PTAB

IPR2015-01468

Funai Electric Co Ltd v. Gold Charm Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Circuit Substrate Connecting Structure, Liquid Crystal Display Device Having the Connecting Structure and Mounting Method of Liquid Crystal Display Device
  • Brief Description: The ’053 patent discloses a structure for connecting a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel to a circuit substrate using an anisotropic conductive film (ACF). The invention features a "bonding assist portion" located between terminal groups to create a uniform surface height, which enhances the ACF's adhesion and improves connection reliability, and can also be connected to a fixed potential (e.g., ground) to reduce electrical noise.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Unpatentability over Yamada - Claims 1-10 are anticipated by, or in the alternative obvious over, Yamada.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yamada (Japanese Patent Publication JP2000-082870).
  • Core Argument:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yamada discloses every element of the challenged claims. The primary anticipation argument focused on mapping Yamada's "conductive layer" (element 5) to the "bonding assist portion" recited in the ’053 patent.

      • For independent claim 1, Petitioner asserted that Yamada teaches a connecting structure with a circuit board connected to a substrate via an ACF. Yamada’s structure includes a plurality of connecting terminal groups (element 4) and a conductive layer (element 5) arranged between these groups, which serves the same bonding-assist and noise-reduction functions as the claimed invention. Yamada explicitly teaches connecting this conductive layer to a fixed potential (ground), thus meeting all limitations of claim 1.
      • For independent claim 4, Petitioner mapped similar elements, arguing Yamada’s figures and specification disclose a bonding assist portion with a predetermined wiring pattern and a protrusion connected to a fixed potential line. Yamada’s Drawing 5 was highlighted as showing the predetermined pattern and protrusion of the conductive layer.
      • For dependent claims, Petitioner argued that Yamada’s disclosure anticipates the additional limitations. For claim 2, forming the bonding assist portion from the same material and at the same height as the wiring terminals is an inherent or explicitly disclosed feature in Yamada to ensure reliable ACF bonding. For claim 3, Yamada was shown to disclose the claimed connecting structure within an LCD device having a plurality of flexible substrates. For claims 5-10, Petitioner contended that Yamada’s figures and text disclose the specific locations, grounding configurations, and wiring patterns (rectangular, lattice, honeycomb) recited.

    • Motivation to Combine (for Obviousness Alternative): This ground is primarily based on anticipation. However, Petitioner argued that to the extent any limitation is not explicitly disclosed, it would have been an obvious modification of Yamada to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA). For example, if the same material and height for the bonding assist portion and terminals (claim 2) were not considered inherent in Yamada, a POSA would have found it obvious to implement this design. Doing so was a well-known technique to solve the problem of uneven topography, which improves bonding efficiency—a stated goal of Yamada. Similarly, selecting a specific wiring pattern like a "lattice" or "honeycomb" (claims 8-10) from the various patterns disclosed in Yamada was presented as a simple and predictable design choice with no unexpected result. The motivation was to achieve the known benefits of reliable bonding and electrical shielding taught by Yamada.

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSA would have had a high expectation of success because the alternative arguments rely on applying known, predictable solutions to solve known problems. Modifying Yamada’s structures according to conventional design principles (e.g., ensuring co-planarity for bonding) would predictably result in the claimed configuration and its expected benefits.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 of the ’053 patent as unpatentable.