UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
Petitioner
v.
INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Patent Owner
Patent No. 7,404,660
Issue Date: July 29, 2008
Title: LIGHT EMITTING PANEL ASSEMBLIES
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,404,660
PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
Case No. IPR2015-01113
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
MANDATORY NOTICES .............................................................................1
A.
Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ..................................1
B.
Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ..............................................1
C.
Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))..............4
II.
PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)....................................................4
III.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. §42.104) ......4
A.
Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ......................................4
B.
Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Relief
Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) .....................................................5
IV.
SUMMARY OF THE ’660 PATENT .............................................................6
V.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................8
VI.
A.
“deformities” (claims 1, 33) ..................................................................9
B.
“a plurality of light sources configured to generate light having an
output distribution defined by a greater width component than height
component” (claim 1)............................................................................9
C.
“focused light sources” (claims 16, 17) ..............................................15
GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITYOF ’660 PATENT CLAIMS.......15
A.
B.
Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17 Are Anticipated under § 102(b) by
Pristash ................................................................................................15
1.
Overview of Pristash.................................................................15
2.
Pristash anticipates claim 1.......................................................17
3.
Pristash anticipates claims 3, 10, 16 and 17 .............................25
Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17 Are Anticipated Under § 102(e) by
Ciupke..................................................................................................28
1.
Overview of Ciupke..................................................................28
2.
Ciupke anticipates claim 1 ........................................................29
3.
Ciupke anticipates claims 3, 10, 16 and 17...............................36
i
C.
D.
Ground 3: Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 Are Obvious under
§ 103 over Pristash in view of Kisoo ..................................................38
1.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25 are obvious over Pristash in view of
Kisoo .........................................................................................41
2.
Claims 33 and 34 are obvious in view of Pristash over Kisoo .44
Ground 4: Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 Are Obvious under
§ 103 over Ciupke in view of Seraku..................................................45
1.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25 are obvious over Ciupke in view of
Seraku........................................................................................48
2.
Claims 33 and 34 are obvious over Ciupke in view of Seraku.52
VII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................54
ii
LISTING OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1001
U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 to Parker
Exhibit 1002
U.S. Patent No. 5,005,108 to Pristash et al. (“Pristash”)
Exhibit 1003
U.S. Patent No. 5,461,547 to Ciupke et al. (“Ciupke”)
Exhibit 1004
Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication
No. 06-230378 to Kisoo (“Kisoo”) (Japanese original
and English translation)
Exhibit 1005
Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication
No. 05-69732 to Seraku (“Seraku”) (Japanese original
and English translation)
Exhibit 1006
File History of U.S. App. No. 11/454,822 to Applicant
Parker (issued as ’660 patent)
Exhibit 1007
Declaration of Thomas L. Credelle
(“Credelle Decl.”)
Exhibit 1008
IDT Infringement Contentions against Petitioner
Exhibit 1009
Decision, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, April 9, 2015,
IPR2014-01094 , Patent 7,404,660 (Paper 10)
iii
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. Part 42, Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25,
33, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 (“the ’660 patent”). According to U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office records, the ’660 patent is currently assigned to Innovative
Display Technologies LLC (“IDT” or the “Patent Owner”).
I.
MANDATORY NOTICES
A.
Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner provides notice that real partiesin-interest include Petitioner, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (“MBUSI”),
Daimler North America Corp. (“DNAC”), and Daimler AG (“DAG”).
B.
Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner provides notice that the
’660 patent is the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Patent Owner
against Petitioner in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas:
Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. and MercedesBenz USA, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-535 (“-535 Litigation”), presently consolidated in
Lead Case No. 2:14-cv-201. Petitioner and MBUSI were named as defendants in the 535 Litigation and were served with a Summons and Complaint in that action on
April 28, 2014 and April 30, 2014, respectively. Neither DNAC nor DAG has been
named as a party in litigation concerning the ’563 patent.
The ‘660 patent is also asserted in at least the actions listed in the chart below.
1
Case
IDT v. Acer Inc. et al.
Docket Number
2:13-cv-00522, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Dell Inc.
2:13-cv-00523, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Hewlett-Packard Corporation
2:13-cv-00524, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co.
2:13-cv-00525, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Blackberry Ltd.
2:13-cv-00526, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. ZTE Corp.
2:13-cv-00527, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Microsoft Corp.
2:13-cv-00783, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Nokia Corp.
2:13-cv-00784, E.D. Tex.
Delaware Display Group LLC (“DDG”) and IDT v.
Amazon.com
1:13-cv-02106, D. Del.
DDG and IDT v. HTC Corp.
1:13-cv-02107, D. Del.
DDG and IDT v. Lenovo Group Ltd., et al.
1:13-cv-02108, D. Del.
DDG and IDT v. LG Electronics Inc., et al.
1:13-cv-02109, D. Del.
DDG and IDT v. Pantech Co.,Ltd, et al.
1:13-cv-02110, D. Del.
DDG and IDT v. Sony Corporation et al.
1:13-cv-02111, D. Del.
DDG and IDT v. Vizio, Inc.
1:13-cv-02112, D. Del.
IDT v. Apple, Inc.
2:14-cv-00030, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. BMW of North America, LLC, et. al.
2:14-cv-00106, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Canon USA, Inc.
2:14-cv-00142, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.
2:14-cv-00143, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. MiTAC Digital Corp.
2:14-cv-00144, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Nikon, Inc.
2:14-cv-00145, E.D. Tex.
2
Case
IDT v. TomTom North America Inc.
Docket Number
2:14-cv-00146, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et. al.
2:14-cv-00200, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Hyundai Motor Group, et. al.
2:14-cv-00201, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Nissan Motor, Co., Ltd., et. al.
2:14-cv-00202, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Volkswagen AG
2:14-cv-00300, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Apple, Inc.
2:14-cv-00301, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Google Inc.
2:14-cv-00302, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Best Buy Co.
2:14-cv-00532, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Mazda Motor Corporation, et. al.
2:14-cv-00624, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. AT&T Inc., et. al.
2:14-cv-00720, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Sprint Corporation, et. al.
2:14-cv-00721, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Verizon Communications Inc.
2:14-cv-00722, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. T-Mobile U.S., Inc.
2:14-cv-00723, E.D. Tex.
IDT v. Ford Motor Co.
1:14-cv-00849, D. Del.
IDT v. General Motors LLC
1:14-cv-00850, D. Del.
In addition, the ’660 patent is the subject of the following IPR Cases Nos.:
IPR2014-01094; IPR2015-00363; IPR2015-00487; IPR2015-0495; IPR2015-00745;
IPR2015-00855; and IPR2015-00897.
3
C.
Counsel & Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
Lead Counsel
Scott W. Doyle (Reg. No. 39176)
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
LLP
801 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 639-7326 (telephone)
(202) 639-7003 (facsimile)
scott.doyle@friedfrank.com
II.
Back-Up Counsel
Jonathan R. DeFosse (pro hac vice to be
requested) 1
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
LLP
801 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 639-7277 (telephone)
(202) 639-7003 (facsimile)
jonathan.defosse@friedfrank.com
PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
The USPTO is authorized to charge the filing fee for this Petition, as well as
any other fees that may be required in connection with this Petition or these
proceedings on behalf of Petitioner, to the deposit account of Fried, Frank, Harris,
Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Deposit Account No. 060920.
III.
REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R. §42.104)
A.
Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’660 patent
(Ex. 1001) is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or
1
Petitioner requests authorization to file a motion for Mr. DeFosse to appear
pro hac vice as backup counsel. Mr. DeFosse is an experienced litigation attorney in
patent cases. He is admitted to practice in Virginia and Washington, D.C., as well as
before several United States District Courts and Courts of Appeal. Mr. DeFosse is
familiar with the issues raised in this Petition because he represents Petitioner in the 535 Litigation.
4
estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the claims on the grounds
identified in this petition.
B.
Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Relief
Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b), Petitioner respectfully
requests that inter partes review be instituted and claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34
of the ’660 patent be cancelled on the following grounds of unpatentability:
Ground
Claims
1
1, 3, 10,
16, 17
Basis for Challenge
Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by U.S. Patent
No. 5,005,108 to Pristash et al. (“Pristash”)
2
1, 3, 10,
16, 17
Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by U.S. Patent
No. 5,461,547 to Ciupke et al. (“Ciupke”)
3
1, 3, 10,
16, 17, 25,
33, 34
Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Pristash in view of
Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 06230378 to Kisoo (“Kisoo”)
4
1, 3, 10,
16, 17, 25,
33, 34
Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ciupke in view of
Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 0569732 to Seraku (“Seraku”)
The above-listed grounds of unpatentability are explained in detail in
Section VI, below. As is also explained below, the invalidity arguments set forth in
this petition are unique and not duplicative of prior IPR petitions against the ’660
patent (including those citing on Pristash and Ciupke). This Petition is supported by
the Declaration of Thomas L. Credelle (“Credelle Decl.”) (Ex. 1007).
5
IV.
SUMMARY OF THE ’660 PATENT
The ’660 patent, entitled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies,” issued on July 29,
2008 from an application filed on June 16, 2006. The ’660 patent claims priority to an
application filed on June 27, 1995. According to the specification, the ’660 patent is
directed to “light emitting panel assemblies each including a transparent panel
member for efficiently conducting light, and controlling the light conducted by the
panel member to be emitted from one or more light output areas along the length
thereof.” (Ex. 1001at 1:19-23.) In particular, the ’660 patent teaches “several
different light emitting panel assembly configurations which provide for better control
of the light output from the panel assemblies and for more efficient utilization of
light, which results in greater light output from the panel assemblies.” (Id. at 1:25-29.)
Generally speaking, the light emitting panel assembly is designed to generate
and direct rays of light in a manner to best illuminate a display, e.g., a liquid crystal
display (“LCD”). (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 25.) Typical design considerations include
producing light with sufficient uniformity and brightness, while minimizing the
assembly’s profile thickness and electrical power consumption. (Id.) The assembly
first generates and then transmits light (from a light source) into a transparent panel
generally referred to as a “light pipe,” “light guide,” or “light emitting panel.” Inside
the light emitting panel, the light is reflected and refracted by various internal features
that spatially homogenize and control the angular distribution of the
reflected/refracted light. (Id. at ¶ 26.) The reflected/refracted light is ultimately
6
emitted out of the light emitting surface of the panel in a direction that illuminates a
display surface, e.g., an LCD. (Id. at ¶ 28.) Examples of the internal features used in
such assemblies include a transition area, reflectors, and various types of microstructured deformities (e.g., micro-prisms, diffusers, and micro-lenses). (Id. at ¶ 29.)
The challenged claims of the ’660 patent refer to the light emitting panel as an
“optical conductor”; but the ’660 patent specification makes no reference to an
“optical conductor.” Rather, the specification uses several alternative labels for the
light emitting panel, e.g., “transparent panel member” (Ex. 1001 at 1:20-21), “light
emitting panel member” (Id. at 1:34-35), and “transparent light emitting panel” (Id.
at 2:67). The ’660 patent positions the light source in a light transition area that
transmits light from the light source to the output region of the light emitting panel.
The specification states that such transition areas are “well known in the art.”
(Ex. 1001 at 2:64-66.) Spatial homogenization and manipulation of the light output
distribution is achieved in the light emitting panel through the use of internal
reflective surfaces and surface deformities. These surfaces reflect and refract the light
rays in a manner to optimize the direction of travel and ultimately cause the light rays
to be emitted from the light emitting surface of the light emitting panel. (Credelle
Decl. at ¶ 26.)
The ’660 patent has two independent claims (1 and 33). Claim 1, as recited
below, is representative of the core elements of the challenged claims:
1[a] A light emitting panel assembly comprising:
7
1[b] a generally planar optical conductor having at least one input edge
with a greater cross-sectional width than thickness; and
1[c] a plurality of light sources configured to generate light having an output
distribution defined by a greater width component than height component,
1[d] the light sources positioned adjacent to the input edge, thereby
directing light into the optical conductor;
1[e] the optical conductor having at least one output region and a
predetermined pattern of deformities configured to cause light to be
emitted from the output region,
1[f] the optical conductor having a transition region disposed between
the light source and the output region.
V.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The ’660 Patent expires on June 27, 2015. Ordinarily, in an inter partes review
proceeding, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
construction [‘BRI’] in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Here, where the patent will expire before the issuance of a final
written decision, the claims are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, consistent
with the standard expressed in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc). Square v. Cooper, IPR2014-00157, Paper 17 at 2 (citing In re
Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Petitioner seeks construction of two
terms from claim 1 (see italicized terms, supra.), and one term from dependent claim 16
(“focused light sources”).
8
A.
“deformities” (claims 1, 33)
Petitioner proposes that “deformities” be construed to mean “change[s] in the
shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or surface treatment that
causes a portion of the light to be emitted,” which is how the term is defined in the
specification of the ’660 patent. (Ex. 1001 at 4:36-40; Credelle Decl. at ¶ 37.)
B.
“a plurality of light sources configured to generate light having an
output distribution defined by a greater width component than
height component” (claim 1)
As noted above, claim 1 of the ’660 patent requires “a plurality of light sources
configured to generate light having an output distribution defined by a greater width
component than height component” (the “Configured Limitation” or “element 1[c]”).
Petitioner contends that the ordinary and customary meaning of the Configured
Limitation would be “a plurality of light sources configured, either individually or in
combination with other elements, to generate light having an output distribution defined by
a greater width component than height component.” 2 This construction would
encompass at least the following arrangements: (1) two or more light sources,
arranged with reflective surfaces that, together, generate a light output distribution
2
As part of the -535 Litigation, Petitioner has asserted that the Configured Limitation
is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2. Because Petitioner cannot raise
indefiniteness challenges as part of an inter partes review proceeding, Petitioner has
instead proposed the above construction.
9
defined by a greater width component than height component (Grounds 1 & 2);
(2) two or more light sources arranged in a row so as to collectively generate a light
output distribution defined by a greater width component than height component
(Grounds 3 & 4); and (3) two or more light sources, each being physically greater in
width than height so as to individually generate an output distribution defined by a
greater width component than height component (Grounds 3 & 4). As explained
below, this construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence and the Patent Owner’s
statements regarding claim scope in its infringement contentions against Petitioner.
Looking first to the ’660 patent specification, it explains that “the light sources
3 may be an arc lamp, an incandescent bulb [], a lens end bulb, a line light, a halogen
lamp, a light emitting diode (LED), a chip from an LED, a neon bulb, a fluorescent
tube, a fiber optic light pipe transmitting from a remote source, a laser or laser diode,
or any other suitable light source.” (Ex. 1001 at 4:12-22.) These varying light sources
can have very different light output distributions, including output in a 360° pattern.
(Ex. 1001 at 3:47-50.) As depicted in the ’660 patent figures, when multiple light
sources are used they are generally placed side-by-side, and, in every case, the light
sources are “embedded, potted or bonded to the light transition area to eliminate any
air gaps, decrease surface reflections and/or eliminate any lens effect between the
light source and light transition area.” (Ex. 1001 at 1:38-43.) Thus, to the extent the
specification contains any discussion of configuring light sources to obtain a defined
10
“light output distribution,” it does so only in the context of combining the light
sources with other elements, such as the light reflecting surfaces of a light transition
area, to achieve the desired output. (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 30.)
For example, the ’660 patent specification discusses various ways to use
reflectors to control the cross-sectional shape of the light output distribution. In
Fig. 2 (partially depicted at left), the
specification describes using a “light
transition area 6 at one end of the light
emitting panel 7 with sides 8, 9 around
and behind the light source 3 shaped to
more efficiently reflect and/or refract and focus the light emitted from the light
source 3.” (Ex. 1001 at 3:17-24.) Notably, the light transition area 6 is not a part of
the light source 3; it is either “integral” with the light emitting panel 7 or it is “a
separate piece suitably attached to the light input surface 13 of the [light emitting]
panel member if desired.” (Ex. 1001 at 3:5-13.) The ’660 patent specification also
explains that “a suitable reflective material or coating 10 may be provided on the
portions of the sides of the light transition areas of the panel assemblies of FIGS. 1
and 2 on which a portion of the light impinges for maximizing the amount of light or
otherwise changing the light that is reflected back through the light transition areas
and into the light emitting panels.” (Ex. 1001 at 3:25-31.)
11
In Fig. 3 (partially depicted at right below), the specification describes a “light
transition area 12 at one end of the light emitting panel 14 having reflective and/or
refractive surfaces 15 around and behind each light source 3. These surfaces 15 may
be appropriately shaped . . . to more
efficiently reflect and/or refract and
focus a portion of the light emitted
for example from an incandescent
light source which emits light in a
360° pattern through the light
transition areas 12 into the light input surface 19 of the light emitting panel 14.”
(Ex. 1001 at 3:39-50.) The ’660 patent specification does not describe any other
manner of controlling the light output distribution other than using the reflective
surfaces of one of its light transition areas.
Based on these disclosures, the Configured Limitation should be broad enough
to include two or more light sources that are configured either individually or in
combination with other elements to generate a light output distribution defined by a
greater width component than height component.
The Petitioner’s proposed construction is also informed by a comparison of the
language of claims 1 and 33. Claim 1’s Configured Limitation requires:
12
a plurality of light sources configured to generate light
having an output distribution defined by a greater width
component than height component;
While in claim 33 (element 33[d]) requires a plurality of LED light sources:
each light source being configured to generate light having
an output distribution defined by a greater width
component than height component;
Unlike claim 1, claim 33 thus requires “each light source” be configured to
individually generate a light output distribution defined by a greater width component
than height component.
Both independent claims 1 and 33 were initially rejected by the examiner
(during prosecution of the ’660 patent application) based on the disclosures of
Pristash. (Ex. 1006 at 51, 52, 55 (5/16/2007 Office Action).) In response to the
rejection, the applicant made no effort to traverse the examiner’s rejection and instead
amended both claims 1 and 33 to “include all of the limitations of [previously]
allow[ed]” dependent claims 19 and 40 (which claims had originally depended from
independent claims 1 and 33, respectively). (Ex. 1006 at 75 (8/14/2007 Reply to
Office Action).) The amendment changed both claims 1 and 33 from requiring “at
least one [LED] light source” to requiring “a plurality of [LED] light sources.” (Id. at 68,
72.)
Both of the previously allowed dependent claims 19 and 40 (that the applicant
stated were fully incorporated into claims 1 and 33, respectively) further required that
13
“each light source” be configured to generate light having an output distribution
defined by a greater width component than height component.” (Ex. 1006 at 20, 23
(6/16/2006 Specification).) While the applicant included the “each light source”
language from claim 40 in the amended claim element 33[d], the applicant did not
include the same “each light source” language from claim 19 in the amended claim
element 1[c]. (Ex. 1006 at 68, 72 (8/14/2007 Reply to Office Action).) Thus,
claims 1 and 33 are distinct in that claim 1 requires the “plurality of light sources” to
be configured; while claim 33 requires that “each light source” be configured. In its
“Reasons for Allowance” of claims 1 and 33, the examiner reiterated this notable
distinction between claims 1 and 33. (Ex. 1006 at 120, ¶¶ 1-2 (11/30/2007 Notice of
Allowance).)
Thus, to differentiate claim 33 from claim 1, the Configured Limitation 1[c]
should encompass two or more light sources configured either individually or in
combination with other elements to generate light having an output distribution
defined by a greater width component than height component.
In its infringement contentions against Petitioner (Ex. 1008), Patent Owner
defined the claim 1 Configured Limitation 1[c] as requiring that the physical shape of
each individual light be greater in width than height.
The assembly includes a plurality of light sources (LEDs) –
each with a greater width than height. Because LEDs
have a greater width than height, they are configured
14
to generate light having an output distribution defined
by a greater width component than height component.
(Ex. 1008 at 7, emphasis added.) Thus, based on the Patent Owner’s statements, the
Configured Limitation of claim 1 should also encompass two or more light sources,
each being physically greater in width than height.
C.
“focused light sources” (claims 16, 17)
Dependent claims 16 and 17 require “focused light sources.” The ’660 patent
specification makes no reference to a “focused light source.” Claim 17, however,
indicates that an LED is a type of focused light source. As such, “focused light
sources” should be construed to encompass at least LED light sources.
VI.
GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITYOF ’660 PATENT CLAIMS
A.
Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17 Are Anticipated under § 102(b) by
Pristash
Pristash qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Pristash issued
as a patent on April 2, 1991, more than one year before the June 27, 1995 priority date
to which the ’660 patent may be entitled. Pristash was relied upon by the Examiner as
a basis to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). As set forth below, Pristash
discloses each and every element of claims 1, 3, 10, 16, and 17.
1.
Overview of Pristash
Pristash generally discloses “a thin panel illuminator” that is directed to
improving control over the light output of light emitting panel assemblies. (Ex. 1002
at 11:1-16.) The light emitting panel assembly of Pristash is appropriate for use in
15
backlighting liquid crystal displays and a number of other general light applications.
(Id. at 8:17-27.)
Pristash has been presented to the Board in connection with two IPR petitions
challenging claims of the ’660 patent: IPR2014-010943 and IPR2015-00855. In
IPR2014-01094, the Board declined to institute inter partes review based on Pristash,
finding that (i) the petitioner there improperly attempted to incorporate expert
analysis (from the declaration) into the petition, and (ii) the expert analysis “d[id] not
adequately explain” why Pristash discloses the Configured Limitation of claim 1
because there was no discussion of “how the shape of the input end of the transition
device relates to the output distribution of the plurality of light sources.” (Ex. 1009
at 10.) In the -855 case, Patent Owner has yet to respond.
Petitioner here takes a distinct approach to the challenged claims that is not
reflected in the prior petitions for inter partes review. In particular, unlike the previous
petitions, Petitioner here specifically addresses and seeks construction of the
Configured Limitation. In so doing, Petitioner demonstrates and explains why
Pristash discloses the Configured Limitation. In addition, as explained in Ground 3,
Petitioner presents Pristash in combination with a secondary reference not previously
considered by the Board (Kisoo) to create a new and alternative basis to find the
3
Petitioner attempted to join -1094 by submitting IPR2015-00363, but had no control
over, or involvement in the -1094 case.
16
challenged claims invalid as obvious. Thus, as explained in detail below, Petitioner
has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one
claim based on Pristash despite the Board’s prior decision declining to institute inter
partes review based on the -1094 case.
2.
Pristash anticipates claim 1
As set forth above, claim 1 of the ’660 patent is an apparatus claim that has six
elements. Pristash discloses each of those elements.
The first element of claim 1 requires a “light emitting panel assembly” (element
1[a]). Pristash satisfies this element, disclosing a “thin panel illuminator including a
solid transparent member [2] for
conducting light,” as depicted in
Fig. 1. (Ex. 1002 at 1:5-10; Credelle
Decl. at ¶ 47.) The thin panel
illuminator is used for “general
lighting applications includ[ing]
back lighting of [LCDs].” (Ex. 1002 at 8:18-20.)
The second element of claim 1 requires that the assembly include a “planar
optical conductor” having an “input edge with greater cross-sectional width than
thickness” (element 1[b]). Pristash discloses this element. Fig. 1 (above) depicts a
planar panel member with an input edge 4, which receives light from light source 3
and has a greater cross-sectional width than thickness. (Ex. 1002 at 2:70-3:4.)
17
Pristash discloses various other light input edges that have a greater cross-sectional
width than thickness, such as light input edge 35 disclosed in Fig. 4 (Ex. 1002 at 4:2334.), and input surface (end edge) 66 disclosed in Figs. 8-9. (Ex. 1002 at 5:36-40;
Credelle Decl. at ¶ 48.)
The third element of claim 1 requires a “plurality of light sources configured to
generate light having an output distribution defined by a greater width component
than height component” (element 1[c]). Pristash discloses this element. First,
Pristash discloses a plurality of light sources – “multiple light sources 82, 83” as
shown in Fig. 10. (Ex. 1002 at 6:1-3; Credelle Decl. at ¶ 50.) Second, Pristash
discloses that the multiple light sources are configured with various “transition
devices” in order to generate a light output distribution defined by a greater width
component than height component. (Credelle Decl. at ¶51.)
For example, Fig. 1 (reproduced above) discloses a light source 3 arranged with
collector 9 (external reflector) and transition device 5 (internal reflector). The shape
of the light output distribution of Fig. 1 is defined by panel input edge 4, which has a
greater width than height (as shown in Fig. 1).
Similarly, Fig. 16 (at right) discloses a light
source arranged with transition device 125,
such that the light enters at input surface 126
and is then internally reflected and ultimately distributed out of rectangular output
surface 127 (and into the light emitting panel). (Ex. 1002 at 7:42-45.) Pristash
18
explains that the “output surface of “the transition device” has “the shape of the
panel input surface” and is therefore “a substantially rectangular output surface 127.”
(Ex. 1002 at 7:36-46.) Thus, a light source configured with transition device 125 will
generate light having an output distribution defined by output surface 127, which has
a greater width than height. (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 51.) As noted above, the Configured
Limitation of claim 1 should be construed broadly enough to encompass light sources
configured with other elements of a panel assembly (e.g., a transition device) to
generate an output distribution with a greater width component than height
component.
The fourth element of claim 1 requires the light sources of element 1[c] be
“light sources[that are] positioned adjacent to the input edge” (element 1[d]). Pristash
also discloses this element. Pristash explains, for example, the “transition devices may
be formed as an integral part of the [light emitting] panels . . . [or], in certain
applications the transition devices may be eliminated and the light focused directly on
the panel input surfaces to cut down on system losses.” (Ex. 1002 at 8:6-12.) In
either case, the light source is positioned directly adjacent to the input edge of the
light emitting panel. (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 52.)
The fifth element of claim 1 requires the disclosure of an “output region” and a
“predetermined pattern of deformities” (element 1[e]). Pristash discloses this element
by explaining that “the [light emitting] panel member comprises a prismatic film
having prism ridges running generally parallel to each other, with deformities along
19
the tops of the prism ridges to cause light to be emitted.” (Ex. 1002 at 1:43-48.)
“Accordingly, when the
prismatic surface 32 [of
Fig. 4] is struck by light
rays entering an input
end edge 35 of the wave guide 31, causing the light rays to exceed the internal critical
angle and be emitted, the emitted light rays will be reflected back through the panel by
the back reflector 34 and out the other side 36 of the panel.” (Ex. 1002 at 4:27-35,
Fig. 4 (at right).) Thus, the prismatic surface 32 consists of deformities that define the
output region of the light emitting panel. (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 53.)
The sixth element of claim 1 requires a “transition region disposed between the
light source and the output region” (element 1[f]). Fig. 1 discloses a transition region
(integral to the light emitting panel 2) that
is disposed between the light source 3 and
the disruptions 16. As explained by
Pristash, “[w]hen these disruptions 16 are
struck by the light rays entering the panel
input edge 4, they cause some of the light rays to exceed the internal critical angle and
be emitted from the panel.” (Ex. 1002 at 3:35-39.) Thus, the disruptions 16 mark the
beginning of the output region of light emitting panel 2. The region between
disruptions 16 and panel input edge 4, marked in yellow of highlighted Fig. 1 (above),
20
is a transition region that transmits light from the light source to the output region.
(Credelle Decl. at ¶¶ 54, 55.)
Fig. 7 similarly discloses two transition regions on opposite ends of the light
emitting panel 50. “Light rays may be caused to enter the panel 50 perpendicular to
the wave guide prism edges 54 from one or both end edges 55, 56 of the panel, and
are internally reflected until they strike a deformity (in this case an edge 54 of the
panel prismatic surfaces 52) which causes the light rays to be emitted.” (Ex. 1002
at 5:11-17.) The portion of the light
emitting panel marked in yellow of
highlighted Fig. 7 (at right) —from the
input edges (55, 56) until the first
deformity—is a transition region disposed between the light source and output region
that allow for better uniformity in illumination. (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 56.)
Pristash further discloses various types of “transition devices” that transmit
light from the light source to the light emitting panel. (See, e.g., Ex. 1002, Fig. 8-9 (63,
67).) Importantly, “although the various [Pristash] transition devices are shown
separate from the light emitting panels, it will be appreciated that such transition
devices may be formed as an integral part of the [light emitting] panels.” (Ex. 1002 at
8:6-11.) Thus, Pristash discloses various light emitting panels comprising transition
devices, arranged between the light sources and the output region, that functions as
transition regions. (Credelle Decl. at ¶¶ 54-56.)
21
The following chart provides detailed identification of where each element of
challenged independent claim 1 is found in Pristash.
Claim 1
1[a] A light
emitting panel
assembly
comprising:
Pristash ’108 Disclosure
“This invention relates generally, as indicated, to a thin panel
illuminator including a solid transparent panel member for
conducting light and extractor means for causing light conducted
by the panel member to be emitted along the length thereof.”
(Ex. 1002 at 1:5-9.)
The “present invention relates to several different panel illuminator
configurations… provid[ing] for more efficient transmission of
light from a light source to the light emitting panel.” (Ex. 1002
at 1:11-15.)
1[b] a generally
planar optical
conductor
having at least
one input edge
with a greater
cross-sectional
width than
thickness; and
As depicted in “FIG. 1, there is schematically shown one form of
thin panel illuminator . . . and a light source 3 which generates and
focuses light . . . directly on a panel input edge 4.” (Ex. 1002
at 2:65-3:3, see Fig. 1(4), 4(35), and 8-9(66).)
“Light emitting panel 2 comprises a solid transparent or translucent
wave guide 15 made of glass, plastic or other suitable transparent or
translucent material, with disruptions 16 on at least one side 17
formed as by cutting, molding, coating, forming or otherwise
causing mechanical, chemical or other deformations in the exterior
surface 18 thereof.” (Ex. 1002, 3:29-35, Fig. 1).
22
Claim 1
1[c] a plurality
of light sources
configured to
generate light
having an
output
distribution
defined by a
greater width
component
than height
component,
Pristash ’108 Disclosure
PLURALITY OF LIGHT SOURCES:
“different light sources may be used to supply the panels with
different types of radiation and reduce or eliminate others.”
(Ex. 1002 at 1:50-53.)
Pristash discloses using “multiple light sources 82, 83 to different
panel input edges 84, 85.” (Ex. 1002 at 6:1-3, Fig. 10.)
“[M]ultiple light sources may be used with a single panel or
multiple panels used with a single light source by providing the
transition device with multiple input connectors leading to a single
output connector or a single input connector leading to multiple
output connectors as schematically shown in FIG. 18.” (Ex. 1002
at 7:64-8:1, Fig. 18.)
CONFIGURED LIMITATION:.
The Fig. 1 “light source 3 [] generates and focuses light, in a
predetermined pattern, either directly on a panel input edge 4 or on
a transition device 5 which is used to make the transition from the
light source 3 target shape to the light emitting panel input edge 4
shape as shown” in Fig. 1 (above). (Ex. 1002 at 2:65-3:5, Fig. 1.)
Fig. 16 has “a cross-sectional shape on which a light source is easily
focused.” (Ex. 1002 at 7:36-41.) Light enters Fig. 16 at input
surface 126, and exits output surface 127. (Ex. 1002 at 7:41-46, Fig.
16.)
“FIGS. 8 and 9 (above) include[] a light emitting panel 62 and
transition device 63 for transmitting light from a light source 64
focused on its input surface 65 to the panel input surface (end edge)
66.” (Ex. 1002 at 5:37-40, Figs. 8-9.)
The “transition devices may be formed as an integral part of
the [light emitting] panels . . . [or], in certain applications the
transition devices may be eliminated and the light focused
directly on the panel input surfaces to cut down on system
losses.” (Ex. 1002 at 8:6-12.) See Figs. 1 (4), 4 (35), 8-9 (66), 16
(127) (above).
23
Claim 1
Pristash ’108 Disclosure
1[d] the light
sources
positioned
adjacent to the
input edge,
thereby
directing light
into the optical
conductor;
Fig. 1 discloses a light source 3 that is connected to the panel input
edge 4 via a transition device 5. Figs. 8-9 disclose a light source
connected to the panel input edge 66 via transition device 63. And
Fig. 10 discloses light sources 82, 83 that are separately connected
to panel input edges 84, 85 via transition devices 80, 81. See Figs.
1, and 8-10 (above).
1[e] the optical
conductor
having at least
one output
region and a
predetermined
pattern of
deformities
configured to
cause light to be
emitted from
“[T]he panel member comprises a prismatic film having prism
ridges running generally parallel to each other, with deformities
along the tops of the prism ridges to cause light to be
emitted.” (Ex. 1002 at 1:43-48.)
Pristash explains “that [the] transition devices may be formed as
an integral part of the [light emitting] panels.” (Ex. 1002 at
8:6-10.)
As depicted in Fig. 10 (above), “[e]ach output region 77-79
contains deformities 87 produced, for example, by molding,
machining, stamping, etching, abrading, or laser cutting or the like
to cause light to be emitted therefrom. The light output pattern
or uniformity of light output from these output regions 77-79
may be controlled by varying the shape, depth and frequency
24
Claim 1
the output
region,
Pristash ’108 Disclosure
of the deformities 87 relative to the input light ray distribution.”
(Ex. 1002 at 6:8-16, Fig. 10.) See Figs. 11 (96), 12 (103), 13 (106),
and 14 (117).
1[f] the optical
conductor
having a
transition
region disposed
between the
light source and
the output
region.
In Fig. 7 (above) “[l]ight rays may be caused to enter the panel 50
perpendicular to the wave guide prism edges 54 from one or both
end edges 55, 56 of the panel, and are internally reflected until
they strike a deformity (in this case an edge 54 of the panel
prismatic surfaces 52) which causes the light rays to be emitted.”
(Ex. 1002 at 5:11-17, Fig. 7.)
3.
“[A] transition device is provided for converting easily focused
light received from a light source to the shape of the panel input
surface.” (Ex. 1002 at 1:59-64.) “[A]lthough the various []
transition devices are shown separate from the light emitting panels,
it will be appreciated that such transition devices may be formed
as an integral part of the [light emitting] panels. (Ex. 1002 at
8:6-11.) See Figs. 8, 9, 16, and 18 (above).
Pristash anticipates claims 3, 10, 16 and 17
Claim 3 of the ’660 patent depends from claim 1 and includes each of its
limitations by reference. Claim 3 additionally requires a “transition region [that] is
integral with the optical conductor [of the light emitting panel]” (element 3[a]). As
explained above, Fig. 1 satisfies this limitation by disclosing a transition region (integral
to the light emitting panel 2) that is disposed between the light source 3 and the
disruptions 16. Pristash also discloses an example assembly wherein the transition
region is integral to the light emitting panel in Fig. 7. (Credelle Decl. at ¶¶ 59, 60.)
Claim 10 of the ’660 patent depends from claim 1 and incorporates each of its
limitations. Claim 10 also requires that “the transition region and the output region of
the optical conductor have substantially the same thickness” (element 10[a]). Fig. 7
25
(depicted above) of Pristash discloses a transition region that is integral with the light
emitting panel. In this figure, the transition region and the output region are part of
the same light emitting panel, and therefore the only difference in thickness is as a
result of the disruptions 16. The thickness of both the transition region and output
region are therefore substantially the same. (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 63.)
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and incorporates all of its limitations with the
additional requirement that the light sources of the panel assembly be “focused light
sources” (element 16[a]). Claim 17 of the ’660 patent depends from claim 16 and
adds the additional requirement that the “focused light sources are LEDs” (elements
17[a]). Pristash discloses numerous and various light sources, “includ[ing] a[n] LED[
all of which light sources] may have a collector 9 which collects the light emitted []
and uniformly focuses the light on the input edge 10.” (Ex. 1002 at 3:15-18.)
Additionally, Pristash discloses numerous light transition areas with internal reflective
surfaces (Figs. 1 (4), 2 (6), 3 (12)) and cavities with external reflective surfaces (Figs. 6
(37), 9 (58)), all of which reflect and “redirect a portion of the light in a predetermined
manner.” (Id. at 7:44-45.) Thus, Pristash discloses both the use of focused light
sources generally and LEDs more specifically, thereby rendering obvious claims 16
and 17. (Credelle Decl. at ¶¶ 66-69.)
The following chart provides detailed identification of where each element of
the challenged dependent claims 3, 10, 16, and 17 are found in Pristash.
26
Dependent Claims
Pristash ’108 Disclosure
3. The assembly of claim See Pristash 1[f], supra.
1 wherein the transition
region is integral with the
optical conductor.
10. The assembly of
claim 1 wherein the
transition region and the
output region of the
optical conductor have
substantially the same
thickness.
See Pristash 1[f], supra.
16. The assembly of
claim 1 wherein the light
sources are focused light
sources.
“In accordance with another aspect of the invention, a
transition device is provided for converting easily focused
light received from a light source to the shape of the
panel input surface.” (Ex. 1002 at 1:59-62.)
Fig. 1 (above) discloses “a light source 3 which
generates and focuses light, in a predetermined pattern,
either directly on a panel input edge 4 or on a transition
device 5 which is used to make the transition from the
light source 3 target shape to the light emitting panel input
edge 4 shape as shown.” (Ex. 1002 at 2:68-3:5, Fig. 1.)
“The thin panel illuminator 61 shown in FIGS. 8 and 9
(above) includes a light emitting panel 62 and transition
device 63 for transmitting light from a light source 64
focused on its input surface 65 to the panel input
surface (end edge) 66.” (Ex. 1002 at 5:35-40, Figs. 8-9.)
“Light source 3 includes a radiation source 8 such as an
arc lamp, an incandescent bulb, a lens end bulb, an LED
or a fluorescent tube or the like.” (Ex. 1002 at 3:15-20,
Fig. 1.)
Pristash “redirect[s] a portion of the light in a
predetermined manner.” (Ex. 1002 at 7:44-45.) See
Figs. 1 (4), 2 (6), 3 (12), 6 (37), and 9 (58).
17. The assembly of
See Pristash 16[a], supra.
27
Dependent Claims
claim 16 wherein the
focused light sources are
LEDs.
B.
Pristash ’108 Disclosure
Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17 Are Anticipated Under § 102(e) by
Ciupke
Ciupke qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Ciupke was filed
on July 20, 1993, before the June 27, 1995 priority date to which the ’660 patent may
be entitled. Ciupke was not cited or considered during prosecution of the application
that led to the ’660 patent. As set forth below, Ciupke discloses each and every
element of claims 1, 3, 10, 16, and 17 of the ’660 patent.
1.
Overview of Ciupke
Ciupke generally discloses “a lighting system for illuminating flat panel displays
such as liquid crystal displays, and more particularly, to a system employing a thin flat
light guide with microgrooves formed on one major surface for extracting light
introduced into the light guide.” (Ex. 1003 at 1:5-9.) Ciupke seeks to “provide a thin,
uniform thickness large area lighting system employing internal reflection of light
introduced into the edge of a light guide to provide substantially uniform emission of
light from a major surface.” (Ex. 1003 at 1:65 – 2:2.)
Ciupke was presented to the Board in connection with IPR2014-01094. In that
proceeding, the Board denied institution based on Ciupke, finding that petitioner
improperly attempted to incorporate expert analysis by reference (from the
28
declaration) into the petition, and, regardless, that the expert analysis “d[id] not
explain how the [Configured] [L]imitation is met” by Ciupke. (Exhibit 1009 at 17.)
Despite this previous use of Ciupke, Petitioner here takes a distinct approach to
the challenged claims that is not reflected IPR2014-01094. Petitioner specifically
addresses and seeks construction of the Configured Limitation and explains how that
limitation is disclosed by Ciupke. In addition, Petitioner presents alternative grounds,
combining Ciupke with a secondary reference (Seraku) not previously considered by
the Board to create a new and alternative basis to find the challenged claims invalid as
obvious (Ground 4). Thus, as explained in detail below, Petitioner has demonstrated
a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim based on
Ciupke.
2.
Ciupke anticipates claim 1
Ciupke discloses each of the six elements of claim 1.
The first element of claim 1 requires the disclosure of a “light emitting panel
assembly”(element 1[a]). In anticipation of this element, Ciupke discloses “a thin, flat
light guide [i.e., light emitting panel] ha[ving] two spaced major surfaces with light
introduced into one edge of the guide.” (Ex. 1003, Abstract.) The “light guide” of
Ciupke is used, among other things, as part of “a backlight transmissive LCD
assembly” shown in Figs. 2 and 6:
29
(Ex. 1003 at 2:37-38, see also Fig. 3; Credelle Decl. at ¶ 78.)
The second element of claim 1 requires the panel assembly contain a “planar
optical conductor” having an “input edge with greater cross-sectional width than
thickness” (element 1[b]). In anticipation of this element, Fig. 6 of Ciupke discloses
that the thickness of the light guide 43 (highlighted below in yellow) is substantially
less than the width of input edge running along light sources 44 and 46:
(See also Ex. 1003 at 4:12-19; Cedelle Decl. at ¶ 79.)
The third element of claim 1 requires that a plurality of light sources disclosed
be “configured to generate light having an output distribution defined by a greater
width component than height component” (element 1[c]). Ciupke discloses that the
30
“light source may include a plurality of incandescent light sources, glow discharge
sources, or other types of light sources” (Ex. 1003 at 4:6-8.), and specifically depicts
use of plural light sources in Fig. 4 (18) and Fig. 6 (44, 46). Furthermore, Ciupke
discloses in Fig. 2 (reproduced above) that light source 18 is configured with a Ushaped reflector 23 to generate light having an output distribution defined by a greater
width component than height component. Light source 18 directs all of its light onto
the light guide’s input edge which, as discussed above, has a greater cross-sectional
width than height. As such, Ciupke discloses two or more light sources configured
with other elements to generate a light output distribution defined by a greater width
component than height component. (Credelle Decl. at ¶¶ 80-81.)
The fourth element of the first claim of the ’660 patent requires that the “light
sources [of the panel emitting display be] positioned adjacent to the input edge”
(element 1[d]). Ciupke’s description of the “flexible, refractive index matching
material 25” which “hold[s] the lamp . . . and efficiently couples the light from the
[light] source into the light pipe” demonstrates placement of the light source adjacent
to the input edge. Light sources placed adjacent to the input edge with U-shaped
reflectors to direct light into the light emitting panel are repeatedly shown in Figs. 2-6.
(Credelle Decl. at ¶ 82.)
The fifth element of claim 1 requires the disclosure of an “output region” and a
“predetermined pattern of deformities” (element 1[e]). In Figs. 1-2, a planar output
region is defined by “[t]he light pipe [which] includes one planar surface 13 and an
31
opposite light extracting surface 14 created by facets 16 created by grooves 17.”
(Ex. 1003 at 2:44-47.)
The light extracting surface has “microgrooves whose surfaces internally reflect light”
such that “it is emitted from the [other] surface.” (Ex. 1003 at 2:10-16.) Thus, the
microgrooves 17 are “deformities” configured to cause light to be emitted from the
output region of the light emitting panel. (Credelle Decl. at ¶¶ 83-84.)
The sixth element of claim 1 of the ’660 requires a “transition region disposed
between the light source and the output region” (element 1[f]). As shown in
highlighted Fig. 2 (at
right), Ciupke discloses
a transition region
(integral to the light
emitting panel 11) (highlighted in blue) that is disposed between the light source 18
(and index matching material 25) and the first facet (left of the facet labeled 16)
marking the beginning of the panel’s light output region. This transition region
32
transmits light from the light source 18 to the output region of the light emitting panel
11, as depicted by light ray arrows 24, 26. (Credelle Decl. at ¶¶ 85-86.)
Another transition region is disclosed in Figs. 2 and 3, where “[t]he space
between the [light source], the light pipe and the reflector is filled with a transparent,
flexible, refractive index matching material 25 which [] efficiently couples the light
from the source into the light pipe.” (Ex. 1003 at 3:1-6, 41-44.) As shown in Fig. 2
(above), light conducting material 25 is connected to the light emitting panel 11 and
disposed between the light source 18 and the light output region (i.e., the light
emitting surface 13 of panel 11). (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 87.)
The following chart provides detailed identification of where each element of
the challenged independent claim 1 is found in Ciupke.
Claim 1
1[a] 1. A light
emitting panel
assembly
comprising:
Ciupke ’547 Disclosure
“A flat panel display lighting system is disclosed wherein a thin, flat
light guide has two spaced major surfaces with light introduced
into one edge of the guide. Light is extracted from the light guide
by the facets in a plurality of parallel microgrooves disposed to
intersect the light introduced into the light guide.” (Ex. 1003 at
Abstract.)
1[b] a generally
planar optical
conductor
having at least
one input edge
with a greater
cross-sectional
width than
thickness; and
“FIGS. 1 and 2 show an internally reflecting light pipe or guide 11
used for backlighting a liquid crystal display (LCD) 12. The light
pipe includes one planar surface 13 and an opposite light
extracting surface 14.” (Ex. 1003 at 2:42-45.)
“The assembly of FIG. 6 includes a light guide 43 of the type
described above, which is lit by a plurality of spaced light sources
44 including incandescent lamps 46.”
Figure 6:
33
Claim 1
1[c] a plurality
of light sources
configured to
generate light
having an
output
distribution
defined by a
greater width
component
than height
component,
Ciupke ’547 Disclosure
PLURALITY OF LIGHT SOURCES:
“The light source may include a plurality of incandescent light
sources, glow discharge sources, or other types of light sources.”
(Ex. 1003 at 4:6-8.)
“In instances where more light is required, light sources may be
placed at each end of the light pipe,” as depicted in Fig. 4 (18).
(Ex. 1003 at 3:37-41, Fig. 4.)
CONFIGURED LIMITATION:
Fig. 2 (light source 18, U-shaped reflector 23). See highlighted Fig.
2 above.
1[d] the light
sources
positioned
adjacent to the
input edge,
thereby
directing light
into the optical
conductor;
“Preferably, the space [25] between the [light source 18], the light
pipe [11] and the reflector [23] is filled with a transparent, flexible,
refractive index matching material 25 which holds the [light source
18] and cushions it from any shock and efficiently couples the light
from the source into the light pipe [11].” (Ex. 1003 at 3:1-6.) See
Fig. 4 above.
Light source 18 “direct[s] light into the light guide or pipe in a
direction generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vgrooves.” (Ex. 1003 at 4:8-11.)
34
Claim 1
1[e] the optical
conductor
having at least
one output
region and a
predetermined
pattern of
deformities
configured to
cause light to be
emitted from
the output
region,
Ciupke ’547 Disclosure
In Figs. 1-2 “[t]he light pipe includes one planar surface 13 and an
opposite light extracting surface 14 created by facets 16 created
by grooves 17.” (Ex. 1003 at 2:44-47.)
“[A] thin, flat, transparent light guide having a first planar major
surface and a second parallel major surface which has a plurality of
closely spaced parallel microgrooves whose surfaces internally
reflect light introduced into the light guide in a direction
substantially perpendicular to the direction of the axis of the
grooves toward the other major surface, where it is emitted from
the surface.” (Ex. 1003 at 2:10-16.)
“The light, which is directed in a direction generally perpendicular
to the longitudinal axis 15 of the v-grooves into the end of the light
pipe, reflects off the planar surfaces and off of the facets as shown
generally by the rays 24 and 26. A reflector 27 with reflecting
surface 28 is placed adjacent to the faceted surface and reflects any
light which escapes from this surface back into the light pipe and
toward the surface 13. The end of the light pipe is provided with a
reflector 29 which reflects any light traveling through the light pipe
back into the light pipe to further increase the efficiency of
conversion of light from the incandescent source for backlighting
the LCD. As is apparent, light rays eventually strike the facets and
are extracted at the surface 13.” (Ex. 1003 at 3:7-19). See Figs. 1
(13), 2 (17) above.
1[f] the optical
conductor
having a
transition region
disposed
between the
light source and
the output
region.
“In FIG. 4, the light pipe is provided with an opening 41 which
receives the reflector 23 and the light source 18. The volume
within the reflector [25] is filled with a transparent, resilient,
refractive index matching material to protect the light source
against shock and efficiently couple the light into the guide.”
35
Claim 1
Ciupke ’547 Disclosure
(Ex. 1003 at 3:41-44.) See highlighted Fig. 2.
3.
Ciupke anticipates claims 3, 10, 16 and 17
Claim 3 of the ’660 patent depends on claim 1 and includes each of its
limitations by reference. Claim 3 additionally requires a “transition region [that] is
integral with the optical conductor [of light emitting panel]” (element 3[a]). As
discussed above, a transition region (marked in blue in highlighted Fig. 2 above)
disposed between the light source 18 (and index matching material 25) and the first
facet (left of the facet labeled 16) and is integral with light emitting panel 11. (Credelle
Decl. at ¶ 90.)
Claim 10 of the ’660 patent depends from claim 1 and incorporates each of its
limitations. Claim 10 also requires that “the transition region and the output region of
the optical conductor have substantially the same thickness” (element 10[a]). As
discussed above, light emitting panel 11 comprises a transition region (marked in blue
in highlighted Fig. 2 above) disposed between the light source 18 (and index matching
material 25) and the first facet (left of the facet labeled 16) and an output region
disposed between the first facet and the end light emitting panel 11. The transition
region and output region are part of the same panel and therefore have substantially
the same thickness. (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 95.)
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and incorporates all of its limitations with the
additional requirement that the light source of the panel assembly be a “focused light
36
source” (element 16[a]). Claim 17 of the ’660 patent depends from claim 16 and adds
the additional requirement that the “focused light sources are LEDs” (element 17[a]).
Ciupke discloses light sources 18 that are positioned next to “U-shaped reflector[s] 23
which may comprise a thin sheet of reflective material [that] encloses the lamp and
reflects the energy into the light pipe in a plurality of directions.” (Ex. 1003 at 2:653:2.) Thus, the light sources are focused light sources because the emitted light
changes direction after coming into contact with the surface of U-shaped reflector 23.
(Credelle Decl. at ¶ 99.)
Moreover, Ciupke discloses the use of various light
sources, “includ[ing] a plurality of incandescent light sources, glow discharge sources,
or other types of light sources.” (Ex. 1003 at 4:6-11.) Use of LEDs as a light source
in backlighting assemblies for LCDs were well known to persons of ordinary skill in
the art (at the relevant time), and a person of ordinary skill would necessarily have
considered LEDs as an alternative light source. (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 102.)
The following chart provides detailed identification of where each element of
the challenged dependent claims 3, 10, 16, and 17 is found in Ciupke.
Claims
3[a] 3. The assembly
of claim 1 wherein the
transition region is
integral with the
optical conductor.
Ciupke ’547 Disclosure
See Ciupke 1[f], supra.
10[a] 10. The assembly See Ciupke 1[f], supra.
of claim 1 wherein the
“[T]he light guide or pipe provides the best lighting
transition region and
efficiency when it has a thickness which is the same or
the output region of
37
Claims
the optical conductor
have substantially the
same thickness.
Ciupke ’547 Disclosure
greater than the dimension of the light source.” (Ex. 1003 at
2:59-62.)
16[a] 16. The assembly
of claim 1 wherein the
light sources are
focused light sources.
“A U-shaped reflector 23 which may comprise a thin sheet
of reflective material encloses the lamp and reflects the
energy into the light pipe in a plurality of directions.”
(Ex. 1003 at 2:65-3:2.)
17[a] 17. The assembly See Ciupke 16[a], supra..
of claim 16 wherein
“The light source may include a plurality of incandescent
the focused light
light sources, glow discharge sources, or other types of light
sources are LEDs.
sources which direct light into the light guide or pipe in a
direction generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of
the v-grooves.” (Ex. 1003 at 4:6-11.)
C.
Ground 3: Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 Are Obvious under
§ 103 over Pristash in view of Kisoo
As discussed above, Pristash expressly discloses each element of claims 1, 3, 10,
16, and 17. Pristash, however, does not anticipate claims 33 and 34 because Pristash
does not expressly disclose that its LED light sources “each hav[e] a greater width
than height.” Pristash also does not anticipate dependent claim 25 because Pristash
does not expressly disclose placing the light emitting panel member in a “tray.”
Claims 25, 33, and 34, however, are nonetheless invalid as obvious in view of Pristash
combined with Kisoo. The combination of Pristash and Kisoo also provides
alternative grounds to render claims 1, 3, 10, 16, and 17 invalid because the
rectangular LED light sources of Kisoo individually generate a light output
distribution with a greater width component than height component. As such, even if
38
the Configured Limitation of claim 1 (element 1[c]) is construed to require that the
light sources individually and alone generate the desired light output distribution (i.e.,
without considering other elements of the panel assembly) the combination of Kisoo
and Pristash would render that element obvious.
Kisoo discloses an LED backlighting apparatus for illuminating various types
of displays, including calculators, digital watches, and personal computers. (Ex. 1004
pp. 4-5; Figs. 1-5.) Kisoo qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because it was
published on August 19, 1994, which was prior to the June 27, 1995 priority date to
which the ’660 patent may be entitled. Kisoo was not cited or considered during
prosecution of the application that led to the ’660 Patent.
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Pristash and Kisoo
given the extensive similarities between the two references as well as the common
problems addressed. Both Pristash and Kisoo disclose analogous and similarly shaped
devices for use in the backlighting of an LCD assembly. (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 107.)
Both use multiple light sources, various reflectors, and a generally planar light emitting
panel that receives light at an input edge. (Id.) Both disclose a light emitting panel
having one surface with deformities that cause light to be emitted out of the opposite
planar light emitting surface and in the direction of an LCD. (Id.) Both references
also seek to increase LCD backlighting brightness and uniformity, while
simultaneously reducing power consumption and profile thickness. (Id.)
39
Furthermore, Pristash explicitly suggests using alternative light sources, such as
those disclosed in Kisoo. While Pristash discloses a rectangular-shaped light output
distribution generated from an incandescent bulb 8 configured with transition device
5 (Fig. 1), Pristash alternatively suggests using “a lens end bulb, an LED or
fluorescent tube or the like . . . [which] uniformly focuses the light on the input end
10 of the transition device 5.” (Ex. 1002 at 3:15-20.) Pristash further explains that “in
certain applications the transition devices may be eliminated and the light focused
directly on the panel input surfaces to cut down on system losses.” (Ex. 1002 at 8:913.) Thus, a person of skill in the art relying on Pristash would be motivated to
consider replacing the incandescent bulb 8 with an appropriately shaped LED light
source, many of which were well known in the art in early 1995. (Credelle Decl. at ¶
108.) The LED light source 10 of Kisoo would have been a natural fit because it
already provides a rectangular-shaped light output distribution (matching the various
rectangular-shaped input edges of Pristash), and directs light into the input edge of
light emitting panel—which panel has a similar “planar shape” as Pristash’s various
disclosed panels. (Id.)
Furthermore, although Pristash does not explicitly disclose a tray to receive the
assembly, such trays were well known in the field in early 1995. (Credelle Decl. at ¶
109.) Moreover, Pristash discloses reflectors on all edges of the light emitting panel
(except for the light emitting surface). Such reflectors were typically found on the
inner-walls of the trays in which the light emitting panel would be received. (Id.)
40
Thus, a person of skill in the art would naturally consider the tray of Kisoo (which
discloses a tray with “inner wall” reflectors on all but the light emitting surface of the
light emitting panel) as a useful substitute for the side and end reflectors of Pristash.
(Id.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have found it obvious to use the
tray of Kisoo with the assembly of Pristash because the benefits of using a tray were
well known in 1995. For example, a tray could provide structural support for the light
emitting panel, transition region, and light sources while simplifying the construction
of the assembly. (Id.)
As a result of the similarities between Pristash and Kisoo—as well as the
suggestions in Pristash to consider alternative light sources such as those disclosed in
Kisoo—combining the LED light source and tray of Kisoo with Pristash would be an
obvious design choice based on the skill and common sense of a person of skill in the
art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no
more than yield predictable results.”). (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 110.)
1.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25 are obvious over Pristash in view of
Kisoo
As noted above, claim 1 has six elements and claims 3, 10, 16, 17, and 25
depend from claim 1. And as further noted above, Pristash alone discloses all
elements of claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 10, 16, and 17. However, if the
Configured Limitation (element 1[c]) is more narrowly construed to require light
41
sources that each individually generate the desired light output without considering
surrounding elements, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to
combine Pristash with Kisoo, wherein Kisoo discloses both a plurality of LED light
sources arranged in a rectangular row, and a plurality of rectangular-shaped LED light
sources.
With respect to claim element 1[c], Kisoo specifically discloses “plural light
emitting elements connected in a line . . .[including] LED lamp (light source) 10, in
which plural LEDs are aligned and connected in series as light emitting elements.”
(Ex. 1004 pp. 6, 8.) As shown in Fig. 3(a) (below), Kisoo discloses a row of LEDs 10
that is approximately as long as the long-edge of the light emitting panel 11. In Fig. 2,
Kisoo discloses the height of each LED 10, which is much smaller than the width of
the row of LEDs. (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 114.) Kisoo also shows the plurality of LEDs
in Fig. 4 arranged in a row that has a greater width than height. (Id.)
In addition, the individual LED light sources (in the row of LEDs disclosed by
Kisoo) are each rectangular-shaped. Indeed, the LEDs 10 are embedded in, and emit
light into, the “flat light conductor” (light emitting panel) as seen in Figs. 2, 3(a)-(b), 5
(below).
42
(Figs. 2, 3(a), and 3(b).) To be properly embedded in the light emitting panel 11,
11 the
LEDs 10 must be thinner than the panel 11 itself (see Fig. 3(b) above),, which could
be in a “thin low-profile
profile apparatus, for example, one having a thickness of 2.5mm or
less (in particular, 2.0mm).”” (Ex. 1004 at pp. 13-14.) (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 115.) And
as depicted in the perspective of Figs. 3(a) and (b) (dashed lines), the width of each
LED 10 is likely greater than 2.5mm, especially when the backlighting system is used
for a personal computer or word processor display, as is explicitly suggested by Kisoo.
Kisoo
(Credelle Decl. at ¶ 116.)
With respect to claim element 1[f] and dependent claim 3, Kisoo also discloses
a transition region that is integral with
the light emitting panel.. As depicted in
Fig. 5 (at left),, the LED 10 transmits
light into a side-edge of light emitting
panel 11. The light emitting panel 11 has a portion of the bottom surface 11b that has
serrated deformities for causing the light to be emitted out of the top light emission
surface 11a. (Ex. 1004 at pp. 10-11.) The transition region sits between the LED 10
43
and the portion of the panel 11 that contains a serrated surface 11b (see vertical
dashed line). The bottom surface of the transition region is not serrated, so it does
not cause light to be emitted. (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 117.)
Lastly, with respect to dependent claim 25, Kisoo discloses a tray in which the
light emitting panel 11 is completely received. Fig. 4 depicts an exploded view of the
tray and panel member:
The entire light emitting panel 11 is received in reflector 12. (Credelle Decl. at ¶¶
137-138.)
2.
Claims 33 and 34 are obvious in view of Pristash over Kisoo
Independent claim 33 has substantially the same elements as claim 1. Indeed,
claims 1 and 33 are identical with respect to elements [a], [b], [e], and [f]. Claims 1 and
33 only differ slightly with respect to elements [c] and [d] (see discussion in
Section Error! Reference source not found., supra.). Unlike claim 1—which recites
a plurality of light sources configured” collectively to produce a desired light
output—claim 33 recites “a plurality of LED light sources, [] each light source
44
being configured” individually to produce a desired light output. Dependent
claim 34 further recites “each light source has a light output distribution with a greater
width component than height component.”
As noted in the discussion above, Kisoo discloses using a plurality of LEDs
each having a greater width than height and each generating a light output distribution
with a greater width than height. As such, the combination of Kisoo and Pristash
would render claims 33 and 34 obvious. Credelle Decl. at ¶¶ 143-144, 147.)
D.
Ground 4: Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 Are Obvious under
§ 103 over Ciupke in view of Seraku
As discussed above in Section VI.B, Ciupke anticipates claims 1, 3, 10, 16, and
17. Ciupke, however, does not anticipate claims 33 and 34 because Ciupke does not
expressly disclose LED light sources “each hav[ing] a greater height than width.”
Ciupke also does not anticipate dependent claim 25 because Ciupke does not disclose
placing the light emitting panel member in a “tray.” Claims 25, 33, and 34, however,
are nonetheless invalid as obvious in view of Ciupke combined with Seraku.
Additionally, the combination of Ciupke and Seraku also provides an alternative
ground to render claims 1, 3, 10, 16, and 17 invalid based on Seraku’s disclosure of
light sources that individually generate a light output distribution with a greater width
than height without regard to other elements of the panel assembly. Seraku thus
discloses the Configured Limitation of claim 1 (element 1[c]), even if that limitation is
narrowly construed.
45
Seraku discloses a backlighting structure for an LCD that can “illuminate an
[LCD] from a back surface side thereof without increasing the size of the mounting
space for the [LCD].” (Ex. 1005 pg. 1.) Seraku qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) because it was published on September 21, 1993, more than one year before
the June 27, 1995 priority date to which the ’660 patent may be entitled. Seraku was
not cited or considered during prosecution of the application that led to the
’660 patent.
Both Ciupke and Seraku disclose very similar backlighting assemblies for flat
panel displays, and both are particularly concerned with backlighting for LCDs.
(Credelle Decl. at ¶ 152.) In addition, both Ciupke and Seraku disclose applying two
separate light sources (each having a light output distribution greater in width than
height) on two opposite-side short-edges of planar light emitting panel. (Id.) More
importantly, both Ciupke and Seraku disclose planar panels that receive light at two
opposite side edges, and emit that light out of their respective top “light emitting
surface” as a direct result of the light rays’ interaction with the panels’ “microgrooves
17” (Ciupke) or “uneven surface” (Seraku) found on the opposite bottom planar
surface. (Id.) Finally, both references are primarily concerned with increasing LCD
backlighting brightness and uniformity, while reducing both power consumption and
profile thickness. (Id.)
Furthermore, Ciupke suggests using alternative light sources, such as those
disclosed in Seraku. Ciupke explicitly discloses a rectangular-shaped light output
46
distribution generated from a “typical light source 18 [which] includes a cylindrical
envelope 19 which houses a co-axial filament 21 [that] radiates light in all directions
[and] [a] U-shaped reflector 23 . . . encloses the lamp and reflects the energy into the
light pipe” rectangular-shaped input edge (Ex. 1003 at 2:62-70.) But Ciupke also
suggests alternative light sources, such as “glow discharge sources, or other types of light
sources which direct light into the light pipe.” (Ex. 1003 at 4:6-9, emphasis
added.) And Seraku expressly discloses that using its LED light sources will cause the
“light irradiated from the LEDS 9 [to be] guided to the light guide panel 8 [i.e., light
emitting panel]” at the same side-edge that receives light in Ciupke (Ex. 1005 at pg. 4;
Credelle Decl. at ¶ 153.) Thus, in considering alternatives to Ciupke’s incandescent
light sources—alternatives that favorably “direct light into the light pipe”—a person
of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to consider Seraku’s LED light sources
9 (Fig. 5) because of their shape and light output distribution, and their effectiveness
at directing light into the input edge of light emitting panel. (Id.)
Furthermore, although Ciupke does not explicitly disclose a tray to receive the
assembly, such trays were well known in the field in early 1995. (Credelle Decl. at ¶
154.) Moreover, Ciupke discloses substantial reflectors on all edges of the light
emitting panel (except for the light emitting surface). Such reflectors were typically
the inner-walls of the trays in which the light emitting panel would be received. (Id.)
It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art that the tray of Seraku could
47
be substituted for the reflectors of Ciupke to mitigate the light loss from the edges of
the light emitting panel. (Id.)
As a result of the similarities between Ciupke and Seraku, the suggestions in
Ciupke to consider alternative components such as those disclosed in Seraku, and the
benefits of using the LEDs and tray of Seraku with the assembly of Ciupke,
combining Seraku and Ciupke would have been an obvious design choice based on
the skill and common sense of a person of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”). (Credelle Decl. at ¶ 154.)
1.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25 are obvious over Ciupke in view of
Seraku
As noted above, claim 1 has six elements and claims 3, 10, 16, 17, and 25
depend from claim 1. And as further noted above, Ciupke alone anticipates all
elements of claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 10, 16, and 17 (if the Configured
Limitation encompasses an arrangement of two or more light sources, each arranged
with reflective surfaces to generate the required output distribution). However, if the
Configured Limitation 1[c] more narrowly requires two or more light sources that
individually have a light output distribution with a greater width than height, a person
of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Ciupke with Seraku, which
discloses a plurality of rectangular-shaped LED light sources that each generate light
48
having an output distribution with a greater width than height component.
component (Credelle
Decl. at ¶ 158.)
As shown in Fig. 4 (at right), Seraku specifically
discloses two LEDs 9 that are positioned near the two
short-side edges of light emitting panel 8, and direct
light into the light emitting panel
panel. See also Fig. 5
(below). Each individual LED 9 has a rectangular
shape with a greater width than height and therefore
generates a light output distribution with a greater
width component than height component as required by element 1[c] of claim 1.
1
(Credelle Decl. at ¶ 159.)
Lastly, with respect to dependent claim 25, Seraku discloses a tray in which the
light emitting panel 11 is
completely received. As depicted
in Fig. 5 (at right), the light
emitting panel 8 is received by
and sits entirely within the
reflecting case 10. Reflecting case 10 has thick side
side-walls
walls and a thick base that is
capable of supporting the light emitting panel 8,, along with the LEDs 9.
9 (Credelle
Decl. at ¶ 180.)
49
The following chart provide
provides detailed identification of where each element of
the challenged independent claim 1 is found in the Ciupke and Seraku prior art
references.
Claim 1
1[a] 1. A light emitting
panel assembly
comprising:
Ciupke in view of Seraku
Disclosure
See Ciupke 1[a], supra.
See Fig. 5 (reflector 10, light emitting panel 8, LEDs 9,
LCD 11, holding frame 2.
1[b] a generally planar
optical conductor having
at least one input edge
with a greater crosssectional width than
thickness; and
See Ciupke 1[b], supra.
1[c] a plurality of light
sources configured to
generate light having an
output distribution
defined by a greater
width component than
height component,
PLURALITY OF LIGHT SOURCES:
Seraku discloses two LEDs 9 ((See Figs. 4-5 above)
positioned adjacent to the side input edges of the light
emitting panel 8.
1[d] the light sources
See Fig. 5 above. Seraku discloses two LEDs
Ds 9 that are
See Fig. 4 (a light emitting panel
8 with two input edges, against
which are placed the LEDs 9).
CONFIGURED LIMITATION:
See Fig.4 (two LEDs 9) above.
50
Claim 1
positioned adjacent to
the input edge, thereby
directing light into the
optical conductor;
1[e] the optical
conductor having at least
one output region and a
predetermined pattern of
deformities configured to
cause light to be emitted
from the output region,
Ciupke in view of Seraku
Disclosure
positioned adjacent to the two short-side edges of light
emitting panel 8, and direct light into the light emitting
panel. Light rays (represented by arrows) extend from the
LEDs 9 into the light emitting panel 8.
See Ciupke 1[e], supra.
See Fig. 5 above. Seraku discloses “the reflecting case 10
is formed of a white material so as to reflect light
efficiently, and a back surface 8a of the [light emitting
panel] 8 is formed to have uneven surface so as to
diffuse light. Therefore, the back surface side of the LCD
1 is irradiated with light of the LEDs 9 uniformly.”
(Seraku, Ex. 1005 at pg. 4)
1[f] the optical conductor See Ciupke 1[f], supra.
having a transition region
disposed between the
light source and the
output region.
This next chart provides detailed identification of where each element of each
challenged dependent claim 3, 10, 16-17, and 25 is found in the Ciupke and Seraku
prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Ciupke in view of Seraku
Disclosure
3. The assembly of claim 1 wherein the See Ciupke 1[f], supra.
transition region is integral with the
optical conductor.
10. The assembly of claim 1 wherein
the transition region and the output
region of the optical conductor have
substantially the same thickness.
See Ciupke 10[a], supra.
51
Dependent Claims
16. The assembly of claim 1 wherein
the light sources are focused light
sources.
Ciupke in view of Seraku
Disclosure
See Ciupke 16[a], supra.
See Fig. 5 above. Seraku discloses light
sources 9 which are surrounded by reflector
10.
17. The assembly of claim 16 wherein
the focused light sources are LEDs.
See Ciupke 17[a], supra.
25. The assembly of claim 1 further
comprising a tray in which the optical
conductor is received.
See Figs. 4-5 above.
2.
Seraku discloses LED light sources 9 in
Figs. 4-5 above. Seraku also discloses LED
light sources 13 in Figs. 1 and 2.
Claims 33 and 34 are obvious over Ciupke in view of Seraku
Due to the similarities of claims 1 and 33 (as explained above, Section VI.C.2,
supra.), the same Seraku disclosures used against elements 1[c] and [d] apply equally
against elements 33[c] and [d]. Moreover, the limitation of dependent claim 34 is also
disclosed by the Seraku disclosure against element 1[c].
The following chart provides detailed identification of where each element of
the challenged independent claim 33 is found in the Ciupke and Seraku prior art
references.
Ciupke in view of Seraku
Disclosure
33[a] 33. A light emitting panel assembly comprising: See Ciupke 1[a], supra.
Claim 33
See Ciupke in view of Seraku
1[a], supra.
52
Claim 33
33[b] a generally planar optical conductor having at
least one input edge with a greater cross-sectional
width than thickness; and
Ciupke in view of Seraku
Disclosure
See Ciupke 1[b], supra.
See Ciupke in view of Seraku
1[b], supra.
33[c] a plurality of LED light sources each having a
greater width than height positioned adjacent to the
input edge, thereby directing light into the optical
conductor,
See Ciupke in view of Seraku
1[c], supra. (discussing shape of
individual LEDs in Seraku).
33[d] each light source being configured to generate
light having an output distribution defined by a
greater width component than height component;
See Ciupke in view of Seraku
1[c], supra. (discussing shape of
individual LEDs in Seraku).
33[e] the optical conductor having at least one
output region and a predetermined pattern of
deformities configured to cause light to be emitted
from the output region,
See Ciupke 1[e], supra.
See Ciupke in view of Seraku
1[d], supra. (discussing position
of LEDs in Seraku).
See Ciupke in view of Seraku
1[e], supra.
33[f] the optical conductor having a transition region See Ciupke 1[f], supra.
disposed between the light source and the output
See Ciupke in view of Seraku
region.
1[f], supra.
This next chart provides detailed identification of where each element of the
challenged dependent claim 34 is found in the Ciupke and Seraku prior art references.
Claim 34
34. The assembly of claim 33
wherein each light source has a light
output distribution with a greater
width component than height
component.
Ciupke in view of Seraku
Disclosure
See Ciupke in view of Seraku 1[c], supra.
(discussing shape of individual LEDs in
Seraku).
53
VII. CONCLUSION
For all of the above stated reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests institution
of inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 10, 16, 17, 25, 33, and 34 of the ’660 patent.
Dated: April 24, 2015
/s/ Scott W. Doyle
Scott W. Doyle (Reg. No. 39176)
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
LLP
801 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 639-7326 (telephone)
(202) 639-7003 (facsimile)
scott.doyle@friedfrank.com
54
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby confirms that the foregoing PETITION FOR
INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,404,660 PURSUANT
TO 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104, along with associated Exhibits 1001
through 1009, was served on April 24, 2015, via Express Mail upon the following:
Patent Owner correspondence address of record:
Donald L. Otto, Esq.
Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP
1621 Euclid Avenue
19th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44115
Courtesy copy to:
Justin B. Kimble
Jeffrey R. Bragalone
T. William Kennedy, Jr.
Bragalone Conroy P.C.
2200 Ross Ave.
Suite 4500 – West
Dallas, TX 75201
/s/ Scott W. Doyle
Scott W. Doyle (Reg. No. 39176) Fried,
Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
801 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 639-7326 (telephone)
(202) 639-7003 (facsimile)
scott.doyle@friedfrank.com