SEL EXHIBIT NO. 2026
`
`INNOLUX CORP. V. PATENT OF SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY
`
`LABORATORY CO., LTD.
`
`IPR2013-OOO66
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`IPR2013-OOO68
`
`U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,066,204
`
`) ) > )
`
`)
`
`> )
`
`) ) )
`
`INNOLUX CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`vs.
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY
`
`LABORATORY co., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`The videotaped deposition of MICHAEL J.
`
`ESCUTI, Ph.D., called by the Petitioner for
`
`examination, pursuant to Notice, and pursuant to
`
`the applicable rules,
`
`taken before Sandra L.
`
`Rocca, CSR, CRR, at 115 South LaSalle Street,
`
`Chicago, Illinois, on the 6th day of September,
`
`2013, at the hour of 9:49 a.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`312—442-9087
`
`Veritext Chicago Reporting Company
`800-248-3290
`
`847—406-3200
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 2
`
`;
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`
`2
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`
`APPEARANCES:
`JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL, LLP
`By: MR. STANLEY Mr GIBSON
`3 Park Plaza Suite 1100
`mine, CA 52614
`(949) 623-7200/Fax: (949) 623-7202
`sgibson
`'mbm.com
`appged on behalfofthe
`Petitioner;
`
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
`By: MR STANLEY A SCHLITTER
`115s
`thLSllStIt
`Chicag: IL 3656063
`66
`(31131) 577-1250/FaXI (312) 577-1370
`530 _;:§f@smptoemm
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`By: MR. EDWARD D. MANZO
`120 South Riverside Plaza
`Suite 2200
`(C3l112;§‘2’61—11522/6§:x- (312) 6554501
`edward.mauzo@huschblackwell.com
`appeared 0‘1 “half 0m“
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay. We‘re on record.
`1
`2 My name is Mary Ann Naas 0f Veritext. Today's
`3 date is Se tember 6th, 2013. The time is
`P
`4 approximately 9:49.
`5
`This deposition is being held in the
`6 office of Steptoe & Johnson located at 115 South
`g
`7 LaSalle Street, Ch1ca 0, Illinois.
`8
`The caption ofthe case is Innolux Corp.
`9 versus Patent of Semiconductor Energy Lab, case
`10 number IPR 2013—00068 Patent No. 8 066 204 in
`_
`’
`’
`’
`’
`11 the Unlted States Patent and Trademark Office
`12 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The
`13 name ofthe witness is Dr. Michael Escuti.
`14
`At this time will the attorneys please
`.
`.
`.
`15 identlfy themselves and the parties they
`16 represent, after Wl’llCh our court reporter, Sandra
`17 Rocca ofVeritext, will swear in the witness and
`18 we can proceed.
`19
`MR. GIBSON: Stan Gibson on behalf of
`.
`.
`18
`20 the Petitloner.
`19
`21
`MR. SCI-lLITTER: Stan Schlitter of
`2" “mm“
`H h
`22 St
`t &J hn
`dEd
`dM
`fr
`21
`MS_ Mary AmNaas’ Videographer
`war
`son an
`ep 0e
`0
`anzo om use
`22
`23 Blackwell on behalf of the patent owner.
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`4
`
`5
`3
`
`1 N D E X
`
`PAGE
`
`WITNESS
`MICHAEL] ESCUTI PhD
`'
`’
`‘
`EXAMINED BY
`
`'
`
`Mr. Gibson
`AM; 3515::EM”)
`
`5
`177187
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`8 NUMBER
`epost 1011 x 1
`1
`9 D
`T E hm
`10
`
`PRESENTED
`
`Page 5
`
`.
`‘ MICHAEL J. ESCUTI, Ph.D.,
`1
`2 havm been first dul
`sworn, was exammed and
`g
`y
`3 testified as follows:
`4
`EXAMINATION
`
`5 BY MR. GIBSON.
`6
`Q. Good morning. Ifyou could once again
`7 spell your last name and state your name for the
`8 record.
`9
`A. Good morning. My last name is spelled
`,
`10 E—s-c-u—t-l and my full name is Michael James
`ll Escuti.
`
`13
`
`9
`28
`
`6
`
`Q. And I went over the background rules for
`12
`”4
`11 N“ “’04 U'S‘Pat‘N“ 5’504’601
`.
`12
`13 the deposition yesterday. I'm not going to repeat
`106
`No. 1005 Us. Pat. No. 5,636,329
`14 those unless you would like me to do so.
`No.1oos Late-NewsPaper; perm-2mm
`'
`Independent Liquid Crystal
`12
`9 Would you 11ke me to repeat those for
`Microdisplays
`53
`you.
`14
`fF'.A,
`No.10098hmti
`.40
`17
`A There's 110 need to (10 SO~
`ofEsccutia'224Cd:clalrgationpg 82
`15
`18
`Q. And there's no reason your deposition
`1“ N“ 10:25::33ngaéiffilffinpg’ :2
`19 can't proceed today?
`17
`.
`.
`20
`A. There's no reason.
`18 N°' 101.11;:°‘;:';§§;:°f“wm°§;fied
`21
`Q All right. Let's -- we're now here
`19 No. 1012 U.s.1>at.No. 8,068,204
`,
`_
`'
`20 No. 1013 U,S.Pat,No. 5,684,555
`22 dealing Wlth the 204 patent and you also
`21 (No. 2011 Escuti declaration re
`23 submitted a declaration in that matter as well?
`22
`U‘S'Pm'N“ 8’068’204
`24
`A.
`1 did.
`2;
`25
`25
`
`
`312-442—9087
`
`Veritext Chicago Reporting Company
`800-248-3290
`
`2 (Pages 2 — 5)
`
`847-406-3200
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 6
`
`Page 8
`
`OOVQM-bWNt—t
`
`(Document marked previously as Exhibit
`Number 2011 was presented.)
`BY MR. GIBSON:
`
`Q. And I'm going to hand you a copy of that
`and ask you to take a look at it and confirm that
`it's your declaration.
`A.
`It does appear to be my declaration and
`exhibit —— I'm sorry, declaration and appendices
`but not the exhibits.
`
`Q. And if you look at Appendix B to your
`declaration -—
`A.
`I see it.
`
`-— are those the materials that you
`Q.
`reviewed to prepare your declaration?
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And did you review anything else in
`preparing your declaration?
`A.
`In forming the opinions that are
`expressed here and in preparing the declaration
`itself, I didn't review anything else in addition
`to this list.
`
`NNNNNNk—ll—‘F‘Hr—ll—‘HHHHmbwwwoxoooqampwwr—ioxo
`
`OO\]O\UIJ>UJN)—t
`
`printing, but it does seem to be that there's two
`copies of the same thing.
`Q. Okay. And I'm not sure if that's
`attached to the original that way or if that was
`something that was done in the copying either, but
`putting that aside, is it the same CV, albeit with
`two copies of the one we went through yesterday?
`A.
`It does appear to be the same and that
`certainly was my intention.
`Q.
`If you‘d look at paragraph 52 of your
`declaration ——
`A.
`I see it.
`
`Q. —- and if you have a moment, just to
`read that to yourself. Just let me know when
`you're done.
`A.
`I've read it.
`
`Q. And what are you trying to articulate
`there?
`
`\OOQ\10‘\Lll-¥§LMN>—d
`NNNNNHi—AHHr—Ii—Ir—Ai—‘l—Iy—A#wNi—dcoooxloxmawwwo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The statement says what it says and I
`stand by it, that an ordinarily skilled artisan
`understands that this terminal in the '204 patent
`Q. So you didn't look at any other patents,
`is fabricated generally from the bottom up,
`beginning with the foundation and substrate and
`for example?
`A. Not for the purpose of forming the
`then the other layers. And that's required
`25
`
`opinions and preparing the declaration, no. As I
`because of the processing that's needed during the
`
`Page 7
`
`did mention yesterday, there were other things I
`looked at but decided not to spend any more time
`on, other than recognizing that I had seen them.
`Q. And do you recall any patents you looked
`at and decided not to consider?
`
`A. No. I certainly don't recall any —- any
`of those.
`
`Q. How much time did you spend looking at
`the things you decided not to consider?
`A. A small —— small number of hours,
`one hour, not very much time at all.
`Q. Were —- those things that you didn't
`consider, were those provided to you by counsel or
`were those just things you looked at on your own?
`A. Those were things that I looked at on my
`own.
`
`Page 9
`
`l fabrication.
`
`Q. And this figure's coming from the '204
`2
`3 patent, is that correct?
`4
`A. Yes, I believe it's Fig. 4A.
`5
`(Document marked previously as Exhibit
`6
`Number 1012 was presented.)
`7 BY MR. GIBSON:
`
`Q.
`8
`9 And ——
`
`I'm going to hand you the '204 patent.
`
`A. To be clear, it's been colorized in my
`10
`11 declaration. So it's a modification of Fig. 4A,
`12 but that's where it's from.
`
`Q. Right. Now, when you look at say
`13
`14 Claim 1 of the ’204 patent -- have you had a
`15 chance to look at that?
`16
`A. While I have reviewed Claim 1 of the
`
`Q. Were there any things that were provided
`by counsel that you did not consider?
`A. Not that I can recall. This list seems
`
`NNNNNNHHHHHHr—ai—It—Ii—AUI-bble—‘OWOOflQm-hUJNt-‘OKO
`
`17 '204 patent, I certainly haven't spent a lot of
`18 time reading it. That certainly was not my focus.
`19
`Q. Okay, fair enough.
`to be complete in that regard.
`20
`What would you consider to be a
`Q. And the CV that's attached to your
`21 representative claim that would embody what's in
`declaration, is it the same CV as yesterday?
`22 4A in the '204 patent?
`A.
`It appears to be, but there does appear
`23
`A. Can you tell me what you mean by
`to be two copies of it. I'm not sure if that's
`24 "representative claim"?
`25
`Q. What's a claim that would claim the
`our error or an error that happened in your
`
`
`312—442-9087
`
`Veritext Chicago Reporting Company
`800—248—3290
`
`3 (Pages 6 — 9)
`
`847—406-3200
`
`

`

`
`Page 10
`Page 12
`
`1 features that you see in Fig. 4A of the ‘204
`2 patent?
`3
`A. Well, Fig. 4A is an embodiment of
`4 Claim 31 and maybe others. So is that what you're
`5 asking, what my opinion is?
`6
`Q. Yeah, and what specific claim do you
`7 think would cover that embodiment?
`8
`MR. SCHLITTER: Objection, form.
`
`A. Well, in Claim 31, first of all, the
`1
`2 terms "first insulating film" and "second
`3 insulating film" are part of the claim and they
`4 are part of the claim in a sequence of
`5 limitations, which I'd like to go through to lay
`6 the ground work for my answer, right.
`7
`So it's clearly a liquid crystal display
`8 device. There must be a substrate with thin film
`
`THE WITNESS: Well, I'm quite certain
`9
`10 that Fig. 4A covers multiple claims in this
`11 patent. The one that comes to mind first is
`12 Claim 31, but by no means is it limited to that.
`13 BY MR. GIBSON:
`
`9 transistors, pixel electrodes each electrically
`10 connected to one of the thin film transistors, a
`11 counter substrate facing the substrate, a liquid
`12 crystal material and a sealant provided between
`13 the substrate and the counter substrate.
`
`Q. Okay. And I'm not asking for a limit.
`14
`15 I'm asking for something that would be
`16 representative.
`17
`And Claim 31 uses the language of
`18 "first" and "second," for example? There's those
`19 words in that claim?
`
`And then we get into the claim
`14
`15 limitations that are really particularly at issue.
`16 There's an auxiliary line, an external connection
`17 line overlapping the auxiliary line with a first
`18 insulating film interposed there between. So
`19 that's the first instance of the word "first"
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The words "first" and "second" are
`20
`21 indeed in Claim 31, but of course applied to lines
`22 -— oh, I'm sorry. Well, there's the insulating
`23 films in Claim 31.
`
`20 applied to the insulating film.
`21
`The word "first" in this use doesn't
`22 require a sequence, but its relationship of this
`23 element to the other elements identified here does
`
`In Claim 54, which also I think applies,
`24
`25 it‘s used in a different way, those words. But
`
`24 imply a sequence. It's not so much the word
`25 "first," but rather that whole limitation that
`
`‘
`
`Page 11
`
`Page 13
`
`the words "first" and "second" do appear in
`1
`2 Claim 31.
`
`1 describes the relationship between those three
`2 elements.
`
`Q. All right. And when you —- or when an
`3
`4 ordinary -- when a person of —— an ordinary person
`5 of skill in the art reads a claim that states
`6 "first" and "second," would you understand that
`7 that's referring to the order that the layers are
`8 deposited -—
`9
`MR. SCHLITTER: Objection, form.
`10 BY MR. GIBSON:
`11
`Q.
`—— on the substrate?
`12
`MR. SCHLITTER: And foundation.
`13
`THE WITNESS: It would depend on the
`14 claim that the person of ordinary skill is
`15 reading.
`16 BY MR. GIBSON:
`
`Q. All right. And so it's obviously not --
`3
`4 what you're saying is it's not the word "first" by
`5 itself, but you understand in the context of that
`6 claim when you see the words "first" and "second,"
`7 there is an order that's being directed in how
`8 you're going to deposit these layers?
`9
`MR. SCHLITTER: Objection, form.
`10
`THE WITNESS: In Claim 31, the order
`11 that is and sequence of the layers that are
`12 present is not principally linked to the use of
`13 the word "first" or the use of the word "second."
`14 It's the other descriptions that are provided that
`15 describe that.
`16
`The function in this claim ofthe word
`
`17 "first" and "second" principally goes to identify
`Q. Well, the Claim 31, for example, how
`17
`18 that there's two separate insulating films.
`18 would you interpret the order of the deposition
`19 BY MR. GIBSON:
`19 steps as being set forth in that claim?
`20
`Q. Would that —— would you understand if
`20
`A. Are you asking generally or do you want
`21 you didn't have the words "first" and "second,"
`21 me to give you a comprehensive ——
`22 that you could order these in a —— well, strike
`22
`Q. Specifically in Claim 31, how would a
`23 that.
`23 person of ordinary skill in the art understand the
`Let's look at Claim 54. In Claim 54,
`24
`24 words "first" and "second" in terms of a direction
`25 you also have the words "first" and "second"?
`25 into —— or the depositing of the layers?
`
`
`312—442—9087
`
`Veritext Chicago Reporting Company
`800-248—3290
`
`4 (Pages 10 — 13)
`
`847—406-3200
`
`

`

` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`A. Yes, they're used and applied on first
`conductive line, second conductive line as well as
`first insulating film and second insulating film.
`Q. And the statement where you say, "a
`first conductive line over the substrate," you
`would understand that element to be telling you a
`sequence of how you're going to deposit that
`layer, correct?
`A. Well, not strictly speaking. If there's
`a substrate, there should be a —— in this claim
`limitation, there should be a first conductive
`line over that substrate. 1 think a person of
`ordinary skill would normally expect that the
`substrate is first somehow manufactured and then
`
`prepared for the deposition of that conductive
`line, but the claim certainly doesn't require
`that. It could be the inverse.
`
`Q. What do you mean it could be the
`inverse?
`
`It's entirely possible to have a metal
`A.
`layer formed and a material deposited onto that
`that will later serve the function of the
`
`\oquM-PWNH
`
`an aspect that's explored in that context.
`Q. Okay. But looking at Claim 54, you
`would not understand Claim 5 4 to be directing that
`kind of step, right?
`A.
`It doesn't direct either way. It simply
`says there must be a first conductive line over
`the substrate and that word "over" then places a
`direction above a substrate that's going to be
`built upon in the rest of the claim limitations.
`Q. All right. So you're saying the
`substrate could come after the first conductive
`line?
`
`A. Claim 54 could certainly apply to
`terminals where a first conductive line is first
`
`somehow prepared and then a substrate material is
`applied onto that.
`It sounded to me like you were asking me
`if this limitation required a sequence between a
`substrate first and then a first conductive line
`
`and I'm simply commenting that that's not the what
`claim limitation requires. It could be the
`inverse as well.
`
`NNNNNNHHHr—AHle—AHt—IUl-RUJNHOWOOVONLJI-hUJNHO
`
`
`
`A. Well, in that case, I don't think a
`1
`2 person of ordinary skill would —— would be able to
`3 see that as the inverse. So in that case, it's
`building on top of that first conductive line
`because of the word "over."
`
`Q. No, the word "over" is also used in the
`previous element.
`A.
`It is.
`
`OONONUI-F-
`
`Q. First conductive line over the
`9
`10 substrate.
`11
`A.
`It is.
`
`Q. So how is the word "over" being used
`12
`13 differently in the element of first insulating
`14 film over the first conductive line?
`
`A. Well, I'd like to be clear. Ithink a
`15
`16 person of ordinary skill would normally read this,
`17 a first conductive line over the substrate
`18 limitation and understand that the substrate would
`
`its use with respect to more than two things.
`1
`Q. So would you then read a limitation into
`2
`3 a first conductive line over the substrate as
`
`4 saying the substrate's going to have to come
`5 before the first conductive line because the next
`
`6 element of first insulating film over the first
`7 conductive line requires the insulating film to be
`8 over the conductive line?
`
`9
`10
`
`MR. SCHLITTER: Objection, form.
`THE WITNESS: I -- I don‘t think that a
`
`11 person of ordinary skill would read the phrase "a
`12 first conductive line over the substrate" as
`
`13 requiring that the substrate come first. That is
`14 a preferable way to do it certainly, but it’s not
`15 required.
`16
`However, when it‘s used in the next
`17 limitation, the first insulating film over the
`18 first conductive line, there is an order that's
`19 required there because it's —— it's describing the
`20 relationship of the first insulating film which
`21 now must be over the first conductive line, which
`22 of course is already over the substrate.
`23 BY MR. GIBSON:
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`Page 16
`
`10
`ll
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`19 be prepared first and then the first wiring line
`20
`20 would be deposited and patterned on top of it, but
`21
`21 the claim limitation does not require that.
`22
`22 That's simply what I'm —— I'm pointing out.
`23
`23
`And the use of the word "over," the
`substrate. You know, for example, in flexible
`24
`displays, that's a possibility. I'm not saying
`24 first time it's used refers to the arrangement of
`25
`25 just two things. Whereas its second use refers to
`it's common or —- or preferred, but it's certainly
`
`Page 15
`Page 17
`
`Q. When you look at a first insulating film
`over the first conductive line, could that be the
`Q. Now, when you look at the next element,
`24
`inverse as well?
`25 a second conductive line —— actually let me just
`
`
`312-442-9087
`
`Veritext Chicago Reporting Company
`800-248—3290
`
`5 (Pages 14 - 17)
`
`847—406—3200
`
`

`

`
`Page 18
`Page 20
`
`1 follow-up on what you just said.
`2
`When you look at the two elements
`3 together, a first conductive line over the
`4 substrate, a first insulating film over the first
`5 conductive line, are you saying that that does
`6 tell you that the substrate is going to come first
`7 and then you're going to have a conductive line
`8 and then you're going to have an insulating film
`9 over the conductive line?
`10
`A. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by
`11 "first." What sequence are you referring to more
`12 specifically, the sequence that is used during the
`13 actual fabrication or in -—
`14
`Q. No, I'm looking at the claim language
`15 and I want to make sure it's not what I
`l6 understand, it's what you understand about the
`17 words "first" that matter.
`18
`And I'm just trying to understand, if
`19 you look at those two claim elements, a first
`20 conductive line over the substrate, a first
`21 insulating film over the first conductive line,
`22 does that tell you that there's going to be a
`23 substrate and then a conductive line over the
`24 substrate and then a first insulating film over
`25 the first conductive line?
`
`1 conductive line and then put down —— put an
`2 insulating film and put a first conductive line
`3 next and then put a substrate on top of that?
`4
`A. Well, the claim refers to the final
`5 relative relationships between these elements.
`6 The claim doesn't have forming language. It's not
`7 a process claim. So no, I don't think I can agree
`8 that it requires what I think I heard you
`9 describe. This whole thing could have been
`10 fabricated in an inverted way.
`11
`Q. As one of ordinary skill in the art,
`12 would you be able to fabricate this? If you look
`13 at all the claims, would you be able to fabricate
`14 this in an inverted way, opening up the particular
`15 layers and -—
`16
`A. Well, what I'm -— what I'm I guess most
`17 clearly trying to say is that the path of
`18 fabrication, the process of creating these layers
`19 can take many different paths and I don't think
`20 the claim limits how the structure is gotten to.
`21 It does limit the relative relationships of those
`22 -— of those layers.
`23
`So there's a normal way that I think one
`24 of ordinary skill would anticipate building this
`25 and that's certainly corresponding with what
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`Page 21
`
`1 you're asking me to agree to, but I don't think
`A. At the end of whatever process is used
`1
`2 the claim limits it to that.
`2 to implement these claim limitations, there should
`3
`Q. So you wouldn't agree that in Claim 54,
`3 be a substrate, which I'd prefer to talk about as
`4 the sequence of the disclosed layers necessarily
`4 being on the lower side of the element. The next
`5 follows that you're going to have the first
`5 element should be a first conductive line, and
`6 conductive line deposited, then the insulating
`6 then the next element should be a first insulating
`7 film deposited and patterned to enable the
`7 film. I think that structure is required by those
`8 required electrical connection?
`8 claim limitations.
`I think the difference that
`9
`A. Well, it depends on what you mean by
`9 I'm trying to express is that that structure can
`10 "sequence."
`10 be reached even if the substrate isn’t the first
`11
`Q. What do you mean?
`11 thing that‘s actually fabricated.
`12
`A. Well, again, if we're talking about the
`12
`Q. Okay. When we get to the next element,
`13 sequence used during fabrication, that's one
`13 a second conductive line over the first insulation
`14 thing. If we talk about the sequence looking at
`14 film, would you understand that to require that
`15 the structure itself at the end,it's a different
`15 the second conductive line is coming after the
`16 matter. So the claim does require the relative
`16 first conductive line has been deposited?
`17 sequence in the final structure.
`17
`A.
`I think a person of ordinary skill
`18
`Q. As one of ordinary skill in the art,
`18 would -— would read a second conductive line over
`19 isn't that how you're going to have to deposit
`19 the first insulating film as requiring that the
`20 them in order to achieve that structure?
`20 deposition and patterning of the second conductive
`21
`A. Again, I gave you the example in the
`21 line should happen after the first insulating film
`22 first claim limitation that we were talking about,
`22 is already deposited.
`23 a first conductive line over the substrate. There
`23
`Q. All right. So, I mean, you wouldn't
`24 are at least two ways to achieve that claim
`24 expect someone to build this backwards. In other
`25 limitation. One is where the substrate is somehow
`25 words, we wouldn't start with the second
`
`
`312-442-9087
`
`Veritext Chicago Reporting Company
`800-248-3290
`
`6 (Pages 18 — 21)
`
`847—406-3200
`
`

`

`
`Page 22
`Page 24
`
`formed and then the first conductive line is
`
`patterned —— deposited and patterned on top of it.
`I think that would be a very usual
`example, but the opposite could have also been the
`case, where the first conductive line is somehow
`prepared and the substrate material applied on top
`of that. In either way, you still wind up with
`that relative relationship of the two and you can
`then process the rest of these on top of that.
`So in the end, the relative sequence in
`looking at the final structure, going from the
`substrate and to the next layer that's over the
`substrate in the language of the claim, the
`sequence is prescribed.
`Q. But you think that the deposition steps
`could be reversed from what the sequence is when
`you're looking at the finished product?
`A. Wha —-
`
`MR. SCHLITTER: Objection, form.
`THE WITNESS: What are you asking me to
`reverse?
`BY MR. GIBSON:
`
`Q. Well, what I'm trying to understand is
`the order of the deposition steps that you would
`understand would happen from Claim 54. And I
`
`Page 23
`would assume that -— well, I don't want to assume
`anything. Let me just ask you a question.
`Don’t you think that based on what
`Claim 54 says, that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art is going to understand the sequence of the
`disclosed layers to be that the first conductive
`line is deposited, then the insulating film is
`deposited and patterned, then the -- then the
`second conductive line is deposited, followed by
`the second insulating film and then followed by
`the transparent conductive film? Isn't that what
`Claim 54 is directing the sequence of deposition
`steps to be?
`A. Claim 54 doesn't direct the sequence of
`the deposition steps. It directs the sequence of
`the layers in the final structure, the final
`terminal. The sequence that you just described is
`certainly one example that I think a person of
`ordinary skill would —- would follow, but it's not
`limited to that. The claim is not limited to
`
`that. It's limited in its relative sequence at
`the end.
`
`ooxlmmxawwt—i
`
`NNNNNNt—IHi—Ii—Ii-ui—tr—iy—ti—Ah—tUIJKUJNi-‘OOOOQO’NKII-bWNi—iow
`
`NNNNNNi—Ii—nt—nHi—Ai—It—‘Hp—ny—aUI-h-UJNl—‘OWOOflONUl-RUJNHOQ
`
`A. Yes, andI stand by paragraph 54 fiilly. WNQMhWNr—A
`
`
`
`A. Do you mean the sequence of the
`1
`2 deposition steps?
`3
`Q. Yes.
`4
`A.
`I —— I can't agree exactly with that.
`5 Again, the claim doesn't describe a -- it's not a
`6 process claim. It's a claim that limits the
`7 structure of the final terminal.
`
`If you look at your declaration,
`Q.
`8
`9 paragraph 54, and in paragraph 54, you state ”In
`10 Claim 54, and Claim 61, 68 and 76 reciting similar
`11 limitations, the sequence of the disclosed layers
`12 necessarily follows:
`13
`"First, the first conductive line metal,
`14 401 in Fig. 4A is deposited. Second, the first
`15 insulating film 112 in Fig. 4A is deposited and
`16 patterned to enable the required electrical
`17 connection between the first and second conductive
`
`18 lines. Third, the second conductive line metal
`19 403 in Fig. 4A is deposited. Fourth, the second
`20 insulating film 113 in Fig. 4A is deposited and
`21 patterned to have an opening. Fifth, the
`22 transparent conductive film 114 in Fig. 4A is
`23 deposited and patterned."
`24
`Those were your words, correct?
`25
`
`Page 25
`
`OOQQM-RUJNH
`
`Q. And you stand by the sentence that says
`"in Claims 54, the sequence of the disclosed
`layers necessarily follows"?
`A.
`I certame do. That's what I'm
`expressing right now. The sequence of the
`disclosed layers in the final terminal assembly
`necessarily follows fiom the claim. How to get
`there is not specified in the claim. What I list
`is the most likely way, but it's not the only way.
`Q.
`It doesn't say the most likely way in
`10
`11 your declaration. It says "necessarily follows,"
`12 correct?
`
`KO
`
`It says that "the sequence of the
`A.
`13
`14 disclosed layers necessarily follows from
`15 Claim 54." I still stand by that.
`16
`Q. Now, if you look at Fig. 4A -— andI
`17 just want to check to see if I've got a blowup of
`18 that. If not, we'll just use the one that's in
`19 '204. I'll just use the one that's in the '204
`20 patent.
`21
`So you've got that in front of you?
`22
`A. Yes, I do.
`23
`Q. And could you —— Claim 54 refers to a
`24 first conductive line?
`
`Q. But wouldn't you agree that the
`deposition steps necessarily follow from the
`A. Yes, it does.
`25
`language of Claim 54?
`
`
`312-442-9087
`
`Veritext Chicago Reporting Company
`800—248—3290
`
`7 (Pages 22 - 25)
`
`847-406-3200
`
`

`

`
`Page 26
`Q. And if you could write down for me next
`
`.
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`
`lines satisfy the first conductive line claim
`1
`2 limitation in Claim 54, yes.
`3
`Q. And the first insulating fihn, you
`4 understand that is the -— corresponds to the 112?
`5
`A. The first insulating fihn of Claim 54
`6 does correspond or is -— that claim limitation is
`7 met by element 112 in Fig. 4A.
`8
`Q. And then the second conductive line is
`9 the 403 external connection lines?
`
`2 to Fig. 4A what you would assume to be the first
`3 conductive line.
`4
`MR. SCHLITTER: Objection, form.
`5
`THE WITNESS: You want me to label on my
`6 copy of Fig. 4A --
`7 BY MR. GIBSON:
`8
`Q. Yes, please.
`9
`A. —- where is the first conductive line?
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`11
`
`Q. Yes.
`A. Would you like me to just add the words
`
`A. 403 meets that claim limitation, the
`10
`11 second conductive line.
`
`12 to the label or actually color through the
`13 element?
`14
`Q. Oh, just add the words, please. That
`15 will be sufficient.
`16
`A. Okay. (Indicating)
`17
`Okay, I've done so.
`18
`Q. And then if you could -- Claim 54 also
`19 refers to a first insulating film?
`' 20
`A.
`It does.
`21
`Q.
`If you could write where that first
`
`22 insulating film is.
`23
`A.
`(Indicating)
`24
`I've done that.
`
`25
`
`Q. Thank you.
`
`Q. And the second insulating film is met by
`12
`13 113, the resin inter-layer film?
`14
`A. Element 113 corresponds to the second
`15 insulating film in Claim 54.
`16
`Q. Okay. Let's look at Shiba again. I
`17 think I've got the patent from the '204 matter.
`18
`MR. SCHLITTER: Thank you.
`19
`(Document marked previously as Exhibit
`20
`Number 1013 was presented.)
`21 BY MR. GIBSON:
`
`Q. And this is one of the patents that you
`22
`23 reviewed in preparing your declaration for this
`24 matter?
`
`25
`
`A. Yes, it is.
`
`And Claim 54 also refers to a second
`1
`2 conductive line?
`3
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And if you'd look at Fig. 1 of Shiba,
`1
`2 what‘s your understanding of what's being
`3 disclosed there?
`
`Page 27
`
`Page 29
`
`Q. And if you could write that on Fig. 4A
`4
`5 as well.
`6
`A.
`(Indicating)
`7
`I've done it.
`8
`Q. And Claim 54 refers to a second
`9 insulating film?
`10
`A. Yes.
`
`A. Well, Shiba describes Fig. 1 in
`4
`5 Column 3, line 32 as a plan view of an active
`6 matrix LCD panel according to an embodiment of the
`7 present invention.
`8
`Q. And there's a wiring 127, is that
`9 correct?
`10
`A.
`I see it. It has at least two labels in
`
`11 Fig. 1. It's a wiring that begins on the left
`Q. And if you could write that down as well
`11
`12 side, extends up the left side across the top of
`12 on Fig. 4A.
`13 the display and down the right side.
`13
`A.
`(Indicating) Yes.
`14
`Q. That's the overall length of the
`14
`Q. All right. If I could just take a 100k
`15 wiring127?
`15 at that. Thank you.
`16
`MR. SCHLITTER: Objection, form.
`16
`So as you've indicated there, the first
`17
`THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I can
`17 conductive line is equivalent to 401 auxiliary
`18 identify a length of wiring 127, but that's where
`18 lines?
`19 it is located and illustrated.
`I can‘t agree that it's equivalent, but
`19
`A.
`20 BY MR. GIBSON:
`20 I'm pointing to that label in Fig. 4A. The
`21
`Q. And I'm going to ask for a specific
`21 auxiliary lines correspond to the first conductive
`22 dimension.
`I mean, if you knew the hypotenuse, I
`22 line of Claim 54.
`23 suppose you could give us precise dimensions for
`23
`Q. You understand that to satisfy that
`24 wire 127 based on that, correct, so it's a right
`24 claim limitation?
`
`
`
`I understand that the 401 auxiliaryA.25 25 angle triangle?
`
`312—442-9087
`
`Veritext Chicago Reporting Company
`800-248-3290
`
`8 (Pages 26 - 29)
`
`847—406-3200
`
`

`

`
`Page 30
`
`Page 32
`
`MR. SCHLITTER: Objection, form.
`1
`THE WITNESS: I'm -- can you rephrase
`2
`3 your question? I'm not sure what you mean by a
`4 "precise dimension."
`5 BY MR. GIBSON:
`6
`Q.
`If you knew the length of the hypotenuse
`7 that runs -- there's a line that runs through the
`8 middle diagonally?
`9
`A.
`It's a structure that has three sides of
`10 a rectangle. So we don't normally think of
`11 hypotenuse applying to such a structure, right.
`12 It's normally triangles that have hypotenuse. I'm
`13 not sure what you're asking.
`14
`Q. Well, if you knew the dimension of one
`15 side of the rectangle, you could figure out the
`16 length of the overall wire 127, correct?
`17
`MR. SCHLITTER: Objection, form.
`18
`THE WITNESS: You or someone else would
`19 need to define what they mean by the length of
`20 that wiring. That's a very complicated pattern
`21 that's disclosed in other figures of Shiba. And I
`22 don't think without more information I can define
`23 a length of such a pattern.
`24 BY MR. GIBSON:
`25
`Q. All right. But you do agree the wiring
`
`Page 31
`1 runs from the bottom lett corner up to the top and
`2 then across and then down to the bottom right
`3 corner?
`4
`A. That's correct. It's also -- I
`
`1 pad 735 and 738?
`2
`A. Yes, 735 and 738 are included in the
`3 list of pads in Column 5 and 6 that wiring 127
`4 connects to.
`5
`Q. Now, the wiring 127, would you agree
`6 that the distance it's traveling along the three
`7 sides of the rectangle is longer than the diagonal
`8 of the display?
`9
`MR. SCHLITTER: Objection, form.
`10
`THE WITNESS: Can you define what you
`11 mean by the distance of the wiring 127?
`12 BY MR. GIBSON:
`13
`Q. Well, if we just take a —- the distance
`14 from the three sides of the triangle, if we
`15 traverse those three sides, it would be longer to
`16 take that traverse than it would be to traverse
`17 the diagonal of the display?
`18
`A.
`I still have trouble applying your
`19 question to element 127 because it's a complicated
`20 pattern. But if you're asking me would the three
`21 sides of this rectangle be longer than the
`22 diagonal dimension, then yes, it would. I think
`23 that would always be true.
`24
`Q. What's the impact of the resistance of
`25 the 127 wiring on the ability to support frame
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`inversion?
`MR. SCHLITTER: Objection, form.
`THE WITNESS: What do you mean by ~—
`MR. SCHLITTER: Foundation.
`
`Page 33
`
`
`
`
`
`5 illustrate that in page 47 of my declaration.
`6
`Q. You put it in green, I believe. We have
`7 a black and white copy right now, but you put that
`8 in green?
`9
`A. That's correct. I’m trying to highlight
`10 what Shiba indicates as Fig. 127 (sic) in Fig. l
`11 there as well as in Fig. 3.
`12
`Q. And what is the purpose of wiring 127?
`13
`A. Well, Shiba discloses that the purpose
`14 of wiring 127 in Column 5 and Column 6 is to
`15 connect the power supply pads and the common pads
`16 that are around the seal region. They have
`17 numbers, for example, 731 to 734 and even 731 to
`18 738, and these are all being connected together so
`19 that a steady reference voltage is —- would be
`20 supplied to those pads so that the counter
`21