PTAB

IPR2025-01483

BOE Technology Group Co Ltd v. Paneltouch Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: DISPLAY DEVICE
  • Brief Description: The ’477 patent discloses a technique for inspecting display panel interconnects for breaks caused during manufacturing. The invention involves a dedicated "detection interconnect" formed around the periphery of a display or touch substrate, which can be tested for electrical continuity to detect cracks or chipping.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12, 17-18, and 20-21 are obvious over Kotera in view of Miyagawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kotera (Application # 2008/0007538A1) and Miyagawa (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2006-171386A).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kotera discloses the basic elements of a display device recited in independent claim 1, including a coordinate input substrate with detection electrodes, a protective plate, and a light-shielding material. However, Kotera lacks the claimed peripheral detection interconnect. Miyagawa was argued to supply this missing element by teaching a "diagnostic wiring" with electrodes at its ends, disposed along the periphery of a substrate specifically to detect cracks that occur during manufacturing.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Miyagawa’s crack-detection wiring with Kotera’s conventional touch display to address the known problem of substrate cracking during the manufacturing process of cutting panels from a larger mother substrate. Petitioner asserted this combination would improve manufacturing yield and reduce waste, providing a clear motivation to apply Miyagawa's known solution to Kotera's device.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the panels in both references have similar configurations (a central active area surrounded by peripheral wiring). Adding Miyagawa's diagnostic wiring, which is electrically isolated from other components, was presented as a straightforward modification that would predictably achieve the desired crack-detection function.

Ground 2: Claims 3-7 and 13-16 are obvious over Kotera, Miyagawa, and Lee.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kotera (Application # 2008/0007538A1), Miyagawa (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2006-171386A), and Lee (Application # 2006/0260977A1).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Kotera/Miyagawa combination to address claims requiring a semiconductor chip and specific interconnect layouts on a flexible substrate. Petitioner argued that Lee discloses a flexible carrier with a semiconductor chip (an IC) and electrostatic-discharge (ESD) protective lines. These ESD lines, with their associated pads, were argued to meet the limitations for the "third interconnect" and its corresponding electrodes, as they are disposed on a flexible substrate alongside a semiconductor chip.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to add Lee's teachings stemmed from the dual functionality of peripheral wiring. A POSITA would recognize that Miyagawa’s crack-detection wire could also serve as an ESD shield. It would have been desirable to enhance this shielding by connecting the wire to an external ground via a flexible substrate, as taught by Lee. This combination provides both crack detection and improved ESD protection, a common concern in electronic devices.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because Lee’s ESD lines, like Miyagawa’s diagnostic wire, are isolated from other circuits. Petitioner argued that implementing Lee's configuration on the flexible substrate of the Kotera/Miyagawa device was a simple design choice that would not affect other circuitry.

Ground 3: Claims 1-2, 10, 12, 17-18, and 20-21 are obvious over Sung in view of Nishihara.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sung (Application # 2011/0005662A1) and Nishihara (Application # 2010/0220071A1).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented this as an alternative combination for the same claims as Ground 1. Sung was argued to disclose a display device with a capacitive touch panel, including a coordinate input substrate, a protective cover glass, and a light-shielding black mask. Nishihara was argued to supply the claimed peripheral interconnect by teaching a "shield electrode" formed around the outer periphery of a touch substrate to protect against electromagnetic noise and static electricity.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to add Nishihara's shield electrode to Sung's capacitive touch panel. Petitioner asserted that since capacitive touch panels are known to be susceptible to noise and static, incorporating Nishihara's shielding solution would be a logical step to improve the device's performance and reduce erroneous touch determinations.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as straightforward. Adding Nishihara's isolated shield electrode to Sung's device would not affect other components. Furthermore, because both references describe manufacturing processes involving thin-film deposition, a POSITA could implement the combination using known techniques to achieve a predictable improvement in noise immunity.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Kotera/Miyagawa in view of Kida; Sung/Nishihara in view of Lee; and Sung/Nishihara in view of Kim to address the remaining dependent claims.

4. Key Technical Contentions

  • Petitioner's arguments frequently relied on the technical premise that peripheral wiring for crack detection (as in Miyagawa) and wiring for ESD/noise shielding (as in Nishihara, Lee, and Kim) are structurally and functionally analogous. It was contended that a POSITA would have understood these wires could serve dual purposes, motivating the combination of references that teach one function (e.g., crack detection) with references that teach the other (e.g., shielding).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’477 patent as unpatentable.