trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-00887, 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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`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 2:00 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
`
`IPR2015-00887, 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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`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 2:00 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:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAY I. ALEXANDER, ESQ.
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4956
`202-662-5622
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WALTER E. HANLEY, JR., ESQ.
`
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`
`
`One Broadway
`
`
`New York, New York 10004-1007
`
`
`212-425-7200
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WAYNE HELGE, ESQ.
`JAMES WILSON, 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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(2:00 p.m.)
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon. This is the
`hearing for IPR2015- 00887 between Petitioner, Sony
`Corporation and Samsung Electronics and Samsung Display
`Corporation, versus Patent Owner, Surpass Tech Innovation,
`involving claims 1 through 5 of U.S. Patent 7,420,550.
`Per our April 27th order, each party will have 30
`minutes of total time to present arguments. Petitioner, you
`will proceed first to present your case with respect to the
`challenged claims and grounds for which the Board instituted
`trial.
`
`Thereafter, Patent Owner, you will respond to
`Petitioner's presentation. And, Petitioner, you may then
`reserve rebuttal time if you wish.
`At this time we would like the parties to please
`introduce themselves, beginning with Petitioner.
`MR. ALEXANDER: Your Honor, Jay Alexander
`on behalf of Petitioner.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And you have with you?
`MR. ALEXANDER: I'm sorry?
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And you have with you?
`MR. ALEXANDER: Oh, I'm sorry. My colleague,
`Paul Wilson, who is not of record in the case.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Oh, okay. All right.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`
`MR. ALEXANDER: And I will be conducting the
`argument. Also, Mr. Walter Hanley is backup counsel for this
`one.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: All right. Thank you. And
`then, Mr. Helge, just for the record if you will.
`MR. HELGE: Absolutely, Your Honor. Wayne
`Helge for the Patent Owner, Surpass Tech Innovation. With
`me is my colleague, James Wilson.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you. And,
`Petitioner, you may begin. Would you like to reserve rebuttal
`time?
`
`MR. ALEXANDER: Yes, Your Honor. I would
`like to reserve 10 minutes, please.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. And we're going by this
`clock back here, so you may begin.
`MR. ALEXANDER: Okay. Thank you. Your
`Honor, this case is reduced basically to a single issue, and that
`is whether the Janssen '708 reference discloses an active
`matrix LCD that uses Thin Film Transistors, TFTs.
`The Patent Owner has not made any argument that
`the prior art is lacking any claimed element or that there is a
`failure of the motivation to combine separate and apart from
`this single issue. So this is the issue that I'm going to address.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`
`We believe that the evidence is one-sided, that the
`Janssen '708, indeed, is an active matrix LCD that has TFTs,
`and we believe this for a number of reasons.
`First, Petitioner's expert, Dr. Liu, has offered an
`opinion that that person of ordinary skill in the art would
`interpret Janssen '708 to be an AMLCD with TFTs. The Patent
`Owner has offered no contrary expert opinion or evidence for
`that matter on the other side of that.
`Third, you know, although there is no standard
`symbol for a liquid crystal pixel element, there is evidence in
`the record that they often represent LCD pixels as resistors
`and capacitors in parallel, which is exactly what Janssen '708
`represents.
`Also, the Patent Owner's alternative explanations
`for what Janssen '708 could be are simply implausible. Not
`only are they based on attorney argument without any expert
`support, they are simply implausible. And I will go ahead and
`discuss that.
`And, finally, we also have evidence that Patent
`Examiners on both sides of the Atlantic when they examined
`the counterpart to this application cited LCD art. So they
`understood that Janssen '708 was directed to active matrix
`LCD's.
`
`So on the first point, you know, Dr. Liu who was
`our expert, she put in the petition in support of -- a declaration
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`in support of the petition, Exhibit 1013. She is unquestionably
`qualified. She is an electrical engineering professor at the
`University of California at Berkeley with 25 years of
`experience. And she offered the opinion that to a person of
`skill in the art the only plausible explanation or interpretation
`of Janssen '708 is as a video display, having a matrix of pixels
`as disclosed, would be as an AMLCD using TFTs.
`And as I have shown on our demonstrative slide 2
`here, which is Exhibit 1032, Dr. Liu also cited two other
`references which are unquestionably AMLCDs, the Lewis
`reference, Exhibit 1008, and the Ruckmongathan exhibit,
`Exhibit 1011, and she pointed out that these LCDs, as the
`Board can see, these LCDs have very similar structure.
`And in particular the Board should note that the
`source of the current for the LCD pixels in all of these
`references is a single transistor. Also note the presence of a
`capacitor which is associated with the LCD pixel in Lewis and
`Ruckmongathan. The Board when it instituted the decision
`acknowledged this evidence at page 10 of its decision.
`So now once the proceeding was instituted, Patent
`Owner had an opportunity to put in some contrary evidence.
`They certainly have an expert, Mr. Bohannon. The Board has
`heard about Mr. Bohannon in the prior two cases.
`Mr. Bohannon showed up at the deposition of Dr.
`Liu in this case. He also offered a declaration as supplemental
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`evidence in support of one of their exhibits in this case. The
`reason it is not of record is that we did not move to exclude
`that particular exhibit. But Mr. Bohannon was certainly
`available to Patent Owner to offer a contrary opinion. He did
`not. We think that speaks volumes, the fact that they could
`not get their expert to offer an opinion that Janssen '708 is not
`an AMLCD.
`So what Patent Owner is left with is their
`unsupported attorney argument which suggests that, well,
`maybe Janssen '708 could be something else, like an
`incandescent -- a bank of incandescent light bulbs, for
`example, or a gas discharge lamp. None of those explanations
`are plausible.
`In our reply, Dr. Liu addressed the Patent Owner's
`attorney argument that Janssen '708 was not an AMLCD. And
`she pointed out -- and now I'm on slide 3 of our
`demonstratives -- that the common characteristic of an
`AMLCD pixel circuitry is a thin film transistor which provides
`a low current, and how that is different from an incandescent
`type of a device which requires much higher current that
`cannot be driven by a single transistor.
`And Dr. Liu pointed out that in both the '550
`patent at issue here as well as two of the other pieces of prior
`art, Horii, Exhibit 1007, and Kubota, Exhibit 1005, both of
`those as can be seen, you know, have this single transistor
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`structure as the source of the current for the liquid crystal
`pixel.
`
`In addition -- now on slide 4 -- Dr. Liu pointed out
`that it is common in this art to represent an LCD pixel as a
`resistor and a capacitor in parallel. We see that on the top left
`of this slide. And you see the depiction in Janssen '708 itself.
`On the top right is a figure from the Kozaki
`reference, Exhibit 1022, which is unquestionably a liquid
`crystal display device, that's the title of the patent, and that
`shows, like Janssen '708, a resistor and capacitor in parallel to
`represent the liquid crystal pixel.
`Similarly, on the lower left, the Johnson reference,
`Exhibit 1023, whose title is LCD, also represents the liquid
`crystal pixel as a resistor and capacitor in parallel, as does
`Moriyama, Exhibit 1024.
`So all of these bolster the evidence that is already
`in the record that the most plausible explanation of Janssen
`'708 is an active matrix LCD.
`Patent Owner attempts to argue, well, maybe a
`POSA would interpret Janssen '708 as something else. And in
`particular they have offered evidence -- and now we're on slide
`5 -- of a number of incandescent light bulb displays. And I
`should point out that their position has evolved over time.
`In the IPR2015- 0022 case, Patent Owner
`speculated that Janssen '708 might be an x- ray flat panel
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`detector for an electrophoretic display. They don't make that
`allegation here. And that was addressed by Dr. Liu in her
`declaration accompanying the petition.
`Now they have three more choices, actually, but it
`seems like the main one is as an incandescent bulb. The
`problem with that is that the circuitry that sources the current
`for all of these types of devices is very, very different from
`the single transistor that you see that is characteristic of the
`AMLCD devices.
`For example, in Pooley, Exhibit 2010, they use
`rectifier diodes to drive the bulbs on and off. And one thing
`to note about Pooley in particular is that the symbol -- it is
`difficult to see in the demonstrative -- but on figure 2 of
`Exhibit 2010 the Board will see the symbol for the
`incandescent light bulb is actually the accepted symbol in the
`art, which is the squiggly line inside the circle. It is not the
`same symbol, not the resistor that appears in Janssen '708.
`On the right side is the Madsen reference, Exhibit
`2011, which drives the incandescent bulbs with optoisolators
`and triacs, a very complicated structure which is shown in
`detail in figure 5 and denoted as number 200 in the drawings.
`And, again, it is hard to see on the demonstrative
`but on figure 6 in Madsen the Board will observe that each of
`those liquid -- each of those light bulb- driven cells has an
`element 200 as part of the driving circuitry of the cell. So,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`again, a very, very different type of circuitry than
`characteristic of an AMLCD.
`And likewise with the Odlen Exhibit 2012 that
`Patent Owner cites, it appears to have a series of circuit cards,
`one for each row and column of the matrix, that is
`dramatically different than the AMLCD references.
`Moving on to slide 6 of the demonstratives, Patent
`Owner also seems to suggest that there are two other potential
`explanations for Janssen '708, one of which is as a gas
`discharge lamp. And they cite the two Nuckolls' references,
`Exhibits 2015 and 2016.
`Those references are directed to high pressure
`sodium gas discharge lamps. Again, the Board will observe
`they have extremely different circuitry that is source to
`current for the lighting element in that particular -- in those
`devices. And Dr. Liu explains all of this in her reply
`declaration at paragraphs 22 to 30.
`Finally, Patent Owner speculates that the symbol
`and used in Janssen could be a photoresistor, could be a bank
`of photoresistors used to detect light somehow. But we know
`that Janssen '708 itself is certainly a video display. It says
`that much.
`And, again, the circuitry the Board will observe is
`very, very different than both Janssen '708 and the AMLCD
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`references. And none of these alternative explanations of
`Janssen '708 are plausible.
`We also have the additional set of facts that when
`Patent Examiners looked at these applications, both in the U.S.
`and in Europe, they cited AMLCD art. And demonstrative
`slide 7 just demonstrates the fact that the priority application
`for the '708 PCT is the same as what led to the Janssen '921
`U.S. patent.
`And then on slide 8 I've cited two other references
`that were cited in the U.S. '921 application, Noguchi, Exhibit
`1026, and Ino, Exhibit 1027. Both of those are active matrix
`LCD devices as those references state on their face.
`And, again, the Board should note the single
`transistor structure that provides the source of the current for
`the LCD pixels in both of these devices.
`Likewise, in Europe there was an International
`Search Report done and I put up on demonstrative slide 9
`excerpts of the three references that were identified in that
`search. And in each case they are liquid crystal displays.
`Ikeda, Exhibit 1030, on the lower left; Robinder,
`Exhibit 1029, on the upper right; and the Hosiden Yasui
`reference, Exhibit 1031, on the lower right, all identify
`themselves as liquid crystal devices.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`
`So the Examiners, presumably familiar with the
`art, came to the same conclusion that Dr. Liu did, and, that is,
`Janssen '708 is directed to AMLCD technology.
`And then, finally, I would just like to address a
`couple more exhibits that Patent Owner has put forward,
`Exhibits 2023 and 2024 on slide 10.
`Exhibit 2023 is the Modern Dictionary of
`Electronics, and the Board should note that on page 5 that
`dictionary shows what I referenced earlier, which is the
`standard accepted symbol for a filament lamp, which is the
`squiggly in the circle, and not a resistor symbol in a circle.
`This dictionary at page 6 does have resistor
`symbols inside circles, and in each case identifies them as
`certain types of resistors. And as Dr. Liu explained, it is
`common, and showed with other references, it is common to
`model LCD pixels as resistors and capacitors in parallel.
`Finally, Exhibit 2024 cited by Patent Owner, which
`appears at the bottom of the slide, this is an excerpt from a
`web page which we have moved to exclude. We don't think
`that there has been proper authentication of it. It is also
`hearsay.
`
`But to the extent the Board admits it and considers
`it, we would like the Board to note that, you know, the resistor
`symbol that appears in this particular reference, because it's
`not -- because there is no standard use of this resistor in a
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`circle symbol, you know, this particular author had to identify
`what he was talking about when he used this symbol. And he
`said in this case I'm going to use this as a light bulb modeled
`in the circuit as a resistor.
`So, you know, this is a particular instance where
`the author had to specifically identify this as, you know, as
`somebody of skill in the art wouldn't understand what it was in
`this context outside of this particular document.
`But the fact that this particular author uses this
`symbol as a light bulb doesn't mean that that symbol is a light
`bulb in Janssen '708 because it is exactly the context of the
`circuitry that the Board has to consider in interpreting that
`structure and, as I've said, the evidence is completely
`one-sided that the person of skill in the art in Janssen '708
`reads the structure as an LCD.
`So if the Board doesn't have any questions, I will
`reserve the rest of my time.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. HELGE: May it please the Board. Good
`afternoon, Your Honors. Wayne Helge again for Surpass Tech
`Innovation, the Patent Owner.
`Your Honors, Patent Owner has taken a bit of a
`beating for not providing expert testimony in support of its
`response in this case. But this case is the textbook example
`where Patent Owner's technical declarant is not necessary. All
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`of the technical testimony that you need to decide this case in
`favor of Patent Owner has been provided by Dr. Liu,
`Petitioner's technical declarant.
`Dr. Liu stated in her declaration with the filing of
`the petition that she concluded the Janssen '708 is an active
`matrix LCD based upon just two factors -- not the driving
`circuitry -- two factors: One is that it is a matrix structure.
`Two is that it is suitable for displaying moving images.
`During deposition we presented three references to
`Dr. Liu, three lamp- based displays that used matrix format and
`displayed moving images. Dr. Liu agreed that that was the
`case, that we had provided that evidence to her.
`What she didn't do and what she wasn't prepared to
`do was discuss the clues that exist in Janssen '708 that reveal
`that, in fact, Janssen '708 is not about active matrix LCD at
`all.
`
`When asked about the assignee of Janssen '708,
`Philips, Dr. Liu's response was: Well, I know they make light
`bulbs.
`
`When asked if she knows whether lamp displays at
`the critical time period used DACs, or Digital to Analog
`Converters, Dr. Liu said she didn't know.
`When I asked her at the very beginning of her
`deposition to draw the symbol that Janssen uses as a pixel -- it
`is labeled both as 46 and 100 throughout the Janssen '708
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`reference -- Dr. Liu drew the symbol for me but couldn't
`identify it.
`She said this was the first time she had ever drawn
`that symbol. She said before she saw Janssen '708 she hadn't
`used that symbol. Now, in fact, Your Honors, there is a saying
`that when the only tool you hold is a hammer, everything
`looks like a nail. That's exactly what happened here. Dr.
`Liu's experience was the hammer. Janssen '708 was the nail.
`We revealed to her fairly clearly that the two
`factors that she identified identifying Janssen '708 as active
`matrix LCD did not stand up to scrutiny. It wasn't true that
`Janssen '708 had to disclose active matrix LCD. There were
`other possibilities.
`The problem is Dr. Liu didn't investigate those
`possibilities. Despite having never seen Janssen '708's pixel
`symbol, she provided a declaration without investigating that
`symbol.
`
`Now, one would think after being faced with this
`information Dr. Liu would come back with the reply
`declaration that explained, in fact, what that symbol meant.
`But she didn't. She came back with references that were
`clearly identified as LCD, where the resistors, for example,
`that were used to represent LC material were clearly identified
`as LC references. This is Petitioner's slide 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
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`
`Now, I will note that this is easily distinguishable.
`The Janssen symbol for a pixel here, 46, does not appear in
`any of these other three references. In every instance where
`there is a resistor used to model LC material, the resistor is
`labeled as such.
`In her second deposition, Dr. Liu agreed that none
`of these references show the same symbol that Janssen '708
`uses for its pixel.
`Another clue that Dr. Liu failed to note was that
`only about three months different from the filing of Janssen
`'708 there was another Janssen application filed in the U.S.,
`and this is referred to as the Janssen '190 publication, and I
`will pull this up on the board for Your Honors.
`This Janssen '190 reference was filed with named
`inventors Janssen and Albu, the same inventors of the Janssen
`'708 reference. Both references were assigned to Philips.
`Dr. Liu admitted during deposition that it was
`likely that both of these references or both of these invention
`disclosures went through the same type of review process
`within Philips before being filed as an application.
`And yet the Janssen '190 reference includes an
`entirely different pixel structure, as you can see down in the
`bottom right, for each LC pixel. The title itself is entitled:
`Device and Method for Addressing LCD Pixels.
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`
`You see nowhere in this indication does Janssen,
`Albu or Philips use a resistor symbol to model the LC
`material.
`
`And this was filed in the U.S. on June 8th 2001,
`only three months after the '708 application, which is a WIPO
`application, but the corresponding U.S. application was filed
`on March 20.
`JUDGE SHAW: So it's your position that these
`inventors were working on two different patents, one related to
`lamps and one related to active LCD, active matrix LCD, and
`they held two separate applications related to completely
`different subject matter?
`MR. HELGE: Absolutely, Your Honor. This is
`simply -- it is describing the subject matter entirely
`differently. Again, Philips, as Dr. Liu admitted, is a company
`that makes light bulbs. They were speaking to different
`audiences with these references. They chose different symbols
`to indicate the pixels.
`They simply, in the '708 publication, make no
`mention of LCD. Clearly they were aware of LCD technology
`and familiar with it, but they were speaking to a different
`audience.
`
`JUDGE SHAW: You do mention the video
`displays in the Janssen reference at issue here.
`MR. HELGE: Absolutely, Your Honor, yes.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`
`JUDGE SHAW: And what is your response to
`
`that?
`
`MR. HELGE: Your Honor, as we showed to Dr.
`Liu, and as we submitted Exhibits 2010, 2011 and 2012, these
`were all lamp displays that were used for video, for animation,
`for moving images. In that time period, for example, sports
`stadiums or buildings in big cities, they have these huge
`displays that have lamps.
`Now, I think we need to get to -- I would like to
`drill down quickly just to the importance of all of this -- and
`this relates to your question, Your Honor -- what is the
`transistor being used in Janssen '708?
`Dr. Liu bases her sole -- her sole factor for basing
`her decision that this could be a TFT is that she believes it
`discloses active matrix LCD. In other words, paragraph 41 in
`her opinion about matrix format and moving images is the
`foundation for this entire obviousness analysis and this
`conclusion about TFTs.
`If that technology of the '708 is not what she says,
`Petitioner's case crumbles. There is no basis to conclude that
`TFTs can be used to drive light displays and, in fact, once
`again confirming that Patent Owner didn't need to provide
`expert testimony.
`Dr. Liu confirms in her reply declaration, and
`Petitioners confirm in their reply, you couldn't drive enough
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`current to drive a lamp display with a TFT. It wasn't suitable.
`It wasn't a suitable choice. There is nothing in Janssen '708
`that says we are talking about thin film deposition, for
`example.
`
`The only way you get there is because Dr. Liu
`made an erroneous conclusion about what is being disclosed in
`Janssen '708, an incomplete conclusion based on incomplete
`evidence.
`
`She has given you enough to know there are other
`options, there are other reasons, that Janssen '708 is disclosing
`something other than active matrix LCD. And that compels a
`different conclusion about whether there are TFTs being used
`as the transistors in Janssen '708.
`JUDGE SHAW: What about the prosecution
`history of the underlying applications?
`MR. HELGE: Yes, Your Honor. So the important
`part there -- I think there are two things that we need to
`mention briefly.
`One is that in the Janssen '921 patent there were
`three references cited by the Examiner, Noguchi, Ino and
`Matsushida. Petitioners have come forward with evidence of
`two of those and use that as an argument to say clearly the
`Examiner thought these were directed to LCDs as well.
`The record is barren about the contents of the third
`reference. In fact, during deposition I asked Dr. Liu if she
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`looked at it? She admitted she hadn't. So it is not conclusive
`as to what is being disclosed.
`And what's more, I would say that if we look at the
`claims -- and this is Exhibit 1025, this is the corresponding
`U.S. application of the Janssen '708 -- when you look at the
`claims they don't disclose LCD.
`The Examiners were looking -- they were
`examining the claims. They were examining a column driving
`circuit for driving pixels in a column row matrix. They
`weren't disclosing LCD.
`If an Examiner happened to go to LCD, and maybe
`because that's what the Examiner was familiar with, Dr. Liu
`herself admitted that she hadn't seen the Janssen '708 pixel
`symbol before getting involved in this case. We don't know
`what was in the mind of the Examiner.
`The Examiner may have been equally unfamiliar
`about the meaning of that pixel and may have gone to what
`was familiar, just as Dr. Liu did. We don't know.
`What we know is that Petitioners have the burden
`of proving that claims 1 through 5 are unpatentable in this
`case, of the '550 patent issued to Shen. They have come
`forward with incomplete expert testimony that has been
`discredited. The bases on which Dr. Liu concluded the
`Janssen '708 is active matrix have been unfounded. They have
`been shown to be incomplete and she simply failed to consider
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`other possible technologies, in which case Petitioner cannot
`carry the burden.
`And I will note in Petitioner's reply, they did not
`come back to the tool shed. They didn't come back to the tool
`shed and to say we've been using a hammer all of the time and
`maybe that's not a nail. They kept on the course that they
`were already on.
`They didn't come back and say, no, Janssen is
`clearly disclosing active matrix LCD, because this symbol
`represents active matrix LCD. That symbol, the circle and the
`resistor, doesn't appear in the references they produced in
`their reply.
`And, in fact, Dr. Liu told me that she didn't
`specifically look for those types of references. She wasn't
`trying to go back and explain what is in Janssen '708. She was
`trying to convince the Board that she was on the right track all
`along, even though she had been proven to have made
`incomplete investigation earlier on.
`In Petitioner's reply -- I will refer you simply to
`pages 18, 19 and 20 -- there is a discussion of Exhibit 2010,
`2011 and 2012. And I will put these back on the ELMO, Your
`Honor.
`
`The specific lines I would like to draw attention to,
`this is on page 18 of Petitioner's reply. This is discussing
`Exhibit 2010. The lines I would like to direct you to are right
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`here, it looks like about line 12, well, near the end of the
`page.
`
`They say the '278 patent, which is Exhibit 2010,
`does not disclose using thin film transistors to switch the
`filament light bulbs, and the matrix within a matrix
`architecture of the lamp display is not characteristic of an
`AMLCD device and is not similar to Janssen.
`What they are telling you is that -- and I will
`represent to you that they used similar language dealing with
`Exhibit 2011 and 2012 -- what they are telling you with this
`evidence or with this argument here is that the matrix style
`lamp displays used for moving video are not characteristic of
`AMLCD.
`
`But that's not the question. The question is
`whether Janssen '708 discloses a lamp display. And their use
`of resistors that are specifically labeled as RLC is not
`dispositive and is not indicative of what is being disclosed
`with Janssen's lamp symbol.
`One other point, Your Honor, is on page 50 of our
`demonstratives. In a second deposition I asked Dr. Liu: Are
`there any references in the record here that use Janssen's pixel
`symbol, any references? Basically because she had not gone
`out to find those symbols. She hadn't been specifically
`looking for those symbols. And her response was Exhibit
`2024, the exhibit that Mr. Alexander put up in the last slide.
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`And as she noted there, that circle had a resistor that was used
`to model a light bulb.
`Now, there simply isn't evidence on record to
`support any other construction or any other interpretation of
`what is in Janssen '708. Janssen specifically did not mention
`LCD. Janssen did not disclose LCD. And this is in direct
`contrast to what is disclosed in Janssen '190.
`On those bases the Petitioners have simply not
`provided evidence that can support their claims, one, that
`Janssen '708 is AMLCD and, two, that a thin film transistor
`would be used to drive that particular circuitry.
`Unless Your Honors have any questions, I will pass
`the microphone back to my colleague.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. ALEXANDER: Your Honors, Dr. Liu's
`opinion in the opening declaration was a POSA would
`conclude that video displays utilizing column row matrix of
`pixels as disclosed in Janssen '708 are AMLCD displays.
`There has been no evidence to contradict that and you didn't
`hear any today.
`He heard about the resistor symbol and the circles,
`and both sides agree, I think, that that is not a standard symbol
`for anything. It has to be construed in context. And when you
`construe it in the context of Janssen '708, in parallel with the
`capacitor, just like the other references that we saw, the
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00887
`Patent 7,420,550
`
`reasonable conclusion to the person of skill in the art is it is
`an LCD pixel.
`There was mention of the Janssen '190 reference --
`and I think, Judge Shaw, your question sort of, you know, hit
`the nail on the head, you know, sort of speculating that the
`same inventors were, you know, at the exact same time, three
`months apart, were working on two dramatically different
`technologies. That's not even plausible.
`And then there was mention about the fact that we
`only put up two out of the three references that the U.S.
`Examiner found in the Janssen '921. The Matsushida reference
`is missing.
`Well, it is true it is not in the record, but if the
`Board would like to look at that we would certainly have no
`objection.
`And, in fact, another interesting point was that the
`Janssen '921 patent wasn't even claiming specifically an
`AMLCD, but yet the Examiners went to AMLCD art. I think
`that, you know, supp
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
