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 IPR No: IPR2021-01061
`Patent No. 10,423,034
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS L. CREDELLE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`_______________
`
`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 IPR No: IPR2021-01061
`Patent No. 10,423,034
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS L. CREDELLE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2
`I.
`Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................... 4
`I.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 9
`II.
`The ’034 Patent ..............................................................................................10
`III.
`IV. Asserted Prior Art ..........................................................................................12
`A.
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0007679 (“Ochiai”) .........................12
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,356,330 (“Ando”) ...................................................15
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS are not invalid as obvious in light of
`the prior art. ...................................................................................................17
`A.
`The Combination of Ochiai and Ando does not render claim 1
`obvious ................................................................................................19
`Ochiai in view of Ando and Hattori ....................................................37
`B.
`Ochiai in view of Ando and Yanagawa ..............................................38
`C.
`VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................38
`
`V.
`
`–1–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`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. 10,423,034 (“the ’034 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 ’034 patent. Specifically, I understand that Petitioner
`
`purports that claims 1-4 and 6-8 (the “Challenged Claims”) are invalid for
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that Petitioner relies on the expert declaration of Dr. Bruce
`
`W. Smith dated June 21, 2021 (Ex. 1002) to challenge the validity of the ’034 patent.
`
`–2–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, I have been asked to provide certain opinions relating to
`
`the patentability of the ’034 patent. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my
`
`opinions regarding (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’034 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 ’034 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 reviewed the following
`
`sources:
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034 to Takahiro Ochiai et al. (“’034 patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Dr. Bruce W. Smith.
`
`Ex. 1003 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Bruce W. Smith.
`
`Ex. 1004 File History for U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034.
`
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0007679 Al to Takahiro
`Ochiai et al. (“Ochiai”)
`
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,356,330 to Masahiko Ando et al. (“Ando”)
`
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent No. 7,173,281 to Yoshiharu Hirakata et al.
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2007/293155A to Yasuo
`Segawa et al. and certified translation. (“Segawa”)
`
`Ex. 1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0018816 Al to Takashi
`Hattori et al. (“Hattori”)
`
`–3–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Patent No. 6,798,486 to Kazuhiko Yanagawa et al. (“Yanagawa”)
`
`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)
`
`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. 2004. The following
`
`is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`12. As shown in my curriculum vitae, I have devoted my career to the
`
`research and development and product engineering of flat panel displays and
`
`materials/optics/electronics for flat panel displays. I have over 20 years of
`
`involvement in active-matrix LCD R&D, starting in 1983 at RCA Labs and
`
`continuing at GE. I led the product development of active-matrix LCDs for
`
`–4–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`–5–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`–6–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`–7–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`–8–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`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
`
`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 ’034
`
`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
`
`–9–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`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 ’034 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 ’034 patent.
`
`29.
`
`I am informed that Dr. Smith has asserted a different level or ordinary
`
`skill. As I understand it, Dr. Smith asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have at least a four-year undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or
`
`physics, or a closely related field, and four years of experience in the design and
`
`implementation of flat panel display devices or components thereof.
`
`30. While I disagree with Dr. Smith’s asserted level of ordinary skill, my
`
`opinions apply equally under either proposed level.
`
`III. THE ’034 PATENT
`
`31.
`
`The ’034 patent discloses “a liquid crystal display device having a
`
`structure in which the interval between the TFT substrate and the opposed substrate
`
`is defined by a column and oriental disturbance and transmittance reduction due to
`
`formation of the column are suppressed.” ’034 Patent at 2:47-52. In particular, the
`
`’034 patent discloses that by locating the “column” (i.e., spacer) “at a crossing point
`
`between a scanning line and a drain line, problems due to formation of the column,
`
`including reduction of transmittance and light leakage due to orientation disturbance
`
`–10–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`can be reduced.” Id. at 4:26-30.1 In combination with spacer placement, the ’034
`
`patent further discloses forming unique combination of layer structures, including
`
`insulation layers, metal layers, and contact holes, to improve device performance.
`
`For example, the ’034 patent discloses that “the width of the scanning line is made
`
`wider in a position where the column is formed” and “the width of the drain line is
`
`made narrower in a position where the width of the scanning line is wider” to reduce
`
`light leakage and suppress parasitic capacitance. Id. at 4:44-52; see also id. at 6:34-
`
`45; 10:16-27; 12:14-24; Fig. 1 (discloses a first embodiment) (annotated below).
`
`1 Petitioner states that “[a]s the patent recognizes it was well known before February
`26, 2008, . . . to position columnar spacers at intersections of LCD drain and
`scanning lines” and cites ’034 patent, 1:29-2:43. Pet. at 1. But this section discuses
`Japanese Patent Laid-open Publication No. Hei 11-84386, which “discloses a
`structure in which a column is formed on either the opposed substrate or the TFT
`substrate in a position on a capacitance line . . . .” ’034 patent at 2:30-36 (emphasis
`added).
`
`–11–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Drain Line
`
`Pixel Electrode
`
`Column
`
`Scanning
`Line
`
`R B G
`Red Blue Green
`Color Filters
`
`Contact Holes
`1-4
`
`Semiconductor
`layer
`
`’034 patent, Fig. 1 (annotated)
`IV. ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`A.
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2008/0007679 (“Ochiai”)
`
`32. Ochiai is aimed at solving problems unique to IPS type transflective
`
`liquid crystal display devices. Transflective liquid crystal display devices “hav[e] a
`
`transmissive part and a reflective part in one subpixel.” Ochiai, ¶[0005]. The
`
`reflective part has a reflective electrode formed over the counter electrode. Id.,
`
`¶[0082]. Consequently, when no voltage is applied “the transmissive part 30 is
`
`normally black and the reflective part 31 is normally white.” Id. at [0081].
`
`–12–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`33. Ochiai discloses two specific problems with transflective display
`
`devices. First, Ochiai explains that “when the transmissive part [of the subpixel] is
`
`normally black, the reflective part becomes normally white, namely the relative
`
`shades are reversed between the transmissive part and the reflective part.” Id. at
`
`[0008]. As a solution, Ochiai discloses bisecting the counter electrode (CT)
`
`into portions one each for the transmissive part and the
`reflective part in each subpixel and reference voltages
`reverse to each other in polarity . . . are applied to the
`counter electrode (CT) of the transmissive part 30 and the
`counter electrode (CT) of the reflective part 31, the
`reversal of relative brightness between the transmissive
`part 30 and the reflective part 31 can be prevented.
`Id. at [0009], Fig. 1B (annotated below).
`
`–13–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Bisected
`Common
`Electrode
`
`Pixel Electrode
`(PIX)
`
`Ochiai, Fig. 1B (annotated)
`
`34.
`
`Second, Ochiai also discloses a problem with forming the through-hole
`
`that is required in IPS devices to connect the pixel electrode to the TFT element in
`
`that the fabrication process to form the reflective electrode (in the reflective part)
`
`damages the TFT electrode to which the pixel electrode is to connect. Id. at [0155].
`
`To prevent such damage, Ochiai discloses forming an electroconductor (PD) in the
`
`contact hole that covers the TFT electrode so that “when the reflective electrode
`
`–14–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`(RAL) is worked upon . . . the electrode (DD) of the thin-film transistor is not
`
`dissolved during the patterning of the reflective electrode (RAL). Id. at [0158], Fig.
`
`3 (annotated below).
`
`TFT Electrode
`(DD)
`
`Electroconduct
`or (PD)
`
`Counter
`Electrode (CT)
`
`Ochiai, Fig. 3 (annotated)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,356,330 (“Ando”)
`
`B.
`
`35. Ando explains that “compared with a conventional TN-type liquid
`
`crystal display device, the IPS-type liquid crystal has the following two problems to
`
`be solve.” Id. at 2:35-37. First, IPS-type devices have a low aperture ratio due to
`
`the fact that “1) interdigitated electrodes do not transmit light; and 2) a black matrix
`
`. . . arranged on an opposing substrate partially blocks openings from receiving light.
`
`–15–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Id.at 2:43-48. As a result, IPS-type devices require more power “to drive back light
`
`for providing the luminance equivalent to that of the conventional TN-type liquid
`
`crystal display device.” Id. at 2:40-42. Second, “IPS-type liquid crystal display
`
`device[s] suffer[] from a low uniformity of display luminance” because of the
`
`relationship between luminance and cell gap Id. at 2:66-67.
`
`36. Ando proposes improving the aperture ratio by providing “an IPS-type
`
`active matrix liquid crystal display device which is capable of eliminating a light
`
`shielding film” that is conventionally used. Id. at 4:11-15. Ando discloses a
`
`“common-less configuration . . . in which the scanning wire functions also as a
`
`common wire while omitting the common wire which is included in conventional
`
`IPS-type” devices. Id. at 4:29-34. Then “the signal wire is completely covered with
`
`the opposing electrode and the scanning wire,” which eliminates light leaks and the
`
`need for a BM. See id. at 4:41-63
`
`37. Ando also discloses “using columnar spacers of uniform height formed
`
`on the TFT substrate, instead of beads previously used for the formation of the cell
`
`gap.” Id. at 5:30-32. These spacers are preferably “positioned at regular intervals
`
`. . . over active elements through the opposing electrodes.” Id. at 5:35-41, Fig. 3
`
`(below).
`
`–16–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Ando, Fig. 3
`
`V.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT INVALID AS OBVIOUS IN
`LIGHT OF THE PRIOR ART.
`
`38. As shown in Petitioner’s table (reproduced below), Petitioner asserts
`
`one ground of unpatentability for claims 1-4 and 6 and two grounds of
`
`unpatentability for each of claims 7 and 8.
`
`–17–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`39.
`
` Grounds 1 through 3 all rely on Ochiai as the base reference, but
`
`Petitioner concedes that Ochiai fails to disclose several limitations in independent
`
`claim 1 of the ’034 patent, including a spacer and all limitations related thereto.
`
`Petitioner argues that it would be obvious to combine Ochiai with Ando to cure the
`
`deficiencies in Ochiai. As I explain in further detail below, it is my opinion that
`
`these references would not be obvious to combine. For claims 7 and 8, which depend
`
`from claim 1, Petitioner asserts Hattori and Yanagawa, respectively, as an additional
`
`reference to the Ochiai/Ando combination.
`
`40.
`
`Petitioner claims that certain features in the ’034 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 ’034 patent. See, e.g., Pet. 35(“[F]orming an inter-layer insulating film out of
`
`an organic material was well known at the relevant time.”), 42 (“One of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood that there are several known ways to obtain
`
`–18–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`an Al surface concentration of less than 1% on the surface of Ochiai’s electrode
`
`DD.”), 49 (“[D]isposing a spacer betweeen [sic] substrates of an LCD device was
`
`well known at the relevant time.”). In my opinion, Petitioner’s approach to its
`
`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.
`
`The Combination of Ochiai and Ando does not render claim 1
`obvious
`1.
`Ochiai does not disclose “a first pixel electrode . . . connected
`to the source electrode via a third contact hole formed in the
`second insulation film.”
`41. As previously discussed, one of the innovations disclosed by Ochiai is
`
`the use of an electroconductor (PD) formed in the contact hole of the organic film
`
`(CH3a) that shields the TFT electrode (DD) from damage while the reflective layer
`
`(RAL) is being worked on. See Ochiai at [0158]. The intervening electroconductor
`
`layer (PD) therefore prevents Ochiai from meeting this claim limitation. Petitioner,
`
`however, states that Ochiai’s electroconductor (PD) should effectively be ignored
`
`because (1) the “pixel electrode PIX is ‘connected’ to the electrode DD via the
`
`electroconductor PD in the third contact hole CH4a in the inter-layer insulating film
`
`17 in the same manner that the pixel electrode of the ’034 patent is electrically
`
`connected to its source electrode.” (Pet. at 41) and (2) the electroconductor (PD) is
`
`–19–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`optional and a POSITA would have known how to connect the pixel electrode
`
`without the intervening electroconductor PD. Id. at 42-43. I disagree on both counts.
`
`42.
`
`First, in my opinion, whether “electrical connectivity” satisfies the
`
`“connected” term is not the issue. This limitation requires that the first pixel
`
`electrode be connected to the source electrode via a third contact hole formed in
`
`the second insulation layer. Petitioner identifies CH4a as the claimed third contact
`
`hole. Pet. at 39-40. But Ochiai explains that “the electroconductor (PD) is
`
`electrically connected to the electrode (DD) of the thin-film transistor via the
`
`contact holes CH2a and CH3a, and the pixel electrode (PIX) is electrically
`
`connected to the electroconductor (PD) via the contact hole CH4a.” Ochiai at
`
`[0121] (emphasis added). Accordingly, even if the pixel electrode is ultimately
`
`“electrically connected” to the electrode (DD), that connection is not made via
`
`contact hole CH4a, but via contact holes CH2a and CH3a, which doesn’t meet the
`
`claim language. My opinion is supported by Figure 3 of the ’034 patent, which
`
`shows the pixel electrode connected to the source electrode via the third contact hole.
`
`–20–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Pixel
`Electrode
`
`Third
`Contact
`Hole
`
`Source
`Electrode
`
`’034 patent, Fig. 3 (annotated)
`Second, it is my opinion that Ochiai does not teach that the
`
`43.
`
`electroconductor layer (PD) is optional, rather this layer constitutes one of the key
`
`aspects of Ochiai’s invention. Ochiai explains the following problem in the prior art
`
`with IPS transflective liquid crystal display devices, which require “the pixel
`
`electrode (PIX) [to be] brought into direct contact with the electrode (DD) of a thin-
`
`film transistor via a contact hole CH3”: (Ochiai at [0018])
`
`[W]hen boring the contact hole CH3, the difference in film
`quality between the inter-layer insulating film 15 and the
`inter-layer insulating film 17 may invite some trouble in
`machining them together, which would result in faulty
`
`–21–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`electrical connection of the pixel electrode (PIX) to the
`electrode (DD) of the thin-film transistor.
`Id. at [0019]. Ochiai further explains that the inventors considered “machining the
`
`inter-layer insulating film 15 before machining the inter-layer insulating film 17, but
`
`the electrode DD “was dissolved when the reflective electrode (RAL) was
`
`patterned,” resulting again in faulty electrical connections. Id. at [0020], see id. at
`
`Fig. 23 (annotated below).
`
`Pixel
`Electrode
`
`Inter-insulating
`Layer
`
`Third
`Contact
`
`Source
`Electrode
`
`Inter-insulating
`Layer
`
`Ochiai, Fig. 23 (annotated)
`As a result, Ochiai’s solution was to use “an electroconductor formed in the first
`
`contact hole” and “at the same step as the counter electrode.” Id. at [0026], [0029].
`
`Ochiai notes that “the electroconductor (PD) may appear unnecessary” but if the
`
`–22–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`electroconductor (PD) is “absent and the electrode (DD) of the thin-film transistor
`
`is exposed, the electrode (DD) may be damaged or Ti lifted off along with the
`
`dissolution of Al present on the electrode (DD) surface when the reflective electrode
`
`(RAL) is etched.” Id. at [0155].
`
`44.
`
`It is true that the problem identified by Ochiai results when the
`
`reflective layer (RAL) and electrodes are made of aluminum, but in my opinion, the
`
`vast majority of devices use aluminum for these types of features. Thus, it is my
`
`opinion that it would not be obvious for a POSITA to form the reflective layer and
`
`source electrode primarily from materials other than aluminum. Further, Petitioner’s
`
`explanation about how a POSITA would solve this problem is flawed for at least the
`
`following reasons:
`
`a. Petitioner states that a POSITA “would have understood that there are
`
`several known ways to obtain an Al surface concentration of less than
`
`1% on the surface of Ochiai’s electrode DD[, including] . . . through a
`
`low-temperature deposition method, such as low-temperature chemical
`
`vapor deposition (CVD) since it was known in the art that the art that
`
`the amount of diffusion of Al into Ti increased with increasing
`
`temperatures.” Pet. at 42-43. In my opinion, Petitioner misapprehends
`
`the problem. The problem of Al diffusing into Ti doesn’t occur with
`
`the formation of the electrode DD, but as Ochiai explains, when, “to
`
`–23–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`terminate the defect of Poly-Si after the formation of the inter-layer
`
`insulating film 15, annealing is performed at 400° C. in an H2 ambience;
`
`then Ti absorbs H and becomes brittle.” Ochiai at [0156]. “As a
`
`consequence, the Al base of the electrode (DD) is readily diffused
`
`within the top Ti layer of the electrode (DD) and reaches the surface.”
`
`Id. Petitioner’s purported solutions regarding a “low temperature
`
`alternative,” (which 400° C. would qualify as) or diffusion barriers
`
`doesn’t address the issue related to the annealing process after the inter-
`
`layer insulating film 15 is formed.
`
`b. Petitioner states that “Ochiai does not provide a cross-sectional view of
`
`its device without the electroconductor PD positioned between the pixel
`
`electrode and electrode DD (i.e., source electrode),” (Pet. at 43), but the
`
`modified and annotated figure created by Petitioner effectively
`
`recreates the prior art cross-section that the inventors in Ochiai set out
`
`to improve upon. Compare Pet., 44 (modified Fig. 3) with Ochiai, Fig
`
`23 (annotated below).
`
`–24–
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2003
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS
`CO. LTD. v. JDI/PLD
`IPR2021-01061
`
`
`
`Credelle Declaration for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,423,034
`
`Pet., 44, “modified” Ochiai, Fig. 3
`
`Ochi
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
