UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2015-00885
`
`Patent 7,202,843
`_______________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF RICHARD ZECH, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`LGD_000868
`
`LG Display Ex. 1015
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2015-00885
`
`Patent 7,202,843
`_______________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF RICHARD ZECH, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`LGD_000868
`
`LG Display Ex. 1015
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`Introduction
`1. My name is Dr. Richard G. Zech, and I have been retained by the law firm
`
`of Mayer Brown LLP on behalf of LG Display Co. Ltd. and LG Display America,
`
`Inc. as an expert in the relevant art.
`
`2.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration on March 17, 2015, setting forth my
`
`opinions regarding the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (“the ’843 patent” or
`
`“Shen”) in view of certain prior art references. That declaration was submitted with
`
`and cited in LG Display’s Petition for Inter Partes Review, filed the same day. I
`
`understand that Petition was instituted on September 8, 2015, with respect to
`
`claims 4, 8, and 9 in view of Korean Patent Application No. 2000-0073673
`
`(“Lee”).
`
`3.
`
`I also understand that Patent Owner (Surpass) filed preliminary and full
`
`responses to LG Display’s Petitioner on June 26 and November 24, 2015,
`
`respectively. I also understand that in connection with the latter, Surpass submitted
`
`a declaration from Mr. William Bohannon, who was deposed on January 28, 2016.
`
`I have reviewed the foregoing responses, declaration, and deposition transcript, and
`
`accordingly herein supplement my opinions as follows.
`
`II. Claim Construction / Scope of ’843 Patent
`4.
`Surpass and Mr. Bohannon erroneously contend that claim 4 requires
`
`overdriving. As a preliminary matter, and as I have previously explained, the term
`
`1
`
`LGD_000869
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“overdriving” is not recited in claim 4. The term is, however, explicitly recited in
`
`claim 1 (and dependent claims 2 and 3) and throughout the specification. Per my
`
`review of the specification and claims, there is no indication that the patentee
`
`intended claim 4 to require overdriving, particularly as the specification discloses
`
`embodiments that do not require or include overdriving. Surpass’s argument to the
`
`contrary is predicated on the misunderstanding that “to control a transmission
`
`rate,” recited at the end of claim 4, means “overdriving.” See Ex. 2017 at 13.
`
`5.
`
`This argument is not supported by the ’843 patent, nor is it consistent with
`
`how a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “to control a transmission
`
`rate” in view of the claims and specification. First, claim 1 (which requires
`
`“overdriving”) also contains the “to control a transmission rate” limitation. Thus
`
`reading an “overdriving” requirement into this limitation would be superfluous.
`
`Second, the ’843 patent provides a specific definition for “overdriving”: “applying
`
`a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to accelerate the speed of the
`
`liquid crystal molecules, so that the pixel can reach the predetermined gray level in
`
`a predetermined frame period.” Ex. 1001 at 2:2-7. Mr. Bohannon highlights this
`
`definition in his declaration (see Ex. 2017 at 13) and stated he agreed with it during
`
`his deposition:
`
`So you accept this as a definition of overdriving?
`Q:
`A: Yes.
`
`2
`
`LGD_000870
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Is this consistent with your understanding of overdriving before
`Q:
`reading the ’843 Patent?
`A: Yes.
`Ex. 1014, Bohannon Dep. Trans at 33:25-34:6.
`
`6.
`
`This definition, “applying a higher or lower data impulse,” does not appear
`
`in claim 4, nor does any similar language (much less the word, “overdriving”). Nor
`
`does the specification contain any disclosure equating “controlling a transmission
`
`rate” with “overdriving.” Nevertheless, Mr. Bohannon contends “LG does not cite
`
`to and I am not aware of any instance or embodiment in the ’843 where a
`
`transmission rate is described as being controlled without overdriving.” Id.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`7. Mr. Bohannon’s assessment here is incorrect. The specification describes
`
`control of the operation of the pixel without referencing overdriving in several
`
`instances. For example, at column 1, lines 27-31, the ’843 patent states: “Generally
`
`when driving an LCD, a driving circuit receives a plurality of frame data and then
`
`generates corresponding data impulses, scan voltages, and timing signals,
`
`according to the frame data, in order to control pixel operation of the LCD.”
`
`(Emphasis added). Similarly, at column 3, lines 43-47, the ’843 patent states: “The
`
`switching device 38 is connected to the corresponding scan line 32 and the
`
`corresponding data line 34, and the source driver 18 and the gate driver 20 control
`
`3
`
`LGD_000871
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the operation of each pixel 36 via the scan line 32 and the data line 34.”
`
`(Emphasis added).
`
`8.
`
`In both instances, the control of the pixel’s operation is described without
`
`overdriving. In my opinion one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`controlling the “operation” of the pixel (as per the specification) refers to the
`
`amount of light passing through the pixel—i.e., the transmission. One of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would also understand that there is a direct correlation between the
`
`voltage applied to the pixel and the amount of light that passes through it. Mr.
`
`Bohannon conceded this point during his deposition:
`
`So I think you said…that transmission denotes the amount of light
`Q:
`that passes through the liquid crystal?
`A: Yes I’ve measured it extensively…
`
`Ex. 1014, Bohannon Dep. Trans. at 21:23-22:3.
`
`So there are some scenarios that you can conceive of where the
`Q:
`transmissivity is changed as a result of the application of more than one data
`impulse in a single frame?
`A: But the transmissivity is changed whenever you apply a voltage…
`
`Id. at 51:12-17.
`
`Q: …what that percentage value is referring to, the amount of light that’s
`passing through? So in your example of 10 percent, would that be 10 percent
`transmission through the pixel?
`A: Yes.
`
`4
`
`LGD_000872
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q: And then there is a direct correlation between the transmission and
`the voltage; is that accurate?
`A: Yes. I’m sorry I didn’t wait for you to finish.
`Q:
`I was finished. So that’s correct?
`A: Yes.
`Q:
`That would be a direct correlation, I assume?
`A: Yes, that’s correct. The manufacturers or the people developing the
`LCD will generally put out a curve called the VT curve, which is voltage
`versus transmission (transmission is the dependent variable).
`
`Id. at 14:22-15:16 (emphases added).
`
`9.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`“control[ling] a transmission rate” of a pixel merely refers to the application of a
`
`voltage, particularly in view of Figure 2 of the ’843 patent (which is admitted prior
`
`art):
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 2. According to the corresponding disclosure:
`
`
`
`5
`
`LGD_000873
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Two curves C1, C2 are measured when the driving circuit changes the
`transmission rate from T1 to T2 beginning at frame period N. The 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 1:27-31 (emphasis added). For both curves (C1 and C2), the transmission
`
`rate is changing, regardless of whether the data impulse is overdriven or not. In
`
`other words, the mere application of the voltage results in a change of transmission
`
`rate.
`
`10. Accepting Surpass and Mr. Bohannon’s reasoning, the application of any
`
`data impulse is sufficient to qualify as the overdriven signal. Thus, Surpass’s
`
`position here only bolster’s LG Display’s position that Lee discloses the
`
`application of a plurality of overdriven data impulses in a single frame.
`
`III. Korean Patent Application No. 2000-0073673 (“Lee”)
`
`I take issue with several of Surpass’s and Mr. Bohannon’s statements
`
`11.
`
`regarding the Lee reference. I also note that Surpass and Mr. Bohannon have taken
`
`several of my opinions and parts of my deposition testimony out of context.
`
`12. First, Mr. Bohannon erroneously contends that I “characterize the ’843
`
`patent’s term ‘Overdrive’ as synonymous with Lee’s disclosure of ‘Overshoot
`
`and/or undershoot.’ Ex. 2017 at 14. This is inaccurate. The table that I provided at
`
`6
`
`LGD_000874
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`paragraph 52 of my declaration was intended to “demonstrate how terms used in
`
`the prior art related to the terms used in the ’843 Patent.”
`
`13. As explained throughout my declaration, and confirmed during my
`
`deposition, the overshooting and undershooting described in Lee are the result of
`
`overdriving (this is a cause and effect relationship—without overdriving there is no
`
`overshooting). In other words, a higher or lower data impulse is applied that causes
`
`the overshoot shown in the first subframe (n+) of Figure 12. See Ex. 1010 at
`
`LGD_000600. In order to roll the voltage back to the target value in the second
`
`subframe (n-), the pixel is overdriven again (e.g., via a lower data impulse) by
`
`applying
`
`a negative voltage.
`
`I
`
`explained
`
`this
`
`relationship between
`
`overshooting/undershooting and overdriving at paragraph 64 of my declaration:
`
`“Thus the ‘overshoot’ and ‘rollback,’ occurring respectively in the first and
`
`second sub-frames constitute a plurality of overdriven pulses within a single
`
`frame.” Ex. 1011 at 25 (emphasis added). And during my deposition, I clarified:
`
`“[o]vershoot and undershoot is a result of overdriving” and “if you overdrive
`
`something without proper design and caution, you will get overshoot.” Ex. 2007
`
`at 94:5-6, 95:1-3. At no point have I ever stated that Lee’s overshooting or
`
`undershooting is “synonymous” with overdriving. Rather, I have consistently
`
`maintained that the concepts are related in the manner above.
`
`7
`
`LGD_000875
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14. Notwithstanding
`
`the
`
`foregoing, Surpass erroneously contends
`
`that
`
`overdriving requires overshooting/undershooting. And using this flawed (and
`
`unsupported) logic, Surpass argues that overshooting/undershooting must occur in
`
`each subframe in order for Lee to disclose a plurality of overdriven data impulses
`
`in a single frame.
`
`15. As per above, this position is inconsistent with my declaration, my
`
`deposition, and LG Display’s Petition. It is the application of a higher or lower
`
`data impulse in each of the subframes that meets the ’843 patent’s “overdriving”
`
`requirement—not the overshooting. The overshooting in the first subframe is
`
`merely a result of the overdriving in the first subframe (i.e., the application of a
`
`higher voltage). Undershooting/overshooting need not occur in the second
`
`subframe, or in the first subframe for that matter.
`
`16. Surpass’s position is also inconsistent with the ’843 patent itself, including
`
`the very clear definition of “overdriving” provided at column 2, lines 2-7, as well
`
`as Figure 6:
`
`8
`
`LGD_000876
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, ’843 Patent at Fig. 6. As per above, the transmission rate does not
`
`exceed the target, T2. The goal (as per the “Background” section of the patent) is
`
`simply to reach T2 before the end of the second subframe (n+3) of frame N+1. The
`
`patent says nothing about surpassing T2.
`
`17. Even accepting Surpass’s logic, however, Lee would still anticipate claim 4
`
`of the ’843 patent in my opinion. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that in practice undershooting would likely occur in the second
`
`subframe. As I stated during my deposition, the figures depict ideal representations
`
`of the transmission of the pixel. In practice, however, reaching (and stopping) at a
`
`particular target value would be extremely difficult. See Ex. 2007 at 109:20-110:6
`
`(“What [Lee] is simply saying is I put too much voltage on the pixel, now I have
`
`got to correct the overvoltage…and even with underdriving…he gets some
`
`undershot.”). Thus, Lee’s depiction of a rollback to a target value (and no further)
`
`9
`
`LGD_000877
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is likely unrealistic—there would be some nominal amount of undershooting there.
`
`Lee discloses a system that in practice would result in overshooting/undershooting
`
`in both subframes. As I explained during my deposition, Figure 12 is merely an
`
`illustration of a concept—a desired result that is likely not achievable in practice.
`
`Id. at 145:18-146:3. The same goes for Figure 6 of the ’843 patent which shows the
`
`transmission rate stopping precisely at T2. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that in practice some overshooting may occur there as well.
`
`18. Additionally, Surpass and Mr. Bohannon erroneously contend that Lee,
`
`Figure 12, does not show the application of specific voltages. As a preliminary
`
`matter, Lee’s Figure 12 is directly analogous to Figure 6 of the ’843 patent—both
`
`relate the amount of light passing through the pixel (transmission) to the frame or
`
`subframe. In the context of both patents, as per the other figures and corresponding
`
`disclosures, it is the application of voltages that causes these changes in
`
`transmission or transmission rate.
`
`19. Moreover, Mr. Bohannon conceded during deposition that there is a
`
`correlation between transmission and voltage—a direct correlation. See Ex. 1014,
`
`Bohannon Dep. Trans. at 14:22-15:16. Mr. Bohannon also conceded this point in
`
`his discussion of the rollback that occurs in the second subframe (n+) of Lee,
`
`Figure 12. Specifically, Mr. Bohannon states at paragraph 36 of his declaration that
`
`10
`
`LGD_000878
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“a signal” is applied that returns the pixel transmission rate to the target value.”
`
`Ex. 2017 at 16 (emphasis added).
`
`20. And Mr. Bohannon is correct in this assessment. As I explained in my
`
`deposition, a negative voltage (a negative data impulse) is required to achieve the
`
`rollback depicted in the second subframe. During deposition, Mr. Bohannon also
`
`discussed the possibility of turning the higher voltage off or down in order to reach
`
`the target value. However, in my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that a second (lower) voltage must be applied in order to ensure that the
`
`target value is reached by the end of the second subframe, which is consistent with
`
`the definition of overdriving provided in the ’843 patent—which Mr. Bohannon
`
`has endorsed.
`
`21. The application of these higher and lower signals necessarily meets the ’843
`
`patent’s definition of overdriving (presuming for the sake of argument that claim 4
`
`requires “overdriving,” which it does not).
`
`IV. SUPPLEMENTATION
`
`22. This supplemental declaration is based on my present assessment of material
`
`and information currently available to me.
`
`23.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made herein on information and belief are believed to
`
`11
`
`LGD_000879
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be true. Further, these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such willful
`
`false statements may jeopardize the validity of the above-identified patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 1, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`LGD_000880
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
