Transparent conductive articles and methods of making same

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8541942
  • Patent Number
    8,541,942
  • Date Filed
    Monday, June 25, 2012
    12 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, September 24, 2013
    11 years ago
  • Inventors
  • Original Assignees
  • Examiners
    • Patel; Ashok
    Agents
    • Bramwell; Adam
    • Pishko; Adrian L.
    • Baker; James A.
Abstract
A lightweight, flexible, plastic substrate is coated with at least one layer, such that the substrate has desired barrier and electrode characteristics useful in constructing OLED displays. The layer has both a low enough resistance to function as an electrode for the display, and low oxygen and moisture permeability. The display is thereby protected from oxygen and moisture degradation. For lower permeability and/or higher conductivity, multiple alternating layers of barrier materials and conductive materials may be applied. The barrier material includes at least one of a thin metallic film, an organic polymer, a thin transparent dielectric, a thin transparent metal nitride, and a thin transparent conductive oxide. The conductive material includes at least one of a thin transparent conductive oxide, a thin transparent metallic film, and a thin transparent metal nitride. Preferably, a multilayer polymer base coat is deposited over the substrate to exclude moisture and atmospheric gases.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD

This invention relates to composite substrates for flat panel displays (FPD), packaging materials and light sources (electro luminescence lamps) comprising a plastic substrate having thin film barrier and conductive layers, in particular, multiple thin alternating layers of metallic film, transparent conductive oxide (TCO), metal nitride, and organic polymers deposited over the plastic substrate.


BACKGROUND

The use of portable electronic devices incorporating flat panel displays is prevalent and increasing rapidly. Because of the portable nature of these devices, it is desired to minimize both the size and weight and maximize durability. The display portion of the device is generally larger and denser as compared to the rest of the device, and is manufactured on glass substrates. Accordingly, a smaller, lighter and more durable portable electronic device is most effectively achieved with a smaller, lighter and shatterproof electronic device display.


Despite having lightweight, plastic has not been considered a viable substrate material to be used for the manufacture of flat panel displays for multiple reasons. Most importantly, flat panel displays fabricated with plastic substrates tend to fail prematurely due to degradation of display medium (display matrix) and/or metallic electrodes. In particular, the metallic electrodes and the display medium which is often positioned between the electrodes, become degraded when atmospheric oxygen and water vapor permeate the substrate and chemically degrade the active portion of the display matrix which is generally comprised of liquid crystals and/or light emitting devices. In addition, common optical quality plastic substrates, e.g. polyethylene terephthalate (PET), have limited thermal properties. In particular, there is a limited temperature range that allows useful optical quality (e.g. clarity, transparency, and uniform index of refraction) to be maintained, while maintaining the substrate's mechanical strength and properties.


SUMMARY

The present invention is directed to the fabrication of flat panel displays on lightweight, flexible, plastic substrates. Because plastic substrates for FPDs are flexible, smaller and lighter than glass substrates, the electronic device with the plastic FPD is more portable, space-efficient and lightweight. In addition, electroluminescent and organic light emitting devices fabricated on flexible polymeric substrates in a coating process have lower manufacturing costs than those with glass substrates, and improved ruggedness.


A display medium of the flat panel display is sandwiched between two electrode layers. At least one of the electrodes is transparent for viewing of the display. The display medium is protected from oxidative or moisture degradation. In the present invention, at least one layer, having both barrier characteristics and the ability to function as an electrode, is deposited over the substrate. In particular, the layer has both low oxygen and water vapor permeability, and a low enough resistivity to function as an electrode for the display. For lower permeability and/or higher conductivity, multiple alternating layers of barrier materials and conductive materials are applied. In an alternative embodiment, the conductive layers (e.g. transparent conductive oxide layers) are in direct electrical contact. The barrier material includes at least one of an organic polymer, a transparent dielectric, a transparent metal nitride and/or a transparent conductive oxide. The conductive material includes at least one of a thin transparent conductive oxide, a thin transparent metallic film and/or a metal nitride.


Using a smoothing base coat layer over the plastic substrate imparts good optical quality throughout the substrate layers and provides a pristine surface for nucleation of the deposited barrier or conductive layer, e.g. TCO. The pristine surface smoothes over any surface roughness of the plastic substrate, thereby adding to the FPD lifetime and optical quality. Additionally, a hardcoat layer is applied over the substrate in lieu of or in addition to the smoothing basecoat layer.


The smoothing basecoat and hardcoat layers may be applied by one of many well known non-vacuum liquid coating processes, e.g. preferably by Gravure, or fabricated through a polymer multilayer (PML) coating process. Related desirable coating processes are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,547,508, 5,395,644, 5,260,095, 6,224,948, herein incorporated by reference, Thin Film Processes II, chapters II-2, 4, 5, and IV-1, edited by John L. Vossen and Wermer Kern, Academic Press, 1991, ISBN 0-12-728251-3, and Deposition Technologies for Films and Coatings, Developments and Applications, Rointan F. Bunshah et al., Chapters 5, 6, 8 and 9, Noyes Publications, 1982, ISBN 0-8155-0906-5.


The terms PML and PML process as used in this application are generic and mean any form of a PML process, including Plasma PML processes (PPML processes) and liquid PML processes (LML processes). The basic vacuum evaporation PML process is used to deposit organic monomers over the plastic substrate. The organic monomer is then polymerized in-situ by electron beam, a plasma process, or UV radiation.


The PML process is compatible with physical vapor deposition processes for layers such as TCO layers. Both processes are carried out in combined sequences within a properly designed single vacuum chamber. However, often multiple vacuum chambers are used, for example, if a substrate is hardcoated previously.


The PML deposited organic polymer layer is used to produce substrate surface smoothing and improve barrier coatings in the multilayer structure. The benefit of a smooth substrate surface is that there is a clean surface for adhesion, nucleation, and growth of a deposited barrier or conductive layer, e.g. a TCO. Additionally, a PML deposited organic polymer layer provides protection of an underlying barrier layer in order to minimize holes or other defects in the layer so that there is low permeability.


Neither a single layer barrier coating with a metal oxide layer such as thin film dielectric coatings of alumina or silica or other certain metal oxides, nor a plastic flat panel display with a thick metallic film layer having an optical density of greater than 2.0 renders low enough permeability for the processing and manufacture of plastic flat panel displays with acceptable lifetimes. Even where a single thick layer or multiple thin layers of dielectrics, metals or the combination thereof are used, the improvement in performance is minimal. In order to provide barrier properties sufficient for optical quality plastic flat panel displays, a transparent dielectric barrier, such as SiO2-x or Al2O3-y, is deposited over a plastic substrate. When dielectric layers are combined with PML deposited organic polymer layers, outstanding barrier properties are achieved on flexible plastic substrates. Alternatively to the dielectric layer, a barrier coating of ITO (called “indium tin oxide”, which is actually “Tin doped indium oxide”, a mixture of indium oxide and tin oxide) or another TCO barrier is deposited over the substrate. In yet another alternative embodiment, both TCO barrier layers and PML processed organic polymer layers are deposited over the plastic substrate. Moreover, in yet another alternative, both TCO barrier layers with PML processed organic polymer layers and the transparent dielectric barrier layers are deposited over the plastic or polymeric substrate. Multilayer structures of such organic and inorganic layers deposited over a plastic substrate exhibit significantly improved barrier properties as compared to inorganic, organic, or metallic layers alone.


In an embodiment, a PML processed top coat polymer layer is applied before the previously deposited layer contacts a surface, such as a roller, thereby protecting the previously deposited layer. The PML processed top coat greatly enhances the exclusion of moisture (water vapor) and atmospheric gases that chemically degrade the display medium and decrease the device performance, even though the polymer topcoat is not, itself, a good barrier material.


Metal oxide dielectric barriers have previously been deposited by evaporation, sputtering, and chemical vapor deposition processes onto glass substrates. However, for achieving metal oxide thin films with bulk material-like properties on glass substrates, a high temperature deposition method is used, which would melt the plastic substrate, thereby negatively impacting the mechanical properties of the plastic substrate. In the present invention, the PML family of processes used for depositing an organic dielectric does not require such high temperatures and therefore does not significantly alter the mechanical properties of the plastic substrate. However, organic polymer layers alone do not provide substantial barrier properties, particularly against water vapor.


When TCOs are deposited at low temperatures to accommodate the thermal and mechanical limits of the substrate, for example, by magnetron sputtering, electron-beam evaporation or plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD), the subsequent TCO coatings have less than bulk conductivity, i.e. low overall levels of conductivity. TCO films with a larger thickness deposited through these methods achieve acceptable conductive levels for portable electronic devices. However, these thick films of TCO are subject to cracking, crazing and, in some instances, delamination from the substrate, especially when they are processed by a heat treatment step or a coating process involving mechanical rollers (e.g. web coating). Accordingly, the TCO coating is deposited in a series of thin, separated layers, yet still maintains high conductive levels. Multiple thin layers of TCO avoid the problems associated with thicker layers, and advantageously are electrically connected in parallel to provide adequate electrical performance characteristics.


The thin layers of TCO are preferably deposited in combination with layers from the PML process, which leads to improved optical, electrical and mechanical performance. In particular, the polymer layers separate the TCO layers. Superior surface properties (low surface roughness, and high optical quality), barrier properties (low vapor permeability) and mechanical properties result when TCO coatings are deposited by magnetron sputtering on a plastic substrate in combination with the PML process.


Preferably, moderate annealing temperature conditions, with respect to substrate limits, are used for TCO (including ITO, “tin doped indium oxide”) deposition because high temperature conditions result in melting of the plastic, and low temperature conditions yields ITO layers with undesirable high resistivity. (The resistivity of ITO is a function of the oxygen and tin content, as well as the deposition conditions, such as temperature). A low resistivity for the ITO layers is desired. The resistivity of ITO decreases with a thicker TCO layer. But as discussed previously, thick TCO layers are prone to cracking or crazing. Multiple thin layers of TCO, as described in the present invention, will not crack and will yield a lower resistivity. Moreover, the surface resistivity of a thin film of TCO in multiple layers is low for a given total film thickness, due to its improved microstructure.


In a first embodiment of the present invention, a polymer smoothing coating is deposited over the substrate. The smoothing coating is applied by a PML process or liquid coating. A TCO, metal nitride, or metal layer is then deposited over the smoothing layer. Additionally, multiple alternating layers of a protective polymer layer and an additional TCO, metal nitride, or metal layer is deposited. Preferably, the alternating layers are of the same material, e.g. TCO/polymer/TCO, etc.


In a second embodiment, multiple alternating layers of polymer layers and metal oxide or metal nitride are deposited over the substrate or a polymer smoothing coating layer. A TCO layer is then deposited over the top of multiple alternating layers. These multiple alternating layers together with the TCO have adequate barrier and conductivity characteristics.


In a third embodiment, a substrate is coated with a TCO layer, a metal coating, and another TCO layer. This three layer configuration is called “optically enhanced metal,” or an induced transmission filter and has similar characteristics as and is substitutable for a single TCO layer. With the optically enhanced metal good conductivity, optical transmission and barrier properties are achieved. A similar structure using metal nitrides substituted for the metal coating or the TCO layer, or one or more metal oxide layers substituted for one or more TCO layers, functions equivalently to the optically enhanced metal. For example, a further embodiment is comprised of a TCO layer, a conductive metal nitride layer and another TCO layer. Alternatively, the structure is a silicon nitride layer, a metal layer and another metal nitride layer.


In a fourth embodiment, a substrate is alternatively coated with an inorganic layer (such as TCO, metal nitride, or dielectric metal oxides), and-polymer layers to provide both barrier and conductive properties.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The aspects of the present invention described above in summary and below in more detail as well as various advantageous aspects will become appreciated as the same becomes better understood with reference to the specification, claims and drawings wherein:



FIG. 1 is a cross-sectional view of a composite substrate for a flat panel display (FPD) of the present invention;



FIG. 2 is a cross-sectional view of another embodiment of conductive barrier layer 3 of FIG. 1;



FIG. 3 is a cross-sectional view of another embodiment of conductive barrier layer 3 of FIG. 1;



FIG. 4 is a cross-sectional view of another embodiment of conductive barrier layer 3;



FIG. 5 is a cross-sectional view of another embodiment of conductive barrier layer 3 of FIG. 1;



FIG. 6 is a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of a conductive barrier layer;



FIG. 7 is a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of conductive barrier layers of FIG. 1;



FIG. 8 is a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of conductive barrier layers of FIG. 1;



FIG. 9 is a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of conductive barrier layers of FIG. 1;



FIG. 10 is a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of conductive barrier layers of FIG. 1;



FIG. 11 is a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of conductive barrier layers of FIG. 1;



FIG. 12 is a cross-sectional view of an embodiment of conductive barrier layers;



FIG. 13 is a schematic illustration of a coating apparatus for forming the conductive barrier layer of FIG. 1;



FIG. 14
a is a schematic illustration of a laminating process for the FPD of FIG. 1;



FIG. 14
b is a cross-sectional view of the FPD before undergoing a bonding process;



FIG. 14
c is a cross-sectional view of the FPD after undergoing a bonding process;



FIG. 15 is a chart showing water vapor permeability of an ITO film deposited on a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate versus ITO film sheet resistance;



FIG. 16 is a chart showing water vapor permeability of ITO film deposited on a PET substrate versus ITO film thickness;



FIG. 17 is a chart showing oxygen permeability of ITO film deposited on a PET substrate versus ITO film thickness;



FIG. 18 is a chart showing oxygen permeability of ITO film deposited on a PET substrate versus ITO film sheet resistance;



FIG. 19 is a chart showing transmittance and reflectance spectra (for an ITO layer over a silver film layer over an ITO layer over a PET substrate at a sheet resistance of 14 Ohms/Square) versus wavelength;



FIG. 20 is a chart showing transmittance and reflectance spectra (for an ITO layer over a PET substrate at a sheet resistance of 29 Ohms/Square) versus wavelength;



FIG. 21 is a chart showing transmittance and reflectance spectra (for an ITO layer over a PET substrate at a sheet resistance of 57 Ohms/Square) versus wavelength;



FIG. 22 is a chart showing transmittance and reflectance spectra (for an ITO layer over a PET substrate at a sheet resistance of 65 Ohms/Square) versus wavelength;



FIG. 23 is a chart showing transmittance and reflectance spectra (for an ITO layer over a PET substrate at a sheet resistance of 347 Ohms/Square) versus wavelength;



FIG. 24 is a chart showing oxygen permeability of an ITO film deposited on a flexible plastic substrate versus thickness;



FIG. 25 is a chart showing water vapor permeability of an ITO film deposited on a flexible plastic substrate versus thickness;



FIG. 26 is a chart showing transmittance and reflectance spectra (for semi-reactively sputtered ITO on a PET substrate; polymer/ITO=25 nm) versus wavelength;



FIG. 27 is a chart showing transmittance and reflectance spectra (for semi-reactively sputtered ITO on a PET substrate; polymer/ITO=153 nm) versus wavelength;



FIG. 28 is a chart showing transmittance and reflectance spectra (for semi-reactively sputtered ITO on a PET substrate; polymer/ITO=134 nm) versus wavelength;



FIG. 29 is a chart showing transmittance and reflectance spectra (for semi-reactively sputtered ITO/polymer on a PET substrate; two ITO layers=50 nm total) versus wavelength; and



FIG. 30 is a chart showing transmittance and reflectance spectra (for semi-reactively sputtered ITO/polymer on a PET substrate; two ITO layers=299 nm total) versus wavelength.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

A flat panel display (FPD) 1, of the present invention as shown in FIG. 1, employs at least one lightweight, plastic substrate 38 for fabricating FPDs. In one embodiment, the plastic is flexible. In another embodiment, the substrate used in the flat panel display is glass. In an alternative embodiment, there are two plastic substrates used to construct the FPD. In between two substrates of the flat panel display are at least two electrodes. At least one of the electrodes is transparent for viewing of the display. A display medium 2 for the flat panel display is usually positioned between the two electrodes. The display medium, as well as some electrode material, is protected from oxidative degradation and reaction with or incorporation of moisture.


The displays are fabricated using plastic substrates such as various polyolefins, e.g. polypropylene (PP), various polyesters, e.g. polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and other polymers such as polyethylene napthalate (PEN), polyethersulphone (PES), polyestercarbonate (PC), polyetherimide (PEI), polyarylate (PAR), polyimide (PI), and polymers with trade names ARTON® (Japanese Synthetic Rubber Co., Tokyo, Japan) and AVATREL™ (B.F. Goodrich, Brecksville, Ohio). See Appendix A for deposition temperature capabilities of the particular plastic substrate.


In the present invention, at least one layer, a conductive barrier layer 3 has both barrier characteristics (to protect the display medium and/or the metal electrode from oxidative degradation and reaction with or incorporation of moisture) and the ability to function as an electrode. The conductive barrier layer is deposited over the substrate to form a composite substrate, as shown in FIG. 6. In particular, layer 3 has both low oxygen and moisture (water vapor) permeability, and a low enough resistivity to function as an electrode for the display.


As shown in the general embodiments of FIGS. 2 through 5, conductive barrier layer 3 comprises at least one sublayer 31 deposited over the substrate, for instance a single ITO layer. In an embodiment, at least one pair of sublayers, a dyad, of a polymer layer 24 and a layer of TCO 22, metal 12, metal nitride 14 or metal oxide 16, is deposited over the substrate. FIG. 2 illustrates the sublayer having a dyad of metal 12 and metal oxide 16. FIG. 3 illustrates the sublayer having a dyad of metal nitride 14 and metal oxide 16. FIG. 4 illustrates the sublayer having a dyad of dielectric 17 and TCO 22. FIG. 5 illustrates the TCO layer 22 deposited over the dielectric layer 17 which is deposited over the polymer layer 24. The sublayers 31 deposited on either side of the pairs illustrated in FIGS. 2-4 are, for example, a single ITO layer, additional dyads of the same materials, and/or a polymer coating. In an exemplary embodiment, multiple alternating sublayer pairs, comprised of the same materials as the original sublayer pair, are deposited over the substrate or over the previously deposited sublayer. In another embodiment the multiple alternating sublayer pairs deposited over the previously deposited sublayer comprise different sublayer materials than the previously deposited sublayer.


There are a myriad of possibilities for materials comprising the sublayers of the conductive barrier layer. FIGS. 2-5 illustrate generally only some of the more preferred embodiments of sublayer 31 materials for conductive barrier layer 3, while FIGS. 7-12 illustrate particularly the more preferred embodiments for the conductive barrier layer.


In one embodiment shown in FIG. 9, for example, a base coating 20 is deposited over the substrate 38. The base coating is a polymer smoothing coating applied by a PML process and/or an organic hardcoat. The base coating can be deposited by a non-vacuum liquid coating process (to render a hardcoated PET) or applied by a PML process. When a hardcoat is deposited, the plastic substrate is rendered abrasion resistant. A TCO layer 22 (or metal layer 12) is then deposited over the base coat. In another embodiment, multiple alternating layers of a protective polymer layer 24 and at least one TCO layer 22 (or metal layer 12) are additionally deposited (see FIG. 9). Preferably, the alternating layers additionally deposited are of the same material, e.g. TCO/polymer/TCO, etc. Alternatively, there is no base coat 20 for the embodiment of alternating layers of polymer/TCO/polymer (not shown). In another embodiment, also shown in FIG. 9, a metal conductor or reflector 12 overlays the top polymer layer 24.


In the embodiment shown in FIG. 7, a substrate is coated with a TCO layer, a metal coating, and another TCO layer. This three layer configuration is called an “optically enhanced metal”, or “induced transmission filter” and has characteristics similar to a single TCO layer, and is also substitutable for a single TCO layer. With the optically enhanced metal, good conductivity, transmission and barrier properties are achieved. In a preferred embodiment, deposited on the three layers is polymer layer 24 (see FIG. 8). The polymer layer 24 may be alternating with the optically enhanced metal (not shown). Alternatively, base coat 20 is deposited over the substrate as shown in FIG. 7. Additionally or alternatively, another dyad (a metal and TCO pair) is deposited over the top TCO layer and/or an additional polymer layer 24 (a polymer overcoat) is deposited over the previously deposited dyad (see FIG. 8). In another alternative, a thick metal layer 12 is deposited over the polymer overcoat layer, as also shown in FIG. 8. Alternatively, the metal nitride layer 14 is substituted for one or more of the metal layers in the above described embodiments, for example, see FIGS. 10 and 11.


In still another embodiment, the substrate is alternatively coated with an inorganic layer (such as the TCO layer or the dielectric metal oxide layer), and polymer layers to provide both barrier and conductive properties.



FIG. 12 illustrates metal layer 12 sandwiched between two metal nitride layers 14. Alternatively, additional dyads (metal and metal nitride pair) are deposited over the metal nitride layer. Further embodiments of this dyad pair are similar to the TCO/metal dyad pair embodiments of FIGS. 7-8, i.e. the TCO layers of FIGS. 7-8 are replaced by one or more metal nitride layers.


In another alternative embodiment, the dielectric layer replaces one or more TCO layers in the above described embodiments (see generally FIGS. 4 and 5). As shown in FIG. 5, multiple alternating layers of dielectric 17 and polymer layers 24 are deposited over the substrate 38. The number of multiple alternating layers (or dyads) may vary, and is represented here by 31, sublayers of the conductive barrier layer 3. A TCO layer 22 (or metal layer 12) is then deposited over the top of multiple alternating layers. These multiple alternating layers together with the TCO have adequate barrier and conductivity characteristics as described in more detail below.


Each TCO layer 22 of the above embodiments is a single TCO layer. Alternatively, the TCO layers in the Figures described above represents the thickness of two TCO layers from adjacent layers of “optically enhanced metal” of FIG. 8 or the metal nitride alternative of FIG. 11.


Preferably, the metal layers that are in the alternating dyad pairs or in between the TCO, metal nitride, or dielectric layers, are thin. The metal layers that are adjacent the “display medium”, i.e. overlaying the dyad layers, or on the substrate, have a greater thickness than the sandwiched metal layers.


Sublayer 31 materials that provide transparent barrier properties are thin transparent metal oxides 16, and/or thin transparent metallic films 12, and/or thin metal nitrides 14, for example silicon nitride, and aluminum nitride. The polymer layer 24 enhances barrier properties by reducing the number of holes and defects in the films upon which or under which, they are deposited. The metal oxide layer 16 comprises the dielectric layer 17 and/or the transparent conductive oxide layer 22. Thicknesses for the barrier layers are in the nanometer and angstrom range. Thicknesses for the PML deposited layers are in the micron and submicron range. For example, improved barrier coating occurs when a PML deposited organic polymer layer (a base coat), and/or a metal oxide layer is placed over the plastic substrate. See Table 2.


Sublayer 31 materials that provide conductive properties include the thin TCO layer 22, a thin transparent metallic film layer 12 (such as aluminum, silver, copper, gold, platinum, palladium, and alloys thereof), and the metal nitride layer 14 (such as transition metal nitrides, for example, titanium nitride, zirconium nitride, hafnium nitride, and nitrides of Group IIIA and IVA elements of the Periodic Table, e.g. gallium nitride). Thicknesses for the conductive layers are in the nanometer and angstrom range. Preferably the conductive film (TCO) is formed by multiple thin conductive layers (of TCO) separated by polymer layers. The conductive (TCO) layers are deposited with electrical contact to each other, so that a low resistivity is achieved. Consequently, the conductive film (TCO) functions as both the electrode and a barrier.


In the preferred embodiment, the PML processed base coat 20 is deposited over the substrate as shown in FIG. 9. The base coat produces substrate smoothing, and more importantly, in combination with other layers, the base coat has surprisingly effective vapor barrier enhancement properties because of the smoothing and protection characteristics. The sublayers are preferably deposited in combination with the process illustrated in FIG. 13, as described below.


Using the smoothing base coat layer over the plastic substrate imparts good optical and barrier quality throughout the substrate layers and provides a pristine surface for nucleation of the deposited TCO electrode layer. The basecoat smoothes over any surface roughness of the plastic substrate, thereby adding to the FPD lifetime and optical quality.


In an exemplary embodiment, one or more metal oxide layers are replaced with the TCO layer. When TCO coatings, including ITO (“Tin doped indium oxide”), cadmium oxides (CdSn2O4, CdGa2O4, CdIn2O4, CdSb2O6, CdGeO4, tin oxides (various alloys and dopants thereof), indium oxides (In2O3: Ga, GaInO3 (Sn, Ge), (GaIn)2O3), zinc oxides (ZnO(Al), ZnO(Ga), ZnSnO3, Zn2SnO4, Zn2In2O5, Zn3In2O6), and/or magnesium oxides (MgIn2O4, MgIn2O4— Zn2In2O5) are deposited on the plastic substrate at a low temperature, they have an amorphous microstructure. For characteristics of the above TCO materials, see Table A.









TABLE A







EMERGING TRANSPARENT CONDUCTING OXIDES FOR ELECTRO-OPTICAL


APPLICATIONS CHARACTERISTICS OF EMERGING TCO MATERIALS
















Carrier

Film




Transmittance
Resistivity
Concentration
Mobility
Thickness


Material
(%)
(×10−4 Ωcm)
(×1020 cm−3)
(cm2/V−1S−1)
(nm)
References
















Mgln2O4
85
20
1.8
15

Minami, T. et al., Thin Solid Films,








270, 1995


Mgln2O4—Zn2ln2O5
82
10
3
2
400
Minami, T. et al., 1 CMC TF, 1995


ln2O3: Ga
85
5.8
5
20
400
Minami, T. et al., JVST A 15(3), 1997


GalnO3
90
29
4
10
1000
Phillips, J. et al., Appl. Phys. Lett.


(Sn,Ge)





65(1), 1994


(Galn)2O3
90
10
3
20
100
Minami, T. et al., JVST A 15(3), 1997


ZnO(Al)
90
1.4
9.9
45
150
Imaeda, K. et al., 43rd AVS Symp., 1996


ZnO(Ga)
90
2.7
13
18
230
Imaeda, K. et al., 43rd AVS Symp., 1996


ZnSnO3
80
45
1
20
310
Minami, T. et al., JVST A 13(3), 1995


Zn2SnO4
92
570
0.058
19.0
620
Wu, X. et al., JVST A 15(3), 1997


Zn2ln2O5
95
2.9
6.0
30
400
Minami, T. et al., Thin Solid Films,








290-291, 1996


Zn3ln2O6
80
3.8
3.4
46
1400
Phillips, J. et al., Appl. Phys. Lett.








67(15), 1995


ITO
91
1-2
10
37
140
Helz, B., OIC Topical Meeting, 1998









The amorphous structure and oxygen deficiency of the TCO theoretically allows the TCO coating to exhibit conductive properties and barrier properties similar to transparent dielectric barrier layers, such as non-stoichiometric types of silica or alumina. Also, because of the oxygen deficiency, and amorphous structure, the barrier layers gather the oxygen and keep the oxygen from passing through. Multiple thin layers of TCO function as both a transparent electrode and a transparent barrier layer. The benefit of using TCO alternating with metallic film layers, besides the beneficial barrier properties, is that all the layers of the structure are conductive, thus improving conductivity.


In the preferred embodiment, a suitable apparatus for coating the substrate with conductive and barrier layers is illustrated schematically in FIG. 13. All of the coating equipment is positioned in a vacuum chamber 36. A roll of polypropylene, polyester or other suitable plastic sheet is mounted on a pay-out reel 37. Plastic sheet 38 forming the substrate is wrapped around a first rotatable drum 39, and fed to a take-up reel 41. A roller 42 is employed, as appropriate, for guiding the sheet material from the pay-out reel to the drum and/or to the take-up reel.


A flash evaporator 43 is mounted in proximity to the drum at a first coating station. The flash evaporator deposits a layer or film of monomer, typically an acrylate, on the substrate sheet as it travels around the drum. After being coated with a monomer, the substrate sheet passes a radiation station where the monomer is irradiated by a source 44 such as an electron gun or source of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The UV radiation or electron bombardment of the film induces polymerization of the monomer.


The sheet then passes coating station 46 where a coating of TCO is preferably applied by magnetron sputtering. The sheet then passes another flash evaporator 47 where another layer of monomer is deposited over the TCO layer. The sheet then passes radiation station 48 and the monomer is polymerized. Depending on whether a layer of monomer is above or below the TCO layer, either evaporator 43 or 47 is used. Clearly, if the TCO layer is to be sandwiched between layers of polymer, both evaporators and their respective radiation sources are used. In addition to magnetron sputtering, the TCO layer is processed by one of thermal evaporation, chemical vapor deposition, plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition, and electron beam evaporation. Chemical vapor deposition is a high temperature process, and is therefore the least desirable for use with plastic substrates but is acceptable for metal foil substrates.


In an alternative embodiment, a LML smoothing or hardcoat layer applicator 52 is mounted in proximity to the drum at a first coating station. The liquid smoothing applicator deposits a layer of monomer, e.g. acrylate, over the substrate. This layer of monomer is cured by irradiation from an ultraviolet or electron beam source 44 adjacent the drum (the positions of source 44 and applicator 52 are interchanged). Additionally, the sheet then passes coating station 46 where a coating of thin metal film, metal oxide, and/or metal nitride is applied by one of vacuum sputtering, vacuum metallizing, plasma assisted chemical vapor deposition, or electron beam evaporation. For example, silicon oxides is deposited by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition process using a metal organic precursor and an oxidizing or inert carrier gas coating station 46 alternatively containing deposition sources.


The various layers described are deposited in several processes, in addition to vacuum coating techniques. For instance, the layers are deposited through nonvacuum (atmospheric) roll coating. Alternatively or additionally, the layers are deposited by an in line coating machine, whereby a conveyor belt runs the substrate to be coated past multiple coating stations. In a further alternative, the layers are deposited by an intermittent motion machine, that is either in a vacuum process or a nonvacuum process. In yet another alternative, the layers are coated using a multitude of machines and/or processes. For instance, the plastic substrate is first coated through atmospheric roll coating with a cured polymer and subsequently coated by vacuum deposition, or liquid coated, such as Gravure coating.


For multiple layers of organic polymer coatings deposited in the PML process, take up reel 41, with the sheet wound thereon, functions as the payout reel 37, and the process is repeated as desired by coating in both directions. For this alternative, additional curing stations are mounted on the opposite side of evaporators 43 or 47. The roll of sheet is removed from the vacuum system for use.



FIG. 14
a illustrates a laminating process for the FPD where plastic substrates, hardcoating, and a display medium are bonded together, for example, with an adhesive and pressure, temperature or UV radiation. FIGS. 14b and 14c are cross-sectional schematic views of the FPD before and after undergoing the bonding process, respectively. The laminating process is one of the alternate methods for bonding the layers to construct the FPD. Because the layers of the present invention are thin, cracking, crazing, and delamination are avoided using processing methods of this type. FIGS. 14b and 14c illustrate schematically the flat panel display with an exterior protective overcoat 4 and the display medium 2. The display medium also may be liquid, or deposited over either substrate, or over a carrier film.


Transparent dielectric layers with good barrier properties and a high refractive index, such as metal oxides like titanium oxide or aluminum oxide, or metal nitrides such as silicon nitride or aluminum nitride, used in combination with thin, transparent metallic film layers provide a transparent conductive barrier coating. The metal oxide or metal nitride layers are deposited at specific thicknesses to optimize the optical performance (e.g. transmittance) of a particular display. Preferably, the thin metallic film layer is sandwiched in between layers of metal oxide or metal nitride. Multiple alternating layers of metal oxides or metal nitrides, with their barrier properties, and the highly conductive metallic film layers provide increased barrier performance and conductivity for a particular display medium.


The optical and electrical performance of transparent conductive oxide coatings are also improved by mildly heating the coated substrate during deposition or by post-annealing the coated substrate. As shown in the Experimental Results below, even though the PET substrate was heated to a moderate temperature of only 65° C., the resistivity of the ITO was still low enough to effectively operate as an electrode, because of the multiple thin layers of ITO.


In an alternative embodiment, the thin conductive metal nitride layer is substituted for one or more thin metallic film layers, for example, for the metal layers in the “optically enhanced metal” (see FIG. 11). Metal oxide or TCO layers are utilized with the metal nitride layer for enhancing both the optical and electrical performance characteristics. Metal nitrides have good gas barrier properties. However, to achieve very low moisture (water vapor) and oxygen permeability, there is a minimum thickness of barrier material, e.g. the metal nitride layer. Because of the higher optical transparency silicon nitride thin films, for example, are attractive candidates for flexible FPD as barrier layers for atmospheric gases.


In another alternative embodiment, at least one of the metallic film layers in, for example, the “optically enhanced metal” is replaced with a polymer layer formed via the PML processes.


Results of Conducted Experiments

The plastic substrate for a flat panel display has a very low oxygen and water vapor permeability, a surface roughness much less than the barrier film thickness, a high Tg (the glass transition temperature) to allow a higher temperature and/or higher energy ITO deposition process, and a high transparency with low birefringence.


Defects in the coated layers limit the barrier properties. For instance, rough substrates, particulates, and roller contact, damage the coated layers. Rough substrates with thin film barriers are smoothed and prevented from damage by roller contact, with an organic basecoat and polymer top coat.


Multiple layers of TCO deposited on the substrate achieve lower surface resistivity than a single thick layer of TCO because the single layer cracks and/or crazes from stress. Further, the multiple TCO layers act as electrodes connected in parallel. Using a non-stoichiometric dielectric of a group including silicon oxides, aluminum oxides, and silicon nitrides, allows for the fabrication of efficient thin film barriers for flexible plastic films.


Measured data for films made of sputtered ITO exhibited exceptional barrier properties. The optical, electrical and barrier properties were measured for ITO sputter-deposited directly onto a PET substrate, and also measured with a PML acrylic basecoat over the substrate before deposition of the ITO, in a roll-to-roll (web) coating process. See FIGS. 15-18, and the descriptions of these Figures below. The typical performance of a single ITO layer deposited on a basecoated PET substrate is 85% T (Transmittance) and 80 ohms/square. The ITO layer has a physical thickness of about 140 nm, for a one-half wave optical thickness, while the PET substrate has a thickness of about 0.007″. For the single layer ITO film, oxygen permeability ranged from 0.005 to 0.05 oxygen cc/m2/day, while the water vapor permeability ranged from 0.005 to 0.05 g/m2/day.



FIG. 15 discloses a chart showing water vapor permeability of (1) ITO film deposited over the PET substrate, and (2) a PET substrate coated with “optically enhanced metal”: an ITO film layer, a silver layer, and another ITO film layer, versus ITO film resistance. No smoothing base coat was applied to the substrate in either case. The ITO layer was DC sputter deposited onto the PET substrate. The deposited ITO film alone is reactively sputtered from a metal target in a web coater. The solid lines shown connect the midpoints of the range of permeability results at each measured resistance for the ITO film sheet. The chart shows that for the ITO film layer, the water vapor permeability dips to a minimal value of approximately 0.006 g/m2 day at a resistance of about 60 ohms/square. The water vapor permeability reaches a maximum of approximately 0.21 g/m2 day at a resistance of about 350 ohms/square. For the silver layer in between the ITO film layers, the approximate water vapor permeability range was 0.04 to 0.075 g/m2 day for the sheet resistance at about 12 ohms/square.



FIG. 16 discloses a chart showing water vapor permeability of an (1) ITO film deposited over the PET substrate, and (2) a PET substrate coated with “optically enhanced metal”, an ITO film layer, a silver layer, and another ITO film layer, versus ITO film sheet thickness. The parameters for the ITO layer alone are analyzed in the same manner as above. The chart shows that for the ITO film layer, the water vapor permeability dips to a minimal value of approximately 0.006 g/m2 day at an ITO thickness of about 120 nm. The water vapor permeability reaches a maximum of approximately 0.21 g/m2 day at an ITO thickness of about 40 nm. For the substrate with the sandwiched silver layer, the approximate water vapor permeability range was 0.04 to 0.075 g/m2 day for a total ITO coating thickness of approximately 120 nm.



FIGS. 17 and 18 disclose charts showing oxygen permeability of ITO film deposited on a PET substrate versus ITO film thickness and versus sheet resistivity, respectively. FIG. 17 shows that the permeability dips to a minimal value of approximately 0.017 g/m2 day at an ITO thickness of about 220 nm. The permeability reaches a maximum of approximately 0.9 cc/m2 day at an ITO thickness of about 40 nm.


As shown in Table 1, alternating barrier layers of PML deposited organic polymers and dielectrics have permeation rates below the limits of the instruments, which is 0.005 g/m2 day for Permatran-W 3/31, which is an instrument that measures water vapor transmission rates, and 0.005 cc/m2 day for Ox-Tran 2/20, which is an instrument that measures oxygen transmission rates.


The transparent dielectric barrier layer or the single layer of TCO deposited on the substrate has suitable barrier properties for the plastic FPO. The preferable barrier properties vary by the type of display technology: liquid crystal display (LCD), organic light emitting display (OLED), or thin film electro luminescent displays (TFELD). The acceptable value of vapor permeation with plastic substrates for FPD depends on the sensitivity of the specific display technology utilized. For example, the LCD is much less sensitive to vapor permeation than the OLED or TFELD. For the LCD, maximum oxygen permeability is in the range of about 0.01 to 0.1 cc/m2 day, while the maximum water vapor permeability is in the range of about 0.01 to 0.1 g/m2 day. For both OLED and TFELD, permeabilities of ≦0.001 cc/m2 day for oxygen. and ≦0.001 g/m2 day for moisture (water vapor) are preferred.


A polymer OLED and a small molecule OLED describe the two basic technologies for the layer that emits light in the OLED. For polymer OLED's, the light emitting material is deposited by flow coating, spin coating, gravure coating, meniscus coating, curtain coating or any common liquid coating or printing techniques. The small molecule OLED is normally thermally evaporated in a vacuum, but may also be processed with nonvacuum coating methods. When the ITO layer is deposited by nonvacuum processes such as by screen printing, the process of the present invention is entirely nonvacuum. Alternatively, the process of the present invention takes place by both vacuum and nonvacuum methods. Preferably, the process takes place entirely in a vacuum to avoid contamination by particulates, moisture and oxygen. Superior barrier films and other films result from the cleaner vacuum process.


As shown in FIGS. 15 and 16, and described above, for the LCD as long as the ITO sheet resistance is below about 250 ohms/square, and the ITO film thickness is between about 75 and 225 nm, the water vapor permeability is within desirable limits for the LCD. As shown in FIG. 17, the oxygen permeability is within desirable limits for the LCD as long as the ITO film thickness is above about 85 nm and the sheet resistance is below about 150 ohms/square. Because of the lower permeabilities preferred for the emissive displays (e.g. OLED and thin film electro luminescent displays), the barrier capability is enhanced by multilayer dielectric or TCO barriers in combination with PML processed polymer coatings (i.e. composite barrier layers of PML deposited organic polymer layers, dielectric layers and/or TCO layers).


Table B illustrates water vapor and oxygen permeability versus ITO thickness for semi-reactively sputtered ITO. The measured results for semi-reactively and reactively sputtered ITO, as well as the differences between a single ITO layer and two ITO layers (with a polymer layer in between the two layers) made with a semi-reactive process, are illustrated in FIGS. 24 and 25. ‘Semi-reactively’ sputtered refers to films, DC magnetron sputtered from a ceramic target. The differences between the two processes are believed to be due to the specific process parameters, and not inherent to the process type. As shown, for the same total thickness deposited by the same reactive process, two ITO layers have higher conductivity and lower permeability as compared to the single ITO layer. Further, the two ITO layers have higher electrical performance, because the single ITO layer cracks and/or crazes.









TABLE B







TRANSPARENT BARRIER COATINGS BASED ON ITO FOR


FLEXIBLE PLASTIC DISPLAYS


Experimental Results for ITO Barriers on PET


Semi-Reactively Sputtered













Surface






Total ITO
Resistivity
Rho

H2O
O2


Thickness
(ohms/
(×10−4
Luminoust
Permeance
Permeance


(nm)
square)
n-cm)
(%)
(cc/m2-day)
(g/m2-day)















123.3
38.3
4.685
84
0.038
0.827


172.4
29.9
5.145
82
0.073
1.19


299.2
17.2
5.15
~81
0.049
0.081


49.9
188.4
9.4
~81
0.036
0.156


218.5
31.8
6.94
~80
0.0621
0.038


117.05
57.48
6.64
~82
0.12
0.0246


74.3
348.5
25.6
~86
0.2375
0.8625









The preferred thickness for the deposited layers is different for conductivity properties than for barrier properties. The thickness of the deposited film is related to the film's conductive and barrier properties. The critical thickness for barrier properties of these layers varies with the material and, to a lesser extent, how the layer is deposited. For ITO, the critical thickness is about 20 nanometers (or 200 angstroms), minimum. The lower thickness limits for some of the metal oxides which are typically used in packing applications is in about the 10 to 30 nanometer range. Generally, 5-10 nanometers is the minimum thickness for adequate barrier properties. Enhanced conductive properties result from film thicknesses in the range of about 20 nanometers to 300 nanometers. If the single layer film is thicker than that range, then the film starts cracking, and hence, loses conductivity and barrier properties. For maximizing single layer optical transmission, it is well known that certain optical thicknesses, e.g. one-half wave, of thin films are selected. The typical physical thickness is in the range of about 20 to 300 nanometers for ITO on a flexible substrate.



FIGS. 20-23 are charts showing transmittance and reflectance spectra versus wavelength for an ITO layer deposited over a PET substrate at a sheet resistance of 29 ohms/square, 57 ohms/square, 65 ohms/square, and•347 ohms/square, respectively. As shown, generally, for a range of the sheet resistance, the percentage of spectral transmittance and reflectance remains relatively constant. For example, at about a wavelength of 500 nm, the transmittance percentage is about•80% for resistance ranging from 29 ohms/square to 347 ohms/square. DC sputter deposited ITO on a hardcoated PET substrate exhibited a sheet resistivity of 46.9 ohms/square, which is a volume resistivity of approximately 5×10−4 ohm-cm, and a visible transmittance of about 84.7%. Generally, the transmittance increases (and the reflectance decreases) as the plasma wavelength increases. There is always a compromise between high optical transmittance and high conductivity.


In contrast to FIGS. 20-23, in FIG. 19 the transmittance decreases and the reflectance increases at the higher wavelengths. FIG. 19 is a chart showing transmittance and reflectance spectra versus wavelength for a more preferred embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 19 shows the transmittance spectra for a PET substrate coated with layers of an ITO, silver film, and•another ITO at a sheet resistance of 14 ohms/square.



FIGS. 26-30 illustrate the Transmittance and Reflectance of semi-reactively sputtered ITO on a PET substrate for various thicknesses versus wavelength. The transmittance and reflectance of a substrate coated with a polymer layer and an ITO layer, a substrate with an ITO layer, and a substrate with two ITO layers (with a polymer layer in between the two ITO layers) are illustrated. Generally, transmittance and conductivity are inversely related. Improved optical performance is achieved by controlling the thickness and index of the polymer layers.


For a transparent electrode, conductivity specifications vary with display technology and addressing method. The surface, resistivity for LCD's is about 50-300 ohms/square, and for OLED's is about 10-100 ohms/square. The corresponding visible transmittance for LCD's is about 90%, and for OLED's is about 80-85%. The thickness of the conductor layer is compatible with the vacuum web coating processing for the flexible plastic substrate.


Table 1 shows the test results for oxygen and water vapor transmission rates of various samples of a PET substrate coated with a single ITO layer with different ohms/square coatings and a substrate coated with an ITO layer, a metal layer, and another ITO layer. The test conditions were as follows: the temperature was at 23° C./73.4° F. On each side of the barrier for the oxygen transmission rate tests, the relative humidity was 0%. On one side of the barrier for the water vapor transmission rate tests, the relative humidity was 100%, but the other side of the barrier had a relative humidity of 0%.


The first eight samples of Table 1 are of a plastic substrate coated with a single ITO film layer, each with different nominal ITO thickness and sheet resistances. For example, the ‘25-1’ is the first sample with a sheet resistance of 25 ohm/square; whereas ‘25-2’ is the second sample from the same lot. The last two samples are of a substrate coated with an ITO layer, a metal coating, and another ITO layer, with a nominal sheet resistance of 10 ohm/square. This 3 layer configuration is the “optically enhanced metal”, or “induced transmission filter”, and has similar characteristics to a single TCO layer. With the optically enhanced metal, good conductivity, transmission and barrier properties are achieved. Preferably the ITO layers, which antireflect the metal, each have a thickness of about 30-60 nanometers. In several instances, the samples were tested two times. For example, the second column for the 25 and 60 ohms/square samples reflects the results of the second test.


Although the present invention has been described and is illustrated with respect to various embodiments thereof, it is to be understood that it is not to be so limited, because changes and modifications may be made therein which are within the full intended scope of this invention as hereinafter claimed. In particular, the structure disclosed in the present invention for flat panel displays is schematic for LCD and other display technologies, such as polymer organic light emitting diode (POLED), small molecule organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays, and thin film electro-luminescent.















TABLE 1








Water Vapor

Oxygen





Transmission Rate

Transmission Rate



Sample
(g/m2 day)

(cc/m2 day)






















 25-1
0.026
<0.0051
0.017
0.087



 25-2
0.097
<0.0051
0.584
0.257



 60-1
0.042

0.059
0.071



 60-2
0.050

0.204
0.090



 60-3
0.007

<0.0052



 60-4
<0.0051

0.014



300-1
0.243

0.861



300-2
0.243

0.861



M-10-1
0.076

0.035



M-10-2
0.041

0.024








1The actual water vapor transmission rate was at least as low as the lower limit of the instrument, Permatran-W 3/31, 0.005 g/m2 day.





2The actual oxygen transmission rate was at least as low as the lower limit of the instrument, Ox-Tran 2/20, 0.005 cc/m2 day.







Table 2 compares permeation rates for different coatings, including multiple dyad (an acrylate/oxide pair) layers on the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate, and coatings on oriented polypropylene (OPP) substrates. As shown, a single dyad on a substrate has high oxygen and moisture permeation resistance. In some instances, two oxygen transmission rate tests were conducted, and the results were shown in a second column. Footnote1 denotes the typical permeation rate for the PET substrate.











TABLE 2






Water Vapor




Transmission
Oxygen



Rate
Transmission Rate


Sample
(g/m2 day)
(cc/m2 day)


















2 mil PET
30.5, 2721 per
5.3, 15501 per




micron film
micron film



thickness
thickness


Food packaging—target
1.55
1.5


values (PET/oxide)


2 mil PET/single dyad
<0.0078
0.03


(23° C.)


2 mil PET/seven dyads
<0.0078
<0.016


(23° C.)


7 mil PET/hardcoat
7.6



(23° C.)


7 mil PET/hardcoat/
<0.0078, 90%
0.2682,
0.6061,


single dyad
Relative
100% RH
100% RH


(38° C.)
Humidity (RH),



100% O2


7 mil PET/hardcoat/
<0.0078,
0.0098,
0.0128,


single dyad/ITO
90% RH,
100% RH
100% RH


(38° C.)
100% O2


PET/oxide
0.7-1.5
0.15-0.9


PET/A1
0.6
0.17


OPP, copolymer, 1 mil
1800
1.3


OPP/oxide
 17-546
0.08-0.4


OPP/A1
20
0.11








Claims
  • 1. An OLED comprising: a flexible plastic substrate coated with one or more vacuum-deposited in-situ polymerized layers of polymer and a first layer configuration comprising: a first transparent electrically conductive oxide layer,a transparent electrically conductive metal layer adjacent the first transparent electrically conductive oxide layer, anda second transparent electrically conductive oxide layer adjacent the transparent electrically conductive metal layer; anda light emitting material;wherein the OLED has a visible light transmittance of about 80-85%.
  • 2. The OLED according to claim 1, wherein the flexible plastic substrate is further coated with a second layer configuration comprising a first transparent electrically conductive oxide layer, a transparent electrically conductive metal layer adjacent the first transparent electrically conductive oxide layer, and a second transparent electrically conductive oxide layer adjacent the transparent electrically conductive metal layer.
  • 3. The OLED according to claim 2, wherein the first and second layer configurations are separated by one or more vacuum-deposited in-situ polymerized layers of polymer.
  • 4. The OLED according to claim 1, wherein the OLED does not comprise a reflective metal layer.
  • 5. A process for fabricating an OLED, the process comprising the steps of: (a) providing a substrate;(b) depositing over the substrate a first layer configuration, a second layer configuration, and one or more vacuum-deposited in-situ polymerized layers of polymer, each of the first and second layer configurations comprising a first transparent electrically conductive oxide layer, a transparent electrically conductive metal layer adjacent the first transparent electrically conductive oxide layer, and a second transparent electrically conductive oxide layer adjacent the transparent electrically conductive metal layer, wherein the first and second layer configurations are separated by one or more of the vacuum-deposited in-situ polymerized layers of polymer, and(c) depositing over the substrate a light emitting material;wherein the OLED has a visible light transmittance of about 80-85%.
  • 6. A process for fabricating an OLED, the process comprising the steps of: (a) providing a substrate;(b) depositing over the substrate a layer of in-situ polymerized organic monomer and an optically enhanced transparent electrically conductive three layer configuration comprising a first electrically conductive oxide layer, a transparent electrically conductive metal layer adjacent the first transparent electrically conductive oxide layer, and a second transparent electrically conductive oxide layer adjacent the transparent electrically conductive metal layer;(c) applying the substrate to an OLED to obtain a visible light transmittance of about 80-85%.
  • 7. The method according to claim 6, further comprising applying a polymeric base coat to smooth the substrate prior to deposition of a transparent electrically conductive oxide layer.
  • 8. The method according to claim 6, further comprising heating the substrate during or after deposition of a transparent electrically conductive oxide layer.
  • 9. The method according to claim 6, further comprising depositing one or more of the transparent electrically conductive oxide layers in a hydrogen-containing plasma.
  • 10. The method according to claim 6, further comprising electrically connecting all electrically conductive layers in parallel.
  • 11. The method according to claim 6, further comprising contacting the transparent conductive oxide layers with a roller without causing cracking or crazing of the electrically conductive oxide layers sufficient to reduce electrical conductivity.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/964,909, filed Dec. 10, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,241,752 now allowed, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/859,581, filed Sep. 21, 2007, now abandoned, which is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/317,623, filed Dec. 12, 2002, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,276,291, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/939,008, filed Aug. 24, 2001, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,186,465, which is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/419,870, filed Oct. 18, 1999, now abandoned, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/106,871, filed Nov. 2, 1998, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference in their entirety herein, including the original specification, first substitute specification, second substitute specification, and all attached Appendices of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/419,870.

US Referenced Citations (277)
Number Name Date Kind
2741769 White Jan 1954 A
2676117 Colbert Apr 1954 A
3018262 Schroeder Jan 1962 A
3302002 Warren Jan 1967 A
3311517 Keslar Mar 1967 A
3475307 Knox Oct 1969 A
3529074 Lewis Sep 1970 A
3601471 Seddon Aug 1971 A
3607365 Lindlof Sep 1971 A
3682528 Apfel Aug 1972 A
3682582 Hirshfeld Aug 1972 A
3720541 King Mar 1973 A
3729313 Smith Apr 1973 A
3752348 Dickason Aug 1973 A
3779778 Smith Dec 1973 A
3808006 Smith Apr 1974 A
3825917 Lucky Jul 1974 A
3897140 Tuthill Jul 1975 A
3990784 Gelber Nov 1976 A
4017661 Gillery Apr 1977 A
4098965 Kinsman Jul 1978 A
4166876 Chiba Sep 1979 A
4226910 Dahlen Oct 1980 A
4234654 Yatabe Nov 1980 A
4250053 Smith Feb 1981 A
4279717 Eckberg Jul 1981 A
4283482 Hattori Aug 1981 A
4320169 Yatabe Mar 1982 A
4337990 Fan Jul 1982 A
4394403 Smith Jul 1983 A
4413877 Suzuki Nov 1983 A
4463047 Matteucci Jul 1984 A
4491628 Ito et al. Jan 1985 A
4537814 Itoh Aug 1985 A
4556277 Fan Dec 1985 A
4565719 Phillips Jan 1986 A
4581337 Frey Apr 1986 A
4590118 Yatabe May 1986 A
4600627 Honda Jul 1986 A
4624867 Iijima Nov 1986 A
4639069 Yatabe Jan 1987 A
4642126 Zador Feb 1987 A
4645714 Roche Feb 1987 A
4652274 Boettcher Mar 1987 A
4654067 Ramus Mar 1987 A
4695618 Mowrer Sep 1987 A
4696719 Bischoff Sep 1987 A
4699830 White Oct 1987 A
4710426 Stephens Dec 1987 A
4721349 Fan Jan 1988 A
4722515 Ham Feb 1988 A
4782216 Woodard Nov 1988 A
4786767 Kuhlman Nov 1988 A
4786783 Woodard Nov 1988 A
4799745 Meyer Jan 1989 A
4806220 Finley Feb 1989 A
4828346 Jacobsen May 1989 A
4842893 Yializis Jun 1989 A
4873139 Kinoskly Oct 1989 A
4910090 Kuhlman Mar 1990 A
4954371 Yializis Sep 1990 A
4959257 Mukherjee Sep 1990 A
4965408 Chapman Oct 1990 A
4973511 Farmer Nov 1990 A
4977013 Ritchie Dec 1990 A
5011585 Brochot Apr 1991 A
5013416 Murayama May 1991 A
5018048 Shaw May 1991 A
5028759 Finley Jul 1991 A
5032461 Shaw Jul 1991 A
5059295 Finley Oct 1991 A
5071206 Hood Dec 1991 A
5085141 Triffaux Feb 1992 A
5091244 Biornard Feb 1992 A
5097800 Shaw Mar 1992 A
5111329 Gajewski May 1992 A
5125138 Shaw Jun 1992 A
5235015 Ali Aug 1993 A
5237439 Misono Aug 1993 A
5260095 Affinito Nov 1993 A
5270517 Finley Dec 1993 A
5306547 Hood Apr 1994 A
5324374 Harmand Jun 1994 A
5332888 Tausch Jul 1994 A
5354497 Fukuchi Oct 1994 A
5356947 Ali Oct 1994 A
5360659 Arends Nov 1994 A
5377045 Wolfe Dec 1994 A
5395644 Affinito Mar 1995 A
5427638 Goetz Jun 1995 A
5427861 D'Errico Jun 1995 A
5440446 Shaw Aug 1995 A
5457356 Parodos Oct 1995 A
5489489 Swirbel Feb 1996 A
5506037 Termath Apr 1996 A
5510173 Pass Apr 1996 A
5521765 Wolfe May 1996 A
5529849 D'Errico Jun 1996 A
5536323 Kirlin Jul 1996 A
5540446 Felsen Jul 1996 A
5545676 Palazzotto Aug 1996 A
5547508 Affinito Aug 1996 A
5547908 Furuzawa Aug 1996 A
5554220 Forrest Sep 1996 A
5576101 Saitoh Nov 1996 A
5593221 Evanicky Jan 1997 A
5607789 Treger Mar 1997 A
5620524 Fan Apr 1997 A
5629389 Roitman May 1997 A
5654084 Egert Aug 1997 A
5681615 Affinito Oct 1997 A
5681666 Treger Oct 1997 A
5684084 Lewin Nov 1997 A
5686360 Harvey, III Nov 1997 A
5693956 Shi Dec 1997 A
5699188 Gilbert Dec 1997 A
5711816 Kirlin Jan 1998 A
5725909 Shaw Mar 1998 A
5731661 So Mar 1998 A
5739180 Taylor-Smith Apr 1998 A
5744227 Bright et al. Apr 1998 A
5747182 Friend May 1998 A
5753346 Leir May 1998 A
5756192 Crawley May 1998 A
5757126 Harvey, III May 1998 A
5759329 Krause Jun 1998 A
5771562 Harvey, III Jun 1998 A
5773102 Rehfeld Jun 1998 A
5780174 Tokito et al. Jul 1998 A
5783049 Bright Jul 1998 A
5792550 Phillips Aug 1998 A
5811177 Shi Sep 1998 A
5811183 Shaw Sep 1998 A
5821692 Rogers Oct 1998 A
5844363 Gu et al. Dec 1998 A
5856373 Kaisaki Jan 1999 A
5869761 Nakamura Feb 1999 A
5872355 Hueschen Feb 1999 A
5877895 Shaw Mar 1999 A
5891554 Hosokawa Apr 1999 A
5896119 Evanicky Apr 1999 A
5902641 Affinito May 1999 A
5902688 Antoniadis May 1999 A
5904958 Dick May 1999 A
5912069 Yializis Jun 1999 A
5921670 Schumacher Jul 1999 A
5922161 Wu Jul 1999 A
5945174 Shaw Aug 1999 A
5948552 Antoniadis Sep 1999 A
5965907 Huang Oct 1999 A
5981059 Bright Nov 1999 A
5996498 Lewis Dec 1999 A
5998495 Oxman Dec 1999 A
6007901 Maschwitz Dec 1999 A
6025406 Oxman Feb 2000 A
6030671 Yang Feb 2000 A
6034813 Woodard Mar 2000 A
6039553 Lundin Mar 2000 A
6040017 Mikhael Mar 2000 A
6040056 Anaki Mar 2000 A
6040939 Demiryont Mar 2000 A
6045864 Lyons Apr 2000 A
6049419 Wheatley Apr 2000 A
6066826 Yializis May 2000 A
6077462 Lundin Jun 2000 A
6083628 Yializis Jul 2000 A
6092269 Yializis Jul 2000 A
6097147 Baldo et al. Aug 2000 A
6104530 Okamura Aug 2000 A
6106627 Yializis Aug 2000 A
6107357 Hawker Aug 2000 A
6111698 Woodard Aug 2000 A
6118218 Yializis Sep 2000 A
6132882 Landin Oct 2000 A
6146225 Sheats Nov 2000 A
6146462 Yializis Nov 2000 A
6167182 Shinohara Dec 2000 A
6187120 Ono Feb 2001 B1
6194487 Morimoto Feb 2001 B1
6198220 Jones Mar 2001 B1
6204408 Bassler Mar 2001 B1
6204480 Woodard Mar 2001 B1
6214422 Yializis Apr 2001 B1
6231939 Shaw May 2001 B1
6243201 Fleming Jun 2001 B1
6252703 Nakamura Jun 2001 B1
6255003 Woodard Jul 2001 B1
6268695 Affinito Jul 2001 B1
6316343 Wada Nov 2001 B1
6352761 Hebrink Mar 2002 B1
6352777 Bulovic Mar 2002 B1
6357880 Epstein Mar 2002 B2
6368699 Gilbert Apr 2002 B1
6376065 Korba Apr 2002 B1
6379592 Lundin Apr 2002 B1
6399228 Simpson Jun 2002 B1
6413645 Graff Jul 2002 B1
6416872 Maschwitz Jul 2002 B1
6417619 Yasunori Jul 2002 B1
6425673 Suga Jul 2002 B1
6440642 Shelnut Aug 2002 B1
6459514 Gilbert Oct 2002 B2
6469437 Parthasarathy Oct 2002 B1
6492026 Graff Dec 2002 B1
6495752 Sugizaki Dec 2002 B1
6522067 Graff Feb 2003 B1
6541133 Schicht Apr 2003 B1
6565982 Ouderkirk May 2003 B1
6573652 Graff Jun 2003 B1
6579423 Anzaki Jun 2003 B2
6635989 Nilsson Oct 2003 B1
6641900 Hebrink Nov 2003 B2
6650478 DeBusk Nov 2003 B1
6673438 Bond Jan 2004 B1
6679971 Tone Jan 2004 B2
6737154 Jonza May 2004 B2
6740289 Ono May 2004 B1
6783349 Neavin Aug 2004 B2
6797396 Liu Sep 2004 B1
6808658 Stover Oct 2004 B2
6811867 McGurran Nov 2004 B1
6818291 Funkenbusch Nov 2004 B2
6830713 Hebrink Dec 2004 B2
6833391 Chisholm Dec 2004 B1
6872793 Schlueter Mar 2005 B1
6929864 Fleming Aug 2005 B2
6933051 Fleming Aug 2005 B2
6946188 Hebrink Sep 2005 B2
6965191 Koike Nov 2005 B2
7018713 Padiyath Mar 2006 B2
7148360 Flynn Dec 2006 B2
7150907 Hebrink Dec 2006 B2
7169328 Miller Jan 2007 B2
7171105 Winkler Jan 2007 B2
7186465 Bright Mar 2007 B2
7215473 Fleming May 2007 B2
7238401 Dietz Jul 2007 B1
7253809 Boyd Aug 2007 B2
7261950 Fleming Aug 2007 B2
7276291 Bright Oct 2007 B2
7351479 Funkenbusch Apr 2008 B2
7364339 Park Apr 2008 B2
7393557 Fleming Jul 2008 B2
7525454 Jung Apr 2009 B2
7683279 Kim Mar 2010 B2
20010010846 Hofmeister Aug 2001 A1
20020022156 Bright Feb 2002 A1
20030016930 Inditsky Jan 2003 A1
20030124392 Bright Jul 2003 A1
20030184222 Nilsson Oct 2003 A1
20030228476 Buhay Dec 2003 A1
20040032658 Fleming Feb 2004 A1
20040033369 Fleming Feb 2004 A1
20040179348 Pesenti Sep 2004 A1
20040241396 Jing Dec 2004 A1
20050181123 Fleming Aug 2005 A1
20060035073 Funkenbusch Feb 2006 A1
20060055308 Lairson Mar 2006 A1
20060105149 Donahue May 2006 A1
20060115214 Cassarly Jun 2006 A1
20060132453 Boyd Jun 2006 A1
20070013663 Park Jan 2007 A1
20070014097 Park Jan 2007 A1
20070035843 Cassarly Feb 2007 A1
20070191506 Lu Aug 2007 A1
20070279935 Gardiner Dec 2007 A1
20080008893 Bright Jan 2008 A1
20080037284 Rudisill Feb 2008 A1
20080160185 Endle Jul 2008 A1
20080257475 Fleming Oct 2008 A1
20090067151 Sahlin Mar 2009 A1
20090109537 Bright Apr 2009 A1
20090303602 Bright Dec 2009 A1
20100089621 Stoss Apr 2010 A1
20110074282 Bright Mar 2011 A1
20120125660 Bright May 2012 A1
20120127578 Bright May 2012 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (63)
Number Date Country
704 297 Oct 1967 BE
196 03 746 Apr 1997 DE
0 299 753 Jan 1988 EP
0 260 626 Mar 1988 EP
0 332 717 Sep 1989 EP
0 340 935 Nov 1989 EP
0 390 540 Oct 1990 EP
0 547 550 Jun 1993 EP
0 590 467 Apr 1994 EP
0 691 553 Jan 1996 EP
0 787 826 Aug 1997 EP
0 810 452 Dec 1997 EP
0 931 850 Jul 1999 EP
0 977 469 Feb 2000 EP
1446849 Aug 1976 GB
57-159645 Oct 1982 JP
59-70558 Apr 1984 JP
61-3743 Jan 1986 JP
61-43555 Mar 1986 JP
61-79644 Apr 1986 JP
61-277114 Dec 1986 JP
62-217506 Sep 1987 JP
63-136316 Jun 1988 JP
64-18441 Jan 1989 JP
2-183230 Jul 1990 JP
4-369 Jan 1992 JP
4-48515 Feb 1992 JP
04-230906 Aug 1992 JP
06-136159 May 1994 JP
06-251631 Sep 1994 JP
8-325713 Dec 1996 JP
9-59763 Mar 1997 JP
09-291356 Nov 1997 JP
10-13083 Jan 1998 JP
2008-181791 Aug 2008 JP
10-2006-0119292 Nov 2006 KR
WO 8707848 Dec 1987 WO
WO 9212219 Jul 1992 WO
WO 9510117 Apr 1995 WO
WO 9701440 Jan 1997 WO
WO 9701778 Jan 1997 WO
WO 9704885 Feb 1997 WO
WO 9716053 May 1997 WO
WO 9722631 Jun 1997 WO
WO 9737844 Oct 1997 WO
WO 9810116 Mar 1998 WO
WO 9818852 May 1998 WO
WO 9826927 Jun 1998 WO
WO 9916557 Apr 1999 WO
WO 9916931 Apr 1999 WO
WO 9936248 Jul 1999 WO
WO 9936262 Jul 1999 WO
WO 0026973 May 2000 WO
WO 0036665 Jun 2000 WO
WO 0048749 Aug 2000 WO
WO 0131393 May 2001 WO
WO 0158989 Aug 2001 WO
WO 0196104 Dec 2001 WO
WO 0196115 Dec 2001 WO
WO 2007137102 Nov 2007 WO
WO 2008083304 Jul 2008 WO
WO 2008083308 Jul 2008 WO
WO 2008112451 Sep 2008 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (81)
Entry
Affinito et al., “A New Method for Fabricating Transparent Barrier Layers,” Thin Solid Films, (1996), pp. 63-67, vol. 290/291, Elsevier Science S.A.
Affinito et al., “A New Technique for Fabrication of Nonlinear Optical Polymer Thin Films and a Cost Effective Fabrication Method for Nonlinear Optical Waveguides”, FY97 Laboratory Directed Research and Development Proposal, (1997), pp. 1-4.
Affinito et al., “Comparison of Surface Treatments of PET and PML”, SVC 40th Annual Technical Conference, Paper No. W-05, Proceedings of the Society of Vacuum Coaters, Vacuum Web Coating Session, (1997), (4 pages).
Affinito et al., “Electrochromic Oxides for Wide Area Switchable Camouflage, Windows, and Mirrors”, FY97 IR&D Investment Proposal, Material Sciences Department/EMSL, (1997), pp. 1-6.
Affinito et al., “High Rate Vacuum Deposition of Polymer Electrolytes,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol., A 14(3), (May/Jun. 1996), pp. 733-738.
Affinito et al., “Low Cost Wide Area Light Emitting Polymer Device Fabrication with PML and LML Process Technology”, Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, (Aug. 1996), pp. 1-19.
Affinito et al., “Molecularly Doped Polymer Composite Films for Light Emitting Polymer Applications Fabricated by the PML Process”, 41st Annual Technical Conference Proceedings (1998), pp. 220-225, Society of Vacuum Coaters.
Affinito et al., “PML/Oxide/PML Barrier Layer Performance Differences Arising From Use of UV or Electron Beam Polymerization of the PML Layers,” Thin Solid Films, (1997), pp. 19-25, vol. 308-309, Elsevier Science S.A.
Affinito et al., “Polymer/Polymer, Polymer/Oxide, and Polymer/Metal Vacuum Deposited Interference Filters,” Tenth International Vacuum Web Coating Conference, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Nov. 10-12, 1996, pp. 0-14.
Affinito et al., “Polymer-Oxide Transparent Barrier Layers,” 39th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings, (1996), pp. 392-397, Society of Vacuum Coaters.
Affinito et al., “Ultrahigh Rate, Wide Area, Plasma Polymerized Films From High Molecular Weight/Low Vapor Pressure Liquid or Solid Monomer Precursors”, J. Vac. Sci. Technol., A 17 (4), Jul./Aug. 1999, pp. 1974-1981.
Affinito et al., “Vacuum Deposited Conductive Polymer Films”, The Eleventh International Conference on Vacuum Web Coating, Nov. 9-11, 1997, pp. 201-212.
Affinito et al., “Vacuum Deposited Polymer/Metal Multilayer Films for Optical Application,” Thin Solid Films, vol. 270 (1995), pp. 43-48.
Affinito et al., “Vacuum Deposition of Polymer Electrolytes on Flexible Substrates,” Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Vacuum Web Coating, (1995), pp. 20-36, ed. R. Bakish, Bakish Press.
Affinito, “Addendum to Attached White Paper on Polymer Multilayer Thin Film Deposition Technology,” Mar. 9, 1993, pp. 1-5.
Affinito, “Application of PNL,s PML Technology to Electrolyte and Advanced Battery Fabrication,” Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Apr. 25, 1994, pp. 1-4.
Affinito, “Battelle Coating Capabilities and Experience,” Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, (1994), (18 pages).
Affinito, “Extremely High Rate Deposition of Polymer Multilayer Optical Thin Film Materials,” Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Jan. 4, 1991, (48 pages).
Affinito, “Li-Polymer Batteries Fabricated with New Materials and New Processing Technology, with Greater than 1200 WHr/l Capacity,” Proposal Response to BAA 94-1, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Jan. 1994, pp. 1-21.
Affinito, “Using Lateral Force Microscopy as a Means to Obtain Information about Pinhole Formation in Al2O3 Barrier Layers Deposited on PET,” May 5, 1997, (4 pages).
Affinito, “Vacuum Deposited Polymer/Silver Reflector Material”, SPIE, (Jul. 1994), pp. 276-283, vol. 2262, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Materials Sciences Department.
Affinito, letter to Peter Erickson re: transmittal of literature, May 9, 1997, with an Affinito letter providing an overview of the content of the collection of literature concerning Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's PML and LML technology for the vacuum deposition of polymer films, May 5, 1997, (4 pages).
Allen et al., Building Etch Resistance Into a High Resolution Imaging System, Proc. SPIE 2438, 474 (1995).
Allen et al., High Performance Acrylic Polymers and Chemically Amplified Photoresist Applicatiions, J. Vac Sci. Technol. B, 9, 3557 (1991).
Baouchi et al., “Comparison of Non-Reactive and Reactive ITO Sputtering in a High Volume Production Environment”, Donnelly Applied Films Corporation, SID 1995 Conference, pp. 89-90.
Barnes et al., “Advanced Materials for Electronic Applications by Polymerization of Cyclic Olefins Using Late Transition Metal Catalysts,” (Jun. 10-1, 1998), pp. 1-13.
Beringer et al., Diaryliodonium Salts. IX. The Synthesis of Substituted Diphenyliodium Salts, J. Am.Chem Soc. 81, 342-351 (1959).
Blocher, Jr., Chapter 8, “Chemical Vapor Deposition”, Deposition Technologies for Films and Coatings, Developments and Applications, (1982), pp. 335-364, Noyes Publications, New Jersey.
Bonifield, Chapter 9, “Plasma Assisted Chemical Vapor Deposition”, Deposition Technologies for Films and Coatings, Developments and Applications, (1982), pp. 365-384, Noyes Publications, New Jersey.
Bright et al., “Transparent and Conductive Ultra-Barrier Coatings for Flexible Plastic Display”, Delta V Technologies, Inc., American Vacuum Society 46th International Symposium, Seattle, WA, (Oct. 25-29, 1999), (20 pages).
Bright et al., “Transparent Barrier Coatings Based on ITO for Flexible Plastic Displays”, (1999), Delta V Technologies, Inc., (18 pages).
Bright, Society of Vacuum Coaters Short Course on “Deposition and Properties of ITO and Other Transparent Conductive Coatings” (Supplementary Notes), (1998), Delta V Technologies, Inc., (37 pages).
Bright, Society of Vacuum Coaters Short Course on “Deposition and Properties of ITO and Other Transparent Conductive Coatings”, (1996), Delta V Technologies, Inc., (123 pages).
Cairns et al., “Strain-dependent electrical resistance of tin-doped indium oxide on polymer substrates”, Applied Physics Letters, vol. 76, No. 11, Mar. 13, 2000, pp. 425-427.
Chahroudi et al., “Transparent Glass Barrier Coating for Flexible Film Packaging”, Society of Vacuum Coaters 505/298-7624, 34th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings (1991), pp. 130-133.
Chatham, “Review Oxygen Diffusion Barrier Properties of Transparent Oxide Coatings on Polymeric Substrates,” Surface & Coatings Technology (1996), pp. 1-9, vol. 78.
Comer, “The Impact of Visual Anomalies on the Barrier Properties of Metallized Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene Film,” (1995), 38th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings, Society of Vacuum Coaters 505/856-7188, pp. 59-60.
da Silva Sobrinho et al., “Transparent Barrier Coatings on Polyethylene Terephthalate by Single-and Dual-Frequency Plasma-Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol., A 16(6), Nov./Dec. 1998, pp. 3190-3198.
Deshpandey et al., “Evaporation Processes”, Thin Film Processes II, Academic Press, Inc., Chapter II-2, (1991), pp. 79-132.
Gilbert et al., “Comparison of ITO Sputtering Process from Ceramic and Alloy Targets onto Room Temperature PET Substrates,” Society of Vacuum Coaters, 36th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings, (1993), pp. 236-241.
Gustafsson et al., “Flexible Light-Emitting Diodes Made From Soluble Conducting Polymers,” Nature, vol. 357, Jun. 11, 1992, pp. 477-479.
Han et al., “Improved conductivity and mechanism of carrier transport in zinc oxide with embedded silver layer”, Journal of Applied Physics 103, (2008).
Heil, “Mechanical Properties of PECVD Silicon-Oxide Based Barrier Films on PET,” (1995), 38th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings, Society of Vacuum Coaters, 505/856-7188, p. 33.
Hollahan et al., “Plasma Deposition of Inorganic Thin Films,” Thin Film Processes, Academic Press, Chapter IV-1, (1978), pp. 335-360.
Inoue et al., “Fabrication of a Thin Film of MNA by Vapour Deposition,” (1990), pp. 177-179, The 33rd Japan Congress on Materials Research.
Johnson, “The Cathodic Arc Plasma Deposition of Thin Films”, Thin Film Processes II, Academic Press, Inc., Chapter II-5, (1991), pp. 209-280.
King, “Defrosting of Automobile Windshields Using High Light Transmitting Electro Conducting Films”, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1974, pp. 1-5.
Knoll et al., “Effects of Process Parameters on PECVD Silicon Oxide and Aluminum Oxide Barrier Films,” (1995), 38th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings, Society of Vacuum Coaters 505/856-7188, pp. 425-426 and 430.
Langowski, “Transparent Barrier Coatings for Flexible Packagings: Industrial and Research Activities in Germany,” (1996), 39th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings, Society of Vacuum Coaters 505/856-7188, pp. 398 and 415.
Lee et al., Handbook of Epoxy Resins, McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY (1967).
Lewis et al., “Highly flexible transparent electrodes for organic light-emitting diode-based displays”, Applied Physics Letters, vol. 85, No. 16, Oct. 18, 2004, pp. 3450-3452.
Lohwasser et al., “Electron-Beam Oxide Coating on Plastic Films for Packaging, Development, Production and Application,” (1995), 38th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings, Society of Vacuum Coater 505/856-7188, pp. 40-41.
Macleod, “Antireflection Coatings”, Thin-Film Optical Filters, Macmillan Publishing Co., Second Edition, (1986), pp. 71-136.
Mahon et al., “Requirements of Flexible Substrates for Organic Light Emitting Devices in Flat Panel Display Applications”, 42nd Annual Technical Conference Proceedings, (1999), pp. 456-459, Society of Vacuum Coaters 505/856-7188.
Mattox, Chapter 6, “Ion Plating Technology”, Deposition Technologies for Films and Coatings, Developments and Applications, (1982), pp. 244-287, Noyes Publications, New Jersey.
McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, “Electroluminescence,” (1998), pp. 1-3.
McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, “Electronic Display,” (1998), pp. 1-8.
McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, “Light-Emitting Diode,” (1998), pp. 1-3.
McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, “Liquid Crystals,” (1998), pp. 1-5.
McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, “Printed Circuit,” (1998), pp. 1-13.
McGraw-Hill Multimedia Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, “Sputtering,” (1998), pp. 1-3.
Misiano et al., “Inexpensive Transparent Barrier Coatings on Plastic Substrates,” (1996), 39th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings, Society of Vacuum Coaters 505/856-7188, pp. 413 and 399.
O'Mara, “Liquid Crystal Flat Panel Displays, Manufacturing Science & Technology”, (1993), Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishing, New York, pp. 21-35, 66-70, 73, 93, 96, 116-117, 123-125, 144-145, 149-150, and 165-175.
Parsons, “Sputter Deposition Processes”, Thin Film Processes II, Academic Press, Inc., Chapter II-4, (1991), pp. 177-207.
Penning, “Electrical Discharges in Gases, Gordon and Breach”, Science Publishers, (1965), Chapters V-VI, pp. 19-35; and Chapter VIII, pp. 41-50.
Reif, “Plasma-Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition”, Thin Film Processes II, Academic Press, Inc., Chapter IV-1, (1991), pp. 525-564.
Sahu et al., “High quality transparent conductive ZnO/Ag/ZnO multilayer films deposited at room temperature”, Thin Solid Films 515 (2006), pp. 876-879.
Sahu et al., “Study on the electrical and optical properties of Ag/Al-doped ZnO coatings deposited by electron beam evaporation”, Applied Science 253 (2007), pp. 4886-4890.
Sahu et al., “ZnO/Ag/ZnO multilayer films for the application of a very low resistance transparent electrode”, Applied Surface Science 252 (2006), pp. 7509-7514.
Shaw et al., “A New High Speed Process for Vapor Depositing Acrylate Thin Films: An Update,” Society of Vacuum Coaters 36th Annual Technical Conference (1993), pp. 348-352.
Shaw et al., “A New Vapor Deposition Process for Coating Paper and Polymer Webs,” Catalina Coatings, Inc., (1992), pp. 96-102.
Shaw et al., “Use of Evaporated Acrylate Coatings to Smooth the Surface of Polyester and Polypropylene Film Substrates,” Rad Tech (1996), (12 pages).
Shaw et al., “Use of Vapor Deposited Acrylate Coatings to Improve the Barrier Properties of Metallized Film,” Society of Vacuum Coaters 37th Annual Technical Conference (1994), pp. 240-244.
Shi et al., “Plasma Treatment of PET and Acrylic Coating Surfaces: I. In-Situ XPS Measurements”, Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, vol. 14, No. 12, (2000), pp. 1485-1498.
Shi et al., “In-Situ and Real-Time Monitoring of Plasma-Induced Etching of PET and Acrylic Films”, Plasmas and Polymers, vol. 4, No. 4, (1999), pp. 247-258.
Thornton, Chapter 5, “Coating Deposition by Sputtering”, Deposition Technologies for Films and Coatings, Developments and Applications, (1982), pp. 170-243, Noyes Publications, New Jersey.
Tropsha et al., “Activated Rate Theory Treatment of Oxygen and Water Transport Through Silicon Oxide/Poly(ethylene terephthalate) Composite Barrier Structures”, J. Phys. Chem. B, vol. 101, No. 13, (1997), pp. 2259-2266.
Tropsha et al., “Combinatorial Barrier Effect of the Multilayer SiOx Coatings on Polymer Substrates”, Society of Vacuum Coaters, 40th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings (1997), pp. 64-69.
Vossen et al., “Glow Discharge Sputter Deposition,” Thin Film Processes, Academic Press, Inc., Chapter 11-1, (1978), pp. 12-73.
Yamada et al., “The Properties of a New Transparent and Colorless Barrier Film,” (1995), 38th Annual Technical Conference Proceedings, Society of Vacuum Coaters, pp. 28-29.
Yasuda, “Glow Discharge Polymerization”, Thin Film Processes, Academic Press, Inc., Chapter IV-2, (1978), pp. 361-398.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20120262056 A1 Oct 2012 US
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
60106871 Nov 1998 US
Divisions (2)
Number Date Country
Parent 10317623 Dec 2002 US
Child 11859581 US
Parent 09419870 Oct 1999 US
Child 09939008 US
Continuations (3)
Number Date Country
Parent 12964909 Dec 2010 US
Child 13532181 US
Parent 11859581 Sep 2007 US
Child 12964909 US
Parent 09939008 Aug 2001 US
Child 10317623 US