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
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM K. BOHANNON
`IN RESPONSE TO PETITION OF LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 1 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I, William K. Bohannon, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I have been retained by Patent Owner Surpass Tech Innovation LLC to
`
`provide my opinions in support of its Response to the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of Patent No. 7,202,843 (the ‘843 patent). I am being compensated for my
`
`time at the rate of $250 per hour. I have no interest in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS

`
`1.
`
`I am currently employed as an independent electronics and display
`
`technologies expert and consultant. My background and qualifications are set forth
`
`in my curriculum vitae, attached as Appendix A.
`
`2.
`
`As set forth in my curriculum vitae, I have an undergraduate degree in
`
`Mathematics, graduate work in mathematics, physics, and computer science, and
`
`over thirty years of professional experience in the areas of displays and electronics.
`
`3.
`
`During this time, I have worked as a consultant, as an expert, as a
`
`named inventor on seven patents, and as a company founder and executive.
`
`Specific display technologies that I have worked with include all aspects of LCD
`
`projector design, LCD control electronics including various LCD drive electronics
`
`circuits, and testing equipment for LCD drive electronics and display performance.
`
`I have invented and designed LCD projection systems and their associated control
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 2 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`electronics and in addition I have worked with various LC device and component
`
`manufacturers to develop custom LCD components.
`
`4. My experience includes decades of electronics and display product
`
`development. It also includes consulting and providing expert experience in many
`
`aspects of the display electronics field. I have experience as a design engineer,
`
`systems architect, principal engineer, project manager, and company executive, as
`
`well as experience in reverse engineering.
`
`5.
`
`I have many years of experience in designing, developing,
`
`manufacturing and testing electronic display systems. As an independent
`
`consultant and analyst, I also acquired, analyzed, tested and then published the test
`
`results for over one hundred different display systems produced by major
`
`electronics manufacturers. The company I helped to found, Planet ATE,
`
`developed many unique electronic test technologies that were used by major,
`
`worldwide electronics companies to test various electronics circuits including LCD
`
`drivers.
`
`6. My additional experience is listed in my curriculum vitae, attached as
`
`an Appendix to this declaration.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`7.
`
`In forming my opinions, in addition to my knowledge and experience,
`
`I have considered the following documents and things that I have obtained, or that
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 3 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`have been provided to me, as well as any other references cited herein that may not
`
`be listed below:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 to Shen et al., (Ex. 1001) along with
`
`aspects of its prosecution history before the U.S. Patent & Trademark
`
`Office (Ex. 1005)
`
` English Translation of Korean Patent Application No. 2000-0073673
`
`(“Lee”) (Ex. 1010)
`
` The Petition for Inter Partes Review filed by the Petitioners against
`
`the ‘843 patent (IPR2015-00885), focusing on the instituted ground
`
`based on Lee alone
`
` Declaration of Richard Zech, Ph.D. (Ex. 1011)
`
` Transcript for Deposition of Richard Zech, Ph.D. dated November 13,
`
`2015 (Ex. 2007)
`
`
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART AND
`
`LEGAL STANDARD IN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`8.
`
`The ‘843 patent relates to methods and circuitry for driving an LCD
`
`panel. I understand that the factors considered in determining the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art include education and experience of persons working in the art, and
`
`the types of problems encountered in the art. Based on these factors, in my opinion,
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 4 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art of the ‘843 patent has at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mathematics, or computer science with
`
`two or more years of experience in designing electronics and displays. For
`
`example, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have education and experience
`
`sufficient to understand both the disclosures of Lee and the background of the ‘843
`
`patent’s specification. This includes the ability to understand the overdriving
`
`concept as it is discussed in the ‘843 patent. I would expect this background to
`
`include experience in LCD control electronics. A person having this background
`
`would understand factors associated with driving electronic impulses, and would
`
`also understand the concepts of pixel voltage versus light transmission and pixel
`
`response time.
`
`9. My opinions contained in this declaration are given from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the November 17,
`
`2003 filing of the Taiwanese application No. 92132122 A upon which the ‘843
`
`patent is based, unless specifically stated, even if my opinion is expressed in the
`
`present tense. As of November 17, 2003, I satisfied the standard of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art described above in ¶8.
`
`10.
`
`In an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board, I understand that a petitioner has the burden to prove patent
`
`invalidity by a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. I have evaluated the
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 5 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition in this case and reach my opinions below according to that burden of
`
`proof. I also understand that from the Board’s perspective, attorney argument does
`
`not constitute evidence for satisfying this burden.
`
`IV. THE ‘843 PATENT
`
`11.
`
`I have reviewed Patent No. 7,202,843 (the ‘843 patent) entitled
`
`“Driving Circuit of a Liquid Crystal Display Panel and Related Driving Method.”
`
`The ‘843 patent describes both the background technology of blurring in a liquid
`
`crystal display (LCD) panel due to slow response time of the liquid crystal (LC)
`
`molecules, and a driving method developed in response to the blurring problem.
`
`A. The Background of the Technology
`
`12. As the ‘843 patent explains, an LCD panel includes LC molecules
`
`arranged between the electrodes of the pixels. In order to display an intended
`
`image on the LCD panel, a potential difference is applied across the electrodes.
`
`The potential difference causes the LC molecules to twist and rearrange to allow a
`
`brightness level of light, usually generated via a backlight, to pass through the LC
`
`molecules. Once the potential difference is applied, the LC molecule rearranging is
`
`not immediate. Time is necessary for the LC molecules in the pixel to complete
`
`their rearranging and for the pixel to generate the intended brightness level of light.
`
`Further, where the LC molecule rearrangement cannot be completed within a target
`
`frame period, the ‘843 patent explains that “blurring” may occur. [‘843 patent, col.
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 6 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`1, lines 1-2]. This concept is explained in the Background of the ‘843 patent, and I
`
`agree with the way in which that concept is explained there.
`
`13. The ‘843 patent also describes the concept of overdriving.
`
`Specifically, according to the ‘843 patent, a way to reduce the risk of blurring is
`
`overdriving, “which means applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel
`
`electrode to accelerate the speed of the liquid crystal molecules,” and may allow
`
`the pixel to reach a predetermined gray level in a predetermined frame period.
`
`[‘843 patent, col. 2, lines 3-7]. Figure 2 of the ‘843 patent is described as “a timing
`
`diagram of different transmission rates of a pixel, varying in accordance with the
`
`frames.” [‘843 patent, col. 1, lines 53-55]. “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.” [‘843
`
`patent, column 1, lines 57-60]. However, even curve C2 does not reach the target
`
`transmission rate of T2 until frame N+1. Therefore, the ‘843 patent seeks a further
`
`improvement on overdriving. [‘843 patent, col. 2, lines 7-12]. The ‘843 patent
`
`states that a “primary object of the claimed invention” is “to provide a driving
`
`circuit of an LCD panel and its relating driving method to solve the [response
`
`speed] problem mentioned above.” [‘843 patent, col. 2, lines 16-18]. It is clear to
`
`me that the phrase “its relating driving method” refers back to the “driving circuit
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 7 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`of an LCD panel” based on how this sentence is constructed. I find this sentence
`
`helpful for understanding the claimed invention in the ‘843 patent.
`
`B. The ‘843 Patent’s Disclosure
`
`14. The main focus of the ‘843 patent is controlling the transmission rate
`
`of the LC molecules in a pixel by applying at least two data impulses in a frame
`
`based on overdriven data. The ‘843 patent includes three block diagrams of
`
`driving circuits or components thereof, and each performs overdriving on the pixel
`
`data. [‘843 patent, Figures 3, 7 and 8]. Additionally, the ‘843 patent includes two
`
`timing diagrams showing two overdriven pixel data signals applied in a frame.
`
`[‘843 patent, Figures 5 and 10].
`
`15.
`
`In the block diagrams of the driving circuit 10, a blur clear converter
`
`14 is included and “continuously receives the controls signals C and the frame data
`
`included in the frame signals G and generates processed frame signals G including
`
`a plurality of overdriven data according to the frame data.” [‘843 patent, col. 3,
`
`lines 24-28]. This embodiment is shown in Fig. 3 of the ‘843 patent.
`
`16. Figures 7 and 8 show first and second embodiments of the blur clear
`
`converter shown and described with respect to Figure 3. Figure 7’s embodiment of
`
`the blur clear converter includes a processing circuit 42. According to the ‘843
`
`patent, 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.” [‘843
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 8 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`patent, col. 4, lines 53-55]. The overdriven pixel data are identified as “overdriven
`
`pixel data GN, GN(2).” [‘843 patent, col. 4, lines 62-63]. Similar to the
`
`embodiment of Figure 7, the blur clear converter of Figure 8 also has a processing
`
`circuit 74. This processing circuit 74 also “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.” [‘843 patent, col. 5, lines 17-19]. Therefore, in these disclosed
`
`embodiments of the driving circuit 10, the ‘843 patent discloses driving circuitry
`
`for generating two overdriven pixel data in a frame.
`
`17. Further, in the timing diagrams of Figures 5 and 10, it is clear that the
`
`‘843 patent is describing the timing of applied overdriven pixel data. When
`
`describing the output of blur clear converter according to embodiments, the ‘843
`
`patent 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. Examples
`
`of this can be found in col. 4, lines 49-63; col. 5, lines 7-22; and col. 5, lines 28-42.
`
`In both Figures 5 and 10, the ‘843 patent uses labels indicating overdriven pixel
`
`data. This is consistent with Figure 5 showing the overdriven pixel data impulses
`
`GN, GN(2)… from driving circuit 10, which outputs overdriven data via blur clear
`
`converter 14. This is also consistent with Figure 10 showing the overdriven pixel
`
`data impulses GN, GN(2)… from blur clear converter 60 of Figure 8. This is
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 9 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`expressly contrasted with Figure 9’s use of lower-case “m” indicating non-
`
`overdriven (or original) pixel data. [‘843 patent, col. 5, lines 28-31].
`
`18. Based on my review of the ‘843 patent’s detailed description of the
`
`invention and its embodiments, the ‘843 patent uniformly correlates the idea of
`
`overdriving and controlling the transmission rate of the LC molecules of a pixel.
`
`19. As I noted above, the ‘843 patent describes the concept of
`
`overdriving. Specifically, according to the background of the ‘843 patent, a way to
`
`reduce the risk of blurring is overdriving, “which means applying a higher or a
`
`lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to accelerate the speed of the liquid
`
`crystal molecules,” and may allow the pixel to reach a predetermined gray level in
`
`a predetermined frame period. [‘843 patent, col. 2, lines 3-7]. Here, the patent’s
`
`explanation of what is meant by overdriving specifically ties the application of
`
`higher or lower data pulses to the speed of the LC molecules.
`
`20. Another example of this correlation between overdriving voltages and
`
`transmission rate comes from column 3, lines 60-62, which describes the theory
`
`behind overdriving: “Different data voltages cause different twisting angles and
`
`show different transmission rates.”
`
`21.
`
`In describing Figure 5, the ‘843 patent states that the overdriven pixel
`
`data impulses GN, GN(2) from driving circuit 10, which outputs overdriven data
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 10 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`via blur clear converter 14, are applied to the LCD panel “in order to control the
`
`transmission rate of the liquid crystal device 39.” [‘843 patent, col. 4, lines 13-14].
`
`22. Figure 6 is described consistently with this correlation as well.
`
`Driving circuit 10, which outputs overdriven data via blur clear converter 14,
`
`applies data impulses to the liquid crystal device 39 “in order to control the
`
`transmission rate and gray level of the pixel electrode 39.” [‘843 patent, col. 4,
`
`lines 24-28].
`
`23. Claim 1 of the ‘843 patent also specifically correlates the overdriven
`
`pixel data and controlling a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device. [‘843
`
`patent, col. 6, lines 15-21].
`
`24. Even though the Petition describes ‘843 embodiments as including
`
`overdriving, the Petition contends that “Claim 4, and Claims 8 and 9 depending
`
`therefrom, do not require performing the overdrive technique.” This discussion
`
`occurs on pp. 9-10 of the Petition.
`
`25. However, based on my review of the ‘843 patent discussed in
`
`paragraphs 14-23 above, and based on the ‘843 patent’s discussion of controlling
`
`transmission rates of liquid crystal devices through different data voltages, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed embodiments
`
`in the ‘843 patent combine both overdriving and applying two overdriven pulses in
`
`a frame.
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 11 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`26.
`
`I understand that in an Inter Partes review of an unexpired patent,
`
`claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent
`
`with the specification, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. The following claim constructions reflect my view of the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the ‘843 patent terms that are consistent with the specification, as
`
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`27. Claim 4 recites that a plurality of data impulses are generated and
`
`applied “to control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the panel.” I
`
`understand that Petitioners did not put forth any evidence or testimony on the
`
`meaning of this term, and instead stated that this term and the other terms of claim
`
`4 “should be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the ‘843 Patent.” [Petition, page 10]. However, Petitioner
`
`provided no discussion of what is a “reasonable” construction in light of the
`
`specification.
`
`28. As an initial matter, I believe that “transmission rate” is not a common
`
`term when discussing LCD technology. I agree with Richard Zech, Ph.D., who
`
`testified in IPR2015-00885 on November 13, 2015 as stating, “Transmission rate is
`
`not only not a term of the art, it’s not a term of anything.” [Transcript for the
`
`Deposition of Richard Zech, Ph.D. dated November 13, 2015, 47:16-17.] The use
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 12 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`of this term in the claims required me to read the ‘843 patent carefully so I could
`
`understand what is meant by claim 4’s term, “to control a transmission rate of the
`
`liquid crystal device of the panel.” As I have explained above, the ‘843 patent
`
`correlates controlling a transmission rate of a liquid crystal device of a panel with
`
`overdriving, or applying higher or lower voltages. A key example of this theory is
`
`column 3, lines 60-62: “Different data voltages cause different twisting angles and
`
`show different transmission rates.” Specifically, the ‘843 patent states that
`
`overdriven means “applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel electrode
`
`to accelerate the speed of the liquid crystal molecules,” and this may allow the
`
`pixel to reach the predetermined gray level in a predetermined frame period. [‘843
`
`patent, col. 2, lines 3-7]. In fact, LG does not cite to and I am not aware of any
`
`instance or embodiment in the ‘843 patent where a transmission rate is described as
`
`being controlled without overdriving. Further, the ‘843 patent does not use the
`
`term “control” or “controlling” the transmission rate when describing the
`
`background of the invention. [‘843 patent, col. 1, line 13 to col. 2, line 12].
`
`29. Additionally, the ‘843 patent specifically does not state that the
`
`transmission rate could be controlled by applying two or more non-overdriven data
`
`impulses. Such a construction is not supported by and is inconsistent with the ‘843
`
`specification, and therefore I understand that it cannot constitute the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 13 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`30. Consistent with the ‘843 patent specification, which discloses that
`
`“[d]ifferent data voltages cause different twisting angles and show different
`
`transmission rates,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of controlling the transmission rate refers to
`
`applying a higher or lower voltage to a liquid crystal device, or overdriving.
`
`VI. CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION AND THE LEE
`
`REFERENCE

`
`31. Both the Petition and Dr. Zech’s declaration characterize the ‘843
`
`patent’s term “Overdrive” as synonymous with Lee’s disclosure of “Overshoot
`
`and/or undershoot.” This characterization is provided in a table on pp. 21-22 of the
`
`Petition and ¶ 52 of Zech’s Declaration.
`
`32.
`
`In this table, the Petition and Zech do not describe Lee’s disclosure of
`
`“roll back” or “rolling back” as synonymous with the ‘843 patent’s term
`
`“Overdrive.” In fact, the Petition and Zech do not explain what is meant by “roll
`
`back” or “rolling back” in Lee.
`
`33. The Petition relies heavily on Lee’s Fig. 12 and Figs. 13a/13b,
`
`showing data grey level compensation portion 400, in its challenge of claim 4 of
`
`the ‘843 patent. I will be responding to the Petition’s reliance and conclusions
`
`based on these three drawings, particularly in pp. 23-26 of the Petition, below.
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 14 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`34. Referring to Lee’s Fig. 12, the Petition argues that “the ‘overshoot’
`
`and ‘roll back,’ occurring respectively in the first and second sub-frames, per Lee
`
`above, collectively constitutes a plurality of overdriven impulses within a signal
`
`frame.” [Petition, page 26]. I do not agree with the Petition’s characterization of
`
`Fig. 12 or the conclusion being reached here.
`
`35. Lee describes that the “second compensated grey level signal Gn-‘ is
`
`output in the second sub frame (-) as shown in Fig. 13b.” [Lee, page 29 lines 3-4].
`
`Lee never describes the second compensated grey level signal Gn-‘ as either
`
`overshot or undershot (or overdriven or underdriven). This is in contrast to the
`
`first compensated grey level signal Gn+, which is overshoot or undershoot
`
`according to a comparison of grey level signals in the current frame and previous
`
`frame. [Lee, page 29, lines 4-9].
`
`36. With reference to Fig. 12, Lee explains that in the first sub frame,
`
`overshoot/undershoot driving occurs, and in a second sub frame, the
`
`overshot/undershot value is “rolled back” or returned to the target value. This is
`
`expressly stated at 25:9-13 of Lee’s English translation. In describing the second
`
`compensated grey level signal of Fig. 13b, Lee states that the second compensated
`
`grey level signal “is a compensated grey level signal by making an overshot value
`
`down to an originally desired target value” or by “making up to an originally
`
`desired target value” according to a comparison of grey level signals in the current
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 15 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`frame and previous frame. [Lee, page 29 lines 10-15]. I understand this disclosure
`
`to mean that at the conclusion of the first sub frame, a signal is applied that returns
`
`the pixel transmission rate to the target value. This is consistent with what is shown
`
`in Lee’s Fig. 12, which does not show undershoot in the second sub frame as a
`
`result of the second compensated grey level signal.
`
`37.
`
`It is clear to me that Lee is driving the pixel to the target value in the
`
`second sub frame n-, but Lee never characterizes rolling back as overdriving or
`
`underdriving. From this disclosure, I do not agree that rolling back to the target
`
`value means overdriving or underdriving. The effect of the second compensated
`
`grey level signal is to cause the overshot value (such as shown in Fig. 12) at the
`
`end of the first sub frame n+ to “roll back” to the target value.
`
`38.
`
`I have also reviewed portions of the deposition transcript of Richard
`
`Zech, Ph.D. (Ex. 2007). I understand that Dr. Zech was asked whether he sees “the
`
`value of the signals being applied to the pixel in figure 12,” and Dr. Zech
`
`responded “No, no, I don’t.” [Zech Transcript, page 105 lines 19-21.] I agree that
`
`you cannot determine the specific voltages being applied to the pixel represented
`
`by Fig. 12, since Fig. 12 plots Transmission vs. frame.
`
`39. Dr. Zech also testified that the shape of the curve in the second sub
`
`frame n- of Fig. 12 indicates the level of the signal being applied in the second sub
`
`frame n-. But as Dr. Zech confirmed, he would characterize Lee’s Fig. 12 almost
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 16 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`as a “cartoon” and would kick an engineer presenting that graph to him “out of
`
`[his] office.” [Zech Transcript, page 147 lines 5-14.] Further, Dr. Zech was asked
`
`whether rolling back to the target value could be achieve by “driving to the
`
`originally desired target value” in the second sub frame n-. Dr. Zech responded,
`
`“Well, if you could do it. …” [Zech Transcript, page 111 line 13 to page 112 line
`
`14.] I disagree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reached the
`
`conclusion that Fig. 12 indicates overdriving or underdriving in the second sub
`
`frame. Fig. 12 indicates that the pixel is driven back to the target value in the
`
`second sub frame n-, without overshooting or undershooting that target value.
`
`40. As I explained above, the broadest reasonable construction, consistent
`
`with the specification, of claim 4’s “to control a transmission rate” phrase requires
`
`overdriving in order to be consistent with the ‘843 specification. Further, the
`
`language of claim 4 includes “generating” and “applying” a plurality of data
`
`impulses according to the frame data.
`
`41. Further, the proper construction of claim 4 requires that the
`
`“generating” and “applying” the plurality of data impulses is performed “to control
`
`a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel” by overdriving, as
`
`explained above. Because Lee does not disclose overdriving in the second sub
`
`frame n-, Lee does not disclose every feature of claim 4.
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 17 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`42. Therefore, I disagree with Petitioner’s theory that Lee discloses
`
`“generating” and “applying” the plurality of data impulses “to control a
`
`transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel.” A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have reached the same conclusion for the same reasons as I
`
`have explained above.
`
`43. My understanding of the law of anticipation is that if a prior art
`
`reference does not disclose every feature of a claim, as those features are arranged
`
`in the claim, the prior art reference does not anticipate that claim. Since a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would agree that Lee does not apply at least two overdriven
`
`data impulses in a frame to control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device
`
`of the pixel, the Petition does not successfully show anticipation of the ‘843
`
`patent’s claim 4 by Lee.
`
`44. Since claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 4, I understand that these
`
`claims incorporate all features from claim 4. Since the Petition fails to show every
`
`feature of claim 4 in the Lee reference, Lee does not show every feature of claims
`
`18
`
`9 and 9.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 18 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that
`
`my foregoing testimony is true and correct.
`
`Executed this 24th day of November, 2015 in San Diego, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`
`William K. Bohannon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 19 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`Appendix A
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 20 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2.
`
`
`
`William K. Bohannon
`Resume
`
`
`
`WILLIAM K. BOHANNON
`
`
`
`SUMMARY
`
`
`Worked in the commercial-industrial electronics and professional audio-visual industry
`for the last twenty-five years. Prior to work in commercial industry, worked in the
`aerospace industry for another approximately 10 years. Responsibilities included a
`number of highly sophisticated, government classified sensor and imaging projects. Prior
`to government and aerospace work, was involved with analytical, scientific research
`regarding spectroscopy for a number of years.
`
`
`
`Has been involved with electronic systems, detectors, measurements, sensors, projectors,
`displays and imaging apparatus for close to twenty-five years. Has been involved with
`all phases of the development of various kinds of electronic systems, including
`conception, invention, development, marketing and sales. Prepared specifications,
`negotiated with various customers over system or component requirements and
`specifications, and prepared or negotiated over tests and measurements of these systems
`or their separate components to insure that the specifications or requirements have been
`or will be meet. Also, prepared and negotiated development contracts and subcontracts
`for such systems or for their electronic components.
`
`
`
`SPECIFIC AREAS OF EXPERTISE
`
`Automated Test Equipment (ATE) and Electronics for IC test: Drivers, Comparators, Loads,
`DUT Power Supplies, Buffers, Amplifiers, Precision Measurement Unit (PMU) for F/M of I/V,
`ADC, DAC, Clocks, FPGA and other related electronics. (see: Semtech, Intersil, Edge, Planet
`ATE etc.)
`
`LCD, Plasma, CRT and Large Screen Display Equipment: LCD manufacturing, substrates,
`drivers and other related components for rear screen displays including Avionics and cockpit
`displays. Technology expertise includes projector design, optical components, LC optics and LC
`lens technology (see: Sandel, Lensvector, Proxima etc.)
`
`
`
`PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`1994 to Present
`
`
`Independent Consultant – Manx Research
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 21 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`Page 3.
`
`
`
`William K. Bohannon
`Resume
`
`Provides litigation support and qualified expert witness services for the electronics and
`display industry. Services include testing, evaluation and reporting of electronics, LCDs,
`Plasmas, electronic projectors and other types of display systems. Has extensive
`
`experience with Asian manufacturers of electronics and displays as well as with foreign
`business and patent issues. Clients include:
`
`U.S. Corporate:
`
`IP Value and 3D Vision (IP investigations), Sandel Avionics (LCD
`Displays), LensVector (LC lens), Texas Instruments, 3M, IBM,
`Kodak, Rockwell, Edge (Semtech) Semiconductor, Epson America, In
`Focus Systems and Proxima.
`
`International:
`
`JVC, Panasonic, Daewoo, Eiki International, Kodak Germany and many
`others.
`
`Magazine:
`
`Pacific Media Associates, Lakewood Publications, eMedia, Electronic
`Design and Journal of Information Display.
`
`Research Projects
`
`Display Products -- Manage and conduct detailed technical product evaluations for all
`kinds of display products – LCD, CRT, Plasma and LED direct view, projection products
`of all types, CRT products and plasma products. The various products are evaluated at
`Manx Research's facilities and in the manufacturer's facilities. Maintain a database of
`product performance and report upon the results and comparisons in various publications
`both private and public.
`
`LCD -- Manage and conduct several projects to collect information (technical and
`market) on the Japanese and Korean LCD industry. This involves interviewing (in
`Japanese) all of the major LCD manufacturers several times a year to gather insights on
`technology and pricing trends. This information is compiled and disseminated in private
`reports.
`
`LED/ LCD – Design and Procurement Consultant to aerospace display company
`involved in re-designing Avionic LCD display sub-systems (Sandel Avionics) to use full
`color LED light sources instead of short arc lamps. Worked with Epson and Fujinon
`Company in Japan for testing and production.
`
`Semiconductor -- Managed the Asian (Japan, Korea and Taiwan) market development for
`Edge Semiconductor (a division of Semtech). Edge makes specialized ICs used in test
`equipment. Work involves several trips per year to Asia -- meeting with Asian customers
`(the major IC and test equipment manufacturers) and negotiating custom IC development
`contracts. Also, gather IC production equipment related technical and market
`information. Note: these activities became part of Planet ATE and carried over to
`another start up called “ATE Engines” in 2012.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00885
`Exhibit 2017
`Page 22 of 29
`
`

`
`
`
`Page 4.
`
`
`
`William K. Bohannon
`Resume
`
`Miscellaneous -- Manage and conduct various projects in international trade and
`marketing as well as help with Japanese-U.S. trade negotiations for companies.
`Negotiate Japanese investments in U.S. technology as well as evaluate technology for
`various products or concepts. Also act as an expert and investigator in high technology
`patent and other legal matters in the U.S. and Japan for various firms such as IP Value.
`
`Completed business modeling and analysis studies for display component manufacturing.
`This study involved several trips to Japan to meet with all of the major suppliers of
`display component processing and manufacturing equipment and to gather material and
`equipment information, pricing information and equipment installation and maintenance
`data. Developed a detailed 5-year business model of the proposed operation from sales,
`distribution and marketing to manufacturing including staffing models and process flow
`models.
`
`Also completed contracts for medical imaging component development and procurement,
`LCD materials and process equipment development and procurement, projection
`equipment development and procurement, LCD controller market analysis, LCD
`component market analysis and laser diode marketing and applications.
`
`Planet ATE (acquired by Intersil in 2008)
`Co-founder and Vice President
`
`Planet ATE develops a