UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC.,
`LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC AND L G SOURCING, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORP.,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`
`“Light Emitting Device and Display”
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,915,631
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’631 PATENT ........................................................... 4
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE EVERLIGHT LITIGATION .................................... 6
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 7
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 7
`A.
`“transparent material”........................................................................... 8
`B.
`“diffuses” .............................................................................................. 9
`VI. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM ............................................................................. 10
`VII. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2)) ........................ 10
`VIII. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .............................................................. 11
`A.
`Principles of Color Mixing ................................................................. 11
`B.
`Phosphors are Commonly Used to Create White and Different
`Light Colors ........................................................................................ 12
`In 1996, YAG Phosphors Were Well Known for Converting
`Blue Emissions to Yellow in Lighting Products, Especially
`Under Harsh Operating Conditions .................................................... 13
`Emergence of Commercially Viable Blue LEDs ............................... 14
`The Blue Plus Yellow Approach to Making a White LED was a
`Natural and Obvious Progression ....................................................... 15
`IX. SUMMARY OF THE CITED PRIOR ART ................................................ 17
`A.
`Baretz .................................................................................................. 17
`B.
`Shimizu ............................................................................................... 17
`C. Matoba ................................................................................................ 19
`D.
`Pinnow ................................................................................................ 19
`E.
`The 1995 Nakamura Reference .......................................................... 20
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 21
`
`D.
`E.
`
`C.
`
`X.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`A. Ground 1: Baretz, Shimizu, and Matoba Render Claims 1-2, 6,
`and 10-11 Obvious ............................................................................. 21
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 22
`(a) Baretz Discloses 1.Pre. .................................................. 22
`(b) Baretz Discloses 1a ........................................................ 23
`(c) Baretz Discloses 1b ....................................................... 24
`(d) Baretz and Shimizu Disclose 1c .................................... 25
`(i)
`Baretz ................................................................... 25
`(ii) Shimizu ................................................................ 28
`(iii) Motivation to Combine Baretz and Shimizu ....... 30
`(e) Baretz Discloses 1d ....................................................... 30
`(f) Matoba Discloses 1e ...................................................... 30
`(g) Baretz Discloses 1f ........................................................ 31
`(h) A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated To
`Combine Baretz, Shimizu, and Matoba and Had a
`Reasonable Expectation of Success In So Doing .......... 33
`Baretz Discloses Claim 2 ......................................................... 36
`2.
`Baretz Discloses Claim 6 ......................................................... 36
`3.
`Baretz Discloses Claim 10 ....................................................... 37
`4.
`Baretz Discloses Claim 11 ....................................................... 37
`5.
`B. Ground 2: Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Pinnow Render
`Claims 7-8 Obvious ............................................................................ 38
`(a) A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated To
`Combine Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Pinnow
`And Had A Reasonable Expectation Of Success In
`So Doing ........................................................................ 39
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 7 ....................................................... 46
`2.
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 8 ....................................................... 46
`3.
`C. Ground 3: Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Nakamura Render
`Claim 9 Obvious ................................................................................. 47
`1.
`Nakamura Discloses Claim 9 ................................................... 47
`
`iii
`
`

`

`2.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated To Combine
`Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Nakamura And Had a
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ......................................... 48
`D. Ground 4: Matoba, Shimizu, and Pinnow Render Claims 1, 6-8,
`and 10-11 Obvious ............................................................................. 50
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 51
`(a) Matoba Discloses 1.Pre ................................................. 51
`(b) Matoba Discloses 1b ...................................................... 52
`(c) Matoba, Shimizu, and Pinnow Disclose 1c ................... 53
`(i) Matoba discloses the claimed phosphor,
`absorbing LED light, and emitting light of a
`different wavelength ............................................ 53
`(ii) Shimizu discloses absorbing a “part” of the
`LED light ............................................................. 54
`(iii) Pinnow discloses absorbing a “part” of the
`blue emission from the light source .................... 55
`(iv) A POSITA would have been motivated to
`combine Matoba, Shimizu, and Pinnow with
`a reasonable expectation of success .................... 56
`Shimizu Discloses 1d ..................................................... 62
`(d)
`(e) Matoba Discloses 1e ...................................................... 62
`(f) Matoba Discloses 1f ...................................................... 63
`Shimizu Discloses Claim 6 ...................................................... 65
`2.
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 7 ....................................................... 65
`3.
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 8 ....................................................... 65
`4.
`Shimizu Discloses Claim 10 .................................................... 65
`5.
`6. Matoba Discloses Claim 11 ..................................................... 66
`XI. MANDATORY NOTICES .......................................................................... 66
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................. 66
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ........................................... 67
`1.
`Related Patent Office Proceedings........................................... 67
`2.
`Related Litigation ..................................................................... 67
`
`iv
`
`

`

`XII. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ..................................................... 68
`XIII. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R §§
`42.101, 42.104, and 42.108) ......................................................................... 69
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.101(a)-(c)) ..................................................................................... 69
`XIV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 69
`
`v
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Cree,
`818 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................... 4, 20, 41, 42, 45, 46, 58, 59, 61, 62
`
`In re Cree,
`828 F.3d at 699 ........................................................................................... 3, 4, 61
`
`Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc.,
`342 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Geo M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC,
`618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 45, 61
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 8
`
`KSR v. Teleflex,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 39, 40, 58
`
`Panel Claw, Inc. v. Sunpower Corp.,
`IPR2014-00386, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. June 30, 2014) ...................................... 7
`
`Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc.,
`491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 18
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Arunachalam,
`CBM2016- 00081 ................................................................................................. 6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ....................................................................................... 17, 19, 20
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) .................................................................................................... 17
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a)-(b) ........................................................................................... 69
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ................................................................................................ 68
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................. 68
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R §§ 42.101, 42.104, and 42.108 ................................................................. 69
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.101(a)-(c) ....................................................................................... 69
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................... 69
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) ............................................................................................ 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`vii
`
`

`

`LIST OF PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS
`
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Ex.1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631 to Shimizu et al.
`
`Ex.1002
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631
`
`Ex.1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Eric Bretschneider
`
`Ex.1004
`
`Declaration of Coral Sheldon-Hess
`
`Ex.1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175 (“Baretz”)
`
`Ex.1006
`
`Japanese Examined Patent Application Publication No. H08-7614
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`
`Ex.1010
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Ex.1012
`
`Certified Translation of Japanese Examined Patent Application
`Publication No. H08-7614 (“Shimizu”)
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. H07-
`99345
`Certified Translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`Publication No. H07-99345 (“Matoba”)
`Japanese Laid Open Patent Application Publication No. H05-
`152609
`Certified Translation of Japanese Laid Open Patent Application
`Publication No. H05-152609 (“Tadatsu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,699,478 to Pinnow et al. (“Pinnow”)
`
`Ex.1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,816,576 to Auzel (“Auzel”)
`
`Ex.1014
`
`Ex.1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,376 to Banks (“Banks”)
`Nakamura et. al., “High-power InGaN single-quantum-well-
`structure blue and violet light-emitting diodes,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 67
`(13), 25 September 1995 (“Nakamura”)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`G. Blasse et al., “Luminescent Materials,” Springer-Verlag (New
`Ex.1016
`York), 1994 (“Blasse”)
`Ex.1017 W. O’Mara, “Liquid Crystal Flat Panel Displays,” Van Nostrand
`Reinhold, New York (1993)
`German Patent Application No. DE 19638667 A1 to Schlotter et al.
`
`Ex.1018
`
`Ex.1019
`
`Ex.1020
`
`Ex.1021
`
`Ex.1022
`
`Ex.1023
`
`Ex.1024
`
`Ex.1025
`
`Ex.1026
`
`Ex.1027
`
`Ex.1028
`
`Ex.1029
`
`Certified Translation of German Patent Application No. DE
`19638667 A1 to Schlotter et al. (“Osram”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,078,732 to Reeh et al.
`M. Hoffman, “Improved color rendition in high pressure mercury
`vapor lamps,” Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, Vol.
`6 No. 2, Jan. 1997 (“Hoffman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,691,482 to Pinnow et al.
`
`H. Rossotti, “Colour,” Princeton University Press, 1983
`(“Rossotti”)
`S. Nakamura et al., “Candela-class high brightness InGaN/AlGaN
`double-heterostructure blue-light emitting diodes,” Applied Physics
`Letters, No. 64 No. 13 (Mar. 28, 1994) (“Nakamura II”)
`G. Blasse et al., “A New Phosphor for Flying-Spot Cathode-Ray
`Tubes for Color Television: Yellow-Emitting Y3Al5O12-Ce3+,
`Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 11 No. 2 (Jul. 15, 1967)
`G. Blasse et al, “Investigation of Some Ce3+-Activated Phosphors,”
`The Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 47 No. 12 (Dec. 15, 1967)
`D.A. Pinnow et al., “Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light
`for Black and White and Multicolor Displays,” Applied Optics (Jan.
`1971)
`Herbert Maruska, Dissertation, Gallium Nitride Light-Emitting
`Diodes, Chapter 1 (Nov. 1974) (“Maruska”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,727,283 to van Kemenade et al. (“Phillips”)
`
`Ex.1030
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,740,570 to Kaelin et al.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Ex.1031
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,090,189 to Fisler
`
`Ex.1032
`
`Ex.1033
`
`Ex.1034
`
`Ex.1035
`
`Ex.1036
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,819,974 to Stevenson et al.
`Class for Physics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
`“Efficient Blue Light-Emitting Diodes Leading to Bright and
`Energy-Saving White Light Sources,” Kungl. Vetenskaps-
`Akademien (Oct. 7, 2014)
`Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Everlight et al. v. Nichia Corp. et
`al., Appeal Nos. 2016-1577, -1611 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2016)
`Trial Transcript in Everlight et al. v. Nichia Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-
`11758 (E.D.Mich. Apr. 17, 2015)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,531,960 to Shimizu et al (“’960 patent”)
`
`Ex.1037
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,998,925 to Shimizu et al (“’925 patent”)
`
`Ex.1038
`
`Ex.1039
`
`Ex.1040
`
`BASF – The Chemical Company: Lumogen® F Yellow 083 Data
`Sheet
`BASF – The Chemical Company: Lumogen® F Orange 240 Data
`Sheet
`Sinloihi’s EL Color Conversion Pigment – FA-000 Series
`
`Ex.1041
`
`Institution Decision in IPR2017-00551
`
`Ex.1042
`
`Institution Decision in IPR2017-00552
`
`Ex.1043
`
`Institution Decision in IPR2017-00556
`
`Ex.1044
`
`Institution Decision in IPR2017-00558
`
`Ex.1045
`
`MARC Record for Blasse
`
`Ex.1046
`
`MARC Record for O’Mara
`
`Ex.1047
`
`MARC Record for Rossotti
`
`x
`
`

`

`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.,
`
`Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC and L G Sourcing, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Lowe’s Petitioners”) respectfully submit this Petition for IPR
`
`(“Petition”) seeking cancellation of claims 1-2 and 6-11 (“the Challenged Claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,915,631 (“the ’631 patent”), which is assigned to Nichia Corp.
`
`(“PO”), over the same art and substantially identical arguments presented by TCL
`
`Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd. and TTE Technology, Inc. in their Petition
`
`for IPR submitted in IPR2017-02000. Blue Coat Sys, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., No.
`
`IPR2016-00480, Paper 9 at 2-6 (PTAB Jun. 24, 2016); Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Sec.
`
`Sols., Inc., No. IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 6 (PTAB July 29, 2013) (granting
`
`petition and joinder request where petition used identical arguments and same
`
`expert and arguments as another entity).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’631 patent is part of PO’s attempt to monopolize the basic notion of
`
`mixing blue and yellow to create white, as applied to LEDs. However, the ’631
`
`patent did not advance LED art in any discernible way. The true breakthrough
`
`occurred shortly before PO’s alleged invention—when Prof. Nakamura invented
`
`high intensity blue light LEDs after a 20-year industry-wide struggle to do so. As
`
`PO’s expert in related district court litigation acknowledged, Nakamura’s new blue
`
`LEDs “were what gave everyone the incentive to move forward to create a simple
`
`1
`
`

`

`blue plus yellow LED that emits white light.” Ex.1035, 144:4-145:25. In fact,
`
`Nichia’s litigation expert explained that “after the demonstration of the blue LED,
`
`the development of the white LED was unstoppable.” Id., 153:16-19.
`
`PO’s expert testified in litigation involving USPNs 5,998,925 (“’925
`
`patent”) and 7,531,960 (“’960 patent) asserted against LED manufacturer
`
`Everlight Electronics Co., where all asserted claims—including claims reciting a
`
`blue LED combined with a yellow phosphor to make white light using the partial
`
`down conversion approach were found invalid over the prior art. Undeterred by
`
`that ruling, PO now asserts the related ’631 patent, which claims priority to the
`
`application leading to the ’925 patent, against numerous LED customers.
`
`However, like the asserted claims of the ’925/’960 patents, the ’631 patent
`
`claims are invalid over the prior art.
`
`The evidence here reveals that the immediate and obvious development of
`
`blue LEDs with yellow phosphors occurred after Nakamura’s blue LEDs became
`
`commercially available in about 1994. By 1995, prior art publications disclosed
`
`the combination of the new blue LED with phosphors that partially absorbed the
`
`blue light to make yellow light that was then mixed with the remaining blue LED
`
`emission to make white light. And, by September 1996, Siemens AG’s lighting
`
`group Osram-Sylvania had already developed a white LED using the new blue
`
`LED with the preferred “yttrium aluminum garnet,” or “YAG,” phosphor of the
`
`2
`
`

`

`’631 patent. Ex.1019. The selection and combination of YAG phosphor with the
`
`new blue LED required no more than routine skill, as YAG was one of the few
`
`yellow phosphors known to absorb blue light while also withstanding harsh
`
`operating conditions, as taught in both the Hoffman and Pinnow references.
`
`In fact, 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 at 699. The Federal Circuit
`
`further agreed with the Board’s combination of Nakamura’s blue LED with
`
`Pinnow:
`
`teaches a down
`that Pinnow
`The Board found
`conversion process for creating white light that would
`work with blue light of any source, including the blue
`LEDs disclosed in Nakamura. That was an entirely
`reasonable conclusion to draw from Pinnow. Therefore
`the Board was correct when it said that it was “known”
`to create white light from LEDs using down-conversion,
`as Pinnow teaches a down-conversion process that was
`understood to be equally applicable when used with an
`LED light source as with the laser source specifically
`3
`
`

`

`used in Pinnow.
`Id. at 700. Pinnow teaches the use of a YAG phosphor to partially down-convert
`
`blue laser emission light to make white light. Ex.1012, Abstract, 1:38-43, 4:25-36.
`
`The Lowe’s Petitioners note that the Board denied institution on other
`
`patents in the ’631 family, based primarily on Petitioner Vizio’s failure to show
`
`that Baretz and Pinnow were analogous art. IPR2017-00558, Paper 9; IPR2017-
`
`00556, Paper 9. Here, as in In re Cree, the record shows the applicability of
`
`Pinnow to blue LEDs.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’631 PATENT
`
`The ’631 patent generally describes the well-known idea of an LED that
`
`combines a light-emitting source with a phosphor to convert the wavelength of
`
`the light from the source into a different wavelength. Ex.1001, 1:27-31. The ’631
`
`patent describes the new Nakamura blue LED and further explains that prior art
`
`“Kokai” publications have already taught combining the new blue LED with
`
`yellow phosphors. Id., 2:5-29.
`
`Figure 1 shows an embodiment of the present invention with a blue LED
`
`chip surrounded by both coating material (yellow below) and molding material
`
`(gray below). The ’631 patent discloses that “the phosphor may be contained
`
`either in the molding material or in the coating material…[or] in both the coating
`
`material and the molding material.” Id., 16:33- 37, 16:60-62, 16:65-17:4, 17:9-11.
`
`4
`
`

`

`The application leading to the ’631 patent (Application No. 12/548,618) was
`
`filed on August 27, 2009, claiming domestic priority to Application No.
`
`08/902,725, filed on Jul. 29, 1997, now USPN 5,998,925, and foreign priority to
`
`various Japanese patent applications, the earliest of which was filed on July 29,
`
`1996. Ex.1002. The ’631 patent issued on March 29, 2011, without any Office
`
`Actions or amendments to the claims during prosecution. Id.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE EVERLIGHT LITIGATION
`
`As noted above, Nichia asserted the ’925 and ’960 patents against Everlight
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Michigan. The asserted claims in
`
`5
`
`

`

`that litigation are very similar to those of the ’631 patent.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’631 patent is directed to making white light
`
`using a blue LED and a down-converting phosphor capable of absorbing a part
`
`of the blue LED emission with the phosphor concentrated near the blue LED chip.
`
`Claim 2 of the ’960 patent recites these same elements. Based on the prior art, the
`
`jury determined that the combination of elements in claim 2 of the ’960 patent
`
`was obvious and the court entered judgment of invalidity for that claim.
`
`Similarly, like claim 7 of the ’631 patent, claim 2 of the ’925 patent requires the
`
`specific use of YAG phosphor in combination with a blue LED. The jury found
`
`that such combination was also obvious.
`
`Based on the principles of collateral estoppel, the determination that the
`
`subject matter of the claims at issue in the Everlight litigation was obvious over the
`
`prior art is binding against Nichia. See SAP Am., Inc. v. Arunachalam, CBM2016-
`
`00081, Paper 12 at 4-5 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2016) (applying traditional test for
`
`collateral estoppel as set forth in Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc., 342 F.3d 1320, 1323
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003)). Thus, Nichia should not be able to assert, for example, that it
`
`was not obvious to combine the new Nakamura blue LED with YAG phosphor to
`
`make white light using a partial down-conversion approach.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The art to which the ’631 patent is directed is the field of optics and/or LED
`
`6
`
`

`

`technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art related to the ’631 patent would
`
`have had at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering, material science, chemistry or
`
`electrical engineering, and approximately four to five years of professional or
`
`research experience in the field of optics and/or LED technology, or an advanced
`
`degree (such as a Masters or Ph.D.) in one of those areas with little to no
`
`experience working in the field of LED technology. Ex.1003, ¶75.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The ’631 patent’s earliest domestic priority date is July 29, 1997, and
`
`therefore, is due to expire within 18 months from the entry of the Notice of Filing
`
`Date Accorded to the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 154; 37 C.F.R. § 41.100(b). When
`
`considering an expired patent, like the ’631 patent, the claims are construed
`
`using the district-court-type Phillips standard. Panel Claw, Inc. v. Sunpower
`
`Corp.,
`
`IPR2014-00386, Paper No. 7 at 7 (P.T.A.B. June 30, 2014).
`
`Accordingly, t h e Lowe’s Petitioners apply district court-type claim construction
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`The Lowe’s Petitioners submit that the terms of the ’631 patent should be
`
`given their ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art under the
`
`district-court-type standard. However, PO has argued in the Litigation that the
`
`terms “transparent material” (claims 1 and 11) and “diffuses” (claim 1) should
`
`be interpreted inconsistent with their ordinary meanings. The Lowe’s Petitioners
`
`7
`
`

`

`therefore provide the ordinary meaning for those terms below. The Lowe’s
`
`Petitioners reserve the right to respond, and/or to offer alternative constructions, to
`
`any proposed claim term constructions offered by Patent Owner.1
`
`A.
`
`“transparent material”
`
`Claims 1 and 11 of the ’631 patent recite “transparent material.” This
`
`term should be construed as “material that allows light to pass through,”
`
`consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning. Ex.1003, ¶¶63-66.
`
`By contrast, in a previous IPR proceeding (IPR2017-00551) and in the co-
`
`pending North Carolina litigation, PO argued that this term should be limited to
`
`“a unitary transparent material.” In particular, PO argued “transparent material”
`
`excludes any embodiments in which multiple, transparent subcomponents work
`
`in tandem, for example, where the material is applied in layers. IPR2017-
`
`00551, Paper 8 at 22. As explained below, PO’s construction improperly rewrites
`
`the claim.
`
`Claim 1 merely recites a “transparent material covering said LED chip” in
`
`the context of the light that must pass through it. A “transparent material” need not
`
`be “unitary” to allow light to pass through it. Ex.1003, ¶66.
`
`The specification supports the Lowe’s Petitioners’ proposed construction.
`
`1 The Lowe’s Petitioners take no position in this Petition as to whether the claims
`of the ’631 patent are definite and do not concede that any claims therein are
`definite. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373-74 (Fed.
`Cir. 2014).
`
`8
`
`

`

`The specification identifies two transparent materials, one layered on top of the
`
`other. First, “coating material 101” may be “a transparent material … such as
`
`epoxy resin, urea resin and silicone or glass.” Ex.1001, 16:35-37. Second,
`
`“molding material 104” is preferably made from “transparent materials having
`
`high weatherability such as epoxy resin, urea resin, silicon resin or glass.” Id.,
`
`16:60-62. The molding material may be made in a structure of “multiple layers.”
`
`Id. 16:55-17:6. The specification states that the phosphor may be contained in
`
`either the “molding material or the coating material” or in the “coating
`
`material and
`
`the molding materials.” Thus, the specification contemplates
`
`layered transparent materials as part of exemplary “Embodiment 1.” Id., 9:64.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶¶63-66.
`
`B.
`
`“diffuses”
`
`Claim 1 of the ’631 patent recites the claim language “diffuses.” This term
`
`should be construed as “scatters,” consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`PO asserts that “diffusion” only includes scattering due to reflection and not
`
`refraction. The intrinsic evidence supports the use of the plain meaning.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶¶67-68.
`
`First, the claim language is distinctly agnostic to how the phosphor performs
`
`diffusion—it certainly is not limited to reflections off the phosphor. Second, the
`
`’631 patent specification describes the process of diffusing light in only one
`
`9
`
`

`

`sentence, which broadly states that “light is emitted after being diffused by the
`
`fluorescent material.” Ex.1001, 9:10-14. This sentence imposes no restriction on
`
`possible methods of diffusion. The prosecution history likewise does not disclaim
`
`diffusion to a particular protocol. Thus, the claim language, specification, and
`
`prosecution history support the plain and ordinary meaning of “diffuses” as
`
`“scatters.” Ex.1003, ¶¶67-68.
`
`VI.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b))
`A.
`The Lowe’s Petitioners request Inter Partes review of claims 1-2 and 6-11
`
`of the ’631 patent and request that the PTAB cancel those claims as unpatentable.
`
`VII. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2))
`The Lowe’s Petitioners respectfully request that inter partes review of 1-2,
`
`and 6-11 of the ’631 patent be instituted because this Petition establishes a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Lowe’s Petitioners will prevail with respect to at least
`
`one claim.
`
`#
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Ground
`
`Claims 1-2, 6, and 10-11 are obvious over Baretz, Shimizu, and
`Matoba (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`Claims 7-8 are obvious over Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Pinnow
`(35 U.S.C. § 103)
`
`10
`
`

`

`3
`
`4
`
`Claim 9 is obvious over Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Nakamura
`(35 U.S.C. § 103)
`Claims 1, 6-8, and 10-11 are obvious over Matoba, Shimizu, and
`Pinnow (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`
`VIII. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Principles of Color Mixing.
`
`The principles of color mixing have been known for over 300 years.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶¶22-23. In 1704, Isaac Newton published a paper on mixing colors to
`
`create other colors. Id., ¶23. Color is detected in the eye by cells in the retina that
`
`are sensitive to red, green, and blue light, which are the only colors that the eye
`
`perceives; all other colors are mixtures of red, green, and blue. Id. Different
`
`colors and mixes of colors correlate to different given wavelengths, as shown in
`
`the following chart. Id., ¶24:
`
`Thus, light having a wavelength of between 560 and 590 is perceived as
`
`shades of yellow, even if the perceived “yellow” light is generated by mixing
`
`green and red. Humans perceive white when the red, green, and blue cones within
`
`11
`
`

`

`the eye are stimulated roughly equally. Id., ¶25. This is reflected by white
`
`appearing in the center of the color wheel, shown below. Id.
`
`In Newton’s paper published in 1704, he described how white can be made
`
`either by mixing equal parts red, green, and blue or by combining blue and yellow.
`
`Id., ¶26. Thus, the concept of mixing the color blue with the color yellow to make
`
`the color white has been known for hundreds of years.
`
`B.
`
`Phosphors are Commonly Used to Create White and Different
`Light Colors
`A phosphor absorbs light of one color and emits light of a different color. Id.,
`
`¶29. Because of this unique property, phosphors have been commonly used since at
`
`least the 1930’s to mix colors. Id. Broadly speaking, this color mixing is
`
`accomplished by placing a phosphor over a light source where the phosphor
`
`converts a portion of the light emitted by the light source to a different color and
`
`12
`
`

`

`the remainder of light is emitted unaltered. Id. The overall effect is the emission of
`
`light of different colors, which will be perceived by the eye as a mixture of these
`
`two colors. Id.
`
`C.
`
`In 1996, YAG Phosphors Were Well Known for Converting Blue
`Emissions to Yellow in Lighting Products, Especially Under Harsh
`Operating Conditions
`
`In 1996, YAG was a well-known phosphor for absorbing blue light emission
`
`and converting it to yellow under harsh operating conditions. YAG was discovered
`
`in the 1960s by G. Blasse and A. Bril, researchers at Philips Research. Id., ¶31.
`
`Two research papers published in 1967 describe core characteristics of YAG,
`
`including that it absorbs blue light at about 460 nm and provides “a bright yellow
`
`emission.” Id.
`
`Researchers thereafter combined YAG with blue light sources to make white
`
`light. Id., ¶31-35. For instance, in 1969, researchers at Bell Labs applied YAG
`
`phosphors to blue-light-emitting lasers, as reflected in the Pinnow patent. Id., ¶33.
`
`In Pinnow, the YAG phosphor absorbed a portion of the blue laser light to create
`
`yellow light, which then mixed with the remaining blue light to create white light.
`
`Ex.1012. A 1971 publication by the Pinnow inventors explained that by “coating a
`
`viewing screen with existing organic and inorganic phosphors, it is possible to
`
`efficiently convert monochromatic blue or ultraviolet laser light into virtually any
`
`visible color including white.” Ex.1003, ¶31.
`
`13
`
`

`

`In the l