throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.:
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.:
`Filing Date:
`Title:
`
`Yasuharu Hosaka et al.
`9,298,057 Attorney Docket No.: 12732-1925IP1
`March 29, 2016
`13/939,323
`July 11, 2013
`DISPLAY DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING
`THE DISPLAY DEVICE
`
`DECLARATION OF Michael Lebby, Ph.D.
`
`I, Michael Lebby, Ph.D., of San Francisco, CA, declare that:
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`
`1.
`
`I am currently the CEO of Oculi LLC and the CEO & Director of
`
`Lightwave Logic. Oculi LLC is my consulting company where I undertake my
`
`expert witness work. Lightwave Logic is a technology company based in Denver,
`
`Colorado that is developing optical polymers for fiber optic communications. I
`
`have testified as an expert witness and consultant in patent and intellectual
`
`property litigation as well as inter partes reviews and re-examination proceedings.
`
`My curriculum vitae is provided (as SEL2002).
`
`2.
`
`I also serve as a Technical Expert/Consultant for the Photonics Unit of
`
`the European Commission. My role is to advise the European Commission in
`
`matters that are photonics technology based that have included for example:
`
`displays, fiber optic communications, sensing, medical, and biological
`
`applications.
`
`1
`
`SEL 2001
`Bluehouse v. SEL
`IPR2018-01405
`
`

`

`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering degree in 1984, a
`
`Master of Business Administration in 1985, and a Doctorate degree in 1987, all
`
`from University of Bradford in the United Kingdom. My Ph.D. thesis involved the
`
`design and fabrication of both optoelectronic and electronic semiconductor
`
`devices, and their associated characterization. In 2004, I was awarded a Doctor of
`
`Engineering degree from University of Bradford for my technical contributions to
`
`the field, with citation to “Technical Contributions to Optoelectronics.”
`
`4.
`
`As described in my curriculum vitae (attached as SEL2002), I have
`
`over 30 years of experience in the field of optoelectronics, photonics, and
`
`electronic engineering including extensive experience in the research,
`
`development, fabrication, and manufacture of semiconductor devices, organic
`
`technology, and associated packaging for optical applications such as fiber optic
`
`links, general lighting, displays, sensing, etc.
`
`5.
`
`My career started in the late 1970s at the Ministry of Defense in UK
`
`where I spent time at their R&D facility in Malvern (RSRE – Royal Signals and
`
`Radar Establishment). I worked on semiconductor device design, fabrication, and
`
`characterization. My research work in semiconductor device design then took me
`
`to AT&T Bell Laboratories in 1985 where I pursued research in novel device
`
`designs using III-V semiconductor material systems. The devices researched
`
`became the subject of my Ph.D. thesis that was granted in 1987.
`
`2
`
`

`

`6.
`
`I moved to Motorola in 1989 to further develop my semiconductor
`
`engineering and packaging skills and became a Research and Development
`
`Manager for Motorola in the photonics division until I left the company in 1998.
`
`During my time at Motorola, I worked on many electronic and photonic
`
`technology projects that included optical interconnects, displays, LEDs, LCDs,
`
`lasers, detectors, opto-couplers, integrated circuits (analog and digital), etc., as well
`
`as the packaging and reliability of mobile prototypes. At that time, I was
`
`particularly interested in miniature displays using a number of technologies such as
`
`LEDs, lasers, LCDs, and organic LEDs. I also worked with driver and receiver
`
`based integrated circuits. I collaborated with Motorola’s mobile division on new
`
`and novel display prototypes, and patented a number of new concepts that include
`
`an electronic book, electronic wallet, spectacle/eyeglass and binocular based
`
`mobile phone designs. I also patented a new semiconductor laser that had potential
`
`to be manufactured in high volume. This device was called a VCSEL (vertical
`
`cavity surface emitting laser), and is now the basis for the highest volume
`
`semiconductor laser today with its recent implementation into Apple’s new iPhone
`
`Face ID system. I also initiated Motorola’s work in optical interconnect
`
`(Optobus™) and was involved in the IC chip designs that this parallel interconnect
`
`module utilized. During this period, I was one of Motorola’s most prolific
`
`inventors, having over 150 issued utility patents as author or co-author. Many of
`
`3
`
`

`

`the photonics prototypes were subjected to reliability and stress testing that
`
`included humidity, temperature, optical, mechanical, and electrical evaluation.
`
`7.
`
`Between 1998 and 1999, I worked as the Director of Technology/ BD
`
`(Fiber Optics) for Tyco Electronics (previously AMP). I joined Tyco Electronics
`
`as a member of the Global Optoelectronics Division’s management team. There, I
`
`was responsible for growing the optoelectronics business through external
`
`interactions that include mergers, acquisitions, strategic alliances, and technical
`
`strategic planning. Much of that work was photonics based that included designing
`
`and characterizing photonics-based modules for customer qualification
`
`specifications.
`
`8.
`
`In 1999, I left Tyco and started employment at Intel. At Intel, I was
`
`involved heavily in photonic technology and especially those that supported silicon
`
`photonic device platforms. As a culmination of this work, I was one of Intel’s
`
`founders of its silicon photonics division in the year 2000, and worked to set up a
`
`design facility in South San Jose, California. The work looked at integrating
`
`silicon FET electronics with optoelectronics onto the same silicon semiconductor
`
`wafer. I was also part of Intel Capital’s optical investment team, and participated
`
`on over 30 photonics investments into photonics that included displays and liquid
`
`crystal on silicon (LCOS). Technologies invested included detectors, lasers,
`
`LEDs, LCDs, and displays.
`
`4
`
`

`

`9.
`
`In 2001, I founded a fiber optics transceiver company called Ignis
`
`Optics that developed and manufactured high speed fiber optic transceivers.
`
`Included in the design were micro-controllers as well as standard integrated circuit
`
`technology that was designed to both transmit and receive fiber optic data signals.
`
`10.
`
`In 2005, I took up employment with a trade association called OIDA
`
`based in Washington DC. As head of this trade association, and with photonics
`
`manufacturers that included fiber optics, display, sensing, defense, aerospace,
`
`lighting, and automotive vendors as members, I was responsible in part for
`
`industry-based technology roadmaps and implemented common industry roadmap
`
`methodologies with common features such as “Red Brick Walls” and transferred
`
`them into optoelectronics roadmaps for the industry where displays were featured.
`
`11.
`
`In 2010, I became the General Manager and CTO of Translucent, Inc.,
`
`a high-tech start-up company which developed and manufactured silicon and rare
`
`earth oxide based epitaxial semiconductor wafers. One of the key drivers at
`
`Translucent was to develop a new and novel platform for the growth of GaN and
`
`InGaN onto silicon for low cost LED as well as power FET manufacturing.
`
`Translucent pioneered the deposition of single crystal rare earth oxides such as
`
`Erbium Oxide (ErOx), Gadolinium Oxide (GdOx), Neodymium Oxide (NdOx),
`
`etc., that when grown, single crystal layers of GaN/InGaN/AlN could be grown on
`
`top of them. This allows a lattice-matched, and monolithic based wafer template to
`
`5
`
`

`

`be manufactured for LED and FET fabrication. While at Translucent, I invented
`
`various epitaxial semiconductor layer structures that utilized rare earth oxide
`
`technology to improve the performance of LEDs and FETs. Other material growth
`
`work at Translucent focused on the growth of Silicon Germanium (SiGe)
`
`compounds with rare earth oxides, and various crystal orientation wafer substrates.
`
`Electrical contacts to devices developed at Translucent included the use of ITO
`
`(Indium Tin Oxide), Indium Oxide (IO), and other transparent conducting oxide
`
`(TCO) compounds.
`
`12. As discussed in more detail in my curriculum vitae, I have continued
`
`to work in the semiconductor, electronics, optoelectronics and packaging field
`
`throughout my career.
`
`13.
`
`Throughout my career I have also had an active role in a number of
`
`technical, professional organizations, including, among others, IEEE Components,
`
`Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology (CPMT), IEEE Electronic Components
`
`and Technology Conferences (ECTC); IEEE TC-10 (Technical Committee on
`
`Optoelectronics), and IEEE Optoelectronics Industry Development Association
`
`(OIDA). Through these organizations, I have consistently been a part of
`
`committees, events, and workshops relating to semiconductor, optoelectronics,
`
`electronics and packaging technology.
`
`6
`
`

`

`14. My work has also led to over 200 utility patents in semiconductors,
`
`electronics, and optoelectronics, and includes a number of patents relating to
`
`photonics-based displays both from a technology platform perspective as well as a
`
`packaging perspective. I am the author of more than 60 publications in the field of
`
`optoelectronics.
`
`15.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`stated in this declaration and could testify competently to them if asked to do so.
`
`16. My compensation is in no way dependent upon or contingent upon the
`
`opinions and testimony that I render during the course of this case. My findings
`
`are based on my education, experience, and background in the fields discussed
`
`below.
`
`17.
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in the fields of
`
`electronics and photonics and my experience in working with others involved in
`
`those fields at companies such as the British Government, Motorola, AT&T Bell
`
`Labs, Intel, etc. In addition, I have analyzed the following publications and
`
`materials, in addition to other materials I cite in my declaration:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01405 Petition for Inter Partes Review (“petition”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,298,057 (“the ’057 patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`Declaration of Richard A. Flasck (Ex. 1003)
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0109351 A1 to Shunpei
`
`Yamazaki et al. (“Yamazaki”) (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,169,558 B2 to Masateru Morimoto et al.
`
`(“Morimoto”) (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`John F. Wager et al., Transparent Electronics, Springer (2010)
`
`(SEL2004)
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,809,390 to Takemoto Toda et al. (“Toda”)
`
`(SEL2005)
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,409,891 to Takeshi Kuriyagawa et al.
`
`(“Kuriyagawa”) (SEL2006)
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,487,308 to Noriaki Ikeda et al. (“Ikeda”) (SEL2007)
`
`S.M. Sze, Physics of Semiconductor Devices, Second Edition, John
`
`Wiley & Sons (1981) (“Sze”) (SEL2008)
`
`
`
`J.P. Colinge et al., Physics of Semiconductor Devices, Kluwer
`
`Academic Publishers (2003) (“Colinge”) (SEL2009)
`
`
`
`A Dictionary of Chemistry, 6th Ed., Oxford University Press (2008)
`
`(SEL2010)
`
`
`
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 6th Ed.
`
`McGraw-Hill (2003) (SEL2011)
`
`8
`
`

`

`OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`
`18.
`
`This expert Declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed
`
`based on my analysis. Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review
`
`of the IPR petition and the publications listed above, I do not believe that a
`
`POSITA would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki’s FIG. 11B embodiment
`
`to include an additional insulating layer from Yamazaki’s FIG. 15A embodiment
`
`as Mr. Flasck suggests.
`
`BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF SKILL IN THE ART WOULD
`HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’057 PATENT
`
`19.
`
`The technology in the ’057 patent at issue generally relates to a
`
`semiconductor display device. More specifically, the ’057 patent relates to a
`
`particular arrangement of semiconductor layers in both a pixel portion and a driver
`
`circuit portion of a display circuit. The ’057 patent provides an arrangement of
`
`inorganic and organic insulating films formed over a transistor in the pixel portion
`
`and a transistor in the driver circuit portion of the device designed to prevent entry
`
`of gases and moisture into the transistors. See e.g., Ex. 1001 at 2:32-44, 7:32-41,
`
`7:60-8:22. The arrangement of insulating films is particularly designed to allow
`
`gasses or moisture that are released from the organic insulating film by heating
`
`processes during fabrication of the semiconductor device to be dispersed into the
`
`outside environment rather than being retained in the semiconductor structure. Id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`20. Based upon my knowledge and experience in this field and my review
`
`of the ’057 patent and the references cited above, I believe that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA” or “person of
`
`skill”) 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 master’s degree) 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. Additional education might substitute for
`
`some of the experience and substantial experience might substitute for some of the
`
`educational background. My analysis is thus based on the perspective of a
`
`POSITA having at least this level of knowledge and skill in the time leading up to
`
`the ’057 patent. I have been informed that the priority date of the ’057 patent is
`
`July 20, 2012, and I have applied this timeframe in my analysis as being the
`
`relevant time of the ’057 patent.
`
`21. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a POSITA. Indeed, I have participated in organizations and worked
`
`closely with many such persons over the course of my career. Furthermore, I have
`
`hired a number of times engineers (electrical, mechanical, chemical/chemistry,
`
`physics, computing, software, etc.) with Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral degrees.
`
`10
`
`

`

`I have at times during the course of my career, hired engineers on behalf of my
`
`employer who have demonstrated specific job experience that would count in place
`
`of post-graduate education.
`
`22.
`
`I am well qualified in the semiconductor and display technologies
`
`related to the ’057 Patent and I was a person of at least ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the ’057 timeframe.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Considered Yamazaki’s Pixel Electrode Layer
`4030 to be a “Metal Pixel Electrode”
`
`23.
`
`It is my opinion, that Yamazaki does not provide a rational basis upon
`
`which a POSITA would have concluded that pixel electrode layer 4030 was
`
`formed from metal. Yamazaki describes two classes of materials for use as pixel
`
`electrode layer 4030, neither of which would have been considered to be metal by
`
`a POSITA. In paragraph 305, Yamazaki states that pixel electrode 4030 “can be
`
`formed using a light-transmitting conductive material” and lists several indium
`
`based conductive oxides and in paragraph 306, Yamazaki states, in the alternative,
`
`that “a conductive composition including a conductive high molecule (also referred
`
`to as a conductive polymer) can be used for pixel electrode layer 4030.” Ex. 1004
`
`at ¶¶ 305, 306. I have not found any reference in Yamazaki to pixel electrode 4030
`
`being formed from a metal, or even a metal alloy.
`
`11
`
`

`

`24.
`
`The light-transmitting conductive materials that Yamazaki lists for use
`
`as pixel electrode layer 4030 in paragraph 305 are commonly referred to as
`
`transparent conductive oxides (TCOs), conductive glasses, or conductive ceramics.
`
`See, e.g., SEL2004 at 2-3; SEL2008 at 819. For clarity, I will use the term TCO
`
`when referring to this class of materials throughout this declaration. A POSITA
`
`would not have considered these materials to be metals, nor would I expect any of
`
`the engineers that have worked for me to consider TCOs to be metals.
`
`25.
`
`For example, a POSITA would have understood that, among other
`
`things, metals are materials that have “free electrons” in a conduction energy band.
`
`As Colinge explains, free electrons in metals “can leave [an] atom and move in the
`
`crystal without receiving any energy.” SEL2009 at 16. In semiconductors and
`
`insulators, however, an electron will not move freely unless it first receives
`
`sufficient energy to “‘jump’ from [a] valence band into [a] conduction band.” Id.
`
`at 15. In order for this to occur, the electron must receive “a significant amount of
`
`energy (equal to Eg or higher [the band gap energy]).” Id. at 16. A POSITA
`
`would have understood that, like semiconductors and unlike metals, TCOs have
`
`energy band gaps for electrons to cross, and hence, while TCOs “are considered to
`
`be ‘good’ conductors from the perspective of a semiconductor, they are actually
`
`very poor conductors compared to metals.” SEL2004 at 2, see also 3.
`
`Importantly, the energy band gap is what gives the TCOs their transparency to
`
`12
`
`

`

`visible light. See Id. Consequently, it is my opinion that a POSITA would have
`
`viewed TCOs as being a class of materials distinct from metals, and if anything,
`
`more similar to semiconductors than metals.
`
`26. A POSITA also would not have considered the conductive polymer
`
`materials that Yamazaki lists for use as pixel electrode layer 4030 in paragraphs
`
`306 and 307 to be metals. Furthermore, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`polymers are not metals but plastic materials formed from chains of carbon and
`
`hydrogen. For instance, two scientific dictionaries, the Oxford Dictionary of
`
`Chemistry and the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms,
`
`define conducting polymers as organic carbon chains or plastic materials that
`
`conduct electricity. SEL2010 at 138; SEL2011 at 459. From these definitions, a
`
`POSITA would clearly have understood that conductive polymers are not metals.
`
`Furthermore, as noted in Yamazaki itself, the electrical conductivity of conductive
`
`polymers can be explained by their pi (π) bonds. See e.g., Ex. 1004 at ¶307.
`
`Consequently, it is my opinion that a POSITA would have viewed conductive
`
`polymers as being a class of materials distinct from metals.
`
`27.
`
`Several examples from the academic and patent literature help to
`
`demonstrate the general industry understanding that TCOs and conductive
`
`polymers are different materials from metals. In addition, these examples support
`
`my opinion that a POSITA would have recognized the TCOs and conductive
`
`13
`
`

`

`polymers disclosed by Yamazaki as being two classes of electrically conductive
`
`materials that are distinct from metals and metal alloys. For one, Wager’s
`
`textbook, identifies “TCOs as an unusual class of materials” distinct from metals.
`
`SEL2004 at 2. Wager further notes that TCOs have “low conductance . . .
`
`compared to metals.” Id. at 3. Wager also states that while TCOs “are considered
`
`to be ‘good’ conductors from the perspective of a semiconductor, they are actually
`
`very poor conductors compared to metals.” Id. at 2. Moreover, Sze’s Physics of
`
`Semiconductor Devices describes TCOs such as indium oxide and ITO as
`
`“conducting glasses.” SEL2008 at 819. Wager’s textbook and Sze’s textbook
`
`would clearly have taught a POSITA that neither conductive polymers nor TCOs
`
`are considered metals.
`
`28.
`
`In addition, the Toda, Kuriyagawa, and Ikeda patents also distinguish
`
`“electrically conductive oxides” from metals and metal alloys. SEL2005 at 1:66-
`
`2:5; SEL2006 at 2:1-9; SEL2007 at 4:20-54. A POSITA reading these patents
`
`would have understood that the author’s intent was to distinguish electrically
`
`conductive oxides from metals.
`
`29.
`
`Similarly, Kuriyagawa notes that in some cases it is “preferable to use
`
`the light transmitting conductive film such as ITO (Indium Tin Oxide)” over metal
`
`to resist corrosion. SEL2006 at 2:7-9. In other words, a POSITA would have
`
`14
`
`

`

`understood from Kuriyagawa that conductive oxides such as ITO are more
`
`corrosion resistant than metals.
`
`30.
`
`In his declaration, Mr. Flasck only states that a POSITA would be
`
`motivated to add the insulating layer 7035 to Yamazaki’s Fig. 11B embodiment to
`
`prevent reactions between an organic material and impurities introduced by a metal
`
`pixel electrode. Ex. 1003 at ¶64. However, Mr. Flasck’s statement is irrelevant
`
`because, as described above, a POSITA would have understood that Yamazaki’s
`
`pixel electrode 4030 is not metal. Furthermore, a POSITA would have understood
`
`that because Yamazaki’s pixel electrode 4030 is not a metal pixel electrode in
`
`contact with the organic material of insulating layer 4021, there is no reason to be
`
`concerned about impurities from a metal pixel electrode reacting with the organic
`
`material of insulating layer 4021.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Add an Additional Insulating
`Layer to Protect Yamazaki’s Insulating Layer 4021 From Impurities and
`Would Not Have Been Concerned that Impurities From Pixel Electrode 4030
`Would “React” With Organic Material in Layer 4021
`
`31.
`
`In paragraph 298, Yamazaki states that in the FIG. 11B embodiment,
`
`“in order to reduce the surface roughness due to the transistor and to improve the
`
`reliability of the transistor, the transistors obtained in Embodiment 1 are covered
`
`with insulating layers (insulating layers 4020 and 4021) functioning as a protective
`
`film or a planarization insulating film.” Yamazaki continues to explain that a
`
`15
`
`

`

`“protective film is provided to prevent entry of contaminant impurities such as an
`
`organic substance, metal, and moisture existing in the air and is preferably a dense
`
`film” (emphasis added). Ex. 1004 at ¶298.
`
`32.
`
`In standard semiconductor manufacturing, it is typical to planarize the
`
`surface of a transistor so that multi-level interconnects can be patterned for
`
`electrical connection to the transistor devices. Having a planar surface allows
`
`metal layers, insulating layers, and the like to be deposited evenly across the chip,
`
`and while acting as a platform for photolithography to create, for example, vias,
`
`trenches, multi-level interconnects, and various architectures to access the
`
`transistors easily. A POSITA would look at layer 4021 and see that it is a simple
`
`planarized layer of organic material. The function of 4021 is clearly only to
`
`planarize the chip and cover the transistor in a way that allows a planar platform
`
`for further multi-level interconnect. A POSITA would not see any other function
`
`to this layer. A POSITA would look at the thickness the layer needed to be and
`
`figure out how to spin coat the wafer with the organic material so that an adequate
`
`thickness for 4021 would be applied, cured, and patterned. Furthermore, a
`
`POSITA would have understood that adding an additional layer (such as the
`
`Petitioner’s proposed additional insulating layer) to a semiconductor design would
`
`require additional processing steps including additional layer formation, masking
`
`and patterning, and etching processes. For example, these steps would be required
`
`16
`
`

`

`in order to create a via in the Petitioner’s proposed new insulating layer through
`
`which pixel electrode 4030 can contact either the source or drain electrode of
`
`underlying transistor 4010. Each of these additional processes increases the
`
`fabrication time for a semiconductor device and increases the risk of contamination
`
`during fabrication. This additional processing time and risk of contamination
`
`reduces fabrication throughput of a semiconductor manufacturer and can also
`
`reduce the usable product yield if contamination or processing errors lead to
`
`increased defects in the semiconductor products. Given that the function of layer
`
`4021 is clearly only to planarize the chip, a POSITA would be dissuaded from
`
`introducing the additional processing steps required to add an additional insulating
`
`layer as suggested in the petition to protect this planarization layer from impurities.
`
`33.
`
`In fact, a POSITA would have recognized, as demonstrated by Toda,
`
`that a TCO film used to form pixel electrode 4030 would already serve as an
`
`additional layer to prevent metal impurities from dissolving into layer 4021.
`
`SEL2005 at 4:49-54, 11:1-4. Toda uses an Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) film (ITO is a
`
`common TCO) to prevent contamination of a liquid crystal or an
`
`“electroluminescent material” caused by “an impurity dissolv[ing] from [a] metal.”
`
`SEL2005 at 4:49-54. Toda applies the “ITO layer” over a layer of a silver,
`
`palladium, coper metal alloy (e.g., an APC (Ag (silver), Pd (palladium), and Cu
`
`(copper)) metal alloy) to prevent “the APC from corroding and peeling, while
`
`17
`
`

`

`preventing an impurity from dissolving from the [APC layer] at the same time.”
`
`SEL2005 at 11:1-4. Toda demonstrates that TCOs, such as ITO (which is also one
`
`of the TCOs listed by Yamazaki for use in forming pixel electrode 4030), can be
`
`used as protective layers to prevent metal impurities from dissolving into other
`
`layers, such as a liquid crystal layer. A POSITA would have considered
`
`Yamazaki’s pixel electrode 4030 as an added barrier of protection against
`
`impurities, rather than a cause of impurities. Therefore, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that adding yet another protective layer would have been a waste of
`
`time and resources, because Yamazaki’s pixel electrode layer 4030 formed from a
`
`TCO could serve the same purpose.
`
`34. Yamazaki teaches that insulating layer 4021 “can be formed using a
`
`heat-resistant organic material such as an acrylic resin, polyimide, a
`
`benzocyclobutene-based resin, polyamide, or an epoxy resin.” Ex. 1004 at ¶302.
`
`A POSITA would not normally have been concerned with reactions between a
`
`TCO or a conductive polymer and one of these organic materials that Yamazaki
`
`uses to form insulating layer 4021, absent some unusual conditions.
`
`35. Having a TCO or conductive polymer in direct contact with an
`
`organic material would not be considered an issue in the fabrication and processing
`
`of transistor-based display devices. A POSITA would look at the process traveler
`
`and first give thought to the temperature of each process. This is because the
`
`18
`
`

`

`organic material only has limited temperature capabilities to maintain its integrity.
`
`For example, if the process traveler required an anneal stage further into the
`
`process, or after the addition of the organic layer, and the anneal temperature is
`
`ranging say 1000 degrees Celsius, then the integrity of the organic layer would be a
`
`concern. In fact, it is the integrity of the organic layer that a POSITA would be
`
`more concerned with than a directly contacted electrode such as TCO.
`
`Furthermore, a POSITA would not be concerned with the TCO having the
`
`characteristics of impurity emission unless, the TCO was to be subjected to
`
`abnormal conditions such as abnormally high temperature cycles during the
`
`fabrication process. Yamazaki provides no indication that fabrication or use of its
`
`device would involve such abnormal conditions.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`Anticipation
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element of a claim, as properly construed,
`
`is found either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the
`
`principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or
`
`includes the claimed limitations, it anticipates.
`
`19
`
`

`

`37.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`if the claimed invention was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented
`
`or published anywhere, before the applicant’s invention. I further have been
`
`informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the invention was
`
`patented or published anywhere, or was in public use, on sale, or offered for sale in
`
`this country, more than one year prior to the filing date of the patent application
`
`(critical date). And a claim is invalid, as I have been informed, under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e), if an invention described by that claim was described in a U.S. patent
`
`granted on an application for a patent by another that was filed in the U.S. before
`
`the date of invention for such a claim.
`
`Obviousness
`
`38.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of one or more prior art references if it would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA, taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-
`
`obviousness, which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii)
`
`commercial success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results
`
`of the claimed invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others.
`
`For purposes of my analysis above and because I know of no indication from the
`
`20
`
`

`

`patent owner or others to the contrary, I have applied a date of July 20, 2012, as the
`
`date of invention in my obviousness analyses, although in many cases the same
`
`analysis would hold true even at an earlier time than July 20, 2012.
`
`39.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason to
`
`modify the single prior art reference, or combine two or more references, in order
`
`to achieve the claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine, or may come from the reference or
`
`references themselves, the knowledge or “common sense” of one skilled in the art,
`
`or from the nature of the problem to be solved, and may be explicit or implicit
`
`from the prior art as a whole. I have been informed that the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on
`
`hindsight in making the obviousness determination.
`
`ADDITIONAL REMARKS
`
`40.
`
`I currently hold the opinions set expressed in this declaration. But my
`
`analysis may continue, and I may acquire additional information and/or attain
`
`supplemental insights that may result in added observations.
`
`21
`
`

`

`41.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`I further declare that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful
`
`false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or
`
`both, under Section 1001 of the Title 18 of the United States Code and that such
`
`willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any
`
`patents issued thereon.
`
`Dated:
`
`By:
`
`Michael Lebby, Ph.D.
`
`22
`
`Tuesday, December 4, 2018
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket