UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v .
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. AND
`PANASONIC LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owners
`_______________
`Case IPR No: IPR2021-01060
`Patent No. 10,330,989
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS L. CREDELLE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v .
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. AND
`PANASONIC LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owners
`_______________
`Case IPR No: IPR2021-01060
`Patent No. 10,330,989
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS L. CREDELLE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2
`Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................... 4
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 8
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS are not invalid as obvious in light of
`the prior art. ...................................................................................................10
`A.
`Ground 1: The Combination of Yuh, Ohta, and Abe Does Not
`Render Claims 1 and 2 Obvious. .........................................................11
`Ground 2: The Petition Fails to Show that Yuh in Combination
`Ohta, Abe, and Kim Renders Claim 2 Obvious. .................................26
`Ground 3: The Petition Fails to Show that Yuh in Combination
`Kurahashi Renders Claims 1 and 2 Obvious. .....................................26
`Ground 4: The Petition Fails to Show that Yuh in Combination
`Kurahashi, and Kim Renders Claim 2 Obvious. .................................43
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................43
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`–1–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of the preliminary response
`
`submitted by of Japan Display Inc. and Panasonic Liquid Crystal Display Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) in connect with the petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,330,989 (“the ’989 patent”) filed by Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd.
`
`(“Petitioner”).
`
`2.
`
`I am not an employee of Japan Display Inc., Panasonic Liquid Crystal
`
`Display Co., Ltd., 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 ’989 patent. Specifically, I understand that Petitioner
`
`purports that claims 1 and 2 (the “Challenged Claims”) are invalid for obviousness
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that Petitioner relies on the expert declaration of Mr.
`
`Richard Flasck dated June 21, 2021 (Ex. 1003) to challenge the validity of the ’989
`
`patent.
`
`–2–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, I have been asked to provide certain opinions relating to
`
`the patentability of the ’989 patent. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinions regarding (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’989 patent
`
`pertains, and (ii) whether the Challenged Claims are rendered obvious by the prior
`
`art.
`
`8.
`
`As set forth in detail below, it is my opinion that the Challenged Claims
`
`of the ’989 patent are valid as they are not rendered obvious by the prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`9.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`a.
`b.
`c.
`d.
`e.
`f.
`g.
`h.
`i.
`
`j.
`
`The ’989 patent, Ex. 1001;
`The prosecution history of the ’989 patent, Ex. 1002;
`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck, Ex. 1003;
`U.S. Patent No. 6,577,368 to Yuh, Ex. 1005;
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2001/009447 to Ohta, Ex. 1006;
`U.S. Patent No. 6,507,383 to Abe, Ex. 1007;
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,541 to Kurahashi, Ex. 1008;
`U.S. Patent No. 6,580,487 to Kim, Ex. 1009;
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent Application No. 10/237,91,
`Ex. 2007; and
`S. H. Lee, S.L. Lee, H.Y. Kim, T.Y. Eom, 16.4L: Late-News
`Paper: A novel Wide-Viewing-Angle Technology: Ultra-Trans
`View™, Hyundai Electronics Industries (1999 SID), Ex. 2009.
`
`–3–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`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.
`
`I.
`
`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. 2011. 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
`
`recently, I have been involved in several patent litigation cases which required a
`
`detailed knowledge of TFT design and processing.
`
`–4–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`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
`
`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
`
`–5–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`–6–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`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
`
`the areas of flat panel displays, liquid crystal displays, and related electronics. I
`
`currently serve as the President of TLC Display Consulting.
`
`–7–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`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.
`
`II.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`26.
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a 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
`
`–8–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`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.
`
`28.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’989
`
`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 ’989 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 ’989 patent.
`
`29.
`
`I am informed that Mr. Flasck has asserted a different level or ordinary
`
`skill. As I understand it, Mr. Flasck asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have at least a four-year undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or
`
`–9–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`physics or a closely related field and four years of experience in the design and
`
`implementation of flat panel display devices or components thereof.
`
`30. While I disagree with Mr. Flasck’s asserted level of ordinary skill, my
`
`opinions apply equally under either proposed level.
`
`III. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT INVALID AS OBVIOUS IN
`LIGHT OF THE PRIOR ART.
`
`31. As shown in Petitioner’s table (reproduced below), Petitioner asserts
`
`two grounds of unpatentability for claim 1 and four grounds of unpatentability for
`
`claim 2.
`
`32.
`
` Grounds 1 and 2 rely on Yuh as the base reference, but Petitioner
`
`concedes that Yuh fails to disclose several limitations in claim 1 of the ’989 patent,
`
`including an organic insulation layer (and all limitations related thereto) and the
`
`structure of the pixel electrode. Petitioner argues that it would be obvious to
`
`combine Yuh with Ohta, Abe, Kim, and/or Kurahashi to cure the deficiencies in
`
`–10–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`Yuh. As I explain in further detail below, it is my opinion that these references
`
`would not be obvious to combine.
`
`33.
`
`For claim 2, Petitioner asserts Grounds 1 through 4. Grounds 1 and 3
`
`rely on the same combination of references to challenged claim 2 that were used to
`
`challenge claim 1. Grounds 2 and 4 challenge only claim 2 using the combinations
`
`of (1) Yuh, Ohta, and Abe, and (2) Yuh and Kurahashi, respectively, with the
`
`addition of Kim.
`
`34.
`
`Petitioner claims that certain features in the ’989 patent were known in
`
`the prior art and, for that reason, it would have been obvious for a person of skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) to combine those features into the novel configurations claimed
`
`in the ’989 patent. See, e.g., Pet. 1(“Planar counter electrodes were known . . . as
`
`were pixel electrodes having slits not parallel with gate lines and drain lines in LCD
`
`devices.”). In my opinion, Petitioner’s approach to it invalidity analysis would
`
`essentially preclude any new innovation in TFT-LCD technology because at this
`
`stage of development in the industry many, if not all, improvements are made though
`
`adjustments to and non-obvious configurations of known elements.
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: The Combination of Yuh, Ohta, and Abe Does Not
`Render Claims 1 and 2 Obvious.
`1.
`A POSITA would not look to combine Ohta with Yuh.
`35. Yuh discloses a modified pixel array where the “[f]irst electrodes and
`
`second electrode insulated from each other are overlapped with each other at least
`
`–11–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`in part” (i.e., Fringe Field Switching (“FFS”) configuration), where the first and
`
`second electrodes are pixel and counter electrodes. Yuh at 3:9-12 (emphasis added),
`
`Fig. 2 (annotated below). Ohta, on the other hand, discloses a pixel configuration
`
`where the “counter electrodes and the pixel electrodes are formed linearly so as not
`
`to overlap each other in a planar condition” (i.e., an interdigitated IPS
`
`configuration). Ohta, ¶[0007] (emphasis added), Fig. 2 (annotated below). The FFS
`
`configuration and interdigitated IPS configuration produce electric fields with
`
`different contours that affect display performance characteristics, including
`
`transmittance and viewing angle. See S. H. Lee, S.L. Lee, H.Y. Kim, T.Y. Eom,
`
`16.4L: Late-News Paper: A novel Wide-Viewing-Angle Technology: Ultra-Trans
`
`View™, Hyundai Electronics Industries 1 (1999 SID) (Ex. 2009) (“Lee Paper”). In
`
`particular, the FFS configuration produces a parabolic electric field with both
`
`vertical and horizontal components, whereas the interdigitated IPS configuration
`
`produces electric fields that are parallel to the surface (i.e., mainly horizontal
`
`components). Id. at 1-2, Fig. 2; see also Yuh at 3:18-22 (“The shape of an electric
`
`line of force is semi-ellipse or parabola having a center on a boundary line or a
`
`boundary region between the first electrode and the second electrode, whereby the
`
`electric field on the electrodes has the vertical and the horizontal components.”);
`
`Ohta, ¶ [0003] (“[E]lectric fields are generated between [the] display electrodes and
`
`–12–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`the reference electrodes parallel to the surfaces of the transparent substrates so as to
`
`modulate light which is transmitted through the liquid crystal layer.”).
`
`Pixel Electrode
`
`Electric
`Field
`
`Counter Electrode
`
`Yuh, Fig. 2 (FFS, annotated)
`
` Ohta, Fig. 2 (Interdigitated IPS, annotated)
`
`Ex. 2009, Fig. 2
`
`–13–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`36.
`
`The different electric field shapes result from different electrode
`
`configurations and, in particular, the distance between electrodes. In an IPS device,
`
`“the distance (l) between electrodes is larger than the cell gap (d) and the width of
`
`the electrode (w);” whereas in an FFS device, “”l is zero or smaller than d and w so
`
`that the electric field lines are formed in the whole area.” Ex.2009 at 1, Fig. 2
`
`(above).
`
`37. A side-by-side comparison of Figures 2 from Yuh and Ohta (above)
`
`reveals that a FFS device differs from an IPS device in significant ways, including,
`
`among other things, requiring (1) the electrode configuration and spacing, (2) an
`
`insulating layer between the electrodes, and (3) an accounting for the capacitance
`
`created between the electrodes. FFS and IPS devices, therefore, require different
`
`manufacturing steps and other considerations such as cell gap, the type of liquid
`
`crystal material used (e.g., whether liquid crystal material with positive or negative
`
`dielectric anisotropy is used), and spacing between openings, to name a few. These
`
`differences specifically impact the number and size of insulation layers required for
`
`these devices. Thus, it is my opinion that a POSITA would not readily look to an
`
`interdigitated IPS structure to improve upon an FFS structure, especially with regard
`
`to the types of insulation layers used.
`
`–14–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`2.
`
`Yuh in view of Ohta does not render obvious limitation 1(g),“an
`organic insulation layer disposed between the first substrate
`and the liquid crystal layer.”
`38. Yuh does not disclose an organic passivation layer as claimed. I
`
`disagree with Mr. Flasck that “[f]rom Ohta, a POSA would have been motivated and
`
`found it obvious to include an organic passivation layer between the planar electrode
`
`and the lower substrate in Yuh’s device.” Ex.1003, ¶ 96. In my opinion, a POSITA
`
`would not look to combine an FFS structure with an IPS structure for the reasons
`
`discussed above and, thus, would not combine Yuh and Ohta.
`
`39. My opinion is supported by (1) the fact that the teaching in Ohta does
`
`not disclose the configuration proposed by Mr. Flasck and (2) the obvious
`
`difficulties that Mr. Flasck’s implementation of an organic passivation layer would
`
`present to a POSITA attempting to make such a combination.
`
`40. Ohta discloses an organic passivation layer (PSV2) formed on a gate
`
`insulating layer (GI) that covers at least the drain line (DL) and the entire TFT
`
`structure. See Ohta, Figs. 2-3.
`
`–15–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`41.
`
`Petitioner’s “expanded and annotated” Figure 2 (below) shows an
`
`“organic passivation layer” added between the “planar electrode 2” and the “lower
`
`substrate 100.” Mr. Flasck states that “[f]rom Ohta, a POSA would have recognized
`
`that ‘when the organic passivation layer is coated on’ Yuh’s lower substrate, “the
`
`flatness of the substrate . . . is enhanced,’ and ‘the irregularities of the brightness . . .
`
`can be eliminated thus enhancing the uniformity of the brightness” of Yuh’s liquid
`
`crystal device.” Ex.1003, ¶96. I disagree. Ohta actually teaches that “the flatness
`
`of the substrate which constitutes the active element is enhanced” when an organic
`
`passivation layer is used. Ohta, ¶[0017] (emphasis added). That is, Ohta teaches
`
`using an organic passivation layer to smooth out the substrate after the TFTs are
`
`formed thereon. See Ohta, ¶[0084-85], Fig. 2. Further, a POSITA would understand
`
`–16–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`that the glass substrate is a flat surface without need of an additional “planarizing”
`
`layer for smoothing (in contrast to smoothing out steps in processed layers such as
`
`semiconductor layers, patterned insulators or metal electrodes).
`
`Gate Insulation
`Layer no longer
`acting as a Gate
`Insulation Layer
`
`TFT below
`Organic
`Passivation Layer
`
`Petitioner’s “Expanded and Annotated” Fig. 2 of Yuh
`(Annotated in Red)
`
`42. Mr. Flasck’s proposed modification results in the “insulating film 3,”
`
`previously identified as the “gate insulating film” (Ex.1003, ¶91), to no longer serve
`
`as a gate insulating film because the gate is below the proposed Organic Passivation
`
`Layer. Moreover, carrying the proposed combination into the TFT region presents
`
`further complications as shown in the modified version of Mr. Flasck’s annotated
`
`Fig. 33 of Yuh below.
`
`–17–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`Unclear how the Proposed
`Organic Passivation Layer
`carries into TFT region
`
`Drain Electrode
`Amorphous Silicon
`
`Passivation Film
`Source Electrode
`
`Proposed Organic
`Passivation Layer
`
`Petitioner’s Annotated Fig. 33 of Yuh
`(Annotated by Patent Owner in Red)
`
`43. Mr. Flasck doesn’t explain how the Proposed Organic Passivation
`
`Layer would be combined in the TFT region of Yuh. This organic layer cannot serve
`
`as the Gate Insulating Film because in the channel region between the Gate Line and
`
`Source/Drain Electrodes, the separation would be too large for the TFT to operate.
`
`Thus, a POSITA would at least need to add another insulating layer as the gate
`
`insulating layer. Moreover, if the organic layer extends over the TFT in some
`
`fashion, a POSITA would need to account for how the Source Electrode 71 and
`
`–18–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`Drain Electrode 72 will connect to the signal line and pixel electrode, respectively.
`
`Thus, it is my opinion that the addition of an Organic Passivation Layer as proposed
`
`by Mr. Flasck will require the addition and modification as several other features
`
`and the end result would be a dramatically different device, not contemplated by
`
`either Yuh or Ohta.
`
`44.
`
`In Yuh, the counter electrode and gate line are on the same layer, so
`
`Mr. Flasck’s proposal would result in the organic layer also going under the gate
`
`layer (i.e., the TFT element). But Ohta does not teach forming an Organic
`
`Passivation Layer on a bare substrate.
`
`45. Mr. Flasck also fails to recognize that Yuh already includes a
`
`passivation film 80 in the location taught by Ohta, which renders his proposal
`
`redundant. See Yuh, 20:46-51, Fig. 33. This passivation layer is not organic nor
`
`does it meet any of the other structural limitations in claim 1.
`
`46.
`
`For at least these reasons, it is my opinion that a POSITA would not
`
`combine Yuh and Ohta in a manner that would cure the deficiency in Yuh and
`
`certainly not in the way that Mr. Flasck proposes. Thus, it is further my opinion that
`
`the combination of Yuh and Ohta fails to render claim 1 obvious.
`
`–19–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`3.
`
`Yuh in view of Ohta does not render obvious limitations 1(i),
`1(m), and 1(n).
`47. Mr. Flasck relies on the same combination of Yuh and Ohta for
`
`limitations 1(i), 1(m), and 1(n), which all include further limitations related to the
`
`organic insulation layer. Because it would not be obvious for a POSITA to combine
`
`Yuh and Ohta to include an organic passivation layer as required by claim 1, this
`
`combination also fails to render obvious each of these claim limitations as well.
`
`4.
`
`Yuh in view of Ohta does not render obvious limitations 1(l),
`“wherein the counter electrode is connected to a common
`layer,” and 1(n), “wherein the counter electrode is connected
`to the common layer via a through hole within the organic
`insulation layer.”
`48. Yuh does not disclose a common layer that meets the claims limitations
`
`of claim 1(l) and 1(n). I disagree with Mr. Flasck that “a POSA would have been
`
`motivated and found it obvious to replace the ITO common signal transmitter [24]
`
`and aluminum redundant common signal transmitter [33] in Yuh with a single metal
`
`counter line, as disclosed by Ohta.” Ex.1003, ¶124. In my opinion, a POSITA would
`
`not look to combine an FFS structure (Yuh) with an IPS structure (Ohta) for the
`
`reasons previously discussed related to the different space, electric field, and other
`
`considerations required for the different devices.
`
`49. Mr. Flasck has also fails to articulate any advantage or motivation to
`
`combine Yuh and Ohta. In fact, it is my opinion that Mr. Flasck’s purported
`
`motivations to combine actually demonstrate reasons not to combine Yuh and Ohta.
`
`–20–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`For example, Mr. Flasck proposes modifying the seventh embodiment of Yuh, which
`
`discloses a “common signal transmitter 24” that is “connected to the common
`
`electrode 20 via the connection 23, and located near the right edge of the substrate
`
`100.” Yuh at 21:35-38, Fig. 35A (annotated below).
`
`Connections
`
`Redundant
`Connections
`
`Common Electrode
`
`Gate Line
`Redundant Gate Line
`Yuh, Fig. 35A (Embodiment 7, annotated)
`
`Right Edge of
`Substrate
`
`Common
`Signal
`Transmitter
`
`Redundant
`Common
`Signal
`Transmitter
`
`50. Mr. Flasck states that a POSITA would have been motived to replace
`
`the “redundant common signal transmitter 34” with Ohta’s counter line for two
`
`reasons: Ohta’s single metal counter line (1) removes the need for any “redundant”
`
`components, as used in Yuh, thereby simplifying Yuh’s device” and (2) would have
`
`–21–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`a lower resistance than the ITO common signal transmitter.” Ex.1003, ¶124. In my
`
`opinion, these motivations are meritless because adding a separate metal counter line
`
`in a different layer is just as redundant as providing a metal line directly under the
`
`common electrode and common signal transmitter. Mr. Flasck’s proposal is actually
`
`even more inefficient because it requires an additional insulation layer between the
`
`metal layers. Moreover, Yuh’s seventh embodiment also uses redundant elements
`
`for other parts of the display (e.g., a “redundant gate line 30”), which would not be
`
`replaced with Ohta’s single metal counter line. Accordingly, there is no benefit to
`
`substituting one redundant layer (e.g., for the common signal transmitter) without
`
`removing all redundant layers (e.g., for the gate line).
`
`51. Regarding Mr. Flasck second motivation to combine that Ohta’s single
`
`metal counter signal line would have a lower resistance than the ITO common signal
`
`transmitter is a false comparison. Ohta addresses the resistance issue with the ITO
`
`material by including a redundant metal line directly under the ITO layer. Ohta’s
`
`metal counter line provides no benefit over Yuh’s redundant metal line because they
`
`are both made of the same material. Yuh’s “redundant common signal transmitter
`
`34” is made of “any conductive material such as Al or Al alloy” and may have a
`
`buffer layer “made of refractory metal such as Cr [Chromium] or MoW
`
`[molybdenum Tungsten] alloy.” Yuh at 21:56-61. Ohta’s counter line is disclosed
`
`as “not limited to the chrome-molybdenum alloy and may have a two layer structure
`
`–22–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01060
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`in which aluminum or aluminum alloy is wrapped by chrome molybdenum for
`
`lowering the resistance.”). In other words, both Yuh and Ohta disclose using a
`
`redundant metal line. For at least these reasons, it is my opinion that a POSITA
`
`would not be motivated to combine Yuh and Ohta where there is no apparent benefit
`
`to Yuh for using the configuration shown in Ohta.
`
`52. Mr. Flasck also fails to acknowledge Embodiment 8 in Yuh, which
`
`shows a configuration of “common electrode lines 33 located at the upper parts of
`
`the common electrodes 20 [and] extend[ing] in the transverse direction to electrically
`
`connect the common electrodes 20,” which appears to be the same configuration
`
`shown in Ohta. Yuh at 23:25-28; compare Yuh, Fig. 40 with Ohta, Fig. 1 (annotated
`
`below). And like Ohta’s counter line, Yuh’s “common electrode lines 33 . . . may
`
`be made of any conductive material such as Al, Al alloy, Mo or Cr” and may include
`
`“a buffer layer made of refractory metal such as Cr or MoW.” Id. at 23:36-40.
`
`–23–
`
`
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2010
`
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
