PTAB

IPR2013-00066

Chimei Innolux Corp v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electronic Apparatus with a Flexible Printed Circuit and a Transparent Conductive Layer
  • Brief Description: The ’413 patent discloses a liquid crystal display (LCD) apparatus and methods for its fabrication. The technology addresses problems arising from connecting internal display circuits to external flexible printed circuits (FPCs) across a sealant, which can cause height differences in layered wiring, leading to display defects. The patent purports to solve this by using specific multi-layer wiring structures, including auxiliary lines to reduce electrical resistance and adjustment layers to minimize height variations.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-18, 20-22, 24, 25, and 27-29 are obvious over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art in view of Sukegawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) as described in the ’413 patent and Sukegawa (Patent 5,636,329).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the APA, sourced directly from the ’413 patent’s specification, disclosed a conventional LCD structure with all the basic elements of the claims, such as a substrate, multiple wiring and insulating layers, a sealant, and an FPC. The central inventive concept of the ’413 patent, as distinguished from the APA, was the inclusion of an auxiliary wiring line running parallel to an external connection line to reduce electrical resistance. Petitioner contended this feature was explicitly taught by Sukegawa, which discloses a multi-layer wiring structure for an LCD terminal that includes an upper layer metal wiring overlapping a lower layer metal wiring. Sukegawa teaches that this overlapping structure provides benefits including reduced resistance, a more secure connection, and prevention of layer peeling. Therefore, combining Sukegawa’s wiring structure with the conventional LCD described in the APA would arrive at the claimed invention.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Sukegawa with the APA to solve the well-known problem of high electrical resistance in the long, thin external connection lines of an LCD. The ’413 patent itself identifies this as a known issue. Sukegawa provides a direct and advantageous solution—using a parallel, overlapping conductive line—to this exact problem.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Sukegawa’s multilayer wiring technique into the conventional LCD structure of the APA. Both references relate to the same field of technology (LCD fabrication), and the proposed modification involved applying a known technique to improve a known device, which would have been a predictable and straightforward integration.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-18, 20-22, 24, 25, and 27-29 are obvious over Sukegawa in view of Nakamoto.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sukegawa (Patent 5,636,329) and Nakamoto (Japanese Patent Publication No. H08-160446).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Sukegawa alone taught the majority of the claimed limitations. Sukegawa discloses a detailed multi-layer structure for connecting an LCD to an FPC, including a first wiring layer, a first insulating film, a second wiring layer overlapping the first, a second insulating film, and a transparent conductive layer (e.g., Indium Tin Oxide) for connection to the FPC. Petitioner argued that Sukegawa discloses every key structural element and relationship recited in independent claim 1. Nakamoto was introduced to further support the obviousness of the claimed sealant configuration. Nakamoto describes connecting an LCD display with a tape carrier package and explicitly shows a sealant (SL) positioned over the signal lines, providing a clear example of sealing the connection area as recited in the claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sukegawa’s advanced wiring structure with Nakamoto’s sealant teachings to produce a complete and environmentally robust LCD device. It was common practice in the art to encapsulate the connection terminals and peripheral circuitry of an LCD with a sealant to protect them from moisture and physical damage. A POSITA seeking to manufacture a reliable commercial product based on Sukegawa's wiring design would have naturally and obviously incorporated a sealant structure as taught by Nakamoto or as was generally known in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination of a sealant with a wiring structure was a routine and predictable step in LCD manufacturing. A POSITA would have expected success in applying a sealant as shown in Nakamoto over the terminal portion of the device disclosed in Sukegawa without undue experimentation.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-18, 20-22, 24, 25, and 27-29 of Patent 7,876,413 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.