throbber
trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-00885, Paper No. 28
`June 8, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`vs.
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-00885
`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 12:00 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:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMANDA K. STREFF, ESQ.
`
`Mayer Brown LLP
`
`
`71 South Wacker Drive
`
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`
`312-782-0600
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAM J. BARROW, ESQ.
`Mayer Brown LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`202-263-3154
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(12:00 p.m.)
`JUDGE MEDLEY: On the record. This is the
`hearing for IPR2015- 00885 between Petitioner, LG Display,
`and Patent Owner, Surpass Tech Innovation, involving claims
`4, 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent 7,202,843.
`Per the April 27th order each party will have 30
`minutes of total time to present arguments. Petitioner, you
`will present first with respect to your case, the challenged
`claims and grounds and, thereafter, Patent Owner will give a
`response and, Petitioner, you can reserve rebuttal time.
`Before we get started -- and we may not have a
`hearing here today -- I would like to ask counsel for both
`parties a few questions.
`As the parties are aware, on February 26, 2016 in
`IPR2015- 00021, the same claims at issue in this proceeding
`were held to be unpatentable in the 00021 proceeding.
`Patent Owner indicated on May 5, after we had
`already scheduled this hearing, that the time to file an appeal
`of our decision in the 00021 proceeding had expired.
`So the Panel is wondering where that leaves us
`with respect to this proceeding. So I will direct that to you,
`first, Patent Owner.
`MR. BARROW: Actually I'm Petitioner.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Oh, you're Petitioner.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`MR. BARROW: Yes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. I'm
`sorry I didn't see that. Usually you are switched the other
`way. And if you could introduce yourself, too, for the record.
`MR. BARROW: Sure. Bill Barrow from Mayer
`Brown on behalf of LG Display. And with me is Amanda
`Streff, also from Mayer Brown.
`Your Honor, so as you may recall, there was a call
`between the parties on April 5th regarding Patent Owner's
`request to file a motion to terminate in view of the Sharp
`Proceeding and during that call Your Honor mentioned that the
`proper procedural mechanism for disposing of this case would
`be to file a request for adverse judgment.
`And after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal
`passed, frankly, that's what we expected Patent Owner to do.
`We actually reached out to Patent Owner and asked them if
`they would be filing that request. They stated that they would
`not be, but that instead they would be filing updated
`mandatory notices.
`We waited to see what they included in those
`notices, and it merely stated that the deadline had passed.
`Our position at this point is that the proper
`procedural mechanism is to file the request for adverse
`judgment. Frankly, we don't understand why they have not
`filed that request, and seeing as how this hearing is still on the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`schedule we are here to present our substantive arguments for
`why the claims are unpatentable and to see if the Board has
`any questions about our substantive case.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. Patent
`Owner, if you could also introduce yourself and answer that
`question that I posed earlier.
`MR. HELGE: Absolutely, Your Honor. Good
`afternoon. Wayne Helge for Patent Owner, Surpass Tech
`Innovation.
`Your Honor, as you correctly noted, we did file the
`updated mandatory notices. Claims 4, 8 and 9 have effectively
`been rendered unpatentable and property rights extinguished as
`to those claims.
`Our point of view is that there is no case or
`controversy. I recognize that Petitioner is seeking a request
`for adverse judgment. Patent Owner does not intend to request
`adverse judgment. We simply believe that there are no
`property rights to adjudicate any more. There is simply no
`case or controversy.
`So, frankly, Your Honor, I have no presentation
`today. I would simply like to reserve obviously the right to
`address, as we mentioned on the phone call back in April, the
`claims that have not been adjudicated in the next hearing, on
`the 863 case, Your Honor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So you won't present
`arguments today?
`MR. HELGE: I do not have any arguments, no,
`Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. All right. So you are
`not going to do anything else then in that 21 proceeding?
`MR. HELGE: No, Your Honor. That case is
`concluded.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So I think what we are
`going to do, in due course, within the next day or so, we're
`going to issue an order to show cause, for Patent Owner to
`show cause why we should not enter judgment in this case
`without a final written decision.
`In other words, it would be just a short order
`entering judgment against Patent Owner with respect to claims
`4, 8 and 9 based on the finality of the same patent claims in
`that related 21 case.
`So having said that, we will give you 10 days from
`that order to respond. You can either not respond, which we
`would construe as you are giving up, or if you do show, you
`know, we will weigh that and figure out what to do from there.
`MR. HELGE: Understood, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So given that, Petitioner, do
`you still wish to present today?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`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 IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`MR. BARROW: Yes, Your Honor. We would like
`the opportunity to present if the Board will allow it. We are
`prepared to do so.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. You have 30 minutes
`and obviously you don't have rebuttal time because they are
`not going to present. So you may proceed.
`MR. BARROW: Thank you, Your Honor. So this
`Board instituted review of claims 4, 8 and 9 as anticipated in
`view of the Lee reference. Claim 4 is the independent claim
`that has several limitations but really only the last two
`limitations are at issue here.
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Lee discloses
`the remaining limitations. Similarly, they have not disputed
`that the additional limitations recited in claims 8 and 9 are
`covered by the Lee reference.
`So I'm going to jump right ahead to slide 23, which
`recites the -- which shows the generating step. If I may just
`provide a brief overview of what Lee discloses, it is basically
`directed to the same goal as the '843 patent.
`The '843 patent discloses that the response time of
`the pixel, known as the time it takes a pixel to respond to an
`applied voltage to twist in order to allow the requested amount
`of light to actually pass through that pixel in order to achieve
`a certain gray level, that that affects the quality of an image.
`The '843 patent explains that blurring may occur as a result.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`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 IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`Lee essentially discloses the same thing. It talks
`about dragging occurring in the event that the voltage signal
`does not reach the target value within a certain time period.
`So what Lee proposes is applying a high voltage signal, a high
`data impulse in order to drive the pixel harder.
`And so as shown here in figure 12 in the first
`subframe, N+, that impulse is applied, but it is a high signal so
`we actually end up overshooting the target value which is
`designated by this horizontal line here. And so because we
`have overshot the target value, we have to drive that voltage
`back down. We have to pull it back.
`And the way we do that is we apply another
`voltage, another signal. And the Lee reference refers to this
`as rollback. So we roll the voltage back down. And this
`occurs in the second subframe.
`And this disclosure essentially reads on the next
`step as well. Additionally I will point out Lee also discloses
`that these voltages are actually applied to the data line which
`is necessary in order to actually obtain the image.
`I will point out that Patent Owner in this
`proceeding has argued that the phrase "to control a
`transmission rate" requires overdriven data in both subframes,
`and I understand that in the Sharp proceeding this Board
`determined that that interpretation was incorrect. But
`regardless --
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Can I ask you a question real
`
`quickly?
`
`MR. BARROW: Yes.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Did they present any arguments
`in this case that were different from those that were presented
`in the Sharp case?
`MR. BARROW: With respect to this claim
`construction issue?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Claim interpretation.
`MR. BARROW: I don't believe so, Your Honor. I
`believe on that issue of claim construction this Board's ruling
`is controlling here.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`MR. BARROW: That said, Lee anticipates -- it
`anticipates claim 4 under both interpretations of the applying
`step.
`
`And the reason for that is, if we jump ahead,
`looking at slide 29, the specification provides a very clear
`definition of overdriving. It states that overdriving means
`applying a higher or a lower data impulse to the pixel
`electrode to accelerate the reaction speed of the liquid crystal
`molecules.
`So the signal can be high or low. So this is the --
`this shows a comparison of figure 6 of the '843 patent and
`Lee's figure 12, and they are nearly identical. The only
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`difference is that in the second subframe in Lee we have a
`lower signal, and in figure 6 we have a higher signal.
`But according to the specification's definition of
`overdriving, what is going on in both of the second subframes
`is overdriving. So regardless of the interpretation Lee
`anticipates. And I think it is abundantly clear that in each of
`these instances at the very least we have two signals applied.
`It is very clear from the figures, Your Honor.
`If I may briefly address a few of Patent Owner's
`arguments. As a preliminary matter, Patent Owner has
`essentially mischaracterized our argument. They contend that
`Lee cannot anticipate claim 4 because it does not disclose
`overshooting in the second subframe.
`Now, first, that presupposes that overdriving and
`overshooting are the same thing, which we have never
`contended. This is very clear from our petition, our reply,
`evidence submitted through our expert. The relationship
`between overdrive and overshooting is that you have the
`overdriven pulse, so you apply the voltage, and that results in
`overshooting. So that's the relationship. One causes the
`other. They are not equal to one another.
`And then in the second subframe we apply a second
`negative voltage in this instance to achieve the rollback. And
`both experts agree this is how -- this is what is happening in
`Lee.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`
`Dr. Zech explained in his deposition -- this is from
`our reply at the bottom left of slide 31 -- he stated: So you
`need to apply a negative voltage to bring that back down and
`that's what he means by rolling back.
`Similarly, Mr. Bohannon stated in his declaration,
`when discussing Lee, he said: A signal is applied that returns
`the pixel transmission rate to the target value.
`So he agrees that a second signal is necessary.
`And that's the signal that pushes the voltage back down.
`And I will also point out, because there has been a
`little bit of debate about what transmission rate means and
`transmission and all of that, in that statement Mr. Bohannon
`equates transmission and transmission rate. He is discussing
`transmission rate in the context of Lee, which refers to the
`amount of light that is passing through the pixel.
`Patent Owner also argues that -- and I'm not sure I
`quite understand this argument -- but they argue that Lee
`doesn't depict application of specific voltages.
`As a preliminary matter, Lee employs the same
`method of describing, explaining and showing what is going
`on and what is happening to the pixel as the '843 patent. They
`use the exact same terminology and figures. They plot
`transmission versus frame. And there is a direct correlation
`between transmission and voltage. And so the implication in
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843 B2
`
`both figures is that two data impulses have been applied in
`each of these instances.
`So, in summary, regardless of the interpretation of
`the applying step of claim 4, Lee anticipates claims 4, 8 and 9
`of the '843 patent.
`If the Panel has any questions I would be happy to
`answer them.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. BARROW: Thank you, Your Honor.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: All right. We are adjourned.
`We will start the second hearing at 1 o'clock because that's
`what we told the public. So we won't start early. Thank you.
`(Whereupon at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was
`adjourned.)
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`
`
`12

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket