UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC’S
`RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`

`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`a. The Petition’s Analysis of the Asserted Art is Fundamentally Flawed ........... 1
`b. Background of Inter Partes Review Challenges of the ‘843 Patent ................. 8
`II.
`Background ...................................................................................................... 9
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (the “‘843 patent” or “Shen”) ..................... 9
`b. Independent Claim 4 ....................................................................................... 16
`III. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 18
`a. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. 19
`b. Properly Construed, Claim 4 Requires Overdriving ...................................... 19
`IV. Argument ....................................................................................................... 27
`a. The Petition’s Lee Reference Lacks All Relied-Upon Features .................... 27
`b. An Invalidity Ruling in This Case Constitutes an Impermissible Taking of a
`Private Right Without Article III Oversight .................................................. 37
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 39 
`
`V.
`
`ii 
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases 
`
`Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U.S. 225 (1876) .............................................................. 38
`Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................ 26
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .. 32
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .......................................................... 19
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................. 18
`James v. Campbell, 104 U.S. 356 (1881) ................................................................ 38
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman, 169 U.S. 606 (1898) .............. 38, 39
`Michigan Land and Lumber Co. v. Rust, 168 U.S. 589 (1897) ............................... 38
`Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530 (1877) .................................................................... 38
`Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516 (1870) .............................................................. 38
`United States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315 (1888) .............................. 38
`United States v. Palmer, 128 U.S. 262 (1888) ......................................................... 38
`United States v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378 (1880) .......................................................... 38
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 39
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 39
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 33
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 33
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ....................................................................................... 17, 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 33
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2) ............................................................................................ 28
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............... 18
`
`
`
`
`
`iii 
` 
`
`

`
`LIST OF PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001
`“Petitioner and His Money are Soon Parted: Separate Fee Payments Do
`Not Reduce Risk of Non-Institution of Redundant Grounds”; Authored
`by M. Carniaux and M. Sander; interpartesreviewblog.com, dated
`November 13, 2014 (accessed June 1, 2015)
`Joint Stipulation to Stay Cases Pending Inter Partes Review, filed
`November 20, 2014
`Order Granting Joint Stipulation to Stay Cases Pending Inter Partes
`Review, entered November 21, 2014
`Transcript for the Deposition of Thomas Credelle dated October 28,
`2015, in IPR2015-00863
`Reserved
`
`2004
`
`2005-
`2006
`2007
`
`2008 –
`2016
`2017
`
`
`
`Transcript for the Deposition of Richard Zech, Ph.D. dated November
`13, 2015, in IPR2015-00885
`Reserved
`
`Declaration of William K. Bohannon in Response to Petition of LG
`Display Co., Ltd.
`
`
`iv 
` 
`
`

`
`
`
` 
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`a. The Petition’s Analysis of the Asserted Art is Fundamentally Flawed
`
`
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. (“LG”) filed the current Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) for
`
`inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (“the ‘843
`
`patent”) on March 17, 2015. Of the four grounds presented in the Petition, only one
`
`ground was instituted. See Paper 9 at 12. Specifically, the only instituted challenge
`
`raises the question of whether claims 4, 8, and 9 of the ‘843 patent are anticipated
`
`by Korean Patent Application No. 2000-0073673 to Lee (“Lee”) (Ex. 1010).
`
`However, the Petition includes a fatal defect in its interpretation of Lee.
`
`Both the Petition and the Petition’s supporting technical declaration of Richard G.
`
`Zech (“Zech”) rely on Lee’s Fig. 12 for technical interpretation of Lee’s
`
`disclosure. According to Lee, “an overshoot driving is conducted in a first sub
`
`frame n+ out of the divided picture frame, and a driving with the overshot value
`
`rolled back to an originally desired target value is conducted in a second sub
`
`frame n-.” Lee at 25:10-13 (emphasis added). Zech relies on this disclosure when
`
`interpreting Lee’s Fig. 12 (an annotated version of which is shown below).
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`
`Overshot Value
`
`Target Value 
`
`
`
`Zech explains at Ex. 1011, ¶ 52, that he believes Lee’s terms “Overshoot
`
`and/or undershoot” are related to the ‘843 patent’s term “Overdrive.” As Lee’s Fig.
`
`12 is described, “an overshoot driving is conducted in a first sub frame n+ out of
`
`the divided picture frame… .” Lee at 25:10-11. However, Lee does not state that
`
`the second subframe includes overshoot or undershoot driving. Rather, Lee merely
`
`describes the second sub frame n- as: “a driving with the overshot value rolled
`
`back to an originally desired target value is conducted in a second sub frame n-.”
`
`Lee at 25:11-13 (emphasis added). Under Zech’s interpretations set forth in Ex.
`
`1011, ¶ 52, “rolled back” is not characterized to be the same as undershoot or
`
`underdriving. Thus, under Zech’s declaration opinions and interpretations, there is
`
`no disclosure in Lee that supports both Petitioner’s and Zech’s assumption that Lee
`
`2 
` 
`
`

`
`discloses “overshoot and/or undershoot” (as that term is used in the ‘843 patent) in
`
`the second sub frame n-.
`
`This deficiency was addressed with Dr. Zech during his deposition. Dr. Zech
`
`was directed to his table at ¶ 52 of Ex. 1011 and asked if he included “anything
`
`about rollback in the Lee in that table.” Ex. 2007 at 109:15-16. Dr. Zech’s first
`
`response was “Rollback is not a term that was used in either patent that I’m aware
`
`of. Was it?” Id. at 109:17-18. After Dr. Zech was directed to the specific portions
`
`of the Lee reference that were quoted in his declaration, he then reviewed those
`
`sections and testified that rolling back is Lee’s “version of … underdriving … .” Id.
`
`at 110:4-6. However, he also acknowledged that he cannot determine the level of
`
`the signals applied to the pixel in Lee’s Fig. 12. Id. at 111:3-12 (“No, there’s no
`
`indication. I mean it should be on the figure itself.”; “[T]here are no real scientific
`
`data can be derived from them, but a concept can be taught.”).
`
`This exchange then followed between Patent Owner’s counsel (questioning
`
`as “Q”) and Dr. Zech (testifying as “A”):
`
`So from figure 12, is there any disclosure that allows you
`Q.
`to conclude that rolling back to an originally desired target value
`means underdriving?
`A. Well, I don’t know how else you would do it.
`Q.
`But you can’t determine the level of the signal being
`applied to the second subframe?
`
`3 
` 
`
`

`
`A. Why do I have to? The curve makes it very clear what’s
`going on.
`Q. What is it from the curve that indicates in the second
`subframe that it must be underdriving?
`A. Well, the fact you are decreasing the voltage from
`whatever level it maximized at down to T2.
`Q. Why does that require underdrive?
`A. How else would you get down to T2?
`Q. Are you saying there’s no other way to do it?
`A.
`In an LCD? Nothing occurs to me.
`Q. What about driving to the originally desired target value,
`would that get you there?
`A. Well, if you could do it. …
`Id. at 111:13-112:14 (emphasis added). The crux of this exchange confirmed
`
`two key points about Lee. First, Lee does not expressly disclose underdriving in
`
`the second subframe n-. Second, Lee’s roll-back to the target voltage does not
`
`expressly or inherently disclose underdriving, since driving to the originally
`
`desired target value (which Dr. Zech marks as T2 in his deposition exhibits) can
`
`also achieve rollback “if you could do it.” Id.
`
`These facts are consistent with other aspects of Lee’s disclosure. For
`
`example, Lee’s Fig. 13b “is a view of explaining the data grey level signal
`
`compensation portion according to a second sub frame.” Ex. 1010 at 26:10-14.
`
`When describing the outputs of this portion in the first and second sub frames, Lee
`
`4 
` 
`
`

`
`characterizes the “first compensated grey level signal Gn+’” as either overshoot or
`
`undershoot compensated, depending on the grey level signal of the previous frame.
`
`Id. at 29:5-9. When describing the “second compensated grey level signal,”
`
`however, Lee does not use the “overshoot” or “undershoot” terms. Instead, Lee
`
`explains that the “second compensated grey level signal” reduces or takes (drives)
`
`“an overshot value down to an originally desired target value” or drives an
`
`undershot value “up to an originally desired target value,” depending on whether
`
`the first compensated grey level signal was overshot or undershot. Id. at 29:10-15.
`
`This disclosure was also discussed at Dr. Zech’s deposition:
`
`In the second [sub] frame the second compensated gray
`Q.
`level signal is applied, correct?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And that second compensated gray level signal takes that
`overshot value down to an originally desired target value, correct?
`A. Exactly as the figure shows, yes, correct.
`Q. And does Lee say that the second compensated gray level
`signal is underdriving?
`A. He doesn’t use those words. …
`Ex. 2007 at 116:21-117:14.
`
`These facts, admitted by Zech and viewed in light of Lee’s disclosure,
`
`indicate quite clearly that Lee fails to expressly disclose (or even insinuate) that the
`
`5 
` 
`
`

`
`signal applied in the second sub frame is “overdriven” within the meaning ascribed
`
`in the ‘843 patent.
`
`Dr. Zech’s deposition testimony does not remedy this shortfall in Lee as an
`
`allegedly anticipatory reference. Specifically, Dr. Zech attempts to reach a
`
`technical conclusion based solely on the “curve” in sub frame n-. However, at the
`
`same time, he disparages Lee’s Fig. 12 repeatedly as “almost a cartoon,” (Id. at
`
`108:8), and explains that “quite frequently in a situation like this I refer to these
`
`things as cartoons. No scientist or engineer worth his salt would tell you that this is
`
`anything but illustrating a concept, an important concept – don’t misunderstand me
`
`– but it’s an illustration.” Id. at 145:20-146:3. Even when Petitioner’s attorney
`
`questions him on redirect examination, Dr. Zech further degrades Lee’s Fig. 12 as
`
`a reliable source for technical information:
`
`[referring to the transition from sub frame n+ to sub
`Q.
`frame n-] What does this peak tell you, if anything, about the applied
`voltage?
`[Objection]
`A. Well, in absolute terms, nothing. It tells you about the
`transmission being intelligent, knowledgeable people. We know that
`that didn't get there except that there was some voltage applied to the
`pixel, loss, gain. I don't think that's very meaningful. So in a lot of
`these figures and a lot of the statements, you have to be able to work
`back from what you are presented with, you know, the people who are
`supposed to be able to deal with are of ordinary skill in the art. This is
`
`6 
` 
`
`

`
`a tough art so the skill levels have to be pretty high. Does that answer
`your question, counselor?
`Q. Yes. Does this figure tell you anything about relative
`voltage values?
`[Objection]
`A. No, you can't take this too literally. You know one could
`make a case I suppose that you in conjunction with the specification
`and maybe you could infer something from it. Now speaking as an
`engineering manager, if you came to me and told me you could do
`that from this curve, I would throw you out of my office.
`Id. at 146:12-147:14 (emphasis added).
`
`As will be discussed in detail below, independent claim 4 of the ‘843 patent
`
`is properly construction to include a plurality of overdriven data in a frame.
`
`However, even under Dr. Zech’s interpretation, the Lee reference, as explained
`
`above, discloses no overdriving (i.e. overshoot and/or undershoot) in the second
`
`sub frame n-. As such, in a given frame, Lee applies (as most) only one overdriven
`
`data signal. This is not sufficient to reach all features of claim 4 as properly
`
`construed. Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that the Board grant relief to Patent
`
`Owner including a final written decision that confirms the patentability of claims 4,
`
`8, and 9 over the Lee reference, standing alone.
`
`7 
` 
`
`
`
`

`
`b. Background of Inter Partes Review Challenges of the ‘843 Patent
`
`
`
`This filing is one of four IPR petitions filed against Patent Owner Surpass
`
`Tech Innovation LLC (“Surpass”) and the ‘843 patent by a common group of
`
`accused infringers in litigation with Surpass. On October 3, 2014, three Sharp
`
`entities filed a petition for IPR of the ‘843 patent’s claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 in
`
`IPR2015-00021. Inter partes review in IPR2015-00021 was instituted on a single
`
`ground challenging claims 4, 8, and 9.
`
`Then, in mid-March, 2015, LG sought inter partes review of the ‘843 patent
`
`in this case, IPR2015-00885, and co-defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Samsung”), and Sony Corporation
`
`(“Sony”) filed two petitions in IPR2015-00862 and -00863. The petition in
`
`IPR2015-00862 was denied at the institution stage, leaving two new petitions
`
`pending against Surpass’s ‘843 patent. Nevertheless, in none of these instituted
`
`cases do the petitioners propose any claim construction of claim 4.
`
`Further, Dr. Zech, Petitioners’ tendered technical expert in this case,
`
`provides incomplete analysis of the asserted Lee reference. Specifically, although
`
`Lee applies a second compensated gray level signal in a second subframe, this
`
`signal is applied to “roll back” a pixel voltage from an “overshot” value back to a
`
`“target value” of the pixel. As explained above, Dr. Zech concurred in his
`
`deposition that the Lee reference fails to indicate the voltage level of that
`
`8 
` 
`
`

`
`“compensated second grey scale signal,” and therefore it is not possible to identify
`
`if Lee applies an overdriven or underdriven signal in this second subframe. Dr.
`
`Zech testified during his deposition that the curve of the transmission chart in
`
`Lee’s Fig. 12 would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the
`
`second subframe must experience underdriving. However, this testimony is
`
`completely unreliable and in any event lacks any support in the original Petition
`
`and Dr. Zech’s declaration.
`
`
`
`On the evidence of record, including Dr. Zech’s declaration and the express
`
`disclosure of the Lee reference, there is no basis for the Board to conclude that Lee
`
`anticipates claims 4, 8, and 9 of the ‘843 patent. Moreover, Petitioners never
`
`presented any argument relying upon an inherent disclosure in Lee in order to
`
`reach the features of claims 4, 8, and 9. As such, the Petition is fatally and
`
`irreparably deficient. This will be further explained throughout this Response,
`
`which is supported by the technical expert Declaration of William K. Bohannon in
`
`response to the Petition from LG Display Co., Ltd. (Ex. 2017) (“Bohannon”).
`
`Background
`
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (the “‘843 patent” or “Shen”)
`
`II.
`
` 
`
` 
`
`The ‘843 patent was filed as U.S. Patent application no. 10/707,741 on
`
`January 8, 2004 and claims foreign priority to and the benefit of Taiwan
`
`9 
` 
`
`

`
`application no. 92132122 A, filed on November 17, 2003. The title of the ‘843
`
`patent is “DRIVING CIRCUIT OF A LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY PANEL
`
`AND RELATED DRIVING METHOD.” The ‘843 patent discloses a driving
`
`circuit for a liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panel and a method of driving.
`
`An LCD panel includes data lines arranged in a first direction, scan lines
`
`arranged in a second direction, and a matrix of pixels arranged at the intersection
`
`of each scan line and data line. Shen at Fig. 4. The LCD panel is an active matrix
`
`LCD panel that is driven by driving circuitry that applies “data impulses, scan
`
`voltages, and timing signals” according to frame data for the pixels. Id. at 1:29.
`
`The data impulses are applied to the pixels according to the appropriate grey levels
`
`required for a given frame. Id. at 1:50-52. However, as Shen explains, there is a
`
`“time delay when charging liquid crystal molecules” when applying a data impulse
`
`in order to allow the molecules to twist and achieve the correct gray levels for a
`
`pixel. Id. at 1:62-65. As a result of the time delay that occurs when a target impulse
`
`is applied, Shen discloses a technique referred to as overdriving the pixel. Id. at
`
`1:64-67. This technique includes “applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the
`
`pixel electrode to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules,” and
`
`may allow the pixel to reach a predetermined gray level in a predetermined frame
`
`period. Id. at 2:3-7. Thus, overdriving controls the transmission rate of the liquid
`
`crystal molecules relative to a non-overdriving condition.
`
`10 
` 
`
`

`
`An example of this relationship is shown in Shen’s Fig. 2, where “curve C1
`
`shows the transmission rate of a pixel not overdriven corresponding to the frames,
`
`and the curve C2 shows the transmission rate of the pixel overdriven
`
`corresponding to the frames.” Id. at 1:57-60.1 Overdriving includes “applying a
`
`higher or a lower data impulse,” and the ‘843 patent discloses that “[d]ifferent data
`
`voltages … show different transmission rates.” Id. at 2:3-4; 3:60-62.
`
`                                                            
`1 In his deposition, Dr. Zech indicates that the term “transmission rate” from claim
`
`4 “is not only not a term of the art, it’s not anything.” Ex. 2007 at 47:16-17
`
`(emphasis added). Dr. Zech testifies that the ‘843 patent’s inventor served as its
`
`own lexicographer for this term, thus confirming that the Board should undertake a
`
`construction of both “transmission rate” and “to control a transmission rate.” Id. at
`
`47:3-9. 
`
`11 
` 
`
`

`
`
`
`However, Shen also discloses that overdriving without adjusting the frame
`
`rate, such as shown by curve C2, is not sufficient for the transmission rate to reach
`
`T2 within the frame period. Id. at 2:5-12. Shen discloses that “primary objective of
`
`the claimed invention [is] to provide a driving circuit of an LCD panel and its
`
`relating driving method to solve the problem mentioned above.” Id. at 2:16-18
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`As Dr. Zech confirmed during his deposition, the ‘843 patent discloses a
`
`driving circuit 10 shown in Fig. 3, and “its relating driving method.” Id.; Ex. 2007
`
`at 81:8-21. Other technical declarants presented by the various petitioners
`
`challenging the ‘843 patent have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Transcript
`
`12 
` 
`
`

`
`for the Deposition of Thomas Credelle dated October 28, 2015, in IPR2015-00863
`
`(Ex. 2004) at 117:21-118:2. In the disclosed embodiments of the ‘843 patent, the
`
`driving circuit overdrives the pixel data using a blur clear converter. An
`
`embodiment of driving circuit 10 is shown below from Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`In this driving circuit 10, the blur clear converter 14 is distinct from and
`
`arranged upstream of the gate driver 20 and source driver 18, and receives frame
`
`signals G and control signals C of signal controller 12. First and second
`
`embodiments of the blur clear converter are shown in further detail in Fig. 7 and
`
`Fig. 8. As Shen explains with respect to the embodiment shown in Fig. 7, two
`
`pieces of overdriven “pixel data of each pixel in every frame period are generated
`
`by the blur clear converter 14.” Id. at 4:41-43. More specifically, according to the
`
`13 
` 
`
`

`
`first embodiment shown in Fig. 7, the “processing circuit 42 generates a plurality
`
`of overdriven pixel data GN according to the current pixel data Gm and the
`
`delayed pixel data Gm-1.” Id. at 4:53-55. With respect to the second embodiment
`
`shown in Fig. 8, Shen explains that the “processing circuit 74 generates two pieces
`
`of overdriven pixel data GN1, GN-1(2) for each pixel 36 in every frame period
`
`according to the pixel data Gm-1, Gm-2.” Id. at 5:17-19. According to the driving
`
`method, overdriven pulses are provided twice in a frame to control the
`
`transmission rate of the liquid crystal molecules. See, e.g., id. at Figs. 5, 10.
`
`Specifically, the overdriven pulses “accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid
`
`crystal molecules,” and may allow the pixel to reach a predetermined gray level in
`
`a predetermined frame period. Id. at 2:3-7.
`
`According to the second embodiment of the blur clear converter 60, shown
`
`below, an operation is performed to determine a difference ΔG between two
`
`overdriven pixel data to be applied in a frame. This difference ΔG is determined by
`
`a “comparing circuit 72 “according to the difference Diff between the original
`
`pixel data Gm and Gm+1.” Id. at 5:34-38. The comparing circuit 72 “modulates
`
`the difference ΔG to drive the LCD panel 30 properly” according to the Diff value
`
`between original pixel data. Id. at 5:43-44.
`
`The difference ΔG is provided from comparing circuit 72 to the processing
`
`circuit 74, which “generates two pieces of overdriven pixel data GN1, GN-1(2) for
`
`14 
` 
`
`

`
`each pixel 36 in every frame period according to the [original] pixel data Gm-1,
`
`Gm-2” and “determine[s] the values of the overdriven pixel data … .” Id. at 5:17-
`
`22.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, the driving circuit disclosed in the ‘843 patent includes a blur clear
`
`converter that outputs two overdriven pixel data in a frame. Further, the second
`
`15 
` 
`
`

`
`embodiment of the blur clear converter determines a difference ΔG between two
`
`overdriven pixel data to be generated and applied in a frame, according to a
`
`difference Diff between the original pixel data. The processing circuit 74 receives
`
`this difference ΔG and generates the overdriven pixel data.
`
`b. Independent Claim 4
`
`
`
`Petitioner challenges the validity of claims 4, 8, and 9 of the ‘843 patent. Of
`
`these challenged claims, claim 4 is independent.
`
`According to its preamble, claim 4 is directed to a method for “driving a
`
`liquid crystal display (LCD) panel.” Claim 4 is shown below in full, with elements
`
`relevant to claim construction in bold for the Board’s reference:
`
`4. A method for driving a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel, the LCD
`panel comprising:
`a plurality of scan lines;
`a plurality of data lines; and
`a plurality of pixels, each pixel being connected to a
`corresponding scan line and a corresponding data line, and each
`pixel comprising a liquid crystal device and a switching device
`connected to the corresponding scan line, the corresponding
`data line, and the liquid crystal device, and
`the method comprising:
`receiving continuously a plurality of frame data;
`
`16 
` 
`
`

`
`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.
`The Petitioner suggests that claims 4, 8, and 9 require the “generating a
`
`plurality of data impulses for each pixel within every frame period according to the
`
`frame data” as expressly claimed, but do not require performing the overdrive
`
`technique. See Pet. at 28.
`
`Dr. Zech testified that he believes that “transmission rate” is term for which
`
`the ’843 patent inventors served as lexicographer. Ex. 2007 at 47:3-9; 47:16-17.
`
`Nevertheless, the Petitioner argues that the claim terms “are generally clear on
`
`their face, and should be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the ‘843 Patent.” Pet. at 10 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)).
`
`However, Petitioner offers no discussion on the use of the claim terms in the
`
`specification. Therefore, the Petition provides no guidance to the Board on what
`
`constitutes the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” Id.
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`Further, under the proper construction of claim 4’s terms, Petitioner’s
`
`argument that claim 4 does not require overdriving is inaccurate as explained in
`
`more detail in Section III below.
`
`17 
` 
`
`

`
`III. Claim Construction
`
` 
`
`The standard for construing claim terms in this proceeding is not in dispute.
`
`Since the ‘843 patent is not expired, the Board will interpret claims using the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and consistent with the disclosure. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007).
`
`Neither the Petitioner nor Dr. Zech provides any analysis on whether claim 4
`
`includes performing an overdriving technique. Petitioner simply concludes that
`
`“Claim 4 recites nearly identical functionality to that of the apparatus in Claim 1,
`
`with the exception of ‘overdriving,’ which is required by Claim 1 but not Claim 4.”
`
`Pet. at 28. Dr. Zech’s declaration is equally lacking in analysis on the use of the
`
`claim terms in the specification, despite the fact that Dr. Zech believes the ‘843
`
`serves as its own lexicographer for the “transmission rate” term. Pet. at 8; Ex. 2007
`
`at 47:3-48:4. Thus, Petitioner and Zech have provided no testimony, and no other
`
`evidence or discussion of the constructions that would be attributed by a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art. Further, Petitioner has provided no meaningful
`
`18 
` 
`
`

`
`analysis of the Shen specification in order to illuminate the bounds of the broadest
`
`reasonable constructions consistent with that specification. As explained below,
`
`at least claim 4 requires more detailed consideration of the Shen specification.
`
`a. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
` person of ordinary skill in the relevant art of the ‘843 patent, as of
`
` A
`
`November 17, 2003, would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, mathematics, or computer science with two or more years of
`
`experience designing electronics and displays. For example, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have education and experience sufficient to understand at
`
`least the background of the ‘843 patent’s specification. See Bohannon at ¶ 8.This
`
`includes the ability to understand the overdriving concept as it is discussed in the
`
`‘843 patent, and the concepts of pixel voltage versus light transmission and pixel
`
`response time. Id.
`
`b. Properly Construed, Claim 4 Requires Overdriving
`
`
`
`Under In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994), a patentee is free
`
`to define the terms used to describe the invention. In this instance, Shen has
`
`explained that "overdriven" means "applying a higher or a lower data impulse to
`
`the pixel electrode to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules."
`
`19 
` 
`
`

`
`‘843 patent at 2:3-5. Petitioner cited to this very same passage of the ‘843 patent
`
`while discussing the meaning of “overdriven” or “overdriving.” See Pet. at 5.
`
`Further, Shen’s explanation is not a one-way street. Specifically, if
`
`"overdriven" means "applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel
`
`electrode to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules," then the
`
`contrary is also true: "applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel
`
`electrode to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules" means
`
`"overdriving." Indeed, this is consistent with a reading of Shen according to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Bohannon at ¶ 19, 28.
`
`The term at issue in claim 4 is "applying the data impulses to the liquid
`
`crystal device of one of the pixels ... to control a transmission rate of the liquid
`
`crystal device of the pixel." In his deposition, Dr. Zech indicates that the term
`
`“transmission rate” from claim 4 “is not only not a term of the art, it’s not
`
`anything.” Ex. 2007 at 47:16-17. Indeed, Dr. Zech testifies that the ‘843 patent’s
`
`inventor served as its own lexicographer for this term. Id. at 47:3-9. Bohannon
`
`agrees, and referred to the entirety of the ‘843 patent disclosure to understand the
`
`usage of that term. Bohannon at ¶ 28.
`
`This claim language of claim 4 recalls the discussion of "overdriven"
`
`according to the '843 specification, wherein the reaction speed of the liquid crystal
`
`20 
` 
`
`

`
`molecules is controlled to be faster through the application of a higher or lower
`
`data impulse. Bohannon at ¶ 19.
`
`This correlation between the claim language of claim 4 and the discussion of
`
`“overdriven” is also consistent with the ‘843 patent disclosure. At a fundamental
`
`technical level, Shen discloses that “[d]ifferent data voltages cause different
`
`twisting angles and show different transmission rates.” See ‘843 patent at 3:60-62.
`
`In Shen’s Background section, the “timing diagram of different transmission rates
`
`of a pixel” is shown and discussed with respect to Fig. 2. There, two curves C1 and
`
`C2 reflect the transmission rate versus frame count for a pixel based on the type of
`
`applied data. Curve C1 is “the transmission rate of a pixel not overdriven” while
`
`curve C2 reflects the “transmission rate of the pixel overdriven corresponding to
`
`the frames.” Id. at 1:57-60. Shen explains that the time delay in charging liquid
`
`crystal molecules prevents the non-overdriven pixel from reaching the target
`
`transmission rate T2 until frame N+2, two frames after the pixel charging begins in
`
`frame N. Id. at 1:62-65. However, the time to reach the target transmission rate T2
`
`is reduced in curve C2 when the pixel is overdriven and the liquid crystal molecule
`
`reaction speed is controlled to be faster than the curve C1 reaction speed. Shen
`
`specifically discloses that this acceleration of the liquid crystal molecule reaction
`
`speed occurs due to the application of “higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel
`
`electrode,” which is referred to as overdriving. Id. at 2:3-5; 2:7-8.
`
`21 
` 
`
`

`
`Shen’s Fig. 5 also shows a “timing diagram of pixel data values varying in
`
`accordance with frames.” Id. at 3:64-65. Fig. 5 shows pixel data generated by the
`
`driving circuit 10, the output of which is “overdriven pixel data GN, GN(2).” Id. at
`
`4:62-63.2 The overdriven pixel data GN, GN(2) are applied to the liquid crystal
`
`devices “in order to control the transmission rate of the liquid crystal device 39.”
`
`Id. at 13-14. Similarly, as in Fig. 2, Fig. 6 is a timing diagram showing
`
`transmission rate versus frame count, where the