throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

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