PTAB

IPR2013-00068

Innolux Corp v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electronic Apparatus with a Flexible Printed Circuit and a Transparent Conductive Layer
  • Brief Description: The ’204 patent discloses a liquid crystal display (LCD) device designed to improve display quality. The invention focuses on minimizing physical height differences under the device's sealant, which are caused by underlying external connection lines and auxiliary lines, by incorporating specifically patterned "adjustment layers" to create a more uniform surface, thereby reducing display artifacts like uneven color and brightness.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Shiba, Watanabe, and Sukegawa - All challenged claims are obvious over Shiba in view of Watanabe and Sukegawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shiba (Patent 5,684,555), Watanabe (Patent 5,504,601), and Sukegawa (Patent 5,636,329).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references teaches every element of the challenged claims. Shiba and Sukegawa were asserted to describe the fundamental multilayer wiring structures of an LCD, including multiple conductive and insulating layers that connect circuits within the display area to external circuits via a flexible printed circuit (FPC). This disclosure included the claimed external connection lines and auxiliary lines. Watanabe was presented as directly addressing the same problem as the ’204 patent: ensuring a uniform step in the sealing material to achieve high image quality. Watanabe explicitly teaches using "adjustment areas"—functionally identical to the claimed "adjustment layers"—formed from the same layers as the display area to create this uniformity without adding manufacturing complexity.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine these teachings to solve a well-known problem. A POSITA, starting with the conventional multilayer wiring structures of Shiba and Sukegawa, would have sought to improve display uniformity, a known issue at the sealant edge. Watanabe provided a known, explicit solution by using adjustment layers for this exact purpose. The combination represented a straightforward application of a known solution to a known problem in a conventional device structure.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involved integrating a known technique for improving surface uniformity (from Watanabe) into a standard LCD wiring configuration (from Shiba and Sukegawa), a process that relied on predictable principles of mechanical and electrical engineering to achieve the desired, predictable result of improved display quality.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Zhang and Sukegawa - All challenged claims are obvious over Zhang in view of Sukegawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhang (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H9-179130) and Sukegawa (Patent 5,636,329).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Zhang is directed to the core problem of maintaining a uniform seal around an LCD sealant where conductive lines run across the seal area. Zhang was argued to accomplish this by using various configurations of overlapping conductive and insulating layers that function as adjustment layers to even out the surface topography under the seal. As in the first ground, Sukegawa was cited for its disclosure of conventional multilayer wiring structures that connect internal display circuits with external circuits, providing the necessary technical context for implementing Zhang's teachings.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Zhang's teachings with the general knowledge in the art, as exemplified by Sukegawa, to arrive at the claimed invention. Zhang provided the direct motivation and solution for addressing sealant uniformity issues. A POSITA would naturally apply Zhang's specific solution for maintaining seal uniformity to the well-understood multilayer wiring structures taught by Sukegawa. The motivation was simply to improve the performance and reliability of a standard LCD device by addressing a known manufacturing and quality control issue.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in this combination. Applying Zhang’s specific configurations for creating a uniform seal surface to the general wiring architecture of Sukegawa was a predictable integration of compatible technologies. The outcome—a more uniform seal and thus better display quality—was the explicit goal and teaching of the Zhang reference.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 31, 33, 36, 38, 40, 43, 45, 46, 48, 51, 53, 54, 56, 59, 61, 63, 66, 68, 70, 73, 75, 76, 78, 81, and 83 of the ’204 patent as unpatentable.