Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`Entered: September 9, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SHARP CORPORATION, SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, and
`SHARP ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF
`AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and BETH Z. SHAW,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`Entered: September 9, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SHARP CORPORATION, SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, and
`SHARP ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF
`AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and BETH Z. SHAW,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp
`Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. (“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).
`For the reasons set forth below, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1–5 of the ’550 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner indicates that the ’550 patent is asserted in Surpass Tech
`Innovation LLC v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. (Civil Action No. 1:14-
`cv-00337-LPS) and Surpass Tech Innovation LLC v. Sharp Corporation et
`al. (Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00338-LPS). Pet. 7. We denied inter partes
`review of the’550 patent on March 10, 2015 in IPR2015-00022, Paper 9.
`B. 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.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`An example of this structure is shown in Figures 4A and 4B of the
`’550 patent. Figure 4A is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`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
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`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.
`
`
`C. 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
`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.
`
`
`D. The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references as its basis for
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`challenging claims 1–5 of the ’550 patent.
`
`Reference
`Sharp
`
`Shimada et al.
`
`Kamizono et al.
`
`
`
`Publication
`Japanese Patent
`Publication No. H08-
`305322
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,081,250
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,407,795 B1
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1002 (“Sharp”)
`
`Ex. 1003 (“Shimada”)
`
`Ex. 1004 (“Kamizono”)
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the following grounds (Pet. 10–11):
`Ground
`Statutory
`Basis
`Number
`Ground
`1.
`§ 102(b)
`2.
`§ 103
`3.
`§ 103
`4.
`§ 103
`
`Sharp
`Sharp
`Sharp and Kamizono
`Shimada and Kamizono
`
`Challenged
`Claim(s)
`1–3
`1–3 and 5
`1–5
`1–5
`
`
`
`F. 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 “gate drivers” and “source
`drivers,” “the first and the second date lines of the first group of date lines,”
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`“[G]ate lines…insulated with each other” and “data lines . . . insulated with
`each other.” See Pet. 19–23. At this point in the proceeding, Patent Owner
`does not specifically contest these claim constructions. Prelim. Resp. 1–28.
`We adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the following terms,
`as we determine them to be consistent with the broadest reasonable
`construction:
`
`
`CLAIM TERM
`
`date lines
`insulated with each other
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`data lines
`spaced apart from and parallel to
`each other
`
`
`For purposes of this decision, we need not construe any other
`limitations of the challenged claims.
`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 of Claims 1–5 over the Combination of Sharp and
`Kamizono
`Petitioner alleges claims 1–5 would have been obvious over the
`combination of Sharp and Kamizono. Pet. 38–47. Upon consideration of
`Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence, we are persuaded by
`Petitioner’s contentions. In particular, Petitioner points to Sharp’s Figure
`10, which is reproduced below (with color annotations added by Petitioner):
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`
`Sharp’s Figure 10 depicts each gate bus line 6 is associated with an AND
`circuit 81 (shaded in orange and labeled 1, 2, or 3), and an output from gate
`shift register 3a (the orange rectangle). Each gate bus line 6 is individually
`driven by the output of an AND circuit 81. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 142–45.
`Petitioner argues Sharp teaches that the gate bus lines 6 are spaced
`apart from and parallel to each other, and that the source bus lines 5 are also
`spaced apart from and parallel to each other, as shown in Figure 10. Pet. 27
`(citing Ex. 1002, Fig. 10). We agree that the gate bus lines 6 depicted in
`Figure 10 are spaced apart from and parallel to each other, and that source
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`bus lines 5 are also spaced apart from and parallel to each other. Therefore,
`we agree that based on this record, Sharp teaches “a group of N gate lines
`connected to the gate drivers and insulated with each other,” and “M groups
`of data lines connected to the source drivers and insulated with each other,”
`as recited in claims 1–5.
`Petitioner alleges Figure 10 shows more than one gate driver and also
`more than one source driver. Id. at 26 citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 86. Mr. Marentic
`explains that the first source driver includes AND circuit 72 (labeled “1”) in
`communication with shift register 10, data signal lines 73, 74, sampling
`switches 19, 20, and sampling capacitors 24, 25. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 86–88. The
`second source driver includes AND circuit 72 (labeled “2”) in
`communication with shift register 10, sampling switches 21 and 22, and
`sampling capacitors (not numbered). Id. Mr. Marentic explains that each set
`of first and second source bus lines 5 associated with each column of pixel
`units 4 are individually driven by a separate source driver. Id. ¶ 88.
`Moreover, Petitioner alleges, Figure 10 shows that the first and second
`source bus lines 5 in each group of source bus lines are connected with the
`“same source driver,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 26. (citing Ex. 1002, Fig.
`10, ¶¶ 131–140).
`Petitioner argues that even if Sharp does not teach or suggest the use
`of multiple source drivers and gate drivers, Kamizono teaches the use of
`multiple source drivers and multiple gate drivers to send signals through data
`lines and gate lines in an LCD device. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 15).
`Mr. Marentic explains that modifying the LCD driving device of the Sharp
`reference to include the multiple source and gate driver ICs of Kamizono
`would merely yield a predictable result, since such a modification simply
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`allows more pixels to be added to increase the size of the LCD panel without
`changing the way the LCD panel operates. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 148).
`Patent Owner does not specifically contest the Petitioner’s arguments
`regarding the alleged multiple source drivers and gate drivers in Sharp or
`Kamizono.
`Based on this record, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of
`Sharp and Kamizono meets the limitation of multiple source drivers and
`multiple gate drivers.
`We also agree with Petitioner that, based on this record, the
`combination of Sharp and Kamizono meets the odd/even configuration
`limitation recited in claim 1, specifically:
`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
` (emphasis added). See id. at 27–28, citing Ex. 1002, Fig. 10, ¶¶ 131–140,
`145. For example, we agree that Sharp teaches the first source bus line 5
`and the second source bus line 5 in each group of data bus lines are
`respectively connected with the sources of all of the 28 TFTs 7 of the odd
`and even rows of the column associated with that group of source bus lines.
`Ex. 1002, Fig. 10.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`Therefore, on this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that the combination
`of Sharp and Kamizono renders obvious claims 1–3.
`Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and adds the limitation “wherein the
`gate driver is a chip installed on glass.” Claim 5 also depends on claim 2
`and adds the limitation “wherein the gate driver is an integrated gate driver
`circuit installed on glass.” Petitioner contends “Kamizono teaches that
`installing driving circuitry, including the gate drivers as a COG is the
`preferred way of implementing the gate drivers for a large sized LCD panel
`because it provides increased reliability and reduces the form factor (i.e.,
`size and weight) of the product.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1004, Kamizono, col.
`1:12–58). We agree that Kamizono teaches the gate driver is a chip on
`glass, as recited in dependent claim 4, and the integrated gate driver circuit
`installed on glass, as recited in dependent claim 5.
`Patent Owner argues this ground is substantially similar to the ground
`presented unsuccessfully in IPR2015-00022 and that the Board should deny
`the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 23. However, unlike in
`IPR2015-00022, in this case Petitioner directs our attention to evidentiary
`support for the combination of Sharp and Kamizono, in the form of a
`declaration to support the combination of the cited references. Ex. 1007.
`Thus, given the evidence in this record, we determine that Petitioner
`has 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 Sharp and Kamizono.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`
`B. Other Asserted Grounds
`As summarized in Section I(E) of this Decision, Petitioner asserts four
`grounds of unpatentability. The other asserted grounds are against claims 1–
`5 as obvious over Shimada and Kamizono, against claims 1–5 as
`anticipation by Sharp; and against claims 1–3 and 4 as obvious over Sharp
`alone. See Pet. 10–11.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a), the Board has discretion to “authorize
`the review to proceed on all or some of the challenged claims and on all or
`some of the grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” The Board
`also “may deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the
`challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`(permitting institution of review under certain conditions, but not mandating
`institution of review under any conditions).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes proceedings
`were promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`rules provide that they are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As a
`result, and in determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a
`patent, the Board, in its discretion, may “deny some or all grounds for
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. §
`42.108(b).
`We exercise our discretion and decline to institute review based on
`any of the other asserted grounds advanced by Petitioner that are not
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`identified below as being part of the trial. See, e.g., Pet. 6; 37 C.F.R. §
`42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating that the
`challenged claims 1–5 of the ’550 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a). At this juncture, we have not made a final determination with
`respect to the patentability of the challenged claims, nor with respect to
`claim construction.
`
`IV. ORDER
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted for the following ground of unpatentability:
`Claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Sharp and
`Kamizono.
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`will commence on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00913
`Patent 7,420,550 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Anthony Lo Cicero
`Brian Comack
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`alocicero@arelaw.com
`sharp-550IPR@arelaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Wayne Helge
`Michael Casey
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`whelge@dbjg.com
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`
`14
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
