Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 112868-0001-652
`Customer No. 28120
`Petitioner: VIZIO, Inc.
`
`
`§§§§§§§
`
`United States Patent No.: 7,901,959
`Inventors: Yoshinori Shimizu, et al.
`Formerly Application No.: 12/548,621
`Issue Date: Mar. 8, 2011
`Filing Date: Aug. 27, 2009
`Former Group Art Unit: 2812
`Former Examiner: Abdulfattah B.
`Mustapha
`
`
`For: LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY AND BACK LIGHT HAVING A LIGHT
`EMITTING DIODE
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,901,959
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND IN THE ART ............................. 1 
`
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8 .................................................... 5 
`
`III. 
`
`PETITIONER HAS STANDING .................................................................... 6 
`
`IV.  SUMMARY OF THE ’959 PATENT AND ITS FIELD ................................ 7 
`
`A.  Overview of the ’959 patent .................................................................. 7 
`
`B. 
`
`Overview of the Prosecution History .................................................... 9 
`
`V. 
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD PETITIONER WILL
`PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM ....................... 13 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Claim Construction Under §42.104(b)(3) ........................................... 13 
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill and State of the Art ....................................... 13 
`
`Grounds 1-4 (See EX1003¶¶79-231) .................................................. 14 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175 (“Baretz”) ....................................... 14 
`1. 
`“Liquid Crystal Flat Panel Displays” (“O’Mara”) .................... 17 
`2. 
`Japanese Publication No. H7-99345 (“Matoba”) ..................... 20 
`3. 
`U.S. Patent No. 3,699,478 (“Pinnow”) ..................................... 21 
`4. 
`5.  Motivation to Combine Baretz and O’Mara (Claims 1, 3-
`5, 7-8, 17-18) ............................................................................. 24 
`6.  Motivation to Combine Baretz and Matoba (Claims 1, 3-
`5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-20) .......................................................... 27 
`7.  Motivation to Combine Baretz and Pinnow (Claims 1, 3-
`5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-20) .......................................................... 29 
`Claim Charts for Grounds 1-4: Baretz in view of O’Mara
`and Pinnow (Ground 1), Baretz in view of O’Mara,
`Pinnow, and Matoba (Ground 2), Baretz in view of
`Pinnow (Ground 3), Baretz in view of Pinnow and
`Matoba (Ground 4).................................................................... 34 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 73
`
`8. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`In re Cree, Inc.,
`818 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 30
`
`Page(s)
`
`Nichia Corporation v. Everlight Americas, Inc.,
`Case No. 12-11758 (E.D. Mich.) .......................................................................... 5
`
`Nichia Corporation v. VIZIO, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 8:16-cv-545 (C.D. Cal.) ......................................................................... 5
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§1.33(c) ............................................................................................................... 73
`§102(e) ................................................................................................................ 14
`§102(b) .................................................................................................... 17, 20, 21
`§103 ..............................................................................................................passim
`§103(a) .................................................................................................................. 9
`§112 ....................................................................................................................... 2
`§314(a) ................................................................................................................ 13
`§§311-319 ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§42.1 ...................................................................................................................... 1
`§42.8 ...................................................................................................................... 5
`§42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................................ 5
`§42.8(b)(2) ............................................................................................................ 5
`§42.8(b)(3) ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`§42.8(b)(4) ............................................................................................................ 5
`§42.22 .................................................................................................................... 6
`§42.100 ................................................................................................................ 73
`§42.100(b) ........................................................................................................... 13
`§42.104(a) ............................................................................................................. 6
`§42.104(b) ............................................................................................................. 6
`§42.104(b)(3) ...................................................................................................... 13
`§42.105 ................................................................................................................ 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`EX1001
`EX1002
`EX1003
`
`EX1004
`EX1005
`EX1006
`EX1007
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,901,959 (“the ’959 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,901,959 File History
`Declaration of Dr. Paul Prucnal In Support of the Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175 (“Baretz”)
`JP Patent Pub. No. H7-99345 with certified translation (“Matoba”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,699,478 (“Pinnow”)
`Shuji Nakamura, et al., High-power InGaN single-quantum-well-
`structure blue and violet light-emitting diodes, Applied Physics
`Letters, Vol. 67, No. 13, Sept. 25, 1995 (“Nakamura”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,610,147 File History
`W. O’Mara, Liquid Crystal Flat Panel Displays: Manufacturing
`Science & Technology, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993 (“O’Mara”)
`RESERVED RESERVED
`RESERVED RESERVED
`EX1012
`U.S. Patent No. 5,777,350 (“Nakamura ‘350”)
`EX1013
`JP Patent Pub. No. H05-152609 with certified translation
`(“Tadatsu”)
`RESERVED RESERVED
`EX1015
`U.S. Patent No. 6,258,617 (“Nitta”)
`Excerpt from P. Bhattacharya, Semiconductor Optoelectronic
`EX1016
`Devices, Prentice Hall, 1994 (“Bhattacharya”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,198,479 (“Shiobara”)
`G. Blasse and B.C. Grabmaier, Luminescent Materials, Springer-
`Verlag, 1994 (“Blasse & Grabmaier”)
`L.G. Van Uitert, et al., Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light
`for Black and White and Multicolor Displays. 1: Materials, Applied
`Optics, Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan. 1971 (“Van Uitert”)
`
`EX1008
`EX1009
`
`EX1017
`EX1018
`
`EX1019
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`Exhibit
`EX1020
`
`EX1021
`
`EX1022
`
`Description
`Mary V. Hoffman, Improved Color Rendition In High Pressure
`Mercury Vapor Lamps, Journal of the Illuminating Engineering
`Society, Vol. 6, No. 2, Jan. 1977 (“Hoffman”)
`J.M. Robertson, et al., Colourshift of the Ce3+ Emission in
`Monocrystalline Epitaxially Grown Garnet Layers, Phillips Journal
`of Research, Vol. 36, No. 1, 1981 (“Robertson”)
`D.A. Pinnow, et al., Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light
`for Black and White and Multicolor Displays. 2: Systems, Applied
`Optics, Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan. 1971 (“Van Uitert 2”)
`RESERVED RESERVED
`G. Blasse and A. Bril, Investigation of Some Ce3+-Activated
`EX1024
`Phosphors, Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 47, No. 12, Dec. 15,
`1967 (“Blasse & Bril”)
`D.M. Gualtieri, Cathodoluminescence of Ce:La2Be2O5 single
`crystals, Journal of Luminescence, 1994 (“Gualtieri”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,678,338 (“Kitta”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,118,985 (“Patton”)
`H. J. Kindl and Thomas St. John, Trident International Inc., High
`Definition TV Projection Via Single Crystal Faceplate Technology,
`Final Report to U.S. Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Training
`Systems Center, for period 11/1/91 to 3/25/93, Accession Number
`AD-A277850 (1994) (“Trident Study”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,907,222 (“Lengyel”)
`Excerpt from E. Kaneko, Liquid Crystal TV Displays: Principles
`and Applications of Liquid Crystal Displays, KTK Scientific
`Publishers, 1987 (“Kaneko”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,091,794 (“Suzuki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,440,197 (“Gleckman”)
`P.R. Hammond, Laser Dye DCM, Its Spectral Properties, Synthesis
`and Comparison with Other Dyes in the Red, Optics
`Communications, Vol. 29, No. 3, June 1979
`Excerpt from Hazel Rossotti, Colour, Princeton University Press,
`1985 (“Rossotti”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,350,650 (“Gasper”)
`
`EX1031
`EX1032
`EX1033
`
`EX1025
`
`EX1026
`EX1027
`EX1028
`
`EX1029
`EX1030
`
`EX1034
`
`EX1035
`
`v
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`Description
`Affidavit of Pamela Stansbury with Shuji Nakamura, et al., High-
`power InGaN single-quantum-well-structure blue and violet light-
`emitting diodes, Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 67, No. 13, Sept. 25,
`1995
`Affidavit of Pamela Stansbury with L.G. Van Uitert, et al.,
`Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light for Black and White
`and Multicolor Displays. 1: Materials, Applied Optics, Vol. 10,
`No. 1, Jan. 1971
`Affidavit of Pamela Stansbury with Mary V. Hoffman, Improved
`Color Rendition In High Pressure Mercury Vapor Lamps, Journal
`of the Illuminating Engineering Society, Vol. 6, No. 2, Jan. 1977
`Affidavit of Pamela Stansbury with D.A. Pinnow, et al.,
`Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light for Black and White
`and Multicolor Displays. 2: Systems, Applied Optics, Vol. 10, No.
`1, Jan. 1971
`Affidavit of Pamela Stansbury with D.M. Gualtieri,
`Cathodoluminescence of Ce:La2Be2O5 single crystals, Journal of
`Luminescence, Vols. 60 & 61,1994
`Letter from Ziaad Khan, British Library Research Service, to Ying
`Zhang, Library Technical Services Specialist, Ropes & Gray LLP
`(Nov. 28, 2016) with W. O’Mara, Liquid Crystal Flat Panel
`Displays: Manufacturing Science & Technology, Van Nostrand
`Reinhold, 1993
`Declaration of Richard Moncrief
`Declaration of Ying Zhang
`Declaration of Mary Oros
`Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Nichia Corp., Case No. 12-11758
`(E.D. Mich.), 04/22/2015 Trial Transcript (“Jury Verdict”)
`
`Exhibit
`EX1036
`
`EX1037
`
`EX1038
`
`EX1039
`
`EX1040
`
`EX1041
`
`EX1042
`EX1043
`EX1044
`EX1045
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`Pursuant to §§311-319 and §42.1,1 the undersigned, on behalf of and in a
`
`representative capacity for VIZIO, Inc. (“Petitioner”), petition for inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-20 (“Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,901,959 (the “’959 patent”), issued to Yoshinori Shimizu, et al. and,
`
`according to USPTO records, now assigned to Nichia Corporation (“Patent
`
`Owner”). Petitioner asserts there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the
`
`Claims is unpatentable for the reasons herein and respectfully requests review of,
`
`and judgment against, these claims as unpatentable under §103.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND IN THE ART
`
`The ’959 patent generally relates to “a light emitting device (LED)
`
`comprising a phosphor, which converts the wavelength of light emitted by a light
`
`emitting component and emits light, and a display device using the light emitting
`
`device.” EX1001, Abstract, 1:25-32. As shown herein, the supposed “invention”
`
`in the Claims was well-known and obvious prior to the claimed July 29, 1996
`
`priority date.
`
`
`1 Section cites are to 35 U.S.C. or 37 C.F.R. as the context indicates; and all
`
`emphasis and annotations are added unless noted.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`The Claims generally recite conventional features that were well-known
`
`before July 29, 1996.2 For example, liquid crystal displays (LCDs) with back
`
`lights were well-known. E.g., EX1004, 11:33-42, Figs. 1, 2, 4; EX1009, Title, xiii;
`
`EX1030, 1-2; EX1003¶¶41-42. It was also well-known for LCDs to have a liquid
`
`crystal injected between glass substrates. E.g., EX1009, 14, 57, 90, Fig. 1-6, 2-15;
`
`EX1030, 14, Fig. 2.11; EX1003¶¶43. LCDs with color filters were also well-
`
`known. E.g., EX1009, 21, 100, Fig. 1-8; EX1030, 71, 253, Figs. 3.39, 3.41, 3.42,
`
`7.39; EX1003¶¶44.
`
`LEDs having a fluorescent material that absorbs light emitted by the light
`
`emitting component and emits light of a wavelength different from that of the
`
`absorbed light (wavelength conversion) were also well-known. E.g., EX1004,
`
`7:19-27; EX1005, Abstract, Fig. 1; EX1013, Abstract, Fig. 2; EX1003¶¶45; see
`
`also EX1001, 2:5-22. LED chips with a main emission peak within the range from
`
`420 to 490 nm were also well-known. E.g., EX1004, 9:10-18; EX1007, 1868;
`
`EX1012, 36:49-51; EX1003¶¶46. It was further well-known that LED chips can
`
`comprise indium gallium nitride (InGaN) (e.g., EX1004, 10:24-25; EX1007, 1868;
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves the right to raise in an appropriate forum invalidity based on
`
`§112, as well as the right to argue that the Claims are not entitled to the July 29,
`
`1996 priority date, based on other grounds.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`EX1015, 1:10-15, 7:5-7; EX1003¶¶47); and sapphire substrates (e.g., EX1004,
`
`10:36-40; EX1007, 1868; EX1015, 1:16-25; EX1003¶¶48).
`
`Additionally, it was well-known to have a transparent material covering the
`
`LED chip (e.g., EX1004, 8:58-9:9, Fig. 1; EX1005¶2, Fig. 2; EX1016, 215-216,
`
`Fig. 5.5(b); EX1003¶¶49); and for the transparent material to be made out of epoxy
`
`resin, urea resin, silicone resin, or glass (e.g., EX1004, 8:58-9:9; EX1005¶¶2, 10;
`
`EX1017, 1:20-25; EX1003¶¶50). It was also well-known that phosphor contained
`
`in the transparent material absorbs a part of light emitted by the LED chip and
`
`emits light of a wavelength different from that of the absorbed light (e.g., EX1004,
`
`Abstract, 9:4-9, 9:39-50; EX1005¶10, Fig. 2; EX1003¶¶51); and phosphor diffuses
`
`light (e.g., EX1004, 7:13-18; EX1005¶¶3, 7, Fig. 2; EX1029, 12:16-21; EX1026,
`
`6:23-37, 6:41-43, Fig. 9; EX1027, Abstract, 2:51-58; EX1018, 8, 67-68, Fig.
`
`3.30a-b; EX1003¶¶52). Phosphors that absorb blue light and are capable of
`
`emitting red light were also well-known. E.g., EX1004, 8:39-43, 4:33-42, 10:41-
`
`65; EX1033, Fig. 2; EX1035, 16:5-7; EX1006, 3:20-32, 3:33-55; EX1003¶¶53. It
`
`was further well-known to have a concentration of phosphor in the vicinity of the
`
`LED chip that was larger than a concentration of the phosphor in the vicinity of the
`
`surface of the transparent material. E.g., EX1004, 9:4-9, 8:60-65, Fig. 1; EX1005,
`
`Abstract, ¶¶9-10, Fig. 1; EX1003¶¶54.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`Prior to the claimed priority date, it was also well-known to use cerium-
`
`doped yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) phosphor to down-convert blue light to
`
`generate white light using a source of light emitting within the excitation spectrum
`
`of YAG. E.g., EX1006, 1:37-48, 2:12-26, 4:26-33, Fig. 1; EX1019, 151; EX1020,
`
`89-91; EX1003¶¶55. It was also well-known that YAG has a crystal structure
`
`(e.g., EX1006, 3:1-11; EX1019, 151; EX1024, 5139; EX1021, 16-17, Fig. 1;
`
`EX1003¶¶56); and emits light having a spectrum with a peak in the range from 530
`
`to 570 nm and a tail continuing beyond 700 nm (e.g., EX1006, Abstract, 2:12-16,
`
`3:1-5, Fig. 1; EX1018, 124-25, 184, Fig. 6.17, Table 9.7; EX1019, 151, Fig. 2;
`
`EX1021, 16; EX1003¶¶57). Further, it was well-known that the spectrum of light
`
`emitted from YAG and the spectrum of a blue light source having a peak in the
`
`range of 420 to 490 nm overlap with each other to make a continuous combined
`
`spectrum. E.g., EX1006, Abstract, 3:1-8, 2:12-26, 4:26-33, Fig. 1; EX1022, 156,
`
`Fig. 2; EX1003¶¶58.
`
`As demonstrated herein, each and every element of the Claims had been
`
`disclosed in the prior art, and the Claims are at most nothing more than a routine
`
`and predictable combination of these well-known elements. Thus, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests that the Board institute trial and find each Claim invalid under
`
`§103.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER §42.8
`VIZIO, Inc. is the Real Party in Interest Under §42.8(b)(1).
`
`Related Matters Under §42.8(b)(2): Patent Owner is currently asserting
`
`claims 1, 3-5, and 18 of the ’959 patent against Petitioner in Nichia Corporation v.
`
`VIZIO, Inc., C.A. No. 8:16-cv-545 (C.D. Cal.). Patent Owner has also asserted
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 5,998,925 and 7,531,960, which are in the same family as the
`
`’959 patent, in Nichia Corporation v. Everlight Americas, Inc., Case No. 12-11758
`
`(E.D. Mich.) (the “Michigan case”). In that case, the jury found all asserted claims
`
`invalid for obviousness in view of the prior art, including U.S Patent No. 6,600,175
`
`to Baretz (EX1004) relied upon in this Petition. See EX1045 (Jury Verdict);
`
`Federal Circuit Appeal Nos. 16-1577, -1611. In addition, Petitioner has filed, or
`
`will file, concurrent with the present Petition, petitions for inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,915,631, 7,855,092 and 8,309,375, which are in the same family
`
`as the ’959 patent.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner Under §42.8(b)(3) and Service
`
`Information under §42.8(b)(4): Gabrielle E. Higgins (Lead Counsel), Reg. No.
`
`38,916, gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com, P:650-617-4015/F:650-566-4131;
`
`Jordan M. Rossen (Backup Counsel), Reg. No. 74,064,
`
`jordan.rossen@ropesgray.com, P:202-508-4759/F:202-508-4650; Mailing address
`
`5
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`for all PTAB correspondence: ROPES & GRAY LLP, IPRM–Floor 43, Prudential
`
`Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199-3600.
`
`III. PETITIONER HAS STANDING
`Under §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’959 patent is eligible for IPR
`
`and Petitioner is not barred/estopped from requesting IPR. Petitioner was served
`
`with a Complaint on or after April 1, 2016. Neither Petitioner nor any other real
`
`party-in-interest or privy of Petitioner was served with a complaint before that
`
`date, or has initiated a civil action challenging the ’959 patent’s validity.
`
`Claims/Statutory Grounds Under §§42.22, 42.104(b): Petitioner requests
`
`IPR of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-20 and asserts the Claims are unpatentable
`
`based on one or more grounds under §103: Ground 1: Baretz in view of O’Mara
`
`and Pinnow renders obvious claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 17-18; Ground 2: Baretz in
`
`view of O’Mara, Pinnow, and Matoba renders obvious claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 17-
`
`18; Ground 3: Baretz in view of Pinnow renders obvious claims 9, 11-13, 15-16,
`
`and 19-20; Ground 4: Baretz in view of Pinnow and Matoba renders obvious
`
`claims 9, 11-13, 15-16, and 19-20.
`
`Section V.C.8 provides claim charts specifying how the relied upon prior art
`
`renders obvious the Claims. In further support of the proposed grounds of
`
`rejection, the Declaration of technical expert, Dr. Paul Prucnal, is attached as
`
`EX1003. See EX1003¶¶1-234.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’959 PATENT AND ITS FIELD
`A. Overview of the ’959 patent
`The ’959 patent generally describes a “Liquid Crystal Display and Back
`
`Light Having a Light Emitting Diode.” EX1001, Title. The ’959 patent’s
`
`supposed “invention” is described as “a light emitting diode used in LED display,
`
`back light source…comprising a phosphor, which converts the wavelength of light
`
`emitted by a light emitting component and emits light, and a display device using
`
`the light emitting device.” Id., 1:26-32. Figure 1 shows “a lead type light emitting
`
`diode according to the embodiment of the present invention.” Id., 6:56-58, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, light emitting diode 100 has “a mount lead 105 and an inner
`
`lead 106, wherein a light emitting component 102 [LED chip] is installed on a cup
`
`105a of the mount lead 105, and the cup 105a is filled with a coating resin 101
`
`which contains a specified phosphor to cover the light emitting component 102 and
`
`7
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`is molded in resin.” Id., 8:36-42, Fig. 1. The molding material 104 “has the
`
`function to protect the light emitting component 102, the conductive wire 103 and
`
`the coating material 101.” Id., 16:46-49.
`
`The ’959 patent discloses that both the “coating material [101]” and the
`
`“molding material 104” may be “transparent materials…such as epoxy resin, urea
`
`resin, silicon resin or glass,” and that “[t]he molding and the coating may also be
`
`made of the same material.” Id., 16:33-37, 16:60-62, 17:9-11, Fig. 1.
`
`Furthermore, “the phosphor may be contained either in the molding material or in
`
`the coating material…[or] in both the coating material and the molding material.”
`
`Id., 16:65-17:4.
`
`In operation, “part of light emitted by the light emitting component (LED
`
`chip) 102…excites the phosphor contained in the coating resin 101 to generate
`
`fluorescent light having a wavelength different from that of LED light, so that the
`
`fluorescent light emitted by the phosphor and LED light which is output without
`
`contributing to the excitation of the phosphor are mixed and output.” Id., 8:45-52.
`
`The ’959 patent also discloses that “[a]ccording to the present invention, the
`
`fluorescent material is preferably yttrium-aluminum-garnet fluorescent material
`
`(YAG phosphor) activated with cerium, or a fluorescent material represented by
`
`the general formula (Re1-rSmr)3(Al1-sGas)5O12:Ce, where 0 ≦r ≦1 and 0 ≦s ≦1, and
`
`Re is at least one selected from Y and Gd.” Id., 10:25-31.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`The ’959 patent further discloses the “liquid crystal display can be achieved
`
`by arranging a polarizer plate on one principal plane of the optical guide plate 704
`
`via liquid crystal injected between glass substrates (not shown).” Id., 20:26-31.
`
`The ’959 patent also discloses “a full-color liquid crystal display device by using a
`
`color filter.” Id., 13:30-31. See generally EX1003¶¶59-65.
`
`B. Overview of the Prosecution History
`The application leading to the ’959 patent (Application No. 12/548,621) was
`
`filed on August 27, 2009. EX1002, 12-91. On June 16, 2010, the Examiner
`
`rejected all prosecution claims based on non-statutory obviousness-type double
`
`patenting, and rejected claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Bando (Proceeding of the institute of Phosphor Society) in
`
`view of Hato (U.S. Patent No. 5,706,022). Id., 331-337. On December 16, 2010,
`
`Applicant filed a response amending all independent claims to require that “a
`
`concentration of said phosphor in the vicinity of said LED chip is larger than a
`
`concentration of said phosphor in the vicinity of the surface of said transparent
`
`material.” Id., 435, 436. In addition, Applicant argued that Bando was not prior
`
`art because it was entitled to claim priority to foreign priority application JP 8-
`
`198585 (filed July 29, 1996). Id., 440-41. On January 5, 2011, the Examiner
`
`mailed a Notice of Allowance. Id., 517-523. The ’959 patent issued on March 8,
`
`2011. EX1001.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`On September 14, 2009, Applicant filed a separate related application, U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 12/559,042 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,610,147), which claims
`
`priority to the same parent application as the ’959 patent. EX1008, 14-93. During
`
`prosecution of that application, the Examiner found limitations like those in the
`
`’959 patent Claims addressed herein were taught by Baretz (EX1004) and Pinnow
`
`(EX1006). EX1008, 429-45. For example, on March 16, 2011, the Examiner
`
`issued an Office Action rejecting prosecution claims 1-25 as unpatentable under
`
`§103 over combinations of prior art, including Baretz and Pinnow. Id., 429-43.
`
`In particular, the Examiner found “Baretz teaches, a phosphor contained in
`
`said transparent material (20) []and absorbing a part of light emitted by said light
`
`emitting chips and emitting light of wavelength different from that of the absorbed
`
`light (col 9, ln 5-10), wherein the main emission peak of said light emitting chips is
`
`within the range from 400 nm to 530 nm (450 nm, col 9, ln 12).” Id., 433. The
`
`Examiner also found “Baretz teaches, in Fig. 1, that a concentration of said
`
`phosphor in the vicinity of at least one of said light emitting chips (concentration
`
`of phosphor in transparent material 20 is larger than 0, see col 9, ln 1-10) is larger
`
`than a concentration of said phosphor in the vicinity of the surface of said
`
`transparent material (concentration of phosphor in housing 11 is 0, see col 8, ln 60-
`
`65).” Id., 435.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`The Examiner further found “Baretz teaches that said phosphor has a crystal
`
`structure (col 9, 10-30)” (id.); “Baretz teaches that said phosphor diffuses said light
`
`emitted from said light emitting chips (col 7, ln 5-20, it is clear to one of ordinary
`
`skill that absorbing and reemitting light would diffuse the light)” (id.); “Baretz
`
`teaches that said light emitting chips comprise InGaN (col 10, ln 20-27)” (id.);
`
`“Baretz teaches that said light emitting chips comprise a sapphire substrate (col 10,
`
`ln 36-40)” (id.); “Baretz teaches that said transparent material is selected from the
`
`group consisting of epoxy resin, urea resin, silicone resin and glass (epoxy resin,
`
`col 9, ln 25-30; glass melt, col 9, ln 65 – col 10, ln 5)” (id.); and “Baretz also
`
`teaches that said light emitting chips emit a light having a spectrum with a peak in
`
`the range from 420 to 490 nm (450 nm, col 9, ln 12)” (id., 439).
`
`The Examiner also found “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the light emitting device of
`
`Stinson/Baretz/Furuyama with the phosphor of Pinnow.” Id., 440. The Examiner
`
`found “Pinnow teaches, in Fig. 1, that said phosphor emits light having a spectrum
`
`(dotted line) with a peak in the range from 510 to 600 nm and a tail continuing
`
`beyond 700 nm (clear from the figure), and said spectrum of the light emitted from
`
`said phosphor and said spectrum of the light emitted from said light emitting chips
`
`overlap with each other to make a continuous combined spectrum (clear from the
`
`figure)…(col 1, ln 32-35).” Id., 439. The Examiner also found “Pinnow teaches,
`
`11
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`in Fig. 1, that said spectrum of the light emitted from said phosphor has a peak in
`
`the range from 530 to 570 nm and a tail continuing beyond 700 nm (clear from the
`
`figure)” (id., 440); and “that said phosphor comprises an yttrium-aluminum-garnet
`
`fluorescent material containing Y and Al (col 1, ln 42-48)…” (id.).
`
`On July 18, 2011, Applicant responded by traversing the rejections and
`
`making certain claim amendments. Id., 486-92. However, Applicant’s arguments
`
`were insufficient to traverse the Examiner’s rejections, and on March 12, 2013, the
`
`Examiner issued an Office Action again rejecting the claims in view of Baretz and
`
`Pinnow on the same grounds. Id. On July 12, 2013, Applicant responded by
`
`amending independent prosecution claims 1, 3, 22 and 24 to further require “a
`
`transparent material directly covering said light emitting chips” and “wherein the
`
`concentration of said phosphor in said second region in said transparent material
`
`is larger than zero.” Id., 903-09. The Examiner also required Applicant to submit
`
`a new Figure 24 showing the additional claim limitations. Id., 933, 971-76. On
`
`November 20, 2013, specifically in view of these amendments adding further
`
`limitations to the concentration feature (amendments absent from the ’959 Claims),
`
`the Examiner allowed the amended ’042 application claims. Id., 995-96.
`
`EX1003¶¶66-71.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD PETITIONER WILL
`PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM
`
`Petitioner submits there is at least a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one of the Claims. §314(a). Indeed, as explained
`
`herein, all Claims are obvious under §103.
`
`A. Claim Construction Under §42.104(b)(3)
`Because the ’959 patent will likely expire during the requested IPR, to the
`
`extent there may be differences here Petitioner construes the ’959 claims under
`
`both the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) for purposes of institution and
`
`under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) for purposes of
`
`this review. See §42.100(b); IPR2013-00306, Pap. 12 at 11 (at institution the
`
`“patent…has not expired, and…we apply…construction consistent with the
`
`[BRI]”; IPR2013-00483, Pap. 37 at 5.
`
`For purposes of this review, Petitioner interprets all terms according to their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the ’959 specification. Petitioner
`
`expressly reserves the right to argue in litigation a different claim construction for
`
`any term, as appropriate to that proceeding.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill and State of the Art
`
`B.
`The level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’959 patent is a person having a
`
`minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, chemistry or physics, or
`
`a related field, and approximately two years of professional experience with
`
`13
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`optoelectronics, or other relevant experience. Additional graduate education could
`
`substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could
`
`substitute for formal education. A POSITA is presumed to have knowledge of all
`
`relevant prior art, and would thus have been familiar with each of the references
`
`cited herein, as well as the background knowledge in the art discussed in §I supra,
`
`and the full range of teachings they contain. EX1003¶¶36-38.
`
`C. Grounds 1-4 (See EX1003¶¶79-231)
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175 (“Baretz”)
`Baretz (EX1004, filed March 26, 1996), issued July 29, 2003, is prior art
`
`under at least §102(e). Baretz describes converting blue light from solid state
`
`devices, such as LEDs and lasers, to white light using phosphor. EX1004,
`
`Abstract, 1:6-8, 7:38-54, 8:18-25, 9:4-9, 9:39-50. In particular, Baretz teaches a
`
`blue or UV LED packaged with “fluorescent organic and/or inorganic fluorescers
`
`and phosphors in an insulating polymeric matrix.” EX1004, 7:19-23. “The
`
`monochromatic blue or UV radiation output of the LED is absorbed and then down
`
`converted by the fluorphore or phosphor to yield longer wavelengths to include a
`
`broad spectrum of frequencies which appear as white light.” EX1004, 7:23-27.
`
`EX1003¶¶80-81.
`
`An example of Baretz’s white light emitting diode assembly is shown in
`
`Figure 1:
`
`14
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 7,901,959
`
`
`
`EX1004, Fig. 1, 8:58-60. Figure 1 shows an LED chip (“light emitting diode
`
`(LED) die 13”) housed within a light-transmissive enclosure 11, which has an
`
`interior volume defined by enclosing wall 7. EX1004, 8:60-67, Fig.1. Baretz
`
`discloses t