Toshiba Corporationv.Gold Charm Limited

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

09591580 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11
571–272–7822 Entered: December 28, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

TOSHIBA CORPORATION, FUNAI ELECTRIC CO., LTD., and
SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
Petitioner,

v.

GOLD CHARM LIMITED,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1
_______________

Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Toshiba Corporation, Funai Electric Co., Ltd., and Samsung Display
Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
requesting inter partes review of claims 1–8 and 16 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,417,833 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’833 patent”). Pet. 1. Gold Charm
Limited (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim.
Resp.”).
We review the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
For the reasons that follow and on this record, we are not persuaded
that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing
the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims on any of the asserted
grounds. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s request to institute an inter
partes review.
A. Related Proceedings
The ’833 patent has been asserted against multiple defendants,
including, among others, Toshiba Corporation and Funai Electric Co., Ltd.,
in three lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, captioned as follows: (1) MiiCs & Partners, America, Inc. v.
Toshiba Corp., 1:14-cv-00803-RGA; (2) MiiCs & Partners, America, Inc. v.
Funai Electric Co., 1:14-cv-00804-RGA; and (3) MiiCs & Partners,
America, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., 1:14-cv-00805-RGA. Pet. 1–2;
Paper 5, 2–3.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

3
B. The ’833 Patent
The ’833 patent, entitled “Liquid Crystal Display Apparatus and
Method for Lighting Backlight Thereof,” issued July 9, 2002, from U.S.
Patent Application No. 09/591,580, filed June 9, 2000. Ex. 1001, [21], [22],
[45], [54]. The ’833 patent also claims priority from Japanese Patent
Application No. 11-165393, filed June 11, 1999. Id. at [30].
The ’833 patent generally describes a liquid crystal display (LCD)
apparatus and backlight illumination method. Id. at col. 1, ll. 6–7. In the
described apparatus and methods, lamps constituting “a first backlight” and
“a second backlight” are driven simultaneously, but with oscillation waves
having opposite phases. Id. at col. 2, ll. 15–25.
According to the ’833 patent, the lamps used in conventional LCD
backlight apparatuses are all driven in the same period and in
synchronization with each other, such that they also are lighted in the same
period and in synchronization, in order to avoid a type of interference noise
referred to as the “ripple phenomenon.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 23–45. In the
conventional backlight apparatus, “the lamp oscillation frequency is selected
so that the oscillation wave does not interfere [with] the horizontal
synchronization signal” of the LCD video signal, which would similarly
result in ripple noise. Id. at col. 1, ll. 53–56. According to the ’833 patent,
however, plural horizontal synchronization frequencies are used in
multiscanning monitors, while the lamp oscillation frequency is fixed, and
“the interference of the horizontal synchronization signal with the lamp
oscillation wave [therefore] cannot be avoided.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 58–62. In
particular, although a lamp oscillation frequency may be selected to avoid
interference with one particular horizontal synchronization signal, there will
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

4
still be ripple noise generated by interference between the lamp oscillation
wave and some other horizontal synchronization signals. Id. at col. 1, ll. 62–
67. Moreover, the ripple noise increases further with an increasing number
of lamps. Id. at col. 2, ll. 1–5.
By using first and second backlights that are driven simultaneously
but have inverted phase with respect to one another, the apparatus and
method of the ’833 patent purportedly reduce the ripple noise of the
conventional apparatuses. Id. at col. 2, ll. 27–34.
An embodiment of the ’833 patent is described with reference to
Figures 4 and 6, reproduced below, with color coding added by Petitioner.

Figure 4 is a perspective view of an embodiment of the LCD apparatus
described by the ’833 patent. Id. at col. 2, ll. 48–50. Figure 6 is a block
diagram showing a configuration of the embodiment. Id. at col. 2, ll. 54–56.
Figure 4 of the ’833 patent illustrates an LCD light source having
eight tube lamps, 5–12, positioned in parallel with one another in LCD
display apparatus 1. Id. at col. 3, ll. 18–23. In the configuration shown in
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

5
Figure 6 of the ’833 patent, lamps 5, 6, 9, and 10, outlined in blue by
Petitioner, are driven in synchronization by driver circuits 21 and 23 and
represent the first backlight. Id. at col. 3, l. 45–col. 4, l. 7; Pet. 6–7. Lamps
7, 8, 11, and 12, outlined in red, are driven by driver circuits 22 and 24 in
synchronization with, but with inverted phase relative to, lamps 5, 6, 9, and
10, and represent the second backlight. Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 45–col. 4, l. 7;
Pet. 6–7. The ’833 patent also discloses an embodiment in which lamps 5,
7, 9, and 11 constitute the first backlight and lamps 6, 8, 10, and 12
constitute the second backlight. Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 60–64, Fig. 11. The
’833 patent also states that, although it describes an embodiment with eight
lamps, “any number of lamps more than or equal to two can be used.” Id. at
col. 3, ll. 23–25.
C. The Challenged Claims
Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claims 1
and 16 of the ’833 patent read as follows:
1. A liquid crystal display apparatus, comprising:
a first backlight; and
a second backlight which is driven simultaneously with said
first backlight, said second backlight having an oscillation
wave whose phase is inverted with respect to an oscillation
wave of the first backlight.
16. A method for lighting a backlight of a liquid crystal display
apparatus, the method comprising the steps of:
lighting a first backlight; and
lighting a second backlight simultaneously with said first
backlight by inverting phase of an oscillation wave with
respect to an oscillation wave of the first backlight.
Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 25–30, col. 6, ll. 40–46.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

6
The remaining challenged claims—claims 2–8—all depend directly or
indirectly from claim 1. Id. at col. 5, l. 31–col. 6, l. 7.
D. Applied References and Declaration
Petitioner relies on the following references and declaration in support
of its asserted grounds of unpatentability:
Exhibit Reference or Declaration
1002 Declaration of Aris Silzars, Ph.D.
1003 US 5,325,024, issued June 28, 1994 (“GTE”)
1004 JP H11-003039 A, published January 6, 1999 (“Tanaka”)
1005 US 5,387,921, issued Feb. 7, 1995 (“Zhang”)
1006 PCT WO 98/12470, published Mar. 26, 1998 (“FPD”)
See Pet. 4–5.
E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–8 and 16 on the
following five grounds:
Reference Basis Claims Challenged
GTE 35 U.S.C. § 102 1–8 and 16
GTE 35 U.S.C. § 103 1–8 and 16
Tanaka 35 U.S.C. § 102 2 and 6
Zhang 35 U.S.C. § 102 1, 3–5, 7, 8, and 16
FPD 35 U.S.C. § 102 1–8 and 16

See Pet. 5.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review proceeding, claims of an unexpired patent
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

7
of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent
Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); see also
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We
conclude that Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard in enacting the AIA.”). Within that framework, terms
generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire
patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
Petitioner proposes interpretations for various claim terms and also
contends that the preambles of independent claims 1 and 16 merely state a
purpose or intended use of the invention and should not be construed as
claim limitations in our patentability analysis. Pet. 13–23. Patent Owner
counters with interpretations for three claim terms, specifically, “first
backlight,” “second backlight,” and “oscillation wave,” and contends that
the remaining claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
Prelim. Resp. 27–35. Patent Owner additionally argues that the preambles
of independent claims 1 and 16 give “life, meaning, and vitality” to the
challenged claims and that there is no basis to disregard them as claim
limitations. Prelim. Resp. 21–27.
We conclude that it is not necessary for our determination of whether
to institute inter partes review of the ’833 patent to construe expressly any
claim terms other than “backlight.”
1. “backlight”
The terms “first backlight” and “second backlight” are explicitly
recited in each of claims 1–5 and 16. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 25–44, col. 6,
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

8
ll. 40–46. The term “backlight,” by itself, is additionally recited in each of
claims 6–8. Id. at col. 5, l. 45–col. 6, l. 7.
Petitioner proposes that “first backlight” and “second backlight”
should both be construed the same way, as “comprising either (i) a single
lamp or (ii) multiple lamps each of which is driven using an oscillation wave
that is synchronized in terms of frequency and phase with the oscillation
waves used to drive the other of the multiple lamps.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex.
1002 ¶ 40). Petitioner further argues that “the determining factor for
whether a set of multiple lamps comprises a ‘first backlight’ or a ‘second
backlight’ is whether the multiple lamps are driven by oscillation waves
having the same period and oscillating in synchronization in the same
phase.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43). According to Petitioner, “[i]f that
factor is met, it is apparent that multiple lamps can comprises a claimed
‘backlight,’ regardless of other factors such as whether the lamps are located
next to one another or driven using the same circuitry.” Id.
Patent Owner responds that:
The plain and ordinary meaning given to the term
“backlight” by those of ordinary skill in the art is a form of
illumination from behind, which . . . is used in liquid crystal
displays (LCDs). However, the terms “first backlight” and
“second backlight,” when viewed by themselves, may not
necessarily be well-defined terms in the art. Accordingly, the
exact meaning of these terms and the relationship between them
should be construed in light of the ’833 Patent. In particular,
the context in which they are used (LCDs) and the problem
being solved (the ripple effect), as described in the
specification, are relevant to how one of ordinary skill in the art
would interpret the “first backlight” and “second backlight” in
the claims of the ’833 patent.
As initial matter, the backlights would be understood to
be backlights in a liquid crystal display. The use of the term
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

9
“backlight” rather than simply “light” indicates that something
is being illuminated from behind. While devices other than
LCDs can incorporate a backlight, the ’833 patent makes clear
that it is only addressing LCD backlights. It should also be
noted, even if the preambles of the claims were not properly
considered limiting, they would still inform the interpretation of
the term “backlight” in the remainder of the claims.
Prelim. Resp. 28–29.
Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner’s proposed construction
“is incomplete in that it ignores the necessary property of the ‘first
backlight’ and ‘second backlight’ as defining all of the lamps that are used
in the backlight 3.” Id. at 31. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he ’833 patent
eliminates the ripple effect in LCDs because interference between the
oscillation wave of the backlight and the horizontal synchronization signal is
eliminated.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 8–14). This is only
possible, according to Patent Owner, if all of the lamps in the backlight
belong to either the first or the second backlight. Id. “[I]f additional lamps
driven by additional oscillation waveforms were included in the liquid
crystal display, there would still be interference with horizontal
synchronization signal[s] and the problem addressed by the ’833 patent
would not be solved.” Id. at 29–30. Thus, according to Patent Owner,
whether there are only two lamps in the backlight (e.g., one in the first
backlight and one in the second) or more than two (e.g., four lamps in the
first backlight and four in the second, “as shown in the exemplary
embodiment of the ’833 Patent”), “the ‘first backlight’ and the ‘second
backlight’ described in the ’833 Patent are defined by all of the lamps that
are used in the backlight 3.” Id. at 31.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

10
Patent Owner further contends “Petitioner’s proposed claim
construction is also needlessly redundant . . . because the entire clause, ‘each
of which is driven using an oscillation wave that is synchronized in terms of
. . . phase with the oscillation waves used to drive the other of the multiple
lamps,’ is already expressly recited in the claims of the ’833 Patent.” Id.
Patent Owner urges in conclusion that “the broadest reasonable
construction of ‘first backlight’ and ‘second backlight,’ in the LCD
apparatus of the claims as specified in the preamble, when read in light of
the specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art,” are “a lamp or set of lamps for illumination from behind of the
preamble’s liquid crystal display apparatus” and “all remaining lamps of the
preamble’s liquid crystal display apparatus that are not in the first
backlight,” respectively. Id. at 32.
We agree with Patent Owner that “[t]he use of the term ‘backlight’
rather than simply ‘light’ indicates that something is being illuminated from
behind.” Id. at 28. Petitioner’s proposed constructions (Pet. 13–16) are
unreasonably broad insofar as they do not account for the use of the term
“backlight.”
We also agree with Patent Owner (see id.) that it is clear in the context
of the ’833 patent that the recited backlights are in a liquid crystal display
apparatus. See Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus. Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (words used in a claim are not construed in a “lexicographic
vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawings”); In re
Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[C]laims are not to be read in a
vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the
specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’”
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

11
(emphasis omitted) (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548 (CCPA
1976)). Petitioner, and its expert Dr. Silzars, recognize in their statements
regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art that the relevant art here is
“display technologies.” See Pet. 12; Ex. 1002 ¶ 13. Notably, however,
despite Petitioner’s assertions and Dr. Silzars’ opinions that “[t]he alleged
invention boils down to a method for minimizing the electrical noise
generated when simultaneously driving multiple lights,” that the “‘liquid
crystal display’ modifier” in the preambles of the challenged claims “merely
states a purpose or intended use of the invention” (Pet. 20–22; Ex. 1002
¶¶ 58–59), and that “there is no structure that is specific to LCDs recited in
the body of any of the claims,” neither Petitioner nor Dr. Silzars identifies
any context in which backlights would be employed by those of ordinary
skill in the art of display technologies, other than in an LCD.
Accordingly, on this record and for purposes of this Decision, we
determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “backlight”
is “a lamp or set of lamps that illuminates a liquid crystal display from
behind.”
Because the claims already explicitly define the relationship between
the “first backlight” and the “second backlight”—for example, claim 1
recites, in relevant part, that the second backlight is “driven simultaneously
with said first backlight” and “ha[s] an oscillation wave whose phase is
inverted with respect to an oscillation wave of the first backlight”—we
discern no need to provide separate interpretations of “first backlight” and
“second backlight.” We also decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to
limit the “second backlight” to include “all remaining lamps of the . . .
apparatus that are not in the first backlight.” Because independent claims 1
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

12
and 16 use the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising,” those claims do
not exclude additional, unrecited elements and method steps, respectively.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03 (9th ed., Rev.
07.2015 Nov. 2015).
2. Other Claim Terms
For purposes of this Decision, no other claim terms require express
interpretation. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent
necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci.
& Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
B. Anticipation and Obviousness
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the
claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the
thing claimed[,] and thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
accord In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, “it is
proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

13
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such
that the subject matter[,] as a whole[,] would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds with the
principles identified above in mind.
C. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
1. Anticipation of Claims 1–8 and 16 by GTE
GTE is directed to a “light source” having “multiple fluorescent lamp
tubes driven in parallel by a single [radio frequency (RF)] source.”
Ex. 1003, Abstract. According to GTE, “[l]ow pressure fluorescent lamps
cannot normally be operated in parallel electrical paths because the
breakdown/starting voltage is larger than the operating voltage, and the
lamps cannot be made such that a discharge is initiated in all lamps
simultaneously.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 14–18. In particular, when several lamps
are connected in parallel and all are ignited, one lamp normally operates at a
higher current and lower discharge voltage than the others, causing all of the
other lamps to be extinguished. Id. at col. 1, ll. 27–31. GTE also explains
that, although compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) are more efficient that
incandescent lamps, they are limited in total lumen output and, for various
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

14
practical and economic reasons, are limited to four tubes driven in series. Id.
at col. 1, ll. 32–60.
GTE, thus, states, as its general objects, to “provide improved
fluorescent light sources,” to “provide a fluorescent light source wherein
multiple fluorescent lamp tubes are electrically connected in parallel to a
single RF source,” to “provide a compact fluorescent lamp having high
lumen output,” and to “provide fluorescent light sources which are low in
cost and which are easy to manufacture.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 38–49. According
to GTE:
These and other objects and advantages are achieved in
. . . a fluorescent light source comprising a plurality of
fluorescent lamp assemblies, each including first and second
fluorescent lamp tubes having capacitive coupling electrodes at
or near the ends thereof for capacitive coupling of RF electrical
energy to a low pressure discharge therein, each fluorescent
lamp tube having a driven end and an opposite end, and means
for electrically coupling the electrodes at the opposite ends of
the first and second fluorescent lamp tubes together. . . .
In the above-described light source, the RF source
preferably includes means for applying RF voltages of equal
amplitudes and opposite polarities to the electrodes at the
driven ends of the first and second fluorescent lamp tubes.
Id. at col. 2, l. 52–col. 3, l. 9.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

15
Figures 1–3 of GTE are reproduced below.

Figure 1 is “a schematic diagram of a fluorescent light source . . .
wherein multiple straight fluorescent lamp tubes are driven by a single RF
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

16
source.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 16–19. Figure 2 is “an elevation view of a suitable
mounting arrangement for the fluorescent lamp tubes shown in [Figure] 1.”
Id. at col. 4, ll. 20–22. Figure 3 is “an end view of the fluorescent lamp
tubes of [Figure] 2, showing a preferred electrical phasing of the lamp
tubes.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 23–25.
GTE discloses that output terminals 40 and 42 carry opposite phases
of the RF output from source 30. Id. at col. 5, ll. 23–25. Output terminal 40
connects to electrodes 32, 44, and 46 at the driven ends of lamps 12, 18, and
26, respectively; and output terminal 42 connects to electrodes 36, 48, and
50 at the drive ends of lamps 14, 20, and 28, respectively. Id. at col. 5, ll.
16–31. Electrodes 34 and 38 at the opposite ends of lamps 12 and 14 are
connected electrically, as are electrodes 52 and 54 of lamps 18 and 20 and
electrodes 56 and 58 of lamps 26 and 28. Id. at col. 5, ll. 19–22, 31–36. In
preferred embodiments, lamp assemblies 10, 16, and 24 are driven with RF
voltages that are balanced with respect to ground, and the RF voltage on
output terminal 40 is 180º out of phase with respect to the output voltage on
terminal 42. Id. at col. 5, ll. 48–55. According to GTE, a suitable mounting
arrangement for fluorescent lamp tubes 12, 14, 18, 20, 26 and 28 is shown in
Figures 2 and 3, wherein the lamp tubes “are mounted side-by[-]side and
parallel in a circular arrangement around a central axis 64.” Id. at col. 6, ll.
9–13.
Petitioner asserts that Figure 1 of GTE “illustrates a configuration in
which six elongated, straight lamps are positioned in parallel with one
another, very similar to the configuration of lamps depicted in Figure 4 of
the ’833 Patent,” and that lamps 12 and 14, respectively, comprise the “first
backlight” and “second backlight” recited in claim 1 of the ’833 patent. Pet.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

17
23–25. Moreover, according to Petitioner, GTE discloses that the second
backlight is driven simultaneously with the first backlight, and that the
second backlight has an oscillation wave whose phase is inverted with
respect to an oscillation wave of the first backlight. Id. at 26–29. Finally,
according to Petitioner, “[a]lthough GTE does not expressly state that the
disclosed light source was designed for use as LCD backlights, the reference
in claim 1’s preamble to ‘liquid crystal display’ is not a claim limitation.”
Id. at 29. “Therefore,” Petitioner concludes, “GTE anticipates claim 1 of the
’833 Patent even though GTE does not expressly reference LCD backlights.”
Id. Petitioner contends that “GTE anticipates claim 16 for the same reasons
that it anticipates claim 1.” Pet. 35.
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that Petitioner
demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial in showing
that claims 1–8 and 16 are anticipated by GTE. Not only does GTE not
expressly state that the disclosed light source was designed for use as LCD
backlights, as Petitioner concedes (Pet. 29), but, as Patent Owner points out
(Prelim. Resp. 37), there is no disclosure in GTE of light sources that
illuminate anything from behind. Thus, GTE does not disclose a “backlight”
within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. See Section
II.A.1, supra. Nor has Petitioner persuasively shown that GTE’s light
source would even be capable of use as a backlight. Contrary to Petitioner’s
assertion that Figure 1 of GTE illustrates a configuration “very similar to the
configuration of lamps depicted in Figure 4 of the ’833 Patent” (Pet. 23),
GTE explicitly states that lamp tubes 12, 14, 18, 20, 26, and 28 are mounted
side-by-side and parallel in a circular arrangement around a central axis, as
depicted in Figures 2 and 3 (Ex. 1003, col. 6, ll. 11–13). Petitioner does not
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

18
explain, and we cannot discern, how lamp tubes mounted in such an
arrangement could be employed as a backlight.1
On this record, Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence that
would support a finding that GTE discloses “a first backlight” and “a second
backlight,” as recited in both of the challenged independent claims 1 and 16.
Consequently, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial in showing that any of the
challenged claims are anticipated by GTE.
2. Obviousness of Claims 1–8 and 16 over GTE
Petitioner contends that, “[e]ven if the Board were to . . . conclude
that the reference to ‘liquid crystal display’ in claim 1’s preamble limits the
scope of claim 1 to backlights for LCDs, GTE renders claims 1–8 and 16
obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to implement GTE’s teachings in LCDs.” Pet. 36.
According to Petitioner, it was well-known as of the ’833 patent’s
effective filing date that “fluorescent lamps like the ones taught by GTE
were useful as backlights.” Id. In support of that assertion, Petitioner points
to a Japanese patent application cited in the ’833 patent that Petitioner
alleges is directed to fluorescent lamp backlights; a 1996 article (“the
OSRAM Article,” Ex. 1014), authored by GTE’s named inventors, which
states that “[s]ubminiature fluorescent lamps (SMFL) are becoming more

1 GTE additionally discloses “[t]hree suitable patterns for configuring twin
tube fluorescent lamps . . . shown in FIGS. 7A–7C.” Ex. 1003, col. 8, ll. 26–
28. Petitioner has not alleged that GTE’s twin-tube fluorescent lamps would
anticipate the challenged claims, and notably, each of the “suitable patterns”
of such lamps shown in Figures 7A–7C of GTE also features a circular
arrangement.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

19
widely used these days mainly as a backlight source for LCD displays”; and
U.S. Patent No. 5,333,073 (“the ’073 patent,” Ex. 1015), which states that
“[t]he conventional backlight device has a plurality of fluorescent lamps as a
light source thereof.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 16–20; Ex. 1014, 1; Ex.
1015, col. 1, ll. 24–25). Petitioner argues that “GTE is directed to the
‘SMFLs’ addressed by the OSRAM Article,” asserting, in particular, that
GTE teaches the use of fluorescent lamps having the very same dimensions,
gas, and gas pressure as the lamps that the OSRAM Article addresses, and
that both GTE and the OSRAM Article teach using RF sources to drive the
lamps. Pet. 36 n.5. According to Petitioner, “[i]n view of the OSRAM
Article’s teaching regarding the usefulness of SMFLs as backlights for
LCDs, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the
GTE inventors in fact intended the concepts described in GTE to be
implemented in LCD backlights.” Id.
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that Petitioner
demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial in showing
that claims 1–8 and 16 are unpatentable over GTE. As pointed out by Patent
Owner, Figure 1 of GTE, relied upon by Petitioner as illustrating “a
configuration . . . very similar to the configuration of lamps depicted in
Figure 4 of the ’833 Patent” (Pet. 23), is described by GTE merely as a
“schematic diagram.” Prelim. Resp. 39. As explained in Section II.C.1,
supra, GTE explicitly states that the disclosed lamp tubes are mounted side-
by-side and parallel in a circular arrangement around a central axis, as
depicted in Figures 2 and 3 of GTE (Ex. 1003, col. 6, ll. 11–13). Even if the
fluorescent lamps disclosed by GTE have the same dimensions, gas, gas
pressure, and driving method as the SMFLs addressed by the OSRAM
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

20
Article, Petitioner does not explain adequately how GTE’s disclosed
configuration of fluorescent tubes would be suitable for implementation in
LCD backlights. (citing Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 16–19).
On this record, Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence that
would support a finding that GTE teaches or suggests “a first backlight” and
“a second backlight,” as recited in both of the challenged independent claims
1 and 16. Consequently, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial in showing that any of the
challenged claims would have been obvious over GTE.
3. Anticipation of Claims 2 and 6 by Tanaka
Tanaka is directed to a lighting circuit for illumination of an LCD
backlight. Ex. 1004 ¶ 1.2 According to Tanaka:
Hitherto, conventional backlights for use in liquid crystal
displays have had fixed frequency illumination, and concerning
said illuminated irradiation light, there were differences in the
transparency in parts of the display showing in text and images,
etc.
. . . In these instances, low frequency fixed duty signal
backlight starters illuminate, and in parts of the display,
transparency differences were visible in text and images with
flickers, and the problem of interference between the display
frame rate and the backlight illumination occurred.
The current invention aims to solve these problems by
alternating the illumination of multiple backlights to eliminate
flicker and by synchronizing backlight illumination with the
frame rate to eliminate frame rate flicker interference.
Id. at ¶¶ 2–4.

2 Citations to Tanaka are to the certified English-language translation in
Exhibit 1004.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

21
Figure 1 of Tanaka is reproduced below, with color and English
translation provided by Petitioner. Pet. 44.

Figure 1 is a “[s]ystem diagram of . . . [Tanaka’s] invention.” Ex.
1004 ¶ 40. In an embodiment shown in Figure 1(a), oscillation circuit 1
oscillates a backlight-illumination signal, lighting control circuit 2 produces
a “fixed duty cycle” to illuminate the backlight based on the signal oscillated
by oscillation circuit 1, phase adjustment circuit 3 shifts the phase of the
fixed duty signal produced by lighting control circuit 2, and drive circuits 4
and 5 illuminate backlights 6 and 7, respectively, in accordance with the
unshifted (c-1) and shifted (c-2) fixed duty signal from phase adjustment
circuit 3. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 15–20, 25, 26, Fig. 1(c). “In this way,” according to
Tanaka, “backlights 6 and 7 are alternately illuminated, doubling the number
of times lighting is performed and making possible the elimination of
flicker.” Id. at ¶ 20. In the embodiment shown in Figure 1(b), phase
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

22
adjustment circuit 31 shifts the phase of the oscillated signal produced by
oscillation circuit 1 and then light control circuits 21 and 22 produce fixed
duty signals based on the unshifted (c-1) and shifted (c-2) signals,
respectively, from phase adjustment circuit 31, and drive circuits 4 and 5
again alternately illuminate backlights 6 and 7, respectively. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 21–
26, Fig. 1(c).
Petitioner contends that Tanaka anticipates claims 2 and 6 of the ’833
patent. Pet. 43. As noted in Section I.C, supra, claims 2 and 6 depend from
claim 1. Accordingly, claims 2 and 6 incorporate by reference all limitations
of claim 1, including, inter alia, “a second backlight which is driven
simultaneously with said first backlight.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4.3 With
respect specifically to that limitation, Petitioner contends:
Tanaka teaches an embodiment in which the two drive
signals used to drive the illumination of the two backlights are
derived from a single fixed duty signal produced by a light
control circuit 2 based on a signal from an oscillation circuit 1.
Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 8, 15–20, Fig. 1(a); Ex. 1002 ¶ 125. As illustrated
in Figures 1(a) and (c), a phase adjustment circuit
simultaneously produces two signals – one signal that is
unchanged from the signal produced by the light control circuit
2 and another signal whose phase is shifted approximately 180
degrees from the phase of the signal produced by the light
control circuit. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 73, 125. Figure 1(c) illustrates that
these two signals are simultaneously applied to backlights 6 and
7, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have

3 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) re-designated
35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). Because the ’833 patent has a
filing date before the September 16, 2012 effective date of AIA Section 4,
we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

23
understood that the second backlight 7 is driven simultaneously
with the first backlight 6. Ex. 1002 ¶ 125.
Pet. 44–45.
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that Petitioner
demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial in showing
that claims 2 and 6 are anticipated by Tanaka. Whether or not Tanaka’s
phase adjustment circuits 3 and 31 simultaneously produce two signals,
Tanaka repeatedly states that the backlights 6 and 7 are “alternatively”—i.e.,
not simultaneously—driven. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 20 (disclosing that
“illumination of backlight 6 is driven by a fixed duty signal based on an
unshifted frequency signal from drive circuits 4 and 5, wherein the fixed
duty signal based on the shifted signal also drives backlight 7 [sic],” and that
“[i]n this way, backlights 6 and 7 are alternately illuminated, doubling the
number of times lighting is performed and making possible the elimination
of flicker.”), 24 (disclosing the same), 27 (disclosing the same). As Patent
Owner points out, “[d]epending upon the state of the input pulse (ON or
OFF) shown in signal (c-1) of Fig. l(c), the drive circuit 4 is either ON and
thus driving backlight 6 so as to illuminate backlight 6, or OFF, resulting in
no illumination of backlight 6,” and “[l]ikewise, depending upon the state of
the input pulse (ON or OFF) shown in signal (c-2) of Fig. l(c), the drive
circuit 5 is either ON and thus driving backlight 7 so as to illuminate
backlight 7, or OFF, resulting in no illumination of backlight 7. Prelim.
Resp. 45.
On this record, Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence that
would support a finding that Tanaka discloses a second backlight “which is
driven simultaneously with said first backlight,” as recited by independent
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

24
claim 1. Consequently, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a
reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial in showing that dependent
claims 2 and 6 are anticipated by Tanaka.
4. Anticipation of Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8 and 16 by Zhang
Zhang is directed to a “scanning flat back light source for use with
light valve devices such as liquid crystal displays.” Ex. 1005, Abstract.
Zhang’s light source is “formed by an array of parallel fluorescent tubes
with fluorescent layers therein,” where “[o]ne end of each tube is provided
with an electrode and the other end connected together through a transverse
chamber to form a single vacuum unit.” Id. Those and other elements of
Zhang’s light source are illustrated in Figure 1A, reproduced below.

Figure 1A is “a top view of a back light source for use with a light
valve front end unit (not shown) to illustrate the invention.” Id. at col. 4, ll.
35–37. Plate 1 encloses and defines “an array of parallel channels or
chambers 4 that are elongated and have ends 4".” Id. at col. 4, ll. 38–40.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

25
One end of each chamber 4 houses cathodes 8 connected to a power supply
through wires 9. Id. at col. 4, ll. 57–59. The other ends 4" of parallel
chambers 4 communicate with each other through transverse chamber 12.
Id. at col. 4, l. 68–col. 5, l. 2. The array of chambers 4 and transverse
chamber 12 form a single vacuum system. Id. at col. 5, ll. 10–11.
A driving method of Zhang’s back light source is illustrated in Figure
4A, reproduced below.

Figure 4A is a “schematic view[] of plate 1 of the back light source of
FIG. 1A and wave forms 29–32 . . . of electrical potentials applied to the
electrodes 8, . . . for causing gas discharges to illustrate . . . [a] driving
method[] of the invention.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 16–20.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

26
With reference to Figure 4A, Zhang describes the driving of the back
light source as follows:
[D]uring the first time interval of a sequence of consecutive
time intervals of a scanning cycle, an electrical potential is
applied between electrodes 8 in chambers 24 and 25. . . .
During the second time interval . . . , an electrical potential is
applied between the electrodes 8 in chambers 25 and 26. Since
the second time interval follows immediately after the
conclusion of the first, at the beginning of the second time
interval, a large number of charged particles present during the
first time interval in chamber 25 would still be present. For this
reason, gas discharge in chambers 25 and 26 would be quickly
initiated even though there may be few charged particles in
chamber 26 at the beginning of the second time interval. In the
same vein, during the third time interval, an electrical potential
is applied between the electrodes in chambers 26 and 27 and so
on until in the last time interval in the first scanning cycle, an
electrical potential is applied between the electrodes in
chambers n and 24. At this point, the entire cycle may be
repeated in the manner described.
In the above-described operation, every two chambers to
which electrical potential is applied defines a single lamp, and
during each time interval in the scanning cycle each lamp is
caused to emit light. In order to increase the brightness of the
back light source, it is possible to cause more than two
chambers to emit light at the same time. For example, it is
possible to cause the two lamps formed by the two chambers
24, 25 and 26, 27 to emit light during the first time interval, and
during the second time interval cause the lamp formed by
chambers 25, 26 and the chamber formed by the chambers 27,
28 to emit light and so on.
Id. at col. 6, ll. 21–60.
In contending that Zhang anticipates claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, and 16,
Petitioner points to Zhang’s statement in the above quotation that “every two
chambers to which electrical potential is applied defines a single lamp,” and
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

27
asserts that chambers 24 and 25 define a “first backlight” and chambers 26
and 27 define a “second backlight.” Pet. 47–48 (quoting Ex. 1005, col. 6, ll.
49–51). Petitioner further asserts that “Zhang teaches that the second
backlight is driven simultaneously with the first backlight.” Id. at 48. In
support of that contention, Petitioner argues that “Zhang teaches that the two
lamps formed by the two pairs of chambers 24, 25 and 26, 27 are caused to
emit light ‘at the same time’ during a ‘first time interval.’” Id. at 48–49
(citing Ex. 1005, col. 6, ll. 52–60; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134).
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that Petitioner
demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial in showing
that claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8 and 16 are anticipated by Zhang. As Patent Owner
points out (Prelim. Resp. 47–48), it is clear from the block-quoted passage
above that Zhang describes a sequential scanning operation in which the
chambers of the described light source are driven sequentially and
transiently in overlapping groups of two or four. Specifically, Zhang
discloses that “an electrical potential is applied between electrodes 8 in
chambers 24 and 25” during a first time interval, “an electrical potential is
applied between electrodes 8 in chambers 25 and 26” during a second time
interval that “follows” the first interval, “an electrical potential is applied
between the electrodes in chambers 26 and 27” during a third time interval,
“and so on.” Ex. 1005, col. 6, ll. 23–24, 31–36, 43–45. Thus, to the extent
that Zhang would refer to chambers 26 and 27 as defining a different
“lamp”4 than chambers 24 and 25, the lamp defined by chambers 26 and 27

4 As Patent Owner points out, Zhang describes “a singular vacuum unit
which is operated on a scanning cycle,” and although Zhang “[o]perating as
his own lexicographer . . . notes . . . that a set of two neighboring chambers
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

28
is not driven in Zhang’s method until two time intervals after the driving of
the lamp defined by chambers 24 and 25, with the lamp defined by chambers
25 and 26 being driven in the intervening interval. Further, although the
quoted portion of Zhang also states that “it is possible to cause more than
two chambers to emit light at the same time” (Ex. 1005, col. 6, ll. 53–55)
and, specifically, that “it is possible to cause the two lamps formed by the
two chambers 24, 25 and 26, 27 to emit light during the first time interval”
(id. at col. 6, ll. 55–57), those statements are not reasonably read to disclose
“a second backlight which is driven simultaneously with said first
backlight.” It is clear in the context provided by the full quoted sentence
that Zhang is still describing a scanning cycle in which the chambers of a
single light source are driven sequentially, the only difference being that
four chambers, rather than only two, are driven at a time. See Ex. 1005, col.
6, ll. 55–60. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Zhang describes two
backlights being driven simultaneously.
On this record, Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence that
would support a finding that Zhang discloses “a second backlight which is
driven simultaneously with said first backlight,” as recited in both of the
challenged independent claims 1 and 16. Consequently, we are not
persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail at trial in showing that any of the challenged claims are anticipated
by Zhang.

will be referred to as ‘a lamp,’” “[t]here are no distinct, discrete ‘lamps’ in
Zhang.” Prelim. Resp. 49.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

29
5. Anticipation of Claims 1–8 and 16 by FPD
FPD is directed to a “backlight luminaire” having at least two
fluorescent lamps, with portions of the lamps “exhibiting a variation in
spectral characteristic in the longitudinal direction.” Ex. 1006, 1 (Abstract).5
The portions of the lamps are positioned relative to each other such that the
spectral characteristics vary in opposite directions. Id.
Figures 1A and 1B of FPD are reproduced below, with annotations
and color coding provided by Petitioner (Pet. 56):

5 Citations to FPD refer to the page numbers provided by Petitioner at the
bottom of each page of Exhibit 1006. Pet. 55 n.10.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

30
Figure 1A is a plan view of an embodiment of FPD’s backlight
luminaire. Id. at 8, ll. 9–10. Figure 1B is a cross-sectional view of the
luminaire, taken on the line IB–IB in Figure 1A. Id. at 8, ll. 11–12. Figure
1A shows eight fluorescent lamps, with one half (i.e., lamps 4–4''')
connected in series to first power source 8 and the other half (lamps 5–5''')
connected in series to second power source 9 (5–5'''), such that different
lamps with portions in the same sub-reflector (e.g., lamps 4 and 5 in sub-
reflector 3) are not connected to the same power source. Id. at 10, ll. 20–25;
see also id. at 7, l. 33–8, l. 1 (disclosing that no “two [] lamps in one sub-
reflector are connected to one power source”).
Petitioner alleges that FPD discloses every element of claim 1. According to
Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
components 8 and 9 in FPD’s Figure 1 are alternating current (AC) power
sources. Pet. 55 (citing Ex. 1006, 7, ll. 16–21, 10, ll. 22–25, Fig. 1A;
Ex. 1002 ¶ 148). Petitioner contends that the person of ordinary skill in the
art would also have understood that “the output shown on the left side of
each AC power source would produce an oscillating output voltage” and that
“the output shown on the right side of each power source would
simultaneously produce an oscillating output voltage having an inverted
phase with respect to the phase of the output voltage on the left hand side.”
Id. at 55–56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 148).
Focusing on the lamps driven by power source 8, Petitioner alleges:
FPD discloses a “first backlight” (lamps 4 and 4') and a “second
backlight” (lamps 4'' and 4'''), because a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood that lamps 4 and 4' are driven
using the same oscillation wave (corresponding to the
oscillating voltage produced at the output shown on the left side
of each AC power source (shown here in red [sic])), while
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

31
lamps 4'' and 4''' are driven using the same oscillation wave
(corresponding to the oscillating voltage produced at the output
shown on the right side of each AC power source (shown here
in blue [sic])). See Ex. 1006 at Fig. 1A; Ex. 1002 ¶ 149. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
the jumper connection connecting lamps 4' and 4'' would
essentially be at ground, which is shown in purple. Ex. 1002
¶ 149.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have
understood that the second backlight is driven simultaneously
with the first, because the outputs at the left and right side of
the AC power source necessarily provide voltages
simultaneously. Ex. 1002 ¶ 150. And, because Figure 1A
depicts the use of AC power sources with two outputs and no
external separate connection to ground, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that the oscillation wave
provided to the second backlight is inverted with respect to the
oscillation wave provided to the first backlight. See Ex. 1006 at
Fig. 1A; Ex. 1002 ¶ 150.
Id. at 56–57. Further, according to Petitioner, “FPD anticipates claim 16 for
the same reasons that it anticipates claim 1.” Id. at 60.
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that Petitioner
demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial in showing
that claims 1–8 and 16 are anticipated by FPD. As Patent Owner points out
(Prelim. Resp. 54), “there is no discussion in FPD of providing more than
one oscillation wave, let alone one . . . ‘whose phase is inverted’ with
respect to another,” and Petitioner’s assertions to the contrary appear to be
based upon Petitioner’s arbitrary labeling of certain lamps as a “first
backlight,” others as a “second backlight,” and the connection between those
as being a “jumper” that “would essentially be at ground” (see Pet. 56–57).
Apart from conclusory statements in Dr. Silzars’ Declaration that merely
repeat Petitioner’s arguments (compare Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 149–150, with Pet. 56–
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

32
57), Petitioner provides no evidence for its assertions as to what “a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood” from FPD’s disclosure. Of
particular importance here, we discern no support on this record for
Petitioner’s assertion that “[a] person or ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that the jumper connection connecting lamps 4' and 4'' would
essentially be at ground.” Pet. 56. Indeed, the identification of that
connection, as opposed to any other connection depicted in Figure 1A, as the
ground appears to be no more than an arbitrary selection made to support
Petitioner’s desired conclusion that lamps 4'' and 4''' are driven with an
oscillation wave that is inverted with respect to the oscillation wave
provided to lamps 4 and 4'. Because Petitioner has not provided an adequate
rationale for selecting that connection as the ground, Petitioner fails to
demonstrate that FPD discloses, expressly or inherently, a second backlight
having an oscillation wave whose phase is inverted with respect to an
oscillation wave of a first backlight.
On this record, Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence that
would support a finding that FPD discloses “second backlight having an
oscillation wave whose phase is inverted with respect to an oscillation wave
of the first backlight,” as recited in claim 1, or “lighting a second backlight
. . . by inverting phase of an oscillation wave with respect to an oscillation
wave of the first backlight,” as recited in claim 16. Consequently, we are
not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it
would prevail at trial in showing that any of the challenged claims are
anticipated by FPD.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

33
D. Remaining Contentions
The above determination makes it unnecessary to resolve any other
disputes, including Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner failed to list all
of the real parties in interest. See Prelim. Resp. 4–14; Petitioners’ Reply to
Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 9; Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
to Petitioners’ Reply, Paper 10.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
presented does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
would prevail at trial with respect to at least one claim of the ’833 patent,
based on any grounds presented in the Petition. We, therefore, deny the
Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–8 and 16.

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that that the Petition is DENIED as to all challenged
claims, and no trial is instituted.
IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

34
For PETITIONER:

Clinton L. Conner
Adam Floyd
Paul T. Meiklejohn
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
conner.clint@dorsey.com
floyd.adam@dorsey.com
meiklejohn.paul@dorsey.com
833ToshibaIPR@dorsey.com

Jay I. Alexander
Andrea G. Reister
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
jalexander@cov.com
areister@cov.com

Marc R. Labgold
Steven B. Kelber
THE LAW OFFICES OF MARC R. LABGOLD, P.C.
mlabgold@labgoldlaw.com
skelber@labgoldlaw.com

For PATENT OWNER:

Aaron R. Ettelman
Jeffrey W. Gluck
John D. Simmons
Frederick A Tecce
Clark A. Jablon
Dennis J. Butler
Stephen E. Murray
PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP
aettelman@panitchlaw.com
jgluck@panitchlaw.com
jsimmons@panitchlaw.com

IPR2015-01479
Patent 6,417,833 B1

35
ftecce@panitchlaw.com
cjablon@panitchlaw.com
dbutler@panitchlaw.com
smurray@panitchlaw.com