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
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`
`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
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………. 1
`
`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))……………..2
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES……………………………3
`
`BACKGROUND………………………………………………………4
`
`A.
`
`Technology……………………………………………………...4
`
`B.
`
`The ‘057 Patent…………………………………………………5
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History…………………………………………….6
`
`VI. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART…………………..7
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION…………………………………………..8
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW EACH CHALLENGED
`
`CLAIM OF THE ’057 PATENT IS UNPAENTABLE……………..9
`
`
`
`
`
`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...……………………………………………………..10
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1…………………………………………………...12
`
`2.
`
`Claim 3…………………………………………………...31
`
`3.
`
`Claim 4…………………………………………………...33
`
`4.
`
`Claim 5..…………………………………………………. 34
`
`5.
`
`Claim 6…..………………………………………………. 35
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Claim 7..…………………………………………………. 36
`
`7.
`
`Claim 9..…………………………………………………. 37
`
`8.
`
`Claim 10.…………………………………………………38
`
`9.
`
`Claim 11.…………………………………………………40
`
`10. Claim 12.…………………………………………………43
`
`11. Claim 14.…………………………………………………46
`
`12. Claim 15.…………………………………………………46
`
`13. Claim 16.…………………………………………………47
`
`14. Claim 17.…………………………………………………47
`
`15. Claim 18.…………………………………………………48
`
`16. Claim 19.…………………………………………………48
`
`B. Challenge #2: Claims 2 and 13 are obvious
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yamazaki
`
`in view of Morimoto…...………………………………………..49
`
`
`
`
`Claim 2…………………………………………………...49
`
`1.
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Claim 13…………………………………………………. 52
`2.
`
`
`Claim 13 .......................................................... 52
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`IX. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………. 56
`IX. CONCLUSION ................................................................ 56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`iV
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 United States Letters Patent No. 9,298,057 B2
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057 B2
`
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Richard A. Flasck
`
`Ex. 1004 United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0109351 A1
`(“Yamazaki”)
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005 United States Letters Patent No. 8,169,558 B2 (“Morimoto”)
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`BlueHouse Global Ltd. (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-7 and 9-19 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,298,057 B2 (“the ‘057 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 ‘057
`
`Patent, and the records of the United States Patent & Trademark Office (the
`
`“USPTO”), the ‘057 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 ‘057 Patent pending in any United States court or administrative
`
`agency.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that: (1) the ‘057 Patent issued on March 29, 2016
`
`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 ‘057 patent and so is
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`therefore not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the ‘057
`
`Patent on the grounds identified herein; and (3) Petitioner has not filed a complaint
`
`challenging the validity of the ‘057 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 1-7 and 9-19 of the ‘057 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, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
`
`18 and 19 of the ‘057 Patent on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`Challenge #1: Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12 and 14-19 are obvious under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over United States Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2011/0109351 A1 to Yamazaki et al. (“Yamazaki”; Ex. 1004). Yamazaki was
`
`published on May 12, 2011 and so is prior art to the ‘057 Patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`Challenge #2: Claims 2 and 13 are obvious under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) over Yamazaki in view of United States Patent No. 8,169,558 B2 to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Morimoto et al. (“Morimoto”; Ex. 1005). Morimoto issued on May 1, 2012 and is
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`therefore prior art to the ‘057 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`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”).
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`electrode must both directly contact the semiconductor. Because of this, TFTs
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`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
`
`“top” and “bottom” refer to the location of the gate electrode relative to the other
`
`layers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The ‘057 Patent
`
`According to the specification, the ‘057 Patent relates to a display device
`
`using a liquid crystal panel or an organic EL panel. Ex. 1001 at 1:6-8.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding specific display devices, that the specification of the ‘057
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`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 235. 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 246-247.
`
`
`
`Neither of the references being relied upon herein was cited or considered
`
`during the prosecution of the ‘057 Patent. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 31.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`
`
`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 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.
`
`
`
`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
`
`teachings of the prior art. See id., citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`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 ‘057 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`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 ‘057 Patent 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. Id.
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`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.
`
`“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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 33. Petitioner
`
`therefore submits that the claim term over should be construed to mean “above.”
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`“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 Patent. When this term was added by
`
`amendment, however, the Patent Owner provided an explanation of what was
`
`intended by this term:
`
`New claims 33, 35 and 37 recite that an edge of a first insulating film
`and the third insulating film are overlapped with each other. Thus, the
`second insulating film is surrounded by the first insulating film and
`the third insulating film, which are inorganic insulating films that
`suppress entry of hydrogen, moisture, or an organic component into
`the transistor.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 82. Petitioner therefore submits that the claim term overlaps with
`
`should be construed here to mean “in direct physical contact with.” Ex. 1003 at ¶
`
`34.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW EACH CHALLENGED CLAIM OF
`
`THE ‘057 PATENT IS UNPAENTABLE
`
`
`
`As discussed in detail below, the challenged claims are unpatentable over
`
`the prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Yamazaki (Ex. 1004) was published on May 12, 2011. Since the application
`
`from which the ‘057 Patent issued was first filed in the United States on July 11,
`
`2013, Yamazaki qualifies as prior art against the ‘057 Patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`“Obviousness” is when the claimed subject matter is not identically
`
`described, but would have been obvious, as a whole, to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); see KSR Int’l, Inc. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406–
`
`07 (2007). A proper obviousness analysis requires the following steps: (1)
`
`determining the scope and content of the prior art; (2) ascertaining the difference(s)
`
`between the prior art and the claimed invention; (3) resolving the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art; and (4) evaluating the objective evidence relevant to obviousness, if
`
`any. See, e.g., Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); KSR, 550
`
`U.S. at 404; Artic Cat Inc. v. Bombadier Recreational Prods., Inc., 876 F.3d 1350,
`
`1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`When obviousness is based on information from a combination of sources, a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`relevant factor is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to select and combine this information, and with a reasonable
`
`expectation of achieving the desired result. See, e.g., Merck & Cie v. Gnosis
`
`S.p.A., 808 F.3d 829, 833 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 297 (2016).
`
`Nevertheless, “[c]ombining two embodiments adjacent to one another in a prior art
`
`patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v.
`
`Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Paice LLC v. Ford
`
`Motor Co., 681 F. App’x 904 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Like the combination of two side-
`
`by-side embodiments in Boston Scientific, we view the combination of elements
`
`from optimal and sub-optimal embodiments as a ‘predictable variation’ that does
`
`not ‘require a leap of inventiveness.’”).
`
`
`
`
`
`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 a driver region.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 36. These embodiments together teach each and every element of the
`
`challenged claims, arranged in the same way as recited in those challenged claims.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`a.
`
`The preamble
`
`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. Ex 1003 at ¶ 37.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, to the extent the preamble is limiting, this limitation is
`
`identically disclosed by Yamazaki. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 40.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`a pixel portion
`
`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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 41.
`
`
`
`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).
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`elements as recited in the claim. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 43.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(i) a first transistor
`
`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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 44.
`
`
`
`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).
`
`
`
`Yamazaki therefore discloses that the pixel portion includes a first transistor,
`
`i.e. Yamazaki identically discloses the first transistor element of the pixel portion
`
`of claim 1. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 46.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(ii)
`
`a first insulating film over the first transistor
`
`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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 47.
`
`More specifically, referring to FIG. 11B, Yamazaki teaches that
`
`FIG. 11B illustrates the transistor 4010 included in the pixel portion
`4002 and the transistor 4011 included in the scan line driver circuit
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`
`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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 48.
`
`
`
`Yamazaki’s FIG. 11B is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As can be seen in FIG. 11B above, the insulating layer 4020 (the first insulating
`
`layer) is above (over) transistor 4010 (the first transistor). Id. at ¶ 49.
`
`
`
`Yamazaki therefore discloses that the pixel portion includes a first insulating
`
`film over the first transistor, i.e. the first insulating film element of the pixel
`
`portion of clam 1. Id. at ¶ 50.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(iii) a second insulating film over the first
`
`insulating film
`
`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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 51.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`More specifically, referring to FIG. 11B, Yamazaki teaches that “[i]nsulating
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`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. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 52-53.
`
`Yamazaki’s FIG. 11B is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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). Id. at ¶ 54.
`
`
`
`Yamazaki therefore discloses that the pixel portion includes a second
`
`insulating film over the first insulating film, i.e. the second insulating film element
`
`of the pixel portion of clam 1. Id. at ¶ 55.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(iv) a third insulating film over the second
`
`insulating film
`
`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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 56.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 57.
`
`
`
`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 . . ..”); Ex. 1003 at ¶ 58.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Yamazaki’s FIG. 15A is reproduced below:
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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). Ex. 1003 at ¶ 59.
`
`
`
`As noted in section VI. 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. Id. at ¶ 60.
`
`
`
`Both FIGS. 11B and 15A depict display devices that include a pixel portion
`
`and a driver portion and that utilize the same transistor structure. Id. at ¶ 61. As
`
`taught by Yamazaki:
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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). Ex. 1003 at ¶ 64.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`
`
`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. Id.
`
`at ¶ 65.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(v)
`
`
`
`a first electrode over the third insulating
`film, the first electrode being electrically
`connected to the first transistor
`
`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.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 66.
`
`
`
`Referring to FIG. 15A, Yamazaki teaches that
`
`
`
`[T]he first electrode 7013 of the light-emitting element 7012 is formed
`over a conductive film 7017 having a light-transmitting property with
`respect to visible light which is electrically connected to a drain
`electrode layer of the driving transistor 7011 . . ..
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 339. Yamazaki’s first electrode 7013 corresponds to the claimed first
`
`electrode and, as described above, protective insulating layer 7035 corresponds to
`
`the claimed third insulating film. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 67. Transistor 7011 corresponds to
`
`the claimed first transistor. Id.
`
`Yamazaki’s FIG. 15A is reproduced below:
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`
`
`
`
`As can be seen in FIG. 15A above, the first electrode 7013 (the first electrode) is
`
`above (over) the protective insulating layer 7035 (the third insulating layer) and
`
`connected via conductive film 7017 (electrically connected) to the drain electrode
`
`layer of transistor 7011 (the first transistor). Ex. 1003 at ¶ 68.
`
`
`
`Yamazaki’s FIG. 11B is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As can be seen in FIG. 11B, pixel electrode 4030 (which corresponds to the first
`
`electrode in this embodiment) is above (over) the insulating layer 4021 (the second
`
`insulating film). Id. at ¶ 69. As described above, it would have been obvious for
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to include a third insulating film (as shown in FIG.
`
`15A) in the structure depicted in FIG. 11B between the pixel electrode 4030 and
`
`the insulating layer 4021. Id. This would necessarily result in the pixel electrode
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`4030 (the first electrode) being above (over) the protective insulating layer (the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057
`
`third insulating film). Id
`
`
`
`As noted in section VI. 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. Id. at ¶ 70.
`
`
`
`Both FIGS. 11B and 15A depict display devices that utilize the same
`
`transistor structure. Id. at
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
