Petitioner’s request for a refund of certain post-institution fees paid on February 26, 2021, in the above proceeding is hereby granted.

The amount of $22,500.00 has been refunded to Petitioner’s deposit account.

The parties are reminded that unless otherwise permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(2), all filings in this proceeding must be made electronically in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board PTACTS System, accessible from the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.

An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition ... and any response ... shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

According to the ’152 patent, the described backlight has “a high efficiency, good color uniformity, and spatially and temporal adjustable luminance profile, for obtaining better contrast and lower power consumption at a low cost.” Id. at 2:27–31.

As to the rationale for combining the asserted references, Petitioner asserts that “[t]he similar or identical device architecture by Yamada, Hansen and Saizo centered around an array of LEDs as light sources, the similar arrangements of the LED array and the light diffuser in those references, and the common goal of achieving uniform illumination would have guided and/or motivated a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to combine Yamada, Hansen and Saizo with a reasonable expectation of success.” Id. at 20–21.

In particular, Petitioner contends that the “common approach of using 2-dimensional LEDs to form a planar or surface light source for achieving uniform illumination, as disclosed in Yamada, Hansen and Saizo, is one of the motivating factors for a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to combine the teachings of these different references to develop desired [backlight units] for LCD panels.” Id. at 22.

According to Patent Owner, “[i]nstead of identifying a device that would result from some specific proposed combination of these references, and a motivation for making such a device, the Petition just randomly points to different aspects of the references.” Id. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not show sufficiently how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Yamada, Hansen, and Saizo to arrive at the claimed subject matter.