throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., and
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF TSU-
`JAE KING LIU
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Pursuant to the Scheduling Order dated September 9, 2015 (Paper 10),
`
`Patent Owner Surpass timely moves for observations on cross-examination in light
`
`of Patent Owner’s cross-examination of Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Tsu-Jae King Liu
`
`on March 25, 2016. The transcript of Dr. Liu’s cross-examination testimony is
`
`being filed as exhibit 2027 (“Ex. 2027”). 1
`
`
`
`Observations on Cross-Examination
`
`1. Ex. 2027 at 141:23-142:23: Dr. Liu testified that the resistor-surrounded-
`
`by-a-circle symbol she drew on Exhibit E is used in Janssen ‘708 (Ex.
`
`1004). This testimony is relevant to the technology disclosed by Janssen
`
`‘708.
`
`2. Ex. 2027 at 142:24-144:22: Dr. Liu testified that Figs. 1-4 and 7 of
`
`Janssen ‘708 include the pixel symbol (labeled 46 and 100) that she drew
`
`on Exhibit E. This testimony is relevant to the technology disclosed by
`
`Janssen ‘708.
`
`3. Ex. 2027 at 144:23-145:22: Dr. Liu testified that the pixel symbols 46
`
`and 100 of Janssen ‘708 are described as a “pixel” only. This testimony is
`
`relevant to the technology disclosed by Janssen ‘708.
`
`                                                            
`1 Ex. 2027 begins on page 135 for consistency with the transcript page numbers.
`1 

`
`

`
`4. Ex. 2027 at 151:8-152:5; 157:18-20; 165:1-3: Dr. Liu testified that
`
`Janssen ‘708 does not describe its technology as “liquid crystal,” and
`
`does not label any symbol as RLC or CLC. This testimony is relevant to the
`
`technology disclosed by Janssen ‘708.
`
`5. Ex. 2027 at 153:14-154:3: Dr. Liu testified that she conducted a prior art
`
`search after her previous deposition, but did not “specifically” search for
`
`art using Janssen’s pixel symbol or the symbol of Exhibit E. This
`
`testimony is relevant to the technology disclosed by Janssen ‘708 and to
`
`the probative weight of Dr. Liu’s testimony about Janssen ‘708’s pixel
`
`symbol.
`
`6. Ex. 2027 at 156:7-15: Dr. Liu testified that Ex. 1022, Kozaki, does not
`
`use the symbol that Dr. Liu drew on Exhibit E. This testimony is
`
`relevant to the technology disclosed by Janssen ‘708 and to the probative
`
`weight of Dr. Liu’s testimony about Janssen ‘708’s pixel symbol in view
`
`of Kozaki.
`
`7. Ex. 2027 at 156:21-25: Dr. Liu testified that Ex. 1022, Kozaki discloses
`
`an ideal equivalent circuit of a liquid crystal picture element, but does not
`
`model the liquid crystal element with a resistor symbol in this ideal
`
`equivalent circuit. This testimony is relevant to the technology disclosed
`
`2 

`
`

`
`by Janssen ‘708 and to the probative weight of Dr. Liu’s testimony about
`
`Janssen ‘708’s pixel symbol in view of Kozaki.
`
`8. Ex. 2027 at 159:21-160:4: Dr. Liu testified that Ex. 1023, Johnson, does
`
`not use the symbol that Dr. Liu drew on Exhibit E. This testimony is
`
`relevant to the technology disclosed by Janssen ‘708 and to the probative
`
`weight of Dr. Liu’s testimony about Janssen ‘708’s pixel symbol in view
`
`of Johnson.
`
`9. Ex. 2027 at 163:1-4: Dr. Liu testified that Ex. 1024, Moriyama, does not
`
`use the symbol that Dr. Liu drew on Exhibit E. This testimony is
`
`relevant to the technology disclosed by Janssen ‘708 and to the probative
`
`weight of Dr. Liu’s testimony about Janssen ‘708’s pixel symbol in view
`
`of Moriyama.
`
`10. Ex. 2027 at 168:2-171:3; 173:18-20; 175:7-11: Dr. Liu testified that she
`
`only reviewed two of three “References Cited” on the face of Ex. 1025
`
`issued to Janssen, and she confirmed that she does not know whether the
`
`third Reference Cited (Matsushita) is directed to active-matrix LCD
`
`technology. This testimony is relevant to the probative weight of Dr.
`
`Liu’s testimony about the examination of Ex. 1025 and about the
`
`examiner’s interpretation of Janssen’s “pixel” elements 46 and 100. See
`
`Ex. 2027 at 177:11-15.
`
`3 

`
`

`
`11. Ex. 2027 at 177:16-178:16: Dr. Liu confirmed her earlier testimony that
`
`she had not seen Janssen’s pixel symbol 46/100 prior to reviewing
`
`Janssen ‘708 for this matter, and agreed that the patent examiner who
`
`examined Ex. 1025 may have been equally unfamiliar with that symbol.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the probative weight of Dr. Liu’s testimony
`
`about the examination of Ex. 1025 and about the examiner’s
`
`interpretation of Janssen’s “pixel” elements 46 and 100.
`
`12. Ex. 2027 at 179:21-180:13: Dr. Liu confirmed that a thin film transistor
`
`cannot provide the required current for an incandescent lamp. This
`
`testimony is relevant to whether Janssen ‘708 could be modified to use a
`
`thin-film transistor to provide current to Janssen’s “pixel” elements 46
`
`and 100.
`
`13. Ex. 2027 at 181:16-24: Dr. Liu confirmed that there were other types of
`
`transistors (i.e. transistors other than thin film transistors) in 2001 that
`
`could provide sufficient current for an incandescent lamp. Dr. Liu also
`
`testified that Janssen ‘708 does not describe the disclosed “transistors” as
`
`“thin film transistors.” This testimony is relevant to whether Janssen
`
`‘708 discloses or could be modified to use a thin-film transistor to
`
`provide current to Janssen’s “pixel” elements 46 and 100.
`
`4 

`
`

`
`14. Ex. 2027 at 182:19-25; 184:7-13: Dr. Liu testified that an understanding
`
`of “ramp retrace” is necessary to understand the “function of the
`
`multiplexing circuit disclosed in Janssen ‘708”, but confirmed that she
`
`has not provided any further opinion on the meaning of “ramp retrace” in
`
`her reply declaration. This testimony is relevant to the probative value of
`
`Dr. Liu’s analysis of the technology disclosed by Janssen ‘708.
`
`15. Ex. 2027 at 187:17-188:2: Dr. Liu testified that only one reference (Ex.
`
`2024) in the record other than the Janssen references (Ex. 1004 and Ex.
`
`1025) disclosed a symbol like Janssen’s pixel 46/100, and Ex. 2024 used
`
`that symbol to model a lightbulb. This testimony is relevant to the
`
`technology disclosed by Janssen ‘708.
`
`Dated: April 4, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Wayne M. Helge
`Wayne M. Helge (Reg. No. 56,905)
`Donald L. Jackson (Reg. No. 41,090)
`Michael R. Casey (Reg. No. 40,294)
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey,
`LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: 571-765-7700
`Fax: 571-765-7200
`Email: whelge@dbjg.com
`Email: djackson@dbjg.com
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`5 

`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on April 4, 2016, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF TSU-
`
`JAE KING LIU and Exhibit 2027 is being served via email to the Petitioners at the
`
`correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`Lead Counsel: Jay I. Alexander (Reg. No. 32,678) of Covington & Burling LLP
`
`Backup Counsels: Andrea G. Reister (Reg. No. 36,253) and Gregory S. Discher
`(Reg. No. 42,488) of Covington & Burling LLP; Michelle Carniaux (Reg. No.
`36,098) and John Flock (Reg. No. 39,670) of Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`
`Electronic Service: jalexander@cov.com; areister@cov.com; gdischer@cov.com,
`Sony-SurpassTech@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`JACKSON &
`
`By: /s/ Wayne M. Helge
` USPTO Reg. No. 56,905
`BERQUIST
` DAVIDSON
`GOWDEY, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: 571-765-7700
`Fax: 571-765-7200
`Email: whelge@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`
`
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`6 

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket