IPR2020-00140
`(’450 Patent)
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd.,
`Dell Inc. and Apple Inc.,
`v.
`Solas OLED, Ltd.,
`Patent Owner
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`
`Served January 29, 2021
`Presented February 9, 2021
`
`
`(’450 Patent)
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd.,
`Dell Inc. and Apple Inc.,
`v.
`Solas OLED, Ltd.,
`Patent Owner
`Patent Owner’s Demonstratives
`
`Served January 29, 2021
`Presented February 9, 2021
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Establish
`Anticipation or Obviousness
`of Claims 1 or 15
`(and dependent claims)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show Insulating Film
`“Covers” the Required Elements
`
`• Petitioner’s theories require that it show:
`
`• Utsugi insulating film covers both QI and QS transistors (claims 1 & 4)
`
`• Utsugi insulating film covers data lines, QI transistors and scan
`electrode lines (claim 15)
`
`• Petitioner fails on both counts
`
`Ex. 1001 at 17:57-58,
`18:10-15, 19:34-37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Only Utsugi Figure that Shows SiO2 Layer
`Does Not Show QS or Scan Electrode Lines
`
`Ex. 1003, Fig. 5;
`Petition at 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Utsugi Figures that Show QS or Scan Electrode Lines Do Not Show SiO2 Layer
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Utsugi Does Not Show Insulating Layer
`Covering QS or Scan Electrode Lines
`
`‘Q. The only figure in Utsugi that expressly
`depicts the insulating layer is figure 5; would
`you agree?
`
`A. I would agree that figure 5 is the one that
`expressly depicts the insulating layer, the
`cross-section -- the cross-section figure. I’m
`sorry.”
`
`Adam Fontecchio
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`Ex. 2005, 26:20-27:3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`Utsugi Does Not Show Insulating Layer
`Covering QS or Scan Electrode Lines
`
`“Q. Okay. Now turning to figure 5, would you
`agree that
`figure 5 does not show the
`transistor QS?
`
`A. I would agree that it doesn’t -- it's not
`shown in figure 5 --QS is not shown in figure
`5.”
`
`Adam Fontecchio
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`Ex. 2005, 25:21-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Unrebutted Post-Institution Record
`Shows “Cover” Limitations Not Obvious
`
`Solas:
`
`Samsung:
`
`No Rebuttal Evidence
`
`Richard Flasck
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Unrebutted Post-Institution Record
`
`Richard Flasck
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶ 55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Unrebutted Post-Institution Record
`
`Richard Flasck
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶ 55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Unrebutted Post-Institution Record
`
`Richard Flasck
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶ 54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Unrebutted Post-Institution Record
`
`Richard Flasck
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶ 55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Unrebutted Post-Institution Record
`
`Richard Flasck
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶ 55;
`Ex. 2003 at 242-244
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`Unrebutted Post-Institution Record
`
`“[Q.] Dr. Fontecchio, would you agree that
`there are ways to oxidize the surface of a
`metal so as to insulate that metal from other
`things that may be formed on top of it?
`
`A. Yes, I would agree to that. … The easiest
`way would just be, in the deposition process,
`after aluminum goes down, to then delete
`some oxygen into the chamber -- vacuum
`chamber of the deposition.”
`
`Adam Fontecchio
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`Ex. 2005, 98:25-99:20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Evidence Legally Insufficient for Anticipation
`
`“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element
`as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
`inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”
`
`Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Evidence Legally Insufficient for Anticipation
`
`“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must
`make clear that the missing descriptive matter is
`necessarily present in the thing described in the
`reference, and that it would be so recognized by
`persons of ordinary skill.”
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F. 3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal quotations omitted)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Evidence Fails to Address Alternatives or Why a POSITA Would
`Be Motivated to Follow Samsung’s Proposed Approach
`
`Solas:
`
`Samsung:
`
`No Rebuttal Evidence
`
`Richard Flasck
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner Obviousness Argument Based on ’450 Figures Fails
`
`• ’450 patent figures 22 and 23 are not admitted “prior art”:
`
`(’450 patent at 5:12-13)
`• Not obvious to apply ’450 patent Figure 23 disclosure of two
`transistors covered by one insulating layer to Utsugi’s very
`different structure:
`• Figure 23 EL layer to the side of the transistors rather than above
`• Figure 23 has no contact hole
`• Figure 23 has no “first electrode” above the transistors
`• Figure 23 has no “organic electroluminescent layer” covering the
`transistors
`• Not obvious to apply Figure 23 disclosure (even if it were
`prior art) to obtain combination with these features
`
`POR, at 13; SR, at 5-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`“However, we hold that, as a matter of law, the
`claims would not have been obvious to one of
`ordinary skill in the art based on the combination of
`the [Applicant Admitted Prior Art] and Harrison. The
`Board improperly relied on hindsight reasoning to
`piece together elements to arrive at the claimed
`invention.”
`
`In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1298–99 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Arguments Regarding Need for
`Insulation Film Do Not Apply to Claim 15
`
`Richard Flasck
`Patent Owner’s Expert
`
`•
`
`• Utsugi scan and signal electrode lines are both formed before SiO2 layer
`Samsung relies on
`Samsung’s scan electrode line “parasitic capacitance” argument is untimely,
`and also fails because any SiO2 layer on top of scan electrode lines would
`not affect their separation from overlapping structures
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶ 67;
`SR at 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Establish
`Anticipation or Obviousness
`of Claim 15: Driver Circuit
`(and dependent claims)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reads “Driver Circuit” Out of the Claims
`
`• Claim 15 requires structure: two “driver circuit[s],” but
`Petitioner points to nothing in Utsugi for that structure.
`
`• Instead, Petitioner says claim 15 “does not require any
`particular structure for such driver circuitry” as long as the
`recited function is performed.
`
`• This reads “driver circuit[s]” out of the claims.
`
`SR, at 13-14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`“Display Apparatus” Does Not Teach
`the Claimed “Driver Circuit[s]
`
`SR, at 14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`Unrefuted Expert Testimony Shows Kishita
`Would Not be Combined With Utsugi
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 70-72
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`None of the Asserted Prior Art Satisfies
`the “Driver Circuit[s]” Elements
`
`• None of Petitioner’s prior art of
`record, except Kishita, discloses a
`“driver circuit.”
`
`• But Petitioner “does not argue for
`combination with Kishita.”
`
`• Petitioner’s belated argument for
`combination with “innumerable other
`[unspecified] references” fails.
`
`• Thus, no combination of art in the
`Petition teaches the “driver circuit[s]”
`required by the claims.
`
`Ex. 1011 (”Kishita”)
`
`SR, at 14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s New Arguments, and
`New Prior Art Should Be Disregarded
`
`New arguments are “foreclosed by statute, our
`precedent, and Board guidelines.”
`
`Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental Auto. Systems,
`853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s New Arguments, and
`New Prior Art Should Be Disregarded
`
`PTAB Trial Practice Guide (August 2018 revision), at 15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show Utsugi’s
`VDD is the “Constant Voltage”
`of Claims 8 and 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`Petitioner Argues VDD Is “D.C. voltage”
`
`Pet., at 40
`
`• Petitioner contends Utsugi’s disclosure of VDD is
`necessarily a “d.c.” voltage.
`
`• But Dr. Fontecchio acknowledged that VDD the “D” in the
`term is not universally understood to mean “d.c.”
`
`• He also acknowledged “D” likely stood for “drain.”
`
`SR, at 15-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`Petitioner Argues VDD Is “D.C. voltage”
`
`[Q.] If the terminology of VDD sort of parallels
`the terminology of VSS or VGG, it would be
`reasonable to think that both of the D’s in
`VDD stand for “drain,” just as both of the S’s in
`VSS stand for “source”?
`
`Adam Fontecchio
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`A. Yes.”
`
`Ex. 2005, 57:9-58:15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`
`
`Petitioner Argues VDD Is “D.C. voltage”
`
`“Q. So, it sounds like VDD is a – is a common
`abbreviation that is used for drain voltage,
`even though people aren’t – people in the
`field aren’t necessarily sure exactly why that’s
`the abbreviation that’s used?
`
`A. I believe that’s the case.”
`
`Adam Fontecchio
`Petitioner’s Expert
`
`Ex. 2005, 57:9-58:15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Neither Does Petitioner Demonstrate d.c. Voltages
`Must be Constant
`
`SR, at 15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Establish
`Obviousness for Grounds III and IV
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`None of the Asserted Prior Art Satisfies
`the “Driver Circuit[s]” Elements
`
`• There are no “independent disputes” for the
`dependent claims challenged in Grounds III and IV.
`
`• Grounds III and IV challenges both depend on Utsugi
`for the parent claims.
`
`• Because Petitioner’s arguments based on Utsugi fail,
`the Board should reject the challenges under
`Grounds III and IV as well.
`
`SR, at 17-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
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
