`
`Exhibit 631-1
`
`
`The following chart demonstrates that asserted claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,915,631 (the “’631 patent”) are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,600,175 (“Baretz”),
`and obvious in view of Baretz alone or in combination with one or more of the following
`references:
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 3,699,478 (“Pinnow”)
` U.S. Patent No. 6,245,259 (“Hohn”)
` U.S. Patent No. 3,875,456 (“Kano”)
` U.S. Patent No. 5,208,462 (“O’Connor”)
` U.S. Patent No. 4,966,862 (“Edmond”)
` Japanese Patent Publication No. 50-059514 (“Kawamura”)
` Japanese Patent Publication No. H7-99345 (“Matoba”)
` Japanese Patent Publication No. 52-40959 (“Hasetani”)
` Pinnow et al., Photoluminescent Conversion of Laser Light for Black and White
`and Multicolor Displays, Applied Optics, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1971) (“Pinnow
`Publication”)
` J.M. Robertson et al., Colourshift of the CE3+ Emission in Monocrystalline
`Epitaxially Grown Garnet Layers, Philips J. Res. 36 (1981) (“Robertson”)
` 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
`(1971) (“Van Uitert”)
` M.V. Hoffman, “Improved Color Rendition in High Pressure Mercury Vapor
`Lamps,” Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, Vol. 6, No. 2 (1977)
`(“Hoffman”)
` G. Blasse et al., “Luminescent Materials,” Springer-Verlag (1994) (“Blasse”)
` Schlotter et al., Luminescence Conversion of Blue Light Emitting Diodes, Applied
`Physics A 64, 417-18 (Feb. 27, 1997) (“Schlotter”)
` Kano et al., Efficient Green-Emitting Infrared-Excited Phosphors, J. Electrochem.
`Soc.: Solid State Science and Technology (Nov. 1972) (“Kano Publication”)
`
`
`The analysis in this chart is based on the apparent claim constructions and interpretations
`that Nichia has advanced to allege infringement of the asserted claims of the ’631 patent,
`as set forth in Nichia’s Supplemental Infringement Contentions served December 29,
`2016 and Nichia’s Third Amended and Supplemented Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted
`Claims and Infringement Contentions served September 14, 2017. Nothing in this chart
`should be interpreted as VIZIO conceding that Nichia’s apparent claim constructions and
`interpretations are correct or supported by intrinsic or extrinsic evidence.
`
`The analysis in this chart is preliminary, and VIZIO’s investigation into the invalidity of
`the asserted claims of the ’631 patent is ongoing. VIZIO reserves the right to provide
`additional theories under which the cited prior art anticipates or renders obvious the
`asserted claims of the ’631 patent. The citations to specific disclosure of the prior art
`references in this chart are exemplary, and VIZIO reserves the right to rely on additional
`disclosures to the same references. VIZIO also reserves the right to offer expert
`
`
`
`Exhibit 631-1, Page 1
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`
`
`
`3:16-19 (“[a]bsorbed energy usefully converted in this fashion may
`be represented in terms of an ‘excitation’ spectrum, and it is in these
`terms that the data of FIG. 1 is represented.”),
`
`4:26-36 (“In the unmodified YAG:Ce system using an argon or
`cadmium laser, white images may result by compensation of the
`secondary yellow cast emission by some reflection of the shorter
`wavelength laser emission. Under these circumstances it is desired
`to design layer thicknesses and compositions or provide for some
`reflection such that total absorption does not result.”),
`
`6:1-6 (“2. Apparatus of claim 1 in which the said phosphorescent
`composition and screen design are such that a portion of the laser
`emission is unconverted so that the combination of reflected laser
`emission and the μ emission from the screen appears approximately
`white.”).
`
` A
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`Pinnow’s YAG emission spectrum has a tail continuing beyond 700
`nm because the relative intensity (normalized to 100) of the YAG
`emission spectrum is at least 20% at 700 nm and has a gradually
`decreasing slope. Furthermore, it was well-known that YAG
`produces an emission spectrum with a tail continuing beyond 700
`nm. See Blasse at Fig. 6.17.
`
`Exhibit 631-1, Page 26
`
`
`
`
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Modifying Baretz to include a phosphor that emits light having a
`spectrum with a peak in the range from 510 to 600 nm and a tail
`continuing beyond 700 nm, and said spectrum of the light emitted
`from said phosphor and said spectrum of the light emitted from said
`LED chip overlap with each other to make a continuous combined
`spectrum, would have been nothing more than a combination of
`known elements according to known techniques to yield predictable
`results. It also would have been a simple substitution of one known
`element for another, such as a simple substitution of the phosphor
`disclosed in Pinnow for the phosphor disclosed in Baretz. Persons
`of skill in the art were familiar with using different phosphors as
`substitutes, and there would have been nothing surprising or
`unexpected about modifying Baretz to use a phosphor with the
`claimed characteristics. The combination would also have been
`obvious to try as one of a finite number of known solutions for
`phosphors that achieved the benefits Baretz was seeking, and in
`particular, phosphors capable of withstanding operations conditions
`of the LEDs disclosed in Baretz. A person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have been motivated to modify Baretz to include a
`phosphor like Pinnow’s cerium-doped YAG phosphor because of its
`known and predictable advantages, such as improved color output
`and color rendering, and ability to withstand harsh operating
`conditions.
`
`Exemplary details of why it would have been obvious to combine
`the teachings of these references are set forth below:
`
`First, Baretz and Pinnow are in the same field of endeavor as the
`‘092 patent and pertinent to the problem the inventors were trying to
`solve. The ‘092 patent is generally directed to creating white
`light, by combining light emitted from a solid-state device (such as
`an LED) and light emitted from a phosphor. Baretz is in this same
`field because it discloses creating white light by combining a blue
`light-emitting LED with light emitting from a down-converting
`phosphor. Baretz at 9:4-9. Pinnow, likewise, is in the same field of
`endeavor addressed by the ‘092 patent – the partial down-
`conversion of blue light to make white light. Pinnow at Abstract,
`1:44-49. In addition, Pinnow discloses systems for down converting
`blue light to generate white light using a source of light emitting
`within the excitation spectrum of YAG phosphor. Pinnow at
`Abstract, 2:14-26, 4:26-33, Fig.1. In addition. the fact that YAG
`was used in the prior art to improve and modify blue light sources
`from lasers, high pressure mercury vapor lamps, and low pressure
`mercury vapor lamps suggests the obviousness of using YAG for
`blue LEDs. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been
`
`Exhibit 631-1, Page 27
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application
`is beyond that person’s skill.”).
`
` POSITA would have been aware, and would have considered,
`prior work published in the field of phosphors used with other light
`sources like Pinnow. A POSITA would not have ignored Pinnow
`simply because it related primarily to a laser, and not an LED. He
`or she would have understood that the fundamental principles
`discussed in Pinnow – that a YAG phosphor will emit a yellow light
`when excited by a blue light – are as applicable to a LED as they are
`to a laser. Pinnow’s teachings are a fundamental aspect of optics,
`and would have been considered as being in the same field of
`endeavor as the ‘092 patent.
`
`Second, Pinnow’s relevance to the field of the ‘092 patent has
`already been considered by the Federal Circuit in In re Cree, 828
`F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In that case, the Federal Circuit affirmed
`the unpatentability of Baretz, based, in part, to another patent to
`Pinnow, U.S. Patent No. 3,691,482. Like Pinnow here, the ‘482
`patent disclosed a display system that “creates black and white
`images using a combination of a blue laser and appropriate
`phosphors.” In re Cree, 828 F.3d at 697. The Federal Circuit
`affirmed the Board’s rulings that a POSITA “is not going to fail to
`appreciate the other teachings in Pinnow simply because a laser is
`used as the primary light source, because the phosphors cannot tell
`from what light source a wavelength of
`light comes.” Id. at 699.
`
`The Federal Circuit expressly found that the Board’s conclusion that
`Pinnow would “work with blue light of any source . . . was an
`entirely reasonable conclusion to draw from Pinnow.” Id.,700. The
`Federal Circuit also found that “the examiner pointed to ample
`evidence that Pinnow’s teachings are applicable to LEDs,” and
`specifically, that “the phosphors’ ability to convert the UV-to-blue
`light is predicated only on whether or not it can absorb a given
`wavelength of light, not on which kind of light source a particular
`wavelength of light is emitted, laser, LED, or otherwise,
`as a [POSITA] would readily appreciate.” Id.,701. Put more
`succinctly, “in other words, a phosphor does not care how an
`incident photon of light at a particular wavelength is generated.” Id.
`
`Third, the evidence shows that there are very few phosphors that
`absorb blue, emit yellow and operate the harsh conditions, which, as
`Baretz acknowledges, are present in an LED and may lead to
`
` A
`
`Exhibit 631-1, Page 28
`
`
`
`
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`degradation of certain phosphors. A POSITA would have been
`aware of a discrete number of well-known phosphors that were
`capable of surviving in such harsh environments. Nichia’s own
`expert confirmed this fact in the Everlight litigation when he
`conceded that “stringent requirements required for the phosphor to
`be used with a blue LED strongly limited the choice of potential
`phosphors.”
`
`The YAG phosphor disclosed Pinnow is one such phosphor. Not
`only was YAG one of only a few phosphors that met the above
`requirements, it was widely known to be the single best phosphor in
`such circumstances—no other phosphor at that time had YAG’s
`properties, and even today, it is the standard by which new
`phosphors are gauged. A POSITA would have understood that
`YAG was one of the few phosphors that could overcome the
`deterioration problems relevant to Baretz. Thus, the YAG phosphor
`disclosed in Pinnow would have been one of a “finite number of
`identified, predictable solutions” and a POSITA would have had
`“good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`technical grasp.” KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
`
`Fourth, there is no teaching away of the proposed combination
`because both references address the same issue – namely down
`conversion of a blue light source to make white light. Both
`references relate to using phosphors to change the color of light
`emitted from a monochromatic light source to create white light.
`Both references are in the same field, aimed at the same problems,
`have similar design incentives, and use similar techniques to satisfy
`that goal. Rather than teaching away, as described here and above,
`the references’ express teachings towards the same problem would
`motivate one in the art to combine their teachings.
`
`Fifth, it would have been a predictable combination to combine the
`blue light LED of Baretz with the YAG phosphor disclosed in
`Pinnow. The emission spectrum of Baretz’s “gallium nitride based
`LED[,] which exhibits blue light emission with an emission
`maximum at approximately 450nm with a FWHM of approximately
`65nm,” almost completely overlaps with the excitation spectrum of
`Pinnow’s YAG:Ce, and falls in between the cadmium ion laser line
`and the argon ion laser line that Pinnow teaches is suitable for use
`with YAG:Ce.
`
`Like Baretz, Pinnow further teaches that the yellow light emitted by
`the YAG:Ce phosphor mixes with the blue light from the blue light
`source to make white light. While Baretz discloses examples of
`phosphors that may be used to make the white light LED, Baretz
`
`Exhibit 631-1, Page 29
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`also discloses “suitable materials” for the down-converting material
`“is not specifically limited, and suitable amount(s) of suitable
`material(s) for such purpose can be readily determined without
`undue experimentation.” Baretz at 10:66-11:7. A person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Pinnow’s
`YAG:Ce is one of these “suitable materials.”
`
` POSITA would also have readily understood that combining
`Baretz’s LED with Pinnow’s YAG phosphor would have been an
`obvious design choice to make white light with a single phosphor
`and single blue light source. Pinnow discloses harsh operating
`conditions similar to those experience by an LED like the one
`disclosed in Baretz, and therefore would be capable of meeting
`Baretz’s operating requirements. The combined teachings of Baretz
`and Pinnow would not have resulted in any inoperable
`combination because it would simply be adding a more specific
`source of yellow light (YAG:Ce), which mixes with the blue light
`from the blue light source to make white light as taught by Baretz.
`
`Sixth, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to use Pinnow’s YAG:Ce in Baretz for a white light LED.
`The conversion of the blue light by the phosphor YAG:Ce is the
`same for the sources of light of Baretz and Pinnow (i.e. an LED or
`laser). Indeed, Baretz identifies both blue LEDs and blue lasers as
`solid state devices suitable for “generating the primary radiation
`which subsequently is down converted to a longer wavelength
`radiation.” Baretz at 7:45-54, 12:25-38.
`
`Moreover, Pinnow discloses that the emission spectrum for the
`YAG:Ce phosphor is “quite broad.” Pinnow at 3:3-8. Baretz
`discloses that a broad emission spectrum, such as the emission
`spectrum of Pinnow’s YAG:Ce, is a “significant advantage” for
`generating white light because the “relatively broad emission
`bandwidth … offers the maximum overlap of photon wavelengths to
`most readily generate a white illumination. Baretz at 8:44-47.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that
`Baretz’s blue LED chip, with an emission maximum at 450nm, is a
`good match for Pinnow’s YAG:Ce because it coincides with
`Pinnow’s YAG:Ce excitation spectrum at a relative intensity of
`greater than 80, as compared to the relative intensity of the argon
`and cadmium laser disclosed in Pinnow. See Baretz at 9:10-18.
`
` A
`
` A
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art would have also be motivated to
`use Pinnow’s YAG:Ce phosphor in Baretz to make a white light
`LED because of the well-known advantages of YAG:CE in lighting
`and display applications. See, e.g., Van Uitert at 150-151, Hoffman
`
`Exhibit 631-1, Page 30
`
`
`
`
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`at 91, and Robertson at 471-72. For example, Van Uitert explains
`that YAG:Ce’s “quantum efficiency of approximately 70%” “make
`YAG:Ce very attractive for display screen applications,” which
`Baretz discloses is a desired application for white light LEDs.
`
`Additionally, YAG:Ce was well known to be able to withstand
`harsh operating conditions and can withstand temperatures up to
`300ºC. This characteristic would have made YAG:Ce an
`appropriate phosphor for the applications disclosed in Baretz, which
`recognized that degradation of phosphor was a concern. Baretz at
`5:2-8, 9:65-66.
`
`Furthermore, in reexamination No. 90/010,940, the PTAB
`determined that it would have been obvious in March 1996 to
`combine Pinnow’s teachings with Nakamura’s newly disclosed blue
`LED to make white light. The Federal Circuit affirmed that ruling,
`noting the Board’s view that “the invention was ‘nothing more than
`a new application of a high-power, high-brightness blue LED
`developed by Dr. Nakamura in late 1993’” that “was predictable in
`view of the state of the art in LEDs, the market demand for white
`light devices, the finite number of identified means to convert light
`from LEDs into white light, and the advantages of using the down-
`conversion approach.” In re Cree, 828 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir.
`2016). This holding confirms that it would have been obvious to
`combine the teachings of Baretz and Pinnow as discussed above.
`
`Finally, the prior art also demonstrates the simultaneous invention
`of LEDs that combined blue light emitting LED chips and YAG:Ce
`phosphors. In February 1997, Schlotter reported on the fabrication
`of white-light emitting LEDs with blue light emitting gallium nitride
`chips and YAG:Ce phosphor having the same characteristics as the
`claimed invention. See Schlotter at 417-418, Fig. 5. In a
`contemporaneous patent application, Schlotter and his colleagues
`explained the widely accepted benefits of combining YAG:Ce
`phosphor with recently developed high-power blue-light emitting
`LED chips, such as color and temperature stability. See Hohn at
`1:65-7:41. The evidence of simultaneous invention demonstrates
`that persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`found it obvious to combine known YAG:Ce phosphors with
`recently blue LED chips like those disclosed in Baretz.
`
` A
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
`combined teaching of Pinnow’s YAG phosphor implemented in
`Baretz’s LED (containing blue LED chip) produce a continuous
`combined spectrum because the emission spectrum of YAG
`continuously spans the visible spectrum and overlaps with the
`
`Exhibit 631-1, Page 31
`
`
`
`
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`

`

`spectrum of Baretz’s blue LED chip with an emission peak at 450
`nm.
`
` person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
`combined teaching of Pinnow’s YAG phosphor implemented in
`Baretz’s LED (containing blue LED chip) produce a continuous
`combined spectrum because the emission spectrum of YAG
`continuously spans the visible spectrum and overlaps with the
`spectrum of Baretz’s blue LED chip with an emission peak at 450
`nm.
`
`
` A
`
`Exemplary Disclosure from the Prior Art
`See claim 3.
`
`
`Exemplary Disclosure from the Prior Art
`Baretz discloses the liquid crystal display according to claim 1,
`wherein said phosphor comprises an yttrium-aluminum-garnet
`fluorescent material containing Y and Al. For example:
`
`7:19-27 (“[A]n LED operative to emit, for example, monochromatic
`blue or ultraviolet (UV) radiation is packaged along with fluorescent
`organic and/or inorganic fluorescers and phosphors in an insulating
`polymeric matrix. 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.”),
`
`8:26-47 (“White light LED solid state devices may be made
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 4
`[4] The light
`emitting diode
`according to claim
`3, wherein said
`spectrum of the
`light emitted from
`said phosphor has a
`peak in the range
`from 530 to 570
`mm and a tail
`continuing beyond
`700 nm.
`
`
`
`
`Claim 7
`[7] The liquid
`crystal display
`according to claim
`1, wherein said
`phosphor comprises
`an yttrium-
`aluminum-garnet
`fluorescent material
`containing Y and
`Al.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 631-1, Page 32
`
`NICHIA EX2010
`
`