`
`United States Patent No.: 7,915,631
`Inventors: Yoshinori Shimizu, et al.
`Formerly Application No.: 12/548,618
`Issue Date: March 29, 2011
`Filing Date: August 27, 2009
`Former Group Art Unit: 2822
`Former Examiner: Michael Trinh
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`112868-0001-658
`
`Customer No.: 28120
`
`Petitioner: VIZIO, Inc.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE AND DISPLAY
`
`For:
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,915,631
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2
`I.
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’631 PATENT ............................................................ 4
`II.
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE EVERLIGHT LITIGATION ..................................... 6
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 7
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`VI. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM ................................................................................ 9
`A.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)) ........................... 9
`VII. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2)) ........................... 9
`VIII. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................. 9
`A.
`Principles of Color Mixing. ................................................................... 9
`B.
`Phosphors are Commonly Used to Create White and Different
`Light Colors ......................................................................................... 11
`In 1996, YAG Phosphors Were Well Known for Converting
`Blue Emissions to Yellow in Lighting Products, Especially
`Under Harsh Operating Conditions ..................................................... 12
`Emergence of Commercially Viable Blue LEDs ................................ 13
`The Blue Plus Yellow Approach to Making a White LED was a
`Natural and Obvious Progression ........................................................ 14
`IX. SUMMARY OF THE CITED PRIOR ART ................................................. 16
`A.
`Baretz ................................................................................................... 16
`B.
`Shimizu ................................................................................................ 17
`C. Matoba ................................................................................................. 18
`D.
`Pinnow ................................................................................................. 19
`E.
`The 1995 Nakamura Reference ........................................................... 20
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 21
`
`D.
`E.
`
`C.
`
`X.
`
`i
`
`
`
`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 ........................................................ 23
`(d) Baretz and Shimizu Disclose 1c ..................................... 24
`(i)
`Baretz .................................................................... 25
`(ii)
`Shimizu ................................................................. 27
`(iii) Motivation to Combine Baretz and Shimizu ........ 29
`(e) Baretz Discloses 1d ........................................................ 29
`(f) Matoba Discloses 1e ....................................................... 29
`(g) Baretz Discloses 1f ......................................................... 30
`(h) A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated To
`Combine Baretz, Shimizu, and Matoba and Had a
`Reasonable Expectation of Success In So Doing ........... 32
`Baretz Discloses Claim 2 .......................................................... 35
`2.
`Baretz Discloses Claim 6 .......................................................... 35
`3.
`Baretz Discloses Claim 10 ........................................................ 36
`4.
`Baretz Discloses Claim 11 ........................................................ 36
`5.
`Ground 2: Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Pinnow Render
`Claims 7-8 Obvious ............................................................................. 37
`(a) A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated To
`Combine Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Pinnow
`And Had A Reasonable Expectation Of Success In
`So Doing ......................................................................... 38
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 7 ........................................................ 45
`2.
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 8 ........................................................ 46
`3.
`Ground 3: Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Nakamura Render
`Claim 9 Obvious .................................................................................. 46
`1.
`Nakamura Discloses Claim 9 .................................................... 46
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`2.
`
`(ii)
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated To Combine
`Baretz, Shimizu, Matoba, and Nakamura And Had a
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .......................................... 47
`D. Ground 4: Matoba, Shimizu, and Pinnow Render Claims 1, 6-8,
`and 10-11 Obvious .............................................................................. 49
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 50
`(a) Matoba Discloses 1.Pre. ................................................. 50
`(b) Matoba Discloses 1b ....................................................... 51
`(c) Matoba, Shimizu, and Pinnow Disclose 1c .................... 52
`(i) Matoba discloses the claimed phosphor,
`absorbing LED light, and emitting light of a
`different wavelength ............................................. 52
`Shimizu discloses absorbing a “part” of the
`LED light. ............................................................. 53
`(iii) Pinnow discloses absorbing a “part” of the
`blue emission from the light source. .................... 54
`(iv) A POSITA would have been motivated to
`combine Matoba, Shimizu, and Pinnow with
`a reasonable expectation of success .................... 55
`Shimizu Discloses Claim 6 ....................................................... 64
`2.
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 7 ........................................................ 64
`3.
`Pinnow Discloses Claim 8 ........................................................ 65
`4.
`Shimizu Discloses Claim 10 ..................................................... 65
`5.
`6. Matoba Discloses Claim 11 ...................................................... 65
`XI. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 65
`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)) ............................................ 66
`1.
`Related Patent Office Proceedings............................................ 66
`2.
`Related Litigation ...................................................................... 67
`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)) ...................................................... 67
`
`iii
`
`
`
`XIII. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R
`§§ 42.101, 42.104, and 42.108) ..................................................................... 68
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.101(a)-(c)) ................................................................................. 68
`XIV. The Board Should Not Exercise Its Discretion to Deny Institution
`Under Sections 314(A) and 325(d) ................................................................ 68
`XV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Blue Coat Sys, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00480, Paper 9 (PTAB June 24, 2016) ................................................. 1
`In re Cree,
`818 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................passim
`Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc.,
`342 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 7
`Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc.,
`No. IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (PTAB July 29, 2013) ......................................... 1
`General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Precedential) (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) .... 69, 70, 71, 72
`Geo M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC,
`618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 44, 60
`Huawei Device Co. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`IPR2017-02090, Paper 9 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2018) ..................................... 69, 70, 72
`KSR v. Teleflex,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 38, 39, 57
`Lowe’s Cos., Inc. v. Nichia Corp.,
`IPR2018-00066, Paper 7 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2018) ........................................passim
`Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, Inc.,
`Case No. 12-11758 (E.D. Mich.) ........................................................................ 67
`Nichia Corp. v. TCL Multimedia Tech. Holdings, Ltd.,
`Case No. 16-cv-00681 (D. Del.) ......................................................................... 67
`Nichia Corp. v. VIZIO, Inc.,
`Case No. 16-cv-00545 (C.D. Cal.) ..................................................................... 67
`Nichia Corp. v. Lowe’s Co., Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 5-16-cv-00142 (N.C.W.D.) ................................................................. 64
`
`v
`
`
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2016-01672, Paper 13 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2017) ......................................... 69, 70
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2017-02063, Paper 25 (PTAB Feb. 21, 2018) ............................ 69, 70, 71, 72
`
`Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc.,
`491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 18
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Arunachalam,
`CBM2016-00081, Paper 12 (PTAB Nov. 18, 2016) ............................................ 6
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) ........................................................................................................passim
`§ 102(e) ............................................................................................................... 16
`§ 103 ...................................................................................................................... 9
`§ 314 .................................................................................................................... 69
`§ 314(a) ................................................................................................... 68, 71, 72
`§ 316(a)(11) ........................................................................................................ 71
`§ 325(d) ................................................................................................... 68, 71, 72
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(a)(1) ......................................................................................................... 65
`§ 42.8(b)(2) ......................................................................................................... 66
`§ 42.8(B)(3) ......................................................................................................... 67
`§ 42.8(B)(3)-(4)................................................................................................... 67
`§ 42.10(b) ............................................................................................................ 67
`§ 42.100 ................................................................................................................. 1
`§ 42.101 ............................................................................................................... 68
`§ 42.101(a)-(c) .................................................................................................... 68
`§ 42.104 .............................................................................................................. 68
`§ 42.104(a) .......................................................................................................... 68
`§ 42.104(b) ............................................................................................................ 9
`§ 42.108 ............................................................................................................... 68
`§ 42.204(B)(2) ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`LIST OF PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`No.
`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 Certified Translation of Japanese Examined Patent Application
`Publication No. H08-7614 (“Shimizu”)
`
`Ex.1008 Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. H07-99345
`
`Ex.1009 Certified Translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent Application
`Publication No. H07-99345 (“Matoba”)
`
`Ex.1010 Japanese Laid Open Patent Application Publication No. H05-152609
`
`Ex.1011 Certified Translation of Japanese Laid Open Patent Application
`Publication No. H05-152609 (“Tadatsu”)
`
`Ex.1012 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 U.S. Patent No. 5,796,376 to Banks (“Banks”)
`
`Ex.1015 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”)
`
`Ex.1016 G. Blasse et al., “Luminescent Materials,” Springer-Verlag (New
`York), 1994 (“Blasse”)
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Description
`No.
`Ex.1017 W. O’Mara, “Liquid Crystal Flat Panel Displays,” Van Nostrand
`Reinhold, New York (1993)
`
`Ex.1018 German Patent Application No. DE 19638667 A1 to Schlotter et al.
`
`Ex.1019 Certified Translation of German Patent Application No. DE 19638667
`A1 to Schlotter et al. (“Osram”)
`
`Ex.1020 U.S. Patent No. 7,078,732 to Reeh et al.
`
`Ex.1021 M. Hoffman, “Improved color rendition in high pressure mercury vapor
`lamps,” Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, Vol. 6 No. 2,
`Jan. 1997 (“Hoffman”)
`
`Ex.1022 U.S. Patent No. 3,691,482 to Pinnow et al.
`
`Ex.1023 H. Rossotti, “Colour,” Princeton University Press, 1983 (“Rossotti”)
`
`Ex.1024 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”)
`
`Ex.1025 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)
`
`Ex.1026 G. Blasse et al, “Investigation of Some Ce3+-Activated Phosphors,”
`The Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 47 No. 12 (Dec. 15, 1967)
`
`Ex.1027 D.A. Pinnow et al., “Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light for
`Black and White and Multicolor Displays,” Applied Optics (Jan. 1971)
`
`Ex.1028 Herbert Maruska, Dissertation, Gallium Nitride Light-Emitting Diodes,
`Chapter 1 (Nov. 1974) (“Maruska”)
`
`Ex.1029 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.
`
`Ex.1031 U.S. Patent No. 4,090,189 to Fisler
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Description
`No.
`Ex.1032 U.S. Patent No. 3,819,974 to Stevenson et al.
`
`Ex.1033 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)
`
`Ex.1034 Brief for Defendants-Appellants, Everlight et al. v. Nichia Corp. et al.,
`Appeal Nos. 2016-1577, -1611 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2016)
`
`Ex.1035 Trial Transcript in Everlight et al. v. Nichia Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-
`11758 (E.D.Mich. Apr. 17, 2015)
`
`Ex.1036 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 BASF – The Chemical Company: Lumogen® F Yellow 083 Data Sheet
`
`Ex.1039 BASF – The Chemical Company: Lumogen® F Orange 240 Data Sheet
`
`Ex.1040 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
`
`Ex.1048 Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Eric Bretschneider
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., VIZIO,
`
`Inc. (“VIZIO,” “Petitioner”) respectfully submits 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
`
`Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC and L G Sourcing, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Lowe’s Petitioners”) in their Petition for IPR submitted in IPR2018-
`
`00066 (“Lowe’s IPR”). 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).
`
`This petition is substantively the same as the Lowe’s IPR (which was
`
`instituted April 25, 2018), and is being filed concurrently with a motion for joinder
`
`with respect to that proceeding. In support, the Declaration of technical expert Dr.
`
`Eric Bretschneider from the IPR2017-00066 proceeding (Ex. 1003) and the
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Bretschneider (Ex. 1048) are attached. Ex.1003
`
`¶¶ 1-205; Ex.1048 ¶¶ 1-10.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`2
`
`
`
`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
`
`’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
`
`3
`
`
`
`down-conversion approach.” In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 699 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
`
`Federal Circuit further agreed with the Board’s combination of Nakamura’s blue
`
`LED with Pinnow:
`
`The Board found that Pinnow teaches a down 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 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 Board denied institution on other patents in the ’631 family, based primarily
`
`on a purported 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`“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.
`
`The application leading to the ’631 patent (Application No. 12/548,618) was
`
`filed on August 27, 2009, claiming domestic priority to Application No.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`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
`
`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-
`
`6
`
`
`
`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
`
`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; see also Ex.
`
`1048.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner agrees with the Board’s adoption of Lowe’s Petitioners’ proposed
`
`constructions of “transparent material” and “diffuses” under the Phillips standard.
`
`IPR2018-00066, Paper 7 at 8-11.
`
`“Transparent material” should be construed as “material that allows light to
`
`pass through.” IPR2018-00066, Paper 7 at 9-10; Ex.1001 16:32-17:25, 16:35-37
`
`7
`
`
`
`(“coating material 101” may be “a transparent material … such as epoxy resin,
`
`urea resin and silicone or glass”), 16:60-62 (“molding material 104” is preferably
`
`made from “transparent materials having high weatherability such as epoxy resin,
`
`urea resin, silicon resin or glass.”), 16:58-60 (“molding material 104 may be made
`
`in a structure of multiple layers of different [transparent] materials being
`
`laminated”), 9:64; Ex.1003 ¶¶63-66.
`
`“Diffuses” should be construed as “scatters.” IPR2018-00066, Paper 7 at 9-
`
`10; Ex.1001, 9:10-14 (“The light emitting diode which contains the fluorescent
`
`material, however, can emit light uniformly over a wide range without forming
`
`undesirable emission pattern because the light is emitted after being diffused by the
`
`fluorescent material.”). This sentence imposes no restriction on possible methods
`
`of diffusion. The prosecution history likewise does not disclaim diffusion to a
`
`particular protocol. The claim language, specification, and prosecution history
`
`support the plain and ordinary meaning of “diffuses” as “scatters.” Ex.1003 ¶¶67-
`
`68.
`
`Petitioner interprets any remaining terms according to their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art consistent with the ’631 patent
`
`specification under the Phillips standard. Petitioner expressly reserves the right to
`
`argue in litigation a different claim construction for any term, as appropriate to that
`
`proceeding.
`
`8
`
`
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CHALLENGED CLAIM
`A.
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b))
`Petitioner requests 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))
`Petitioners respectfully requests 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 Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one claim.
`
`#
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`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)
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`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 the eye
`
`are stimulated roughly equally. Id., ¶25. This is reflected by white appearing in the
`
`center of the color wheel, shown below. Id.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`the remainder of light is emitted unaltered. Id. The overall effect is the emission of
`
`11
`
`
`
`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
`
`effi