• Sony Corporation / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2015 · IPR2015-00862 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3 unpatentable; the asserted combinations did not disclose applying data impulses via the scan line as claimed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “A patent claim may be corrected through claim construction “only if (1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the specification and (2) the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation of the claims.” Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But “courts may not redraft claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity.” Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The burden is on Petitioner to show that a claim contains the kind of error that is considered a drafting error. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).” slip op. at 5

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Petitioner has not shown how any of the relied upon references discloses applying data impulses via the scan line as claimed, nor has Petitioner shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known of the claimed feature. Petitioner’s reliance on Nitta’s disclosure, for example, of a source driver that conveys a plurality of data impulses to the pixels of an LCD panel via corresponding data lines (Pet. 26, 52) for both proposed grounds of unpatentability is misplaced, as that is not what is claimed. For these reasons, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims 1 and 2 are obvious over Suzuki, Nitta, and Lee, or claims 1 and 3 are obvious over Jinda, Nitta, and Lee. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–3 of the ’843 patent. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We find that the underlying supporting evidence upon which Mr. Credelle relies is insufficient to support the assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the recitation of “scan line” in original claim 1 to be a typographical error, and that what was meant instead was “data line.” See 37 CFR §§ 42.1(d), 42.65(a). Merely directing attention to a conventional LCD arrangement that shows data voltages applied to data lines, as opposed to scan lines, is insufficient to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claimed invention also to convey necessarily this arrangement. Here, for instance, we would want to know whether the claim 1 phrase is unable to be construed in any other way than as the proposed corrected way. In other words, Petitioner’s evidence of showing a conventional LCD arrangement does not appear to us to be particularly relevant in informing us of whether LCD arrangements must necessarily be configured in such a manner or they will not function to drive an LCD display, for example. Even Petitioner’s declarant opines that the “conventional” arrangement seen in the O’Mara Textbook is “typical,” (Ex. 1015 ¶ 35), leading us to believe that other, albeit nonconventional arrangements, were possible though not necessarily “typical” at the time of the invention for driving LCD pixels.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 7,202,843

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.