IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.;
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.;
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Janssen ’708 Discloses an AMLCD Architecture ........................................... 3
`
`A. A POSA Would Understand That the Switching Transistors of
`Janssen ’708 Are Thin-Film Transistors ............................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Pixel Element Symbol Used in Janssen ’708 is Common
`Notation for Pixel Elements in LCD Devices ....................................... 7
`
`Patent Examiners Interpreted Disclosures in the Janssen ’708
`Family As Disclosing an AMLCD Device .........................................12
`
`Filament Bulbs Arranged in a Matrix Are Not Analogous to
`AMLCD Structure and Are Not Analogous to Janssen ’708 ..............17
`
`III. None of the Documents Cited by Surpass Has Any Resemblance to
`Janssen ’708 Representative Pixel Symbol ...................................................21
`
`IV. Ramp Retrace is Irrelevant to the Challenged Claims ..................................23
`
`V.
`
`The Technology Disclosed in Janssen ’708 Combines Easily With the
`Secondary References ....................................................................................24
`
`VI. Surpass’ Article III Argument is Moot ..........................................................25
`
`VII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`Exhibit 1002 File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`Exhibit 1003 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0186190 to Janssen
`et al. (“Janssen ’190”)
`Exhibit 1004 Published PCT Application WO 02/075708 A2, Publication Date
`September 26, 2002, to Janssen et al. (“Janssen ’708”)
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,300,927 to Kubota et al. (“Kubota”)
`Exhibit 1006 Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2-214818 by Horii et
`al., Publication Date August 27, 1990
`Exhibit 1007 Certified English translation of Japanese Patent Application
`Publication No. 2-214818 by Horii et al. (“Horii”) [additional
`certification of translation served as Exhibit 1016]
`Exhibit 1008 A. Lewis, et al., “Polysilicon TFT Circuit Design and
`Performance,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, Vol. 27, No.
`12 (December 1992), pp.1833-1842 (“Lewis”)
`Exhibit 1009 Surpass Tech Innovation LLC’s Preliminary Response filed in
`IPR2015-00022, Paper No. 8, Jan. 15, 2015 (“Response”)
`Exhibit 1010 R. Joshi, “Chip on glass-interconnect for row/column driver
`packaging,” Microelectronics Journal 29 (1998), pp.343-349
`(“Joshi”)
`Exhibit 1011 T. N. Ruckmongathan, “Driving matrix liquid crystal displays”,
`Pramana Journal of Physics, Vol. 53, No. 1 (July 1999), pp.199-
`212 (“Ruckmongathan”)
`Exhibit 1012 Brown, ed., Electronics and Computer Acronyms, Butterworths
`(1988), pp. 244-45 (“Brown”)
`Exhibit 1013 Declaration of Tsu-Jae King Liu, Ph.D.
`Exhibit 1014 Curriculum vitae of Tsu-Jae King Liu, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Exhibit 1015 Roy, Physics of Semiconductor Devices, 2d ed., Universities
`Press (2004), p. 334 (“Roy”)
`Exhibit 1016 Certified English translation of Japanese Patent Application
`Publication No. 2-214818 by Horii et al. (served as Supplemental
`Evidence on October 7, 2015)
`Exhibit 1017 Supplemental Declaration of Tsu-Jae King Liu, Ph.D. (served as
`Supplemental Evidence on October 7, 2015)
`Exhibit 1018 Transcript of Teleconference, September 29, 2015 (see PTAB
`Order, Paper No. 13)
`Exhibit 1019 Errata to Tsu-Jae King Liu Deposition Transcript (Ex. 2005)
`Exhibit 1020 Reply Declaration of Tsu-Jae King Liu, Ph.D.
`Exhibit 1021 Excerpts from the MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (Microsoft
`Press, 5th ed., 2002), pgs. 551-552
`Exhibit 1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,035,928 to Kozaki et al.
`Exhibit 1023 U.S. Patent No. 6,384,892 to Johnson et al.
`Exhibit 1024 U.S. Patent No. 6,624,801 to Moriyama
`Exhibit 1025 U.S. Patent No. 6,630,921 to Janssen et al.
`Exhibit 1026 U.S. Patent No. 4,781,438 to Noguchi
`Exhibit 1027 U.S. Patent No. 6,424,328 to Ino et al.
`Exhibit 1028 International Search Report for WO 02/075708
`Exhibit 1029 U.S. Patent No. 5,485,293 to Robinder
`Exhibit 1030 U.S. Patent No. 6,031,513 to Ikeda
`Exhibit 1031 European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 273 995 A1
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 6
`
` Page(s)
`
`In re Berg,
`320 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 12
`
`In re De Blauwe,
`736 F.2d 699 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 7
`
`In re Geisler,
`116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 7
`
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. v. Aultman,
`169 U.S. 606 (1898). POR, 33-35 ...................................................................... 25
`
`MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 7755665 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2015) ............................... 25
`
`Yorkey v. Diab,
`601 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`In accordance with the Scheduling Order (Paper 10), Petitioners timely1
`
`submit the present Reply to Patent Owner’s Response filed on November 24, 2015.
`
`This proceeding involves prior art that discloses the active matrix liquid
`
`crystal display (“AMLCD”) architecture broadly claimed in U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,420,550 (“’550 patent”) and widely known in the field of liquid crystal display
`
`design before the ’550 patent’s purported priority date. Due to the lack of an
`
`invention, the Board should find claims 1-5 unpatentable.
`
`As recognized in the Decision to Institute (Paper 9; “Decision”), the Board
`
`determined that the well-supported Petition (Paper 1) shows that a reasonable
`
`likelihood exists that challenged claims 1-5 are unpatentable as obvious over
`
`Janssen ’708 in view of each of Kubota, Horii, and admitted prior art. Surpass
`
`Tech Innovation LLC’s (“Surpass”) Patent Owner Response (Paper 16; “POR”), in
`
`contrast, consists of attorney argument unsupported by expert testimony, and does
`
`little to diminish the force of the Petition or the Board’s initial conclusions.
`
`The linchpin of Surpass’ response is that Petitioners and their expert Dr. Liu
`
`have failed to eliminate the possibility that Janssen ’708 discloses a matrix lamp
`
`display rather than an AMLCD. Surpass argues that the matrix architecture
`
`1 Paper 21 moved Due Date 2 to February 23, 2016 by stipulation of the
`
`parties.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`disclosed in Janssen ’708 has not been shown to be an AMLCD device, and
`
`therefore cannot be combined with the remaining AMLCD references.
`
`Surpass relies on its attorney’s speculation that the symbol used for element
`
`46 in Figure 1 (reproduced below) shows that the driving circuit of Janssen ‘708 is
`
`for a lamp, and not for a liquid crystal display pixel.
`
`POR, 1, 4, 18, 20, 24, 31. The specification of
`
`Janssen ’708 identifies element 46 as a “pixel.” Ex.
`
`1004 at 5, ll. 27-31. Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Liu,
`
`explained that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) would understand that Janssen ’708 shows an AMLCD driving circuit
`
`for an LCD pixel because a POSA would have understood that, by the time the
`
`application underlying Janssen ’708 was filed in 2001, the “video display”
`
`disclosed in Janssen ’708 with a row-column matrix of pixels is an AMLCD
`
`display that uses thin-film transistors to drive the liquid crystal display pixels. Ex.
`
`1013, ¶ 41. Dr. Liu referenced the 1999
`
`Ruckmongathan publication (Ex. 1011 at 16,
`
`Fig. 18), which shows an exemplary AMLCD
`
`architecture from the time that is similar in
`
`electrical structure to Janssen ’708. Dr. Liu
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`further rebutted the arguments that Surpass had previously made in IPR2015-
`
`00022 as to why Janssen ’708 did not disclose an AMLCD device. Ex. 1013, ¶ 43.
`
`Surpass offers no expert testimony to the contrary. Rather, Surpass argues
`
`that pixel 46 must be some type of light source or a photoresistor. If the Board
`
`rejects this argument, Surpass’ entire defense crumbles. The overwhelming weight
`
`of the evidence regarding how a POSA would understand Janssen ’708 favors the
`
`Petitioners. It is telling that, while Surpass was able to persuade its putative expert,
`
`Mr. Bohannon, to offer a narrow opinion that a POSA would rely on a certain
`
`electronics dictionary (Ex. 2023; Ex. 2025, ¶ 10), Surpass was apparently unable to
`
`convince Mr. Bohannon to offer any technical opinion at all in support of Surpass’
`
`argument directed toward pixel 46 of Janssen ’708.
`
`The Petition, supported by Dr. Liu’s declaration and subsequent cross-
`
`examination testimony, demonstrates why the challenged claims 1-5 are obvious,
`
`and why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the
`
`cited references. Surpass’ conclusory attorney arguments, unsupported by any
`
`expert testimony, provide no reason to find otherwise.
`
`II.
`
`Janssen ’708 Discloses an AMLCD Architecture
`
`Dr. Liu is an expert in the field of liquid crystal displays with substantial
`
`research experience at Stanford University and University of California Berkley,
`
`where she is the Chair of the Electrical Engineering Department. Ex. 1013, ¶¶ 5-
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`12. Dr. Liu also has participated in several symposiums regarding LCD design,
`
`has published numerous technical papers, and been awarded ninety-one patents.
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 13-15. Dr. Liu consistently testified that the matrix architecture shown in
`
`Janssen ’708 is an AMLCD architecture video displays having a column-row
`
`matrix of pixels as disclosed in Janssen ’708 are AMLCD devices. Ex. 1013, ¶¶
`
`41-43; Ex. 2005, 109:21-110:1, 124:11-125:7; 126:2-12. Surpass does not
`
`challenge the fact that Janssen ’708 discloses the source lines, gate lines, drivers,
`
`and switching transistors characteristic of the AMLCD architecture. Surpass
`
`provides no expert testimony that Janssen ’708 does not disclose the AMLCD
`
`architecture or that a POSA would not interpret it as such. Rather, Surpass relies
`
`upon conclusory attorney argument that Dr. Liu did not properly analyze Janssen
`
`’708, but instead misinterpreted its disclosure.
`
`A. A POSA Would Understand That the Switching Transistors of
`Janssen ’708 Are Thin-Film Transistors
`
`In its Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “POPR”), Surpass
`
`complained that Dr. Liu’s analysis imposed a “financial feasibility on a technical
`
`selection” (POPR, 23) with respect to the knowledge of a POSA regarding the use
`
`of thin-film transistors in an AMLCD device, and was thus technically deficient.
`
`Surpass’ argument did not persuade the Board that Dr. Liu’s testimony was
`
`“automatically deficient because it includes financial factors that one skilled in the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`art might consider.” Decision, 11. Surpass’ current Response adds no evidence to
`
`support this argument.
`
`As disclosed by Exhibits 1005, 1007, 1022-1024, 1026, 1027, and 1029-
`
`1031, thin-film transistors are predominantly used to electronically access
`
`individual pixels (to charge or discharge the voltages on the pixel electrodes and
`
`thereby adjust their brightness) in a LCD device. Ex. 1020, ¶ 11. The amount of
`
`current that a thin-film transistor conducts in the ON state (or conductive state) is
`
`very low (less than one thousandth of an ampere). Id. This very low amount of
`
`current is only adequate to charge/discharge a small capacitive load, such as a
`
`liquid crystal cell capacitance, and is insufficient to adequately drive a resistive
`
`load, such as an incandescent lamp. Id. Incandescent lamps are resistive devices
`
`that inherently require a relatively large amount of current (from a few tenths of
`
`amperes to tens of amperes) to produce a suitable light output. Id. A single thin-
`
`film transistor, or even multiple thin-film transistors, cannot source such a high
`
`level of current. Id.
`
`During her deposition, Dr. Liu testified extensively regarding the use of thin-
`
`film transistors in the LCD industry, and why a POSA would understand that the
`
`switching transistors in Janssen ’708 would necessarily be thin-film transistors.
`
`Ex. 2005, 71:7-72:18. Dr. Liu further testified about two alternative types of
`
`switching transistors that might have been considered for use with AMLCD
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`devices, and why a POSA would understand that those alternatives were not
`
`suitable for AMLCD devices. Ex. 2005, 73:4-74:4. One alternative, thick-film
`
`transistors that would require smoothing for the controlled liquid crystal gap,
`
`would be prohibitively expensive to manufacture. Ex. 2005, 73:23-74:1-4.
`
`Surpass’ purported expert, Mr. Bohannon, has not submitted any evidence to the
`
`contrary regarding a POSA’s knowledge about the common use of thin-film
`
`transistors in an AMLCD device.
`
`In the Patent Owner Response (POR, 28-33), Surpass raises essentially the
`
`identical argument about thin-film transistors that it raised in its Preliminary
`
`Response (POPR, 20-26). Surpass’ argument is supported only by attorney
`
`argument, and bereft of any factual or expert testimony in rebuttal to Dr. Liu’s
`
`testimony. Surpass claims that Dr. Liu’s conclusions regarding thin-film
`
`transistors are entitled to little weight under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). POR, 29. It is
`
`well-settled that the Board has discretion to assign the appropriate weight to Dr.
`
`Liu’s testimony. See, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(holding the Board was well within its discretion to give more weight to one item
`
`of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so.”);
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he
`
`Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual
`
`corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). It
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`is also well settled that argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence
`
`lacking in the record. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that
`
`arguments and conclusory statements unsupported by factual evidence are entitled
`
`to little probative value). Ironically, while Surpass claims that Dr. Liu’s testimony
`
`should be accorded little weight, Surpass has failed to submit any expert evidence
`
`in rebuttal to Dr. Liu’s well-grounded declaratory evidence and her cross-
`
`examination evidence. Thus, Surpass’ arguments regarding the knowledge of a
`
`POSA regarding thin-film transistors in the context of Janssen ’708 should be
`
`accorded no weight by the Board.
`
`B.
`
`The Pixel Element Symbol Used in Janssen ’708 is Common
`Notation for Pixel Elements in LCD Devices
`
`A POSA understands that the electrical behavior of a liquid crystal cell can
`
`be modeled as a resistor connected in parallel with a capacitor (a resistor/capacitor
`
`pair) and can be used to show an equivalent circuit for a LCD picture element, or
`
`“pixel.” Ex. 1020, ¶ 6. The capacitor symbol represents the capacitance between
`
`the pixel electrode and a common electrode formed on the LCD substrates, and the
`
`resistor symbol represents the electrical resistance of the liquid crystal material
`
`itself between these electrodes. Id. As shown by various Exhibits, LCD pixels are
`
`represented by various different symbols in the art:
`
`1) In the ’550 patent, a capacitor CLC represents the capacitance of an
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`active-matrix LCD pixel electrode, and a second capacitor CS connected
`
`in parallel with CLC represents the capacitance of a charge storage
`
`capacitor, whose function is to increase the amount of stored charge on
`
`the pixel electrode. (Ex. 1001, Col. 1:52-61; Fig. 1B; Ex. 1020, ¶ 7).
`
`2) Horii uses its own symbol to represent an AMLCD pixel, the charge
`
`storage capacitor for the pixel is illustrated as a discrete component, and
`
`a thin-film transistor is connected to the pixel and the charge storage
`
`capacitor. (Ex. 1006, Fig. 1; Ex. 1007, 6:15; Ex. 1020, ¶ 8).
`
`3) Kubota uses a symbol to represent an AMLCD pixel that is different from
`
`the symbols used in the ’550 patent, Horii, and Janssen ’708. (Ex. 1005,
`
`Col. 1:12-16; Fig. 2; Ex. 1020, ¶ 9).
`
`Although Janssen ’708, Kubota, Horii, and the ’550 patent use different symbols
`
`for a LCD pixel, a POSA would recognize and understand that different symbols
`
`all represent a LCD pixel because Janssen ’708, Kubota, Horii, and the ’550 patent
`
`are directed to AMLCD devices. Ex. 1020, ¶ 10.
`
`Surpass repeatedly argues that the pixel symbol used in the Figures of
`
`Janssen ’708 must represent a lamp-type light source and is not an LCD pixel. See,
`
`e.g., POR, 1, 5, 8, 17, 18. Janssen ’708 depicts a display element (in the red box)
`
`comprising a representative pixel (46) and its associated capacitance (44) in
`
`parallel, and coupled to a switching transistor (42). Ex. 1004 at 5, ll. 27-31. The
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`representation of pixel element (46) in the Figures
`
`appears to show a resistive element inside of a circle
`
`in parallel with a capacitive element (44). As shown
`
`in the ’550 patent (Ex. 1001) and Horii (Ex. 1007), a
`
`discrete storage capacitor coupled to a pixel element is
`
`usually shown as a separate element, and designated as such. Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 7, 8;
`
`Ex. 2005, 44:7-13, 50:23-51:3, 52:8-13, 53:1-4.
`
`During her deposition, Dr. Liu testified that LCD pixel elements can be
`
`modeled with a resistor element and a capacitor element. Ex. 2005, 44:16-24;
`
`51:5-25, 77:20-25. Dr. Liu further testified that the LCD pixel itself allows current
`
`flow and charge leakage, and that is why a LCD pixel is modeled with a resistor
`
`element. Ex. 2005, 44:20-24.
`
`Dr. Liu’s testimony is consistent with the use of a resistor/capacitor pair to
`
`model a liquid crystal pixel in the art. This is shown in many other patents. For
`
`example, in Figure 7 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,035,928, a resistor/capacitor pair (red box) is
`
`used to model a liquid crystal pixel. See Ex.
`
`1022, Fig. 7; Ex. 1020, ¶ 11. The CLC
`
`component models the capacitance of the liquid
`
`crystal layer. Ex. 1022, 1:59-60; Ex. 1020, ¶ 11. The scanning voltage VG on the
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`scan line (blue) turns on transistor q, which allows the source voltage signal VS on
`
`the data/source line (red) to charge CLC. Ex. 1022, Col. 1:55-60; Ex. 1020, ¶ 11.
`
`The RLC component models the resistance of the liquid crystal layer, and after the
`
`capacitance component is charged, it discharges through the resistance component.
`
`Ex. 1022, 1:65-2:7; Ex. 1020, ¶ 11.
`
`In U.S. Patent No. 6,384,892, which is directed to a display element having
`
`layers of orientation material and liquid crystal material between picture
`
`electrodes, Figure 2 uses a CLC/RLC pair (in the red box) to model a liquid crystal
`
`pixel. Ex. 1022, 2:46-50; Ex. 1020, ¶ 12. The CLC/RLC pair (in the red box)
`
`models the electrical behavior of the liquid
`
`crystal layer of the display element, and the
`
`Rol/Col pair models the orientation layers of
`
`the display element. Id. The ’892 patent
`
`further describes that the display element
`
`can be connected to a thin-film transistor for use in an AMLCD device. Ex. 1022,
`
`4:59-64; Ex. 1020, ¶ 12. Although the ’892 patent does not use the traditional
`
`resistor symbol in its Figure 2, it is clear that the resistance/capacitance pair
`
`models a liquid crystal cell. Ex. 1020, ¶ 12.
`
`In U.S. Patent No. 6,624,801, Figure 9 uses a CLC/RLC pair (in the red box)
`
`as an equivalent circuit to model an AMLCD pixel when its thin-film transistor is
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`in the off state. Ex. 1024, 10:50-53; Ex. 1020, ¶ 13. The RLC component models
`
`the liquid crystal layer resistance. Ex. 1024, 10:51-52; Ex. 1020, ¶ 13. The CLC
`
`component models the liquid crystal layer capacitance. Ex. 1024, 10:43-45; Ex.
`
`1020, ¶ 13. A storage capacitor CST is coupled in
`
`parallel to the CLC/RLC pair. Ex. 1024, 10:43-45;
`
`Ex. 1020, ¶ 13. When the transistor is off, the
`
`capacitances CLC and CST discharge through RLC.
`
`Ex. 1024, 10:53-56, 61-65; Ex. 1020, ¶ 13. The ’801 patent also discloses that the
`
`value of RLC should be “sufficiently large.” Ex. 1024, 11:26-29.
`
`Exhibits 1022-1024 thus demonstrate that a POSA would understand that the
`
`pixel symbol in Janssen ’708 that appears to show a resistive element and a
`
`capacitive element in parallel represents a LCD pixel, and not a filament lamp. Ex.
`
`1020, ¶ 15. Surpass offers no expert testimony or documentary evidence that a
`
`POSA would understand the pixel symbol of the video display of Janssen ’708 to
`
`be anything other than a LCD pixel.
`
`Surpass attempts to discredit Dr. Liu with testimony from Mr. Credelle, an
`
`expert witness in the IPR2015-00863 trial. POR, 18. Mr. Credelle was testifying
`
`about an AMLCD disclosed in a prior art textbook, and was asked about the
`
`capacitor representation of a LCD pixel. Mr. Credelle testified that a LCD pixel
`
`“is shown as a capacitor because there’s two electrodes on either side of the liquid
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`crystal material” and “[s]o it forms a capacitor, and it’s a resistive material, highly
`
`resistive material.” Ex. 2004, 31:16-19. In response to Surpass counsel’s question
`
`about use of a resistor to represent a liquid crystal capacitor in a diagram, Mr.
`
`Credelle replied “[i]t is not shown as a resistor only, but it has resistance.” Id.,
`
`31:23-24. Contrary to Surpass’ argument, Mr. Credelle’s testimony is perfectly
`
`consistent with Dr. Liu’s testimony (Ex. 2005, 44:16-24; 51:5-8, 77:23-25) and the
`
`understanding of a POSA regarding an equivalent circuit representation of a liquid
`
`crystal pixel element: both experts agree that a liquid crystal pixel element has
`
`capacitive and resistive components.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Examiners Interpreted Disclosures in the Janssen ’708
`Family As Disclosing an AMLCD Device
`
`Evidence in the prosecution histories related to Janssen ’708 also shows that
`
`a POSA did consider the applications related to Janssen ’708 as disclosing
`
`AMLCD devices. The Federal Circuit has held that “examiners and administrative
`
`patent judges on the Board are responsible for making findings, informed by their
`
`scientific knowledge, as to the meaning of prior art references to persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art….” In re Berg, 320 F.3d 1310, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003). As
`
`will be shown below, the Examiners of both the U.S. and European Patent Offices
`
`found that the underlying applications, from which the Janssen ’708 publication
`
`had its genesis, were directed to AMLCD technology.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`The PCT application that was published as Janssen ’708 claimed priority to
`
`U.S. Application Serial No. 09/812,489 (“’489 Application”). Ex. 1004 at 1. The
`
`’489 Application eventually issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,630,921. Ex. 1025.
`
`During the examination of the ’489 Application, the Examiner identified three U.S.
`
`patents as prior art against the pending claims. Two of these references show
`
`AMLCD architecture. Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 16-18. The Examiner’s identification of these
`
`AMLCD references as prior art to the disclosure of Janssen ‘708 is necessarily a
`
`finding—by a PTO official presumed familiar with the knowledge of those skilled
`
`in the art—that Janssen ’708 relates to AMLCD technology.
`
`One of these prior art patents, U.S. Patent No. 4,781,438, discloses an
`
`“active matrix LCD panel having a triangular pixel arrangement.” Ex. 1026, 1:8-
`
`10; Ex. 1020, ¶ 16. Figure 3 of the
`
`’438 patent discloses gate bus lines
`
`(12) (blue) and data signal bus lines
`
`(11) (red). Ex. 1026, 4:60-5:11; Ex.
`
`1020, ¶ 16. The thin-film transistor (13, 14, 17, 18) (green) gate electrodes are
`
`connected to the gate bus lines (11). Id. The thin-film transistor drain electrodes
`
`are connected to the data signal bus lines (12). Id. The thin-film transistor source
`
`electrodes are connected to the display electrodes (15, 16). Id. A POSA would
`
`understand that the electrical architecture disclosed in Figure 3 of the ’438 patent is
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`consistent with an AMLCD device due its use of thin-film transistor-switched
`
`display electrodes for the pixel elements of a LCD panel. Ex. 1020, ¶ 16.
`
`A second patent, 6,424,328, discloses an “active-matrix liquid-crystal
`
`display apparatus using time-division driving.”
`
`Ex. 1027, 1:6-9. Figure 1 of the ’328 patent
`
`discloses an AMLCD apparatus that has a matrix
`
`of a plurality of row gate lines (11-n) (blue) and a
`
`plurality of column signal lines (12-n) (red). Ex.
`
`1027, 4:39-45; Ex. 1020, ¶ 17. Each row gate line
`
`(11-n) is connected to a vertical driving unit (13) that sends sequentially sends out
`
`driving pulses to select pixels in rows. Each signal line (12-n) is receives a signal
`
`potential from a driver IC (14) that contains image data and is switched through a
`
`time-division switch section (16). Ex. 1027, 4:58-5:8; Ex. 1020, ¶ 17.
`
`Figure 2 of the ’328 patent discloses the pixel arrangement. At each
`
`intersection of row gate line (11-m) (blue) and column signal line (12-n) (red), a
`
`thin-film transistor’s gate electrode is
`
`connected to its respective row gate line,
`
`and each thin-film transistor’s source
`
`electrode is connected to its respective
`
`column signal line. Ex. 1027, 5:9-15;
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`Ex. 1020, ¶ 18. The drain electrode of each thin-film transistor is connected to its
`
`respective liquid-crystal capacitor (23). Ex. 1027, 5:15-19; Ex. 1020, ¶ 18. A
`
`storage capacitor (22) is connected to the drain electrode as well. Ex. 1027, 5:32-
`
`34; Ex. 1020, ¶ 18. A POSA would understand that the electrical architecture
`
`disclosed in Figures 1 and 2 of the ’328 patent is consistent with an AMLCD
`
`device due its use of thin-film transistor-switched liquid-crystal capacitors for the
`
`pixel elements of a LCD panel. Ex. 1020, ¶ 18.
`
`Had the Examiner responsible for examining the ’489 Application believed
`
`that its disclosure related to filament lamps, as Surpass asserts, the Examiner
`
`would have cited very different prior art. The fact that the Examiner cited
`
`AMLCD art is a telling indicator that a POSA understands the disclosure of
`
`Janssen ‘708 as AMLCD architecture that uses thin-film transistors, and that a
`
`USPTO examiner thought so too.
`
`Likewise, when the ’489 Application was filed as PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/IB02/00903, the European Patent Office, as the designated Searching
`
`Authority, identified three additional pertinent prior art references that disclose
`
`AMLCD technology (Ex. 1028, 1).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,485,293 discloses an “active-matrix liquid crystal multi-
`
`color display panel structure” (Ex. 1029, 1:6-7) that has display electrodes
`
`arranged in rows and columns, and thin-film transistors connected to the display
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`electrodes. Ex. 1029, 4:62-64; Fig. 3; Ex. 1020, ¶ 19. The thin-film transistors’
`
`gate electrodes are connected to the row scan drive lines, and thin-film transistors’
`
`source electrodes are connected to the column signal drive lines. Ex. 1029, 4:64-
`
`66, 7:45-59; Fig. 3; Ex. 1020, ¶ 19. When a row scan line is active, its respective
`
`thin-film transistor becomes electrically conductive, and voltage on the respective
`
`column signal drive line is applied to the display electrode. Ex. 1029, 7:45-59; Ex.
`
`1020, ¶ 19.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,031,513 (“’513 patent”) discloses a matrix of pixel
`
`electrodes arranged in an m-by-n matrix. Ex. 1030, 4:2-6; Ex. 1020, ¶ 20. The
`
`matrix has vertical data bus lines and horizontal gate bus lines, and thin-film
`
`transistors placed near the intersections of the data bus lines and gate bus lines.
`
`Ex. 1030, 4:6-10; Ex. 1020, ¶ 20. Each thin-film transistor’s drain electrode is
`
`connected to its respective pixel electrode, the thin-film transistor gate electrodes
`
`are connected to the gate bus lines, and the thin-film transistor source electrodes
`
`are connected to the data bus lines. Ex. 1030, 4:13-18; Fig. 4; Ex. 1020, ¶ 20.
`
`European Patent Application Pub. No. EP 0 273 995 A1 (“EP ’995”)
`
`discloses the architecture characteristic of an AMLCD device. EP ‘995 discloses a
`
`matrix of display electrodes, each of which is connected to a respective column
`
`drive line and a respective gate drive line through a thin-film transistor. Ex. 1031,
`
`5:40-6:14; Fig. 9; Ex. 1020, ¶ 21.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`Notably, the prior art cited during the examination of the ’489 Application
`
`and PCT ’903 identifies thin-film transistors as the switching transistors for the
`
`pixel elements. See Ex. 1026, 4:60-66; Ex. 1027, 5:9-12; Ex. 1028, 4:62-64; Ex.
`
`1029, 4:6-10; Ex. 1031, 5:54-55; Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 16-21. The examiners at both the
`
`U.S. and European Patent Offices, informed by their scientific knowledge
`
`regarding the meaning of prior art references to a POSA, understood that the
`
`switching transistors in the applications underlying Janssen ’708 were thin-film
`
`transistors characteristic of AMLCD devices.
`
`The overwhelming evidence that patent office officials in the United States
`
`and Europe, charged with determining what a POSA would understand, found that
`
`the applicable prior art was AMLCD art, strongly rebuts Surpass’ counsel’s
`
`speculation that Janssen ’708 does not disclose an AMLCD but instead a filament
`
`bulb matrix.
`
`D.
`
`Filament Bulbs Arranged in a Matrix Are Not Analogous to
`AMLCD Structure and Are Not Analogous to Janssen ’708
`
`Surpass argues that three references, each disclosing a matrix arrangement of
`
`light bulbs, use light bulb symbols that are similar to that used for pixel 46 in
`
`Janssen ‘708, and thus, lead to the conclusion that a POSA would interpret the
`
`driving circuit in Janssen ’708 to be for a light bulb matrix. POR, 23-24. See U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 4,771,278 (Ex. 2010), RE 34,135 (Ex. 2011), and 4,894,645 (Ex.
`
`2012). When questioned about these references in her deposition, Dr. Liu agreed
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`
`that each of these three patents disclose a light bulb matrix that could display
`
`moving images. Ex. 2005, 119:7-10. However, the circuitry disclosed in these
`
`devices is far different from that disclosed in Janssen’ 708 and from AMLCD
`
`devices. Surpass’ unsupported inference that these references would lead a POSA
`
`to interpret Janssen ’708 as a light bulb display rather than an AMLCD is wrong.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,771,278 describes a light display comprised of a plurality
`
`of modules arranged in a row-column matrix. Ex. 2010, 3:38-40. According to the
`
`’278 patent, each light module further comprises a 20-by-20 lamp matrix
`
`controlled by its own set of row and column drivers. Ex. 2010, 4:24-30; Ex. 1020,
`
`¶ 22. The lamp matrix uses incandescent lamps, each with a rectifier diode. Ex.
`
`2010, 4:45-47; Ex. 1020, ¶ 19. The ’278 patent uses a filament light bulb symbol
`
`(208) that is consistent with Surpass’ Exhibit 2023. Ex.
`
`1020, ¶ 22. The ’278 patent does not disclose using
`
`thin-film transistors to switch the filament light bulbs,
`
`and the matrix-within-a-matrix architecture of the lamp d
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
