throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket