`Petitioner Bluehouse Global Ltd.
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`EX. 1003
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________________
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`BLUEHOUSE GLOBAL LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO., LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`CASE IPR: 2018-01405
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,298,057 B2
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD A. FLASCK
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Richard A. Flasck, declare as follows:
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of twenty-one (21) and am competent to make this
`
`Declaration.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`I am an independent consultant in liquid crystal display (“LCD”)
`
`technology, including manufacturing processes and product design.
`
`A. Engagement
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for BlueHouse Global Ltd. in the
`
`above-captioned Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) matter as an independent technical
`
`expert.
`
`4.
`
`As part of this engagement, I have been retained to review and
`
`evaluate whether certain patents and publications disclose to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSA”) the subject matter of specific claims of United States
`
`Patent No. 9,298,057 B2 (“the ‘057 Patent”) as of the time of the filing date of the
`
`application from which the ‘057 Patent issued. I expect to testify regarding the
`
`matters set forth in this declaration if asked to do so.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated on an hourly basis for my work performed in
`
`connection with this case. I have received no additional compensation for my work
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in this case, and my compensation does not depend upon the contents of this
`
`report, any testimony I may provide, or the ultimate outcome of the case.
`
`B.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the
`
`University of Michigan in 1970. I subsequently earned my M.S. in Physics at
`
`Oakland University in 1976.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I have nearly fifty (50) years of experience in hi tech product
`
`development, including all aspects of LCD systems and technologies, through
`
`positions ranging from research and development to manufacturing at multiple
`
`large and small technology companies. I have led engineering teams to develop
`
`Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCOS) microdisplay technology. I played a significant
`
`part in the early development of amorphous silicon thin film transistor (TFT)
`
`active matrix Liquid Crystal Displays (AMLCD), including designing the world’s
`
`first amorphous silicon TFT LCD pilot line in 1986. I have experience in TFT
`
`process and circuit design, data driver and gate driver design, scalers, video
`
`circuits, backlighting, and inverter design. I also have a solid functional
`
`background in all display technologies, their applications and associated process
`
`and manufacturing technologies.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I am an inventor or co-inventor of 26 patents, including patents on
`
`various aspects of LCD technology, including TFT structure and fabrication. A list
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`of my patents is included in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached
`
`hereto as Appendix B.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`A detailed description of my professional qualifications, including a
`
`listing of my specialties/expertise and professional activities, is contained in my
`
`curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix B.
`
`C. Basis of My Opinions and Materials Considered
`
`
`
`10.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied upon my education, knowledge
`
`and experience with LCDs and related technologies, including manufacturing
`
`processes. I have also relied upon my education, knowledge and experience with
`
`electronic design, mechanical design, and processes and materials for LCD
`
`manufacture.
`
`11. For this work, I reviewed and considered the following materials:
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,9,298,057 B2 (“the ‘057 Patent”; Ex. 1001),
`
`including the specification and claims;
`
`
`
`The prosecution history of United States Patent Application No.
`
`13/939,323 (“the ‘323 Application”), i.e., the prosecution history of the ‘057
`
`Patent (Ex. 1002);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied upon my education, knowledge and
`
`experience with LCD technologies, including manufacturing processes and product
`
`design. I have also relied upon my education, knowledge and experience with
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`electronic design, mechanical design, and materials for LCDs and components
`
`thereof.
`
`
`
`12.
`
`I have also been asked to review the subject matter disclosed by
`
`various patents and publications that are prior art to the ‘057 Patent, and have been
`
`further asked to compare the subject matter disclosed by those patents and
`
`publications to claims 1-7 and 9-19 of the ‘057 Patent and determine whether those
`
`patents and printed publications taught the claimed subject matter to a POSA prior
`
`to the earliest effective filing date of the ‘057 Patent, which I have been instructed
`
`to assume is July 20, 2012 for purposes of my analysis. The principal documents
`
`that I have analyzed with regard to their teachings of subject matter claimed in the
`
`‘057 Patent are listed below:
`
`
`
`United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0109351 A1
`
`(“Yamazaki”; Ex. 1004); and
`
`
`
`United States Patent No. 8,169,558 B2 (“Morimoto”; Ex. 1005).
`
`Additional documents that I have analyzed are provided on the list of Exhibits
`
`attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PATENT PRINCIPLES
`
`13.
`
`I am an engineer by trade, and the opinions I express in this
`
`declaration involve the application of my engineering knowledge and experience to
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the ‘057 Patent. I am not a lawyer
`
`and have not been trained in the law of patents. Therefore, I have requested the
`
`attorneys from Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, who represent BlueHouse Global, to
`
`provide me with guidance as to the applicable patent law in this matter. The
`
`paragraphs below express my understanding of how I must apply current legal
`
`principles related to patent validity to my analysis.
`
`14.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim
`
`under inter partes review before the United States Patent Office (“PTO”) is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, the PTO must construe the claim by
`
`giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification as the claim terms and specification would be understood by a POSA.
`
`It is my understanding that the broadest reasonable interpretation is the plain
`
`meaning, i.e., the ordinary and customary meaning, given to the term by a POSA at
`
`the time of the invention, taking into account whatever guidance, such as through
`
`definitions, may be provided by the written description in the patent, without
`
`importing limitations from the specification. For the purposes of this review, I have
`
`construed each claim term in accordance with its plain meaning, i.e., its ordinary
`
`and customary meaning under the required broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and
`
`every limitation of the claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference, either
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`expressly or inherently. I understand inherent disclosure to mean that the claim
`
`feature necessarily flows from the disclosure of the prior art reference. I understand
`
`that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the claimed subject matter as a
`
`whole would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the alleged invention,
`
`which I have been instructed to treat at present as the earliest effective filing date of
`
`the ‘057Patent. I also understand that an obviousness analysis takes into account the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the claimed subject
`
`matter and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. Finally, I understand that I must consider any known secondary evidence
`
`that might show nonobviousness of the application, such as long felt but unfulfilled
`
`need for the claimed invention, failure by others to come up with the claimed
`
`invention, commercial success of the claimed invention, praise of the invention by
`
`others in the field, unexpected results achieved by the invention, the taking of
`
`licenses under the patent by others, expressions of surprise by experts and those
`
`POSAs at the making of the invention, and the patentee proceeded contrary to the
`
`conventional wisdom of the prior art. But the secondary evidence must be tied
`
`specifically to claim features that are argued to be patentable, and not those already
`
`in the public domain. I appreciate that secondary considerations must be assessed
`
`as part of the overall obviousness analysis (i.e., as opposed to analyzing the prior
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`art, reaching a tentative conclusion, and then assessing whether objective indicia
`
`alter that conclusion).
`
`15. Put another way, my understanding is that not all innovations are
`
`patentable. Even if a claimed product or method is not explicitly described in its
`
`entirety in a single prior art reference, the patent claim will still be denied if the
`
`claim would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the patent application
`
`filing.
`
`16.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within
`
`the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
`
`involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have
`
`commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a
`
`reference relates to the same problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of
`
`the reference as prior art in an obviousness analysis.
`
`17. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention
`
`to be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that a
`
`POSA at the time of invention, confronted by the same problems as the inventor
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected the elements
`
`from the prior art and combined them in the claimed manner.
`
`18.
`
`In determining whether the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`considered obvious at the time that the patent application was filed, by a POSA, I
`
`have been informed of several principles regarding the combination of elements of
`
`the prior art. First, a combination of familiar elements according to known methods
`
`is likely to be obvious when it yields predictable results. Likewise, combinations
`
`involving simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results, a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
`
`established functions, applying a known technique to a known device (method or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, and choosing from a
`
`finite number of identified, predictable solutions to solve a problem are likely to be
`
`obvious. Thus, if a POSA can implement a “predictable variation” in a prior art
`
`device, and would see the benefit from doing so, such a variation would be obvious.
`
`Also, when there is pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identifiable, predictable solutions, it would be reasonable for a POSA to pursue
`
`those options that fall within his or her technical grasp. If such a process leads to
`
`the claimed invention, then the latter is not an innovation, but more the result of
`
`ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`I also understand that the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test is
`
`a useful guide in establishing a rationale for combining elements of the prior art.
`
`This test poses the question as to whether there is an explicit teaching, suggestion,
`
`or motivation in the prior art to combine prior art elements in a way that realizes
`
`the claimed invention. Though useful to the obviousness inquiry, I understand that
`
`this test should not be treated as a rigid rule. It is not necessary to seek out precise
`
`teachings; it is permissible to consider the inferences and creative steps that a
`
`POSA (who is considered to have an ordinary level of creativity and is not an
`
`“automaton”) would employ.
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ‘057
`
`Patent I must do so based on the perspective of a POSA at the relevant priority
`
`date. My understanding is that the earliest priority date that is claimed by the ‘057
`
`Patent is July 20, 2012.
`
`
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`21. 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`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”).
`
`22. A thin film transistor, or TFT, is an example of semiconductor device.
`
`TFTs 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:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`“top” and “bottom” refer to the location of the gate electrode relative to the other
`
`layers.
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`23. 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 July 20, 2012, i.e. when
`
`the inventors named on the ‘057 Patent filed the original Japanese patent
`
`application to the subject matter now claimed in the ‘057 Patent and to which
`
`priority is claimed.
`
`
`
`24.
`
`It is my understanding that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`hypothetical person presumed to know the relevant prior art. Such a person is of
`
`ordinary creativity, not merely an automaton, and is capable of combining the
`
`teachings of the prior art. 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
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems and the speed at which
`
`innovations in the art are made and implemented.
`
`
`
`25.
`
`In this case, the ‘057 Patent is directed to improving the process of
`
`fabricating semiconductor devices, such as the thin film transistors (“TFTs”) found
`
`in many display devices. A person of ordinary skill in the art should therefore
`
`have some at least some familiarity with the practical aspects of fabricating TFTs.
`
`More specifically, a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ‘057Patent as of July
`
`20, 2012, would have had at least a bachelor of science or engineering degree in
`
`electrical or mechanical engineering, semiconductor technology, display
`
`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.
`
`26. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a POSA in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed many such persons
`
`over the course of my career. Further, I had those capabilities myself at the time
`
`the ’057 Patent was effectively filed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘057 PATENT
`
`27. The ‘057 Patent (Ex. 1001) is entitled “Display Device and Electronic
`
`Device Including the Display Device” and names Yasuhara Hosaka et al. as the
`
`inventors.
`
`28. According to the specification, the ‘057 Patent relates to a display
`
`device using a liquid crystal panel or a display device using an organic EL panel.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:6-8.
`
`
`
`29. Regarding specific display devices, that the specification of the ‘057
`
`discloses that
`
`One embodiment of the present invention is a display device including
`a pixel region where a plurality of pixels each including a pixel
`electrode and at least one first transistor electrically connected to the
`pixel electrode is arranged, a first substrate provided with a driver
`circuit region that is located outside and adjacent to the pixel region
`and includes at least one second transistor which supplies a signal to
`the first transistor included in each of the pixels in the pixel region, a
`second substrate provided to face the first substrate, a liquid crystal
`layer interposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, a
`first interlayer insulating film including an inorganic insulating
`material over the first transistor and the second transistor, a second
`interlayer insulating film including an organic insulating material over
`the first interlayer insulating film, and a third interlayer insulating film
`including an inorganic insulating material over the second interlayer
`insulating film. In the display device, the third interlayer insulating
`film is provided in part of an upper region of the pixel region, and an
`edge portion of the third interlayer insulating film is formed on an
`inner side than the driver circuit region.
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:45-65.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`
`
`30. The ‘057 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/939,323
`
`(“the ‘323 application”), which was filed on July 11, 2013. Ex. 1002 at 2366. The
`
`‘323 application claimed the benefit of the filing date of prior Japanese patent
`
`application No. 2012-161344, which was filed on July 20, 2012. Id. at 2201-2207.
`
`
`
`31. Neither of the references being relied upon herein was cited or
`
`considered during the prosecution of the ‘057 Patent.
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`32. Counsel for Petitioner has provided me with their proposals for the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) claim constructions for the terms listed
`
`below. I concur with those proposed constructions for the reasons explained below.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`“over” (claims 1-7 and 9-19): This term appears in all of the
`
`challenged claims, but is not expressly defined in the specification of the ‘057
`
`Patent. Nevertheless, in its broadest reasonable interpretation, a word which
`
`expresses a direction, such as over, usually indicates a direction based on the
`
`substrate surface when referring to where a layer is provided over the surface of
`
`that substrate. The claim term over should be construed to mean “above.”
`
`
`
`34.
`
`“overlaps with” (claims 1-7 and 9-19): This term appears in all of the
`
`challenged claims, but is not expressly defined in the specification of the ‘057
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent. In its broadest reasonable interpretation, the term overlaps with means
`
`extends beyond the edge of. The claim term overlaps should be construed to mean
`
`“in direct physical contact with.”
`
`
`
`VIII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`35. Based on my review of the ‘057 Patent, its prosecution history, and
`
`the patents and publications listed above, it is my opinion that the subject matter of
`
`claims 1-7 and 9-19 of the ‘057 Patent was, as of the effective filing date of the
`
`‘057 Patent, unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious in view of the various
`
`prior art references identified, the grounds for which are listed and explained
`
`below.
`
`
`
`IX. UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1-7 AND 9-19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Challenge #1: Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12 and 14-19 are obvious under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yamazaki
`
`36. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12 and 14-19 of the ‘057 Patent would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was
`
`made over Yamazaki. Specifically, in at least FIGS. 11B and 15A and the
`
`accompanying text in the specification, particularly relating to Embodiment 6 and
`
`Embodiment 8, Yamazaki discloses display devices comprising a pixel region and
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`a driver region. These embodiments together teach each and every element of the
`
`challenged claims, arranged in the same way as recited in those challenged claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`a.
`
`The preamble
`
`37. The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] display device comprising . . ..”
`
`Ex 1001 at 31:21. To the extent that this preamble is deemed a limitation, this
`
`limitation is expressly disclosed by Yamazaki.
`
`
`
`38. Yamazaki discloses display devices having a pixel portion and a driver
`
`portion. More specifically, Yamazaki discloses that
`
`By manufacturing transistors described in Embodiment 1 and using
`the transistors for a pixel portion and driver circuits, a semiconductor
`device having a display function (also referred to as a display device)
`can be manufactured.
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 283.
`
`
`
`39. Referring to FIG. 11B, Yamazaki discloses that “[i]n this embodiment,
`
`the appearance and a cross section of a liquid crystal display panel, which is one
`
`embodiment of a semiconductor device, will be described with reference to FIGS.
`
`11A1, 11A2, and 11B.” Id. at ¶ 287. Similarly, referring to FIG. 15A, Yamazaki
`
`discloses that “[i]n this embodiment, an example of a light-emitting display device
`
`will be described as a semiconductor device to which the transistors described in
`
`Embodiment 1 are applied.” Id. at ¶ 324.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40. Accordingly, to the extent the preamble is limiting, this limitation is
`
`identically disclosed by Yamazaki.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`a pixel portion
`
`41. The first limitation of claim 1 of the ‘057 patent is a pixel portion.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 31:21-22. Yamazaki discloses devices having a pixel portion.
`
`
`
`42. Referring specifically to the device depicted in FIG. 11B, Yamazaki
`
`teaches that
`
`In this embodiment, the appearance and a cross section of a liquid
`crystal display panel, which is one embodiment of a semiconductor
`device, will be described with reference to FIGS. 11A1, 11A2, and
`11B. FIGS. 11A1 and 11A2 are plan views of panels, in which highly
`reliable transistors 4010 and 4011. . . described in Embodiment 1 and
`a liquid crystal element 4013 are sealed between a first substrate 4001
`and a second substrate 4006 with a sealant 4005. . .. The sealant 4005
`is provided so as to surround a pixel portion 4002 and a scan line
`driver circuit 4004 which are provided over the first substrate 4001.
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 287-288 (emphasis added). Similarly, when referring to the device
`
`shown in FIG. 15A, Yamazaki teaches that “FIG. 15A is a cross-sectional view of
`
`a pixel in the case where the driving transistor 7011 is of an n-type and light is
`
`emitted from a light-emitting element 7012 to a first electrode 7013 side.” Ex.
`
`1004 at ¶ 339 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`43. The pixel portion of claim 1 comprises five specified elements
`
`arranged in a particular order: (i) a first transistor; (ii) a first insulating film over
`
`the first transistor; (iii) a second insulating film over the first insulating film; (iv) a
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`third insulating film covering the second insulating film; and (v) a first electrode
`
`over the third insulating film, the first electrode being electrically connected to the
`
`first transistor. Ex. 1001 at 31:22-30. Yamazaki discloses each of these elements,
`
`and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange those
`
`elements as recited in the claim.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(i) a first transistor
`
`44. The first element of the pixel portion limitation of claim is a first
`
`transistor. Ex. 1001 at 31:23. Yamazaki discloses this element in FIG. 11B.
`
`
`
`45. More specifically, referring to FIG. 11B, Yamazaki teaches that
`
`The pixel portion 4002 and the scan line driver circuit 4004 provided
`over the first substrate 4001 include a plurality of transistors. FIG.
`11B illustrates the transistor 4010 included in the pixel portion
`4002. . ..
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 290 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`46. Yamazaki therefore discloses that the pixel portion includes a first
`
`transistor.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(ii)
`
`a first insulating film over the first transistor
`
`47. The second element of the pixel portion is a first insulating film over
`
`the first transistor. Ex. 1001 at 31:24. Yamazaki also discloses this element in
`
`FIG. 11B.
`
`
`
`
`
`48. More specifically, referring to FIG. 11B, Yamazaki teaches that
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 11B illustrates the transistor 4010 included in the pixel portion
`4002 and the transistor 4011 included in the scan line driver circuit
`4004, as an example. Insulating layer[] 4020 [is] provided over the
`transistor 4010 . . ..
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 290 (emphasis added). Yamazaki’s insulating layer 4020
`
`corresponds to the claimed first insulating film.
`
`
`
`49. Yamazaki’s FIG. 11B is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As can be seen in FIG. 11B above, the insulating layer 4020 (the first insulating
`
`film) is above (over) transistor 4010 (the first transistor).
`
`
`
`50. Yamazaki therefore discloses that the pixel portion includes a first
`
`insulating film over the first transistor.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(iii) a second insulating film over the first
`
`insulating film
`
`51. The third element of the pixel portion is a second insulating film over
`
`the first insulating film. Ex. 1001 at 31:25. Yamazaki also discloses this element in
`
`FIG. 11B.
`
`
`
`52. More specifically, referring to FIG. 11B, Yamazaki teaches that
`
`“[i]nsulating layers 4020 and 4041 [sic, 4021] are provided over the transistor
`
`4010, and an insulating layer 4021 is provided over the transistor 4011.” Ex. 1004
`
`at ¶ 290. Yamazaki’s insulating layer 4021 corresponds to the claimed second
`
`insulating film.
`
`
`
`53. Although the text of Yamazaki initially refers to “[i]nsulating layers
`
`4020 and 4041,” it is clear from the remainder of the text and from FIG. 11B that
`
`the reference to “4041” is, in fact, a typographical error. One skilled in the art
`
`would recognize this typographical error and understand that and the correct
`
`numerical designation should be “4021.”
`
`
`
`54. Yamazaki’s FIG. 11Bis reproduced below:
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As can be seen in this FIG. 11B, insulating layer 4021(the second insulating film)
`
`is above (over) insulating layer 4020 (the first insulating film).
`
`
`
`55. Yamazaki therefore discloses that the pixel portion includes a second
`
`insulating film over the first insulating film.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(iv) a third insulating film over the second
`
`insulating film
`
`56. The fourth element of the pixel portion is a third insulating film over
`
`the second insulating film. Ex. 1001 at 31:26. Yamazaki discloses this element in
`
`FIG. 15A.
`
`
`
`57. Referring to FIG. 15A, Yamazaki teaches that
`
`
`
`Note that in FIG. 15A, light emitted from the light-emitting element
`7012 passes through a color filter layer 7033, an insulating layer 7032,
`an oxide insulating layer 7031, a gate insulating layer 7030, and a
`substrate 7010 and then is emitted.
`*
`
`
`
`
`*
`*
`The color filter layer 7033 is covered with an overcoat layer 7034,
`and also covered with a protective insulating layer 7035.
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 348-350 (emphasis added). In this embodiment, overcoat layer
`
`7034 corresponds to the claimed second insulating layer, and protective insulating
`
`layer 7035 corresponds to the claimed third insulating layer.
`
`
`
`58. More specifically, with respect to the second insulating layer,
`
`Yamazaki teaches that the overcoat layer 7034 may be an acrylic resin. Ex. 1004 at
`
`¶ 350 (“the overcoat layer 7034 is formed using a resin material such as an acrylic
`
`resin”). Yamazaki further teaches that acrylic resins function as insulating layers.
`
`Id. at ¶ 149 (“The planarization insulating layer can be formed of a heat-resistant
`
`organic material, such as an acrylic resin . . ..”).
`
`
`
`59. Yamazaki’s FIG. 15A is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As can be seen from FIG. 15A above, the protective insulating layer 7035 (the
`
`third insulating layer) is above (over) the overcoat layer 7034 (the second
`
`insulating layer).
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60. As noted in section IV. above, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art as of July 20, 2012 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.
`
`
`
`61. Both FIGS. 11B and 15A depict display devices that include a pixel
`
`portion and a driver portion and that utilize the same transistor structure.
`
`
`
`62. As taught by Yamazaki:
`
`By manufacturing transistors described in Embodiment 1 and using
`the transistors for a pixel portion and driver circuits, a semiconductor
`device having a display function (also referred to as a display device)
`can be manufactured.
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 283.
`
`
`
`63. Referring specifically to FIG. 11B, Yamazaki discloses that “[i]n this
`
`embodiment, the appearance and a cross section of a liquid crystal display panel,
`
`which is one embodiment of a semiconductor device, will be described with
`
`reference to FIGS. 11A1, 11A2, and 11B.” Id. at ¶ 287. Similarly, referring to
`
`FIG. 15A, Yamazaki discloses that “[i]n this embodiment, an example of a light-
`
`emitting display device will be described as a semiconductor device to which the
`
`transistors described in Embodiment 1 are applied.” Id. at ¶ 324.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`64. Moreover, Yamazaki discloses that insulating layer 4021 in FIG. 11A
`
`can be made from an organic material, such as an acrylic resin or a polyimide. Id.
`
`at ¶ 302. One skilled in the art would have recognized the potential for impurities
`
`from the metal pixel electrode 4030 reacting with such an organic material and
`
`would have sought to eliminate this possibility by placing an additonal insulating
`
`layer (i.e.a third insulating film) made of a non-reactive material between the pixel
`
`electrode 4030 and insulating layer 4021, i.e. on top of insulating layer 4021 (the
`
`second insulating film).
`
`
`
`65. A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would therefore have
`
`been motivated, at the time the invention claimed in claim 1 of the ‘057 Patent was
`
`made, to combine Yamazaki’s FIGS. 11B and 15A and include a third insulating
`
`film in the device shown in FIG. 11B with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(v)
`
`
`
`a first electrode over the third insulating
`film, the first electrode being electrically
`connected to the first transistor
`
`66. The fifth element of the pixel portion of claim 1 is a first electrode
`
`over the third insulating film, the first electrode being electrically connected to the
`
`first transistor. Ex. 1001 at 31:28-30. Yamazaki discloses this element in FIG.
`
`15A.
`
`
`
`
`
`67. Referring to