Paper 9
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: September 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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, LG Display Co., Ltd., filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’843 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 2
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: September 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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, LG Display Co., Ltd., filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’843 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`(“Petition” or “Pet.”). Patent Owner, Surpass Tech Innovation LLC, filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“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, 8, and 9 of the ’843 patent. We do not institute an inter partes
`review of claim 1 of the ’843 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`According to Petitioner, the ’843 patent is involved in the following
`lawsuit: Surpass Tech Innovation LLC v. LG Display Co. Ltd. et al.,
`No. 1:14-cv-00337 (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.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 4 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 4, which are
`illustrative, are reproduced below.
`1. A driving circuit for driving an 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,
`the driving circuit comprising:
`a blur clear converter for receiving frame data every
`frame period, each frame data comprising a plurality of pixel
`data and each pixel data corresponding to a pixel, the blur clear
`converter delaying current frame data to generate delayed frame
`data and generating a plurality of overdriven pixel data within
`every frame period for each pixel;
`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 scan
`line connected to the pixel within one frame period in order to
`control transmission rate of the liquid crystal device; and
`a gate driver for applying a scan line voltage to the
`switch device of the pixel so that the data impulses can be
`applied to the liquid crystal device of the pixel.
`
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`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 date;
`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.
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 are unpatentable based on
`the following grounds:
`Reference(s)
`Lee1
`Jinda2
`Jinda
`Jinda in view of Miyai3
`
`
`Challenged Claims
`1, 4, 8, and 9
`1, 4, 8, and 9
`1, 4, 8, and 9
`1, 4, 8, and 9
`
`Basis
`§ 102(b)
`§ 102(b)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`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
`
`
`1 Korean Patent Application No. 2000-0073673, published June 19, 2002
`(Ex. 1010) (“Lee”).
`2 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0044115, published
`Apr. 18, 2002 (Ex. 1008) (“Jinda”).
`3 Japanese Laid-Open Publication HEI 6-62355, published Mar. 4, 1994
`(Ex. 1009) (“Miyai”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`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 does not contend any specific claim terms need
`construction, and submits that the challenged claims should be given their
`plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10. Petitioner argues, however, that there
`is a typographical error in claim 1. Id. at 11 and 27. In support of that
`contention, Petitioner relies upon a Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D., who
`has been retained as an expert witness by Petitioner for the instant
`proceeding. Ex. 1011.
`Claim 1 recites “applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal
`device of the pixel via the scan line.” Petitioner argues that the Specification
`of the ’843 patent, including independent claim 4, describes data impulses
`applied via the data line, not the scan line. Pet. 11. In addition, Petitioner
`argues that “data impulses would necessarily be applied to the data lines in
`order for the device to function properly.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1011, ¶¶ 69–
`70). For purposes of applying prior art to the claims, Petitioner interprets
`claim 1 not as written, but rather as requiring applying data impulses via the
`data line, not the scan line. See, e.g., Pet. 26–33. Patent Owner provides no
`construction for the phrase.
`Petitioner’s proffered correction would materially alter what would be
`required of claim 1. Instead of applying impulses to a particular line of the
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`apparatus, the correction would require the application of impulses to a
`completely different line of the apparatus. We find that the proposed change
`is not a minor one, but a material change of what is required.
`A patent claim may be corrected through claim construction “only if
`(1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration
`of the claim language and the specification and (2) the prosecution history
`does not suggest a different interpretation of the claims.” Novo Indus., L.P.
`v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But “courts
`may not redraft claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their
`validity.” Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004). The burden is on Petitioner to show that a claim contains the
`kind of error that is considered a drafting error. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`Paragraphs 69 and 70 of the Zech Declaration to which we are
`directed do not explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood that “data impulses would necessarily be applied to
`the data lines in order for the device to function properly.” As such, these,
`and all of the contentions made by Petitioner on this issue are based on
`attorney argument. Argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence
`lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).
`Accordingly, we do not construe claim 1 as suggested by Petitioner, but
`rather construe the claim as written.
`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. 29.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Anticipation requires the disclosure in a single prior art reference of
`each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim.
`Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
`F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`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. All challenges against Claim 1
`Petitioner contends that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by either Lee or Jinda and that claim 1 is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jinda alone, or Jinda
`and Miyai. Pet. 22.
`As explained above in the claim construction section, we interpret
`claim 1 as written and not as “corrected” as Petitioner proposes. As a result,
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`Petitioner has not shown how any of the relied upon references disclose
`applying data impulses via the scan line as claimed, nor has Petitioner shown
`that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`would have known of the claimed feature. Petitioner’s reliance on Lee’s
`disclosure, for example, of a source driver that conveys a plurality of data
`impulses to the pixels of an LCD panel via corresponding data lines (Pet. 30,
`33–34) is misplaced, as that is not what is claimed. Similarly, Petitioner’s
`reliance on Jinda’s disclosure alone, or in combination with Miyai, of a
`source driver that conveys a plurality of data impulses to the pixels of an
`LCD panel via corresponding data lines (Pet. 50–51, 58–60) is misplaced, as
`that is not what is claimed.
`For these reasons, the information presented does not show a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that
`claim 1 is anticipated by Lee or Jinda, or that claim 1 would have been
`obvious over Jinda alone, or Jinda in combination with Miyai.
`D. Anticipation by Lee
`Petitioner contends that claims 4, 8, and 9 are anticipated by Lee.
`Pet. 22–39. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations as to how Lee meets each claim limitation. Id. Petitioner also
`relies upon a Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D., who has been retained as
`an expert witness by Petitioner for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1011.
`Lee describes a liquid crystal display device and driving device to
`remove a dragging phenomenon of a screen in a moving picture. Ex. 1010,
`4:3–6.4 As shown in Figure 8, reproduced below, display panel 100 is
`connected to a plurality of gate lines S1-Sn for supplying gate on signals
`
`4 Citations are to the English translation portion of Exhibit 1010.
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`provided by gate driver 200 and data lines D1-Dm to transfer compensated
`data voltages by data driver 300. Id. at 20, Fig. 8.
`
`
`
`
` Figure 8 of Lee shows a liquid crystal display device.
`Regions surrounded by gate and data lines each form a pixel, and each
`pixel includes thin film transistor 110, a gate electrode, and a source
`electrode, pixel capacitor C1 and storage capacitor Cst connected to drain
`electrode of thin film transistor 110. Id.
`The liquid crystal display device includes a data grey level
`compensation portion 400 that provides data for data driver 300. Id. at 20–
`21. Data grey level compensation portion 400 includes frame memory
`portion 420, synthesizer 410, controller 430, data grey level signal
`converter 442, and separator 450. Id. at 26–27; Figs. 13a. Frame memory
`portion 420 stores a grey level signal of a current frame and a grey level
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`signal of a previous frame already stored to the data grey level signal
`converter. Id. at 27:1–7.
`Lee describes grey level signal Gn of a current frame is output from
`synthesizer 410, and grey level signal Gn-1 of a previous frame is output
`from frame memory portion 420. Id. at 29. First compensated grey level
`signal Gn+’ is output in first sub frame (+) as shown in Fig. 13a, and second
`compensated grey level signal Gn-’ is output in second sub frame (-) as
`show in Figure 13b. Id.
`The present record supports the contention that Lee describes a
`method for driving a LCD panel. Pet. 34; Ex. 1010, 4:2–6, Fig. 8. The
`present record also supports the contention that Lee describes an LCD panel
`having a plurality of pixels as claimed, whereby the LCD panel is driven by
`data driver 300 and gate driver 200 for controlling the LCD panel. Pet. 34–
`36; Ex. 1010, Fig. 8. The present record supports the contention that Lee
`describes continuously receiving a plurality of frame data, generating a
`plurality of data impulses, and applying data impulses to each pixel within
`one frame period to control a transmission rate of the pixel. Pet. 36–38; Ex.
`1010. Petitioner also accounts for challenged dependent claims 8 and 9.
`Pet. 39.
`Patent Owner argues that Lee is disqualified as a reference because
`the certified English translation submitted with Lee does not satisfy
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). Prelim. Resp. 36. We are not persuaded by this
`argument because the proper procedure is for Patent Owner to object to the
`evidence, providing Petitioner an opportunity to cure. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not explained how Lee
`discloses applying data impulses of the pixels within one frame period in
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`order to control a transmission rate of the liquid crustal device of the pixel.
`Prelim. Resp. 43. Petitioner has made such a showing and provided an
`explanation. See, e.g., Pet. 33, 38; Ex. 1010, 25:10–13; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 63–64.
`Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
`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, 8, and 9 are
`anticipated by Lee, a reference not previously relied on.
`For all of the above reasons, the information presented shows a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that
`claims 4, 8, and 9 are anticipated by Lee.
`
`
`E. Remaining Grounds Challenging the Claims of the ’843 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.
`§ 42.108(b).
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`Petitioner that are not identified below as being part of the trial. See, e.g.,
`Pet. 22; 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that claims 4, 8, and 9 of the ’843 patent are unpatentable, but does
`not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that claim 1 of the ’843 patent is unpatentable. At this stage of the
`proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination with respect to the
`patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 4, 8,
`and 9 of the ’843 patent on the anticipation ground based on Lee;
`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 grounds
`identified immediately above, and no other ground is authorized.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Robert Pluta
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`
`Amanda Streff
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`
`William Barrow
`wbarrow@mayerbrown.com
`
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Wayne Helge
`whelge@dbjg.com
`
`Michael Casey
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`
`Donald Jackson
`djackson@dbjg.com
`
`
`
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
