`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. 8,309,375
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.9-, 42.100-.123
`
`Claims 1 & 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`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.
`
`CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Color, Chromaticity, and the CIE Chromaticity Curve .................... 5
`
`B.
`
` Development of White Light LEDs ................................................ 11
`
`C.
`
`
`
`Cerium-Activated Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (YAG) Phosphor ... 12
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’375 PATENT ...................................................... 13
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’375 Patent ......................... 13
`
`B.
`
` Overview of the ’375 Patent Prosecution History .......................... 15
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES ............ 17
`
`A.
`
` Overview of Baretz ......................................................................... 17
`
`B.
`
` Overview of Pinnow ........................................................................ 20
`
`C.
`
` Overview of Nakamura ................................................................... 21
`
`D.
`
` Overview of Schuil .......................................................................... 23
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`VIII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................... 24
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 24
`
`X.
`
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION .................................................. 26
`
`A.
`
` Ground I: Claims 1 and 4 are rendered obvious by Baretz in view
`of Pinnow ........................................................................................ 26
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................. 26
`
`(a)
`
`Preamble: “A method for manufacturing a light
`emitting device comprising:” ..................................... 26
`
`(b) Element [1.A.1]: “preparing a light emitting
`component having an active layer of a
`semiconductor,” ......................................................... 28
`
`(c) Element [1.A.2] “said active layer comprising a
`gallium nitride based semiconductor containing
`indium and being capable of emitting a blue color
`light having a spectrum with a peak wavelength
`within the range from 420 to 490 nm;” ..................... 32
`
`(d) Element [1.B.1]: “preparing a phosphor capable
`of absorbing a part of the blue color light emitted
`from said light emitting component and emitting a
`yellow color light having a broad emission
`spectrum comprising a peak wavelength existing
`around the range from 510 to 600 nm and a tail
`continuing beyond 700 nm,” ...................................... 33
`
`(e) Element [1.B.2]: “wherein selection of said
`phosphor is controlled based on an emission
`wavelength of said light emitting component; and” .. 43
`
`(f)
`
`Element [1.C.1]: “combining said light emitting
`component and said phosphor so that the blue
`color light from said light emitting component and
`the yellow color from said phosphor are mixed to
`make a white color light,” .......................................... 45
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(g) Element [1.C.2]: “wherein a chromaticity point of
`the white color light is on a straight line
`connecting a point of chromaticity of the blue
`color light and a point of chromaticity of the
`yellow color light, and” ............................................. 52
`
`(h) Element [1.D]: “wherein a content of said
`phosphor in said light emitting device is selected to
`obtain a desired chromaticity of the white color
`light.” ......................................................................... 57
`
`(i)
`
`Baretz in view of Pinnow disclose “preparing” a
`light emitting component and phosphor .................... 59
`
`(j)
`
`Reasons to combine Baretz and Pinnow ................... 64
`
`2.
`
`Claim 4 ................................................................................. 70
`
`B.
`
` Ground II: Claims 1 and 4 are rendered obvious by Baretz in
`view of Pinnow, and further in view of Nakamura and Schuil ....... 71
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................. 71
`
`(a)
`
`Preamble: “A method for manufacturing a light
`emitting device comprising:” ..................................... 71
`
`(b) Element [1.A.1]: “preparing a light emitting
`component having an active layer of a
`semiconductor,” ......................................................... 72
`
`(c) Element [1.A.2] “said active layer comprising a
`gallium nitride based semiconductor containing
`indium and being capable of emitting a blue color
`light having a spectrum with a peak wavelength
`within the range from 420 to 490 nm;” ..................... 74
`
`(d) Element [1.B.1]: “preparing a phosphor capable
`of absorbing a part of the blue color light emitted
`from said light emitting component and emitting a
`yellow color light having a broad emission
`spectrum comprising a peak wavelength existing
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`around the range from 510 to 600 nm and a tail
`continuing beyond 700 nm,” ...................................... 75
`
`(e) Element [1.B.2]: “wherein selection of said
`phosphor is controlled based on an emission
`wavelength of said light emitting component; and” .. 76
`
`(f)
`
`Element [1.C.1]: “combining said light emitting
`component and said phosphor so that the blue
`color light from said light emitting component and
`the yellow color from said phosphor are mixed to
`make a white color light,” .......................................... 77
`
`(g) Element [1.C.2]: “wherein a chromaticity point of
`the white color light is on a straight line
`connecting a point of chromaticity of the blue
`color light and a point of chromaticity of the
`yellow color light, and” ............................................. 77
`
`(h) Element [1.D]: “wherein a content of said
`phosphor in said light emitting device is selected to
`obtain a desired chromaticity of the white color
`light.” ......................................................................... 77
`
`(i)
`
`Reasons to combine Baretz, Pinnow, Nakamura,
`and Schuil .................................................................. 78
`
`2.
`
`Claim 4 ................................................................................. 81
`
`XI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 82
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 24
`
`DOCKETED CASES
`Everlight Electronics Co., v. Nichia Corp.,
`Case No. 12-11758 (E.D. Mich.) .......................................................................... 2
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................. 4, 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`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) .................................................................................... 26
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`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 and 4 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,309,375 (EX1001, the
`
`“’375 patent”) and cancellation of those claims as unpatentable.
`
`The ’375 patent is titled “Light Emitting Device and Display.” The
`
`Challenged Claims generally recite a method of manufacturing a light emitting
`
`device (“LED”) capable of emitting a white color light by combining (1) a light
`
`emitting component emitting a blue color light and (2) a phosphor capable of
`
`absorbing the blue color light and emitting a yellow color light. The blue color
`
`light mixes with the yellow color light to make the white color light.
`
` The elements of the Challenged Claims add various conventional or
`
`inherent characteristics related to the light emitting component and phosphor, such
`
`as the material of the active layer of the light emitting component, emission
`
`spectrums having certain peak emission wavelengths, and a chromaticity of the
`
`white light. Indeed, in a related district court case involving patents which are in
`
`the same family as the ’375 patent, the jury found all asserted claims invalid for
`
`obviousness in view of the prior art, 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
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`conventional elements recited by the Challenged Claims. (See Everlight
`
`Electronics Co., v. Nichia Corp., Case No. 12-11758 (E.D. Mich.) (the “Michigan
`
`case”), 04/22/2015 Trial Transcript (EX1019, “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”), 7,855,092 (the “’092 patent”), and the ’375 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 ’375 patent, in the Michigan case
`
`where the jury found all asserted claims invalid for obviousness. (See Appeal Nos.
`
`16-1577, -1611.) In addition, Petitioner has filed, or will file, concurrent with the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`present Petition, petitions for inter partes review of the ’631, ’959, and ’092
`
`patents which are in the same family as the ’375 patent.
`
`C.
`
` Notice of Counsel and Service Information
`
`Petitioner’s counsel are:
`
`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)
`
`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)
`
`
` 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. 8,309,375
`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 and 4 of the ’375 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”) was filed
`
`March 26, 1996 and issued July 29, 2003. Baretz is prior art to the ’375 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,699,478 to Pinnow (EX1005, “Pinnow”) was filed
`
`on May 26, 1969 and issued October 17, 1972. Pinnow is prior art to the ’375
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`Nakamura et al., “High-Power InGaN Single-Quantum-Well-
`
`Structure Blue and Violet Light-Emitting Diodes” (EX1014, “Nakamura”) was
`
`published September 1995 in Applied Physics Letters 67 by the American Institute
`
`of Physics.2 Nakamura is prior art to the ’375 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner has used the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to the prior art.
`
`2 See Stansbury declaration. (EX1022)
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 4,024,070 to Schuil (EX1015, “Schuil”) was filed on
`
`4.
`
`May 16, 1975 and issued May 17, 1977. Schuil is prior art to the ’375 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 and 4 under the following
`
`statutory grounds:
`
`1.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1 and 4 are rendered obvious by Baretz in view of
`
`Pinnow under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`2.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1 and 4 are rendered obvious by Baretz in view of
`
`Pinnow, and further in view of Nakamura and Schuil under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`V. CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGY
`
`A.
`
` Color, Chromaticity, and the CIE Chromaticity Curve
`
`Colors can be represented as a mixture of three primary colors: blue-violet,
`
`green, and orange-red. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶41; H. Rossotti, “Colour,” Princeton
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`University Press (1983) (EX1007, “Rossotti”) 3 pp. 153-154; M. Luckiesh, “Color
`
`and its Applications,” D. Van Nostrand Co., The Plimpton Press (1921) (EX1016,
`
`“Luckiesh”)4 pp. 57-58.) For example, a mixture of red and green produces
`
`yellow, and a mixture of yellow and blue produces white. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶41;
`
`EX1016[Luckiesh] p. 58.) Because their mixture results in white, yellow and blue
`
`are complimentary colors. 5 (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶41; EX1016[Luckiesh] p. 58.)
`
`The color wheel below shows the spectrum of complementary colors.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶42; EX1016[Luckiesh] p. 59.)
`
`
`
`3 Rossotti was first published and available in 1983 and has a Library of Congress
`
`catalog date stamp of July 6, 1987. (EX1007, exhibit p. 4.)
`
`4 Luckiesh was published and available in 1921. (EX1016)
`
`5 While denoted by the color wheel by the label “V,” Luckiesh discloses that when
`
`referring to the “additive primaries [of] red, green, and blue … [s]ome prefer to use
`
`the term ‘violet’ instead of ‘blue’ [but] [b]lue, however, appears satisfactory and is
`
`a safer term than violet, because there are a great many who apply the term violet
`
`to purples.” (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶42; EX1016[Luckiesh] pp. 57-58.)
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶41; EX1016[Luckiesh] FIG 22, annotated.)
`
`As shown above, in addition to yellow and blue, other such complementary
`
`colors include green and pink, and blue-green and red. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶42;
`
`EX1016[Luckiesh] p. 59.)
`
`Maxwell’s triangle, shown below, is another representation of how different
`
`colors can be achieved by mixing the three primary colors. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶43;
`
`EX1007[Rossotti] p. 154.) The three primary colors form the vertices of
`
`Maxwell’s triangle. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶43; EX1007[Rossotti] p. 154.) When two
`
`colors are mixed, the resulting color can be represented as a point on a line
`
`connecting those two colors along Maxwell’s triangle. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶44;
`
`EX1007[Rossotti] p. 154.)
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(EX1007[Rossotti] FIG. 66.)
`
`
`
`For example, a mixture of green and orange-red will result in yellow, which
`
`is at a point on Maxwell’s triangle between green and orange-red.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶44; EX1007[Rossotti] FIG. 66.) Similarly, a mixture of blue-
`
`violet and yellow will result in white. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶44; EX1007[Rossotti]
`
`FIG. 66.)
`
`Chromaticity is an objective specification of color as observed by a standard
`
`individual. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶45; EX1007[Rossotti] p. 155-156.) The
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`chromaticity of all visible colors can be represented as a point within the CIE6
`
`chromaticity curve, shown below. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶45; EX1007[Rossotti] p.
`
`157-158.)
`
`
`
`
`
`(EX1007[Rossotti] FIG. 68.)
`
`6 The Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE) is the standards body that
`
`defines the “standard observer” and the CIE chromaticity curve.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶45; EX1007[Rossotti] pp. 156-167.)
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The usefulness of the CIE chromaticity chart is based on the fact that the
`
`resultant light from a mixture of two colors of lights will fall on a point along the
`
`line joining the two colors on the CIE chromaticity curve. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶46;
`
`EX1007[Rossotti] pp. 157-158.) For example, purple light, which is the result of a
`
`mixture of red and blue-violet light, corresponds to point “X” in FIG. 69, below,
`
`along the line that connects the light wavelengths representing red and blue-violet
`
`light. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶46; EX1007[Rossotti] pp. 157-158.)
`
`(EX1007[Rossotti] FIG. 69.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`In this example, “a mixture of two parts red (770nm) and one part [blue-
`
`]violet (380nm) would lie at a point X, twice as near to the red point as the violet
`
`point.” (EX1007[Rossotti] p. 157-158 (emphasis in original).) White light falls in
`
`the region around the point “E” shown in the middle of the CIE chromaticity
`
`diagram in FIG. 69, above. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶¶46-47; EX1007[Rossotti] FIG.
`
`69.)
`
`B.
`
` 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] ¶48; EX1004[Baretz] 2:15-18.) There
`
`were a number of different ways conventional LEDs produced white light.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶49.) One method of producing white light LEDs is to mix red,
`
`green and blue light emitted by three different LED chips. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶49;
`
`EX1004[Baretz] 2:47-53.) Another method is to use an LED chip and a medium
`
`disposed over the LED chip that contains one or more phosphors.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶50; 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., yellow light) of a different wavelength. As described above
`
`in Section V.A, blue and yellow light mix to make white light. (EX1002[Prucnal]
`
`¶¶41-44; EX1004[Baretz] 8:26-43, 9:4-9.)
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
` Cerium-Activated Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (YAG) Phosphor
`
`C.
`
`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] ¶52.) 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] ¶53;
`
`L.G. Van Uitert et al., “Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light for Black and
`
`White and Mulitcolor Displays,” J. Applied Optics (1971)7 (EX1006, “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] ¶53; EX1006[Van Uitert] p.151.)
`
`YAG:Ce is also known to withstand harsh operating conditions, including
`
`high temperature and intense light sources due to its excellent thermal properties,
`
`making it suitable to be used with high intensity light sources without thermal
`
`quenching. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶54; M.V. Hoffman, “Improved Color Rendition in
`
`High Pressure Mercury Vapor Lamps,” J. Illuminating Eng’g. Soc., Vol. 6, No. 2
`
`
`
`7 See Stansbury declaration. (EX1021)
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(1977) (EX1008, “Hoffman”)8 p.91; J.M. Robertson et al., “Epitaxially Grown
`
`Monocrystalline Garnet Cathode-Ray Tube Phosphor Screens,” App. Physics
`
`Leters 37 (1980) (EX1009, “Robertson 1”) pp.471-472)
`
`Due to at least these characteristics, YAG:Ce has been used predominantly
`
`in a variety of white light applications, including lamps and displays since the
`
`1980s. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶55.)
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’375 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Summary of Alleged Invention of the ’375 Patent
`
`The ’375 patent generally describes a light emitting device capable of
`
`emitting a white color light by mixing a blue color light emitted from an LED chip
`
`with light emitted by phosphor disposed over the chip. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶56;
`
`EX1001[’375] 8:38-46. The light emitted by the phosphor has a longer
`
`wavelength than the blue color light. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶56; EX1001[’375]
`
`ABSTRACT.)
`
`FIG. 1 of the ’375 patent, reproduced below, shows an LED device 100
`
`having an LED chip 102 disposed within a cup 105a of the device 100.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶57; EX1001[’375] 8:28-46.) Coating resin 101 containing a
`
`
`
`8 See Stansbury declaration. (EX1024)
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`phosphor fills the cup 105a, and the resin 101 and molding material 104 cover the
`
`LED chip 102. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶56; EX1001[’375] 8:41-43.)
`
`
`
`
`
`(EX1001[’375] 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
`
`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] ¶57; EX1001[’375] 8:48-54.)
`
`The ’375 patent states that conventional light emitting diodes have problems
`
`such as “deterioration of the fluorescent material leading to color tone deviation
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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-
`
`59; EX1001[’375] 2:33-36, 3:20-25.) The ’375 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] ¶59;
`
`EX1001[’375] 10:28-34.)
`
`The ’375 patent provides that the wavelength of the light emitted by the
`
`LED is “preferably from 400 nm to 530 nm,” and “more preferably from 420nm to
`
`490 nm.” (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶59; EX1001[’375] 14:23-31.) The phosphor is
`
`“capable of absorbing excitation light having a peak at a wavelength near 450nm,”
`
`and “emits light of broad spectrum having a peak” ranging from 530 to 580 nm and
`
`“tailing out to 700nm.” (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶59; EX1001[’375] 11:5-10, 12:38-49.
`
`B.
`
` Overview of the ’375 Patent Prosecution History
`
`On November 9, 2010, Patent Owner as the Applicant filed U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/942,792 (the “’792 application”). (EX1003[’375FH],
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`11/09/2010 Utility Patent Application Transmittal.) Along with the ’792
`
`application, Applicant submitted an Information Disclosure Statement identifying
`
`Baretz and Pinnow, along with over 200 other prior art references. (EX1003 [’375
`
`FH], 11/09/2010 Information Disclosure Statement.) There is no substantive
`
`discussion of Baretz or Pinnow by the Applicant or the Examiner of record during
`
`prosecution of the ’375 patent. Moreover, Nakamura and Schuil were not
`
`disclosed to the USPTO during prosecution of the ’375 patent.
`
`On January 30, 2012, the Examiner issued a non-final Office Action
`
`rejecting claims 1-17 and 19 as being obvious in view of U.S. 5,847,507
`
`(“Butterworth”) and of U.S. 5,966,393 (“Hide”), and objecting to claim 18.
`
`(EX1003[’375FH], 01/30/2012 Non-Final Rejection.) On May 30, 2012,
`
`Applicant filed a response arguing that Butterworth (filed July 14, 1997) did not
`
`qualify as prior art against the ’792 application by swearing behind the reference.
`
`(EX1003[’375FH], 05/30/2012 Reply to Office Action p. 6-8.) Applicant also
`
`argued that Butterworth did not disclose the phosphor having a peak wavelength of
`
`530 to 570 nm and a tail continuing beyond 700nm recited by claim 4, the crystal
`
`structure of the phosphor as recited by claim 6, and the white light characteristics
`
`as recited by claim 9. (Id.)
`
`
`
`On July 12, 2012, the Examiner issued a notice of allowance, closing
`
`prosecution. (EX1003[’375FH], 07/12/2012 Notice of Allowance.) The ’375
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`patent issued on November 13, 2012. (EX1003[’375 FH], 10/24/2012 Issue
`
`Notification.)
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A.
`
` Overview of Baretz
`
`Baretz discloses a method for manufacturing a device for converting blue
`
`colored light from solid state devices (e.g. LEDs) to make white colored light using
`
`a down-converting medium 20. (EX1004[Baretz] ABSTRACT, 9:4-9.)
`
`Specifically, Baretz discloses a white light LED containing a blue or UV light
`
`emitting 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] ¶73; EX1004[Baretz] 7:19-27.)
`
`Baretz discloses multiple possible configurations of the white light LED.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶¶74-79; EX1004[Baretz] 8:58-60.) In one embodiment,
`
`illustrated below in FIG. 1 of Baretz, within the light-transmissive enclosure 11 is
`
`an LED chip (“light emitting diode (LED) die 13”). (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶74;
`
`EX1004[Baretz] 8:60-9:9.) Baretz discloses that “a blue LED light source” that is
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“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] ¶76; EX1004[Baretz] 8:60-9:10, 10:20-27.) Baretz discloses
`
`suitable blue LED chips were commercially available from Toyoda Gosei Co. Ltd.
`
`and Nichia Chemical Industries, Ltd. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶76; EX1004[Baretz]
`
`9:10-17.)
`
`(EX1004[Baretz] FIG. 1.)
`
`
`
`Baretz discloses that light-transmissive 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 filled with a down-converting
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`medium 20 containing “fluorescer and/or phosphor component(s)” that down-
`
`converts the light output from the blue or UV LED chip to make white light.
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶77; EX1004[Baretz] 8:62-64, 9:4-9.)
`
`Shown in FIG. 2, reproduced below, of Baretz is another configuration of
`
`the white light LED. (EX1002[Prucnal] ¶¶78-79; 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 wall surface of the housing wall 7.”
`
`(EX1002[Prucnal] ¶79; EX1004[Baretz] 9:51-60.)
`
`
`
`(EX1004[Baretz] Figure 2.)
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`U. S. PATENT NO. 8,309,375
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Baretz discloses that a wide variety of suitable “fluorescer(s) and/or
`
`phosphor(s)” may be dispersed within the down-converting medium 20, and in
`
`“suitable amounts [that] can be readily determined without undue experimentation,
`
`to provide good white light emission (of virtually any tint or hue), as well as a
`
`virtually infinite series of chromaticity for all visible hues.” (EX1002[Prucnal]
`
`¶80; EX1004[Baretz] 9:39-50, 10:66-11:7.)
`
`As explained in greater detail in la