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
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC’S
`RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`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
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC’S
`RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`a. The Petition’s Analysis of the Asserted Art is Fundamentally Flawed ........... 1
`b. Background of Inter Partes Review Challenges of the ‘550 Patent ................. 8
`II. Background ........................................................................................................ 11
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550 (the “‘550 patent” or “Shen”) ................... 11
`b. The Independent Claims at Issue .................................................................... 13
`III.
`Janssen ‘708 Does Not Render Obvious Any Claims of the ‘550 Patent ...... 15
`a. Each of Janssen ‘708’s Pixels Include a Lamp for Emitting Light, Not an LC
`Device ............................................................................................................ 15
`b. The Pixel Symbol Indicates that Janssen ‘708 is Directed to a Lamp Display
` ....................................................................................................................... 20
`c. Petitioners’ Misinterpretation of Janssen ‘708 is Fatal to the Purported
`Combination of References ........................................................................... 24
`d. There is No Evidentiary Basis To Assume that Janssen ‘708’s Transistors are
`TFTs ............................................................................................................... 28
`e. An Invalidity Ruling in This Case Constitutes an Impermissible Taking of a
`Private Right Without Article III Oversight .................................................. 33
`IV. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 36
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 U.S. 225 (1876) .............................................................. 34
`James v. Campbell, 104 U.S. 356 (1881) ................................................................ 34
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Aultman, 169 U.S. 606 (1898) .............. 34, 35
`Michigan Land and Lumber Co. v. Rust, 168 U.S. 589 (1897) ............................... 35
`Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530 (1877) .................................................................... 35
`Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516 (1870) .............................................................. 34
`United States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315 (1888) ....................... 34, 35
`United States v. Palmer, 128 U.S. 262 (1888) ......................................................... 34
`United States v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378 (1880) .......................................................... 34
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 35
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 35
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001
`“Petitioner and His Money are Soon Parted: Separate Fee Payments Do
`Not Reduce Risk of Non-Institution of Redundant Grounds”; Authored
`by M. Carniaux and M. Sander; interpartesreviewblog.com, dated
`November 13, 2014 (accessed June 1, 2015)
`Joint Stipulation to Stay Cases Pending Inter Partes Review, filed
`November 20, 2014
`Order Granting Joint Stipulation to Stay Cases Pending Inter Partes
`Review, entered November 21, 2014
`Transcript for the Deposition of Thomas Credelle dated October 28,
`2015, IPR2015-00863
`Transcript for the Deposition of Tsu-Jae King Liu dated October 30,
`2015, in IPR2015-00887
`Transcript for the Deposition of Michael J. Marentic dated November
`11, 2015, in IPR2015-00913
`Transcript for the Deposition of Richard Zech, Ph.D. dated November
`13, 2015, in IPR2015-00885
`U.S. Patent No. 3,528,350 to Schmitt
`U.S. Patent No. 4,467,325 to Lustig
`U.S. Patent No. 4,771,278 to Pooley
`U.S. Patent No. RE34,135 to Madsen et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,894,645 to Odlen
`Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR2015-00022
`U.S. Patent No. 6,961,167 to Prins et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,047,694 to Nuckolls et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,962,988 to Nuckolls et al.
`Reserved
`
`Modern Dictionary of Electronics
`Chapter 3. Introduction to Electronics (available at
`http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~valvano/Volume1/E-
`Book/C3_Electronics.htm)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017-
`2022
`2023
`2024
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00887
`U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`
`a. The Petition’s Analysis of the Asserted Art is Fundamentally Flawed
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (collectively,
`
`“Samsung”), and Sony Corporation (“Sony”) (Sony and Samsung are collectively
`
`referred to as the “Petitioners”) filed the current Petition for inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550 (“the ’550 patent”) on March 16, 2015. Of
`
`the seven grounds presented in the Petition, four were instituted. See Paper 9 at 16-
`
`17. Each of these four instituted grounds include obviousness challenges of claims
`
`1-5 of the ‘550 patent, based on primary reference International Publication No.
`
`WO 02/075708 to Janssen et al. (“Janssen ‘708”). Id.
`
`The fatal defect in the Petition is that Janssen ‘708 is not directed to liquid
`
`crystal device (“LCD”) display technology at all. Rather, Janssen ‘708 discloses a
`
`matrix-style display that includes a lamp symbol in each pixel 100. The
`
`representative pixel from Janssen ‘708’s Fig. 3 is shown below:
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, Petitioners and their presented technical expert, Dr. Tsu-Jae King
`
`Liu, failed to correctly analyze the type of technology disclosed in Janssen ‘708,
`
`and therefore hinge their opinions and arguments on obviousness based upon their
`
`flawed misunderstanding of Janssen ‘708.
`
`Referring to Janssen ‘708, the Petition argues that: “A POSA would
`
`understand that this ‘video display’ utilizing a matrix (see id., p.1:6-8) is an active
`
`matrix LCD due to its architecture; that is, its use of column-row matrix driving
`
`circuitry and DACs.” Pet. at 25 (citing to Ex. 1013, ¶¶ 41,43). In essence, both the
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Liu drew an inference that Janssen ‘708, containing a lamp in
`
`each pixel 100, was an active matrix LCD (“AMLCD”) because of its matrix
`
`architecture, and its use of digital-to-analog converters (“DACs”). Dr. Liu further
`
`relied upon Janssen ‘708’s disclosure about “video displays” as a basis to conclude
`
`that it must be an AMLCD. Ex. 1013, ¶ 41. But none of Dr. Liu’s conclusions
`
`stood up to scrutiny during her deposition.
`
`In IPR2015-00022, the Sharp petitioners conceded that Janssen ‘708 fails to
`
`identify the video display technology to which it is directed (see IPR2015-00022,
`
`paper 1 (Ex. 2013) at 49), and therefore proposed a modification of Janssen ‘708
`
`based on a secondary reference disclosing an LCD panel. Ex. 2013 at 49. In the
`
`current case, neither Petitioners nor Dr. Liu expressly noted Janssen ‘708’s
`
`disclosure shortcoming, and proposed no modification of Janssen ‘708’s
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`underlying subject matter and no modification to make Janssen ‘708 applicable to
`
`LCD technology.
`
`Further, neither Petitioners nor Dr. Liu attempted to explain away Janssen
`
`‘708’s disclosure of lamps in each pixel 100. Indeed, during her deposition, Dr. Liu
`
`was asked to draw the symbol appearing for Janssen ‘708’s pixel 100 and identify
`
`that electrical circuit symbol. Dr. Liu drew the symbol (see Ex. 2005 at 164), but
`
`was unable or unwilling to identify the symbol on the record. Id. at 9:4-16; 10:25-
`
`11:4; 13:1-20.
`
`More tellingly, Dr. Liu provided the following testimony about the pixel
`
`symbol appearing in every pixel 100 of Janssen ‘708’s Fig. 3:
`
` “I don’t recall ever seeing this symbol until I reviewed one of the
`
`pieces of prior art in this case.” Id. at 11:8-10.
`
` “I don’t recall ever seeing that before.” Id. at 12:3-4.
`
` When asked if that was the first time Dr. Liu had “drawn that symbol
`
`in her life,” Dr. Liu responded, “That’s true, yes.” Id. at 12:18-20.
`
` When directed to Exhibit A (the drawing prepared by Dr. Liu during
`
`the deposition) and asked “based on that paper as you look at it right
`
`now, you cannot identify it in that context, is that right?” Dr. Liu
`
`responded, “That’s true. It could be a – I don’t know if you want it to
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`be a voltage supply with some resistance, internal resistance. It’s not
`
`clear.” Id. at 13:10-16.
`
`Despite having first seen this symbol when she reviewed the prior art for
`
`“this case,” Dr. Liu provided no evidence to support her opinion on this symbol in
`
`her declaration. Instead, Dr. Liu offers the opinion in her declaration that the lamp
`
`symbol in Janssen ‘708 is intended to refer to a “liquid crystal pixel display
`
`element” rather than a photoresistor or a lamp. Ex. 1013 at ¶ 41. The reason that
`
`she reaches this conclusion is based on her declaration testimony that “by the time
`
`the application for the Janssen ’708 patent was filed in 2001, a POSA would
`
`conclude that ‘video displays’ utilizing a column row matrix of pixels as disclosed
`
`in Janssen ’708 are AMLCD displays.” Id.
`
`But as Dr. Liu conceded in her deposition, just as she was unfamiliar with
`
`this symbol, she was also unfamiliar with symbols for lamps. Ex. 2005 at 96:24-
`
`97:6. Similarly, she had never researched electrical symbols for a lamp. Id. at 98:5-
`
`13.
`
`During her deposition, Dr. Liu was handed three different patent examples
`
`of lamp-type displays with light-emitting lamps (which emit light as a result of
`
`resistance), each arranged in a matrix, and questioned about those patents. Id. at
`
`94:6-106:4. Dr. Liu admitted that each appeared to be directed to a lamp display,
`
`and each display was arranged in a matrix. Dr. Liu also conceded that one
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`reference described “[l]ight matrix display systems range in size from extremely
`
`large displays used in sports stadiums to show scores, times, and animated color
`
`pictures to small systems … .” Id. at 100:14-101:4 (quoting Ex. 2011 at 1:20-26).
`
`Dr. Liu also admitted that “[a]nimated means moving.” Id. at 101:7. Dr. Liu also
`
`conceded that one reference disclosed in the abstract a “low cost assembly for
`
`displaying video images and messages.” Id. at 95:1-2 (quoting Ex. 2010 at
`
`Abstract). Indeed, Dr. Liu conceded that the very facts she relied upon to conclude
`
`that Janssen ‘708 was AMLCD were also applicable to lamp displays:
`
`Q. … Today we’ve looked at three other patents for lamp
`displays using a column row matrix – lamps for displaying moving
`images or video; correct?
`A. Yes, that’s correct.
`Id. at 119:7-10.
`
`
`
`Dr. Liu was also unable to affirmatively state whether DACs were
`
`applicable to lamp displays.
`
`Q. Do you have any knowledge as of 2001 whether D-to-A
`
`converters were used in lamp displays?
`
`A.
`In 2001? D-to-A converters. No.
`Id. at 126:13-15.
`
`In total, Dr. Liu’s testimony that Janssen ‘708 must refer to an AMLCD is
`
`simply incorrect and founded upon undisclosed or incomplete research. Janssen
`
`‘708 discloses a lamp, not an LCD, in each pixel. Further, though not familiar to
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Liu, lamp displays are arranged in a matrix style and can be used to display
`
`moving images, as evidenced by at least the three references (Exhs. 2010, 2011,
`
`and 2012) presented to Dr. Liu during her deposition. The existence, architecture,
`
`and usage of such displays render Dr. Liu’s testimony on Janssen ‘708’s subject
`
`matter completely unreliable, and technically shaky. For example, while Dr. Liu
`
`relied upon Janssen ‘708’s disclosure of “video displays” as suggesting AMLCD,
`
`Dr. Liu was unable to tie Janssen ‘708’s focus in reducing delays in “ramp retrace”
`
`to AMLCD technology. See Janssen ‘708 at Abstract; 3:21-24 (“a need exists for a
`
`column driving circuit and method that reduces the problems associated with ramp
`
`retrace.”). After she described her understanding of ramp retrace, Dr. Liu was
`
`asked:
`
`Q. And is that commonly performed in active matrix liquid
`crystal displays?
`A.
`So back in 2004, I don’t know. I didn’t investigate that as
`part of this job.
`Ex. 2005 at 88:9-89:13. Indeed, Dr. Liu described her process for presenting
`
`her opinions in this case: “So I paid close attention to the structure, and I didn’t pay
`
`close attention to the method of driving the display.” Id. at 92:2-4.
`
`Dr. Liu explained her own shortcoming in understanding the subject matter
`
`disclosed by Janssen ‘708:
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`“I work on integrated circuits. And in integrated circuits, we don’t have
`
`incandescent light bulbs. So that’s why – you know, I’ve never taught a class in
`
`which a circuit has a light bulb. If it’s a light source, we have a light-emitting
`
`diode.” Ex. 2005 at 97:12-17.
`
`Moving beyond her erroneous conclusion about the subject matter of
`
`Janssen ‘708’s disclosure, Dr. Liu compounds her errors by basing additional
`
`conclusions, including characterizing Janssen 708’s transistors as TFTs, on this
`
`incorrect underlying assumption. The foundation of these opinions is wiped away
`
`with evidence that Janssen ‘708 is not directed to AMLCD.
`
`For example, Dr. Liu asserts that a “POSA would also know that AMLCD
`
`displays use TFTs to drive liquid crystal display pixels.” Ex. 1013 at ¶ 41.
`
`Dr. Liu confirmed this opinion during her deposition:
`
`Q. Dr. Liu, you base your assumption that the transistor 96
`in Exhibit 1004 is a TFT because you conclude that this display is
`active matrix LCD; correct?
`A.
`That’s correct.
`Ex. 2005 at 122:11-15.
`
`Further, Dr. Liu was not aware whether this assumption was equally valid
`
`for lamp displays such as those shown to her during her deposition:
`
`Q. Do you have any knowledge whether thin-film transistors
`are used in lamp displays?
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`So do you mean lamp displays like the ones described in
`A.
`the three patents that we’ve looked at today?
`Q.
`That’s right. Or any lamp displays used through 2004.
`A.
`I don’t have knowledge that a thin-film transistor was
`used or a single transistor was used to drive lamp displays, but in
`these three patents, it was clear that a single transistor was not used to
`drive the lamps in those matrix arrays.
`Id. at 123:8-19.
`
`This conclusion about the use of TFTs in AMLCD is warranted no
`
`evidentiary weight in this proceeding since the underlying technology, Janssen
`
`‘708, is not an AMLCD. Further, Dr. Liu was unable to affirmatively state that her
`
`conclusions on TFTs were also applicable to lamp displays.
`
`In each of the instituted grounds, Petitioners and Dr. Liu purport to Janssen
`
`‘708’s display with AMLCD technology. But Dr. Liu did not recognize the true
`
`subject matter of the Janssen ‘708 reference, and therefore was poorly-situated to
`
`evaluate whether Janssen ‘708 was technically compatible with the asserted
`
`secondary references. On this record, the Petition has not carried and cannot carry
`
`its burden in challenging claims 1-5 of the ‘550 patent in any ground relying upon
`
`Janssen ‘708.
`
`b. Background of Inter Partes Review Challenges of the ‘550 Patent
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`As indicated above, the current Petition for inter partes review of claims 1-5
`
`of the ’550 patent represents the second of three petitions for inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-5 of the ’550 patent brought against Patent Owner Surpass. On October 3,
`
`2014, three Sharp entities filed a petition in IPR2015-00022. That petition included
`
`a challenge of claims 1-5 based on Janssen ‘708 in combination with a secondary
`
`reference, and included a challenge of claims 1-3 based on Janssen ‘708 in
`
`combination with the Background of the ‘550 patent (“APA”). See Ex. 2013 at 41-
`
`58. A Board Decision denying institution of IPR2015-00022 issued on March 10,
`
`2015. See IPR2015-00022, Paper 9. The current Petition from Sony and Samsung
`
`followed less than a week later, and then the three Sharp entities filed the third
`
`petition for inter partes review of the ‘550 patent in IPR2015-00913 on March 20,
`
`2015.
`
`As also discussed above, the current Petitioners have reasserted Janssen
`
`‘708, which is the primary reference in all four instituted grounds in this case. See
`
`Paper 9 at 16-17 (“Institution Decision”). Specifically, the four instituted grounds
`
`include Janssen ‘708 in various combinations with the Background of the ‘550
`
`patent (“APA”), Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2-214818 by Horii et
`
`al. (“Horii”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,300,927 to Kubota et al. (“Kubota”).
`
`The combinations asserted in the instituted grounds of challenge are as
`
`follows:
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Ground Claim(s) References
`
`1-3
`
`Janssen ‘708 (Ex. 1004) in view of Horii (Exs. 1006 & 1007)
`
`1-3
`
`Janssen ‘708 in view of APA
`
`4-5
`
`Janssen ‘708 in view of Horii, further in view of Kubota (Ex.
`
`1005)
`
`4-5
`
`Janssen ‘708 in view of APA, further in view of Kubota
`
`3
`
`4
`
`6
`
`7
`
`
`
`Each of APA, Horii, and Kubota are directed to liquid crystal display
`
`technology, but there is simply no evidence on record to establish whether these
`
`LCD technologies are compatible with Janssen ‘708’s display type. Without this
`
`evidence, Petitioners have left a technical and logical gap that cannot be
`
`reconciled.
`
`In IPR2015-00022, the Sharp petitioners acknowledged the shortcomings of
`
`primary reference Janssen ‘708 and attempted to modify Janssen ‘708 by
`
`secondary references Kubota and, alternatively, APA to disclose thin film
`
`transistors and a plurality of gate drivers. See Ex. 2013 at 44-45; 55. The Board
`
`was not convinced of these asserted modifications, and dismissed the petition in
`
`full. See IPR2015-00022, paper 9 at 10-11.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Despite having the opportunity to use the institution denial in IPR2015-
`
`00022 as a roadmap, Petitioners cannot meet their burden of establishing invalidity
`
`of claims 1-5 of the ‘550 patent under any showing of evidence, much less the
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`Patent Owner requests that the Board rule affirmatively that claims 1-5 of
`
`the ‘550 are not canceled over Petitioners’ instituted grounds, and issue a final
`
`written decision consistent with this ruling.
`
`II. Background
`
`a. About U.S. Patent No. 7,420,550 (the “‘550 patent” or “Shen”)
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘550 patent was filed as U.S. Patent application no. 10/929,473 on
`
`August 31, 2004. The title of the ‘550 patent is “LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY
`
`DRIVING DEVICE OF MATRIX STRUCTURE TYPE AND ITS DRIVING
`
`METHOD.” 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 below as Fig. 4A and Fig. 4B of
`
`the ‘550 patent:
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Fig. 4A and Fig. 4B, data lines D1, D1’, D2 … are connected to
`
`source drivers, and the data lines are grouped in pairs, such as D1 and D1’. A single
`
`pair of data lines provides driving signals for a column of pixels. The column of
`
`pixels are arranged such that the odd-numbered rows of pixels have thin film
`
`transistors (TFTs) with their sources connected to the first data line (e.g. D1)
`
`among the pair, and the even-numbered rows of pixels have TFTs with their
`
`sources connected to the second data line (e.g. D1’) among the pair. Gate lines G1,
`
`G2, and G3 are connected to gate drivers. One gate line provides the gate signals
`
`for each TFT of the pixels in a given row. For example, a first gate line G1 is
`
`connected to the gates of each pixel TFT in the first row, while a second gate line
`
`G2 is connected to the gates of each pixel TFT in the second row, and so on.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`According to independent claims 1 and 2 of the ‘550 patent, each directed to
`
`a “liquid crystal display [driving] device,” the gate lines are connected to “gate
`
`drivers,” the data lines are connected to “source drivers,” and “the first data lines
`
`and the second data lines of each group of data lines are connected with the same
`
`source driver.” See, e.g., ‘550 patent at 19:63-65; 20:24-26. Claim 2, also an
`
`independent claim, further requires that “each source driver is installed on the same
`
`side of the display panel.” Id. at 20:26-27.
`
`As shown above in Fig. 4B, the single pair of data lines D1, D1’ providing the
`
`driving signals for the first column of pixels are arranged on opposite sides of the
`
`pixels in the first column. A similar arrangement is shown in Fig. 4C, where a
`
`pixel is arranged between the pair of data lines. Claims 1 and 2 both require that
`
`the data lines are “insulated” from each other. Gate lines are also “insulated” from
`
`each other. Id. at 19:44-45; 19:51-52; 20:5-6; 20:12-13.
`
`b. The Independent Claims at Issue
`
`
`
`Petitioner challenges the validity of claims 1-5 of the ‘550 patent, of which
`
`claims 1-2 are independent. According to its preamble, claim 1 is directed to a
`
`“liquid crystal display driving device of matrix structure type.” Claim 1 is
`
`presented below:
`
`1. A liquid crystal display driving device of matrix structure
`type including:
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`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 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 Nthgate line is connected with the gates of
`all the thin film transistors of the Nthrow; 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.
`
`
`Id. at 19:38-65. Claim 2 differs only slightly from claim 1, and is directed to
`
`a “liquid crystal display device of matrix structure type.” Id. at 19:66-67. Below is
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`the final element of claim 2 (reciting “M groups of data lines ….”) with changes
`
`underlined and crossed out relative to claim 1:
`
`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, wherein and the first
`data lines and the second data lines of each group of data lines are
`connected with the same source driver, each source driver is installed
`on the same side of the display panel and the data transfer is switched
`by an electronic switch.
`
`
`
`Id. at 20:12-28. Petitioners’ failure to satisfy their burden as to claims 1 and 2 is
`
`fatal to their challenges of dependent claims 3-5.
`
`III. Janssen ‘708 Does Not Render Obvious Any Claims of the ‘550
`Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`a. Each of Janssen ‘708’s Pixels Include a Lamp for Emitting Light, Not
`an LC Device
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Janssen discloses a “column driving circuit and method for driving pixels in
`
`a column row matrix.” Janssen, Abstract. In Janssen, digital signals 62, 64, and 66
`
`are sent to digital-to-analog converters (DACs) 68, 70, and 72. The converted
`
`analog signals are then sent to multiplexing circuits 74, 76, and 78, which each
`
`send the signals to one of two column lines. See Janssen at Fig. 3; 6:4-16. Further,
`
`Janssen does not expressly disclose or suggest a gate driver of any type, although
`
`Janssen discusses that row lines 86, 88, 90, and 92 would be “refreshed.” Id. at
`
`6:12-15. Janssen’s Fig. 3 is shown below, along with an enlarged image of junction
`
`94A:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Janssen ‘708 discloses that junctions 94A-L “generally comprise transistor
`
`96, capacitor 98, pixel 100, and ground 102.” Janssen ‘708 at 7:16-17. Further,
`
`“[i]t should be understood, however, that a pixel is shown only in junction 94A for
`
`clarity purposes, and all junctions include a pixel.” Id. at 7:17-18. In order “to
`
`refresh row 88, … the analog signals would pass from column lines 80B, 82B, and
`
`84B through junctions 94D-F, and drive the associated pixels 100 (not shown in
`
`every junction.” Id. at 7:32-34. Janssen ‘708 claims that the two-column scheme
`
`reduces “ramp retrace delay.” Id. at 8:1.
`
`Janssen ‘708’s disclosure on applicable technology does not vary according
`
`to the embodiment being described. For example, in discussing Fig. 1, Janssen
`
`‘708 also discloses that each “junction 40A-L generally comprises a pixel
`
`transistor 42, a capacitor 44, a pixel 46 and a ground 48.” Id. at 5:27-28. Further,
`
`the capacitor 44 is not an expressly included pixel component, but rather
`
`“represents a capacitance associated with pixel 46.” Id. at 5:28-29. Like in Fig. 3,
`
`the pixel 46 in Figs. 1 and 2 is also represented as a lamp, which is modeled as a
`
`resistor inside a circle.
`
`Petitioners asserted Janssen ‘190 (Ex. 1003) in their original Petition, though
`
`the grounds based on Janssen ‘190 were not instituted by the Board. See Institution
`
`Decision. Janssen ‘190 is clearly directed to an LCD device (per the title), and
`
`shares inventors with Janssen ‘708. Additionally, these two references were first
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`filed within three months of each other, and Dr. Liu agrees that it is “likely that
`
`they went through the same or similar internal review process within Philips.” Ex.
`
`2005 at 123:25-124:7. As such, Petitioners have not and cannot argue that Janssen
`
`‘708 failed to include details of LCD technology as a result of an error or
`
`shortcoming in disclosure. The only reasonable inference is that Janssen and
`
`Philips intentionally included lamp symbols to represent each pixel in the drawings
`
`of Janssen ‘708.
`
`Further, Dr. Liu failed to consider as part of her underlying analysis for this
`
`case that Janssen ‘190 clearly discloses its applicability to LCD technology, while
`
`Janssen ‘708 is completely silent about LCD technology and instead includes a
`
`lamp symbol to indicate its pixels. And while Petitioners submitted five technical
`
`non-patent references as exhibits with the Petition (Exs. 1008, 1010-1012, and
`
`1015), neither Petitioners nor Dr. Liu submitted any documentary evidence
`
`indicating that the pixel symbol indicated in Janssen ‘708 is commonly used to
`
`indicate a liquid crystal device in an LCD panel. Further, Petitioners’ technical
`
`declarant in IPR2015-00863, Thomas Credelle, confirmed in deposition that a
`
`liquid crystal capacitor is not shown as a resistor in a circuit diagram. See
`
`Transcript for the Deposition of Thomas Credelle dated October 28, 2015,
`
`IPR2015-00863 (Ex. 2004) at 31:20-32:6.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Not only does Dr. Liu misidentify the pixel symbol in Janssen ‘708, but she
`
`also provides the Board with no evidence to determine whether a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would be able to identify the pixel symbol
`
`used in Janssen ‘708. When asked whether a person with an undergraduate in
`
`electrical engineering would be able to identify the symbol, Dr. Liu gave the
`
`following testimony:
`
`Q. Okay. So is your testimony this morning that somebody
`with an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering would never
`have encountered that symbol in the past? Or in their education? Is
`that right?
`I didn't say that. You're asking me to say if somebody has
`A.
`never seen that symbol? I mean, I wouldn't be able to guarantee that.
`But in the common textbook, this is not a common symbol. In a
`typical textbook for electrical engineering, this is not a common
`symbol that is seen.
`
`
`
`Ex. 2005 at 11:12-21. Dr. Liu’s testimony here indicates that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would need to look past a “typical textbook for electrical
`
`engineering” to identify this symbol, which is something that Dr. Liu did not do.
`
`The record is barren of evidence on this foundational issue in this case.
`
`Additionally, Dr. Liu failed to analyze key aspects of Janssen ‘708, and
`
`failed to provide testimony on how those aspects would be interpreted by a
`
`POSITA. For example, Dr. Liu was unable to tie Janssen ‘708’s focus in reducing
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`delays in “ramp retrace” to AMLCD technology. See Janssen ‘708 at Abstract;
`
`3:21-24 (“a need exists for a column driving circuit and method that reduces the
`
`problems associated with ramp retrace.”). After she described her understanding of
`
`ramp retrace, Dr. Liu was asked:
`
`Q. And is that commonly performed in active matrix liquid
`crystal displays?
`A.
`So back in 2004, I don’t know. I didn’t investigate that as
`part of this job.
`Ex. 2005 at 88:9-89:13. Technical declarants for the petitioners in other IPRs
`
`filed against Surpass also were uniformly unable to explain whether ramp retrace
`
`was applicable to LCD technology. See Transcript for the Deposition of Michael J.
`
`Marentic dated November 11, 2015, in IPR2015-00913 (Ex. 2006) at 25:4-10;
`
`Transcript for the Deposition of Richard Zech, Ph.D. dated November 13, 2015, in
`
`IPR2015-00885 (Ex. 2007) at 87:16-89:9 (testifying that ramp retrace “really has
`
`nothing to do with LCD unless you have an electrical engineer involved and he
`
`wants to talk that way about it.”).
`
`b. The Pixel Symbol Indicates that Janssen ‘708 is Directed to a Lamp
`Display
`
`
`
`During deposition, Dr. Liu was unable (or possibly unwilling) to identify the
`
`symbol she drew as Exhibit A of her deposition. See Ex. 2005 at 9:4-16; 10:25-
`
`11:4; 13:1-20; 164. However, this symbol would be interpreted by a POSITA as
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`indicating something other than a liquid crystal device. Evidence of this fact
`
`includes U.S. Patent No. 3,528,350 (Ex. 2008), and U.S. Patent No. 4,467,325 (Ex.
`
`2009). In these two exhibits, a photoresistor is implemented into a circuit and
`
`indicated as a resistor inside a circle. See, e.g., Ex. 2008 at Figs. 1, 3, 4; 2:9-16; see
`
`also Ex. 2009 at Figs. 2, 5; 4:30-33; 5:61-67.
`
`Further evidence is provided in U.S. Patent No. 5,047,694 (Ex. 2015) and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,962,988 (Ex. 2016). In Ex. 2015, a lamp is indicated as a resistor
`
`arranged inside a rectangular element, and also as an oval. See Ex. 2015 at Figs. 1,
`
`3-5. Similar disclosure is provided by Ex. 2016. See, e.g., Ex. 20216 at Figs. 1, 4,
`
`7, 13-19, 25-29.
`
`Yet more evidence is provided in the Modern Dictionary of Electronics, 7th
`
`Ed. (19999) (Ex. 2023), which provides related symbols indicating lamps (Ex.
`
`2023 at 5) and dependent resistors (Ex. 2023 at 6) both shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Although more modern, Ex. 2024 also uses the pixel symbol from Janssen
`
`‘708 to refer to a light bulb. See Ex. 2024 at 5-6 (“a light bulb (modeled in this
`
`circuit as a 100Ω resistor)”).
`
`
`
`The symbol appe
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
