`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 51
`Entered: June 26, 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 IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”) filed a Petition (Paper 2) (“Pet.”)
`
`seeking inter partes review of claims 1–14 of U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334
`
`(“the ’334 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. On June 27, 2013,
`
`we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–6 and 11–14 on one ground
`
`of unpatentability (Paper 14) (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`
`(“IV”) filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 26) (“PO Resp.”), and Xilinx
`
`filed a Reply (Paper 30) (“Pet. Reply”). Along with its Patent Owner
`
`Response, IV filed a Motion to Amend (Paper 27) (“Mot. to Amend”),
`
`proposing substitute claim 15 if the Board determines claim 3 to be
`
`unpatentable, and substitute claim 16 if the Board determines claim 12 to be
`
`unpatentable. Xilinx filed an Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Paper 31)
`
`(“Pet. Opp.”), and IV filed a Reply (Paper 35) (“PO Reply”).
`
`IV filed a Motion for Observation (Paper 41) (“Obs.”) on the
`
`cross-examination testimony of Xilinx’s declarant, A. Bruce Buckman,
`
`Ph.D., and Xilinx filed a Response (Paper 45) (“Obs. Resp.”). IV also filed
`
`a Motion to Exclude (Paper 42) (“Mot. to Exclude”) certain testimony of
`
`Dr. Buckman. Xilinx filed an Opposition to the Motion to Exclude (Paper
`
`44) (“Exclude Opp.”), and IV filed a Reply (Paper 47) (“Exclude Reply”).
`
`An oral hearing was held on January 28, 2014, and a transcript of the
`
`hearing is included in the record (Paper 50) (“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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Xilinx has shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6 and 11–14 of the ’334 patent
`
`are unpatentable, and we deny IV’s Motion to Amend.
`
`
`
`A. The ’334 Patent
`
`The ’334 patent1 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. In another
`
`embodiment, “a single white-light source is used, and the beam of white
`
`light is split by a prism system into separate color beams.” Id. The
`
`’334 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. 15–25. 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. 26–37. The
`
`’334 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. 7–19. The resulting arrangement, according to the ’334 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
`
`
`1 The ’334 patent is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No.
`08/686,809, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 (“the ’545 patent”).
`The ’545 patent is the subject of related Case IPR2013-00029.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`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.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’334 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. 3,
`
`ll. 5–60.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’334 patent depicts another embodiment, and is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`In the system depicted in Figure 2, single white-light source 233 is used
`
`instead of three lamps and the single white-light beam is split into red, green,
`
`and blue beams by prism system 211. Id. at col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 1. The
`
`three light beams pass through “monochrome LCD array 120, which in this
`
`embodiment is controlled by controller 122 just as described for the first
`
`embodiment.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 8–12.
`
`
`
`issue:
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claims
`
`Claims 1 and 11 of the ’334 patent are the only independent claims at
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`
`1. A video projector system comprising:
`
`a source projecting parallel beams of light of different
`colors;
`
`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
`matrix system; and
`
`an optical combination system adapted for combining the
`separate beams after the light-shutter matrix system into a
`single composite beam for projection on a surface to provide a
`video display.
`
`
`
`11. A video projector system comprising:
`
`a source projecting a beam of white light;
`
`a splitter adapted to split the beam of white light into
`separate parallel beams of light of different colors;
`
`a light-shutter matrix system comprising a number of
`equivalent switching matrices equal to the number of beams of
`light of different colors and placed one each in each beam path;
`
`a video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter
`matrix system; and
`
`an optical combination system adapted for combining the
`separate beams after the light-shutter matrix system into a
`single composite beam for projection on a surface to provide a
`video display.
`
`
`
`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. 5,264,951, issued Nov. 23, 1993
`(“Takanashi”) (Ex. 1002); and
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 5,287,131, issued Feb. 15, 1994
`(“Lee”) (Ex. 1003).
`
`
`
`D. Pending Ground of Unpatentability
`
`This inter partes review involves the following ground of
`
`unpatentability:
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`Takanashi and Lee
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1–6 and 11–14
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the
`
`embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
`
`(“limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification”).
`
`
`
`1. “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 claims 1 and 11 to mean a set of
`
`matrices, such as monochrome LCD arrays or cells of a monochrome LCD
`
`array, where each matrix comprises a rectangular arrangement of elements
`
`capable of limiting the passage of light. Dec. on Inst. 7–10. 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. 6. IV further contends that the claimed
`
`“light-shutter matrix system” must be “an electrically addressed system,”
`
`and that in each matrix, “each of the elements that form[s] the matrix
`
`corresponds to an individual pixel of a display.” Id. at 12. As explained
`
`below, we are persuaded that our original interpretation should be modified
`
`slightly.
`
`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.” Claim 11 similarly recites a “light-shutter matrix system comprising
`
`a number of equivalent switching matrices equal to the number of beams of
`
`light of different colors and placed one each in each beam path.” Thus, the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`“light-shutter matrix system” is made up of “equivalent switching matrices.”
`
`Dependent claims 6 and 14 further recite that “the light-shutter matrix
`
`system comprises a monochrome LCD array.” 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 ’334 patent unfortunately does not shed much
`
`light on 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. Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 15–23. The three light beams are combined into a
`
`single beam and projected onto a surface. Id. at col. 3, ll. 26–29. Video
`
`controller 122 receives a “video signal” and “controls” monochrome LCD
`
`arrays 117–119. Id. at col. 3, ll. 36–41. In the embodiment shown in
`
`Figure 2, three color light beams pass through “cells of a monochrome LCD
`
`array.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 20–24. Reference numeral 120 in that embodiment
`
`denotes a single “monochrome LCD array 120” rather than an “LCD unit
`
`120” comprising three monochrome LCD arrays as shown in Figure 1. Id.
`
`at col. 3, ll. 20–29; col. 4, ll. 1–12. The Specification does not describe in
`
`detail how the LCD arrays are operated or how they are controlled. The
`
`Specification also makes clear that the invention is not limited to the use of
`
`LCD arrays. See id. at col. 4, ll. 21–22 (“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
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`guidance to how a skilled artisan would have understood the individual
`
`terms “light-shutter” and “matrix.” See Dec. on Inst. 8–9. “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 in one dictionary 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 the terms “shutter” and “matrix” should be
`
`given their ordinary meanings, such that each light-shutter matrix
`
`“comprises a rectangular arrangement of elements capable of limiting the
`
`passage of light.” PO Resp. 12. IV argues, however, that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood such a matrix to be
`
`“something quite specific”—namely, that the matrix must be “electrically
`
`addressed” and that “each of the elements that form[s] the matrix
`
`corresponds to an individual pixel of a display.” Id. As support, IV cites a
`
`1985 book titled “Flat-Panel Displays and CRTs,” which shows an example
`
`of a “pixel display having individually addressable pixels,” and the
`
`declaration of Robert Smith-Gillespie, who testifies regarding “well-known
`
`video graphics array (VGA) displays hav[ing] a resolution of 640 X 480, for
`
`a total of 307,200 pixels.” Id. at 12–15 (citing Ex. 2012 at 19, 21; Ex. 2008
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`¶¶ 16–17). IV does not explain sufficiently why the recited “light-shutter
`
`matrix system,” given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`Specification of the ’334 patent, is limited to an electrically addressed
`
`system with individual pixels for display. The cited book does not use the
`
`term “light-shutter matrix system,” and Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s alleged VGA
`
`example does not show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would read
`
`“light-shutter matrix system” as requiring pixels in an electrically addressed
`
`matrix (rather than such an arrangement being merely an example). IV also
`
`disputes Dr. Buckman’s interpretation of the term “cell,” but does not state
`
`what impact (if any) that dispute has on the claim interpretation for
`
`“light-shutter matrix system.” See PO Resp. 9–11. We are not persuaded by
`
`IV’s arguments that the term “light-shutter matrix system” is limited to an
`
`electrically addressed system with individual pixels for display.
`
`As in related Case IPR2013-00029, however, we are persuaded that
`
`our interpretation in the Decision on Institution should be modified slightly
`
`in two respects. See Xilinx, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00029, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2014) (Paper 49,
`
`“IPR2013-00029 Final Dec.”). First, in the Decision on Institution, we
`
`referred to the following dictionary definition of “matrix”: “something
`
`resembling a mathematical matrix esp[ecially] in rectangular arrangement of
`
`elements into rows and columns.” Ex. 3001 at 716; see Dec. on Inst. 9. In
`
`Case IPR2013-00029, IV provided the following definitions for the term
`
`“matrix”: “[a] rectangular array of numeric or algebraic quantities subject to
`
`mathematical operations,” and “[s]omething resembling such an array, as in
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`the regular formation of elements into columns and rows.”2 See
`
`IPR2013-00029 Final Dec. 11. Based on the latter definition, a “matrix” is
`
`merely a two-dimensional array (i.e., rows and columns), and need not be in
`
`a “rectangular” form specifically. IV’s dictionary definition of “matrix” is
`
`the appropriate one under the circumstances because it is broader than the
`
`dictionary definition cited in the Decision on Institution, and we must
`
`determine the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification.
`
`Thus, we modify our interpretation to eliminate any requirement of a
`
`“rectangular” shape. Second, a monochrome LCD array, which is an
`
`example of a light-shutter matrix (as recited in dependent claims 6 and 14),
`
`has many different optical properties, but must actually be used as a
`
`“shutter” (i.e., used to limit the passage of light) and not for some other
`
`optical effect. See id. at 11–12. Thus, we 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 or cells of a monochrome
`
`LCD array, where each matrix comprises a two-dimensional array of
`
`elements that selectively limit the passage of light.3
`
`
`2 A copy of the definitions submitted by IV in Case IPR2013-00029 is
`provided as Exhibit 3003 in this proceeding.
`
` 3
`
` In related Case IPR2013-00029, we interpreted “light-shutter matrix
`system” in the claims of the ’545 patent similarly 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.” IPR2013-00029 Final Dec. 8–12.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`
`2. “Equivalent Switching Matrices”
`
`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 “equivalent switching matrices” in claims 1 and 11 to mean
`
`switching matrices that are corresponding or virtually identical in effect or
`
`function. Dec. on Inst. 12. Xilinx agrees with this interpretation. Pet.
`
`Reply 5–6. IV argues that “equivalent switching matrices” should be
`
`interpreted according to its ordinary and customary meaning to mean
`
`“switching matrices that are virtually identical in effect or function.”
`
`PO Resp. 18–20. IV further contends that “equivalent switching matrices”
`
`are “not the same as conventional color-specific switching matrices,” citing
`
`the following portion of the Specification of the ’334 patent:
`
`In various embodiments, assuming projectors of
`relatively equal cost, by using a triple monochrome LCD
`structure instead of a color AM-LCD, and precoloring of light,
`more light output can be achieved than in conventional systems.
`Systems according to embodiments of the invention are also
`less expensive than conventional color LCD systems, because
`the monochrome LCDs used are less expensive than color
`LCDs, and because alignment of components is less critical
`than in conventional LCD projection systems.
`
`Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 7–15).
`
`We agree with IV that the ordinary and customary meaning of the
`
`term “equivalent” applies to claims 1 and 11. IV provided, with its
`
`Preliminary Response, a dictionary definition of “equivalent” as
`
`“corresponding or virtually identical esp[ecially] in effect or function.”
`
`Ex. 2001 at 392–93; see Paper 12 at 18–19. The dictionary definition is
`
`indicative of the ordinary and customary meaning of “equivalent,” and also
`
`is consistent with the Specification of the ’334 patent, which describes
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`“three monochrome LCD arrays 117, 118, and 119” for the colors red,
`
`green, and blue. See Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 20–23. IV’s proposed
`
`interpretation, however, omits the word “corresponding” from the dictionary
`
`definition. Further, we are not persuaded by IV’s argument that “equivalent
`
`switching matrices” must be interpreted to exclude “conventional
`
`color-specific switching matrices.” PO Resp. 18–19; see Ex. 2008 ¶ 19.
`
`The portion of the Specification cited by IV does not use the word
`
`“equivalent,” and, in any case, merely refers to “embodiments” of the
`
`disclosed invention. See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 7–15. Thus, we do not read the
`
`Specification language as limiting the term “equivalent switching matrices.”
`
`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
`
`
`
`3. “Video Controller Adapted for Controlling the
`Light-Shutter Matrix System”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted the phrase “video
`
`controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrix system” in claims
`
`1 and 11 to mean a component that controls the light-shutter matrix system
`
`to facilitate the display of video. Dec. on Inst. 10–12. Xilinx agrees with
`
`this interpretation. Pet. Reply 5. IV argues that the Board’s interpretation is
`
`too broad in view of the Specification of the ’334 patent, which provides:
`
`
`4 In related Case IPR2013-00029, we interpreted “equivalent switching
`matrices” in the claims of the ’545 patent similarly to mean “switching
`matrices that are corresponding or virtually identical in effect or function.”
`IPR2013-00029 Final Dec. 12–13.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`“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. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 36–40)
`
`(emphasis omitted). IV also cites the Abstract of the ’334 patent, which
`
`recites that “[t]he LCD array is switched by a controller driven in
`
`accordance with a video signal.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract). IV asserts
`
`that “video controller” should be interpreted to mean “a component that
`
`controls light-shutter matrices to facilitate the display of video in accordance
`
`with a video signal.” Id. at 17 (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 matrix
`
`system.” See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 36–38. Indeed, the Specification states
`
`that “[t]here are many ways adequate controllers may be implemented.” Id.
`
`at col. 4, ll. 23–24. Further, unlike claims 7 and 9, which are not part of this
`
`inter partes review, the challenged claims do not recite a “video signal.” 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 matrix
`
`system” to mean a component that controls the light-shutter matrix system to
`
`facilitate the display of video.5
`
`
`
`
`5 In related Case IPR2013-00029, we interpreted “video controller adapted
`for controlling the light-shutter matrices” in the claims of the ’545 patent
`similarly to mean “a component that controls light-shutter matrices to
`facilitate the display of video.” IPR2013-00029 Final Dec. 13–14.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`
`B. Claims 1–6 and 11–14 are Unpatentable Over Takanashi and Lee
`
`With respect to the alleged obviousness of claims 1–6 and 11–14 over
`
`Takanashi and Lee, 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 1–6 and 11–14 are unpatentable over Takanashi and Lee under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Pet. 21–32, 35–37; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 22–27.
`
`
`
`1. Takanashi
`
`Takanashi discloses a “spatial light modulator and a display unit in
`
`which the spatial light modulator is applied.” Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 8–10.
`
`Figure 17 of Takanashi is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 17, light source LS emits light, which is linearly
`
`polarized by polarizer PL1 and separated into red, green, and blue
`
`components by three-color separation optical system 11. Id. at col. 16,
`
`ll. 1–14. Each respective light beam then passes through a liquid crystal
`
`element (e.g., ECBtr for red light), polarizer (e.g., PL2r for red light), and
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`spatial light modulator element (e.g., SLMtr for red light), which
`
`“modulate[s]” the respective light beam through the use of incoming “write
`
`light WL.” Id. at col. 16, ll. 6–28; col. 1, l. 18–col. 5, l. 25; Figs. 1–3. The
`
`light beams then are recombined by three-color combination optical system
`
`12, and the combined light passes through another polarizer PL3 and
`
`projection lens PJL, which projects the combined light onto a screen (not
`
`shown). Id. at col. 16, ll. 29–42.
`
`Takanashi discloses a particular projection system using spatial light
`
`modulators and prisms, as shown in Figure 16 reproduced below.
`
`
`
`In Figure 16, light emitted by light source LS is incident on dichroic prism
`
`DP, which separates the light into red, green, and blue components before
`
`being transmitted to the ECB, PL, and SLM elements. Id. at col. 15,
`
`ll. 30–43. For example, green light “is transmitted through the liquid crystal
`
`element ECBtg and the polarizer PLg and [is] incident on the modulator
`
`element SLMrg.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`
`2. Lee
`
`Lee discloses a “projection color liquid crystal display (LCD) system
`
`us[ing] a large reflecting liquid crystal (LC) panel as a screen.” Ex. 1003,
`
`Abstract. Figure 2 of Lee is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts an LCD projection system comprising white light sources
`
`26, focusing lenses 15R/G/B, red/green/blue color filters 28R/G/B, light
`
`shutters 14R/G/B, diffusing lenses 12R/G/B, and LC panel 11. Id. at col. 3,
`
`l. 14–col. 4, l. 26. The system is controlled by a number of components.
`
`Lamp voltage controlling circuit 18 controls the intensity of the light emitted
`
`by light sources 26. Id. at col. 3, ll. 14–19. Light shutter controlling circuit
`
`19 “successively permits a respective unicolor light beam connected to a
`
`respective light shutter 14R, 14G, 14B to pass therethrough during the
`
`frequency of 1/3,” and prevents the light beam from passing through during
`
`the other 2/3 of the time. Id. at col. 3, ll. 27–33. LC panel 11 is controlled
`
`by frame inducing circuit 22, image controlling circuit 21, and LCD driver
`
`20 in the following manner:
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`
`The LC panel 11 is successively connected to a liquid
`crystal display LCD driver 20 to drive the panel; an image
`controlling circuit 21 to supply a driving signal based on a color
`information of respective color with the driver 20; and a frame
`inducing circuit 22 to induce the respective light shutter 14R,
`14G, 14B and image controlling circuit 21.
`
`Id. at col. 3, ll. 46–52. Red, green, and blue light beams are successively
`
`projected through light shutters 14R/G/B, and successively reflected from
`
`LC panel 11 according to a “color driving signal” supplied by image
`
`controlling circuit 21 and used by LCD driver 20 to drive LC panel 11. Id.
`
`at col. 3, ll. 53–61. The light beams are projected and reflected so quickly
`
`that a person viewing LC panel 11 sees a composite image rather than
`
`successive colors. Id. at col. 3, ll. 62–66.
`
`
`
`3. Analysis
`
`Xilinx relies on Takanashi as allegedly teaching the “source,”
`
`“splitter,” “light-shutter matrix system,” and “optical combination system”
`
`limitations of independent claims 1 and 11, and relies on Lee as allegedly
`
`teaching the “video controller” limitations. Pet. 22–26, 28–30, 35–36.
`
`There is no dispute that Takanashi and Lee teach most of the limitations of
`
`claims 1 and 11. For example, Takanashi teaches a “source projecting
`
`parallel beams of light of different colors” (light source LS producing
`
`parallel red, green, and blue light beams via three-color separation optical
`
`system 11 in Figure 17) and an “optical combination system” (three-color
`
`combination optical system 12 in Figure 17), as recited in claim 1. See id. at
`
`23, 25–26. IV argues that Takanashi and Lee fail to teach or suggest three
`
`limitations of claims 1 and 11: a “light-shutter matrix system,” “equivalent
`
`switching matrices,” and a “video controller adapted for controlling the
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`light-shutter matrix system.” PO Resp. 20–37. IV does not argue that
`
`Takanashi and Lee fail to teach or suggest the additional limitations of
`
`dependent claims 2–6 and 12–14.
`
`
`
`a. Light-Shutter Matrix System
`
`Xilinx identifies “Takanashi’s combination of ECB elements,
`
`polarizers PL, and SLM elements” as a “light-shutter matrix system.”
`
`Pet. 23–24. Specifically, Xilinx contends that the ECBtr, PL2r, and SLMtr
`
`components shown in Figure 17 above are a switching matrix used to
`
`process the red beam of light, and the corresponding components are
`
`switching matrices for the green and blue light beams. Id.; see Ex. 1005
`
`¶ 18.
`
`IV argues that Takanashi lacks the “matrix” aspect of a “light-shutter
`
`matrix system.” PO Resp. 20–27. IV contends that the spatial light
`
`modulator SLM is not a “matrix” in the form of rows and columns because it
`
`is a continuous layer of material, citing Takanashi’s disclosure that the SLM
`
`is “formed as an element.” Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 33–44).
`
`IV further argues that, even though Takanashi discloses projecting a
`
`two-dimensional color image, a continuous layer of optical material, such as
`
`a “film frame” or “overhead projector sheet with writing,” can produce a
`
`two-dimensional image despite not being in “matrix” form. Id. at 22–23;
`
`see Ex. 1002, col. 16, ll. 38–42; Figs. 17, 20.
`
`Xilinx responds with testimony from Dr. Buckman comparing the
`
`“optically-addressed” spatial light modulator (OASLM) of Takanashi with
`
`an “electrically-addressed” spatial light modulator (EASLM), such as an
`
`LCD array of the type disclosed in the Specification of the ’334 patent. See
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`
`Pet. Reply 7–8 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 20–26). An OASLM uses a read light
`
`and a write light. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 20–21. The write light is directed at a
`
`photosensitive material in the SLM, which creates an electric charge that
`
`changes the state of the adjacent liquid crystal layer. Id. An image is
`
`created by shining the write light at some points and not others. Id. The
`
`read light passes through or reflects off of the SLM, taking on the same
`
`image as the write light by virtue of the liquid crystal layer. Id. Similarly, in
`
`an EASLM, an electric charge is created at particular points by electric
`
`circuitry (e.g., transistors and capacitors) adjacent to the liquid crystal layer.
`
`Id. ¶ 21. Dr. Buckman’s testimony is supported by textbook descriptions of
`
`OASLMs and LCDs (an example of an EASLM), and we find it persuasive.
`
`See Ex. 1015 at 310–31; Ex. 3002 at 186.
`
`We are not persuaded by IV’s argument that the SLM in Takanashi is
`
`not a “matrix” because it has a continuous liquid crystal layer. See PO Resp.
`
`22–23. Mr. Smith-Gillespie acknowledged during his deposition that the
`
`LCD arrays in the Specification of the ’334 patent have continuous liquid
`
`crystal layers. Ex. 1014 at 174:4–11. In both the LCD array of the
`
`exemplary embodiment of the ’334 patent and the OASLM described in
`
`Takanashi, the “light-shutter” (i.e., what actually limits the passage of light)
`
`is the liquid crystal layer itself, and the liquid crystal layer operates the same
`
`way by changing state in response to an electric charge. Only the
`
`mechanism fo