U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,868,880
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8 ................................... 1
`III.
`FEE AUTHORIZATION ............................................................................... 3
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ....................................................................... 3
`V.
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................. 3
`VI. THE CHALLENGED PATENT .................................................................... 3
`VII. PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY ........................................................ 10
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 11
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 11
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT WARRANTED .............................. 12
`XI. SPECIFIC EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................. 14
`A. Ground 1/1a: Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 25-32 Are Anticipated or
`Rendered Obvious by Miyazawa in Light of the Knowledge of
`a POSA ............................................................................................... 14
`1. Miyazawa ................................................................................. 14
`2.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 18
`3.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 28
`4.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 32
`5.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 35
`6.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 37
`7.
`Claim 6: .................................................................................... 37
`8.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 37
`9.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 38
`10. Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 39
`11. Claim 11 ................................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`12. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 40
`13. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 42
`14. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 43
`15. Claim 25 ................................................................................... 44
`16. Claim 26: .................................................................................. 47
`17. Claim 27 ................................................................................... 47
`18. Claim 28 ................................................................................... 48
`19. Claim 29 ................................................................................... 48
`20. Claim 30 ................................................................................... 49
`21. Claim 31 ................................................................................... 49
`22. Claim 32 ................................................................................... 49
`Ground 2/2a: Claims 1-14, and 25-33 are anticipated or
`rendered obvious by Morosawa in Light of the Knowledge of a
`POSA .................................................................................................. 49
`1. Morosawa ................................................................................. 49
`2.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 52
`3.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 60
`4.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 63
`5.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 65
`6.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 65
`7.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 65
`8.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 66
`9.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 66
`10. Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 67
`11. Claim 10 ................................................................................... 67
`12. Claim 11 ................................................................................... 68
`13. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 68
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`14. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 69
`15. Claim 14 ................................................................................... 70
`16. Claim 25 ................................................................................... 71
`17. Claim 26: .................................................................................. 72
`18. Claim 27 ................................................................................... 72
`19. Claim 28 ................................................................................... 72
`20. Claim 29 ................................................................................... 73
`21. Claim 30 ................................................................................... 73
`22. Claim 31 ................................................................................... 73
`23. Claim 32 ................................................................................... 73
`24. Claim 33 ................................................................................... 73
`Ground 3: Claims 18-24 and 34-40 are rendered obvious by the
`combination of Morosawa and Shirasaki in Light of the
`Knowledge of a POSA ....................................................................... 73
`1.
`Shirasaki ................................................................................... 74
`2. Motivation To Combine Morosawa and Shirasaki .................. 75
`3.
`Claims 18 and 34...................................................................... 76
`4.
`Claims 19/35 ............................................................................ 78
`5.
`Claims 20/36 ............................................................................ 79
`6.
`Claims 21/37 ............................................................................ 80
`7.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 81
`8.
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 83
`9.
`Claim 24 ................................................................................... 85
`10. Claim 38 ................................................................................... 87
`11. Claim 39 ................................................................................... 87
`12. Claim 40 ................................................................................... 87
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`E.
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 24 and 40 are rendered obvious by the
`combination of Morosawa, Shirasaki, and Koyama in Light of
`the Knowledge of a POSA ................................................................. 88
`1.
`Koyama and Motivation to Combine ....................................... 88
`2.
`Claims 24, 40 ........................................................................... 89
`Ground 5: Claims 15-17 are rendered obvious by the
`combination of Morosawa and Hector in Light of the
`Knowledge of a POSA ....................................................................... 90
`1.
`Hector ....................................................................................... 90
`2. Motivation to Combine Morosawa and Hector ....................... 92
`3.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 93
`4.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 95
`5.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... 97
`XII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 98
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`
`Ex-1002
`
`Claim Listing
`
`Ex-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Miltiadis Hatalis
`
`Ex-1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Miltiadis Hatalis
`
`Ex-1005
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`
`Ex-1006
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0083270 (“Miyazawa”)
`
`Ex-1007
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/095087 (“Libsch”)
`
`Ex-1008 WIPO Pub. No. WO 2004/040543 (“Morosawa”)
`
`Ex-1009 WIPO Pub. No. WO 2004/086347 (“Shirasaki”)
`
`Ex-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,564,433 (“Hector”)
`
`Ex-1011
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0197664 (“Koyama”)
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung” or “Petitioner”) requests inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880 (“the ’880
`
`Patent”) (Ex-1001), currently assigned to Solas OLED Ltd. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`The ’880 Patent claims a display made up of a matrix of organic
`
`electroluminescent devices (OLEDs) in which rows are turned on or off by
`
`changing a drive voltage applied to rows of pixels, defining a display-on and a
`
`display-off period. During the display-off period, the programmed brightness of
`
`the pixels is cleared and then programmed to new data values. Those new data
`
`values set the brightness of each OLED during the next display-on period.
`
`These claimed circuits, however, were already well known in the art by the
`
`time of the ’880 Patent’s earliest claimed priority date of May 24, 2005. The prior
`
`art presented herein demonstrates that every element of every claim of the ’880
`
`Patent was anticipated or rendered obvious and should be canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Samsung Display Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics,
`
`Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`Related Matters: Patent Owner has asserted the ’880 Patent against
`
`Petitioner in Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No., 2:20-
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`cv-00307 (E.D. Tex.), and before the International Trade Commission in
`
`Complaint No. 337-TA-1243, In the matter of Certain Active Matrix OLED
`
`Display Devices And Components Thereof.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel:
`• Lead Counsel: Nicholas J. Whilt (Reg. No. 72,081), O’Melveny &
`
`Myers LLP, 400 S. Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (Telephone:
`
`213-430-6000; Fax: 213-430-6407; Email: nwhilt@omm.com).
`
`• Backup Counsel: Ryan K. Yagura (Reg. No. 47,191), Brian M. Cook
`
`(Reg. No. 59,356), Benjamin Haber (Reg. No. 67,129), O’Melveny &
`
`Myers LLP, 400 S. Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (Telephone:
`
`213-430-6000; Fax: 213-430-6407; Email: ryagura@omm.com,
`
`bcook@omm.com, bhaber@omm.com); Mark Liang (Limited
`
`Recognition Number L1031), O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Two
`
`Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111,
`
`(Telephone: (415) 984-8700, E-Mail: mliang@omm.com).
`
`Service Information: Petitioner consents to electronic service by email to
`
`SDC-SEC-Solas-OMM@omm.com. Please address all postal and hand-delivery
`
`correspondence to lead counsel at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 400 S. Hope Street,
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90071, with courtesy copies to the email address identified
`
`above.
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`III. FEE AUTHORIZATION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) and §42.103(a), the PTO is authorized to
`
`charge $64,000 (or other fees required for this filing) to Deposit Account No. 50-
`
`0639.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Under 37 C.F.R. §42.102(a)(2), §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’880
`
`Patent is available for IPR, this Petition is timely filed, and Petitioner is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting IPR review on the grounds presented.
`
`V.
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner respectfully requests review and cancellation of all 40 claims of
`
`the ’880 Patent on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`1a
`
`2
`2a
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`15-17
`
`
`
`Claims
`1-9, 11-14, 25-
`32
`1-9, 11-14, 25-
`32
`1-14, 25-33
`1-14, 25-33
`
`18-24, 34-40
`24, 40
`
`References
`Statutory Basis
`§102 Anticipation Miyazawa
`
`§103 Obviousness Miyazawa in view of
`knowledge of POSA
`§102 Anticipation Morosawa
`§103 Obviousness Morosawa in view of
`knowledge of POSA
`§103 Obviousness Morosawa and Shirasaki
`§103 Obviousness Morosawa, Shirasaki, and
`Koyama
`§103 Obviousness Morosawa and Hector
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED PATENT
`The ‘880 Patent discloses an OLED display operated by a power source
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`driver (shaded green below) to set its on and off states using high and low voltages
`
`respectively. Ex1001, 18:22-25; 20:45-54; 23:12-25. While in the off state, a
`
`scanning driver (orange) sequentially selects rows of pixels using horizontal scan
`
`lines (SL), and a data driver (blue) supplies gradation data along data lines (DL) to
`
`program the corresponding brightness gradation of each display pixel (yellow) in
`
`the selected row. Ex1001, 18:11-35. The power source driver (green) drives a
`
`high voltage on lines VL to set an on state in which the pixels emit light at their
`
`programmed brightness levels.
`
`The voltage lines VL lines are then driven to a low voltage to turn off the
`
`display, and bias control signals (setting signals, purple) from a reverse bias driver
`
`(state setting unit) eliminate the previously programmed voltage stored on the
`
`capacitor Cs. Ex1001, 18:35-55; 20:11-17. This is done by turning on Tr14 (see
`
`Fig. 11 below), connecting node N11 to the scan line Vsel, which is at a low
`
`voltage. Ex1001, 17:66-18:10, 21:33-41.
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`’880 Patent Figure 101
`
`
`
`Figure 11 depicts the pixel drive circuit (DC2), including a drive line (blue),
`
`scan line (orange), power source line (green), and bias line (purple) connected to
`
`four transistors (Tr11–Tr14) controlling programming, clearing, and driving of
`
`each light-emitting OEL.
`
`
`1 Throughout, all color annotations are added.
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`’880 Patent Figure 11
`
`
`
`Figure 12 is a timing diagram. Selection period: During the off period
`
`(grey), scanning signal Vsel goes high (orange period) to select a row by turning
`
`on write transistor Tr12. This allows negative gradation programming current
`
`Idata to flow from the VL line to the DL line through drive transistor Tr13.
`
`Ex1001, 22:18-32. This current through the drive transistor develops a gradation
`
`or bias voltage that is stored on capacitor Cs.
`
`Light-Emitting Period: Next, Vsel goes low, and the drive voltage Vsc
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`goes high, turning on the light-emitting element for the light-emitting or “display”
`
`period (yellow). Ex1001, 22:56-23:17. The stored gradation, or bias voltage, on
`
`Cs sets the current of Tr13 to illuminate the OEL at the programmed brightness.
`
`Bias-Elimination/Reverse-Bias Period: Next, Vsc is driven low to return to
`
`the off state (grey), and the bias line (purple) goes high, turning on Tr14 to reverse
`
`bias Tr13 by connecting its gate to Vsel, which is low, thereby draining the bias
`
`voltage from Cs and eliminating the bias state that was previously programmed
`
`using Idata via the data line. Ex1001, 17:66-18:10, 21:33-41.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`’880 Patent Figure 12
`
`+
`
`Thus, the ’880 Patent describes applying a high-level drive voltage to the
`
`display drive circuit to turn the pixel row on and then switching the drive voltage
`
`to a low level to turn the pixels off. During the off state, pixel rows enter a bias
`
`elimination/reverse-bias period in which the previously programmed gradation
`
`voltage is eliminated, and a selection state during which a new gradation voltage is
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`written.
`
`In certain embodiments, the ’880 Patent discloses grouping two or more
`
`rows of pixels by driving them with a common voltage drive signal from the power
`
`source driver such that the grouped rows enter the on state together. Ex1001,
`
`31:40-47. The bias lines may similarly be grouped to reverse bias multiple rows
`
`simultaneously. Ex1001, 31:47-54. This is illustrated in Figure 17 below in which
`
`a single voltage drive line (green) is used to drive three rows of pixels and a single
`
`bias line (purple) similarly clears three rows.
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`’880 Patent Figure 17
`
`
`
`See Ex1003, ¶¶38-44.
`
`The ’880 Patent’s claims are presented for reference in Ex1002.
`
`VII. PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY
`The ’880 Patent application claims priority to two Japanese applications
`
`filed on May 24, 2005 and May 26, 2005. Ex1001, 1. In the sole rejection during
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`prosecution, certain claims were rejected as anticipated by Libsch. Ex1005, 299.
`
`The patentee distinguished Libsch by amending claims and arguing that “the
`
`present invention as recited in claim 1 is configured such that the voltage on the
`
`first side of the conduction channel of the first switch, which is not connected to
`
`the optical element, is changed between the display period and the non-display
`
`period,” confirming that on/off control is done by changing the value of the drive
`
`voltage. Ex1005, 287.
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the relevant time (2005)
`
`would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or
`
`equivalent) and at least two years’ industry experience, or equivalent experience in
`
`circuit design or related fields. Alternatively, a POSA could substitute directly
`
`relevant additional education for experience, e.g., an advanced degree relating to
`
`the design of electroluminescent devices, drive circuits, or other circuit design or
`
`an advanced degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent), with at least one year
`
`of industry experience in a related field. Ex1003, ¶¶35-37.
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner interprets the ’880 Patent’s claims according to the Phillips claim
`
`construction standard. 83 Fed. Reg. 51340, 51340-44 (Oct. 11, 2018); Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). To resolve the particular grounds
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`presented in this Petition, Petitioner does not believe any term requires explicit
`
`construction.2 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (terms unnecessary to resolve controversy need
`
`not be construed).
`
`X. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT WARRANTED
`This Petition should be instituted in consideration of efficiency, fairness, and
`
`the overwhelming strength of its merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019,
`
`Paper 11 at 5 n.7 (Mar. 20, 2020). A holistic view of the six factors set forth in
`
`Fintiv weigh in favor of instituting review of this Petition. See id. at 6 (listing
`
`factors).
`
`Fintiv factor 1 (possibility of a stay) favors institution. Two other actions
`
`involve the ’880 Patent and Petitioner: (1) Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd. et al., No., 2:20-cv-00307 (E.D. Tex.) (“Texas Action”), and (2) Certain
`
`Active Matrix OLED Display Devices and Components Thereof, 337-ITC-1243
`
`(U.S.I.T.C) (“ITC Action”) (filed 12/28/20). The Texas Action has been stayed
`
`pending the ITC Action. And ITC proceedings hold little weight in the Fintiv
`
`
`2 While no terms need be construed to resolve grounds presented here, Petitioner
`
`reserves its rights to assert in litigation claim constructions not presented here and
`
`that certain terms are indefinite.
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`analysis because “the ITC does not have the power to cancel a patent claim, even if
`
`that claim is demonstrated to be invalid” and “the burden of proof in demonstrating
`
`that a patent claim is invalid differs between the ITC and an inter partes review.”
`
`3Shape A/S v. Align Tech., Inc., IPR2020-00223, Paper 12 at 33-34 (May 26, 2020).
`
`Factor 2 (trial date) favors institution. The Texas Action has been stayed, and
`
`the ITC has set a target date of March 1, 2022.
`
`Factor 3 (investment in underlying court proceeding) favors institution
`
`because the ITC action was only recently instituted, and the Texas Action was stayed
`
`in its earliest stages, so the parties have yet invested little in either proceeding.
`
`Factor 4 (overlap of issues) is neutral or favors institution because it is not yet
`
`known what claims will be asserted in the district court or ITC, while the instant IPR
`
`challenges all claims. 3Shape at 34 (granting institution of parallel “ITC
`
`Investigation will not resolve all claims at issue in this [IPR] proceeding”).
`
`Factor 5 (same parties in underlying litigations) is neutral or favors institution
`
`because an additional respondent, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., is named in
`
`the ITC complaint, and a decision in this proceeding would simplify issues for that
`
`party, as well.
`
`Factor 6 (merits and other circumstances) favors institution because the prior
`
`art presented is particularly strong, supporting multiple grounds of invalidity.
`
`Should Patent Owner argue that a discretionary denial is warranted, Petitioner
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`will seek leave to file a reply to address Patent Owner’s arguments and the facts as
`
`they stand at that point in time.
`
`XI. SPECIFIC EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS
`A. Ground 1/1a: Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 25-32 Are Anticipated or
`Rendered Obvious by Miyazawa in Light of the Knowledge of a
`POSA
`1. Miyazawa
`Miyazawa was filed on 8/20/2004, published on 4/21/2005, and is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) and (e). Ex1006, 1. While a related Japanese patent was
`
`submitted during prosecution in an IDS, the Examiner did not cite that reference in
`
`any rejection.
`
`Like the ’880 Patent, Miyazawa discloses an electro-optical display panel in
`
`Figure 1 (below) having an array of pixels (yellow) arranged at intersections of
`
`data lines (blue), scanning lines (orange), and power lines (green). Ex1006, ¶0088.
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Miyazawa Figure 1
`
`
`
`The power, scanning, and data lines connect to each pixel as illustrated in
`
`Figure 9 (below).
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Miyazawa Figure 9
`
`
`
`As shown in the timing diagram of Figure 10, Morosawa switches power
`
`line VLa to turn pixels on (yellow) or off (grey) during each cycle. Like the ’880
`
`Patent, Morosawa’s off state includes a writing/selection period (orange) and a
`
`bias-elimination/reverse-bias period (purple). Ex1006, ¶0125.
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Miyazawa Figure 10
`
`
`
`See Ex1003, ¶¶46-54.
`
`Miyazawa anticipates (ground 1) and/or renders obvious (ground 1a) claims
`
`1-9, 11-14, and 25-32. Any limitation not explicitly or implicitly disclosed by
`
`Miyazawa would have been obvious because a POSA would have been motivated
`
`to modify Miyazawa using well-known OLED design techniques to achieve more
`
`accurate luminance programming and emission. Ex1003, ¶54. A POSA would
`
`have had a reasonable expectation that such modifications would be successful as
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`they entail simple design choices well within the abilities of a POSA. Ex1003,
`
`¶54.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1
`a.
`1P
`
`A display apparatus for displaying image information corresponding to
`display data, comprising:
`Miyazawa’s Figure 1 depicts “an active matrix type display panel in which
`
`the electro-optical elements are driven by thin film transistors (TFTS)” to display
`
`image data. Ex1006, ¶¶0088, 0092, 0128. Ex1003, ¶¶55-56.
`
`b.
`
`1.1
`
`a display panel including a plurality of display pixels arranged thereon in
`vicinities of respective intersections of a plurality of scanning lines arranged in
`a row direction and a plurality of data lines arranged in a column direction;
`Figure 1 shows a display panel including display pixels (yellow) near
`
`intersections of scanning lines (orange) in the row direction and data lines (blue) in
`
`the column direction. Ex1006, ¶0088. Ex1003, ¶57.
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Miyazawa Figure 1
`
`
`
`c.
`
`1.2
`
`a plurality of bias lines provided on the display panel along the scanning lines,
`respectively;
`Miyazawa notes that each scan line Y in Figure 1 may comprise multiple
`
`lines (Ex1006, ¶0123), and depicts four scan lines Ya-Yd in Figure 9. SEL2 and
`
`SEL3 (purple) operate as bias lines, as will be explained further with reference to
`
`element 1.7.3, because they control T2 and T4, used to eliminate the charge stored
`
`on capacitors C1 and C2. Ex1006, ¶0126. Ex1003, ¶58. Note that while
`
`Miyazawa discloses two bias lines in each row (SEL2 and SEL3), one per row
`
`would be sufficient to disclose the claimed “plurality of bias lines.”
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Miyazawa Figure 9
`
`
`
`d.
`
`1.3
`
`a scanning drive unit which sequentially applies a scanning signal to each of
`said plurality of scanning lines and sets the display pixels corresponding to
`each said scanning line to a selection state;
`Referring to Figure 1 above, Miyazawa’s scanning line driving circuit
`
`(orange) is the claimed scanning drive unit. “The scanning line driving circuit 3
`
`performs sequential scanning for selecting each scanning line Y in a predetermined
`
`order (in general, from top to bottom) for every period (1F) in which images of one
`
`frame are displayed.” Ex1006, ¶¶0091, 127. Ex1003, ¶59.
`
`e.
`
`1.4
`
`a data drive unit which generates a gradation signal corresponding to the
`display data and supplies the gradation signal to the display pixels set to the
`selection state;
`
`20
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`In Figure 1, the data line driving circuit (blue) is the claimed data drive unit.
`
`Per Figure 9, SEL1 turns on T1 to select a row of pixels, and the data lines (blue)
`
`apply Vdata, the gradation signal, to capacitors C1 and C2 in the pixel circuit.
`
`Ex1006, ¶0127. Ex1003, ¶60.
`
`Miyazawa Figure 9
`
`
`
`f.
`
`1.5
`
`a power source drive unit which supplies to the display pixels a drive voltage
`for controlling a drive state of each of the display pixels;
`Power line control circuit (6) (green) of Figure 1 supplies a drive voltage
`
`that switches between Vdd and Vss (see Fig. 10), thereby controlling the drive
`
`state of each of the display pixels by controlling the voltage applied to T3 (see Fig.
`
`9) to set the OLED to an on or off state. Ex1006, ¶0128. Ex1003, ¶61.
`
`21
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Miyazawa Figure 10
`
`
`
`g.
`
`1.6
`
`a state setting unit; and
`Portions of the scanning line driving circuit (3) (orange) and control circuit
`
`(5) of Figure 1 comprise the claimed “state setting unit” which, according to
`
`element 1.7.3, applies setting signals to the bias lines to eliminate the bias state that
`
`was set based on the display data. Figure 9 shows that the “bias” lines SEL2 and
`
`SEL3 are all labeled “Y” and are driven by the scanning line driving circuit.
`
`Ex1006, ¶¶0126, 129; see also element 1.7.3.
`
`To the extent the state setting unit is not expressly disclosed, it would have
`
`been obvious that because SEL2 and SEL3 have waveforms different from SEL1,
`
`22
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`distinct logic in the scanning line driving circuit and/or control circuit would
`
`generate the waveforms that drive these bias lines. Ex1003, ¶62.
`
`Miyazawa Figures 1, 9 (excerpt)
`
`
`
`h.
`
`1.7.1
`
`a drive control unit which controls the power source drive unit to operate to
`set the display pixels to a non-display operation state during a non-display
`period in which the display pixels do not display the display data, and controls
`the scanning drive unit to operate to set the display pixels to the selection state
`during the non-display period,
`The control unit (5) of Figure 1 is the claimed drive control unit. Ex1006,
`
`¶0090 (“A control circuit 5 synchronously controls a scanning line driving circuit
`
`3, a data line driving circuit 4 and a power line control circuit 6”). Per Figure 10,
`
`during t1 to t2 (orange), the scanning drive unit drives SEL1 high to enter a
`
`selection state for writing data. Id.
`
`23
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Miyazawa Figure 10
`
`
`
`This selection state occurs while the OLED device remains in the off state,
`
`as VLa and VLb are both set to low potential at this time as shown in Figure 10.
`
`“Moreover, during the period t1 to t2, since the fourth switching transistor T5 is
`
`turned off, the driving current Ioled does not flow, Such that the organic EL
`
`element OLED does not emit.” Id.; Ex1003, ¶¶63-64.
`
`24
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`i.
`
`1.7.2
`
`wherein each of the plurality of display pixels comprises an optical element
`and a display drive circuit which controls an operation of the optical element,
`the display drive circuit comprising an electric charge accumulation circuit
`which holds a voltage component corresponding to the gradation signal, a
`supply control circuit which generates a drive current having a
`predetermined current value based on the voltage component held in the
`electric charge accumulation circuit, and which supplies the drive current to
`the optical element, and a writing control circuit which controls a supply state
`of electric charges, based on the gradation signal, to the electric charge
`accumulation circuit, and
`Figure 9, below, depicts the “display drive circuit” including T3 that sources
`
`current to the optical element (OLED). The current is based on the voltage
`
`component held in capacitors C1 and C2 comprising the claimed “electric charge
`
`accumulation unit.” Ex1006, ¶0128. The electric charge accumulation unit
`
`stores a charge based on the gradation signal on the data line (blue) which is
`
`written under control of the writing control circuit T1. Ex1006, ¶0127. The
`
`supply control circuit T3 controls the drive current through the OLED according
`
`to the voltage stored on C2 that was written by the writing control circuit T1 from
`
`the gradation signal. Ex1006, ¶¶0127-28. Ex1003, ¶65.
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Miyazawa Figure 9
`
`j.
`
`1.7.3
`
`
`
`wherein the state setting unit eliminates a bias state set corresponding to the
`d