UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent No. 7,202,843 B2
`_______________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent No. 7,202,843 B2
`_______________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Claim 4 is Obvious over Suzuki in view of Nitta ................................................ 3
`
`Patent Owner Has Not Rebutted the Evidence of Motivation to Combine
`A.
`Suzuki and Nitta ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`Suzuki’s Disclosure Is, At Minimum, Consistent with an AMLCD ............ 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“Source” and “Gate” Drivers ..................................................................... 8
`
`“Moving Images” ..................................................................................... 10
`
`“Hold Drive” ............................................................................................ 11
`
`4. Overdriving .............................................................................................. 13
`
`III. Claim 5 is Obvious over Suzuki in view of Nitta ............................................. 13
`
`IV. Claim 7 is Obvious over Suzuki in view of Nitta ............................................. 15
`
`V.
`
` Claim 9 is Obvious over Suzuki in view of Nitta ............................................. 17
`
`VI. Claims 6 and 8 are Obvious over Suzuki in view of Nitta ............................... 18
`
`VII. Claim 4 Does Not Require Overdriven Data Impulses .................................... 18
`
`VIII.The IPR Review Process Is Not Unconstitutional ........................................... 21
`
`IX. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 22
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. Sony-1001
`Ex. Sony-1002
`Ex. Sony-1003
`
`Ex. Sony-1004
`
`Ex. Sony-1005
`
`Ex. Sony-1006
`
`Ex. Sony-1007
`
`Ex. Sony-1008
`
`Exhibit List (Updated)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843
`Publicly Available File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0156092 (August
`21, 2003)
`Japanese Laid Open Patent Application No. 2002-132224 (May
`9, 2002)
`Certified Translation of Japanese Laid Open Patent Application
`No. 2002-132224
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0044115
`(April 18, 2002)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0048247 (March
`13, 2003)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0196229
`(October 7, 2004)
`Ernst Lueder, LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS (2001)
`Ex. Sony-1009
`Ex. Sony-1010 William C. O’Mara, LIQUID CRYSTAL FLAT PANEL DISPLAYS
`(1993)
`IEEE 100: THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE
`STANDARDS TERMS (7th ed., 2000)
`Ex. Sony-1012 MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL
`TERMS (6th ed., 2003)
`Ex. Sony-1013 MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (5th ed., 2002)
`Ex. Sony-1014
`Declaration of Thomas Credelle
`Curriculum Vitae of Thomas Credelle
`Ex. Sony-1015
`Ex. Sony-1016
`Supplemental Declaration of Thomas Credelle (served, not
`filed)
`Certification of Translation (for Japanese Laid Open Patent
`Application No. 2002-132224) (served, not filed)
`Transcript of September 29, 2015 Telephonic Hearing (see
`PTAB Order, Paper No. 16)
`Transcript of January 27, 2016 Deposition of William K.
`Bohannon
`Supplemental Declaration of Thomas L. Credelle
`
`Ex. Sony-1011
`
`Ex. Sony-1017
`
`Ex. Sony-1018
`
`Ex. Sony-1019
`
`Ex. Sony-1020
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Petitioners respectfully submit this Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. To
`
`frame the issues, we begin by reviewing what is and what is not in dispute.
`
`In the Petition, Petitioners showed that the subject matters of claims 4-9 of
`
`the ’843 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`of 2003 over Suzuki in view of Nitta. Petition at 8-30. In particular, Petitioners
`
`showed that Suzuki discloses all steps of the “method for driving a liquid crystal
`
`display (LCD) panel” recited in claims 4-9 of the ’843 patent, but does not
`
`expressly disclose all details of the LCD panel recited in the preamble of claim 4.
`
`Id. at 9-21. Petitioners further showed that Nitta discloses an active matrix LCD
`
`(“AMLCD”) panel, and therefore, discloses the recited LCD panel details. Id.
`
`Petitioners then showed that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine the driving method of Suzuki with the AMLCD panel of
`
`Nitta. Id. at 9-15.
`
`In the Decision on Institution (“DI”), the Board agreed with Petitioners that,
`
`on the record before the Board, Suzuki discloses all of the claimed method steps.
`
`DI 9-12. In response to the argument in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response that
`
`the claimed method requires the application of two or more overdriven data
`
`impulses, the Board found that, assuming Patent Owner’s narrow construction,
`
`“Petitioner has accounted for this limitation in the prior art.” DI 5. In its
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Response, Patent Owner does not rebut Petitioners’ showing, and the Board’s
`
`preliminary conclusion, that Suzuki discloses all method steps recited in claims 4,
`
`6 and 8, and specifically does not contest the Board’s finding that Suzuki discloses
`
`the application of two or more overdriven data impulses. Therefore, there is no
`
`dispute on those points.
`
`Patent Owner does challenge the sufficiency of Petitioners’ showing that
`
`Suzuki discloses the limitations of claims 5 and 9, but does not provide evidence,
`
`through expert testimony or otherwise, that those limitations are in fact absent from
`
`Suzuki. Patent Owner’s insufficiency argument ignores Suzuki’s explicit
`
`disclosures, and should be rejected. Patent Owner also argues that Suzuki fails to
`
`disclose the limitation of claim 7, but that argument is based on narrow
`
`construction of claim 7 that is belied by the words of the claim, and, likewise,
`
`should be rejected.
`
`In the DI, the Board also agreed with Petitioners that, on the record before
`
`the Board, Nitta discloses the details of the LCD panel recited in the preamble of
`
`claim 4. DI at 5. Patent Owner does not contest the Board’s finding regarding
`
`Nitta. Therefore, there is no dispute on that point.
`
`Aside from Patent Owner’s meritless arguments about dependent claims 5, 7
`
`and 9, the only material dispute before the Board is whether a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Suzuki’s driving method
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`with the AMLCD panel of Nitta. In the Petition, Petitioners made a detailed
`
`showing on this issue that was fully supported by, among other evidence, the
`
`references themselves and the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Thomas Credelle.
`
`Petition at 8-30; Credelle Decl. (Ex. 1014) at ¶¶ 53-55. In response, Patent Owner
`
`argues that Petitioners have not sufficiently shown that Suzuki’s driving method is
`
`compatible with the AMLCD panel of Nitta, but, notably, does not provide
`
`evidence and does not argue that Suzuki’s driving method is not compatible with
`
`the AMLCD panel of Nitta.
`
`Instead, Patent Owner erects a straw man and attempts to knock it down.
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner argues as if the issue before the Board is whether
`
`Suzuki itself discloses an AMLCD panel, and, therefore, whether Suzuki
`
`anticipates claims 4-9. Although we address Patent Owner’s straw man argument
`
`(because Patent Owner mischaracterizes Suzuki’s disclosure), the issue here is not
`
`whether Suzuki anticipates. The issue is whether it would have been obvious to
`
`combine Suzuki’s driving method with the AMLCD panel of Nitta. Patent Owner
`
`comes nowhere close to showing that the Board’s preliminary conclusion on that
`
`issue is incorrect.
`
`II. Claim 4 is Obvious over Suzuki in view of Nitta
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner Has Not Rebutted the Evidence of Motivation to
`Combine Suzuki and Nitta
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As noted above, Patent Owner does not dispute that Suzuki discloses all of
`
`the method steps of claim 4 and that Nitta discloses the preamble recitations
`
`regarding the LCD panel. See P.O. Resp. at 22-35. Mr. Credelle testified in
`
`support of the Petition that “a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`purported invention of the ’843 Patent would have had reason to combine the
`
`conventional AMLCD panel described by Nitta with the driving circuit taught by
`
`Suzuki.” Credelle Decl. (Ex. 1014) at ¶ 53. Patent Owner’s expert, William
`
`Bohannon, does not contradict Mr. Credelle’s testimony: nowhere does Mr.
`
`Bohannon opine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
`
`motivated to combine the driving circuit of Suzuki with the AMLCD panel of
`
`Nitta. See Bohannon Decl. (Ex. 2022) ¶¶ 32-48. Mr. Credelle provided a detailed
`
`explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to combine the driving method of Suzuki with the AMLCD panel of
`
`Nitta. Credelle Decl. (Ex. 1014) at ¶¶ 53-55. Among other things, Mr. Credelle
`
`testified that:
`
` Suzuki and Nitta both are directed to the same recognized problem—
`
`blurring in the display of motion pictures caused by the slow response
`
`time of liquid crystal cells—in the same field, LCD devices. Credelle
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1014) at ¶¶ 32-34, 54.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
` Suzuki and Nitta both address the problem in a similar way: they each
`
`apply multiple data pulses to each pixel of an LCD device every frame
`
`period to accelerate the liquid crystal response. Credelle Decl. (Ex.
`
`1014) at ¶ 54.
`
` “[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
`
`driving circuit of Suzuki could be used to drive the conventional
`
`AMLCD panel of Nitta.” Credelle Decl. (Ex. 1014) at ¶ 54.
`
` Use of a source driver to send data voltage on the data lines of an LCD
`
`device was well known in the art. Credelle Decl. (Ex. 1014) at ¶¶ 38-39.
`
`“[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the
`
`data lines of the conventional LCD panel described by Nitta were used to
`
`convey data voltages to the pixels of the LCD panel, and that those data
`
`lines could be used in the same manner in the driving circuit of Suzuki.”
`
`Credelle Decl. (Ex. 1014) at ¶ 54.
`
` “[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
`
`data voltages carried by the data lines of Nitta are applied to the liquid
`
`crystal elements of the pixels of the LCD panel to effect a change in the
`
`brightness level, and the data voltages generated by the driving circuit of
`
`Suzuki would likewise be applied to the liquid crystal elements of the
`
`LCD panel for the same purpose.” Credelle Decl. (Ex. 1014) at ¶ 54.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
` Use of a gate driver to send scan voltages to switching device of a pixel
`
`in an AMLCD panel was well known in the art. Credelle Decl. (Ex.
`
`1014) at ¶¶ 45-46. “[A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the purported invention of the ’843 Patent would have had reason to
`
`combine the application of scan voltages as described by Nitta with the
`
`driving circuit taught by Suzuki.” Credelle Decl. (Ex. 1014) at ¶ 55.
`
` “Suzuki teaches a driving circuit that generates and applies multiple data
`
`voltages to the pixels of an LCD panel within a single frame period, and
`
`teaches that the driving circuit includes a gate driver.” Credelle Decl.
`
`(Ex. 1014) at ¶ 55. “Nitta teaches a gate driver that conveys scan
`
`voltages to the scan lines” of an AMLCD panel. Id. “Accordingly . . . a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the purported invention of
`
`the ’843 Patent would have combined the application of scan voltages as
`
`described by Nitta with the driving circuit disclosed by Suzuki.” Id.
`
`Mr. Bohannon does not address, much less contradict, any of the elements of
`
`Mr. Credelle’s explanation. Instead, Mr. Bohannon merely states that Mr. Credelle
`
`did not say enough. Mr. Bohannon criticizes Mr. Credelle for supposedly not
`
`evaluating “whether Suzuki is compatible with an AMLCD panel” (Bohannon
`
`Decl. (Ex. 2022) at ¶ 41), ignoring Mr. Credelle’s above quoted discussion of
`
`source drivers/data lines and gate drivers/scan lines in Suzuki and Nitta that goes
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`directly to that point. Notably, Mr. Bohannon does not say that Suzuki’s driving
`
`method is not compatible with an AMLCD panel. Bohannon Decl. (Ex. 2022) ¶
`
`41. (When repeatedly asked on cross examination to confirm that he had
`
`expressed no opinion that Suzuki driving method is incompatible with Nitta, Mr.
`
`Bohannon evaded the question and ultimately refused to answer. See Bohannon
`
`Tran. (Ex. 1019) 16:10-27:8.)
`
`Instead, Mr. Bohannon states that Suzuki’s driving method is compatible
`
`with another type of LCD, a “passive matrix LCD”. Bohannon Decl. (Ex. 2022) ¶
`
`42. But even assuming, for argument’s sake, that is correct, it is beside the point.
`
`Patent Owner submits no evidence, through Mr. Bohannon or otherwise, that
`
`compatibility of Suzuki’s driving method with “passive matrix LCD technology”
`
`rules out compatibility with an AMLCD. The fact that Mr. Bohannon opines that
`
`Suzuki is compatible with passive matrix LCD technology, but avoids the question
`
`whether Suzuki is incompatible with AMLCD, speaks volumes.
`
`Rather than rebut Mr. Credelle’s testimony that it would have been obvious
`
`to combine Suzuki’s driving method with Nitta’s AMLCD panel, Patent Owner
`
`devotes page after page to an attempted rebuttal of Mr. Credelle’s opinion, first
`
`expressed during cross examination, that Suzuki discloses an AMLCD panel.
`
`Credelle Tr. (Ex. 2004) at 70:10-14; 71:10-18; 72:1-20. However, the Board need
`
`not find that Suzuki in fact discloses an AMLCD panel (and, therefore, anticipates)
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`in order to conclude finally that the claims are unpatentable on the instituted
`
`grounds of obviousness.
`
`Nevertheless, because Patent Owner argues that Suzuki does not disclose an
`
`AMLCD, and because the challenged opinion of Mr. Credelle, at minimum,
`
`confirms the conclusion that it would have been obvious to use Suzuki’s driving
`
`method with an AMLCD, we respond to Patent Owner’s argument below.
`
`B.
`
`Suzuki’s Disclosure Is, At Minimum, Consistent with an AMLCD
`
`
`
`Patent Owner addresses four elements of Suzuki’s disclosure that Mr.
`
`Credelle testified support his conclusion that Suzuki’s LCD panel is an AMLCD:
`
`(1) Suzuki’s use of the terms “source” and “gate” driver; (2) Suzuki’s disclosure
`
`that the LCD panel is able to display “moving images”; (3) Suzuki’s reference to
`
`the LCD panel as a “hold drive”; and (4) Suzuki’s application of overdriving to the
`
`LCD panel. P.O. Resp. 23-29; Bohannon Decl. (Ex. 2022) at ¶¶ 34-40. We
`
`respond on each of these points below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`“Source” and “Gate” Drivers
`
`Suzuki drives its panel with a gate driver (18) and a source driver (16).
`
`Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 47; Fig. 1. The names of the drivers, i.e., “gate” and
`
`“source,” would have, at the least, suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`that Suzuki's panel is an AMLCD because those terms are associated with
`
`transistors. Credelle Tr. (Ex. 2004) at 70:5-14, 72:1-20, 127:13-20; Credelle Sup.
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Decl. (Ex. 1020) at ¶¶ 8-11. Typically the switch for each pixel of an AMLCD
`
`panel is a thin film transistor (“TFT”). Credelle Decl. (Ex. 1014) at ¶¶ 40-44;
`
`Credelle Sup. Decl. (Ex. 1020) at ¶¶ 10-11; Credelle Tr. (Ex. 2004) at 59:6-61:6.
`
`A TFT transistor commonly has three electrodes: a gate (for turning on and off the
`
`transistor), a source, and a drain. Credelle Sup. Decl. (Ex. 1020) at ¶ 10. In a
`
`typical AMLCD panel, the gate of each of the TFT transistors is connected to a
`
`gate line, which is driven by a gate driver. Credelle Decl. (Ex. 1014) at ¶¶ 45-46;
`
`Credelle Sup. Decl. (Ex. 1020) at ¶ 11; see also Ex. 1010 [OMara] at 48-49, Ex.
`
`1009 [Lueder] at 25 and Ex. 1007 [Ham] at Fig. 5, ¶¶ 34-43. The source of each of
`
`the TFT transistors is connected to a source line, which is driven by a source
`
`driver. Id.
`
`Although Mr. Bohannon has testified that Suzuki’s description of gate and
`
`source signals does not indicate “with certainty” that Suzuki discloses an AMLCD
`
`panel, during cross examination, he also testified that the terms “source” and
`
`“gate” are terms used with active matrix.1 Bohannon Decl. (Ex. 2022) at ¶ 40
`
`(emphasis added); Bohannon Tr. (Ex. 1019) at 141:5-10.
`
`
`Passive matrix LCD panels do not include transistors (and did not in the
`
`1
`
`2003 timeframe). See Bohannon Tr. (Ex. 1019) at 81:8-83:3; Credelle Sup. Decl.
`
`(Ex. 1020) at ¶¶ 8, 10.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`“Moving Images”
`
`In the Background section, Suzuki introduces the problem of blurring of
`
`“moving images” in the context of LCD displays used in “personal computers,
`
`television sets, and so on.” Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 4 (emphasis added). Therefore,
`
`the term “moving images” in Suzuki encompasses full motion video, as displayed
`
`by a television. Suzuki discloses data corresponding to such “moving images”
`
`being supplied to the liquid crystal cells in the panel at a frame rate of about 60
`
`frames per second, with each frame period lasting 16.6 ms. Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶
`
`39. At the least, the fact that Suzuki’s LCD panel displays full motion video at a
`
`frame rate of 60 frames per second would have suggested to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art that Suzuki’s panel is an AMLCD panel, and not a passive matrix
`
`LCD panel. Credelle Sup. Decl. (Ex. 1020) at ¶¶ 12-14. Typical passive matrix
`
`LCD panels (e.g., 640x480 resolution) cannot react quickly enough to display
`
`motion video without unacceptable smear. Id. at ¶ 13. As of 2003, typical passive
`
`matrix LCD panels had a response time on the order of 50-60 ms at best, far
`
`greater than the 16.6 ms frame period disclosed in Suzuki. Id. In contrast, in the
`
`2003 timeframe, AMLCD panels had a response time less than or equal to the
`
`frame period disclosed in Suzuki. Id. The response time of a typical passive
`
`matrix LCD display simply would not have been fast enough to display motion
`
`video with acceptable quality. See Credelle Sup. Decl. (Ex. 1020) at ¶ 13.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`“Hold Drive”
`
`Suzuki states that the LCD device in one of its embodiments “operates on
`
`hold drive.” Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 39. Suzuki states that with “hold drive,” “data
`
`corresponding to the same image data are supplied to the liquid crystal cells over a
`
`period of one frame (16.6 ms) for displaying a single frame of the liquid crystal
`
`panel.” Id. During his deposition, Mr. Credelle testified that the term "hold drive"
`
`as used in Suzuki is a term that applies to active matrix LCD panels, but not
`
`passive matrix LCD panels. Credelle Tr. (Ex. 2004) at 121:11-123:4. Mr.
`
`Credelle explained that in order for data signals, which are analog drive voltages,
`
`to be “held” for a frame time, there must be a switch (e.g., a TFT) at the pixel (as
`
`in an AMLCD panel). Credelle Sup. Decl. (Ex. 1020) at ¶ 16. Fig. 2 of Suzuki,
`
`reproduced below, shows the applied voltage VS held of the pixel at level (a) for
`
`the first half frame SF1, and level (c) for the second half frame SF2. Suzuki (Ex.
`
`1003) at Fig. 2; Credelle Sup. Decl. (Ex. 1020) at ¶ 16.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In contrast, a passive matrix LCD has no means to “hold” the voltage on a
`
`pixel for half of a frame period; the driving voltage is applied to a pixel for one line
`
`time, e.g., 1/240 of a frame period in the typical 640 by 480 resolution display in
`
`existence as of 2003. Credelle Sup. Decl. (Ex. 1020) at ¶ 17-18.
`
`Mr. Bohannon testified that the term “hold drive” in Suzuki refers to a frame
`
`memory or buffer. Bohannon Decl. (Ex. 2022) at ¶ 38. That is simply incorrect.
`
`Suzuki contrasts a “conventional hold drive system” with a CRT display. Suzuki
`
`(Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 4, 5. However, frame buffers were used as of 2003 with CRTs.
`
`Credelle Sup. Decl. (Ex. 1020) at ¶ 15. Therefore, the use of a frame memory was
`
`not a point of contrast in 2003 between CRT displays and a “conventional hold
`
`drive system.”
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Overdriving
`
`
`
`During his deposition, Mr. Credelle testified that the term “overdriving” as
`
`used in Suzuki is applicable to AMLCD panels (especially in the 2003 timeframe),
`
`but he was not sure how overdriving would be implemented in a passive matrix
`
`LCD panel. Credelle Tr. (Ex. 2004) at 43:8-44:9. Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`that “overdriving” is applicable to active matrix LCD panels, but argues that Mr.
`
`Credelle is mistaken that overdriving is not used in passive matrix LCD panels.
`
`P.O. Resp. at 29. Patent Owner relies on two U.S. patents to allegedly show that
`
`overdriving was used in passive matrix LCDs prior to the date of Suzuki—U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,642,133 (“Scheffer,” Ex. 2019) and U.S. Patent No. 5,280,280
`
`(“Hotto,” Ex. 2020). (P.O. Resp. at 29-30.) But neither of these patents describes
`
`overdriving. Credelle Sup. Decl. (Ex. 1020) at ¶¶ 19-24.
`
`III. Claim 5 is Obvious over Suzuki in view of Nitta
`
`
`
`As to claim 5, Patent Owner alleges that that Petitioners have not provided
`
`an explanation to substantiate the argument that in Suzuki, operational unit 32
`
`determines voltage values OSD and ODD based on DIF. P.O. Resp. at 36. On
`
`this basis alone, Patent Owner alleges that Petitioners have failed to carry their
`
`burden of establishing unpatentability of claim 5. Id. But Patent Owner does not
`
`dispute that Suzuki discloses that OSD and ODD are based on DIF. Id. Indeed, in
`
`his declaration, Mr. Bohannon agrees that OSD and ODD are both based on DIF.
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Bohannon Decl. (Ex. 2022) at ¶ 45. And Suzuki itself provides all the explanation
`
`that is required. Patent Owner bizarrely seems to suggest that the prior art
`
`reference itself cannot serve as the evidence of what it discloses, i.e., that an expert
`
`must be called upon to tell the Board what the Board can ascertain by reading the
`
`reference. See P.O. Resp. at 36. That is obviously wrong.
`
`
`
`The Petition summarizes Suzuki’s disclosure, and includes citations to the
`
`relevant portions of Suzuki. See Petition at p. 21-23. Regarding OSD, Suzuki
`
`plainly states “[t]he first operational units [which is part of operational unit 32]
`
`determines, simultaneously with the start of the subfield SF1, and overshoot value
`
`pixel by pixel based on the difference signal DIF from the data comparison unit 30,
`
`and outputs the determined value as display data OSD.” Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 42,
`
`emphasis added.
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding ODD, Suzuki explains:
`
`(1) “data memory unit 12a is overwritten with the image data supplied anew
`
`[current frame data];” (Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 40)
`
`
`
`(2) “second operational unit 32(b) determines an overdrive value pixel by
`
`pixel based on DIF;” (Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶43; emphasis added)
`
`
`
`(3) “second operational unit 32(b) [a part of operational unit 32] determines
`
`the differences between the overdrive values determined and the target values
`
`corresponding to image data supplied anew [current frame data] and writes the
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`differences determined and the target values corresponding to image data supplied
`
`anew, and writes the differences determined to a first memory unit 12b of the
`
`frame memory 12 as difference data;” (Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 44; emphasis added)
`
`
`
`(4) “[t]he third operational unit 32(c) [a part of operational unit 32]
`
`restores2 . . . the overdrive values for use in the subfield SF2 from [i.e., by adding
`
`together] the image data written to data memory unit 12a [i.e., current frame data] .
`
`. . and the difference data stored in the first memory unit 12b and outputs the
`
`resultants as display data ODD . . . .” (Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 44; emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Suzuki plainly describes that OSD and ODD are based on DIF. Petitioners
`
`have carried their burden in establishing that claim 5 is unpatentable.
`
`IV. Claim 7 is Obvious over Suzuki in view of Nitta
`
`Patent Owner argument regarding claim 7 is based on a narrow construction3
`
`of the phrase “determining a difference” that equates its meaning with “calculating
`
`a difference.” Claim 7 recites: “determining a difference between the first data
`
`impulse and the second data impulse according to the current frame data and the
`
`
`2
`Suzuki describes the reasons it stores and then restores overdrive data in
`
`paragraph 45.
`
`3
`
`In contrast, claim terms should be given their “broadest reasonable
`
`construction” in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`corresponding delayed frame data.” ’843 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 8:9-10. Patent
`
`Owner argues that Suzuki’s disclosure is deficient because no “∆” between the
`
`OSD and ODD values is calculated, citing Mr. Bohannon’s testimony: “Nowhere
`
`in Suzuki’s description is a difference Δ between the OSD and ODD data
`
`determined.” P.O. Resp. at 38; Bohannon Decl. (Ex. 2022) at ¶ 48. Patent Owner
`
`does not dispute that Suzuki generates OSD and ODD, each based on DIF, such
`
`that they are in fact different. That is sufficient to meet that claim language
`
`“determining a difference.”
`
`Suzuki in fact “determines a difference” between OSD and ODD by
`
`calculating their values so that there is a difference between them. In Suzuki, the
`
`first impulse (an impulse based on an “overshoot” value, OSD) is set so that it
`
`exceeds the target value for the current frame. Petition at 25; Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at
`
`¶¶ 42, 53, Fig. 2, element (a). The second impulse (an impulse based on an
`
`"overdrive" value, ODD) is set to have a value slightly lower (or slightly higher)
`
`than the target value. Petition at 25; Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 54, 43-44, Fig. 2,
`
`element (c). Thus, there is “a difference” between them. And that difference is
`
`determined so that the resulting transmittance averages the target transmittance in a
`
`single frame period. Petition at 25; Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 58. As discussed
`
`above, the determination of OSD and ODD is based on DIF, the difference
`
`between current frame data and the corresponding delayed data. Petition at 24-25;
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶¶ 42-44. Accordingly, Suzuki discloses that the
`
`determination of a difference is “according to the current frame data and the
`
`corresponding delayed frame data.” ’843 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 8:10-11.
`
`V. Claim 9 is Obvious over Suzuki in view of Nitta
`
`
`
`Claim 9 recites “wherein each frame data comprises a plurality of pixel data,
`
`and each pixel data corresponding to a pixel.” Suzuki and Nitta teach this, as set
`
`forth in the Petition. Patent Owner does not dispute this. Instead, Patent Owner
`
`argues that Petitioners have not supported its position that the “image data” in
`
`Suzuki comprises a plurality of pixel data corresponding to each pixel of an LCD
`
`panel. P.O. resp. at 40-41. But Patent Owner ignores the portions of Suzuki to
`
`which Petitioners have cited, and completely ignores Nitta.
`
`
`
`As regards to Suzuki, as set forth in the Petition, Suzuki teaches a memory
`
`unit that stores “image data to be supplied correspondingly to each single frame
`
`period for which a single frame of a liquid crystal panel is displayed.” Suzuki (Ex.
`
`1003) at ¶ 9. Accordingly, “image data” in Suzuki is “frame data” for the liquid
`
`crystal display. Suzuki also explains that “a data comparison unit determines, [for]
`
`each pixel of the panel, a difference between image data supplied anew and image
`
`data of a frame immediately preceding.” Suzuki (Ex. 1003) at ¶ 9 (emphasis
`
`added). Because the panel has a plurality of pixels, and in order for the data
`
`comparison unit to determine the difference for each pixel of the panel based on
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`the image data, it is clear that the image data (frame data) includes a plurality of
`
`pixel data for the pixels of the liquid crystal display, and each pixel data
`
`corresponds to a pixel of the display.
`
`
`
`Nitta also discloses the subject matter of claim 9, as set forth in the Petition
`
`at pages 29-30. Patent Owner does not dispute this point.
`
`
`
`VI. Claims 6 and 8 are Obvious over Suzuki in view of Nitta
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not separately addressed claims 6 and 8, and thus has
`
`waived any arguments it may have relating to the added limitations of those
`
`claims.
`
`VII. Claim 4 Does Not Require Overdriven Data Impulses
`
`
`
`Patent Owner devotes a substantial portion of its Response to arguing that
`
`the “applying” step of claim 4 requires “applying two or more overdriven data
`
`pulses in order to control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device, or
`
`overdriving.” P.O. Resp. at 20 (emphasis added). In so doing, Patent Owner
`
`pursues an academic point—it ignores the Board’s preliminary finding, which is
`
`uncontested, that Suzuki discloses application of two overdriven data impulses,
`
`and argues for a narrow claim construction that does not matter in this IPR.
`
`Although the issue is moot, the proposed construction is so lacking in support that
`
`we address it briefly.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Neither “overdriven” data impulses nor “overdriving” is recited in Claim 4.
`
`Claim 4 simply recites “applying the data impulses … to control the transmission
`
`rate of the liquid crystal device. ’843 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:16-19.) In contrast,
`
`claim 1, which is not in issue in this proceeding, expressly recites “generating a
`
`plurality of data impulses to each pixel according to the plurality of overdriven
`
`pixel data4” and also includes the phrase “to control the transmission rate of the
`
`liquid crystal device.” ’843 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 6:12-14 (emphasis added).
`
`Therefore, if, as Patent Owner urges, the phrase “to control the transmission rate of
`
`the liquid crystal device” were construed to mean that the data impulses are
`
`overdriven, the express recitation in claim 1 that the data impulses are generated
`
`according to overdriven pixel data would be superfluous. Such a construction
`
`would be at odds with the maxim that “claims are interpreted with an eye toward
`
`giving effect to all terms in the claim.” Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d
`
`945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments seem to imply that all embodiments described in
`
`the ’843 patent include overdriving. This is not the case. The ’843 patent
`
`
`Claim 1 recites “a blur clear converter . . . generating a plurality of
`
`4
`
`overdriven pixel data within every frame for each pixel . . . .” ’843 Patent at 6:8-
`
`14 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`describes an embodiment that does not involve overdriving, and merely applies
`
`two data impulses each frame period. See, e.g., ’843 Patent (Ex. 1001), 5:45-55,
`
`Abstract. Moreover, the language of claim 4 is original, i.e., it was filed as part of
`
`the original application from which the ’843 patent issued. See Ex.1002, p. 224
`
`(claim 1). 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).
`
`
`
`Regarding the phrase “to control the transmission rate of the pixel,” Patent
`
`Owner argues that this phase would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to describe the process of controlling the transmission rate through
`
`overdriving. P.O. Resp. at 20. Patent Owner is mistaken. As testified by Mr.
`
`Credelle, the phrase “control the transmission rate” as used in the ’843 patent
`
`means to control the transmittance level. Credelle Tr. (Ex. 2004) at 91:19-24. The
`
`transmittance of a pixel is controlled by applying voltage to it, whether the pixel is
`
`being overdriven or not. See Credelle Tr. (Ex. 2004) at 90:13-91:4.
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 2 of the ’843 patent (reproduced above in Section I.B.3) shows
`
`transmission rate plotted against frames (i.e., time). ’843 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig.
`
`2. Curve C1 shows the transmission rate of a pixel which is not overdriven. ’843
`
`Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:57-60. According to the ’843 patent, the curve C1 is
`
`measured when the driving circuit changes the transmission rate from T1 t
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
