Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 16
`Date: January 5, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,636,142 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 (the “challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,636,142 B2 (“the ’142 patent,” Ex. 1001).
`Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Japan Display Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With Board authorization, Petitioner
`filed a Reply to the Preliminary Response (“Reply,” Paper 7), and Patent
`Owner filed a Sur-reply to Petitioner’s Reply (“Sur-reply,” Paper 9).
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314
`(2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). Upon consideration of the
`Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the
`evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one
`claim of the ’142 patent, and we decline to exercise our discretion to deny
`institution. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we institute an inter
`partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 of the ’142 patent.
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`Each party identifies itself as the real party-in-interest. Pet. 58;
`Paper 5, 1.
`B. Related Matters
`In their initial mandatory notices, the parties indicated that the ’142
`patent was asserted in Japan Display Inc. v. Tianma Microelectronics Co.
`Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-00283 (E.D. Tex.) (the “District Court Action”). Pet. 59;
`Paper 5, 3. Patent Owner recently narrowed the number of patents and
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`claims asserted in the District Court Action pursuant to a court order
`(Ex. 1021, 2–3), stating that Patent Owner does “not currently assert claims
`from the ’142 patent based solely on compliance with the Order” but intends
`“to seek reconsideration of the Order and reserve the right to amend this
`election to assert claims 1 and 6 of the ’142 patent should the Court modify
`its Order” (Ex. 1022, 1). See also Paper 11, 1 (Petitioner’s updated
`mandatory notice indicating that “Patent Owner has withdrawn the ’142
`patent from” the District Court Action). Patent Owner filed its Motion for
`Reconsideration of the Order in the District Court Action (Ex. 2017), and
`Petitioner filed an Opposition (Ex. 1023). On December 21, 2021, the
`District Court issued an Order denying Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Reconsideration as moot, and ordering that Patent Owner “will proceed to
`trial asserting up to but not more than 8 patents and up to but not more than
`20 asserted claims.” Ex. 2019, 2.
`C. The ’142 Patent
`The ’142 patent, titled “Liquid Crystal Display Device,” is directed to
`“a liquid crystal display device having upper and lower electrodes
`interposing an insulation layer therebetween in which an electric field
`opening part for passing an electric field is formed in the upper electrode and
`liquid crystal molecules are driven by applying a voltage between the upper
`and lower electrodes.” Ex. 1001, code (54), 1:6–12. The ’142 patent
`explains that, when the liquid crystal molecules rotate along an arc shape of
`the edge portions of the opening part, “there is a case where the rotation
`direction of the liquid crystal molecules is reversed” or “changes depending
`on locations.” Id. at 2:3–8. “[T]his phenomenon in which the rotation
`direction changes depending on the locations is called disinclination.” Id. at
`2:8–10. The ’142 patent further explains that, when disinclination occurs,
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`“display quality may be judged to be lowered.” Id. at 2:33–35. The ’142
`patent teaches that “the shape, disposition, and the like of the opening part
`disposed in the upper electrode in relation with the lower electrode” must be
`considered in order to suppress the occurrence of disinclination. Id. at 2:41–
`44.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’142 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 is a sectional view of one sub pixel of a color liquid crystal device
`using a fringe field switching (“FFS”) mode. Id. at 5:6–7. Liquid crystal
`display device 10 includes component substrate 20 and opposing
`substrate 60 with “liquid crystal molecules 50 pinched in between.” Id.
`at 5:18–22. Opposing substrate 60 includes glass substrate 62, black
`matrix 64, and color filter 66 in sequence from the side facing the user to the
`side facing component substrate 20. Id. at 5:25–29. Component
`substrate 20, also referred to a thin film transistor (“TFT”) substrate, is
`“disposed on a side on which a TFT element used as a switching element 80
`is disposed and faces the opposing substrate 60.” Id. at 5:37–41.
`Component substrate 20 includes glass substrate 22, semiconductor layer 24,
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`gate insulation film 26, gate electrode wiring 28, common electrode
`wiring 29, interlayer insulation film 30, source wiring 32, drain wiring 33,
`common electrode connecting part 34, insulation film 36, common
`electrode 38, FFS insulation film 40, and pixel electrode 42. Id. at 5:47–54.
`Slit 43, formed in pixel electrode 42, “is an electric field opening part
`for driving liquid crystal molecules using an electric field by applying a
`voltage between” pixel electrode 42 and common electrode 38. Id. at 6:43–
`47. A plurality of slits 43 “are disposed to be spaced apart from one another
`and be parallel to a longitudinal direction of the opening part.” Id. at 6:49–
`52. Slit 43 has “a thin and long groove shape in which both ends in the
`longitudinal direction are closed, and thus the end portions in the
`longitudinal direction are formed to be round.” Id. at 6:52–56.
`The round end portions, also referred to as an “edge portion,” is where
`the disinclination occurs, as shown in area D in Figure 4, reproduced below.
`Id. at 6:56–57.
`
`
`Figure 4 is “a schematic diagram showing the form of occurrence of the
`disinclination in the edge portion that is an edge portion of the slit 43.”
`Ex. 1001, 7:1–4. Slit 43 is formed on a transparent conduction material film
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`that forms pixel electrode 42, and is disposed horizontally from left to right,
`and the rubbing direction R-R is slightly tilted to toward the upper right side
`with respect to the horizontal direction. Id. at 7:4–8, 7:15–17. “[T]he edge
`portion of the slit is quite or less round” and “has an arc shape close to a half
`circle.” Id. at 7:18–20. “When a horizontal electric field is applied, there is
`case where the rotation direction of liquid crystal molecule L in the edge
`portion changes depending on its location,” and this is the disinclination that
`occurs in area D, which “is an edge portion of a fringe of the slit 43.” Id. at
`7:52–65.
`Figures 9, 10, and 11 of the ’142 patent show progressive stages of a
`production process in plan view (id. at 8:49–56) and are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 9 on the left is “a diagram showing a state in which a common
`electrode having a window-shaped opening part is formed,” Figure 10 in the
`middle is “a diagram showing a state in which an FFS insulation film is
`formed and a contact hole is formed in a position corresponding to the
`window-shaped opening part” shown in Figure 9, and Figure 11 on the right
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`is “a diagram showing a state in which a pixel electrode having a slit is
`formed in a case where the process proceeds further from the state shown in
`Figure 10.” Id. at 4:18–29. In Figure 9, common electrode 38 is disposed
`over one pixel, and window-shaped opening part 100 is disposed around the
`center of common electrode 38. Id. at 9:59–62. Contact hole 98, which is
`an opening part for connecting drain wiring 32 and pixel electrode 42, is
`prepared “in an area in which the transparent conduction material film
`constituting the lower electrode is removed,” and drain wiring 32 can be
`seen inside contact hole 98 by removing the transparent conduction material
`film. Id. at 9:39–42, 9:62–67. Figure 10 shows “contact hole 102 disposed
`in a position corresponding to the window-shaped opening part 100,” such
`that drain wiring 32 can be seen inside contact hole 102. Id. at 10:5–9. In
`Figure 11, pixel electrode 43 is connected to drain wiring 32 at contact hole
`102. Id. at 10:15–18. Slits 43 are disposed in pixel electrode 42 “for
`passing the electric field between the common electrode 38 serving as the
`lower electrode and the pixel electrode.” Id. at 10:23–26. Slits 43 extend
`approximately parallel with one another “and are opening parts each having
`a thin and long groove shape in which both ends are closed.” Id. at 10:26–
`38. “[S]lits 43 are disposed to keep off the portion of the contact hole 102 in
`an area around the window-shaped opening part 100.” Id. at 10:41–43.
`Figure 12 of the ’142 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`Figure 12 is an enlarged diagram of a part of Figure 11 showing the
`disposition of slits 43 in the area around window-shaped opening part 100.
`Id. at 10:46–48. Slit 43 disposed in an area around window-shaped opening
`part 100 has at least one end portion overlapped with window-shaped
`opening part 100 in a plan view. Id. at 10:64–11:1. The ’142 patent teaches
`that “[i]t is preferable that the amount of the overlapped area is configured
`such that at least the arc-shaped portion of the end portion in the longitudinal
`direction is disposed inside the window-shaped opening part 100.” Id. at
`11:1–4. In this configuration, common electrode 38 serving as the lower
`electrode is removed “in a position corresponding to a position located
`below the arc-shaped portion of the end portion of the slit 43 in the
`longitudinal direction,” and “an electric field between the common electrode
`38 serving as the lower electrode and the pixel electrode 42 serving as the
`upper electrode is not formed.” Id. at 11:4–12. The ’142 patent teaches that
`this configuration suppresses disinclination due to the arc shape of the end
`portion of slit 43 around window-opening part 100. Id. at 11:12–15.
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 of the ’142 patent. Pet. 2.
`Claim 1, the only independent challenged claim, is illustrative of the claimed
`subject matter and is reproduced below.
`
`1. A liquid crystal display device comprising an upper
`electrode and a lower electrode interposing an insulation layer
`therebetween,
`wherein an electric field opening part for passing an
`electric field is formed in the upper electrode and
`liquid crystal molecules are driven by applying a
`voltage between the lower electrode and the upper
`electrode,
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`wherein an upper electrode wiring and the upper
`electrode which interpose an interlayer insulation film
`therebetween, together is disposed below the lower
`electrode,
`wherein a window-shaped opening part formed by
`partially removing the lower electrode for connecting
`the upper electrode wiring and the upper electrode, and
`wherein one end portion of the electric field opening part
`in the longitudinal direction around the window-
`shaped opening part is disposed to be overlapped with
`the window-shaped opening part in a plan view.
`Ex. 1001, 12:39–55.
`E. Asserted Ground
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 would have been
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 1031 over the combined teachings of Lee2 and
`No.3 Petitioner relies on the Declaration of E. Fred Schubert, Ph.D.
`(“Schubert Declaration,” Ex. 1002) in support of its contentions. Patent
`Owner submits the Declaration of Thomas L. Credelle (“Credelle
`Declaration,” Ex. 2008) in support of its Preliminary Response.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art 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
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
`35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’142
`patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply the
`pre-AIA version of § 103.
`2 US Patent No. 7,599,015 B2, issued Oct. 6, 2009 (Ex. 1005).
`3 Korean Laid-Open Patent No. 2002-0085245, published on Nov. 16, 2002
`(Ex. 1006).
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`design and implementation of flat panel display devices or components
`thereof.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43). Patent Owner’s declarant,
`Mr. Credelle, testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would
`have had 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.” Ex. 2008
`¶ 28. Mr. Credelle also states that, although he disagrees with Petitioner’s
`proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, his opinions “apply equally under
`either proposed level.” Id. ¶ 30.
`We agree with the parties that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have had the equivalent of a four-year undergraduate degree in
`electrical engineering or a similar field, and experience in the field of flat
`panel displays or liquid crystal display technology, which appears to be
`consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as
`reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. Our determination regarding
`Petitioner’s challenge does not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s
`and Patent Owner’s definitions, and we note that our conclusion would be
`the same under either definition.
`B. Claim Construction
`We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and
`customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in
`the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain
`and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the
`entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed,
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec
`Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`Petitioner asserts that, in the related district court litigation, the parties
`agreed that “disinclination” as used in claim 3 means “a phenomenon in
`which the direction of rotation of liquid crystal molecules changes
`depending on their location.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1013, 1). Petitioner asserts
`that “[n]o other terms need construction because the claims encompass the
`prior-art mappings provided below under any construction consistent with
`Phillips.” Id. at 9–10. Patent Owner does not address claim construction at
`this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of
`this Decision, based on the record before us, we determine that no claim
`term requires an explicit construction.
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Lee and No
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 would have been
`obvious over the combined teachings of Lee and No. Pet. 19–58.
`1. Overview of Lee
`Lee relates to “a thin film transistor array panel that uses one substrate
`of a liquid crystal display.” Ex. 1005, 1:16–19. Lee teaches that, as the size
`of a liquid crystal display increases, the display panels can become
`erroneously aligned, which “can lead to deterioration of a contrast ratio and
`a mixed color phenomenon.” Id. at 1:44–48. Lee explains that the width of
`a black matrix that is formed between the pixels can be increased to
`compensate for this, but, as the width of the black matrix increases, the
`aperture ratio of the pixels increases, and, therefore, “there is a need for a
`liquid crystal display that is capable of preventing erroneous alignment of
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`display panels while maintaining an aperture ratio of the pixels.” Id.
`at 1:48–54.
`Lee’s Figure 2 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 is a cross-sectional view of a portion of a thin film transistor array
`panel described in Lee. Id. at 3:67–4:3. Common electrode 270 with
`opening 275 is formed on the upper parts of lower passivation layer 180p
`and color filter 230. Id. at 6:11–18. Lower passivation layer 180p is formed
`on data line 171 (not shown), drain electrode 175, and the exposed portions
`of semiconductor island 154. Id. at 5:54–56. Upper passivation layer 180q
`is formed on the upper parts of common electrode 270, exposed color
`filter 230, and lower passivation layer 180p. Id. at 6:27–31. Pixel
`electrode 191 is formed on upper passivation layer 180q. Id. at 6:48–50.
`Contact hole 185 for exposing drain electrode 175 through opening 235 of
`color filter 230 is formed in upper passivation layer 180q. Id. at 6:36–40.
`Lee teaches that, because upper passivation layer 180q that defines
`contact hole 185 completely covers opening 275 of common electrode 270,
`common electrode 270 and pixel electrode 191 are isolated from each other.
`Id. at 6:66–7:2. Lee further teaches that “pixel electrode 191 to which a data
`voltage is applied and the common electrode 270 to which a common
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`voltage is applied generate an electric field” that determines “a direction of
`liquid crystal molecules of a liquid crystal layer (not shown) that is
`positioned between the two electrodes 191 and 270.” Id. at 7:3–8.
`According to Lee, the electric field between common electrode 270 and
`pixel electrode 191 “is formed in both a parallel direction and vertical
`direction of the substrate 110, such that the liquid crystal molecules are
`inclined while twisting,” and, “[t]herefore, transmittance can be improved
`while securing a wide angle view.” Id. at 7:33–38.
`Lee also teaches that, because common electrode 270 is positioned
`between pixel electrode 191 and data line 171, “a parasitic capacitance
`generated between the pixel electrode 191 and the data line 171 can be
`reduced,” preventing the phenomenon in which vertical line blurs are
`generated and reducing an erroneous alignment margin between data
`line 171 and pixel electrode 191. Id. at 7:46–52. Additionally, Lee teaches
`that a sustain capacity formed between electrodes 270 and 191 “can be
`reduced by adjusting a thickness of the upper passivation layer 180q,” by
`which the size of the thin film transistor can be reduced and “an aperture
`ratio of the pixels can be improved.” Id. at 7:46–58.
`2. Overview of No
`No is directed to “a fringe field switching mode (FFS) liquid crystal
`display device capable of suppressing the occurrence of disinclination lines
`without reducing the size of the storage capacitor.” Ex. 1006, 10.4 No
`teaches that “disinclination lines occur due to distortion of the electric field
`at an edge of the slit formed in the pixel electrode, and the screen quality is
`
`
`4 We refer to the page numbers added by Petitioner on the bottom left-hand
`corner of the page.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`consequently degraded.” Id. No teaches that, in the prior art, the occurrence
`of disinclination was suppressed by reducing the width of the counter
`electrode, but as the area of the counter electrode was decreased, the size of
`the storage capacitor was reduced, which caused screen flicker. Id. at 12,
`Fig. 2. To address the problems of the prior art, No discloses a liquid crystal
`display device having “slit-type pixel electrodes disposed so as to overlap
`the respective counter electrode in the unit pixel region and having a
`plurality of slits[,] wherein in each counter electrode, holes are is
`respectively furnished on both edge portions, which overlap with the
`respective ends of the slit of the pixel electrode.” Id., Abstract, 12, 15 (claim
`1).
`
`No’s Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 is a plan view illustrating an electrode structure of a thin film
`transistor liquid crystal display device according to one embodiment
`described in No. Id. at 12. Gate bus line 1 and data bus line 3 “are arranged
`intersecting perpendicularly so as to define a unit pixel region,” and thin film
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`transistor 10 that plays a switching role is disposed on the region where gate
`bus line 1 and data bus line 3 intersect. Id. at 12–13. Plate-shaped counter
`electrode 17 with holes formed parallel to data bus line 3 is disposed on each
`edge of the unit pixel region. Id. at 13. Slit-type pixel electrode 9, having a
`plurality of “˄”-shaped slits that form a predetermined angle with gate bus
`line 1 or data bus line 3, is disposed on and overlapping with counter
`electrode 17. Id.
`No teaches that an upper substrate having a color filter is disposed
`above the lower substrate shown in Figure 3, “and a liquid crystal layer
`composed of a plurality of liquid crystal molecules rotated by an electric
`field generated between the pixel electrode and the counter electrode is
`disposed between the upper and lower glass substrates.” Id. at 13. No
`teaches that the arrangement shown in Figure 3 “is able to suppress the
`occurrence of disinclination by forming holes in each upper and lower end
`portion or each left and right end portion of the counter electrode rather than
`reducing the width of the counter electrode” and also reduces “screen flicker
`by suppressing a reduction in the storage capacitor.” Id. at 14.
`3. Analysis
`Petitioner asserts, with supporting testimony from Dr. Schubert, that
`claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 8 would have been obvious over the combined
`teachings of Lee and No. Pet. 23–58. Petitioner contends that Lee teaches
`or suggests all of the limitations of independent claim1 except “one end
`portion of the electric field opening part in the longitudinal direction around
`the window-shaped opening part is disposed to be overlapped with the
`window-shaped opening part in a plan view,” which Petitioner contends No
`discloses. Petitioner’s contentions are summarized below.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`Preamble: “A liquid crystal display device comprising” (Pet. 23
`(relying on Ex. 1005, 1:16–19));
`Element 1[a]: “an upper electrode and a lower electrode interposing
`an insulation layer therebetween,” (id. at 23–24 (relying on Ex. 1002 ¶ 54;
`Ex. 1005, 6:11–7:2, 7:53–56));
`Element 1[b]: “wherein an electric field opening part for passing an
`electric field is formed in the upper electrode and liquid crystal molecules
`are driven by applying a voltage between the lower electrode and the upper
`electrode,” (id. at 24–29 (relying on Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–63; Ex. 1005, 1:26–34,
`6:48–7:10, 7:33–38));
`Element 1[c]: “wherein an upper electrode wiring and the upper
`electrode which interpose an interlayer insulation film therebetween,
`together is disposed below the lower electrode,” (id. at 29–32 (relying on
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–63; Ex. 1005, 5:54–63, 6:11–7:2, 8:45–52));
`Element 1[d]: “wherein a window-shaped opening part formed by
`partially removing the lower electrode for connecting the upper electrode
`wiring and the upper electrode, and” (id. at 32–36 (relying on Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 68–70; Ex. 1005, 5:54–63, 6:11–7:2));
`Element 1[e]: “wherein one end portion of the electric field opening
`part in the longitudinal direction around the window-shaped opening part is
`disposed to be overlapped with the window-shaped opening part in a plan
`view.” (id. at 36–43 (relying on Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 73–80; Ex. 1005, 1:26–34,
`6:48–7:10; Ex. 1006, 9–16)).
`Petitioner provides annotated versions of a portion of Figure 1 of Lee
`and of Figure 4b of No to illustrate its contentions. Annotated portion of
`Figure 1 of Lee is reproduced below.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`
`
`Annotated Figure 1 depicts a portion of a layout view of a thin film
`transistor array panel for a liquid crystal display device described in Lee,
`with Petitioner’s annotations highlighting and labeling pixel (or upper)
`electrode 191 in orange, pixel electrode slits in purple, and window-shaped
`opening part 275 in pink. Pet. 36. Petitioner uses a yellow circle to
`illustrate its contention that the pixel electrode end portions in the
`longitudinal direction around window-shaped opening part 275 are disposed
`adjacent to the opening part in a plan view. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 1:26–34,
`6:48–7:10).
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`Annotated Figure 4b of No is reproduced below.
`
`
`Annotated Figure 4b depicts a plan view showing a FFS mode liquid crystal
`display device according to an embodiment described in No, with
`Petitioner’s annotations highlighting pixel (or upper) electrode 29 in orange,
`counter (or lower) electrode 27 in green, holes in common electrode 27 in
`pink, drain wiring of TFT electrode 10 in blue, and pixel electrode slits in
`purple. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1006, 9–16). Petitioner also identifies “end
`portions of pixel electrode slits,” and labels a yellow circle as “end portions
`of pixel electrode slits overlapping hole.” Id. at 37–38. Petitioner contends
`that No “discloses an end portion of the pixel electrode slits (purple) in the
`longitudinal direction around the underlying counter electrode hole (pink)
`overlapping with the holes (see at yellow circle) in a plan view to ‘suppress[]
`the occurrence of disinclination lines without reducing the size of the storage
`capacitor.’” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1006, 10).
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have been motivated to arrange the end portions of Lee’s pixel electrode slits
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`around window-shaped opening part 275 to overlap with window-shaped
`opening part 275 in a plan view “to prevent disinclination in those pixel
`electrode slit end portions and a resulting degradation of the quality of the
`LCD screen, as taught by No.” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1006, 9–12, 14; Ex. 1002
`¶ 76). Petitioner further contends:
`As Dr. Schubert explains, “based on No’s disclosure of the
`benefits of preventing disinclination and its stated mechanism
`for doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`motivated to modify Lee’s LCD device such that the end
`portions of Lee’s pixel electrode slits in the longitudinal
`direction positioned adjacent the common electrode opening
`part overlap the opening part in a plan view, as taught by No.”
`Modifying Lee’s LCD device in this manner would have
`provided the predictable benefits of preventing disinclination in
`the end portions of the pixel electrode slits overlapping the
`opening, and would have required only routine skill,
`knowledge, and standard manufacturing techniques requiring
`only slight extension of the pixel electrode slit end portions
`positioned adjacent the opening to overlap the opening.
`Pet. 42–43 (internal citation omitted) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 79).
`Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner
`sufficiently establishes, for purposes of institution, that the combined
`teachings of Lee and No disclose every limitation of challenged claim 1, and
`in particular, “one end portion of the electric field opening part in the
`longitudinal direction around the window-shaped opening part is disposed to
`be overlapped with the window-shaped opening part in a plan view,” as
`required by claim 1. Pet. 36–43. Lee teaches that common electrode 270
`includes opening part 275 (the claimed “window-shaped opening part”) that
`is formed by partially removing common electrode 270 and contains contact
`hole 185 that provides a gap through which pixel electrode 191 contacts
`drain electrode 175. Ex. 1005, 6:11–7:2; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 68
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`(Dr. Schubert testifying that “partial removal of the common electrode for
`creating an opening is a necessary requirement to electrically connect the”
`pixel electrode with the drain wiring, and “the opening diameter in the
`common electrode must be larger than that of the contact hole, to prevent a
`short-circuit between common and pixel electrodes.”). Lee also teaches, as
`shown in the annotated portion of Figure 1 reproduced above, that the end
`portions of the pixel electrode slits in the longitudinal direction around
`opening part 275 are disposed adjacent to opening part 275. Ex. 1005, 1:26–
`34, 6:48–7:10.
`No teaches that “disinclination lines occur due to distortion of the
`electric field at an edge of the slit formed in the pixel electrode, and the
`screen quality is consequently degraded,” (Ex. 1006, 10) and Patent Owner
`acknowledges that such disinclinations occurring at the end of the slits near
`contact opening 275 in Lee will also reduce picture quality and light
`transmittance, “similar to the problem addressed by the ’142 patent” (Prelim.
`Resp. 25). No also appears to suggest that disinclination can be suppressed
`when the end portions of the slits of the pixel electrode overlap with the
`holes in the counter electrode that are disposed at the end of the slits.
`Ex. 1006, 9, 12, 14–15; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 78 (Dr. Schubert testifying that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art “would appreciate that No’s disinclination
`line reduction teaching is applicable to any number of overlapping pixel
`electrode end portion slits, including one end portion,” because “each
`overlapping pixel electrode end portion slit would provide incremental
`improvement in terms of reducing disinclination and the associated
`degradation of the quality of the LCD screen.”).
`Petitioner sufficiently establishes, for purposes of institution, that a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01058
`Patent 7,363,142 B2
`Lee’s liquid crystal display device so that the end portions of the slits
`positioned adjacent to opening part 275 overlap opening part 275 to prevent
`disinclination as taught by No. Pet. 42–43. In that regard, Dr. Schubert
`testifies that modifying Lee in this way “would have required only routine
`skill, knowledge, and standard manufacturing techniques,” and would
`require “only a change to the pixel mask layout to extend the length of the
`slit so that it reaches into the opening of the common electrode” so that
`“each pixel (of the thousands of pixels of the LCD) is improved (by a small
`or incremental amount), and that collectively, the thousands of pixels, each
`one improved incrementally, results in an improvement of the LCD device.”
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 79.
`Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`not combine Lee with No because “[t]he structures of the TFT devices are
`completely different and Petitioner’s attempt to liken them to each other is
`misleading.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Patent Owner argues that “Lee does not
`even mention disinclination” despite the fact that “disinclinations at the end
`of the slits near the opening will cause disinclinations that reduce picture
`quality and light transmittance, similar to the problem the addressed by
`the ’142 patent.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 43; Ex. 1001, Figs. 2 and 4;
`Ex. 1005). Patent Owner also argues that “No does not have a window
`shaped opening part ‘for connecting the upper electrode wiring and the
`upper electrode’ as required by claim 1,” and that, in No,