PTAB

IPR2023-00725

Hisense Intl Co Ltd v. Vista Peak Ventures LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Liquid Crystal Module Mounting Structure
  • Brief Description: The ’143 patent discloses a structure for mounting a liquid crystal display (LCD) module to a frame member in an electronic device. The claimed invention centers on an arrangement where a screw passes through a hole from the back side of the frame member to secure the LCD module via a corresponding threaded screw hole on the back frame of the module.

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 limitation of the challenged claims. Kopish teaches a display assembly where a printed circuit board (PCB 30), acting as the claimed "frame member," has holes (85) through which mounting screws (83) pass from the back side. These screws then engage threaded holes (82) located in mounting posts/bosses (81) on the carrier (24), which serves as the "back frame" for the LCD devices (20, 21). This structure, according to Petitioner, is a direct mapping of the limitations in independent claim 1.
    • Prior Art Mapping (Dependent Claims): For dependent claim 2, Petitioner contended that Kopish’s mounting posts (81) are the claimed "spacer" through which the screw passes to join the LCD module to the frame member. For dependent claim 3, Petitioner asserted that these same mounting posts (81) constitute the claimed "boss provided on a confronting face of said frame member," as they extend from the back frame (carrier 24) to make intimate contact with the frame member (PCB 30) when assembled.

Ground 2: Claim 3 is obvious over Kopish and the background knowledge of a POSITA under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kopish (Patent 4,755,035) and the general 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 that Kopish is found not to anticipate claim 3. Petitioner argued that Kopish discloses mounting bosses (81) that extend vertically down from the back frame (carrier 24) to act as spacers. If the Patent Owner argues these bosses are not "provided on a confronting face of said frame member," Petitioner contended it would have been obvious to a POSITA to modify Kopish’s design.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Kopish’s design by relocating the bosses (81) from the back frame (24) to the frame member (30). This modification represents a simple design choice with only two predictable options for boss placement. The motivation would be to simplify the design, reduce component count, and create a more lightweight LCD module subassembly, which aligns with Kopish's stated goal of reducing the complexity of prior art display assemblies.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making this modification. Relocating a mounting boss is a routine and predictable design task in mechanical engineering, and implementing either placement option would have yielded predictable results without requiring undue experimentation.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3 of the ’143 patent as unpatentable.