IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`JOLED INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`Patent No. 10,198,992
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MILTIADIS HATALIS, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,198,992
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1028
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................... 2
`II.
`SCOPE OF OPINION ......................................................................................... 8
`III.
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED ........................................... 9
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 10
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF VALIDITY ........................................................... 11
`VII. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 14
` Overview of EL Display Technology .................................................... 14
`Priority Date of the ’992 Patent .............................................................. 27
`Overview of the ’992 Patent (Ex. 1001) ................................................ 28
`The Challenged Claims .......................................................................... 36
`Prosecution History ................................................................................ 41
`Claim Construction ................................................................................. 44
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES ..................................... 47
` Kuribayashi (Ex. 1003) .......................................................................... 47
`Sekiya (Ex. 1004) ................................................................................... 53
`Takahara (Ex. 1005) ............................................................................... 56
`C.
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE ..................................................... 60
` Ground I: Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, and 15 are obvious over
`Kuribayashi in view of Sekiya ............................................................... 61
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................... 61
`2.
`Claim 2 ....................................................................................... 113
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`Claim 4: “The EL display apparatus according to claim 1,
`wherein the second gate driver circuit is configured to turn the
`third switch transistor from the ON state for reverse biasing the
`anode terminal of the EL device to the OFF state, and, after a
`second lapse of time, the first gate driver circuit is configured to
`turn the first switch transistor from the OFF state to the ON
`state.” .......................................................................................... 123
`Claim 7: An electronic device, comprising: the EL display
`apparatus according to claim 1. ................................................. 132
`Claim 10 ..................................................................................... 133
`Claim 11 ..................................................................................... 138
`Claim 15: “An electronic device, comprising: the EL display
`apparatus according to claim 10.” ............................................. 139
`Ground II: Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12–14 are obvious over
`Kuribayashi in view of Sekiya and further in view of Takahara ......... 140
`1.
`Claim 3: “The EL display apparatus according to claim 1, further
`comprising: a precharge circuit or a discharge circuit which
`forcibly charges or discharges the one of the plurality of source
`signal lines.” ............................................................................... 140
`Claim 5: “The EL display apparatus according to claim 1,
`wherein the first gate driver circuit is configured to select a
`plurality of the first gate signal lines simultaneously.” ............. 147
`Claim 6 ....................................................................................... 153
`Claim 8 ....................................................................................... 157
`Claim 9: “The method according to claim 8, further comprising:
`controlling the first switch transistor to be in an OFF state via the
`first gate driver circuit, when the second gate driver circuit
`controls the third switch transistor to be in the ON state for
`reverse biasing the anode terminal of the EL device.” .............. 162
`Claim 12: “The EL display apparatus according to claim 10,
`further comprising: a precharge circuit or a discharge circuit
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`6.
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`X.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`which forcibly charges or discharges the one of the plurality of
`source signal lines.” ................................................................... 163
`Claim 13: “The EL display apparatus according to claim 10,
`wherein the first gate driver circuit is configured to select a
`plurality of the first gate signal lines simultaneously.” ............. 163
`8.
`Claim 14 ..................................................................................... 163
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 165
`
`7.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`
`1.
`
`I, Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D., have been retained by counsel for Samsung
`
`Display Co. (“Samsung Display” or “Petitioner”) as an expert witness in support of
`
`Samsung Display’s petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) and cancellation of claims
`
`1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992 (Ex. 1001, the “’992 patent”), which I am
`
`informed has been assigned to JOLED, Inc. (“JOLED” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`2. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. The materials
`
`that I studied for this declaration include all exhibits of the petition.
`
`3.
`
`I may rely upon these materials, my knowledge and experience, and/or
`
`additional materials to rebut arguments raised by the patent owner. Further, I may also
`
`consider additional documents and information in forming any necessary opinions,
`
`including documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`4. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing and
`
`I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration represents
`
`only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise, supplement,
`
`and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and on my
`
`continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`I am being compensated on a per hour basis for my time spent working
`
`5.
`
`on issues in this case. I have no financial interest in, or affiliation with, the Petitioner,
`
`real parties-in-interest, or the patent owner. My compensation is not dependent upon
`
`the outcome of, or my testimony in, the present inter partes review or any litigation
`
`proceedings.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described in
`
`my academic curriculum vitae, a copy of which is provided as Exhibit 1027. The
`
`following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`experience.
`
`7.
`
`I am a Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at Lehigh University. I hold a B.S. degree in physics from Aristotle
`
`University, Greece, an M.S. degree in electrical engineering from SUNY Buffalo, and
`
`a Ph.D. (1987) in electrical engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. In 1987, I
`
`joined Lehigh University as an assistant professor in the Department of Electrical &
`
`Computer Engineering. I served as an associate professor at Lehigh University from
`
`1991 to 1995, and have been a full professor at Lehigh University since 1995. From
`
`1988 to 1993, I served as associate director of the Microelectronics Research
`
`Laboratory at Lehigh University. Since 1992, I have served as director of the Display
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`Research Laboratory at Lehigh University. From 2010 to 2013, I served as interim
`
`director of the Sherman Fairchild Center for Solid State Studies at Lehigh University.
`
`From 2003 to 2008, I concurrently served as professor in the Department of Computer
`
`Sciences at Aristotle University, Greece.
`
`8.
`
`From 1987 to 2015, I also worked as an independent consultant for a
`
`number of major technology companies in the flat panel display and semiconductor
`
`field, including IBM, Kodak, Sharp and Motorola Solutions. In 1992, I was a visiting
`
`scientist at XEROX Palo Alto Research Laboratory.
`
`9. As discussed below, my technical expertise is in flat panel display
`
`technologies, including thin film transistor (“TFT”) and active-matrix organic light-
`
`emitting diode (“AMOLED”) technologies.
`
`10.
`
`I am the author or co-author of 180 technical publications including three
`
`issued patents, and two book chapters, including one on AMOLED pixel electronic
`
`circuits and one on polysilicon TFT technology. As of this writing, I have a total of
`
`4288 citations and my h-index is 29 according to Google Scholar.
`
`11.
`
`In 1992, I founded, and became Director of, the Display Research
`
`Laboratory, which was the first academic laboratory in the United States dedicated to
`
`research and development of electronic thin film materials and devices, including thin
`
`film transistors, for flat panel displays, flexible electronics and novel large area
`
`microelectronic system applications. The Display Research Laboratory has received
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`research contracts and grants to support the laboratory’s research activities from the
`
`Defense Advanced Research Program Agency (DARPA), the Army Research
`
`Laboratory (ARL), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics
`
`and Space Administration (NASA), the State of Pennsylvania, and a variety of
`
`industrial companies including Corning, IBM, Kodak, Sharp, Northrop Grumman, and
`
`others.
`
`12. From 1987 to present, I have conducted research in microelectronics,
`
`including semiconductors, electronic materials, devices and circuits for integrated
`
`circuits and integrated microsystems. My research mainly focuses on electronic thin
`
`film materials and devices, microelectronic fabrication processes, novel electronic
`
`circuits, and integrated microsystems. My research group pioneered the development
`
`of electronic materials, devices, and circuits on flexible substrates, active matrix
`
`organic light emitting diode displays, and addressable arrays for integrated sensor
`
`applications such as fingerprint sensors for biometrics and multichannel gas sensors.
`
`13. As a faculty member, I supervised the research of twenty Ph.D.
`
`dissertations in the technical field of semiconductors/microelectronics. Upon
`
`graduating, all twenty of my Ph.D. graduate students moved either to industrial
`
`positions in the electronic or flat panel display industry, including positions at Apple,
`
`IBM, Intel, Sharp, TSMC, and Motorola, or into academic positions in the United
`
`States or abroad. I have also supervised the research of several post-doctoral
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`researchers and research associates at Lehigh. Moreover, I have supervised a large
`
`number of graduate student Master’s theses and numerous undergraduate research
`
`projects. I have been an invited lecturer at numerous universities, industrial
`
`laboratories, and conferences in the United States and overseas.
`
`14. The list of peer-reviewed journals in which my papers were published
`
`include Thin Solid Films, Journal of the Electrochemical Society, Solid State
`
`Electronics, Journal of Applied Physics, Journal of the Society for Information
`
`Display, Journal of Materials Science, and multiple IEEE journals including the IEEE
`
`journal of Display Technology, IEEE Transactions on Electronic Devices, IEEE Solid
`
`State Circuits, and IEEE Electron Device Letters. The technical conferences where my
`
`papers were presented have been organized by scientific societies including: Society
`
`of Information Display (SID), Materials Research Society (MRS), Electrochemical
`
`Society (ECS), and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
`
`15.
`
`I am also a named inventor on U.S. Patent No. 8,390,536, directed at
`
`controlling current to pixels in an active matrix display by adjusting voltage on the data
`
`lines, and two international patents associated with the above invention, one issued in
`
`Korea and one in Japan.
`
`16.
`
`I have taught at a number of different undergraduate and graduate level
`
`courses in the Electrical and Computer Engineering department at Lehigh University.
`
`These courses have generally centered on physics, technology, and the design and
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`fabrication of solid-state devices and integrated circuits. I have also introduced several
`
`new courses which include “Introduction to VLSI Design,” “Semiconductor Material
`
`and Device Characterization,” and “Introduction to Photovoltaic Energy Systems.” I
`
`also regularly teach the “Principles of Electrical Engineering,” “Introduction to
`
`Computer Engineering,” “Electronic Circuits,” and “Introduction to VLSI Circuits”
`
`courses.
`
`17. As part of my research, I utilize much of the same equipment and many
`
`of the same microfabrication processes that are in use by the semiconductor or flat
`
`panel display industry including: Plasma-Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition
`
`(PECVD) for the deposition of amorphous silicon, silicon nitride and silicon dioxide
`
`films; sputter and e-beam deposition tools for aluminum, copper, nickel tungsten,
`
`titanium, gold, tantalum, and other metallic thin films; photolithographic tools for
`
`defining photoresist patterns on the substrates; as well as reactive ion etching or wet
`
`etching tools for removing various thin film materials from the substrates. I also utilize
`
`several tools for the characterization of the materials and structures used in
`
`microelectronic devices
`
`including: optical microscopes, Scanning Electron
`
`Microscopy (SEM), Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), and Atomic Force
`
`Microscopy (AFM). I further utilize a variety of electrical characterization techniques
`
`and instruments for testing the electrical performance of completed electronic circuits
`
`and systems.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`18. As part of my research, I pioneered a technique for crystallizing
`
`amorphous silicon. Similar techniques have been used in the manufacturing of
`
`integrated circuits and flat panel displays. In addition, my research group at Lehigh
`
`pioneered the fabrication of electronic devices and circuits on novel flexible substrates
`
`and the development of integrated microsystems on flexible substrates, including
`
`active matrix organic light emitting diode displays, and addressable arrays for
`
`integrated sensor applications such as fingerprint sensors for biometrics and
`
`multichannel gas sensors. Many industrial and academic laboratories currently pursue
`
`similar research activities; such research flows from the accomplishments of my
`
`research group in this technical field.
`
`19. My industrial experience includes work at the XEROX Palo Alto
`
`Research Laboratory and various consulting projects with companies in the flat panel
`
`display or semiconductor technical fields. Those projects related to electronic
`
`materials, semiconductor devices and their application to microelectronic systems.
`
`20.
`
`I am a member of several professional organizations including the
`
`Electron Device Society of the IEEE and the SID. I have also been the chair or co-
`
`chair at numerous national and international conferences and symposiums, including
`
`several SID-sponsored Workshops on Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays and a
`
`Materials Research Society Symposium on Flat Panel Displays. I have co-authored
`
`two book chapters, one dealing with the “Polysilicon TFT Technology” and another
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`on the application of “Polysilicon TFTs in AMOLED Displays.” I have served as a
`
`reviewer for technical papers submitted to several scientific journals and have also
`
`served as a reviewer for several years for the National Science Foundation Small
`
`Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program.
`
`21. A detailed list of my publications, education and professional experience,
`
`research grants, Ph.D. dissertations for which I served as advisor, publications, and
`
`litigation cases in which I served as a technical expert, can be found in my curriculum
`
`vitae attached and submitted as Exhibit 1027.
`
`III. SCOPE OF OPINION
`
`22.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-2,
`
`4, 7, 10-11, and 15 of the ’992 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the alleged invention over Kuribayashi (Ex. 1003) in view of
`
`Sekiya (Ex. 1004) (Ground I); and whether claims 3, 5-6, 8-9 and 12-14 would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention over
`
`Kuribayashi (Ex. 1003) in view of Sekiya (Ex. 1004) and further in view of Takahara
`
`(Ex. 1005) (Ground II).
`
`23. This declaration, including the exhibits hereto, sets forth my opinions on
`
`these issues.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`IV. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`
`24.
`
`In addition to the information identified in § II above and elsewhere in
`
`this Declaration, in forming my opinions, I have considered the following documents:
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992 (the “’992 patent”)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`U.S. Patent No. 6,175,345 (“Kuribayashi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,583,775 (“Sekiya”)
`Certified Translation of Japanese Laid-Open Patent Application
`No. 2001-210122A (“Takahara”)
`2021.02.03 JOLED Reply in Case ref.: 2 O 87/20 (District Court
`of Mannheim)
`European Patent No. EP 3,407,340
`2020.10.30 Nullity action against EP 3,407,340
`Improvement of Current-Voltage Characteristics in Organic
`Light Emitting Diodes by Application of Reversed-Bias Voltage
`(“Zou”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,380,689 (“Okuda”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,859,193 (“Yumoto”)
`Low-Temperature Polysilicon Thin-Film Transistor Driving with
`Integrated Driver for High-Resolution Light Emitting Polymer
`Display (“Kimura IEEE”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0033718 (“Tam”)
`International Publication No. WO 98/48403 of PCT/US98/08367
`(“Dawson PCT”)
`Japanese Laid-Open Patent Application No. 2001-210122A
`U.S. Patent No. 6,525,704 (“Kondo”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,580,657 (“Sanford”)
`C. Tang, et. al. “Organic Electroluminescent Diodes” Applied
`Physics Letters, vol. 51, page 913 (1987) (“Tang APL”)
`2/8/21 Samsung’s Proposed Constructions in JOLED Inc., v.
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:20-CV-
`00559-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`1020
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`
`Description
`2/8/21 JOLED’s Proposed Constructions in JOLED Inc., v.
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:20-CV-
`00559-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`Scheduling Order in JOLED Inc., v. Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:20-CV-00559-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`11/16/2020 JOLED Infringement Contentions in JOLED Inc., v.
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:20-CV-
`00559-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`Correspondence re JOLED dropping ’336 Claim 16
`U.S. Patent No. 6,323,631 (“Juang”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,348,906 (“Dawson 906”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,550,066 (“Tang 066”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Miltiadis Hatalis
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`
`25.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims and the prior art through the eyes of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”). I am informed that the “art” is the field of technology to
`
`which a patent is related and that a POSITA is a hypothetical person who is presumed
`
`to be aware of all pertinent art, to possess conventional wisdom in the art, is a person
`
`of ordinary creativity, and has common sense. I am informed that the purpose of using
`
`the viewpoint of a POSITA is for objectivity.
`
`26.
`
`I am informed that the factors that may be considered in determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art may include (a) the type of problems encountered in
`
`the art, (b) prior art solutions to those problems, (c) the rapidity with which innovations
`
`are made, (d) sophistication of the technology, and (e) the educational level of active
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`workers in the field. I am also informed that in a given case, every factor may not be
`
`present, and one or more factors may predominate.
`
`27. Taking these factors into consideration, it is my opinion that a POSITA
`
`as of the time of the ’992 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering (or equivalent), and at least two years’ industry experience, or equivalent
`
`research, in active matrix display technology. Alternatively, a POSITA could
`
`substitute directly relevant additional education for experience, e.g., an advanced
`
`degree relating to the design of electroluminescent devices, drive circuits, or other
`
`circuit design or an advanced degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent), with at
`
`least one year of relevant industry experience.
`
`28. At the relevant time, I would have qualified as at least a POSITA and my
`
`opinions herein are informed by my own knowledge based on my personal experiences
`
`and observing others of various skill levels (including those above and below the level
`
`of a POSITA). In particular, I was actively engaged in the field of the ’992 patent at
`
`the relevant time, as discussed above.
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF VALIDITY
`
`29. Several legal standards have been explained to me that I should consider
`
`as part of my validity analysis.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`I am informed that Petitioner bears the burden of proving grounds of
`
`30.
`
`invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence. I am informed that a “preponderance”
`
`means “more likely than not.” I am informed that general and conclusory assertions,
`
`without underlying factual evidence, may not support a conclusion that something is
`
`“more likely than not.”
`
`31.
`
` I am informed that a prior art reference can render a patent claim obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art if the differences between the subject matter set forth
`
`in the patent claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter of the claim would
`
`have been obvious at the time the claimed invention was made.
`
`32.
`
`In analyzing obviousness, I am informed that it is important to consider
`
`the scope of the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and any secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`33.
`
`I am informed that when the claimed subject matter involves combining
`
`pre-existing elements to yield no more than what one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious. I am also informed that in assessing whether
`
`a claim is obvious one must consider whether the claimed improvement is more than
`
`the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. I am
`
`informed that there need not be a precise teaching in the prior art directed to the specific
`
`subject matter of a claim because one can take account of the inferences and creative
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`steps that a person of skill in the art would employ. I am further informed that a person
`
`of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`34.
`
`I am informed that obviousness cannot be based on the hindsight
`
`combination of components selectively culled from the prior art. I am informed that in
`
`an obviousness analysis, neither the motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`inventors controls the inquiry. Any need or problem known in the field at the time of
`
`the invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining elements.
`
`For example, I am informed that it is important to consider whether there existed at the
`
`time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution
`
`encompassed by the patent’s claims. I am informed that known techniques can have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and that in many cases a person of
`
`ordinary skill can fit the teachings of multiple pieces of prior art together like pieces of
`
`a puzzle.
`
`35.
`
`I am informed that, when there is a reason to solve a problem and there is
`
`a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good
`
`reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. I am further
`
`informed that, if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, which bears on whether the claim
`
`would have been obvious.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`I am informed that secondary considerations can include, for example,
`
`36.
`
`evidence of commercial success of the invention, evidence of a long-felt need that was
`
`solved by an invention, evidence that others copied an invention, or evidence that an
`
`invention achieved surprising or unexpected results. I am further informed that such
`
`evidence must have a nexus, or causal relationship to the elements of a claim, in order
`
`to be relevant. I am unaware of any such secondary considerations for the ’992 patent.
`
`VII. BACKGROUND
`
` Overview of EL Display Technology
`37. The “Technical Field” of the ’992 patent is directed to “an EL display
`
`apparatus employing an organic or inorganic electroluminescence (EL) device and,
`
`more particularly, to an EL display apparatus capable of feeding an EL device with a
`
`desired current.” Ex. 1001, 1:23–26. Moreover, the 992 discloses that “[t]he active-
`
`matrix configuration [is] used for the organic EL display panel.” Id., 12:28-29.
`
`38. A major breakthrough for organic EL devices was first reported in 1987
`
`when C. Tang demonstrated “organic electroluminescent diodes” having “unique
`
`characteristics of high electroluminescent emission efficiency, fast response, low
`
`voltage drive, and simplicity of fabrication.” Ex. 1018, C. Tang, et. al., “Organic
`
`Electroluminescent Diodes,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 51 (1987) (“Tang APL”),
`
`914. The simple fabrication included “a double layer of organic thin films” sandwiched
`
`between two appropriately selected electrode materials. Id., 913. Moreover, Tang first
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`reported that an “organic diode … behaves like a rectifier” and that “[l]ight emission
`
`[is] seen only in forward bias.” Id.
`
`39.
`
`In the art, due to its rectification property, an organic EL element “is often
`
`called OLED (organic light emitting diode) and … the mark of a diode is used for the
`
`light emitting element OLED.” Ex. 1004 (Sekiya), 1:60–65. See also, Ex. 1011
`
`Yumoto, 1:59–64 (“The organic EL element has a rectification property, in many
`
`cases, so is sometimes referred to as an OLED (organic light emitting diode).” The two
`
`electrodes of an organic EL diode or OLED, as with all diodes, are referred to as the
`
`“anode” and “cathode,” which are annotated in the below standard circuit symbol for
`
`a diode.
`
`
`
`As with all diodes, whether an OLED diode is in the forward or reverse bias state, it is
`
`a function of the voltage difference between the anode and cathode terminals; when
`
`this voltage difference is positive, i.e., the anode is at a higher voltage than the cathode,
`
`then an OLED device is in forward bias state and when this voltage difference is
`
`negative, i.e., the anode is at a lower voltage than the cathode, then an OLED device
`
`is in reverse bias state.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`40. A typical organic EL display, such as would be used in computing
`
`devices, televisions, etc., includes an array of OLEDs, each of which must generate the
`
`intended level of light emission for a given pixel in a given frame in order to achieve
`
`light emission uniformity. At the time of the alleged invention of the ’992 patent, in
`
`order to control the current applied to the OLEDs in a display, two general architectures
`
`were well known: “active matrix” OLED displays (AMOLED), and “passive matrix”
`
`OLED displays (PMOLED).
`
`41.
`
`In a “passive matrix” display, each pixel is formed by the overlap of two
`
`conductive lines (a horizontal and a vertical), whereby current is provided. A passive
`
`matrix display emits light one row at a time within a frame period. By repetitively
`
`scanning the OLEDs of the various rows, the display gives the impression to the viewer
`
`of a steady image. Due to the limited emission time (a small fraction of the frame
`
`period) each OLED must emit at a very high brightness; thus passive matrix displays
`
`require high drive currents which can damage the OLEDs. For example, a passive
`
`matrix display having the VGA format (640x480), a common format at the time of the
`
`’992 patent, the current flowing through an OLED would have been 480 times higher
`
`than what would have been if current could flow continuously instead of one row at a
`
`time. Larger display formats such as SVGA (800x600), XGA (1024x768), etc., would
`
`have required even higher currents.
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00677
`U.S. Patent No. 10,198,992
`Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis, Ph.D.
`42. On the other hand, in an “active matrix display,” such as the display
`
`described in the ’992 patent, the amount of current applied to each organic EL element
`
`is “actively” controlled by a separate “pixel circuit,” formed adjacent to each organic
`
`EL element, throughout the frame period and thus significantly smaller drive currents
`
`are used. In addition to being one of the pioneering inventors of OLEDs, Tang is also
`
`one of the pioneering inventors of an active matrix OLED display. “FIG. 1 shows the
`
`schematic of active matrix 4-terminal TFT-EL display device. Each pixel element
`
`includes two TFTs, a storage capacitor and an EL element.” Ex. 1026 (“Tang 066”),
`
`6:13–15, Fig. 1. Tang discloses that “[t]he first TFT is electrically connected to the
`
`gate of the second TFT which in turn is electrically connected to the capacitor so that
`
`following an excitation signal the second TFT is able to supply a nearly constant
`
`current to the EL pad between signals.” Id., 4:20-24. Tang shows in Fig. 8 (below) a
`
`cross section of the completed TFT-EL structure depicting the EL anode in contact
`
`with a TFT. Tang further discloses th