PTAB

IPR2023-00725

Hisense International Co. Ltd. v. Vista Peak Ventures, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Liquid Crystal Module Mounting Structure
  • Brief Description: The ’143 patent discloses an electric apparatus for mounting a liquid crystal display (LCD) module to a frame member. The claimed structure uses at least one screw that passes from the back side of the frame member, through a clearance hole, and fastens into a corresponding threaded screw hole located on the back frame of the LCD module itself, thereby securing the module to the frame.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3 are anticipated by Kopish under 35 U.S.C. §102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kopish (Patent 4,755,035).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kopish, which was not considered during the original prosecution, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Kopish teaches an LCD display assembly where a carrier subassembly (the claimed “liquid crystal module”) is mounted to a printed circuit board (PCB), which serves as the claimed “frame member.” Specifically, Petitioner asserted that screws (83) in Kopish pass through holes (85) in the PCB frame (30) from the back side and secure into threaded holes (82) located in mounting posts (81) on the carrier (24), which is the back frame of the LCD module. This arrangement was argued to meet all limitations of independent claim 1. For dependent claim 2, Petitioner contended that Kopish’s mounting posts (81) are explicitly described as spacers. For dependent claim 3, Petitioner asserted these same mounting posts (81) are the claimed "boss" provided on a confronting face of the frame member when assembled.

Ground 2: Claim 3 is obvious over Kopish in view of a POSITA’s knowledge under 35 U.S.C. §103

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kopish (Patent 4,755,035) and the background knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative argument in the event the Board finds claim 3 is not anticipated. Petitioner argued that if Kopish’s mounting bosses (81), which extend from the carrier (back frame 24), are not considered to be "on a confronting face of said frame member," then it would have been obvious for a POSITA to modify the Kopish design. The modification would involve extending the bosses from the frame member (PCB 30) to meet the carrier (24), rather than the other way around.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to make this simple design modification for known benefits. Petitioner contended that orienting the bosses on the frame member results in a more lightweight and less complex LCD module subassembly, as the module itself would not need to include the bosses. This aligns with Kopish's stated goal of reducing the complexity and number of individual parts in display assemblies.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The choice of whether to place an integral boss on the frame or on the module it attaches to was presented as a simple design choice with only two predictable, functionally equivalent options. Implementing either option would use standard manufacturing techniques and result in a predictable, functional assembly.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review and enter a final written decision finding claims 1-3 of the ’143 patent unpatentable.