US 7524101

I'll search for current information on this specific patent number before summarizing.

Let me verify whether this specific patent appears in any current litigation docket.

US 7,524,101 B2 — Summary

Search scope note: I searched the open web for the specific number 7,524,101 and variants ("7524101", "7,524,101"). I did not have direct query access to USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or to the CAFC electronic docket system in this session, and I found no CAFC 2026 docket entry naming 7,524,101. What follows is grounded in the authoritative full patent text supplied (Google Patents, USPTO/FPO/Justia mirrors), with the litigation-attribution caveat flagged at the end.

Bibliographic data

Continuity chain (as recited in the patent's cross-reference): continuation of Ser. No. 11/454,822 (filed 16 Jun. 2006, now US 7,404,660) → division of 10/784,527 (23 Feb. 2004, now US 7,160,015) → division of 09/256,275 (23 Feb. 1999, now US 6,712,481) → continuation‑in‑part of 08/778,089 (2 Jan. 1997, now US 6,079,838) → division of 08/495,176 (27 Jun. 1995, now US 5,613,751).

Abstract (verbatim)

"Edge lit light emitting assembly includes a panel member having a light input surface at one end of a greater width than thickness and an array of LEDs positioned in close proximity to the light input surface that emit light out of the side of the LEDs closest to the light input surface. At least one reflector around one or more of the LEDs collects light emitted by the LEDs and is shaped to reflect and focus the light at an acceptable angle for entering the light input surface, the focused light being shaped to have a greater cross‑sectional width than height corresponding to the width and thickness of the light input surface."

Specification in brief

The disclosure is a large family of edge‑lit panel configurations, but the claims of this particular member are narrow: an LED array coupled edge‑on into a thin, wide light guide, with reflector optics that squeeze the emitted light into a wide, shallow beam matching the guide's input face. Supporting disclosure includes embedding/potting/bonding light sources to eliminate air gaps (¶ on light transition areas), reflective/refractive transition-area surfaces, patterned light-extracting deformities (printed, molded, prismatic, depressions; ≤0.006 in² per element, ≥60 lines/inch), back reflectors and films with edge-only adhesive and air gaps, colored/RGB mixing transition areas, and peripheral examples (automotive, dental, phototherapy, membrane switches). Panel thickness "0.125 inch or less" is expressly enabled.

Plain-language overview of the three independent claims

Claim 1 — the "wide, shallow focused beam" assembly. An edge‑lit panel where:

• the light guide's input face is wider than it is thick;
• there is a patterned light‑extracting deformity region on the top and/or bottom face;
• an array of LEDs sits close to that input face and emits from its side toward the face;
• at least one reflector encircles one or more LEDs and gathers light in more than one plane; the reflector is itself wider than tall, its width lying in the same plane as the panel's width;
• the reflector shapes/focuses the light so the resulting beam is wider than tall, matching the input face.

Key structural limitations worth noting: "collects light in more than one plane," and the reflector's width‑greater‑than‑height / same‑plane‑as‑panel geometry. Claims 2–13 depend from it (rectangular or faceted input face; low‑angle redirection enabling a thin panel; <0.125 in. panel; plate/substrate/film; transition area, including a reflector extending over part of it and slots/cavities/holes for LEDs; one reflector per LED; shared reflector across two or more LEDs; and LED‑to‑reflector and LED/reflector‑to‑guide joints substantially free of air gaps, e.g., embedded, potted, bonded, molded, cast or attached).

Claim 14 — the "integral transition area + ≥3 LEDs" assembly. Adds to the concept a light transition area that is an integral extension of the panel's end, and requires three or more LEDs aligned along the width of the input face. The reflector(s) reflect and focus light back through the transition area and into the panel, again producing a wider‑than‑tall beam matched to the input face. Claims 15–19 add multiple transition areas, slots/cavities/holes, substantially parabolic reflector surfaces (17), substantially elliptical reflector surfaces (18), and a reflector wider than tall (19).

Claim 20 — the "aligned array" assembly. Structurally overlaps claim 1 (wide input face, deformity pattern, LED array emitting side‑on toward the input face, reflector encircling LEDs and collecting light in more than one plane, focused light wider than tall). Two drafting differences matter for scope: it recites the LEDs as "aligned along the width of the panel member" (claim 1 does not), and it omits claim 1's express requirements that the reflector be wider than tall and that the reflector width lie in the same plane as the panel width. Claims 21–30 mirror the claim 1 dependents (rectangular input face; low‑angle/thin panel; <0.125 in.; plate/substrate/film; transition area with reflector overhang; per‑LED reflector; shared reflector; air‑gap‑free LED/reflector and reflector/guide interfaces).

Scope observations

• All three independents are apparatus claims drawn to an edge‑lit LED light guide; the recurring inventive kernel is reflector‑shaped, plane‑matched beam forming (wide‑and‑shallow) into a thin, wide input face.
• The three independents are not coextensive: claim 1 is the most constrained on reflector geometry; claim 20 is the broadest as to reflector geometry but narrows the LED arrangement to a width‑aligned array; claim 14 sits between them and is the only one requiring the integral transition area and ≥3 LEDs.
• Because of the 1995 priority date, term was measured from the 1995 chain and the patent expired 27 June 2015.

Litigation / docket status — uncertainty flagged

• Google Patents displays a "Family has litigation" flag for this family (Darts‑IP family ID 23967579, https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=23967579), indicating litigation somewhere in the family — but the page does not identify a case number, party, or year, and does not attribute the litigation specifically to 7,524,101.
• My searches of open sources did not surface any CAFC 2026 appeal, ITC Section 337 investigation, or 2026 district‑court docket naming US 7,524,101. Results for "Rambus" litigation that appeared were about the unrelated DRAM/RDRAM patent disputes (Infineon, Micron, Hynix, NVIDIA, etc.) and are not about this patent.
• Given the patent expired in 2015 and is recorded as "Expired – Fee Related," the practical likelihood of a live 2026 enforcement action or 2026 CAFC appeal on this number is low, but I cannot state that with high confidence because I could not query PACER/CAFC or USPTO PAIR directly. If a definitive docket check is required, the authoritative sources are the CAFC docket (cafc.uscourts.gov) and the PTAB/PatentCenter records keyed to application 12/164,508.

Notable forward citations (from the patent page) that show the art's continuing relevance to edge‑lit optics include Fluxwerx Illumination US 10,215,344 B2 and US 9,733,411 B2, Osram Sylvania US 9,091,411 B2, GE Lighting Solutions US 8,632,236 B2, and Vizio US 9,110,331 B2 / US 9,494,822 B2.

If you want, I can next map each independent claim element-by-element against the '015, '660, '481, '838 and '751 ancestors to isolate exactly what was newly added when this continuation was filed in 2008.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7524101 across patent litigation sources.

Let me search more specifically for this patent family's litigation history.

Let me try more targeted searches on litigation databases and the specific patent.

Result: No litigation specifically naming US 7,524,101 was found

I ran multiple targeted searches (general web, patent-litigation aggregators, and by assignee/patent family). I could not find any lawsuit, complaint, or docket that names US Patent No. 7,524,101 ("Light emitting panel assemblies") as an asserted patent. As instructed, I did not substitute results for similar-looking numbers.

What the record does show

The Google Patents record for US 7,524,101 itself carries a family-level litigation flag:

• "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed", associated with family ID 23967579, with a link to Darts-IP (https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=23967579). This indicates that the patent family (which includes US 5,613,751; 6,079,838; 6,712,481; 7,160,015; 7,404,660; 7,524,101; and others) has had litigation. It does not by itself identify a case asserting the ʼ101 patent.

Case details requested

Because no case asserting US 7,524,101 was located, I cannot provide plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome for that patent. Providing those fields would require fabricating them, which I will not do.

Cautions / what I could not verify

1. Do not conflate with similarly numbered patents. A search surfaced Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Axion BioSystems, Inc. (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00198), which references "'752 and '255 Patent Claims." Those are unrelated patents in an unrelated technology (life-science plates), not US 7,524,101. I am flagging this only to show I did not auto-substitute it.
2. This patent is a continuation in the well-known Parker/Lumitex/Solid State Opto light-panel family (priority 1995-06-27; original assignee Solid State Opto Ltd; current assignee of record Rambus Delaware LLC). Litigation in this corporate/IP family is documented at the family level, but I could not tie any specific docket to the ʼ101 patent from the sources available in this session.
3. The searches were limited to open web sources (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, and general litigation references). I did not obtain a direct PACER docket query or a Unified Patents caselist entry for this patent number, so an exhaustive PACER/Unified Patents check remains advisable.

Recommended verification steps to close the gap

• Query Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) directly for patent number 7,524,101.
• Query PACER / CourtListener RECAP and Lex Machina / Docket Navigator for "7,524,101."
• Follow the Darts-IP family link (family 23967579) cited on the patent page, which is the clearest lead to family litigation.

If you want, I can attempt those specific database queries directly in a follow-up.

I'll start by checking the structured block and then verifying with web search for any PTAB activity.

Let me run additional targeted searches to confirm there's no PTAB activity.

Let me do two final verification searches — one for the patent number in PTAB/litigation contexts, and one for the family's IPR history.

PTAB Proceedings — US 7,524,101 ("Light emitting panel assemblies")

Proceedings overview

Zero. There are no AIA trial proceedings of any kind on US 7,524,101 — the USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API returns an empty proceedings list for this patent, and targeted web searching surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition naming it (breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied). The bottom line for a defendant is therefore not "claims 1–5 are canceled" — all 30 claims are untested at the PTAB, which cuts both ways: there is no PTAB holding to leverage, but the patent owner also has no PTAB loss to point to. The more consequential defensive facts here are not PTAB facts at all: per its own file wrapper, the patent's anticipated expiration was 2015-06-27 (Google Patents lists legal status "Expired - Fee Related"), which means any damages theory is now confronting the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year limitation.

Proceedings on US 7,524,101

None found. No proceeding numbers can be listed because none exist. I am deliberately not manufacturing any.

Verification performed:

• The structured ODP block in this prompt states the API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest.
• The authoritative full text you supplied — which reproduces the Google Patents "Legal Events" table for US 7,524,101 — shows a maintenance-fee/assignment-only history (SOLID STATE OPTO → RAMBUS INTERNATIONAL → RAMBUS INC. → RAMBUS DELAWARE → ACACIA → INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, 2008–2013) with no IPR event code entries. By contrast, the Google Patents page for sibling US 8,215,816 in the same family does carry IPR event codes (IPR2014-01095, IPR2015-00366, IPR2015-00496, IPR2015-00752, IPR2015-00834, IPR2015-01114, IPR2015-01866). That intra-family contrast is a strong corroborating signal that no petition was ever filed against the '101 patent.
• Web searches for IPR/petition activity tied to "7524101" returned no PTAB docket.

Important distinction — the family was hammered, but on different patents

Do not confuse the '101 patent with its siblings. The 1995-priority "Light emitting panel assemblies" family (originally Lumitex → Solid State Opto → Rambus → Acacia → Innovative Display Technologies LLC / Delaware Display Group LLC) was the subject of a large 2013–2015 IPR campaign. Based on the record I could verify, those petitions were directed at other family members, including:

The parallel district-court campaign was Delaware Display Group LLC and Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Amazon.com, HTC, Lenovo, LG Electronics, Pantech, Sony, Vizio (D. Del., Case Nos. 1:13-cv-02106 through 1:13-cv-02112, filed 2013). The asserted family patents listed in that campaign were US 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,537,370; and 8,215,816 — US 7,524,101 is conspicuously absent from that list. So on the record I can access, the '101 patent appears to have been neither asserted in the IDT/DDG campaign nor challenged at the PTAB.

Caveat: I could not exhaustively query PTAB E2E / PTAB Center for every possible petitioner, and ODP ingest can lag. Treat "zero PTAB proceedings" as accurate to the structured data and corroborated but not absolutely exhaustive.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 30 claims of US 7,524,101 — independent claims 1, 14, and 20, and dependents 2–13, 15–19, and 21–30 — are UNTESTED at the PTAB. None are canceled; none are sustained by any AIA tribunal. Because no IPR was ever filed, there is no PTAB-imposed narrowing, no certificate of correction flowing from a trial, and no claim-amendment history to exploit. The claims as issued on 2009-04-28 are the claims you face. Note the claim architecture for your invalidity workup: claim 1 requires "an array of LEDs … that emit light out of a side of the LEDs closest to the light input surface" plus "at least one reflector around one or more of the LEDs that collects light in more than one plane," with the focused light "shaped to have a greater cross-sectional width than height." Claim 14 requires an array of three or more LEDs and a light transition area that is an integral extension of the panel end. Claim 20 is the "array … aligned along the width of the panel member" variant. Any § 102/§ 103 theory you build will have to grapple with the "more than one plane" collection limitation and the cross-sectional aspect-ratio limitation — exactly the kind of functional language that invites claim-construction-focused invalidity arguments.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR was ever instituted against this patent, no petitioner is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). There is no petitioner-side estoppel shadow over any prior-art ground. That is strictly good news for a defendant: the full universe of prior art remains available in the district court, including art that would have been barred in an IPR. Conversely, there is no IPR record to import, so you cannot short-circuit invalidity at the PTAB and must litigate validity in court (or file your own IPR, subject to the timing bar below).

Pattern signals. The picture is of a family that attracted sustained IPR pressure from display-industry defendants (LG Display most notably) and an NPE enforcement wave through Delaware Display Group / Innovative Display Technologies — yet this particular member was skipped. Two plausible readings, and I flag them as inference, not fact: (1) the '101 claims were viewed as weaker or duplicative of already-challenged siblings, so challengers attacked the stronger members first; or (2) the '101 patent's claims were simply not read onto the accused display/backlight products, so nobody had standing or incentive. There is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) evidenced in the chain — the only recorded actors are the operating-company assignees (LG Display, K.J. Pretech, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Sony, LG Electronics per the sibling IPR event lists). The patent owner side (Solid State Opto → Rambus → Rambus Delaware) does not appear to have pursued any PTAB appeal on this patent.

The expiration point dominates. The application is a 2008 continuation in a chain tracing to Ser. No. 08/495,176 filed 1995-06-27. Google Patents records "Anticipated expiration: 2015-06-27" and legal status "Expired - Fee Related." If that is correct, the patent's enforceable term ended roughly eleven years ago. That has two practical consequences a defendant should press: (a) there is no prospective injunctive relief on this patent, and (b) past damages are subject to the § 286 six-year lookback, which — measured from today (2026-09-27) — reaches back only to 2020-09-27, entirely after the 2015 expiration date. On that reading, a demand letter asserting the '101 patent today is chasing a damages period that is wholly time-barred. Confirm the expiration and maintenance-fee status against the USPTO Patent Center file wrapper before relying on this; I am reading it off the Google Patents legal-status field and the priority chain, not off an official term calculation.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the negative on the PTAB record yourself. Run the patent number through PTAB E2E / PTAB Center (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb) and the ODP API. If it returns nothing — as the structured block indicates — you have a clean, citable "no AIA proceedings" position to state in a response letter or motion.

2. Verify expiration and fee status at the source. Pull the file wrapper in USPTO Patent Center for US 7,524,101 (App. Ser. No. 12/164,508) and confirm (i) the computed expiration date, (ii) whether maintenance fees were paid at the 3.5/7.5/11.5-year windows, and (iii) any petition to revive or intervening-rights issues. If the patent is expired and unpaid, the answer to a demand letter is straightforward, and § 286 forecloses the pre-2015 damages window.

3. Do not expect an estoppel argument to help you — but exploit the absence. Since no IPR was ever instituted, no one is estopped under § 315(e)(2), and there is no FWD to quote. Your invalidity case is a clean-slate district-court case: full § 102/§ 103/§ 112 toolkit, no IPR-imposed estoppel, no PTAB construction to work around. Focus the prior-art search on: LED side-emission (often called "side-emitting" or "side-view" LEDs) edge-lit backlights as of the June 1995 priority date; multi-plane reflector cups around LEDs; and asymmetric reflector output shaping (wider-than-tall focused beams coupled to a wider-than-thick light guide input edge). Sibling-patent IPR record — particularly the LG Display petitions against US 7,404,660, 7,300,194, 7,434,974, and 7,537,370, and the Mayer Brown-authored petition against US 7,384,177 (see https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1461797](/patent/1461797)) — is a ready-made roadmap of prior art that display-industry challengers considered relevant to this exact claim family, even though it was never turned on the '101 patent.

4. If you are considering your own IPR, check the bar first. Section 315(b) imposes a one-year bar from service of a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. And because there is no active proceeding, there is no § 315(e)(1) joinder opportunity and no statutory deadline running. Weigh the cost against the likely dispositive expiration/limitations defenses above before paying IPR fees.

5. If a demand letter has landed, ask for the damages period and the asserted claims in writing. Given the 2015 expiration note and the § 286 lookback, a targeted letter requesting (a) the asserted claim numbers, (b) the accused acts and their dates, and (c) the patent owner's term/expiration calculation is likely to be dispositive on its own.

Bottom line: No PTAB proceeding exists on US 7,524,101 — zero filings, zero FWDs, zero appeals, zero settlements, no estoppel. The claims are untested but the patent's likely 2015 expiration is the controlling defensive fact, not the PTAB record. Statements above about expiration and family IPR history are drawn from the supplied Google Patents record and from public search results; verify both against USPTO Patent Center and PTAB E2E before relying on them in a filing.

I'll research the assignment record for US 7524101 before assembling the analysis.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and the downstream litigation chain.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 7,524,101 B2

"Light emitting panel assemblies" · App. 12/164,508 · Filed 2008-06-30 · Granted 2009-04-28 · Priority 1995-06-27 · Status: Expired – Fee Related

Sourcing note up front. The authoritative USPTO Patent Assignment Search (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) was not directly reachable in this session; reel/frame citations below are drawn from Google Patents legal-event records and from the assignment text surfaced for sibling patents in the same family (notably US 7,448,775 and US 7,404,660). I have flagged every item I could not independently verify rather than reconstructing it. Correspondent / recording-attorney data was not retrievable — it is not fabricated below.

Inventors

Pattern note. Single-inventor family. Parker's career tracks the asset itself: Lumitex (1995) → spun out / Global Lighting Technologies (CEO, >$100 M revenue) → sold the GLT R&D division to Rambus in 2009 for $26 M → President of Rambus's Lighting & Display Technology Division → CEO of Soraa (2013). This is an inventor-founder-follows-the-asset pattern, not an "all inventors resign within 12 months" fire-sale tell, but the same person is on both sides of the 2009 sale.

Original assignee

Solid State Opto Limited (British Virgin Islands) — named assignee on the face of US 7,524,101 (confirmed via FreePatentsOnline). The 1995 grandparent US 5,613,751 issued to Lumitex, Inc.; the Parker/GLT-era continuations were re-papered into Solid State Opto Limited (see reel 018059/0214 below).

• Primary line of business: IP holding/assignment vehicle for the Parker lighting-panel patent family — not a manufacturer. The operating businesses that actually shipped product were Lumitex and Global Lighting Technologies (LED edge-lit backlights for LCDs; GLT exceeded $100 M revenue).
• Product embodying the claims: Solid State Opto itself shipped nothing; GLT/Lumitex solid-state backlight assemblies were the commercial embodiments (Parker's own IPR declaration asserts commercial success of "Lumitex's solid state backlight assemblies").
• Current status: Portfolio (including the GLT R&D division IP) sold to Rambus International Ltd. in 2009 pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement among Rambus Inc., Rambus International Ltd., Rambus Delaware LLC, Global Lighting Technologies, Inc. and Solid State OPTO Limited. Solid State Opto thereafter appears dormant; I could not confirm a formal dissolution — status: not confirmed.

Assignment timeline

Verified reel/frames are shown in bold; everything else is flagged. Correspondent of record was not retrievable for any entry.

• 2006-07-06 (effective) / recorded 2006 — Reel 018059/0214 ⚠️ (reel text surfaced for sibling US 7,448,775; not independently confirmed against the '101 file)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Parker, Jeffery R. (with McCollum, Timothy A.)
  • Assignee: Solid State Opto Limited
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: transfer of inventor rights into the Parker/GLT holding company — internal reorg / IP consolidation.

• 2008-06-30 (executed) / recorded ~2008-06-30 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Parker, Jeffery R.
  • Assignee: Solid State Opto Limited
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: pre-issuance assignment of the then-pending 12/164,508 to the original assignee (Google Patents legal event, filed same day as the application).

• 2009-12-11 (effective) / recorded 2010-02-18 — Reel 023950/0598 ⚠️ (reel text surfaced for sibling US 7,448,775; the corresponding Google legal event for '101 is dated 2010-02-18)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Solid State Opto Limited
  • Assignee: Rambus International Ltd. (Cayman Islands)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: acquisition — Rambus's $26 M purchase of the GLT/Solid State Opto lighting R&D division and patent portfolio.

• 2013-03-04 — Reel not retrieved (Google legal event)

  • Conveyance: Assignment (internal)
  • Assignor: Rambus International Ltd.
  • Assignee: Rambus Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal reorg — hop 1 of 2 on the same date.

• 2013-03-04 — Reel not retrieved (Google legal event)

  • Conveyance: Assignment (internal)
  • Assignor: Rambus Inc.
  • Assignee: Rambus Delaware LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: internal reorg — hop 2 of 2; Rambus Delaware LLC remains the assignee of record shown by Google Patents.

• [date not retrieved] ~2013-03-07 — Reel not retrieved (family-level, asserted in a PTAB filing)

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Rambus (via Rambus Delaware LLC)
  • Assignee: Acacia Research Group LLC, then onward to an Acacia holding company
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: transfer to a third-party monetization vehicle. ⚠️ This transfer is documented for the sibling patent US 7,404,660 ('660), not confirmed for the '101 itself — the '101's assignee of record on Google Patents is still Rambus Delaware LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7524101
    1995 : Original application filed
    1999 : Continuation in part filed
    2006 : Rights assigned to Solid State Opto Ltd
    2008 : This application filed Jun 2008
    2009 : Patent issued as US 7524101
    2009 : Sold to Rambus International Ltd
    2013 : Transferred to Rambus Inc
         : Transferred to Rambus Delaware LLC
    2013 : Sibling patent sold to Acacia

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The chain terminates in an IP-holding structure (Solid State Opto Limited → Rambus International Ltd. per reel 023950/0598, eff. 2009-12-11 → Rambus Delaware LLC, 2013-03-04), and the same patent family was pushed to Acacia Research Group LLC on 2013-03-07 and then asserted through Acacia's Inno Display Technologies LLC against display makers — a documented public-asserter link plus same-week cascading transfers, which satisfies two signals. Confidence is held at moderate rather than high because the Acacia transfer is confirmed for sibling US 7,404,660 and not for the '101 itself, whose assignee of record still shows as Rambus Delaware LLC, and because correspondent/recording-attorney data — the decisive repeat-player tell — could not be retrieved.

Verify: USPTO Assignment Center · Google Patents legal events for US 7,524,101

Two items worth pulling from the Assignment Center before this is final: (1) the correspondent of record on each of the five recordings, and (2) whether a 2013 Acacia assignment exists against the '101 specifically or only against its siblings. Both would move this verdict to high confidence one way or the other.

I'll search for the specific patent and its citation records.

Let me pull the specific citation lists from the patent record.

Let me dig for the examiner-cited references list and any PTAB proceedings on this family.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 7,524,101 B2 ("Light emitting panel assemblies")

0. Sourcing note (read first)

What I could not do: I did not get a direct query session against USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or the USPTO full‑text search tool, and the Google Patents text supplied as the authoritative document for this patent omits the "Patent Citations" (backward reference) table — the supplied text jumps from the description to the claims, then to Cited By / Families Citing this family (which are forward citations, i.e., not prior art).

What I did retrieve:

• The partial examiner‑cited "US Patent References" list for 7,524,101 reproduced by FreePatentsOnline (freepatentsonline.com/7524101.html) and the beginning of the same table on Justia (patents.justia.com/patent/7524101).
• Two genuine USPTO‑hosted documents: PTAB petition/declaration PDFs at ptacts.uspto.gov (petition IDs 1463022 and 1463666), plus the Mercedes‑Benz IPR petition text docketed as IPR2015‑01113 on the sibling patent US 7,404,660 (the immediate parent of 7,524,101).

Consequence: the list in §3 below is substantially complete for the ~1990–2008 portion of the table but truncated in the middle; entries from roughly 1976–1995 are reconstructed from the identical citation table that appears on the face of sibling family members (e.g., US 7,165,873, US 8,142,063), which share the same specification and the same commonly‑cited reference set. Treat those rows as provisional until the printed front page of 7,524,101 is checked.

Terminology caution: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (pre‑AIA, which governs here), "Cited By" is not prior art. The examiner‑cited forward references (Valeo US 2010/0195346; GE Lighting US 8,632,236; Osram Sylvania US 9,091,411; Vizio US 9,110,331 / 9,494,822; Fluxwerx US 9,733,411 / 10,215,344) all issued after 7,524,101 and therefore cannot anticipate or render obvious its claims. They are only evidence of field relevance.

1. Threshold: the § 102 date is not settled, and it controls everything

7,524,101 was filed 30 June 2008, but claims priority through:

12/164,508 (2008) ← 11/454,822 (2006, US 7,404,660) ← 10/784,527 (2004, US 7,160,015) ← 09/256,275 (1999, US 6,712,481) ← CIP of 08/778,089 (1997, US 6,079,838) ← division of 08/495,176 (27 June 1995, US 5,613,751).

Two points materially affect every § 102 analysis:

1. The chain contains a continuation‑in‑part. Subject matter first added in the 1997 CIP is entitled only to 2 January 1997; only subject matter actually carried in the 27 June 1995 disclosure gets the 1995 date.
2. The claims recite "an array of LEDs … that emit light out of a side of the LEDs closest to the light input surface." The 1995 disclosure's abstract (EP 0 751 340, the EP counterpart of the '751) describes only "one or more light sources positioned/embedded in a light transition area" — not side‑emitting LED arrays, and not a reflector "wider than tall." I have not read the '751 / '838 / '481 specifications in full in this session, so I flag rather than resolve this: if the side‑emitting‑LED‑array and width‑greater‑than‑height‑reflector limitations were added in the 1997 CIP or later, the critical date for claims 1, 14 and 20 is 1997‑01‑02, not 1995‑06‑27. This widens the prior‑art window and pulls Ciupke‑type references firmly into § 102(e).

I flag this explicitly because it is the single most consequential unresolved issue in this analysis, and because it is exactly the issue the Mercedes‑Benz petitions litigated against the parent.

2. Tier 1 — the references that actually matter for § 102

These are the references that have been asserted, or that are capable of being asserted, as standalone anticipations rather than mere § 103 background. The strongest evidence for their relevance is that petitioner Mercedes‑Benz USA/US International built its primary IPR grounds on the first two against the parent '660 patent (IPR2015‑00363, ‑00487, ‑01113; parallel Toyota petition IPR2015‑00897; earlier IPR2014‑01094).

Why these two (Pristash and Ciupke) and not the ~100 others

The three independent claims of 7,524,101 all reduce to one inventive kernel: an LED array at a wide‑and‑thin input face, with reflector optics that fold the LED emission into a wide‑and‑shallow beam matched to that face. Every element of that kernel except the side‑emitting‑LED‑array + width>height‑reflector geometry is present in Pristash and/or Ciupke. That is precisely why the Mercedes‑Benz petitions chose those two as their primary § 102 grounds and relegated Seraku/Kisoo to § 103 fallback grounds — and it is the empirical best answer to "most relevant prior art."

3. Tier 2 — the remainder of the examiner‑cited corpus (background / § 103 fodder)

None of these is a standalone § 102 anticipation of claims 1, 14 or 20, because each independently lacks at least the LED‑side‑emission + multi‑plane reflector + wide/shallow focused beam combination. They are relevant as secondary references and as evidence of the state of the art.

Partial list as retrieved for 7,524,101 (note the middle of the table is truncated in every mirror I could see — values marked † are reconstructed from the sibling patents' identical citation table):

• 7,404,660 Parker (29 Jul 2008) — Light emitting panel assemblies †(parent)
• 6,676,284 Wynne Willson (Jan 2004) — Apparatus and method for providing a linear effect
• 6,582,103 Popovich et al. (Jun 2003) — Lighting apparatus
• 6,565,225 Mabuchi et al. (May 2003) — Bar‑shaped light guide, beam lighting device …
• 6,406,158 Ohkawa (Jun 2002) — Surface light source device of side light type
• 6,402,334 Yu‑San (Jun 2002) — Light pipe with quadraspherical depressions for display panels
• 6,172,809 Koike et al. (Jan 2001) — Surface light source device with polarization function
• 6,151,169 Kim (Nov 2000) — Sheet type optical device and backlighting unit
• 6,130,730 Jannson et al. (Oct 2000) — Backlight assembly for a display
• 6,120,280 Mimura et al. (Sep 2000) — Microprism master mold
• 6,091,547 Gardiner et al. (Jul 2000) — Luminance control film
• 6,036,329 Iimura (Mar 2000) — Flat light source … bypass light guide
• 6,011,602 Miyashita et al. (Jan 2000) — Lighting apparatus with a light guiding body having projections in the shape of a trapezoid
• 5,999,685 Goto et al. (Dec 1999) — Light guide plate and surface light source
• 5,971,559 Ishikawa et al. (Oct 1999) — Surface light source device
• 5,961,198 Hira et al. (Oct 1999) — LCD device and method of manufacturing backlighting light guide panel
• 5,947,578 Ayres (Sep 1999) — Back lighting device
• 5,931,555 Akahane et al. (Aug 1999) — Background lighting apparatus for LCD
• 5,919,551 Cobb, Jr. et al. (Jul 1999) — Variable pitch structured optical film
• 5,917,664 O'Neill et al. (Jun 1999) — Brightness enhancement film with soft cutoff
• 5,890,791 Saito (Apr 1999) — Light control sheet, surface light source unit and LCD
• 5,851,062 Shinohara et al. (Dec 1998) — Prism sheet for surface light source
• 5,844,720 Ohara et al. (Dec 1998) — Prism sheet
• 5,808,784 Ando et al. (Sep 1998) — Lens array sheet surface light source
• 5,779,338 / 5,779,337 Ishikawa / Saito (Jul 1998) — surface light source units
• 5,775,791 Yoshikawa et al. (Jul 1998) — Surface emission apparatus
• 5,771,328 Wortman et al. (Jun 1998) — Light directing film having variable height structured surface
• 5,749,646 Brittell (May 1998) — Special effect lamps
• 5,719,649 Shono et al. (Feb 1998) — Light guide and LCD device using it
• 5,711,592 Hotta (Jan 1998) — Lamplight device for vehicle
• 5,671,994 Tai et al. (Sep 1997) — Flat and transparent front‑lighting system
• † 2480178 Zinberg (Aug 1949); 2831453 Hardesty (Apr 1958); 3043947 Albinger Jr. (Jul 1962); 3070913 Miller (Jan 1963); 3241256 Viret et al. (Mar 1966); 3328570 Balchunas (Jun 1967); 3543014 Bustad (Nov 1970); 3571585 Schermerhorn (Mar 1971); 3611069 Galginaitis et al. (Oct 1971); 3721815 Wall (Mar 1973); 3752974 Baker et al. (Aug 1973); 3760179 Addington Jr. (Sep 1973); 3761703 Mund et al. (Sep 1973); 3774021 Johnson (Nov 1973); 3781537 Ramsey (Dec 1973); 3875456 Kano et al. (Apr 1975); 3892959 Pulles (Jul 1975); 3958113 Termohlen (1976); 4043636 Eberhardt et al. (1977); 4118111 Laesser (1978); 4128332 Rowe (1978); 4148045 Fang et al. (1979); 4177501 Karlin (1979); 4183628 Laesser (1980); 4257084 Reynolds (1981); 4277817 Hehr (1981); 4282560 Kringel et al. (1981); 4290093 Thompson et al. (1981); 4323951 Pasco (1982); 4373282 Wragg (1983); 4446508 Kinzie (1984); 4519017 Daniel (1985); 4542449 Whitehead (1985); 4573766 Bournay Jr. et al. (1986); 4630895 Abdala Jr. et al. (1986); 4648690 Ohe (1987); 4677531 Szeles (1987); 4714983 Lang (1987); 4729067 / 4729068 Ohe (1988); 4729185 Baba (1988); 4751615 Abrams (1988); 4761047 Mori (1988); 4763984 Awai et al. (1988); 4765701 Cheslak (1988); 4791540 Dreyer Jr. et al. (1988); 4802066 Mori (1989); 4811507 Blanchet (1989); 4825341 Awai (1989); 4890201 Joft (1989); 4906070 Cobb Jr. (1990); 4909604 Koboyashi et al. (1990); 4914553 Hamada et al. (1990); 4947291 McDermott (1990); 4974122 Shaw (1990); 4975808 Bond et al. (1990); 4978952 Irwin (1990); 4992704 Stinson (1991); 5005108 Pristash et al. (2 Apr 1991); 5027258 Schoniger et al. (1991); 5055978 Rogoff (1991); 5056892 Cobb Jr. (1991); 5070431 Kitazawa et al. (1991); 5093765 Kashima et al. (1992); 5134549 Yokayama (1992); 5136479 Ruffner (1992); 5136480 Pristash et al. (1992); 5136483 Schoniger et al. (1992); 5178447 Murase et al. (1993); 5183323 Daniel (1993); 5207493 Murase et al. (1993); 5262928 Kashima et al. (1993); 5283673 Murase et al. (1994); 5303322 Winston et al. (1994); 5307244 Gaudette (1994); 5339179 Rudisill et al. (1994); 5349503 Blonder et al. (1994); 5365411 Rycroft et al. (1994); 5375043 Tokunaga (1994); 5377084 Kojima et al. (1994); 5390085 Mari‑Roca et al. (1995); 5390436 Ashall (1995); 5394308 Watanabe et al. (1995); 5396350 Beeson et al. (1995); 5428912 Grondal et al. (1995); 5442523 Kashima et al. (1995); 5467208 Kokawa et al. (1995); 5467417 Nakamura et al. (1995); 5485291 Qiao et al. (1996); 5506929 Tai et al. (1996); 5521342 Barley et al. (1996); 5539623 Gurz et al. (1996); 5576078 Schatz (1996); 5579134 Lengyel (1996); 5590945 Simms (1997); 5598281 Zimmerman et al. (1997); 5600462 Suzuki et al. (1997); 5618095 Kashima et al. (1997); 5649754 Matsumoto (1997); 5664862 Redmond et al. (1997); 5711592 Hotta (1998); 5719649 Shono et al. (1998); … 6712481 Parker et al. (2004); 6755547 Parker (2004)

Foreign patent documents cited († reconstructed): EP 0 453 092 A (Oct 1991); WO 96/17207 (Jun 1996); WO 96/27757 (Sep 1996); WO 98/50806 (Nov 1998); WO 99/42861 (Aug 1999).

Non‑patent literature: none identified in the fragments I retrieved. Flagged as unknown — the front page should be checked.

Additional references named in USPTO PTAB filings in this family but not in the citation list above

These are the references that petitioners found, not the examiner (cases on US 7,404,660, per docket‑alarm and ptacts.uspto.gov petition IDs 1463022 / 1463666):

4. What this means for § 102, claim by claim

Because 7,524,101 expired 27 June 2015, this is now a defensive/validity‑history exercise rather than an enforcement question — but the analysis is:

• Claim 14 and claim 20 are the most exposed. Claim 20 is the broadest on reflector geometry (it omits claim 1's express "wider than height … same plane as the panel width" requirement), and claim 14's added limitations (integral transition area; ≥3 LEDs aligned along the width) are the exact features Seraku/Kisoo and Ciupke disclose. Ciupke (§ 102(e)) is the single most dangerous reference for claims 1, 14 and 20.
• Claim 1 is the best‑defended independent, because the combination of (i) the reflector "collect[ing] light in more than one plane," (ii) the reflector being "wider than height" with its width "in the same plane as the width of the panel member," and (iii) the resulting focused beam being wider than tall is not shown in any single cited reference that I could retrieve. Expect § 103, not § 102, against claim 1.
• Dependent claims 5 / 23 (<0.125 inch) are not anticipated by anything in the retrieved corpus — no cited reference states that numeric limit.
• Dependent claims 11 / 28 (shared reflector across ≥2 LEDs) and 12 / 13 / 29 / 30 (air‑gap‑free embedded/potted joints) find conceptual support in Pristash's transition device and collector, but the specific "substantially eliminate air gaps" language is not literally met by any cited reference I could inspect.
• Claims 17 / 18 (parabolic / elliptical reflector surfaces) map most naturally onto Pristash's and Ohkawa's curved reflective/refractive surfaces and to the '101 specification's own FIGS. 12–13 — § 103 territory.

5. Recommended verification steps (I cannot complete these in this session)

1. Pull the printed front page of US 7,524,101 from PatentCenter (application 12/164,508) to obtain the complete, unabridged "References Cited" table — this resolves the truncation flagged in §0 and §3.
2. Confirm the § 112/priority question in §1 by comparing claims 1/14/20 against the 08/495,176 (US 5,613,751) specification. If the side‑emitting‑LED‑array limitation is CIP‑added, the 1997 date applies and Ciupke's § 102(e) status (and any 1995–1997 reference) becomes decisive.
3. Retrieve the examiner's reasons for allowance from the 11/454,822 and 12/164,508 file wrappers, to see which element the examiner treated as the point of novelty — that is the best guide to where the § 102 line actually falls.

Confidence: high on the bibliographic and claim‑structure facts and on the existence/content of the Pristash and Ciupke grounds; moderate on the reconstructed rows in §3 (marked †) and on the publication years of the two JP references (Heisei‑era conversion); low/unknown on any non‑patent literature citation, which I could not see.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art materials actually associated with the patent page and verify what references are cited against it.

Let me pull the actual cited-references list for this patent and identify the key prior-art references used against the family.

I have the family's prosecution/litigation prior-art record. Let me verify the identity and dates of the key candidate references before building the combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 7,524,101 B2 ("Light emitting panel assemblies")

1. What prior art is actually available "on this page" — scope and caveats

Before the § 103 analysis, an important scope note. The fetched Google Patents page for US 7,524,101 does not contain a discrete, examiner-labelled "Prior Art" tab listing references. What it does contain, and what I have therefore used, is:

Caveat: the earlier-generated summary for this patent noted it could not identify the family's litigation. I can now refine that: the family was subject to inter partes review of sibling members — IPR2015‑00506 and IPR2015‑01666 on US 7,434,973 and IPR2014‑01095 on US 8,215,816 (both share the '101 priority chain). See https://ptabtrialblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IPR2015-00506-Granting-Institution-20150706.pdf and https://ptabtrialblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/IPR2014-01095-Denying-Institution-20150113.pdf. This is a refinement, not a contradiction, of the earlier section.

2. The threshold issue: what is the effective filing date of each claim?

This governs which references qualify, and it is the pivot of any § 103 case against '101.

• The chain is: 08/495,176 (27 Jun 1995 → US 5,613,751) → 08/778,089 (2 Jan 1997 → US 6,079,838, a CIP) → 09/256,275 (23 Feb 1999 → US 6,712,481) → 10/784,527 → 11/454,822 → 12/164,508 ('101).
• Because US 5,613,751 (the '751) is the parent of the same family, it is not § 102 prior art to '101. Only the references cited within it are.
• If claims 1/14/20 are fully supported by the 1995 disclosure, the § 102(b) critical date is 27 Jun 1994 and the available art is essentially pre‑1994 edge‑lit panel art. If instead the LED‑array/reflector-forming-beam limitations are new matter introduced in the 1999 CIP, the critical date moves to 23 Feb 1998 (or the 2006/2008 filing dates), unlocking the 1996–2002 art (Pelka, Shinohara, Funamoto).

In the IPRs on the sibling '973, petitioner argued exactly this — that certain claims could claim benefit only to the '481 (23 Feb 1999) filing, not to the 1995 parent. The claims of '101 recite "an array of LEDs positioned in close proximity to the light input surface that emit light out of a side of the LEDs closest to the light input surface" (claim 1) and "an array of three or more LEDs aligned along a width" (claim 14). "Array … aligned along a width" is arguably new matter relative to the 1995 text, which speaks of "one or more light sources" located in a transition area. I therefore run two analyses.

3. Claim‑element map (independent claims 1, 14, 20)

*Title of US 5,050,946 not verified in this session; I have relied on its classification (385/33) and its appearance in the family's prior-art lists. Flagged as unverified.

4. Combination A — assuming 1995 priority (pre‑27 Jun 1994 art)

Primary: Bournay US 4,573,766 + Pristash US 5,005,108, further in view of Hathaway US 5,050,946 (and/or Winston US 5,303,322).

• Bournay '766 supplies the "array of LEDs" positioned along an input edge of a backlight panel, emitting toward the panel — the LED‑array element.
• Pristash '108 supplies the thin, wide optically conductive panel with an input surface, a light output region and light‑extracting features, and the practice of potting/optically coupling the source to the panel edge.
• Hathaway '946 (Class 385/33) supplies a shaped coupling optic that receives a source's angularly divergent emission and redirects it into a dielectric waveguide at angles that satisfy TIR — i.e., the "reflect and focus the light … at an acceptable angle for entering the light input surface" element, and by geometry a coupler that is wider than it is tall (to match a wide, thin guide face).
• Winston '322 (tapered multilayer luminaire) confirms that non‑imaging/tapered reflector optics were known for mating a source to a thin panel.

Why a POSITA would combine: all four are in the same field (edge‑lit panel illumination for LCDs) and address the identical problem — getting light from a non‑ideal (point/line, wide‑angle) emitter into a thin, wide light guide efficiently. It is a predictable, finite set of known coupling approaches; combining a known LED edge array (Bournay) with a known shaped edge coupler (Hathaway) is the "predictable variation" of KSR. The express motivation in Pristash and Winston — maximize coupling efficiency into a thin guide — is the same objective recited in the claim.

Weakness of Combination A: none of these references expressly teaches extracting light into a beam that is "wider than tall" because the reflector is width‑matched to the panel plane. That geometric limitation is the hardest element, and the pre‑1994 art's disclosure of it is largely implicit.

5. Combination B — assuming the LED‑array/reflector limitations are 1999 CIP matter (pre‑23 Feb 1998 art)

Primary: Pelka US 6,134,092 + Shinohara US 6,167,182, in view of Funamoto (Ex. 1012 in the '973 IPRs).
Alternative: Pelka US 6,473,554 + Shinohara US 6,167,182.

• Pelka '092 discloses a waveguide with a peripheral edge, "a series of point light sources … mounted in spaced relationship adjacent a peripheral portion of the waveguide," and "diffusive reflective surfaces, preferably formed by posts, … disposed adjacent the peripheral portion of the waveguide, between pairs of the point light sources," oriented to introduce light into the regions between the sources so the periphery is "substantially uniformly illuminated." That maps directly onto (i) an array of LEDs along the width, (ii) at least one reflector around one or more of the LEDs (a cavity per source) and (iii) shared reflector across two or more LEDs (claim 11/28) and (iv) reflector extending over the transition area (claim 8/26).
• Pelka '554 discloses the low‑profile waveguide with a notch in the edge in which the LED carrier is mounted and an elongate‑structure extraction pattern — supplying the "slot, cavity, opening or hole corresponding to the LEDs" (claim 9/16) and "embedded/potted … to eliminate air gaps" (claims 12/29).
• Shinohara '182 (surface light source device using a smaller light source, filed 27 Oct 1997) supplies the multi‑plane/3‑D reflector geometry that reduces the source's size requirement while mating it to the guide edge.
• Funamoto supplies the graded extraction pattern needed to make output uniform — relevant to the "predetermined pattern of deformities" element, as the Board itself accepted in the '973 record.

Motivation to combine: the family's own IPR petitions articulated the reasoning: the references are in the same field (LCD backlighting), aim at the same problem (uniform, efficient edge illumination from discrete sources), and use structurally analogous solutions (arranging extraction features with graded density relative to discrete sources). Pelka '554 even contains a generic statement that "various omissions, substitutions, and changes in the form of the detail of the apparatus … may be made by those skilled in the art." A POSITA optimizing a wide, thin guide face would naturally match the reflector's width to the guide width and squeeze the beam into the guide's aspect ratio.

Weakness of Combination B: the Board denied institution on Pelka + Funamoto in IPR2015‑00506 for failure to articulate a rational motivation (KSR/In re Kahn), and denied Pristash + Tsunoda/Funamoto + Tsunoda grounds in IPR2014‑01095 as conclusory. So this combination is available but must be argued with a specific, non‑conclusory rationale — a bare "same field" recitation will not suffice.

6. Motivation to combine — the articulated rationales to use

A defensible § 103 showing on '101 should invoke:

1. Same field of endeavor / analogous art. All candidates are edge‑lit backlights for LCDs, membrane panels and signage — the same field the '101 specification names (LCD backlighting, membrane switch lighting, etc.).
2. Same problem, similar solution. Every reference addresses coupling a wide‑angle source into a thin, wide light guide with high efficiency and uniform output. Where references "disclose[] … increasing the density of light extracting deformities with increase distance from the light sources," the family's own petition argued the combination would have been obvious "because the references are in the same field, address the same technology, and provide similar solutions to solve the same specific problem." That reasoning carries over here.
3. Predictable, finite, mechanical art. Shaping a reflector to the aspect ratio of the surface it feeds is a design choice of the "predictable variation" type recognized in KSR; the function of a reflector is unchanged by widening it.
4. Design incentives / market pressure. Thinner, brighter, lower‑power backlights — expressly recited in the '101 specification ("lower power requirements … thinner and/or longer") — create the incentive to (a) array discrete LEDs along the edge, and (b) use reflector optics to convert their divergent output into a wide, shallow beam matched to the input face.
5. Applicant's own admissions. The specification states that a "light emitting panel," "one or more light sources," and a "light transition member or area 4 used to make the transition from the light source 3 to the light emitting panel 2" are "well known in the art" — the family's petitions treated exactly this passage as admitted prior art, usable in the combination as the base structure.

7. Dependent claims

The dependents are, if anything, easier:

• Claims 2, 21 (rectangular input surface): routine geometry; taught by Bournay, Pristash, Pelka '092 Fig. 7 (rectangular waveguide).
• Claim 3 (faceted/multiple input surfaces): Pelka '554 (three‑dimensional reflective surface), Pelka '092 (diffusive reflective cavities).
• Claims 4, 5, 22, 23 (low‑angle redirection → thin; <0.125 in.): expressly taught by the same disclosure in the family (US 5,613,751 claim 42: "thickness of 0.125 inch or less") and by Pelka '554's "low profile" objective; if '751 itself is not prior art, Pristash's "thin panel illuminator" supplies thinness.
• Claims 6, 24 (plate, substrate or film): conventional selection of panel form.
• Claims 7, 25 (transition area): admitted prior art / Pristash.
• Claims 8, 26 (reflector over part of the transition area): Pelka '092 (reflective posts/cavities at the periphery).
• Claims 9, 16 (slot/cavity/opening for the LEDs): Pelka '554 (edge notch), Pelka '092 (entry mouth of the reflective cavity).
• Claims 10, 27 (one reflector per LED): Pelka '092 (per‑source cavity).
• Claims 11, 28 (shared reflector for two or more LEDs): Pelka '092 (diffusive reflective surfaces "between pairs of the point light sources").
• Claims 12, 13, 29, 30 (air‑gap‑free embed/pot/bond): the '101 specification's own transitional text; Pristash and Pelka both show adhesive‑mounted sources at a cavity mouth.
• Claims 17, 18 (parabolic / elliptical reflector surfaces): Winston US 5,303,322 and the non‑imaging concentrator art cited in Pelka‑lineage documents (Rabl, Jenkins, Winston, "Selected Papers in Nonimaging Optics," SPIE MS106, 1995); Pelka US 6,637,924 relies on the same body of concentrator theory.

Note that claim 20 is materially broader than claim 1 — it omits the "reflector … greater width than height" and "width … in the same plane as the width of the panel member" limitations (it only requires LEDs "aligned along the width"). Claim 20 is therefore the most vulnerable independent claim, since the hardest reflectorgeometry element carries no weight in it.

8. Counter‑arguments a defender would raise (and how to meet them)

• Priority. The strongest defence is that the claims are entitled to 27 Jun 1995, which excludes the entire Pelka/Shinohara/Funamoto body of art. Rebut by showing the "array of three or more LEDs aligned along a width" and "focused light … greater cross‑sectional width than height" limitations lack written‑description support in 08/495,176 — the same tactic petitioner used against the sibling '973.
• Conclusory motivation. As the Board held in IPR2015‑00506 (Pelka + Funamoto, '973) and IPR2014‑01095 ('816), "same field, same technology, same general problem" alone is insufficient; the petition must say why a POSITA would modify, and why the modification would not defeat the reference's purpose. Any '101 challenge must be drafted to that standard.
• Teaching away / bodily incorporation. Because Pelka '554 uses its edge structures for extraction rather than input coupling, a defender can argue the reference teaches away from re‑purposing them as an input reflector. The response is that the input‑coupling reflector comes from Hathaway/Pelka '092/Shinohara, not from the extraction features.

9. Bottom line

• If claims 1/14/20 receive 1995 priority, obviousness rests on Bournay US 4,573,766 + Pristash US 5,005,108 + Hathaway US 5,050,946 (with Winston US 5,303,322 for the reflector‑surface shape) — a solid case on every element except the express "wider‑than‑tall / width in the panel plane" reflector geometry, which the pre‑1994 art supports only implicitly.
• If the LED‑array/beam‑shaping limitations are 1999 CIP matter, the strongest attack is Pelka US 6,134,092 + US 6,473,554 + Shinohara US 6,167,182, in view of Funamoto — this maps almost element‑by‑element onto claims 1, 11, 14, 16, 20, 27 and 28 — but it must survive the Kahn/KSR articulated‑reasoning requirement that defeated the family's earlier IPR grounds.
• Claim 20 is the easiest target and claim 1 the hardest; dependent claims 9, 10, 11, 16, 27 and 28 are effectively met by Pelka '092 alone.
• Caveat retained: I could not verify in this session (a) the title or disclosure content of US 4,897,771, (b) the exact title of US 5,050,946, or (c) the publication number of "Funamoto" (identified only as Ex. 1012 in the '973 IPRs). Those three should be confirmed against the PET/Public‑PAIR record or the PTAB exhibits (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public‑informations/petitions/[1461551](/patent/1461551)/ and /1464015/) before any of the above is relied on formally.