PTAB

IPR2015-01868

KJ Pretech Co Ltd 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 ’974 patent relates to edge-lit light emitting panel assemblies, such as backlights for liquid crystal displays (LCDs). The technology involves a transparent panel member that receives light from an edge-mounted source and uses a pattern of "deformities" on its surface to extract and emit light from a primary surface.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Kisou - Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Kisou.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kisou (JP H7-64078A).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kisou, which discloses an LCD backlight device, teaches every element of the independent and dependent claims. Kisou’s light conductor (30) was identified as the claimed “light emitting panel member.” Its reflector (60) was asserted to be the claimed “tray or housing” that contains the panel member, has reflective walls, and provides structural support. Petitioner contended that Kisou’s “recessed light paths” (31) on the rear surface of the light conductor are the claimed “light extracting deformities.” For the dependent claims, Kisou’s disclosure of a translucent diffuser sheet was argued to meet the limitations for an added film.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kisou and Yagi - Claims 3-4 are obvious over Kisou in view of Yagi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kisou (JP H7-64078A), Yagi (Patent 4,017,155).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addressed claims 3 and 4, which require the tray or housing to provide support for a film positioned near the panel member. Petitioner first asserted that Kisou’s reflector (60) inherently supports the disclosed translucent diffuser sheet (32) when it is placed on the light conductor (30), as both are held within the reflector.
    • Motivation to Combine: If the Board were to find Kisou’s support insufficient, Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Kisou with the teachings of Yagi. Yagi explicitly discloses a reflecting plate with projections (10a, 11a, 12a) bent over to receive and hold a liquid crystal display panel. A POSITA would combine this teaching with Kisou to add similar projections to reflector (60) for the simple mechanical purpose of securely holding the diffuser sheet. This modification would align with Kisou’s stated objective of reducing the number of parts.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in modifying Kisou’s reflector with Yagi’s simple projections to predictably hold a film in place.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Furuya and Niizuma - Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 10-11 are obvious over Furuya in view of Niizuma.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Furuya (JP 6-214230), Niizuma (JP H5-45651).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Furuya discloses a flat-panel light emitter with key components of the invention, including an inverted V-shaped reflector plate (24) and a separate, inverted V-shaped light-guiding plate (55) with dot-pattern deformities. However, Furuya does not explicitly teach placing the V-shaped light guide into the V-shaped reflector. Niizuma was cited for teaching precisely this concept: fitting a specially shaped light conductor into a correspondingly shaped reflective holder to improve efficiency. The combination of Furuya's components, assembled in the manner taught by Niizuma, allegedly renders all challenged claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because Niizuma addresses the known problem of light leakage and inefficiency in light guides—an issue inherent in Furuya’s design. Niizuma provides an express solution by using a matching holder to recapture leaked light. Given the striking similarity between Furuya’s V-shaped components and Niizuma’s shaped components, a POSITA would have been motivated to place Furuya’s guide into its reflector to gain the efficiency benefits described in Niizuma.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a simple application of a known technique (using a shaped holder) to a known device (a shaped light guide) to achieve the predictable result of improved brightness and uniformity.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted as an alternative ground that claims 5, 10, and 11 are obvious under §103 over Kisou alone. The argument was that even if Kisou does not anticipate the "film" limitation, it explicitly suggests that a "translucent diffuser sheet may be applied to the outside of the light-emitting surface," making the addition obvious to improve diffusion.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed a construction for the term "deformities" (claims 1 and 7) based on what it argued was an express definition in the ’974 patent’s 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."
    • Significance: This construction was central to Petitioner’s argument that features like the "recessed light paths" in Kisou and the "dot-pattern recesses" in Furuya met this claim limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 10-11 of Patent 7,434,974 as unpatentable.