Sharp Corporationv.Surpass Tech Innovation LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

10707741 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 44
571-272-7822 Date Entered: February 26, 2016

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,
Petitioner,

v.

SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2
____________

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and
Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, filed a Petition
requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No.
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

2

7,202,843 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’843 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319.
Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Patent Owner, Surpass Tech Innovation LLC,
filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon
consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, on March 18, 2015,
we instituted an inter partes review of claims 4, 8, and 9 on one ground of
unpatentability, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. Paper 10 (“Dec.”).
Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
Response (Paper 20 (“PO Resp.”)) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 24
(“Pet. Reply”)).
Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 27; “Pet. Mot. to
Exclude”) certain portions of Exhibit 2005 and certain evidence submitted
during the cross examination of Michael Marentic. Patent Owner filed an
Opposition to the Motion to Exclude (Paper 34; “PO Exclude Opp.”), and
Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 39; “Pet. Exclude Reply”).
Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 31; “PO Mot. to
Exclude”) certain portions of Exhibits 1010 and 2007. Petitioner filed an
Opposition to the Motion to Exclude (Paper 35; “Pet. Exclude Opp.”), and
Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 38; “PO Exclude Reply”). Patent Owner
filed a Motion for Observations (Paper 29) and Petitioner filed a Response to
the Observations (Paper 36).
An oral hearing was held on December 1, 2015, and a transcript of the
hearing is included in the record (Paper 43; “Tr.”).
The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

3

For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 8, and 9 of the ’843 patent are
unpatentable.
A. Related Proceedings
According to Petitioner, the ’843 patent is involved in the following
lawsuit: Surpass Tech Innovation LLC v. Sharp Corp., No. 1:14-cv-00338-
LPS (D. Del.). Pet. 8.
B. The ’843 Patent
The ’843 patent relates to a method and system for driving an LCD
panel. The panel includes a plurality of scan lines, a plurality of data lines,
and a plurality of pixels. Each pixel is connected to a corresponding scan
line and a corresponding data line, and each pixel includes a liquid crystal
device and a switching device connected to the corresponding scan line, data
line, and liquid crystal device. Ex. 1001, 2:19–26, Fig. 4. The system
includes a driving circuit for applying a plurality of data impulses to a pixel
electrode within one frame period to control the transmission rate of the
liquid crystal device. Id. at 1:8–12, 4:34–40.
C. Illustrative Claim
Claim 4, reproduced below, is an independent claim and each of
claims 8 and 9 depend directly from claim 4.
4. A method for driving a liquid crystal display (LCD)
panel, the LCD panel comprising:
a plurality of scan lines;
a plurality of data lines; and
a plurality of pixels, each pixel being connected to a
corresponding scan line and a corresponding data line, and each
pixel comprising a liquid crystal device and a switching device
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

4

connected to the corresponding scan line, the corresponding
data line, and the liquid crystal device, and
the method comprising:
receiving continuously a plurality of frame date;
generating a plurality of data impulses for each pixel
within every frame period according to the frame data; and
applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device of
one of the pixels within one frame period via the data line
connected to the pixel in order to control a transmission rate of
the liquid crystal device of the pixel.

D. Ground of Unpatentability
We instituted an inter partes review of claims 4, 8, and 9 on the sole
ground of anticipation by Ham1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
II. ANALYSIS
A. Level of Skill of Person in the Art
We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re
Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
B. Claim Interpretation
In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In
re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015),
cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 84 U.S.L.W. 3218
(U.S. Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446). Consistent with the broadest reasonable

1 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0196229, published Oct. 7, 2004
(Ex. 1005) (“Ham”).
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

5

construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary
meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context
of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, we must be careful not to read a particular
embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim
language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification”). However, an inventor may provide a meaning for a
term that is different from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the
specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Patent Owner faults Petitioner for not providing a construction for the
term “generating” as recited in claim 4, but does not propose a construction
for the term. PO Resp. 27–28. We find it unnecessary to expressly construe
the term, because both parties agree that at least converting digital signals
into analog data signals (impulses) meets the claimed “generating a plurality
of data impulses” limitation. Pet. Reply 3–4; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 50–54, 59; Ex.
1009, 114:3–12; Tr. 23.
We do need to construe, however, for purposes of this Final Written
Decision, the independent claim 4 phrase of “applying the data impulses to
the liquid crystal device of one of the pixels within one frame period . . . to
control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel.” Ex.
1001, 7:16–19. Patent Owner argues that this phrase requires “applying two
or more overdriven data impulses in order to control a transmission rate of
the liquid crystal device, or overdriving.” PO Resp. 25–26 (emphases
added). Patent Owner further contends that “overdriven” means “applying a
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

6

higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to accelerate the
reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1001,
2:3–5). As explained in greater detail below, Ham describes applying two
data impulses within one frame period, where one of the impulses is
overdriven, but the other is not. Thus, we must resolve whether claim 4
requires two overdriven impulses. For the reasons that follow, we determine
that claim 4 does not require applying two or more overdriven data impulses.
We begin with the language of claim 4. Claim 4 recites generating a
plurality of data impulses for each pixel within every frame period. The
claim further recites applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device
of one of the pixels within one frame period in order to control a
transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel. Based on the
words of claim 4, data impulses (more than one) are applied to one of the
pixels within one frame period to control a transmission rate of the liquid
crystal device of the pixel. Absent from the claim 4 language is that (more
than one of) the data impulses are “overdriven.”
All of the claims in the ’843 patent are original. As such, the original
claims also are part of the Specification. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (original claims are part
of the original Specification and may themselves satisfy the written
description requirement). Further, claim 1, a claim that is not included in
this trial, explicitly includes generating “a plurality of overdriven pixel data
within every frame period for each pixel,” “generating a plurality of data
impulses to each pixel according to the plurality of overdriven pixel data”
and “applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device of the pixel . . .
within one frame period . . . to control transmission rate of the liquid crystal
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

7

device.” Ex. 1001, 6:12–21. The language of original claim 1, contrasted
with the language of original claim 4, is relevant to show that when the
Patent Owner intended to claim overdriven pixel data, and generating
impulses based on the overdriven pixel data, and applying the data impulses,
etc., it did so by including the word “overdriven” as a modifier to the data
that is generated, and applied.2 Thus, at first blush, we are not persuaded by
Patent Owner’s argument that “to control a transmission rate of the liquid
crystal device of the pixel” necessitates reading “overdriven” into claim 4.
PO Resp. 20–21. Both claim 1 and claim 4 require “to control [a]3
transmission rate of the liquid crystal device.” If, as Patent Owner contends,
“to control a transmission rate” requires us to read “overdriven” into the
language of claim 4, it would appear superfluous and unnecessary for claim
1, which also recites “to control [a] transmission rate” to include the word
“overdriven.”
We next turn to the Specification of the ’843 patent. Patent Owner
directs attention to the term “overdriven” as it is defined in the Specification
to mean “applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to
accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules.” Id. at 20
(citing Ex. 1001, 2:3–5). Patent Owner argues that it follows that “applying
a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to accelerate the
reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules” means “overdriving.” Id. at
21. Even so, Patent Owner has not shown the particular relevance of this

2 Patent Owner elected not to file a motion to amend to include a claim that
explicitly recites overdriven or overdriving in this trial.
3 Claim 1 does not include the word “a” but is otherwise identical to claim 4
with respect to this phrase.
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

8

fact insofar as claim 4 is concerned. Claim 4 does not recite “applying a
higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to accelerate the
reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules.” Rather, claim 4 recites
“applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device of one of the pixel . .
. within one frame period . . . to control a transmission rate of the liquid
crystal device.” Thus, we are not persuaded that “overdriven” as defined in
the ’843 patent is particularly relevant to the disputed claim language. The
claim 4 language is different from the definition of “overdriven” in the
Specification, and, thus we are not persuaded that there is a “correlation”
between claim 4 and the Specification’s definition of overdriven as asserted.
Id. Patent Owner has not directed us to sufficient evidence that would lead
us to conclude that there is such a correlation.
Patent Owner next directs attention to passages in the ’843 patent that
describe applying two overdriven pixel data “to control the transmission rate
of the liquid crystal device.” Id. at 22–24. Patent Owner concludes that in
light of the ’843 Specification, the phrase “to control a transmission rate of
the liquid crystal device of the pixel” would be understood as describing the
process of controlling the transmission rate through overdriving, or applying
a higher or lower voltage to the liquid crystal device of the pixel to
accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal molecules. Id. at 22–24
(citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 28–30). We have reviewed Mr. Bohannon’s testimony
in support of the proposed construction, but find the evidence underlying his
testimony does not support Patent Owner’s argument. In particular, Mr.
Bohannon testifies that a key example of how the patent makes clear that
controlling a transmission rate means applying an overdriven voltage to the
liquid crystal device is found at column 3, lines 60–62. Ex. 2005 ¶ 28. The
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

9

sentence to which we are directed states that “[d]ifferent data voltages cause
different twisting angles and show different transmission rates.” That
sentence does not indicate that the “different data voltages” must be over or
under voltages as suggested. Rather, that sentence supports the notion that
the application of data voltages in general causes different twisting angles
and shows different transmission rates, e.g., controls the transmission rate.4
Absent from the sentence is any reference to overdriven, overvoltage, or
undervoltage, and Mr. Bohannon does not explain sufficiently why we
should construe “different data voltages” to mean overdriven voltages.
Moreover, we give little if any weight to Mr. Bohannon’s testimony
that there is no “instance or embodiment in the ’843 patent where a
transmission rate is described as being controlled without overdriving” (Ex.
2005 ¶ 28) or that the ’843 patent Specification “does not state that the
transmission rate could be controlled by applying two or more non-
overdriven data impulses” (id. ¶ 29 (emphasis in original)). Those
statements are in contradiction to other passages in the Specification of the
’843 patent that do not mention applying two overdriven pulses within a
time frame in order to control the transmission rate.

4 This finding of fact is further supported by the ’843 patent, which describes
an example (curve C1 of Fig. 2) of a “driving circuit [that] changes the
transmission rate” without overdriving, e.g., just by applying voltage to the
pixel is the transmission rate changed or controlled. Ex. 1001, 1:55–58; Ex.
1010 ¶¶ 34, 90. We disagree with Patent Owner’s implicit argument that
changing a transmission rate is different from controlling a transmission rate
(see, e.g., Tr. 26–27), because the ’843 Specification describes changing the
transmission rate interchangeably with controlling the transmission rate in
describing the invention. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:28–31, 5:49–51.
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

10

For example, the Specification of the ’843 patent, distinguishing
between the prior art, explains:
In contrast to the prior art, the present invention discloses
a driving circuit and relating driving method to generate two
pieces of pixel data in each frame period for every pixel on an
LCD panel and then to generate two data impulses according to
the two pieces of pixel data and to apply them to each pixel
within a frame period in order to change the transmission rate
of a pixel electrode. Thus, each of the pixels of the LCD panel
is applied of a plurality of data impulses within a frame period,
so that liquid crystal molecules of the pixels can twist to reach a
predetermined gray level within a frame period, and blurring
will not occur.

Ex. 1001, 5:45–55.

The above indicates that the application of two data impulses to each
pixel within a frame period changes, or controls, the transmission rate of a
pixel electrode. Absent from this passage is any reference to overdriving
data impulses. Yet, neither the Patent Owner Response nor the supporting
testimony of Mr. Bohannon (Ex. 2005) discusses or attempts to explain this
passage. In addition, this passage is consistent with claim 4, which as an
original claim, and also part of the originally filed Specification, conveys a
broader coverage than the one Patent Owner asserts during this proceeding.
We agree with Petitioner that the above passage, along with the original
claim 4 language, would have conveyed to a person having ordinary skill in
the art that the scope of the claimed invention includes applying two data
impulses within a single time frame, resulting in controlling the transmission
rate of the liquid crystal device, with or without overdriving the two
impulses. Pet. 2–4.
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

11

In sum, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that there are other ways to control a transmission rate of the
liquid crystal device of a pixel without applying overdriven data impulses as
evidenced by the ’843 patent itself. Patent Owner urges a construction for
the term “to control a transmission rate” that is too narrow, by focusing on
certain described embodiments, while disregarding broader described
embodiments, such as the one immediately discussed above. We must be
careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written
description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the
embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Here, Patent Owner
chose to claim its invention broadly, and we are provided insufficient
evidence before us to construe the claim more narrowly as Patent Owner
urges us to do.
For all of the reasons discussed above, “applying the data impulses to
the liquid crystal device of one of the pixels within one frame period . . . to
control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel” does not
require applying two or more overdriven data impulses as urged by Patent
Owner.
C. Anticipation by Ham
Petitioner contends that claims 4, 8, and 9 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Ham. Pet. 45–49. In its Petition,
Petitioner explains how Ham discloses each claim limitation of the
challenged claims. Id.
Patent Owner argues that Ham does not describe “generating a
plurality of data impulses for each pixel” or “applying the data impulses to
the liquid crystal device of one of the pixels within one frame period . . . in
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

12

order to control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel.”
PO Resp. 28–41.
Ham
Ham describes a method of driving a liquid crystal display including
modulating a source data and supplying the modulated data to a liquid
crystal panel at an initial period of one frame period, and applying a data
different from the modulated data to the liquid crystal panel at a later period
of the one frame period. Ex. 1005 ¶ 22. Figure 5 of Ham is reproduced
below.

Figure 5 is a block diagram showing a driving apparatus for a liquid
crystal display.
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

13

Liquid crystal display panel 57 is connected to data lines 55 and gate
lines 56 crossing each other and having thin film transistors (TFT) provided
at each intersection to drive the liquid crystal cells Clc. Id. at ¶ 37. Data
driver 53 supplies data to data lines 55 and gate driver 54 applies a scanning
pulse to gate lines 56. Id. Timing controller 51 receives digital video data
and synchronizes signals H and V. Data modulator 52 is connected between
timing controller 51 and data driver 53 to modulate input data RGB. Switch
58 is utilized to select any one of modulated data AMdata and normal input
RGB. Id. Line memory 59 is connected between timing controller 51 and
switch 58.
Timing controller 51 rearranges digital video data supplied from a
digital card. The RGB data rearranged by controller 51 is supplied to data
modulator 52 and line memory 59. Id. at ¶ 39. Timing controller 51 also
provides a switching control signal SW, allowing switch 58 to be switched
twice within one frame interval.
In operation, data driver 53 is supplied sequentially with modulated
data AMdata and normal data RGB from switch 58 within one frame
interval. That data is ultimately converted (e.g., generated) into analog data
and applied to each liquid crystal cell Clc within one frame interval. Id. at
¶ 41.
Analysis
Petitioner provides detailed analysis showing where Ham discloses
each limitation of the challenged claims. Pet. 45–49. For independent claim
4, Petitioner contends that Ham discloses a method for driving a liquid
crystal display (LCD) panel. Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, ¶ 3).
Petitioner also contends that Ham discloses a plurality of scan lines (i.e.,
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

14

gate lines 56 of Fig. 5) and a plurality of data lines (i.e., data lines 55 of Fig.
5). Id. at 47–48. According to Petitioner, Ham describes a plurality of
pixels (Ex. 1005 ¶ 38) comprising a liquid crystal device (liquid crystal cell
Clc) and a switching device (i.e., a “TFT”) connected to a corresponding
scan line (i.e., gate line 56 of Fig. 5), data line (i.e., data line 55 of Fig. 5),
and liquid crystal device (liquid crystal cell Clc). Claim 4 further recites that
the method comprises “receiving continuously a plurality of frame data.”
For this limitation, Petitioner contends that Ham describes continuously
“receiving digital video data” (i.e., from timing controller 51 of Fig. 5). Id.
at 46, 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 37, Fig. 5). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
showing, and adopt it as our own, that Ham discloses a plurality of scan and
data lines, a plurality of pixels connected to the scan and data lines, and that
each pixel comprises a liquid crystal device and switching device connected
to a corresponding scan line, data line, and switching device. We also are
persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, and adopt it as our own, that Ham
discloses the “receiving” limitation of claim 4. Patent Owner does not
contend that any of these limitations are not met by Ham.
Patent Owner, however, disputes whether Ham discloses the
remaining limitations of claim 4, specifically: “generating a plurality of data
impulses for each pixel within every frame period according to the frame
data” and “applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal device of one of
the pixels within one frame period via the data line connected to the pixel in
order to control a transmission rate of the liquid crystal device of the pixel.”
PO Resp. 28–41.
To meet the “generating” limitation, the Petition provides that “[t]he
apparatus also includes a ‘timing controller 51’ that ‘receives digital video
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

15

data’ and a ‘data modulator 52’ that generates two data impulses (i.e.,
‘modulated data’ signal and ‘normal data’ signal) for each pixel within one
frame period.” Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 40, Fig. 7C) (emphasis in
original).
In addition, the Petition at page 48 cites paragraphs 40, 41, and 53 of
Ham, and in particular, the following from paragraph 53:
[T]he LCD drive apparatus and method according to the present
invention appl[ies] the normal data to the liquid crystal panel at
the initial half period of the frame after supplying of the
modulated data to the liquid crystal panel during the later half
period of the frame.

Patent Owner argues that Petitioner only relies on data modulator 52
to meet the generating limitation and that the data modulator does not
perform the generating step. PO Resp. 29–36. We disagree that the Petition
indicates that data modulator 52 alone performs the generating step. Rather,
the Petition discusses “the [driving] apparatus” which includes timing
controller and data modulator as meeting the generating limitation, and later,
in its claim chart, indicates that the driving apparatus of Ham Figure 5 meets
the limitation. Pet. 46, 48.
A similar argument was raised before by Patent Owner in its
Preliminary Response—that Petitioner relies on one element of Ham’s data
driving apparatus to meet the generating step. Prelim. Resp. 35–36. As we
explained in our Decision to Institute, Petitioner relies on more than one
particular element in Ham to meet the generating step, such as Ham’s entire
driving apparatus of Figure 5. Dec. 13. Thus, Patent Owner was notified
that we read the Petition as relying on the entire driving apparatus of Figure
5 to meet the generating limitation. Yet, Patent Owner in its Response does
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

16

not address the totality of the Ham driving apparatus. Instead, Patent Owner
narrowly focuses on Ham’s data modulator 52, and argues that that element
alone fails to perform the generating step. Such an argument is
nonresponsive to the Petition and not persuasive.
Petitioner relies on the driving apparatus, for example of Figure 5,
which is not limited to data modulator 52, to disclose the generating step.
See Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40, 41, 53). Petitioner explains, with
supporting evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood Ham’s data driver 53 of the driving apparatus as generating a
plurality of data impulses for each pixel within every frame period according
to the frame data. Pet. Reply 3–4; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 50–54, 59. In particular,
Petitioner’s Declarant, Mr. Michael J. Marentic, testifies that Ham’s data
driver 53 (i.e., source driver) receives two digital signals (modulated data
AMdata and normal data RGB) within one frame interval and converts, i.e.,
“generates,” each of the digital signals into two corresponding analog data
signals (plurality of data impulses) and applies the two data impulses to the
data lines 55 in each scanning period. Ex. 1010 ¶ 59 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40,
41). Mr. Marentic further testifies that like Ham, the ’843 patent similarly
describes the generating step as performed by a source driver 18 shown in
Figure 3. Id. ¶ 60. In particular, Mr. Marentic directs attention to the
following passages in the ’843 patent:
[W]hen the pixel data GN, GN(2) are generated, the source
driver of the driving circuit 10 converts the pixel data GN,
GN(2) into two corresponding data impulses and then applies
them to liquid crystal device 39.

Ex. 1001, 4:8–14.

IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

17

[T]he source driver 18 generates two corresponding data
impulses according to the two pieces of pixel data and applies
them to the pixel electrode 39 of the corresponding pixel 36 in
order to control the transmission rate . . . of the pixel electrode
39.

Id. at 4:22–28.
We give Mr. Marentic’s testimony substantial weight because his
testimony is consistent with the description of Ham and the ’843 patent. In
other words, Ham describes performing the generating of data in the same
way as is described in the ’843 patent. Even Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr.
Bohannon, agrees that Ham describes converting digital data into analog
data and applying that data to data lines, e.g., the generating step. Ex. 1009,
114:3–12. And during oral hearing, Patent Owner also acknowledged that
converting digital data into analog data would read on the generating step.
Tr. 23. For all of these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that Ham describes generating a plurality of
data impulses for each pixel within every frame period according to the
frame data.
We next address Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner has not
shown that Ham describes “applying the data impulses to the liquid crystal
device of one of the pixels within one frame period via the data line
connected to the pixel in order to control a transmission rate of the liquid
crystal device of the pixel.” PO Resp. 40–41. For this phrase, Petitioner
relies on Ham’s description of applying data impulses (one normal and one
overdriven) to the liquid crystal cell within one frame interval via data lines
connected to the liquid crystal cell to double the transmission rate of the cell.
Pet. 46–48. Patent Owner’s arguments for this phrase are based on a narrow
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

18

construction of the phrase to include a plurality of overdriven signals in a
frame period. Id. at 40. As explained above in the claim interpretation
section of this Decision, we do not construe the phrase so narrowly. Patent
Owner makes no other arguments regarding this disputed phrase of claim 4.
For the reasons above, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, and adopt
it as our own, that Ham discloses applying the data impulses to the liquid
crystal device of one of the pixels within one frame period via the data line
connected to the pixel in order to control a transmission rate of the liquid
crystal device of the pixel.
Claim 8 depends from claim 4 and recites “applying a scan line
voltage to the switch device of the pixel via the san line connected to the
pixel in order to have the data impulses be applied to the liquid crystal
device of the pixel.” Ex. 1001, 8:12–17. Petitioner shows that Ham
describes applying a scanning pulse to gate lines 56 of liquid crystal display
panel 57 to have the data impulses applied to the liquid crystal cells of the
pixel. Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 38, 44, Fig. 5). Patent Owner does not
dispute that these features of Ham satisfy claim 8. For the reasons above,
we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, and adopt it as our own, that Ham
discloses applying a scan line voltage to the switch device of the pixel via
the san line connected to the pixel in order to have the data impulses be
applied to the liquid crystal device of the pixel.
Claim 9 depends from claim 4 and recites “wherein each frame data
comprises a plurality of pixel data, and each pixel data corresponds to a
pixel.” Ex. 1001, 8:18–20. Petitioner shows that in Ham, each frame of
data includes a plurality of pixel data (i.e., normal data RGB), and each pixel
data corresponds to a pixel (i.e., liquid crystal cell). Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1005
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

19

¶ 42, Fig. 6). Patent Owner does not dispute that these features of Ham
satisfy claim 9. For the reasons above, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
showing, and adopt it as our own, that Ham discloses wherein each frame
data comprises a plurality of pixel data, and each pixel data corresponds to a
pixel.
For the foregoing reasons, based on the record before us, Petitioner
has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ham discloses all of the
limitations of claims 4, 8, and 9.
D. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
Patent Owner moves to exclude certain portions of Mr. Michael
Marentic’s declaration (Exhibit 1010) and deposition testimony (Exhibit
2007). PO Mot. to Exclude. In particular, Patent Owner argues that Mr.
Marentic offers no facts or data to support his opinion on the level of skill in
the art, and that his testimony is also inconsistent with what was presented in
the Petition. Id. at 2. These arguments go to the weight that we give the
evidence and, therefore, are an improper basis for excluding evidence. In
any event, as discussed above, in rendering this Final Written Decision, we
look to the prior art of record to inform us of the level of skill in the art,
notwithstanding what the experts opine as to the level of skill in the art. See
Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d at 1355; In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579;
In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d at 91.
Patent Owner further argues that portions of Mr. Marentic’s
declaration (Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 92–93) should be excluded under FRE 802. PO
Mot. to Exclude 2–4. In the objected to paragraphs, Mr. Marentic testifies,
directing attention to several prior art U.S. patents (Exhibits 1012, 1013, and
1014), that “transmission rate” was a term known in the art, and that
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

20

controlling a transmission rate would have been understood as merely
applying a particular voltage to a pixel’s electrodes. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 92–93.
Patent Owner argues that the written statements in the prior art patents
(Exhibits 1012, 1013, and 1014) are hearsay because Petitioner offers them
for the truth of the matter asserted. Id. In rendering the Final Written
Decision, we did not rely on Exhibits 1012, 1013, 1014, or Mr. Marentic’s
testimony found at paragraphs 92 or 93.
Patent Owner also objects to a portion of Mr. Marentic’s deposition
testimony (Ex. 2007, 116:12–118:3) as nonresponsive. The objection goes
to the weight to be given to the testimony, which is not a proper basis for a
motion to exclude.
For these reasons, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.
E. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
Petitioner moves to exclude portions of Mr. Bohannon’s Declaration
(Ex. 2005) as an improper and untimely attempt to amend claims in this
proceeding. Pet. Mot. to Exclude, 2–4. Petitioner’s argument is improper
for a motion to exclude evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. No
Federal Rule of Evidence is cited in violation of the alleged attempt to
amend claims in violation of Board rules.
Petitioner also objects to the same portions of Exhibit 2005 as not
relevant to the proceeding. Id. at 4–6. Although disguised as relevance
issues, Petitioner’s arguments go to the weight we should give Mr.
Bohannon’s testimony. Such a showing is not proper for a motion to
exclude.
Lastly, Petitioner objects to two documents (“Exhibit A” and “Exhibit
C”) presented to Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Marentic, during cross
IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

21

examination. Id. at 6. Petitioner acknowledges, however, that neither party
relied on either Exhibit A or C in support of the briefs filed in this
proceeding. Id. Accordingly, we need not exclude something that neither
party relies on in the proceeding.
For these reasons, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence and arguments, Petitioner has demonstrated by
a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 8, and 9 of the ’843 patent are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Ham.
IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that claims 4, 8, and 9 of the ’843 patent are held
unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ respective motions to exclude
evidence are dismissed; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2015-00021
Patent 7,202,843 B2

22

For Petitioner:
Anthony Lo Cicero
Brian Comack

alocicero@arelaw.com
Sharp-843IPR@arelaw.com

For Patent Owner:

Wayne Helge
Michael Casey
Donald L. Jackson

whelge@dbjg.com
mcasey@dbjg.com
djackson@dbjg.com