Paper 12
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: August 26, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00862
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Sony Corporation, Samsung Electronics Corporation, and
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Display Corporation, filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’843
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: August 26, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00862
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, Sony Corporation, Samsung Electronics Corporation, and
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Display Corporation, filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’843
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00862
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 41 (“Petition” or “Pet.”).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner, Surpass Tech Innovation LLC, filed a Preliminary Response.
`
`Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`Section 314 provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`
`“unless . . . 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.”
`
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review
`
`of claims 1–3 of the ’843 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’843 patent is involved in the following
`
`lawsuit: Surpass Tech Innovation LLC v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.,
`
`No. 14-cv-00337-LPS (D. Del.). Pet. 1.
`
`B. The ’843 Patent
`
`The ’843 patent relates to a method and system for driving an LCD
`
`panel. The panel includes a plurality of scan lines, a plurality of data lines,
`
`and a plurality of pixels. Each pixel is connected to a corresponding scan
`
`line and a corresponding data line, and each pixel includes a liquid crystal
`
`device and a switching device connected to the corresponding scan line, data
`
`line and liquid crystal device. Ex. 1001, 2:19–26, Fig. 4. The system
`
`includes a driving circuit for applying two data impulses to a pixel electrode
`
`within one frame period to avoid blurring. Id. at 1:8–12, 4:34–40.
`
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner filed a Corrected Petition. We refer to the Corrected Petition in
`rendering the decision.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00862
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`
`
`Claims 2 and 3 depend directly from claim 1, which is illustrative and
`
`is reproduced below.
`
`1. A driving circuit for driving an LCD panel, the LCD
`panel comprising:
`a plurality of scan lines;
`a plurality of data lines; and
`a plurality of pixels, each pixel being connected to a
`corresponding scan line and a corresponding data line, and each
`pixel comprising a liquid crystal device and a switching device
`connected to the corresponding scan line, the corresponding
`data line, and the liquid crystal device,
`the driving circuit comprising:
`a blur clear converter for receiving frame data every
`frame period, each frame data comprising a plurality of pixel
`data and each pixel data corresponding to a pixel, the blur clear
`converter delaying current frame data to generate delayed frame
`data and generating a plurality of overdriven pixel data within
`every frame period for each pixel;
`a source driver for generating a plurality of data impulses
`to each pixel according to the plurality of overdriven pixel data
`generated by the blur clear converter and applying the data
`impulses to the liquid crystal device of the pixel via the scan
`line connected to the pixel within one frame period in order to
`control transmission rate of the liquid crystal device; and
`a gate driver for applying a scan line voltage to the
`switch device of the pixel so that the data impulses can be
`applied to the liquid crystal device of the pixel.
`
`3
`
`
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00862
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3 are unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Suzuki,2 Nitta,3 and Lee4
`Jinda,5 Nitta, and Lee
`
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1 and 2
`
`1 and 3
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 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 in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term
`
`must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0156092 A1, published Aug. 21,
`2003 (Ex. 1003) (“Suzuki”).
`3 Japanese Laid-Open Application No. 2002-132224, published May 9, 2002
`(Ex. 1005) (“Nitta”).
`4 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0214473 A1, published Nov. 20,
`2003 (Ex. 1006) (“Lee”).
`5 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0044115 A1, published Apr. 18,
`2002 (Ex. 1007) (“Jinda”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00862
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that there is a typographical error in claim 1. Pet.
`
`
`
`24. Claim 1 recites “applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device
`
`of the pixel via the scan line.” Petitioner argues that “via the scan line”
`
`should be read as “via the data line.” Id. For purposes of applying prior art
`
`to the claims, Petitioner interprets claim 1 not as written, but rather as
`
`requiring applying data impulses via the data line. See, e.g., Pet. 26, 52.
`
`Patent Owner provides no construction for the phrase.
`
`Petitioner’s proffered correction would materially alter what would be
`
`required of claim 1. Instead of applying impulses to a particular line of the
`
`apparatus, the correction would require the application of impulses to a
`
`completely different line of the apparatus. We find that the proposed change
`
`is not a minor one, but a material change of what is required.
`
`A patent claim may be corrected through claim construction “only if
`
`(1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration
`
`of the claim language and the specification and (2) the prosecution history
`
`does not suggest a different interpretation of the claims.” Novo Indus., L.P.
`
`v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But “courts
`
`may not redraft claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their
`
`validity.” Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004). The burden is on Petitioner to show that a claim contains the
`
`kind of error that is considered a drafting error. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`In support of its assertions that a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention would have understood the reference “via the scan
`
`line” to be a drafting error meant to be “via the data line,” Petitioner relies
`
`upon a Declaration of Thomas Credelle, who has been retained as an expert
`
`witness by Petitioner for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1015.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00862
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`Mr. Credelle testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`
`
`time of the invention would have understood the recitation of “scan line” to
`
`be a typographical error, and that what was meant instead was “data line.”
`
`Ex. 1015 ¶ 62. In support of that assertion, Mr. Credelle directs attention to
`
`page 34 of the O’Mara Textbook (Ex. 1009) as showing a conventional
`
`Active Matrix LCD (“AMLCD”) panel, including data lines connected to a
`
`data input block and gate lines connected to a gate scan block. Mr. Credelle
`
`opines that the term “data line” from the O’Mara Textbook reflects the
`
`purpose of the line is to convey data signals, as opposed to scan or gate
`
`signals. Id. Mr. Credelle also directs attention to a description in the
`
`Specification of the ’843 patent that “data voltages are applied to the data
`
`lines 34 and transmitted to the pixel electrodes 30,” while “scan voltages are
`
`applied to the scan lines 32.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:47–51).
`
`We find that the underlying supporting evidence upon which Mr.
`
`Credelle relies is insufficient to support the assertion that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood
`
`the recitation of “scan line” in original claim 1 to be a typographical error,
`
`and that what was meant instead was “data line.” See 37 CFR §§ 42.1(d),
`
`42.65(a). Merely directing attention to a conventional LCD arrangement
`
`that shows data voltages applied to data lines, as opposed to scan lines, is
`
`insufficient to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood the claimed invention also to convey necessarily this
`
`arrangement. Here, for instance, we would want to know whether the claim
`
`1 phrase is unable to be construed in any other way than as the proposed
`
`corrected way. In other words, Petitioner’s evidence of showing a
`
`conventional LCD arrangement does not appear to us to be particularly
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00862
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`relevant in informing us of whether LCD arrangements must necessarily be
`
`
`
`configured in such a manner or they will not function to drive an LCD
`
`display, for example. Even Petitioner’s declarant opines that the
`
`“conventional” arrangement seen in the O’Mara Textbook is “typical,” (Ex.
`
`1015 ¶ 35), leading us to believe that other, albeit nonconventional
`
`arrangements, were possible though not necessarily “typical” at the time of
`
`the invention for driving LCD pixels.
`
`We agree that looking to the one place Petitioner and Mr. Credelle
`
`direct us to in the Specification of the ’843 patent is a factor to consider.
`
`The language of claim 1, however, is original. As such, that original claim
`
`also is part of the Specification. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598
`
`F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (original claims are part of the
`
`original specification and may themselves satisfy the written description
`
`requirement). Petitioner fails to address the fact that claim 1 is original
`
`language that also is part of the Specification of the ’843 patent.
`
`For all of these reasons, we do not construe claim 1 as suggested by
`
`Petitioner, but rather construe the claim as written. For purposes of this
`
`decision, we need not construe any other limitations of the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`B. Obviousness Grounds
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Suzuki, Nitta, and Lee, and claims 1 and
`
`3 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jinda, Nitta,
`
`and Lee. Pet. 12, 43.
`
`As explained above in the claim construction section, we interpret
`
`claim 1 as written and not as “corrected” as Petitioner proposes. As a result,
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00862
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`Petitioner has not shown how any of the relied upon references discloses
`
`
`
`applying data impulses via the scan line as claimed, nor has Petitioner shown
`
`that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would have known of the claimed feature. Petitioner’s reliance on Nitta’s
`
`disclosure, for example, of a source driver that conveys a plurality of data
`
`impulses to the pixels of an LCD panel via corresponding data lines (Pet. 26,
`
`52) for both proposed grounds of unpatentability is misplaced, as that is not
`
`what is claimed.
`
`For these reasons, the information presented does not show a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that
`
`claims 1 and 2 are obvious over Suzuki, Nitta, and Lee, or claims 1 and 3 are
`
`obvious over Jinda, Nitta, and Lee.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is not a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–3 of the
`
`’843 patent.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00862
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`
`
`Michelle Carniaux
`mcarniaux@kenyon.com
`
`Lew Popovski
`ptab@kenyon.com
`
`Jay Alexander
`jalexander@cov.com
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Wayne Helge
`whelge@dbjg.com
`
`Michael Casey
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`9
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
