SEL EXHIBIT 2012
`
`INNOLUX CORPORATION v. PATENT OF SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY
`
`LABORATORY CO., LTD.
`
`lPR2013-00066
`
`
`
`INNOLUX CORPORATION v. PATENT OF SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY
`
`LABORATORY CO., LTD.
`
`lPR2013-00066
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`INNOLUX CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO., LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE IPR 2013-00066
`
`PATENT 7,876,413
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. ESCUTI, PHD
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Background And Qualifications ...........
`
`................................................ 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Compensation ..............................
`
`...................................
`
`........ 9
`
`Information Considered ............................................................................. 9
`
`LEGAL STANDARD OF PATENTABILITY ........................................ 9
`
`A. Anticipation ............................................................................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness ............................................................................................... l]
`
`C.
`
`The Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................... 13
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction .......................
`
`..... . ........................................... 14
`
`THE ‘413 PATENT. ................................................................................. 15
`
`A.
`
`The Background Of The ‘413 Patent .......................... . ........................... 15
`
`B.
`
`The Invention of the ‘413 Patent ............................................................. 18
`
`C.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ‘413 Patent ........................ ................... 20
`
`D.
`
`Claims of the ‘413 Patent .....
`
`.............................................................. 21
`
`1.
`
`“First Wiring” and “Second Wiring” ..................................................... 22
`
`2. “First Region” and “Second Region” ..................................................... 22
`
`3.
`
`“Contact Through An Opening In An Insulating Film” ...................... 26
`
`THE PRIOR ART .......... .......................................
`
`................................ 40
`
`Sukegawa ....................... . ................................................................ . .......... 40
`
`Nakamoto ..............................
`
`.........................................................
`
`48
`
`
`
`THE PATENTABILITY OF THE ‘413 PATENT ................................ 49
`
`A.
`
`Sukegawa and Nakamoto fail to disclose that “First Wiring” and
`
`Overlying “Second Wiring” Would Extend to the “Second Region” .50
`
`1. Sukegawa and Nakamoto Do Not Suggest Extending The Second
`
`Wiring Under the Sealant ............................................................................... 55
`
`B.
`
`Sukegawa and Nakamoto Fail to Disclose The Claim Second Wiring
`
`Making Direct Contact With the Transparent Conductive Layer
`
`Through an Opening in the Second Insulating Film (claim element
`
`1.13) ...................................................
`
`.................................... 67
`
`1. Sukegawa Does Not Diclose The Limitation “wherein the second
`
`wiring and the transparent conductive layer are in direct contact through
`
`an opening in the second insulating film” (claim element 1.13) ................. 67
`
`2. Even Under Another Definition, Sukegawa is Deficient To Show Claim
`
`Element 1.13 ..................................................................................................... 73
`
`3. Sukegawa FIG. 3BI3E Are Deficient ...................................................... 76
`
`4. Reconnecting After “Peel-Off” Does Not Suggest the Claimed Element
`
`1.13 .................................................................................................................... 77
`
`C.
`
`The limitation of the Sealant in “Direct Contact With the Second
`
`Insulating Film” is not obvious ............................................................... 89
`
`SHIBA ........................................................................................................ 93
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 96
`
`APPENDIX A............................................................................. ............................ 98
`
`APPENDIX B ............
`
`.........................................................
`
`................... 100
`
`
`
`1, Michael J. Escuti, 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: 1” JUU/ 20,3
`
`‘ E; W
`
`Michael J. Eseuti
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained by Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. in this
`
`proceeding as an expert in the relevant art.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions and views on the materials I have
`
`reviewed in this case related to US. Patent No. 7,876,413 (the “5413 patent”)
`
`(Ex.1001) and the scientific and technical subject matter at the time the ’4 l 3 patent
`
`was filed. Appendix A lists the materials I reviewed.
`
`My opinions and underlying reasoning for this opinion are set forth below.
`
`A.
`
`Background And Qualifications
`
`1 am currently a tenured Associate Professor at North Carolina State
`
`University, in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. As detailed
`
`below, I have over 15 years of experience directly relevant to the “413 patent, in
`
`liquid crystal display (“LCD”) technologies, fabrication, optical physics, and
`
`electronic materials.
`
`i received my PhD.
`
`in Electrical Engineering from Brown University in
`
`Providence, R.l.,
`
`in 2002. My dissertation topic focused on novel liquid crystal
`
`display systems and devices,
`
`including both experimental
`
`fabrication and
`
`theoretical study. Upon earning my Ph.D., I apprenticed as a Post-Doctoral fellow
`
`in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Eindhoven University of
`
`
`
`displays, and polymerwbased organic light emitting diodes (“LEDs”) and thin-film-
`
`transistors (“TFTs”). Following this in 2004, I joined the faculty of North Carolina
`
`State University, where I established a research laboratory for “Opto-electronics
`
`and Lightwave Engineering,” with a focus on liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and
`
`related applications.
`
`In 2005,
`
`I co-founded the start-up ImagineOptix Corporation, which
`
`commercializes liquid crystal display components, systems, and optical thin-film
`
`technology deve10ped within my academic laboratory. Since its inception, I have
`
`been a part-time advisor to the company with the title of Chief Scientific Officer,
`
`and in 2013, I joined the Board of Directors.
`
`I have received numerous awards and distinctions, including the following:
`
`o
`
`(2011) Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers
`
`(“PECASE”), the highest award by the U.S. Government for young
`
`researchers, nominated by the National Science Foundation and personally
`
`awarded by President Barack Obama at the White House.
`
`0
`
`(2011) Alcoa Foundation Engineering Research Achievement Award,
`
`awarded to one faculty NCSU member annually recognizing outstanding
`
`research.
`
`(2010) Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Award, from the
`
`
`
`National Science Foundation (“NSF”).
`
`-
`
`(2004) Glenn H. Brown Prize for Outstanding Ph.D. Dissertation, from the
`
`International Liquid Crystal Society (“ILCS”).
`
`I
`
`(2002) New Focus Award, Top Winner, from the Optical Society of
`
`America (“08A”).
`
`0
`
`(1999) Best Student Paper Award, Society for Information Display (“SID”).
`
`I Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”),
`
`Society of Photowoptical and Instrumentation Engineers (“SPIE”), and SID.
`
`I have
`
`co-authnred over
`
`88 peer-reviewed journal
`
`and conference
`
`publications,
`
`and one book chapter.
`
`I have offered 23
`
`invited research
`
`presentations.
`
`I am a named inventor on 5 issued and 10 pending United States
`
`and patent applications, respectively, and several additional foreign patents and
`
`applications.
`
`I have supervised the graduation of five PhD. and three M.S. students, and I
`
`currently advise an additional three Ph.D. students and two Post—Doctoral fellows.
`
`I have also mentored seventeen undergraduate researchers. Furthermore, I have
`
`created and/or teach several undergraduate and graduate courses relevant to the
`
`“413 patent. For example, with NSF support, I developed a laboratory course on
`
`“Liquid Crystal Displays and Organic Electronics”, wherein both graduate and
`
`
`
`currently also develoPing a new undergraduate course entitled “Introduction to
`
`Nano—Science and Technology,” wherein thin-film transistors play a prominent
`
`role. For several years, I have also taught the undergraduate “Electromagnetic
`
`Fields” course required for all majors in our department.
`
`I also took classes in
`
`LCD, VLSI,
`
`and semiconductor
`
`fabrication and design when I was
`
`an
`
`undergraduate (1992-1997) and graduate student (1997-2002).
`
`10. My research at NCSU over the last nine years has been supported by
`
`approximately $5M in external research funds, in part from several government
`
`agencies,
`
`including the NSF,
`
`the United States Air Force Research Laboratory
`
`(AFRL),
`
`the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the
`
`National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). A further part of this
`
`support also comes from several strong partnerships with industry,
`
`including
`
`Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, Boulder Nonlinear
`
`Systems, MZA Associates, and ImagineOptix.
`
`11. My central expertise via training and research experience is in LCD design,
`
`fabrication, and modeling,
`
`including electronics, optics, and materials. I began
`
`working with LCDs in 1998. My first journal article on this topic (MJ. Escuti, et
`
`a1., “Enhanced Dynamic Response of the Iii-plane Switching Liquid Crystal
`
`Display Mode Through Polymer Stabilization,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 75,
`
`pp. 3264-3266 (1999)) addressed switching speeds of in-plane switching (IPS)
`
`
`
`mode.
`
`In 2002,
`
`I co-authored a chapter reviewing LCD technology (G.P.
`
`Crawford and MJ. Escuti, Liquid Crystal Display Technology, in "Encyclopedia of
`
`Imaging Science and Technology,” ed. J.P. Hornak (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
`
`2002)). Several of my projects involve high resolution active-matrix displays and
`
`the techniques used to fabricate and design them — for example, R.K. Komanduri,
`
`et al., “Late-News Paper: Polarization-Independent Liquid Crystal Microdisplays,”
`
`Societyfor Information Display Symposium Digest, vol. 39, pp. 236-239, 2008. In
`
`this and in other more recent projects (unpublished), my students,
`
`industrial
`
`partners, and I designed, fabricated, and assembled systems involving electrical
`
`connections to LCD panels.
`
`In my academic research, I direct both applied and fundamental research for
`
`applications including efficient liquid crystal disPlays, photonic switches, low-loss
`
`laser beam steering for high energy applications and laser communications,
`
`VIS/IRJMIR polarization imaging, and novel holographic elements. We routinely
`
`use and often fabricate our own liquid crystal devices, substrates, and fully
`
`functional systems for direct-view and projection-displays and other applications
`
`including telecommunications, remote sensing, and laser beam steering.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix B. This includes a
`
`list of my patents and publications and my prior testimony.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Compensation
`
`I am being compensated at my standard rate of $330 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.
`
`Information Considered
`
`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.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD OF PATENTABILITY
`
`In forming my opinions and considering the patentability of the claims of the
`
`”413 patent, I am relying upon certain legal principles that counsel has explained to
`
`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 which predated the invention are generally referred to
`
`as “prior art.”
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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
`
`I understand that
`
`the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`I have applied these
`
`standards in my analysis of whether claims of the ”413 patent were anticipated at
`
`the time of the invention.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to examine extrinsic evidence outside the
`
`prior art reference in determining whether a feature, while not expressly discussed
`
`in the reference, is necessarily present within that reference.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Obvious ness
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the
`
`manner in which the invention was made.”
`
`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 of the ”413 patent would have been considered
`
`obvious at the time of the invention.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`1 also understand that
`
`the relevant
`
`inquiry into obviousness requires
`
`consideration of four factors:
`
`The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`and
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`I understand that for a claim to be obvious based on a combination of prior
`
`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, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2000). See also In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
`
`In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`I understand that
`
`the “413 patent
`
`is based on series of continuation
`
`applications from an application (09/ 165,628) that was filed on October 1, 1998.
`
`I
`
`understand that the ’413 patent claims the benefit of the foreign priority date of
`
`October 6, 1997.
`
`C.
`
`The Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’413 patent in
`
`1997 would be aware of liquid crystal display structures, including techniques for
`
`providing connections therein and to circuits outside a sealant.
`
`
`
`I understand that a “person of ordinary skill
`
`is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity, not an automaton” and that would be especially true of anyone
`
`developing liquid crystal display structures.
`
`D.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`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.
`
`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, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA
`
`1 970)).
`
`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 Virrom'cs Corp. v. Conceprronic, 1m, 90 F.3d
`
`1576, 1583—84 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`I also understand that in construing claim terms,
`
`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.
`
`See, cg, Ferguson
`
`Beauregard/Logic Controls v. Mega Systems, 350 F.3d 1327, 1338, 69 USPQ2d
`
`1001, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`III. THE ’413 PATENT.
`
`A.
`
`The Background Of The ’413 Patent
`
`The ’413 patent relates to a display device such as a liquid crystal display
`
`(“LCD”) device. LCD devices generally have two, parallel facing substrates that
`
`are mechanically connected by a sealant, and a liquid crystal material is located in
`
`a region circumscribed by the sealant. The substrates are generally called the
`
`substrate and the counter-substrate. Sometimes the counter—substrate is called the
`
`color filter substrate. FIG. 1 of the ”413 patent shows general aspects of an LCD:
`
`
`
`FMS. 1
`
`enema
`x
`
`103
`
`EXTERNAL CONNECTION
`ma REGION A
`LINE
`101 SUBSTRATE
`
`‘02 COUNTER
`we,” seesaw» -
`
`
`“AIMW SUBSTRATE
`
`
`
`.
`.l 'lllluiflfrilllnllnlllununfi
`106 ADJUSTMENT
`
`LAYER
`
`
`11G
`INJECTION
`
`105 SEALANT
`
`HOLE
`120
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`103 ACTIVE
`MATRIX DISPLAY
`CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`Wm 104 PERIPHERAL
`DRIVING CIRCUIT
`
`
`The sealant is used to define a region to contain liquid crystal between the
`
`two substrates. Thus, FIG. 1 of the ’413 patent, shown above, indicates a substrate
`
`101 and a counter—substrate 102. A sealant 105 is represented, and an injection
`
`hole 110 at the left side of FIG. 1 is where liquid crystal material is injected so that
`
`it becomes located between the substrates as constrained by the sealant. Then the
`
`hole is sealed. Inside the LCD are various microelectronic wirings and circuits that
`
`cause sections of the device called pixels to change their light transmittance or
`
`brightness. Wirings extend from an active area of the LCD (within the region
`
`circumscribed by the sealant 105) to the region outside the sealant. These include
`
`external connection lines 108 in FIG. 1.
`
`The invention set
`
`forth in the claims relates more specifically to the
`
`embodiment illustrated in FIGS. 4A and 4B (reproduced below). The external
`
`connection lines in this embodiment are represented by reference 403. The
`
`
`
`invention reduces the resistance of the electrical connection by using auxiliary
`
`lines 401, which lie beneath the external connection lines 403, and which
`
`correspond to a “first wiring” in the claims.
`
`(Ex. 1001, col. 8, 11. 42-50 and FIG.
`
`4A). These two wirings are typically formed of a metal conductor. The external
`
`connection line 403 is referred to in some claims as a “second wiring,” which is
`
`located above the first wiring in the whole region represented by FIG, 4A, from the
`
`“terminal region” on the right, to beneath the sealant region at the left. They are
`
`separated vertically by a first inter-layer film 112, which corresponds to a “first
`
`insulating film” in the claims.
`
`105 $EALENT
`
`113 REE‘IIN INTER-LAYER FILM
`
`
`
`Iran‘o
`IFWE. 4A* ............_,
`L
`Wimfi E 112 FIRST INTER—
`Vl/W/i/fJf/JJM’I/JJ’I5fIfI?ff/f/I/I/l/flJ/Wf/f/fli/fl
`LAYER FILM
`
`111 UNDERLYING
`FILM
`
`X'
`
`401 AUXILIARY LINES
`
`403
`EXTERNAL CONNECTION LINES
`
`
`
`X 101 sues'rRATE
`
`404 SECOND ADJUST-
`MEN'I' LAYER
`
`403
`
`
`
`Wfl/fifl?/fllflllffi
`
`Wlfllflfiiflffi
`
`Zlfl/f/l/lffihl
`
`402 FIRST
`ADJUSTMENT LAYER
`
`401
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Invention of the ’41:! Patent
`
`All claims in the ’413 patent require a contact hole (“an opening”) through
`
`the first insulating film (between the two conducting lines) to allow electrical
`
`contact between them. The advantage of reduced electrical resistance, Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 8, 11. 42-51, results from the following limitations in claim 1 (and limitations in
`
`other contested claims):
`
`a sealant over the first wiring and a second region of the second
`
`wiring,
`
`wherein the second wiring overlaps at
`
`least part of the first
`
`wiring;
`
`wherein the first wiring and the second wiring are in electrical
`
`contact through an opening in the first insulating film.
`
`Furthermore, in order to improve the reliability of an LCD by providing for
`
`the sealant 105 to have favorable adhesion, this invention provides a structure
`
`where the sealant 105 does not overlap the indium tin oxide (“ITO”) film 114,
`
`which corresponds to a “transparent conductive layer” in the claims, and the
`
`sealant is in direct contact with the second insulating film (such as the resin intern
`
`layer film 113). 1d. at FIG. 4A. Generally, a sealant has poor adhesion to ITO. As
`
`shown in FIG. 4A of the “413 patent, the tranSparent conductive layer is over a
`
`“first region” of the second wiring, the sealant is over both the first wiring and a
`
`“second region” of the second wiring, and the sealant is in direct contact with the
`
`
`
`second insulating film. This configuration provides favorable adhesion of the
`
`sealant.
`
`This advantage of favorable adhesion is achieved by the following
`
`limitations in claim 1 (and limitations in the other independent claims):
`
`a transparent conductive layer over a first region of the second
`
`Wiring;
`
`a sealant over the first wiring and a second region of the second
`
`wiring,
`
`wherein the sealant
`
`is
`
`in direct contact with the second
`
`insulating film.
`
`40. Additionally, independent claims 1, 7, 17, and 22 and dependent claims 15
`
`and 29 of the ”413 patent have the advantage of achieving a reliable connection
`
`with the flexible printed circuit 107 (“FPC”).
`
`First, a connection with high
`
`reliability can be achieved because the entire terminal portion region where the
`
`transparent conductive layer is formed can be used as the connection area for the
`
`FPC. For example, in FIG. 4A of the ’413 patent, because resin inter-layer film
`
`113 is formed before and located under the ITO layer 114, there will be no layer
`
`that blocks the ITO layer 114 from connecting with the PFC 107. That is, the
`
`entire area where the ITO layer 114 is formed corresponds to the region where the
`
`PFC 107 can be connected. Because the connection area is not obstructed by the
`
`resin-layer film 113, the connection reliability between the ITO layer 114 and the
`
`FPC 107 will increase.
`
`
`
`Second, because no other layer is formed over the transparent conductive
`
`layer,
`
`the transparent conductive layer will not be damaged (such as if the
`
`properties of the layer change or the layer thinned by cveretching) due to the
`
`deposition or etching process of any such other layer. Therefore, a more reliable
`
`connection with the PFC is achieved. As shown in ’413 FIG. 4A, the transparent
`
`conductive layer 114 is formed over the second insulating film 113, and the second
`
`wiring 403 and the transparent conductive layer are in direct contact through an
`
`opening in the second insulating film. This advantage is achieved by the following
`
`limitations in claim 1 (with similar limitations in independent claims 7, 17, and 22
`
`and dependent claims 15 and 29):
`
`wherein the second wiring and the flexible printed circuit are in
`
`electrical contact through the transparent conductive layer;
`
`wherein the second wiring and the transparent conductive layer
`
`are in direct contact
`
`through an opening in the second
`
`insulating film.
`
`C.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ‘413 Patent
`
`I was advised that the application which ultimately issued as the 413 patent
`
`was October 16, 2008, and is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 11/837,588,
`
`filed on August 13, 2007, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No.
`
`10/384,943, filed on March 10, 2003, which is a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`No. 09/865,081,
`
`filed on March 24, 2001, which is a continuation of U.S.
`
`
`
`Application No. 09/481,278, filed on January 1 1, 2000, which is a continuation of
`
`US. Application No. 09/165,628, filed on October 1, 1998. The ”413 patent also
`
`claims priority to a foreign patent, Japanese Patent Application No. JP 9-289160,
`
`filed on October 6, 1997. See Ex. 1001, ’413 patent, at 1.
`
`I understand the prosecution history of the ’413 patent to be part of the
`
`intrinsic record of the ’413 patent.
`
`D.
`
`Claims of the ’413 Patent
`
`The ”413 patent has six independent claims: claims 1, 7, 10, 17, 22, and 24.
`
`The following table has been provided to me to as a convenient way (using the
`
`numbered column at the far left of the table) to refer to various language contained
`
`in claim 1 and other claims:
`
`
`
`Claim language
`
`
`Corresponding element
`nos.
`
`
`
`
`A display device comprising:
`
`
`
`7.1, 10.1, 17.1, 22.1, 24.1
`
`a first insulating film over the first wiring
`
`7.3, 10.3, 17.4, 22.4, 24.4
`
`7.4, 10.4, 17.5, 22.5, 24.5
`
`7.5, 10.5, 17.6, 22.6, 24.6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a second wiring over the substrate and the first
`insulating film
`
`
`
`
`a second insulating film over the second wiring
`
`
`a tranSparent conductive layer over a first 7.6,10.6, 17.7, 22.7, 24.7
`
`
`region of the second wiring;
`
`
`
`
`a flexible printed circuit over the first wiring 7.7, 10.7, 17.8, 22.8, 24.8
`
`and the first region of the second wiring;
`
`
`
`
`a sealant over the first wiring and a second 78,108,179, 22.9, 24.9
`region of the second wiring,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim language
`
`Corresponding element
`nos.
`
`wherein the sealant is 1n direct contact w1th the 7.9, 10.9, 17.11, 2211,
`second insulating film;
`24.11
`
`
`
`24.12
`
`
`
`
`wherein the first wiring and the second wiring
`7.11,10.11,17.13, 22.13,
`24.13
`are in electrical contact through an opening in
`
`the first insulating film;
`
`
`
`
`7.12, 10.12, 17.14, 22.15,
`
`
`24.15
`printed circuit are in electrical contact through
`
`
`
`the transparent conductive layer;
`
`
`
`wherein the second wiring and the transparent 7.13, 17.16, 22.16
`conductive layer are in direct contact through an
`
`
`caning in the second insulating film.
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`“First Wiring” and “Second Wiring”
`
`FIG. 4A of the ’413 patent shows a first wiring 401 over a substrate 101, a
`
`first insulating film 112 over the first wiring 401, and a second wiring 403 over
`
`both the substrate 101 and the first insulating film 112. These first and second
`
`wirings are connected electrically because of contact holes or openings (not
`
`numbered) extending vertically through the first
`
`insulating film 112.
`
`This
`
`arrangement of first and second interconnected wirings
`
`reduces electrical
`
`resistance. Ex. 1001, col. 8, 11. 45-50.
`
`2.
`
`“First Region” and “Second Region”
`
`The second wiring is specified to have two regions that claim 1 calls “first”
`
`
`
`patent (reproduced below with annotations) showing the claimed “first region” and
`
`“second region.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from claim
`
`element 1.8 that the second wiring extends under the sealant, and FIG. 4A shows
`
`one embodiment where it extends fully across the sealant region. The sealant could
`
`not reside over the second region of the second wiring, as the claim element recites,
`
`unless the second Wiring is beneath the sealant. The sealant must also overlap the
`
`first wiring, as required by, sag, claim element 1.10.
`
`
`
`I
`
`I
`
`4—)»
`
`"second region” : "first region"
`I
`105 SEALENT
`113 RESIN INTER-LAYER FILM
`
`""I-
`107 FFC
`flfl?#3.
`
`¢++0Qv*'
`roceaceoe
`
`oooocqcuoo
`IiitiibiO¢¢
`accocecacc
`"*fi¢fl§$§¥¥¥5
`
`so¢+oo4o¢+oed
`.
`1
`
`1141To
`FIRE. 4A _l s::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:§:;a
`
`
`
`IL‘iW-‘HW 1 12 FIRST INTER-
`
`afll/IIW/l/Iflfllflw’lJafifll;..VJ/Ifllfl//fllfflf>mflfllfi
`LAYER FILM
`
`——— —-= m gppfleatvwe
`L
`
`401 AUXILIARY LINES
`X 101 SUBSTRATE
`403
`EXTERNAL CONNECTION LINES
`
`It is clear that in the ”413 patent, the transparent conductive layer 114 is
`
`formed m the second insulating film 113, as one horizontal portion of layer 114
`
`lies on top of the upper surface of film 113.
`
`It is technically important that this
`
`portion of film 114 does not extend to the second region, 123., is separated from the
`
`sealant. This permits the sealant to make direct contact with film 113, and no part
`
`of the indium tin oxide (“ITO”) film 114 extends beneath the sealant.
`
`
`
`The ’413 patent provides a structure where the sealant 105 and the
`
`transparent conductive layer 114 do not overlap each other, and the sealant is in
`
`direct contact with the second insulating film 113. Also, it provides a composite
`
`arrangement of a second wiring 403 overlying a first insulating film 112 overlying
`
`a first wiring 401 which both (i) extends beneath the transparent conductive layer
`
`114 at the bottom of an opening (unnumbered) in the second insulating film 113 in
`
`a first region, and (ii) extends beneath the second insulating film 114 and the
`
`sealant 105.
`
`Sealants
`
`are generally made of acrylate, methacrylate, or
`
`epoxide
`
`chemistries and are essentially different types of glues or adhesives.
`
`It is known
`
`that sealants adhere to a surface because of open chemical bonds on each surface
`
`that can “grab” each other, with a strength that is dependent both on the chemistry
`
`of the sealant and surface. This property of adhesion strength must be balanced
`
`with other properties that affect its use in LCD fabrication, including viscosity,
`
`elasticity, tensile strength, and resistance to humidity and oxygen degradation and
`
`permeability. As a result of balancing all of these properties, the most common
`
`sealants used by the L
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
