Invalidity dossier

US 7449377

Method of fabricating poly silicon layer

Current assignee: Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd

Added 9/23/2026, 10:23:22 PM

At a glanceNo PTAB challengesNo litigation on file

Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash

Patent summary

Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.

✓ Generated

Patent Overview — US 7,449,377 B2

Title: Method of fabricating poly silicon layer
Assignee: Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. (original and current assignee per the source listing)
Inventors: Chiung-Wei Lin, Sheng-Chi Lee, Yi-Liang Chen, Rui-Cheng Huang, Te-Hua Teng
Application No.: US 11/308,961
Priority/filing date: 2006-05-30
Publication date (grant): 2008-11-11
Status (as listed): Expired – Fee Related; adjusted expiration 2026-07-14
Other version: US 2007/0281404 A1
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7449377/en

Purpose. The patent is directed to a method of fabricating a polysilicon layer "for preventing metal contamination," and to a polysilicon layer "having comparatively larger grains size." It is described in the context of thin film transistors (TFTs), including low-temperature poly silicon (LTPS) TFTs, where the polysilicon layer serves as the channel layer.

Plain-language scope. A substrate (glass or quartz) is provided, and an amorphous silicon layer is formed on it (e.g., CVD or plasma enhanced CVD). A patterned metal layer is formed on the amorphous silicon layer using a metal such as nickel, cobalt, copper, tantalum, iron, or platinum, for example by sputtering, with patterning by photolithography and etching. A pulsed rapid thermal annealing (PRTA) process is then performed, operating between 550° C and 900° C, to form a metal silicide between the patterned metal layer and the amorphous silicon layer. The patterned metal layer and the metal silicide conduct thermal energy to the amorphous silicon layer, converting it into a polysilicon layer. Finally, the patterned metal layer is removed, for example by etching. Described results include spherical grains, grain size larger than 4000 angstrom, and surface roughness smaller than 10 angstrom. The specification contrasts this with conventional metal induced lateral crystallization (MILC), stating the metal silicide "may not migrate laterally," thereby avoiding lateral-crystallization-region metal contamination.

What the excerpt does not establish. The supplied text is an excerpt; it omits much of the specification and all claims, so claim scope, claim count, and dependency are not established. The excerpt mentions FIG. 1A–1F, FIG. 2, and FIG. 3 but does not include them. Specific PRTA values given (5 seconds at 900° C, 70° C/second heating, 35° C/second cooling) are described for an embodiment only. Legal status is expressly an assumption, not a legal conclusion. No litigation, ownership transfer, validity, or prior-art analysis is addressed here.

Generated 10/1/2026, 9:33:26 PM

Cases on file (0)

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7449377. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Proceedings on file (0)

All PTAB activity →

AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Assignment history

Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Prior art

Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Extensions

Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Derivative works

Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.