`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`wWww.usplo.gov
`
`90/010,940
`
`05/06/2010
`
`6600175
`
`1300-000044/US/RXA
`
`4549 —
`
`:
`
`Hultquist IP
`P.O. Box 14329
`RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
`
`DATE MAILED: 05/24/2012
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerningthis application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)
`le
`
`LOWES1034, Page 1
`TCL 1034, Page 1
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0001
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 1
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0001
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Commissionerfor Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O, Box 1450
`Alexandria, WA 22313-1450
`WAAAYLISPO.Gor
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`
`P.O. BOX 828
`
`BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/010,940.
`
`PATENTNO. 6600775.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosedis a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Wherethis copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the timeforfiling a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requesterwill be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`LOWES1034, Page 2
`TCL 1034, Page 2
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0002
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 2
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0002
`
`

`

`3992
`
`Control No.
`90/010,940
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`6600175
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Examiner
`ERIK KIELIN
`
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondenceaddress--
`alX] Responsive to the communication(s)filed on 26 March 2012 .
`b[X] This action is made FINAL.
`cL_] A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`Art Unit
`
`A shortened statutory period for responseto this action is set to expire 2 month(s) from the mailing date ofthis letter.
`Failure to respondwithin the period for responsewill result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination
`certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`If the period for response specified aboveis less than thirty (30) days, a response within the statutory minimum ofthirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part!
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`1.
`2.
`
`(] Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892.
`[] Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`4.
`
`3.
`Cc]
`
`[] Interview Summary, PTO-474.
`
`Part ||
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`Claims 1-5,11-13,21-24 and 26-188 are subject to reexamination.
`
`OOOOWOORR
`
`Claims 6-10, 14-20 and 25 are not subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims ___ have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`Claims __ are patentable and/or confirmed.
`|
`Claims 1-5, 11-13,21-24 and 26-188 are rejected.
`
`
`Claims
`
`are objected to.
`
`
`are acceptable.
`The drawings,filed on
`
`The proposed drawing correction,filed on
`
`has been (7a)[_] approved (7b)[_) disapproved.
`
`Acknowledgmentis made ofthe priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or(f).
`a)C All
`_b)LJ Some* c)LZ None
`of the certified copies have
`1] beenreceived.
`
`2(_] not beenreceived.
`3] beenfiled in Application No.
`4(_] beenfiled in reexamination ControlNo.____
`5(_] been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No.
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`9. (] Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D.
`11, 453 0.G. 213.
`10.) Other:
`
`cc: Requester (if third party
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`requester
`
`
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`ParMPWES1034;Page 3
`TCL 1034, Page 3
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0003
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 3
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0003
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`This action is on the claims for which a substantial new question of patentability has
`been requested and determined to exist; that is claims 1-5, 11-13, 21-24, and 26
`of US 6,600,175 to Bruce Baretz and Michael Tischler (the ‘175 patent, hereafter)
`andproposed new claims 27-61 submitted in the Amendment dated 5/3/2011 and
`Proposed newclaims 62-188 submitted in the Amendment dated 3/26/2012.
`
`Since requester did not request reexamination of claims 6-10, 14-20, and 25, and
`did not assert the existence of a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) for
`said claims, they will not be reexamined. See MPEP 2243.
`
`This action responds to Patentee’s submissions of 2/13/2012 (IDS), 2/29/2012
`(IDS), 3/26/2012 (Amendment and Remarks), and 4/4/2012 (IDS).
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. Information Disclosure StateMent.............ccce ce ceeee eee seeeeeceeeeeseaeneenesceeeeeeeeeeseessegeeeteseneas 8
`
`IE, Clalit Status sisscincisawiscessseiiereniivirrorecn nani iii rer careercrATeNeNeebrRaRTTS 8
`
`TLL, TRERPRGISTEN CES ia. cevcensesenanencemeea cians sireswatence le nieanee ek neaielanie nent temaeRNteReTeNea KR NOAW whey 8
`
`IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 w.icccscscccccececececceeeceesseeeeceseereueueeseeeneesenseasaceneeeaensas 10
`
`A. Proposed new claims 62-99, 149-171, 178, 187, and 188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. ..............5. 10
`
`V. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 .....:.ccccssscccssssssrseessceceesteacncereorres 14
`
`A Statute eccscacann vaveaannewareag ace aeearesran eyed eaieeaeeeN tea oa Gea AEST AN NEN GEL ER TARTRATE LAER ARTIS 14
`
`1, SSUSC 202. csccnaxenceennmiiseie rau anna vcuneANE en wania nwa heeemuMNamsantaNereme rene semen 14
`
`2, 35 USC LOB. cccccecteeceseneeeneeeeeneneneeneeeeeeee eases ee eeeSseeeneeeesasaeaeeebseneeeaeseseanrenees 15
`
`B. Comment regarding new claims 62-99, 149-171, 178, 187, and 188............cc:eeeeeees 15
`
`C. SIEVENSON ASS DASE TEMAPENCES scicsisscssissessssceinccséscracaiciaseserwaaanceccseieassiieceawesiaNateds 15
`
`1. Claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 21, 22, 26, 27, 31-33, 41, 45-47, 55, 59-61, 172, 176, and 178
`are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated over Stevenson, as evidenced
`by the CRE Handbook: sinvasessrsaraaavsiaeir rRA 15
`
`2. Claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 21, 22, 26, 27, 31-33, 41, 45-47, 55, 59-61, 172, 176, and 178
`are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevensonin view of
`any of Pinnow, Menda, and Admitted Prior Art (APA). ........ccscccceseceeeseeseeeceeseeeentenenns 25
`
`3. Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 13, 21, 22, 26, 62, 63, 69-72, 74, 76-79, 100, 101, 106-110,
`112, 114-116, 118, 124-126, 128, 130-132, 134, 137, 140-142, 145-147, 172, 176,
`and 178 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevensonin
`View OF PINHOW. ANG NAKAMUPAL ccc cecsansew eames cee eneaseneness deen inowswiaeasuueenweeaereNEes 31
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 4
`TCL 1034, Page 4
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0004
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 4
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0004
`
`

`

`Application/Contro| Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`4. Claims 187 and 188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Stevenson in view Of PINMOW ANd Tadatsu, .......cccccecereeeeeseeeeeeseeeuenseeusseeeuenenegeerensees 42
`
`5. Claims 63-65, 68, 70-73, 101-103, 106, 108-111, 119-121, 124, 126, 127, 135-137,
`140, 142, 143, 187 and 188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Stevenson in view of Pinnow and Nakamura as applied to claims 62, 100, 118, and
`134, above, and furtherin view Of Tadatsu. .........ccccceceeceeeeeeeeesereeneeneecesenseeseteeeeeaes 45
`
`6. Claims 63, 66-72, 74, 101, 104-110, 112, 121-126, 128, 137-142, 162-166 and
`168-171 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevenson in
`view of Pinnow and Nakamura as applied to claims 62, 100, 118, and 134, above, and
`further in View Of TabuChhs sisccwisesinecisveicasceasavcesrecsavarevveieeseveravesvivsiessewanatneaeures 49
`
`7. Claims 5, 11-13, 21, 22, 26, 172, and 176 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Pinnow and Edmonid................c0cceeeees 57
`
`8. Claims 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over any
`of (1) Stevenson in view of Imamura, (2) Stevenson in view of any of Pinnow, Menda,
`and APA, and further in view of Imamaura, (3) Stevenson in view of Pinnow,
`Nakamura, and Imamura, and (4) Stevenson in view of Pinnow, Edmond and
`TIMAMULAL 2.0 e ccc cette eee n eee eee nnn e eens nese eneeeHenee een enaeeeeeepeeeeeeenenteeenuaeetsnaaeetenagers 59
`
`9. Claims 1, 5, 12, 13, 21, 22, 26-28, 30-33, 41, 42, 44-47, 55, 56, 58-61, 172, 173,
`176-178, 187, and 188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Stevenson in view of Tadatsuor, in the alternative, over Stevenson in view of APA and
`WOM ccsscisccsveiiirscarvcceeissieieserareseswnsinareamarerieeeete nian Rae tTEa i eeas 61
`
`10. Claims 28-30, 42-44, 56-58, 173, and 177 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of Tabuchi or, in the alternative, over
`Stevenson in view of APA and Tabuchi. .........ccccccscsenseeecreceeveeueeeeseueeneeeueaneueeatenns 64
`
`11. Claims 3, 34, 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Stevenson in view of APA and Nakamura. .........cccesceseeseeteseeeecceesereeersrsseteeeuenes 67
`
`12. Claims 62, 75, 100, and 113 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Stevenson in view of APA, Wanmaker, and Nakamura.............s+0+ 72
`
`13. Claims 3, 34, 35, 37-40, and 179 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Stevenson in view of APA and Nakamura and furtherin view of
`[2 ob eee eC ee pace eT eT CC CCRT TE TCE re PCE hISTE reer errr cre CRC rrr corr 76
`
`14. Claims 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Stevenson in view of APA and Nakamura and further in view of Tabuchi. ..........0ce0008 78
`
`15. Claims 79, 80, 116-118, 129, 132-134, 144, 147, 148, 162, and 167 are rejected .
`under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stevenson in view of APA,
`Wanmaker, and Nakamura and further in view of Tabuchi and Martic. .........ccsceeeeesees 78
`
`DB. Tabuchitas'a base referenCe icssiississveresaceasscresiesa ceeestcenvie rene Weeess¥ede cewdensneasydaeueseedee’ 82
`
`1. Claims 1, 5, 22, 26, 172, 173, 176, and 177 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
`being anticipated by Tabuchi, as evidenced by the CRC Handbook. .....,........eceeeeeeeeee 82
`
`2. Claims 1, 5, 22, 26, 27-32, 41-46, 55-60, 172, 173, 176, and 177 are rejected under
`35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of Admitted Prior Art
`Ce) ECCLES SEITE TER oT Te rererererrecerrer rere err entree rrr Pree rents terre rer ore 87
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 5
`TCL 1034, Page 5
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0005
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 5
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0005
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`3. Claims 1, 5, 22, 26, 172, 173, 176, 177, and 187 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Tabuchi in View Of PINNOW. .......ccceeseeeeeeeenereeenenes 90
`
`4. Claims 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over any
`of (1) Tabuchi in view of Stevenson and Imamura, (2) Tabuchi in view of APA,
`Stevenson, and Imamaura, and (3) Tabuchi in view of Pinnow, Stevenson, and
`DUCSREV MUI Sa siascse ess Sea 0 is NTS NS ESE THT GN TURN ORNS aT STLA RA Taw eT RST eee 92
`5. Claims 3, 4, and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as; being unpatentable
`over Tabuchi In View Of APA ANd NAKAMULA...csccccccecssccesseseeseeeceweeeeseasneenenenneneeanenene 94
`
`6. Claims 62, 63, 66-69, 74-80, 100, 101, 104-107, 110, 112-117, 162, and 164-171
`are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of APA,
`Wanmaker, and Nakamulacsicciscsscciiss avcdeavicaiscavveuseeceedadevaavedaianceccéavaesassieaeiecieiven 98
`
`7. Claims 118, 121-126, 128-134, 137-142, and 144-148 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of APA, Wanmaker, Nakamura, and
`MAMI G. on cnsseeneserereeeenegenenenneeeseneceneessceaeenes beds ridnennsenuens ded dusbdaseeessdveseaadnnedaiacd dives 105
`
`8. Claims 34, 35, 37-40 and 179 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of APA and Nakamura as applied to claims 3, 4, 34,
`and 38-40, above, and further in view of Tadatsu. ...........cceceeeeseeeeeereeeeeeneenereteanees 110
`
`9. Claims 3-5, 12, 13, 21, 22, 26, 62, 63, 66-72, 74, 76-79, 100, 101, 104-110, 112,
`114-116, 118, 121-126, 128, 130-132, 134, 137-142, 145-147, 162-166, 168-172,
`178, 187, and 188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Tabuchi in view of Pinhidw. arid Nakamura: iiisisssscrssccicncavinninssercscsxsseveseeacecans 111
`
`10. Claims 64, 65, 73, 102, 103, 111, 119, 120, 127, 135, 136, and 143 are rejected
`under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of Pinnow and
`Nakamura as applied to claims 62, 72, 100, 110, 118, 126, 134, and 142, above, and
`further in View Of Tadatsu, ........cccccccccccceeeeceeceeeeeeneeeeeseenseeeeeseeeeeeuetneeetuueeeseneeenuns 126
`
`11. Claims 5, 11-13, 22, 26, 172, 173, 187, and 188 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Tabuchi in view of Pinnow and Edmond............. 129
`
`Ei MGndaas 4 BAS: PETALENCE es cccccsesscacscevierarsescessumsesuureeressisaneresssenseseusameeeumeens 131
`
`1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated
`by Menda, as evidenced by any of Penguin, Fundamentals of Photonics, Morkoc, Abe,
`Tadatomo and LEDLASE Risiascicsicssavasncevcasgivanideiece des eaceea veda weesieeesaas caus ceaceeeceesiealdeses 131
`
`2. Claims 2, 23, 24, 180, 181, and 186 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Menda, as evidenced by any of Penguin, Fundamentals of Photonics,
`Morkog, Abe, and Tadatomo, and in view Of IMaMUTAa. ........cccseeee eee eeeeeeeeneeeeseeeuees 144
`
`3. Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Menda in view of any of Fundamentals of Photonics, Morkoc, Abe, and Tadatomo.... 147
`
`4. Claims 21, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable .
`over Menda in View Of Tad atom. ......cccceccecreccsseeeeeeseeeeeeeneeeeenresstenseneeeeseeaeenseraes 153
`
`5. Claims 2, 23, 24, 180, 181, and 186 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Menda in view of any of Fundamentals of Photonics, Morkoc, Abe,
`and Tadatomoand further in view Of IMAMUTA, ....:esseeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeetereeeennanenteneeeees 154
`6. Claims 4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Manda In: View OF MOCkOG: o.nnsnerisiecesdcieadnae capecuieuteatiug GOUT Saiadagssravesensaensieepearene dation 157
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 6
`TCL 1034, Page 6
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0006
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 6
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0006
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`7, Claims 48 and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Menda in view of either of Morkog and Tadatomo, as applied to claim 24 above,
`and further in view of Ueharaor, in the alternative, over Menda in view of Imamura and
`either of Morko¢ and Tadatomo,as applied to claim 24, above, and further in view of
`Wha Fasissssecevavsessseeasneeeeswes sees wisps seesaw aaaeT eee FFT Sea ATAU) PORN SNA SUTRA MENS RETENS 158
`
`8, Claims 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menda
`in view of Uehara and either of Morkocg and Tadatomo as applied to claim 48, above,
`and further in view of Abeor, in the alternative, over Menda in view of Imamura,
`Uehara, and either of Morkocg and Tadatomo as applied to claim 48, above, and further
`(MEW OP ADE, sicicccenssaavcreweseamencaneamaarewiversvertieveawiearierseassreresiessaniesseverseareenees 162
`
`F. AbD@ AS a DASE rEfEreNCe ....... ce ceecce cee ence tect e eter e eee n eee ARG see e neers ea HEA EAE EAE RE EEA e gene HESS 165
`
`1. Claims 3, 4, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by
`ADO. cocesecescecenenecec esas eee ea ea eeeeeeeeeneeen ee eee ea seee esse see eeeeeesesueeense cata euen eH Ee HOeGsO SA EREEEOES ESS 165
`
`2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 23, 27-30, 41-44, 172, and 173 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
`as being anticipated by Abe, as evidenced by LEDLASER. ............cecseceeeeeteeseeneeeeees 167
`
`3. Claims 22, 26, 55-58, 176, and 177 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being
`anticipated by Abe, as evidenced by LEDLASER and M-H Encyclopedia. ..........:.c0000 170
`
`4, Claims 11-13, 31-33, 38-40, 45-47, 59-63, 68, 69, 72, 74-80, 100, 101, 106, 107,
`110, 112, 113-117, 162, 164, 166, 167-171, and 178 are rejected under 35
`U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abe, as evidenced by LEDLASER,in view of
`MOPKOG i003: cevecevane ries escevermn ni eacied es cv eaNauneeaNe Ted eRTNN NNN NERCeR Tina TeNaiWEdcexasaNeNeO ENE 172
`
`G. Lenko as a base reference (The liquid crystal display ClaiMS)..........c.ccceceeseeeeeeeeees 178
`
`1. Claims 24, 48, 52-54, 81, 82, 94-98, 174, and 182-185 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`103{a) as being unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and
`further in view of Stevenson, as evidenced by the CRC Handbook.........cccscecseseeneees 179
`
`2. Claims 24, 48, 52-54, 81, 82, 94-98, 174, and 182-185 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and
`further in view of Stevenson in view of any of Pinnow, Menda, and Admitted Prior Art
`CAPAD sesassvicsavensvacesaas avaceeancideRA ALISO MEE SSICES 184
`
`3. Claims 81, 82, 95-98, and 182-185 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Lenkoin view of either of Menda and Pinnow,and furtherin view of
`Stevenson, PINNOW, ANd NAKAMUFA. .........cceccecetecceeeereueeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeecceveneetenenennten 185
`
`4. Claims 83, 84, 87, 89-92, 149-152, 155, 157, 158, 160, and 161 are rejected under
`35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and
`Pinnow, and further in view of Stevenson, Pinnow, Nakamura, and Tadatsu........... 185
`
`5. Claims 85-88, 91, 93, 149, 152-157, and 175 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`being unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in
`view of Stevenson, Pinnow, Nakamura, and Tabuchi. ............ccccccceeeeseeeeeeeeveeeeeeees 187
`
`6. Claims 49 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow,and further in view ofeither (1)
`Stevenson and Tadatsu, or (2) Stevenson, APA, and Tadatsu .........ccc:cccccececeneeees 189
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 7
`TCL 1034, Page 7
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0007
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 7
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0007
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`7. Claims 49-51 and 175 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of either (1)
`Stevenson and Tabuchi, or (2) Stevenson, APA, and Tabuchi...........cccccseenseeeererer 190
`
`8. Claims 81, 82, 94-98, and 182-185 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and furtherin view of
`Stevenson, APA, Wanmaker and Nakamura ....ccscececceceeeeseteceeeeeseeasesseeeeeeaseeeeeenens 191
`
`9. Claim 99 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenko in
`view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of Stevenson, APA, Wanmaker,
`Nakamura; and Tabuch sii ivisiicccscsecenes cencvcncievenvenesaei pdewewteneue Gavig sete sanecseaadvevevesss 192
`
`10. Claims 149 and 159 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow,and further in view of Stevenson,
`APA, Wanmaker, Nakamura, Tabuchi and Maftic...................ccccesseeneecseeeeeseeeenen 192
`
`11. Claims 24 and 48-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of Tabuchi and
`APA. cccecececneneneeeee nanan eeesee een enenbeeeeee tee eeeeeeneFeeenAseKsCAEGSO SO EO EO SO SSeS HIEGESEGHOEREREEESEOOSS 193
`
`12. Claims 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of Tabuchi, APA, and
`NE KAMA casssswssaaecrennennsmnereinnlnaaaieeenT a Na meINNTESD WIEN pe NORTE RN EH ENERE RUNES 195
`
`13. Claims 81, 82, 85-88, and 93-99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of
`Tabuchi, APA, Wanmaker, and Nakamura. .......cccccccccccesceesseecsecseueteeuueeeeevaneeseeunen 196
`
`14. Claims 89-91, 149, 152-157, and 159-161 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`being unpatentable over Lenkoin view of either of Menda and Pinnow,and further in
`view of Tabuchi, APA, Wanmaker, Nakamura, and Mafrtic. ............ccccccesececeseeeeneeeaes 198
`
`15. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenkoin
`view of either of Menda and Pinnow,and further in view of Tabuchi and APA........... 200
`
`16. Claims 81, 82, 85-91, 93, and 95-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Lenko in view of either of Menda and Pinnow, and further in view of
`Tabuchi, Pinmow, ANd NAKAMUFA. ........ccececreeeceeeteueeereceeeeenesauaeenesareuserenteneueesuseteas 202
`
`17. Claims 83, 84, 89-92, 149-152, 155, 157, 158, 160, and 161 are rejected under 35
`U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lenkoin view of either of Menda and Pinnow,
`and further in view of Tabuchi, Pinnow, Nakamura, and Tadatsu............cc:ecseeeeeeeeee 203
`
`VI. RESPONSE CO ALQUMeNitSsis ssivcs eas sa casaaccan ca iene tvicced cand as weds ois bie Maa eewaesen Gaaees basen daseubenies 205
`
`A. Patentee’s general arguments directed to Menda .........ccsesecssceeeceeseeeeesaeeeceseevereeas 205
`1. Patentee and Stringfellow merely speculate that Menda is related to large area
`CiISPIAYS vissccocsssiensmcssvinanrcnseeiies is rareecaanerensiaesy Cee cERN TSN NPR NSE UETN STARE T 205
`
`2. Patentee and Stringfellow unnecessarily limit the disclosure in Menda .........eeeeee 207
`
`3. Menda’s alternative sources of radiation, e.g. X-ray, B-ray, y-raysS do not negate the
`explicit disclosure of “solid ultraviolet light emitting element having a structure of a pn
`JUNCtION,, MOS junction OF Che Ke". sescasccvssrarterereeaeessaevereenesediWavensind ie ousted eadenetaes 208
`
`4. The ‘175 patent uses commercially available GaN-based LEDs that Patentee and
`Stringfellow argues WOUIE NOt WOFK .cccssesercsrecersccsreceaseenesrereevaniansienenenivniesannamNens 209
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 8
`TCL 1034, Page 8
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0008
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 8
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0008
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`5. Examiner never even hinted that Menda failed to implicitly disclose single-die
`SEMICGNGUCCOL LEDSiiss csecccvcvcerevenessesresneereenretsavereseesenee reece eneerennereeeneenneese 211
`
`6. Each of Penguin, Fundamentals of Photonics, Morkoc, Abe, Tadatomo and LEDLASER
`tells that it is known to those of ordinary skill that UV light-emitting pn junctions include
`Single-die SeMiCONdUCtOr LEDS isissiscccssvirssccsserevesscaevevevesesereeserse sanccerssaneeeseenennens 212
`
`7. Imamura uses an array of LED as a backlight for an LCD, so those of ordinary skill
`knew very well at the time of Menda that LEDs were a sufficient light source for back
`NWGHES swssrumamiw wmnnaTTI THERE CRRN CE 213
`
`8. Specific rejections relying on Menda as @ base refereNnCe.......ccccecesseeeseeeeneeeerereee 213
`
`B. Patentee’s general arguments directed to STEVENSON ......cccceseneeeereneneeeereneenneeeneetes 214
`
`1. Patentee and Stringfellow fail to acknowledge that Stevenson’s GaN-based LED emits
`light in the same spectral region as the commercially available LED disclosed in the
`Baretz Declaration and in the ‘175 patent ........cccseseeesesseeeeeneeeteeseueeenenteeeeeeeseeteenes 214
`
`SeeeNS Ue Ree Cae NERRAlORaa Cte NNR CLONER EN NaN dase eee CORTE ELA eM NOREEN NONE Ne eNe Oa Ea ENE RRR ERA NRE RS 21
`
`2. A single white light LED was knownbythe time of Stevenson, Tabuchi, and Tena
`3. Patentee does not know whatis legally meant by “teaching aWay”........cesecseeeeees 219
`
`C. Rejections over Abe and the Declarations filed under 37 CFR 1.131 ......ceeseceseseeeeees 220
`
`1. The facts in In re Hostettler and In re Spiller and Ex parte Goddard do not apply to
`the facts ih thesé proceedings icsscesscesisacevessssevsmeinseerscveseegnrTeasaniires visseeeniaes 220
`
`2, The fourth Baretz, fourth Tischler, and third Elliot Declarations are ineffective in
`SWEArING BEHINd ADCs icswasveecaecreea sec eene asa aVeas sola AVa wed eae ea wea ede EU Nailed eeRT NG eee Ree 222
`
`3. Specific rejection relying on Abe as a base reference ........cecseesseneeeeueeespeserseenvies 229
`
`D, Secondary Considerations ........ccccccecccceeceeneeeneeeeeeteeeeeeeseeereeeneeeeeneeenesssenerengeeeneee 230
`
`1. No evidence of long-felt NEO.........cececececeseeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeaeeeeetaeeteatapeceneugenenensenes 230
`
`2. There is no evidence of failure of others, especially since Stevenson, Tabuchi, and
`Abe anticipate the claimed Aevice ........ccccsssesseeeeeeeeseuseeeceecuseeseeneeeeuceectesenengenntenes 232
`
`3. There is no evidence of unexpected results ...........cceceeeeee ene eseeeeeaeneeeneneeneeaneaeeas 232 °
`
`4. Commercial success and the third Brandes Declaration..............c:cccceeeeteeeeeseeeees 233
`
`5. The third Brandes Declaration fails to provide evidence of commercial success .... 235
`
`CONCIUSION ......ccceeccceereecereeeeneeeneeeereneeaeeneneenetenneneneeeeeteneeeeraneeeeeeeteeebeneesententeeneneenenne 240
`
`THE REST OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 9
`TCL 1034, Page 9
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0009
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 9
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0009
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`I. Information Disclosure Statement
`
`MPEP 2256 states in pertinent part,
`
`Where patents, publications, and other such items of information are
`submitted by a party (Patent Owner or Requester) in compliance with the
`requirements of the rules, the requisite degree of consideration to be given to
`such information will be normally limited by the degree to which the
`partyfiling the information citation has explained the content and
`relevance of the information. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent
`to the citations on the form PTO /SB /08A and O8B or its equivalent, without
`an indication to the contrary in the record, do not signify that the information
`has been considered by the examiner any further than to the extent noted
`above.
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`In concert with MPEP 2256, unless otherwise indicated, the references submitted in
`the IDS filed 2/13/2012, 2/29/2012, and 4/4/2012 have been considered only to
`the extent that the submitting party has “explained the content and relevance”.
`
`II. Claim Status
`
`(1) Original claims subject to reexamination: 1-5, 11-13, 21-24, and 26
`
`(2) Claims not subject to reexamination: 6-10, 14-20, and 25
`
`(3) Canceled claims: none
`
`(4) Claims newly proposed: 27-188
`
`(5) Claimsliterally amended: 1, 5, 11, 12, 21, and 24
`
`(6) Claims effectively amended: 2 and 8-23
`
`(7) Claims active: 1-5, 11-13, 21-24, and 26-188
`
`III. The References
`
`(1) JP 6-267301 to Kazunori Menda, published 22 September 1994 (Menda,
`hereafter)
`
`(2) US 5,535,230 to Tadashi Abe, filed 3 January 1995, issued 9 July 1996 (Abe,
`hereafter)
`
`(3) US 5,283,425 to Masaya Imamura, issued 1 February 1994 (Imamura,
`hereafter)
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 10
`TCL 1034, Page 10
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0010
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 10
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0010
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`(4) Morkos, et al, “Large-band-gap SIC, III-V nitride, and II-VI ZnSe-based
`semiconductor device technologies”, J. App/. Phys. 76(3), 1; March 17, 1994;
`Illinois University (Morkoc, hereafter)
`
`(5) McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, 6" Edition, Vol. 9, pg. 582
`and Vol. 10, pp. 60-63; Copyright 1987 (M-H Encyclopedia, hereafter)
`
`(6) McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 3Edition, pp. 912,
`1446; Copyright 1984 (M-H Dictionary, hereafter)
`
`(7) The Penguin Dictionary of Electronics, 3edition, pp. 315, 437-438, 509-510,
`copyright 1979, 1988, and 1998 (Penguin, hereafter)
`
`(8) “LEDs and Laser Diodes”, Electus Distribution, copyright 2001, available at URL:
`http://www.jaycar.com.au/images uploaded/lediaser.pdf (LEDLASER, hereafter)
`
`(9) US 4,772,885 to Uehara et al., issued 20 September 1988 (Uehara, hereafter)
`
`(10) JP 3-24692 to Kentaro Fujii, published 14 March 1991 (Fujii, hereafter)
`
`(11) US 5,770,887 to Tadatomo etal., filed 11 October 1994 (Tadatomo, hereafter)
`
`(12) Saleh and Teich, Fundamentals of Photonics, New York: John Wiley & Sons,
`1991, pp. 592-594 (Fundamentals of Photonics, hereafter)
`
`(13) US 3,819,974 to Stevenson etal., issued 25 June 1974 (Stevenson, hereafter)
`
`(14) US 3,691,482 to Pinnow et al., issued 12 September 1972 (Pinnow, hereafter)
`
`(15) JP 5-152609 to Tadatsu et al., published 18 June 1993 (Tadatsu, hereafter)
`
`(16) JP 50-79379 to Sei-ichi Tabuchi, published 24 November 1973 (Tabuchi,
`hereafter)
`,
`
`(17) CRC Handbook, 63 Ed., (1983) p. E-201 (CRC Handbook, hereafter)
`
`(18) US 4,918,497 to John Edmond, issued 17 April 1990 (Edmond, hereafter)
`
`(19) US 3,793,046 to Wanmaker et al., issued 19 February 1974 (Wanmaker,
`hereafter)
`
`(20) US 3,743,833 to Martic et al., issued 3 July 1973 (Martic, hereafter)
`
`(21) Lumogen® F Violet 570 Data Sheet; available at the BASF Chemical Company
`website URL,
`http://worldaccount.basf.com/wa/EU~en_ GB/Catalog/Piqments/doc4/BASF/PRD/30
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 11
`TCL 1034, Page 11
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0011
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 11
`
`VIZIO Ex. 1034 Page 0011
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/010,940
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`048274/.pdf?title=Technical%20Datasheet&asset_type=pds/pdf&language=EN&urn
`=urn:documentum:eCommerce sol EU:09007bb280021e27.pdf
`
`The ‘175 patent was filed 26 March 1996. Each of Menda, Morkoc, M-H
`Encyclopedia, M-H Dictionary, Uehara, Fujii, Fundamentals of Photonics, Stevenson,
`Pinnow, Tadatsu, Tabuchi, and Edmond, were issued or published more than one
`year before the ‘175 patent’s priority date; thus each qualifies as prior art under 35
`USC 102(b).
`
`Abe and Tadatomo werefiled before the filing of the application that became the
`‘175 patent; thus, Abe and Tadatomo qualify as prior art under 35 USC 102(e). As
`will be discussed below, Patentee’s Declarations are ineffective to overcome Abe as
`prior art.
`
`Penguin, LEDLASER, and CRC Handbook are used only for purposes of definition or
`-evidence and therefore need not qualify as prior art.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner
`and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`enable any person skilled in the art to whichit pertains, or with which it is most nearly
`connected, to make and use the same andshall set forth the best mode contemplated by
`the inventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`A. Proposed new claims 62-99, 149-171, 178, 187, and 188 are rejected
`under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
`enablement requirement.
`
`The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in
`such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is
`most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
`
`Each of claims 62, 81, 149, 162, 178, 187, and 188 requires a primary radiation
`consisting of blue light from a GaN-based LED to be converted by phosphorsto a
`secondary radiation composed of lower energy (longer wavelength) visible white
`light, wherein the secondary radiation alone --without contribution from the blue
`primary radiation-- produces white light. As claimed. this reads:
`
`(1) Claims 62, 81, 162 and 178:
`
`at least one single-die gallium nitride based semiconductor blue light-
`emitting diode (LED) ... said primary radiation being a relatively shorter
`wavelength bluelight radiation; and
`
`LOWES 1034, Page 12
`TC