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, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`Case IPR2015-00021
`Patent No. 7,202,843 B2
`___________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`600471.3
`
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`SHARP CORPORATION, SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, and
`SHARP ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`Case IPR2015-00021
`Patent No. 7,202,843 B2
`___________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`600471.3
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................................... 4
`CLAIM 1 INCLUDES AN OBVIOUS DRAFTING ERROR .......................................... 4
`A.
`The Board May Correct Drafting Errors ........................................................... 5
`B.
`“Data Impulses” Are Applied Via the “Data Line,” And This Is Not Subject To
`Reasonable Debate ......................................................................................... 6
`The Board Failed To Apply The Broadest Reasonable Construction In Light of
`the Specification ............................................................................................. 10
`PROPERLY CONSTRUED, ADACHI ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1, 4, 8 and 9 ........... 11
`THE BOARD INCORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT MIYAI FAILED TO DISCLOSE A
`PLURALITY OF DATA LINES, SCAN LINES AND PIXELS ..................................... 12
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 15
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`600471.3
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Amer. Honda Motor Co. v. Amer. Vehicular Sciences LLC,
`IPR2014-00619, Paper 9 (PTAB, Sept. 18, 2014) ............................................................ 2
`In re Antor Media Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................... 14
`Apple Inc. v. Achates Reference Publishing, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00080, Paper 22 (PTAB June 3, 2013) .............................................................. 2
`Atl. Research Mktg. Sys. v. Troy,
`659 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................... 4
`Blackberry Corp. v. NXP B.V.,
`IPR2013-00232, Paper 25 (PTAB Sept. 19, 2014) ........................................................... 6
`Chicago Merc. Exch., Inc., v. 5th Market Inc.,
`CBM2014-00114, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 9, 2014) ............................................................... 6
`Global Tel*Link Corp., v. Securus Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00810, Paper 8 (PTAB Nov. 26, 2014) .............................................................. 6
`Illumina, Inc. v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York,
`IPR2012-00006, Paper 43 (PTAB May 10, 2013) ............................................................. 4
`Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co.,
`IPR2013-00028, Paper 27 (PTAB April 30, 2013) .......................................................... 10
`I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co.,
`272 U.S. 429 (1926) ........................................................................................................ 10
`Kamada, Ltd. v. Grifols Therapeutics Inc.,
`IPR2014-00899, Paper No. 8 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2014) ....................................................... 6
`Luminex Corp. v. Irori Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00931, -00932, -00933, Paper No. 7 (PTAB Dec. 11, 2014) ............................. 5
`
`
`600471.3
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion LLC,
`IPR2014-00103, Paper 9 (PTAB May 8, 2014) ................................................................. 6
`Novo Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ......................................................................................... 5
`Oracle Corp. v. Thought, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00117, Paper 16 (PTAB April 25, 2014) ............................................................ 9
`PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc.,
`840 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ......................................................................................... 4
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) .................................................................................... 3, 11
`Scimed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................... 11
`Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.,
`587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................... 2, 5
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ............................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) ............................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................... 2, 5, 10
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`600471.3
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioners Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics
`
`Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. hereby
`
`request rehearing of the portions of the Board’s March 18, 2015 Decision (Paper 10)
`
`relating to Grounds 2 and 3 of the Petition (Paper 1).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners respectfully submit that the Board misapprehended its power to correct
`
`an obvious drafting error in Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (“the ‘843 Patent) and
`
`failed to apply the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.
`
`Specifically, Petitioners noted that Claim 1 recites an apparent drafting error, namely,
`
`requiring that the claimed LCD driving circuit apply “data impulses” to a pixel of an LCD
`
`panel “via the scan line.” (Paper 1, Petition at 18-19). But as pointed out in the Petition, the
`
`specification and drawings all confirm that data impulses can be applied only “via the data
`
`line,” and not via the scan line. (Id. at 12, 18-19). Instead, only control signals are applied
`
`via the scan lines. Under the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification, it is beyond reasonable dispute that Claim 1 was intended to cover applying
`
`data impulses via the data line, and not the scan line. Indeed, even Patent Owner does not
`
`disagree. Nevertheless, the Board held that “Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that claim
`
`1 ... contains an error,” and construed Claim 1 “as written.” (Paper 10, Decision at 5). As a
`
`result of its construction, the Board rejected Grounds 2 and 3 for invalidity with respect to
`
`this Claim.
`
`
`600471.3
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`This was an abuse of discretion. The Board was bound to correct this obvious
`
`drafting error because the proper construction is “not subject to reasonable debate,” as
`
`even Patent Owner does not dispute that Claim 1 includes a clear error. See Ultimax
`
`Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp., 587 F.3d 1339, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Panels of the Board have routinely made similar corrections under similar circumstances.
`
`See, e.g., Amer. Honda Motor Co. v. Amer. Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2014-00619,
`
`Paper 9 at 6 n.1 (PTAB, Sept. 18, 2014) (“Although claim 4 recites ‘the slide member’, it is
`
`evident from the ’060 patent that ‘slide member’ is a drafting error. . . . [F]or purposes of
`
`this decision, we proceed on the basis that ‘slide mechanism’ is the recited term and not
`
`‘slide member’ as is actually recited.”) (citations omitted); Apple Inc. v. Achates
`
`Reference Publishing, Inc., IPR2013-00080, Paper 22 at 10-12 (PTAB June 3, 2013)
`
`(agreeing that the term “authorization code” was merely a drafting error where the
`
`“Specification consistently uses “authentication code” in the describing the claimed
`
`encryption/decryption process).1
`
`The Board also erred by construing “the claim as written.” (Paper 10, Decision at
`
`5). This is the wrong claim construction standard. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), the Board
`
`was required to give the claims the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification.” But the Board made no reference to the specification in reaching its claim
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, emphasis has been added herein in bold italics.
`
`
`600471.3
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`construction. Indeed, there is absolutely no teaching or suggestion in the Detailed
`
`Description or drawings of the ‘843 Patent that the claimed “data impulses” could be applied
`
`to the “scan lines.” This was clear legal error. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984 (C.C.P.A.
`
`1974) (“Claims are not to be read in a vacuum and while it is true they are to be given the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution, their terms still have to be given the
`
`meaning called for by the specification of which they form a part.”).
`
`Given that the Board rejected Petitioners’ arguments that Claim 1 is anticipated by
`
`Adachi (Ground 3) based solely upon this erroneous claim construction (i.e., requiring a
`
`driving circuit that applies data impulses “via a scan line”), reconsideration is warranted and
`
`inter partes review should be instituted on this Ground.
`
`As to Ground 2, the Board made the same claim construction error and also made
`
`clearly erroneous factual findings. The Board found that “Figure 3(a) of Miyai shows one
`
`scan line, one data line, and one pixel,” as opposed to the “plurality” of these components
`
`required by Claims 1 and 4. ( Paper 10, Decision at 10). But the Board did not address
`
`Miyai’s description (cited by Petitioners) that indicates that Figure 3(a) is a block diagram of
`
`an LCD panel. Miyai goes on to make clear that this panel has many more pixels than just
`
`the one shown in Figure 3(a). Indeed, as pointed out in the Petition, Miyai states that the
`
`disclosed “conventional” LCD panel includes 480 horizontal display lines per frame ...
`
`and all pixels of odd numbered lines and even numbered lines are driven in each field . . .
`
`.” (See Paper 1, Petition at 34 (citing Ex. 1003, Miyai, ¶¶ [0006], [0013])). And, even Patent
`
`
`600471.3
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Owner concedes that conventional LCD panels include multiple “data lines”, “scan lines”,
`
`and a “matrix of pixels.” (Paper 9, PO’s Prelim. Resp. at 3). The Board’s finding that Miyai
`
`only discloses a single data line, scan line and pixel cannot reasonably be reconciled with
`
`Miyai’s teachings and Patent Owner’s admissions.
`
`Because the Board’s conclusions with respect to Ground 2 rest on clearly erroneous
`
`factual findings, reconsideration should be granted for this reason as well.
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse
`
`of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a ‘decision was
`
`based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear
`
`error of judgment.’” Illumina, Inc. v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New
`
`York, IPR2012-00006, Paper 43 at 2 (PTAB May 10, 2013) (quoting PPG Indus. Inc. v.
`
`Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). “A decision
`
`based on an erroneous view of the law . . . invariably constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
`
`Atl. Research Mktg. Sys. v. Troy, 659 F.3d 1345, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM 1 INCLUDES AN OBVIOUS DRAFTING ERROR
`As discussed below, Petitioners pointed out an obvious drafting error in Claim 1,
`
`namely, that data impulses must be applied to the pixels “via the data line,” not the “scan
`
`line.” (Paper 1, Petition at 12, 18-19). Petitioners, therefore, analyzed the prior art in view
`
`of the corrected claim. The Board disagreed and construed Claim 1 “as written.” (Paper 10
`
`
`600471.3
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`at 5). Petitioners submit that the Board: (1) misapprehended its power to correct this
`
`obvious (and undisputed) drafting error, and (2) failed to apply the broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification.
`
`The Board May Correct Drafting Errors
`A.
`“A claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In
`
`addition, an error in a patent claim should be corrected if “(1) the correction is not subject to
`
`reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the specification
`
`and (2) the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation of the
`
`claims.” Novo Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003);
`
`see also Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp., 587 F.3d at 1353 (“[A]lthough courts cannot rewrite
`
`claims to correct material errors, . . . a court can correct an obvious typographical
`
`error.”).
`
`Following the Federal Circuit’s directive, the Board has consistently corrected
`
`“drafting” errors for purposes of instituting proceedings. See, e.g., Luminex Corp. v. Irori
`
`Techs., Inc., IPR2014-00931, -00932, -00933, Paper No. 7 at 10-11 (PTAB Dec. 11, 2014)
`
`(“As written, the portion of claim 13 that recites ‘the constituent molecules are biological
`
`particles are combined with’ is grammatically incorrect and logically faulty. Because this
`
`appears to be an obvious typographic error, for purposes of this decision, we read the
`
`claim as reciting ‘the constituent molecules or biological particles are combined with.”);
`
`
`600471.3
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Global Tel*Link Corp., v. Securus Techs., Inc., IPR2014-00810, Paper 8 at 11 (PTAB Nov.
`
`26, 2014) (agreeing with petitioner to construe “at least one resource” to be “a resource”
`
`based upon an “apparent error in claim drafting”); Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00103, Paper 9 at 8-9 (PTAB May 8, 2014) (agreeing with the parties “that the
`
`claim term ‘the at least on [sic] contact,’ recited in claim 1, should be construed as ‘the at
`
`least one contact,’ because ‘on’ is an obvious typographical error”); Chicago Merc. Exch.,
`
`Inc., v. 5th Market Inc., CBM2014-00114, Paper 9 at 7 n. 2 (PTAB Oct. 9, 2014) (“[W]e
`
`presume that issuing dependent claim 8 without reference to a specific independent claim
`
`was a typographical error and, as a consequence, we treat claim 8 as depending directly
`
`from independent claim 7.”); Blackberry Corp. v. NXP B.V., IPR2013-00232, Paper 25 at 8-9
`
`n. 1 (PTAB Sept. 19, 2014) (correcting typographical error).
`
`B.
`
`“Data Impulses” Are Applied Via the “Data Line,” And This Is Not
`Subject To Reasonable Debate
`The interpretation of Claim 1 “is not subject to reasonable debate.” Rather, when
`
`considered in light of the specification, the claim language at issue is subject to only one
`
`interpretation.2 The Board therefore abused its discretion in reading Claim 1 “as written.”
`
`
`2 To the extent that the Board determines that Claim 1 contains a “material error” that
`
`requires substantive reexamination by the Patent Office, Petitioners respectfully request that
`
`the Board clarify its Decision. See Kamada, Ltd. v. Grifols Therapeutics Inc., IPR2014-
`
`00899, Paper No. 8 at 9 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2014) (finding that correction of alleged error
`
`
`600471.3
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`The Decision asserts that “Petitioner d[id] not direct attention to evidence in support
`
`of the argument that the claim contains a mistake.” (Paper 10, Decision at 5). Petitioners
`
`respectfully disagree. In explaining this error, the Petition cited to the specification, which
`
`explains that “[t]o drive the LCD 30, . . . data voltages [i.e., impulses] are applied to the
`
`data lines 34 and transmitted to the pixel electrodes 30 through the switching devices 38.”
`
`(Petition at 18 (citing Ex. 1001, ‘843 Patent, Col. 3:47-51 and Fig. 4)). The only other
`
`relevant passage in the specification (also cited at page 16 of the Petition) similarly states
`
`that “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 the liquid crystal device 39 via the
`
`data line 32 in the frame period N in order to control the transmission rate of the liquid
`
`crystal device 39.” (Ex. 1001, ‘843 Patent, Col. 4:8-14).
`
`Figure 4 (reproduced below)—the only drawing in the ‘843 Patent relating the
`
`configuration of the data lines and scan lines—further demonstrates that data impulses are
`
`applied to the pixel electrode 39 via the data lines 34, not the scan lines 32. (Paper 1,
`
`Petition at 12). By contrast, as pointed out in the Petition, the scan lines, which are
`
`connected to the “gate” of each switch 38, only apply control signals to the pixel electrode
`
`39. (Id. (citing Ex. 1001, ‘843 Patent, Col. 3:43-47 and Figure 4)).
`
`
`required “substantive change that alters the scope of the claims,” which were being
`
`corrected in a “merged reissue and reexamination proceeding”).
`
`
`600471.3
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In short, it is evident from the specification and drawings of the ‘843 Patent that
`
`Claim 1 includes a drafting error that requires correction. The Board erred by failing to
`
`address these teachings in construing the claims. See Amer. Honda Motor Co., IPR2014-
`
`000619, Paper 9 at 6 n.1 (“Although claim 4 recites ‘the slide member’, it is evident from
`
`the ’060 patent that ‘slide member’ is a drafting error. Based on the record currently
`
`before us and for purposes of this decision, we proceed on the basis that ‘slide
`
`mechanism’ is the recited term and not ‘slide member’ as is actually recited.”)
`
`(citations omitted); Apple Inc., IPR2013-00080, Paper 22 at 10-12 (agreeing that the term
`
`“authorization code” was merely a drafting error where the “Specification consistently
`
`uses “authentication code” in the describing the claimed encryption/decryption process).
`
`
`600471.3
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Notably, Claim 4 recites a virtually identical limitation, but is correctly drafted to
`
`require: “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.” The similarity between Claims 1 and 4—the only two
`
`independent claims in the patent—further confirms that “scan line” is merely a drafting error.
`
`See Oracle Corp. v. Thought, Inc., IPR2014-00117, Paper 16 at 8 (PTAB April 25, 2014)
`
`(agreeing with the Petitioner that claim 1 includes a typographical error based upon “the
`
`similarity of the claim language [in claim 1] to that of claim 9” and since the proposed
`
`“construction is consistent with the specification”).
`
`Here, it is not debatable that Claim 1 includes an obvious drafting error that requires
`
`correction. Indeed, despite having a full opportunity to do so, Patent Owner did not contest
`
`Petitioner’s interpretation. See Global Tel*Link Corp., IPR2014-00810, Paper 8 at 11
`
`(correcting apparent claim drafting error where “Patent Owner does not contest or take a
`
`position on Petitioner’s proposed claim construction”).
`
`Under Federal Circuit precedent and prior decisions by the Board, Claim 1 should be
`
`corrected to require that the claimed LCD driving circuit apply “data impulses” to a pixel of
`
`an LCD panel “via the data line” (and not the scan line). Petitioners therefore respectfully
`
`request reconsideration and, for the reasons discussed further below, institution of inter
`
`partes review proceedings with respect to Claim 1.
`
`
`600471.3
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The Board Failed To Apply The Broadest Reasonable Construction In
`Light of the Specification
`The Board also erred by construing “the claim as written.” (Paper 10, Decision at
`
`5). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), the Board was required to give the claims the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification.” But the Board made no reference
`
`to the specification in reaching its claim construction, and instead focused solely on the
`
`claim language. When Claim 1 is read “in light of the specification,” it simply is not
`
`“reasonable” to construe the claims to require that data be applied via the scan line.
`
`Indeed, as discussed above, the specification only discloses transmitting data via the data
`
`lines, and transmitting control signals via the scan lines. (Paper 1, Petition at 18; see also
`
`Ex. 1001, ‘843 Patent, Col. 3:47-51, Col. 4:8-14 and Fig. 4).
`
`Moreover, there is absolutely no teaching or suggestion in the Detailed Description
`
`or drawings of the ‘843 Patent that the claimed “data impulses” could be applied to the
`
`“scan lines.” Therefore, read “as written,” Claim 1 would not even cover any
`
`embodiments disclosed in the specification and drawings of the ‘843 Patent. This is also
`
`legal error. See I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co., 272 U.S. 429, 442-43 (1926)
`
`(“[C]onstruing the claim not to include the word ‘rear’ would ‘render the claim invalid as
`
`being for a different invention from that described in the specification and drawings of
`
`the original patent. And so construed, it would not read on the specification and
`
`drawings of the re-issued patent.”); Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co.,
`
`
`600471.3
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00028, Paper 27 at 10 (PTAB April 30, 2013) (Medley, J.) (noting that the correct
`
`construction “still reads upon all of the embodiments disclosed in the Specification”).
`
`Thus, the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification requires
`
`correction of Claim 1. See Scimed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242
`
`F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[C]laims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of .
`
`. . the specification.”); In re Royka, 490 F.2d at 984 (“Claims are not to be read in a vacuum
`
`and while it is true they are to be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during
`
`prosecution, their terms still have to be given the meaning called for by the specification of
`
`which they form a part.”).
`
`IV.
`
`PROPERLY CONSTRUED, ADACHI ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1, 4, 8 and 9
`Ground 3 of the Petition asserts that Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are anticipated by Adachi.
`
`The Board rejected this Ground solely because the Board interpreted Claim 1 “as written,”
`
`rather than as properly construed. (Paper 10, Decision at 11).
`
`Reading Claim 1 as corrected, there is no question that Adachi discloses each and
`
`every element of Claim 1. (See Paper 1, Petition at 40-44). Indeed, other than this claim
`
`construction issue, the Board does not identify any deficiencies with respect to Adachi’s
`
`disclosure. As discussed in the Petition, in addition to the elements of similar Claim 4,
`
`Claim 1 requires that the signal data is “overdriven,” which is indisputably taught by Adachi.
`
`(See Paper 1, Petition at 38, citing and quoting Ex. 1004, Adachi, ¶ [0112] (disclosing that,
`
`
`600471.3
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`“in the case where a single frame is divided into a plurality of fields for driving, it is
`
`preferable that the first field or all the fields are subjected to the overshoot driving”)).
`
`Accordingly, the Board should find that there is a reasonably likelihood that Claim 1
`
`is anticipated by Adachi. The Board also exercised its discretion and declined to review
`
`Claims 4, 8 and 9 based on Adachi and, instead, instituted review of these claims based
`
`upon another reference. (Paper 10, Decision at 14). However, Petitioners respectfully
`
`request that the Board adopt Ground 3 in its entirety and institute inter partes review on the
`
`ground that each of Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 is anticipated by Adachi. In this regard, Claims 1
`
`and 4 are very similar and the proceedings will necessarily involve factual and legal issues
`
`common to both claims.
`
`V.
`
`THE BOARD INCORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT MIYAI FAILED TO DISCLOSE
`A PLURALITY OF DATA LINES, SCAN LINES AND PIXELS
`Ground 2 of the Petition asserted that Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are obvious over Jinda in
`
`view of Miyai. (Paper 1, Petition at 32-37). The Board rejected this ground for two reasons.
`
`First, as discussed above in connection with Adachi (Ground 3), the Board
`
`interpreted Claim 1 as written, not as corrected. The Board therefore concluded that
`
`“Petitioner has not shown how Miyai or Jinda disclose applying data impulses via the scan
`
`line as claimed.” (Paper 10, Decision at 9). As discussed above, the Board’s reading of
`
`Claim 1 was in error.
`
`Second, at Patent Owner’s urging, the Board incorrectly concluded that Miyai does
`
`not disclose a “plurality of scan lines,” “a plurality of data lines” and “a plurality of pixels,” as
`12
`
`
`600471.3
`
`
`
`
`
`required by Claims 1 and 4. Specifically, the Board reasoned that since “Figure 3(a) of
`
`Miyai shows one scan line, one data line, and one pixel,” there was no evidence from which
`
`to infer that the required “plurality” was disclosed. (Id. at 10). Petitioners submit that the
`
`Board erroneously viewed Figure 3(a) in a vacuum without addressing the accompanying
`
`disclosure cited by Petitioners. (See Paper 1, Petition at 32-36).
`
`Patent Owner’s assertion that Miyai only discloses a single pixel was nothing more
`
`than double-talk. In this regard, Figure 3(a) (annotated below) is merely a “block diagram”
`
`showing a small section of an LCD panel with a representative scan line, data line and
`
`pixel illustrated:
`
`
`But Miyai’s related description (cited on Page 34 of the Petition) makes clear that the
`
`disclosed “conventional” LCD panel is much a larger and actually includes 480 horizontal
`
`display lines per frame ... and all pixels of odd numbered lines and even numbered lines
`
`are driven in each field . . . .” (Ex. 1003, Miyai, ¶ [0013]). Based on this unequivocal
`
`
`600471.3
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`teaching, Miyai unquestionably discloses the use of multiple pixels, scan lines and data
`
`lines. (Paper 1, Petition at 34-35).
`
`Moreover, Paragraph [0003] of Miyai explains that the disclosed circuit in Figure 3(a)
`
`is for “the driving of a conventional liquid crystal display.” (Ex. 1003, Miyai, ¶[0003]).
`
`Patent Owner concedes that “[a] conventional LCD panel includes a source driver
`
`connected to data lines arranged in a first direction, a gate driver connected to scan lines
`
`arranged in a second direction, and a matrix of pixels arranged at the intersection of each
`
`scan line and data line.” (Paper 9, PO’s Prelim. Resp. at 3). By Patent Owner’s own
`
`admission, a conventional LCD panel includes a “matrix of pixels,” i.e., multiple pixels
`
`arranged in a grid-like pattern, connected to a plurality of data and scan lines. Thus, the
`
`Board’s findings are also contrary to Patent Owner’s admissions.
`
`Finally, Paragraph [0003]—cited in Petitioner’s discussion of the prior art and related
`
`claim charts—explains that the LCD panel of Figure 3(a) displays a “video signal” (i.e.,
`
`moving images). (Paper 1, Petition at 34-35). If Miyai’s display contained only a single
`
`scan line, data line, and pixel (i.e., one microscopic dot of light), it would not function as a
`
`video display panel, such as for use in “televisions,” “laptop[s]” or “large screen video
`
`equipment.” (Ex. 1003, Miyai, ¶[0002]). As a matter of law, “a prior art printed publication . .
`
`. is presumptively enabling barring any showing to the contrary by a patent applicant or
`
`patentee.” In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Patent Owner
`
`
`600471.3
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`did not (and cannot) demonstrate how an LCD panel could display a frame of video (i.e., a
`
`complete image) with only a single pixel, nor did it argue that Miyai is not enabling.
`
`In sum, the Board’s rejection of Ground 2 of the Petition was based upon an
`
`erroneous claim construction and an incomplete analysis of Petitioners’ evidence. This
`
`constitutes an abuse of discretion and reconsideration of the Board’s rejection of Ground 2
`
`is therefore warranted.
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the reasons discussed above, Petitioners respectfully request reconsideration of
`
`the Board’s rejection of Grounds 2 and 3 of the Petition.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`(212) 336-8000
`
`Dated: April 1, 2015 By: /Anthony F. Lo Cicero/
`
`New York, New York Anthony F. LO CICERO
` Registration No.: 29,403
`
`
`
`
`
`600471.3
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on this 1st day of April, 2015, a
`
`true copy of the foregoing PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) was served via e-mail on the counsel of record for the Patent Owner at
`
`the following e-mail addresses:
`
`Wayne M. Helge (whelge@dbjg.com)
`Donald L. Jackson (djackson@dbjg.com)
`Michael R. Casey (mcasey@dbjg.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /Anthony F. Lo Cicero/
`Dated: April 1, 2015
`
`New York, New York Anthony F. LO CICERO
` Registration No.: 29,403
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN
`LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`(212) 336-8000
`
`
`600471.3
`
`16
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
