SEL EXHIBIT NO. 2007
`
`
`CHI MEI INNOLUX CORP. v. PATENT OF SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY
`LABORATORY CO., LTD.
`
`IPR2013-00038
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV—000O1-BBC
`
`Hon. Barbara B. Crabb
`
`Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker
`
`_jT
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`g ) ) ) ) )
`
`g
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY
`
`LABORATORY CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,
`
`V.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
`s-LcD CORPORATION; SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
`AND SAMSUNG MOBILE DISPLAY C0,,
`LTD.,
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`________________)
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF DR. ARIS SILZARS IN OPPOSITION TO THE EXPERT
`REPORT OF TIMOTHY J. DRABIK REGARDING INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT
`NOS. 7,394,516 AND THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR. RICHARD B. FAIR
`REGARDING INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,413,937
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Data Or Other Information Considered By The Witness In Forming
`Opinions ................................................................................................................. ..1
`
`Qualifications Of The Witness Including A List Of All Publications
`Authored By The Witness Within The Preceding Ten Years,
`Compensation, And Listing Of Any Other Cases In Which The Witness
`Has Testified As An Expert At Trial Or By Deposition Within The
`Preceding Four Years ............................................................................................. ..2
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............................................................................................. ..2
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... ..2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Anticipation............................................................................................................ ..2
`
`Obviousness ........................................................................................................... ..2
`
`Materiality And Cumulativeness ........................................................................... ..4
`
`THE 7,394,516 (“THE ‘516 PATENT”) ........................................................................... ..4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Liquid Crystal Display Technology.................................................. ..4
`
`Meaning Of Particular Claim Terms...................................................................... ..8
`
`The Prior Art .......................................................................................................... ..9
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,654,781 (“Izumi”) ......................................................... ..9
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,202,778 (“Niki”) ......................................................... ..16
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,757,450 (“Fujii”) ......................................................... ..17
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,513,028 (“Sono”) ........................................................ ..20
`
`Digital HiNote Laptop Computer Product, HP OmniBook 600C
`Laptop Computer Product, and Compaq 420C Laptop Computer
`Product ..................................................................................................... ..25
`
`IBM ThinkPad 755C Laptop Computer Product ..................................... ..27
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,504,601 (“Watanabe”) ................................................ ..28
`
`Japanese Patent No. H6-250,224 (“JP ‘224”) .......................................... ..29
`
`

`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`ll.
`
`12.
`
`The Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) ............................................................. ..29
`
`EP 0 597 536 (“Edwards”) ....................................................................... ..30
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,202,778 (“Morimoto”) ................................................ ..3O
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,231 (“Kochi”) ....................................................... ..31
`
`Additional Disclosures ......................................................................................... ..31
`
`l.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“Dummy structures under the seal” is not a claim phrase ....................... ..3l
`
`“Black matrix in the peripheral area of an LCD” is not a claim
`phrase ....................................................................................................... ..32
`
`“Integrated drive circuits within the sealed area of an LCD panel”
`is not a claim phrase ................................................................................. ..32
`
`Anticipation and Obviousness ............................................................................. ..32
`
`1.
`
`Izumi ...................................................................................
`
`................... ..32
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`There Is No Reason To Modify Izumi With Edwards
`(Claims 6, 11 and 16) ................................................................... ..33
`
`There is No Reason To Modify Izumi To Include Driver
`Circuits Within The Seal (Claims 11 and 16) .............................. ..34
`
`2.
`
`Niki .......................................................................................................... ..36
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`There is No Reason to Modify Niki With Morimoto .................. ..36
`
`There is No Reason to Modify Niki With Sawatsubashi ............. ..37
`
`3.
`
`Tatsuhisa Fujii .......................................................................................... ..38
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`There is No Reason to Modify Tatsuhisa Fujii with Izumi ......... ..39
`
`There is No Reason to Modify Tatsuhisa Fujii to Include
`Driver Circuits Within the Seal .................................................... ..40
`
`Sono ......................................................................................................... ..41
`
`Digital HiNote Laptop Computer Product ............................................... ..4l
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`a.
`
`There is No Reason to Modify Digital HiNote to Become
`an Active Matrix Display ............................................................. ..42
`
`

`
`b.
`
`There is No Reason to Modify The Digital HiNote to
`Include Driver Circuits Within the Seal ....................................... ..42
`
`6.
`
`IBM ThinkPad 755C Laptop Computer Product ..................................... ..44
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`There is No Reason to Modify IBM ThinkPad With Izumi ........ ..44
`
`There is No Reason to Modify IBM ThinkPad to Include
`Driver Circuits Within the Seal .................................................... ..45
`
`7.
`
`HP OmniBook 600C Laptop Computer Product ..................................... ..47
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`There is No Reason to Modify HP OmniBook 600C Laptop
`Computer Product to Become an Active Matrix Display ............ ..47
`
`There is No Reason to Modify HP OmniBook To Include
`Driver Circuits Within the Seal .................................................... ..48
`
`8.
`
`Compaq 420C Laptop Computer Product................................................ ..48
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`There is No Reason to Modify Compaq 420C to Become an
`Active Matrix Display.................................................................. ..48
`
`There is No Reason to Modify Compaq 420C to Include
`Driver Circuits Within the Seal.................................................... ..49
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`1 1.
`
`Watanabe.................................................................................................. ..49
`
`JP ‘224 ..................................................................................................... ..50
`
`Other Combinations ................................................................................. ..5l
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Combinations of Passive Matrix Dummy Structure
`References With the Admitted Prior Art, Black Matrix
`References and Driver Within the Sealed Area References ........ ..52
`
`Combinations of Active Matrix Dummy Structure
`References with Black Matrix References ................................... ..52
`
`Combinations of Active Matrix Dummy Structure
`References with Driver Within the Sealed Area References ....... ..52
`
`Combinations of Active Matrix Dummy Structure
`References with Izumi and Sono ................................................. ..52
`
`Combinations of Active Matrix Dummy Structure
`References with Edwards ............................................................. ..53
`
`F.
`
`Secondary Considerations of Obviousness .......................................................... ..53
`
`iii
`
`

`
`G.
`
`The Prosecution of the ‘516 Patent ...................................................................... ..54
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,413,937 (“THE ‘937 PATENT”) .................................................. ..56
`
`A.
`
`Background of Technology Related to the ‘937 Patent ....................................... ..56
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Source and Drain Electrodes .................................................................... ..56
`
`Color Filters ............................................................................................. ..58
`
`Relevant Field For The ‘937 Patent ..................................................................... ..59
`ConStructio_n“OfParticular Claim Terms ...............................................................63
`
`The Prior Art ........................................................................................................ ..64
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Japanese Published Patent Appl. No. 05-100250 (“JP ‘250”) ................. ..64
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,565,384 (“Havemann”) ............................................... ..67
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,585,951 (“Noda ‘95l”) and European Patent
`Appl. No. 0,603,866 (“Noda ‘866”) ........................................................ ..70
`
`Japanese Published Patent Appl. No. 07-209663 (“Koike ‘663”) ........... ..72
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,442,237 (“Hughes”) .................................................... ..74
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,656,826 (“Misawa”) .................................................... ..77
`
`Japanese Published Patent Appl. NO. 59-72745 (“Tsujii ‘745”) ............. ..80
`
`Other References ...................................................................................... ..83
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`e.
`
`f.
`
`JP 05-303116 (“JP ‘116”) ............................................................ ..83
`
`JP 07-056190 (“JP ‘190”) ............................................... .. ........... ..84
`
`JP 07-078997 (“JP ‘997”) ............................................................ ..85
`
`JP 07-022507 (“JP ‘507”) ............................................................ ..85
`U.S. Patent No. 5,229,644 (“Wakai”) ............................................86
`
`Birendra Bahadur, LIQUID CRYSTALS, APPLICATION AND
`USES, VOL. 1 (“Bahadur”) ............................................................ ..87
`
`William C. O’Mara, LIQUID CRYSTAL FLAT PAN EL
`DISPLAYS, MANUFACTURING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
`(1993) (“O’Mara”) ....................................................................... ..88
`
`iv
`
`

`
`H. Yamazoe et al., A 20-IN.-DIAOONAL MULTICOLOR
`LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY, JAPAN DISPLAY, 536-39 (1989)
`(“Yamazoe”) ................................................................................ ..88
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`O. Okumura et al., A 12-IN.-DIAOONAL FULL-COLOR NTN-
`LCD, JAPAN DISPLAY, 304-307 (1989) (“Okumura”) .................. ..89
`
`H. Aruga, PROCESS AND MATERIALS FOR COLOR FILTER
`PREPARATION IN LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY, JOURNAL OF
`PHOTOPOLYMER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3(1), 15 (1990)
`(“Aruga”) ..................................................................................... ..90
`
`E.
`
`Anticipation Analyses. ......................................................................................... ..9l
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`JP ‘25O ..................................................................................................... ..91
`
`Havemann ................................................................................................ ..91
`
`F.
`
`Obviousness Analyses ......................................................................................... ..92
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art .......................................................... ..92
`
`The Level of Skill in the Art .................................................................... ..92
`
`The Differences Between the Prior Art and The ‘937 Patent
`Invention .................................................................................................. ..92
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Silicon Nitride or Silicon Oxynitride First Insulating Layer ....... ..94
`
`Laminated Electrodes Including an Aluminum Film ................... ..98
`
`Impurity Regions as Source and Drain Regions .......................... ..98
`
`Fonning Three Insulating Films Over An Electrode ................... ..98
`
`Applying Semiconductor Technology to LCD ............................ ..99
`
`Polyimide or Acrylic Resin Films.............................................. .. 1 00
`
`Insulating Films Having a Flattened Surface ............................. .. 101
`
`Color Filters ....
`
`......................................................................... ..102
`
`4.
`
`Combinations ......................................................................................... .. 103
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`JP ‘250 as the primary reference ................................................ ..103
`
`Havemann as the primary reference .......................................... ..104
`
`

`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`The Noda references as the primary reference .......................... ..104
`
`Koike ‘663 as the primary reference .......................................... ..105
`
`Hughes as the primary reference ................................................ ..105
`
`Misawa as the primary reference ............................................... ..106
`
`Tsujii ‘745 as the primary reference .......................................... ..106
`
`5.
`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness ...................................... ..107
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. ..108
`
`vi
`
`

`
`This expert report reflects my opinions and expected testimony with respect to the issues
`
`that I have been asked to address in the case of Plaintiff Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co.,
`
`Ltd. (“SEL”) versus Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., S—LCD Corp., Samsung
`
`A Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, and Samsung Mobile
`Display Co., Ltd. (collectively “Defendants” or ‘‘Samsung’’). Specifically, I have been asked to
`comment on the Expert Report of Dr. Richard B. Fair Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,413,937 dated December 15, 2009 and the Expert Report of Dr. Timothy J. Drabik Regarding
`
`Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,394,516. In doing so, I have carefully reviewed the claims,
`
`specification, and file history of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,413,937 (“the ‘937 patent”) and 7,394,516
`
`(“the ‘S16 patent”), as well as other documents identified herein. I reserve the right to
`
`supplement and modify this report, if and when appropriate.
`
`I also understand that the Court has
`
`not yet construed any claim terms. Furthermore, I understand that additional discovery is being
`
`conducted in this case, and to the extent that subsequent discovery yields additional information,
`
`the parties’ modify their claim constructions, or the Court construes any terms, I further reserve
`
`the right to supplement and modify this report based upon any such information.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Data Or Other Information Considered By The Witness In Forming
`Opinions
`’
`
`In formulating the opinions stated herein, I have reviewed the materials listed in Exhibit
`
`A attached to this report. Materials cited within this report are merely exemplary of the materials
`
`in Exhibit A.
`
`I reserve the right to rely on any of the documents listed in Exhibit A to support
`
`the opinions stated herein. At trial, deposition, or in any supplemental report, I may use all or a
`
`portion of the documents reviewed and relied upon for this report and possibly other
`
`demonstratives, visual aids, charts, or exhibits.
`
`

`
`B.
`
`Qualifications Of The Witness Including A List Of All Publications Authored
`By The Witness Within The Preceding Ten Years, Compensation, And Listing
`—Of Any Other Cases In Which The Witness Has Testified As An Expert At
`Trial Or By Deposition Within The Preceding Four Years
`
`This information is contained within my expert report of December 15, 2009. Please
`
`refer to that report for this information.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`As described in this report, it is my opinion that all of the asserted claims of the ’937 and
`
`‘S16 patent are valid.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Counsel for SEL has explained to me the legal standards for assessing the validity of the
`
`‘937 and ‘S16 patents. I understand that in general all patents, including the ‘937 and ‘S16
`
`patents, are presumed valid.
`
`I also understand that it is Defendants’ burden to prove by clear and
`
`convincing evidence whether any of the asserted claims of the ‘937 and ‘5 16 patents are invalid.
`
`A.
`
`Anticipation
`
`I understand that a claim is anticipated if each and every element of the claim is found
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art device, i. e., found in one embodiment of a single
`
`reference. The elements in that reference must be arranged as in the claims. In other words,
`
`there must be no difference between the claimed invention and the reference as viewed by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`I understand that an element is inherently found in a reference
`
`only if one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize it as necessarily present in the reference.
`
`An element is not inherent if it is only probably or possibly found in a reference.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness
`
`I understand that a claim may be obvious if the differences between the patented subject
`
`matter 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 of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`I understand that
`
`obviousness is assessed on the totality of the evidence, including the following underlying
`
`factual inquiries: 1.) the scope and content of the prior art; 2.) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art; 3.) the differences between the claimed invention and prior art; and 4.) objective evidence of
`
`non-obviousness.
`
`I understand that a claim comprising several elements is not rendered obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. In
`
`considering the totality of evidence, it can be important to identify a reason that would have
`
`prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements from references
`
`in the same way the claimed invention does. Also, I understand that one skilled in the art must
`
`have had, at the time of the invention, reasonable expectation of success in combining references
`
`so as to result in the arrangement of elements as claimed with no change in their respective
`
`functions. Moreover, references that are not analogous to the claimed invention are not likely to
`
`be combined by one of ordinary skill in the art with references that are analogous. I understand
`
`that a reference is analogous if it is art from the same field as the invention or if it is reasonably
`
`pertinent to the particular problems that the claimed invention was involved.
`
`I also understand that it is improper to consider only part of a reference. The reference
`
`must be viewed as a whole. If a reference teaches away from the invention, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would not be expected to combine that reference with other references.
`
`I also
`
`understand that objective evidence of non-obviousness may include: commercial success,
`
`copying, long-standing problem or need, failure of others, licenses, commercial acquiescence of
`
`competitors, skepticism, independent development, prior litigation, and unexpected results. It is
`
`

`
`also my understanding that any assertion of the above indicia must be accompanied by a nexus
`
`between the merits of the invention and the evidence offered.
`
`I have also been informed that in determining whether the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time of the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art, it is important to avoid hindsight bias. To avoid hindsight bias, I understand that there
`
`are certain rationales that typically support a finding of obviousness including whether an
`
`invention is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results (i. e., a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with no change in
`the function of the elements).
`I
`
`C.
`
`Materiality And Cumulativeness
`
`I understand that a reference is material if a reasonable examiner would consider it
`
`important in deciding whether to allow the application to issue as a patent. I also understand that
`
`an otherwise material reference is not material if it is merely cumulative to, or less relevant than,
`
`information already considered by the examiner. Further, I understand that the PTO regulations
`
`define information material to patentability as information that is not cumulative to information
`
`already of record and (1) establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima
`
`facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the
`
`applicant takes in either opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the PTO or
`
`asserting an argument of patentability.
`
`I also understand that it is Defendants’ burden to prove
`
`by clear and convincing evidence whether any claim of the ‘5l6 or ‘937 patent is unenforceable.
`
`IV.
`
`THE 7,394,516 (“THE ‘516 _PATENT”)
`
`A.
`
`Overview of Liquid Crystal Display Technology
`
`Dr. Drabik in his report makes several comments about the differences between passive
`
`and active matrix LCDs. Dr. Drabik omits a third type of LCD known as segment addressed.
`
`

`
`Each of these types of LCDS has distinct structures, functions, and operations. The technologies
`
`and design methods used for one type are not readily transferable to the other types. The three
`
`types are characterized by how the individual elements (cells) are stimulated — addressed. In
`
`other words, they are characterized by how the liquid crystal material is controlled to change the
`
`light transmission of each segment or cell.
`
`The first and simplest type of LCD is known as segment addressed. This type of display
`
`is characterized by a direct electrical connection to each cell. These displays are typically used
`
`for clocks and other limited information applications. An example of such a display is shown in
`
`Figure 10.1 of the E. Lueder reference‘.
`
`Segment substrate
`Common substrate
`be
`
`
`
`1b ‘if 2321331 331a1f 3b
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`F:‘gure'l0.1 The direct addressing of the seven segments of :1 digit
`
`udle 1d
`19
`
`1c
`29
`
`2e 2d2c_3e
`39
`
`3d
`
`3::
`
`The second type of LCD, which has the next level of technical complexity, is the passive
`
`matrix LCD. These displays have rows and columns and are addressed by briefly stimulating
`
`each cell to change its light transmission characteristics. After a particular cell is stimulated it
`
`has an extended relaxation time to hold the image while the other cells are being addressed. The
`
`basic structure of this cell is shown in Figure 10.2 of Lueder-7-.
`
`
`
`1 Liquid Crystal Displays, by Ernst Lueder, 2001, at p. 162 (“Lueder”).
`2 Id.
`
`

`
`
`
`Row
`eletrodes
`on upper
`plate
`
`P"‘e'
`
`Column / /
`electrodes
`iv‘;
`on lower plate
`__
`
`E-
`
`Vp= Vr'Vc
`
`Figure 10.2 The Passive l\-Iatrix LCD (PMLCD) with raw and column electrodes
`
`The third and most complex type of LC display is known as actively addressed, or active
`
`matrix LCD, which relates to an addressing method used in essentially all higher resolution and
`
`larger screen size LC displays. The basic structure of this type of LC display is shown in Figure
`
`10.3 of Lueder3.
`
`SW,-{ch
`
`Backplane
`
`Figure 10.3 The Active Matrix addressed LCD (AIMLCD) with 21 TFT as pixel switch
`
`Pixel
`
`
`
`

`
`Certain examples of the prior art as cited by Dr. Drabik pertain to passive matrix
`
`displays. This is the case with both some of the patent references as well as the claimed prior art
`
`products that have been analyzed by Taeus. As I will explain below, the fundamental technical
`
`differences between passive matrix and active matrix LC displays preclude the application of a
`
`prior art passive matrix technology to an active matrix technology (and vice versa) without
`
`examining collateral technical changes that would be necessitated by the proposed substitution.
`
`In other words, the wholesale substitution of a passive matrix technology for an active matrix
`
`technology cannot be merely assumed to work as intended.
`
`In passive matrix displays, the rows and columns are on opposite substrates. Both rows
`
`and colurrms have varying voltages applied in a particular time sequence to address the cells.
`
`There is no common electrode. In active matrix displays, rows and columns are actively
`
`addressed on one substrate, while the opposite substrate has a common electrode. All row and
`
`column connections in an active matrix display are thus on one substrate with only a common
`
`voltage reference on the opposing substrate. As a result, the structure and method of operation
`
`are entirely different for these two types of LC displays, and the methods used to design and
`
`manufacture one type are not readily transferable to the other.
`
`LC displays. In a passive matrix display, the row and column conductors are integral with the
`
`pixel electrodes, 1'. e. there are no intervening elements. Since the pixel electrodes must be
`
`transparent, it is quite common to fonn the rows and columns from this same transparent
`
`conductor material.
`
`In contrast, in an active matrix LC display, the pixel electrodes are separated
`
`from the row and column addressing lines by the thin film transistors (TFTs) generally placed in
`
`

`
`the comer area of each pixel. The row and column electrodes for addressing the pixels are
`
`placed in the narrow spaces between the pixels. Thus, the location, width, and constituent
`
`materials of the rows and columns are substantially different in passive matrix and active matrix
`
`displays. Furthermore, an active matrix display has a supplemental capacitor for each pixel.
`
`These capacitors are used to store additional charge and provide stability and uniformity for the
`
`display. Such capacitors are not used in passive matrix displays.
`
`Because the active matrix displays use thin-film transistors and supplemental capacitors,
`
`the cell response time is proportional to the total charge that is placed at each pixel location
`
`during the addressing period. Since passive matrix displays do not have such a charge storage
`
`mechanism, they are more susceptible to variations in electrode resistance and the voltage drops
`
`that can be introduced by such resistance variations. This again differentiates the design and
`
`fabrication methodologies for these two distinctly different addressing methods.
`
`Dr. Drabik in paragraph 54 of his report states that it is not economically feasible to apply
`
`monolithically fabricated transistors to implement the switches in the pixel array. This is not an
`
`economic issue but a technical one in that monolithic (single-crystal) silicon transistors require
`
`high fabrication temperatures that are incompatible with the glass substrates needed for liquid
`
`crystal displays.
`
`B.
`
`Meaning Of Particular Claim Terms
`
`For the meaning of particular claims terms of the ‘516 patent that were proposed for
`
`construction by the parties, please refer to my expert report of December 15, 2009. For the
`
`purposes of this report, I have considered all competing claim constructions. Dr. Drabik has
`
`proffered a new claim construction that I was unable to address in my December 15, 2009 report
`
`because that was the first time Defendants raised this issue. Specifically, Dr. Drabik has
`
`construed “a plurality of thin film transistors disposed at each intersection of said scanning lines
`
`

`
`and said signal lines” in claim 6 as requiring that “two or more thin film transistors are disposed
`
`at each intersection of the conductive lines.” Dr. Drabik has construed similar claim phrases in
`
`claims 11 and 16 as requiring two or more transistors per TFT as well.
`
`I disagree with Dr.
`
`Drabik’s proposed construction for two reasons.
`
`First, the ‘S16 patent does not disclose any embodiments in which two transistors are
`
`located at each intersection of conductive lines. Thus, Dr. Drabik’s proposed construction is
`
`inconsistent with the specification because it does not read on any embodiments in the ‘5 1 6
`
`patent. Second, Dr. Drabik’s proposed construction conflicts with the file history. In three
`
`separate office actions (dated December 14, 2004; August 10, 2005; and June 21, 2006), the
`
`Examiner rejected claims containing the limitations construed by Dr. Drabik based on the
`
`Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) as described at paragraphs [0004-0014] of the ‘92O application that
`
`led to the ‘S16 patent. The APA discloses just one TFT per pixel electrode and thus just one
`
`TFT per conductive line intersection. SEL never challenged the Examiner’s understanding
`
`regarding the claim limitations identified by Dr. Drabik. In View of SEL’s and the Examiner’s
`
`argument that the claim limitations at issue include devices having at least one TFT per
`
`conductive line intersection, I disagree with Dr. Drabik’s proposed construction.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions if the parties identify additional terms or if
`
`the Court construes any term.
`
`C.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,654,781 (“Izumi”)
`
`Izumi discloses six embodiments of a liquid crystal display, the first five of which are
`
`multi-panel LCD structures. (Izumi at 18:36-44.) In order to minimize the seams between
`
`multiple panels, Izumi seeks to improve UV exposure of the seal material, by minimizing the
`
`blockage of UV light in the sea] area so that the seal can be fully cured. As described in Izumi,
`
`

`
`when a conductive seal guide line is located under the seal, this conductive line blocks UV light
`
`and retards the UV curing process. Izumi accordingly attempts to minimize the areas of these
`
`conductive lines where they intersect the seal region. (See Figs. 1 (pinched or narrowed
`
`conductor to allow UV light), 5 (aperture in conductor crossing seal to allow UV light), 6
`
`(transparent conductor crossing seal region to allow passage of UV light), 10 (narrow guide line
`
`to locate more precisely the location of the seal material and allow UV light).) Izumi teaches
`
`nothing about thickness control to regulate the spacing between the two substrates, which is a
`
`central objective of the ‘S16 patent.
`
`Dr. Drabik relies on Embodiment 5, depicted in Figure 10, for the disclosure of a seal
`
`guide line 30 that he contends satisfies the “conductive layer” limitation of the ‘5 16 patent. As
`
`Dr. Drabik concedes, many of the limitations of the asserted claims of the ‘516 patent are not
`
`found in Embodiment 5 (see below). Hence, Dr. Drabik does not identify a single embodiment
`
`from Izumi with all the limitations of the asserted claims. Because Izumi does not disclose a
`
`single embodiment having the asserted claim elements arranged as claimed, Izumi does not
`
`anticipate any asserted claim of the ‘S16 patent.
`
`Aside from lacking an embodiment having all elements from any claim of the ‘5 16
`
`patent, Izumi fails to disclose various claim limitations. For example, Izumi does not disclose a
`
`continuous conductive layer, as required by the claims. Dr. Drabik takes the position that seal
`
`guide line 30 in Figure 10 “extends parallel to the edge of the substrate for more than a regular
`
`interval between the active signal or scanning lines.” (Dr. Drabik’s Report at 1[ 327). According
`
`to Dr. Drabik, seal guide line 30 meets the limitation requiring that the “conductive layer
`
`continuously extend[] along said side edge of said first substrate for more than a pitch of adjacent
`
`ones of said second conductive lines.” I disagree. Seal guide line 30 is depicted in Figure 10
`
`10
`
`

`
`with a series of dashed lines. This militates against a seal guide line that extends continuously.
`
`Indeed, since the seal guide line merely functions to guide an operator in applying the resinous
`
`seal material onto the TFT substrate, there is no reason to make this guide continuous and, in fact
`
`it would serve its function perfectly if it was not continuous .
`
`In addition, Izumi provides that the seal guide line should be no more than 100 microns
`
`in width. Typ