Trials@uspto.gov Paper 44
`571-272-7822
` Date Entered: February 26, 2016
`
`
`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,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioner, Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and
`
`Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`7,202,843 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’843 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319.
`Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Patent Owner, Surpass Tech Innovation LLC,
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon
`consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, on March 18, 2015,
`we instituted an inter partes review of claims 4, 8, and 9 on one ground of
`unpatentability, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 10 (“Dec.”).
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 20 (“PO Resp.”)) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 24
`(“Pet. Reply”)).
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 27; “Pet. Mot. to
`Exclude”) certain portions of Exhibit 2005 and certain evidence submitted
`during the cross examination of Michael Marentic. Patent Owner filed an
`Opposition to the Motion to Exclude (Paper 34; “PO Exclude Opp.”), and
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 39; “Pet. Exclude Reply”).
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 31; “PO Mot. to
`Exclude”) certain portions of Exhibits 1010 and 2007. Petitioner filed an
`Opposition to the Motion to Exclude (Paper 35; “Pet. Exclude Opp.”), and
`Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 38; “PO Exclude Reply”). Patent Owner
`filed a Motion for Observations (Paper 29) and Petitioner filed a Response to
`the Observations (Paper 36).
`An oral hearing was held on December 1, 2015, and a transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record (Paper 43; “Tr.”).
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 8, and 9 of the ’843 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`According to Petitioner, the ’843 patent is involved in the following
`lawsuit: Surpass Tech Innovation LLC v. Sharp Corp., No. 1:14-cv-00338-
`LPS (D. Del.). Pet. 8.
`
`B. The ’843 Patent
`The ’843 patent relates to a method and system for driving an LCD
`panel. The panel includes a plurality of scan lines, a plurality of data lines,
`and a plurality of pixels. Each pixel is connected to a corresponding scan
`line and a corresponding data line, and each pixel includes a liquid crystal
`device and a switching device connected to the corresponding scan line, data
`line, and liquid crystal device. Ex. 1001, 2:19–26, Fig. 4. The system
`includes a driving circuit for applying a plurality of data impulses to a pixel
`electrode within one frame period to control the transmission rate of the
`liquid crystal device. Id. at 1:8–12, 4:34–40.
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 4, reproduced below, is an independent claim and each of
`claims 8 and 9 depend directly from claim 4.
`4. A method for driving a liquid crystal display (LCD)
`panel, the LCD panel comprising:
`a plurality of scan lines;
`a plurality of data lines; and
`a plurality of pixels, each pixel being connected to a
`corresponding scan line and a corresponding data line, and each
`pixel comprising a liquid crystal device and a switching device
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`connected to the corresponding scan line, the corresponding
`data line, and the liquid crystal device, and
`the method comprising:
`receiving continuously a plurality of frame date;
`generating a plurality of data impulses for each pixel
`within every frame period according to the frame data; and
`applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device of
`one of the pixels within one frame period via the data line
`connected to the pixel in order to control a transmission rate of
`the liquid crystal device of the pixel.
`
`
`D. Ground of Unpatentability
`We instituted an inter partes review of claims 4, 8, and 9 on the sole
`ground of anticipation by Ham1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Skill of Person in the Art
`We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
`prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
`Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`B. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In
`re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015),
`cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 84 U.S.L.W. 3218
`(U.S. Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446). Consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0196229, published Oct. 7, 2004
`(Ex. 1005) (“Ham”).
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary
`meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context
`of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, we must be careful not to read a particular
`embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim
`language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be read into the claims
`from the specification”). However, an inventor may provide a meaning for a
`term that is different from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Patent Owner faults Petitioner for not providing a construction for the
`term “generating” as recited in claim 4, but does not propose a construction
`for the term. PO Resp. 27–28. We find it unnecessary to expressly construe
`the term, because both parties agree that at least converting digital signals
`into analog data signals (impulses) meets the claimed “generating a plurality
`of data impulses” limitation. Pet. Reply 3–4; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 50–54, 59; Ex.
`1009, 114:3–12; Tr. 23.
`We do need to construe, however, for purposes of this Final Written
`Decision, the independent claim 4 phrase of “applying the data impulses to
`the liquid crystal device of one of the pixels within one frame period . . . to
`control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel.” Ex.
`1001, 7:16–19. Patent Owner argues that this phrase requires “applying two
`or more overdriven data impulses in order to control a transmission rate of
`the liquid crystal device, or overdriving.” PO Resp. 25–26 (emphases
`added). Patent Owner further contends that “overdriven” means “applying a
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to accelerate the
`reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1001,
`2:3–5). As explained in greater detail below, Ham describes applying two
`data impulses within one frame period, where one of the impulses is
`overdriven, but the other is not. Thus, we must resolve whether claim 4
`requires two overdriven impulses. For the reasons that follow, we determine
`that claim 4 does not require applying two or more overdriven data impulses.
`We begin with the language of claim 4. Claim 4 recites generating a
`plurality of data impulses for each pixel within every frame period. The
`claim further recites applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device
`of one of the pixels within one frame period in order to control a
`transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel. Based on the
`words of claim 4, data impulses (more than one) are applied to one of the
`pixels within one frame period to control a transmission rate of the liquid
`crystal device of the pixel. Absent from the claim 4 language is that (more
`than one of) the data impulses are “overdriven.”
`All of the claims in the ’843 patent are original. As such, the original
`claims also are part of the Specification. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
`Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (original claims are part
`of the original Specification and may themselves satisfy the written
`description requirement). Further, claim 1, a claim that is not included in
`this trial, explicitly includes generating “a plurality of overdriven pixel data
`within every frame period for each pixel,” “generating a plurality of data
`impulses to each pixel according to the plurality of overdriven pixel data”
`and “applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device of the pixel . . .
`within one frame period . . . to control transmission rate of the liquid crystal
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`device.” Ex. 1001, 6:12–21. The language of original claim 1, contrasted
`with the language of original claim 4, is relevant to show that when the
`Patent Owner intended to claim overdriven pixel data, and generating
`impulses based on the overdriven pixel data, and applying the data impulses,
`etc., it did so by including the word “overdriven” as a modifier to the data
`that is generated, and applied.2 Thus, at first blush, we are not persuaded by
`Patent Owner’s argument that “to control a transmission rate of the liquid
`crystal device of the pixel” necessitates reading “overdriven” into claim 4.
`PO Resp. 20–21. Both claim 1 and claim 4 require “to control [a]3
`transmission rate of the liquid crystal device.” If, as Patent Owner contends,
`“to control a transmission rate” requires us to read “overdriven” into the
`language of claim 4, it would appear superfluous and unnecessary for claim
`1, which also recites “to control [a] transmission rate” to include the word
`“overdriven.”
`
`We next turn to the Specification of the ’843 patent. Patent Owner
`directs attention to the term “overdriven” as it is defined in the Specification
`to mean “applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to
`accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules.” Id. at 20
`(citing Ex. 1001, 2:3–5). Patent Owner argues that it follows that “applying
`a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to accelerate the
`reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules” means “overdriving.” Id. at
`21. Even so, Patent Owner has not shown the particular relevance of this
`
`
`2 Patent Owner elected not to file a motion to amend to include a claim that
`explicitly recites overdriven or overdriving in this trial.
`3 Claim 1 does not include the word “a” but is otherwise identical to claim 4
`with respect to this phrase.
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`fact insofar as claim 4 is concerned. Claim 4 does not recite “applying a
`higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to accelerate the
`reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules.” Rather, claim 4 recites
`“applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device of one of the pixel . .
`. within one frame period . . . to control a transmission rate of the liquid
`crystal device.” Thus, we are not persuaded that “overdriven” as defined in
`the ’843 patent is particularly relevant to the disputed claim language. The
`claim 4 language is different from the definition of “overdriven” in the
`Specification, and, thus we are not persuaded that there is a “correlation”
`between claim 4 and the Specification’s definition of overdriven as asserted.
`Id. Patent Owner has not directed us to sufficient evidence that would lead
`us to conclude that there is such a correlation.
`
`Patent Owner next directs attention to passages in the ’843 patent that
`describe applying two overdriven pixel data “to control the transmission rate
`of the liquid crystal device.” Id. at 22–24. Patent Owner concludes that in
`light of the ’843 Specification, the phrase “to control a transmission rate of
`the liquid crystal device of the pixel” would be understood as describing the
`process of controlling the transmission rate through overdriving, or applying
`a higher or lower voltage to the liquid crystal device of the pixel to
`accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules. Id. at 22–24
`(citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 28–30). We have reviewed Mr. Bohannon’s testimony
`in support of the proposed construction, but find the evidence underlying his
`testimony does not support Patent Owner’s argument. In particular, Mr.
`Bohannon testifies that a key example of how the patent makes clear that
`controlling a transmission rate means applying an overdriven voltage to the
`liquid crystal device is found at column 3, lines 60–62. Ex. 2005 ¶ 28. The
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`sentence to which we are directed states that “[d]ifferent data voltages cause
`different twisting angles and show different transmission rates.” That
`sentence does not indicate that the “different data voltages” must be over or
`under voltages as suggested. Rather, that sentence supports the notion that
`the application of data voltages in general causes different twisting angles
`and shows different transmission rates, e.g., controls the transmission rate.4
`Absent from the sentence is any reference to overdriven, overvoltage, or
`undervoltage, and Mr. Bohannon does not explain sufficiently why we
`should construe “different data voltages” to mean overdriven voltages.
`Moreover, we give little if any weight to Mr. Bohannon’s testimony
`that there is no “instance or embodiment in the ’843 patent where a
`transmission rate is described as being controlled without overdriving” (Ex.
`2005 ¶ 28) or that the ’843 patent Specification “does not state that the
`transmission rate could be controlled by applying two or more non-
`overdriven data impulses” (id. ¶ 29 (emphasis in original)). Those
`statements are in contradiction to other passages in the Specification of the
`’843 patent that do not mention applying two overdriven pulses within a
`time frame in order to control the transmission rate.
`
`
`4 This finding of fact is further supported by the ’843 patent, which describes
`an example (curve C1 of Fig. 2) of a “driving circuit [that] changes the
`transmission rate” without overdriving, e.g., just by applying voltage to the
`pixel is the transmission rate changed or controlled. Ex. 1001, 1:55–58; Ex.
`1010 ¶¶ 34, 90. We disagree with Patent Owner’s implicit argument that
`changing a transmission rate is different from controlling a transmission rate
`(see, e.g., Tr. 26–27), because the ’843 Specification describes changing the
`transmission rate interchangeably with controlling the transmission rate in
`describing the invention. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:28–31, 5:49–51.
`9
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`For example, the Specification of the ’843 patent, distinguishing
`between the prior art, explains:
`In contrast to the prior art, the present invention discloses
`a driving circuit and relating driving method to generate two
`pieces of pixel data in each frame period for every pixel on an
`LCD panel and then to generate two data impulses according to
`the two pieces of pixel data and to apply them to each pixel
`within a frame period in order to change the transmission rate
`of a pixel electrode. Thus, each of the pixels of the LCD panel
`is applied of a plurality of data impulses within a frame period,
`so that liquid crystal molecules of the pixels can twist to reach a
`predetermined gray level within a frame period, and blurring
`will not occur.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:45–55.
`
`The above indicates that the application of two data impulses to each
`pixel within a frame period changes, or controls, the transmission rate of a
`pixel electrode. Absent from this passage is any reference to overdriving
`data impulses. Yet, neither the Patent Owner Response nor the supporting
`testimony of Mr. Bohannon (Ex. 2005) discusses or attempts to explain this
`passage. In addition, this passage is consistent with claim 4, which as an
`original claim, and also part of the originally filed Specification, conveys a
`broader coverage than the one Patent Owner asserts during this proceeding.
`We agree with Petitioner that the above passage, along with the original
`claim 4 language, would have conveyed to a person having ordinary skill in
`the art that the scope of the claimed invention includes applying two data
`impulses within a single time frame, resulting in controlling the transmission
`rate of the liquid crystal device, with or without overdriving the two
`impulses. Pet. 2–4.
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`In sum, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that there are other ways to control a transmission rate of the
`liquid crystal device of a pixel without applying overdriven data impulses as
`evidenced by the ’843 patent itself. Patent Owner urges a construction for
`the term “to control a transmission rate” that is too narrow, by focusing on
`certain described embodiments, while disregarding broader described
`embodiments, such as the one immediately discussed above. We must be
`careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written
`description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the
`embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Here, Patent Owner
`chose to claim its invention broadly, and we are provided insufficient
`evidence before us to construe the claim more narrowly as Patent Owner
`urges us to do.
`For all of the reasons discussed above, “applying the data impulses to
`the liquid crystal device of one of the pixels within one frame period . . . to
`control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel” does not
`require applying two or more overdriven data impulses as urged by Patent
`Owner.
`
`C. Anticipation by Ham
`Petitioner contends that claims 4, 8, and 9 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Ham. Pet. 45–49. In its Petition,
`Petitioner explains how Ham discloses each claim limitation of the
`challenged claims. Id.
`Patent Owner argues that Ham does not describe “generating a
`plurality of data impulses for each pixel” or “applying the data impulses to
`the liquid crystal device of one of the pixels within one frame period . . . in
`
`11
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`order to control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel.”
`PO Resp. 28–41.
`
`Ham
`Ham describes a method of driving a liquid crystal display including
`modulating a source data and supplying the modulated data to a liquid
`crystal panel at an initial period of one frame period, and applying a data
`different from the modulated data to the liquid crystal panel at a later period
`of the one frame period. Ex. 1005 ¶ 22. Figure 5 of Ham is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Figure 5 is a block diagram showing a driving apparatus for a liquid
`crystal display.
`
`12
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Liquid crystal display panel 57 is connected to data lines 55 and gate
`lines 56 crossing each other and having thin film transistors (TFT) provided
`at each intersection to drive the liquid crystal cells Clc. Id. at ¶ 37. Data
`driver 53 supplies data to data lines 55 and gate driver 54 applies a scanning
`pulse to gate lines 56. Id. Timing controller 51 receives digital video data
`and synchronizes signals H and V. Data modulator 52 is connected between
`timing controller 51 and data driver 53 to modulate input data RGB. Switch
`58 is utilized to select any one of modulated data AMdata and normal input
`RGB. Id. Line memory 59 is connected between timing controller 51 and
`switch 58.
`Timing controller 51 rearranges digital video data supplied from a
`digital card. The RGB data rearranged by controller 51 is supplied to data
`modulator 52 and line memory 59. Id. at ¶ 39. Timing controller 51 also
`provides a switching control signal SW, allowing switch 58 to be switched
`twice within one frame interval.
`In operation, data driver 53 is supplied sequentially with modulated
`data AMdata and normal data RGB from switch 58 within one frame
`interval. That data is ultimately converted (e.g., generated) into analog data
`and applied to each liquid crystal cell Clc within one frame interval. Id. at
`¶ 41.
`
`Analysis
`Petitioner provides detailed analysis showing where Ham discloses
`
`each limitation of the challenged claims. Pet. 45–49. For independent claim
`4, Petitioner contends that Ham discloses a method for driving a liquid
`crystal display (LCD) panel. Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, ¶ 3).
`Petitioner also contends that Ham discloses a plurality of scan lines (i.e.,
`
`13
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`gate lines 56 of Fig. 5) and a plurality of data lines (i.e., data lines 55 of Fig.
`5). Id. at 47–48. According to Petitioner, Ham describes a plurality of
`pixels (Ex. 1005 ¶ 38) comprising a liquid crystal device (liquid crystal cell
`Clc) and a switching device (i.e., a “TFT”) connected to a corresponding
`scan line (i.e., gate line 56 of Fig. 5), data line (i.e., data line 55 of Fig. 5),
`and liquid crystal device (liquid crystal cell Clc). Claim 4 further recites that
`the method comprises “receiving continuously a plurality of frame data.”
`For this limitation, Petitioner contends that Ham describes continuously
`“receiving digital video data” (i.e., from timing controller 51 of Fig. 5). Id.
`at 46, 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 37, Fig. 5). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`showing, and adopt it as our own, that Ham discloses a plurality of scan and
`data lines, a plurality of pixels connected to the scan and data lines, and that
`each pixel comprises a liquid crystal device and switching device connected
`to a corresponding scan line, data line, and switching device. We also are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, and adopt it as our own, that Ham
`discloses the “receiving” limitation of claim 4. Patent Owner does not
`contend that any of these limitations are not met by Ham.
`
`Patent Owner, however, disputes whether Ham discloses the
`remaining limitations of claim 4, specifically: “generating a plurality of data
`impulses for each pixel within every frame period according to the frame
`data” and “applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device of one of
`the pixels within one frame period via the data line connected to the pixel in
`order to control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel.”
`PO Resp. 28–41.
`To meet the “generating” limitation, the Petition provides that “[t]he
`apparatus also includes a ‘timing controller 51’ that ‘receives digital video
`
`14
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`data’ and a ‘data modulator 52’ that generates two data impulses (i.e.,
`‘modulated data’ signal and ‘normal data’ signal) for each pixel within one
`frame period.” Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 40, Fig. 7C) (emphasis in
`original).
`In addition, the Petition at page 48 cites paragraphs 40, 41, and 53 of
`Ham, and in particular, the following from paragraph 53:
`[T]he LCD drive apparatus and method according to the present
`invention appl[ies] the normal data to the liquid crystal panel at
`the initial half period of the frame after supplying of the
`modulated data to the liquid crystal panel during the later half
`period of the frame.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner only relies on data modulator 52
`to meet the generating limitation and that the data modulator does not
`perform the generating step. PO Resp. 29–36. We disagree that the Petition
`indicates that data modulator 52 alone performs the generating step. Rather,
`the Petition discusses “the [driving] apparatus” which includes timing
`controller and data modulator as meeting the generating limitation, and later,
`in its claim chart, indicates that the driving apparatus of Ham Figure 5 meets
`the limitation. Pet. 46, 48.
`A similar argument was raised before by Patent Owner in its
`Preliminary Response—that Petitioner relies on one element of Ham’s data
`driving apparatus to meet the generating step. Prelim. Resp. 35–36. As we
`explained in our Decision to Institute, Petitioner relies on more than one
`particular element in Ham to meet the generating step, such as Ham’s entire
`driving apparatus of Figure 5. Dec. 13. Thus, Patent Owner was notified
`that we read the Petition as relying on the entire driving apparatus of Figure
`5 to meet the generating limitation. Yet, Patent Owner in its Response does
`
`15
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`not address the totality of the Ham driving apparatus. Instead, Patent Owner
`narrowly focuses on Ham’s data modulator 52, and argues that that element
`alone fails to perform the generating step. Such an argument is
`nonresponsive to the Petition and not persuasive.
`Petitioner relies on the driving apparatus, for example of Figure 5,
`which is not limited to data modulator 52, to disclose the generating step.
`See Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40, 41, 53). Petitioner explains, with
`supporting evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood Ham’s data driver 53 of the driving apparatus as generating a
`plurality of data impulses for each pixel within every frame period according
`to the frame data. Pet. Reply 3–4; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 50–54, 59. In particular,
`Petitioner’s Declarant, Mr. Michael J. Marentic, testifies that Ham’s data
`driver 53 (i.e., source driver) receives two digital signals (modulated data
`AMdata and normal data RGB) within one frame interval and converts, i.e.,
`“generates,” each of the digital signals into two corresponding analog data
`signals (plurality of data impulses) and applies the two data impulses to the
`data lines 55 in each scanning period. Ex. 1010 ¶ 59 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40,
`41). Mr. Marentic further testifies that like Ham, the ’843 patent similarly
`describes the generating step as performed by a source driver 18 shown in
`Figure 3. Id. ¶ 60. In particular, Mr. Marentic directs attention to the
`following passages in the ’843 patent:
`[W]hen the pixel data GN, GN(2) are generated, the source
`driver of the driving circuit 10 converts the pixel data GN,
`GN(2) into two corresponding data impulses and then applies
`them to liquid crystal device 39.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:8–14.
`
`
`16
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`[T]he source driver 18 generates two corresponding data
`impulses according to the two pieces of pixel data and applies
`them to the pixel electrode 39 of the corresponding pixel 36 in
`order to control the transmission rate . . . of the pixel electrode
`39.
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 4:22–28.
`
`We give Mr. Marentic’s testimony substantial weight because his
`testimony is consistent with the description of Ham and the ’843 patent. In
`other words, Ham describes performing the generating of data in the same
`way as is described in the ’843 patent. Even Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr.
`Bohannon, agrees that Ham describes converting digital data into analog
`data and applying that data to data lines, e.g., the generating step. Ex. 1009,
`114:3–12. And during oral hearing, Patent Owner also acknowledged that
`converting digital data into analog data would read on the generating step.
`Tr. 23. For all of these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Ham describes generating a plurality of
`data impulses for each pixel within every frame period according to the
`frame data.
`
`We next address Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner has not
`shown that Ham describes “applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal
`device of one of the pixels within one frame period via the data line
`connected to the pixel in order to control a transmission rate of the liquid
`crystal device of the pixel.” PO Resp. 40–41. For this phrase, Petitioner
`relies on Ham’s description of applying data impulses (one normal and one
`overdriven) to the liquid crystal cell within one frame interval via data lines
`connected to the liquid crystal cell to double the transmission rate of the cell.
`Pet. 46–48. Patent Owner’s arguments for this phrase are based on a narrow
`
`17
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`construction of the phrase to include a plurality of overdriven signals in a
`frame period. Id. at 40. As explained above in the claim interpretation
`section of this Decision, we do not construe the phrase so narrowly. Patent
`Owner makes no other arguments regarding this disputed phrase of claim 4.
`For the reasons above, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, and adopt
`it as our own, that Ham discloses applying the data impulses to the liquid
`crystal device of one of the pixels within one frame period via the data line
`connected to the pixel in order to control a transmission rate of the liquid
`crystal device of the pixel.
`Claim 8 depends from claim 4 and recites “applying a scan line
`voltage to the switch device of the pixel via the san line connected to the
`pixel in order to have the data impulses be applied to the liquid crystal
`device of the pixel.” Ex. 1001, 8:12–17. Petitioner shows that Ham
`describes applying a scanning pulse to gate lines 56 of liquid crystal display
`panel 57 to have the data impulses applied to the liquid crystal cells of the
`pixel. Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 38, 44, Fig. 5). Patent Owner does not
`dispute that these features of Ham satisfy claim 8. For the reasons above,
`we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, and adopt it as our own, that Ham
`discloses applying a scan line voltage to the switch device of the pixel via
`the san line connected to the pixel in order to have the data impulses be
`applied to the liquid crystal device of the pixel.
`Claim 9 depends from claim 4 and recites “wherein each frame data
`comprises a plurality of pixel data, and each pixel data corresponds to a
`pixel.” Ex. 1001, 8:18–20. Petitioner shows that in Ham, each frame of
`data includes a plurality of pixel data (i.e., normal data RGB), and each pixel
`data corresponds to a pixel (i.e., liquid crystal cell). Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1005
`
`18
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`¶ 42, Fig. 6). Patent Owner does not dispute that these features of Ham
`satisfy claim 9. For the reasons above, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`showing, and adopt it as our own, that Ham discloses wherein each frame
`data comprises a plurality of pixel data, and each pixel data corresponds to a
`pixel.
`For the foregoing reasons, based on the record before us, Petitioner
`has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ham discloses all of the
`limitations of claims 4, 8, and 9.
`
`D. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Patent Owner moves to exclude certain portions of Mr. Michael
`Marentic’s declaration (Exhibit 1010) and deposition testimony (Exhibit
`2007). PO Mot. to Exclude. In particular, Patent Owner argues that Mr.
`Marentic offers no facts or data to support his opinion on the level of skill in
`the art, and that his testimony is also inconsistent with what was presented in
`the Petition. Id. at 2. These arguments go to the weight that we give the
`evidence and, therefore, are an improper basis for excluding evidence. In
`any event, as discussed above, in rendering this Final Written Decision, we
`l