PTAB

IPR2015-01717

LG Electronics Inc v. Innovative Display Technologies

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Light Emitting Panel Assemblies
  • Brief Description: The ’660 patent relates to light emitting panel assemblies used as backlights for liquid crystal displays (LCDs). The technology focuses on configurations for efficiently conducting and controlling light from a source, through a transparent panel member, to one or more output areas to achieve greater light output and uniformity.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Tai in view of Funamoto - Claim 28 is obvious over Tai in view of Funamoto.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tai (Patent 5,359,691) and Funamoto (Patent 5,619,351).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tai discloses a backlighting assembly that meets the limitations of independent claim 1, upon which challenged claim 28 depends. Tai teaches a light pipe (optical conductor) with pyramid microprisms (deformities), a greater cross-sectional width than thickness, a plurality of light sources adjacent to an input edge, and a collimating assembly that serves as a transition region. Funamoto discloses a surface-type illumination device for an LCD that is housed within a tray or case. Petitioner contended that the only element of the claims not explicitly taught by Tai is the "tray" recited in claim 25 (from which claim 28 depends), which is supplied by Funamoto.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Funamoto's tray with Tai's backlighting assembly to provide a conventional housing, which is a standard component for protecting and integrating such assemblies into LCD devices. Petitioner asserted that both references share the objective of creating a more efficient light emitting panel for LCD backlighting and disclose similar mechanical configurations, making the combination a simple and logical design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in enclosing Tai's assembly within a tray like that taught by Funamoto, as it involves combining a known component (a tray) with a known assembly for its intended and predictable purpose of providing structural support and protection.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Tsuchiyama in view of Tsunoda - Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, and 25-29 are obvious over Tsuchiyama in view of Tsunoda.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tsuchiyama (Patent 5,548,271) and Tsunoda (Japanese Patent Application Publication JP H5-210014).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tsuchiyama discloses a backlight assembly for a pager that includes a light conducting plate formed integrally with a rectangular, saucer-like reflection frame, which functions as the claimed tray and reflector. Tsuchiyama further discloses plural LEDs as light sources. However, Petitioner contended Tsuchiyama does not explicitly disclose a pattern of light-extracting deformities or a distinct transition region. Tsunoda was asserted to cure this deficiency by teaching a backlight guiding plate with a pattern of protrusions (deformities) that increase in size with distance from the light source to achieve uniform brightness. Tsunoda also discloses an integral transition region between the light source and the output region.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because both Tsuchiyama and Tsunoda are directed to improving LCD backlights with uniform brightness. The motivation would be to incorporate Tsunoda's known techniques for achieving light uniformity (deformities) and efficient light transmission (transition region) into Tsuchiyama's basic backlight structure. This would be a predictable design step to improve the performance of Tsuchiyama's device.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying known light-uniformity and light-transmission features from one backlight system (Tsunoda) to another (Tsuchiyama) would be a straightforward modification with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Oe in view of Etsuo - Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 25-29, and 33-35 are obvious over Oe in view of Etsuo.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Oe (Patent 5,711,589) and Etsuo (Japanese Patent Application Publication JP 07-064078).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Oe discloses a plane light source unit for backlighting that meets most limitations of the independent claims, including a light guide (optical conductor), roughened surfaces and lens units (deformities), a transition region, a plurality of light sources, and a reflector. Etsuo was introduced to teach the use of LEDs as the light sources and a reflector that also functions as a tray to contain the optical conductor.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA in the field of LCD backlighting would combine the references to improve Oe's assembly. The motivation would be to replace the light sources in Oe with the more stable and efficient LED light sources taught by Etsuo, a common and predictable design improvement at the time. Furthermore, a POSITA would find it obvious to enclose the assembly of Oe within the reflector frame of Etsuo, as Etsuo's frame provides both a light-reflecting and a containing (tray) function, resulting in a more integrated and robust device with fewer parts.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that substituting a conventional light source with LEDs and enclosing a backlight assembly in a known tray-reflector were both well-understood design choices with a high and predictable likelihood of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term "deformities" (recited in claims 1 and 33) should be construed according to its express definition in the ’660 patent specification.
  • Proposed Construction: "any change in the shape or geometry of a surface and/or coating or surface treatment that causes a portion of the light to be emitted."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 25-29, and 33-35 of the ’660 patent as unpatentable.