UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`Case IPR No: IPR2021-01029
`Patent No. 9,310,654
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS L. CREDELLE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC.,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`Case IPR No: IPR2021-01029
`Patent No. 9,310,654
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS L. CREDELLE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................... 3
`II.
`III. Legal Standards ............................................................................................... 7
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 7
`B. Written Description ............................................................................... 8
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 9
`IV. Overview of the ’654 patent ..........................................................................11
`V.
`The parent application does not qualify as prior art because it provides
`written description support for the challenged claims. ..................................14
`A.
`The Parent Application discloses a “light shielding film” used in
`connection with a pixel electrode employed as the second
`electrode. .............................................................................................16
`The Parent Application discloses a “light shielding film”
`overlapping the second electrode. .......................................................18
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................20
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`–ii–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of the preliminary response
`
`submitted by of Japan Display Inc. (“Patent Owner”) in connection with the petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654 (“the ’654 patent”) filed by
`
`Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd. (“Petitioner”).
`
`2.
`
`I am not an employee of Japan Display Inc. or of any affiliate or
`
`subsidiary thereof.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of
`
`$400/hour. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation.
`
`4. My compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the
`
`specifics of my testimony.
`
`5.
`
`I have been informed by Patent Owner’s counsel that Petitioner has
`
`challenged the validity of the ’654 patent. Specifically, I understand that Petitioner
`
`contends claims 1-7 and 12-14 (the “Challenged Claims”) are invalid as anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102. I also understand that Petitioner’s grounds for invalidity is
`
`based on the U.S. patent application to which the ’654 patent claims priority (i.e.,
`
`the ’654 patent’s parent application), which normally would not qualify as prior art.
`
`I further understand that Petitioner believe the ’654 patent is not entitled to its
`
`
`
`–1–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`priority claim to the parent application because the parent application purported does
`
`not provide sufficient written description for the Challenged Claims.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that Petitioner relies on the expert declaration of Dr. E.
`
`Fred Schubert dated June 9, 2021 (Ex. 1002) to challenge the validity of the ’654
`
`patent.
`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, I have been asked to provide certain opinions relating to
`
`the patentability of the ’654 patent. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinions regarding (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’654 patent
`
`pertains, and (ii) whether Parent Application reasonably conveys to those skilled in
`
`the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.
`
`8.
`
`As set forth in detail below, it is my opinion that the Challenged Claims
`
`of the ’654 patent are valid as they are not anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by its
`
`Parent Application because the Parent Application provides sufficient written
`
`description for the challenged claims. Without a break in the ’654 patents priority
`
`chain, the Parent Application does not qualify as prior art.
`
`9.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied: the ’654 patent
`
`(Ex. 1001), the Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”), the Declaration of E. Fred Shubert (Ex.
`
`1002), U.S. Patent Pub. No. US2009 0225267 to Atarashiya (Ex. 1004) (the “Parent
`
`Application”) (Ex. 1004), the File History of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`14/549,189 (which issued as the ’654 patent), and the File History of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/397,408 (the “File History of the Parent Application”).
`
`10.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered the
`
`documents listed above and my own knowledge and experience in the field of liquid
`
`crystal displays (“LCDs”), as described below.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`11. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Ex. 2004. The following
`
`is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`12. As shown in my curriculum vitae, I have devoted my career to the
`
`research and development and product engineering of flat panel displays and
`
`materials/optics/electronics for flat panel displays. I have over 20 years of
`
`involvement in active-matrix LCD R&D, starting in 1983 at RCA Labs and
`
`continuing at GE. I led the product development of active-matrix LCDs for
`
`notebook computers at Apple in the early 90’s and had close collaboration with many
`
`LCD developers in Asia. Later in my career, I made significant contributions to the
`
`design and implementation of new pixel architectures for LCDs and OLEDs while
`
`at Clairvoyante; both efforts involved TFT design modifications to achieve the
`
`desired goals of high pixel transmission and reduced circuit complexity. More
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`recently, I have been involved in several patent litigation cases which required a
`
`detailed knowledge of TFT design and processing.
`
`13.
`
`I am currently the President of TLC Display Consulting and split my
`
`time between technical consulting and patent litigation support.
`
`14.
`
`I received my M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970, with an emphasis on Electro optics
`
`and Solid-State Materials. I received my B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering in
`
`1969 from Drexel University.
`
`15.
`
`I was employed by RCA at Sarnoff Labs in Princeton, NJ from 1970
`
`through 1986 at first as a Member of the Technical Staff and later as a Group
`
`Manager in charge of all Active Matrix LCD research. During my time at RCA, I
`
`participated in research and development projects relating to optical materials and
`
`flat panel displays, including LCD devices. In 1983, I established the Thin Film
`
`Transistor (“TFT”) LCD Program at Sarnoff Labs. As a Group Manager, I led a
`
`project that resulted in the development of the first poly silicon TFT LCD at Sarnoff
`
`Labs. I received the Sarnoff Outstanding Achievement Award for Large Area Flat
`
`Panel TV Developments.
`
`16. From 1986 to 1991, I was employed by GE as the Manager of TFT
`
`LCD Research and Development at the GE Research and Development Center in
`
`Schenectady, NY. My duties included contributing to and managing research and
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`development efforts relating to TFT and LCD technology for avionics applications.
`
`While employed by GE, I led the team that built the world’s first 1-million-pixel
`
`color LCD device. I also led development of numerous other display devices
`
`utilizing LCD technology.
`
`17. From 1991 to 1994, I was employed by Apple Computer as the
`
`Manager of Display Engineering. In my role at Apple, I supervised all TFT-LCD
`
`design (in-house and at vendors), engineering, and qualification for the first
`
`PowerBook notebook computers introduced to market in the United States. A key
`
`part of my effort was the evaluation and development of active matrix LCDs with
`
`improved performance, such as viewing angle, contrast ratio and uniformity.
`
`18. From 1994 to 1996, I was employed as the Director of Advanced
`
`Product Marketing by Allied Signal, where I was involved with the design and
`
`engineering of optical films and custom focusing backlight designs for improving
`
`the viewing angle performance of LCD devices.
`
`19. From 1996 to 1999, I was employed as the Director of Product
`
`Marketing for Motorola’s Flat Panel Display Division, where I worked in the
`
`development of new flat panel technology, and I also worked closely with Motorola
`
`groups responsible for integrating TFT-LCD technology into mobile phone
`
`products.
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`20. From 1999 to 2001, I served as the Vice President of Operations of
`
`Alien Technology Corporation. During my time at Alien Technology, I was
`
`involved with the design and architecture of drive electronics packaging technology
`
`suitable for flexible LCD devices.
`
`21. From 2001 to 2007, I served as the Vice President of Engineering for
`
`Clairvoyante, Inc. My responsibilities as the VP of Engineering included managing
`
`research, development, engineering, and marketing of technologies for improving
`
`the resolution and power consumption of color flat panel displays, which required
`
`significant changes to the TFT-LCD layout. During my time at Clairvoyante, I was
`
`therefore heavily involved with the design of the active-matrix array and the LCD
`
`driving circuitry. My work resulted in the issuance of multiple patents relating to
`
`TFT-LCD and TFT-OLED display technology.
`
`22. From 2007 to 2008, I served as the Senior VP of Engineering for
`
`Puredepth, Inc. My responsibilities included the design of hardware and software to
`
`create 3D images on TFT-LCDs.
`
`23. From 2012 through 2015, I served as the Vice President of Application
`
`Engineering and Device Performance for Innova Dynamics, Inc., a nanotechnology
`
`company developing materials to be used in LCDs and touch sensors. In 2008, I
`
`founded TLC Display Consulting, a company that provides technical consulting in
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`the areas of flat panel displays, liquid crystal displays, and related electronics. I
`
`currently serve as the President of TLC Display Consulting.
`
`24.
`
`I have been an active member of the Society for Information Display
`
`(“SID”) for over 40 years, having attended every SID Annual Technical Symposium
`
`since 1972. I was a member of the Society for Information Display’s Program
`
`Committee for 15 years, and the Director of the Society for Information Display’s
`
`Symposium Committee for 10 years. In 1984, I was awarded the title of Fellow of
`
`the Society for Information Display in recognition of my achievements and
`
`contributions to flat panel display technology.
`
`25.
`
`I am a named inventor on over 80 US patents relating to flat panel
`
`display and LCD technology. I have also authored several articles relating to LCD
`
`technology and flat panel displays that were published by industry periodicals such
`
`as Information Display and peer reviewed journals such as the Society for
`
`Information Display’s Digest of Technical Papers.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A. Anticipation
`
`26.
`
`I understand the ’654 patent was issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on June 27, 2017. I have also been informed that the ’654 patent
`
`is entitled to a presumption of validity . I have further been informed that Petition
`
`has the burden of showing the ’654 patent is invalid by a preponderance of the
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`evidence, and that as the current stage of these proceedings they must show that they
`
`have a reasonable likelihood of success in ultimately meeting that burden.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that a patent can be invalid because it is
`
`anticipated by a prior art reference. I have also been informed that, to anticipate a
`
`claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claim, either
`
`explicitly or inherently. I have further been informed that a prior art reference
`
`inherently discloses a claimed limitation if the prior art necessarily functions in
`
`accordance with, or includes, the limitation.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that, to qualify as prior art, a reference must have
`
`been publicly accessible before the priority date of the challenged claims. I have
`
`also been informed that, for claims to be entitled to priority to the filing date of a
`
`parent application (that is, a patent application earlier in a patent's priority chain),
`
`the claims must have adequate written description support in the parent application.
`
`B. Written Description
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed that a parent application satisfies the written
`
`description requirement if, based on an objective inquiry into the four corners of the
`
`parent application from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”), the application describes an invention understandable to that skilled
`
`artisan and shows that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed. Stated
`
`otherwise, I understand that a parent application provides adequate written
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`description support for patent claims if the parent application reasonably conveys to
`
`those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter
`
`as of the filing date of the parent application. I also understand that the written
`
`description requirement does not require the claim limitations to be recited expressly
`
`in the parent application. I have also been informed that the claims of the parent
`
`application are considered part of the parent application for purposes of the written
`
`description requirement.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`30.
`
`I am informed and understand that claim interpretation is from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`considered to have the normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain technical
`
`field, as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that factors that may be
`
`considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the
`
`education level of the inventor; (2) the types of problems encountered in the art; (3)
`
`the prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of active
`
`workers in the field. I also understand that “the person of ordinary skill” is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of the universe of available prior
`
`art.
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’654
`
`patent at the time of the invention would have the equivalent of an undergraduate
`
`degree in electrical engineering, materials science, physics, or a related field and at
`
`least two years of work experience (or a graduate degree) in LCD display
`
`technology. Lack of work experience could have been remedied by additional
`
`education, and vice versa. Such academic and industry experience would be
`
`necessary to appreciate what was obvious and/or anticipated in the industry and what
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought and understood at the time.
`
`Based on these criteria, as of the relevant time frame for the ’654 patent, I possessed
`
`at least such experience and knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, hence
`
`am qualified to opine on the ’654 patent.
`
`33.
`
`I am informed that Dr. Schubert has asserted a different level or
`
`ordinary skill. As I understand it, Dr. Schubert asserts that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have 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.
`
`34. While I disagree with Dr. Schubert’s asserted level of ordinary skill,
`
`my opinions apply equally under either proposed level.
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’654 PATENT
`
`35. The ’654 patent, titled “Liquid Crystal Display Device and Electronic
`
`Apparatus,” was filed on November 20, 2014, as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`14/549,189, and issued on April 12, 2016, to Takao Atarashiya and Hayato
`
`Kurasawa. The ’654 Patent claims priority to the Parent Application, which was
`
`filed on March 4, 2009, and issued at U.S. Patent No. 8,922,741. The ’654 also
`
`claims priority to two Japanese patent applications filed on March 6, 2008, and
`
`January 20, 2009.
`
`36. The ’654 patent relates to lateral-electric-field liquid crystal devices,
`
`and, more specifically, discloses inventions relating to the structure of electrodes,
`
`signal lines, and light shielding layers in such liquid crystal devices to provide “a
`
`high pixel aperture, a high display luminance and a wide viewing angle.” ’654 patent
`
`at 2:48-50. A lateral-electric-field device is characterized by having the two
`
`electrodes (which generate the electric to control the alignment of the liquid crystal
`
`molecules) formed on the same substate. That is, instead of having an electrode on
`
`either side of the liquid crystal layer, a lateral-electric-field-device has an upper
`
`electrode and lower electrode formed on the same side of the liquid crystal layer.
`
`Such devices can be configured where the upper electrode is the pixel electrode and
`
`the lower electrode is the common electrode or vice versa. See, e.g., ’654 patent,
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`Fig. 3 (upper electrode = pixel electrode), Fig. 7 (upper electrode = common
`
`electrode).
`
`
`
`
`37. The inventions disclosed in the ’654 patent include different
`
`configurations of the upper electrode that use a “bent portion” in the long-axis
`
`direction of linear electrodes (which comprise an upper electrode) to form a “multi-
`
`domain structure” that “achieve[s] a wide viewing angle.” Id. at 3:10-18. Figures
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`2, 4, and 5 correspond to Embodiments 1, 2, and 3 in the ’654 patent and illustrate
`
`the electrode structures disclosed in these embodiments.
`
`
`
`
` The ’654 patent also discloses having the data line “bent” in the same
`
`38.
`
`direction as the linear electrodes “to suppress dead spaces,” which allows “a high
`
`aperture ratio [to] be maintained. Id. at 3:18-23, Fig. 2 (annotated below). The ’654
`
`patent further discloses having a “light shielding film configured to overlap with the
`
`data line (or the scan line), which is at least bent in plan view.” Id. at 4:35-39.
`
`Figure 6 corresponds to Embodiment 4, which discloses the configuration of the
`
`light shielding film (also referred to as a black mask) used with the electrode
`
`configuration shown in Figure 2.
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`Black Matrix
`(light shielding film)
`(73)
`
`
`V. THE PARENT APPLICATION DOES NOT QUALIFY AS PRIOR ART
`BECAUSE IT PROVIDES WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORT FOR
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that Petitioner argues that the Parent Application
`
`anticipates the Challenged Claims. I also understand that the Parent Application
`
`cannot anticipate the Challenged Claims if it is not prior art. It is further my
`
`understanding that the Parent Application is not prior art if the Challenged Claims
`
`are entitled to priority to a date prior to the Parent Application’s publication on
`
`September 10, 2009. As previously noted, the ’654 patent’s earliest priority date is
`
`March 6, 2008, which precedes the Parent Application’s publication date.
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`40.
`
`I understand that Petitioner’s argument is that the Challenged Claims
`
`are not entitled to the priority benefit of the Parent Application, which would limit
`
`the ’654 patent’s priority date to its filing date on November 20, 2014, and transform
`
`the Parent Application into prior art. I also understand Petitioner’s challenge to the
`
`’654 patent’s priority benefit is because the Parent Application allegedly does not
`
`provide adequate written description support for one element required in the
`
`Challenged Claims, “wherein the light shielding film is configured to overlap with
`
`the second electrode which is bent in plan view,” when the second electrode is a
`
`pixel electrode. I further understand that Petitioner acknowledges that the ’654
`
`patent does, in fact, disclose “wherein the light shielding film is configured to
`
`overlap with the second electrode which is bent in plan view,” when the second
`
`electrode is a common electrode. That is, Petitioner’s argument is that the ’654
`
`patent discloses the claimed configuration for the light shielding film when the
`
`device uses a common-electrode-on-top configuration, but doesn’t disclose the
`
`claimed configuration for the light shielding film when the device uses a pixel-
`
`electrode-on-top configuration.
`
`41.
`
`In my opinion, Petitioner’s argument that the Challenged Claims lack
`
`written description support in the Parent Application is incorrect. As noted above, I
`
`have been informed that test for the written description requirement is whether the
`
`parent application reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date of the parent
`
`application. It is my opinion that the written description of the Parent Application
`
`reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the
`
`claimed device, including one with a “lighting film [] configured to overlap with the
`
`[pixel] electrode which is bent in plan view.” ’654 patent, claims 1, 14.
`
`42. My opinion, explained in further detail below, is based on the
`
`documents that I have reviewed and my own knowledge and experience based upon
`
`my work in the field of liquid crystal displays.
`
`A. The Parent Application discloses a “light shielding film” used in
`conjunction with a pixel electrode employed as the second
`electrode.
`
`43.
`
`It is my understanding that the original claims of the Parent Application
`
`are considered part of the parent application for purposes of the written description
`
`requirement. Original claim 1 of the Parent Application recites:
`
`1. A liquid crystal device, comprising:
`a first substrate and a second substrate that are disposed to
`face each other;
`a liquid crystal layer that is sandwiched between the first
`substrate and the second substrate;
`a first electrode that is provided on the liquid crystal
`layer side of the first substrate;
`an insulating layer that is provided on the liquid crystal
`layer side of the first electrode; and
`
`
`
`–16–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`a second electrode that is provided on the liquid crystal
`layer side of the insulating layer, wherein:
`the first substrate has formed thereon a plurality of data
`lines and a plurality of scan lines which intersect each
`other;
`sub-pixels are formed at regions surrounded by the data
`lines and the scan lines;
`the second electrode has a plurality of linear electrodes
`that is disposed with a gap therebetween;
`each of the plurality of linear electrodes extends in a long-
`axis direction of the sub-pixels and has at least one bent
`portion;
`the bent portion has such a shape that both sides thereof
`are inclined in opposite directions with respect to the
`long-axis direction of the sub-pixels; and
`the data lines or the scan lines are bent in an extending
`direction of the linear electrodes having the bent
`portion.
`Parent Application, Claim 1 (Ex. 1004) (emphasis added). Original claim 2 of the
`
`Parent Application depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the first electrode is
`
`a pixel electrode; and wherein the second electrode is a common electrode” (i.e., a
`
`common-electrode-on-top configuration). Id. Thus it is my understanding that the
`
`terms first electrode and second electrode in claim 1 are broad enough to encompass
`
`electrode configurations other than that recited by claim 2, including where the first
`
`electrode is a common electrode, and where in the second electrode is a pixel
`
`electrode (i.e., a pixel-electrode-on-top configuration). Claim 10 also depends from
`
`
`
`–17–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`claim 1 and requires the device in claim 1 “further comprising a light shielding film
`
`configured to overlap with the data line (or the scan line) which is at least bent in
`
`plan view, the light shield film being provided on the second substrate.
`
`44.
`
`It is my opinion that, taken together, original claims 1 and 10 show the
`
`Parent Application discloses a “light shielding film” formed on the second substrate
`
`(as illustrated in Fig. 7) used in conjunction with a “pixel electrode” in the “second
`
`electrode” configuration (as disclosed in Embodiments 1-3).
`
`B.
`
`The Parent Application discloses a “light shielding film”
`overlapping the second electrode.
`
`45. The ’654 patent discloses that
`
`The common electrode 67 is formed across the entire sub-
`pixels, and portions that are not hatched in FIG. 6 are the
`slits 63 of the common electrode 67. The shaded portion
`is the black matrix 73. As illustrated in FIGS. 6 and 7, the
`common electrode 67 overlaps with the black matrix
`73 as viewed in plan view, and the slits 63 are formed so
`as not to overlap with the black matrix 73 as viewed in
`plan view.
`Parent Application, ¶ [0074] (emphasis added). The Parent Application’s
`
`specification also discloses in detail how to form the “black matrix” on the “element
`
`substrate 68” (i.e., the “first substrate”) and the advantages related to that
`
`configuration. Id. ¶¶ [0078], [0081-82]. Taken together, these disclosures
`
`demonstrate how, where, and for what purposes the “light shielding layer” is formed
`
`
`
`–18–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`and reasonably convey an understanding of the claimed invention to a person of skill
`
`in the art.
`
`46. Given that the ’654 patent clearly discloses a light shielding film
`
`overlapping the common electrode (configured as the upper electrode), it is my
`
`opinion that such disclosure is sufficient to reasonably convey to a POSITA that the
`
`inventor had possession of the invention when the pixel electrode is used as the upper
`
`electrode.
`
`47. Further, it is my opinion that a POSITA would know that it is important
`
`to cover the edge of the upper electrode with the black matrix to reduce visible edge
`
`effects (i.e., extraneous fields near the data lines and scan lines that affect picture
`
`quality). The need to reduce visible edge effects exists regardless of whether the
`
`device uses a pixel-electrode-on-top or common-electrode-on-top configuration.
`
`48. Thus, it is my opinion that, while the portions of the Parent
`
`Application’s specification describing Embodiments 1 through 3 may not
`
`specifically discuss a “light shielding film,” that element is described with regard to
`
`the common-electrode-on-top configuration (Embodiment 4). Because the original
`
`claims of the Parent Application disclose a “light shielding film” used with the
`
`electrode configurations disclosed in Embodiments 1 through 3, it is my opinion that
`
`the ’654 patent reasonably conveys that the black matrix overlaps the upper electrode
`
`
`
`–19–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC.
`IPR2021-01029
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,310,654
`
`
`(i.e., the second electrode) regardless of whether the pixel electrode or common
`
`electrode is on top.
`
`49. A person of skill in the art would have no difficulty discerning a
`
`limitation regarding the “overlap” of the light shielding film for an electrode
`
`configuration with the pixel-electrode-on-top, when the same “overlap” is explained
`
`with regard to an electrode configuration with the counter electrode on top.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`50.
`
`It is my opinion that the Challenged Claims have adequate written
`
`description support in the Parent Application. The Challenged Claims are, therefore,
`
`entitled to the priority benefit of the Parent Application. Thus the Parent Application
`
`is not prior art to the Challenged Claims. I reserve the right to respond further to
`
`additional or new arguments that Petitioner may advance, if permitted.
`
`
`
`This declaration and my opinions herein are made to the best of my knowledge
`
`and understanding, and based on the material available to me, at the time of signing
`
`this declaration. I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true,
`
`and further, 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 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`
`
`–20–
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`v. JAPAN DISPLAY
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
