Free Claim Construction Answering Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 1 of 48

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION, et al. Defendants. CONSOLIDATED CASES Civil Action No. 06-726 (JJF) Civil Action No. 07-357 (JJF)

RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. TO AUO'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

BAYARD P.A. Richard D. Kirk Ashley B. Stitzer Stephen B. Brauerman 222 Delaware Avenue, 9th Floor P.O. Box 25130 Wilmington, DE 19899-5130 (302) 655-5000 [email protected] [email protected] Of Counsel: Gaspare J. Bono R. Tyler Goodwyn, IV Lora A. Brzezynski Cass W. Christenson McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 496-7500 Attorneys for Plaintiffs LG Display Co., Ltd. and LG Display America, Inc.

{BAY:01140886v1}

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 2 of 48

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS OF THE LGD PATENTS ........... 1 A. U.S. Patent No. 4,624,737 ­ the "Improved TFT" patent .................................... 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. B. "oxidizing atmosphere" / "without exposing them to an oxidizing atmosphere"............................................................................................ 1 "continuously depositing" ....................................................................... 1 said source and drain electrode serving as at least part of a mask............. 2 "forming...on" / "depositing on"............................................................. 2 "a fourth step for selectively forming a source electrode and a drain electrode"....................................................................................... 3 "interconnecting substantially all of said row and column lines to one another and substantially all of said column lines to one another" .................................................................................................. 3 "resistance"............................................................................................. 4 "to provide protection from electrostatic discharges between said row and column activation lines during manufacturing of the display" / protection from electrostatic discharges" / "row and column activation lines".......................................................................... 4 "outer electrostatic discharge guard ring"................................................ 5 "removing said outer guard ring and row and column interconnections" .................................................................................... 5 "forming a pattern of pixels on said substrate" ........................................ 5 "one of said first and second conductive layers" / "one".......................... 6 "formed on said second conductive layer and on a second portion of said first insulative layer overlying said first conductive layer" / "overlying" ............................................................................................. 6

U.S. Patent No. 5,019,002 ­ the "ESD Protection" patent ................................... 3 1.

2. 3.

4. 5. 6. C. 1. 2.

U.S. Patent No. 5,825,449 ­ the "Substrate Wiring Design" patent ..................... 6

D.

U.S. Patent Nos. 5,905,274; 6,815,321; and 7,176,489 -- the "Single Photoresist Hillock Protection" patents............................................................... 6 1. "the first metal layer being wider than the second metal layer by about 1 to 4 µm" / "a total width of the first metal layer is greater than a total width of the second metal layer by about 1 to 4 µm"............. 7

{BAY:01140886v1}

i

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 3 of 48

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 2. "the second metal layer being arranged on the first metal layer to prevent hillock at the sides of the aluminum first layer" / "at the sides of the aluminum first layer"............................................................ 9 "double-layered structure" / "double-layered metal gate"........................ 9 "gate" ................................................................................................... 10 "gate electrode" / "gate line"................................................................. 11 "having an opening therein".................................................................. 11 "the opening includes a first opening portion and a second opening portion" ................................................................................................ 12 "a first electrode" / "a second electrode" / "a third electrode"................ 12 "a semiconductor layer on the first insulating layer over at least a portion of the opening" / "a drain electrode on the semiconductor layer over at least a portion of the opening" .......................................... 13 "substantially surrounding the drain electrode" ..................................... 13 "on a single production process line" .................................................... 13 "passing the first and second substrates through a sealing material coating portion of the single production process line in serial order" ................................................................................................... 15 "forming a main sealant" / "main sealant"............................................. 16 "a dummy region"................................................................................. 16 "auxiliary sealant"................................................................................. 17

3. 4. E. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

U.S. Patent No. 6,664,569 ­ the "Improved Picture Quality" patent.................. 10

6. F. 1. 2.

USP 6,803,984 ­ the "Serial Production Line" patent ....................................... 13

G.

U.S. Patent No. 7,218,374 ­ the "ODF Seal" patent.......................................... 16 1. 2. 3.

II.

CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS OF THE AUO PATENTS......... 17 A. U.S. Patent No. 6,976,781 ­ the "Hooks and Holes Connector" patent.............. 17 1. 2. "on outer surfaces of said first edge a plurality of first hooks are formed to protrude outwardly" .............................................................. 18 "as said frame is mounted onto said bezel" / "simultaneously said second edge is disposed onto . . . second sidewall, and said first hooks are inserted and engaged in said second holes" ........................... 18 "bezel".................................................................................................. 19

3. B.

U.S. Patent No. 7,101,069 ­ the "Elongated Lamp Support" patent .................. 20 ii

{BAY:01140886v1}

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 4 of 48

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 1. 2. C. "fitting portion" .................................................................................... 20 "comprises two sidewalls extending upwardly and separately" and "has two sidewalls extending upwardly and separately" ........................ 21 "supporting portion" ............................................................................. 23 "constraining portion"........................................................................... 23 "first position" and "second position" ................................................... 25 "a layer of an insulating substrate, having an area" / "area"................... 26 "dummy conductive patterns" / "plurality of wiring arranged on the insulating substrate" ........................................................................ 27 "dummy patterns comprising at least about 30% of the area of the insulating substrate, the dummy conductive patterns situated between the connection pads and the pixel electrodes".......................... 27 "so as to make a time integration quantity of a brightness change substantially equal to an ideal quantity of light in a stationary state with respect to the next brightness level" (claim 1) ............................... 28 "determinator for determining an output brightness level"..................... 30 "brightness level".................................................................................. 31 "a storage for storing the previous brightness level of the video signal input through said input logic" and "the next brightness level of the next video signal input to said input logic".......................... 32 "video signal" ....................................................................................... 33 "image display cell" and "pixel" ........................................................... 33 "display module" .................................................................................. 33 "hot bar soldering"................................................................................ 34 "flexible printed circuit board".............................................................. 35 "pillars formed higher than other portions of the color filter" and "pillars of a color filter" ........................................................................ 36 "the pillars are covered with the common electrode"............................. 37 iii

U.S. Patent 7,125,157 - the "Optical Film Positioning" patent .......................... 22 1. 2. 3.

D.

U.S. Patent No. 6,689,629 ­ the "Dummy Etching Patterns" patent .................. 25 1. 2. 3.

E.

U.S. Patent No. 6,778,160 ­ the "Ideal Brightness Determinator" patent........... 27 1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. F. 1. 2. 3. G. 1. 2.
{BAY:01140886v1}

U.S. Patent No. 7,090,506 ­ the "Touch Screen Connector" patent................... 33

U.S. Patent 5,748,266 -- the "Color Filter Spacer" patent.................................. 35

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 5 of 48

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 3. 4. H. "storage capacitance line" ..................................................................... 37 "injecting liquid crystal between the array substrate and the color filter substrate" ..................................................................................... 38 "dynamic hardness value" and "hardness value of plastic deformation"......................................................................................... 39 "at least one of the group consisting of" ................................................ 40

U.S. Patent 5,748,944 - the "Spacer Hardness" patent....................................... 39 1. 2.

{BAY:01140886v1}

iv

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 6 of 48

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. v. Alcon Inc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 370 (D. Del. 2005) ...................................................................................... 3 Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelectronics Int'l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................... 38 Datapoint Corp. v. Std. Microsystems Corp., 31 Fed. Appx. 685 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................15, 16 Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................23, 24, 35 Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................... 12 Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ........................................................................................... 22 O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., Inc., 115 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................................. 3 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................... 34 Rheox, Inc. v. Entact, Inc., 276 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... 36 SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................40, 42 Spectrum Int'l, Inc. v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................... 22 Thorn EMI N. Am. v. Intel Corp., 928 F. Supp. 449 (D. Del. 1996) ......................................................................................... 25 STATUTES 35 U.S.C. § 112 ...............................................................................................................3, 30, 40 OTHER AUTHORITIES American Heritage Dictionary (1980) ......................................................................................... 6 Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994) ..............................................................6, 8, 17
{BAY:01140886v1}

v

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 7 of 48

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page(s) Riverside Webster's II New College Dictionary (1995) .............................................................. 8

{BAY:01140886v1}vi

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 8 of 48

LG Display Co., Ltd. ("LGD") hereby submits its response to AUO's opening brief. I. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS OF THE LGD PATENTS A. U.S. Patent No. 4,624,737 ­ the "Improved TFT" patent

AUO misconstrues the patent's teachings, relies on extrinsic evidence to improperly limit the claims. Further, AUO urges arguments that were already rejected by the California Court. 1. "oxidizing atmosphere" / "without exposing them to an oxidizing atmosphere"1

AUO ignores both the claim language and the specification, which clearly identifies the invention as being directed to preventing the formation of a "natural oxide" on the films in order to improve their electrical contact. 1:32-53. As the California Court recognized, an atmosphere with any oxidizing agent may not be sufficient to create an oxide -- "de minimus amount of oxidation [allowed per AUO's construction] is not an `oxidation atmosphere.'" D.I. 384 at 13, discussing Ex. L-4(a) at 9. Instead, the California Court correctly held that a detectable amount of oxidation on a film is required to accurately characterize an "oxidizing atmosphere." 2. "continuously depositing"

AUO's proposed construction improperly seeks to limit "continuously depositing" to a specific precipitating process. There is nothing in the claim language or specification that requires such a limitation. Instead, "depositing" should be more broadly construed as "the formation of the gate insulating film, the high-resistivity semiconductor film and conducting film without intervening films," as both LGD and CMO advocate. As previously discussed, the specification uses the more general term "forming" to describe the deposition step, and refers to precipitation only as an example ("...for instance..."). D.I. 384 at 15-16, citing 2:19-23 ("a gate
1

Though AUO asserts that the term "them" is indefinite, LGD contends this argument is baseless as the meaning of them is clear from the language of the claim itself.

{BAY:01140886v1}1

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 9 of 48

insulating film 3, a high-resistivity film 4, a low-resistivity film a-Si:H (usually hydrogenated amorphous silicon) film 20 and a conducting film 30 made of a metal or other material are successively formed on the gate electrode 2 and substrate 1..."); 2:24-31 ("Such successive deposition can be accomplished, for instance, by forming a silicon nitride (SiNx) film as a gate insulating film 3..., forming a high-resistivity a-Si:H film 4...and forming a n+ a-Si:H film 20.... It is also possible to form said films successively...."). 3. "said source and drain electrode serving as at least part of a mask

AUO's argument that the source and drain electrode must define a boundary must fail because it ignores the clear language of the claims and has already been rejected by the California Court. D.I. 384 at 14-15. AUO misconstrues the specification and claims when it suggests that Figs. 2c and 3d and the steps of the claim require that the source and drain electrodes define a boundary of removal. Instead, the claims unambiguously require that the source and drain electrode serve as "at least part", and not necessarily all, of the mask, without any additional limitations. AUO cannot disregard this language. 4. "forming...on" / "depositing on"

The focus of this dispute is whether the term "on" requires direct contact between the layer in question and the gate electrode or substrate. As previously explained in detail (D.I. 384 at 13-14), AUO's construction of "on" as requiring direct contact with the electrode or substrate must be rejected as inconsistent with the claim language. For example, the claim recites that the island region (from the high-resistivity semiconductor film and conducting film) is "on" the gate electrode. The island region, however, is clearly not in direct contact with the gate electrode because there is an intervening gate insulating layer between the gate electrode and the highresistivity semiconductor layer of the island. 4:27-29, 32-35.

{BAY:01140886v1}2

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 10 of 48

5.

"a fourth step for selectively forming a source electrode and a drain electrode"

AUO's attempt to construe this element as a "step-plus-function" limitation is unwarranted. This claim language, like the other elements of method claim 1, recites no function but only the acts to be performed during that step. There is thus no reason to construe this limitation as a step-plus-function element under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). See O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., Inc., 115 F.3d 1576, 1583-1584 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (§ 112 ¶ 6 does not apply when acts are recited in the claim); Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. v. Alcon Inc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 370, 398 (D. Del. 2005) (noting "fully applicable here is the Federal Circuit's express reluctance to interpret claims elements as step-plus-function limitation simply because `ing' verb is in play...."). B. U.S. Patent No. 5,019,002 ­ the "ESD Protection" patent

AUO's constructions do not provide the necessary guidance to avoid the ambiguity that arose in the previous CPT litigation regarding the `002 patent. D.I. 384 at 6-11. Moreover, AUO does not adopt any of this Court's previous constructions and provides an insufficient basis for modifying them. AUO's constructions improperly import a number of limitations. 1. "interconnecting substantially all of said row and column lines to one another and substantially all of said column lines to one another"

LGD proposes the construction "electrically connecting with conductive material all or nearly all row lines to at least one other row line and electrically connecting with conductive material all or nearly all of the column lines to at least one other column line." a. "interconnecting"

AUO's argument that "joining" clarifies "interconnecting" is nonsensical. AUO argues that "interconnecting" should not be construed as electrically connecting because electrically connecting could possibly include indirect connecting. AUO, however, fails to provide any reasoning as to how the term "joining" would address this alleged ambiguity. Further, joining

{BAY:01140886v1}3

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 11 of 48

would provide no guidance to the electrical conduction aspect of the term. The specification clearly provides that the invention provides a conductive path and, accordingly, including "electrically connecting" is appropriate. (D.I. 384 at 7-8.) b. "one another"

AUO's assertion that interconnecting requires connecting "almost all together" is contradicted by the claim and the specification. The claim language does not recite "together" and should not be so limited. A number of interconnections contradicting AUO's construction are disclosed. Fig. 4; 2:29-36; 5:65-68; 6:6-9; see also Ex. L-2(c) (U.S. Patent 4,820,222 at Fig 7; 7:40-42). Further, AUO's construction precludes "all" and should be rejected. 2. "resistance"

AUO argues that LGD's construction of resistance should be rejected because it removes the word "specified" from the Court's previous construction. However, as previously explained, "specified" created confusion in the CPT trial. (D.I. 384 at 10-11.) AUO also asserts, contrary to this Court's prior ruling, that a resistance should be limited to a resistor by its construction, "a specified ratio." LGD incorporates the well-established meaning. Id. 3. "to provide protection from electrostatic discharges between said row and column activation lines during manufacturing of the display" / protection from electrostatic discharges" / "row and column activation lines"

The term must be construed in the context of the claim language that further states "via a resistance to provide protection from electrostatic discharges between said row and column activation lines." 9:7-10. Thus, the claim language clearly links the protection language to the resistance element, and LGD's construction "to minimize current surge in the TFT array from electrostatic discharge during manufacture of the display" accurately reflects the meaning in the context of the claims. Moreover, AUO's assertion that LGD ignores the language of "between

{BAY:01140886v1}4

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 12 of 48

said row and column lines" is incorrect. As described in the specification, electrostatic discharge occurs at the crossover points between the row and column lines in the TFT array and can also occur within the TFT itself. 4:49-53; Figs. 2, 3. 4. "outer electrostatic discharge guard ring"

LGD and CMO propose that this Court adopt its previous construction. AUO contends that this Court should limit the construction for both inner and outer guard rings to only a "surrounding structure." AUO's construction disregards the description in the specification of guard rings. 7:18-21. The intrinsic evidence does not require surrounding structures. 5. "removing said outer guard ring and row and column interconnections"

LGD and CMO propose that this Court adopt its previous construction that provides clear guidance on the meaning of the term. AUO's construction adds unnecessary and incorrect language. AUO's attempts to distort the claim language by asserting that "row and column interconnections" does not have antecedent basis. To the contrary, the preceding element clearly interconnects the row and column lines, thus providing proper antecedent basis. AUO also interjects the ambiguous term "lines connecting/joining" into the construction. AUO's additional language is unsupported and thus should be rejected. 6. "forming a pattern of pixels on said substrate"

AUO incorrectly urges that the pattern of pixels must be in direct contact with the substrate. This is not required by the claims and is inconsistent with the specification. For example, a suppression layer 30 can be formed on the substrate followed by the ITO layer 32, which forms the pattern of pixels. 4:13-22; see also 4:67-5:6. Thus, forming a pattern of pixels should not be limited to require direct contact with the substrate.

{BAY:01140886v1}5

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 13 of 48

C.

U.S. Patent No. 5,825,449 ­ the "Substrate Wiring Design" patent 1. "one of said first and second conductive layers" / "one"

AUO repeats the same misstatements made by CMO regarding the prosecution history and the words "essentially" and "one". Instead of repeating arguments, LGD refers to the corresponding section in its response to CMO on these issues. 2. "formed on said second conductive layer and on a second portion of said first insulative layer overlying said first conductive layer" / "overlying"

AUO's construction of overlying as covering the top surface is unduly limiting as neither the claims nor specification support such a construction. Contrary to AUO's assertions, the plain and ordinary meaning of "overlie" is "to lie over or upon." Exs. L-37, 38 (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994) and The American Heritage Dictionary (1980)). In the context of the claims, overlying thus must mean over, i.e., above. AUO's construction also interjects ambiguity as it does not describe how the surface must be "covered" (e.g. fully or partially). AUO also asserts, without support, that "formed" means "produced." Produced offers no guidance as to the meaning of the term, however, and is inconsistent with the specification. The patent repeatedly refers to forming conductive layers. 2:37-40; 3:63-66; 5:6-8; 5:39-45. D. U.S. Patent Nos. 5,905,274; 6,815,321; and 7,176,489 -the "Single Photoresist Hillock Protection" patents

This family of patents is directed to an LCD with improved performance and yield that is manufactured with fewer process steps. Specifically, the improved design uses a low resistance gate layer, such as aluminum, that overcomes hillock problems that arise at the aluminum and gate insulating layer interface, by maintaining coverage, after etching, of a portion of the aluminum by another conductive layer, such as molybdenum. AUO ignores these fundamental principles in its attempt to read improper limitations into the claims. Rather, the terms should be

{BAY:01140886v1}6

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 14 of 48

construed in light of the patent's teaching: preventing hillock at the sides exposed to the gate insulating layer, providing adequate gate insulator coverage, and reducing the contact resistance between the first and second metal layers. 1. "the first metal layer being wider than the second metal layer by about 1 to 4 µm" / "a total width of the first metal layer is greater than a total width of the second metal layer by about 1 to 4 µm"

AUO erroneously asserts that these terms are indefinite, or alternatively that the width should be "measured from a level defined by the top of the first metal layer," clearly ignoring the plain meaning of the claim language and the intrinsic evidence. Contrary to AUO's assertions, LGD's construction clarifies that the difference in width should be measured from the entire width of each layer, and includes the critical aspect that the sides must be exposed to the gate insulating layer. The language of the claims dictate that LGD's construction should be adopted. The claims require that the first metal layer must be wider than the second metal layer or that a total width of the first metal layer is greater than a total width of the second metal layer. All parties agree that in view of the claims and specification there should be no difference in the construction for the claim elements that include "wider than" from the claim elements that include "total width." D.I. 376 (Ex. F at 8; Ex. G at 6; Ex. H at 5). AUO contends, however, that the total width and wider refer only to the narrower top of the layers. This contradicts the plain meaning. Wide and width are commonly understood to mean the extent from side to side. See, e.g., Ex. L-40, Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary (1994) ("wide" defined as "having a specified extension from side to side"), ("width" defined as "the horizontal measurement taken at right angles to the length; breadth"); Ex. L-41, American Heritage Dictionary (1980) ("wide" defined as "having a specified extent of something from side to side; in width"), ("width" defined as "the measurement of the extent of something from side to side; the size of something in terms of wideness"); Ex. L-42, Riverside Webster's II New College Dictionary (1995)
{BAY:01140886v1}7

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 15 of 48

("wide" defined as "having a specified extent from side to side"), ("width" defined as "the measurement of the extent of something from side to side"). The plain meaning of the claim thus mandates that the entire width should be measured or the extent from side to side of each layer. The specification provides unequivocal support for LGD's construction as it sets forth that the first metal layer is equal to the width of the photoresist, and states that photoresist is patterned through exposure and development to have width w1, as shown in Fig 4A, on the second metal layer, thus unambiguously describing the original width of the photoresist. D.I. 384 at 22; 5:58-62. Then, the specification identifies that the first metal layer has the same width w1 as the photoresist. 6:5-6; 6:20-21. Thus, there can be no dispute that the width of the first metal layer is the original width of the photoresist. The intrinsic evidence provides further support for how one of ordinary skill would understand the width at the time of the invention. The figures from the cited prior art, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,132,745 and 5,156,986, demonstrate the width of the first metal layer has the width of the photoresist. See Exs. L-43 and L-44. To try to create support for its construction, AUO incorrectly cites to statements in the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 6,573,127 ("the `127 patent"), an unrelated patent directed to the stresses exhibited by a first and second metal layer. AUO completely ignores that claim 1 of the `127 patent specifically requires that "the second metal layer is formed only on a portion of the first metal layer, leaving two side portions on a horizontal upper surface of the first metal layer having no second metal layer formed thereon." Ex. L-45 (the `127 patent, claim 1). This language is absent from the claims of the `274 family and thus supports that the `274 family should not be so limited. AUO alleges that LGD's construction improperly imports "the subsequently deposited gate insulating layer." However, this language is necessary to clarify that the invention excludes

{BAY:01140886v1}8

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 16 of 48

clad structure or oxide layers, as distinguished in the prosecution history. JX F1 (Response dated November 17, 1998). Further, the language is fully supported by the specification. 3:20-26 ("...the preferred embodiments of the present invention provide a thin-film transistor which prevents a hillock and deterioration of step coverage of a later formed gate oxide layer on a double metal layer gate."); 4:40-45 ("[t]he present inventors have discovered that a relationship between the width of the first metal layer and the width of the second metal layer of a double metal layer gate electrode is critical to preventing deterioration of step coverage of a later formed gate oxide layer...."); 4:60-63 ("[t]he first insulating layer 51 is preferably formed...on the substrate including the gate 49.") Finally, AUO's construction ignores the plain meaning of preventing hillock at the sides of the first aluminum layer. There is no basis to suggest that the aluminum on the sloped side portions would not experience hillock issues. LGD's construction unambiguously identifies how to measure the difference in width considering the entire area that would experience hillock. 2. "the second metal layer being arranged on the first metal layer to prevent hillock at the sides of the aluminum first layer" / "at the sides of the aluminum first layer"

LGD's proposed construction "the second metal layer is patterned to prevent hillock on the side surfaces of the first metal layer that are exposed to a subsequently deposited gate insulating layer" accurately reflects the teachings of the specification. AUO's contention that the sides should be limited to the lateral length of the exposed portions of the first metal layer is completely unwarranted because, as discussed above, hillock would just as likely occur on the side portions and cannot be disregarded. AUO's argument that LGD confuses width and thickness likewise has no validity. Accordingly, LGD's construction should be adopted. 3. "double-layered structure" / "double-layered metal gate"

AUO improperly seeks to limit the term to only two metal layers and a step structure.
{BAY:01140886v1}9

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 17 of 48

LGD addressed AUO's improper limitation in its opening brief, pointing out that the claim language of the `274 patent is "including a double layered structure" and that the prosecution history supports additional layers can be included. See D.I. 384 at 23. AUO argues that the cited prior art references, Wie and Miyago, have "similar double step structures. However, the specification does not support importing these limitations into the claims. In contrast, LGD's construction focuses on an essential goal of the `274 patent, to reduce the contact resistance between the first and second metal layers. 3:30-34 ("[t]he preferred embodiments of the present invention further provide a method of fabricating a thin-film transistor that reduces the contact resistance between the first and second metal layers constituting a gate."); 2:60-65; 5:46-54. 4. "gate"

AUO asserts that all AUO and LGD patents should have the same construction for gate and gate electrode. This, however, would ignore the specifications of each individual patent. LGD asserts that terms should be construed in view of each individual patent. Here, gate should not be limited to only "a gate region" as asserted by AUO. The gate in the `274 clearly includes a portion of the gate lines as it is concerned with the wiring resistance. 1:17-19 ("[t]he gate of the thin-film transistor is made of aluminum to reduce its wiring resistance, but an aluminum gate may cause defects such as hillock"). LGD's construction accurately reflects that only a portion of the patterned material controls the current flow through the channel. E. U.S. Patent No. 6,664,569 ­ the "Improved Picture Quality" patent

LGD's construes the terms of the `569 patent in view of the clear meaning set forth in the specification including the goals of reducing parasitic capacitance and compensating for misalignment. In contrast, AUO provides constructions that impermissibly narrow the claim scope with limitations that clearly ignore the teachings of the specification.

{BAY:01140886v1}10

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 18 of 48

1.

"gate electrode" / "gate line"

AUO blindly seeks to follow constructions from another patent without considering the claim language and disclosure of the `569 patent. In particular, the claims and specification of the '569 patent specifically disclose the gate electrode as part of the gate line. 5:47-48 ("The gate line 113 has a portion used for a gate electrode 115..."); 3:33-35 ("in contrast to the abovementioned [prior art] array substrate, a gate electrode 41 is formed in the gate line 47; see also, e.g., 4:28-30; 6:28-32; Figs 3-9. AUO, however, ignores these disclosures. Further, AUO's construction creates ambiguity by introducing a "gate region" into the definition. As the specification describes that the gate electrode has an opening, such a construction makes it unclear whether the opening would be included in the gate region. 4:3031; 4:48-50; 4:60-61; 5:49-51; 6:1-3; 6:30-32. Similarly, AUO's assertion that the "gate line" should be restricted to an "elongated directional conductor" is both overly limiting and ambiguous. AUO's reliance on the purported plain meaning of "line" as "a continuous length, straight or curved, without breadth or thickness" is clearly misplaced because the specification describes the gate line as having both breadth and thickness. See Figs. 1-9. AUO's construction also provides no guidance as to the meaning of the term gate line. LGD's construction, in contrast, properly construes "gate line" in view of the specification. 2:23-28; 6:21-28. 2. "having an opening therein"

AUO's proposed construction seeks to rewrite the claims in such a way as to limit them to the preferred embodiments. Nothing in the claim language or specification requires that the "opening" extend from the periphery to the interior of the gate line or gate electrode. Instead, the Court should adopt LGD's construction of the "opening" in the gate line or electrode as "a space in its pattern to reduce gate-drain capacitance and compensate for gate-drain layer misalignment." This construction does not import a functional limitation, as AUO claims, but
{BAY:01140886v1}11

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 19 of 48

provides useful guidance as to the orientation of the opening in the gate layer with respect to the drain layer. The specification describes this orientation as critical to the invention. As previously discussed (D.I. 384 at 27-28), the opening minimizes the parasitic capacitance between the gate and drain electrodes by reducing the overlap between the gate electrode and the drain electrode, thereby improving the quality of the device, 8:65-9:6; see also 2:67-3:29; 4:6-11; 5:66-6:17; 7:41-59; 8:7-12, 24-28. Even assuming arguendo that the claim terms do contain functional language (which LGD disputes), such a construction would not render LGD's construction improper because it provides guidance to the scope and meaning of the claim terms and is supported by the specification. See Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(stating "[i]t is therefore entirely proper to consider the functions of an invention in seeking to determine the meaning of particular claim language" and construing "substantially uniform magnetic field" as "a field that is sufficiently uniform to obtain useful MRI images"). 3. "the opening includes a first opening portion and a second opening portion"

Once again, AUO improperly seeks to read limitations into the claim that excludes preferred embodiments. Figs. 7, 8. LGD's construction, in contrast, is fully consistent with the specification, which teaches different embodiments, each of which has different structural limitations, yet all of which have the same orientation between the gate and drain layers to achieve the goals of the invention. As described above regarding having the "opening therein" limitation, LGD's construction properly describes the orientation between the gate and drain layers in view of the specification. Accordingly, this Court should adopt LGD's construction. 4. "a first electrode" / "a second electrode" / "a third electrode"

AUO's proposed construction fails to address the relationship between the electrodes and

{BAY:01140886v1}12

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 20 of 48

the opening and thus ignores the teachings of the specification and should be rejected. In contrast, LGD's construction of these terms, like its construction of the "opening" term above, provides the proper guidance regarding the scope of the terms in view of the specification, without importing unduly narrow structural limitations. 5. "a semiconductor layer on the first insulating layer over at least a portion of the opening" / "a drain electrode on the semiconductor layer over at least a portion of the opening"

AUO's characterization of LGD's constructions as unclear is unwarranted as LGD's construction clearly states that "a portion" of either the semiconductor layer or the drain electrode overlap the space in the gate line. Although AUO's construction tracks the claim language, it provides no guidance as to its meaning. 6. "substantially surrounding the drain electrode"

AUO's construction erroneously relies on a dictionary definition that contradicts the clear meaning in the specification. As discussed in LGD's opening brief, Figs. 5, 6B, 6C, 7-8 depict the source electrode surrounding a considerable amount, but not almost all, of the drain electrode and thus supports LGD's construction. See also 5:59-61; 7:1-2; 8:5-6. F. USP 6,803,984 ­ the "Serial Production Line" patent 1. "on a single production process line"

AUO admits that its proposed construction reflects "the spatial arrangement" of "a linear arrangement." (D.I. 387 at 54.) AUO's focus on a geometrical understanding of the word "line," however, ignores the claim language "production process line," which denotes "an arrangement of operations in manufacturing permitting sequential occurrence on various stages of production." Ex. L-15(a) (Merriam-Webster (1994) at 677 (definition of "line")). AUO also improperly relies on the "single line" language in the specification to support this "linear" limitation, despite the fact that this language ("single line") refers to a serial production process

{BAY:01140886v1}13

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 21 of 48

line, as opposed to parallel production process lines.2 5:23-30. LGD's construction does not read on parallel production lines, as AUO suggests. (D.I. 378 at 55.) Instead, AUO's hypothetical scenario entails substrates passing through multiple paths, which is contrary to the claim language, the stated objective of the invention, and LGD's constructions. Further, the applicant did not cede any claim scope when addressing prior art reference JP 8-171076. (D.I. 378 at 55.) The applicant remarked that "JP076 teaches that parallel processing is carried out on each distinguished substrate with separate lines when distinct processes are desired . . . ," clarifying that a parallel production process lines, in lieu of the claimed common path, can be used to perform processes distinct to each substrate. The applicant did not remark, as AUO suggests, that the claimed process line must consist of a "linear arrangement" of machines. Consistent with the specification, LGD proposes a construction of "on a production line where the processing equipment is arranged along a common path for performing the liquid crystal cell processes." D.I. 384 at 34. The term "common path" simply reflects the inherent fact that "portions" of a production line must have a path for conveyance of materials. See Datapoint Corp. v. Std. Microsystems Corp., 31 Fed. Appx. 685, 691 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that construction requiring that each node "hear" every communication is proper because it reflects inherent fact that each node must "hear" a communication before it can "recognize and accept only those transmissions addressed to it"). Further, rather than a linear arrangement of machines, the patent claims a sequence of "steps" and "portions," ordered to maximize spatial efficiency and improve productivity. 3:52-53. Although LGD agrees that the claimed

2

Notably, the definition of "production line" relied upon by AUO does not require that the processing equipment be in a "linear arrangement." (D.I. 378 at 54, n.32.)

{BAY:01140886v1}14

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 22 of 48

production line has a "single arrangement," in that the processing equipment on the production line is arranged along a common path (contrasted with parallel production lines), LGD does not agree that "single arrangement" refers to the machinery itself. Rather, as is evident from the specification, the term refers to a single sequence or arrangement of "portions" or "steps." 2. "passing the first and second substrates through a sealing material coating portion of the single production process line in serial order"

The "sealing material coating portion" is not, as AUO recommends, limited to an "equipment / machine for coating sealing material." When the inventors meant to claim use of "equipment / machine," they used the word "unit." Claim 10 ("cleaning unit"); claim 19 ("rubbing unit"); claim 20 ("cutting unit"). Considering the claim language provides for a "sealing material coating portion," rather than a "sealing material coating unit," there is no basis for AUO's limiting construction. Further, the intrinsic record does not limit the structure and performance of the processing equipment such that a substrate must enter "at one end" and exit "at the other end" as AUO urges. (D.I. 378 at 56.) In fact, the claims and specification acknowledge that the processing equipment of the sealing material coating portion, for example, must coat sealing material on one substrate but not the other. 7:62-67. Although the claims require that the substrates pass through the "portion" of the single production process line, this should not be construed to mean the depositing equipment itself. Id. Implementing AUO's vision of the claimed production line would actually hinder, rather than promote, efficiency. 3:51-53. Lastly, although LGD agrees that "serial order" means "one after the other," LGD does not agree with AUO's caveat, "without anything in between." The "without anything in between" limitation is not supported by the intrinsic record and does not reflect the ordinary meaning of "serial order." The claims only require that the substrates pass through the

{BAY:01140886v1}15

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 23 of 48

production line "in serial order." In the absence of any basis to read a negative limitation into a term otherwise directed to the sequence of steps (rather than the substance thereof), the Court should reject AUO's overly narrow and limiting construction. G. U.S. Patent No. 7,218,374 ­ the "ODF Seal" patent 1. "forming a main sealant" / "main sealant"

LGD and AUO agree on a key portion of these limitations, namely that the "main sealant" serves to "enclose." LGD does not agree, however, with other aspects of AUO's construction. First, a "segment," as advanced by AUO, may permit multiple separate segments of sealant (D.I. 378 at 58-59), and is contrary to the patent. 5:5-7; Figs. 3B, 4A, and 5A. Multiple segments of sealant, even if adjacent, would reintroduce the problem of excess sealant and contamination addressed by the claimed invention. Second, requiring the main sealant material to "enclose the liquid crystal" is inaccurate. The claim language does not specify when the liquid crystal must be deposited inside of the main sealant. Instead, the claim only requires that the main sealant enclose a place where the liquid crystal is to be deposited, i.e., the display area. Consider Fig. 3B, which denotes the main sealant being formed on one substrate and the liquid crystal being deposited on another. See also 2:47-50 (recognizing the seal separates the "active region (central part of the substrate)" and the "dummy region (outer part of the substrate)." Third, AUO does not propose a construction for "forming." Instead, AUO's proposed construction is "forming a segment of sealant that encloses the liquid crystal in the LCD panel." As is evidenced by the specification, however, the `374 patent addresses one-drop fill technology, that requires the sealant to be deposited, rather than screen printing or other technologies that do not. 2:36-40; Fig. 2B. 2. "a dummy region"

AUO's proposed construction for "dummy region" is incorrect, in that it arguably

{BAY:01140886v1}16

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 24 of 48

requires that the main sealant be formed in the dummy region. The specification, however, repeatedly states that the "auxiliary sealant," rather than the "main sealant," is formed in the dummy region. 2:50-54; 5:3-5; 9-14. Consequently, LGD's construction should be adopted. 3. "auxiliary sealant"

AUO's construction improperly suggests that the main sealant is formed prior to the auxiliary sealant. The word "extend" is commonly defined as "to cause to reach (as in distance or scope)." Ex. L-48. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1994). The patent plainly provides, however, that "the auxiliary sealant is formed in a dummy region and connects to the main sealant." Claim 1. While AUO and LGD agree that "contiguous" means that the auxiliary and main sealants are applied continuously, i.e, no break in the process, AUO fails to recognize that the process begins with the auxiliary sealant, not the main sealant. Moreover, depositing the main sealant first is inconsistent with one of the main objectives of the invention, which is to prevent contamination of the liquid crystal caused by contact with the sealant material. 2:50-54; 5:27-29; Fig. 3B. II. CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS OF THE AUO PATENTS A. U.S. Patent No. 6,976,781 ­ the "Hooks and Holes Connector" patent

As explained in the patent, the approach described for attaching the frame and bezel of a backlight balances between ease of disassembly and structural strength. 2:20-32. The disassembly feature results from the relative ease of bending either a plastic or metal structure, e.g., a frame, outwardly to disengage the holes in its side from hooks protruding from the underlying structure, e.g., a bezel. See 1:64-2:20. AUO's constructions disregard these important aspects of the claimed invention.

{BAY:01140886v1}17

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 25 of 48

1.

"on outer surfaces of said first edge a plurality of first hooks are formed to protrude outwardly"

AUO's proposed construction is defective as it proposes an overly broad interpretation for "hook" and fails to provide any guidance for the remainder of the limitation. With respect to "hook," AUO suggests that it means "any protruding structure intended to be inserted into a hole for the purpose of fastening one element to another." This construction is overly broad as it could include separate structures, such as screws, which is inconsistent with the patent. For example, the limitation in context with the remainder of the claim requires that the hooks are formed on outer surfaces to protrude outwardly. Consequently, the hooks are formed as part of the edge from which they protrude. Further, the specification consistently describes hooks as being "formed" on, "fabricated" on, or otherwise located "on" the outer surfaces of the frame or bezel. 2:35-37, 40-41; 3:11-13, 18-20, 34-35, 39-40, 57, 60-64; 4:1-5, 15-18, 26-27. Likewise, AUO's construction ignores that the "prime objective of the present invention is to provide a new assembling manner of the backlight unit for obtaining the both advantages [sic] of disassembling convenience and increasing structure strength." 2:29-32. (emphasis added). The specification clearly explains that the disassembly problem relates to the difficulty of, for example, "pressing slightly the hooks of the bezel and pulling the long edges of the frame." 3:49-54. If the hooks could be disengaged separately, such as by removing screws, the disassembly issue described in the patent would never arise. Hooks cannot properly include separate components, such as screws and, therefore, AUO's construction should be rejected. 2. "as said frame is mounted onto said bezel" / "simultaneously said second edge is disposed onto . . . second sidewall, and said first hooks are inserted and engaged in said second holes"

Once again, AUO's construction of these terms ignores the very language of the claims. The claims plainly require that the hooks be inserted into and engage the corresponding holes at

{BAY:01140886v1}18

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 26 of 48

the same time that the frame is mounted onto the bezel. Essentially, the frame and bezel are snapped together so that the hooks engage the holes at the same time the frame is mounted onto the bezel. In fact, it is this snapping together of hooks and holes that results in the disassembly issue discussed above. LGD's construction does not require, as AUO contends, that "the mating of the hooks and holes of all the edges and sidewalls must occur at the exact `same time'." (D.I. 378 at 4.) Instead, LGD's construction requires that, because the hooks are formed to protrude outwardly from a sidewall, e.g., of a frame, those hooks are inserted into and engage corresponding holes, e.g., of a bezel, when the frame is mounted, or snapped, onto the bezel. Further, this construction does not improperly read a process limitation into an apparatus claim as AUO contends. (D.I. 378 at 4-5.) Rather, LGD's construction follows directly from the claim language itself. The "at the same time" or "simultaneous" requirements, which AUO all but ignores in its construction, can be accomplished only by forming the hooks as part of the frame and bezel components. AUO's construction should be rejected, as it would improperly include the use of screws as hooks to mount the frame to the bezel. 3. "bezel"

AUO's attempt to construe "bezel" broadly to include a front or back frame is also contrary to the claims and specification. Both claims 1 and 8 recite the "bezel" and "frame" as separate components, which are made of different materials and have different (but complementary) patterns of hooks and holes with which to engage each other. 4:53-61; 5:36-6:9. Likewise, the specification repeatedly describes and shows the bezel as the outermost back cover and not simply as any frame. The "Background of the Invention," for example, explains: the typical backlight unit 10 applied to the LCDs comprises a lightguide plate 100, optical films 102, a reflector sheet 104, a tubular lamp 106, a frame 108 and a backbezel 110. The frame and bezel 110 are assembled together to contain and fabricate above components.

{BAY:01140886v1}19

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 27 of 48

1:30-43 (emphasis added). The specification similarly describes the invention as including "a frame 200 and a bezel 210," on which a number of components are assembled and then "the frame 200 is mounted onto the bezel 210 to contain those components." 3:6-31. Moreover, all of the figures show the bezel as the outermost back cover for the backlight module. Figs. 1-5. There is also no support for AUO's argument that the specification distinguishes a "backbezel" (or back cover) from the term "bezel." The specification uses both terms "bezel" and "backbezel" to refer to the same component 110 in Figure 1. E.g., 1:33. In fact, the specification refers to the "backbezel 110" only once, but refers to the "bezel 110" thirteen times. E,g., 1:33, 36, 43, 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 66; 2:3. This demonstrates that the bezel is intended to be the outermost back cover. The specification nowhere suggests that "bezel" should be construed more broadly than "backbezel." B. U.S. Patent No. 7,101,069 ­ the "Elongated Lamp Support" patent

The parties agree that the elongated lamp support must simultaneously support an illumination tube and the diffuser, but dispute what constitutes supporting the illumination tube. 1. "fitting portion"

AUO's construction for supporting the illumination tube is only that the fitting portion must accommodate the tube. This does not clearly define the claim scope and results in ambiguity. AUO's reference to the specification to justify its "accommodating an illumination tube" construction is incomplete. D.I. 378 at 5. As recited in the specification: In addition, the fitting portion 142 is a circular hole for accommodating the illumination tube 130. The diameter of the fitting portion 142 is substantially equal to that of the illumination tube 130. Further, the second minor gap G2 between the fitting portion 142 of the support 140 and the illumination tube 130 protects the illumination tube 130 from deformation due to thermal expansion and contraction of the support 140. 2:62-3:2 (emphasis added). As described in the patent for this embodiment, the fitting portion is

{BAY:01140886v1}20

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 28 of 48

a circular hole that accommodates the tube. Consequently, the fitting portion structure surrounds the illumination tube, and therefore, holds it. Further, the diameter of the hole is substantially equal to the diameter of the illumination tube -- again acknowledging that the fitting portion holds the illumination tube. AUO argues that because of a "gap" between the fitting portion and the illumination tube, the fitting portion could not "hold" the tube. (D.I. 378 at 6.) Again, AUO misinterprets the specification. As explained in the patent, the "minor gap" between sidewalls of the fitting portion and the illumination tube is sized to protect the illumination tube from thermal expansion and contraction of the support. See also claim 2; 2:5054. AUO improperly interprets LGD's proposed construction of "hold" as "rigidly hold" or "tightly hold." Instead, LGD's construction reflects the disclosure in the specification and avoids the ambiguity inherent in AUO's proposed interpretation. 2. "comprises two sidewalls extending upwardly and separately" and "has two sidewalls extending upwardly and separately"

AUO incorrectly contends the language "comprises two sidewalls" in claim 1 allows the fitting portion to have more than two sidewalls. The phrases "comprises two sidewalls" and "has two sidewalls" in claims 1 and 16, respectively, both mean that the fitting portion includes two sidewalls, not at least two sidewalls. The word "comprising" only refers to the total number of elements in the fitting portion, allowing the fitting portion to have additional elements besides the recited two side walls, at least one of which extends beyond the top of the illumination tube. See Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1986) a step which recites engaging "eight cube pieces as a composite cube" does not read on a step which engages more than eight cube pieces, despite the use of the transitional term "comprising"); see also Spectrum Int'l, Inc. v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Moreover, the sidewalls are "upright structures" because they are claimed as "extending upwardly" and shown

{BAY:01140886v1}21

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 29 of 48

by all of the embodiments in the patent. Figs. 3-5G. C. U.S. Patent 7,125,157 - the "Optical Film Positioning" patent

AUO's proposed constructions for "supporting portion" and "constraining portion" ignore the context of these limitations as explained in the patent. AUO concedes that first and second supporting portions "alternate supporting the optical film depending upon the orientation of the LCD." (D.I. 378 at 6.) AUO further acknowledges that when in the first position, the first supporting portion provides the sole support for the optical film and the second supporting portion does not even contact the film. Id. at 6-7. Conversely, when rotated to a second position, the second supporting portion provides the sole support for the film and the first supporting portion ceases to contact the optical film. AUO's proposed constructions, however, do not reflect these points. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Proper claim construction, however, demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.") The patent also explains that the "supporting portion" when supporting the film could not be located away from the top of the LCD. Describing a prior art design with an improved structure for retaining optical films, shown in Fig. 1B, the patent explained that if the supporting portion supporting the film were rotated away from the top, the weight of the optical film would concentrate stress on the supporting portion resulting in Mura defects and uneven optical efficiency. 1:52-2:8. To avoid these problems, the first supporting portion necessarily must be located along an upper edge when in the first position. This avoids undue stress on the supporting portion. If the supporting portion were located away from the upper edge when supporting the film, excessive stress could cause undesired optical defects. Indeed, all of the embodiments and figures disclosed in the specification show the optical film being supported by a supporting portion positioned along an upper edge. Figs. 3A (element P1); 3B (element P2); 3C
{BAY:01140886v1}22

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 30 of 48

(elements P1, P3, P5); 4A (elements P1', P2', P3'); 4B (elements P4', P5'); 4C (elements P1", P2", P3"); 4D (elements P4", P5"). The patent explains that each constraining portion must have a space between its respective supporting portion and a constraining portion edge to allow for thermal expansion and contraction of the optical film. In the first position, the optical film rests on the first supporting portion with a gap below the first supporting portion. When in the second position, the first supporting portion does not contact the film. To avoid contact, gaps must exist above and below the first supporting portion to allow for expansion and contraction of the film. As shown in Fig. 3B, when rotated 180 degrees from the first position, there is a gap above and below the first supporting portion P1 and the first supporting portion no longer contacts the first constraining portion H1. Similarly, in the second position, the optical film rests on the second supporting portion with a gap below the second supporting portion; whereas in the first position, there is a gap above and below the second supporting portion. 5:37-39; 6:22-25; 6:47-49; Figs 3A-4D. 1. "supporting portion"

AUO argues that the word "projection" in LGD's construction is too narrow because a projection "may be defined to have a specific shape." (D.I. 378 at 7.) This assertion is inconsistent with the ordinary usage of the term. AUO's construction fails to address in context when the supporting portion is intended to support the optical frame. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, 183 F.3d at 1374. It is improper to construe "supporting portion" alone because the first and second supporting portions cannot simultaneously perform the same function. As discussed above, only one or the other supporting portion provides support at any given time. Contrary to AUO's assertion, LGD's construction is not shape-specific and reflects the context of the claims. 2. "constraining portion"

Contrary to the patent, AUO's construction improperly allows for both the first and
{BAY:01140886v1}23

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 31 of 48

second constraining portions simultaneously to contact and restrict movement of the optical film. As above, the term should be construed in the context of "first constraining portion" and "second constraining portion." The first and second constraining portions cannot simultaneously restrict movement of the optical film. According to the claims and specification, the first constraining portion is only intended to restrict movement of the film in the first position, and the second constraining portion is only intended to restrict movement of the optical film in the second position. 5:37-39; 6:22-25; 6:47-49; Figs. 3A-4D. Further, the constraining portion must have a gap in the gravity acting direction -- which simply refers to the direction toward which the films would fall without any support. The gap that exists in this direction is inherent in the claims and thus cannot be repudiated under the doctrine of claim differentiation as AUO contends. See Thorn EMI N. Am. v. Intel Corp., 928 F. Supp. 449, 459, 466 (D. Del. 1996) (reasoning that doctrine of claim differentiation did not prevent construing independent claims to require a limitation of a dependent claim because the limitation should be deemed present in all of the claims). The gaps within the constraining portion are necessarily present according to independent claims 1 and 16 for two reasons: (1) when the supporting portion "does not contact" the constraining portion (i.e., optical film is not resting on the supporting portion), there must be a gap above and below the supporting portion, and (2) when the same constraining portion is contacted by the supporting portion when the LCD is in another position, there must be a gap below the supporting portion and not above the supporting portion because the optical film is resting on the supporting portion. Finally, AUO's objection to the language "a passage through the film" is misplaced. A "groove," according to the specification and figures, is clearly an opening or channel in the film and not simply a depression. See Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4.

{BAY:01140886v1}24

Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF

Document 430

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 32 of 48

3.

"first position" and "second position"

AUO's construction for "first position" as "an initial position" is meaningless and ignores that the first position directly relates to the location of the first supporting portion. As discussed above, the specification confirms that the LCD is in an initial or first position when the first supporting portion is located near an upper edge of the LCD. To prevent Mura defects, the first supporting portion must be located along an upper edge of the LCD in the first position. If the first supporting portion is located elsewhere when in the first position, undue stress would concentrate at the first supporting portion due to the weight of the optical film and could cause optical defects. Moreover, all of the embodiments and figures show the optical film being supported by a supporting portion positioned along the upper edge. D. U.S. Patent No.