Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 1 of 55
Exhibit K
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 2 of 55
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 3 of 55
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 4 of 55
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 5 of 55
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 6 of 55
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 7 of 55
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 8 of 55
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 9 of 55
Exhibit L
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 10 of 55
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al. Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTIONS
v.
AUDIOVOX COMMUNICATIONS CORP., et al. NO. 04-1337 (KAJ) Defendants. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE COMPUTER, INC., et al., NO. 04-1338 (KAJ) Defendants. .................................. OPTREX AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al. NO. 04-1536 (KAJ) Defendants.
-
-
-
Wilmington, Delaware Friday, July 21, 2006 at 11:03 a.m. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
BEFORE:
HONORABLE KENT A. JORDAN, U.S.D.C.J.
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 11 of 55
opportunity to explain to me why you think the way you framed your demand for additional discovery from these folks is correct in light of what we've had to say to each other over the course of a few meetings and many, many months. MR. WOODS: Your Honor, thank you. And we would
respectfully submit that if you look at that whole exchange, as Mr. Horwitz was suggesting, there was clearly a sense, as we believe we're entitled to under the law, to get some discovery about modules other than those that have been expressly located and expressly torn down and expressly identified. THE COURT: And now, when you say you are
entitled to under the law. MR. WOODS: THE COURT: MR. WOODS: THE COURT: Correct. Well, you know what? Your Honor?
I guess I'm trying to pull from you
where you think this is linked to my instructions to you folks that you had an obligation to tell people, look, this is your product. We think it infringes. Here is why. You
know, we're accusing you of infringing. that we believe infringes.
We've got something
That ought to be the baseline.
Everybody should have understood that from what I've said to people repeatedly. MR. WOODS: Correct.
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 12 of 55
THE COURT:
Now, they are saying you have
unmoored your discovery from that foundation, and you have heard Mr. Horwitz explain why they believe that. I'm trying
to get you to explain to me how it is you are rooted in that foundation, because that is the foundational principle from which I am operating.
MR. WOODS:
Yes, Your Honor.
The request we We
have made absolutely is rooted in the foundation.
identified a series of modules that have been torn down and are accused of infringement. As we have told defendants, They are back
those modules have the following criteria. lit.
They have an LCD panel and they have two particular
arrays, at least one of which misaligned, and that is the commonality amongst everything that has been identified and torn down. And that is how we, Honeywell, understood the
term "substantially the same" to be implemented in the Court's order. So we have said to defendants we are asking you to identify those modules which are substantially the same as those which were expressly identified by model number and the way we are defining "substantially the same" is as Mr. Lueck and you discussed at the September 9th hearing on page 31 where we are trying to provide objective criteria for doing that analysis. And so we have in fact moored our request for
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 13 of 55
discovery not for some fishing expedition, not for everything under the sun but rather take those modules that have been expressly identified and look at these features. And we are asking for everything that has those same features. THE COURT: Okay. I have your position and I
can only apologize to the parties because to the extent I've been unclear before, it's not been intentional. I just
can't agree with Honeywell here because I'm bound, I think, to agree that what you have done is to say, under the rubric of "substantially the same," is to just recast as a discovery request, tell me everything that infringes my claim. And that is precisely that I have been trying to
avoid in this matter, because I view that as a reversal, a basic reversal of the obligation of parties in litigation. You know, maybe I'll turn out to be wrong about this but I don't think you can go to somebody and say I'm suing you and now tell me why I'm suing you, which is what in effect this discovery demands. And I had attempted
previously to say, as clearly as I knew how but evidently not clearly enough, you identify what the problem is and they'll have to respond to that. And then Mr. Lueck, as a
skillful advocate, would have said, well, there may be versions of this very same device which we can't say by model number because if we're one letter off -- now, I'm
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 14 of 55
interpolating, not precisely quoting what he had to say. we're one letter off or one number off in the alphanumeric sequence in the model number, they could say, well, you didn't ask about that and that's not fair, and I was agreeing well that isn't fair. You know, if you've got a
If
next generation of the very thing you've produced, the fact that you can't name it with precision using the alphanumeric sequence attached to that make or model number shouldn't prevent you from getting discovery on that. That was not intended to open the door for you to say, now, and anything else that meets the claim language, tell us about that, too. proper discovery. I don't view that as
I mean that turns the process on its head
and I'm just not having it. So to the extent I left people thinking that was the problem or the way I wanted you to proceed, I apologize because it isn't. And I reject the assertion that this If
raises res judicata problems for you or claim splitting. you sue them on a specific thing and in the course of discovery, they don't tell you about a different product, nobody I think in their right mind is going to say, well, you gave up a claim against that accused product because you never had the chance to accuse it. a red herring. So I'm hoping this is clear enough in telling So I view that as
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 15 of 55
people, Honeywell, if you want to sue people, fine, sue them. But have in mind exactly what it is you're accusing And that means if you say they've produced
them of doing.
an accused device, you need to have some basis for saying they have an accused device and ask them, okay, tell us about this accused device. You can't say to them, look
across your product line and tell us everything that meets our claim language. So have I been clear enough? You could
disagree with me, obviously, that this is a correct or an appropriate approach but at least you understand what I'm getting at now, Mr. Lueck and Mr. Woods? MR. WOODS: Your Honor, we certainly understand.
And I, with Your Honor's indulgence, just have to ask if I could just say one thing, please, because we do respectfully disagree with the Court about the concern about the potential for res judicata here. We do recognize that there
is law out there like the Sharp case that has been cited that talk about the standard for getting additional module model numbers in an industry where models change. We have proposed to the defendants we're willing to buy their modules. We're willing to buy it.
Historically, you can't get these things any more and yet they're still within the statute of limitations period. For
all these reasons, because respectfully we believe what Your
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 16 of 55
Honor is doing is having a tremendously prejudicial effect upon Honeywell's claim, we would respectfully be allowed to brief this issue. We understand where the Court is going.
Nevertheless, we feel obligated to create a record here. THE COURT: You've got a record. You have a
record which is adequate for review.
I don't think any
reviewing court is going to look at this and say you didn't make your position clear. this. I don't need any more paper on
You don't need to persuade me that you have a My job
position and you think the position is well founded.
is not to say to you, to every party that has got a position well, okay, go ahead and give me another 40 pages of paper about it. We have been over this now. This is at least the And I've done it
third time I have taken a crack at this.
in print and I've done it orally and I just don't need more paper on it. It could be I'm wrong. I certainly get
reversed; to my chagrin, I do; but I don't think you've got the better of it. I think I understand the argument that
you've made and what I'm telling you is you don't have the better of the argument in my view. with the case you've got. MR. WOODS: clarification. You had asked if we understood. Is it Your Yes, Your Honor. One final point of So let's move forward
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 17 of 55
Exhibit M
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 18 of 55
REDACTED DOCUMENT
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 19 of 55
Exhibit N
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 20 of 55
REDACTED DOCUMENT
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 21 of 55
Exhibit O
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 22 of 55
REDACTED DOCUMENT
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 23 of 55
Exhibit P
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 24 of 55
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 25 of 55
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 26 of 55
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 27 of 55
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 28 of 55
EXHIBIT A
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
1191
111111111l11111111111111111111IIIII111111111 1 1Page 29111111111 l Filed 08/05/2008 11111111111111 of 55
USOO528037 1A
[ill
United States Patent
McCartney, Jr. et al.
[45]
Patent Number: Date of Patent:
5,280,371
Jan. 18. 1994
1541 DIRECMONAL DIFFUSER FOR A LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY [75] Inventors: Richard I. McCPrtney, Jr., Scottsdale; Daniel D. Syroid, Glendale; Karen E Jachimowicz, . Goodyear, all of Ark. [73] Assignee: Honeywell Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
0068400 10/1977 Japan .....................................
2-14822 8/1990
Japan
.....................................
359/69 359/69
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
IBM Corp., "Polarized backlight for liquid crystal display", IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 33, No. lB, Jun. 1990, pp. 143-144. Primary Examiner-William L. Sics Assistant Examiner-Huy Mai Attorney, Agent, or Finn-Dale E. Jepsen; A. Medved
1571 ABmcr A display apparatus including a light source, a liquid crystal panel, and one or more directional diffuser lens arrays disposed therebetween provides a tailored variation of luminance with viewing angle, a uniform variation of luminance with viewing angle within a first predetermined range of viewing angles and a concentration of light energy within a second predetermined range of viewing angles.
3 Claims, 11 Drawing Sheets
[2t] Appl. No.: 911,547
[22] Filed:
Jul. 9,1992
[51] Int. Cl.5 .............................................. G02F 1/133 [52] US. Cl. ......................................... 359/40; 359/69 359/69, 40,41 [58] Field of Search .............................. [561
References Cited U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
4,416,515 5,052,783 5,101,279 5,128,783 5,161,041 11/1983 10/1991 3/1992 7/1992 11/1992
Fumada et al. ....................... Hamada ................................ Kurematsu et al. .................. Abileah et al. ............ Abileah et al. .......................
359/69 359/41 359/40 359/40 359/40
?2
44
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 30 of 55
US. Patent
Jan. 18,1994
Sheet 1 of 11
5,280,371
0
F
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 31 of 55
US. Patent
Jan. 18,1994
Sheet 2 of 11
5,280,371
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
4
Document 1127-2
w
Y
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 32 of 55
LUMINANCE-
00
Fia. 3
J
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 33 of 55
U,S, Patent
Jan. 18,1994
Sheet 4 of 11
5,280,371
10-
15-L
0 0 0
Fig. 4A
e,=
VERTICAL VIEW ANGLE
25
20
0 30
HORIZONTAL 8 - VIEW , ANGLE
Fig. 4B
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 34 of 55
c
RELATIVE LUMINANCE
Fig. 5
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 35 of 55
U,S, Patent
Jan. 18,1994
Sheet 6 of 11
5,280,371
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 36 of 55
US. Patent
25
Jan. 18,1994
Sheet 7 of 11
5,280,371
20
5
42
i
44-
0 0 0 0
F/g. 7
Yo
25
20
!
>
80
Y 3 0
10
0 0 0
Fig. 7 0
VERTICAL 8,- VIEW ANGLE
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 37 of 55
RELATIVE LUMINANCE
Fig. 8
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 38 of 55
c
RELATlVE LUMINANCE
Fig. 9
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 39 of 55
LUMINANCE
Fig. 7 7
LAMBERTS
foot
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 40 of 55
US,Patent
Jan. 18,1994
Sheet 1 of 11 1
5,280,371
e
*
0
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2 5.280.371
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 41 of 55
2
DIRECTIONAL DIFFUSER FOR A LIQUID CRYSTAL. DISPLAY
source and the liquid crystal array for providing a t i alored variation of luminance from the liquid crystal display as a function of vertical viewing angle.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 5 BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION The above mentioned and other features and objects This invention relates in general to flat panel liquid of the present invention and the manner of attaining crystal displays and, more particularly, to a liquid crysthem will become more apparent and the invention tal display (LCD) having a directional diffuser to proitself will be best understood by reference to the followvide a tailored variation of luminance with viewing ing descriptionof alternative embodimentsof the invenangle. tion taken in conjunction with the accompanyingdrawThere are commercially available liquid crystal displays for use in various applications, including for exings wherein: ample aircraft cockpit displays. However, a typical FIG. 1 is an exploded view of a typical prior art characteristic of the liquid crystal panel used therein is backlit liquid crystal display; a wide variation of the light transmission of the liquid FIG. 2 is an exploded view of the liquid crystal discrystal panel with viewing angle, especially the vertical play of the present invention, having a directional difviewing angle. This results in gray-scale errors and fuser lens array; off-state errors with viewing angle. That is to say, the FIG. 3 illustrates a typical prior art LCD gray-level brightness of certain areas of the display when viewed 2o response showing the variation of luminance with vertiat angles above or below a vertical viewing angle norcal viewing angle; mal to the display surface,may be substantiallydifferent FIGS. 4A and 4B show cross sectional side and top than the briahtness of those areas when viewed at an views of a typical assembly including the lens array df angle norm2 t the display surface. This variation of o the present invention; brightness or luminance with viewing angle is generally those cBses 25 FIG. 5 il1UStrakS the variation Of hIlbanCe with and particularly viewing angle- for a fight source alone and a light where the information being displayed on the liquid source combined with a sing1e lens array; crystal display is critical to an operation such as controlFIG. 6 illustrates the path of various light rays when ling or navigating an aircraft. s t f i g the lens array at Various angles; In addition, a typical diffuser used to provide a light murce for backlighting a typical liquid crystal display 30 FIG. 7 is a cross sectional view of a preferred embodiment of the Present invention with two lens arrays; ordinarily provides a constant luminance with viewing FIG. 8 illustrates the variation of luminance with angle and therefore provides the same amount of energy viewing angle for the dual lens array configuration; for any given viewing angle of the display. In certain FIG. 9 illustrates the variation of luminance with applications, such as for example an aircraft cockpit, the typical vertical viewing angle is fued within a relatively 35 viewing angle for a triple lens array configuration; FIG. 10 is a cross sectional view of a configuration narrow range and it would therefore be desirable to concentrate a higher percentange of the energy from utilizing a triangular shaped lens array; the light source within a particular range of viewing FIG. 11 illustrates the variation of luminance with angles. viewing angle for the triangular shaped lens array; and It would therefore be desirable to provide a direc- 40 FIG. 12 shows the angular rotation of the lens array tional diffuser for use with a liquid Crystal display to with respect to the LCD matrix array to eliminate residprovide a tailored variation of luminance with viewing moire effects. angle while also providing a concentration of the light DESCRIPTION OF A PREFERRED energy from the light source within a predetermined 45 EMBODIMENT range of viewing angles. Referring now to FIG. 1 there is shown a cross secSUMMARY OF THE INVENTION tion of a typical prior art liquid crystal display apparatus It is therefore an object of the present invention to including backlight array 25 comprising lamp rear provide a directional diffuserelement for a liquid crysreflecting surface 15 and diffuser The tal display to provide a tailored variation of luminance 50 backlight array provides a source of light which imwith viewing angle. pinges on liquid crystal panel 30 comprised of a number It is a further object of the present invention to provide a liquid crystal display having less variation of of individual liquid crystal elements which are alterintermediate gray-level luminance with viewing angle. nately energized in order to form a desired pattern or It is still further an object of the present invention to 55 image for viewing from the front. of the liquid crystal provide a liquid crystal display combining the above While this prior art liquid crystal p e l may features to provide a higher concentration of light enbe adequate for certain applications where the normal ergy, and therefore i n c r a e d luminance, within a particular range of viewing angles thereby providing a viewing angle is more O 1eSs at an angle normal to the r more eficient use of light energy available from a light 60 display surface, this display is not optimum for applications wherein the typical viewing angle is other than at source. The foregoing and other objects are achieved in the an angle normal to the display surface. This Prior art present invention wherein there is provided a liquid display exhibits a relatively wide variation of light crystal display apparatus comprising a light source, a transmission with viewing angle, especially the vertical liquid crystal planar array of pixels for creating an 65 viewing angle. AS illustrated in FIG. 3 this variation also changes with the level of lumination for various image by controlling the amount of light allowed to pass through each of the pixels, and one or more direcgray-levels or intermediate intensities for a given distional diffuser lens arrays disposed between the light play.
'
''
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
4
Page 42 of 55
5,280,371
A can be sem in the curves of FIG. 3, the luminance s
periphery. They exit the rear of the lens array and return to the source diffuser where they undergo a secemitted from the lower gray-levels of the LCD system ondary diffuse reflection from the source diffuser. increases significantly with increasing vertical viewing However, because the source diffwr is not totally angle. This variation presents an undesirably large luminance increase with angle when the information being 5 reflective, some of the returned rays are transmitted through the Muscr and are then reflected from the presented is low-level luminance information, such as backlight enclosure surface 15 of FIG. 4A.Some fracfor avionics applications including weather radar or tion of these rays are reflected internally to exit the attitude director indicator presentations. As a pilot diffuser again. These reflected rays again have a lamberviewing the display moves his vertical perspective, or his viewing angle, higher above a normal angle to the 10 tiau distribution at the surface of lmbertian Muser 20. It is apparent from this interaction between the lens display (larger vertical viewing angles), he observes a array and the backlight that rays which impinge close to low luminance field increase significantly in luminance, the normal tmd to be intensified while those rays which thereby causing confusion in interpretation of critical impinge at oblique angles undergo total internal reflecdisplay information. In addition, the lamkrtian diffuser of the typical 15 tion and are returned to the M w r and dimininhed somewhat from this statistical process. prior art display, element 20 of FIG. 1, provides for a However, the roll off or variation with vertical viewnearly equal luminance in all angular viewing direcing angle for this single directional diffuser cylindrical tions. In most applications a 180' field of view in both lens array was not suficient to offset the effects of the horizonal and vertical directions is not required. It would therefore be more energy efilcient ifa substantial 20 liquid crystal display, and there were s i w c a n t moue patterns caused by the interference between the lens portion of the light energy could be redirected so as to array and the display panel wherein the lens m y conbe concentrated in the viewing angles of interest for a tained 142 lenses per inch and the display panel matrix particular application. had a spatial frequency resolution of 172 dots or pixels The apparatus of the present invention includes the backlight array and liquid crystal of the prior art as 25 per inch. For the desired specific implementation it was disshown in FIG. 1 with the addition of a lens array 40 covered that the adverse interaction producing moire inserted between the lambertian diffuser 20 of the prior patterns could be eliminated by including a second lens art and liquid crystal display panel 30,as shown in FIG. 2 It was found that by inserting a directional diffuser array with a difkrent number of lenses per inch. The . consisting of a cylindrical lens array 40 between the 30 combination of the dual lenses increased the desired reduction in luminance with increased viewing angle, lambertian diffuser and the liquid crystal panel that both and in addition reduced or eliminated the moire patterns of the desired effects could be accomplished. That is, with the selection of an appropriatepitch, or number of the overall light energy is concentrated within a desired lenses per inch, for the two lenses in question. rang of viewing angles and the variation of luminance with viewing angle is tailored to offset that which is 35 As illustrated in FIG. 7, one of the lens arrays 42 was selected to have a relatively coptse pitch with respect to obtained through the liquid crystal display alone. that of the liquid crystal display and the second lens For example, FIG. 5 illustratesthat with the insertion array 44 was selected to have a relatively fine pitch with of lens array 40 as shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B, the respect to that of liquid crystal display. FIG. 8 illusoverall luminance has increased approximately 20 percmt within a range from -20' to +20' viewing angle 40 trates again the relatively flat response of the lambextian source diffuser alone curve 110, and the increased roll and the desired decrease in luminance with increascd off with vertical viewing angle of curve 125 as well as vertical viewing angle is obtained between approxithe corresponding variation of luminance with horimately + 10' and +35' of vertical viewing angle. Curve zonal viewing angle as illustrated by curve 135 for the 110 of FIG. 5 illustrates the variation of luminance with viewing angle for the lambertian light source only, in 45 dual lens array of FIG. 8. In general it was discovered that the addition of addiboth the horizontal and vertical angles while curves 120 tional lens arrays caused a steeper or more rapid variaand 130 respectively represent a variation of luminance tion of the change in luminance with vertical viewing with vertical and horizontal viewing angles for the angle, which was desirable, but the corresponding backlight including lens array 40. The effect which results from the insertion of the u) change in luminance with variations in horizod viewing angle also became steeper, which was not desirable cylindrical lens array is explained by reference to FIG. for the particular applicationin question. For the partic6 wherein there are shown light rays from the lamberular application in question the preferred tmbodimmt tian (having uniform luminance with angle) source difincluded two lens arrays in series which provided the fuser impinging on the lens array from various angles. An air gap must be present at the interface of the lam- 55 best tradeoff of decrease in 1UminPnce with variation of vertical viewing angle, while not adversely &ecting bertian difuser and the lens array. The normal 4 perthe variation in luminance with horizod viewing Mcent loss per surface due to fresnel reflections is not gle. incurred, because the surface reflections are returned to In addition, since moire effects result when both of the diffuser and reflected ageh. Those rays that are normal to the source diffuser but 60 the lens arrays have the same spatial frequency, the rear array 42 should have a coarse resolution or low spatial less than the critical angle within the lens array are frquency while the front lens array 44 should have a passed through the lens array materially unobstructed, fine resolution or high spatial frequency. The lens arexcept for a small amount of surface reflection. Rays rays and the panel spatial frquencies should be selected which enter at oblique angles and are greater than the critical angle of the lens array undergo total internal 65 to avoid integral multiples of the other. Thus the fine lens array should be as high a spatial frquency as is reflection at the inside of the lens surface as illustrated practical and should be a non integral multiple of the by ray tracing 70. These rays are reflected with no loss due to the t o a internal reflection effect around the lens panel frequency. According to th& guidelin& the fine
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
6
Page 43 of 55
We claim: array frequency becomes approximately 2.5 times the 1 A display apparatus comprising: . display spatial frequency and the coarse array frea light source; quency should be approximately the fine array frea liquid crystal panel mounted adjacent to said light quency divided by 3.5, 4.5, 5.5 or as required for the source for receiving light from said light source; 5 most convenient fabrication. and It was also discovered that the maximum increase in first and second lens arrays, each having a plurality of luminance was obtained using a triangular lens array individual lenslets, disposed between said light having an included angle of 90" as illustrated in FIG. 10. source and said liquid crystal panel for providing a This configuration resulted in a variation of luminance predetermined variation with viewing angle of with vertical and horizonal viewing angles which was 10 light transmission from said light source through quite steep as illustrated by curves 160 and 170 of FIG. said lens arrays and said liquid crystal panel, 1 .Other lens array shapes may be selected as desired to 1 wherein said liquid crystal panel comprises a pluobtain the required concentration of luminance and rality of pixels arranged in rows and columns, and variation of luminance with vertical and horizonal wherein the number of rows of pixels per unit viewing angle for a particular application. 15 height, or pitch, of the liquid crystal panel is a first Even though the spatial frequenciesof the directional value; the number of lenslets per unit height, or diffuser lens array and LCD panel have betn selectedto pitch, of said first lens array is a second value be greatly different and non-integer multiples, some which is less than said first value; and the number visual banding effects or moire pattern effects may still of lenslets per unit height, or pitch, of said second be apparent to the viewer. This is especially true at 20 lens array is a third value which is greater than said off-axisviewing conditions. This residual moire can be first value. removed by rotating the lens array 40 with the respect 2. A display apparatus in accordance with claim 1 to the LCD array 30, as illustrated in FIG. 12. This rotation of the lens array by a few degrees (Typically 2 wherein said third value is a non-integral multiple of to 16 degrees) from the horizontal axis causes a small 25 said first value and is also a non-integralmultiple of said second value. change in the effective spatial frequency difference of 3 A display apparatus comprising: . the rwo arrays and thereby e l i d a t e s the residual a light source; moire. a liquid crystal panel mounted adjacent to said light In addition to the angular redistribution of the light source for receiving light from said light source; from the directional diffuser, the lens array also pro- 30 and vides an additional diffusing effect, especially for any first and second lens arrays, each having a plurality of step variations in luminance that are parallel to (or individual lenslets, disposed between said light nearly parallel to within a few degrees) the axis of the source and said liquid crystal panel for providing a lens array. This allows the reduction of the thickness or predetermined variation with viewing angle of optical density of the conventional diffuser while still 35 light transmission from said light source through achieving the same system luminance uniformity and said lens arrays and said liquid crystal panel, masking of undesired spatial artifacts from the light wherein at least one of said first and second lens source, but with higher luminance at the output. arrays is rotated about an axis perpendicular to said While there have been described above the principals liquid crystal panel i order to provide a slight n of invention in conjunction with several specific em- 40 misalignment between said lenslets and said liquid bodiments, it is to be clearly understood that these decrystal panel. scriptions are made only by way of example and not as * * * * * a limitation to the scope of the invention.
45
5
50
55
65
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 44 of 55
EXHIBIT B
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 45 of 55
EXHIBIT B CUSTOMER DEFENDANTS (* Denotes Hybrid)
Apple Computer, Inc. Argus a/k/a Hartford Computer Group, Inc. Audiovox Communications Corp. Audiovox Corporation Audiovox Electronics Corporation Casio Computer Co., Ltd.* Casio, Inc.* Concord Cameras Dell Inc. Eastman Kodak Company FujiFilm Corporation / Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.* FujiFilm U.S.A., Inc. / Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.* Fujitsu Limited Fujitsu America, Inc. Fujitsu Computer Products of America, Inc. Kyocera Wireless Corp. Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co.* Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America* Navman NZ Limited Navman U.S.A. Inc. Nikon Corporation Nikon, Inc. Nokia America Nokia Corporation Nokia Inc. Olympus Corporation
80062272.1
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 46 of 55
Olympus America, Inc. Pentax Corporation Pentax U.S.A., Inc. Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. Sanyo North America Corporation Sony Corporation* Sony Corporation of America* Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication AB Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. Toshiba Corporation* Toshiba America, Inc.*
80062272.1
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 47 of 55
EXHIBIT C
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 48 of 55
EXHIBIT C MANUFACTURER DEFENDANTS (Boldface Denotes Active Defendant)
Entity All Around Co., Ltd. Arima Display AU Optronics Corp. AU Optronics Corporation America BOE Hydis, Ltd. Bejing BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. BOE Technology Group Company Ltd. BOE-Hydis Technology Co., Ltd. Casio Computer Co., Ltd. Casio, Inc. Citizen Watch Co., Ltd. Citizen Displays Co., Ltd. Citizen Systems Europe Citizen Systems America Corporation FujiFilm Corporation / Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. FujiFilm U.S.A., Inc. / Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. HannStar Display Corporation Hitachi, Ltd. Hitachi Displays, Ltd. Hitachi Display Devices, Ltd. Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. InnoLux Display Corporation International Display Technology International Display Technology USA, Inc. Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America
Status No Appearance Settled/Dismissed Settled/Dismissed
Stayed Due to Bankruptcy
Settled/Dismissed
Active
Active
Settled/Dismissed Settled/Dismissed
Jurisdictional Dispute Settled/Dismissed
Stayed
80062325.1
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 49 of 55
M-Display Optronics Optrex Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Philips Consumer Electronics North America Philips Electronics North America Corporation Picvue Electronics Limited Quanta Display, Inc. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. Samsung SDI America, Inc. Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. Sanyo North America Corporation Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corporation Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices (Hong Kong) Ltd. Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices (Philippines) Inc. Seiko Epson Corporation Sony Corporation Sony Corporation of America St. Liquid Display Corp. Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp. Toshiba Corporation Toshiba America, Inc. Wintek Corp. Wintek Electro-Optics Corporation Wistron Corporation
Dismissed Active Settled/Dismissed
No Appearance Settled/Dismissed Active
Settled/Dismissed
Settled/Dismissed
Settled/Dismissed
Settled/Dismissed Settled/Dismissed
Settled/Dismissed
Dismissed
80062325.1
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 50 of 55
EXHIBIT D
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 51 of 55
EXHIBIT D Honeywell v. Apple, et al. Case No. 1:04-cv-1338 TIMELINE
October 2004
Original Complaint filed on October 4, 2004, followed by First Amended Complaint on October 8, 2004, against Customer Defendants. Second Amended Complaint filed. Judge Jordan provisionally orders the reconfiguration of the case, subject to identification of relevant suppliers.
February 2005 May 2005
June to November 2005
Customer Defendants informally identify certain suppliers of LCD modules. Judge Jordan formally stays case against Customer Defendants and formally orders that case be reconfigured against Manufacturer Defendants. Third Amended Complaint filed against Manufacturer Defendants. Judge Jordan vacates judicial position. Case referred to Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge for all pretrial proceedings.
October 2005
November 2005 December 2006
Summer 2006 January 2008 February 2008 July 2008
Factual discovery between Honeywell and Manufacturer Defendants. Case reassigned to Judge Farnan. Scheduled Markman Hearing before Judge Farnan.
MP-Primary 80061080.1
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 52 of 55
EXHIBIT E
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 53 of 55
EXHIBIT E LICENSE AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE `371 PATENT AGREEMENT LG Philips LCD CO. Ltd. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd. Chi Mei Optoelectronics, Inc. ("CMO") Sharp Corporation (and 4/26/04) Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. & Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. Toshiba Corporation AU Optronics Corporation HannStar Display Corporation International Display Technology Quanta Display Inc. Sony/ST LCD Casio Philips Arima Toppoly (TPO) Sanyo Epson/Seiko Epson Hitachi, Ltd. Wintek DATE 3/28/03 6/18/04 12/10/04 12/22/04 3/25/05 6/27/05 8/11/05 9/26/05 3/15/06 3/30/06 8/02/06 8/22/06 09/26/06 12/13/06 12/21/06 01/19/07 01/31/07 04/03/07 07/27/07 09/21/07
MP-Primary 80061017.1
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 54 of 55
Exhibit Q
Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF
Document 1127-2
Filed 08/05/2008
Page 55 of 55
REDACTED DOCUMENT