IPR2015-00021, Paper 43
`January 19, 2016
`
`
`
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SHARP CORPORATION, SHARP
`ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, and SHARP
`ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING
`COMPANY OF AMERICA,
`Petitioner
`____________
`
`Case Number IPR2015-00021
`Patent Number 7,202,843 B2
`____________
`
`Held: December 1, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`December 1, 2015, commencing at 10:01 a.m., at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`January 19, 2016
`
`
`
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SHARP CORPORATION, SHARP
`ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, and SHARP
`ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING
`COMPANY OF AMERICA,
`Petitioner
`____________
`
`Case Number IPR2015-00021
`Patent Number 7,202,843 B2
`____________
`
`Held: December 1, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`December 1, 2015, commencing at 10:01 a.m., at the U.S.
`Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street,
`Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WAYNE HELGE, ESQ.
`JAMES WILSON, ESQ.
`Davidson, Berquist, Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANTHONY F. LO CICERO, ESQ.
`BRIAN COMACK, ESQ.
`MARK BERKOWITZ, ESQ.
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Good morning.
` MR. LO CICERO: Good morning.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: This is a hearing for IPR --
`are you ready? -- 2015-00021 between Petitioner
`Sharp and Patent Owner Surpass Tech Innovation.
`Per our October 23rd order, each party will have
`30 minutes total time to present your arguments.
`Petitioner, you proceed first to present your
`case with respect to the challenge claims and the
`ground, single ground for which the Board
`instituted trial. And then Patent Owner, you'll
`have time to respond to Petitioner's
`presentation. Petitioner, you can reserve
`rebuttal time if you like.
` At this time, we'd like the parties to
`please introduce counsel, beginning with the
`petitioner.
` MR. LO CICERO: Good morning, your Honors.
`Anthony Lo Cicero from Amster, Rothstein,
`Ebenstein. With me is my partner, Brian Comack,
`and our colleague, Mark Berkowitz.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. And for Patent
`Owner?
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
` MR. HELGE: Good morning, your Honor. My
`name is Wayne Helge from Davidson, Berquist,
`Jackson & Gowdey, LLP. And I'm here representing
`Patent Owner, Surpass Tech innovation, LLC. With
`me is my colleague James Wilson.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you. Petitioner, you
`may begin. And would you like to reserve
`rebuttal time?
` MR. LO CICERO: I would, your Honor. Ten
`minutes, please.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Please proceed.
` MR. LO CICERO: Your Honor, I have hard
`copies of our demonstrative exhibits if you'd
`like.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes, you may approach the
`bench with it. Thank you.
` MR. LO CICERO: Good morning, your Honor,
`as I said I'm Anthony Lo Cicero, representing the
`petitioner, Sharp.
` We believe that our papers, supplemented by
`today's hearing, will demonstrate that Claims 4;
`8; and 9 of the '843 patent are anticipated by
`the Ham reference and that Surpass's three
`arguments listed on Slide Number 2 are of no
`avail. The '843 patent relates to the problem of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`blurring in LCD panels. Specifically, because of
`the physical nature of the LCD technology, the
`liquid crystal molecules have to be twisted and
`rearranged, and this physical phenomenon can
`cause the images to be delayed. The '843 patent
`identifies a first solution which is to divide
`the frame into two fields and to apply a data
`impulse from -- into both of those fields as
`shown on Slide 5. This solution is embodied in
`Challenge Claim 4 which is a method claim for
`driving a liquid crystal panel or certain
`characteristics. It includes the steps of
`receiving frame data, generating a plurality of
`data impulses according to that frame data, and
`applying the data impulses to the LCD pixel
`within one frame period.
` There's another claim that's of relevance,
`although it's certainly not under review. That's
`Claim 1. Claim 1 deals with a second solution, a
`second method of curing the blurring problem,
`Claim 1 is an apparatus claim. It has a
`blur-clear converter which among other things
`generates a plurality of overdriven pixel data.
`it has a source generator -- a source driver for
`generating a plurality of data impulses.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`According to this plurality of overdriven pixel
`data and the gate driver applying the data
`impulses to the --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Excuse me. What is it that
`actually prevents the blurring? Is it having
`multiple pulses in a timeframe? Or is it having
`overdriven pulses that avoids the blurring?
` MR. LO CICERO: Yes.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Which is it?
` MR. LO CICERO: It can be both. In other
`words, the problem of blurring in the '843 patent
`and the showing prior art can be addressing
`using, let's say, both axes. In the time axes,
`if you divide the frame in half, like the impact,
`like the '843 patent, then you are able to apply
`a data impulse faster so that the -- the pixel
`can go from a first gray level to a second gray
`level faster. Okay.
` The other way of doing that in the '843
`patent in the Ham reference for one of the
`frames, one of the fields, and in the prior art
`is to overshoot, that is, to apply a greater, if
`it's a positive, or a lesser if it's negative
`impulse than you otherwise would to kind of juice
`or boost the twisting of the pixels. So there
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`are two ways that one can do this, and our view
`is that Claim 4 deals with the dividing -- the
`time domain, and Claim 1 deals with the time
`domain and the amplitude domain. So I would say
`there are both ways of doing it, so both things
`have the effect of curing the blurring.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: But doesn't the involved
`patent also contemplate doing both, overdriving
`multiple pulses?
` MR. LO CICERO: The involved patent teaches
`both, and Claim 1 is limited to both. Claim 4,
`however, is a different claim. It's a method
`claim, not an apparatus claim. It has different
`steps, and it only deals with the multiple data
`impulse approach to cure an overdrive.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. What evidence of
`record do we have that shows that just applying
`multiple pulses obviates this blurring
`phenomenon?
` MR. LO CICERO: Well, the '843 patent
`itself. The '843 patent -- let me find the
`correct slide because your Honor's obviously come
`to the --
` MR. COMACK: Thirty-seven.
` MR. LO CICERO: Thank you. Thirty-seven.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`I'll ask Mr. Berkowitz to do that. So if you
`look at the detailed description, and this sums
`it up kind of -- shown on Slide 37 from the '843
`patent itself. In contrast to the prior art,
`present invention discloses a driving circuit and
`related driving method to two generate two
`piece -- pixel data every for every pixel on an
`LCD panel, and it can generate two data impulses
`according to the two pieces of pixel data and
`then apply them to the electrode. Thus, each of
`the pixels applied of a plurality of data
`impulses so that the molecules can twist to reach
`the predetermined gray level within a frame
`period and blurring will not occur. So Slide 37
`demonstrates this. As you will notice, there is
`no reference to overdrive.
` And obviously, the -- what's the key issue
`in this? Let me depart from my prepared remarks.
`The patent owner raised three arguments. One was
`that they -- we identified the wrong element as
`to what was generating the data impulses. And
`that argument starts on page 12 of our slides.
`And it is a -- and it is a rehash, okay.
` First, a Ham reference is not in dispute.
`We know what the Ham reference teaches. Data
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`comes into the timing of the controller, 51. The
`output of the timing controller from the signal
`standpoint is RGB data. That RGB data goes to
`two locations. It goes to line numbers. Now
`I've messed it up. Okay. Right. It goes to
`Line Number 59 which delays it by half a frame.
`It also goes to Data Modulator 52 which modulates
`it, okay, overdrives it. Those two signals --
`that is the delayed normal signal from the line
`memory and the overdriven signal from the data
`modulator are applied to Switch 58. Switch 58
`selectively sequences those signals and applies
`them to the data driver. The data driver
`converts what is then a digital signal to an
`analog signal and applies it through the --
`through the data lines to the particular pixel.
`Not in dispute. Mr. Bohannon, in the testimony
`that is cited in his declaration and depicted on
`Slide 13, agrees. Not a dispute.
` So what's their argument? Well, the
`argument is -- by the way, the experts agree.
`Their expert, our expert agree on the operation
`of the Ham reference, and in particular, that the
`Ham reference converts the originally input
`digital data into analog data and applies those
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`data impulses to the LCD panel.
` So the argument, at least in the response
`and in today's slides, is that no, we've pointed
`solely to Data modulator 52 as the element that
`generates that. Well, no, we didn't. And it's
`similar, but it's kind of a -- think of a neutral
`way -- a rehashed argument because the first
`time, in its preliminary response, they -- Patent
`Owner said, Well, Sharp is at fault because
`they're relying on the timing control of 51 to
`generate the data impulse. And the Board said --
`okay. The Board said No, that's not -- that's
`not what Sharp is saying. Sharp is saying, as
`your Honors said, We understand Petition to rely
`on the driving apparatus of Figure 5 which is not
`limited to the timing controller. So that is
`that was the first effort.
` Second effort is -- now the argument is,
`Okay, Patent Owner says, if it's not the timing
`controller alone, maybe it's the data modulator
`alone. No, it's not. It's the entire driving.
`Your answer were right in the institution
`decision. It should maintain that concept today.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Well, Patent Owner points to
`the one sentence in your petition on page 46 that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`says, The apparatus also includes a timing
`control of 51 that receives digital video data
`and a data modulator that generates two data
`impulses -- for each pixel. So you can kind of
`understand where they're coming from, that, you
`know, your petition would seem to suggest that
`the modulator alone does generate the two data
`impulses.
` MR. LO CICERO: That is, admittedly, an
`awkwardly-worded sentence. What Mr. Marentic,
`our expert, said, his understanding was that in
`fact, what is intended is that it is the entire
`apparatus and the entire apparatus includes the
`timing controller and the data modulator, and it
`is the apparatus that generates the two data
`impulses. It's a poorly-worded sentence. If you
`look down on the same page, 46, in the next
`paragraph, it says that the output, 7B, the
`figure which shows the alleged invention, is --
`that the -- let me start again. Says that the
`entire apparatus generates the data impulses. If
`you look at our claim charts which are on page --
`on Slide 17, it shows we rely on the entire
`driving circuit. In particular, we cite three
`paragraphs -- without argument, of course,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`because it's a claim chart -- including Paragraph
`53 which says that the LCD drive apparatus and
`method according to present invention applies the
`normal data to the liquid crystal panel, the
`initial half-period after supplying the modulated
`data to the second rule. And that is Slide 17.
`Of course, this is a method claim and not an
`apparatus claim. So -- so long as the generating
`step is -- is met, then it doesn't matter
`which -- which element does the generating.
` The other argument that they raise as to
`generating, although perhaps they won't raise it
`because it's not in their slides, is that somehow
`because we didn't offer a construction of
`generating that therefore, we've somehow done
`something wrong. However, the Board said, as
`shown in Slide 21, that it need not construe any
`of these limitations. That is correct. The
`petitioner, also at Slide 21, said initially that
`the terms were clear on their face. The patent
`owner's expert when I asked him was he offering
`any specific instruction for generating, he said,
`No, I think it's pretty clear. And our expert,
`of course, agreed that generating is clear and
`required no further construction.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Does the signal that just
`passes through a box, but the box doesn't --
`let's say the circuitry doesn't do anything to
`the signal, but that -- its output from that box,
`would you call that a signal that is generated by
`that box?
` MR. LO CICERO: The box output,
`something --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes.
` MR. LO CICERO: -- different from --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: No, it's the same. Just
`passes through. It goes through -- it's this box
`with circuitry in it. It comes through. It's
`the same, exact thing going out. Does that box
`generate the signal?
` MR. LO CICERO: So the box has no impact.
`That's a good question. I don't think that's
`presented here, the hypothetical not presented
`here because everyone agrees that the box in
`particular takes digital data and converts it to
`analog data. But I think that I would be hard
`pressed to say that that's generated if --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
` MR. LO CICERO: -- it does nothing, if it's
`in effect just a wire.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
` JUDGE MEDLEY: But converting --
` (Overlapping voices.)
` MR. LO CICERO: Converting does.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- is generating. That's
`what you mean by generating.
` MR. LO CICERO: Converting's generation.
`If I were pressed and said, How do you
`construe generating, I would say outputting.
`Outputting different -- outputting the data
`impulses from the source driver which are in
`analog form. And the entire apparatus of Figure
`5 of Ham has taken the digital data and will
`acknowledge digital data and converts it to the
`analog data in the particular form, that is,
`overdriven in one of the two pulses and with the
`two -- with the frame divided into two feeds.
` So let's talk about overdriving, and that
`begins on page 45 -- 25, right there. So the
`crux of the argument here is that the patent
`owner, not satisfied with the language of Claim
`4, is -- wants to rewrite it to say that two or
`more -- that what the claim really means is
`applying two or more overdriven data impulses to
`control the transmission. Now, why are they
`taking this position? To avoid the Ham
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`reference. The patent owner acknowledges that
`Ham does not apply a plurality of overdriven
`signals in the frame period, and therefore, they
`have to find a way of dealing with Claim 4 to
`incorporate the overdriving concept. And one way
`they could have done it, we'll state it, would be
`to try and amend the claim, and -- however, this
`Board, of course, has set a series of rules. You
`have to have a call. You have to file a motion
`to amend. When you file motion to amend, you
`have to show a patentable distinction for each
`proposed substitute claim over the prior art.
`Why didn't they simply do that? Because of
`Adachi. Now, Adachi is not one of the grounds of
`challenge. We're relying on it only to rebut
`what the patent owner's argument. Adachi without
`question teaches, as in the lower box, that
`single frame is divided into plurality of fields,
`and all of the fields are subject to the
`overshoot driver. So because they couldn't amend
`the claim to get around Adachi, they are left
`with trying to say that's the broadest reasonable
`construction. But incorporating overdrive into
`this claim is not the broadest reasonable
`construction, nor is it reasonable.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
` First, add -- the patent owner's asking you
`to make at least two mistakes. The first mistake
`is to incorporate overdriving limitation of Claim
`1 into Claim 4. Claim 1, of course, has -- it
`has steps generating overdriven pixel data, and
`then generating a plurality of impulses according
`to this plurality of overdriven pixel data. And
`the law is settled that when a patent claim does
`not contain a certain limitation, another one
`does, that limitation cannot be read into the
`claim as set forth on Slide 31.
` The second error -- in fact, the cardinal
`sin of claim construction -- is that the patent
`owner was asking you to corporate the disclosure
`of the '843 into its claim. Okay? Mr. Bohannon,
`their expert, says on page 32, Patent, the '843
`patent discloses controlling and transmission
`vapors achieved through overdrive. It's not.
`The claim language, also on page 32, according to
`Mr. Bohannon recalls the discussion of overdrive.
`Not sure I've heard that -- actually, not before.
` The -- of course, the patent owner when it
`was identifying what the right law is in his
`preliminary response said the Board will not read
`a particular embodiment appearing in the written
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`description into the claim if the claim language
`is broader than the embodiment. But the patent
`owner's expert didn't get the memo. I asked him,
`Is it your testimony that the specification
`describes a concept, that that concept should be
`incorporated into the claims? Yes, that's my
`understanding. Of course, that's what we do.
` What I'd like to do is to move forward
`because you have the slides.
` JUDGE MOORE: If controlling the
`transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of
`the pixel does not imply overdriving, then what
`is implied by controlling the transmission rate
`of the liquid crystal?
` MR. LO CICERO: Exactly where I was going,
`your Honor. What was implied by controlling a
`transmission rate is simply moving the
`transmission rate from one gray level to another
`to -- what is transmission rate? Transmission
`rate is the amount of light that is transmitted
`by the LCD data. One of the slides said -- I
`asked Mr. Bohannon about transmission rate, and
`he said -- I'll find it somewhere. He said he
`had no -- he had no definition. I said, Well,
`isn't -- thank you. Slide 42. I asked him the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`answer that I just gave you, your Honor, said, Is
`it fair to say the transmission rate is the
`percentage of light that's allowed to pass
`through? I don't think I can answer that. Okay.
`Have you heard the term transmission rate before?
`No. Are you offering an opinion on transmission
`rate? I'm not offering an opinion on
`transmission. So their expert gave it up. Their
`expert has no evidence to offer.
` So what is the evidence, as you asked? I
`put up Paragraph 90 of Mr. Marentic's
`declaration. And Mr. Marentic's declaration
`surely can't be read, so presumably, there's a
`way to focus this. Thank you, Mr. Comack.
` The '843 patent describes the LCD panel
`with -- transmission rate was controlled without
`overdrive. For example, Figure 2 plots
`transmission rate against time and explains that
`the transmission rate of a pixel is not
`overdriven. So if you look at the second page at
`90, Mr. Marentic's declaration, you see it as
`clear as could be. What is Figure 2? First of
`all, the patent labels as prior art, and it is.
`Look at C1. C1 is a curve that is admittedly not
`overdriven. Okay? And what happens in C1? The
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`transmission rate, the axis, vertical axis, goes
`from T1 to T2. It is changed. The transmission
`rate is changed. The transmission rate is
`controlled, as Mr. Marentic says in the
`declaration, without overdrive. Now, the problem
`is it doesn't get changed soon enough. It starts
`at the beginning of Frame N. It wants to get
`there at the end of Frame 1, and it doesn't. It
`doesn't get there till the frame -- end of Frame
`N plus 1. So it's delayed. It's not working
`ideally. But nonetheless, the prior art as
`admitted demonstrates that you can control the
`transmission rate without overdriving it. Well,
`if that's the case, then it cannot be as we're
`accused of doing, that by not incorporating
`overdriving into Claim 4, you're eliminated the
`requirement to control the transmission data. We
`are doing no such thing. Of course, controlling
`the transmission rate is a limitation of the
`claim, but overdriving is not.
` I'd like to -- I've gone over a little bit
`more than I wanted to, but I'd like to reserve
`the rest of my time for rebuttal.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. HELGE: May it please the Board. Good
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`morning, your Honor. Again, I am Wayne Helge of
`Davidson, Berquist, Jackson & Gowdey, here on
`behalf of the patent owner Surpass Tech
`Innovation, LLC.
` Your Honors, under USC -- excuse me, 35 USC
`316(e), the burden of proving invalidity in an
`IPR is the petitioner's burden alone. In this
`case, the petitioner filed a petition that
`dedicated all of four pages to an analysis of how
`the Ham reference allegedly anticipates Claims 4,
`8, and 9 of the '843 patent.
` Now, this petition establishes the
`framework for this proceeding. This picks
`petition establishes the lens through which we
`have to view the case. This petition has
`established the roads. They've built the roads
`down which we've traveled to get where they hope
`to get to at the end. But now, those roads
`include dead ends. We've already talked about
`one of those dead ends this morning, dealing with
`data modulator allegedly generating the plurality
`of data impulses. Now, their expert has
`contorted the sentence to try to reach a
`different conclusion that they believe is
`allegedly consistent with the claim chart. But
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`he's been unwilling to go down that road. He's
`been unwilling to go down that dead end of saying
`the data modulator generates a plurality of data
`impulses. We have his deposition testimony
`saying that's not the case.
` We also the little to no explanation of the
`Petitioner's theory of invalidity. Under 37 CFR
`42.22(a)(2), the petition must include a detailed
`explanation of the evidence. We have claim
`charts. We have a claim chart with a theory
`about the generating step. But that claim chart
`is inconsistent with the explanation that's
`provided in -- on page 46 of the petition. And
`what Petitioner did not get to this morning yet,
`and I would think is a crucial question that has
`to be answered, was their explanation on page 46
`of the petition the explanation of that claim
`chart? Or was it an alternative theory? Either
`way, they fail. If it's an alternative, then
`there is no explanation for the claim chart, and
`they failed to satisfy 37 CFR 42.22(a)(2). If it
`is their explanation, then they're wrong, and
`their expert has confirmed that they're wrong.
`The data modulator does not generate a plurality
`of data impulses.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
` In addition, the petition contains one more
`dead end, and that is a specific misapplication
`of Ham to Claim 4. And it's a misapplication in
`the term to control a transmission rate as they
`point to it in their claim chart. On page 48 of
`their claim chart, they -- we can go to Slide --
`here we go, Slide 31. They characterize
`controlling a transmission rate accordingly to
`Ham as doubling the transmission rate. That's in
`the petition. But this is the last time you will
`see this theory presented by the petitioners.
`And indeed, Mr. Marentic, their technical
`declarant on reply, first appeared on reply,
`said, That doesn't make technical sense to me.
`They've taken us down two roads, page 46 about
`the data modulator generating impulses and
`controlling a transmission rate by doubling a
`transmission rate, taking us down two dead ends
`that they've now had to backtrack and say, That's
`not really what we said. And, in fact, it is.
`This third shortcoming drives home the deficiency
`--
` JUDGE MOORE: Can you --
` MR. HELGE: I'm sorry, your Honor.
` JUDGE MOORE: Can you go back to the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`generating --
` MR. HELGE: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE MOORE: -- issue? In his
`presentation, I believe he asserted that
`converting an analog signal to digital, that
`converting step would meet the definition of
`generating. We would have a construction, at
`least, that would read on generating. Do you
`agree with that?
` MR. HELGE: Your Honor, in the abstract, I
`will tell you that the Shen patent, the '843
`patent at issue here, talks about a source driver
`converting overdriven data into overdriven data
`signals, so converting from digital to -- to the
`analog signals that are applied to the columns.
`We believe that certainly satisfies 35 USC 112,
`for example. So I think that's a fair read in
`view of Shen.
` Now, I would point -- if we can go back to
`Slide -- here, page 46. Unfortunately, this
`slide not highlighted, but if we were to go down
`to this, the paragraph below the highlighted
`paragraph, there's another problem here. And
`this is where the generating argument comes that
`we made. This is not intended to be a pedantic
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`argument. The issue is, as we look into that
`second paragraph, they've confused the idea of
`data and signal, and they say that a signal is
`the data that was entering into the controller.
`And so the idea of generating -- and what they
`had in mind for generating today, I believe, is
`different than what they had in mind in the
`petition. They didn't talk about converting and
`satisfying that element in the petition. Again,
`the lens that they're they've created for us is a
`skewed lens. The road they've taken us down
`actually never dealt with the generating step
`except in the context of the highlighted language
`which is the data modulator generated the
`impulses.
` Now, your Honors, I mentioned a moment ago
`on Slide 31 how we have a dead end in terms of
`controlling a transmission rate in the Shen
`patent, and specifically, in Claim 4 here and
`their theory that it doubles transmission rate in
`the Ham reference. You'll see in the Marentic --
`excuse me, the declaration Paragraph 93 which is
`a slide I don't believe they got to he actually
`comes up with a new construction which is it --
`applying a voltage to an electrode is controlling
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`the transmission rate. Now, Mr. Lo Cicero a
`moment ago said to control the transmission rate,
`you have to go from T1 to T2, for example. You
`have to change the transmission rate such as
`shown in Shen's figures. Figure 6, for example,
`Figure 2, there's changes from T1 to T2. The way
`Mr. Marentic deals with it in Paragraph 93,
`there's no change of transmission rate required
`at all. Simply applying a voltage could be
`controlling a transmission rate. In effect, we
`have from Petitioners now a third theory that's
`come into play.
` Now, your Honors, we win it in every case.
`First of all --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: What does that mean, control
`a transmission? Even if you're not, you know,
`controlling the transmission rate so that the
`transmission rate is faster to get to where you
`want to go quicker, you're still controlling it
`by applying a voltage to the pixels. So I'm
`having difficulties finding in the words control
`a transmission rate that it means that you've got
`to apply a particular overdriven signal, and not
`only do you have to apply an overdriven signal,
`it has to be more than one. I just don't see
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Application Numbers 95/000578; 95/000579; 95/001339
`Appeal Number 2015-006849
`
`that in your claim at all, so if you could break
`that down for us, that would be great.
` MR. HELGE: Absolutely, your Honor. I
`think what we should do is go back to Slide --
`well, I know you're aware of claim language.
`Let's go back to Slide 5. Slide 5 discusses the
`claim language. Perhaps we should go one more.
` We've got elements in Claim 4 dealing with
`receiving a plurality of frame data, generating a
`plurality of data impulses, and then applying
`those data impulses to control the transmission
`rate. If we look at Column 2, Lines 3 to 7 to
`seven, Shen describes the idea of overdriving as
`accelerating the change, accelerating that
`difference. And the comparison there is between
`Curves C1 and C2 on Figure 2. Now, the first
`time that Sh
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
