`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. and PANASONIC LIQUID CRYSTAL
`DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01028
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`_____________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD FLASCK
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,793,299
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 79
`
`Tianma Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Qualifications and Background ....................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 7
`IV. Legal Standards ............................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 8
`B.
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................... 9
`V.
`The ’299 Patent ..............................................................................................13
`A. Overview of the ’299 Patent ................................................................13
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’299 Patent ...............................................15
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .....................................................16
`VI. Claim Construction of Terms of the ’299 Patent ..........................................17
`VII. Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability .....................................................17
`VIII. Obviousness of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 over Maekawa and Takahata .........21
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 ...........................................................................21
`B.
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................53
`C.
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................56
`D.
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................57
`E.
`Independent Claim 6 ...........................................................................58
`F.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................63
`G.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................64
`H.
`Claim 10 ..............................................................................................65
`I.
`Claim 11 ..............................................................................................66
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`
`IX. Obviousness of claims 2 and 7 over Maekawa, Takahata, and Nakanishi....66
`A.
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................66
`B.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................68
`X. Obviousness of claims 15 and 16 over Maekawa, Takahata, and Nagano ...69
`A.
`Claim 15 ..............................................................................................69
`B.
`Claim 16 ..............................................................................................75
`XI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................76
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 79
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I, Mr. Richard Flasck, submit this declaration to state my opinions on
`1.
`
`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`
`the matter described below.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd.,
`
`(“Tianma” or “Petitioner”), as an independent expert in this proceeding before the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. Although I am being compensated at
`
`my usual and customary rate of $495.00 per hour, no part of my compensation
`
`depends on the outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other interest in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`
`(the “’299 patent”), and I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the
`
`patentability of the claims of the ’299 patent. I understand that the application for
`
`the ’299 patent was filed on February 17, 2015, and claims priority to a foreign
`
`application having a filing date of December 26, 2005.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to consider the validity of certain claims of the ’299
`
`patent based on certain prior art references. I have also been asked to consider the
`
`state of the art and prior art available as of December 26, 2005. Based on the prior
`
`art discussed in this declaration, it is my opinion that claims 1-11, 15, and 16 of the
`
`’299 patent are unpatentable for the reasons provided below.
`
`[Introduction]
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`I believe that I am well qualified to serve as a technical expert in this
`5.
`
`matter based upon my educational and work experience, and specifically, flat panel
`
`display devices, including liquid crystal displays (“LCDs”).
`
`6.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the
`
`University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1970. I thereafter received a Master of
`
`Science degree in Physics from Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, in
`
`1976. I am the founder and CEO of RAF Electronics Corp., where I developed and
`
`patented Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCOS) microdisplay projection technology as
`
`well as developed proprietary LED-based Solid State Lighting (SSL) products.
`
`7.
`
`After receiving my Bachelor’s degree, I was employed as a scientist
`
`and a manager by Energy Conversion Devices, Inc., from 1970 through 1982. My
`
`work at Energy Conversion Devices concerned the development of thin film
`
`photovoltaics, ablative imaging films, non-volatile memory, multi-chip modules,
`
`and superconducting materials. After leaving Energy Conversion Devices, I
`
`founded and served as CEO of Alphasil, Inc., where I developed amorphous silicon
`
`thin film transistor (TFT) active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCDs). I
`
`established one of the world’s first TFT AMLCD production lines in 1985. My
`
`work at Alphasil included TFT process and circuit design, data driver and gate
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`driver design, scalers, video circuits, gamma correction circuits, backlighting, and
`
`inverter design. I worked at Alphasil from 1982 through 1989.
`
`8.
`
`After leaving Alphasil, I founded RAF Electronics Corp., described
`
`above. I have served as CEO of RAF Electronics since that time. In 1997, I took
`
`the position of President and COO at Alien Technology Corporation, where I was
`
`responsible for completing a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
`
`(DARPA) contract, and for implementing MEM fluidic self-assembly (FSA)
`
`technology. I left the position in 1999.
`
`9.
`
`In 2002, I co-founded and served as COO of Diablo Optics, Inc.,
`
`where I developed, produced, and commercialized key optical components for
`
`HDTV projectors, such as polarization optics, condenser lenses, projection lenses,
`
`and ultra-high performance optical interference filters using thin film stacks in
`
`conjunction with LCD and LED arrays and devices. I left Diablo in 2007.
`
`10. Regarding LED devices specifically, my experience is as follows: In
`
`the early 1970s, I designed and developed test equipment using LED arrays. This
`
`work resulted in the 1973 conference publication: H. Rockstad, and R. Flasck,
`
`“Photo –thermopower in Amorphous Chalcogenide Films,” Proceedings of the
`
`Fifth International Conference on Amorphous and Liquid Semiconductors,
`
`Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, 1311-1315 (1973). Starting in the mid 1970s, I
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`was involved in the design and fabrication of LED displays which comprised X-Y
`
`arrays of LEDs mounted on circuit boards.
`
`11. Beginning around 2000, I developed several LED based products
`
`including: LED panels for LCD backlighting units (BLUs), including dynamic
`
`contrast control; LED railroad warning signage for outdoor use; LED panels for
`
`therapeutic medical devices addressing seasonal affective disorder (SAD); LED
`
`structures for medical diagnostic devices; LED panels for backlighting units,
`
`including dynamic contrasts control; LED based light engines for HDTV
`
`projectors; and LED panels and instruments for theatrical and stage use. These
`
`activities resulted in my US Patent 9,328,898. In 2019 I was awarded a State of
`
`California CalSEED Concept Award Grant for this technology with successful
`
`completion of the project in the summer of 2020.
`
`12.
`
`I am listed as an inventor on twenty-six patents issued in the United
`
`States and foreign countries, including one United States design patent. My
`
`inventions concern technologies including LCD, LED devices, semiconductor
`
`materials, glass materials, non-volatile memory cells, thin film transistors, flat
`
`panel backplanes and displays, and wafer based active matrices.
`
`13.
`
`I have authored or co-authored twenty-five articles or conference
`
`presentations, including numerous papers and presentations concerning lighting
`
`and display technologies. My curriculum vitae (Ex. 1003) lists these articles and
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`conference presentations. Of particular interest may be the following papers and
`
`presentations:
`
`• R. Flasck, “Design, Production, and Application of High Performance
`
`Dichroic Coatings - One Step Beyond the Cutting Edge,” presented at the SAIC
`
`Non-Imaging Optics Workshop, La Jolla, CA, August 25, 2007.
`
`• R. Flasck, “The Critical Role of Optical Interference Coatings in High
`
`Brightness – Etendue Limited Systems Such as HDTV Projectors,” at the 2007
`
`Optical Interference Coatings Topical Meeting and Tabletop Exhibit, Optical
`
`Society of America, June 7, 2007.
`
`• R. Flasck, “X-Cubes – Revisited for LCOS,” Bay Area Society for
`
`Information Display Meeting, October 24, 2002.
`
`• R. Flasck, “The Care and Feeding of Single Crystal Silicon Light
`
`Valve Design,” Society for Information Display FPD Strategic and Technical
`
`Symposium, September 9-10, 1998.
`
`• R. Flasck, “The Care and Feeding of Single Crystal Silicon Light
`
`Valve Design,” Stanford Resources 1998 Display Conference.
`
`• R. Flasck, and E. Rawson, “High Optical Efficiency PDLC/CMOS
`
`Projection Systems,” IC Expo/WESCON 1996.
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`• R. Flasck, “Current and Near Term Applications of Flat Panel Display
`
`Devices,” Applications of Electronic Imaging; John Urbach, Editor; Proceedings of
`
`SPIE, Vol 1082 (1989). Invited Critical Review Paper.
`
`• R. Flasck, “U.S. Display Suppliers and Developers: Comments on
`
`Developments and Manufacturing,” Flat Panel Displays 1988 Conference and
`
`Exhibition; Stanford Resources, Inc. (1988). Invited Presentation and Expert Panel
`
`Member.
`
`• R. Flasck, and S. Holmberg, “Amorphous Silicon Thin Film
`
`Transistor (TFT) Driven Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD),” Advances in Display
`
`Technology V, Elliott Schlam, Editor, Proceedings of SPIE, Vol 526, 94-98
`
`(1985).
`
`14. Since 2007, I have served as an expert witness on over fifty patent
`
`disputes (District Court cases, ITC hearings, IPRs and PGRs). Most of these
`
`matters involved LCD, active matrix, and flat panel displays. I have testified in
`
`both District Court and before the ITC.
`
`15.
`
`I am also a member of the several professional organizations,
`
`including the OSA, SPIE, AES, SID, and the IEEE.
`
`16.
`
`In summary, I have over 50 years of experience in the field of high
`
`tech product development of flat panel display devices, including LCD and LED
`
`systems.
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 79
`
`

`

`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the following documents:
`17.
`
`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299 to Koichi Fukuda.
`
`Ex. 1004 File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299.
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0158665 to Maekawa et al.
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0239641 to Takahata et al.
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0099402 to Nakanishi et al.
`
`Ex. 1008 Certified translation of Japanese Patent Application No. JP 2004272059
`A to Hiroyuki Nagano et al.
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent No. 4,281,406 to Eiichiro Tanaka et al.
`
`Ex. 1010 Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays, Fundamentals and Applications,
`Willem den Boer, Elsevier Inc., First Edition (2005).
`
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,933,991 to Joseph J. Sanelle et al.
`
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,181,394 to Joseph J. Sanelle et al.
`
`Ex. 1013 U.S. Patent No. 7,405,779 to Joseph J. Sanelle et al.
`
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0247918 to Kiyokazu
`Hashimoto.
`
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0040816 to Naohito
`Toyomaki.
`
`Ex. 1016 U.S. Patent No. 5,594,574 to Manuel Lara et al.
`
`Ex. 1017 U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607 to Steve Hotelling et al.
`
`Ex. 1018 Korean Patent Application Publication No. 10-2004-0079535 to Ji Seon
`Yang with certified translation.
`
`[Materials Considered]
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`In forming my opinions and considering the subject matter of the ’299
`18.
`
`patent and its claims in light of the prior art, I am relying on certain legal principles
`
`that counsel in this case explained to me. My understanding of these concepts is
`
`summarized below.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the claims define the invention. I also understand
`
`that an unpatentability analysis is a two-step process. First, the claims of the patent
`
`are construed to determine their meaning and scope. Second, after the claims are
`
`construed, the content of the prior art is compared to the construed claims.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is only patentable when it is
`
`new, useful, and non-obvious in light of the “prior art.” That is, the invention, as
`
`defined by the claims of the patent, must not be anticipated by or rendered obvious
`
`by the prior art.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`I understand that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`21.
`
`interprets claim terms in an inter-partes review proceeding under the same claim
`
`construction standard that is used in a United States federal court. I understand that
`
`under this standard, the meaning of claim terms is considered from the viewpoint
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`I have been informed that claim terms are generally given their
`
`22.
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in light of the specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. I
`
`understand, however, that claim terms are generally not limited by the
`
`embodiments described in the specification.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that in addition to the claims, specification, and
`
`prosecution history, other evidence may be considered to ascertain the meaning of
`
`claim terms, including textbooks, encyclopedias, articles, and dictionaries. I have
`
`been informed that this other evidence is often less significant and less reliable
`
`than the claims, specification, and prosecution history.
`
`B. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid as obvious if the claimed
`24.
`
`invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the claimed invention was made. This means that even if all of the elements
`
`of the claim cannot be found in a single prior art reference that would anticipate the
`
`claim, a person of ordinary skill in the field who knew about all the prior art would
`
`have come up with the claimed invention. I understand that in an obviousness
`
`determination, the person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have
`
`knowledge of all material prior art. I understand that whether a claim is obvious is
`
`based upon the determination of several factual issues.
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`I understand that obviousness is a determination of law based on
`
`25.
`
`underlying determinations of fact. I understand that these factual determinations
`
`include the scope and content of the prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`26.
`
`In considering obviousness, I understand that one must determine the
`
`scope and content of the prior art. I understand that, in order to be considered as
`
`prior art to a patent being considered, a prior art reference must be reasonably
`
`related to the claimed invention of that patent. A reference is reasonably related if
`
`it is in the same field as the claimed invention or is from another field to which a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would look to solve a known problem.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that one must determine what differences, if any, existed
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is not
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was
`
`independently known in the prior art. In evaluating whether such a claim would
`
`have been obvious, one may consider whether a reason has been identified that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements
`
`or concepts from the prior art in the same way as in the claimed invention. There is
`
`no single way to define the line between true inventiveness on the one hand (which
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`is patentable) and the application of common sense and ordinary skill to solve a
`
`problem on the other hand (which is not patentable). For example, market forces or
`
`other design incentives may be what produced a change, rather than true
`
`inventiveness.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that whether a prior art reference renders a patent claim
`
`unpatentable as obvious is determined from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I have been told that there is no
`
`requirement that the prior art contain an express suggestion to combine known
`
`elements to achieve the claimed invention, but a suggestion to combine known
`
`elements to achieve the claimed invention may come from the prior art, as filtered
`
`through the knowledge of one skilled in the art. In addition, I have been told that
`
`the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ
`
`are also relevant to the determination of obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that there is no rigid rule that a reference or combination
`
`of references must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to combine
`
`references. But I also understand that the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test
`
`can be a useful guide in establishing a rationale for combining elements of the
`
`prior art. I have been told that this test poses the question as to whether there is an
`
`express or implied teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`elements in a way that realizes the claimed invention, and that it seeks to counter
`
`impermissible hindsight analysis.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that one may consider, e.g., whether (1) the change was
`
`merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to their known
`
`functions, or whether it was the result of true inventiveness; (2) there is some
`
`teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the modification or combination of
`
`elements claimed in the patent; (3) the claimed innovation applies a known
`
`technique that had been used to improve a similar device or method in a similar
`
`way; (4) the claimed invention would have been obvious to try, meaning that the
`
`claimed innovation was one of a relatively small number of possible approaches to
`
`the problem with a reasonable expectation of success by those skilled in the art; (5)
`
`the invention merely substituted one known element for another known element in
`
`order to obtain predictable results; (6) the invention merely applies a known
`
`technique to a known device, method, or product to yield predictable results; or (7)
`
`known work in the field may have prompted variations of use of the same
`
`inventions in the same or different fields due to market forces or design incentives
`
`that would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that any assertion of secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness must be accompanied by a nexus between the merits of the invention
`
`and the evidence offered.
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`
`V. THE ’299 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’299 Patent
`33. The ’299 patent relates to a display of an electronic device. ’299
`
`Patent, Title, Abstract. As shown below in annotated FIG. 2, the ’299 patent
`
`describes a liquid crystal display panel including a thin film transistor (“TFT”)
`
`substrate 1 (pink), a counter substrate 2 (navy), a liquid crystal layer 3 (yellow), a
`
`sealing member 7 (orange) that surrounds the liquid crystal layer, a lower
`
`polarizing plate 4 (gray), and an upper polarizing plate 5 (red). Id., 10:15-27,
`
`11:24-29. The counter substrate is disposed between the TFT substrate and the
`
`upper polarizing plate. Id., 10:28-41.
`
`’299 Patent, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`34. Disposed on a front side of the display (closest to an observer) is a
`
`resin film 6 (green), such as an acrylic resin film or an epoxy resin film, which
`
`[The ’299 Patent]
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`provides a protective cover of the electronic device. Id., 11:24-25 (“The resin film
`
`6 is a film member disposed on the most front side when viewed from the observer
`
`side.”), 11:28-29 (“For example, an acrylic resin film or an epoxy resin film may
`
`be used as the resin film 6.”), 13:25-34 (“the resin film 6 is endowed with the
`
`function of the conventional protective cover.”), FIGS. 6-7. Although not shown,
`
`the ’299 patent describes that the “resin film 6 is affixed in contact with the upper
`
`polarizing plate through a pressure-sensitive adhesive for example.” Id., 11:29-31;
`
`see also id., 14:29-33.
`
`35. The ’299 patent describes that the resin film overlaps with the sealing
`
`member (see red dashed lines) in a plan view and may have a thickness T6 (green
`
`arrow) of 0.2 mm or more and 1.0 mm or less. Id., 11:32-39; see also id. (“it is
`
`preferable that the resin film 6 have a thickness, T6, of 0.2 mm or more and 1.0
`
`mm or less. If the thickness T6 of the resin film 6 is 0.2 mm or more, a sufficient
`
`strength of the liquid crystal panel can be ensured.”).
`
`36. The ’299 specification describes that the TFT substrate 1 includes a
`
`glass substrate 101 (pink) and a multi-thin film layer 102 (purple), which may
`
`include “a laminate of plural insulating layers, conductive layer, semiconductor
`
`layer and the like.” Id., 10:42-46; see also id., 10:46-49 (describing one example in
`
`which “a scanning signal line (also called a gate signal line), a video signal line
`
`[The ’299 Patent]
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`(also called a drain signal line), TFT and pixel electrodes are formed in the multi-
`
`thin film layer 102.”).
`
`37. The ’299 specification further describes that the counter substrate 2
`
`includes a glass substrate 201 (navy) and a multi-thin film layer 202 (light blue),
`
`which may include “a laminate of plural insulating layers and conductive layer,
`
`forming a color filter for example.” Id., 10:50-54; see also id., 1:46-49 (“a counter
`
`substrate [] for example, compromises a glass substrate and a color filter, etc.
`
`formed thereon.”). The ’299 specification also explains that “[a]ny of various
`
`combinations applied to conventional liquid crystal display panels may be adopted
`
`for the combination of the configuration of the multi-thin film layer 102 of the TFT
`
`substrate and the multi-thin film layer 202 of the counter substrate 2.” Id., 10:63-
`
`67.
`
`B.
`38.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’299 Patent
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the application that led to
`
`the ’299 patent. Ex. 1004. I understand that, although the Examiner applied
`
`Maekawa during prosecution of the ’299 patent, Takahata (Ex. 1006)—and its
`
`disclosure of using a protective member having a thickness of at least .2 mm and
`
`no greater than 1.0 mm—as well as Nakanishi (Ex. 1007) and Nagano (Ex. 1008)
`
`were not cited or considered during prosecution.
`
`[The ’299 Patent]
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`39. Nothing in the prosecution history changes my opinions expressed in
`
`this declaration.
`
`C.
`40.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I am informed that patentability must be analyzed from the
`
`perspective of “one of ordinary skill in the art” in the same field as the ’299 patent
`
`at the time of the invention. I am also informed that several factors are considered
`
`in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, including (1) the types of
`
`problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`(3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the
`
`technology; and (5) the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`41.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the
`
`’299 patent as of its earliest priority date would have had at least a four-year
`
`undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or physics or a closely related field
`
`and four years of experience in the design and implementation of flat panel display
`
`devices or components thereof. Additional education could substitute for
`
`professional experience and significant work experience could substitute for formal
`
`education. Although I surpass this definition of one of ordinary skill in the art now
`
`and at the priority date of the ’299 patent, my analysis regarding the ’299 patent
`
`has been based on the perspective of one ordinary skill in the art as of the priority
`
`date of the ’299 patent.
`
`[The ’299 Patent]
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`I am also familiar with the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill
`
`42.
`
`in the art as of the priority date of the ’299 patent. I am able to opine on how the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosure and claims
`
`of the ’299 patent, the disclosures of the prior art, the motivation to combine the
`
`prior art, and what combinations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF TERMS OF THE ’299 PATENT
`43. As I discussed above, I have been informed that for purposes of inter-
`
`partes reviews, the standard for claim construction of terms within the claims of
`
`the patent is the same as that applied in federal district court litigation.
`
`44.
`
`I have been asked for purposes of this declaration to assume that the
`
`preamble of independent claims 1 and 6 are limiting. I have been asked to assume
`
`that the claims terms otherwise have their plain and ordinary meaning to a person
`
`skilled in the art in light of the specification and the prosecution history.
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ON UNPATENTABILITY
`In my opinion, the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
`45.
`
`combinations of prior art. Maekawa discloses a display for a hand-held electronic
`
`device, which, as shown below in annotated FIG. 16, includes an active-matrix (or
`
`TFT) substrate 1601 (pink) with a pixel portion 160 (purple), a counter substrate
`
`1602 (navy) with a colored layer 1605 (light blue), a liquid crystal layer 1604
`
`[Claim Construction of Terms of the ’299 Patent]
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`(yellow), a sealant 1600 (orange) that surrounds the liquid crystal layer, and a
`
`polarizer 1606 (red). Maekawa, ¶¶26, 297-298, 328, 340-341, FIG. 19B. The
`
`counter substrate is disposed between the active-matrix substrate and the polarizer.
`
`Id.
`
`Maekawa, FIG. 16 (annotated).
`
`
`
`46. Like the ’299 patent, the front side of Maekawa’s display includes a
`
`protective film 1616 (green), formed of an acrylic or epoxy resin, which provides a
`
`protective cover of the electronic device. Maekawa, ¶¶297-298; ’299 Patent, 11:24-
`
`25, 13:25-34. The protective film overlaps with the sealant (see red dashed lines) in
`
`a plan view.
`
`47. As shown below in annotated FIG. 2, Takahata, like Maekawa and the
`
`’299 patent, also discloses a display device with a protective plate 8 (green)
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`(formed of, e.g., an acrylic or epoxy resin) disposed on a polarizing plate 10 (red).
`
`Takahata, ¶¶2-3, 36, 47-48. Takahata further discloses the well-known use in the
`
`art, in my opinion, of an adhesive member (yellow) in a display device between a
`
`protective member and a polarizing plate, and a protective member having a
`
`thickness (green arrow) of at least 0.2 mm and no greater than 0.8 mm (‘299
`
`Patent, independent claims 1 and 6). Takahata, ¶¶35, 37, 41-42, 44.
`
`Takahata, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`48. The remaining cited references (Nakanishi and Nagano) demonstrate
`
`other well-known elements of display devices present in the art, in my opinion,
`
`namely use of a protective member having a surface pencil hardness of at least 3H
`
`(‘299 Patent, claims 2 and 7), and an edge of the protective member disposed
`
`outside an edge of the polarizing plate in a plan view (‘299 Patent, claims 15 and
`
`16).
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`In the analysis that follows, I identify the following combinations of
`
`49.
`
`prior art that, in my opinion, render obvious the ’299 patent claims:
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Obviousness of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 over Maekawa in combination
`
`with Takahata.
`
`Obviousness of claims 2 and 7 over Maekawa, Takahata, and
`
`Nakanishi.
`
`Obviousness of claims 15 and 16 over Maekawa, Takahata and
`
`Nagano.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 79
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 9,793,299
`
`
`VIII. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 3-6, AND 8-11 OVER MAEKAWA AND
`TAKAHATA
`50. As detailed below, in my opinion, Maekawa and Takahata render
`
`obvious claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11.
`
`A.
`
`51.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`1[preamble]: “A display device comprising display area and
`used in a hand-held electronic device comprising;”
`In my opinion, Maekawa discloses claim 1’s preamble. Maekawa
`
`discloses “various electronic apparatuses” incorporating a display module or
`
`device. Maekawa, ¶328 (“By incorporating the display module described in
`
`Embodiment 6 or 7 into a housing, various electronic apparatuses can be
`
`manufactured.”), ¶26 (“In the invention, a display device means a device using a
`
`display element, that is an image display device.”). Maekawa’s “various electronic
`
`apparatuses” include hand-held apparatuses, such as, e.g., a video camera, a digital