throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`6,404,480
`
`June 11, 2002
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`Issued:
`
`
` Yoshiharu Hirakata
`Inventor:
` Shunpei Yamazaki
`
`
`
`Application No.: 09/734,177
`
`
`Filed:
`
`Assignee:
`
`
`
`Title:
`
`
`)
`)
`) TRIAL NUMBER: IPR2013-00028
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`December 12, 2000
`) FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`
`Semiconductor Energy) PER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)
`Laboratory Co., Ltd. )
`)
`)
`)
`
`Contact Structure
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(2))
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF MILTIADIS HATALIS, Ph.D.
`
`I.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`(1) My name is Miltiadis Hatalis. I am currently a Professor at Lehigh
`
`University in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I have
`
`studied, taught, and practiced in the relevant flat panel display technology for over
`
`1
`
`EXHIBIT 1007
`
`

`
`25 years.
`
`(2)
`
`I received my Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in the field of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University in 1987.
`
`The topic of my Ph.D. dissertation research was “Crystallization of Amorphous
`
`Silicon Films and its Application in Bipolar and Thin Film Transistors.” I received
`
`my Masters of Science (M.S.) degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering in
`
`1984 from the State University of New York at Buffalo and my Bachelor of
`
`Science (B.S.) degree in Physics in 1982 from the Aristotle University of
`
`Thessaloniki in Greece.
`
`(3) Upon receiving my Ph.D. degree, I joined the faculty of Lehigh
`
`University in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering as an
`
`Assistant Professor. I was promoted to the rank of Associate Professor with tenure
`
`in 1991 and to the rank of Professor in 1995. From 1987-1992, I served as
`
`Associate Director of Lehigh's “Microelectronics Research Laboratory.”
`
`(4)
`
`In 1992, I founded and became Director of the “Display Research
`
`Laboratory,” which was the first academic laboratory in the United States
`
`dedicated to research and development of Thin Film Transistors (TFTs) for Active
`
`Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays (AMLCDs) and Active Matrix Organic Light
`
`Emitting Diode (AMOLEDs) displays. As Director of Lehigh's “Display Research
`
`Laboratory,” I have raised over $10 million through research contracts and grants
`
`2
`
`

`
`to support the laboratory's research and development activities on thin film
`
`transistors and their application to flat panel displays. These contracts and grants
`
`were funded by the Defense Advanced Research Program Agency (DARPA), the
`
`Army Research Laboratory (ARL), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
`
`National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the State of
`
`Pennsylvania, and a variety of industrial companies including IBM, Kodak, Sharp,
`
`Northrop Grumman, and others.
`
`(5) As a faculty member, I supervised the research of eighteen Ph.D.
`
`dissertations in the technical field of TFTs and, along with my graduate students,
`
`published over 150 technical publications in scientific journals or conferences in
`
`the field of thin film transistors and their applications in flat panel displays. In
`
`addition to the aforementioned Ph.D. dissertations, I have also supervised a large
`
`number of graduate student master’s theses and undergraduate research projects.1 I
`
`have taught a number of different undergraduate and graduate level courses in the
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering department at the Lehigh University dealing
`
`with the physics, technology, and the design of solid-state devices and circuits. I
`
`have also introduced and regularly teach a course on “Semiconductor Material and
`
`Device Characterization,” and I have also reorganized a course on “Introduction to
`
`Design of Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI).”
`
`1 More information on this subject can be found on my research group web pages:
`www.ece.lehigh.edu/DRL
`
`3
`
`

`
`(6) As part of my research, I utilize much of the same equipment and
`
`many of the same microfabrication processes that are relevant to U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,404,480 (hereinafter referred to as the “‘480 patent”), including: Plasma-
`
`Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition (PECVD) for intrinsic hydrogenated-
`
`amorphous silicon, silicon nitride and silicon dioxide films; sputter and e-beam
`
`deposition tools for aluminum, indium-tin-oxide, tantalum and other metallic thin
`
`films; photolithographic tools for spinning, exposure and developing photoresist
`
`patterns; as well as plasma or wet etching tools for removing various thin film
`
`materials from the substrate. Furthermore, I also utilize several tools for the
`
`characterization of the materials and structures used in thin film transistors
`
`including: optical microscopes, Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM),
`
`Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), and Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM).
`
`I also utilize a variety of electrical characterization techniques and instruments for
`
`testing the electrical performance of completed TFT circuits and flat panel
`
`displays.
`
`(7) As part of my research, I pioneered a technique for crystallizing
`
`amorphous silicon. The technique I pioneered has been used in the manufacture of
`
`small polysilicon TFT AMLCDs for over a dozen years, and, more recently,
`
`polysilicon TFTs have also been used for AMOLED displays. In addition, many
`
`industrial and academic laboratories have recently initiated R&D activities related
`
`4
`
`

`
`to the fabrication of polysilicon thin film transistors on flexible metal foil
`
`substrates and their application to flexible displays. Such research flows from the
`
`accomplishments of my research group in this technical field.
`
`(8) My industrial experience includes work at the XEROX Palo Alto
`
`Research Laboratory and various consulting projects with flat panel display
`
`companies as well as companies producing equipment for the manufacture of flat
`
`panel displays. All of these projects were related to the thin film transistors and
`
`their application to flat panel displays.
`
`(9)
`
`I am a member of several professional organizations including the
`
`Society for Information Display (SID), and the Electron Device Society of the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). I have also been the chair
`
`or co-chair at numerous national and international conferences/symposiums
`
`including several SID sponsored Workshops on Active Matrix Liquid Crystal
`
`Displays and a Materials Research Society Symposium on Flat Panel Displays. I
`
`have co-authored two book chapters, one dealing with the “Polysilicon TFT
`
`Technology” and another on application of “Polysilicon TFTs in AMOLED
`
`Displays.” I have served as a reviewer for technical papers submitted to several
`
`scientific journals and have also served as a reviewer for several years for the
`
`National Science Foundation Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)
`
`program.
`
`5
`
`

`
`(10) A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (C.V.) is attached as Appendix
`
`A and includes a list of my publications.
`
`II. My Status as an Independent Expert Witness
`
`(11)
`
`I have been retained in this matter by Chimei Innolux Corp.
`
`(“Petitioner”) to provide an analysis of the scope and content of the ‘480 patent
`
`relative to the state of the art at the time of the earliest application underlying the
`
`‘480 patent.
`
`(12)
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $300 per hour for my work. My
`
`fee is not contingent on the outcome of any matter or on any of the technical
`
`positions I explain in this declaration. I have no financial interest in Petitioner.
`
`(13)
`
`I have been informed that Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “Patentee”) owns the ‘480 patent. I have no financial
`
`interest in the Patentee or the ‘480 patent nor have I ever had any contact with the
`
`Patentee, or the inventors of the ‘480 patent, Yoshiharu Hirakata and Shunpei
`
`Yamazaki.
`
`III. Description of the Relevant Field and the Relevant Timeframe
`
`(14)
`
`I have carefully reviewed the ‘480 patent.
`
`(15) For convenience, all of the information that I considered in arriving at
`
`my opinions is listed in Appendix B.
`
`(16) Based on my review of these materials, I believe that the relevant field
`
`6
`
`

`
`for purposes of the ‘480 patent is semiconductor processes and device related to
`
`flat panel displays. I have been informed that the relevant timeframe is March 27,
`
`1997.
`
`(17) As described in Section I above, I have extensive experience in the
`
`relevant field. Based on my experience, I have a good understanding of the
`
`relevant field in the relevant timeframe.
`
`IV.
`
`The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Field in the Relevant
`Timeframe
`
`(18)
`
`I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`field” is a hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign
`
`a routine task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully
`
`carried out. I have been informed that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by
`
`the prior art references. The prior art discussed herein demonstrates that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the ‘480 patent was filed, was aware of
`
`liquid crystal display structures, including techniques for providing connections
`
`therein, including various arrangements of conductive spacers for providing a
`
`connection between the opposing substrates.
`
`(19) Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant filed. I have supervised and directed
`
`many such persons over the course of my career.
`
`7
`
`

`
`V.
`
`Background of the Technology
`
`(20)
`
`In LCDs, an image is divided into small elements called pixels. In a
`
`color LCD display, each pixel is further divided into three sub-pixels, one for each
`
`of the three primary colors red, green, and blue. Each pixel (in a monochrome
`
`display) or sub-pixel (in a color display) contains a TFT, a capacitor, and a pixel
`
`electrode.
`
`(21) The TFT serves as a switch that, when turned ON, allows an electrical
`
`current to flow into and charge the capacitor to a specific voltage. When the TFT
`
`switch is turned OFF, current cannot flow through it and thus, the voltage
`
`established at the capacitor is maintained until the next frame period, at which time
`
`the switch will be turned on again in order to update the voltage stored in the
`
`capacitor.
`
`(22) The voltage stored in the capacitor also appears to the pixel electrode.
`
`This voltage sets an electric field across the liquid crystal material that is on-top of
`
`the electrode; the higher the stored voltage the higher the electric field. The
`
`magnitude of the electric field across the pixel electrode will determine the optical
`
`properties of the LCD material and this, in turn, will determine the amount of light
`
`that will pass through the pixel or sub-pixel.
`
`(23) Pixels are provided by an array of discrete LCD semiconductor
`
`devices that form the LCD display. Individual pixels are switched by way of the
`
`8
`
`

`
`TFTs in accordance with scan and drive control circuitry. The number of pixels
`
`depends upon the display format. For example, the VGA format contains 640x480
`
`pixels in a monochrome display, and 640x480x3 in a color display. There are
`
`many display formats ranging from the aforementioned VGA (640x480) format up
`
`to an HDTV format, which includes up to 1920x1080x3 pixels with over six
`
`million thin film transistors (TFTs).
`
`VI.
`
`The ‘480 Patent
`
`(24) The ‘480 patent (Ex. A) describes problems with prior art LCD
`
`structures with respect to the nonuniformity of spacing between the two opposing
`
`substrates. (Ex. A at col. 2, ln. 60 – col. 3, ln. 6). Figure 13 of the ‘480 patent
`
`depicts a prior art LCD structure, which includes a conductive spacer 26 between
`
`the first substrate 11 and the second substrate 23 in a common contact portion.
`
`(25) Figure 6 of the ‘480 patent depicts the alleged point of novelty of the
`
`‘480 patent. As shown in Figure 6, the LCD structure is substantially similar to the
`
`prior art LCD structure depicted in Figure 13. According to the alleged invention
`
`of the ‘480 patent, however, the conductive spacer 401 has been moved from an
`
`9
`
`

`
`opening in the dielectric layer (see location of figure element 26 in the prior art
`
`structure depicted in Figure 13) to a position on top of the remaining dielectric
`
`layer (figure element 319 in Figure 6).
`
`(26) A side-by-side comparison between Figure 6 and prior art Figure 13
`
`of the ‘480 patent highlights that the difference is that the conductive spacer is held
`
`over the second interlayer insulating film 319 rather than in an opening therein (as
`
`annotated in red below).
`
`(27)
`
`Independent claims 1, 6, and 11, of the ‘480 patent recite the LCD
`
`structure depicted in Figures 6 and 13. Regarding the placement of the conductive
`
`spacers, independent claims 1, 6, and 11 require that “at least one of said
`
`conductive spacers is held over said second insulating film and in contact with
`
`10
`
`

`
`both said second conductive film and said third conductive film.” (Emphasis
`
`added). Thus, the independent claims require that the conductive spacer not be
`
`placed in an opening of the second insulating film, but rather, over said second
`
`insulating film.
`
`VII. Claim Interpretation
`
`(28)
`
`In proceedings before the USPTO, I understand that the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the specification from the perspective of one skilled in the art. I have been
`
`informed that the ‘480 patent has not expired. In comparing the claims of the ‘480
`
`patent to the known prior art, I have carefully considered the ‘480 patent, and the
`
`‘480 prosecution history based upon my experience and knowledge in the relevant
`
`field. I have not encountered any “coined” terms or terms that require
`
`consideration of a special or explicitly defined meaning. Instead, the claim terms
`
`of the ‘480 patent are used in their ordinary and customary sense as one skilled in
`
`the relevant field would understand them.
`
`VIII. Unpatentability Based on Prior Art in the Present Proceedings
`
`(29)
`
`I am informed that the ‘480 patent is a division of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 09/361,218, filed on July 27, 1999, which is a division of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 09/046,685, filed on March 24, 1998. Additionally, ‘480
`
`patent claims priority to a foreign patent, Japanese Patent Application No. JP 9-
`
`11
`
`

`
`094606, filed on March 27, 1997. I am further informed that this means that the
`
`‘480 patent is considered to have been filed on March 27, 1997 for purposes of
`
`determining whether a reference constitutes prior art. Thus, a reference will
`
`qualify as prior art if it disclosed or suggested the invention of the ‘480 patent prior
`
`to March 27, 1997.
`
`(30)
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim can be found unpatentable as
`
`obvious where the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant field. I understand that an obviousness analysis involves a consideration
`
`of (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
`
`claimed inventions and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art; and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`IX.
`
`Patentee’s Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) in View of Japanese Patent
`Publication No. JP 5-2243333 to Moriyama (“Moriyama”) Invalidates
`Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 15 of the ‘480 Patent
`
`(31)
`
`I have been asked to consider the admitted prior art (“APA”) together
`
`with Moriyama, and to compare these combined teachings to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11,
`
`and 15 of the ‘480 patent.
`
`(32) Figures 12-15 of the ‘480 patent (designated “Prior Art” by the
`
`Patentee) illustrate what I understand to be well established LCD structures that
`
`12
`
`

`
`were known to be in existence prior to March 27, 1997. For example, the very
`
`same standard LCD semiconductor device structures are found in the Moriyama
`
`reference (e.g., Figures 4-7). As such, I have been informed that to the extent
`
`certain aspects depicted in Figures 12-15 are referenced in claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11,
`
`and 15 of the ‘480 patent, they are deemed to be “old” or “Admitted Prior Art.” I
`
`identify the first 10 elements (1.1-1.10) of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 as
`
`referencing such standard features depicted in Figures 12-15. I note that the first
`
`10 elements of claims 1, 6, and 11 are identical. The only element in claim 1 that
`
`is not necessarily found in these figures, or described in the accompanying
`
`descriptions of these figures in the ‘480 patent specification, is element 1.11
`
`(which is identical to claim 6 element 6.12 and claim 11 element 11.11), which
`
`states “wherein at least one of said conductive spacers is held over said second
`
`interlayer insulating film and in contact with both said second conductive film and
`
`said third conductive film.” Independent claim 6 includes element 6.11, which
`
`states “wherein said conductive spacers are dispersed into a sealing material,”
`
`which is not necessarily found in Figures 12-15, or described in the accompanying
`
`descriptions of these figures in the ‘480 patent specification. In addition,
`
`independent claim 11 includes element 11.12, which states “wherein each of said
`
`openings occupies an area larger than an area occupied by each of said conductive
`
`spacers,” which is disclosed in the description of the prior art in the ‘480 patent.
`
`13
`
`

`
`(33) Although not explicitly identified in the description of the prior art in
`
`the ‘480 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the layer
`
`between the substrate 11 and the conductive layer 21 (highlighted in yellow, below
`
`in prior art Figure 13) would necessarily have to be an insulating film.
`
`This layer is required to electrically isolate the conductive structures in the
`
`common contact portion from the TFTs. If this layer was not an insulator, the
`
`common contact portion would be short circuited to the TFT. Furthermore, the
`
`interlayer insulating film serves as the first isolation layer of the TFT structure that
`
`helps to isolate the source and drain electrodes from the gate electrode of the TFT
`
`17.
`
`(34) Moriyama is directed to an LCD device, the same field of endeavor as
`
`the ‘480 patent. Moriyama also describes a structure for providing a contact
`
`between the opposing LCD substrates, and does so in the same manner as
`
`described in ‘480 patent.
`
`(35) Moriyama describes a structure for providing a contact between the
`
`opposing substrates of a terminal of an LCD device. As shown in Figures 6 and
`
`14
`
`

`
`7(a) of Moriyama, the terminal includes an insulating layer 5 that has a number of
`
`contact holes 2 formed in it. Moriyama at ¶ 6; Figures 6, 7(a).
`
`The electrical contact between the two opposing substrates 14, 20 is made through
`
`the metal particles 16. Moriyama at ¶ 7. As shown in Figure 7(a) above, the metal
`
`particles are held over the insulating layer 5, rather than in the contact holes 2.
`
`(36) Moriyama describes another embodiment of a structure for providing
`
`a contact between the opposing substrates of a terminal of an LCD device in
`
`Figures 4 and 5. As shown in Figures 4 and 5 of Moriyama, the contact area
`
`includes a number of contact holes 2 formed in it. Moriyama at ¶¶ 20-21; Figure 4.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Figure 5 shows a cross-sectional drawing along the section D-D’ in Figure 4.
`
`Moriyama at ¶ 20; Figures 4, 5. The electrical contact between the two opposing
`
`substrates is made through the metal particles 16. Moriyama at ¶ 21. As shown in
`
`Figure 5 above, the metal particles are held over the insulating layer (the layer
`
`between the underlying metal layer 1 and the transparent metal 4), rather than in
`
`the contact holes 2.
`
`(37)
`
`I see no discernable difference between the above described use of
`
`conductive spacers held over the insulating layer in Moriyama and claim elements
`
`1.11, 6.12, and 11.11, which state “wherein at least one of said conductive spacers
`
`is held over said second interlayer insulating film and in contact with both said
`
`second conductive film and said third conductive film.”
`
`(38) Moriyama further describes that the conductive spacers 16 may be
`
`dispersed in a sealing material, which it describes as “a thermal curable resin 22,”
`
`also shown in Figure 7(a). Moriyama at ¶ 7; Figure 7(a).
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the thermal curable resin 22 of
`
`Moriyama is a sealing material.
`
`16
`
`

`
`(39)
`
`I see no discernable difference between the above described
`
`dispersion of the metal particles 16 in a thermal resin 22 and claim element 6.11,
`
`which states “wherein said conductive spacers are dispersed into a sealing
`
`material.”
`
`(40) As shown in prior art Figure 13 above, the APA discloses that the
`
`contact holes in the second interlayer insulation layer occupy an area larger than an
`
`area occupied by the conductive spacers (26).
`
`(41) Figure 7(a) of Moriyama also depicts that the contact holes 2 occupy
`
`an area larger than an area occupied by the metal particles 16. Moriyama at Figure
`
`7(a).
`
`(42)
`
`I see no discernable difference between the above described relation
`
`of the larger area of the contact holes to the area occupied by the metal particles 16
`
`in Moriyama and claim element 11.12, which states “wherein each of said
`
`openings occupies an area larger than an area occupied by each of said conductive
`
`spacers.”
`
`(43) Dependent claims 5, 10, and 15 of the ‘480 patent depend from
`
`independent claims 1, 6, and 11, respectively. Claims 5, 10, and 15 of the ‘480
`
`patent include the identical language in that they state “wherein said active matrix
`
`display device is a liquid crystal display device.” Figures 12-15 of the ‘480 patent
`
`are described the specification as being directed to a “prior art active-matrix liquid
`
`17
`
`

`
`crystal display.” ‘480 patent at col. 1, ll. 48-50; Figures 12-15. Therefore, the
`
`APA discloses the feature claimed in claims 5, 10, and 15 of the ‘480 patent.
`
`(44) Having now explained my assessment of the scope and content of the
`
`APA and Moriyama, I find that the APA provides all the elements of claims 1, 5,
`
`6, 10, 11, and 15 of the ‘480 patent, with the exception of those described above;
`
`however, those features are clearly taught by Moriyama.
`
`(45)
`
`I understand the APA to be naturally combinable with the teachings of
`
`Moriyama as both are directed to the same field of endeavor and both include
`
`structures including conductive spacers for providing an electrical connection
`
`between the opposing substrates of an LCD device.
`
`(46) Combining the teachings of the APA with the placement of the
`
`conductive spacers disclosed in Moriyama would have been well recognized in the
`
`semiconductor art because providing the spacer on the conductive layer on the
`
`higher surface over the insulating layer will ensure a good electrical contact
`
`between the opposing substrates through the spacers.
`
`(47) Combining the teachings of the APA with the disclosure in Moriyama
`
`that the openings in the insulating layer have an area larger than the conductive
`
`spacers would have been well recognized in the semiconductor art because if the
`
`openings are smaller than the conductive spacers, the spacers may become trapped
`
`in the opening, thereby impeding the movement of the spacers as the substrates are
`
`18
`
`

`
`being joined. It was well known that if the opening is larger than the spacer as
`
`disclosed in Moriyama, the spacers would be allowed to simply fall into the
`
`opening, which would allow the spacers above the insulating layer to move freely.
`
`X.
`
`Patentee’s APA in view of Moriyama and U.S. Patent No. 4,600,273 to
`Ohno (“Ohno”) Invalidates Claims 2, 7, and 12 of the ‘480 Patent
`
`(48)
`
`I have been asked to consider the APA together with Moriyama and
`
`Ohno, and to compare these combined teachings to claims 2, 7, and 12 of the ‘480
`
`patent.
`
`(49) As set forth in Section IX above, the APA of the ‘480 patent in view
`
`of Moriyama invalidates independent claims 1, 6, and 11 of the ‘480 patent.
`
`Dependent claims 2, 7, and 12 of the ‘480 patent depend from independent claims
`
`1, 6, and 11, respectively. Claims 2, 7, and 12 of the ‘480 patent include the
`
`identical language in that they state “wherein each of said conductive spacers is a
`
`sphere coated with gold.” Although the APA and Moriyama disclose the
`
`conductive spacer as being a sphere, they do not specifically describe that the
`
`conductive spacer is a sphere coated with gold.
`
`(50) Ohno is directed to an LCD device, the same field of endeavor as the
`
`‘480 patent. Ohno also describes a structure for providing a contact between the
`
`opposing LCD substrates, and does so using spherical conductive spacers, which
`
`may be coated with gold, as described in the ‘480 patent.
`
`(51) Ohno discloses “providing a contact media which generally comprises
`
`19
`
`

`
`a non-conductive core material disposed between the upper and lower electrodes of
`
`the display panel. The core material is made conductive by electroless plating
`
`thereon of one or more conductive materials. … The non-conductive core particles,
`
`such as glass beads, glass fibers, or plastic balls, can be formed by injection-
`
`molding or by cooling after they are melted and passed through an orifice, having a
`
`fixed diameter.” Ohno at col. 2, ll. 6-18. “An electroless plating bath consists of a
`
`plating bath using at least one of the metals selected from the group consisting of
`
`gold, nickel, copper, silver, cobalt, and tin.” Ohno at col. 4, ll. 42-44.
`
`(52)
`
`I see no discernable difference between the above described use of a
`
`gold coated conductive sphere as a spacer between the opposing substrates of an
`
`LCD device in Ohno and claim elements 2.1, 7.1, and 12.1, which state “wherein
`
`each of said conductive spacers is a sphere coated with gold.”
`
`(53) Having now explained my assessment of the scope and content of the
`
`APA, Moriyama, and Ohno, I find that the APA and Moriyama provides all the
`
`elements of claims 2, 7, and 12 of the ‘480 patent, with the exception of that
`
`described above; however, that feature is clearly taught by Ohno.
`
`(54)
`
`I understand the APA and Moriyama to be naturally combinable with
`
`the teachings of Ohno as all are directed to the same field of endeavor and all
`
`include structures which include a conductive spacer between the opposing
`
`substrates of an LCD device. Ohno discloses the use of a spherical conductive
`
`20
`
`

`
`spacer, which is coated with gold.
`
`(55) Combining the APA and Moriyama with the gold coated spherical
`
`spacers disclosed in Ohno would have been well recognized in the semiconductor
`
`arts as providing conductive spacers of a high conductivity, i.e., low resistance, and
`
`improved reliability.
`
`XI.
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 6-289415 to Kitawada (“Kitawada”)
`in View of Moriyama Invalidates Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 15 of the
`‘480 Patent
`
`(56)
`
`I have been asked to consider Kitawada together with Moriyama, and
`
`to compare these combined teachings to claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 15 of the ‘480
`
`patent.
`
`(57) The first 10 limitations of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 are all
`
`identical.
`
`(58) Claim elements 1.1, 6.1, and 11.1 state “[a]n active matrix display
`
`device.” Kitawada is directed to “an active-matrix liquid crystal display device.”
`
`Kitawada at ¶ 1. Kitawada is in the same field of endeavor as the ‘480 patent.
`
`Kitawada also describes a structure for providing a contact between the opposing
`
`LCD substrates, and does so in the same manner as described in ‘480 patent.
`
`(59)
`
`I see no discernable difference between the stated subject matter of
`
`Kitawada and claim elements 1.1, 6.1, and 11.1.
`
`(60)
`
` Claim elements 1.2, 6.2, and 11.2 state “a first substrate.” Kitawada
`
`21
`
`

`
`discloses a first substrate, namely, “device substrate 301.” Kitawada at ¶ 15;
`
`Figure 3(c).
`
`(61)
`
`I see no discernable difference between the substrate of Kitawada and
`
`the “first substrate” recited in claim elements 1.2, 6.2, and 11.2.
`
`(62) Claim elements 1.3, 6.3, and 11.3 state “a first interlayer insulating
`
`film provided over said first substrate.” Kitawada discloses a first interlayer
`
`insulating film provided over said first substrate. In particular, as shown in Figure
`
`3(c), a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the layer provided
`
`over the substrate 301 would necessarily have to be a first interlayer insulating
`
`film. This layer is required to electrically isolate the wiring 318 from, e.g., the
`
`wiring 317.
`
`Further, as shown in Figure 1(c), this same layer is identified as the “first inter-
`
`layer insulating film 119 over device substrate 101.” Kitawada at ¶ 8; Figure 1(c).
`
`22
`
`

`
`(63)
`
`I see no discernable difference between the insulating film provided
`
`on the substrate of Kitawada and the “first interlayer insulating film provided over
`
`said first substrate” recited in claim elements 1.3, 6.3, and 11.3.
`
`(64) Claim elements 1.4, 6.4, and 11.4 state “a first conductive film
`
`provided on said first interlayer insulating film.” Kitawada discloses a first
`
`conductive film provided on said first interlayer insulating film, namely, the wiring
`
`318 is provided on the first insulating film. Kitawada at ¶ 18; Figure 3(c).
`
`(65)
`
`I see no discernable difference between the conductive film provided
`
`on the first insulating film of Kitawada and the “first conductive film provided on
`
`said first interlayer insulating film” recited in claim elements 1.4, 6.4, and 11.4.
`
`(66) Claim elements 1.5, 6.5, and 11.5 state “a second interlayer insulating
`
`film provided on said first conductive film, said second interlayer insulating film
`
`having at least two openings.” Kitawada discloses a second interlayer insulating
`
`film provided on the first conductive film, where the second interlayer insulating
`
`film has at least two openings. In particular, “transparent organic insulating film
`
`319 over the driver circuit” is provided over the wiring 318 and pixel electrode
`
`314, as shown in Figures 3(b) and 3(c). Kitawada at ¶ 16; Figures 3(b), 3(c). The
`
`23
`
`

`
`openings in the second insulating layer are annotated in Figures 3(b) and 3(c)
`
`below.
`
`(67)
`
`I see no discernable difference between the second insulating film
`
`provided on the first conductive film of Kitawada and the “second interlayer
`
`insulating film provided on said first conductive film, said second interlayer
`
`insulating film having at least two openings” recited in claim elements 1.5, 6.5, and
`
`11.5.
`
`(68) Claim elements 1.6, 6.6, and 11.6 state “a second conductive film
`
`provided on said second interlayer insulating film and in said openings.” Kitawada
`
`discloses a second conductive film provided on the second interlayer insulating
`
`film and in said openings. In particular, the “pixel electrode such as ITO 314 is
`
`formed over this transparent organic insulating film ….” Kitawada at ¶ 16; Figures
`
`3(b), 3(c). In addition, the electrode 305 and the pixel electrode 314 are provided
`
`on the second insulating film and in the openings thereof, as shown in Figures 3(b)
`
`24
`
`

`
`and 3(c) below. Kitawada at ¶ 18; Figures 3(b), 3(c).
`
`(69)
`
`I see no discernable difference between the second conductive film
`
`provided on the second insulating film and in the openings thereof of Kitawada and
`
`the “second conductive film provided on said second interlayer insulating film and
`
`in said openings” recited in claim elements 1.6, 6.6, and 11.6.
`
`(70) Claim elements 1.7, 6.7, and 11.7 state “a second substrate opposed
`
`to said first substrate.” Kitawada discloses a second substrate opposed to said first
`
`substrate, namely, “[o]pposing substrate 302 is fastened to device substrate 301
`
`….” Kitawada at ¶ 15; Figure 3(c).
`
`(71)
`
`I see no discernable difference between the second substrate opposed
`
`to the first substrate of Kitawada and the “second substrate opposed to said first
`
`substrate” recited in claim elements 1.7, 6.7, and 11.7.
`
`25
`
`

`
`(72) Claim elements 1.8, 6.8, and 11.8 state “a third conductive film
`
`provided on said second substrate.” Kitawada discloses a third conductive film
`
`provided on said second subs

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket