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. IPR2024-01223
`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.
`
`
`Second Petition, Asserting Prior Art Under Section 102(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 7
`STANDING, MANDATORY NOTICES AND FEE
`AUTHORIZATION ........................................................................................ 7
`SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE ..................................................................... 9
`III.
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’389 PATENT ........................................................... 10
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 14
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 15
`A.
`“depositing by shadow mask, sputtering, ink jet deposition,
`screen printing evaporation” .............................................................. 15
`“non-sucking to OLED substrate” ..................................................... 16
`B.
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 16
`A. Kijima (Ex.1010) ................................................................................ 16
`B.
`Suzuki (Ex.1012) ................................................................................ 19
`C.
`Sturm (Ex.1013) ................................................................................. 21
`D. Duthaler (Ex.1016) ............................................................................. 21
`E.
`Fujimori (Ex.1014) ............................................................................. 22
`VIII. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ...... 23
`A. Ground I: Claims 34, 37, and 40 Are Obvious Over Kijima in
`View of Suzuki ................................................................................... 23
`1.
`Independent Claim 34 .............................................................. 23
`a.
`Element 34[Pre]: “A method of encapsulating a
`plurality of devices fabricated upon a substrate, the
`steps of said method comprising:” ................................ 23
`Element 34[a]: “fabricating a plurality of devices
`on a substrate;” .............................................................. 27
`
`b.
`
`i
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`C.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`B.
`
`Element 34[b]: “selectively depositing at least one
`planarization layer upon said devices; and” .................. 28
`Element 34[c]: “selectively depositing at least one
`barrier layer over said planarization layer.” .................. 37
`Dependent 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.” ................................... 39
`Dependent 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.” ............................................................................ 40
`Ground II: Claim 35 Is Obvious Over Kijima in View of Suzuki
`and Sturm ........................................................................................... 41
`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.” ............................................................ 41
`Ground III: Claim 36 Is Obvious Over Kijima in View of
`Suzuki and Duthaler ........................................................................... 46
`1.
`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.” .................................................................................... 46
`D. Ground IV: Claims 41-46 Are Obvious Over Kijima in View of
`Suzuki and Fujimori ........................................................................... 49
`1.
`Independent Claim 41: ............................................................. 50
`a.
`Element 41[Pre]: “A method of encapsulating a
`plurality of devices fabricated upon a substrate, the
`steps of said method comprising:” ................................ 50
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Element 41[a]: “fabricating a plurality of devices
`on a substrate;” .............................................................. 50
`Element 41[b]: “depositing a mask on top of said
`substrate, such that the mask openings are placed
`on top of said devices;” ................................................. 51
`Element 41[c]: “depositing at least one
`planarization layer upon said mask and said
`plurality of devices;” ..................................................... 58
`Element 41[d]: “removing said mask from said
`substrate; and” ............................................................... 59
`Element 41[e]: “selectively depositing at least one
`barrier layer over said planarization layer.” .................. 61
`Dependent 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.” ......................................................... 62
`Dependent 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.” .................................................... 62
`Dependent 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.” ....................................................................................... 65
`Dependent 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.” .................................................................................. 67
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`6.
`
`Dependent 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.” ...................................................................... 68
`IX. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS INAPPROPRIATE UNDER FINTIV ...... 69
`X.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389 (“the ’389 patent”)
`Certified File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`Declaration of Vivek Subramanian, Ph.D. (Yamazaki and Weaver
`grounds)
`Declaration of Vivek Subramanian, Ph.D. (Kijima grounds)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0206332
`(“Yamazaki”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0052752 (“Ghosh”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0011300
`(“Palanisamy”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0140347 (“Weaver”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,866,901 (“Burrows”)
`Japanese Published Application No. H09-245964, certified
`translation (“Kijima”)
`Japanese Published Application No. H09-245964, original
`document
`U.S. Patent No. 6,198,217 (“Suzuki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,087,196 (“Sturm”)
`Japanese Published Application No. H10-41069, certified
`translation (“Fujimori”)
`Japanese Published Application No. H10-41069, original document
`International Publication No. WO 2001/08242 (“Duthaler”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,660,409 (“Komatsu”)
`J. Birnstock et al., Screen-Printed Passive Matrix Displays Based on
`Light-Emitting Polymers, 78 Appl. Phys. Lett. 3905 (2001)
`(“Birnstock”)
`Complaint, Pictiva Displays Int’l Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`et al., 2:23-cv-00495-JRG (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2023)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0062186
`(“Boroson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,770,502 (“Cok”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,214,631 (“Burrows-631”)
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`Description
`Jun Hyung Souk, Advances and New Challenges in LCD,
`International Meeting on Information Display Digest, 24 (2002)
`(“Souk”)
`OLED Fundamentals: Materials, Devices, and Processing of
`Organic Light-Emitting Diodes (Daniel J. Gaspar & Evgueni
`Polikarpov eds., 1st ed. 2015) (excerpted) (“Gaspar”)
`Takashi Ohta, Next Generation AMLCD Production Technologies
`for Large Substrate, International Meeting on Information Display
`Digest, 3 (2001) (“Ohta”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`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 Samsung Display Co., Ltd.,
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. as real
`
`parties-in-interest.
`
`
`1 As explained in Petitioner’s accompanying Explanation of Parallel Petitions, this
`
`petition is being filed as 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.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`Related Matters: Patent Owner2 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 counsel, of Covington & Burling LLP, One
`
`CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (postal and hand
`
`delivery), telephone: (202) 662-6000, facsimile: (202) 662-6291.
`
`Petitioner
`
`designates
`
`Scott Weidenfeller
`
`(Reg. No.
`
`54,531,
`
`sweidenfeller@cov.com) as back-up counsel, of Covington & Burling LLP, One
`
`CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (postal and hand
`
`delivery), telephone: (202) 662-6000, facsimile: (202) 662-6291.
`
`Service Information: Service information is provided 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.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`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, 37, and 40 are obvious over Kijima in view of
`
`Suzuki;
`
` Ground II: Claim 35 is obvious over Kijima in view of Suzuki and
`
`Sturm;
`
` Ground III: Claim 36 is obvious over Kijima in view of Suzuki and
`
`Duthaler; and
`
` Ground IV: Claims 41-46 are obvious over Kijima in view of Suzuki
`
`and Fujimori.
`
`The ’389 patent was filed on May 2, 2002 and does not claim priority to any
`
`earlier application. As shown in the following table, the asserted references are all
`
`available as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA), and therefore
`
`qualify as prior art even if Patent Owner is able to establish an earlier right of
`
`priority.
`
`Exhibit
`Ex.1010
`(translation)
`Ex.1011
`(original)
`
`Reference
`Japanese Published
`Application No. H09-
`245964 (“Kijima”)
`
`Dates
`Published
`Sept. 19,
`1997
`
`Availability
`as Prior Art
`102(a), 102(b)
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`Exhibit
`Ex.1012
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. 6,198,217
`(“Suzuki”)
`
`Ex.1013
`
`Ex.1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,087,196
`(“Sturm”)
`
`International Publication
`No. WO 2001/08242
`(“Duthaler”)
`Japanese Published
`Application No. H10-
`41069 (“Fujimori”)
`
`Dates
`Filed May 8,
`1998, issued
`March 6,
`2001
`Filed Jan. 28,
`1999, issued
`July 11, 2000
`Published
`Feb. 1, 2001
`
`Availability
`as Prior Art
`102(a),
`102(b), 102(e)
`
`102(a),
`102(b), 102(e)
`
`102(a), 102(b)
`
`Ex.1014
`(translation)
`Ex.1015
`(original)
`
`None of these prior art references were cited or considered by the Examiner
`
`Published
`Feb. 13, 1998
`
`102(a), 102(b)
`
`during prosecution of the ’389 patent. The supporting declaration from Vivek
`
`Subramanian, Ph.D. (Ex.1004) was also not before the Examiner. Accordingly, 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).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’389 PATENT
`
`The ’389 patent relates to encapsulated 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
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`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:
`
`
`
`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 corrosive effects of oxygen and moisture.” Id.,
`
`1:37-40.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`The ’389 patent emphasizes that “during the batch fabrication of many OLED
`
`devices upon a single large sheet of glass—such 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:
`
`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 devices 202 may be separated and further 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—
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`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.
`
`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 deposited 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 substrate 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.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`
`
`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 Electrical Engineering, Materials Science, or a
`
`related field, and at least one year of experience in display technologies. Ex.1004,
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`¶38. 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 layer further comprises depositing by
`shadow mask, sputtering, ink jet 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.1004, ¶¶39-42.
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`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 alternative scenario in
`
`
`
`which the claim is applied as written. Ex.1004, ¶¶43-44.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Kijima (Ex.1010)
`
`Kijima discloses techniques for encapsulating OLED devices using a
`
`selectively deposited “sealing film.” For example, as shown in Figure 1 below,
`
`Kijima discloses an “organic EL [electroluminescent] element 31” (e.g., a pixel)
`
`comprising an OLED device (blue) encapsulated by an “insulating sealing film 8”
`
`(green). Kijima, [0001], [0036]-[0038].
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`Id., Fig. 1 (annotated). The element of Figure 1 may be one of a plurality of pixels
`
`arranged in a “prescribed pixel pattern,” for use in a display, as shown in Figure 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`Id., Fig. 2 (annotated). Figure 12 of Kijima provides “an enlarged cross-sectional
`
`view” of the pixel PX and its adjacent pixels. Id., [0053].
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 12 (annotated).
`
`As discussed in the claim analysis below, Kijima’s insulating sealing film
`
`constitutes a barrier layer under the ’389 patent, and it would have been obvious to
`
`further include an organic planarization layer in view of Suzuki.
`
`Kijima teaches use of a shadow mask (i.e., “deposition mask 24,” red) for
`
`selectively depositing the OLED device elements and the insulating sealing film 8,
`
`as shown in Figures 3 and 11 below. Id., [0041], [0051].
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Figs. 3 and 11 (annotated). Ex.1004, ¶¶45-49.
`
`B. Suzuki (Ex.1012)
`
`Suzuki discloses techniques for encapsulating OLED devices via a “protective
`
`double layer” that is “made of an organic barrier layer and an inorganic barrier
`
`layer.” Suzuki, [Abstract]. As illustrated in Figure 1 below, Suzuki discloses a
`
`method for forming a device including an “electroluminiscence unit U” (i.e., an
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`OLED device, blue), id., 5:38-54, which is encapsulated by a “protective layer P”
`
`composed of (i) a planarizing “organic barrier layer 20” followed by (ii) an
`
`“inorganic barrier layer 22.” Suzuki, 5:49-54.
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 1 (annotated).
`
`Suzuki teaches that its organic barrier layer serves to planarize the underlying
`
`electrode, explaining that the “organic barrier layer 20 … covers defects … and
`
`makes a smooth surface on the relatively irregular surface of the cathode 18.” Id.,
`
`5:59-67. Suzuki further teaches that “it is preferred to cover the end faces” of the
`
`organic barrier layer 20 with the inorganic barrier layer 22. Id., 7:30-34. Suzuki
`
`explains that its protective double layer serves to address a “serious problem” with
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`OLED devices—namely, the appearance of “dark spots” that “develop in the device
`
`by the presence of moisture entering from defective portions thereof.” Id., 1:41-52.
`
`As discussed in the claim analysis below, it would have been obvious to use
`
`Suzuki’s protective double layer in the encapsulation method of Kijima, resulting in
`
`a selectively deposited organic planarization layer in addition to a selectively
`
`deposited inorganic barrier layer. Ex.1004, ¶¶50-52.
`
`C. Sturm (Ex.1013)
`
`Consistent with the ’389 patent’s explanation that “selectively depositing the
`
`organic layer and the barrier layer may be accomplished in a variety of ways,”
`
`including “by inkjet deposition,” ’389 patent, 6:66-7:03, Sturm teaches methods “of
`
`fabricating semiconductor devices, such as OLED’s by ink-jet printing.” Sturm,
`
`3:42-44. These methods entail “directly deposit[ing] the desired organic or other
`
`layers in the desired pattern using inkjet printing.” Id., 5:17-19. Sturm discloses
`
`using
`
`this method
`
`to create selectively deposited “islands” of organic
`
`electroluminescent (EL) material, id., 5:30-63; patterned OLED electrodes, id., 5:64-
`
`6:18; patterned top contacts, id., 6:19-28; and patterned insulators, id., 7:3-12;
`
`Ex.1004, ¶53.
`
`D. Duthaler (Ex.1016)
`
`Duthaler teaches that several techniques can be used for depositing patterned
`
`circuit elements for electronic displays—including ink jet printing, screen printing,
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`and vacuum-based process using proximity or contact masks. Duthaler, 4:22-30,
`
`11:5-12, 20:12-20. These are also consistent with the teachings of the ’389 patent.
`
`’389 patent, 6:66-7:03; Ex.1004, ¶54.
`
`E. Fujimori (Ex.1014)
`
`Fujimori discloses an approach for manufacturing OLED display elements
`
`using a “mask attached to a substrate with magnetic force,” Fujimori, [0010], which
`
`allows for “favorable pattern processing accuracy,” id., [0009] and can enable the
`
`manufacturing of displays with “much smaller pixel size than the range where
`
`pattern processing using a [conventional] mask is possible,” id., [0008].
`
`As Fujimori explains, conventional masks used in manufacturing organic
`
`electroluminescent elements make it “difficult to pattern the element with adequate
`
`accuracy.” Id., [0007]-[0008]. Fujimori explains that its magnetic masking approach
`
`addresses that problem, by improving adhesion between the mask and substrate:
`
`An important feature of the present invention is that the adhesion
`between the mask and the substrate is improved by magnetic force.
`This effect reduces the proportion of the area where the deposited
`material or other material wraps around, i.e., the portion deposited from
`the mask opening that bleeds to the shadow portion of the mask,
`achieving fine pattern processing not conventionally possible.
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`Id., [0029].3
`
`Fujimori’s technique may be used to deposit “portions involved in the light
`
`emission of the organic electroluminiscent element, [and] may also be [applied to]
`
`non-light-emitting portions formed for the purpose of improving contrast, pattern
`
`accuracy, and electrical insulation of the portions involved in light emission.” Id.,
`
`[0023]; see also id., [0027] (noting that an example of a “non-light-emitting portion[]
`
`to be patterned according to the present invention” is an “insulating layer”).
`
`As discussed in the claim analysis below, it would have been obvious to use
`
`Fujimori’s magnetic masking approach in the encapsulation method of Kijima,
`
`resulting in a method that satisfies claims 41-46. Ex.1004, ¶¶55-58.
`
`VIII. APPLICATION OF PRIOR ART TO THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`A. Ground I: Claims 34, 37, and 40 Are Obvious Over Kijima in
`View of Suzuki
`1.
`
`Independent 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 satisfied by Kijima. Kijima discloses a method of
`
`encapsulating a plurality of OLED pixel devices which are fabricated upon a
`
`substrate.
`
`
`3 All emphasis in quotations has been added by Petitioner unless otherwise noted.
`
`23
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`Kijima is directed to methods for “producing an optical element suitable for
`
`an organic electroluminescent display.” Kijima, [0001]. This display includes a
`
`“large number of pixels PX formed in a dot pattern … as depicted in FIG. 2,” where
`
`the pixels each comprise an organic EL element as shown in Figure 1, id., [0036].
`
`Id., Figs. 1, 2 (annotated). Figure 12 of Kijima provides “an enlarged cross-
`
`sectional view” of the pixel PX and its adjacent pixels. Id., [0053].
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 12 (annotated).
`
`Each of Kijima’s pixels PX comprises an OLED device (as shaded in blue
`
`above) that is fabricated upon a substrate (Kijima’s “substrate 6”). The OLED
`
`24
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`includes a sequence of organic layers (e.g., hole transport layer 4 and light emitting
`
`layer 3), disposed between an ITO electrode 5 (on the bottom) and a cathode
`
`electrode 1 and conductive sealing film 7 (on the top).4
`
`Accordingly, Kijima’s display—which includes a “large number of pixels,”
`
`id., [0036]—comprises a plurality of OLED pixel devices. Patent Owner’s
`
`
`4 Kijima notes that the “conductive sealing film 7” serves to prevent “degradation of
`
`the organic layer due to radiant heat during vapor deposition of the insulating sealing
`
`film 8.” Kijima, [0056]. However, a POSITA would have appreciated that
`
`conductive film 7 also functions together with electrode 1 to serve as a “negative
`
`electrode” to drive the OLED. Ex.1004, ¶63. As Dr. Subramanian explains,
`
`conductive film 7 is formed as a stripe (using mask 23a in Figure 3) (see Kijima,
`
`[0050]), whereas electrode 1 is formed as an island (using mask 22a in Figure 3) (id.,
`
`[0047]-[0049]); Ex.1004, ¶63. Thus, conductive film 7 is what is used to carry
`
`charge to electrode 1. This is illustrated in Figure 24, which depicts an “example of
`
`the aforementioned organic EL element” in which the organic layers are “disposed
`
`between the negative electrode 1 and the positive electrode 5, and these electrodes
`
`are arranged in a matrix of intersecting stripes.” Kijima, [0022]; Ex.1004, ¶63. In
`
`other words, conductive film 7 would be part of the striped “negative electrode 1”
`
`as illustrated in Figure 24.
`
`25
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`infringement allegations in related litigation are based on the understanding that
`
`OLED pixels qualify as “devices” for this claim element.5
`
`The OLED devices are each sealed by an “insulating sealing film 8” (shaded
`
`in green above). This sealing film is used for “preventing oxidation of the electrode
`
`1 and degradation of the organic layer.” Id., [0055]. That is, the insulating sealing
`
`film serves to encapsulate the devices. See also id., [0025]-[0032], [0054]-[0055],
`
`[0058], [0064], [0068], [0072]. Ex.1004, ¶¶59-65.
`
`
`5 In its district court complaint (Ex.1019 ¶ 34), Patent Owner asserts that a Galaxy
`
`S20 smartphone includes a “plurality of … OLED devices,” pointing to individual
`
`OLED pixels as the “devices”:
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`b.
`
`Element 34[a]: “fabricating a plurality of devices on a
`substrate;”
`
`Kijima satisfies this element because it discloses fabricating a plurality of
`
`OLED devices on a substrate. As noted for the preamble above, Kijima discloses
`
`forming a plurality of organic EL elements which serve as pixels PX and comprise
`
`a plurality of OLED devices (blue), as illustrated in Figures 2 and 12 below. Kijima,
`
`[0036]. Kijima discloses fabricating these OLED devices on a substrate, i.e., glass
`
`substrate 6. Id., [0037]-[0053].
`
`Id., Figs. 2, 12 (annotated). Ex.1004, ¶66.
`
`27
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`c.
`
`Element 34[b]: “selectively depositing at least one
`planarization layer upon said devices; and”
`
`This element is obvious based on Kijima in view of Suzuki. Kijima’s
`
`encapsulation approach entails selectively depositing an insulating sealing film upon
`
`its OLED devices. It would have been obvious to further use a selectively deposited
`
`organic planarization layer in view of Suzuki, which teaches the benefits of a
`
`“protective double layer made of an organic barrier layer and an inorganic barrier
`
`layer.” Suzuki, [Abstract].
`
`As discussed above for Element 34[pre], Kijima discloses encapsulating its
`
`devices with an “insulating sealing film 8,” which is used for “preventing oxidation
`
`of the electrode 1 and degradation of the organic layer.” Kijima, [0055]; see also id.,
`
`[0025]-[0032], [0054]-[0055], [0058], [0064], [0068], [0072].
`
`Kijima discloses selectively depositing this insulating sealing film. Kijima
`
`explains that the insulating sealing film 8 is deposited via a “vacuum deposition
`
`device 11” using “mask 24” (red) having “openings 24a.” Id., [0040]-[0041].
`
`Because deposition of the sealing film is restricted to the areas exposed by the mask
`
`openings 24a, the film is selectively deposited upon the OLED devices, as shown in
`
`Figure 11. Id., [0051].
`
`28
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Figs. 3, 11 (annotated).
`
`Although Kijima uses a single inorganic layer for its sealing film,6 it was
`
`known by the time of the invention to encapsulate such OLED devices using a multi-
`
`layer encapsulation comprising both organic and inorganic layers, in order to provide
`
`increased protection from damaging environmental effects. For example, the ’389
`
`patent describes that it was “known in the art” to encapsulate OLED devices using a
`
`“‘polymer multi-layer’ (PML) [technique] comprising alternating and repeating
`
`layers of an o