`
`Exhibit 092-1
`
`
`The following chart demonstrates that asserted claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,855,092 (the “’092 patent”) are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175 (“Baretz”),
`and obvious in view of Baretz alone or in combination with one or more of the following
`references:
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,796,376 (“Banks”)
` U.S. Patent No. 3,699,478 (“Pinnow”)
` U.S. Patent No. 6,245,259 (“Hohn”)
` Pinnow et al., Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light for Black and White
`and Multicolor Displays, Applied Optics, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1971) (“Pinnow
`Publication”)
` J.M. Robertson et al., Colourshift of the CE3+ Emission in Monocrystalline
`Epitaxially Grown Garnet Layers, Philips J. Res. 36 (1981) (“Robertson”)
` L.G. Van Uitert et al., “Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light for Black
`and White and Multicolor Displays. 1: Materials” Applied Optics Vol. 10, No. 1
`(1971) (“Van Uitert”)
` M.V. Hoffman, “Improved Color Rendition in High Pressure Mercury Vapor
`Lamps,” Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, Vol. 6, No. 2 (1977)
`(“Hoffman”)
` G. Blasse et al., “Luminescent Materials,” Springer-Verlag (1994) (“Blasse”)
` Schlotter et al., Luminescence Conversion of Blue Light Emitting Diodes, Applied
`Physics A 64, 417-18 (Feb. 27, 1997) (“Schlotter”)
`
`
`The analysis in this chart is based on the apparent claim constructions and interpretations
`that Nichia has advanced to allege infringement of the asserted claims of the ’092 patent,
`as set forth in Nichia’s Supplemental Infringement Contentions served December 29,
`2016 and Nichia’s Third Amended and Supplemented Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted
`Claims and Infringement Contentions served September 14, 2017. Nothing in this chart
`should be interpreted as VIZIO conceding that Nichia’s apparent claim constructions and
`interpretations are correct or supported by intrinsic or extrinsic evidence.
`
`The analysis in this chart is preliminary, and VIZIO’s investigation into the invalidity of
`the asserted claims of the ’092 patent is ongoing. VIZIO reserves the right to provide
`additional theories under which the cited prior art anticipates or renders obvious the
`asserted claims of the ’092 patent. The citations to specific disclosure of the prior art
`references in this chart are exemplary, and VIZIO reserves the right to rely on additional
`disclosures to the same references. VIZIO also reserves the right to offer expert
`testimony and opinions explaining how a person of skill in the art would understand the
`disclosures of the cited prior art references.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 092-1, Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`converting dye in the luminophoric medium 20 contained within
`enclosure 11 (FIG. 1), or by a down-converting dye in the interior
`film 9 on the interior wall surface of housing wall 7 (FIG. 2), to
`responsively produce white (or full color) light.”).
`
`Alternatively, to the extent Baretz does not expressly or inherently
`disclose the blue color light and the light from said phosphor being
`mixed to make the white-color, it would have been obvious to
`modify Baretz to include this limitation in view of the knowledge of
`a person of ordinary skill in the art or in combination with Pinnow.
`
`Pinnow discloses a YAG phosphor that, when combined with the
`blue emitting LED disclosed in Baretz, would produce white light as
`claimed. For example:
`
`Abstract (“A black and white display is produced by projection
`using a scanning argon laser beam operating at 4,880 A and a
`phosphorescent screen of cerium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet
`which emits a broad range of frequencies centering about 5,500 A.
`The yellowish cast of the phosphor output is compensated by a
`small amount of reflected blue argon light.”),
`
`1:33-40 (“The system depends upon the use of a phosphorescent
`screen of cerium-activated garnet energized by a laser emitting in
`the visible at a somewhat shorter wavelength than the bulk of the
`emission from the screen. In a preferred arrangement yttrium
`aluminum garnet containing cerium is used.”),
`
`1:48-49 (“The cerium-activated phosphor emits over a broad range
`of wavelengths centering about 5,500 A.”),
`
`2:2-16 (FIG. 1, on coordinates of relative intensity based on a
`maximum scale value of 100, and wavelength in microns, is a plot
`of the emission and associated excitation spectra for unmodified
`cerium-doped YAG…[¶]…Referring again to FIG. 1, the data
`presented are the emission and related excitation spectra for cerium-
`doped YAG. The emission spectrum is in broken outline with the
`broad peak of concern having its maximum value at a wavelength of
`about 0.55 micron.”),
`
`3:1-5 (“As seen from Fig. 1, the emission for YAG:Ce3+ is quite
`broad with a peak at about 0.55 micron”),
`
`4:26-36 (“In the unmodified YAG:Ce system using an argon or
`cadmium laser, white images may result by compensation of the
`secondary yellow cast emission by some reflection of the shorter
`
`Exhibit 092-1, Page 13
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`wavelength laser emission. Under these circumstances it is desired
`to design layer thicknesses and compositions or provide for some
`reflection such that total absorption does not result.”)
`
`Modifying Baretz to include YAG phosphor would have been
`nothing more than a combination of known elements according to
`known techniques to yield predictable results, such as the
`combination of Baretz’s LED with Pinnow’s phosphor. It also
`would have been a simple substitution of one known element for
`another, such as a simple substitution of the phosphor disclosed in
`Pinnow for the phosphor disclosed in Baretz. Persons of skill in the
`art were familiar with using different phosphors as substitutes, and
`there would have been nothing surprising or unexpected about
`modifying Baretz to use a phosphor with the claimed characteristics.
`The combination would also have been obvious to try as one of a
`finite number of known solutions for phosphors that achieved the
`benefits Baretz was seeking, and in particular phosphors capable of
`withstanding the operating conditions of the LEDs disclosed in
`Baretz. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to modify Baretz to include a phosphor like Pinnow’s
`cerium-doped YAG phosphor because of its known and predictable
`advantages, such as improved color output and color rendering, and
`ability to withstand harsh operating conditions.
`
`Exemplary details of why it would have been obvious to combine
`the teachings of these references are set forth below:
`
`First, Baretz and Pinnow are in the same field of endeavor as the
`‘092 patent and pertinent to the problem the inventors were trying to
`solve. The ‘092 patent is generally directed to creating white
`light, by combining light emitted from a solid-state device (such as
`an LED) and light emitted from a phosphor. Baretz is in this same
`field because it discloses creating white light by combining a blue
`light-emitting LED with light emitting from a down-converting
`phosphor. Baretz at 9:4-9. Pinnow, likewise, is in the same field of
`endeavor addressed by the ‘092 patent – the partial down-
`conversion of blue light to make white light. Pinnow at Abstract,
`1:44-49. In addition, Pinnow discloses systems for down converting
`blue light to generate white light using a source of light emitting
`within the excitation spectrum of YAG phosphor. Pinnow at
`Abstract, 2:14-26, 4:26-33, Fig.1. In addition. the fact that YAG
`was used in the prior art to improve and modify blue light sources
`from lasers, high pressure mercury vapor lamps, and low pressure
`mercury vapor lamps suggests the obviousness of using YAG for
`blue LEDs. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been
`used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`Exhibit 092-1, Page 14
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application
`is beyond that person’s skill.”).
`
` A
`
` POSITA would have been aware, and would have considered,
`prior work published in the field of phosphors used with other light
`sources like Pinnow. A POSITA would not have ignored Pinnow
`simply because it related primarily to a laser, and not an LED. He
`or she would have understood that the fundamental principles
`discussed in Pinnow – that a YAG phosphor will emit a yellow light
`when excited by a blue light – are as applicable to a LED as they are
`to a laser. Pinnow’s teachings are a fundamental aspect of optics,
`and would have been considered as being in the same field of
`endeavor as the ‘092 patent.
`
`Second, Pinnow’s relevance to the field of the ‘092 patent has
`already been considered by the Federal Circuit in In re Cree, 828
`F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In that case, the Federal Circuit affirmed
`the unpatentability of Baretz, based, in part, to another patent to
`Pinnow, U.S. Patent No. 3,691,482. Like Pinnow here, the ‘482
`patent disclosed a display system that “creates black and white
`images using a combination of a blue laser and appropriate
`phosphors.” In re Cree, 828 F.3d at 697. The Federal Circuit
`affirmed the Board’s rulings that a POSITA “is not going to fail to
`appreciate the other teachings in Pinnow simply because a laser is
`used as the primary light source, because the phosphors cannot tell
`from what light source a wavelength of
`light comes.” Id. at 699.
`
`The Federal Circuit expressly found that the Board’s conclusion that
`Pinnow would “work with blue light of any source . . . was an
`entirely reasonable conclusion to draw from Pinnow.” Id.,700. The
`Federal Circuit also found that “the examiner pointed to ample
`evidence that Pinnow’s teachings are applicable to LEDs,” and
`specifically, that “the phosphors’ ability to convert the UV-to-blue
`light is predicated only on whether or not it can absorb a given
`wavelength of light, not on which kind of light source a particular
`wavelength of light is emitted, laser, LED, or otherwise,
`as a [POSITA] would readily appreciate.” Id.,701. Put more
`succinctly, “in other words, a phosphor does not care how an
`incident photon of light at a particular wavelength is generated.” Id.
`
`Third, the evidence shows that there are very few phosphors that
`absorb blue, emit yellow and operate under the harsh conditions,
`which, as Baretz acknowledges, are present in an LED and may lead
`to degradation of certain phosphors. A POSITA would have been
`
`Exhibit 092-1, Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aware of a discrete number of well-known phosphors that were
`capable of surviving in such harsh environments. Nichia’s own
`expert confirmed this fact in the Everlight litigation when he
`conceded that “stringent requirements required for the phosphor to
`be used with a blue LED strongly limited the choice of potential
`phosphors.”
`
`The YAG phosphor disclosed Pinnow is one such phosphor. Not
`only was YAG one of only a few phosphors that met the above
`requirements, it was widely known to be the single best phosphor in
`such circumstances—no other phosphor at that time had YAG’s
`properties, and even today, it is the standard by which new
`phosphors are gauged. A POSITA would have understood that
`YAG was one of the few phosphors that could overcome the
`deterioration problems relevant to Baretz. Thus, the YAG phosphor
`disclosed in Pinnow would have been one of a “finite number of
`identified, predictable solutions” and a POSITA would have had
`“good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`technical grasp.” KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
`
`Fourth, there is no teaching away of the proposed combination
`because both references address the same issue – namely down
`conversion of a blue light source to make white light. Both
`references relate to using phosphors to change the color of light
`emitted from a monochromatic light source to create white light.
`Both references are in the same field, aimed at the same problems,
`have similar design incentives, and use similar techniques to satisfy
`that goal. Rather than teaching away, as described here and above,
`the references’ express teachings towards the same problem would
`motivate one in the art to combine their teachings.
`
`Fifth, it would have been a predictable combination to combine the
`blue light LED of Baretz with the YAG phosphor disclosed in
`Pinnow. The emission spectrum of Baretz’s “gallium nitride based
`LED[,] which exhibits blue light emission with an emission
`maximum at approximately 450nm with a FWHM of approximately
`65nm,” almost completely overlaps with the excitation spectrum of
`Pinnow’s YAG:Ce, and falls in between the cadmium ion laser line
`and the argon ion laser line that Pinnow teaches is suitable for use
`with YAG:Ce.
`
`Like Baretz, Pinnow further teaches that the yellow light emitted by
`the YAG:Ce phosphor mixes with the blue light from the blue light
`source to make white light. While Baretz discloses examples of
`phosphors that may be used to make the white light LED, Baretz
`also discloses “suitable materials” for the down-converting material
`
`Exhibit 092-1, Page 16
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`“is not specifically limited, and suitable amount(s) of suitable
`material(s) for such purpose can be readily determined without
`undue experimentation.” Baretz at 10:66-11:7. A person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Pinnow’s
`YAG:Ce is one of these “suitable materials.”
`
` POSITA would also have readily understood that combining
`Baretz’s LED with Pinnow’s YAG phosphor would have been an
`obvious design choice to make white light with a single phosphor
`and single blue light source. Pinnow discloses harsh operating
`conditions similar to those experience by an LED like the one
`disclosed in Baretz, and therefore would be capable of meeting
`Baretz’s operating requirements. The combined teachings of Baretz
`and Pinnow would not have resulted in any inoperable
`combination because it would simply be adding a more specific
`source of yellow light (YAG:Ce), which mixes with the blue light
`from the blue light source to make white light as taught by Baretz.
`
`Sixth, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to use Pinnow’s YAG:Ce in Baretz for a white light LED.
`The conversion of the blue light by the phosphor YAG:Ce is the
`same for the sources of light of Baretz and Pinnow (i.e. an LED or
`laser). Indeed, Baretz identifies both blue LEDs and blue lasers as
`solid state devices suitable for “generating the primary radiation
`which subsequently is down converted to a longer wavelength
`radiation.” Baretz at 7:45-54, 12:25-38.
`
`Moreover, Pinnow discloses that the emission spectrum for the
`YAG:Ce phosphor is “quite broad.” Pinnow at 3:3-8. Baretz
`discloses that a broad emission spectrum, such as the emission
`spectrum of Pinnow’s YAG:Ce, is a “significant advantage” for
`generating white light because the “relatively broad emission
`bandwidth … offers the maximum overlap of photon wavelengths to
`most readily generate a white illumination. Baretz at 8:44-47.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that
`Baretz’s blue LED chip, with an emission maximum at 450nm, is a
`good match for Pinnow’s YAG:Ce because it coincides with
`Pinnow’s YAG:Ce excitation spectrum at a relative intensity of
`greater than 80, as compared to the relative intensity of the argon
`and cadmium laser disclosed in Pinnow. See Baretz at 9:10-18.
`
` A
`
` A
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art would have also be motivated to
`use Pinnow’s YAG:Ce phosphor in Baretz to make a white light
`LED because of the well-known advantages of YAG:CE in lighting
`and display applications. See, e.g., Van Uitert at 150-151, Hoffman
`at 91, and Robertson at 471-72. For example, Van Uitert explains
`
`Exhibit 092-1, Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`
`
`[1.E] (ii) a control
`unit for converting
`an input to pulse
`signals,
`
`(iii) a driver
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that YAG:Ce’s “quantum efficiency of approximately 70%” “make
`YAG:Ce very attractive for display screen applications,” which
`Baretz discloses is a desired application for white light LEDs.
`
`Additionally, YAG:Ce was well known to be able to withstand
`harsh operating conditions and can withstand temperatures up to
`300ºC. This characteristic would have made YAG:Ce an
`appropriate phosphor for the applications disclosed in Baretz, which
`recognized that degradation of phosphor was a concern. Baretz at
`5:2-8, 9:65-66.
`
`Furthermore, in reexamination No. 90/010,940, the PTAB
`determined that it would have been obvious in March 1996 to
`combine Pinnow’s teachings with Nakamura’s newly disclosed blue
`LED to make white light. The Federal Circuit affirmed that ruling,
`noting the Board’s view that “the invention was ‘nothing more than
`a new application of a high-power, high-brightness blue LED
`developed by Dr. Nakamura in late 1993’” that “was predictable in
`view of the state of the art in LEDs, the market demand for white
`light devices, the finite number of identified means to convert light
`from LEDs into white light, and the advantages of using the down-
`conversion approach.” In re Cree, 828 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir.
`2016). This holding confirms that it would have been obvious to
`combine the teachings of Baretz and Pinnow as discussed above.
`
`Finally, the prior art also demonstrates the simultaneous invention
`of LEDs that combined blue light emitting LED chips and YAG:Ce
`phosphors. In February 1997, Schlotter reported on the fabrication
`of white-light emitting LEDs with blue light emitting gallium nitride
`chips and YAG:Ce phosphor having the same characteristics as the
`claimed invention. See Schlotter at 417-418, Fig. 5. In a
`contemporaneous patent application, Schlotter and his colleagues
`explained the widely accepted benefits of combining YAG:Ce
`phosphor with recently developed high-power blue-light emitting
`LED chips, such as color and temperature stability. See Hohn at
`1:65-7:41. The evidence of simultaneous invention demonstrates
`that persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`found it obvious to combine known YAG:Ce phosphors with
`recently blue LED chips like those disclosed in Baretz.
`
`Baretz discloses a control unit for converting an input to pulse
`signals and a driver receiving said pulse signals from said control
`unit to drive said LED chip, such that the brightness of the white-
`color light from said light emitting diode is controlled by a width of
`said pulse signals. For example:
`
`
`Exhibit 092-1, Page 18
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`
`
`receiving said pulse
`signals from said
`control unit to drive
`said LED chip,
`
`wherein the
`brightness of the
`white-color light
`from said light
`emitting diode is
`controlled by a
`width of said pulse
`signals.
`
`
`
`Abstract (“A light emitting assembly comprising a solid state
`device ….”),
`
`1:6-8 (“This invention relates to solid state light emitting devices
`such as light emitting diodes and more particularly to such devices
`which produce white light.”),
`
`8:58-62 (“…FIG. 1 shows a white light emitting diode assembly
`10….”),
`
`9:51-57 (“Such a light emitting assembly is shown in FIG. 2,
`wherein the same general structure is shown as in FIG. 1….”),
`
`11:33-52 (“FIG. 4 illustrates the use of white light emitting diode
`device assemblies 10 of a type as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, arranged
`in an array comprising a regular pattern of such assemblies, as
`components of a display 30, or alternatively for a back light
`illumination panel for a structure such as a liquid crystal display.
`The individual assemblies 10 may be selectively illuminated, by
`imposing a desired turn-on voltage across the first and second
`electrical conductors 16 and 17 (not shown in FIG. 4; see
`FIGS. 1 and 2), to display a message or design in a manner well
`understood in the art. The selective illumination of the component
`light emitting assemblies 10 of the FIG. 4 display is suitably
`controlled by a controller 31 in response to user input. The
`individual light emitting assemblies 10 of FIGS. 1 and 2 are
`connected electrically with suitable electrical circuitry (not shown)
`in display 30, in a manner analogous to that used for displays
`utilizing flurorescent or incandescent lamps. Alternatively, all of the
`component light emitting assemblies 10 may be illuminated
`simultaneously for back lighting applications.”),
`
`Fig. 4.
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`Exhibit 092-1, Page 19
`
`
`
` A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would have understood that LED-based liquid crystal display and
`controller disclosed in Baretz includes a control unit for converting
`an input to pulse signals and a driver receiving said pulse signals
`from said control unit to drive said LED chip, such that the
`brightness of the white-color light from said light emitting diode is
`controlled by a width of said pulse signals. This was a known and
`inherent feature of LED-based liquid crystal displays at the time of
`the invention.
`
`Alternatively, to the extent Baretz does not expressly or inherently
`disclose a control unit for converting an input to pulse signals and a
`driver receiving said pulse signals from said control unit to drive
`said LED chip, such that the brightness of the white-color light from
`said light emitting diode is controlled by a width of said pulse
`signals, it would have been obvious to modify Baretz to include this
`limitation in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in
`the art or in combination with Banks.
`
`Banks discloses a control unit for converting an input to pulse
`signals and a driver receiving said pulse signals from said control
`unit to drive said LED chip, such that the brightness of the white-
`color light from said light emitting diode is controlled by a width of
`said pulse signals. For example:
`
`2:28-32 (“It is a further object of the present invention to provide an
`electronic display sign wherein at least one display panel is
`controlled by a sign controller which transmits data signals over a
`system bus in order to effect and control the display of an image on
`the at least one display panel.”),
`
`4:20-36 (“In order to facilitate flexible and convenient operation,
`the sign is connected to a display generator 30 which in turn
`includes an external control 32. In accordance with the preferred
`embodiment of the invention, the display generator 30 and the
`external control 32 comprise a personal computer equipped with
`software which is capable of generating a bitmap representation of
`the sign display. The software preferably permits the use of a bitmap
`editor where the user may create graphics using a mouse in a
`freehand style. The bitmap editor also preferably permits a user to
`place bitmap representations of ASCII characters at a position
`indicated with a mouse or pointer on a digitized pad. The software is
`preferably also capable of building scroll displays, creating display
`sequences, and receiving digitized scanner images and/or graphic
`files and formating such images for display in pixel form on the
`electronic display sign 20.”),
`
`
`Exhibit 092-1, Page 20
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`