`
`In Re
`
`Filed
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`: U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843
`
`:
`
`January 8, 2004
`
`Issued
`
`: April 10, 2007
`
`Inventor(s)
`
`: Yung-Hung Shen et al.
`
`Assignee
`
`: Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Title
`
`: DRIVING CIRCUIT OF A LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY PANEL AND
`RELATED DRIVING METHOD
`
`Trial No.
`
`: To Be Assigned
`
`Panel:
`
`: To Be Assigned
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 77331-4
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,202,843
`
`
`
`
`
`
`583127.3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) .......................................... 8 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................................ 8 
`B. 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................. 8 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................. 8 
`D. 
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ........................................... 8 
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................... 9 
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .................................... 9 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED .............................................................................................................. 9 
`A. 
`Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(1) .................................................................................................. 9 
`The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is Based
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ..................................................................... 10 
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘843 PATENT ........................................................................... 11 
`A. 
`Specification of the ‘843 Patent ..................................................................... 11 
`B. 
`Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 of the ‘843 Patent .......................................................... 17 
`C. 
`Prosecution History of the ‘843 Patent ........................................................... 17 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................... 18 
`VIII.  APPLICATION OF CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH INTER
`PARTES REVIEW IS REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ............. 19 
`A. 
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`anticipated by Jinda ....................................................................................... 20 
`1. 
`The Disclosure of Jinda ...................................................................... 20 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`583127.3
`
`i
`
`

`

`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`IX. 
`
`
`The European Counterpart of the ‘843 Patent Was Rejected In View of
`Jinda ................................................................................................... 24 
`Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are anticipated by Jinda ..................................... 27 
`3. 
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`obvious over Jinda in view of Miyai ................................................................ 32 
`1. 
`Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are obvious over Jinda in view of Miyai ............. 32 
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`anticipated by Adachi ..................................................................................... 37 
`1. 
`The Disclosure of Adachi .................................................................... 37 
`2. 
`The Japanese Counterpart of the ‘843 Patent Was Rejected In View of
`Adachi ................................................................................................. 40 
`Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are anticipated by Adachi .................................. 41 
`3. 
`Ground 4: Claims 4, 8 and 9 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
`anticipated by Ham ........................................................................................ 45 
`1. 
`The Disclosure of Ham ....................................................................... 45 
`2. 
`Claims 4, 8 and 9 are anticipated by Ham .......................................... 47 
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 49 
`
`D. 
`
`
`583127.3
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Bayer Healthcare Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc.,
`713 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................................... 33
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................................ 33, 34
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ....................................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ....................................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................ 10, 19, 32, 34
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ........................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ........................................................................................................... 9
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ...................................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c) ............................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ............................................................................................................. 50
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ........................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ........................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ........................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ........................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ............................................................................................................. 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ............................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`583127.3
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ............................................................................................................. 9
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) ............................................................................................................. 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ................................................................................................................. 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ................................................................................................................. 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ......................................................................................................... 18
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ......................................................................................................... 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. §42.103 ............................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ........................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) ........................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ........................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b) ........................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ................................................................................................. 9, 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ................................................................................................. 9, 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ..................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(2) ..................................................................................................... 1o
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..................................................................................................... 18
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3) ..................................................................................................... 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ............................................................................................... 19
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4)-(5) ............................................................................................... 19
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ............................................................................................................. 50
`37 C.F.R. §42.105 ............................................................................................................. 50
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ............................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. §42.108 ............................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`583127.3
`
`5831273
`
`ii
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 to Shen et al. (“‘843 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0044115 (“Jinda”)
`
`Japanese Laid Open Application Publication JPH0662355A
`(“Miyai”) and Certified English Translation Thereof
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0038369 (“Adachi”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0196229 (“Ham”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Appl. No. 10/707,741
`
`Select Documents from the Prosecution History of European Patent
`Application No. 03029643.8
`
`Select Documents from the Prosecution History of Japanese Laid-
`Open Patent Publication No. 4199655 and Certified English
`Translation Thereof
`
`
`583127.3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, Sharp Corporation
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Sharp”) respectfully petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of Claims 1, 4,
`
`8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (“the ‘843 Patent,” Ex. 1001), which is assigned to
`
`Surpass Tech Innovation LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Surpass”). As demonstrated below,
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that at least one of
`
`the Claims challenged in this Petition is unpatentable based on the prior art discussed
`
`below. Accordingly, institution of an IPR and initiation of trial is respectfully requested.
`
`Liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panels were well known in the prior art long before the
`
`‘843 Patent was filed. A typical LCD display contains a matrix of pixels, each of which
`
`contains a liquid crystal device (or pixel electrode). An LCD panel produces images by
`
`manipulating the light transmission rate (or transmittance) of the liquid crystal in each pixel.
`
`One well known problem with LCD displays is blurring of moving images. Blurring
`
`occurs when the liquid crystal is unable to change its light transmission rate fast enough
`
`between sequential video frames. To illustrate, video signals commonly have a frame rate
`
`of 60 frames/second (i.e., 60 discrete images are displayed every second). As such, to
`
`display all sixty images within one second, a pixel would ideally be able to reach a desired
`
`transmission rate within one 60th of a second. In other words, the “response time” of the
`
`pixel should be equal to, or less than, the frame period of the video signal. If a pixel is
`
`unable to obtain a desired transmission rate within a specified time (i.e., the response time
`
`
`583127.3
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`is too slow), the image may appear blurry to the viewer. This defect is particularly
`
`pronounced in video signals containing a high degree of motion (e.g., sporting events).
`
`The ‘843 Patent discloses and claims driving circuits and methods that purportedly
`
`improve the response time of an LCD panel, which in turn results in reduced blurring and
`
`improved picture quality. Specifically, the ‘843 Patent discusses and claims two techniques
`
`for improving the response time and resultant image quality of LCD displays: (1)
`
`“overdriving” the signal data; and (2) increasing the frequency of the signal data (e.g.,
`
`doubling the frequency of the signal from 60 frames/second to 120 frames/second).
`
`“Overdriving” involves applying a higher or a lower data impulse (i.e., voltage) to the
`
`pixel electrode. This voltage boost forces the liquid crystal material to react more quickly,
`
`thereby improving the image quality and reducing blurring. The ‘843 Patent admits that this
`
`overdriving technique is the “[s]ame as the prior art.” (Ex. 1001, ‘843 Patent, Col. 4:17-19
`
`(emphasis added)).
`
`The ‘843 Patent alleges that, while capable of improving response time and reducing
`
`blurring to some extent, overdriving alone does not adequately address blurring. According
`
`to the ‘843 Patent, in the prior art, only a single overdriven impulse was used in a single
`
`frame period, and as a result, the desired transmission rate would not be reached within a
`
`single frame. (See id. at Col. 2:7-12). As can be seen below, the overdriven signal (C2) of
`
`the “prior art” is purportedly unable to reach the desired transmission rate (T2) in a single
`
`frame period (N) because the response time is too slow.
`
`
`583127.3
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`To achieve the desired transmission rate within a single frame, the ‘843 Patent
`
`suggests applying two or more overdriven impulses to each pixel within a single frame
`
`period, as shown below. (Id. at Col. 4:20-40). This technique is commonly referred to as
`
`increasing the “refresh rate” of the display (e.g., from 60 Hz to 120 Hz). In the embodiment
`
`shown in Figure 6 of the ‘843 Patent (annotated and reproduced below), the “original” frame
`
`rate is “doubled” (see n+2 and n+3), such that two overdriven data impulses are applied in
`
`each single frame period (see N+1).
`
`
`583127.3
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 requires the use of (1) overdriven pixel data and (2) the generation of a
`
`plurality of data impulses within a single frame, whereas Claims 4, 8, and 9 only require the
`
`latter. Both of these concepts were known in the prior art. For example, as shown below,
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2002/0044115 to Jinda and 2001/0038369 to
`
`Adachi (both assigned to Sharp) disclose these concepts:.
`
`
`583127.3
`
`Figure 5 of Jinda
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Fig. 11 of Adachi (partial)
`
`
`
`
`
`Both Jinda and Adachi identify the same problem as the ‘843 Patent—the need to
`
`improve the response time of liquid crystal displays to eliminate blurring—and disclose the
`
`exact same solution. As shown above, Jinda teaches applying two or more overdriven
`
`impulses to each pixel a “plurality of times within one vertical synchronization interval”
`
`(i.e., a single frame period). (See, e.g., Ex. 1002, Jinda, ¶ [0010]; see also ¶¶ [0007], [0041]-
`
`[0042]) (emphasis added). Similarly, as also shown above, Adachi teaches that the input
`
`signal should be subject to “overshoot driving” (i.e., overdriving) and “written at a double
`
`speed to the liquid crystal panel” (i.e., at 120 Hz) to reach the desired transmittance within a
`
`single frame period. (Ex. 1004, Adachi, ¶ [0157]) (emphasis added). Not surprisingly, the
`
`above figures from Jinda and Adachi are strikingly similar to Figure 6 of the ‘843 Patent.
`
`
`583127.3
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`In addition, the methods of increasing the refresh rate of an LCD display recited in
`
`Claims 4, 8 and 9 (e.g., doubling the frame rate) are also taught by Ham. 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. (Ex. 1005, Ham, ¶ [0053]). This is
`
`shown, for example, in Figure 7B of Ham (annotated and reproduced below):
`
`
`
`The remaining elements recited in Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 (e.g., scan lines, data lines,
`
`switching devices) are merely known components essential to the operation of any LCD
`
`display. Adachi and Ham explicitly discloses each of these elements. Although Jinda does
`
`not show some of these known elements in the drawings, they are disclosed by Miyai, which
`
`is incorporated by reference into Jinda. As such, there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail in establishing that: (1) Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 are anticipated by each of
`
`Jinda and Adachi under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); and Claims 4, 8, and 9 are anticipated by Ham
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`583127.3
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Moreover, given that Jinda expressly teaches one of ordinary skill the art to
`
`combine the disclosed driving circuit with the LCD panel of Miyai, there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are also
`
`obvious over Jinda in view of Miyai.
`
`Finally, although the ‘843 Patent issued without any substantive prosecution by the
`
`U.S. Patent Office, Surpass’ predecessor (“Applicant”) was unsuccessful in obtaining similar
`
`claims in Europe and Japan. The European Patent Office (“EPO”) rejected virtually identical
`
`claims in view of the Jinda reference discussed above. In response, the Applicant
`
`abandoned the application. And, the Japanese Patent Office (“JPO”) rejected similar claims
`
`to those at issue in this Petition in view of a foreign counterpart to the Adachi reference
`
`discussed above, finding that Adachi disclosed each claim element. The Applicant did not
`
`(and could not) challenge any of these findings. Although Jinda and Adachi were cited
`
`references in the ‘843 Patent, the USPTO was never made aware that the EPO and JPO
`
`respectively relied upon these references to reject claims that are virtually identical to the
`
`claims of the ‘843 Patent.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests Inter Partes Review of
`
`Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 of the ‘843 Patent.
`
`
`583127.3
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics
`
`Manufacturing Company of America are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`B.
`The ‘843 Patent is the subject of litigation in the District of Delaware, namely,
`
`Surpass Tech Innovation LLC v. Sharp Corporation et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00338-LPS (D.
`
`Del.) (“the Litigation”). Petitioner is among the named defendants in that Action.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`C.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioner provides the following
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel, as well as their respective service information.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Anthony F. Lo Cicero (Reg. No. 29,403)
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (212) 336–8110
`Facsimile: (212) 336–8001
`E-mail: alocicero@arelaw.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Brian A. Comack (Reg. No. 45,343)
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (212) 336–8098
`Facsimile: (212) 336–8001
`E-mail: Sharp-843IPR@arelaw.com
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`D.
`Service information (by e-mail, postal mailing, or hand-delivery) for lead and back-up
`
`counsel is provided in the above designation of lead and back-up counsel.
`
`
`583127.3
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`III.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The undersigned hereby provides authorization to charge Deposit Account No. 01-
`
`1785 to cover the fee of $23,000 for this Petition, as specified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a). If
`
`this amount is insufficient or excessive, the Commissioner is authorized to deduct any
`
`underpayment from, or credit any overpayment to, Deposit Account No. 01-1785.
`
`IV.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that: (1) the ‘843 Patent is available for Inter Partes Review and
`
`(2) the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) do not bar or estop Petitioner from
`
`requesting Inter Partes Review of any claim of the ‘843 Patent on the grounds raised herein.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED
`Petitioner requests Inter Partes Review and initiation of trial under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108 and cancellation of Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 of the ‘843 Patent as unpatentable based
`
`on the statutory grounds set forth and explained below. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.6(c) and 42.63, a copy of the ‘843 Patent is submitted as Exhibit 1001. The publicly
`
`available records in the Office indicate that the ‘843 Patent is currently assigned to Surpass
`
`Tech Innovation LLC.
`
`A.
`
`Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(1)
`Petitioner requests Inter Partes Review of Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 of the ‘843 Patent.
`
`
`583127.3
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is
`Based Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`This Petition for Inter Partes Review is based on the following references, which are
`
`all prior art to the ‘843 Patent:
`
`(1) U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0044115 (“Jinda,” Ex. 1002), which
`
`was published on April 18, 2002 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
`
`(2) Japanese Laid-Open Publication No. HEI 6-62355 (“Miyai,” Ex. 1003), which was
`
`published on March 4, 1994 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
`
`(3) U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0038369 (“Adachi,” Ex. 1004),
`
`which was published on November 8, 2001 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); and
`
`(4) U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0196229 (“Ham,” Ex. 1005), which
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was published on October 7, 2004 and is a
`
`continuation of an application filed on November 27, 2001, nearly two years before the
`
`earliest priority date of the ‘843 Patent.
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 on the following specific
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
`
`by Jinda;
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`
`Jinda in view of Miyai;
`
`
`583127.3
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
`
`by Adachi;
`
`Ground 4: Claims 4, 8 and 9 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
`
`Ham.
`
`For the reasons set forth herein, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail in establishing that at least one of Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 is unpatentable based on
`
`Grounds 1-4.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘843 PATENT
`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.
`
`10/707,741 (“the ‘741 Application”, Ex. 1006), filed on January 8, 2004. The ‘843 Patent
`
`claims priority to a Taiwanese patent application, TW92132122A, filed on November 17,
`
`2003.
`
`Specification of the ‘843 Patent
`A.
`The ‘843 Patent generally relates to circuits and methods for driving an LCD panel.
`
`The LCD panel 30 described in the ‘843 Patent includes a number of well-known
`
`components common in prior art LCD modules, including a plurality of scan lines 32 (also
`
`called gate lines), a plurality of data lines 34, and a plurality of pixels 36. (Ex. 1001, ‘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.
`
`
`583127.3
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`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 corresponding 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). The LCD
`
`panel 30 is driven by applying scan line voltages to the scan lines 32 to turn 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.).
`
`
`
`As discussed above, the time that the pixel electrode needs to react to a driving
`
`voltage is called “response time.” As was well known, 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. In this regard, the ‘843 Patent explains that a delay in the response time of an LCD
`
`
`583127.3
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`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).
`
`In this regard, the ‘843 Patent discusses and claims two, previously known,
`
`techniques for improving the response time and resultant image quality of LCD displays: (1)
`
`“overdriving” the signal data; and (2) increasing the refresh rate (e.g., doubling) of the
`
`individual pixels.
`
`As the ‘843 Patent explains, “overdriving” involves “applying a higher or a lower data
`
`impulse to the pixel electrode to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal
`
`molecules, so that the pixel can reach the predetermined gray level in a predetermined
`
`frame period.” (Id. at Col. 2:2-7). In simple terms, 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. This decreases the difference between the before
`
`and after pixel values and the amount of time required for the pixel to change state.
`
`The ‘843 Patent admits that the overdriving concept was known in the prior art. (See
`
`id. at Col. 4:17-19 (“Same as the prior art, the larger the value of the pixel data is [i.e.
`
`overdriving], the higher the voltage of the corresponding data impulse is, and the larger the
`
`gray level value is.”) (emphasis added)). In this regard, the ‘843 Patent states that the
`
`“conventional overdriving method” taught by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002-
`
`0050965 A1 to Oda et al. could be used to increase LCD response speed. (Id. at Cols. 1:60-
`
`2:11) (emphasis added). Generally, an overdrive value is computed by comparing a given
`
`
`583127.3
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`pixel’s previous gray level (also referred to as “transmission rate”) with the pixel’s current
`
`gray level in order to predict whether the gray level is increasing or decreasing. (Id. at Col.
`
`5:34-44). The ‘843 Patent does not add anything new to this known method for computing
`
`the overdrive value.
`
`The ‘843 Patent alleges that, while capable of improving response time to a certain
`
`extent, overdriving alone does not achieve adequate performance, namely reaching a
`
`desired transmission rate within a single frame period. (See id. at Col. 2:7-12, Fig. 2). As
`
`shown in Figure 2 of the ‘843 Patent (reproduced below), a single overdriven signal C2 is
`
`purportedly unable to reach a target transmission rate T2 within a single frame period N.
`
`Rather, according to this Figure, in the prior art, C2 would only reach T2 in the next frame
`
`period, N+1. According to the disclosure, since the pixels are unable to reach
`
`predetermined grey levels within a given frame period, the image could experience blurring.
`
`(Id. at Col. 1:21-37).
`
`
`583127.3
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`To enable a signal to reach a target transmission rate T2 within a single frame
`
`period, the ‘843 Patent suggests applying two or more overdriven impulses to each pixel
`
`within the given frame period. (Id. at Col. 4:20-40). For example, as shown in Figure 6 of
`
`the ‘843 Patent, each single frame period is divided into two segments. For example, the
`
`Frame N+1 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+1). This method allegedly allows the
`
`signal to reach a target transmission rate (T2) within a single frame period (e.g., N+1). (Id.
`
`at Cols. 3:15-4:43, Col. 5:45-55, Col. 1:39-41).
`
`Figure 3 (reproduced below, left) schematically illustrates an embodiment of the
`
`circuit for driving the LCD panel 30. The driving circuit 10 includes a blur clear converter 14,
`
`a source driver 18, and a gate driver 20. The blur clear converter 14 continuously receives,
`
`
`
`
`583127.3
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`through a signal controller 12, a plurality of frame data G. The frame data includes the data
`
`necessary to drive all of the pixels of the panel 30. The blur clear converter 14 then
`
`generates the overdriven pixel data for each pixel within each frame period based on the
`
`frame data. (Id. at Col. 3:24-28). Figure 5 (reproduced below, right) shows two overdriven
`
`pixel data GN+1 and GN+1(2) generated by the blur clear converter 14 for each pixel in the
`
`frame period N+1.
`
`
`
`The source driver 18 then converts the overdriven pixel data (e.g., GN+1 and
`
`GN+1(2)) into the corresponding data impulses. (Id. at Col. 3:28-36). The data impulses
`
`are applied to the liquid crystal device 39 of a pixel 36 within the corresponding frame period
`
`(e.g., at each half of the frame period N+1 as shown in Fig. 5) via the data line 34 in order to
`
`control the transmission rate of the liquid crystal device 39. (Id. at Col. 4:8-14). The gate
`
`driver 20 generates the corresponding scan line voltage and applies it to the scan line 32 to
`
`turn on the switching device 38 of the pixel 36 so that the data impulses from the source
`
`driver 18 can be applied to the liquid crystal device 39 of the pixel. (Id. at Col. 3:28-36).
`
`
`583127.3
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Claims 1, 4, 8 and 9 of the ‘843 Patent
`B.
`Independent Claim 1 of the ‘843 Patent is an apparatus claim directed to a driving
`
`circuit for driving an LCD panel. The claimed driving circuit “generat[es] a plurality of
`
`overdriven pixel data within every frame period for each pixel.” (Id. at Claim 1) (emphasis
`
`added). In other words, Claim 1 requires circuitry for applying two or more overdriven
`
`impulses to each pixel within a frame period, as shown in Figures 5 and 6 above.
`
`Claims 4, 8 and 9 are method claims directed to methods of driving an LCD display.
`
`Claim 4 is in independent form. In contrast to Claim 1, method Claims 4, 8 and 9 are only
`
`directed to “generating a plurality of data impulses for each pixel within every frame period
`
`according to the frame data.” (Id. at Claim 4) (emphasis added). Method claims 4-9 do not
`
`require performing the overdrive technique.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘843 Patent
`C.
`The claims of the ‘843 Patent were allowed during prosecution without being the
`
`subject of any prior art rejection. In the Statement of Reason for Allowance, the Examiner
`
`identified two prior art references, including Ham, as relevant. (Ex. 1006, pp. 214-215).
`
`With respect to Ham, the Examiner stated:
`
`Ham (US 20040196229) shows apply[ing] the normal data to
`the liquid crystal panel at the initial half period of the frame after
`supplying of the modulated data to the liquid crystal panel
`during the later half period of the frame, thus a desired
`brightness level is a