`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: September 8, 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 IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`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 4–9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’843
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`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 10 (“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 institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 4–9 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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 4, which is illustrative and reproduced below, is an independent
`claim. Claims 5–9 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 4.
`4. A method for driving a liquid crystal display (LCD)
`panel, the LCD panel comprising:
`a plurality of scan lines;
`a plurality of data lines; and
`a plurality of pixels, each pixel being connected to a
`corresponding scan line and a corresponding data line, and each
`pixel comprising a liquid crystal device and a switching device
`connected to the corresponding scan line, the corresponding
`data line, and the liquid crystal device, and
`the method comprising:
`receiving continuously a plurality of frame data;
`generating a plurality of data impulses for each pixel
`within every frame period according to the frame data; and
`applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device of
`one of the pixels within one frame period via the data line
`connected to the pixel in order to control a transmission rate of
`the liquid crystal device of the pixel.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 4–9 are unpatentable based on the
`following grounds:
`Reference(s)
`Suzuki2 and Nitta3
`Jinda4 and Nitta
`Ham5
`
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claims
`4–9
`4–9
`4, 8, and 9
`
`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).
`Petitioner contends that the claim terms should be given their broadest
`reasonable construction in view of the specification, and should be construed
`
`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 2002/0044115 A1, published Apr. 18,
`2002 (Ex. 1006) (“Jinda”).
`5 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0048247 A1, published Mar. 13,
`2003 (Ex. 1007) (“Ham”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`in accordance with their ordinary meaning. Pet. 8. Patent Owner argues that
`“applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device of one of the pixels .
`. . to control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel” of
`claim 4 means applying two or more overdriven data impulses in order to
`control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device. Prelim. Resp. 32.
`For purposes of this decision, we need not construe “applying the data
`impulses to the liquid crystal device of one of the pixels . . . to control a
`transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel.” Even assuming
`Patent Owner has an unduly narrow construction for “applying the data
`impulses to the liquid crystal device of one of the pixels . . . to control a
`transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel” we are persuaded
`that Petitioner has accounted for the limitation in the prior art under such
`construction.
`For purposes of this decision, we need not construe any other
`limitations of the challenged claims.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims over Suzuki and Nitta
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 4–9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Suzuki and Nitta. Pet. 9. To
`support its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how
`the prior art meets each claim limitation. Id. at 9–30. Petitioner also relies
`upon a Declaration of Thomas Credelle, who has been retained as an expert
`witness by Petitioner for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1014.
`Suzuki describes a display control device for controlling display data
`to be displayed on a liquid crystal panel. Ex. 1003 ¶ 2. A timing control
`unit receives display data from an operation unit in succession, and outputs
`driving signals according to the received display data in synchronization
`with the timing signals. Id. ¶ 10. As shown in Figure 1 below, LCD panel
`20 is comprised of a plurality of pixels P (liquid crystal cells) formed in a
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`matrix, which is driven by gate driver 18 and source driver 16. Id. ¶¶ 38, 47,
`Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Suzuki shows a display control device for a LCD display.
`
`Data memory unit 12a of frame memory 12 stores image data to be
`supplied to each single frame period. Id. ¶ 9, Fig. 1. Data conversion part
`10 generates a plurality of pixel data for each pixel in each frame period
`using frame data stored in data memory unit 12a. Id. ¶¶ 40, 41. Source
`driver 16 generates applied voltages VS that correspond to pixel data
`generated by conversion part 10. Id. ¶¶ 46, 47. Figure 2, reproduced below,
`“is a timing chart showing how data is written to a pixel in the operation of
`the first embodiment.” Id. ¶ 28.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of Suzuki shows a timing chart.
`Figure 2 shows how a single pixel (liquid crystal cell) is written with
`data in the LCD device. Id. ¶ 52. Image data to increase transmittance is
`supplied for a frame period FL1, and image data to decrease transmittance is
`supplied for a frame period FL2. Id. In the first subfield (SF1) of the first
`frame (FL1), an overshoot operation is performed, where the transmittance
`of the liquid crystal cell goes up and exceeds the target value. In the second
`subfield (SF2) of the first frame (FL1), an overdrive operation is performed,
`whereby the transmittance of the liquid crystal cell changes to the target
`value. Id. ¶¶ 53, 54. Multiple pulses are applied to each pixel by the source
`driver 16 within one frame period in order to control the transmission rate of
`the liquid crystal device. Id. ¶ 47.
`Nitta describes a drive device for driving a TFT (thin-film transistor)
`liquid crystal panel display that addresses the known problem of degraded
`images displayed on LCDs. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 1, 2. In particular, Nitta’s drive
`method makes it possible for the response speed of the liquid crystal to be
`one frame period or less, providing a high-picture-quality liquid crystal
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`display device. Id. ¶ 8. Figure 3 of Nitta, as annotated by Petitioner in its
`Petition, is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of Nitta as annotated in the Petition.
`Nitta describes a plurality of scan lines connected to scan driver 103-1
`and 103-2, a plurality of data lines connected to signal driver 102, and a
`plurality of pixels (pixel A and pixel B) in the TFT liquid crystal panel. Id.
`¶¶ 9, 32.
`The present record supports the contention that Suzuki describes a
`method for driving a LCD panel. Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2, 10. The present
`record also supports the contention that Suzuki describes an LCD panel
`having a plurality of pixels P which are formed in a matrix, whereby the
`LCD panel is driven by a source driver 16 and gate driver 18 for controlling
`the LCD panel. Pet. 12–13; Ex. 1003, Fig. 1. The present record supports
`the contention that Suzuki describes a data memory unit 12a that
`continuously receives a plurality of frame data, a data conversion part 10
`that generates a plurality of data impulses, and a source driver 16 that
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`applies data impulses to each pixel within one frame period to control a
`transmission rate of the pixel. Pet. 16–21.
`Petitioner relies on Nitta for its description of a plurality of scan and
`data lines connected to each pixel of each TFT of a LCD. Id. at 12–15.
`Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`combined the details of the Nitta TFT LCD panel with Suzuki, because both
`Suzuki and Nitta are directed to the same recognized problem in the field of
`LCD devices. Pet. 10–11.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s reasons for combining Suzuki
`and Nitta are insufficient. Prelim. Resp. 34–36. The present record supports
`the contention made by Petitioner that the details of Nitta’s LCD panel,
`which are lacking in Suzuki, were known by a person of ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention for conventional LCD arrangements. See,
`e.g., Pet. 10. At this juncture, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`arguments that Petitioner has not articulated rational underpinnings for
`combining Suzuki and Nitta, because “[i]f a technique has been used to
`improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
`that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
`obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” See KSR,
`550 U.S. at 417.
`Petitioner accounts for all of the challenged dependent claims. Pet.
`21–30. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner has
`not accounted for the limitations of claim 5, because Petitioner has not
`accounted for how the OSD and ODD values are tied to a determination of
`voltage values. Prelim. Resp. 37.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 5 recites delaying the frame data to generate a plurality of
`corresponding delayed frame data; and comparing current frame data and
`corresponding delayed data to determine voltage values of the data impulses
`when generating the data impulses. Patent Owner’s arguments are not
`persuasive as Suzuki describes that the applied voltage VS corresponds to
`the display data OSD and ODD output from operation unit 32. Ex. 1003
`¶ 52.
`We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that
`Petitioner has not accounted properly for the limitations of claim 7. Claim 7,
`which depends from claim 6, recites “determining a difference between the
`first data impulse and the second data impulse according to the current frame
`data and the corresponding delayed frame data.” Ex. 1001, 8:8–11.
`Petitioner accounts for this limitation at pages 24 to 25 of the Petition.
`Patent Owner recognizes that Suzuki describes determining a target value
`based on the frame data, but does not explain sufficiently why at least the
`target value does not meet the limitation of determining the difference
`between the first and second data impulses. At this juncture of the
`proceeding, Petitioner has accounted for the limitation, and Patent Owner
`has not provided persuasive reasons to rebut Petitioner’s showing.
`Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to claim 8 are based on the
`premise that Petitioner has not properly accounted for why a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined Suzuki and Nitta. Prelim.
`Resp. 38. We have addressed such arguments above and have determined
`them unpersuasive.
`Claim 9 depends from claim 4 and recites “wherein each frame data
`comprises a plurality of pixel data, and each pixel data corresponds to a
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`pixel.” Petitioner relies on the combination of Suzuki and Nitta to meet this
`limitation. Pet. 28–30. Patent Owner’s argument that Suzuki does not teach
`the limitation is misplaced, as Petitioner relies on the combination of Suzuki
`and Nitta to meet the limitation. We have reviewed the Petition and
`determine that based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail with respect to claim 9 based on this challenge.
`Lastly, we have considered Patent Owner’s arguments that we should
`not consider, on the merits, the Petition based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`Notwithstanding those arguments, we exercise our discretion and consider
`the Petition and institute trial on the ground that claims 4–9 would have been
`obvious based on Suzuki and Nitta, references not previously relied on.
`For the above reasons, we have reviewed the proposed ground of
`obviousness over Suzuki and Nitta against claims 4–9, and we are
`persuaded, at this juncture of the proceeding, that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claims
`4–9 on this ground.
`
`D. Remaining Grounds Challenging the Claims of the ’245 Patent
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes proceedings
`were promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`rules provide that they are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As a
`result, and in determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a
`patent, the Board, in its discretion, may “deny some or all grounds for
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`§ 42.108(b).
`We have considered Petitioner’s arguments that the different grounds
`are not redundant of each other. Pet. 53. Notwithstanding these arguments,
`and based on the record before us, we exercise our discretion and decline to
`institute review based on any of the other asserted grounds advanced by
`Petitioner that are not identified below as being part of the trial. See, e.g.,
`Pet. 6–7; 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 4–9 of the ’843 patent.
`At this juncture, we have not made a final determination with respect to the
`patentability of the challenged claims, nor with respect to claim
`construction.
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 4–9 of
`the ’843 patent on the ground that claims 4–9 would have been obvious over
`Suzuki and Nitta under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of the ’843 patent is instituted with trial commencing on the
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4, notice is given of the institution of the trial; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the ground identified
`immediately above, and no other ground is authorized.
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Michelle Carniaux
`Lewis Popovski
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`mcarniaux@kenyon.com
`ptab@kenyon.com
`
`Jay I. Alexander
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`jalexander@cov.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Wayne M. Helge
`Michael R. Casey
`Donald L. Jackson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
`whelge@dbjg.com
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`djackson@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`14