`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`_____________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRUCE W. SMITH
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,423,034
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 91
`
`Tianma Exhibit 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
`I.
`Qualifications and Background ....................................................................... 5
`II.
`III. Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 6
`IV. Legal Standards ............................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 8
`B.
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................... 8
`V.
`The ’034 Patent .............................................................................................. 12
`A. Overview of the ’034 Patent ................................................................ 12
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’034 Patent ............................................... 15
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 15
`VI. Claim Construction of Terms of the ’034 Patent .......................................... 17
`VII. Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability ..................................................... 17
`VIII. Obviousness of Claims 1-4 and 6-8 over Ochiai and Ando .......................... 22
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 22
`B.
`layer and the spacer in a cross-section view. ...................................... 69
`C.
`wherein the spacer is formed on the first substrate. ............................ 71
`D.
`scanning line. ....................................................................................... 74
`E.
`hole is located in the through hole in the plan view. ........................... 75
`
`Claim 6: A liquid crystal display device according to claim 1,
`wherein the organic film has a through hole, and the third contact
`
`Claim 2: A liquid crystal display device according to claim 1,
`wherein the scanning line is disposed between the semiconductor
`
`Claim 3: A liquid crystal display device according to claim 1,
`
`Claim 4: A liquid crystal display device according to claim 1,
`wherein the second pixel electrode is overlapped with the
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`Claim 7: A liquid crystal display device according to claim 6,
`
`F.
`wherein the second insulation film contacts the source electrode. ..... 78
`G.
`away from the third contact hole. ........................................................ 80
`IX. Obviousness of Claim 7 over Ochiai, Ando, and Hattori .............................. 84
`X. Obviousness of Claim 8 over Ochiai, Ando, and Yanagawa ........................ 87
`XI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 91
`
`Claim 8: A liquid crystal display device according to claim 1,
`wherein the spacer is provided on the second substrate and located
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 91
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I, Dr. Bruce W. Smith, submit this declaration to state my opinions on
`
`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 $500 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. 10,423,034
`
`(the “’034 patent”), and I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the
`
`patentability of the claims of the ’034 patent. I understand that the application for
`
`the ’034 patent was filed on June 27, 2018, and claims priority to a foreign
`
`application having a filing date of February 26, 2008.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to consider the validity of certain claims of the ’034
`
`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 February 26, 2008. Based on the prior art
`
`discussed in this declaration, it is my opinion that claims 1-4 and 6-8 of the ’034
`
`patent are unpatentable for the reasons provided below.
`
`[Introduction]
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`5.
`I believe that I am well qualified to serve as a technical expert in this
`
`matter based upon my over 30 years of research, academic, industry, and consulting
`
`engineering experience in IC (integrated circuit) processing, semiconductor device
`
`materials, microelectronics, microlithography, imaging science, thin film transistor
`
`(TFT) processing, and LCD-TFT flat panel display technology.
`
`6.
`
`I am a professor of Microelectronic Engineering and the Director of the
`
`Ph.D. program in Microsystems Engineering at the Rochester Institute of
`
`Technology (RIT).
`
`7.
`
`I am a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE), a Fellow of the International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE), and a
`
`Fellow of the Optical Society of America (OSA). I have received numerous awards
`
`including the IEEE Technology Innovation Award, the RIT Trustees Scholarship
`
`Award, the SPIE Research Mentoring Award, the RIT Creators Award, and the Rush
`
`Henrietta Outstanding Alumni Award, among others, and have been inducted into
`
`RIT’s Innovator Hall of Fame.
`
`8.
`
`I have published over 200 technical papers, articles, textbooks, and
`
`textbook chapters, and I hold 27 patents in the fields of microelectronics and
`
`semiconductor device process technology. My patented technologies have been
`
`licensed both nationally and internationally.
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`Additional details about my employmenthistory, fields of expertise,
`
`9.
`
`and publicationsare further included in mycurriculum vitae, labeled Ex. 1003.
`
`Ill. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`10.
`
`In forming myopinions,I have reviewedthe following documents:
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034 to Takahiro Ochiaiet al.
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034.
`
`Ex. 1005|U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0007679 A1 to
`Takahiro Ochiaiet al. (“Ochiai”)
`
`Ex. 1006|U.S. Patent No. 6,356,330 to Masahiko Andoet al. (“Ando”)
`
`Ex. 1007‘|U.S. Patent No. 7,173,281 to Yoshiharu Hirakata et al. (“Hirakata’’)
`
`Ex. 1008|Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007/293155A to
`Yasuo Segawaet al. and certified translation. (“Segawa”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`|U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0018816 A1 to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,798,486 to Kazuhiko Yanagawa et al.
`(“Yanagawa’’)
`
`Takashi Hattori et al. (“Hattori”) Ex. 1010
`
`Ex.1011|McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Chemical Terms, Definition of
`“Resin” (3d ed. 1984).
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,342 to Yoshiharu Hirakata et al.
`
`Ex. 1013|Henry Hall, Fault Identification on TFT-LCD Substrates Using
`Transfer Admittance Measurement, Society for Information
`Display - Application Notes (1992).
`
`Ex. 1014|Cheryl Faltermeier, Barrier Properties of Titanium Nitride Films
`Grown by Low Temperature Chemical Vapor Deposition from
`Titanium Tetraiodide, J. Electrochem. Soc., Vol. 144, No. 3 (1997).
`
`[Materials Considered]
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Ex. 1015|Sung-Yul Lee, Diffusion of Aluminum in B-Titanium, Materials
`Transactions, Vol. 51, No. 10, pp. 1809-1813 (2010).
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,989 to Nakayoshi et al.
`
`2:20-cv-00283 (EDTX).
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement and
`Exhibits filed in Japan Display Inc. f/k/a Hitachi Electronic
`Devices (USA), Inc. et al. v. Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`11.
`
`In forming myopinions and considering the subject matter of the ’034
`
`patent andits claimsin 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.
`
`12.
`
`lL 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 comparedto the construed claims.
`
`13.
`
`[understandthat a claimed invention is only patentable whenit is new,
`
`useful, and non-obviousin light of the “prior art.” That is, the invention, as defined
`
`by the claims of the patent, must not be anticipated by or rendered obvious by the
`
`priorart.
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`Page 7 of 91
`
`7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`A. Claim Construction
`14.
`I understand that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`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.
`
`15.
`
`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.
`
`16.
`
`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.
`
`B. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`17.
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid as obvious if the claimed
`
`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
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`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.
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`19.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that one must determine what differences, if any, existed
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art.
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`I understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is not
`
`21.
`
`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.
`
`22.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`I understand that there is no rigid rule that a reference or combination
`
`23.
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`[Legal Standards]
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`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.
`
`25.
`
`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 ’034 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’034 Patent
`26. The ’034 patent relates to a liquid crystal display (“LCD”) device.
`
`’034 patent, Title, Abstract, 2:47-52. It explains that it was known before February
`
`26, 2008, the ’034 patent’s earliest related application filing date, to position
`
`columnar spacers at various intersections of drain and scanning lines of a liquid
`
`crystal display. ’034 patent, 1:29-2:43. The ’034 patent states that its device
`
`suppresses “oriental disturbance and transmittance reduction due to formation of
`
`the [spacer] column.” ’034 patent, 2:47-52.
`
`27.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites a liquid crystal display device including
`
`numerous structural features:
`
`1. A liquid crystal display device comprising:
`a first substrate;
`a second substrate;
`
`[The ’034 Patent]
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`liquid crystal enclosed between the first substrate and the second
`substrate;
`a scanning line formed between the first substrate and the liquid
`crystal;
`a drain line crossing the scanning line;
`a thin film transistor having a semiconductor layer and a source
`electrode,
`a first insulation film above the semiconductor layer and having
`a first contact hole and a second contact hole, the
`semiconductor layer being connected to the drain line via the
`first contact hole and connected to the source electrode via the
`second contact hole;
`an organic film above the source electrode;
`a second insulation film;
`a common electrode between the organic film and the second
`insulation film;
`a first pixel electrode above the second insulation film and
`connected to the source electrode via a third contact hole
`formed in the second insulation film;
`a second pixel electrode adjacent to the first pixel electrode; and
`a spacer disposed between the first substrate and the second
`substrate,
`wherein the scanning line has a first side and a second side
`opposite to the first side in the plan view, the first pixel
`electrode is located on the first side and the second pixel
`electrode is located on the second side,
`
`[The ’034 Patent]
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`wherein the semiconductor layer overlapped with the scanning
`line at a first channel region and a second channel region, and
`a part of the semiconductor layer between the first channel
`region and the second channel region is located on the second
`side of the scanning line,
`wherein the spacer is overlapped with the semiconductor layer,
`the drain line, the organic film, and the common electrode,
`wherein the first contact hole, the second contact hole, and the
`third contact hole are located on the first side of the scanning
`line, and
`wherein the part of the semiconductor layer between the first
`channel region and the second channel region is overlapped
`with the second pixel electrode.
`
`
`28. Annotated Figure 1 below provides a plan view of an embodiment of
`
`the LCD, including a semiconductor layer 103 having an “inverted-C shape.” ’034
`
`patent, 4:55-56, 5:47-49, 7:7-9.
`
`’034 patent, FIG. 1 (annotated).
`
`[The ’034 Patent]
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`29. Annotated Figure 3 provides a cross-sectional view of the thin-film
`
`transistor portion of the LCD. ’034 patent, 4:59-60, 7:50-8:6.
`
`
`
`’034 patent, FIG. 3 (annotated).
`
`B.
`30.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’034 Patent
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the application that led to the
`
`’034 patent. Ex. 1004. Nothing in the prosecution history changes my opinions
`
`expressed in this declaration.
`
`C.
`31.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I have been informed that patentability must be analyzed from the
`
`perspective of “one of ordinary skill in the art” in the same field as the ’034 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
`
`[The ’034 Patent]
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`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.
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the ’034
`
`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
`
`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 ’034 patent, my analysis regarding the ’034 patent has
`
`been based on the perspective of one ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date
`
`of the ’034 patent.
`
`33.
`
`I am also familiar with the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art as of the priority date of the ’034 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
`
`’034 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.
`
`[The ’034 Patent]
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF TERMS OF THE ’034 PATENT
`34. 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. 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.
`
`VII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ON UNPATENTABILITY
`35.
`In my opinion, the challenged claims are unpatentable based on a
`
`combination of prior art. As shown below in annotated FIGS. 3 and 5, Ochiai
`
`discloses a liquid crystal display device having most elements of the claims
`
`including first and second glass substrates SUB1 (pink), SUB2 (navy), a liquid
`
`crystal layer LC (gold), a scanning line G (red), a thin-film transistor having a
`
`semiconductor layer (gray) and a source electrode DD (teal), an inter-layer insulating
`
`film 13 (yellow) and inter-layer insulating film 17 (blue), a common electrode CT
`
`(green), and pixel electrodes PIX (orange). Ochiai, ¶¶106, 109, 110, 111, 138, 144.
`
`[Claim Construction of Terms of the ’034 Patent]
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Ochiai, FIG. 3 (annotated).
`
`Ochiai, FIG. 5 (annotated).
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`In addition, as shown below in annotated FIG. 1A, Ochiai discloses that
`
`36.
`
`a part of the semiconductor layer between the first and second channel regions is
`
`located on the second side of the scanning line. Ochiai, ¶48.
`
`
`
`Ochiai, FIG. 1A (annotated).
`
`37. Ochiai further discloses, as shown in the magnified portion of FIG.
`
`1A below, that a part of the semiconductor layer is overlapped with the second
`
`pixel electrode.
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Ochiai, FIG. 1A (annotated).
`
`
`
`38. Like Ochiai, Ando discloses an LCD device. As shown below in
`
`annotated FIG. 3, Ando’s LCD device includes first 201 (pink) and second 207
`
`(navy) glass substrates, a scanning wire 101 (red), a thin-film transistor having a
`
`semiconductor layer (gray), a signal wire 103 (light blue), a common electrode 107
`
`(green), and a pixel electrode 106 (orange). Ando further discloses the well-known
`
`use of a spacer (purple) disposed between the first and second glass substrates. Ando,
`
`6:54-7:7, 7:38-45, 8:49-58.
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Ando,FIG. 3 (annotated).
`
`39.
`
`In the analysis that follows, I identify the following combinations of
`
`prior art that, in my opinion, render obvious the ’034 patent’s claims:
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Obviousness of claims 1-4 and 6-8 over Ochiai and Ando. Obviousness of claim 7 over Ochiai, Ando, and Hattori
`
`Obviousnessof claim 8 over Ochiai, Ando, and Yanagawa.
`
`[Summary of Opinions on Unpatentability]
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`VIII. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-4 AND 6-8 OVER OCHIAI AND ANDO
`40. As detailed below, in my opinion, Ochiai and Ando render obvious
`
`claims 1-4 and 6-8.
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`1(pre): A liquid crystal display device comprising:
`41. Ochiai discloses a “transflective liquid crystal display device.” Ochiai,
`
`¶3 (“The present invention relates to . . . a transflective liquid crystal display device
`
`of an in-plane switching type or a vertical alignment type.”); see also id., ¶48 (“FIG.
`
`1A shows a plan of the electrode structure of the subpixel in a transflective liquid
`
`crystal display device, which is a first embodiment of the present invention.”), ¶¶49-
`
`53, 94-122, FIGS. 1A, 1B, 3, 5. Ochiai thus discloses this limitation of claim 1, in
`
`my opinion.
`
`1(a): a first substrate;
`42. As shown below in annotated FIG. 5, Ochiai’s LCD device includes a
`
`glass substrate SUB1 (pink) (the claimed “first substrate”). Ochiai, ¶106 (“[A]s
`
`shown in FIG. 5, a pair of glass substrates (SUB1 and SUB2) are disposed with a
`
`liquid crystal layer (LC) containing a large number of liquid crystal molecules
`
`sandwiched between them.”). Ochiai thus discloses this limitation of claim 1, in my
`
`opinion.
`
`[Obviousness of Claims 1-4 and 6-8 over Ochiai and Ando]
`
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Ochiai, FIG. 5 (annotated).
`
`
`
`1(b): a second substrate;
`43. As shown below in annotated FIG. 5, Ochiai’s LCD device includes a
`
`glass substrate SUB2 (navy) (the claimed “second substrate”). Ochiai, ¶106 (“In this
`
`first embodiment, as shown in FIG. 5, a pair of glass substrates (SUB1 and SUB2)
`
`are disposed with a liquid crystal layer (LC) containing a large number of liquid
`
`crystal molecules sandwiched between them.”). Ochiai thus, in my opinion,
`
`discloses this limitation of claim 1.
`
`[Obviousness of Claims 1-4 and 6-8 over Ochiai and Ando]
`
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Ochiai, FIG. 5 (annotated).
`
`
`
`1(c): liquid crystal enclosed between the first substrate and
`the second substrate;
`44. As shown below in annotated FIG. 5, Ochiai’s LCD device includes a
`
`liquid crystal layer LC (gold) (the claimed “liquid crystal”) enclosed between the
`
`first glass substrate SUB1 (pink) and second glass substrate SUB2 (navy). Ochiai,
`
`¶106 (“In this first embodiment, as shown in FIG. 5, a pair of glass substrates (SUB1
`
`and SUB2) are disposed with a liquid crystal layer (LC) containing a large number
`
`of liquid crystal molecules sandwiched between them.”). Ochiai thus discloses this
`
`limitation of claim 1, in my opinion.
`
`[Obviousness of Claims 1-4 and 6-8 over Ochiai and Ando]
`
`
`24
`
`Page 24 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Ochiai, FIG. 5 (annotated).
`
`
`
`1(d): a scanning line formed between the first substrate and
`the liquid crystal;
`45. As shown below in annotated FIG. 3, Ochiai’s LCD device includes a
`
`scanning line G (red) (the claimed “scanning line”). Ochiai, ¶¶109, 111 (“In FIG.
`
`1A through FIG. 5, reference sign D denotes an image line (also referred to as a
`
`source line); G, a scanning line (also referred to as a gate line) . . . .”).
`
`
`Ochiai, FIG. 3 (annotated).
`[Obviousness of Claims 1-4 and 6-8 over Ochiai and Ando]
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`Page 25 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`46. Although not specifically shown in Ochiai’s figures, in my opinion, one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Ochiai’s scanning line is formed
`
`between the glass substrate SUB1 (pink) and the liquid crystal layer LC (gold). As
`
`shown above in annotated FIG. 3, the scanning line is formed between an inter-layer
`
`insulating film 13 (yellow) and an inter-layer insulating film 16 (olive green). And
`
`as shown below in annotated FIG. 5, the inter-layer insulating film 16 is located
`
`below the liquid crystal layer LC and above glass substrate SUB1. Given the relative
`
`positions of the inter-layer insulating films 13 and 16 in Figure 5, in my opinion, one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the scanning line (located
`
`between those layers) is likewise positioned between the liquid crystal layer and the
`
`first substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Figure 5
`
`that the liquid crystal layer is positioned above inter-layer insulating film 16 in
`
`Figure 3 such that the scanning line G is located between the liquid crystal layer and
`
`the first substrate.
`
`[Obviousness of Claims 1-4 and 6-8 over Ochiai and Ando]
`
`
`26
`
`Page 26 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Ochiai, FIG. 5 (annotated).
`
`
`
`47. Ochiai thus discloses this limitation of claim 1, in my opinion.
`
`1(e): a drain line crossing the scanning line;
`48. As shown below in annotated FIG. 5, Ochiai’s LCD device includes an
`
`“image line D” (blue) (the claimed “drain line”) crossing the scanning line G (red).
`
`Ochiai, ¶111 (“In FIG. 1A through FIG. 5, reference sign D denotes an image line
`
`(also referred to as a source line) . . . .”), ¶143 (“The direction in which the image
`
`lines (D) extend and that in which the scanning lines (G) and the counter electrodes
`
`(CT) extend cross each other either orthogonally or otherwise. The counter
`
`electrodes (CT) are arranged in a stripe shape.” (emphasis added)).
`
`[Obviousness of Claims 1-4 and 6-8 over Ochiai and Ando]
`
`
`27
`
`Page 27 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Ochiai, FIG. 1A (annotated).
`
``
`
`49. While Ochiai describes image line D as a “source line” (Ochiai, ¶111),
`
`in my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the image
`
`line would also have been properly called a “drain line.” The designation of the
`
`image line as either a source line or a drain line is an arbitrary naming convention,
`
`as it is typical in the LCD field for an image line to be designated as either the source
`
`line or the drain line. Ex. 1009, ¶90 (“Referring again to FIG. 1, there are shown an
`
`image line D (also referred to as a drain line or source line), a scanning line G (also
`
`referred to as a gate line) . . . [and] a source electrode 4 (also referred to as a drain
`
`electrode in a case of describing the image line D as the source line).” (emphases
`
`added)), FIG. 1; Ex. 1013, 2-3 (“Note that we call the TFT connection to the data
`
`[Obviousness of Claims 1-4 and 6-8 over Ochiai and Ando]
`
`
`28
`
`Page 28 of 91
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Bruce Smith - IPR2021-01061
`U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`line the drain, while some call it the source.”); see also Ex. 1010, 6:15-18
`
`(designating the i