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
`_______________
`
`PETITION FOR INTERPARTESREVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,202,843
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`Page
`MANDATORY NOTICES..................................................................................... 1
`PAYMENT OF FEES.............................................................................................. 2
`STANDING............................................................................................................... 3
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1, 4, 8,
`AND 9 OF THE ’843 PATENT ............................................................................ 3
`A.
`Specification Of The ’843 Patent ................................................................. 3
`B.
`Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of the ’843 Patent....................................................... 9
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................. 10
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’843 PATENT FORMING
`THE BASES FOR THIS PETITION ................................................................. 11
`A.
`Korean Patent Application No. 2002-0073673 (“Lee”).......................... 11
`B.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0044115 (“Jinda”)........ 13
`1.
`Summary of Jinda.............................................................................. 13
`2.
`The European Counterpart of the ’843 Patent Was
`Rejected In View of Jinda................................................................ 17
`Miyai............................................................................................................... 20
`C.
`VII. TERMINOLOGY................................................................................................... 21
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY FOR EACH CLAIM ................... 22
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 Are Anticipated By Lee........................ 22
`B.
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 4, 8, And 9 Are Obvious Over Jinda In View
`Of Miyai......................................................................................................... 40
`1.
`Disclosure in Jinda and Miyai.......................................................... 40
`2.
`Motivation to Combine.................................................................... 45
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 4, 8, And 9 Are Anticipated By Jinda ................... 56
`C.
`Ground 4: Claims 1, 4, 8, And 9 Are Obvious Over Jinda..................... 59
`B.
`CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 60
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`IX.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843
`Complaint filed in District Court Case No. 1:14-cv-00336 (D. Del.)
`Complaints filed in Related District Court Cases
`Petition filed in IPR2015-00021
`U.S. Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843
`Selected Documents from Prosecution History of European Patent
`Application No. 03029643.8
`Selected Documents from Prosecution History of Japanese Laid-Open
`Patent Publication No. 4199655 and Certified English Translation
`Thereof History of Thereof
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0044115 (“Jinda”)
`Japanese Laid Open Application Publication JPH0662355A (“Miyai”)
`and Certified English Translation Thereof
`Korean Patent Application No. 2000-0073673 (“Lee”) and Certified
`English Translation Thereof
`Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, Petitioner hereby respectfully requests inter partes
`
`review of Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (“the ’843 Patent”)(Ex.
`
`1001), which issued on April 10, 2007. The challenged claims are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 over the prior art publications identified and applied in this
`
`petition (the “Petition”).
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8, Petitioner discloses the following:
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest. LG Display America, Inc. is a real party-in-interest
`
`with Petitioner LG Display Co. Ltd .
`
`B. Related Matters. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner submits that
`
`the ’843 Patent is the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by the Patent
`
`Owner, Surpass Tech Innovation LLC (“Surpass”) (see Ex. 1002), against Petitioner in
`
`the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:14-cv-00336,
`
`captioned Surpass Tech Innovation LLC v. LG Display Co. Ltd. and LG Display America,
`
`Inc. The ’843 Patent has also been asserted in Surpass Tech Innovation LLC v. Samsung
`
`Display Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-337 (D. Del.) and Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`v. Sharp Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-338 (D. Del.). See Ex. 1003 (Complaints
`
`filed in related district court actions). All of the foregoing cases are currently stayed.
`
`The ’843 Patent is also the subject of IPR2015-00021, which was filed October 3,
`
`2014. See Ex. 1004 (Petition).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel.
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Robert G. Pluta
`Registration No. 50,970
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-701-8641
`Facsimile:
`312-701-7711
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`William J. Barrow
`Registration No. 62,813
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: 202.263.3000
`Facsimile:
`202.263.3300
`wbarrow@mayerbrown.com
`
`Amanda K. Streff
`Registration No. 65,224
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-701-8645
`Facsimile:
`312-701-7711
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`
`D. Service Information. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4), Petitioner identifies
`
`the following service information: Please direct all correspondence regarding this
`
`proceeding to lead counsel at the address identified above. Petitioner consents to
`
`electronic service by email to rpluta@mayerbrown.com, wbarrow@mayerbrown.com,
`
`and
`
`astreff@mayerbrown.com,
`
`with
`
`a
`
`courtesy
`
`copy
`
`sent
`
`to
`
`SURPASSIPR843@mayerbrown.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.103, $23,000 is being paid at the time of filing this
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`petition, charged to Deposit Account 130019. Should any further fees be required by
`
`the present Petition, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) is hereby
`
`authorized to charge the above-referenced Deposit Account.
`
`III.
`
`STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the patent sought for
`
`review, the ’843 Patent, is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of the ’843 Patent.
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR INTERPARTESREVIEW OF CLAIMS 1, 4, 8, AND
`9 OF THE ’843 PATENT
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioner requests that the Board find
`
`claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of the ’843 Patent unpatentable. Such relief is justified as the
`
`alleged invention of the ’843 Patent was described by others prior to the effective
`
`filing date of the ’843 Patent.
`
`A.
`
`Specification Of The ’843 Patent
`
`The ’843 Patent generally relates to circuits and methods for driving a liquid
`
`crystal display (“LCD”) panel. The LCD panel 30 described in the ’843 Patent
`
`includes a number of well-known components common in prior art LCD panels,
`
`including a plurality of scan lines 32 (also called gate lines), a plurality of data lines 34,
`
`and a plurality of pixels 36. Ex. 1001 at 1:27-31, 3:37-40. Each pixel 36 includes a
`
`switching device 38 (e.g., a thin-film transistor, also known as a “TFT”) and a liquid
`
`crystal device 39 (also called a “pixel electrode”). Id. at 3:40-43. These components are
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`shown in Fig. 4 of the ’843 Patent (annotated and reproduced below), which also
`
`shows that the gate of the switching device 38 in each pixel is connected to the
`
`corresponding scan line 32, while the source of the switching device in the pixel is
`
`connected to the corresponding data line 34. Id. at 3:43-47. The LCD panel 30 is
`
`driven by applying scan line voltages to the scan lines 32 to turn on the switching
`
`devices 38 and applying data impulses to the data lines 34 to charge the liquid crystal
`
`devices 39 via the switching devices 38. Id.
`
`The time that the pixel electrode needs to react to a driving voltage is called
`
`“response time.” As was well known prior to November 17, 2003 (the effective filing
`
`date for the ’843 Patent), the quality of a video image shown on an LCD panel is
`
`dependent, in part, on this response time; the faster the response time, the better the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`image quality. In this regard, the ’843 Patent explains that a delay in the response time
`
`in an LCD panel can cause image defects such as blurring, and describes the need for
`
`improving the LCD response speed. Id. at 1:21-26, 1:62-2:2.
`
`In this regard, the ’843 Patent discusses and claims two previously known
`
`techniques for improving the response time – and resultant image quality – of LCDs:
`
`(1) “overdriving” the signal data; and (2) increasing the refresh rate (e.g., doubling the
`
`refresh rate) of the individual pixels.
`
`As the ’843 Patent explains, “overdriving” involves “applying a higher or a
`
`lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid
`
`crystal molecules, so that the pixel can reach the predetermined gray level
`
`in a
`
`predetermined frame period.” Id. at 2:2-7. In simple terms, overdriving enables a
`
`pixel to change from one gray level (i.e., shade of color) to another more quickly by
`
`either boosting or decreasing the requested pixel value (i.e., voltage). The intended
`
`effect is to increase the difference in signal between the before and after pixel values
`
`such that the boosted signal will achieve the actual desired level of change (i.e., the
`
`non-boosted difference) more quickly. In other words, by pushing (or pulling) the
`
`gray level harder (boosting the signal), the desired pixel value is obtained faster. The
`
`faster change in pixel value reduces the amount of time required for the pixel to
`
`change state, meaning the LCD has a faster response time.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The ’843 Patent admits that overdriving was known in the prior art. See id. at
`
`4:17-19 (“Sameasthepriorart, thelarger the value of the pixeldata is [i.e.
`
`overdriving], the higher the voltage of the corresponding data impulse is, and the
`
`largerthegraylevelvalueis.” (emphases added)). In this regard, the ’843 Patent
`
`acknowledges that the “conventional overdriving method” taught in the prior art
`
`could be used to increase LCD response speed. Id. at 1:60-2:11. The ’843 Patent
`
`identified U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002-0050965 A1 to Oda et al. as
`
`“one of the references of the conventional overdriving method.” Id.
`
`Generally, an overdrive value – i.e., the amount to boost or decrease the data
`
`value – is computed by comparing a given pixel’s previousgray level (also referred
`
`to as “transmission rate”) with the pixel’s current gray level in order to predict
`
`whether and how much the gray level is increasing or decreasing. Id. at 5:34-44. The
`
`’843 Patent does not add anything new to this already known method for computing
`
`the overdrive value.
`
`The ’843 Patent alleges that, while capable of improving response time to a
`
`certain extent, overdriving alone does not achieve adequate performance, namely
`
`reaching a desired transmission rate within a single frame period. See id. at 2:7-12, Fig.
`
`2. As shown in Figure 2 of the ’843 Patent (reproduced below), a single overdriven
`
`signal C2 is purportedly unable to reach a target transmission rate T2 within a single
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`frame period N. Rather, according to this Figure, in the prior art, C2 would only
`
`reach T2 in the next frame period, N+1. According to the disclosure, since the pixels
`
`are unable to reach predetermined grey levels within a given frame period, the image
`
`could experience blurring. Id. at 1:21-37.
`
`To enable a signal to reach a target transmission rate T2 within a single frame
`
`period, the ’843 Patent suggests applying two or more overdriven impulses to each
`
`pixel within the given frame period. Id. at 4:20-40. For example, as shown in Figure
`
`6 of the ’843 Patent (reproduced below), each single frame period is divided into
`
`two segments. The frame N+1 is divided into the segments n+2 and n+3. Two
`
`overdriven data impulses are then applied to these two segments (e.g., one impulse
`
`during n+2 and a second during n+3) to the pixel within the given frame period
`
`(e.g., N+1). This method allegedly allows the signal to reach a target transmission
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`rate (T2) within a single frame period (e.g., N+1). Id. at 1:39-41, 3:15-4:43, 5:45-55.
`
`Figure 3 (reproduced below, left) schematically illustrates an embodiment of
`
`the circuit for driving the LCD panel 30. The driving circuit 10 includes a blur clear
`
`converter 14, a source driver 18, and a gate driver 20. The blur clear converter 14
`
`continuously receives, through a signal controller 12, a plurality of frame data G. The
`
`frame data includes the data necessary to drive all of the pixels of the panel 30. The
`
`blur clear converter 14 then generates the overdriven pixel data for each pixel within
`
`each frame period based on the frame data. Id. at 3:24-28. Figure 5 (reproduced
`
`below, right) shows two overdriven pixel data GN+1 and GN+1(2) generated by the
`
`blur clear converter 14 for each pixel in the frame period N+1.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The source driver 18 then converts the overdriven pixel data (e.g., GN+1 and
`
`GN+1(2)) into the corresponding data impulses. Id. at 3:28-36. The data impulses are
`
`applied to the liquid crystal device 39 of a pixel within the frame period (e.g., at each
`
`half of the frame period N+1) via the data line 34 in order to control the transmission
`
`rate of the liquid crystal device 39. Id. at 4:8-14. The gate driver 20 generates the
`
`corresponding scan line voltage and applies it to the scan line 32 to turn on the
`
`switching device 38 of the pixel so that the data impulses from the source driver 18
`
`can be applied to the liquid crystal device 39 of the pixel. Id. at 3:28-36.
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of the ’843 Patent
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’843 Patent is an apparatus claim directed to a
`
`driving circuit for driving an LCD panel. The claimed driving circuit “generat[es] a
`
`pluralityofoverdrivenpixel data within every frame period for each pixel.” Id. at
`
`Claim 1 (emphasis added).
`
`Independent Claim 4 is a method claim directed to driving an LCD. In
`
`contrast to Claim 1, Claim 4 merely requires “generating a pluralityof data impulses
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`for each pixel within every frame period according to the frame data.” Id. at Claim 4
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, Claim 4, and Claims 8 and 9 depending therefrom, do not
`
`require performing the overdrive technique.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Petitioner submits that, for purposes of this Petition only 1, the terms of
`
`Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of the ’843 Patent are generally clear on their face, and should
`
`be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`’843 Patent2. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`1 Petitioner notes that the standard for claim construction applied in this
`
`proceeding is different than the standard applied in district court litigation. Petitioner
`
`expressly reserves the right to submit constructions for the claims in the related
`
`litigation pending in the District of Delaware, under the legal standard applicable in
`
`that proceeding, including how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`the claims in light of relevant intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`
`2 Petitioner notes that Patent Owner previously took the position that the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard applies to the terms of Claims 1, 4, 8, and
`
`9 of the ’843 Patent. See, e.g., IPR2015-00021, Paper No. 9, at 12. Notably, in so
`
`doing Patent Owner did not argue that any claim term invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112(6),
`
`nor could it. See id. at 9-13. Indeed, a claim limitation that does not use the term
`
`“means” triggers a rebuttal presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) does not apply. Such
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner notes an apparent typographical error in Claim 1. Specifically,
`
`Claim 1 recites “a source driver for generating a plurality of data impulses to each
`
`pixel according to the plurality of overdriven pixel data generated by the blur clear
`
`converter and applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device of the pixel
`
`via the scanline connected to the pixel within one frame period in order to
`
`control transmission rate of the liquid crystal device.” However, the ’843 Patent
`
`explains that data impulses are applied via the dataline,not the scan line. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:47-51 (“To drive the LCD 30, . . . data voltages are applied to the data
`
`lines 34 and transmitted to the pixel electrodes 30....”). As discussed below, the
`
`cited prior art (or combination of prior art) discloses the same driving circuit
`
`configuration disclosed in the ’843 Patent. Therefore, irrespective of this error,
`
`Claim 1 is unpatentable.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART TO THE ’843 PATENT FORMING THE
`BASES FOR THIS PETITION
`A.
`Korean Patent Application No. 2000-0073673 (“Lee”)
`Lee was published on June 19, 2002, prior to November 17, 2003 (the effective
`
`filing date for the ’843 Patent), and is prior art to the ’843 Patent at least under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Lee discloses a liquid crystal display device including an LCD
`
`a presumption is a strong one that is not readily overcome. See Lighting World, Inc. v.
`
`Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`panel, data and gate driver portions, and a data grey level signal compensation
`
`portion. Id. at pp. 5-6, Fig. 8. The gate driver portion “supplies scanning signals
`
`sequentially” (id. at 21:4-6) and the “data driver portion 300 changes the compensated
`
`grey level signal Gn’…into the corresponding grey level voltage (data voltage) and
`
`applies the voltage to the data line” (id. at 35:14). “Regions surrounded by the gate
`
`lines and the data lines each form a pixel,” each of which includes “a thin film
`
`transistor 110, a gate electrode and a source electrode, which are connected to the gate
`
`line and the data line, respectively, and a pixel capacitor Cl and a storage capacitor Cst
`
`that are connected to a drain electrode of the thin film transistor 110.” Id. at 20:6-12.
`
`The data grey level signal compensation portion “divides a grey level data frame
`
`of a picture signal supplied from a data grey level signal source into at least two sub
`
`frames, and outputs to the liquid crystal display panel a compensated grey level data
`
`through an overshoot or undershoot driving according to comparing a grey level
`
`signal of a previous frame and a grey level signal of a current frame, thereby making a
`
`response speed of liquid crystal high.” Id. at 8:1-5; see also Figs. 13a and 13b. Lee
`
`discloses that the frame memory “can be configured totally with 3 frame memories, a
`
`picture signal input in the current frame is wrote on the first frame memory 426 at
`
`60Hz, a picture signal wrote 1 frame before is stored in the second memory 427, and a
`
`picture signal wrote 2 frames before is stored in the third memory 428.” Id. at 32:8-
`
`11.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0044115 (“Jinda”)
`1.
`Summary of Jinda
`
`Jinda was published on April 18, 2002, prior to November 17, 2003 (the
`
`effective filing date for the ’843 Patent), and is prior art to the ’843 Patent under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Jinda was cited by the Applicant during prosecution of the
`
`’843 Patent, but was not referred to or discussed by the Examiner. As discussed
`
`below, the EPO found that Jinda anticipated virtually identical claims to those in
`
`question here, but the Applicant never told the USPTO about the EPO’s findings.
`
`Like the ’843 Patent, Jinda discloses a method for “improving the response
`
`characteristic of liquid crystals and further improving the display quality of dynamic
`
`images” in “matrix type” liquid crystal displays. Ex. 1008, Jinda, ¶ [0007], see also ¶
`
`[0002]. For example, Jinda incorporates Japanese Laid Open Application Publication
`
`JPH0662355A (“Miyai”) by
`
`reference,
`
`and identifies
`
`various
`
`issues with
`
`“conventional” LCDs,
`
`including the LCD disclosed in Miyai. The “conventional
`
`liquid crystal panel” referenced in Jinda (and discussed in greater detail
`
`in Miyai)
`
`includes a matrix of pixels 2, each of which includes a liquid crystal device 2 and a
`
`switching device 1 (i.e., a TFT). Ex. 1009, English Translation, ¶ [0003]. The switching
`
`device is connected to a gate line and a data line. This arrangement is shown in Figure
`
`3(a) of the incorporated Miyai reference, which is reproduced and annotated below:
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Jinda discloses the same two techniques as the ’843 Patent for improving
`
`image quality of a conventional LCD panel (e.g., the LCD Panel of Miyai), namely,
`
`(1) overdriving the signal data; and (2) increasing the refresh rate of the pixels.
`
`Jinda discloses a circuit for receiving an input image signal comprising
`
`multiple frames of video. Ex. 1008, Jinda, ¶ [0036], Fig. 1. Frame data is sequentially
`
`written into one of the first, second, or third frame memories, as shown in Figure 1
`
`below. Id. ¶ [0036]. At any given point in time, one frame memory will contain the
`
`current frame data, a second will contain the previous frame data, and a third is
`
`available to receive new frame data. Id. ¶¶ [0037]-[0038], Figs. 1-3.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“Arithmetic unit 4” retrieves data from the frame memory (1, 2, or 3) and
`
`compares the “data value of the previous image signal and the data value of the
`
`current image signal” to output overdriven pixel data. Id. ¶ [0039]. In this regard,
`
`Jinda explains: (a) “a data value of a value greater than the data value of the current
`
`image signal is written when the data value of the current image signal is greater than
`
`the data value of the previous image signal”; and (b) “a data value of a value smaller
`
`than the data value of the current image signal is written when the data value of the
`
`current image signal is smaller than the data value of the previous image signal.” Id.
`
`In other words, the output data for a given frame is overdriven based on the prior
`
`frame’s image signal.
`
`This is illustrated in the look-up table of Figure 4 of Jinda (reproduced
`
`below). When the data value of the previous image signal is 20 and the data value
`
`of the current image signal is 10, a lower (overdriven) signal value of 8 will be
`
`outputted. By contrast, when the data value of the previous image signal is 10 and
`
`the data value of the current image signal is 20, a higher (overdriven) signal value of
`
`22 will be outputted. According to Jinda, this overdriving technique is necessary to
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“to make the liquid crystals have a rapid response.” Id. ¶ [0006].
`
`In addition, Jinda teaches applying the overdriven image data to each pixel a
`
`“plurality of times within one vertical synchronization interval” (i.e., within one frame
`
`period). See, e.g., id. ¶ [0010]; see also ¶¶ [0041]-[0042]. Jinda explains “that the repetitive
`
`input of the data value (b) is effective for the improvement of the rise of the light
`
`transmittance (c) of the [LCD] device,” which reduces blurring and increases image
`
`quality. Id. ¶ [0042]; see also ¶ [0046]. In one embodiment, the transmission rate of the
`
`LCD input data is doubled (Id. ¶ [0041], Fig. 5), while, in another embodiment, the
`
`transmission rate of the LCD input data is tripled (Id. ¶ [0067], Fig. 16). This enables
`
`“achievement of high-speed image display and the improvement of the dynamic
`
`image display quality.” Id. ¶ [0045].
`
`Figure 5 of Jinda (reproduced and annotated below to the left) shows the
`
`application of two overdriven data impulses in each frame period. Figure 5 of Jinda is
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`noticeably indistinguishable from Figure 6 of the ’843 Patent (reproduced and
`
`annotated below to the right).
`
`2.
`
`The European Counterpart of the ’843 Patent Was Rejected
`In View of Jinda
`On December 22, 2003, the original assignee of the ’843 Patent filed a virtually
`
`identical application with the EPO, which was assigned European Patent App. No.
`
`03029643.8 (“the EPO Application”). See Ex. 1006 at 1. The EPO Application names
`
`the same inventors and contains the same specification and figures as the ’843 Patent.
`
`See id. at 7-31.
`
`The EPO Application, as originally filed, included nine claims, which were
`
`virtually identical to the nine claims filed in the United States. Compare Ex. 1005 at
`
`LGD_000338-342 with Ex. 1006 at LGD_000387-392. As relevant here, Claim 7 of
`
`the EPO Application required “a blur clear converter (14, 60) for receiving frame
`
`data every frame period, each frame data comprising a plurality of pixel data and
`
`each pixel data corresponding to a pixel (36), the blur clear converter (14, 60)
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`delaying current frame data to generate delayed frame data and generating a plurality
`
`of overdriven pixel data within every frame period for each pixel (36),” which is also
`
`required in Claim 1 of the ’843 Patent. Ex. 1006 at LGD_000389-390. Similarly,
`
`Claim 1 of the EPO Application required “generating a plurality of data impulses for
`
`each pixel (36) within every frame period according to the frame data,” which is
`
`required by Claim 4 of the ’843 Patent. Id. at LGD_000387-388.
`
`On June 22, 2004, the EPO issued a Search Report identifying two “X” (i.e.,
`
`anticipatory) references relevant to all nine claims, including the same Jinda reference
`
`relied upon in this Petition. Id. at LGD_000403. The EPO also issued a preliminary
`
`action rejecting all of the claims as being unpatentable over Jinda. Id. at LGD_000395-
`
`398. The EPO Examiner found that Jinda “discloses . . . a blur clear converter” of
`
`EPO Claim 7, as shown in Figures 1 and 4 of Jinda. Id. at LGD_000396-397. The
`
`Examiner also found that Jinda disclosed the steps of “generating” and “applying [a
`
`plurality] the data impulses to the liquid crystal device . . . of one of the pixels within
`
`one frame period . . . in order to control a transmission rate of the pixel,” as shown in
`
`Figures 5, 9, and 14 of Jinda. Id. at LGD_000396. In addition, the Examiner stated
`
`that Jinda does not explicitly disclose some of the well-known components of an
`
`LCD (e.g., scan lines, data lines, switching devices), but found that these basic
`
`elements are “implicitly” disclosed. Id.
`
`Rather than challenge the Examiner’s findings, the Applicant submitted a
`
`18
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`new set of claims directed to specific methods for driving an LCD (all of which
`
`included generating a plurality of overdriven pixel data for each frame), and argued
`
`that these new claims were allowable over Jinda. Id. at LGD_000411-416. However,
`
`the Examiner rejected the narrower claims in view of Jinda as well.
`
`Id. at
`
`LGD_000417-422. In response, the Applicant argued only that Jinda does not
`
`implicitly disclose the well-known LCD components discussed above (e.g., scan
`
`lines, data lines, switching devices). Id. at LGD_000417-418. The Applicant did not
`
`challenge the EPO’s determination that Jinda disclosed applying a plurality of
`
`overdriven pixel data within one frame period, which again, is also a requirement of
`
`Claim 1 of the ’843 Patent.
`
`On November 24, 2009,
`
`the EPO issued a summons to attend oral
`
`proceedings and responded to the Applicant’s arguments. Id. at LGD_000421. The
`
`EPO found that, even if the basic LCD components are not disclosed by Jinda, they
`
`are disclosed in prior art incorporated by reference in Jinda, including the same Miyai
`
`reference relied upon in this Petition (i.e., Japanese Laid-Open Publication No. HEI
`
`6-62355). Id. at LGD_000425. The Applicant did not attend the oral argument
`
`conducted by the EPO and the application was refused and prosecution was closed.
`
`Id. at LGD_000433-436.
`
`During the pendency of the prosecution of the ’843 Patent, the Applicant
`
`submitted an Information Disclosure Statement to the Patent Office identifying the
`
`19
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`prior art references cited by the EPO. However, neither the European Search Report
`
`itself nor the related European Office Action were submitted to the Patent Office
`
`(even though they issued long before the ’843 Patent was granted). As such, the U.S.
`
`Examiner did not have the benefit of the EPO’s highly relevant analysis.
`
`C. Miyai
`Miyai was published on March 4, 1994, prior to November 17, 2003 (the
`
`effective filing date for the ’843 Patent), and is prior art to the ’843 Patent under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). As discussed above, Miyai is incorporated by reference into
`
`Jinda, and discloses a conventional LCD panel that includes a matrix of pixels, each of
`
`which includes a liquid crystal device and a switching device. Ex. 1009, Miyai, ¶
`
`[0003], Fig. 3(a). Each switching device is connected to a gate (or scan) line and a data
`
`line. Id. Given the commonality of the components, it is unsurprising that the LCD
`
`panel of Miyai (annotated below, left) is identical to that of the ’843 Patent (annotated
`
`below, right):
`
`20
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Miyai is discussed in the background section of Jinda. Ex. 1002, Jinda, ¶¶ [0004],
`
`[0006]. Specifically, Jinda identifies various shortcomings of the LCD of Miyai, upon
`
`which it purportedly improves.
`
`VII. TERMINOLOGY
`
`In light of the use of various terms having the same meaning throughout the
`
`’843 Patent and the prior art, Petitioner provides the following chart illustrating
`
`synonymous terms used throughout some of the references cited herein to assist in
`
`the Board’s review of the unpatentability challenges. See Ex. 1011, Zech Decl., at ¶52.
`
`’843 Patent Terms
`Scan line
`Data line
`Switching device
`Liquid crystal device
`
`Overdrive
`
`Jinda Terms
`
`Lee Terms
`Gate line/scanning signal
`Data line/picture signal
`Thin-film transistor (TFT)
`Liquid crystal display
`Liquid crystal capacitor (Cl)
`device
`and storage capacitor (Cst)
`Overshoot
`and/or Voltage increase
`
`Dataline/Image signal
`
`21
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,202,843
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Gate driver
`Source driver
`
`undershoot
`Gate driver
`Data driver
`
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY FOR EACH CLAIM
`In light of the disclosures detailed below, the ’843 Patent is unpatentable for at
`
`least the reasons in the following chart and discussed in more detail herein.
`
`Prior Art
`
`Claims
`Exhibit Nos.
`No. Ground
`1, 4, 8, 9
`1010
`Lee
`1
`102(b)
`1, 4, 8, 9
`Jinda in view of Miyai 1008 and 1009
`2
`103(a)
`1, 4, 8, 9
`Jinda
`1008
`3
`102(b)
`1, 4, 8, 9
`Jinda
`1008
`4
`103(a)
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 Are Anticipated By Lee
`
`Lee anticipates claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of the ’843 Patent. Lee discloses each and
`
`every element of Claim 1 of the ’843 Patent. First, Lee discloses a liquid crystal display
`
`and driving device. Ex. 1010, Lee Trans. at 4:2-3. More specifically, Lee discloses a
`
`liquid crystal display device panel 100 that includes a plurality of gate lines S1-Sn for
`
`supplying scanning signals provided by gate driver 200. Id. at 20:6-7, 35:13-15. The
`
`“gate lines” described in Lee are synonymous with the “scan lines” recited in the
`
`claims of the ’843 Patent, particularly as Lee states that the “plurality of gate lines
`
`transfer[s] the scanning signals.” See Ex. 1011, Zech Decl., at ¶58; see also Ex. 1010,
`
`Lee Trans. at 6:11-12. Thus, Lee discloses an LCD panel comprising “a plurali