UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SHARP CORPORA TlON, SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, and
`SHARP ELECTRON ICS MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. ,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR20 15-0002 1
`Patent No. 7,202 ,843 B2
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J . MA RENTIC IN SUPPORT
`OF PETITIONE RS' REPLY TO PAT ENT OWNE R'S RESPONSE
`
`SHARP EXHIBIT 1010
`Sharp Corp., et al. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`IPR2015-00021
`
`612530.2
`
`Page 1 of 41
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SHARP CORPORA TlON, SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, and
`SHARP ELECTRON ICS MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. ,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR20 15-0002 1
`Patent No. 7,202 ,843 B2
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J . MA RENTIC IN SUPPORT
`OF PETITIONE RS' REPLY TO PAT ENT OWNE R'S RESPONSE
`
`SHARP EXHIBIT 1010
`Sharp Corp., et al. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`IPR2015-00021
`
`612530.2
`
`Page 1 of 41
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY DECLARATION AND OPiNIONS ........... .... .... ....... .
`
`BACKGROUN D IN FORMATION ...................................................... .... ..... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of My Professional Background and Qualifications ... .. .. . .. 2
`
`Data and Other Information Considered ................................. .... .. ... .. . 5
`
`C.
`
`Scope of the Assignment... ........................................................ .. .. ... .. . 6
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Compensation ... ... .................................................................... ... .. .. .. .. .. 6
`
`Legal Standards ................................................ .................... ........ ...... .. 7
`
`III. TH E '843 PATENT .................................................... .................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`Claims 4, 8 and 9 of the '843 Patent ................................... .
`
`. ..... 15
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN TH E ART ..................................................
`
`. ..... 17
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................... ....... ...... 17
`
`VI. HAM ANTICIPATES TH E CLAIMS ........................................... .... .... ...... 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Di sclosure of Ham ..................................... ................... ........ ...... 18
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments ................................................... ........... . 22
`
`I.
`Ham Discloses the "Generating" Step .......................... ... .. .. ... 22
`Limiting Claim 4 To Overdriving Cannot Be The Broadest
`Reasonable Construction ......................................................... ... .. .. ... 30
`
`I.
`
`The '843 Patent Does Not Equate Controlling
`Transmiss ion Rates With Overdriving ......................... ... ... .. .. 35
`
`612530.2
`
`Page 2 of 41
`
`
`
`I, Michael J. Marentic, declare as follows:
`
`The following is my written Declaration subm itted in rebuttal to the Patent
`
`Owner's, Surpass Tech Innovation LLC ("Patent Owner"), Response (Paper 20,
`
`"Response") and the Declarations of William K. Bohannon in support thereof(Exs.
`
`2005-2006). My Declaration includes my rebuttal opinions regarding C laims 4, 8
`
`and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 ("the '843 Patent," Ex. 100 I), and is submitted
`
`on behalf of Petitioners Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and
`
`Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc . (coll ectively,
`
`"Petitioners").
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY DECLARATION AND OPINIONS
`
`I.
`
`I understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board") has
`
`initiated inter partes review of Claims 4, 8 and 9 of the '843 Patent. Specifica lly, I
`
`understand that the Board has found that Petitioners have shown that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Claims 4, 8 and 9 are invalid as anticipated by U.S.
`
`Patent Application No . 2004/0196229 to Ham ("Ham," Ex. 1005). (Paper 10,
`
`Decision at 14- I 5).
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed the Petition (Paper 1) and the Board 's Decision
`
`(Paper 10) and concur that Claims 4, 8 and 9 are anticipated by Ham.
`
`612530.2
`
`Page 3 of 41
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner and its expert, Mr. Bohannon,
`
`argue that Claims 4, 8 and 9 are not anticipated by Ham. As set forth herein, it is
`
`my opinion that Surpass and Mr. Bohannon are wrong.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`
`A.
`
`4.
`
`Summary of My Professional Background and Qualifications
`
`Exhibit 101 I is my curricululI1 vitae which sets f0l1h my professional
`
`background and qualifications. A list of publications that I have authored or co(cid:173)
`
`authored is included.
`
`5.
`
`I have many years of experience in tbe fl at panel display industry.
`
`first became involved in the flat panel display industry in 1973 , when I began
`
`working at the University of Illinois Coordinated Science Laboratories where the
`
`AC Plasma Display Panel ("PDP") was invented. During my studies at the
`
`University, I was employed as an intern working in the area of plasma display
`
`construction and gas di scharge physics characterization. I received a B.S. degree
`
`in Engineering Phys ics from the University of Illinois.
`
`6.
`
`Upon entering graduate school , I continued my work on the
`
`characterization of gas discharge in PDP pixels. I received an M.S. degree in
`
`Electrica l Engineering from the University of Illinois, and wrote my master's
`
`thesis on measuring the electron density in an AC PDP .
`
`612530.2
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 41
`
`
`
`7.
`
`One of my engineering positions was with Interstate Electronics
`
`Corporation (IEC) as a design electrical engineer. IEC designed PDP drive
`
`electronics, mechanically packaged the di splay modules, and incorporated them
`
`into terminal s for harsh, military environments. During this time, I was awarded
`
`several patents relating to PDP technologies. I also investigated LCOs and thin
`
`film electroluminescent displays for incorporation into military applications.
`
`8.
`
`I later fonned Plasma ~isplays , Inc. , a single proprietorship
`
`consulting corporation. I worked for several clients, one being Bell Laboratories
`
`and AT&T at their joint Reading, Pennsylvania facility. This facility was where
`
`the original picture phone was developed, the first commercial light emitting
`
`diodes (" LEOs") were manufactured, and AT&T's POPs were developed and
`
`manufactured.
`
`I worked on PDP dri ve electronic design, driver-to-panel
`
`interconnect, driver circuit characterization, and yield improvement.
`
`9.
`
`I was a founder and Vice President of Plasmaco, a company that
`
`acquired IBM 's PDP production line in New York. Plasmaco manufactured
`
`several types of POPs, including VGA panels for early notebook computers.
`
`10. At Science Applications International Corporation, I worked on
`
`efficient backlights for LCOs, some for direct viewing in sunlight. Conunercially
`
`available LCOs were disassembled and repackaged with these backlights. The
`
`fini shed displays were used in cockpit avionics, medical, banking, and FAA towers.
`
`612530.2
`
`3
`
`Page 5 of 41
`
`
`
`II. At Hitachi, from 1995 to 1999, I managed a teclmology center that
`
`developed technologies relating to the interface between the motherboard and the
`
`LCD driver chips for flat panel monitors and notebook displays. I rep0l1ed directly
`
`to the LCD design and manufacturing center in Japan. I had access to future LCD
`
`technical details and specifications, and facilitated technology transfer between
`
`Silicon Valley firms and Japan management. The Video Electronics Standards
`
`Association (" VESA") writes and publishes video standards for the electrical
`
`interfacing for displays. I was the chainnan of the VESA flat panel display
`
`committee, a member of the board of directors, and later the president of the board
`
`of directors.
`
`12. While at Philips, from 1999 to 200 I, I managed a group of engineers
`
`that designed electronics for flat panel displays. My group designed interface
`
`timing ICs and video processing circuit boards for monitors and televisions
`
`utilizing LCDs. Philips invested in a tiled LCD display company, and I
`
`participated in the technology development using Philips panels. My group
`
`designed circuits and assisted with their incorporation into commercial products
`
`within Philips ' worldwide subsidiaries.
`
`13.
`
`Philips purchased the LCD factory of the Korean company LG , and
`
`later fonned a joint venture called LG-Philips LCD. I was a member of the group
`
`of technical advisors that perfonned the due diligence for Philips for the purchase.
`
`612530.2
`
`4
`
`Page 6 of 41
`
`
`
`14. At Alien Technology, I was a member of the integrated design team
`
`that produced custom drivers made for cholesteric LCD displays, organic LEOs,
`
`and polymer dispersed LCOs.
`
`15.
`
`I am the named inventor or co-inventor on three U.S. patents in the
`
`PDP field.
`
`B.
`
`Data and Other Information Considered
`
`16.
`
`In forming my opinions, I reviewed the fo llowing documents
`
`referenced by their "Paper" or "Exhibit" number:
`
`PAPER
`NO.
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1
`
`-
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review ("IPR")
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`9
`
`10
`
`20
`
`612530.2
`
`1001
`
`US. Patent No. 7,202 ,843 to Shen et a!. ('''843 Patent")
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0196229
`to Ham ("Ham")
`
`1006
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. App!. No. 101707,74 1
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`Patent Owner's Preliminary Response
`
`Decision - Institution of [PR
`
`Patent Owner's Response
`
`5
`
`Page 7 of 41
`
`
`
`PAPER EXHIBIT
`NO.
`NO.
`
`DESCRIPTlON
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`2005
`
`Declaration of Wi lliam K. Bohannon
`
`2006
`
`Second Declaration of William K. Bohannon
`
`1009
`
`Transcript of the August 20, 2015 Deposition of
`William K. Bohannon
`
`17.
`
`I also base this declaration on my knowledge from my 30 years of
`
`experience working on liquid crystal display (LCD) and related technologies.
`
`C.
`
`Scope ofthe Assign ment
`
`18.
`
`I have been requested by counsel for Petitioners to provide my expert
`
`opinion in rebuttal to Patent Owner's Response, as well as the portions of Mr.
`
`Bohannon's Declaration cited in Patent Owner's Response.
`
`D.
`
`Compensation
`
`19.
`
`I am being compensated at my consulting rate of $250 per hour for
`
`my time spent in connection with this case. I am being separately reimbursed for
`
`any out· of· pocket expenses. No part of my compensation is dependent upon the
`
`outcome of this proceeding or the nature of the opinions that I express.
`
`612530.2
`
`6
`
`Page 8 of 41
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`20.
`
`To render my invalidity analysis, I have been infonned about the legal
`
`standards for patent invalidity in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`21.
`
`Specifically, I understand that the petitioner must prove patent
`
`invalidity by a "preponderance of the evidence" and that there is no "presumption
`
`of validity" in inter partes review proceedings.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that claims are to be given their " broadest reasonable"
`
`construction in light of the specification as would be read by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Tn this regard, I also understand that, under the broadest reasonable
`
`construction standard, claim tenns are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
`
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`
`entire disclosure.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that, while claims must be construed in light of the
`
`specification, it is generally not pennissible to impOlt limitations from the
`
`specification. I have also been infonned that any special definition for a claim
`
`term must be set fOlth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`
`and precision, and, in the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be
`
`read from the specification into the claims.
`
`612530.2
`
`7
`
`Page 9 of 41
`
`
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that there is 110 requirement to construe tenns
`
`that are readily understood by a person of ordinary ski ll the art.
`
`25.
`
`I also understand that a patent claim may be invalidated as anticipated
`
`if a single prior art reference discloses each and every element of the patent claim.
`
`In this regard, I have been infonned that a prior art reference need not use the exact
`
`terminology used in the claim in order to anticipate that claim.
`
`III. THE ' 843 PATENT
`
`26.
`
`Patent Owner and Mr. Bohannon describe their understanding of the
`
`'843 Patent. (See Paper No. 20, Response at 13-17; Ex. 2005 , Bohannon Dec!.
`
`~~ 14-23). However, their descriptions are inaccurate and incomplete. (See, e.g ,
`
`Ex. 2005 , Bohannon Dec!. ~ 1 8 (stating that "the ' 843 Patent unifonnly correlates
`
`the idea of overdriving and controlling the transmission rate ... ")). Therefore, I
`
`have correctly summarized the relevant disclosures of the ' 843 Patent below.
`
`27.
`
`The ' 843 Patent is entitled Driving Circuit of a Liquid Crystal Display
`
`Panel and Related Driving Method" and issued on April 10, 2007 from U.S . Patent
`
`Application No. 10/707,74 1 ("the ' 741 Application", Ex. 1006), filed on January 8,
`
`2004.
`
`28.
`
`The ' 843 Patent generally relates to circuits and methods for driving
`
`an LCD pane!. The ' 843 Patent describes a generic LCD panel 30 that includes a
`
`plurality of scan lines 32 (also called gate lines), a plurality of data lines 34, and a
`
`612530.2
`
`8
`
`Page 10 of 41
`
`
`
`plurality of pixels 36 an'anged in a matrix. (Ex. 100 I, ' 843 Patent, Col. 1:27-31 ,
`
`Col. 3:37-40). Each pixel 36 includes a switching device 38 (e.g., a TFT) and a
`
`liquid crystal device 39 (which is also called a "pixel electrode"). (Id. at Col. 3:40-
`
`43). These components are shown in Figure 4 of the ' 843 Patent (annotated and
`
`reproduced below), which also shows that the gate of the switching device 38 in
`
`each pixel is connected to the cOlTesponding scan line 32, while the source of the
`
`switching device in the pixel is connected to the corresponding data line 34. (Id. at
`
`Col. 3:43-47).
`
`29.
`
`Like all active matrix TFT panels, the LCD panel 30 is driven by
`
`applying scan line voltages to the scan lines 32 to tum on the switching devices 38
`
`and applying "data impulses" to the data lines 34 to charge the liquid crystal
`
`devices 39 via the switching devices 38. (Id.).
`
`612530.2
`
`9
`
`Page 11 of 41
`
`
`
`.... --
`Data
`: Lin~~'
`
`Jot
`
`--~--- .. ------..,
`
`I
`
`~Jot TFT
`t .:}.-:-~ (
`
`Pixel
`~ 4:::;ll;c.t~~de
`
`:
`
`._ ... ____ ,-36
`.
`,
`
`.
`Lr=t=---
`.
`Scan ·
`U,"ne,..
`- ,
`~ ... __ + 36
`~ . r~J9
`.
`. .
`
`<""-~
`'-7~~~--~.~~--~or--~~-"-
`
`.,...,
`Pixel
`
`L
`
`30. By way of background, a "twisted nematic" (or TN mode) LCD panel ,
`
`such as the one discussed in the ' 843 Patent, produces images by controlling the
`
`"transmission rate" of each pixel or, in other words, the percentage of light from
`
`the display panel' s backlight that passes through each pixel. In thi s regard, Mr.
`
`Bohannon has opined that the phrase "controlling the transmission rate" is
`
`synonymous with "overdriving" (discussed below). (See, e.g., Ex. 2005 ,
`
`Bohannon Decl. '11'1128-30). Mr. Bohannon is mi staken.
`
`31 . The ' 843 Patent specification describes an LCD panel where the
`
`"transmi ssion rate" was controlled without overdriving. (Ex. 1001 , ' 843 Patent,
`
`Col. I :53-2:2). Specifically, Figure 2 of the '843 Patent plots "transmi ssion rate"
`
`(vertical axis) versus time (horizontal axis). The ' 843 Patent explains that "[tJhe
`10
`
`612530.2
`
`Page 12 of 41
`
`
`
`curve C I shows the tral/smissiol/ rate ofa pixell/ot overdrivel/." (Jd. at Col. 1:57-
`
`60). By contrast, curve C2 shows the transmiss ion rate of a pixel that is
`
`overdriven. Since the '843 Patent clearly shows transmission rates that were
`
`controlled both with (C2) and wit/lOlIt (C I) overdriving, overdriving cannot be
`
`synonymous with "controlling the transmission rate.
`
`,
`,
`---r---- i -::::~~- ---l, ~ .:~ - ---
`••. j
`' C2
`
`I
`
`1\' I
`
`T I L..-:-:-:--+_--,_-+----:-:-:-_+--:-:-::-_ _ Frame
`N+2
`N- I
`N
`N+I
`
`Fig, 2 Prior art
`
`32. The '843 Patent' s use of the phrases "transmiss ion rate" and
`
`"controlling the transmission rate" is consistent with the understanding of those of
`
`ordin ary skill in the art, Specifically, in its "off" state, the twisted nematic panel
`
`discussed in the specification appears black as the pixel blocks the backli ght
`
`illumination. This type of display is referred to in the art as a "normally black
`
`display," (See Ex, lOIS , Sharp Application Note at 10), In operation, a voltage (or
`
`data impul se) is applied to the pixel electrodes through the data lines, This voltage
`
`causes the liquid crystal material in each pixel to be rearranged. (Ex. 100 I, '843
`I I
`
`612530.2
`
`Page 13 of 41
`
`
`
`Patent, Col. I :62-65). As a result, depending on the applied voltage, different
`
`amounts of light are transmitted through the pixel. A pixel 's " transmission rate" of
`
`light is therefore directly related to the pixel's input vo ltage.
`
`33. Whe n no voltage is applied to the pixel' s electrodes the liquid crystal
`
`mol ecules remain in an ordered state that blocks nearly all light from the backlight.
`
`As a result, only a minimal amount of light passes through the pixel (i.e., the
`
`transmission rate is near zero and the pixels appear black). By contrast, when a
`
`voltage is applied to the pixel electrodes, the LC molecules reorient themselves in
`
`such a manner that light from the backlight is allowed to pass through the pixel
`
`(i.e. , the pixels appear brighter to the observer). As di scussed above, the particular
`
`percentage of light that passes through the pixel (or transmission rate) increases as
`
`the applied voltage increases .
`
`34. A range oflight transmission va lues (or gray sca le values) can be
`
`obtained by applying intermediate voltages between the full "Off' and full "On"
`
`voltages. In the LCD panel described in the '843 Patent, the number of gray scale
`
`va lues is 256 values (i.e. , 0 to 255). (Ex. 1001 , '843 Patent, Col. 1:35-37). The
`
`lowest value " 0" represents the darkest display illuminance, while a luminance
`
`value 0[ "255" represents the highest transmiss ion rate. The interplay between
`
`data line voltages, LC twisting angles and transmiss ion rate is correctly summed up
`
`in the '843 Patent: "Different data voltages calise different twisting angles and
`
`612530.2
`
`12
`
`Page 14 of 41
`
`
`
`show "if/erellttrallsmissioll rates." (Ex. 1001 , '843 Patent, Co l. 3:58-62). This is
`
`consistent with how the term "controlling a tran smiss ion rate" is understood and
`
`used in the a11. Thi s also confirms that Mr. Bohannon's assertion, that there is a
`
`connection between "controlljng the transmiss ion rate" and "overdriving," is
`
`incorrect.
`
`35. The time that the pixel molecules need to react (i.e., rea!Tange) in
`
`response to a driving voltage is called the "response time" (or response speed).
`
`The image quality of an LCD panel is dependent, in part, on this response time; the
`
`faster the response time, the better the image quality for video imagery. In this
`
`regard, the '843 Patent explains that a delay in the response time of an LCD panel
`
`causes image defects such as blurring, and describes the need for improving the
`
`LCD response speed. (Id. at Col. 1:21 -26, Cols. 1:62-2:2).
`
`36.
`
`In this regard, the '843 Patent discusses and claims two previously
`
`known techniques for improving the response time and resultant image quality of
`
`LCD di sp lays: (I) applying two or more data impulses to a pixel within a given
`
`frame ; and (2) "overdriving" the signal data. These are two independent concepts,
`
`wh ich can be used by themselves or in combination to reduce blurring.
`
`37.
`
`Specifically, applying two or more data impulses to a pixel within a
`
`given frame helps smooth out fast motion video and improves the image sequence
`
`that the eye perceives. When the first data impul ses are applied to each pixel
`
`612530.2
`
`13
`
`Page 15 of 41
`
`
`
`earlier in the frame period, the LC material initiates its response sooner. As the
`
`gate scan starts at the top of the di splay and fini shes at the bottom in half of a
`
`frame period (rather than in the full period), pixels are driven to the final voltage
`
`sooner and have a longer time to orient to the applied pixel impulse. For example,
`
`the pixels in the first line of the display are driven with a first data impulse at the
`
`stalt of the frame and with a second data impulse a halfofa frame later. The
`
`displayed image wi ll have less blur since the LC material has an additional half
`
`frame to respond and, therefore, reach the target transmission rate more quickly.
`
`38. The second technique, overdriving, enables a pixel to change from
`
`one gray level (i. e., shade of color) to another more quickly by either boosting or
`
`decreasing the requested pixel value. (Id. at Col. 2:2-7). Thi s decreases the
`
`difference between the before and after pixel va lues and the amount of time
`
`required for the pixel to change state.
`
`39.
`
`The '843 Patent states that overdriving alone can improve the
`
`performance of an LCD display, to a certain extent. (See id. at Col. 2:7-12, Fig. 2).
`
`In addition, as discussed above, applying two or more data impulses in a si ngle
`
`frame alone improves performance of an LCD display. To enable a signal to reach
`
`a target transmiss ion rate within a single frame period, the ' 843 Patent suggests
`
`combining these techniques, i.e., applying two or more overdriven impulses to
`
`each pixel within the given frame period. (Id. at Col. 4:20-40, Col. 5:63-6:25).
`
`612530.2
`
`14
`
`Page 16 of 41
`
`
`
`For example, as shown in Figure 6 of the '843 Patent, each single frame period is
`
`divided into two segments (e.g., Frame N+ I is divided into the segments n+2 and
`
`n+3). Two overdriven data impulses are then applied to these two segments (e.g.,
`
`one impulse during n+2 and a second during n+3) to the pixel within the given
`
`frame period (e.g., N+ l ). This method allegedly allows the signal to reach a target
`
`transmission rate (T2) within a single frame period (e.g., N+ I). (Id. at Cols. 3: 15-
`
`4:43 , Col. 1:39-41).
`
`~ T2
`~
`
`- - _1_ ---!'.,--+--+---t-
`1
`'
`
`, , , , ,
`C3-!.. , , , , , , , ,
`
`Tlf----.- .,-I- :-+- :+- :-+--:+- - F'rarne (doubled)
`: 11+1 : n+2 n+3 n+4 n+5 :
`11
`L---4'-~--+----r' - -
`- Frame (orig ma l)
`N
`N+I
`N+2
`
`Fig. 6
`
`A.
`
`Claims 4, 8 and 9 ofthe '843 Patent
`
`40. Claims 4, 8 and 9 are method claims directed to methods of driving an
`
`LCD display. Claim 4 is in independent form. These claims are reproduced below.
`
`4. A method for driving a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel, the LCD
`
`panel comprising:
`
`a plurality of scan lines;
`J)
`
`612530.2
`
`Page 17 of 41
`
`
`
`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
`
`connected to the corresponding scan line, the con'esponding
`
`data line, and the liquid crystal device, and
`
`the method comprising:
`
`receiving continuously a plurality of frame data;
`
`gelleratillg a plurality of data impulses for each pixel within
`
`every frame period accord ing to the frame data; and
`
`applyillg the data impulses to the liquid crystal device of one of
`
`the pixels within one frame period via th e data line connected to
`
`the pixel ill order to control a transmission rate of the liquid
`
`crystal device of the pixel.
`
`8. The method of claim 4 further comprising:
`
`applying a scan line voltage to the switch device of the pixel via
`
`the scan line connected to the pixel in order to have the data
`
`impulses be applied to the liquid crystal device of the pixel.
`
`9. The method of claim 4 wherein each frame data comprises a
`
`plurality of pixel data, and each pixel data corresponds to a pixel.
`
`41. As can be seen, method claims 4, 8 and 9 are only directed to one of
`
`the disclosed solutions for blUITing, namely, applying two or more data impulse to
`
`a pixel within a given frame. By contrast, Claim I (not under review) requires
`
`both: (I) applying two or more data impulse to a pixel within a given frame; and
`
`(2) overdriving.
`
`612530.2
`
`16
`
`Page 18 of 41
`
`
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`42. A person of ordinary skill in the al1 would have had an undergraduate
`
`degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent work experience. That person
`
`would also have had 3 or more years of experience designing flat panel display
`
`drive electronics and active matrices for LCDs.
`
`43.
`
`I have also considered the level of skill proposed by Mr. Bohannon,
`
`name ly, that "a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art of the '843 patent has at
`
`least a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, mathematics, or computer
`
`science with two or more years of experience in designing electronics and
`
`displays." (Ex. 2005, Bohannon Decl. ~ 8). 1 do not agree that a person with a
`
`degree in mathematics or computer science would have the requisite education to
`
`design LCD drive electronics. Neveltheless, even assuming that Mr. Bohannon's
`
`proposed level of ski ll were correct, it would not affect my analysis.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`44 . As previously noted, I understand that in infer paries review
`
`proceedings, patent claims are to be given their "broadest reasonable" construction
`
`in light of the specification as would be read by a person of ord inary skill in the alt.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that the Petition asselted that Claim 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." (Paper I at
`
`612530.2
`
`17
`
`Page 19 of 41
`
`
`
`IS). Likewise, I understand that, in instituting this proceeding, the Board did not
`
`find it necessary to construe any of the tenns of Claims 4, S or 9. (Paper 10,
`
`Decis ion at 5).
`
`46.
`
`I agree with the Petitioners and the Board. All of the tenns of Claims
`
`4, Sand 9 of the 'S43 Patent are readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. They do not require further construction.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner and Mr. Bohannon, nevertheless,
`
`argue that certain terms of Claim 4 require construction : (I) "generating"; and (2)
`
`"control a transmission rate." I address these arguments below.
`
`VI. HAM ANTICIPATES THE CLAIMS
`
`A.
`
`The Disclosure of Ham
`
`4S. Ham was published on October 7, 2004 and is based on an application
`
`filed on November 27, 200 I. I am advised that Patent Owner does not dispute that
`
`Ham is prior art.
`
`49. Neither Patent Owner nor Mr. Bohannon provides a complete
`
`description of the relevant portions of Ham cited in the Petition. In order to
`
`address their arguments, I provide a complete summary of Ham below.
`
`50. Ham is directed to a " method and apparatus for driving a liquid crystal
`
`display device suitable for enhancing a picture quality." (Ex. 1005, Ham, Abstract).
`
`612530.2
`
`IS
`
`Page 20 of 41
`
`
`
`Ham recognizes that, if overdriven pixel data is applied " through the entire period
`
`of the frame" (as taught by the prior art), "picture quality may be deteriorated." (ld.
`
`'\152). To address this problem, Ham teaches applying overdriven pixel data in
`
`only the first half of the frame period, and applying non-overdriven data in the
`
`second half of the frame period. (ld. '\153).
`
`51. One issue raised by Patent Owner and Mr. Bohannon is whether
`
`Petitioners bave established that Ham "generates a plurality of data impulses to .
`
`one of the pixels within one frame period. " In this regard, Petitioners cited Figure
`
`5 of Ham, which provides an overview of Ham 's LCD driving device. (Paper I,
`
`Petition at 45; see also Paper 10, Decision at 11-13). As shown in Figure 5 of Ham
`
`(annotated and reproduced below), the "LCD driving apparatus includes a liquid
`
`crystal display panel 57 having a plurality of data lines 55 and a plurality of gate
`
`lines 56 crossing each other and having TFT's provided at each intersection to
`
`drive liquid clystal cells CIe." (Jd. '\137).
`
`612530.2
`
`19
`
`Page 21 of 41
`
`
`
`FIG .5
`
`52.
`
`The LCD driving apparatus also includes a data driver 53 that supplies
`
`data impulses 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 ,mu V for gate and source driver cin:uits. Data modulator 52 is
`
`connected between timing controller 51 and data driver 53 via switch 58 to
`
`modulate input data RGB. Line memory 59 is connected between timing
`
`controller 51 and switch 58. Switch 58 is utilized to select anyone of modulated
`
`data AM data and normal input RGB . ld.
`
`53. Using these components, the driving apparatus in Figure 5 generates
`
`two data impulses (i.e. , " modulated data" signal and "normal data" signal) for each
`
`pixel within one frame period. (ld. ~37; see also id. ~ [0040], Fig. 7C). Neither
`
`Patent Owner nor Mr. Bohannon address the operation of Ham's driving circuit (as
`
`612530.2
`
`20
`
`Page 22 of 41
`
`
`
`shown in Figure 5) as a whole. Rather, they address only one component in Figure
`
`5, i.e., the data modulator 52.
`
`54.
`
`In all events, as shown in the Table I of Ham, " modulated data" is
`
`selected from a look-up table based upon the digital data of the "previous frame"
`
`and the digital data of the "cUiTent frame ." (Id. '11'11 13, 17). As a result, the
`
`"modu lated data" signal is overdriven. The " nolmal data" s ignal is not overdriven.
`
`Rather, the "nonnal data" signal is a time shifted copy of the digital input signal.
`
`The output of the circuit disclosed by Ham is shown in Figure 78 (annotated and
`
`reproduced below). As can be seen, each frame period is split into two halves.
`
`During the first half of the frame period, an overdriven data impulse is applied to
`
`each pixel. During the second half of the frame period, a non-overdriven data
`
`impulse is applied.
`
`Overdriven) Data
`
`•
`
`"Modulated" (I.e., FIG 7 B
`GRAY SCAL~EVEL "No,m.I" O".
`AMV~ 0-
`/'----,.
`---'---
`MOD U LATE
`\
`I I i
`DATA
`(AM data) 0-
`MBL
`,/'
`'\
`.. I
`~'
`MBL 0'>--'
`i
`Frame Period
`
`BRIGHT(cid:173)
`NESS
`
`TIME
`
`\
`
`612530.2
`
`21
`
`Page 23 of 41
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments
`
`55.
`
`I have reviewed the Petition, including the discussion of Ham and the
`
`related claim charts. I concur with Petitioners that Ham anticipates Claims 4, 8
`
`and 9.
`
`56.
`
`I note that Patent Owner's Response and Mr. Bohannon's Declaration
`
`address only the last two limitations of Claim 4:
`
`gel/eratil/g a plurality of data impulses for each pixel within every
`
`frame period according to the frame data; and
`
`applyil/g the data impulses to ... one of the pixels within one frame
`
`period via the data line ... in order to cOl/trol a tral/smissiol/ rate of
`
`the liquid crystal device of the pixel.
`
`57.
`
`In addition, during his deposition, Mr. Bohannon confinned that,
`
`other than with respect to these two limitations, he is not offering any other
`
`opinions in this proceeding. (Ex. 1009, Bohannon Tr. 127:23-131: I 8). I address
`
`his opinions on these two limitations below.
`
`1.
`
`Ham Discloses the "Generating" Step
`
`58. Claim 4 requires "generating a pillrality of data impllises for each
`
`pixel within every frame period according to the frame data. " As discussed above,
`
`for each frame period, Ham 's driving method (and related dri ving apparatus)
`
`receives one piece of infonnation (i.e. , "digital video data") for each pixel in a
`
`frame and generates two data impulses for that pixel: (I) a modulated data voltage;
`
`612530.2
`
`22
`
`Page 24 of 41
`
`
`
`and (2) a normal data voltage. (Paper I, Petition at 48; see also Paper 10, Decision
`
`at 11-13). In my opinion, this establishes that Ham satisfies the "generating"
`
`limitation of Claim 4.
`
`59.
`
`This is not surprising since the relevant elements of Ham 's driving
`
`circuit are very similar to those shown in the driving circuit of the ' 843 Patent.
`
`Specifically, Ham 's source driver (i.e., the "data driver 53") 1 receives two digital
`
`signals (i.e., "the modulated data AMdata and the nOlmal data RGB") within one
`
`frame interval, "convert[s]" (i.e., generates) each of these di gital signals into two
`
`corresponding analog data signals (i.e., a plurality of data impulses) and "appl[ies]"
`
`these two data impulses "to the data lines 55 in each scanning period." (paper I,
`
`Petition at 48 citing, inler alia, Ex. 1005, Ham ~~ 40, 41).
`
`60.
`
`In the ' 843 Patent, the step of "generating a plurality of data impulses"
`
`is also performed by source driver 18 in very similar manner as quoted below:
`
`[W]hen the pixel data GN, GN(2) are generated, the
`
`source driver of the driving circuit 10 COli verts the pixel
`
`data GN, GN(2) illlo two correspolldillg data impulses
`
`1 The terms "source driver" and "data driver" are used interchangeably in the alt.
`
`They both refer to components that drive the "data lines" of an active matrix LCD
`
`panel , which are, in turn, connected to the "source" of a thin film transistor. (See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001 , ' 843 Patent, Figure 4) .
`
`612530.2
`
`23
`
`Page 25
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
