`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PICTIVA DISPLAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2024-01222
`Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`6,949,389 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`First Petition, Asserting Prior Art Under Sections 102(a), (b), and (e)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`i
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`II. STANDING, MANDATORY NOTICES AND FEE
`AUTHORIZATION ........................................................................................ 1
`III. SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE ..................................................................... 3
`IV . OVERVIEW OF THE ’389 PATENT ............................................................. 5
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................... 9
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 10
`A. “depositing by shadow mask, sputtering, ink jet deposition,
`screen printing evaporation” .............................................................. 10
`B. “non-sucking to OLED substrate” ...................................................... 11
`VII. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART ....................................................................... 11
`A. Yamazaki (Ex.1005) ............................................................................ 11
`B. Ghosh (Ex.1006) ................................................................................ 13
`C. Fujimori (Ex.1014) ............................................................................. 14
`D. Weaver (Ex.1008) ............................................................................... 15
`E. Palanisamy (Ex.1007) ........................................................................ 16
`F. Burrows (Ex.1009) ............................................................................. 16
`VIII. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ...... 17
`A. Ground I: Claims 34, 35, 37, and 40 Are Obvious Over
`Yamazaki in View of AAPA/Ghosh ................................................... 17
`1. Claim 34 ................................................................................... 17
`a. Element 34[Pre]: “A method of encapsulating a
`plurality of devices fabricated upon a substrate, the
`steps of said method comprising:” ................................ 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`ii
`b. Element 34[a]: “fabricating a plurality of devices
`on a substrate;” .............................................................. 23
`c. Element 34[b]: “selectively depositing at least one
`planarization layer upon said devices; and” .................. 26
`d. Element 34[c]: “selectively depositing at least one
`barrier layer over said planarization layer.” .................. 29
`2. Claim 35: “The method as recited in claim 34 wherein
`the step for selectively depositing at least one
`planarization layer further comprises depositing by ink
`jet of an organic layer.” ............................................................ 32
`
`3. Claim 37: “The method as recited in claim 34 wherein
`the step for selectively depositing at least one
`planarization layer further comprises depositing an
`organic layer through a shadow mask.” ................................... 33
`4. Claim 40: “The method as recited in claim 34 wherein
`the step for selectively depositing at least one barrier
`layer further comprises depositing by shadow mask,
`sputtering, ink jet deposition, screen printing [or]
`evaporation.” ............................................................................ 37
`B. Ground II: Claims 41-46 Are Obvious Over Yamazaki in View
`of AAPA/Ghosh and Fujimori ............................................................ 38
`1. Claim 41: .................................................................................. 38
`a. Element 41[Pre]: “A method of encapsulating a
`plurality of devices fabricated upon a substrate, the
`steps of said method comprising:” ................................ 38
`
`b. Element 41[a]: “fabricating a plurality of devices
`on a substrate;” .............................................................. 39
`c. Element 41[b]: “depositing a mask on top of said
`substrate, such that the mask openings are placed
`on top of said devices;” ................................................. 41
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`iii
`d. Element 41[c]: “depositing at least one
`planarization layer upon said mask and said
`plurality of devices;” ..................................................... 49
`e. Element 41[d]: “removing said mask from said
`substrate; and” ............................................................... 51
`f. Element 41[e]: “selectively depositing at least one
`barrier layer over said planarization layer.” .................. 52
`2. Claim 42: “The method as recited in claim 41 wherein
`the step of depositing said mask further comprises
`depositing a stamp mask, depositing a laminated film-
`mask, depositing a vacuum mask, or magnetically held
`mask.”....................................................................................... 54
`3. Claim 43: “The method as recited in claim 41 wherein
`the step of depositing said mask further comprises
`depositing said mask such that said mask is in contact
`with said substrate.” ................................................................. 54
`
`4. Claim 44: “The method as recited in claim 41 wherein
`the step of depositing said mask further comprises
`depositing a mask, said mask comprising a material
`substantially non-sucking [or non-sticking] to OLED
`substrate over the areas in between the active areas.” ............. 58
`5. Claim 45: “The method as recited in claim 41 wherein
`the step of depositing said mask further comprises
`depositing a mask, said mask comprising a metal, a
`ceramic, a plastic, a polymer, PTFE, or poly-siloxane.” ......... 60
`
`6. Claim 46: “The method as recited in claim 41 wherein
`the step of depositing at least one planarization layer
`further comprises depositing an organic layer over the
`entire mask.” ............................................................................ 61
`
`C. Ground III: Claims 34 and 40 Are Obvious Over Weaver ................. 63
`1. Claim 34 ................................................................................... 63
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`iv
`a. Element 34[Pre]: “A method of encapsulating a
`plurality of devices fabricated upon a substrate, the
`steps of said method comprising:” ................................ 63
`b. Element 34[a]: “fabricating a plurality of devices
`on a substrate;” .............................................................. 70
`c. Element 34[b]: “selectively depositing at least one
`planarization layer upon said devices; and” .................. 71
`d. Element 34[c]: “selectively depositing at least one
`barrier layer over said planarization layer.” .................. 74
`2. Claim 40: “The method as recited in claim 34 wherein
`the step for selectively depositing at least one barrier
`layer further comprises depositing by shadow mask,
`sputtering, ink jet deposition, screen printing [or]
`evaporation.” ............................................................................ 76
`
`D. Ground IV: Claims 35 and 36 Are Obvious Over Weaver in
`View of Palanisamy ............................................................................ 76
`1. Claim 35: “The method as recited in claim 34 wherein
`the step for selectively depositing at least one
`planarization layer further comprises depositing by ink
`jet of an organic layer.” ............................................................ 76
`2. Claim 36: “The method as recited in claim 34 wherein
`the step for selectively depositing at least one
`planarization layer further comprises depositing by
`screen printing of an organic layer or depositing by gas
`nozzle.” .................................................................................... 81
`
`E. Ground V: Claim 37 Is Obvious Over Weaver in View of
`Burrows .............................................................................................. 84
`1. Claim 37: “The method as recited in claim 34 wherein
`the step for selectively depositing at least one
`planarization layer further comprises depositing an
`organic layer through a shadow mask.” ................................... 84
`
`IX. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS INAPPROPRIATE UNDER FINTIV ...... 90
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`v
`X. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 91
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`vi
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`Exhibit
`No. Description
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,949, 389 (“the ’389 patent”)
`1002 Certified File Histor y for U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`1003 Declaration of Vivek Subramanian, Ph.D. (Yamazaki and Weaver
`grounds)
`1004 Declaration of Vivek Subramanian, Ph.D. (Kijima grounds)
`1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0206332
`(“Yamazaki”)
`1006 U.S. Patent Application Publ ication No. 2001/0052752 (“Ghosh”)
`1007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0011300
`(“Palanisamy”)
`1008 U.S. Patent Application Publ ication No. 2002/0140347 (“Weaver”)
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 6,866,901 (“Burrows”)
`1010 Japanese Published Application No. H09-245964, certified
`translation (“Kijima”)
`1011 Japanese Published Application No. H09-245964, original
`document
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,198,217 (“Suzuki”)
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,087,196 (“Sturm”)
`1014 Japanese Published Application No. H10-41069, certified
`translation (“Fujimori”)
`1015 Japanese Published A pplication No. H10-41069, original document
`1016 International Publication No. WO 2001/08242 (“Duthaler”)
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 6,660,409 (“Komatsu”)
`1018
`J. Birnstock et al., Screen-Printed Passive Matrix Displays Based on
`Light-Emitting Polymers, 78 Appl. Phys. Lett. 3905 (2001)
`(“Birnstock”)
`1019 Complaint, Pictiva Displays Int’l Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`et al., 2:23-cv-00495-JRG (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2023)
`1020 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0062186
`(“Boroson”)
`1021 U.S. Patent No. 6,770,502 (“Cok”)
`1022 U.S. Patent No. 6,214,631 (“Burrows-631”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`vii
`Exhibit
`No. Description
`1023
`Jun Hyung Souk, Advances and New Challenges in LCD,
`International Meeting on Information Display Digest, 24 (2002)
`(“Souk”)
`1024
`OLED Fundamentals: Materials, Devices, and Processing of
`Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (Daniel J. Gaspar & Evgueni
`Polikarpov eds., 1st ed. 2015) (excerpted) (“Gaspar”)
`1025
`Takashi Ohta, Next Generation AMLCD Production Technologies
`for Large Substrate, International Meeting on Information Display
`Digest, 3 (2001) (“Ohta”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`1
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review
`(“IPR”) seeking cancellation of claims 34-37 and 40-46 (the “Challenged Claims”)
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389 (Ex.1001, “’389 patent”).1
`II. STANDING, MANDATORY NOTICES AND FEE AUTHORIZATION
`Grounds for Standing: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies
`that the ’389 patent is available for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`from requesting an IPR challenging the ’389 patent on the grounds identified in this
`petition.
`Real Party-in-Interest: Petitioner identifies Sams ung Display Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. as real
`parties-in-interest.
`
`1 As explained in Petitioner’s accompanyi ng Explanation of Parallel Petitions, this
`petition is being filed concurrently with a second petition that relies only on prior art
`that qualifies under Section 102(b), in view of Patent Owner’s contention that the
`asserted claims of the ’389 patent may be entitled to an earlier right of priority.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`2
`Related Matters: Patent Owner 2 has asserted the ’389 patent in litigation
`against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in
`Pictiva Displays International Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:23-
`cv-00495 (E.D. Tex.) and Pictiva Displays International Ltd. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:24-cv-00532 (E.D. Tex.).
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel: Petitioner designates David A. Garr (Reg. No.
`74,932, dgarr@cov.com) as lead couns el, of Covington & Burling LLP, One
`CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW, Wa shington, DC 20001 (postal and hand
`delivery), telephone: (202) 662-6000, facsimile: (202) 662-6291.
`Petitioner designates Scott We idenfeller (Reg. No. 54,531,
`sweidenfeller@cov.com) as back-up coun sel, of Covington & Burling LLP, One
`CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW, Wa shington, DC 20001 (postal and hand
`delivery), telephone: (202) 662-6000, facsimile: (202) 662-6291.
`Service Information: Service information is provi ded in the designation of
`counsel above. Petitioner consents to service of all documents via electronic mail at
`the email addresses above and at SDC-Pictiva-IPR@cov.com.
`
`2 In the litigation, defendants have challenged Pictiva’s ownership of the ’389 patent,
`and Pictiva has moved to amend the complaint in response.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`3
`Fee Authorization: The Office is authorized to charge all fees due in
`connection with this proceeding to Deposit Account No. 60-3160.
`III. SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE
`Petitioner requests IPR based on the following grounds:
` Ground I: Claims 34, 35, 37, and 40 are obvious over Yamazaki in
`view of the applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) and/or Ghosh;
` Ground II: Claims 41-46 are obvious over Yamazaki in view of
`AAPA/Ghosh and Fujimori;
` Ground III: Claims 34 and 40 are obvious over Weaver;
` Ground IV: Claims 35 and 36 are obvious over Weaver in view of
`Palanisamy; and
` Ground V: Claim 37 is obvious over Weaver in view of Burrows.
`The ’389 patent was filed on May 2, 2002 and does not claim priority to any
`earlier application. Based on th at filing date, asserted re ferences are available as
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (pre-AIA) as shown in the following table.
`Exhibit Reference Dates Availability as Prior
`Art
`Ex.1005 U.S. Patent
`Application
`Publication No.
`2003/0206332
`(“Yamazaki”)
`Filed Mar. 27,
`2001
`102(e)
`Ex.1006 U.S. Patent
`Application
`Filed Feb. 15,
`2001;
`102(a), 102(e)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`4
`Exhibit Reference Dates Availability as Prior
`Art
`Publication No.
`2001/0052752
`(“Ghosh”)
`published Dec.
`20, 2001
`Ex.1008 U.S. Patent
`Application
`Publication No.
`2002/0140347
`(“Weaver”)
`Filed Mar. 29,
`2001
`102(e)
`Ex.1007 U.S. Patent
`Application
`Publication No.
`2003/0011300
`(“Palanisam
`y”)
`Filed July 12,
`2001
`102(e)
`Ex.1009 U.S. Patent No.
`6,866,901
`(“Burrows”)
`Filed Sep. 28,
`2001
`102(e)
`Ex.1014
`(translation)
`Ex.1015
`(ori
`ginal)
`Japanese Published
`Application No. H10-
`41069 (“Fujimori”)
`Published Feb.
`13, 1998
`102(a), 102(b)
`
`The prior art and arguments in this Petition are not the same (or substantially
`the same) as those previously presented to the Office under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). None
`of these prior art references, besides G hosh, were cited or considered by the
`Examiner during prosecution of the ’389 pa tent. For Ghosh, as pertinent to the
`grounds below, the applicants did not di spute that Ghosh teaches a method of
`encapsulating a plurality of OLED devices fabricated upon a substrate. See Section
`VII.C below; Ex.1002, 291-292, 376. Additionally, the supporting declaration from
`Vivek Subramanian, Ph.D. (Ex.1003) was not before the Examiner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`5
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’389 PATENT
`The ’389 patent relates to encap sulated organic light emitting diode
`(“OLED”) devices and methods of forming them. “Encapsulation is a way to protect
`the OLED device from the damaging environmental effects—primarily from oxygen
`and moisture.” ’389 patent, 1:8-10.
`The ’389 patent describes “a cheaper and better method of encapsulation,
`called ‘direct thin-film encapsulation’ ” that was supplanting use of glass
`encapsulation for OLED devices. Id., 1:10-13, 1:17-19. The patent explains that such
`“thin-film encapsulation is typically described as “a ‘polymer multi-layer’ (PML),”
`id., 1:17-22, and depicts a prior art “typical PML structure 100” in Figure 1. Id.,
`1:23-24:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`6
`Id., Fig. 1 (annotated). This PML “compris[es] alternating and repeating layers of an
`organic (usually an acrylate or the like) and a barrier layer.” Id., 1:19-22. “Typically,
`for PML structures, a planarization layer 106 is formed on top of OLED structure
`104” and the “[p]lanarization layer 106 typically is an organic layer.” Id., 1:30-34.
`On top of the organic planarization layer, “[b]arrier layer 108 provides the necessary
`environmental isolation from the corrosi ve effects of oxygen and moisture.” Id.,
`1:37-40.
`The ’389 patent emphasizes that “during the batch fabrication of many OLED
`devices upon a single large sheet of glass—su ch as shown as a top view in FIG. 2,
`… several tens (or even hundreds) of OLED devices 202 may be so fabricated.” Id.,
`1:63-65:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`7
`Id., Fig. 2 (annotated). Conventionally, “the PML structure is deposited … over the
`entire glass sheet.” Id., 2:5-8. “After encapsulation, singulation is performed … so
`that individual OLED devi ces 202 may be se parated and furt her processed.” Id.,
`2:12-16.
`According to the ’389 patent, “[t]he problem with this PML technique is that
`the only part of the device that requires encapsulation is the OLED structure itself—
`and not, e.g., the electrical contact pads.” Id., 2:17-28. “Another potential problem
`… is that by having the PML layer over the scribe and break lines and/or the glue
`lines the integrity of the sealed package may be deteriorated, for example by
`delamination ….” Id., 2:24-27.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`8
`One solution described by the ’389 patent is to “selectively” deposit the
`organic planarization layer and/or the barrier layer over the OLED device. As shown
`in Figure 5, “organic layer 506 is deposite d selectively,” “in a patterned fashion,”
`over an “OLED device 504 … formed upon substrate 502,” id., 6:53-58, and “barrier
`layer 508 may be selectively deposited” over the organic layer 506, id., 7:3-6.
`Id., Fig. 5 (annotated).
`The ’389 patent also includes an embodiment, depicted in Figure 6 below, in
`which a “mask 604 is formed onto substr ate 600 with mask openings for OLED
`devices 602.” Id., 7:24-25. Then, “organic layer 606 is deposited in any suitable
`manner. ” Id., 7:54-55.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`9
`
`Id., Fig. 6 (annotated).
`Independent claim 34 recites a method, as in Figure 5, in which at least one
`planarization layer and barrier layer are selectively deposited.
`Independent claim 41 recites a method, as in Figure 6, in which a mask is used
`for depositing the planarization layer.
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) for the ’389 patent would
`have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrica l Engineering, Materials Science, or a
`related field, and at least one year of experience in display technologies. Ex.1003,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`10
`¶44. Additional education might compensate for a deficiency in experience, and
`vice-versa. Id.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. “depositing by shadow mask, sputtering, ink jet deposition, screen
`printing evaporation”
`Claim 40 omits a coordinating conjunction in its listing of deposition methods.
`However, the file history indicates that it should be interpreted to include an “or” as
`inserted below:
`40. The method as recited in claim 34 wherein the step for selectively
`depositing at least one barrier la yer further comprises depositing by
`shadow mask, sputtering, ink je t deposition, screen printing [ or]
`evaporation.
`As initially filed, the claim 40 recited:
`
`Ex.1002, 399. An Examiner’s amendment subsequently altered the claim as follows:
`
`Id., 418; Ex.1003, ¶¶45-48.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`11
`B. “non-sucking to OLED substrate”
`Claim 44 requires a “mask comprising a material non-sucking to OLED
`substrate.” The file history indicates that this reflects a typographical error in the as-
`issued patent. The claim during prosecution instead used the term “non-sticking”:
`
`Ex.1002, 400 (highlighting added). Accordingly, Petitioner has addressed the claim
`under the assumption that “ non-sucking to OLED substrate” should be interpreted
`as “non-sticking to OLED substrate,” as well as under the alte rnative scenario in
`which the claim is applied as written. Ex.1003, ¶¶49-50.
`VII. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART
`A. Yamazaki (Ex.1005)
`Yamazaki teaches selective encapsulatio n methods for an OLED device, for
`use in a “self-light emitting device,” i.e., a “display device.” Yamazaki, [0004]. As
`shown below, Yamazaki includes embodime nts in which OLED devices (blue)
`fabricated on a substrate are encapsulated by forming a planarizing “cover layer …
`made of an organic resin film evenly on the pixel portion” (purple), id., [0177], as
`well as an inorganic “barrier layer … to cover the cover layer” (yellow), id., [0183].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`12
`
`
`Id., Figs. 11 and 14 (annotated). Yamazaki illu strates that its cover layer forms a
`planar surface on which the barrier layer is formed, and explains that the layer is
`made from a “material that … has planarity,” id., [0178].
`Like the ’389 patent, Yamazaki di scloses selectively depositing these
`planarizing cover and barrier layers. For example, the “cover layer 1105 is formed
`using the ink jet method” and therefore “can be selectively formed on the pixel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`13
`portion.” Id., [0178].3 Similarly, “the barrier layer 1106 is formed selectively using
`a shadow mask.” Id., [0183]; Ex.1003, ¶¶51-53.
`B. Ghosh (Ex.1006)
`Ghosh teaches batch fabrication (and encapsulation) of OLED devices on a
`large substrate. Ghosh discloses an encapsulation assembly “for a plurality of OLED
`display devices 3 on a substrate 2,” as shown in Figures 3 and 5. Ghosh, [0031].
`
`Id., Figs. 3, 5 (annotated). The OLED disp lay devices 3 are c overed with a first
`encapsulation layer 21 that is selectively “patterned to leave exposed a portion of the
`substrate surface in between th e individual OLED devices,” id., [0032], and the
`“dashed lines 25 in FIG. 5 indicate where the substrate would be cut as part of the
`
`3 All emphasis in quotations has been added by Petitioner unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`14
`dicing operation following completion of the encapsulation assembly” to yield
`individual devices. Id.
`During prosecution of the ’389 patent , the Examiner applied Ghosh in
`rejecting claim 34 (among others), expl aining that Ghosh teaches a “method of
`encapsulating a plurality of devices fabri cated upon a substrate,” that comprises
`“fabricating a plurality of devices 3 (i.e. OLED) on a substrate 2 (Fig.3)”; depositing
`and patterning “at least one planarizatio n layer 21”; and “selectively depositing at
`least one barrier layer 22 … over the patte rned planarization layer.” Ex.1002, 292.
`The applicants overcame this rejection, arguing that “[i]n Ghosh, the ‘second
`encapsulation layer 22’ (in the Office Action the Examiner refers to this layer as the
`‘barrier layer’) is nonselectively deposited ….” Id., 376. However, the applicants did
`not dispute that Ghosh teaches a method of encapsulating a plurality of OLED
`devices fabricated upon a substrate (or that Ghosh’s method comprises selectively
`depositing at least one planarization layer), see id.; Ex.1003, ¶¶54-58.
`C. Fujimori (Ex.1014)
`Fujimori discloses an approach for selectively depositing OLED display
`elements using a “mask attached to a s ubstrate with magnetic force,” Fujimori,
`[0010], such that “adhesion between th e mask and substrate is improved,” id.,
`[0029], thereby allowing for “favorab le pattern processing accuracy,” id., [0009];
`Ex.1003, ¶68.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`15
`D. Weaver (Ex.1008)
`Weaver discloses “structures that protect organic optoelectronic devices [e.g.,
`OLEDs] from the surrounding environment,” Weaver, [0001], [0003], and methods
`for creating them, see id., [0057]. For example, Figure 6 of Weaver shows that an
`“OLED 140” (blue) is protected (i.e., encapsulated) by a “barrier region 150”
`comprising a series of organic “planarizing layers” 151a-c and “high-density layers”
`152a-c:
`Id., Fig. 6 (annotated).
`These encapsulation layers are depos ited selectively over the underlying
`device, as shown in Figure 6. Similar to the ’389 patent , Weaver teaches that such
`selective encapsulation is advantage ous when manufacturing multiple OLED
`devices on “large sheets of material.” Id., [0038]. Weaver explains that under
`conventional (non-selective) approaches for multi-layer encapsulation, “cutting a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`16
`large sheet produces a structure with exposed edges.” Id., [0038]. “This situation is
`improved by the structures of [Weaver’s ] invention”—i.e., where selective
`encapsulation allows the barrier la yers to “extend[] down the sides.” Id., [0041]-
`[0042]; Ex.1003, ¶¶59-62.
`E. Palanisamy (Ex.1007)
`Palanisamy discloses a number of tech niques for “selectively applying an
`organic passivation material” for OLEDs so that “contact areas (and other areas
`which should not be passivated) may remain unpassivated,” Palanisamy, [Abstract].
`Palanisamy’s techniques include selective application using “an ink jet printer,” id.,
`[0021], “a mask” to define regions wher e the material is to be applied, id., [0022],
`and “a screen printing technique,” id., [0024]; Ex.1003, ¶¶63-67.
`F. Burrows (Ex.1009)
`Burrows teaches multi-layer encapsulation techniques that are similar to those
`of Weaver using a “shadow mask” for selective deposition of such layers. Burrows,
`7:53-8:04; Ex.1003, ¶¶69-72.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`17
`VIII. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`A. Ground I: Claims 34, 35, 37, and 40 Are Obvious Over Yamazaki
`in View of AAPA/Ghosh
`1. Claim 34
`a. Element 34[Pre]: “A method of encapsulating a
`plurality of devices fabricated upon a substrate, the
`steps of said method comprising:”
`This element is obvious based on Yamazaki in view of the admitted prior art
`and/or Ghosh. Yamazaki discloses methods of encapsulating an OLED display panel
`device fabricated upon a substrate . Further, it would have been obvious to apply
`these methods for encapsulating a plurality of such display devices during batch
`fabrication, as was known (i) based on the admitted prior art and (ii) as further taught
`by Ghosh.
`Yamazaki discloses methods for ma nufacturing OLED display panels,
`explaining that “[t]he present invention relates to … a method of manufacturing an
`electric appliance having the self-light emitting device as a display unit … also
`referred to as an OLED ….” Yamazaki, [0002]. In pa rticular, Yamazaki teaches
`methods of encapsulating such devices using “a barrier layer and a cover layer.” Id.,
`[Abstract].
`First, the embodiment of Figure 11 depict s “an active matrix type self-light
`emitting device,” id., [0026], which includes a device (active matrix OLED display
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`18
`panel) that is fabricated upon a substrate (“substrate 1100”), and encapsulated by a
`“cover layer 1105” and “barrier layer 1106,” as shown below.
`
`Id., Fig. 11 (annotated), [0177], [0178], [0183].
`This constitutes a method of encapsulating the OLED device: “by forming the
`cover layer 1105 and the ba rrier layer 1106 on the active matrix substrate, the
`invasion of degrading factors to the EL [e lectroluminescent] element, such as
`moisture and oxygen, from the outside can be prevented.” Id., [0184].
`Second, the embodiment of Figure 14 depicts a “passive matrix”
`configuration, id., [0029], which includes a device (passive matrix OLED display
`panel) that is fabricated upon a substrate (1301), and encapsulated by a “cover layer
`1407” and “barrier layer 1408,” as shown below.4
`
`4 Yamazaki explains that the constituti ons of these embodiments “may be
`implemented freely combining” with each other. Yamazaki, [0204]. Therefore, its
`teachings regarding Figure 11 are pertinent to those of Figure 14 and vice-versa.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`19
`
`Id., Fig. 14 (annotated), [0186]-[0203].5
`It would have been obvious to use Yamazaki’s methods for encapsulating a
`plurality of such devices in batch fabricat ion. A POSITA would have known that
`flat panel displays, such as the OLED panels in Yamazaki, were conventionally
`manufactured in bulk on a large sheet of substrate, in order to reduce costs, increase
`throughput, and increase yield. Ex.1003, ¶¶73-80.
`
`5 Figures 13 and 14 of Yamazaki depict two alternative configurations of its “passive
`type” (or “simple matrix”) display, wh ich it describes as “Embodiment 4.” The
`configurations are the same except that in Figure 13 “the cover layer 1308 is formed
`on the barrier 1307,” whereas in Figure 14 (relied upon here) “barrier layer 1408 is
`formed after forming a cover layer 1407.” Yamazaki, [0203]. Figure 14 omits labels
`for the structures that are identical between Figures 13 and 14. Petitioner has
`annotated Figure 14 to add the omitted labels.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`20
`The admitted prior art of the ’389 patent confirms this background knowledge
`of a POSITA that such batch manufactu re of OLED devices was routine and
`beneficial. The patent describes “the batch fabrication of many OLED devices upon
`a single large sheet of glass— such as shown as a top vi ew in FIG. 2.” ’389 patent,
`1:63-65. Figure 2 of the ’389 patent, labele d as “PRIOR ART,” depicts this batch
`fabrication:
`Id., Fig. 2 (annotated). “As depicted, OLED devices 202 are typically laid down in
`rows and columns on a large sheet of glass 200,” id., 1:67-2:2; see also id., 1:65-67,
`followed by a “thin film encapsulation step,” id., 2:5-12. After the OLED devices
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`21
`are fabricated and encapsulated, “individual OLED devices 202 may be separated.”
`Id., 2:12-16.
`To the extent that any separate refere nce is necessary (b eyond the admitted
`prior art) to confirm that it was known to manufacture OLED devices such as those
`of Yamazaki in batch on a large sheet of substrate, Ghosh teaches precisely such
`batch fabrication (and encapsulation) of OLED devices. Ghosh discloses an
`encapsulation assembly “for a plurality of OLED display devices 3 on a substrate 2”
`as shown Figures 3 and 5. Ghosh, [0031]:
`
`Id., Figs. 3, 5 (annotated). The OLED disp lay devices 3 are c overed with a first
`encapsulation layer 21 that is selectively “patterned,” and the “dashed lines 25 in
`FIG. 5 indicate where the substrate would be cut as part of the dicing operation
`following completion of the encapsulation assembly.” Id., [0032].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`22
`Thus, as the Examiner found during pr osecution (and the applicants did not
`dispute), Ghosh teaches a “method of encapsulating a plurality of devices fabricated
`upon a substrate,” that comprises “fabricati ng a plur