I guess your question is. given that this is a technique using a device from the 90's how can there be a 2006 patent on it? my guess(without reading the patent

I guess your question is. given that this is a technique using a device from the 90's how can there be a 2006 patent on it? my guess(without reading the patent). it's not the device that has a patent but the technique of using external emissions to affect a plasma display type element. my guess is that if contested the prior art claim would be that the invention was obvious to any one in the field(debatable) as the device that exhibits these properties was built far before the patented idea was dreamed up. This reminds me of why I dislike software patents, there are things done on computers that are genuinely patentable, but most software patents are in the form of "machine that already exists, but on a computer" which is bullshit.