trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-00863, Paper No. 40
`June 8, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`SONY CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`and SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`Technology Center 2600
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, May 12, 2016
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`May 12, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-00863, Paper No. 40
`June 8, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`SONY CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`and SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`Technology Center 2600
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, May 12, 2016
`
`Before: SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`May 12, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WALTER E. HANLEY, JR., ESQ.
`JOHN FLOCK, ESQ.
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, New York 10004-1007
`212-425-7200
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAY I. ALEXANDER, ESQ.
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4956
`202-662-5622
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WAYNE HELGE, ESQ.
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`571-765-7708
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G
`
`(1:00 p.m.)
`JUDGE MEDLEY: This is the hearing for
`IPR2015- 00863 between Petitioner, Sony Corporation,
`Samsung Electronics Corporation and Samsung Display
`Corporation, versus Patent Owner, Surpass Tech Innovation,
`involving claims 4 through 9 of U.S. Patent 7,202,843.
`Before we get started let me go over a few
`procedural things. Similar to the earlier hearing we had
`today, I would like to ask counsel for both parties a few
`questions before we get started.
`As the parties are aware, on February 26, 2016 in
`IPR2015- 00021 claims 4, 8 and 9 at issue in this proceeding
`were held to be unpatentable in the 00021 proceeding.
`Patent Owner indicated on May 5th, 2016 in this
`proceeding that the time to file an appeal of our decision in
`the 21 proceeding to the Federal Circuit has expired.
`So the Panel is wondering where that leaves us
`with respect to this proceeding as to claims 4, 8 and 9. So I
`will let Patent Owner address that first and then let Petitioner
`follow up.
`
`MR. HELGE: Thank you, Your Honor. Wayne
`Helge for Patent Owner, Surpass Tech Innovation.
`Your Honor, it is true that, as you correctly noted,
`that claims 4, 8 and 9 were held unpatentable in that prior
`
` 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`case, the 21 case. We do not have specific arguments directed
`towards those claims.
`In the papers I will tell you that we did make
`arguments directed to those claims, and that deals with the
`combination of the references that apply to all of the claims at
`issue here, claims 4 through 9.
`We will not -- or we don't intend to make specific
`arguments that are unique to claims 4, 8 and 9. We would
`specifically like to address obviously the claims that have not
`been decided yet.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And as in the earlier
`case, we are considering issuing an order to show cause to the
`Patent Owner to explain why we shouldn't enter judgment with
`respect to 4, 8 and 9. Just to clarify the record, we're not
`going to write specifically about claims 4, 8 and 9. That will
`likely be forthcoming.
`MR. HELGE: Understood, Your Honor. May I ask
`a question about that?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Yes.
`MR. HELGE: Do you anticipate that there will be
`a separate decision dealing with claims 4, 8 and 9 and then the
`remainder of the claims as well, or do you expect that all
`claims will be dealt with in one comprehensive decision?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I don't think we know that
`right now. What I was kind of envisioning was giving the OC,
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`waiting to quickly get your response and then, if those claims
`are off the table, we would enter judgment with respect to
`those claims.
`MR. HELGE: Understood.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And then do a final written
`decision with respect to the other claims. Do you see an issue
`with that?
`MR. HELGE: No, Your Honor. That's what I was
`expecting. Thank you.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So, Petitioner, if you
`could please introduce yourself and just address this issue.
`MR. HANLEY: Certainly, Your Honor. Walter
`Hanley for Petitioners.
`As to the claims that remain, 5 through 7, they are
`dependent upon claim 4 ultimately. So, therefore, while the
`issue of the patentability are not -- of claim 4, in our view,
`has been decided finally in the Sharp proceeding, it remains
`relevant to look at the limitations of claim 4, as they are
`incorporated into the dependent claims 5 through 7, to
`continue to argue that those limitations are found on the prior
`art. That is the basis for this IPR.
`So I will be -- I intend to be making some
`arguments about the limitations in claim 4 relative to the prior
`art, simply because they are incorporated by reference into
`claims 5 through 7.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`As to claims 8 and 9, I agree that they are finally
`determined to be unpatentable and there is no reason here to
`make any argument about them.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. But procedurally do
`you see an issue with going forward with an OC, having them
`respond and entering judgment and then for us just to write a
`decision there, because obviously dependent claims include
`the limitations of the independent claim.
`MR. HANLEY: No, I see no problem with that at
`all, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. So you can
`stay up there.
`Per our April 27th order, each party will have 30
`minutes of total time to present arguments. Petitioner,
`Mr. Hanley, you may go first, and then, Patent Owner, you
`will respond. Petitioner, you may reserve rebuttal time. Do
`you plan on reserving?
`MR. HANLEY: Yes. I would like to reserve five
`
`minutes.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And I'm going to go by
`the clock back here, so you have 30 minutes, and 25 minutes
`from now.
`
`MR. HANLEY: Thank you, Your Honor. May it
`please the Board. We have prepared a slide preparation which
`has been marked as Exhibit 1021. And I have available at
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`least two hard copies or paper copies if any of Your Honors
`would like to have a paper copy. We've provided one to the
`Court Reporter for his use.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Do either of you want one?
`Okay. I think we're okay.
`MR. HANLEY: All right. Very well. Okay. So
`we will keep those.
`So I have now turned to slide 2 and it simply sets
`forth the grounds for institution. Claims 4 through 9 are at
`issue and the issue is obviousness over Suzuki and Nitta. And
`as we just discussed, we will be talking about claims 5
`through 7 but to some extent about claim 4 because of the
`incorporation by reference.
`So with that what I would like to do is say a few
`comments about claim 4 and about the Suzuki reference in
`particular and then I will go right to claim 5.
`So what we have here on slide 5 is a reproduction
`of claim 4. And claim 4 is directed to a method for driving a
`Liquid Crystal Display, LCD, panel. And then the claim goes
`on essentially as two parts.
`There is a preamble which recites attributes of the
`LCD panel, including that it has scan lines, data lines, pixels,
`and each pixel has a liquid crystal device and a switching
`device. And those attributes essentially are characteristic of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`an active matrix LCD panel. And I believe that is not
`disputed here.
`We have submitted evidence in the petition that
`the Nitta reference discloses all that is set forth in the
`preamble. And I really don't think that's disputed either.
`As to the method itself, the method has three
`steps: Receiving continuously a plurality of frame data,
`generating a plurality of data impulses for each pixel, and
`then 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.
`So if I can sort of summarize the gist of that,
`essentially, relative to the alleged prior art methods, the
`patent distinguishes itself in terms of the methodology by
`virtue of the fact that you have a plurality of data impulses
`for each pixel that are generated each frame period, and they
`are applied pixel-by-pixel within each frame period.
`The patent describes as a preferred embodiment
`having overdriven data pixels, and overdrive is defined in the
`'843 patent at column 2, lines 3 through 7, as applying a
`higher or lower data impulse to the pixel electrode to
`accelerate the reaction speed of a liquid crystal molecule.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`The Board in the Sharp proceeding, the 0021
`proceeding, decided that overdriving was not required by
`claim 4. However, it is really an academic debate here
`because, as we have shown -- I think I will go into it here in
`just a minute -- the Suzuki reference, in fact, teaches two
`overdriven pixels, two overdriven data impulses.
`So we are now on slide 7. I did want to say a
`couple comments about Suzuki. One is what I just said,
`essentially, that Suzuki does teach a plurality, of applying a
`plurality of overdriven data impulses for each frame period.
`And the example shown here in the slide, which
`we produce as figure 2, that is two overdriven data impulses
`per period. And we also have reproduced on the slide
`paragraphs 53 and 54 which are part of the description of
`figure 2.
`
`So we see in figure 2 in the lower portion of the
`figure, it is a plot of applied voltage -- and this is showing the
`instance of one pixel -- so it is applied voltage to a particular
`pixel plotted relative to time, represented by the frame
`periods FL1 and FL2. So we have two frame periods. And in
`each frame period we have two subfields, SF1 and SF2.
`And you can see in the lower portion of the figure
`is a target value in the subfield SF1, and the applied voltage
`to the pixel exceeds the target value. That's indicated by A.
`And then in subfield 2, which is the second portion of the
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`frame period FL1, we have applied voltage C, which is
`slightly lower than the target value.
`So, in fact, Suzuki discloses applying multiple, in
`this case two, data impulses that are overdriven per frame
`period.
`
`Also of interest in figure 2 is that Suzuki describes
`basically how these two overdriven data pulses are -- how
`they are arrived at, and refers to the first one in the first half
`of the frame period as OSD, or overshoot data impulse, and
`the second one as the overdrive data impulse.
`And essentially what Suzuki says is that the two of
`them, the processing circuitry determines that the two of them
`will essentially arrive at the target value at the end of the
`frame period. And it also talks about the fact that essentially
`the area under the curve, we see the A1 here in the upper
`portion of the figure, A1, that area, which is below the target
`value, is equal to A2, which is above the target value. And
`Suzuki's driving circuit gains that to happen, causes that to
`happen.
`
`So I would like to turn to claim 5 now. And claim
`5 adds two limitations to claim 4, that of delaying the frame
`data to generate a plurality of corresponding delayed frame
`data, and comparing current frame data and corresponding
`delayed frame data to generate -- to determine voltage values
`of the data impulses when generating the data impulses.
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`So as to this, I think we have fairly encapsulated
`the argument of Petitioners as to why Petitioners -- or, rather,
`Patent Owner, as to why Petitioners supposedly have not
`carried the burden of showing that Suzuki discloses this.
`And basically the argument is that the petition
`doesn't substantiate that the operational unit 32, which is in
`figure 1, which we will show in a minute, determines voltage
`values OSD and ODD -- those are the two overdriven data
`impulses -- based on the difference DIF between current frame
`data and delayed frame data.
`So what I would like to do is show first, since the
`first step in claim 5 relates to delaying the frame data and
`then the second step relates to doing this comparison, what I
`first want to show is that DIF is, in fact, a comparison of
`delayed frame data and current frame data.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: It is the second, the
`comparing, that they dispute, correct, or do they also dispute
`that the delaying is not?
`MR. HANLEY: What I understand is they say we
`didn't make the case, we didn't make the case in the petition,
`as to the operational unit 32.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: But they are saying you didn't
`make the case with respect to the second part of that claim or
`the entire claim?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`MR. HANLEY: I'm viewing it as being the entire
`claim. So it may be that they didn't mean to imply that
`Suzuki doesn't disclose comparing current and delayed frame
`data -- maybe they didn't mean to imply that -- but I do want
`to cover that point quickly, and then I will go to the -- what I
`think they are saying is that we didn't make the case that OSD
`and ODD are based on DIF.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`MR. HANLEY: So, first of all, with respect to
`what DIF is, Suzuki describes in paragraph 40 and other
`places, referring to figure 1 which we've reproduced here on
`slide 19, that the data comparison unit, which is this item 30
`here in the upper portion of the figure, compares image data
`supplied anew, so that is current frame data, and image data
`stored last time in a data memory unit 12A, which is the
`delayed frame data or prior frame data, does it
`frame- by-frame and outputs the difference in data as a
`difference signal DIF pixel-by-pixel.
`So, in fact, Suzuki explicitly says that DIF, D-I-F,
`is the result of a comparison of current and delayed frame
`data in its output pixel-by-pixel.
`As to the issue whether or not the two overdriven
`data impulses, OSD and ODD, are based on DIF, we likewise
`think Suzuki is very explicit on this, and we have excerpted
`on slide 20 here a sentence from paragraph 42.
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`And essentially what it says is that the overshoot
`value, which is output as OSD, is based on the difference
`signal DIF from the data comparison unit 30. So we think that
`is fairly explicit and indisputable.
`Then moving on to the ODD, in paragraphs 43 and
`44, which we've excerpted here on slide 21, Suzuki first says
`there is an overdrive value determined pixel-by-pixel based on
`DIF, and then it is in a somewhat complicated methodology,
`which he explains a reason for, which is in this material here.
`Basically the overdrive value is compared
`pixel- by-pixel and then ultimately is restored an output as
`ODD. And the reason why it does that -- it probably would
`take a little bit too much time for me to explain -- but
`essentially it has to do with preserving or using the smallest
`amount of memory possible.
`So he has an algorithm which basically calculates
`overdrive, calculates the difference between that and the
`target value, stores the difference and then adds the difference
`back to the current frame data to produce ODD.
`Mr. Bohannon, the expert for Patent Owner,
`essentially agrees that OSD and ODD are based on DIF, and
`he said so in paragraph 45 of Exhibit 2022, which is his
`declaration, and I have reproduced excerpts here, and
`essentially that's what he said. He said that overshoot value
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`is based on DIF and the DIF signal is used to calculate ODD
`overdriving.
`So we submit that we've made the case of these
`passages and the figure and so on, the discussion, is in the
`petition, and that the subject matter of claim 5 is clearly
`disclosed by Suzuki.
`Now, I would like to turn now to claim 7. Claim 7
`recites a further step and, that is, determining a difference
`between the first data impulse and the second data impulse
`according to the current frame data and the corresponding
`delayed frame data.
`And claim 7 is dependent on claim 6, which I've
`also reproduced here on slide 23. And in claim 6 it simply
`says -- I'll paraphrase -- that the data impulses are first and
`second data impulses and they are applied to a pixel in
`sequence within a frame period.
`So as to that, there doesn't seem to be much
`pushback that Suzuki discloses applying two data impulses in
`one sequence after the other in each frame period. So the
`argument I think really devolves to claim 7.
`And Patent Owner's position is that Suzuki does
`not disclose determining a difference between OSD and ODD
`and, further, that calculating each of those two separately
`based on DIF, which is reflected in the testimony of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`Mr. Credelle, does not disclose the terms of claim 7 as
`recited.
`
`So we basically have two issues here. One is what
`does Suzuki disclose? And the second is, is what Suzuki
`discloses within the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`claim 7?
`
`So first I would like to go into what Suzuki
`discloses, and here we are on slide 25. And I've reproduced
`here again figure 2. And in part I've already talked about
`this.
`
`Basically, just focusing on frame period FL1
`again, we have Suzuki disclosing determining outputting a
`data impulse, or voltage corresponding to a data impulse OSD,
`which exceeds the target value, and then we have ODD which
`is output in the second half of the frame period, which is
`slightly lower than the target value.
`And so what Suzuki does is basically he has a
`processing circuitry that determines, dictates, directs that
`OSD and ODD are different from each other and, moreover,
`they are different from each other in a particular way and a
`particular magnitude when one goes from one pixel to the next
`because, as we have reproduced a quote here on slide 25, OSD
`and ODD are generated so that the transmittance in a single
`frame period averages the target value.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`So to the extent OSD is up here, so the OSD is the
`6, and you want to have an average, trying to get value 4, then
`ODD would be 2. And the difference between them is
`basically dictated by his processing circuitry to achieve that
`outcome. So that they differ in a particular way so that the
`average is the target value in a frame period.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So what is it that does the
`determining the difference?
`MR. HANLEY: It is the Suzuki circuit, and I
`think we can probably go back to the other thing that has that.
`So we have basically what outputs OSD and ODD is the data
`conversion part 10, and the calculation or the generation, the
`processing that leads to that occurs in this data conversion
`part and it also draws on these memory units in frame memory
`12.
`
`And so in respect of OSD, we have basically new
`image data or current image data coming into the data
`conversion part. The prior image data at that point has been
`stored, and that is in data memory unit 12A, and we have a
`data comparison unit 30 that compares prior image data in
`12A and then new data coming into the circuit and outputs
`DIF, and DIF is an input to this first operational unit 32A, and
`that has some processing that produces the OSD value, and
`that's output from the data conversion part 10.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`DIF is also an input to a second operational unit
`32B, which will do a couple of things. It will calculate or
`determine ODD -- and this is the complicated part that's not
`that germane but I'll explain it anyway -- ODD is then
`subtracted from the target value, and that difference is stored
`in first memory unit 12B.
`And then in the meantime, as I said, the data
`originally, initially in data memory unit is the old data or
`prior frame, and that's replaced by the current frame data.
`And then the third operation unit takes the difference between
`the target value and the -- for each pixel and ODD, and it also
`takes the current frame data, and it adds back the difference to
`the current frame data to again generate ODD and that is
`output from data conversion part 10.
`And the reason for storing a difference rather than
`just storing ODD during the first subfield and readying it for
`output during the second subfield, the patent says is basically
`the same memory space, the difference values are smaller than
`the total value and, therefore, that's supposed to be
`advantageous.
`But what determines OSD and ODD and the
`difference between them is this processing that goes on in
`data conversion part 10.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: But it's not a result of -- you
`don't compare, for example, OSD with ODD to come up with
`determining a difference between those two?
`MR. HANLEY: Well, there is no calculation of a
`delta, in other words, the circuit doesn't say here is OSD and
`here is ODD and here is the delta between them, but the way
`the circuit does the processing, it processes them so if they
`had a particular difference and the difference is such that you
`achieve this outcome of having the average be the target
`value.
`
`So there is a difference. It is not an arbitrary
`difference. It is a difference that is preset or inherent in the
`processing that goes on in the data conversion part. And that
`difference manifests itself, and then the two are output, and
`that difference is a -- so they don't calculate a delta, but the
`delta is basically inherent in what the multiprocessing does to
`cause the -- to be what they are to arrive at the average, which
`is the outcome that Suzuki is seeking.
`So as to that the question then becomes, is that
`within the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7? And
`we submit that it is, that just based on the ordinary meaning
`of determine, determine doesn't mean -- it is not limited to
`calculating or doing a subtraction.
`For example, the Board is going to determine the
`patentability of claim 7. The Board is going to do something
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`to produce an outcome which is, yes, it is patentable or, no, it
`is not patentable. And likewise the circuitry that Suzuki
`describes, you know, in block form basically determines an
`outcome, determines that there is a difference between OSD
`and ODD.
`
`Patent Owner argues that you need to have a delta
`calculated. And we submit that that is not required by the
`ordinary meaning of determining a difference. That may be
`what happens in the preferred embodiment in the patent, there
`is a delta G that is determined using a DIF signal, but we
`submit the claim is not limited to that. And there is no basis
`for saying it.
`If they wanted to limit it to that kind of execution
`to produce the two different values, they could have claimed
`it more narrowly, and they did not.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: What is it, in their
`specification, what is going on with respect to this language?
`In other words, are they comparing the two data pulses?
`MR. HANLEY: They are not in fact -- in the
`preferred embodiment it doesn't, in fact, compare two data
`pulses. What it does -- and let me get this, and hopefully this
`will work.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: But just to be clear, when you
`say determining a difference, it seems like you are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`interpreting that to mean determining that there is a
`difference?
`MR. HANLEY: Well, it is not really only that. It
`is not that there is a difference of some arbitrary -- it is
`determining there is a difference of a particular magnitude
`and the circuit is designed to do that. It has an outcome. It
`wants to achieve this average.
`And so for any given pixel you are going to have
`computation of DIF and DIF is going to produce these two
`values and it is going to produce them in a way so that the
`average is the target value.
`And when the next pixel is done, that's a different
`level of DIF, potentially, and that will produce different
`values of OSD and ODD, but they will differ in a way that it
`is predictable and pursuant to the design of the circuit so that
`this average is achieved.
`So it is not just determining that they are
`different. It is determining they are different in a particular
`way and a particular magnitude to achieve a particular
`outcome.
`
`As with respect to what Suzuki describes, okay, so
`I'm in column 5, showing column 5, and the discussion begins
`at line 35.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: You are in the patent?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`MR. HANLEY: I'm in the Shen patent. I
`understood Your Honor asked me --
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. You said Suzuki, but
`that's okay.
`MR. HANLEY: I'm so sorry. This is Exhibit
`1001. This is the '843 patent. So what it describes basically,
`if you look at line 35, or line 36, it says: The difference delta
`G is determined according to the difference DIFF, D-I-F-F,
`between the original pixel data Gm and Gm+1.
`So the '843's DIFF -- DIFF is basically the same as
`Suzuki's DIF -- and so it goes on and says: For instance,
`when the difference DIFF is less than a specific value, the
`comparing circuit 72 -- and this is the circuit shown in figure
`8 of the patent -- determines the difference delta G as zero,
`that is equating the two pulses, and if it is higher then the
`DIFF will be -- delta G will be another value.
`So essentially what I understand is going on, you
`have a comparison circuit, it might be something like a lookup
`table, where D-I-F-F is input and then there is a selection of
`some delta G.
`And Suzuki -- excuse me, the patent doesn't go on
`to explain how delta G is used to set the values of the two
`pulses, but presumably that's what happens, otherwise it
`wouldn't make any sense. So there is a delta G that is output
`and then the two values are set.
`
` 21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`So the patent is an example -- is not an example,
`just to clear one thing up, it's not an example of taking one
`value and taking the other and subtracting them. It is
`basically DIFF is used to determine somehow a delta G. That
`delta G is then used to set the two values.
`Now, that is different in some respects from what
`Suzuki discloses, but I submit that the claim embraces both of
`them in each case as determining a difference. And the
`difference, Shen doesn't really describe it, what his game plan
`is for the magnitude of the difference, other than to say that
`delta G is modulated to drive the LCD panel 30 properly. He
`just says you get a good result, basically.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. I know I've asked a lot
`of questions, but if you would still like to reserve five
`minutes, you should rest.
`MR. HANLEY: Yes, I would like to reserve five
`minutes. What I do want to note is that we will rely on the
`submissions relative to the disclosure of the limitations of
`claim 4 by the combination of Suzuki and Nitta.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`Mr. Helge, when you are ready, you have 30
`
`minutes.
`
`MR. HELGE: Thank you, Your Honor. Your
`Honor, I will begin with the ELMO.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`May it please the Board. My name is Wayne
`Helge, again, for Patent Owner Surpass Tech Innovation.
`And, Your Honor, I will begin with the ELMO because I
`believe you have keyed into a key feature dealing with what is
`happening in Suzuki. And I think perhaps if I were to go into
`a little more detail on how Suzuki operates, it may clarify
`some of these issues.
`I think for the most part Mr. Hanley and I agree
`how Suzuki operates. But I think where we disagree is the
`conclusion ultimately that Suzuki discloses determining a
`difference between a first data impulse and a second data
`impulse.
`
`Here on Suzuki, and I will use this, again, Your
`Honor, Mr. Hanley just went through it, there is one key point
`here that I think we haven't really talked about and we should,
`or at least we haven't talked about it in the detail that may be
`helpful.
`
`As Mr. Hanley mentioned, we do have image data
`coming in. We have a data comparison unit 30 here that is
`going to be taking also image data from the frame memory, in
`other words, from a previous frame and the current frame,
`comparing them and outputting this value DIF, D- I-F, as
`Mr. Hanley explained.
`The first operational unit is going to use that DIF
`value to then output OSD. Now, to be clear, as the Suzuki
`
` 23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`patent discusses the determination of this OSD value, it does
`not disclose, for example, in paragraphs 42- 43, it does not
`disclose any particular change relative to the target value. It
`simply outputs the OSD value.
`We then take DIF, and DIF is an input into the
`second operational unit. Now, Suzuki in paragraphs 43 and 44
`is clear that what is happening in the second operational unit
`is we're really coming down to the difference, as Mr. Hanley
`said, between the target value and the ODD value that is going
`to be used. And then as that value, which is no longer DIF, it
`is no longer D- I-F coming from the second operational unit
`down to the first memory unit, what is stored in the first
`memory unit is this modified change, this modified value,
`which is then brought over to the third operational unit.
`The third operational unit is simply a summing
`operation. It's taking pixel data and adding this modified
`value here. And this modified value represents, again, a
`difference between the target value and the ODD in one
`subframe. And I will show another figure in just a moment
`here. And then that is coming out.
`And as Your Honor, Judge Medley, noted, there is
`no comparison. ODD is not being determined as a delta or a
`change relative to OSD. These are simply, you can see here,
`OSD is coming down from the first operational unit to the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00863
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`timing
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
