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 7,202,843
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC’S
`RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`

`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`
`
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`a. The Petition’s Analysis of the Asserted Art is Fundamentally Flawed ........... 1
`b. Dependent Claims Also Independently Survive Petitioners’ Challenge Based
`on Suzuki and Nitta ......................................................................................... 2
`II. Background .......................................................................................................... 4
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (the “‘843 patent” or “Shen”) ..................... 4
`b. Independent Claim 4 ....................................................................................... 11
`III. Claim Construction ......................................................................................... 13
`a. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. 14
`b. Properly Construed, Claim 4 Requires Overdriving ...................................... 14
`IV. Argument ........................................................................................................ 22
`a. The Combination of Suzuki and Nitta is Insufficiently Supported ................ 22
`b. The Petition Fails to Provide the Required Explanation of Claim 5 .............. 35
`c. Claim 7 Includes Features Not Disclosed in Suzuki and Nitta ...................... 36
`d. The Petition Relies on an Undeveloped Inherency Argument to Reach Claim
`9 ..................................................................................................................... 40
`e. An Invalidity Ruling in This Case Constitutes an Impermissible Taking of a
`Private Right Without Article III Oversight .................................................. 41
`V. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 43
`
`ii 
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`
`Cases 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U.S. 225 (1876) .............................................................. 42
`Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................ 21
`Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Securus Tech., Inc., IPR2014-00785 (PTAB Oct. 7,
`2015) (Paper 41) ................................................................................................... 31
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .......................................................... 14
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................. 13
`James v. Campbell, 104 U.S. 356 (1881) ................................................................ 42
`Lake Cable, LLC v. Windy City Wire Cable & Tech. Prods., LLC, IPR2013-00528
`(PTAB Feb. 19, 2014) (Paper 11) ......................................................................... 34
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman, 169 U.S. 606 (1898) .............. 41, 42
`Michigan Land and Lumber Co. v. Rust, 168 U.S. 589 (1897) ............................... 42
`Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530 (1877) .................................................................... 42
`Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., Case IPR2014-00676 (PTAB Oct. 27, 2015)
`(Paper 39) .............................................................................................................. 31
`Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516 (1870) .............................................................. 42
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00042 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2014)
`(Paper 60) ................................................................................................................ 3
`United States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315 (1888) ....................... 41, 42
`United States v. Palmer, 128 U.S. 262 (1888) ......................................................... 42
`United States v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378 (1880) .......................................................... 41
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 42
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 42
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 13
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 36
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 36
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) .................................................................................................. 3
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............... 13
`
`
`iii 
` 
`
`

`
`LIST OF PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001
`“Petitioner and His Money are Soon Parted: Separate Fee Payments Do
`Not Reduce Risk of Non-Institution of Redundant Grounds”; Authored
`by M. Carniaux and M. Sander; interpartesreviewblog.com, dated
`November 13, 2014 (accessed June 1, 2015)
`Joint Stipulation to Stay Cases Pending Inter Partes Review, filed
`November 20, 2014
`Order Granting Joint Stipulation to Stay Cases Pending Inter Partes
`Review, entered November 21, 2014
`Transcript for the Deposition of Thomas Credelle dated October 28,
`2015, IPR2015-00863
`Reserved
`
`Transcript for the Deposition of Richard Zech, Ph.D. dated November
`13, 2015, in IPR2015-00885
`Reserved
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0106540 to Chien et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,642,133 to Scheffer et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,280,280 to Hotto
`U.S. Patent No. 6,606,247 to Credelle et al.
`Declaration of William K. Bohannon In Response to Petition of Sony
`Corporation et al.
`
`
`
`iv 
` 
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005-
`2006
`2007
`
`2008-
`2017
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
` 
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`a. The Petition’s Analysis of the Asserted Art is Fundamentally Flawed
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (collectively,
`
`“Samsung”), and Sony Corporation (“Sony”) (Sony and Samsung are collectively
`
`referred to as the “Petitioners”) filed the current Petition1 for inter partes review of
`
`claims 4-9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (“the ‘843 patent”) on March 16, 2015. Of
`
`the three grounds presented in the Petition, only one ground was instituted against
`
`Patent Owner Surpass Tech Innovation LLC (“Surpass”). See Paper 11 at 13.
`
`Specifically, the only instituted challenge raises the question of whether claims 4-9
`
`of the ‘843 patent are rendered obvious by U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`2003/0156092 A1, published Aug. 21, 2003 (Ex. 1003) (“Suzuki”) in view of
`
`Japanese Laid-Open Application No. 2002-132224, published May 9, 2002 (Ex.
`
`1005) (“Nitta”).
`
`However, both the Petition and the declaration of Thomas Credelle
`
`(“Credelle”) (Ex. 1014) share a fatal defect in their analysis of Suzuki. Mr.
`
`Credelle, Petitioners’ technical declarant in this case, proposes to combine two
`
`references, Suzuki and Nitta, upon an unsupported assumption about the
`                                                            
`1 Hereinafter, the Corrected Petition (paper 4) will be referred to as “Pet.”
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`
`underlying nature of Suzuki’s display. Specifically, Suzuki discloses a driving
`
`method for a display panel. But aside from disclosing that the display panel is a
`
`liquid crystal display (LCD) panel, Suzuki is silent on the type of LCD panel to be
`
`used with this driving method. Credelle assumes without analysis that Suzuki
`
`discloses an active matrix liquid crystal display (AMLCD), and neither evaluates
`
`nor recognizes that Suzuki is applicable to a passive matrix liquid crystal display
`
`(PMLCD). Further, Credelle seeks to supplement Suzuki’s lack of disclosure on
`
`the details of the LCD panel with Nitta’s disclosure of AMLCD. However,
`
`Credelle never performs the necessary analysis of whether Suzuki discloses
`
`AMLCD or even is in fact compatible with AMLCD. This will be further
`
`explained throughout this Response, which is supported by the technical expert
`
`Declaration of William K. Bohannon in response to this Petition from Sony
`
`Corporation et al. (Ex. 2022) (“Bohannon”).
`
`On this record, Petitioners have failed to establish evidence sufficient to
`
`support the purported obvious challenge of claims 4-9 based on Suzuki and Nitta.
`
`b. Dependent Claims Also Independently Survive Petitioners’ Challenge
`Based on Suzuki and Nitta
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, Petitioners fail to set forth adequate challenges of at least claims 5,
`
`7, and 9 in view of Suzuki and Nitta. For example, the Petitioners do not cite to
`
`Mr. Credelle’s declaration in their analysis of claim 7. See Pet. at 41-43. Further, at
`
`2 
` 
`
`

`
`deposition, Mr. Credelle was unable to pinpoint any portion of his declaration that
`
`speaks to the elements of claim 7. See Ex. 2004 at 94:3-7. Indeed, a detailed review
`
`of Credelle’s declaration reveals without question that he offers no opinion on
`
`whether claim 7 of the ‘843 patent is even alleged to be obvious, and with good
`
`reason. Neither Suzuki nor Nitta discloses a step of determining a difference of two
`
`data impulses to be set according to consecutive frame data. As will be discussed
`
`further below, even if Suzuki and Nitta could be combined, which Patent Owner
`
`denies, the Petitioners have not and cannot satisfy their burden of establishing the
`
`elements of these claims in the combination of Suzuki and Nitta.
`
`Further, Petitioners are prohibited from presenting new theories in their
`
`Reply. Specifically, petitioners “may only respond to arguments raised in the
`
`corresponding … patent owner response” and may not present arguments for the
`
`first time in the reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
`
`Graphics Corp., IPR2012-00042, slip op. at 33 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2014) (Paper 60)
`
`(refusing to consider argument presented for the first time in a reply paper).
`
`As such, the purported combination of Suzuki and Nitta is founded upon
`
`insufficient evidence. Claims 4-9 should survive this proceeding for at least this
`
`reason. Additionally, the Petition fails to establish the disclosure of all features of
`
`claims 5, 7, and 9 in the purported combination of Suzuki and Nitta. As such, at
`
`least these dependent claims must survive this proceeding.
`
`3 
` 
`
`

`
`Background
`
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (the “‘843 patent” or “Shen”)
`
`II.
`
` 
`
` 
`
`The ‘843 patent was filed as U.S. Patent application no. 10/707,741 on
`
`January 8, 2004 and claims foreign priority to and the benefit of Taiwan
`
`application no. 92132122 A, filed on November 17, 2003. The title of the ‘843
`
`patent is “DRIVING CIRCUIT OF A LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY PANEL
`
`AND RELATED DRIVING METHOD.” The ‘843 patent discloses a driving
`
`circuit for a liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panel and a method of driving.
`
`An LCD panel includes data lines arranged in a first direction, scan lines
`
`arranged in a second direction, and a matrix of pixels arranged at the intersection
`
`of each scan line and data line. Shen at Fig. 4. The LCD panel is an active matrix
`
`LCD panel that is driven by driving circuitry that applies “data impulses, scan
`
`voltages, and timing signals” according to frame data for the pixels. Id. at 1:29.
`
`The data impulses are applied to the pixels according to the appropriate grey levels
`
`required for a given frame. Id. at 1:50-52. However, as Shen explains, there is a
`
`“time delay when charging liquid crystal molecules” when applying a data impulse
`
`in order to allow the molecules to twist and achieve the correct gray levels for a
`
`pixel. Id. at 1:62-65. As a result of the time delay that occurs when a target impulse
`
`is applied, Shen discloses a technique referred to as overdriving the pixel. Id. at
`
`4 
` 
`
`

`
`1:64-67. This technique includes “applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the
`
`pixel electrode to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules,” and
`
`may allow the pixel to reach a predetermined gray level in a predetermined frame
`
`period. Id. at 2:3-7. Thus, overdriving controls the transmission rate of the liquid
`
`crystal molecules relative to a non-overdriving condition.
`
`An example of this relationship is shown in Shen’s Fig. 2, where “curve C1
`
`shows the transmission rate of a pixel not overdriven corresponding to the frames,
`
`and the curve C2 shows the transmission rate of the pixel overdriven
`
`corresponding to the frames.” Id. at 1:57-60. 2 Overdriving includes “applying a
`
`higher or a lower data impulse,” and the ‘843 patent discloses that “[d]ifferent data
`
`voltages … show different transmission rates.” Id. at 2:3-4; 3:60-62.
`
`                                                            
`2 In IPR2015-00885, a related case instituted against the ‘843 patent, the
`
`petitioner’s technical declarant (Dr. Zech) testified at deposition that the term
`
`“transmission rate” from claim 4 “is not only not a term of the art, it’s not
`
`anything.” See Ex. 2007 at 47:16-17 (emphasis added). Dr. Zech testified that the
`
`‘843 patent’s inventor served as its own lexicographer for this term. Id. at 47:3-9.
`
`Credelle similarly testified that this term was “defined by the ‘843.” Ex. 2004 at
`
`88:1-4. This testimony confirms that the Board should undertake a construction of
`
`both “transmission rate” and “to control a transmission rate” appearing in claim 4. 
`
`5 
` 
`
`

`
`
`
`However, Shen also discloses that overdriving without adjusting the frame
`
`rate, such as shown by curve C2, is not sufficient for the transmission rate to reach
`
`T2 within the frame period. Id. at 2:5-12. Shen discloses that “primary objective of
`
`the claimed invention [is] to provide a driving circuit of an LCD panel and its
`
`relating driving method to solve the problem mentioned above.” Id. at 2:16-18
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`Mr. Credelle confirmed during his deposition that the “its” in the preceding
`
`sentence refers to the driving circuit’s relating driving method. Ex. 2004 at 117:21-
`
`118:2. Other experts presented by the various petitioners challenging the ‘843
`
`patent have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Transcript for the Deposition of
`
`6 
` 
`
`

`
`Richard Zech, Ph.D. dated November 13, 2015, in IPR2015-00885 (Ex. 2007) at
`
`81:8-21. In the disclosed embodiments of the ‘843 patent, the driving circuit
`
`overdrives the pixel data using a blur clear converter. An embodiment of driving
`
`circuit 10 is shown below from Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`In this driving circuit 10, the blur clear converter 14 is distinct from and
`
`arranged upstream of the gate driver 20 and source driver 18, and receives frame
`
`signals G and control signals C of signal controller 12. First and second
`
`embodiments of the blur clear converter are shown in further detail in Fig. 7 and
`
`Fig. 8. As Shen explains with respect to the embodiment shown in Fig. 7, two
`
`pieces of overdriven “pixel data of each pixel in every frame period are generated
`
`by the blur clear converter 14.” Id. at 4:41-43. More specifically, according to the
`
`7 
` 
`
`

`
`embodiment shown in Fig. 7, the “processing circuit 42 generates a plurality of
`
`overdriven pixel data GN according to the current pixel data Gm and the delayed
`
`pixel data Gm-1.” Id. at 4:53-55. Mr. Credelle confirmed this interpretation that
`
`there are “two overdriven data output per frame.” See Ex. 2004 at 115:20-116:3.
`
`
`
`With respect to the embodiment shown in Fig. 8, Shen explains that the
`
`“processing circuit 74 generates two pieces of overdriven pixel data GN1, GN-1(2)
`
`for each pixel 36 in every frame period according to the pixel data Gm-1, Gm-2.”
`
`Id. at 5:17-19. Mr. Credelle also confirmed this interpretation that there are two
`
`overdriven data output in a frame in the second embodiment of Fig. 8. See Ex.
`
`2004 at 116:14-25. According to the driving method performed by the disclosed
`
`driving circuit, overdriven pulses are provided twice in a frame frame to control
`
`the transmission rate of the liquid crystal molecules. See, e.g., id. at Figs. 5, 10.
`
`8 
` 
`
`

`
`Specifically, the overdriven pulses “accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid
`
`crystal molecules,” and may allow the pixel to reach a predetermined gray level in
`
`a predetermined frame period. Id. at 2:3-7.
`
`According to the second embodiment of the blur clear converter 60, shown
`
`below, original pixel data Gm-1, Gm, Gm+1, etc… are received as input, with a
`
`difference Diff between two original pixel data. Then, according to this Diff value,
`
`an operation is performed to determine a difference ΔG between two overdriven
`
`pixel data to be applied in a frame. This difference ΔG is determined by a
`
`comparing circuit 72 “according to the difference Diff between the original pixel
`
`data Gm and Gm+1.” Id. at 5:34-38. The comparing circuit 72 “modulates the
`
`difference ΔG to drive the LCD panel 30 properly” according to the Diff value
`
`between original pixel data. Id. at 5:43-44.
`
`The difference ΔG is provided from comparing circuit 72 to the processing
`
`circuit 74, which “generates two pieces of overdriven pixel data GN1, GN-1(2) for
`
`each pixel 36 in every frame period according to the [original] pixel data Gm-1,
`
`Gm-2” and “determine[s] the values of the overdriven pixel data … .” Id. at 5:17-
`
`22.
`
`9 
` 
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Credelle also confirmed that the ‘843 patent’s disclosed driving circuit
`
`“generates two pieces of pixel data in each frame period,” where the source driver
`
`receives this data from the blur clear converter. Ex. 2004 at 113:15-20. Thus, the
`
`driving circuit disclosed in the ‘843 patent includes a blur clear converter that
`
`outputs two overdriven pixel data in a frame. Further, the second embodiment of
`
`10 
` 
`
`

`
`the blur clear converter determines a difference ΔG between two overdriven pixel
`
`data to be generated and applied in a frame, according to a difference Diff between
`
`the original pixel data. The processing circuit 74 receives this difference ΔG and
`
`generates the overdriven pixel data.
`
`b. Independent Claim 4
`
`
`
`Petitioner challenges the validity of claims 4-9 of the ‘843 patent. Of these
`
`challenged claims, claim 4 is independent.
`
`According to its preamble, claim 4 is directed to a method for “driving a
`
`liquid crystal display (LCD) panel.” Claim 4 is shown below in full, with elements
`
`relevant to claim construction in bold for the Board’s reference:
`
`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;
`
`11 
` 
`
`

`
`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.
`
`
`
`Claim 7 is also subject to challenge and discussed below:
`
`7. The method of claim 6 further comprising 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.
`
`
`The Petitioners argue that “the claim terms should be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction in view of the specification, and should be construed in
`
`accordance with their ordinary meaning.” Pet. at 8. However, Petitioners offer no
`
`discussion on the use of the claim terms in the specification, despite the fact that
`
`Mr. Credelle testified that the “transmission rate” term was “defined by the ‘843.”
`
`Ex. 2004 at 88:1-4. Therefore, the Petition provides no guidance to the Board on
`
`what constitutes the “broadest reasonable construction in view of the
`
`specification.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`12 
` 
`
`

`
`III. Claim Construction
`
` 
`
`The standard for construing claim terms in this proceeding is not in dispute.
`
`Since the ‘843 patent is not expired, the Board will interpret claims using the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and consistent with the disclosure. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 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 at
`
`the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioners contend that “the claim terms should be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction in view of the specification, and should be construed in
`
`accordance with their ordinary meaning.” Pet. at 8. Notably, Mr. Credelle provides
`
`no analysis on whether claim 4 includes performing an overdriving technique, and
`
`does not evaluate the specification in order to present what is meant by the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in view of the specification.” See Ex. 1014 at
`
`¶¶29-30. The Petition is equally lacking in analysis on the use of the claim terms in
`
`the specification. Pet. at 8. Thus, Petitioners and Credelle have provided no
`
`testimony, and no other evidence or discussion of the constructions that would be
`
`attributed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Further, Petitioners have
`
`13 
` 
`
`

`
`provided no meaningful analysis of the Shen specification in order to illuminate
`
`the bounds of the broadest reasonable constructions consistent with that
`
`specification. As explained below, at least claim 4 requires more detailed
`
`consideration of the Shen specification.
`
`a. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
` person of ordinary skill in the relevant art of the ‘843 patent, as of
`
` A
`
`November 17, 2003, would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, mathematics, or computer science with two or more years of
`
`experience designing electronics and displays. For example, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have education and experience sufficient to understand at
`
`least the background of the ‘843 patent’s specification. Bohannon at ¶ 8. This
`
`includes the ability to understand the overdriving concept as it is discussed in the
`
`‘843 patent, and the concepts of pixel voltage versus light transmission and pixel
`
`response time. Id.
`
`b. Properly Construed, Claim 4 Requires Overdriving
`
`
`
`Under In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994), a patentee is free
`
`to define the terms used to describe the invention. In this instance, Shen has
`
`explained that "overdriven" means "applying a higher or a lower data impulse to
`
`14 
` 
`
`

`
`the pixel electrode to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules."
`
`‘843 patent at 2:3-5. Although the current Petitioners have not discussed the ‘843
`
`patent’s disclosure in any substantial manner (see Pet. at 2-3), in IPR2015-00885
`
`against the ‘843 patent, co-defendant and petitioner LG cited to this very same
`
`passage of the ‘843 patent while discussing the meaning of “overdriven” or
`
`“overdriving.” See IPR2015-00885 paper 2 at 5.
`
`Further, Shen’s explanation is not a one-way street. Specifically, if
`
`"overdriven" means "applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel
`
`electrode to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules," then the
`
`contrary is also true: "applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel
`
`electrode to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules" means
`
`"overdriving." Indeed, this is consistent with a reading of Shen according to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Bohannon at ¶ 19, 29.
`
`The term at issue in claim 4 is "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." In his deposition, Dr. Zech indicates that the term
`
`“transmission rate” from claim 4 “is not only not a term of the art, it’s not
`
`anything.” Ex. 2007 at 47:16-17. Indeed, Dr. Zech testifies that the ‘843 patent’s
`
`inventor served as its own lexicographer for this term. Id. at 47:3-9. Bohannon
`
`15 
` 
`
`

`
`agrees, and referred to the entirety of the ‘843 patent disclosure to understand the
`
`usage of that term. Bohannon at ¶ 28.
`
`This claim language of claim 4 recalls the discussion of "overdriven"
`
`according to the '843 specification, wherein the reaction speed of the liquid crystal
`
`molecules is controlled to be faster through the application of a higher or lower
`
`data impulse. Bohannon at ¶ 19.
`
`This correlation between the claim language of claim 4 and the discussion of
`
`“overdriven” is also consistent with the ‘843 patent disclosure. At a fundamental
`
`technical level, Shen discloses that “[d]ifferent data voltages cause different
`
`twisting angles and show different transmission rates.” See ‘843 patent at 3:60-62.
`
`In Shen’s Background section, the “timing diagram of different transmission rates
`
`of a pixel” is shown and discussed with respect to Fig. 2. There, two curves C1 and
`
`C2 reflect the transmission rate versus frame count for a pixel based on the type of
`
`applied data. Curve C1 is “the transmission rate of a pixel not overdriven” while
`
`curve C2 reflects the “transmission rate of the pixel overdriven corresponding to
`
`the frames.” Id. at 1:57-60. Shen explains that the time delay in charging liquid
`
`crystal molecules prevents the non-overdriven pixel from reaching the target
`
`transmission rate T2 until frame N+2, two frames after the pixel charging begins in
`
`frame N. Id. at 1:62-65. However, the time to reach the target transmission rate T2
`
`is reduced in curve C2 when the pixel is overdriven and the liquid crystal molecule
`
`16 
` 
`
`

`
`reaction speed is controlled to be faster than the curve C1 reaction speed. Shen
`
`specifically discloses that this acceleration of the liquid crystal molecule reaction
`
`speed occurs due to the application of “higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel
`
`electrode,” which is referred to as overdriving. Id. at 2:3-5; 2:7-8.
`
`Shen’s Fig. 5 also shows a “timing diagram of pixel data values varying in
`
`accordance with frames.” Id. at 3:64-65. Fig. 5 shows pixel data generated by the
`
`driving circuit 10, the output of which is “overdriven pixel data GN, GN(2).” Id. at
`
`4:62-63.3 The overdriven pixel data GN, GN(2) are applied to the liquid crystal
`
`devices “in order to control the transmission rate of the liquid crystal device 39.”
`
`Id. at 13-14. Similarly, as in Fig. 2, Fig. 6 is a timing diagram showing
`
`transmission rate versus frame count, where the curve shape C3 matches a
`
`compressed version of overdriven curve C2 from Fig. 2 that reaches transmission
`
`rate T2 within one frame (N+1) rather than two frames (N, N+1).
`
`
`                                                            
`3 When describing the output of blur clear converter of the driving circuit 10
`
`according to embodiments of the invention, Shen uses capitalized “N”, as in “GN,”
`
`to refer to overdriven pixel data, and uses lower-case “m,” as in “Gm” or “Gm-1,”
`
`to refer to original pixel data. ‘843 patent at 4:49-63; 5:7-22; 5:28-42. Thus, it is
`
`clear that Shen’s Figs. 5 and 6 show the effect of applying overdriven data
`
`impulses on the transmission rate of liquid crystal devices.
`
`17 
` 
`
`

`
`Fig. 6
`
`Fig. 2
`
`Like in Fig. 5, Shen discloses that Fig. 6 also applies data impulses corresponding
`
`to the overdriven pixel data GN+1, GN+1(2) from the driving circuit 10 of Fig. 3,
`
`“in order to control the transmission rate and gray level of the pixel electrode 39.”
`
`Id. at 4:20-28; 4:31-34.
`
`Thus, Shen describes overdriving as a method that applies a higher or lower
`
`voltage to “accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules.” Id. at 2:4-
`
`5. By controlling the reaction speed of the molecules, overdriving controls the
`
`transmission rate of the liquid crystal device as shown in Fig. 6. Bohannon at ¶ 22.
`
`Further, Shen discloses that “primary objective of the claimed invention [is]
`
`to provide a driving circuit of an LCD panel and its relating driving method to
`
`solve the problem mentioned above.” Id. at 2:16-18 (emphasis added). As Mr.
`
`Credelle confirmed during his deposition, the ‘843 patent discloses a driving
`
`circuit 10 shown in Fig. 3, and two embodiments of the blur clear converter of the
`
`driving circuit 10. Ex. 2004 at 114:18-115:4. As Mr. Credelle also confirmed
`
`18 
` 
`
`

`
`during his deposition, both the first and embodiments of the blur clear converter
`
`disclosed in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 output a plurality of overdriven frame data in a
`
`frame. Id. at 116:1-3; 116:24-25. Dr. Zech testified consistently with Mr. Credelle
`
`on these two points. See Ex. 2007 at 72:15-74:19; 74:20-75:5.
`
`Indeed, Shen discloses that the blur clear converter of the first embodiment
`
`(Fig. 7) “output[s] two overdriven pixel data GN, GN(2) to each pixel 36 within a
`
`frame period according to the multiplied signal C2 in order to have the source
`
`driver 18 apply two data impulses to a specific pixel 36 within a frame period
`
`according to the two overdriven pixel data GN, GN(2).” ‘843 patent at 4:58-63.
`
`Similarly, the blur clear converter of the second embodiment (Fig. 8) “output[]s
`
`two overdriven pixel data in each frame period according to the multiplied signal
`
`C2.” Id. at 5:15-16. Neither Petitioners nor Credelle (nor Zech) identify any
`
`embodiment of the ‘843 patent’s driving circuit that does not incorporate
`
`overdriving.
`
`As explained above under the law governing the Board’s claim construction,
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. By way
`
`of Shen’s disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`
`application of a target voltage impulse without overdriving causes the liquid crystal
`
`molecules to react without controlling the transmission rate, as reflected by curve
`
`19 
` 
`
`

`
`C1. Id. at 1:64-65; Bohannon at ¶ 13. To the contrary, by way of Shen’s disclosure
`
`regarding overdriving, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`the application of a voltage that is higher or lower than the target voltage (i.e.
`
`overdriving) accelerates the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules and
`
`therefore controls the transmission rate, as reflected by curve C2 and curve C3.
`
`‘843 patent at 2:3-7; 3:60-62; Bohannon at ¶ 19.
`
`Claim 4 does not use the term “overdriven,” but the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation still must be consistent with the specification. The ‘843 specification
`
`directly correlates the concept of controlling a transmission rate of a pixel with
`
`overdriving. As such, consistent with the specification, the phrase “to control a
`
`transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel” as it appears in the
`
`claims of the ‘843 patent would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to describe the process of controlling the transmission rate through overdriving,
`
`or applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the liquid crystal device of the pixel
`
`to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules. This is the method
`
`performed by the disclosed driving circuit of the ‘843 patent. Each disclosed
`
`embodiment of the driving circuit in the ‘843 patent incorporates a blur clear
`
`converter, which outputs two overdriven pixel data in a frame period. This further
`
`supports the interpretation that would be given to claim 4 by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, since Shen’s “primary objective of the claimed invention [is] to
`
`20 
` 
`
`

`
`provide a driving circui