Suzuki is selected to reduce the loss of light transmitted by the
`
`backlight to the liquid crystal device. Thus, Suzuki discloses claim element [29.f].
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶141. In view of the above, Suzuki discloses all of the limitations of
`
`claim 29. Thus, Suzuki renders obvious independent claim 29.
`
`As can be seen, the table below demonstrates how each limitation of claim
`
`29 of the ’370 Patent is disclosed by Suzuki (Ex. 1008 & 1009). For all these
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`reasons, claim 29 is unpatentable as obvious over Suzuki and thus, Petitioner has a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least this claim. Ex. 1004,
`
`¶156.
`
`’370 Patent
`
`Suzuki JP (Exs. 1008 (translation) and 1009)
`
`29. A light emitting panel
`assembly comprising
`
`“According to the present invention, a surface light
`source device is characterized by including a light
`diffusion layer, a transparent light guide layer, and
`a reflective layer, which are successively stacked in
`a direction of a line of sight” Ex. 1008, at 5, Fig.1
`(Fig. 1 refers to Ex. 1009). See Ex. 1004, ¶¶126-
`127, 150.
`
`
`[1.a] at least one light source, "An embodiment of the present invention will be
`described with reference to Figs. 1 and 2. A light
`diffusion layer 1 is arranged so as to extend over
`the entire area between tubular light sources 4, 4."
`Ex. 1008, at 7, Fig.1. See Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 128, 150.
`
`an optical panel
`[29.b]
`member having at least one
`input edge for receiving light
`from the at least one light
`source, the panel member
`having front and back sides
`and a greater cross sectional
`width than thickness,
`
`"A light source and a light-source reflective layer
`are arranged on at least one edge of the transparent
`light guide layer." Ex. 1008, at 6.
`
`light-source
`"Reference numeral 5 denotes
`reflective layers provided to reduce loss of light
`emitted by the light sources 4 and direct the light
`so that the light was effectively guided to the
`incident end surfaces of the transparent light guide
`layer 2." Id. at 10-11.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,537,370
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`’370 Patent
`
`Suzuki JP (Exs. 1008 (translation) and 1009)
`
`[29.c] both the front and
`back sides having a pattern
`of
`light
`extracting
`deformities
`that
`are
`projections or depressions on
`or in the sides to cause light
`to be emitted from the panel
`member in a predetermined
`output distribution,
`
`"Examples of the transparent light guide layer 2 . . .
`having a size of 260 × 170 × 4 mm (thickness) or 5
`mm over the entire area thereof." Id. at 8.
`
`See Ex. 1004, ¶¶129, 150.
`
`"Examples of the transparent light guide layer 2
`were produced by forming an embossed pattern 21
`on both sides of acrylic resin plates." Ex. 1008, at
`8.
`
`"Embossed patterns having different pitches may
`be formed on the front and back surfaces of the
`transparent light guide layer 2." Id. at 14.
`
`"Similar to the above-described examples, the
`quadrangular-pyramid-shaped elements may either
`be projections, whose apices project outward, or
`recesses.
` Alternatively, these projections and
`recesses may be partially mixed.
` However,
`preferably, quadrangular-pyramid-shaped elements
`are recesses." Id. at 13-14.
`
`"In the surface light source device according to the
`present invention, to increase the reflection and
`diffusion efficiencies and surface brightness, an
`embossed pattern is formed on at least one surface
`of the transparent light guide layer." Id. at 6.
`
`". . . the brightness distribution along an effective
`light emitting surface can be adjusted, so that a
`uniform surface