Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`Entered: March 10, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SHARP CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and BETH Z. SHAW,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`Entered: March 10, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SHARP CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and BETH Z. SHAW,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Sharp Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (“Pet.”) to institute an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–5 of Patent 7,420,550 B2 (the “’550 patent”)
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 1. Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”) to the
`
`Petition. Paper 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which
`
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is
`
`a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`After considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on any of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we
`
`do not institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`
`A. The ’550 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’550 patent is titled “Liquid Crystal Display Driving Device of
`
`Matrix Structure Type And Its Driving Method.” Ex. 1001, Title. The ’550
`
`patent specifically discloses a matrix structure arrangement for a liquid
`
`crystal display (LCD) panel in which pixels are arranged in rows and
`
`columns.
`
`An example of this structure is shown in Figures 4A and 4B of the
`
`’550 patent. Figure 4A is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4A depicts a schematic view showing the arrangement of the gate
`
`lines and the data lines of the display panel. Ex. 1001, 4:49–51. Figure 4B
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`Figure 4B depicts an enlarged schematic sectional view taken from Fig. 4A,
`
`which shows the arrangement of the gate lines and the data lines and the
`
`state of the gate and the source, which are connected to the gate lines and the
`
`data lines, of each thin film transistor. Id. at 4:52–56.
`
`As shown in Fig. 4A and Fig. 4B, data lines D1, D1’, D2, D2’ are
`
`connected to source drivers, and the data lines are grouped in pairs, such as
`
`D1 and D1’. The first and the second data lines D1, D1’ of the first group of
`
`data lines respectively are connected with the sources of all the thin film
`
`transistors Q of the odd and the even rows of the first column. Id. at 8:23–
`
`26.
`
`The driving device includes a group of thin film transistors Q with
`
`matrix array, which consists of N rows and M columns of thin film
`
`transistors, wherein, each thin film transistor Q can drive one pixel, so NxM
`
`pixels (shown by rectangle with dotted line) can be driven. Id. at 8:12–17.
`
`The first gate line G1 is connected with the gates of all the thin film
`
`transistors Q of the first row, the second gate line G2 is connected with the
`
`gates of all the thin film transistors Q of the second row, and so are the
`
`others. Id. at 8:17–20.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’550 patent is illustrative and recites:
`
`1. A liquid crystal display driving device of matrix structure
`type including:
`a group of thin film transistors with matrix array
`consisting of N rows and M columns of thin film transistors,
`wherein each thin film transistor can drive one pixel so that
`N×M of pixels can be driven;
`a group of N gate lines connected to the gate drivers and
`insulated with each other, wherein the first gate line is
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`connected with the gates of all the thin film transistors of the
`first row, the second gate line is connected with the gates of all
`the thin film transistors of the second row . . . and the Nth gate
`line is connected with the gates of all the thin film transistors of
`the Nth row; and
`M groups of data lines connected to the source drivers
`and insulated with each other, wherein the first and the second
`date lines of the first group of date lines are respectively
`connected with the sources of all the thin film transistors of the
`odd and the even rows of the first column, the first and the
`second data lines of the second group of data lines are
`respectively connected with the sources of all the thin film
`transistors of the odd and the even rows of the second
`column . . . and the first and the second data lines of the Mth
` group of data lines are respectively connected with the sources
`of the all thin film transistors of the odd and the even rows of
`the Mth column, and the first data lines and the second data lines
`of each group of data lines are connected with the same source
`driver.
`
`
`C. The Prior Art
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references as its basis for
`
`challenging claims 1–5 of the ’550 patent.
`
`
`
`Reference
`Shimada et al.
`
`Janssen et al.
`
`Kubota et al.
`
`Takeuchi et al.
`
`Admitted Prior Art
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,081,250
`PCT Publication WO
`02/075708 A2
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,300,927 B1
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,157,056
`Background of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,420,550
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1002 (“Shimada”)
`
`Ex. 1003 (“Janssen”)
`
`Ex. 1004 (“Kubota”)
`
`Ex. 1005 (“Takeuichi”)
`
`Ex. 1001, Background
`(“APA”)
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the following grounds (Pet. 12–13):
`
`Statutory Ground
`§ 103
`
`Basis
`Shimada and Kubota
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`1–5
`
`§ 103
`
`Shimada and Admitted
`
`1–3
`
`Prior Art
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Janssen and Kubota
`
`1–5
`
`Janssen and Admitted Prior
`
`1–3
`
`Art
`
`§ 103
`
`Shimada, Admitted Prior
`
`3
`
`Art, and Takeuchi
`
`§ 103
`
`Janssen, Admitted Prior Art,
`
`3
`
`and Takeuchi
`
`
`
`E. Claim Interpretation
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the America
`
`Invents Act (AIA), the Board interprets claims using the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Petitioner proposes claim constructions for “date lines,” “gate lines .
`
`. . insulated with each other,” and “data lines . . . insulated with each
`
`other.” See Pet. 23–25. Petitioner proposes the term “liquid crystal
`
`display driving device,” which appears in the preamble of the challenged
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`claims 1–5, is not limiting. Pet. 23. Patent Owner, for purposes of its
`
`Preliminary Response, applies Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the
`
`terms “liquid crystal display driving device,” “the first and the second date
`
`lines of the first group of date lines,” and “insulated with each other.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 9–10.
`
`We have reviewed the Petitioner’s proposed constructions and
`
`determined that they are consistent with the broadest reasonable
`
`construction. Therefore, we adopt the following claim constructions:
`
`
`
`CLAIM TERM
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`date lines
`
`Data lines
`
`insulated with each other
`
`Spaced apart from and parallel to
`
`
`
`each other
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Response to determine whether
`
`Petitioner has met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`A. Obviousness over the combination of Shimada and Kubota or
`
`Shimada and APA
`
`Petitioner alleges claims 1–5 would have been obvious over the
`
`combination of Shimada and Kubota, and that claims 1–3 would have been
`
`obvious over the combination of Shimada and APA. Pet. 30–41.
`
`Petitioner proposes the combination of Shimada and Kubota to render
`
`obvious claims 1–5, or the combination of Shimada and APA to render
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`obvious claims 1–3. Pet. 26–41. Petitioner acknowledges that Shimada fails
`
`to disclose “multiple, individual gate drivers and source drivers housed
`
`within” “Gate Driving Circuit” 109 and “Driving Circuit” 108, and,
`
`therefore, cannot teach all the features of the ‘550 patent’s claims 1–5 on its
`
`own. Pet. 30.
`
`Patent Owner argues Petitioner provides no basis to modify Shimada
`
`in the manner proposed, i.e., with either Kubota or APA. See Prelim. Resp.
`
`15. First, as Patent Owner argues, and we agree, the Petition fails to provide
`
`factual basis to substantiate its allegation that using “gate and source drivers
`
`in Kubota to deliver signals through the gate lines and data lines predictably
`
`(and unremarkably) enables the LCD panels taught in Shimada to process
`
`and display image data.” Pet. 31. Although Petitioner alleges “the use of
`
`multiple gate and source drivers in an LCD device was an available design
`
`option in view of Kubota,” id., we find no support for this allegation of
`
`design option in the references themselves or in the form of expert
`
`testimony, nor does Petitioner cite to any evidence to support this statement.
`
`Petitioner’s assertion as to what one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`known at the time of the invention is based on attorney argument. Argument
`
`of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner
`
`v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977). Moreover, as Patent Owner
`
`argues, Kubota discusses problems with this configuration, stating, for
`
`example:
`
`This conventional liquid crystal display suffers from the
`following problems. First, the reliability poses problems,
`because the scanning and signal line driver circuits are
`connected with the scanning lines and the signal lines,
`respectively, of the active matrix circuit by TAB or wire
`bonding.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`Ex. 1004, 1:44–49.
`
`
`
`Similarly, Petitioner does not direct attention to evidence to support
`
`its allegation that replacing Shimada’s Gate Driving Circuit 109 and Driving
`
`Circuit 108 with the multiple gate drivers and multiple source drivers of
`
`APA would do no more than yield predictable results. Pet. 40. Rather, the
`
`Petition merely states, without support, that “[u]sing multiple gate and
`
`source drivers in the Admitted Prior Art to deliver signals to the gate lines
`
`and data lines predictably enables the LCD panels taught in Shimada to
`
`process and display image data.” Pet. 40–41. Again, attorney argument
`
`cannot take the place of evidence that is lacking in the record.
`
`Without an expert declaration to substantiate these claims, and
`
`without evidence in the references to support these allegations of predictable
`
`results, we are left to speculate as to why the proposed “design choice” or
`
`substitutions would yield predictable results. We find Petitioner has not
`
`provided an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`
`support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to have modified Shimada with either Kubota or APA. See In
`
`re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness
`
`grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
`
`must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).
`
`Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 1–5 of the ’550
`
`patent are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Shimada and
`
`Kubota, or that claims 1–3 of the ’550 patent are unpatentable as obvious
`
`over the combination of Shimada and APA.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`B. Obviousness over the combination of Janssen and Kubota or
`
`Janssen and APA
`
`Petitioner alleges claims 1–5 are obvious over the combination of
`
`Janssen and Kubota, and that claims 1–3 are obvious over the combination
`
`of Janssen and APA. Pet. 41–59. Petitioner acknowledges that Janssen does
`
`not show the gate drivers connected to the gate lines (Pet. 44), and that
`
`Janssen does not state explicitly that its transistors are thin film transistors.
`
`Pet. 45. Petitioner argues, however, that Janssen suggests the use of gate
`
`drivers by teaching that each gate can be activated selectively (Pet. 44), and
`
`that Janssen suggests the use of thin film transistors by its circuit symbol.
`
`Pet. 45. Petitioner argues that in any event, the use of multiple gate drivers
`
`and thin film transistors is shown by Kubota. Pet. 45. Additionally,
`
`Petitioner argues the use of multiple gate drivers and an array of thin film
`
`transistors also is shown by APA. Pet. 56.
`
`Patent Owner argues the Petition lacks evidence that Janssen’s circuit
`
`diagram inherently discloses a thin film transistor, and that the Petition itself
`
`indicates conventional transistors could be used in a display panel, rather
`
`than thin film transistors. Prelim. Resp. 24–25, citing Pet. 46 citing Ex.
`
`2003. Moreover, Patent Owner argues the combinations of Janssen and
`
`Kubota and Janssen and APA also are not supported by evidence to show
`
`that such combinations would yield predictable results.
`
`We find Petitioner does not direct attention to evidence to support the
`
`argument that Janssen’s transistors are thin film transistors, because
`
`Petitioner has not pointed to sufficient evidence, such as an expert
`
`declaration, to support this allegation.
`
`Moreover, in the absence of sufficient evidence, we are not persuaded
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`that the combination of Kubota and Janssen would yield predictable results.
`
`Although Petitioner argues “[i]t would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to connect the gate drivers 303 of Kubota to the gate
`
`lines in Janssen (86, 88, 90, 92) to send control signals to the gates of the
`
`transistors in the display panel,” Pet. 45, Petitioner does not direct attention
`
`to evidence to support this conclusory statement. We similarly are not
`
`persuaded that the combination of Janssen and APA would do no more than
`
`yield predictable results. Although the Petition alleges it would have been
`
`obvious to use the thin film transistors from APA in Janssen, this allegation
`
`also lacks evidentiary support.
`
`Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that claims 1–5 of the ’550
`
`patent are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Janssen and
`
`Kubota, or that claims 1–3 of the ’550 patent are unpatentable as obvious
`
`over the combination of Janssen and APA.
`
`C. Obviousness of Dependent Claim 3
`
`Petitioner challenges dependent claim 3 as unpatentable over
`
`Shimada, APA, and Takeuchi, as well as over Janssen, APA, and Takeuchi.
`
`Pet. 58–60. Petitioner does not allege that Takeuchi remedies the
`
`deficiencies discussed above with respect to independent claim 2, from
`
`which claim 3 depends. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that
`
`claim 3 of the ’550 patent is unpatentable as obvious over the combination
`
`of Shimada, Janssen, APA, and Takeuchi.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating that any of the
`
`challenged claims 1–5 of the ’550 patent are unpatentable on at least one
`
`challenged ground.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`
`B2 is not instituted based on this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00022
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Anthony F. Lo Cicero
`Brian A. Comack
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`alocicero@arelaw.com
`Sharp-550IPR@arelaw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`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
`whelge@dbjg.com
`djackson@dbjg.com
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
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
