`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. and PANASONIC LIQUID CRYSTAL
`DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-01060
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`_____________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD FLASCK
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,330,989
`
`Page 1 of 121
`
`Tianma Exhibit 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Qualifications and Background ....................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 7
`IV. Legal Standards ............................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 8
`B.
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................... 9
`V.
`The ’989 Patent ..............................................................................................12
`A. Overview of the ’989 Patent ................................................................12
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’989 Patent ...............................................15
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .....................................................15
`VI. Claim Construction of Terms of the ’989 Patent ..........................................16
`VII. Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability .....................................................17
`A. Ground 1 ..............................................................................................17
`1.
`Yuh.............................................................................................18
`2.
`Ohta ...........................................................................................20
`3.
`Abe .............................................................................................23
`B.
`Ground 2 ..............................................................................................25
`1.
`Kim ............................................................................................25
`C.
`Ground 3 ..............................................................................................27
`1.
`Kurahashi ..................................................................................27
`D. Ground 4 ..............................................................................................30
`VIII. Obviousness of Claims 1 and 2 .....................................................................31
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 121
`
`

`

`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`
`
`Ohta, and Abe ......................................................................................31
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................31
`2.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................76
`Ohta, Abe, and Kim .............................................................................84
`1.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................84
`and Kurahashi .....................................................................................88
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................88
`2.
`Claim 2 ....................................................................................111
`D. Ground 4: Claim 2 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Yuh,
`Kurahashi, and Kim ...........................................................................114
`1.
`Claim 2 ....................................................................................114
`IX. Conclusion ...................................................................................................118
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1–2 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Yuh
`
`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`Ground 1: Claims 1–2 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Yuh,
`
`Ground 2: Claim 2 Would Have Been Obvious Based on Yuh,
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 121
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I, Mr. Richard Flasck, submit this declaration to state my opinions on
`1.
`
`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`the matter described below.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd.,
`
`(“Tianma” or “Petitioner”), as an independent expert in this proceeding before the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. Although I am being compensated at
`
`my usual and customary rate of $495.00 per hour, no part of my compensation
`
`depends on the outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other interest in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`(the “’989 patent”), and I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the
`
`patentability of the claims of the ’989 patent. I understand that the application for
`
`the ’989 patent was filed on September 21, 2016, and claims priority to a foreign
`
`application having a filing date of October 15, 2001.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to consider the validity of certain claims of the ’989
`
`patent based on certain prior art references. I have also been asked to consider the
`
`state of the art and prior art available as of October 15, 2001, as well as September
`
`10, 2002, the filing date of the earliest-filed United States application. Based on the
`
`prior art discussed in this declaration, it is my opinion that claims 1 and 2 of the ’989
`
`patent are unpatentable for the reasons provided below.
`
`[Introduction]
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`I believe that I am well qualified to serve as a technical expert in this
`5.
`
`matter based upon my educational and work experience, and specifically, flat panel
`
`display devices, including liquid crystal displays (“LCDs”).
`
`6.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the University
`
`of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1970. I thereafter received a Master of Science degree
`
`in Physics from Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, in 1976. I am the
`
`founder and CEO of RAF Electronics Corp., where I developed and patented Liquid
`
`Crystal on Silicon (LCOS) microdisplay projection technology as well as developed
`
`proprietary LED-based Solid State Lighting (SSL) products.
`
`7.
`
`After receiving my Bachelor’s degree, I was employed as a scientist
`
`and a manager by Energy Conversion Devices, Inc., from 1970 through 1982. My
`
`work at Energy Conversion Devices concerned the development of thin film
`
`photovoltaics, ablative imaging films, non-volatile memory, multi-chip modules,
`
`and superconducting materials. After leaving Energy Conversion Devices, I founded
`
`and served as CEO of Alphasil, Inc., where I developed amorphous silicon thin film
`
`transistor (TFT) active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCDs). I established one
`
`of the world’s first TFT AMLCD production lines in 1985. My work at Alphasil
`
`included TFT process and circuit design, data driver and gate driver design, scalers,
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`video circuits, gamma correction circuits, backlighting, and inverter design. I
`
`worked at Alphasil from 1982 through 1989.
`
`8.
`
`After leaving Alphasil, I founded RAF Electronics Corp., described
`
`above. I have served as CEO of RAF Electronics since that time. In 1997, I took the
`
`position of President and COO at Alien Technology Corporation, where I was
`
`responsible for completing a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
`
`(DARPA) contract, and for implementing MEM fluidic self-assembly (FSA)
`
`technology. I left the position in 1999.
`
`9.
`
`In 2002, I co-founded and served as COO of Diablo Optics, Inc., where
`
`I developed, produced, and commercialized key optical components for HDTV
`
`projectors, such as polarization optics, condenser lenses, projection lenses, and ultra-
`
`high performance optical interference filters using thin film stacks in conjunction
`
`with LCD and LED arrays and devices. I left Diablo in 2007.
`
`10. Regarding LED devices specifically, my experience is as follows: In
`
`the early 1970s, I designed and developed test equipment using LED arrays. This
`
`work resulted in the 1973 conference publication: H. Rockstad, and R. Flasck,
`
`“Photo –thermopower in Amorphous Chalcogenide Films,” Proceedings of the Fifth
`
`International Conference on Amorphous and Liquid Semiconductors, Garmisch-
`
`Partenkirchen, Germany, 1311-1315 (1973). Starting in the mid 1970s, I was
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`involved in the design and fabrication of LED displays which comprised X-Y arrays
`
`of LEDs mounted on circuit boards.
`
`11. Beginning around 2000, I developed several LED based products
`
`including: LED panels for LCD backlighting units (BLUs), including dynamic
`
`contrast control; LED railroad warning signage for outdoor use; LED panels for
`
`therapeutic medical devices addressing seasonal affective disorder (SAD); LED
`
`structures for medical diagnostic devices; LED panels for backlighting units,
`
`including dynamic contrasts control; LED based light engines for HDTV projectors;
`
`and LED panels and instruments for theatrical and stage use. These activities
`
`resulted in my US Patent 9,328,898. In 2019 I was awarded a State of California
`
`CalSEED Concept Award Grant for this technology with successful completion of
`
`the project in the summer of 2020.
`
`12.
`
`I am listed as an inventor on twenty-six patents issued in the United
`
`States and foreign countries, including one United States design patent. My
`
`inventions concern technologies including LCD, LED devices, semiconductor
`
`materials, glass materials, non-volatile memory cells, thin film transistors, flat panel
`
`backplanes and displays, and wafer based active matrices.
`
`13.
`
`I have authored or co-authored twenty-five articles or conference
`
`presentations, including numerous papers and presentations concerning lighting and
`
`display technologies. My curriculum vitae (Ex. 1003) lists these articles and
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`conference presentations. Of particular interest may be the following papers and
`
`presentations:
`
`•
`
`R. Flasck, “Design, Production, and Application of High Performance
`
`Dichroic Coatings - One Step Beyond the Cutting Edge,” presented at
`
`the SAIC Non-Imaging Optics Workshop, La Jolla, CA, August 25,
`
`2007.
`
`•
`
`R. Flasck, “The Critical Role of Optical Interference Coatings in High
`
`Brightness – Etendue Limited Systems Such as HDTV Projectors,” at
`
`the 2007 Optical Interference Coatings Topical Meeting and Tabletop
`
`Exhibit, Optical Society of America, June 7, 2007.
`
`R. Flasck, “X-Cubes – Revisited for LCOS,” Bay Area Society for
`
`Information Display Meeting, October 24, 2002.
`
`R. Flasck, “The Care and Feeding of Single Crystal Silicon Light Valve
`
`Design,” Society for Information Display FPD Strategic and Technical
`
`Symposium, September 9-10, 1998.
`
`R. Flasck, “The Care and Feeding of Single Crystal Silicon Light Valve
`
`Design,” Stanford Resources 1998 Display Conference.
`
`R. Flasck, and E. Rawson, “High Optical Efficiency PDLC/CMOS
`
`Projection Systems,” IC Expo/WESCON 1996.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`R. Flasck, “Current and Near Term Applications of Flat Panel Display
`
`•
`
`Devices,” Applications of Electronic Imaging; John Urbach, Editor;
`
`Proceedings of SPIE, Vol 1082 (1989). Invited Critical Review Paper.
`
`•
`
`R. Flasck, “U.S. Display Suppliers and Developers: Comments on
`
`Developments and Manufacturing,” Flat Panel Displays 1988
`
`Conference and Exhibition; Stanford Resources, Inc. (1988). Invited
`
`Presentation and Expert Panel Member.
`
`•
`
`R. Flasck, and S. Holmberg, “Amorphous Silicon Thin Film Transistor
`
`(TFT) Driven Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD),” Advances in Display
`
`Technology V, Elliott Schlam, Editor, Proceedings of SPIE, Vol 526,
`
`94-98 (1985).
`
`14. Since 2007, I have served as an expert witness on over fifty patent
`
`disputes (District Court cases, ITC hearings, IPRs and PGRs). Most of these matters
`
`involved LCD, active matrix, and flat panel displays. I have testified in both District
`
`Court and before the ITC.
`
`15.
`
`I am also a member of the several professional organizations, including
`
`the OSA, SPIE, AES, SID, and the IEEE.
`
`16.
`
`In summary, I have over 50 years of experience in the field of high tech
`
`product development of flat panel display devices, including LCD and LED systems.
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 121
`
`

`

`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the following documents:
`17.
`
`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989 to Yoashiaki Nakayoshi et al.
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Yuh et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,577,368 (“Yuh”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ohta, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2001/0009447 (“Ohta”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Abe, U.S. Patent No. 6,507,383 (“Abe”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Kurahashi et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,600,541 (“Kurahashi”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Kim et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,580,487 (“Kim”)
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`In forming my opinions and considering the subject matter of the ’989
`18.
`
`patent and its claims in light of the prior art, I am relying on certain legal principles
`
`that counsel in this case explained to me. My understanding of these concepts is
`
`summarized below.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the claims define the invention. I also understand that
`
`an unpatentability analysis is a two-step process. First, the claims of the patent are
`
`construed to determine their meaning and scope. Second, after the claims are
`
`construed, the content of the prior art is compared to the construed claims.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is only patentable when it is new,
`
`useful, and non-obvious in light of the “prior art.” That is, the invention, as defined
`
`[Materials Considered]
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`by the claims of the patent, must not be anticipated by or rendered obvious by the
`
`prior art.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`I understand that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`21.
`
`interprets claim terms in an inter-partes review proceeding under the same claim
`
`construction standard that is used in a United States federal court. I understand that
`
`under this standard, the meaning of claim terms is considered from the viewpoint of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that claim terms are generally given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of
`
`the specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. I understand,
`
`however, that claim terms are generally not limited by the embodiments described
`
`in the specification.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that in addition to the claims, specification, and
`
`prosecution history, other evidence may be considered to ascertain the meaning of
`
`claim terms, including textbooks, encyclopedias, articles, and dictionaries. I have
`
`been informed that this other evidence is often less significant and less reliable than
`
`the claims, specification, and prosecution history.
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`B. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid as obvious if the claimed
`24.
`
`invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the claimed invention was made. This means that even if all of the elements of the
`
`claim cannot be found in a single prior art reference that would anticipate the claim,
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the field who knew about all the prior art would have
`
`come up with the claimed invention. I understand that in an obviousness
`
`determination, the person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have knowledge
`
`of all material prior art. I understand that whether a claim is obvious is based upon
`
`the determination of several factual issues.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that obviousness is a determination of law based on
`
`underlying determinations of fact. I understand that these factual determinations
`
`include the scope and content of the prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`26.
`
`In considering obviousness, I understand that one must determine the
`
`scope and content of the prior art. I understand that, in order to be considered as prior
`
`art to a patent being considered, a prior art reference must be reasonably related to
`
`the claimed invention of that patent. A reference is reasonably related if it is in the
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`same field as the claimed invention or is from another field to which a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would look to solve a known problem.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that one must determine what differences, if any, existed
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is not
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was independently
`
`known in the prior art. In evaluating whether such a claim would have been obvious,
`
`one may consider whether a reason has been identified that would have prompted a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements or concepts from the prior
`
`art in the same way as in the claimed invention. There is no single way to define the
`
`line between true inventiveness on the one hand (which is patentable) and the
`
`application of common sense and ordinary skill to solve a problem on the other hand
`
`(which is not patentable). For example, market forces or other design incentives may
`
`be what produced a change, rather than true inventiveness.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that whether a prior art reference renders a patent claim
`
`unpatentable as obvious is determined from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I have been told that there is no
`
`requirement that the prior art contain an express suggestion to combine known
`
`elements to achieve the claimed invention, but a suggestion to combine known
`
`elements to achieve the claimed invention may come from the prior art, as filtered
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`through the knowledge of one skilled in the art. In addition, I have been told that the
`
`inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ are
`
`also relevant to the determination of obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that there is no rigid rule that a reference or combination
`
`of references must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to combine
`
`references. But I also understand that the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test
`
`can be a useful guide in establishing a rationale for combining elements of the prior
`
`art. I have been told that this test poses the question as to whether there is an express
`
`or implied teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art elements in a
`
`way that realizes the claimed invention, and that it seeks to counter impermissible
`
`hindsight analysis.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that one may consider, e.g., whether (1) the change was
`
`merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to their known
`
`functions, or whether it was the result of true inventiveness; (2) there is some
`
`teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the modification or combination of
`
`elements claimed in the patent; (3) the claimed innovation applies a known technique
`
`that had been used to improve a similar device or method in a similar way; (4) the
`
`claimed invention would have been obvious to try, meaning that the claimed
`
`innovation was one of a relatively small number of possible approaches to the
`
`problem with a reasonable expectation of success by those skilled in the art; (5) the
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`invention merely substituted one known element for another known element in order
`
`to obtain predictable results; (6) the invention merely applies a known technique to
`
`a known device, method, or product to yield predictable results; or (7) known work
`
`in the field may have prompted variations of use of the same inventions in the same
`
`or different fields due to market forces or design incentives that would have been
`
`predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that any assertion of secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness must be accompanied by a nexus between the merits of the invention
`
`and the evidence offered.
`
`V. THE ’989 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’989 Patent
`33. The ’989 patent describes “[a] liquid crystal display device” that
`
`includes “a first substrate,” “a second substrate,” and a “liquid crystal layer
`
`between the first substrate and the second substrate, containing liquid crystal
`
`molecules.” ’989 patent, 1:55–61, 52:8–12. Figure 61 illustrates an example
`
`embodiment of the liquid crystal device claimed in claims 1 and 2. As shown in
`
`Figure 61, formed on the first substrate are each of: “a common layer,” “an organic
`
`insulation layer,” “a counter electrode,” “a gate insulation layer,” “a pixel
`
`electrode,” and “a drain line.” Id., 52:13–29. “[T]he counter electrode is connected
`
`[The ’989 Patent]
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`to the common layer via a through hole within the organic insulation layer.” Id.,
`
`52:32-34.
`
`
`
`’989 patent, Figure 1 (annotated).
`
`34. Figure 60 illustrates a plan view of the device shown in Figure 61. As
`
`shown, the device further includes “a gate line.” ’989 patent, 52:13. “[T]he counter
`
`electrode is a planer shape, and the pixel electrode comprises a slit having a first
`
`portion, and the first portion is not parallel with the gate line and the drain line.”
`
`Id., 52:24–27. Additionally, “the common layer is a planer shape” and “faces
`
`plural of the pixel electrode.” Id., 52:35–37.
`
`[The ’989 Patent]
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`’989 patent, Figure 1 (annotated).
`
`[The ’989 Patent]
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`B.
`35.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’989 Patent
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the application that led to the
`
`’989 patent. Ex. 1002. I understand that while Kurahashi and Kim were both cited
`
`during prosecution, neither was ever substantively considered or relied on by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`36. Nothing in the prosecution history changes my opinions expressed in
`
`this declaration.
`
`C.
`37.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I am informed that patentability must be analyzed from the perspective
`
`of “one of ordinary skill in the art” in the same field as the ’989 patent at the time of
`
`the invention. I am also informed that several factors are considered in assessing the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art, including (1) the types of problems encountered in
`
`the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those problems; (3) the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the technology; and (5) the education
`
`level of active workers in the field.
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the ’989
`
`patent as of its earliest priority date would have had at least a four-year
`
`undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or physics or a closely related field
`
`and four years of experience in the design and implementation of flat panel display
`
`devices or components thereof. Additional education could substitute for
`
`[The ’989 Patent]
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`professional experience and significant work experience could substitute for formal
`
`education. Although I surpass this definition of one of ordinary skill in the art now
`
`and at the priority date of the ’989 patent, my analysis regarding the ’989 patent has
`
`been based on the perspective of one ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date
`
`of the ’989 patent.
`
`39.
`
`I am also familiar with the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art as of the priority date of the ’989 patent. I am able to opine on how the person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosure and claims of the
`
`’989 patent, the disclosures of the prior art, the motivation to combine the prior art,
`
`and what combinations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF TERMS OF THE ’989 PATENT
`40. As I discussed above, I have been informed that for purposes of inter-
`
`partes reviews, the standard for claim construction of terms within the claims of the
`
`patent is the same as that applied in federal district court litigation.
`
`41.
`
`I have been asked for purposes of this declaration to assume that the
`
`preamble of independent claim 1 is limiting. I have been asked to assume that the
`
`claims terms otherwise have their plain and ordinary meaning to a person skilled in
`
`the art in light of the specification and the prosecution history.
`
`[Claim Construction of Terms of the ’989 Patent]
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ON UNPATENTABILITY
`In the analysis that follows, I identify the following combinations of
`42.
`
`prior art that, in my opinion, render obvious the ’989 patent claims:
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Obviousness of claims 1 and 2 over Yuh, Ohta, and Abe.
`
`Obviousness of claim 2 over Yuh, Ohta, Abe, and Kim.
`
`Obviousness of claims 1 and 2 over Yuh and Kurahashi.
`
`Obviousness of claim 2 over Yuh, Kurahashi, and Abe.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`A. Ground 1
`In my opinion, claims 1 and 2 would have been obvious based on Yuh,
`43.
`
`Ohta, and Abe.
`
`44.
`
`In my opinion, Yuh, Ohta, and Abe are analogous art to the
`
`’989 patent. Each is from the same field of endeavor, LCD devices, and each is
`
`reasonably pertinent to one of the particular problems dealt with by the inventor.
`
`For example, Yuh and Ohta are pertinent to improving a holding capacity of an
`
`LCD device while maintaining aperture ratio, which the ’989 patent also describes.
`
`’989 patent, 3:14–26, Yuh, 2:39–43 3:42–46, Ohta, 16:17–64. Abe is pertinent to
`
`achieving a multi-domain effect in an LCD device, which the ’989 patent also
`
`describes. ’989 patent, 41:35–57, Abe, 36:31–67.
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`Yuh
`1.
`45. Yuh, U.S. Patent No. 6,577,368, was filed November 3, 1998. I am
`
`told this makes Yuh prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`46. Yuh describes an LCD device, shown in Figure 2, that includes a
`
`lower substrate, an upper substrate, and a liquid crystal layer therebetween. Yuh,
`
`7:1–3. Yuh’s device further includes a linear electrode (also called a pixel
`
`electrode) and a planar electrode (also called a common electrode or planar
`
`common electrode), as well as an insulating film. Id., 6:45–54, 20:17–19, 20:25–
`
`26, 20:46–48.
`
`Yuh, Figure 2 (annotated).
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`47. A layout view of Yuh’s device is shown in Figure 35A. Yuh, 5:29–30.
`
`As shown, the pixel electrodes include slits, and the device also includes a gate line
`
`and a data line.
`
`Yuh, Figure 35A (annotated).
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`48. A cross-section of Yuh’s device is shown in Figure 35B. As shown, in
`
`Yuh’s device, the planar common electrode, a gate insulating film (akin to the
`
`insulating film in Figure 2), and the pixel electrodes are all formed on the lower
`
`glass substrate.
`
`
`
`Yuh, Figure 35B (annotated).
`
`49. The linear or pixel electrode in Yuh’s device is akin to the claimed
`
`“pixel electrode”; the planar or common electrode in Yuh’s device is akin to the
`
`claimed “counter electrode”; and the insulating film or gate insulating film in
`
`Yuh’s device is akin to the claimed “gate insulation layer.”
`
`Ohta
`2.
`50. Ohta, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2001/0009447 published July 26,
`
`2001. I am told this makes Ohta prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(a) and (e).
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`51. Ohta describes an LCD device that, similar to Yuh’s and the claimed
`
`liquid crystal device, includes a pixel electrode, a counter electrode, and a “liquid
`
`crystal composition formed between a lower-side substrate and an upper-side
`
`substrate.” Ohta, [0048]–[0049], [0057], [0092], [0095]. Ohta’s device also
`
`includes an insulating film and an organic passivation layer, as shown. Id., [0068],
`
`[0085].
`
`Ohta, Figure 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`21
`
`Page 24 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`In Ohta, the voltage is applied to the counter electrode via a counter
`
`52.
`
`line formed of a “conductive film,” such as a “chrome-molybdenum alloy.” Ohta,
`
`[0066]. Ohta’s counter line is illustrated in Figure 4. Id. As shown, the counter
`
`electrode is connected to the counter line via a through hole in the organic
`
`passivation layer. Id., [0092].
`
`
`
`Ohta, Figure 4 (annotated).
`
`53. The pixel electrode in Ohta’s device is akin to the claimed “pixel
`
`electrode”; the counter electrode in Ohta’s device is akin to the claimed “counter
`
`electrode”; the insulating film in Ohta’s device is akin to the claimed “gate
`
`insulation layer”; the organic passivation layer in Ohta’s device is akin to the
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`22
`
`Page 25 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`claimed “organic insulation layer”; and the counter line in Ohta’s device is akin to
`
`the claims “common layer.”
`
`3.
`Abe
`54. Abe, U.S. Patent No. 6,507,383, is a national stage of a PCT
`
`application having a § 102(e) date of June 29, 2001. I am told this makes Abe prior
`
`art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`55. Abe describes an LCD device that, similar to Yuh’s and the claimed
`
`liquid crystal device, includes a pixel electrode and a common signal electrode.
`
`Abe, Abstract, 19:37–54. Abe’s common signal electrode is planar, and Abe’s pixel
`
`electrode includes a slit. Abe, 19:8–17. In Abe, the “slit [has] a first portion ... not
`
`parallel with the gate line and the drain line,” as shown in Figure 29. According to
`
`Abe, this provides “a so-called multi domain system liquid crystal display unit”
`
`that prevents a “difference in coloration” that is “produced when a display area”
`
`not employing the multi-domain system “is viewed from right and left.” Id., 36:31–
`
`42.
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`23
`
`Page 26 of 121
`
`

`

`Declaration of Mr. Richard Flasck
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989
`
`
`
`Abe, Figure 29 (annotated).
`
`56.
`
`In my opinion, the pixel electrode in Abe’s device is akin to the
`
`claimed “pixel electrode”; the slit in Abe’s device is akin to the claimed “slit”;