Sharp Corporationv.Surpass Tech Innovation LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2015

10929473 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9
571-272-7822 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

2

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:
IPR2015-00022
Patent 7,420,550 B2

3

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:

IPR2015-00022
Patent 7,420,550 B2

4
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
IPR2015-00022
Patent 7,420,550 B2

5
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 N
th
gate
line is connected with the gates of all the thin film transistors of
the N
th
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 M
th

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 M
th
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 Patent Exhibit
Shimada et al. U.S. Patent No.
6,081,250
Ex. 1002 (“Shimada”)
Janssen et al. PCT Publication WO
02/075708 A2
Ex. 1003 (“Janssen”)
Kubota et al. U.S. Patent No.
6,300,927 B1
Ex. 1004 (“Kubota”)
Takeuchi et al. U.S. Patent No.
6,157,056
Ex. 1005 (“Takeuichi”)
Admitted Prior Art Background of U.S.
Patent No. 7,420,550
Ex. 1001, Background
(“APA”)

IPR2015-00022
Patent 7,420,550 B2

6

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 Basis Challenged Claim(s)
§ 103 Shimada and Kubota 1–5
§ 103 Shimada and Admitted
Prior Art
1–3
§ 103 Janssen and Kubota 1–5
§ 103 Janssen and Admitted Prior
Art
1–3
§ 103 Shimada, Admitted Prior
Art, and Takeuchi
3
§ 103 Janssen, Admitted Prior Art,
and Takeuchi
3

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
IPR2015-00022
Patent 7,420,550 B2

7
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
IPR2015-00022
Patent 7,420,550 B2

8
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.
IPR2015-00022
Patent 7,420,550 B2

9
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.
IPR2015-00022
Patent 7,420,550 B2

10
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
IPR2015-00022
Patent 7,420,550 B2

11
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
IPR2015-00022
Patent 7,420,550 B2

12
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.

IPR2015-00022
Patent 7,420,550 B2

13
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