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.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00021
`Patent 7,202,843
`
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC’S
`RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`

`

` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`a. The Petition Fails to Establish Unpatentability of Claims 4, 8, and 9 For At
`Least Three Reasons ............................................................................................... 2
`II. The Scope of this Inter Partes Review is Limited to Petitioners’ Theory of
`Unpatentability Based on Ham .................................................................................. 5
`a. The Board May Not Look Beyond the Petition for New or Alternate Theories
`of Unpatentability ................................................................................................... 6
`b. The Petition Presents Only a Single Theory of Unpatentability Based on
`Ham ......................................................................................................................... 7
`III. Background ..................................................................................................... 13
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (the “‘843 patent” or “Shen”) ................... 13
`b. Claim 4 ........................................................................................................... 17
`IV. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 18
`a. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. 19
`b. Properly Construed, Claim 4 Requires Overdriving ...................................... 20
`c. The Petition Provides No Insight Into the Ordinary and Customary Meaning
`of “Generating” ..................................................................................................... 27
`V. Argument ........................................................................................................... 28
`a. Ham’s “Normal Data RGB” is Not Generated by the Data Modulator ......... 29
`b. The Petition Lacks Explanation of the Claimed “Generating” Step and
`Therefore Cannot Establish Anticipation of Claim 4 by Ham ............................. 37
`c. Claim 4 Requires Overdriving, Yet Ham and Petitioners Agree that Ham’s
`“Normal Data RGB” is Not Overdriven ............................................................... 40
`VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 41
` 
`
`ii 
` 
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................ 26
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .......................................................... 20
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................. 19
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................... 29
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00042, paper 60 (PTAB
`2/19/2014) ............................................................................................................... 7
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .... 28
`VMware, Inc. v. Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute,
` IPR2014-00901, paper 7 (PTAB 7/14/2014) ........................................................ 11
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ................................................................................................. 7
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 13
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ........................................................................................... passim
`Other Authorities
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2131 ....................................................................................................... 28
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012) .. 19
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ..........................................................................................7, 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) .................................................................................................. 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54 ....................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 19
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .......................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ..................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (a) ............................................................................................1, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii 
` 
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`2001
`
`
`2002
`
`
`2003
`
`
`2004
`
`
`2005
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,090,794, issued to Akitsugu et al., assigned to
`Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,457,551, issued to Culter et al., assigned to
`Planar Systems, Inc.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,091,392, issued to Yoichi, assigned to Seiko
`Epson Corporation
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,184,951, issued to Harrold et al., assigned to
`Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
`
`Declaration of William K. Bohannon
`
`
`
`iv 
` 
`
`

`

`
`
` 
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`In the Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (the
`
`“’843 patent” or “Shen”), the Sharp Petitioners challenged the validity of claims 1,
`
`4, 8, and 9 on four grounds in total. Of these four grounds, only the fourth ground
`
`was instituted by the Board. The first three grounds were dismissed at the Petition
`
`stage and do not constitute part of this inter partes review. See Institution Decision,
`
`paper 10 at 15; 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (a).
`
`The fourth and sole ground subject to inter partes review alleges that claims
`
`4, 8, and 9 of the ‘843 patent are anticipated by U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. US 2004/0196229 to Ham (“Ham”), which was cited on the face
`
`of the ‘843 patent and was even mentioned by the examiner in the ‘843 patent’s
`
`statement on reasons for allowance. But the Petition fails to establish by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that Ham anticipates claim 4 for at least three
`
`reasons, each of which is independently sufficient to warrant the confirmation of
`
`claim 4’s validity over Ham. Further, Petitioners’ failure to meet the necessary
`
`burden of proving claim 4’s unpatentability is also fatal to Petitioners’ challenge of
`
`claims 8-9, which depend from independent claim 4.
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`

`As permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.54, this Patent Owner’s Response is
`
`supported by the Declaration of William Bohannon, Ex. 2005 (hereinafter referred
`
`to as “Bohannon”).
`
`a. The Petition Fails to Establish Unpatentability of Claims 4, 8, and 9
`For At Least Three Reasons
`
`
`
`Independent claim 4 is directed to a method for driving a liquid crystal
`
`display (LCD) panel, and recites, in relevant part, “receiving continuously a
`
`plurality of frame data; 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.” (emphasis added). Petitioners’
`
`theory of unpatentability of claim 4 fails for at least three reasons, each of which
`
`relates to the above-quoted and emphasized features of claim 4.
`
`First, Petitioners’ theory of unpatentability relies on Ham’s data modulator
`
`52 to generate the “plurality of data impulses for each pixel within every frame
`
`period” as recited in claim 4. Petition (hereinafter “Pet.”) at 46. Specifically,
`
`Petitioners incorrectly contend that Ham’s data modulator 52 “generates two data
`
`impulses (i.e., ‘modulated data’ signal and ‘normal data’ signal) for each pixel
`
`within one frame period.” Id. This is not accurate. Ham’s data modulator 52 does
`
`2 
` 
`
`

`

`not generate a “normal data” signal at all. Rather, the “normal data” RGB exists
`
`prior to receipt by data modulator 52. Further, data modulator 52 receives normal
`
`data RGB, but this normal data RGB is modulated, and modulated data AMdata is
`
`output once per frame. Petitioners look to Ham’s Fig. 7 for support, but the normal
`
`data RGB that is applied to the liquid crystal device and shown in Fig. 7 is not
`
`output from the data modulator 52. Instead, normal data RGB to be displayed is
`
`sent from timing controller 51 to line memory 59 for selection by switch 58, and
`
`bypasses data modulator 52 entirely. Therefore, data modulator 52 receives normal
`
`data RGB for modulation, but does not generate and does not output the normal
`
`data RGB for application to the liquid crystal device. Further contradicting their
`
`own characterization of the data modulator 52, Petitioners explain that Ham’s
`
`normal data RGB is “simply the actual data received by the controller (i.e., it is not
`
`overdriven)” and it therefore exists before being received by the data modulator 52
`
`and even before being received by the timing controller 51. Pet. at 46. This
`
`explanation also reveals that Petitioners are improperly looking to the same data
`
`being received by the timing controller 51 to satisfy the separate elements of
`
`“receiving” and “generating” of claim 4. It is incorrect to claim, as Petitioners do,
`
`that Ham’s data modulator 52 generates the normal data RGB.
`
`Second, the Petitioners have offered no evidence on the proper construction
`
`of “generating” as it appears in claim 4, and therefore have failed to present even a
`
`3 
` 
`
`

`

`de minimis showing that modulated AMdata from Ham’s data modulator 52 and
`
`the normal data RGB are properly characterized as “generat[ed].” Specifically, in
`
`their discussion of claim construction, the Petitioners take the position that the
`
`claim terms “should be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the ‘843 Patent.” Pet. at 18. But Petitioners do not provide
`
`evidence as to the scope or meaning of that broadest reasonable interpretation as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and do not explain what
`
`construction is consistent with the disclosure. Petitioners provided no expert
`
`testimony in support of the Petition, and provided no discussion of the ‘843
`
`specification in the claim construction section. Further, there is no dispute that
`
`Ham does not use the term “generating” in context with the modulated AMdata
`
`and the normal data RGB, and data modulator 52 does not generate the normal data
`
`RGB under any reasonable construction of that term. Thus, the Board has no
`
`evidence before it to conclude that Petitioners have met their burden of showing at
`
`least claim 4’s “generating” features in Ham.
`
`Third, contrary to Petitioners’ contention that “[m]ethod claims 4-9 do not
`
`require performing the overdrive technique,” (see Pet. at 17), claim 4 requires
`
`overdriving. The ‘843 patent discloses that controlling a transmission rate of a
`
`liquid crystal device of a pixel is achieved through overdriving. Thus, the proper
`
`construction of claim 4’s phrase “applying the [plurality of] data impulses … in
`
`4 
` 
`
`

`

`order to control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel”
`
`incorporates overdriving into the scope of claim 4. Further, as Petitioners conceded
`
`in the Petition, Ham applies normal data RGB and therefore applies “non-
`
`overdriven data in the second half of the frame period.” Pet. at 6. As such, by
`
`Petitioners’ own concessions (not to mention Ham’s express disclosure), Ham does
`
`not disclose the claimed features of “generating” and “applying the [plurality of]
`
`data impulses” to a pixel “in order to control a transmission rate of the liquid
`
`crystal device of the pixel” since Ham does not apply a plurality of overdriven
`
`signals in the frame period.
`
`In view of these three Petition defects and as further explained below, the
`
`patentability of claims 4, 8, and 9 should be confirmed over Ham.
`
`The Scope of this Inter Partes Review is Limited to Petitioners’
`Theory of Unpatentability Based on Ham
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120 (a), a patent owner’s response to the petition may
`
`address “any ground for unpatentability not already denied.” Thus, this Response is
`
`solely focused on the instituted ground that alleges that claims 4, 8, and 9 of the
`
`‘843 patent are anticipated by Ham. The Petition’s first three grounds have already
`
`been denied.
`
`5 
` 
`
`

`

`However, this is not the only manner by which the metes and bounds of this
`
`inter partes review is limited. Additionally, the Board’s review is also limited by
`
`the specific theory of unpatentability presented by Petitioners. As set forth in the
`
`regulations governing this proceeding, “Inter partes review shall not be instituted
`
`for a ground of unpatentability unless the Board decides that the petition
`
`supporting the ground would demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108 (emphasis added). Further, the “petitioner shall have the burden of
`
`providing a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`a. The Board May Not Look Beyond the Petition for New or Alternate
`Theories of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`The Board instituted this inter partes review based on the Petition’s
`
`arguments regarding ground 4, relying on Ham alone. As briefly explained above
`
`and in greater detail below, Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proving
`
`unpatentability of claim 4 by Ham by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`Recognizing this shortcoming now, Petitioners may seek to enlarge their theories
`
`or present alternate theories of unpatentability in later filings in this proceeding or
`
`at the hearing. However, those theories are not properly before the Board in this
`
`inter partes review. Since Petitioners presented no expert declaration in support of
`
`6 
` 
`
`

`

`the Petition, the Petition and the attorney argument contained therein stands alone
`
`in conveying Petitioners’ theory and cannot be expanded or modified now.
`
`Under the governing statute for inter partes review, the “petitioner shall
`
`have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). The petition therefore must identify “in writing
`
`and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge
`
`to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for challenge to
`
`each claim … .” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). As also presented in the governing
`
`regulation, the petition must include a “full statement of the reasons for the relief
`
`requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence
`
`including materials facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.22(a)(2). In their reply to Patent Owner Surpass’s response, the Sharp
`
`Petitioners “may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding … patent
`
`owner response” and may not present arguments for the first time in the reply. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-
`
`00042, paper 60 at 33 (PTAB 2/19/2014) (refusing to consider argument presented
`
`for the first time in a reply paper). New theories in a reply are improper in inter
`
`partes review.
`
`b. The Petition Presents Only a Single Theory of Unpatentability
`Based on Ham
`
`
`
`7 
` 
`
`

`

`As quoted above, the petition must include a “full statement of the reasons
`
`for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the
`
`evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). Petitioners’ only “statement of the reasons for the relief
`
`requested” as to claims 4, 8, and 9 of the ‘843 patent in view of Ham are focused at
`
`pp. 45-49 of the Petition. There, Petitioners present the following argument and
`
`characterizations regarding the disclosure of Ham’s apparatus:
`
`The apparatus also includes a “timing controller 51” that
`“receives digital video 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. (Id. ¶
`[0037] (“Each gate start pulse GSP and each gate shift clock GSC
`have a frequency twice greater than those of the conventional gate
`start pulse and the gate shift clock. Thus, they allow all scanning lines
`56 on the liquid crystal display panel 57 to be scanned twice within
`one frame interval.”); see also id. ¶ [0040], Fig. 7C).
`As shown in the Table 1 of Ham, “modulated data” is selected
`from a look-up table based upon the data voltage of the “previous
`frame” and the data voltage of the “current frame.” (Id. ¶¶ [0013],
`[0017]). As a result, the “modulated data” signal is overdriven. On the
`other hand, the “normal data” signal is simply the actual data
`received by the controller (i.e., it is not overdriven). The output of the
`circuit disclosed by Ham is shown in Figure 7B (annotated and
`reproduced below). As can be seen, each frame period is split into two
`
`8 
` 
`
`

`

`halves. During the first half of the frame period, overdriven data is
`applied to each pixel. During the second half of the frame period, non-
`overdriven data is applied.
`
`
`
`Pet. at 46 (emphasis added). As is clear from the above quotation, Petitioners point
`
`solely to Ham’s data modulator 52 as the element that allegedly “generates two
`
`data impulses … for each pixel within one frame period.” Id. Petitioners present no
`
`other theory for Ham’s generation of the “plurality of data impulses” as required
`
`by claim 4.
`
`In Patent Owner Surpass’s preliminary response, Surpass argued the
`
`following:
`
`Specifically, claim 4 recites in relevant part, “generating a
`
`plurality of data impulses for each pixel within every frame period.”
`
`(emphasis added). Ham applies modulated data AMdata and normal
`
`RGB data within one frame. But the normal RGB data that Ham
`
`applies is not disclosed as “generat[ed]” by Ham. Rather, per Fig. 5
`
`and the associated description, Data is input to the Timing Controller
`
`51, and RGB Data is output from the Timing Controller 51. Ham at
`
`Fig. 5. Ham does not disclose that RGB Data is “generat[ed]” by the
`
`Timing Controller 51. According to Ham, the Timing Controller 51
`
`9 
` 
`
`

`

`“rearranges digital video data supplied from a digital video card (not
`
`shown).” Id. at ¶39.
`
`Even if AMdata were “generat[ed],” Ham only generates one
`
`data pulse AMdata within the frame since the RGB data is not
`
`generated by Ham. The result is that Ham does not disclose generating
`
`a plurality of “data impulses for each pixel within every frame
`
`period.” Rather, only a single data impulse AMdata is generated, if at
`
`all, for a pixel per frame. This is insufficient to disclose every feature
`
`of claim 4, as the examiner recognized during prosecution and noted
`
`in the examiner’s Reasons for Allowance. See Ex. 1006 at 214.
`
`Prelim. Resp. at 35-36. In response, the Board stated that “Patent Owner’s
`
`argument [regarding timing controller 51] is misplaced. Petitioner did not rely on
`
`the Figure 5 timing controller 51 alone to meet the limitation. Rather, we
`
`understand Petitioner to rely on the driving apparatus, for example of Figure 5,
`
`which is not limited to the timing controller 51, as generating the two data
`
`impulses as claimed.” Paper 10 at 13 (citing to Pet. at 48, Ex. 1005 at ¶¶40, 41,
`
`53). It is true that Petitioner did not rely on the timing controller 51 alone to meet
`
`the “generating” feature of claim 4. Instead, Petitioner relied on the data modulator
`
`52 alone to meet the “generating” feature of claim 4. Pet. at 46. And if the normal
`
`data RGB exists as an input to the data modulator 52, then data modulator 52
`
`10 
` 
`
`

`

`necessarily cannot generate the normal data RGB. Similarly, if the normal data
`
`RGB exists as an input to the timing controller 51, then timing controller 51 also
`
`cannot generate the normal data RGB.
`
`Petitioners cited to Ham’s ¶¶40, 41, and 53 on p. 48 of the Petition in the
`
`claim chart, but Petitioners provided no explanation of these citations in the claim
`
`chart because “[e]xplanations, characterizations, conclusions, or inferences drawn
`
`from the references are improper in a claim chart. … If there is any need to explain
`
`how a reference discloses or teaches a limitation, that explanation must be
`
`elsewhere in the petition—not in a claim chart.” VMware, Inc. v. Electronics and
`
`Telecommunications Research Institute, IPR2014-00901, paper 7 (PTAB
`
`7/14/2014) (Order to Correct Non-Compliant Petition by APJ Quinn, for a panel
`
`consisting of APJs McNamara, Quinn, and Anderson). Thus, as a matter of
`
`procedure, Petitioners (like all petitioners) are prohibited from supporting their
`
`theory of unpatentability with explanations in the claim charts. The requisite
`
`explanations must be found in the body of the petition, not the claim charts.
`
`
`
`Specifically, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5), the “petition must specify
`
`where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed
`
`publications relied upon”, and under the VMware case cited above and the
`
`underlying regulation, that specific explanation must occur outside of the claim
`
`chart. The only explanation provided in the Petition for how Ham allegedly
`
`11 
` 
`
`

`

`discloses “generating a plurality of data impulses for each pixel within every frame
`
`period according to the frame data” occurs at p. 46 of the Petition, where
`
`Petitioners contend that Ham’s data modulator 52 “generates two data impulses
`
`(i.e., ‘modulated data’ signal and ‘normal data’ signal) for each pixel within one
`
`frame period.” Pet. at 46. At no point do Petitioners point to any other feature of
`
`Ham’s driving circuit for the required “detailed explanation” of the “generating”
`
`step. And even if it were proper to look to Petitioners’ cited ¶¶40, 41, and 53 from
`
`the claim chart, the only instance of Ham using the term “generating” in these
`
`paragraphs appears in a discussion related to the gate driver 54. Ham at ¶40. But
`
`none of these paragraphs supports Petitioners’ argument that Ham’s data
`
`modulator 52 generates the normal data RGB, and Petitioners provide no other
`
`detailed explanation that would establish the “generating” step in Ham’s “driving
`
`apparatus” by a preponderance of the evidence. Further, Petitioners’ own
`
`concession that the normal data RGB is received by the timing controller 51 is fatal
`
`to their theory that the data modulator 52 generates the normal data RGB. Any
`
`other unexplained theory is untimely, contrary to the law and regulation, and
`
`would contradict the express language of the Petition’s detailed explanation of
`
`unpatentability, which looks solely to the data modulator 52 for “generating a
`
`plurality of data impulses for each pixel within every frame period according to the
`
`frame data” feature of claim 4.
`
`12 
` 
`
`

`

`Under the inter partes review statutory scheme, no new theory may be
`
`introduced in Petitioners’ reply, and the Board may not substitute its own judgment
`
`for that of Petitioners. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review instituted
`
`under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition
`
`of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”) (emphasis added). This
`
`fact is further bolstered by the burden of proof in inter partes review, wherein the
`
`“Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the
`
`Director determines that the information presented in the petition … shows that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (emphasis
`
`added). Thus, the Petition and its supporting evidence on the instituted ground
`
`(claims 4, 8, and 9 vs. Ham, Ex. 1005) define the universe of theories of
`
`unpatentability that the Board may consider during this inter partes review. Here,
`
`that universe of theories of unpatentability is limited to one: that Ham’s Data
`
`Modulator 52 generates the normal data RGB that is received by timing controller
`
`51. And this theory is false.
`
`III. Background
`
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (the “‘843 patent” or “Shen”)
`
` 
`
` 
`
`13 
` 
`
`

`

`The ‘843 patent was filed as U.S. Patent application no. 10/707,741 on
`
`January 8, 2004 and claims foreign priority to and the benefit of Taiwan
`
`application no. 92132122 A, filed on November 17, 2003. The title of the ‘843
`
`patent is “DRIVING CIRCUIT OF A LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY PANEL
`
`AND RELATED DRIVING METHOD.” The ‘843 patent discloses a driving
`
`circuit for a liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panel and a method of driving.
`
`An LCD panel includes data lines arranged in a first direction, scan lines
`
`arranged in a second direction, and a matrix of pixels arranged at the intersection
`
`of each scan line and data line. Shen at Fig. 4. The LCD panel is driven by driving
`
`circuitry that applies “data impulses, scan voltages, and timing signals” according
`
`to frame data for the pixels. Id. at 1:29. The data impulses are applied to the pixels
`
`according to the appropriate grey levels required for a given frame. Id. at 1:50-52.
`
`However, as Shen explains, there is a “time delay when charging liquid crystal
`
`molecules” when applying a data impulse in order to allow the molecules to twist
`
`and achieve the correct gray levels for a pixel. Id. at 1:62-65. As a result of the
`
`time delay that occurs when a target impulse is applied, Shen discloses a technique
`
`referred to as overdriving the pixel. Id. at 1:64-67. This technique includes
`
`“applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to accelerate the
`
`reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules,” and may allow the pixel to reach a
`
`predetermined gray level in a predetermined frame period. Id. at 2:3-7. Thus,
`
`14 
` 
`
`

`

`overdriving controls the transmission rate of the liquid crystal molecules relative to
`
`a non-overdriving condition.
`
`An example of this relationship is shown in Shen’s Fig. 2, where “curve C1
`
`shows the transmission rate of a pixel not overdriven corresponding to the frames,
`
`and the curve C2 shows the transmission rate of the pixel overdriven
`
`corresponding to the frames.” Id. at 1:57-60. Overdriving includes “applying a
`
`higher or a lower data impulse,” and the ‘843 patent discloses that “[d]ifferent data
`
`voltages … show different transmission rates.” Id. at 2:3-4; 3:60-62.
`
`
`
`15 
` 
`
`

`

`In the disclosed embodiments of the ‘843 patent, the driving circuit
`
`overdrives the pixel data using a blur clear converter. An embodiment of driving
`
`circuit 10 is shown below from Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`In this driving circuit 10, the blur clear converter 14 is distinct from and
`
`arranged upstream of the gate driver 20 and source driver 18, and receives frame
`
`signals G and control signals C of signal controller 12. Embodiments of the blur
`
`clear converter are shown in further detail in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. As Shen explains
`
`with respect to the embodiment shown in Fig. 7, two pieces of overdriven “pixel
`
`data of each pixel in every frame period are generated by the blur clear converter
`
`14.” Id. at 4:41-43. More specifically, according to the embodiment shown in Fig.
`
`7, the “processing circuit 42 generates a plurality of overdriven pixel data GN
`
`16 
` 
`
`

`

`according to the current pixel data Gm and the delayed pixel data Gm-1.” Id. at
`
`4:53-55. With respect to the embodiment shown in Fig. 8, Shen explains that the
`
`“processing circuit 74 generates two pieces of overdriven pixel data GN1, GN-1(2)
`
`for each pixel 36 in every frame period according to the pixel data Gm-1, Gm-2.”
`
`Id. at 5:17-19. According to the driving method, overdriven pulses are provided
`
`twice per frame to control the transmission rate of the liquid crystal molecules.
`
`See, e.g., id. at Figs. 5, 10. Specifically, the overdriven pulses “accelerate the
`
`reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules,” and may allow the pixel to reach a
`
`predetermined gray level in a predetermined frame period. Id. at 2:3-7.
`
`b. Claim 4
`
`
`
`The Board has instituted trial on claims 4, 8, and 9 of the ‘843 patent. Of
`
`these challenged claims, only claim 4 is independent.
`
`Claim 4 is directed to a method for “driving a liquid crystal display (LCD)
`
`panel.” Claim 4 is shown below in full, with elements relevant to claim
`
`construction in bold for the Board’s reference:
`
`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
`
`17 
` 
`
`

`

`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
`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 data;
`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.
`The Petitioners argue that claims 4, 8, and 9 require the “generation of a
`
`plurality of data impulses within a single frame” but not “overdriven pixel data.”
`
`See Pet. at 4. However, under the proper construction of claim 4’s terms,
`
`Petitioners’ argument is not accurate.
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`
` 
`
`The standard for construing claim terms in this proceeding is not in dispute.
`
`Since the ‘843 patent is not expired, the Board will interpret claims using the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and consistent with the disclosure. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`18 
` 
`
`

`

`Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioners contend that “the terms of Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 of the ‘843 Patent
`
`are generally clear on their face, and should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the ‘843 Patent.” Pet. at 18 (citing to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Notably, Petitioners have provided no expert testimony, and
`
`no other evidence or discussion of the constructions that would be attributed by a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art. Further, Petitioners have provided no
`
`meaningful analysis of the Shen specification in order to illuminate the bounds of
`
`the broadest reasonable constructions consistent with that specification.
`
`In absence of such evidence and analysis, the only clue to Petitioners’
`
`intended constructions is through their characterizations of the claims in view of
`
`Ham. Through this, it is clear that Petitioners have misconstrued one phrase from
`
`claim 4, and have misapplied the broadest reasonable interpretation of another term
`
`from claim 4.
`
`a. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`19 
` 
`
`

`

`A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art of the ‘843 patent, as of
`
`November 17, 2003, would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, mathematics, or computer science with two or more years of
`
`experience designing electronics and displays. Bohannon at ¶8. For example, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have educatio