`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 49
`Entered: March 10, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”) filed a Petition (Paper 2) (“Pet.”)
`
`seeking inter partes review of claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 (“the
`
`’545 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319. On March 12, 2013, the
`
`Board granted the Petition and instituted an inter partes review of all claims
`
`on two grounds of unpatentability (Paper 11) (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`
`(“IV”) filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 22) (“PO Resp.”), and Xilinx
`
`filed a Reply (Paper 27) (“Pet. Reply”). Along with its Patent Owner
`
`Response, IV filed a Motion to Amend (Paper 23) (“Mot. to Amend”),
`
`proposing substitute claim 4 if the Board determines claim 2 to be
`
`unpatentable, and substitute claim 5 if the Board determines claim 3 to be
`
`unpatentable. Xilinx filed an Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Paper 26)
`
`(“Pet. Opp.”), and IV filed a Reply (Paper 33) (“PO Reply”).
`
`IV also filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 35) (“Mot. to Exclude”)
`
`certain testimony of Xilinx’s declarant, A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D. Xilinx
`
`filed an Opposition to the Motion to Exclude (Paper 42) (“Exclude Opp.”),
`
`and IV filed a Reply (Paper 43) (“Exclude Reply”).
`
`An oral hearing was held on December 9, 2013, and a transcript of the
`
`hearing is included in the record (Paper 48) (“Tr.”).
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Xilinx has shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3 of the ’545 patent are
`
`unpatentable, and we deny IV’s Motion to Amend.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`A. The ’545 Patent
`
`The ’545 patent relates to a “color video projector system” having
`
`“separate light sources for producing separate beams of light which are
`
`passed each first through color filters to provide separate color beams before
`
`being processed by video-controlled light shutter matrices and then
`
`combined into a single beam projectable to provide a full-color video display
`
`with superimposed color spots.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. The patent describes
`
`how prior art video projector systems, such as color Liquid Crystal Display
`
`(LCD) projectors, were expensive and had difficulty providing adequate
`
`light levels. Id. at col. 1, ll. 9-19. Later systems based on “active matrix
`
`color LCD’s (AM-LCD’s)” were less expensive, but still had limited
`
`brightness and resolution. Id. at col. 1, ll. 20-31. The ’545 patent addresses
`
`these problems by “pre-coloring” the input light and “using a triple
`
`monochrome LCD structure instead of a color AM-LCD.” Id. at col. 2,
`
`ll. 1-12. The resulting arrangement, according to the ’545 patent, provides
`
`better light output because less light is absorbed than in a color AM-LCD,
`
`and results in better resolution due to the superposition of color spots on the
`
`display. Id. It also is less expensive because monochrome LCDs are less
`
`expensive than color LCDs, and precise alignment of the components is less
`
`critical than with a color AM-LCD. Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`Figure 1, the sole figure of the ’545 patent, is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a video projector system comprising, inter alia, (A) lamps
`
`132-134, which emit light; (B) condenser lens system 115, which focuses the
`
`three light beams emitted by the lamps; (C) red/green/blue filters 112-114,
`
`through which the respective light beams pass; (D) monochrome LCD arrays
`
`117-119 in LCD unit 120; (E) controller 122, which controls the arrays; and
`
`(F) mirror and prism system 111, which combines the separate beams into a
`
`single beam for projection onto surface 101. Id. at col. 2, l. 50-col. 3, l. 22.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`B. Exemplary Claim
`
`Claim 1 of the ’545 patent is the only independent claim:
`
`1. A video projector system comprising:
`
`individual light sources, one each for each color to be
`projected, adapted to provide each a separate light beam;
`
`a lens system in the path of the separate light beams,
`adapted for focusing the beams;
`
`a number of individual color filters equal to the number
`of beams, in the colors to be projected, and placed one each in
`each beam path;
`
`a light-shutter matrix system comprising a number of
`equivalent switching matrices equal to the number of beams
`and placed one each in the beam paths;
`
`a video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter
`matrices; and
`
`an optical combination system adapted for combining the
`several beams into a single composite beam for projection on a
`surface to provide a video display;
`
`wherein each beam passes through a color filter before
`being processed by a light-switching matrix.
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art
`
`The pending grounds of unpatentability in this inter partes review are
`
`based on the following prior art:
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 5,108,172, issued Apr. 28, 1992
`(“Flasck”) (Ex. 1002);
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 5,264,951, issued Nov. 23, 1993
`(“Takanashi”) (Ex. 1003); and
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 5,287,131, issued Feb. 15, 1994
`(“Lee”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`D. Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`This inter partes review involves the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability:
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`Flasck
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1-3
`
`Takanashi and Lee
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1-3
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), the
`
`Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There is a “heavy presumption” that a
`
`claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, a “claim
`
`term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own
`
`lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in
`
`either the specification or prosecution history.” Id. “Although an inventor is
`
`indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention,
`
`this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In
`
`re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Also, we must be careful
`
`not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into
`
`the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be
`
`read into the claims from the specification”).
`
`
`
`1. “Video Projector System” and “Video”
`
`The preamble of claim 1 recites a “video projector system.” We did
`
`not interpret the preamble in the Decision on Institution. IV argues in its
`
`Patent Owner Response that “video projector system” should be interpreted
`
`to mean “a system enabling the projection of video, meaning the projection
`
`of moving images that change fast enough to be undetectable by the human
`
`eye,” citing an encyclopedia description of “analog video” and testimony
`
`from Dr. Buckman as support. PO Resp. 7-8 (citing Ex. 2007 at 166, Ex.
`
`2004 at 12:17-20). Xilinx does not disagree with IV’s proposed
`
`interpretation. See Tr. 11:14-24.
`
` “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential
`
`structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to
`
`the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d
`
`801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). “Conversely, a preamble is not
`
`limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the
`
`claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for
`
`the invention.’” Id. (citation omitted). IV proposes an interpretation for the
`
`preamble in claim 1, but does not explain why the language is limiting. We
`
`are not persuaded that the preamble recites essential structure for the claim.
`
`Rather, the body of the claim recites six components that define a
`
`structurally complete system. Further, although the body of the claim refers
`
`to “projection on a surface to provide a video display,” it does not refer
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`specifically to the “video projector” language of the preamble. Reading the
`
`claim as a whole, we conclude that the preamble is not limiting.
`
`The body of claim 1, however, recites the term “video” in two
`
`contexts: (1) a “video controller,” and (2) an “optical combination system
`
`adapted for combining the several beams into a single composite beam for
`
`projection on a surface to provide a video display.” Thus, regardless of what
`
`is recited in the preamble, the system must be capable of providing a “video”
`
`display on a projection surface. In the context of claim 1, we agree with IV
`
`that the term “video” should be given its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`See Ex. 2007 at 166; Ex. 2004 at 12:16-20. Applying the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the Specification, we
`
`interpret “video” to mean a sequence of images that change fast enough to
`
`be undetectable by the human eye.
`
`
`
`2. “Light-Shutter Matrix System”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the arguments presented by
`
`Xilinx in its Petition and by IV in its Preliminary Response, we interpreted
`
`the term “light-shutter matrix system” in claim 1 to mean a set of matrices,
`
`such as monochrome LCD arrays, where each matrix comprises a
`
`rectangular arrangement of elements capable of limiting the passage of light.
`
`Dec. on Inst. 6-9. Xilinx agrees with this interpretation. Pet. Reply 3-4. IV
`
`argues that the interpretation is incorrect, and that “light-shutter matrix
`
`system” instead should be interpreted to mean “a two-dimensional array of
`
`elements that selectively admit and block light.” PO Resp. 13. As explained
`
`below, we are persuaded that our original interpretation should be modified
`
`slightly.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`We begin with the language of the claims. Claim 1 recites a
`
`“light-shutter matrix system comprising a number of equivalent switching
`
`matrices equal to the number of beams and placed one each in the beam
`
`paths.” Thus, the “light-shutter matrix system” is made up of “equivalent
`
`switching matrices.” The claims also refer to these matrices as
`
`“light-switching matri[ces]” (claim 1) and “light-shutter matrices” (claim 2).
`
`Although the language is slightly different, the terms appear to be used
`
`interchangeably in the claims and Specification of the ’545 patent, and we
`
`conclude that they are referring to the same thing. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 1,
`
`ll. 48-67. Dependent claim 2 further recites that “the light-shutter matrices
`
`are monochrome LCD arrays.” Therefore, based on the surrounding
`
`language of the claims, we know that the “light-shutter matrix system” is
`
`comprised of multiple equivalent matrices, and that one example of such a
`
`matrix is a monochrome LCD array.
`
`The Specification of the ’545 patent unfortunately does not shed much
`
`light onto the meaning of “light-shutter matrix system,” as it largely contains
`
`the same language as the claims. In the exemplary embodiment depicted in
`
`Figure 1, light passes through red/green/blue filters 112-114 and then
`
`through “three monochrome LCD arrays 117, 118, and 119” of LCD unit
`
`120. Id. at col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 7. The three light beams are combined into
`
`a single beam and projected onto a surface. Id. at col. 3, ll. 4-12. Video
`
`controller 122 receives a “video signal” and “controls” monochrome LCD
`
`arrays 117-119. Id. at col. 3, ll. 13-20. The Specification does not describe
`
`in detail how the LCD arrays are operated or how they are controlled. It also
`
`makes clear that the invention is not limited to the use of LCD arrays.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`See id. at col. 4, ll. 2-3 (“there are many ways to implement light shutter
`
`devices besides LCD’s”).
`
`The parties do not argue that “light-shutter matrix system” as a whole
`
`is a term of art. As we did in the Decision on Institution, we look for
`
`guidance to how a skilled artisan would have understood the individual
`
`terms “light-shutter” and “matrix.” See Dec. on Inst. 7-8. “Shutter” is
`
`defined as a “mechanical device that limits the passage of light; esp[ecially]:
`
`a camera attachment that exposes the film or plate by opening and closing an
`
`aperture.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1084 (10th ed.
`
`1993) (Ex. 3001). An LCD is an example of something that limits the
`
`passage of light. See S.W. AMOS ET AL., NEWNES DICTIONARY OF
`
`ELECTRONICS 186 (4th ed. 1999) (Ex. 3002) (“One way in which the applied
`
`voltage controls the light transmission of the device is by varying the light
`
`scattering in the liquid which is specially chosen because of its
`
`long-molecule construction.”). “Matrix” is defined as “something
`
`resembling a mathematical matrix esp[ecially] in rectangular arrangement of
`
`elements into rows and columns.” Ex. 3001 at 716.
`
`IV does not dispute that “shutter” and “matrix” should be given their
`
`ordinary meanings, but argues that the dictionary definitions referenced
`
`above are not the correct ones to use. PO Resp. 9-10, 12-13. As to the term
`
`“shutter,” IV argues that the Board was inconsistent in disregarding the
`
`definition IV submitted with its preliminary response—“a mechanical device
`
`of a camera that opens and closes to control the duration of exposure of a
`
`plate or film to light” (Ex. 2001 at 1264)—based on its reference to a
`
`camera, when the dictionary definition cited by the Board (Ex. 3001 at 1084)
`
`also applies to cameras. PO Resp. 9-10; see Dec. on Inst. 8-9. There is an
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`important difference between IV’s definition and the definition cited above,
`
`however. IV’s dictionary defines a shutter as part “of a camera.” Ex. 2001
`
`at 1264. The definition cited above, by contrast, provides a general meaning
`
`and then, by using the word “esp[ecially],” gives an example pertaining to a
`
`camera. Thus, the general definition cited above is the appropriate one to
`
`use given the technology of the ’545 patent, which does not involve
`
`cameras. Moreover, although the above dictionary definition is broader than
`
`IV’s dictionary definition, we must determine the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the Specification, and we are not persuaded by IV’s
`
`arguments that the definition cited above is unreasonable.
`
`As to the term “matrix,” IV provides the following dictionary
`
`definitions: “[a] rectangular array of numeric or algebraic quantities subject
`
`to mathematical operations,” and “[s]omething resembling such an array, as
`
`in the regular formation of elements into columns and rows.” Id. at 838.
`
`IV contends that, based on this definition, a “matrix” is merely a
`
`two-dimensional array (i.e., rows and columns), and need not be in a
`
`“rectangular” form specifically. PO Resp. 12-13. We agree that IV’s
`
`dictionary definition of “matrix” is the appropriate one under the
`
`circumstances, particularly because the dictionary definition cited above
`
`recites a “rectangular” arrangement as an example, not a requirement.
`
`See Ex. 3001 at 716. Thus, we are persuaded to modify our interpretation to
`
`eliminate any requirement of a “rectangular” shape.
`
`Finally, IV argues that the Board’s interpretation in the Decision on
`
`Institution is incorrect because liquid crystals have many different optical
`
`properties, such that not every liquid crystal layer or LCD can be considered
`
`a light shutter. PO Resp. 10-12. We agree in part. Dependent claim 2 and
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`the Specification of the ’545 patent indicate that a monochrome LCD array
`
`is an example of a light-shutter matrix. See Ex. 1001, col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 7.
`
`IV is correct, though, that the LCD array must still be used as a shutter (i.e.,
`
`used to limit the passage of light) and not for some other optical effect.
`
`Thus, we are persuaded to modify our interpretation to state that the device
`
`selectively limits the passage of light, rather than being merely capable of
`
`doing so.
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light
`
`of the Specification, we interpret “light-shutter matrix system” to mean a set
`
`of matrices, such as monochrome LCD arrays, where each matrix comprises
`
`a two-dimensional array of elements that selectively limit the passage of
`
`light.
`
`
`
`3. “Equivalent Switching Matrices”
`
`Claim 1 recites that the light-shutter matrix system comprises “a
`
`number of equivalent switching matrices equal to the number of beams and
`
`placed one each in the beam paths.” We did not interpret “equivalent
`
`switching matrices” in the Decision on Institution. However, in related Case
`
`IPR2013-00112 involving U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334 (“the ’334 patent”), a
`
`continuation-in-part of the ’545 patent, we interpreted the phrase in similar
`
`claims to mean switching matrices that are corresponding or virtually
`
`identical in effect or function. IPR2013-00112, Paper 14 at 12.
`
`IV argues that “equivalent switching matrices” should be interpreted
`
`to mean “switching matrices that are virtually identical in effect or
`
`function.” PO Resp. 15-16. In support of its interpretation, IV cites a
`
`dictionary definition of “equivalent” as “corresponding or virtually identical
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`esp[ecially] in effect or function.” Id. (citing Ex. 1017 at 392-93). We agree
`
`with IV that “equivalent” in claim 1 should be given its ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, and that the dictionary definition of “equivalent” is
`
`indicative of that meaning. We also note that the dictionary definition is
`
`consistent with the Specification of the ’545 patent, which describes “three
`
`monochrome LCD arrays 117, 118, and 119” for the colors red, green, and
`
`blue. See Ex. 1001, col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 1. IV’s proposed interpretation,
`
`however, omits the word “corresponding” from the dictionary definition.
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the
`
`Specification, we interpret “equivalent switching matrices” to mean
`
`switching matrices that are corresponding or virtually identical in effect or
`
`function.
`
`
`
`4. “Video Controller Adapted for Controlling the
`Light-Shutter Matrices”
`
`Claim 1 recites a “video controller adapted for controlling the
`
`light-shutter matrices.” In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted the
`
`phrase to mean a component that controls light-shutter matrices to facilitate
`
`the display of video. Dec. on Inst. 9-10. IV argues that the Board’s
`
`interpretation is too broad in view of the Specification of the ’545 patent,
`
`which provides: “A video signal for the system is delivered from outside via
`
`link 125 into a controller 122. . . . Controller 122 controls the three
`
`monochrome matrices 117, 118, and 119.” PO Resp. 13-14 (citing Ex.
`
`1001, col. 3, ll. 13-18) (emphasis omitted). We disagree. The portion of the
`
`Specification cited by IV describes an exemplary embodiment of the
`
`invention and does not define explicitly the phrase “video controller adapted
`
`for controlling the light-shutter matrices.” See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 16-18.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`Indeed, the Specification states that “[t]here are many ways adequate
`
`controllers may be implemented.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 5-6. The claims also do
`
`not recite a “video signal,” and we see no basis to import a “video signal”
`
`requirement into the claims based on the exemplary embodiment’s use of a
`
`video signal. Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims
`
`in light of the Specification, we interpret “video controller adapted for
`
`controlling the light-shutter matrices” to mean a component that controls
`
`light-shutter matrices to facilitate the display of video.
`
`
`
`B. Claims 1-3 are Unpatentable Over Flasck
`
`With respect to the alleged obviousness of claims 1-3 over Flasck, we
`
`have reviewed Xilinx’s Petition, IV’s Patent Owner Response, and Xilinx’s
`
`Reply, as well as the evidence discussed in each of those papers. We are
`
`persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-3 are
`
`unpatentable over Flasck under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Pet. 12-23;
`
`Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 17-30.
`
`
`
`1. Flasck
`
`Flasck discloses a projection system comprising three “reflective
`
`image plane modules,” where each module “operates on a single color
`
`component, red, green or blue.” Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 57-64. The color
`
`components are “combined on a screen or before projecting on the screen to
`
`form the full color projection image.” Id.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`Figure 11 of Flasck is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 11, three light sources 144/146/148 transmit light
`
`through blue, green, and red filters 124/126/128, respectively. Id. at col. 7,
`
`ll. 60-66. Electronic interface 118 provides information to reflective image
`
`plane modules 92/104/112, which encode information onto the light beams.
`
`Id. at col. 5, ll. 9-16; col. 7, ll. 32-34. Combining prism 150 then combines
`
`the light beams into one encoded beam, which passes through lens system
`
`154 and is projected onto screen 98. Id. at col. 7, l. 66-col. 8, l. 5.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`Figure 2C of Flasck, reproduced below, depicts a side view of the
`
`reflective image plane modules.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 2C, incoming light passes through aperture 42 of
`
`mirrored wall 40, passes through wafer based active matrix 46, reflects off
`
`of back wall 44, reflects again off of back surface 48 of mirrored wall 40,
`
`and is directed to projection lens 50 for projection onto a screen (not shown).
`
`Id. at col. 5, ll. 9-43. Flasck describes wafer based active matrix 46 as
`
`follows:
`
`The light has the information imparted to or encoded on it by
`the wafer based active matrix 46 as it is reflected from the
`wafer based active matrix 46. . . .
`
`The wafer based active matrix 46 is a wafer based active
`matrix having a specular reflective back surface to reflect light
`therefrom. The wafer based active matrix is covered by an
`LCD or
`similar characteristic material,
`such as an
`electrophoretic material.
`
`Id. at col. 5, ll. 14-25.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`2. Analysis
`
`There is no dispute that Flasck teaches the majority of the limitations
`
`of claim 1. For example, Flasck teaches “individual light sources” (light
`
`sources 144/146/148), a “lens system” (lenses 34/36/50), and “color filters”
`
`(filters 124/126/128). See Pet. 13-15. IV argues that Flasck fails to teach or
`
`suggest three limitations of claim 1: a “video projector system,” a
`
`“light-shutter matrix system,” and a “video controller adapted for controlling
`
`the light-shutter matrices.” PO Resp. 16-36. IV does not argue that Flasck
`
`fails to teach or suggest the additional limitations of dependent claims 2 and
`
`3.
`
`
`
`a. Video Projector System
`
`IV contends that Flasck’s projection system is not a “video projector
`
`system” because it is not described explicitly as projecting “video” and is
`
`not capable of operating at video speeds (i.e., projecting images that change
`
`fast enough to be undetectable by the human eye). PO Resp. 16-25. IV’s
`
`argument is not persuasive because, as explained above, we do not interpret
`
`the preamble of claim 1 to be limiting. See supra Section II.A.1.
`
`To the extent IV’s argument applies to the “video” display on a
`
`projection surface recited in the body of the claim, we also do not agree.
`
`Flasck refers repeatedly to “video” projection in its discussion of the prior
`
`art, and is addressed to a purported improvement on that video projection
`
`art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 24-38; col. 4, ll. 6-43. For instance, in
`
`discussing the prior art, Flasck describes a “video or computer signal
`
`source” provided to a “video drive circuit,” which sends drive signals, such
`
`as “red video, blue video, [and] green video,” to an LCD. Id. at col. 4,
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`ll. 6-21. Further, electronic interface 118 in Flasck, which provides
`
`information encoding to reflective image plane modules 92/104/112, is
`
`labeled as “TV or Computer Interface Electronics” in Figure 9. Id. at col. 7,
`
`ll. 32-34; Fig. 9. Although Flasck does not describe the particular content of
`
`the “information encoding” provided by electronic interface 118, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the “TV or Computer
`
`Interface Electronics” label that the system was meant to be used with an
`
`incoming television signal, which is a type of video signal. Indeed, IV’s
`
`declarant, Robert Smith-Gillespie, testified that he would have understood
`
`the “TV or Computer Interface Electronics” label in Flasck to mean “a
`
`connector and some electronics to accept a . . . video signal.” Ex. 1014 at
`
`155:1-20. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`the Flasck projection system to provide a “video” display.
`
`IV cites another patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,537,436 (Ex. 2009)
`
`(“Bottoms”), as evidence that “cables and other connections that were
`
`commonly called TV interfaces at the time of Flasck were not exclusively
`
`used for video.” PO Resp. 18-19. The portion of Bottoms cited by IV,
`
`however, describes a particular type of system for integrated telephone, data,
`
`and video communication using a telephone cord connection to a television,
`
`where “only sequences of still pictures can be transmitted to the television”
`
`due to the low bandwidth of the telephone cord. See Ex. 2009, col. 16,
`
`ll. 10-25. We do not see any indication that Flasck operated in a similar
`
`manner to the Bottoms system and, therefore, do not view Bottoms as
`
`indicative of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`the “TV or Computer Interface Electronics” label in Flasck. Also, the fact
`
`that some systems of the time were not capable of operating at video speeds
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`does not mean that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood
`
`Flasck to project video.
`
`IV’s argument that Flasck’s projection system would not have been
`
`capable of operating at video speeds also is not persuasive. Flasck discloses
`
`a “wafer based active matrix . . . covered by an LCD or similar characteristic
`
`material, such as an electrophoretic material,” where “[o]ne preferable LCD
`
`material is a solid light modulating material having bodies of LC [liquid
`
`crystal] material suspended therein.” Ex. 1002, col. 5, ll. 22-28. IV argues
`
`that the “solid light modulating material having bodies of LC material
`
`suspended therein” in Flasck refers to polymer dispersed liquid crystal
`
`(PDLC), and that the response time for PDLC-based devices of the time
`
`would have been too slow for video. PO Resp. 23-24. As support, IV cites
`
`another patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,170,271 (Ex. 2011) (“Lackner”), filed in
`
`1991, describing various PDLC research papers of the time, including one
`
`pertaining to a PDLC device with a “5-10 ms on-time and 1.5-3 seconds
`
`off-time,” resulting in a “frame time (on-time plus off-time) [that] is very
`
`slow compared to a dynamic television image frame time of less than 33
`
`ms.” See Ex. 2011, col. 1, l. 62-col. 2, l. 11.
`
`As Xilinx points out, however, other papers cited in Lackner describe
`
`much lower switching times, and demonstrate that television signals could
`
`have been displayed using active matrix PDLC technology of the time. See
`
`Pet. Reply 8-9; Ex. 2011, col. 2, 39-52 (“Three active matrix cells were used
`
`for red, blue and green channels of full color projection TV.”); col. 2,
`
`ll. 53-65 (citing a paper entitled “A Frame-Sequential Color-TV Projection
`
`Display”). Mr. Smith-Gillespie, IV’s declarant, also acknowledged that,
`
`based on Lackner’s description of the other papers, it was possible at the
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`time to use PDLC in a video display system “[a]t least in the lab.” Ex. 1014
`
`at 150:18-152:4. Thus, we are not persuaded by IV’s argument that Flasck’s
`
`system, using a PDLC, was incapable of operating at video speeds. We are
`
`persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Flasck teaches a system
`
`that projects on a surface to provide a “video” display.1
`
`
`
`b. Light-Shutter Matrix System
`
`Xilinx identifies the combination of reflective image plane modules
`
`92/104/112 in Flasck as a “light-shutter matrix system.” Pet. 15. According
`
`to Xilinx, the combination comprises light-shutter matrices because each
`
`reflective image plane module has a wafer based active matrix that encodes
`
`information onto the light beam. Id.; see Ex. 1002, col. 5, ll. 14-26 (“[t]he
`
`wafer based active matrix is covered by an LCD or similar characteristic
`
`material”).
`
`Based on its proposed interpretation of “light-shutter matrix system,”
`
`IV argues that a light shutter is an element that selectively admits and blocks
`
`light through absorption. PO Resp. 30-33. According to IV, a device like
`
`the one disclosed in Flasck, which reflects or scatters incoming light, does
`
`not block light through absorption. Id.; see Ex. 2005 ¶ 16. As support, IV
`
`cites U.S. Patent No. 6,266,037 B1 (Ex. 2012) (“Flasck II”),2 which
`
`
`1 We also note that the same analysis applies even if the “video projector
`system” preamble of claim 1 were interpreted as IV suggests. Thus,
`regardless of whether the claim requires a “video projector system” or
`providing a “video” display, Flasck teaches the projection of video.
`
` 2
`
` Flasck II is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/023,475,
`which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 07/392,859, which is
`incorporated by reference in Flasck. See Ex. 1002, col. 5, ll. 16-20.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`describes Flasck’s wafer based active matrix in greater detail. PO Resp.
`
`32-33. Figure 4 of Flasck II is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts the structure for an individual pixel in the wafer based
`
`active matrix, including glass layer 56, activating electrical contact layer 54,
`
`LCD material layer 52, reflector 50, capacitor 48, and substrate segment 32.
`
`Ex. 2012, col. 5, ll. 28-58. Flasck II describes the operation of the wafer
`
`based active matrix as follows:
`
`When utilizing the PDLC material 52, the refractive
`index of the LC material matches the index of the polymer
`matrix when the pixel 44 is activated. When the indexes are
`matched, very little light is scattered and most of the light is
`reflected off the reflector 50 back out of the pixel 44 and hence
`the wafer based active matrix 30. When a field is not present
`on the layer 52, the indexes do not match and most of the light
`is scattered. The light is still reflected or scattered out of the
`pixel 44 and hence the wafer based active matrix 30, but the
`light is dispersed resulting in a black or off pixel when
`projected. Since the scattering is proportional to the field
`applied to the pixel 44, a gray scale can be obtained by utilizing
`a range of voltages.
`
`Id. at col. 5, l. 65-col. 6, l. 10 (emphases added). According to IV, based on
`
`the additional detail provided by Flasck II, the light entering the reflective
`
`image