throbber
Paper 11
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket