`_______________
`
`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