U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Docket No. 1285100-0002
`Filed on behalf of VIZIO, Inc.
`By: David M. Tennant, Reg. No. 48,362
`White & Case LLP
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 626-3684
`Email: dtennant@whitecase.com
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`VIZIO, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Nichia Corporation
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.9-, 42.100-.123
`
`Claims 1-3, 7-9, 12, & 13
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ......................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................ 2
`
`Related Matters .................................................................................. 2
`
`C.
`
` Notice of Counsel and Service Information ...................................... 3
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .............................. 3
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ................ 4
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Prior Art and Printed Publications .................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
` Grounds for Challenge ...................................................................... 5
`
`V.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY ............................................ 6
`
`A.
`
` Development of White Light LEDs .................................................. 6
`
`B.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`Cerium-Activated Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (YAG) Phosphor ..... 7
`
`Conventional LED Components ....................................................... 8
`
`LED Displays and Controllers ........................................................ 10
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘092 PATENT ...................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’092 Patent ......................... 12
`
`B.
`
` Overview of the ’092 Patent Prosecution History .......................... 15
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES ............ 17
`
`A.
`
` Overview of Baretz ......................................................................... 17
`
`B.
`
` Overview of Banks .......................................................................... 21
`
`C.
`
` Overview of Pinnow ........................................................................ 24
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` Overview of Auzel .......................................................................... 26
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`F.
`
`
`Overview of Johnson ....................................................................... 28
`
`Overview of Gardner ....................................................................... 29
`
`G.
`
` Overview of Matoba ........................................................................ 30
`
`VIII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................... 32
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 32
`
`X.
`
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION .................................................. 33
`
`A.
`
` Ground I: Claims 1-3, 8, and 13 are rendered obvious by Baretz
`in view of Banks .............................................................................. 33
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................. 33
`
`(a)
`
`Preamble: “A device for emitting white-color
`light comprising:” ..................................................... 33
`
`(b) Element [1.A]: “a light emitting diode
`including:” ................................................................. 36
`
`(c) Element [1.A.1]: “an LED chip comprising a
`gallium nitride compound semiconductor
`containing indium and being capable of emitting
`a blue color light, and” .............................................. 36
`
`(d) Element [1.A.2]: “a phosphor capable of
`absorbing a part of the blue color light and
`emitting a light having longer wavelength than
`the blue color light,” ................................................. 38
`
`(e) Element [1.A.3]: “the blue color light and the
`light from said phosphor being mixed to make the
`white-color,” .............................................................. 40
`
`(f)
`
`Element [1.B]: “a control unit for converting an
`input to pulse signals,” ............................................... 46
`
`iii
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(g) Element [1.C]: “a driver receiving said pulse
`signals from said control unit to drive said LED
`chip,” .......................................................................... 53
`
`(h) Element [1.D]: “wherein the brightness of the
`white-color light from said light emitting diode is
`controlled by a width of said pulse signals.” ............. 55
`
`(i)
`
`Reasons to combine Baretz and Banks ...................... 55
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................. 59
`
`Claim 3 ................................................................................. 62
`
`Claim 8 ................................................................................. 65
`
`Claim 13 ............................................................................... 68
`
`B.
`
` Ground II: Claim 12 is rendered obvious by Baretz in view of
`Banks, and further in view of Pinnow ............................................. 69
`
`1.
`
`Claim 12 ............................................................................... 69
`
`(a)
`
`Reasons to combine Baretz, Banks, and Pinnow ....... 73
`
`C.
`
` Ground III: Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Baretz in view of
`Pinnow, and further in view of Auzel ............................................. 77
`
`1.
`
`Claim 7 ................................................................................. 77
`
`(a)
`
`Reasons to combine Baretz, Banks, and Auzel .......... 82
`
`D.
`
` Ground IV: Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Baretz in view of
`Banks, and further in view of Johnson ............................................ 83
`
`1.
`
`Claim 7 ................................................................................. 83
`
`(a)
`
`Reasons to combine Baretz, Banks, and Johnson ..... 84
`
`E.
`
`
`
`Ground V: Claim 8 is rendered obvious by Baretz in view of
`Banks, and further in view of Gardner ............................................ 85
`
`1.
`
`Claim 8 ................................................................................. 85
`
`iv
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Reasons to combine Baretz, Banks, and Gardner ..... 88
`
`(a)
`
`F.
`
`
`Ground VI: Claim 9 is rendered obvious by Baretz in view of
`Banks, and further in view of Matoba ............................................. 89
`
`1.
`
`Claim 9 ................................................................................. 89
`
`(a)
`
`Reasons to combine Baretz, Banks, and Matoba ...... 92
`
`XI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 93
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 32
`
`DOCKETED CASES
`Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Nichia Corp.,
`Case No. 12-11758 (E.D. Mich.) .......................................................................... 2
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................. 5, 6
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123 ........................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1), 42.104(b)(1)-(2) ............................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) .................................................................................... 33
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123,
`
`Petitioner VIZIO, Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-3, 7-9, 12, and 13 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,855,092
`
`(the “’092 patent”) and cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.
`
`The ’092 patent is titled “Device for Emitting White-Color Light.” The
`
`Challenged Claims generally recite a device for emitting white color light that
`
`includes a light emitting diode (“LED chip”) capable of emitting a blue light, and
`
`one or more phosphors capable of absorbing the blue light and emitting a light
`
`having longer wavelength than the blue light, such that the blue light and the light
`
`from the phosphor mix to make white light.
`
`The Challenged Claims add various conventional elements, such as sealing
`
`the LED chip with silicon, and adding dispersive and reflective members for
`
`dispersing and reflecting light from the LED chip, respectively. The various
`
`conventional claim elements also require classic electronic components and
`
`features, such as a control unit (including a CPU), LED chip drivers, and data
`
`storage. There was nothing unexpected or inventive about any of these elements,
`
`which the ’092 patent expressly acknowledges in many instances. Indeed, in a
`
`related district court case involving patents in the same family as the ’092 patent,
`
`the jury found all asserted claims invalid for obviousness in view of the prior art,
`
`1
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`including U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175 to Baretz (EX1004, “Baretz”) relied upon in
`
`this Petition, rejecting attempts by Nichia Corporation (“Patent Owner”) to limit
`
`the Baretz disclosure of the same or similar conventional elements recited by the
`
`Challenged Claims. (See Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Nichia Corp., Case No.
`
`12-11758 (E.D. Mich.) (the “Michigan case”), 04/22/2015 Trial Transcript
`
`(EX1022, “Jury Verdict”) p. 6; Appeal Nos. 16-1577, 1611.)
`
`Each of the Challenged Claims is a combination of well-known elements
`
`arranged in a conventional way to produce predictable results. The Challenged
`
`Claims were obvious and should be canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A.
`
` Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The real party-in-interest is VIZIO, Inc.
`
`B.
`
` Related Matters
`
`Patent Owner has filed a patent infringement action against the Petitioner
`
`asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,915,631 (the “’631 patent”),
`
`7,901,959 (the “’959 patent”), 8,309,375 (the “’375 patent”), and the ’092 patent in
`
`the Central District Court of California. Case No. 8:16-cv-00545. As previously
`
`mentioned, Patent Owner has also asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 5,998,925 and
`
`7,531,960, which are in the same family as the ’092 patent, in the Michigan case
`
`where the jury found all asserted claims invalid for obviousness. (See Appeal Nos.
`
`2
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`16-1577, -1611.) In addition, Petitioner has filed, or will file, concurrent with the
`
`present Petition, petitions for inter partes review the ’631, ’959, and ’375 patents
`
`which are in the same family as the ’092 patent.
`
`C.
`
` Notice of Counsel and Service Information
`
`Petitioner’s counsel are:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`David M. Tennant
`Registration No. 48,362
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`701 Thirteenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005-3807
`202-626-3600 (phone)
`202-639-9355 (fax)
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Nathan Zhang
`Registration No. 71,401
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`5 Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor,
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`650-213-0300 (phone)
`650-213-8158 (fax)
`
`A Power of Attorney is being filed concurrently herewith in accordance with
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Petitioner consents to electronic service. Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), all services and communication to the above attorneys can be
`
`sent to WCVizioIPRTeam@whitecase.com.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`3
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1-3, 7-9, 12, and 13 of the ’092 patent.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Prior Art and Printed Publications
`
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:1
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175 to Baretz (EX1004, “Baretz”), filed March
`
`26, 1996 and issued July 29, 2003, is prior art to the ’092 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e).
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,376 to Banks (EX1005, “Banks”), filed April
`
`14, 1995 and issued August 18, 1998, is prior art to the ’092 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,699,478 to Pinnow (EX1009, “Pinnow”), filed on
`
`May 26, 1969 and issued October 17, 1972, is prior art to the ’092 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,816,576 to Auzel (EX1006, “Auzel”), filed July 26,
`
`1972 and issued June 11, 1974, is prior art to the ’092 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b).
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner has used the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to the prior art.
`
`4
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 3,774,021 to Johnson (EX1007, “Johnson”), filed
`
`5.
`
`May 25, 1972 and issued November 20, 1973, is prior art to the ’092 patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`6.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,001,609 to Gardner (EX1008, “Gardner”), filed
`
`October 5, 1988 and issued March 19, 1991, is prior art to the ’092 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`7.
`
`Japanese Patent No. H7-99345 to Matoba (EX1010, “Matoba”),
`
`published April 11, 1995, is prior art to the ’092 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`B.
`
` Grounds for Challenge
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Paul Prucnal (“Prucnal”
`
`(EX1002)) filed herewith, demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims and
`
`that each of the Challenged Claims are not patentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of challenged claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13 under the
`
`following statutory grounds:
`
`1.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 8 and 13 are rendered obvious by Baretz in
`
`view of Banks under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`2.
`
`Ground 2: Claim 12 is rendered obvious by Baretz in view of Banks,
`
`and further in view of Pinnow, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`5
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ground 3: Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Baretz in view of Banks,
`
`3.
`
`and further in view of Auzel, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`4.
`
`Ground 4: Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Baretz in view of Banks,
`
`and further in view of Johnson, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`5.
`
`Ground 5: Claim 8 is rendered obvious by Baretz in view of Banks,
`
`and further in view of Gardner, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`6.
`
`Ground 6: Claim 9 is rendered obvious by Baretz in view of Banks,
`
`and further in view of Matoba, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`V.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
` Development of White Light LEDs
`
`The development of white light LEDs was primarily driven by the increasing
`
`demand for solid state LED lamps over conventional incandescent lamps for
`
`displays and signage. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶41.) There were a number of different
`
`ways conventional LED lamps produced white light. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶42.) One
`
`method of producing white light is to combine red, green and blue light emitted by
`
`LED chips. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶42; EX1004[Baretz] 2:47-53.) Another method is
`
`to use an LED chip that produced blue light and a medium disposed over the LED
`
`chip that contains one or more phosphors. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶43;
`
`EX1004[Baretz] ABSTRACT, 1:6-8, 2:25-30, 8:18-25, 9:39-50.) The phosphor
`
`absorbs the light (e.g., blue light) emitted by the LED chip and emits light (e.g.
`
`6
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`yellow light) of a different wavelength, which mixes with the light from the LED
`
`chip to make white light. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶43; EX1004[Baretz] 8:26-43, 9:4-9.)
`
`B.
`
` Cerium-Activated Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (YAG) Phosphor
`
`Cerium-activated yttrium aluminum garnet (also referred to as “YAG:Ce” or
`
`“Ce:YAG” by those in the art) is a well-known phosphor used to make a white
`
`light. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶45.) The properties of YAG:Ce make it very attractive
`
`for display and lighting applications; these properties include (1) a “relatively large
`
`absorption cross section”; (2) “a very short lifetime of approximately 0.07 µsec”;
`
`and (3) “a quantum efficiency of approximately 70%.” (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶46;
`
`L.G. Van Uitert et al., “Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light for Black and
`
`White and Mulitcolor Displays,” J. Applied Optics (1971)2 (EX1013, “Van
`
`Uitert”) p.151.) Additionally, YAG:Ce may be tuned by adjusting its composition
`
`for a particular use by shifting its absorption and emission spectra.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶46; EX1013[Van Uitert] p. 151.)
`
`YAG:Ce is also known to be able to withstand harsh operating conditions,
`
`including high temperature and intense light sources. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶47; M.V.
`
`Hoffman, “Improved Color Rendition in High Pressure Mercury Vapor Lamps,” J.
`
`
`
`2 See Stansbury declaration. (EX1024)
`
`7
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Illuminating Eng’g. Soc., Vol. 6, No. 2 (1977)3 (EX1014, “Hoffman”) p.91; J.M.
`
`Robertson et al., “Epitaxially Grown Monocrystalline Garnet Cathode-Ray Tube
`
`Phosphor Screens,” App. Physics Letters 37 (1980) (EX1015, “Robertson”) p.471-
`
`472)
`
`For at least these reasons, YAG:Ce was used predominantly in a variety of
`
`white light applications, including displays by the 1980s. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶48.)
`
`C.
`
` Conventional LED Components
`
`An exemplary conventional LED is shown in FIG. 1 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`3,764,862 (EX1017, “Jankowski”), reproduced below. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶49.)
`
`As shown in FIG. 1 of Jankowski, conventional LEDs typically have an LED die
`
`(i.e. chip) 20 disposed within a reflective cup 17; a pair of electrical leads 14 and
`
`15 connected to the reflective cup 17 and LED 20 to power the LED die 20 in
`
`order to produce light; and a protective housing 22 that encapsulates the LED die
`
`20,leads 14 and 15, reflective cup 17, and any other components contained within
`
`the housing 22. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶49; EX1017[Jankowski] 2:39-59, 3:44-4:5.)
`
`
`
`3 See Stansbury declaration. (EX1025)
`
`8
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(EX1017[Jankowski] FIG. 1.)
`
`
`
`
`
`A thin coating of a highly reflective material, such as gold, applied to the
`
`surface of the cup 17 reflects upward light emitted from the LED die 20 thereby
`
`increasing the light output of the LED. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶50;
`
`EX1017[Jankowski] 1:57-60, 2:61-68, 3:1-8.) It was also well-known that the
`
`uniformity of the light output from the LED device can be improved by roughening
`
`the outer surface of the housing 22. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶50; U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,143,394 (EX1020, “Schoberl”) 2:34-38, 3:14-16.)
`
`Jankowski discloses that the electrical leads 14 and 15, cup 17 and LED die
`
`20 are encapsulated within the housing 22 by filing the interior of the housing 22
`
`“with a liquid plastic such as epoxy ,” which seals the LED die 20 and its
`
`9
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`associated components within the housing 22. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶51;
`
`EX1017[Jankowski] 3:61-4:9.) Other well-known materials used to encapsulate an
`
`LED include silicone resins. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶51; U.S. Patent No. 4,032,963
`
`(EX1021, “Thome”) 2:33-41 .)
`
`D.
`
` LED Displays and Controllers
`
`Electronic displays based on LEDs have been used in various applications
`
`since at least the 1970s. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶52; U.S. Patent No. 3,740,570
`
`(EX1018, “Kaelin”); U.S. Patent No. 4,090,189 (EX1019, “Fisler”)). In such
`
`conventional electronic displays, LEDs are arranged in arrays which are
`
`electrically driven by switches connected to the arrays to turn the LEDs on and off.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶52; EX1019[Fisler] 3:19-27.)
`
`The brightness of the LEDs can be controlled by adjusting the length of time
`
`the LEDs are electrically driven. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶53; EX1018[Kaelin] 1:33-36,
`
`1:49-52, 3:66-4:3, 4:44-46; EX1019[Fisler] 1:49-52, 4:6-9, 5:29-54.) FIG. 1 of
`
`Fisler, below, illustrates an example of a conventional control circuit for an LED-
`
`based electronic display. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶53; EX1019[Fisler] 2:24-26.)
`
`10
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶53; EX1019[Fisler] FIG. 1, annotated.)
`
`A display 4 includes an array of LEDs 26 (red) driven by switch 2 (blue).
`
`Such switch 2 includes a pair of Darlington transistors 3 and 5 connected to a
`
`power source B1. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶54; EX1019[Fisler] 2:35-46, 3:19-27.) The
`
`circuit elements highlighted in purple generate a drive signal that is provided to the
`
`switch 2 to control the length of time to drive the LEDs 26. (EX1002[Prucnal]
`
`¶54; EX1019[Fisler] 4:6-9.) The circuit adjusts the pulse width of the drive signal,
`
`shown below, such that drive signals with a narrow pulse width cause the switch 2
`
`to drive the LEDs 26 for a short time, reducing the brightness of the LEDs 26 (i.e.
`
`setting the display 4 to “minimum brightness”), while drive signals with a wider
`
`pulse width cause the switch 2 to drive the LEDs 26 for a longer time, increasing
`
`11
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the brightness of the LEDs 26 (i.e. setting the display 4 to “medium brightness” or
`
`“high brightness”). (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶54; EX1019[Fisler] 5:29-54.)
`
`
`
`
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶54; EX1019[Fisler] FIG. 3A (“minimum brightness”), FIG. 3B
`
`(“medium brightness”), FIG. 3C (“high brightness”), annotated.)
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘092 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’092 Patent
`
`The ’092 patent generally describes a conventional light emitting device
`
`capable of emitting a white color light by mixing blue light emitted from an LED
`
`chip with light emitted by phosphor disposed over the chip. (EX1002[Prucnal]
`
`¶¶55-56; EX1001[’092] 8:38-57.) The light emitted by the phosphor has a longer
`12
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`wavelength than the blue color light. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶56; EX1001[’092]
`
`ABSTRACT.)
`
`FIG. 1 of the ’092 patent, reproduced below, shows an LED device 100
`
`having an LED chip 102 disposed within a cup 105a of the device 100.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶56; EX1001[’092] 8:38-46.) Coating resin 101 containing a
`
`phosphor fills the cup 105a, and the resin 101 and molding material 104 cover the
`
`LED chip 102. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶56; EX1001[’092] 8:41-44.)
`
`(EX1001[’092] FIG. 1.)
`
`
`
`In operation, “part of the light emitted by the light emitting component (LED
`
`chip) 102 (hereinafter referred to as LED light) excites the phosphor contained in
`
`the coating resin 101 to generate fluorescent light having a wavelength different
`
`13
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`from that of LED light, so that the fluorescent light emitted by the phosphor and
`
`LED light which is output without contributing to the excitation of the phosphor
`
`are mixed and output.” (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶56; EX1001[’092] 8:48-54.)
`
`The ’092 patent states that conventional light emitting diodes have problems
`
`such as “deterioration of the fluorescent material leading to color tone deviation
`
`and darkening of the fluorescent material resulting in lowered efficiency of
`
`extracting light,” and proposes the use of a “fluorescent material” that has
`
`“excellent resistance to light and heat so that the properties thereof do not change
`
`even when used over an extended period of time while being exposed to light of
`
`high intensity emitted by the light emitting component.” (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶58;
`
`EX1001[’092] 2:32-36, 3:20-25.) The ’092 patent discusses the use of a
`
`fluorescent material that “is preferably yttrium-aluminum-garnet fluorescent
`
`material (YAG phosphor) activated with cerium, or a fluorescent material
`
`represented by the general formula (Re1-rSmr)3(Al1-sGas)5O12:Ce, where 0 ≦r ≦1 and
`0 ≦s ≦1, and Re is at least one selected from Y and Gd.” (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶58;
`
`EX1001[’092] 2:33-36, 3:20-25, and 10:31-37.)
`
`
`
`The ’092 patent also discloses various conventional applications of the white
`
`LED, such as in display devices. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶59; EX1001[’092] 20:64-
`
`22:46.)
`
`14
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` Overview of the ’092 Patent Prosecution History
`
`B.
`
`On July 1, 2010, Patent Owner filed U.S. Patent Application No. 12/829,182
`
`(‘182 application). (EX1003[’092FH], 07/01/2010 Utility Patent Application
`
`Transmittal.) Together with the ’182 application, the Patent Owner also filed a
`
`Petition to Make Special Under Accelerated Examination Program, and identified a
`
`number of prior art references that the Patent Owner considered to be “most
`
`closely related to the subject matter of the claims” of the ’182 application.
`
`(EX1003[’092FH], 07/01/2010 Petition to Make Special and 07/01/2010
`
`Examination Support Document.)
`
`Patent Owner identified Baretz as one such prior art reference.
`
`(EX1003[’092FH], 07/01/2010 Examination Support Document, p. 5. In
`
`describing Baretz’s disclosure, the Patent Owner admitted that Baretz discloses: (1)
`
`“a device for emitting white-color light”; (2) “a light emitting diode assembly”; (3)
`
`“an LED chip … comprising a gallium nitride compound semiconductor
`
`containing indium … and being capable of emitting a blue color light”; (4) “a
`
`phosphor capable of absorbing a part of the blue color light and emitting a light
`
`having a longer wavelength than the blue color light”; and (5) “a controller.”
`
`(EX1003[’092FH], 07/01/2010 Examination Support Document, p. 18.)
`
`However, the Patent Owner argued that “Baretz discloses a light emitting
`
`diode which is different from the diode recited in claim 1,” stating that “in Baretz,
`
`15
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`light from the LED die 13 and the light from the luminophoric medium is not
`
`mixed to make the white-color.”4 (EX1003[’092FH], 07/01/2010 Examination
`
`Support Document, pp. 18-19 (emphasis in original).) As described in detail in
`
`later sections, Patent Owner’s characterization of Baretz’s disclosure is
`
`inconsistent with how a POSITA would understand the reference in its entirety.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶67.).
`
`Also along with the ’182 application, Patent Owner submitted an
`
`Information Disclosure Statement identifying Pinnow and Matoba, along with over
`
`200 other prior art references. (EX1003[’092FH], 07/01/2010 Information
`
`Disclosure Statement.) There is no substantive discussion of Pinnow or Matoba by
`
`the Patent Owner or the Examiner of record during prosecution of the ’092 patent.
`
`Moreover, Banks, Auzel, Johnson, and Gardner were not disclosed to the USPTO
`
`during prosecution of the ’092 patent.
`
`
`
`4 Patent Owner again advanced this argument in the Michigan case, which was
`
`contradicted by Patent Owner’s own expert and ultimately rejected by the jury in
`
`finding the asserted claims at issue in that case invalid as being obvious over the
`
`prior art, including Baretz. (04/17/2015 Trial Transcript (EX1023, “Schubert
`
`Cross Examination”) pp. 112:20-127:3; EX1022[Jury Verdict] p. 6.)
`
`16
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`On October 21, 2010, the Examiner mailed a notice of allowance, closing
`
`prosecution. (EX1003[’092FH], 10/21/2010 Notice of Allowance and Fee(s)
`
`Due). The ’092 patent issued on December 21, 2010. (EX1003[’092FH],
`
`12/01/2010 Issue Notification.)
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
` Overview of Baretz
`
`Baretz discloses a device for converting blue colored light from solid state
`
`devices (e.g. LEDs) to make white colored light using a down-converting material
`
`20. (EX1004[Baretz] ABSTRACT, 9:4-9.) Specifically, Baretz discloses a white
`
`light LED containing a blue or UV LED chip packaged with “a down-converting
`
`medium comprising fluorescer and/or phosphor component(s), or mixtures thereof
`
`… which functions to down convert the light output from face 18 of LED 13 to
`
`white light”; in particular Baretz teaches that “monochromatic blue or UV
`
`radiation output of the LED is absorbed and then down converted by the
`
`fluorophore or phosphor to yield longer wavelengths to include a broad spectrum
`
`of frequencies which appear as white light.” (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶75;
`
`EX1004[Baretz] 7:19-27.)
`
`Baretz discloses multiple possible configurations of the white light LED.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶¶76-80; EX1004[Baretz] 8:58-60.) In one embodiment,
`
`illustrated below in FIG. 1 of Baretz, an LED chip (“light emitting die 13”) is
`
`17
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`contained within light-transmissive enclosure 11. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶77;
`
`EX1004[Baretz] 8:60-9:9.) Baretz discloses that “a blue LED light source” that is
`
`“suitable for use in the structure of FIG. 1 … may be based on: indium gallium
`
`nitride; silicon carbide; zinc selenide; or any other blue light emitting diode
`
`source,” such as “a leaded, gallium nitride based LED which exhibits blue light
`
`emission with an emission maximum at approximately 450nm.”
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶77; EX1004[Baretz] 8:60-9:10, 10:20-27.)
`
`(EX1004[Baretz] FIG. 1.)
`
`
`
`Baretz discloses that enclosure 11 may be formed of “any suitable material
`
`having a light transmissive character, such as a clear or translucent polymer, or a
`
`glass material” and down-converting material 20 containing “fluorescer and/or
`
`phosphor component(s)” fills the enclosure 11. The down-converting material 20
`18
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7,855,092
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`down-converts the light output from the blue or UV LED chip to make white light.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶78; EX1004[Baretz] 8:62-64, 9:4-9.)
`
`FIG. 2 of Baretz, reproduced below, shows another embodiment of Baretz’s
`
`white light LED. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶79; EX1004[Baretz] 8:1-3.) The white light
`
`LED of FIG. 2 has a similar structure to that of the white light LED shown in FIG.
`
`1, except that instead of the down-converting medium 20 filling the interior of the
`
`enclosure 11, the down-converting material (e.g. a fluorescer or phosphor) is
`
`“dispersed in the wall 7 of the housing structure and/or coated as an interior film 9
`
`on the interior surface of the housing wall 7.” (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶80;
`
`EX1004[Baretz] 9:51-60.)
`
`
`
`(EX1004[Baretz] FIG. 2.)
`
`19
`
`

`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 7