PTAB

IPR2025-01245

BOE Technology Group Co Ltd v. Paneltouch Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: DISPLAY DEVICE WITH TOUCH PANEL
  • Brief Description: The ’758 patent relates to a display device integrated with a touch panel. The claimed structure specifies an organic emitting display panel, a touch panel with intersecting detection lines on a substrate, and a circular polarizing plate arranged in a specific stacked order.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-8 are obvious over Nakamura

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nakamura (Application # 2008/0303798).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nakamura, a reference the ’758 patent itself repeatedly cites as disclosing the foundational touch panel structure, teaches every limitation of independent claim 1. Nakamura allegedly discloses a display device with a touch panel comprising a first substrate (SUB1), intersecting metal wiring lines for coordinate detection, a “top emission organic EL display device” (under the touch panel), and a circular polarizing plate (CPOL) arranged in the claimed order. Petitioner further contended that the limitations of dependent claims 2-8 are also taught by Nakamura. This includes disclosing the use of metal for the wiring lines (claim 2), making the lines black to improve contrast (claim 2), grouping the wiring lines via a terminal PAD (claim 3), using a transparent conductive film (TLINE) that overlays (claims 4, 6) or underlays (claims 5, 7) the metal lines, and using a resistance-film-type touch panel (claim 8).
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner’s argument centered on admissions within the ’758 patent’s own specification, which states that the “detail of the touch panel” it describes is adopted from the structure disclosed in Nakamura. Petitioner asserted that this admission makes the case for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 particularly strong, as the patent owner had effectively acknowledged the prior art basis for its claimed invention during prosecution.

Ground 2: Claim 9 is obvious over Nakamura alone or in view of Hinata ’741

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nakamura (Application # 2008/0303798) and Hinata ’741 (Application # 2008/0246741).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented two theories for the invalidity of claim 9, which adds a first adhesive layer (between the touch panel and display) and a second adhesive layer (between the touch panel and polarizing plate). First, Petitioner argued Nakamura alone renders the claim obvious because it discloses that the components are "adhered" and "fixed" together. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious that this fixing would be accomplished using an adhesive layer, a routine and common-sense design choice. Second, as an alternative, Petitioner argued that Hinata ’741 explicitly teaches the claimed configuration, disclosing physically separate adhesive layers (e.g., layers 41 and 50 in Fig. 9) to bond a touch panel between a display panel and a polarizing plate. Hinata ’741 also teaches that an organic EL panel can be used as the display.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Nakamura's touch panel structure with Hinata ’741's explicit teaching of separate adhesive layers for predictable benefits. Using distinct adhesive layers was a well-known method for assembling such components that improved manufacturability, facilitated bonding over large surfaces, and allowed for the separate fabrication of the display before attachment of the touch panel.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Both references operate in the same field of display touch panels, and the combination involves applying a conventional bonding technique from Hinata ’741 to the known device structure of Nakamura, which would have yielded predictable results without undue experimentation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that while no explicit claim construction is required, a key understanding of claim 1 is necessary.
  • Petitioner asserted that independent claim 1, which recites a "first substrate" having a "plurality of first lines," does not require the recited "plurality of second lines" to be on that same substrate. The claim language allows for the second lines to be on a second, separate substrate. This interpretation is allegedly supported by the prosecution history of the ’758 patent family, where the examiner applied prior art having two-substrate structures against similar claims. This point is critical to Petitioner’s argument that the two-substrate embodiments disclosed in Nakamura and Hinata ’741 are applicable to the claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’758 patent as unpatentable.