PTAB

IPR2025-01267

BOE Technology Group Co Ltd v. Paneltouch Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: IN-CELL TOUCH PANEL
  • Brief Description: The ’025 patent discloses an in-cell liquid crystal display (LCD) touch panel designed to improve image quality. The technology aims to solve problems of capacitance imbalances and electric field interference by dividing common electrodes into smaller segment electrodes connected by bridge lines, and by using "dummy touch lines" to shield liquid crystals from electric fields generated by data lines.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kim and Kim II - Claims 1-3, 6, and 9 are obvious over Kim in view of Kim II.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kim (Application # 2016/0224155) and Kim II (Application # 2017/0192568).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kim taught a touch display apparatus with nearly all features of independent claim 1. Specifically, Kim’s second embodiment disclosed an in-cell panel with common electrodes composed of multiple segment electrodes (termed “ITO lines”) that are laterally connected by “connecting lines,” which Petitioner contended are the claimed “first bridge line.” Kim also taught the required pixel structure, gate lines, data lines, and touch lines connected to corresponding common electrodes.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that Kim did not expressly teach that the "division area" between its segment electrodes was "on the gate line." However, Kim II, from the same applicant, explicitly addressed display defects caused by capacitance issues from large common electrodes overlaying transistors. Kim II’s solution was to segment the electrodes and position the separation area directly on the gate line to make gate electrode capacitance uniform and increase transistor speed. A POSITA would combine Kim II’s explicit teaching with Kim’s highly similar panel structure to solve the known problem of display defects, which Kim also sought to improve.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as both Kim and Kim II described similar in-cell panel technologies, originated from the same applicant, and provided complementary solutions to well-known capacitance-related problems in the art. The combination was a predictable integration of known techniques to achieve a known benefit.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Yoshida Alone - Claim 18 is obvious over Yoshida alone.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yoshida (Application # 2019/0294273).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yoshida taught every element of independent claim 18. Yoshida disclosed an in-cell touch panel with "spare touch lines" that are functionally and structurally equivalent to the claimed "dummy touch lines." These spare lines are formed in the same layer as the active touch lines, extend parallel to data lines, are electrically isolated from common electrodes by default, and are provided in the "separation area" between adjacent common electrodes. Yoshida also taught the required arrangement of pixels, transistors, common electrodes, gate lines, and data lines.
    • Motivation to Combine (N/A): This ground is based on a single reference. Petitioner contended that Yoshida’s disclosure of "spare touch lines" for repair purposes also inherently served the shielding function described in the ’025 patent. Yoshida explained that applying a common voltage to these lines helps stabilize the area between electrodes from destabilizing electric fields, which is the same purpose attributed to the "dummy touch line" in the ’025 patent.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Yoshida and Kim II - Claims 10, 11, 14, and 17 are obvious over Yoshida in view of Kim II.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yoshida (Application # 2019/0294273) and Kim II (Application # 2017/0192568).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged claim 10, which largely mirrors claim 18 but adds limitations requiring "segment electrodes" with a "division area on the gate line." Petitioner argued that Yoshida provided the foundational teachings for a panel with "dummy touch lines" (Yoshida’s "spare touch lines") positioned in the separation area on the data line. Kim II was introduced to supply the teaching of dividing each common electrode into segment electrodes and placing the division area between those segments on the gate line.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify Yoshida's design with Kim II's teachings to solve the precise capacitance problems Kim II warns about. Kim II taught that "in-plane" panel structures—like that used in Yoshida—are particularly susceptible to non-uniform gate voltage and pixel defects. A POSITA would therefore apply Kim II's solution of segmenting electrodes and placing division areas on the gate line to Yoshida’s panel to prevent such defects and improve display performance, a predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because both references provided design solutions to reduce negative capacitance effects in conventional in-cell touch panels. Combining Kim II's electrode segmentation strategy with Yoshida's base panel design was presented as a straightforward application of known principles to achieve predictable results.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claims 4, 5, and 8 based on the combination of Kim, Kim II, and Yoshida to teach specific contact hole placements and a second bridge line.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "dummy touch line" (claims 10-11, 14, 17-18): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a line that does not carry a touch signal." Petitioner argued this construction was necessary because the claims do not otherwise distinguish the "dummy" line from functional touch lines. This interpretation was based on the plain meaning of "dummy" as non-functional and was supported by the ’025 patent specification, which stated the dummy touch line "does not contribute to detection of a touch position."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6, 8-11, 14, 17, and 18 of the ’025 patent as unpatentable.