IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`In Re
`
`Filed
`
`: U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`
`: August 31, 2004
`
`Issued
`
`: September 2, 2008
`
`Inventor(s)
`
`: Shen Yuh-Ren et al.
`
`Assignee
`
`: Surpass Tech Innovation LLC
`
`Title
`
`: LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DRIVING DEVICE OF MATRIX
`STRUCTURE TYPE AND ITS DRIVING METHOD
`
`Trial No.
`
`: To Be Assigned
`
`Panel:
`
`: To Be Assigned
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 77331-5
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,420,550
`
`
`
`
`
`
`587064.1
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 1 of 67
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ........................................ 10 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ...................................... 10 
`B. 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................... 10 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ............................ 10 
`D. 
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ......................................... 10 
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................... 11 
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .................................. 11 
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................................ 11 
`A. 
`Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 12 
`The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is Based
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ..................................................................... 12 
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘550 PATENT ........................................................................... 13 
`A. 
`Specification of the ‘550 Patent ..................................................................... 13 
`1. 
`The Admitted Prior Art ........................................................................ 14 
`2. 
`The Alleged Invention Of The ‘550 Patent .......................................... 16 
`Claims 1-5 of the ‘550 Patent ......................................................................... 21 
`B. 
`Prosecution History of the ‘550 Patent ........................................................... 22 
`C. 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................... 23 
`A. 
`“Liquid crystal display driving device” ............................................................ 23 
`B. 
`“The first and the second date lines of the first group of date lines” .............. 23 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`587064.1
`
`i
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 2 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`“Gate lines . . . insulated with each other” and “data lines . . . insulated with
`each other” ..................................................................................................... 24 
`VIII.  APPLICATION OF CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH INTER
`PARTES REVIEW IS REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ............. 25 
`A. 
`Ground 1: Claims 1-5 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`Shimada in view of Kubota ............................................................................ 26 
`1. 
`The Disclosure of Shimada ................................................................. 26 
`2. 
`The Disclosure of Kubota ................................................................... 29 
`3. 
`Claims 1-5 are obvious over Shimada in view of Kubota ................... 30 
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`Shimada in view of the Admitted Prior Art ..................................................... 39 
`Ground 3: Claims 1-5 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`Janssen in view of Kubota ............................................................................. 41 
`1. 
`The Disclosure of Janssen ................................................................. 41 
`2. 
`Claims 1-5 are obvious over Janssen in view of Kubota .................... 44 
`Ground 4: Claims 1-3 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`Janssen in view of the Admitted Prior Art ...................................................... 55 
`Ground 5: Claim 3 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`Shimada in view of the Admitted Prior Art and further in view of Takeuchi ... 58 
`Ground 6: Claim 3 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`Janssen in view of the Admitted Prior Art and further in view of Takeuchi .... 59 
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 60 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`IX. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`587064.1
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 3 of 67
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................... 23
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................................... 34, 50
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................... passim
`Rowe v. Dror,
`112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ....................................................................................... 23
`In re Shreiber,
`128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................... 34, 51
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .............................................................................................................. 12
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ....................................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ........................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) .............................................................................................................. 11
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ......................................................................................................... 11
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42 ...................................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(c) ............................................................................................................. 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ............................................................................................................. 61
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ......................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ......................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................................................................................... 10
`
`iii
`587064.1
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 4 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ......................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ......................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ......................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ........................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ........................................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ........................................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ............................................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ......................................................................................................... 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................................................................. 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ......................................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ......................................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ..................................................................................................... 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ..................................................................................................... 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..................................................................................................... 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)-(5) ............................................................................................... 25
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ............................................................................................................. 61
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ............................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`587064.1
`
`iv
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 5 of 67
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550 to Shen et al. (“‘550 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,081,250 to Shimada et al. (“Shimada”)
`
`WO 02/075708 A2 to Janssen et al. (“Janssen”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,300,927 to Kubota et al. (“Kubota”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,157,056 to Takeuchi et al. (“Takeuchi”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Appl. No. 10/929,473
`
`
`587064.1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 6 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, Sharp Corporation
`
`(hereinafter “Petitioner” or “Sharp”) respectfully petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`
`Claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550 (“the ‘550 Patent,” Ex. 1001), which is assigned to
`
`Surpass Tech Innovation LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Surpass”). As demonstrated below,
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that at least one of
`
`the Claims challenged in this Petition is unpatentable based on the prior art discussed
`
`below. Accordingly, institution of an IPR and initiation of trial is respectfully requested.
`
`The ‘550 Patent relates to liquid crystal display (“LCD”) panels, such as those used
`
`in flat screen televisions. While LCD panels were well known in the prior art, the ‘550
`
`Patent purports to improve upon the quality of moving images displayed on an LCD panel.
`
`As shown below in Figure 4B, the LCD panel of the ‘550 Patent includes a multitude
`
`of thin film transistors (“TFT,” labeled as “Q”) that are arranged in a matrix array of rows and
`
`columns. Each column of TFTs is connected to a group of “data lines” (e.g., a pair, such as
`
`data lines D1 and D1’ in the first column (annotated as C1)), and each row (annotated as R1,
`
`R2, R3) of TFTs is connected to a gate line (e.g., G1). These components were commonly
`
`included in the prior art. The source of each TFT receives video signals through the data
`
`line (e.g., D1). The gate of the TFT receives control signals through the gate line (e.g., G1),
`
`which switches the corresponding pixel (represented by the dashed rectangles) on and off.
`
`
`587064.1
`
`1
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 7 of 67
`
`

`
`A voltage output from each TFT drives the liquid crystal molecules in the corresponding
`
`pixel to form image.
`
`
`
`
`
`The alleged invention of the ‘550 Patent relates to the manner in which the data lines
`
`in each column are connected to the TFTs. Specifically, as shown above in annotated
`
`Figure 4B, independent Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘550 Patent require that in each column (e.g.,
`
`C1) of TFTs: (1) the first data line (e.g., see the red line labeled as D1) is connected to the
`
`sources (see the red circles) of the TFTs located in the “odd rows” (e.g., see the red boxes
`
`
`587064.1
`
`2
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 8 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`in R1 and R3 of C1); and (2) the second data line (e.g., see the green line labeled as D1’) in
`
`the same column (e.g., C1) is connected to the sources (see the green circle) of TFTs
`
`located in the even rows (e.g., the green box in R2). By alternating the connection of data
`
`lines in this “Odd/Even” (e.g., red/green/red/green ...) configuration, the response time of the
`
`LCD is allegedly reduced.
`
`However, the claimed Odd/Even configuration was not new. Indeed, as shown
`
`below, the Odd/Even configuration was taught in the prior art, including U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,081,250 to Shimada et al. (Ex. 1002, “Shimada”), which is owned by Petitioner Sharp, and
`
`PCT Patent Application Publication WO 02/075708 A2 to Janssen et al. (Ex. 1003,
`
`“Janssen”), which was filed by Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
`
`
`
`Specifically, as shown below, Shimada teaches that the first data line 102a (see the
`
`red line) is connected to the sources (see red circles) of the TFTs located in the odd rows
`
`(see the red boxes in R1, R3) of the first column (C1), and the second data line 102b (see
`
`the green line) in the same column (C1) is connected to the sources (see green circle) of
`
`the TFTs located in the even rows (see the green box in R2). The same Odd/Even
`
`configuration is used in the second and third columns (C2, C3) as well. Like the ‘550
`
`Patent, Shimada teaches that this Odd/Even configuration improves image quality. (Ex.
`
`1002, Shimada, Cols. 2:66-3:2, Col. 5:49-66).
`
`
`587064.1
`
`3
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 9 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, as shown below, Janssen teaches that the first data line 80A (see the red
`
`line) is connected to the sources (see red circles) of the TFTs located in the odd rows (see
`
`the red boxes in R1, R3) of the first column (C1), and the second data line 80B (see the
`
`green line) in the same column (C1) is connected to the sources (see green circles) of the
`
`
`587064.1
`
`4
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 10 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`TFTs located in the even rows (see the green boxes in R2, R4). The same Odd/Even
`
`configuration is used in the second and third columns (C2, C3). Like Shimada, Janssen
`
`teaches that this Odd/Even configuration improves image quality. (Ex. 1003, Janssen, p.
`
`3:9-18, p. 5:4-15, pp. 5:24-6:3, p. 7:6-12).
`
`
`587064.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 11 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`Thus, the allegedly novel Odd/Even configuration and its benefits were taught by the
`
`prior art. The remaining elements of Claims 1 and 2 relate to the use of source drivers and
`
`gate drivers, which are common components in display panels. For example, Claims 1 and
`
`2 require that the gate lines be connected to “gate drivers,” and the data lines be connected
`
`“source drivers” (emphasis added). As can be seen above, Shimada shows a “Gate Driving
`
`Circuit” 109 connected to the gate lines (X1, X2, X3, X4), and a source driving circuit 108
`
`connected to the data lines (e.g., 102a, 102b). Shimada schematically illustrates these
`
`driving circuits as rectangular blocks and does not depict the multiple, individual gate drivers
`
`and multiple, individual source drivers housed within these circuits. Similarly, while Janssen
`
`does show the multiple, individual source drivers (68, 74; 70, 76; 72, 78) connected to the
`
`data lines (80A, 80B; 82A, 82B; and 84A, 84B), it does not depict the multiple, individual
`
`gate drivers connected to the gate lines (86, 88, 90, 92).
`
`However, the use of multiple gate drivers and multiple source drivers to drive signals
`
`through gate lines and data lines was well known in the prior art. For example, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,300,927 to Kubota et al. (Ex. 1004, “Kubota”) teaches the use of multiple gate and
`
`source drivers 303 for an LCD panel. (Ex. 1004, Kubota, Col. 1:12-43, FIG. 3B).
`
`Similarly, as shown below in Figure 1A, the ‘550 Patent admits (“Admitted Prior Art”)
`
`that in the prior art, (1) multiple “Source driver[s]” 11 (all installed on the same side of the
`
`LCD panel) were connected to data lines 111, as required by independent Claims 1 and 2;
`
`
`587064.1
`
`6
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 12 of 67
`
`

`
`and (2) multiple “Gate driver[s]” 12 were connected to gate lines 121, as required by
`
`independent Claims 1 and 2. (Ex. 1001, ‘550 Patent, Col. 1:34-45, Fig. 1A).
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, the limitations in Claims 1 and 2 relating to multiple gate drivers and multiple
`
`source drivers are all disclosed in Kubota and the Admitted Prior Art of the ‘550 Patent. It
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to connect the gate lines in
`
`Shimada (i.e., X1, X2, X3, X4) or Janssen (i.e., 86, 88, 90, 92) to the multiple gate drivers in
`
`either Kubota or the Admitted Prior Art. Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person of
`
`
`587064.1
`
`7
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 13 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art to connect the data lines of Shimada (e.g., 102a, 102b) to the
`
`multiple source drivers in either Kubota or the Admitted Prior Art.1
`
`Under Supreme Court precedent, “the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods” (e.g., connecting multiple gate and source drivers of Kubota or the
`
`Admitted Prior Art to the gate and data lines of Shimada or Janssen) is obvious because
`
`this combination “does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Indeed, using multiple gate and source drivers, as taught in
`
`Kubota and the Admitted Prior Art, to deliver signals from a video source to the gate lines
`
`and data lines of Shimada and Janssen predictably (and unremarkably) enables the display
`
`panels taught in Shimada and Janssen to process and display image data.
`
`In addition, dependent Claim 3 requires a space (e.g., gap) between data lines, and
`
`dependent Claims 4 and 5 respectively require that the gate driver is “a chip installed on
`
`glass” or “an integrated gate driver circuit installed on glass.” Both Shimada and Janssen
`
`disclose the space limitation of Claim 3, and Kubota discloses the chip/integrated circuit “on
`
`glass” limitations of Claims 4 and 5, and as discussed above, there was a clear motivation
`
`to combine these references.
`
`Thus, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that:
`
`(1) Claims 1-5 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shimada or Janssen in view of
`
`1 As discussed above, Janssen discloses that its data lines (80A, 80B; 82A, 82B; and 84A,
`
`84B) are connected to multiple source drivers (68, 74; 70, 76; 72, 78).
`
`
`587064.1
`
`8
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 14 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`Kubota; and (2) Claims 1-3 are obvious over Shimada or Janssen in view of the Admitted
`
`Prior Art.
`
`In addition to the grounds discussed above, there is reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail in establishing that Claim 3 is also obvious over (1) Shimada in view of
`
`the Admitted Prior Art and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,157,056 to Takeuchi et al.
`
`(Ex. 1005, “Takeuchi”) and (2) Janssen in view of the Admitted Prior Art and further in view
`
`of Takeuchi. Claim 3 recites that the space between the neighboring data lines performs
`
`the function of preventing short circuiting. As discussed above, Shimada and Janssen each
`
`show that there is a space between the neighboring data lines in an LCD panel comprising
`
`a matrix array of TFTs. Takeuchi similarly teaches a circuit for a memory cell array formed
`
`from a plurality of transistors, in which “the distances between the data line contacts can be
`
`widened, so that short-circuiting of wires can be prevented.” (Ex. 1005, Takeuchi, Col.
`
`14:39-43). Claim 3 is obvious under Supreme Court precedent because Takeuchi’s
`
`technique of widening the space between data lines “has been used to improve one device”
`
`(i.e., a memory cell array), and “a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it
`
`would improve similar devices in the same way” (e.g., widening the data lines in the display
`
`devices of Shimada and Janssen to prevent short circuiting). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests Inter Partes Review of
`
`Claims 1-5 of the ‘550 Patent.
`
`
`587064.1
`
`9
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 15 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`II.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics
`
`Manufacturing Company of America are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`B.
`The ‘550 Patent is the subject of litigation in the District of Delaware, namely,
`
`Surpass Tech Innovation LLC v. Sharp Corporation et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00338-LPS (D.
`
`Del.) (“the Litigation”). Petitioner is among the named defendants in that Litigation.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`C.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioner provides the following
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel, as well as their respective service information.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Anthony F. Lo Cicero (Reg. No. 29,403)
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (212) 336–8110
`Facsimile: (212) 336–8001
`E-mail: alocicero@arelaw.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Brian A. Comack (Reg. No. 45,343)
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (212) 336–8098
`Facsimile: (212) 336–8001
`E-mail: Sharp-550IPR@arelaw.com
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`D.
`Service information (by e-mail, postal mailing, or hand-delivery) for lead and back-up
`
`counsel is provided in the above designation of lead and back-up counsel.
`
`
`587064.1
`
`10
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 16 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`III.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The undersigned hereby provides authorization to charge Deposit Account No. 01-
`
`1785 to cover the fee of $23,000 for this Petition, as specified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a). If
`
`this amount is insufficient or excessive, the Commissioner is authorized to deduct any
`
`underpayment from, or credit any overpayment to, Deposit Account No. 01-1785.
`
`IV.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘550 Patent is available for Inter Partes Review and the
`
`estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) do not bar or estop Petitioner from requesting
`
`Inter Partes Review of any claim of the ‘550 Patent on the grounds raised herein. Petitioner
`
`also submits that, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), it is not barred from filing this Petition because
`
`Petitioner (including any privies) was not served with a complaint asserting infringement of
`
`the ‘550 Patent more than one year prior to the filing of this Petition.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED
`Petitioner requests Inter Partes Review and initiation of trial under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108 and cancellation of Claims 1-5 of the ‘550 Patent as unpatentable based on the
`
`statutory grounds set forth and explained below. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(c)
`
`and 42.63, a copy of the ‘550 Patent is submitted as Exhibit 1001. The publicly available
`
`records in the Office indicate that the ‘550 Patent is currently assigned to Surpass Tech
`
`Innovation LLC.
`
`
`587064.1
`
`11
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 17 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`A.
`
`Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(1)
`Petitioner requests Inter Partes Review of Claims 1-5 of the ‘550 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`The Specific Art and Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is
`Based Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`This Petition for Inter Partes Review is based on the following references, which are
`
`all prior art to the ‘550 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): (1) U.S. Patent No. 6,081,250 to
`
`Shimada et al. (“Shimada,” Ex. 1002), which issued on June 27, 2000; (2) PCT Publication
`
`WO 02/075708 A2 to Janssen et al. (“Janssen,” Ex. 1003), which was published on
`
`September 26, 2002; (3) U.S. Patent No. 6,300,927 to Kubota et al. (“Kubota,” Ex. 1004),
`
`which issued on October 9, 2001; and (4) U.S. Patent No. 6,157,056 to Takeuchi et al.
`
`(“Takeuchi,” Ex. 1005), which issued on December 5, 2000. This Petition also relies on the
`
`Admitted Prior Art in the ‘550 Patent, which includes the admissions in the section of the
`
`Patent entitled “Description of the Prior Art” and the “Prior Art” shown in Figures 1A and 1B
`
`in the ‘550 Patent (Ex. 1001, ‘550 Patent, Col. 1:23-61, Figs. 1A-1B).
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of Claims 1-5 based upon the following specific
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-5 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shimada
`
`in view of Kubota;
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shimada
`
`in view of the Admitted Prior Art;
`
`
`587064.1
`
`12
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 18 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-5 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Janssen
`
`in view of Kubota;
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1-3 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Janssen
`
`in view of the Admitted Prior Art;
`
`Ground 5: Claim 3 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shimada in
`
`view of the Admitted Prior Art and further in view of Takeuchi; and
`
`Ground 6: Claim 3 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Janssen in
`
`view of the Admitted Prior Art and further in view of Takeuchi.
`
`For the reasons set forth herein, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`
`prevail in establishing that at least one of Claims 1-5 of the ‘550 Patent is unpatentable
`
`based on Grounds 1-6.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘550 PATENT
`The ‘550 Patent is entitled “Liquid Crystal Display Driving Device of Matrix Structure
`
`Type and Its Driving Method” and issued on September 2, 2008 from U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 10/929,473 (“the ‘473 Application”), filed on August 31, 2004. According to
`
`the Patent Office records, the ‘550 Patent does not claim priority to any earlier domestic or
`
`foreign patent application.
`
`Specification of the ‘550 Patent
`A.
`As discussed below, the alleged invention in the ‘550 Patent relates to a specific way
`
`of connecting the gate and data lines to the TFTs in a display panel.
`
`
`587064.1
`
`13
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 19 of 67
`
`

`
`The Admitted Prior Art
`1.
`As acknowledged in the Admitted Prior Art to the ‘550 Patent, the applicants for the
`
`‘550 Patent did not invent LCD panels or driving devices. (Ex. 1001, ‘550 Patent, Col. 1:23-
`
`61, Figs. 1A-1B). Nor did the applicants invent the use of gate and data lines, or gate and
`
`source drivers. (Id. at Col. 1:34-61, Figs. 1A-1B). In this regard, as admitted in the
`
`Admitted Prior Art and shown below in annotated Figure 1A, the “Prior Art” driving device
`
`includes multiple source drivers 11 and multiple gate drivers 12. (Id. at Fig. 1A). The
`
`source drivers 11 (see the purple boxes) provide image signals (i.e., video signals) to an
`
`LCD panel 10 through a plurality of data lines 111 (see the purple lines), while the gate
`
`drivers 12 (see the orange boxes) provide scanning signals (i.e., control signals) to the LCD
`
`panel 10 through a plurality of gate lines 121 (see the orange lines).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`587064.1
`
`14
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 20 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`As shown above, prior art LCD panels included data lines 111 and gate lines 121
`
`which were orthogonally arranged in the form of a matrix array. (See Figure 1A). The
`
`Admitted Prior Art in the ‘550 Patent describes the data lines 111 and gate lines 121 shown
`
`in Figures 1A and 1B as being “insulated with each other.” (Id. at Col. 1:45-47). Nowhere in
`
`the ‘550 Patent is there any explanation of what “insulated with each other” means. As
`
`discussed below in Section VII.C, Petitioner presumes, for purposes of this Petition only,
`
`that “insulated with each other” is grammatically incorrect and is meant to be “insulated
`
`from each other.” This is consistent with Figures 1A and 1B of the ‘550 Patent which show
`
`that the data lines 111 are spaced apart from and parallel to each other (thereby “insulated
`
`from each other”) and the gate lines 121 are likewise spaced apart from and parallel to each
`
`other (thereby “insulated from each other”).
`
`In this prior art LCD panel, a pixel 13 is formed within each area enclosed by
`
`intersecting data lines (e.g., purple line D1) and gate lines (e.g., orange line G1). As was
`
`well known, each pixel 13 includes a thin film transistor Q1 (TFT, highlighted in yellow),
`
`which is switched on and off by a control signal from the gate driver 12 through a gate line
`
`G1. The source of the TFT Q1 receives the image signal sent from the source driver 11
`
`through the data line D1. A voltage is output from the TFT Q1, which drives liquid crystal
`
`molecules corresponding to the pixel 13 to form an image. (Id. at Col. 1:45-57, Fig. 1B).
`
`The time that an LCD needs to react to the driving voltage output by each TFT is
`
`called “response time,” and the image quality of an LCD panel is dependent on this
`
`
`587064.1
`
`15
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 21 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`response time. In this regard, the image quality may be poor if the LCD response time is
`
`too long. (Id. at Cols. 1:62-2:41).
`
`The Alleged Invention Of The ‘550 Patent
`2.
`The “chief object” of the ‘550 Patent is to provide an LCD driving device having a
`
`matrix structure in which the gate and data lines are connected to the TFTs in a specific way
`
`that allegedly increases “the response speed” of the LCD. (Id. at Col. 3:18-20, 35-40).
`
`Specifically, the ‘550 Patent describes six different embodiments of the driving
`
`device. The “First Embodiment,” which is pertinent to this Petition, is illustrated in annotated
`
`Figure 4B below.2
`
`
`2 Figures 5B and 6B of the ‘550 Patent also illustrate the First Embodiment.
`
`
`587064.1
`
`16
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 22 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`
`As shown above, the driving device includes a matrix array formed from rows
`
`(annotated as R1-R3) and columns (annotated as C1-C3) of TFTs (Q). Each TFT Q in the
`
`matrix is associated with a pixel (represented by the dashed rectangles). The driving device
`
`further includes a certain number (“N”) of gate lines Gi (i=1, 2, ... N), and a certain number
`
`(“M”) of groups (e.g., pairs) of data lines Dj and Dj’ (j, j’=(1,1’), (2, 2’), ... (M, M’)). For
`
`example, as shown in Figure 4B above, the driving device has three gate lines, G1, G2, and
`
`G3, and two groups of data lines ((D1, D1’ ) and (D2, D2’)).
`
`
`587064.1
`
`17
`
`IPR2015-00887
`Exhibit 2013
`Page 23 of 67
`
`

`
`
`
`As in the Admitted Prior Art, the gate lines are connected to the gate driver and
`
`described as being “insulated with each other.” (Ex. 1001, ‘550 Patent, Col. 8:20-22).
`
`Similarly, as in the Admitted Prior Art, the data lines are connected to the source driver and
`
`described as being “insulated with each other.” (Id. at Col. 8:29-31). As noted above, the
`
`‘550 Patent does not explain what “insulated with each other” means. Again, as discussed
`
`below in Section VII.C, Petitioner presumes, for purposes of this Petition only, that
`
`“insulated with each other” is meant to be “insulated from each other.” This is consistent
`
`with Figure 4B above which shows that, just like the gate and data lines in the Admitted
`
`Prior Art (Figures 1A-1B), the data lines (e.g., D1, D1’, D2, D2’) are spaced apart from and
`
`parallel to each other (thereby “insulated from each other”) and the gate lines (e.g., G1, G2,
`
`G3) are likewise spaced apart from and parallel to each other (thereby “insu