`
`_____________________________
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`BLUEHOUSE GLOBAL LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO., LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`CASE IPR: 2018-01382
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,601,603 B2
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………. .....1
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)……………………….....1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))………………..1
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))…………………….......1
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))……………..2
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))………………….....2
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))………………..3
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES………………………………3
`
`BACKGROUND………………………………………………………....4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Technology………………………………………………………...4
`
`The ‘603 Patent………………………………………………...….5
`
`Prosecution History……………………………………………….6
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART……………………..6
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION……………………………………………..8
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW EACH CHALLENGED
`
`CLAIM OF THE ‘603 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE….…………….9
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8-10 are
`
`anticipated under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`by Ishii….……………………………………….………......9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 1.………………………………………………….. ..10
`
`Claim 2..…………………………………………………. ..23
`
`Claim 4..…………………………………………………. ..25
`
`Claim 5...………………………………………………… ..26
`
`Claim 8..…………………………………………………. ..27
`
`Claim 9..…………………………………………………. ..28
`
`Claim 10.………………………………………………… ..29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Challenge #2: Claims 3, 6 and 7 are obvious under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ishii in view of Akimoto…….30
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 3......………………………………………………...31
`
`Claim 6..…………………………………………………. ..35
`
`Claim 7..…………………………………………………. ..37
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`C. Challenge #3: Claims 11-24 are anticipated under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) by Akimoto..………..……………….40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 11....………………………………………………...40
`
`Claim 12…………………………………………………. ..49
`
`Claim 13…………………………………………………. ..50
`
`Claim 14....………………………………………………...51
`
`Claim 15…………………………………………………. ..53
`
`Claim 16…………………………………………………. ..54
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 17....………………………………………………...55
`
`Claim 18…………………………………………………. ..56
`
`Claim 19…………………………………………………. ..57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IX. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………..……..61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10. Claim 20....………………………………………………...57
`
`11. Claim 21…………………………………………………. ..58
`
`12. Claim 22…………………………………………………. ..59
`
`13. Claim 23....………………………………………………...59
`
`14. Claim 24…………………………………………………. ..60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 United States Letters Patent No. 9,601,603 B2
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Richard A. Flasck
`
`Ex. 1004 United States Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0278873 A1
`
`
`(“Ishii”)
`
`Ex. 1005 United States Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0072439 A1
`
`
`(“Akimoto”)
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`BlueHouse Global Ltd. (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-24 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603 (“the
`
`‘603 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.
`
`According to the assignment information on the front of the ‘603 Patent, and the
`
`records of the United States Patent & Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), the ‘603
`
`Patent is assigned to, and therefore owned by, Semiconductor Energy Laboratory
`
`Co., Ltd. (the “Patent Owner”). For the reasons provided in detail below, the
`
`challenged claims should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real party-in-interest in this matter is Petitioner BlueHouse Global Ltd.
`
`and its parent company, Caesar Global Fund.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`As of the filing date of this Petition, Petitioner is unaware of any matters
`
`involving the ‘603 Patent pending in any United States court or administrative
`
`agency.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`Ryan O. White (USPTO Reg. No. 45,541)
`
`TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
`
`One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
`
`
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`
`
`
`
`Tel: (317) 713-3455
`
`Fax: (317) 713-3699
`
`Email: rwhite@taftlaw.com
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Roshan P Shrestha (No. 71,277)
`TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
`111 East Wacker Dr. Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Tel: (312) 527-4000
`Fax: (312) 966-8573
`Email: rshrestha@taftlaw.com
`
`
`Philip R. Bautista (pro hac vice
`authorization requested)
`TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
`200 Public Square Suite 3500
`Cleveland, OH 44114-2302
`Tel: (216) 706-3957
`Fax: (216) 241-3707
`Email: pbautista@taftlaw.com
`
`
`Petitioner hereby requests authorization to file a motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`for Backup Counsel Philip R. Bautista to appear pro hac vice, as Mr. Bautista is an
`
`experienced litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with this subject
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner intends to file such a motion once
`
`authorization is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Please address all correspondence to Lead Counsel at the mailing address
`
`shown above. Petitioner also consents to electronic service by email.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that: (1) the ‘603 Patent issued on March 21, 2017
`
`and so is eligible for inter partes review; (2) Petitioner has not been served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of any of the claims of the ‘603 Patent and so is
`
`therefore not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the ‘603
`
`Patent on the grounds identified herein; and (3) Petitioner has not filed a complaint
`
`challenging the validity of the ‘603 Patent. This Petition is being filed in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a).
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis thereof, and the supporting evidence, institute a trial for Inter Partes
`
`Review of claims 1-24 of the ‘603 Patent, and cancel those claims as invalid under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103. More specifically, Petitioner requests
`
`cancellation of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
`
`20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the ‘603 Patent on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8-10 are anticipated under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) over United States Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2006/0278873 A1 to Ishii (“Ishii”; Ex. 1004). Ishii was published on December
`
`14, 2006 and so is prior art to the ‘603 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 3, 6 and 7 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`
`
`
`103(a) over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0072439 A1 to
`
`Akimoto et al. (“Akimoto”; Ex. 1005) in view of Ishii. Akimoto was published on
`
`March 29, 2007 and is therefore prior art to the ‘603 Patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`Challenge #3: Claims 11-24 are anticipated under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`102(b) by Akimoto.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Technology
`
`Semiconductor devices are electronic components that exploit the electronic
`
`properties of semiconductor materials, such as silicon. Semiconductor materials
`
`are useful because their behavior can be easily manipulated by the addition of
`
`impurities, known as doping. Current conduction in a semiconductor occurs via
`
`mobile or “free” electrons and holes, collectively known as charge carriers. Doping
`
`a semiconductor such as silicon with a small proportion of an atomic impurity,
`
`such as phosphorus, greatly increases the number of free electrons or holes within
`
`the semiconductor (a doped semiconductor containing excess holes is called “p-
`
`type”; one containing excess free electrons is known as “n-type”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`A thin film transistor, or TFT, is an example of semiconductor device. TFTs
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`
`
`
`can be used as simple ON/OFF switches in a wide variety of electrical devices,
`
`such as active-matrix LCD displays. Basically, a TFT consists of a semiconductor
`
`and three electrodes: (i) the gate electrode; (ii) the source electrode; and (iii) the
`
`drain electrode. The gate electrode must be insulated from the semiconductor by a
`
`dielectric layer (or gate insulation layer), while the drain electrode and source
`
`electrode must both directly contact the semiconductor. Because of this, TFTs
`
`generally have one of the following configurations:
`
`
`
`where “coplanar” in the drawings above refers to the gate electrode being on the
`
`same side of the semiconductor as the source and drain electrode; “staggered”
`
`refers to the gate electrode being on the opposite side of the semiconductor; and
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`“top” and “bottom” refer to the location of the gate electrode relative to the other
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`layers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The ‘603 Patent
`
`According to the specification, the ‘603 Patent relates to “a semiconductor
`
`device using an oxide semiconductor and a method for manufacturing the
`
`semiconductor device.” Ex. 1001 at 1:6-8.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`Neither of the references being relied upon herein was cited or considered
`
`during the prosecution of the ‘603 Patent. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 30.
`
`
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`A United States patent is to be read and understood from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (technical field) at the time the invention
`
`was made. Here, the relevant date is Oct. 24, 2008, i.e. when the inventors named
`
`on the ‘603 Patent filed the original Japanese patent application to the subject
`
`matter now claimed in the ‘603 Patent and to which priority is claimed.
`
`
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to
`
`know the relevant prior art. See, e.g., Gnosis S.p.A. v. South Alabama Med. Sci.
`
`Found., IPR2013-00116, Final Written Decision (Paper 68) at 9. Such a person is
`
`of ordinary creativity, not merely an automaton, and is capable of combining the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`teachings of the prior art. See id., citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`398, 420-21 (2007). The factors that may be used to determine the level of skill of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art may include the education level of those
`
`working in the field, the sophistication of the technology, the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems and the speed at which
`
`innovations in the art are made and implemented.
`
`
`
`In this case, the ‘603 Patent is directed to improving the process of
`
`fabricating semiconductor devices, such as the thin film transistors (“TFTs”) found
`
`in many display devices. Petitioner therefore submits that a person of ordinary
`
`skill should have some at least some familiarity with the practical aspects of
`
`fabricating TFTs. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 25. Accordingly, Petitioner submits that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art of the ‘603 Patent as of October 24, 2008, would have
`
`had at least a bachelor of science or engineering degree in electrical engineering,
`
`semiconductor technology, physics, or a related field, and either an advanced
`
`degree (such as a masters) or an equivalent amount of work experience, i.e. 2-3
`
`years, in an area relating to semiconductor design and/or fabrication, liquid crystal
`
`display (“LCD”) design or fabrication, electrical engineering, or a related technical
`
`field. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`
`
`The following constructions of certain claim terms are proposed by
`
`Petitioner using the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard currently
`
`applicable for inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs. v. Lee, 579 U.S. ___, ___, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2134 (2016). If, however, the
`
`“plain and ordinary meaning” standard was applicable, Petitioner would still
`
`propose the same constructions for the same reasons as provided below.
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`“semiconductor device” (claims 1-7 and 9-19)
`
`This term appears in the preamble of all of the challenged claims. This term
`
`is not defined in the specification of the ‘603 Patent, but the specification does
`
`state that “[a]s a semiconductor device having a driver circuit, besides a liquid
`
`crystal display device, a light-emitting display device using a light-emitting
`
`element and a display device using an electrophoretic display element, which is
`
`also referred to electronic paper, can be given.” Ex. 1001 at 1:7-9. Petitioner
`
`therefore submits that the claim term semiconductor device should be construed to
`
`mean “a device that functions by utilizing semiconductor characteristics, such as a
`
`liquid crystal display device or a light-emitting display device.” Ex. 1003 at ¶ 32.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`“over” (claims 1-7 and 9-19)
`
`This term appears in all of the challenged claims. The specification of the
`
`‘603 Patent does not define this term, but generally speaking, in the field of the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`invention claimed in the ‘603 Patent, a word which expresses a direction, such as
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`“over” or “below,” usually indicates a direction based on the substrate surface (in
`
`cases where the device is provided over or on the surface of the substrate). Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 33. Petitioner therefore submits that the claim term over should be
`
`construed to mean “above.” Id.
`
`
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW EACH CHALLENGED CLAIM OF
`
`THE ‘603 PATENT IS UNPAENTABLE
`
`
`
`As discussed in detail below, the challenged claims are unpatentable over
`
`the prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8-10 are anticipated under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Ishii
`
`Ishii (Ex. 1004) was published on December 14, 2006. Since the application
`
`from which the ‘603 Patent issued was first filed in the United States on October
`
`20, 2009, Ishii qualifies as prior art against the ‘603 Patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`“‘Anticipation’” in patent terms means that the claimed invention is not new;
`
`that is, the invention as claimed was already known.” Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual
`
`Ventures LLC, 890 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018). A finding of anticipation
`
`requires that every limitation of the claim is present in a single prior art reference.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`See, e.g., Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`2016); In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`
`
`Ishii anticipates each of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8-10 of the ‘603 Patent. That
`
`is, “each and every element” of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8-10 of the ‘603 Patent is
`
`identically disclosed by Ishii, “arranged or combined in the same way as in the
`
`claim.” Ericson Inc., 890 F.3d at 1346 (citing Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1341).
`
`Specifically, in at least FIGS. 1 and 2 and the accompanying text in the
`
`specification, Ishii discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device
`
`(such as a thin film transistor for use in a display device) having the same layers as
`
`recited in each of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8-10, and formed such that the layers are
`
`“arranged or combined in the same way” as in those claims. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 35.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`a.
`
`The preamble
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] method of manufacturing a
`
`semiconductor device comprising . . ..” Ex. 1001 at 40:17-18. To the extent that
`
`this preamble is deemed a limitation, this limitation is expressly disclosed by Ishii.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 36.
`
`
`
`Ishii discloses a liquid crystal display (“LCD”) device. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 34.
`
`More specifically, Ishii discloses that
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`
`
`A concrete configuration of this liquid crystal display apparatus will
`now be described with reference to FIG. 2. A gate electrode 11 and
`the scanning line 2 (see FIG. 1) electrically connected with the gate
`electrode 11 are provided at a predetermined position on an upper
`surface of the thin film transistor substrate 1.
`
`Id. Ishii also discloses a method of manufacturing this LCD device:
`
`As a method of forming the gate electrodes 11 and the scanning lines
`2, there is recommended a method of forming a metal film by a
`sputtering technique targeting a metal oxide film containing the n-type
`or p-type impurities and patterning this film by using a
`photolithography technique.
`
`Id. at ¶ 35.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, to the extent the preamble is limiting, this limitation is
`
`identically disclosed by Ishii. Ex. 1003at ¶ 38.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`forming a first conductive film . . .
`
`The first limitation of claim 1 is forming a first conductive film that serves
`
`as a gate electrode of a transistor. Ex. 1001 at 40:19-20. Ishii discloses a method
`
`of manufacturing an LCD device that includes this step. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 39.
`
`
`
`More specifically, Ishii discloses a method of manufacturing an LCD device
`
`that includes forming gate electrodes:
`
`As a method of forming the gate electrodes 11 and the scanning
`lines 2, there is recommended a method of forming a metal film by
`a sputtering technique targeting a metal oxide film containing the n-
`type or p-type impurities and patterning this film by using a
`photolithography technique.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 35 (emphasis added). It is well known by those skilled in the art that
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`a metal film is a conductive film (i.e. a film that can conduct electrons). Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶ 40.
`
`
`
`Ishii therefore identically discloses the forming a first conductive film that
`
`serves as a gate electrode of a transistor limitation of claim 1. Id. at ¶ 41.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`forming a first insulating film . . .
`
`The second limitation of claim 1 is forming a first insulating film over the
`
`first conductive film. Ex. 1001 at 40:21-22. Ishii discloses a method of
`
`manufacturing an LCD device that includes this step. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 42.
`
`
`
`More specifically, Ishii discloses that, after forming the gate electrodes 11
`
`(the first conductive film), “[a] gate insulating film 12 made of silicon nitride is
`
`provided on upper surfaces of the gate electrodes 11, the scanning lines 2 and
`
`the thin film transistor substrate 1.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ 36 (emphasis added). By
`
`providing the gate insulating film 12 “on upper surfaces” of the gate electrode, the
`
`gate insulating film is above (over) and, in fact, directly on top of the gate
`
`electrode. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 43.
`
`
`
`Ishii therefore identically discloses the forming a first insulating film over
`
`the first conductive film limitation of clam 1. Id. at ¶ 44.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`
`
`
`
`d.
`
`forming an oxide semiconductor layer . . .
`
`The third limitation of claim 1 is forming an oxide semiconductor layer that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`comprises a channel formation region over the first insulating film. Ex. 1001 at
`
`40:23-24. The specification of the ‘603 Patent does not, however, specify whether
`
`it is just the oxide semiconductor layer that is over the first insulating film or
`
`whether it is the “channel formation region” thereof that is over the first insulating
`
`film. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 45. Irrespective of which alternative is correct, Ishii discloses a
`
`method of manufacturing an LCD device that includes this step. Id.
`
`
`
`More specifically, Ishii discloses that, after forming the gate electrodes 11
`
`(the first conductive film) and gate insulating film 12 (the first insulating film), “[a]
`
`semiconductor thin film 13 made of the same transparent genuine metal oxide
`
`having a band gap of 2.5V or above is provided on the upper surface of the gate
`
`insulating film 12 above the gate electrode 11.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ 36 (emphasis
`
`added). Ishii expressly teaches that this semiconductor thin film 13 is composed of
`
`a metal oxide, i.e. semiconductor thin film 13 is an oxide semiconductor. Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶ 46. Moreover, by providing the semiconductor thin film 13 “on the upper
`
`surface” of the gate electrode, the oxide semiconductor layer is above (over) and
`
`directly on top of the gate insulating film. Id.
`
`
`
`Ishii further discloses that the semiconductor thin film 13 (the oxide
`
`semiconductor layer) has a channel formation region over the gate insulating film
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`12 (the claimed first insulating film). Id. at ¶ 47. More specifically, Ishii discloses
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`that “[a] channel protection film 14 made of silicon nitride is provided at a
`
`substantially central part on the upper surface of the semiconductor thin film 13.”
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 37. One skilled in the art would understand that a “channel
`
`protection film” is a film that protects the channel region of a semiconductor. Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 47. One skilled in the art would therefore recognize that “a channel
`
`protection film” over the central part of the semiconductor thin film 13 necessarily
`
`means that the semiconductor thin film 13 has a channel region in the same
`
`location (i.e. “substantially the central part” thereof). Id.
`
`
`
`Ishii’s FIG. 2 is reproduced below:
`
`As can be seen in FIG. 2 above, the channel region of the semiconductor thin film
`
`13 (the oxide semiconductor layer), which is directly below the channel protection
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`region 14, is above (over) the gate insulating film 12 (the first insulating film), as is
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`the semiconductor thin film 13 (the oxide semiconductor layer). Id. at ¶ 48.
`
`
`
`Ishii therefore identically discloses the forming a first insulating film over
`
`the first conductive film limitation of clam 1. Id. at ¶ 49.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e.
`
`forming a second insulating film . . .
`
`The fourth limitation of claim 1 is forming a second insulating film over the
`
`oxide semiconductor layer. Ex. 1001 at 40:25-26. Ishii discloses a method of
`
`manufacturing an LCD device that includes this step. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 50.
`
`
`
`More specifically, Ishii discloses that, after forming the semiconductor thin
`
`film 13 (the oxide semiconductor layer),
`
`A channel protection film 14 . . . is provided at a substantially central
`part on the upper surface of the semiconductor thin film 13. A source
`electrode 15, a drain electrode 16 and the data line 3 connected with
`the drain electrode 16 . . . are provided on positions of both sides of an
`upper surface of the channel protection film 14, the upper surface of
`the semiconductor thin film 13 on both sides of the channel protection
`film 14 and the upper surface of the gate insulating film 12.
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 37. Thus, Ishii discloses a structure of the following layers one on
`
`top of the other, starting from the upper surface of the substrate at the bottom: a
`
`gate electrode 11; a gate insulating film 12; a semiconductor thin film 13; and, at
`
`the top, a date line 3 and source and drain electrodes 15, 16. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 51.
`
`This is a bottom-gate thin film transistor. Id.; Ex. 1004 at ¶ 38.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Following construction of the transistor 5, Ishii discloses “[a]n interlayer
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`
`
`
`insulating film 17 made of silicon nitride is provided on the upper surfaces of the
`
`thin film transistors 5, the data lines 3 and the gate insulating film 12.” Ex. 1004 at
`
`¶ 39 (emphasis added). By providing the interlayer insulating film 17 “on the
`
`upper surface[]” of the thin film transistor 5, the insulating film 17 (the second
`
`insulating film) is above (over) the semiconductor thin film 13 (the oxide
`
`semiconductor layer). Ex. 1003 at ¶ 52.
`
`
`
`This relationship is confirmed by referring to Ishii’s FIG. 2, which is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As can be seen in FIG. 2 above, the interlayer insulating film 17 (the second
`
`insulating film) is above (over) the semiconductor thin film 13 (the oxide
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`semiconductor layer, with the source and drain electrodes 15 and 16 and the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`channel protection region 14 in between. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 53.
`
`
`
`Ishii therefore identically discloses the forming a second insulating film over
`
`the oxide semiconductor layer limitation of clam 1. Id. at ¶ 54.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`f.
`
`forming a transparent film . . .
`
`The fifth limitation of claim 1 is forming a transparent film over the second
`
`insulating film by a sputtering method. Ex. 1001 at 40:27-28. Ishii discloses a
`
`method of manufacturing an LCD device that includes this step. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 55.
`
`
`
`More specifically, Ishii discloses that, after forming the interlayer insulating
`
`film 17 (the second insulating film),
`
`An overcoat film (an insulating film) 18 made of silicon nitride is
`provided on upper surfaces of the auxiliary capacitance electrode 6
`and the interlayer insulating film 17. . . The pixel electrode 4 made
`of a transparent metal oxide containing n-type or p-type impurities
`or a transparent electroconductive material such as ITO is provided
`on the upper surface of the overcoat film 18 at a predetermined
`position to be electrically connected with the source electrode 15
`through the contact hole 19.
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 40 (emphasis added). One skilled in the art would recognize that
`
`because the pixel electrode 4 (the transparent film) is above (over) the overcoat
`
`film 18 and the overcoat film 18 is above (over) the interlayer insulating film 17
`
`(the second insulating film), then the pixel electrode 4 (the transparent film) must
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`be above (over) the interlayer insulating film 17 (the second insulating film). Ex.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`1003 at ¶ 56.
`
`
`
`This relationship is confirmed by referring to Ishii’s FIG. 2, which is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As can be seen from FIG. 2 above, the pixel electrode 4 (the transparent film) is
`
`above (over) the interlayer insulating film 17 (the second insulating film). Id. at ¶
`
`57.
`
`
`
`Ishii further discloses that the electrodes in the disclosed LCD device can be
`
`formed using a sputtering technique:
`
`The source electrodes 15, the drain electrodes 16 and the data lines 3
`can be formed by the sputtering technique targeting the n-type metal
`oxide film and patterning this film by the photolithography technique,
`as used for the gate electrodes 11 and the scanning lines 2.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 37. Because the pixel electrode 4 is also a metal oxide containing n-
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`type impurities, one skilled in the art would understand that sputtering should be
`
`used in that case as well. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 58.
`
`
`
`Ishii therefore identically discloses the forming a transparent film over the
`
`second insulating film by a sputtering method limitation of clam 1. Id. at ¶ 59.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`g.
`
`the wherein clauses
`
`The final two limitations of claim 1 are wherein clauses relating to the
`
`transparent film. Ex. 1001 at 40:29-34. Ishii discloses a method of manufacturing
`
`an LCD device that includes both features. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 60.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(i)
`
`wherein the first conductive film and the
`transparent film overlap each other with the oxide
`semiconductor layer therebetween
`
`The first wherein clause requires that the first conductive film and the
`
`transparent film overlap each other with the oxide semiconductor layer
`
`therebetween. Ex. 1001 at 40:29-31. Ishii discloses a method of manufacturing an
`
`LCD device that includes this feature. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 61.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ishii’s FIG. 2 is reproduced below:
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`As can be seen in FIG. 2 above, the pixel electrode 4 (the transparent film) is
`
`above and covers (overlaps) the gate electrode 11 (the first conductive film). Id. at
`
`¶ 62. Moreover, in the stacked arrangement of layers, the pixel electrode 4 is
`
`above the semiconductor thin film 13 and the gate electrode 11 is below the
`
`semiconductor film 13. Id. Thus, the semiconductor thin film 13 (the oxide
`
`semiconductor layer) is between the gate electrode 11 (the first conductive film)
`
`and the pixel electrode 4 (the transparent film). Id.
`
`
`
`Ishii therefore identically discloses the first conductive film and the
`
`transparent film overlap each other with the oxide semiconductor layer
`
`therebetween limitation of clam 1. Id. at ¶ 63.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(ii) wherein the transparent film has a larger width
`than the oxide semiconductor layer in a channel width
`direction of the transistor
`
`The second wherein clause requires that the transparent film has a larger
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`width than the oxide semiconductor layer in a channel width direction of the
`
`transistor. Ex. 1001 at 40:32-34. Ishii discloses a method of manufacturing an
`
`LCD device that includes this feature. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 64.
`
`
`
`Ishii’s FIG. 1, with the TFT identified and magnified, is reproduced below:
`
`In describing FIG. 1, Ishii discloses that “the thin film transistor 5 is arranged on a
`
`channel width
`direction
`
`lower side of a left lower corner portion of the pixel electrode 4 and [is]
`
`substantially entirely covered with the pixel electrode 4.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ 30
`
`(emphasis added). One skilled in the art would understand that, because the pixel
`
`electrode 4 (the transparent film) substantially entirely covers the thin film
`
`transistor 5 (which includes all of the oxide semiconductor layer), it necessarily
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`has a larger width than the oxide semiconductor layer in a channel width direction
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`of the transistor. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 65. In fact, because the pixel electrode 4
`
`substantially entirely covers the thin film transistor 5, it necessarily has a larger
`
`width than the TFT (and, of course, the semiconductor thin film that is a part of
`
`that TFT, in every direction in the horizontal plane. Id.
`
`
`
`In addition, although the semiconductor thin film is not specifically shown
`
`or identified in Ishii’s FIG. 1 above, Ishii’s FIG. 3, reproduced below, does
`
`identify the semiconductor thin film 13 in that embodiment:
`
`According to Ishii, the difference between the embodiment depicted in FIG. 1 and
`
`that depicted in FIG. 3 above is that the former has a bottom-gate TFT while the
`
`latter has a top-gate TFT. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 61. One skilled in the art would therefore
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`understand that the semiconductor thin film 13 depicted in FIG. 3 is substantially
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,601,603
`
`similar in size and shape to the semiconductor thin film contained in the TFT
`
`depicted in FIG. 1. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 65. And, as shown in FIG. 3, pixel electrode 4
`
`(the transparent film) has a larger width than semiconductor thin film 13 (the oxide
`
`se