SEL EXHIBIT NO. 2011
`INNOLUX CORP. v. PATENT OF SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY
`LABORATORY CO., LTD.
`
`IPR2013-00038
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`INNOLUX CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PATENT OF SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO., LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2013-00038
`PATENT 7,956,978
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROGER STEWART
`
`

`

`1, Roger Stewart, do hereby declare and state that all statements made herein are
`
`based on my own personal knowledge and that all statements made on information
`
`and belief are believed to be true.
`
`I further do hereby declare and state that these
`
`statements are made with the knowledge that willful
`
`false statements are
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment or both under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`Dated:
`
`‘7
`
` «—
`dl/lz'd’ {*9 ‘7‘” // Z
`Roger Stewart
`
`‘
`
`V37]
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`A. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................ 1
`B. COMPENSATION ............................................................................................... 3
`C. PRIOR TESTIMONY .......................................................................................... 3
`D. INFORMATION CONSIDERED ........................................................................... 3
`II. LEGAL STANDARD OF PATENTABILITY ............................................... 4
`A. ANTICIPATION ................................................................................................. 4
`B. OBVIOUSNESS .................................................................................................. 5
`C. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 8
`D. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................... 9
`III. THE ’978 PATENT. ........................................................................................ 10
`A. THE BACKGROUND OF THE ’978 PATENT ................................................... 10
`B. THE INVENTION OF THE ’978 PATENT .......................................................... 11
`C. PROSECUTION HISTORY ................................................................................ 19
`D. THE CLAIMS .................................................................................................. 19
`IV. PATENTABILITY OF THE ’978 PATENT ................................................ 26
`A. THE ADMITTED PRIOR ART (APA) .............................................................. 26
`B. THE SONO PATENT (U.S. PATENT NO. 5,513,028) ....................................... 28
`C. THE WATANABE PATENT (U.S. PATENT NO. 5,504,601) ............................. 46
`D. CLAIMS 7 AND 17 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF SONO ...... 56
`E. CLAIMS 7 AND 17 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE
`ADMITTED PRIOR ART COMBINED WITH SONO AND WATANABE ........................ 57
`V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 59
`APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................... 60
`APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................... 61
`APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................... 63
`APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................... 72 
`
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained by Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. in this
`
`proceeding as an expert in the relevant art.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions and views on the materials I have
`
`reviewed in this case related to U.S. Patent No. 7,956,978 (Ex. 1001, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,956,978 to Zhang, the “’978 patent”), and the scientific and technical subject
`
`matter at the time the ’978 patent was filed.
`
`3. My opinions and underlying reasoning for this opinion are set forth below.
`
`A. Background And Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`I have been an active participant in the AMLCD industry and have technical
`
`knowledge of liquid crystal display design and fabrication. Since 2006, I have
`
`been the president of Sourland Mountain Associates where I provide technical and
`
`patent consulting on flat panel displays, semiconductors, and RFID.
`
`5.
`
`From 2005 to 2006, I was the vice president of engineering of Applied
`
`Wireless ID, where I was responsible for patents and developing advanced reader
`
`architectures based on international standards and integrating these into monolithic
`
`chips.
`
`6.
`
`From 2003 to 2005, I was the founder and Chief Technology Officer of
`
`Intelleflex Corporation. During this time, I was responsible for engineering,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`product development, and manufacturing of high-performance RFID tags and
`
`flexible displays.
`
`7.
`
`From 1999 to 2002, I was the Vice President of Engineering and Chief
`
`Technology Officer of Alien Technology Corporation. During this time I worked
`
`on display drivers and RFID chip development.
`
`8.
`
`From 1981 to 1999, I was the Laboratory Director of Sarnoff Corporation
`
`where I worked on Active Matrix LCDs (AMLCD), Active Matrix OLEDs, and
`
`other flat panel display devices. I developed the first polysilicon AMLCD in 1986,
`
`the world’s first Active Matrix Electroluminescent display in 1994, and the world’s
`
`self-scanned amorphous silicon AMLCD in 1995.
`
`9.
`
`Prior to 1981, I pioneered the development of semiconductor memories and
`
`non-volatile memory products.
`
`10.
`
`In 1997, I was elected a fellow of the IEEE. In 2010, I was also elected a
`
`fellow of the Society of Information Display.
`
`11.
`
`I have taught courses on solid state circuits and flat panel display technology
`
`for Boeing, RCA, the IEEE, the Society of Information Display, and the University
`
`of California.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`12.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Johns
`
`Hopkins University in 1965. I received a Masters of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Lehigh University in 1968.
`
`13. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix B.
`
`14.
`
`I currently hold 110 issued U.S. patents, with another 20 U.S. patent
`
`applications pending, and about 60 foreign patents. I have authored 94 papers and
`
`published presentations. A list of my patents and publications is attached as
`
`Appendix C.
`
`B. Compensation
`
`15.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard rate of $500 per hour for my work in
`
`this matter. My compensation has not influenced any of my opinions in this matter
`
`and does not depend in any way on the outcome of this case.
`
`C.
`
`Prior Testimony
`
`16. A list of my prior testimony is attached as Appendix D.
`
`D.
`
`Information Considered
`
`17. The information I have considered in forming my opinions for this matter is
`
`set forth throughout my report and includes the documents listed in Appendix A.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`II.
`18.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD OF PATENTABILITY
`
`In forming my opinions and considering the patentability of the claims of the
`
`’978 patent, I am relying upon certain legal principles that counsel has explained to
`
`me.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found patentable,
`
`it must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light of what came before
`
`it. Patents and publications that predated the invention are generally referred to as
`
`“prior art.”
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding the burden is on the party asserting
`
`unpatentability to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a
`
`preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more
`
`likely than not.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims after being
`
`construed in this manner are then to be compared to information that was disclosed
`
`in the prior art.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art. I have applied these
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`standards in my analysis of whether claims 7 and 17 of the ’978 patent were
`
`anticipated at the time of the invention.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior art, each
`
`and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or inherently, in a
`
`single prior art reference in the manner recited in the claim.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that claim limitations that are not expressly found in a prior art
`
`reference are inherent only if the prior art necessarily includes the claim
`
`limitations.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time the
`
`invention was made.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined at 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`as follows:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
`identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of
`this title, if 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 art to which said
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by
`the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the following tenets also govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`consideration of whether claims 7 and 17 of the ’978 patent would have been
`
`considered obvious at the time of the invention.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by considering more than one
`
`item of prior art but that the prior art must teach or suggest all the claim
`
`limitations.
`
`29.
`
` I also understand that the relevant inquiry into obviousness requires
`
`consideration of four factors:
`
`29.1
`
`29.2
`
`issue;
`
`29.3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims at
`
`The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art; and
`
`29.4
`
`
`
`Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or
`
`non-obviousness may be present in any particular case, such factors including
`
`commercial success of products covered by the patent claims; a long-felt need
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the invention; copying of
`
`the invention by others in the field; unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention; praise of the invention by the infringer or others in the field; the
`
`taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts
`
`and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and that the patentee
`
`proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that for a claim to be obvious based on a combination of prior
`
`art, there must be some reason, either in the references themselves or in the
`
`knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the
`
`reference or to combine such teachings. I also understand that the hypothetical
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art must have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in making such combinations or modifications. Obviousness can only be
`
`established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the
`
`claimed invention where there is some reason to do so found either explicitly or
`
`implicitly in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art. “The test for an implicit showing is what the
`
`combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of
`
`the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also In re
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347,
`
`21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the ’978 patent is a divisional of U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 10/811,920, filed on March 30, 2004, which is a division of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 09/316,697, filed on May 21, 1999, which is a division of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 08/768,066, filed on December 16, 1996. The ’978 patent
`
`also claims priority to a foreign patent, Japanese Patent Application No. JP 7-
`
`350229, filed on December 21, 1995. I have used December 21, 1995 as the “time
`
`of the invention” in my findings.
`
`C.
`
`The Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`32.
`
`I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’978 patent
`
`would be someone having an expert understanding of the design and liquid crystal
`
`assembly of AMLCDs (“Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Display”) in December of
`
`1995. This person would know the structure and function of such devices,
`
`including the assembly and sealing of liquid crystal cells. They would have
`
`considered published papers and other literature on AMLCD design, fabrication,
`
`and cell assembly. They typically would hold both an undergraduate degree and a
`
`graduate degree in chemistry, engineering, or physics and would have had several
`
`years of experience in the industry. I understand that a “person of ordinary skill is
`
`also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and that would be
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`especially true of anyone developing improved AMLCD processes or fabrication
`
`techniques.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`33. As noted above, I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. I
`
`understand that the “broadest reasonable interpretation” is based on giving words
`
`of a claim their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the
`
`specification. I understand that the “plain meaning” of a term means the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention and that the ordinary and customary meaning of a term may
`
`be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves,
`
`the specification, drawings, and prior art.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that in construing claims “[a]ll words in a claim must be
`
`considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” MPEP §
`
`2143.03 (citing In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970)).
`
`35.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence may be consulted for the meaning of a
`
`claim term as long as it is not used to contradict claim meaning that is
`
`unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
`
`1576, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). I also understand that in construing claim terms,
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`the general meanings gleaned from reference sources must always be compared
`
`against the use of the terms in context, and the intrinsic record must always be
`
`consulted to identify which of the different possible dictionary meanings is most
`
`consistent with the use of the words by the inventor.
`
`III. THE ’978 PATENT.
`
`A. The Background Of The ’978 Patent
`36. The ’978 patent is in the field of AMLCDs, some of which included liquid-
`
`crystal display devices having integral peripheral circuits.
`
`37. At the time of the invention, AMLCDs included pixel electrodes that control
`
`liquid crystals to produce image data. These pixel electrodes are switched using
`
`Thin Film Transistors (TFTs), which themselves are controlled by peripheral drive
`
`circuits, either external to or integral within the LCD display.
`
`38. Such external peripheral drive circuits include a silicon integrated circuit
`
`attached externally to a liquid-crystal panel either through a “tape automatic
`
`bonding” (“TAB”) technique or the “chip on glass” (“COG”) technique. See Ex.
`
`1001, ’978 patent, at col. 1, ll. 27-31, FIG. 16.
`
`39.
`
`In displays where the peripheral drive circuits were integrated on a panel, the
`
`location of the peripheral drive circuit outside of the liquid crystal sealing material
`
`resulted in moisture entering the sealing material from the interface at which
`
`wirings traverse the sealing material. Also, because the peripheral drive circuit
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`was disposed outside the pixel region, the display device itself was undesirably
`
`large in size. See Ex. 1001, ‘978 patent, at col. 1, ll. 62-65, col. 2, ll. 23-31, FIG.
`
`17.
`
`40. To minimize wasted area, these bulky peripheral drive circuits were often
`
`repositioned inside the liquid crystal sealing material on one side of the device
`
`only, traversing the sealing material to reach control circuitry, a power supply or
`
`the like. See Ex. 1001, ’978 patent, at col. 2, ll. 6-10. While minimizing wasted
`
`area, locating the peripheral drive circuits on only one side of the display created
`
`non-uniformities in the substrate-to-substrate spacing which in turn degraded the
`
`quality of the liquid crystal light valve and the optical quality of the display. See
`
`Ex. 1001, ’978 patent, at col. 2, ll. 35-58.
`
`B.
`The Invention of the ’978 Patent
`41. The ’978 patent helps solve these problems, by reducing the intrusion of
`
`impurities like moisture through the seal and improving the uniformity of the seal
`
`itself.
`
`42.
`
` FIG. 1 of the ’978 patent, which is reproduced below, is a top view of a first
`
`substrate 101 of the LCD device having a first side edge, extending in a first
`
`direction, and a second side edge, extending in a second direction orthogonal to the
`
`first direction. The LCD device includes a pixel section 102 and liquid crystal
`
`cells 111 in the pixel section 102, including a plurality of first conductive lines
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`(e.g., signal lines 105) and a plurality of second conductive lines (e.g., scanning
`
`lines 106). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ’978 patent, at col. 6, ll. 16-34.
`
`
`
`43.
`
`In FIG. 1, conductive lines 105 and 106 cross the sealant on two sides of the
`
`sealant at R3 and R4 (highlighted in green). Because the conductive lines only
`
`cross the sealant on two sides, the sealant is not uniform on all four sides. Ex.
`
`1001, ’978 patent, at col. 4, ll. 6-14. To solve this problem, dummy wirings
`
`(conductive layers and associated structures) are located at R1 and R2 (highlighted
`
`in red) to create a uniform sealant region. Id.
`
`44. As shown in FIG. 2E of the ’978 patent, an interlayer insulator 220 is
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`disposed between the first conductive lines and the second conductive lines. See,
`
`e.g., ’978 patent, at col. 9, ll. 4-15. In the pixel section 102, thin film transistors
`
`112 are electrically connected to the first conductive lines 105 and the second
`
`conductive lines 106, and also are electrically connected to pixel electrodes (the
`
`liquid crystal cells 111). See Ex. 1001, ’978 patent, at col. 6, ll. 31-34. The sealing
`
`member formation region is represented by the cross hatched area 107, which
`
`surrounds the pixel section 102 as shown in FIG. 1 of the ’978 patent. The sealing
`
`material in the sealing material formation region 107 is disposed between the first
`
`substrate 101 and an opposite, second substrate. See Ex. 1001, ’978 patent, at col.
`
`6, ll. 35-41.
`
`45. As shown in FIG. 1 of the ’978 patent, for example, the first conductive lines
`
`105 and the second conductive lines 106 cross the sealing material formation
`
`region 107 at locations R3 and R4. First
`
`and second conductive layers (e.g., dummy
`
`wirings 501) are formed over the first
`
`substrate 101 so as to overlap with the
`
`sealing member formation region 107, as
`
`shown in FIG. 9 of the ‘978 patent, which
`
`is reproduced at right (with annotations).
`
`See Ex. 1001, ’978 patent, at col. 13, ll. 51-55, 61-66. The first and second
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`conductive layers 501 maintain a uniform sealing material formation region such
`
`that the first and second substrates can be pressed toward each other and bonded
`
`together uniformly. See Ex. 1001, ’978 patent, at col. 14, ll. 39-47.
`
`46. The ’978 patent specifies that the sealing member having a portion adjacent
`
`to the first side edge extending in a first direction and at least a part of each of the
`
`first and second conductive layers 501 is overlapped with the portion of the sealing
`
`member. Specifically, at least a part of each of the first and conductive layers 105
`
`is located in the sealing member portion adjacent to the first side edge extending in
`
`the first direction. In the case of the signal lines 105 corresponding to the first
`
`conductive lines extending in the first direction and the scanning lines 106
`
`corresponding to the second conductive lines extending in the second direction, at
`
`least a part of each of the first and second conductive layers 501 is overlapped with
`
`the region R1 adjacent to the first side edge.
`
`47. The ’978 patent specifies that the first and second conductive layers, e.g.,
`
`dummy wirings 501, provided in the sealing material formation region 107 are
`
`formed from a same layer as the plurality of second conductive lines. Specifically,
`
`the first and second conductive layers 501 are formed from a same layer as the
`
`second conductive lines (the scanning lines 106). See Ex. 1001, ’978 patent, at col.
`
`13, ll. 51-66. One skilled in the art at the time of the invention, would have
`
`understood that this achieves the effect of a uniform cell gap.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`48. The ’978 patent specifies that a length of the first conductive layer along the
`
`first direction and a length of the second conductive layer along the first direction
`
`are longer than a pitch of the adjacent second conductive lines. Specifically, as
`
`illustrated by FIG. 9 of the ’978 patent, the length of the first and second
`
`conductive layers along the first direction are longer than a pitch of the adjacent
`
`second conductive lines that are running the second direction. See Ex. 1001, ’978
`
`patent, at col. 12, ll. 31-34 (pitch of the dummy wirings is equal to the pitch of the
`
`scanning lines 106) and col. 14, ll. 18-27 (branches 501a orthogonal to longitudinal
`
`direction of the dummy wiring are longer than the pitch). This inhibits the entry of
`
`moisture and other impurities from the exterior into interior display region.
`
`49. The ’978 patent specification describes the advantage of the conductive
`
`layers blocking the entry of moisture into the display region. Ex. 1001, ’978
`
`patent, at col. 5, ll. 16-25, col. 14, ll.7-27. A person of skill in the art, at the time
`
`of the invention, would have understood that the following limitations in claims 7
`
`and 17 achieve this effect:
`
`A first substrate having a first side edge extending in a first direction and a second
`side edge extending in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction
`
`…
`A plurality of second conductive lines extending over the first substrate in the
`second direction
`
`…
`A sealing member disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate,
`the sealing member having a portion adjacent to the first side edge;
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`At least first and second conductive layers formed from a same layer as the
`plurality of second conductive lines, wherein at least a part of each of the
`first and second conductive layers is overlapped with the portion of the
`sealing member,
`
`
`Wherein a length of the first conductive layer along the first direction and a length
`of the second conductive layer along the first direction are longer than a
`pitch of adjacent ones of the plurality of second conductive lines.
`
`
`In other words, the effect of preventing the entry of moisture into the display
`
`region can be achieved with creating dummy structures in the portion of the sealing
`
`member adjacent to the first side edge extending in the first direction, which are
`
`orthogonal to the direction of the second conductive lines extending in the second
`
`direction, and which are formed from the same layer as the second conductive lines,
`
`and which have a length longer than a pitch of the second conductive lines along
`
`the first direction. Specifically, embodiment 3 illustrated in FIG. 9 discloses the
`
`effect of preventing the entry of moisture from the exterior in addition to the effect
`
`of equalizing the cell gap described in the foregoing paragraphs. See Ex. 1001,
`
`’978 patent, at col. 13, ll. 48-50, col. 14, ll. 12-27. A person skilled in the art
`
`would have understood that only unitary or continuous structures described in the
`
`’978 patent can block the entry of moisture.
`
`50. The ’978 patent also specifies that the first and second conductive layers are
`
`electrically isolated from each other and from both of the plurality of first
`
`conductive lines and the plurality of second conductive lines. See Ex. 1001, ’978
`
`patent, at col. 6, ll. 53-58, col. 13, ll. 61-66, FIGS. 4 and 9. A person of ordinary
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would have understood that
`
`“electrically isolated” means no electrical interaction, free floating and not
`
`connected by a conductive path. A person of skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, would also have understood that “electrically isolating” the conductive
`
`layers from each other and from both of the plurality of first conductive lines and
`
`the plurality of second conductive lines prevents the failure of an entire display due
`
`to a short circuit.
`
`51. The ’978 patent specifies that the first and second conductive layers are
`
`electrically isolated from both of the plurality of first conductive lines and the
`
`plurality of second conductive lines. Thus, generally, there is no electrical
`
`interaction between the conductive layers and the conductive lines. At the time of
`
`the ’978 patent’s priority date in 1995, it was not technically possible to fabricate
`
`large displays (like a laptop display) without typically a few dozen defects such as
`
`pixel opens, pixel shorts, line shorts, line opens, and vertical shorts between
`
`layers. Persons skilled in the art knew this, and were careful to design displays to
`
`maximize their manufacturing yield. Designers also knew that the normal
`
`capacitive load on each conductive line was about 10 to 50 pF, and also that their
`
`drivers were big enough to accommodate perhaps 10 pF of additional capacitance
`
`on any one line. However, unless the conductive layers were isolated from each
`
`other, a single short to any one of these conductive layers could add hundreds of
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`picofarads to one of the conductive lines and thereby ruin the entire display
`
`panel. In teaching and claiming that the dummy “conductive layers must be
`
`electrically isolated from each other,” the ’978 patent teaches that each conductive
`
`layer remain electrically separate with only minimal capacitance. This way, even
`
`if one of these conductive layers “shorted-out” to a conductive line (either
`
`vertically or laterally as was common in 1995), none of these conductive lines
`
`would become so overloaded with extra capacitance as to fail. In view of such a
`
`situation, the ’978 patent further specifies that the first and second conductive
`
`layers are electrically isolated from each other.
`
`52. The first and second conductive layers electrically isolated from each other
`
`can prevent the display from being ruined. Two cases are considered: (i) the first
`
`and second conductive layers are connected to form the large conductive layer (i.e.,
`
`the first and second conductive layers are not electrically isolated from each other)
`
`and (ii) the first and second conductive layers are electrically isolated from each
`
`other. In the first case, a single short between any one of those conductive layers is
`
`fatal, meaning that the display is ruined. In the second case, with a single short of
`
`one conductive layer to a conductive line, the display is not ruined.
`
`53. The ’978 patent specification further describes a black matrix overlapped
`
`with intersections of the first conductive lines and the second conductive lines and
`
`the first and second conductive layers. See Ex. 1001, ’978 patent, at col. 2, ll. 59-
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`64, col. 4, ll. 56-62, col. 14, ll. 48-54, and col. 16, ll. 1-9. One skilled in the art at
`
`the time of the invention would have understood that the black matrix must at least
`
`partly overlap the intersections of the first and second conductive lines and that
`
`these first and second conductive lines are the same first and second conductive
`
`lines that claims 7 and 17 require be connected to the TFTs in the pixel section
`
`102.
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`54. The application which ultimately issued as the ’978 patent was filed on July
`
`1, 2008, and is a division of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/811,920, filed on
`
`March 30, 2004, which is a division of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/316,697,
`
`filed on May 21, 1999, which is a division of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`08/768,066, filed on December 16, 1996. The ’978 patent also claims priority to a
`
`foreign patent, Japanese Patent Application No. JP 7-350229, filed on December
`
`21, 1995. Hongyong Zhang are listed as inventor of the ’978 patent. See Ex. 1001,
`
`the ’978 patent, at p. 1.
`
`55.
`
`I understand the prosecution history of the ‘978 patent to be part of the
`
`intrinsic record of the ‘978 patent.
`
`D. The Claims
`
`56.
`
`Independent claims 7 and 17 each recite a display device comprising a first
`
`substrate (e.g., substrate 101 in FIG. 1 above) having a first side edge extending in
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`a first direction and a second side edge extending in a second direction orthogonal
`
`to the first direction.
`
`57. The claims further recite a plurality of first conductive lines extending over
`
`the first substrate in the first direction and a plurality of second conductive lines
`
`extending over the first substrate in the second direction. That is, as shown in FIG.
`
`1 above, for example, signal lines 105 would correspond to a plurality of first
`
`conductive lines extending over the first substrate in the first direction and
`
`scanning lines 106 correspond to a plurality of second conductive lines extending
`
`over the first substrate in the second direction. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ‘978 patent, at
`
`col. 6, ll. 16-34.
`
`58. The claims further recite an insulating film (e.g., interlayer insulator 220 of
`
`FIG. 2E above) disposed between the plurality of first conductive lines and the
`
`plurality of second conductive lines, and a plurality of thin film transistors (112 in
`
`FIG. 1) electrically connected to the plurality of first conductive lines and the
`
`plurality of second conductive lines.
`
`59. Claims 7 and 17 further recite a plurality of pixel electrodes electrically
`
`connected to the plurality of thin film transistors. As shown, in FIG. 1, thin film
`
`transistors 112 are electrically connected to pixel electrodes in the liquid crystal
`
`cells 111.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`60. Claims 7 and 17 also recite a second substrate opposed to the first substrate;
`
`and a sealing member disposed between the first substrate and the second
`
`substrate, the sealing member having a portion adjacent to the first side edge
`
`extending in a first direction. See Ex. 1001, ’978 patent, at col. 6, ll. 35-41.
`
`61. The claims recite that at least first and second conductive “layers” are
`
`formed from a same “layer” as the plurality of second conductive lines, wherein at
`
`least a part of each of these first and second conductive “layers” is overlapped with
`
`the portion of the sealing member. See Ex. 1001, ’978 patent, at col. 13, ll. 51-66
`
`(“The starting film is patterned so that while the gate electrode/wiring of a TFT [i.e.
`
`scanning line 106] are formed, dummy wirings 501 which are not electrically
`
`connected are formed as shown in FIG. 9.”); see also id. at FIG. 9 (at least a part of
`
`each of the first and second conductive layers 501 is overlapped with the sealing
`
`member portion R1 adjacent to the first side edge extending in the first direction).
`
`It is a critical limitation of claims 7 and 17 that the first and second conductive
`
`layers be formed from the same layer