`_______________
`
`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