`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`____________________
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES’ PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction………………………………………………………...………..1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545………………………….…...……..2
`
`III. Claim Construction……………………………………………….……..…..3
`
`A. Claims 1-3 require a “light-shutter matrix system”………………..…4
`B. Claims 1-3 require a “video controller”……………………….……...6
`
`IV. The Trial Should Not Be Instituted Because Xilinx Failed To Specify Where
`In The Prior Art Each Element Of The Claim Is
`Found……………………………………………………………………......8
`
`A. Challenge #1: Alleged anticipation by Flasck………….……..……...9
`B. Challenge #2: Alleged obviousness in view of Flasck….……..……14
`C. Challenge #3: Alleged obviousness over Takanashi and Lee............15
`D. Challenge #4: Alleged obviousness of dependent claims 2 and 3
`over Takanashi, Lee, and Irwin…………………………………………23
`
`V. Conclusion and Relief Requested…………………………………….……26
`
`
`
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)………………………………………..…….7
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. ITC,
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010)……………………………………..…………….16
`
`Crown Operations Int’l, Ltd. v. Solutia,
`289 F.3d 1367, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2002)………………………………….……...15
`
`Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp.,
`405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)……………………………………………8
`
`In re Antonie,
`559 F.2d 618, 619 (CCPA 1977)………………………………………….………23
`
`In re Bond,
`910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990)………………………………………….……14
`
`In re Peterson,
`315 F.3d 1325, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003)…………………………………..…..…….15
`
`In re Venezia,
`530 F.2d 956 (CCPA 1976)…………………………………………….………….8
`
`Pac-Tec, Inc. v. Amerace Corp.,
`903 F.2d 796, 801 (Fed. Cir. 1990)…………………………………….………….8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)…………………………..………..……......4
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987)……………………………………………………13
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)… ………………………………………………….4
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)………………………………………………………..…….1, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)…………………………………………………….…………23
`
`Other Authorities
`
`American Heritage College Dictionary, 3d edition, 1997……………..…………2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,002,207…………………………………………….………2, 5, 6
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,184,943…………………………………………….…………6, 7
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)………………………………………………….....…1, 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c)………………………………………………………………3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)………………………………………………………….3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)…………………………………………………………….4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) …………………………………………………………….13
`
`
`
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`The Board should not institute inter partes review because Xilinx has not
`
`met the basic threshold required by statute: it has not shown that there is a
`
`“reasonable likelihood that [it] would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Xilinx also has not
`
`satisfied Patent Office regulations: “[t]he petition must specify where each element
`
`of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`First, Xilinx’s petition fails to specify where the relied-upon prior art shows
`
`a “light-shutter matrix system” as required by all claims in U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,632,545 (the ‘545 patent). Instead, the petition filed by Xilinx either disregards
`
`this element entirely or points to a display structure that is not a “light-shutter
`
`matrix.” Second, Xilinx’s petition fails to specify where the relied-upon prior art
`
`shows a “video controller” as required by all claims in the ‘545 patent. The
`
`petition points to control circuitry that merely outputs a signal to individual
`
`components rather than controlling light-shutter matrices.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,632,545
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 (the ‘545 patent) is directed to a “color video
`
`projector system” with “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.” (See,
`
`Abstract.) The separate beams of light are “combined into a single beam
`
`projectable to provide a full-color video display with superimposed color spots.”
`
`(Id.)
`
`For purposes of Xilinx’s petition, it is important to note that the ‘545 patent
`
`describes a system with “video-controlled light shutter matrices.” (See, ‘545 patent,
`
`Abstract.) A “light shutter,” as the name implies and as confirmed by other
`
`contemporaneously filed patents, is an element that shuts or blocks out a beam of
`
`light.1 The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3d edition, 1997, defines
`
`“shutter” as “a mechanical device of a camera that opens and closes to control the
`
`duration of exposure of a plate or film to light.” (See, Exhibit 2001.) The same
`
`dictionary defines “matrix” to be “an array, as in the regular formation of elements
`
`into columns and rows.” (Id.) As will be discussed in detail below, a “light shutter
`
`matrix” is a two-dimensional arrangement of multiple light shutter elements. A
`
`
`1 For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,002,207 (Exhibit 2002), discussed infra, defines
`“light shutter” as such.
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`“video-controlled light shutter matrix” is a light shutter matrix in which each of the
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`light shutters in the matrix is controlled to be either open or shut in accordance
`
`with a video signal. Such an element is not anticipated or rendered obvious by a
`
`device that either 1) does not shut out light, 2) is not a matrix of light shutters, or 3)
`
`is not controlled by a video controller.
`
`As will be shown, Xilinx fails to prove any disclosure or combination of
`
`disclosures that amount to a video-controlled light shutter matrix, as in the ‘545
`
`patent. In other words, Xilinx has not carried its burden. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c)
`
`(“The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the
`
`requested relief.”).
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Under the Board’s rules, the Xilinx petition was required to identify “[h]ow
`
`the challenged claim is to be interpreted.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Xilinx,
`
`however, did not do so. Instead, it offered a “claim analysis” said to be presented
`
`“in a manner” allegedly “consistent with” the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`Pet. at 12. Regarding two important limitations, Xilinx declined to meet its
`
`obligation and propose an actual claim interpretation. Rather, Xilinx purported to
`
`“reserve the right” to urge “a different claim interpretation” in some “other forum.”
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Pet. at 12. For this additional reason, Xilinx has not met its obligation under the
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`rules.
`
`The Xilinx assertions of unpatentability effectively read out of Claim 1 both
`
`the “light-shutter” in “light-shutter matrix system” and the “video” in “video
`
`controller.” The Board is required to give a claim “its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). But a broadest reasonable construction does not warrant turning a blind
`
`eye to express limitations in a claim.
`
`The Board should confirm that the recited “light-shutter matrix” and the
`
`“video controller” are material limitations in the context of Claims 1-3. Because
`
`Xilinx’s petition does not show that its relied-upon art satisfies those limitations,
`
`its petition should be denied.
`
`A. Claims 1-3 require a “light-shutter matrix system”
`
`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.” The words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996). “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Consistent with long-standing precedent, the Board should find that a “light-
`
`shutter matrix system” is interpreted based on its ordinary and customary meaning
`
`at the time of the filing of the ‘545 patent. That is, each “light-shutter matrix” of
`
`Claim 1 is a two-dimensional array of light-shutter elements, in which each
`
`element can be used to shut or block out portions of a beam of light. In addition to
`
`this being the plain meaning of the terms “light,” “shutter,” and “matrix,” this
`
`interpretation is supported by other patents at the time. For example, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,002,207 (“Beeteson,” Exhibit 2002), entitled “Electron Source with Light
`
`Shutter Device” and filed the same year as the ‘545 patent, states:
`
`Referring now to FIG. 11, in another preferred example
`of a display device embodying the present invention, a
`shutter 22 is disposed between light source 21 and
`photocathode 20. Shutter 22 has a two-dimensional array
`of individually addressable shutter elements for
`alternately admitting and blocking passage of light.
`Each shutter element corresponds to a different well 70.
`Address circuitry 145 is connected to shutter 22 and
`brightness control circuitry 146 is connected to grid 40.
`In operation, address circuitry selectively opens and
`closes shutter elements of shutter 22 to selectively admit
`and block light from light source 21 in response to an
`input video signal. A video image based on the input
`video signal is thus projected [through] shutter 22 onto
`photocathode 20.
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`5
`
`
`
` (Beeteson, col. 11, lines 43-55, emphasis added.)
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`As described in the quoted section above, a matrix (“two-dimensional
`
`array”) of shutter elements is “for alternately admitting and blocking passage of
`
`light” and the shutter elements “selectively admit and block light from light source
`
`21 in response to an input video signal.” (Beetson, col. 11, lines 47-48 and 51-54.)
`
`Accordingly, the ordinary and customary meaning of a “light-shutter matrix” at the
`
`filing of the ‘545 patent is a two-dimensional array of elements that are able to
`
`selectively admit and block light.
`
`B. Claims 1-3 require a “video controller”
`
`Claim 1 recites: “a video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter
`
`matrices.” Like the “light-shutter matrix system,” the “video controller” of
`
`Claim 1 should be interpreted based on its ordinary and customary meaning. At
`
`the filing of the ‘545 patent, a person of skill in the art understood a “video
`
`controller” to be something that directs or regulates the display of video images.
`
`For example, the section of Beeteson quoted above indicates that through the use
`
`of shutters, “a video image based on the input video signal is thus projected.” (Col.
`
`11, lines 54-55.) As another example, U.S. Patent No. 6,184,943 (“Sellers,”
`
`Exhibit 2003), filed in 1998, states:
`
`A video controller circuitry 20 is also connected to the
`PCI bus P. The video controller 20 controller circuitry
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`incorporates video memory and the necessary analog
`circuitry for controlling an image generator or display
`panel 70 in the rear projection display D. In the disclosed
`embodiment of the invention, the image generator 70
`generates images for display on a projection surface 74.
`An optical system 72 is disposed between the image
`generator 70 and the projection surface 74 to focus
`images generated by the image generator 70 onto the
`projection surface 74. Depending on the configuration of
`the optical system 72, the video controller circuitry 20
`may need to perform pre-processing steps on control
`signals to the image generator 70 to account for any
`issues arising due to image quality and distortions.
`
` (Sellers, col. 4, lines 11-24, emphasis added.)
`
`As described in the quoted section, a video controller “incorporates video
`
`memory and the necessary analog circuitry for controlling an image generator or
`
`display panel” and the controller “may need to perform pre-processing steps on
`
`control signals to the image generator.” (Sellers, col. 4, lines 13-14, 22-23.)
`
`Accordingly, the ordinary and customary meaning of a “video controller” at the
`
`time of filing the ‘545 patent is an element that controls or regulates the display of
`
`video images.
`
`Further, a person of skill in the art would have understood a “video
`
`controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices” as something that
`
`directs or regulates display of video images at least in part by controlling matrices
`
`of light shutters. (See, Beeteson col. 11, lines 51-55.) A claim limitation that
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`recites an “adapted to” clause is a proper claim limitation and cannot be ignored if
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`that clause is material to patentability. See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon
`
`Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding “adapted to” to mean
`
`“made to,” “designed to,” “configured to,” “capable of,” or “suitable for.”); Hoffer
`
`v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326,1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pac-Tec, Inc. v. Amerace
`
`Corp., 903 F.2d 796, 801 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (stating that it is improper to ignore
`
`“adapted to” claim limitations that reduce the claims to “mere collections of parts”).
`
`It is well settled that “functional language . . . cannot be disregarded.” Pac- Tec,
`
`903 F.2d at 801; see In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956 (CCPA 1976).
`
`Therefore, a “video controller” may not be interpreted as equivalent to
`
`something that does not control the display of video images and a “video controller
`
`adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices” may not be interpreted as
`
`equivalent to something that does not control light shutter matrices. As will be
`
`shown, however, the Xilinx petition relies on such misinterpretations to support the
`
`asserted challenges against the ‘545 patent.
`
`IV. THE TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED BECAUSE XILINX
`FAILED TO SPECIFY WHERE IN THE PRIOR ART EACH
`ELEMENT OF THE CLAIM IS FOUND.
`The Board should not institute a trial because, for at least one element in
`
`each proposed ground for rejection, Xilinx fails to satisfy the basic regulatory
`
`requirements for its inter partes review petition: “[t]he petition must specify where
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). For that reason, Xilinx cannot meet the
`
`statutory threshold for initiation of an inter partes review on any proposed ground
`
`of rejection—“a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition,” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`A. Challenge #1: Alleged Anticipation by Flasck
`
`Xilinx’s petition alleges in Challenge #1 that Claims 1-3 are anticipated by
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,108,172 (“Flasck”). This allegation cannot be supported based
`
`on a proper reading of Flasck and the claims of the ‘545 patent.
`
`Figure 11 of Flasck (provided below) shows three individual light sources
`
`(144, 146, and 148) with each source associated with a particular color (blue, green,
`
`and red, respectively). This figure also shows a focusing lens in the path of the
`
`beams (154) and an individual light filter for each beam (124, 126, and 128).
`
`Figure 11 also shows an optical combining system (150) for combining the light
`
`into a single beam.
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 11 also includes a “reflective image plane module” (92, 104, 112), for
`
`encoding information onto a beam, in the path of each beam, with each beam
`
`passing through an individual module. Additionally, Figure 11 shows an electronic
`
`interface (118) for providing the information for encoding to each reflective image
`
`plane module.
`
`
`
`However, the reflective image plane modules of Figure 11 (and throughout
`
`the disclosure of Flasck) are not “light-shutter matrix systems” as required in the
`
`claims of the ‘545 patent. In particular, the reflective image plane modules do not
`
`contain components that could be construed as “shutters.” As discussed above, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a light shutter as something
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`capable of selectively admitting or blocking the passage of light. Flasck describes
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`the problems with shutter-based systems at col. 4, lines 30-43 (emphasis added):
`
`These transmissive projection systems suffer from a
`number of problems. One significant problem is
`caused by the construction required by the LC
`material. The LCD panels include a polarizer on each
`side of the LC material, such as twisted nematic material,
`and are utilized as a shutter to absorb the light not to be
`transmitted. Both the polarizers and the LC material
`absorb light which generates heat, which is deleterious to
`the LCD panel. Further, because of the two polarizers,
`and the LC material utilized, only about fifteen per cent
`or less of the light directed to the LCD panel is
`transmitted therethrough for projection to the screen. The
`devices exhibit low brightness because of the amount of
`light absorbed.
`
`For the reasons given in this section of Flasck, Flasck does not disclose
`
`
`
`using a light-shutter matrix in any of the embodiments, including Figure 11.
`
`
`
`Tellingly, the Xilinx claim chart never even asserts that Flasck discloses the
`
`required “light-shutter” matrix. On page 15 of Xilinx’s petition, Xilinx provides a
`
`claim chart purporting to show correspondence of what Xilinx calls claim element
`
`[1.4] with the disclosure of Flasck. However, as can be seen from an inspection of
`
`the claim chart (shown below), Xilinx fails to identify anything in Flasck
`
`corresponding to “a light-shutter matrix system.” Xilinx purports Flasck shows
`
`“image plane modules” that each include “an active matrix for encoding
`
`information on the light beam.” However, in sharp contrast to the Takanashi chart
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`on page 26 of the petition, nothing in the Flasck chart even asserts a description or
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`showing of the claimed “light-shutter matrix.”
`
`
`
`The “image plane modules” described by Flasck are not the same as “a light-
`
`shutter matrix system,” as recited in Claim 1. The “image plane module 30” of
`
`Flasck is described as including both “mirrored wall 40,” an “aperture 42,” and a
`
`reflective “wafer based active matrix 46.” (See Flasck, col. 5, lines 9-16.) A
`
`structure with a “mirrored wall,” reflective “active matrix,” and an “aperture” is
`
`not the same thing as a light shutter. A light shutter is an element that selectively
`
`admits and blocks light. A mirrored wall and a reflective active matrix do not
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`selectively admit and block light, but rather reflect the light towards a projection
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`lens. For example, the above-cited section of Flasck states, “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.” (Flasck, col. 5, lines 14-16,
`
`emphasis added.) Likewise, an “aperture,” such as that contained by the “image
`
`plane module” of Flasck, does not selectively admit and block out light, but rather
`
`directs light by permitting the light to pass through the aperture. As Flasck states
`
`at col. 6, lines 10-12: “the reflective image plane module 52 generally only
`
`includes the light directing and reflecting structures.” (Emphasis added.)
`
`Flasck itself does not describe its wafer based active matrix 46 as a “light
`
`shutter” matrix. Hence, even though Xilinx’s expert witness Dr. Buckman opines
`
`that Flasck teaches a “light-shutter matrix system,” exhibit 1006 at paragraph 22,
`
`that opinion is merely conclusory and thus contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). His
`
`opinion should be given no weight.
`
`Although Xilinx asserts that the interface 118 of Flasck constitutes the
`
`claimed “video controller,” Flasck does not teach a “video controller” as required
`
`by the claims. Xilinx implicitly acknowledges as much by its extended argument
`
`on the alleged obviousness of that limitation. (See page 20 of the petition.)
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`13
`
`
`
`As discussed by the Federal Circuit, “[a] claim is anticipated only if each
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
`
`described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of
`
`California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`Furthermore, the prior art reference must arrange every element as it is in the claim.
`
`In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As discussed above, Flasck fails
`
`to disclose each and every element recited in independent Claim 1. Dependent
`
`Claims 2 and 3 include the elements of independent Claim 1 and cannot, therefore,
`
`be anticipated by Flask for at least the same reasons.
`
`B. Challenge #2: Alleged obviousness in view of Flasck
`
`Xilinx describes Challenge #2 on pages 19 to 23 of Xilinx’s petition. In this
`
`section, Xilinx argues that the claimed “video controller” would have been obvious
`
`in view of the “Interface 118” of Flasck. Xilinx also argues that the “monochrome
`
`LCD arrays” of dependent Claim 2 are obvious in view of Flasck. However,
`
`nothing in Challenge #2 addresses the failure of Flasck to show the claimed “light-
`
`shutter matrix system.”
`
`Indeed, compared to alleged anticipation, it is even harder for Xilinx to show
`
`obviousness over Flasck because Flasck teaches away from the material limitation
`
`of “a light-shutter matrix system comprising a number of equivalent switching
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`matrices equal to the number of beams and placed one each in the beam paths.”
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`Flasck also fails to disclose “a video controller adapted for controlling the light-
`
`shutter matrices” or “wherein each beam passes through a color filter before being
`
`processed by a light-switching matrix.” (Claim 1 of the ‘545 patent, emphasis
`
`added.)
`
`An obviousness rejection in view of Flasck cannot be maintained where
`
`there is such a clear teaching away by Flasck of the claimed “light-shutter matrix
`
`system.” Flasck describes the problems with shutter-based systems at col. 4, lines
`
`30-43 (emphasis added):
`
`These transmissive projection systems suffer from a
`number of problems. One significant problem is
`caused by the construction required by the LC
`material. The LCD panels include a polarizer on each
`side of the LC material, such as twisted nematic material,
`and are utilized as a shutter to absorb the light not to be
`transmitted. Both the polarizers and the LC material
`absorb light which generates heat, which is deleterious to
`the LCD panel. Further, because of the two polarizers,
`and the LC material utilized, only about fifteen per cent
`or less of the light directed to the LCD panel is
`transmitted therethrough for projection to the screen. The
`devices exhibit low brightness because of the amount of
`light absorbed.
`
`Courts have consistently held that a patent applicant can rebut a “case of
`
`obviousness by showing the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention in
`
`any material aspect.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Crown
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Operations Int’l, Ltd. v. Solutia, 289 F.3d 1367, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`that the patent was not obvious when the prior art taught disadvantages of the
`
`claimed element). Here, Flasck is specifically teaching that the use of shutters
`
`results in low brightness “because of the amount of light absorbed.” Thus, Flasck
`
`specifically distinguishes itself from systems using light shutters as in Claims 1-3.
`
`A reference cannot render claims obvious if the reference, as does Flasck,
`
`specifically teaches away from the claimed invention. See, Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598
`
`F.3d 1294, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`
`
`C. Challenge #3: Alleged obviousness over Takanashi and Lee
`
`Xilinx describes Challenge #3 on pages 23 to 30 of Xilinx’s petition. In
`
`particular, this challenge alleges that the claimed “video controller” is made
`
`obvious by combining components from each of U.S. Patent 5,264,951
`
`(“Takanashi”) and U.S. Patent 5,287,131 (“Lee”). (See Xilinx petition, page 27.)
`
`However, this allegation cannot be supported based on a proper reading of
`
`Takanashi, Lee, and the ‘545 patent.
`
`Figure 17 of Takanashi (provided below) shows three beams of light (“R,”
`
`“G,” and “B”), each beam passing through an individual “transmission electrically
`
`controlled birefringent liquid crystal element” (ECBtr, ECBtg, and ECBtb), an
`
`individual polarizer (PL2r, PL2g, and PL2b), and an individual “transmission
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`spatial light modulator” (SLMtr, SLMtg, and SLMtb). Figure 17 also shows a
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`three-color combination optical system (I2) for combining the light into a single
`
`beam.
`
`
`
`
`
`On page 26 of Xilinx’s petition, Xilinx provides a claim chart (shown
`
`below) purporting to show correspondence of what Xilinx calls claim element [1.4]
`
`(relating to the light-shutter matrix system) with elements from Figure 17 of
`
`Takanashi. However, despite the assertions of the claim chart and the expert
`
`witness, Xilinx fails to show that anything in Takanashi is a “light-shutter matrix
`
`system,” as recited in Claim 1. (Xilinx petition, page 26.) Nothing in Takanashi
`
`describes or shows the claimed “light-shutter matrix.”
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`As indicated in the above chart, Xilinx alleges that “Takanashi’s
`
`combination of ECB elements, polarizers PL2, and the SLM elements is a ‘light-
`
`shutter matrix system.’” However, a proper reading of Takanashi shows that the
`
`combination of the elements indicated in the petition may not be construed as a
`
`“light-shutter matrix system,” as recited in the claims of the ‘545 patent.
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`18
`
`
`
`In particular, none of the elements of Takanashi can be reasonably construed
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`as a “matrix system” of any kind, much less a “light-shutter matrix system.” As
`
`discussed above in the claim construction section, a light-shutter matrix is a two-
`
`dimensional array of shutter elements. Takanashi illustrates and describes that
`
`each device (ECBt, polarizers, and SLMt) is a single element, formed of
`
`continuous layers of material, rather than any matrix of elements. With regard to
`
`the SLMt elements, Takanashi states at col. 2, lines 33-44 (emphasis added):
`
`At first, when the modulator element SLMt illustrated in
`FIG. 3 is formed as an element which has the
`configuration of said (1), it is formed on the substrate
`BP1 by laminating the electrode Et1, the component
`[photo-conductive layer] PCL1 which is sensitive at least
`to the light in the wavelength range of write light WL and
`is not sensitive to the light in the wavelength range of
`read light RL, the component [photo-modulation layer]
`PML in which the condition of birefringence changes
`according to the intensity distribution of electric field and
`the condition of plane of polarization of read light RL
`can be changed, the electrode Et2 and the substrate BP2.
`With regard to the ECBt elements, Takanashi states at col. 8, lines 45-53
`
`(emphasis added):
`
`Further, the transmission double refraction field control
`liquid crystal element ECBt is described. The
`configuration illustrated in FIG. 7 for example, which is
`formed by laminating the transparent electrode 7, the
`liquid crystal layer LCb operating in the birefringent
`mode, the transparent electrode 8 and the substrate 9 on
`the substrate 6 can be used as this liquid crystal
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`element ECBt. In FIG. 7 the power supply Ee is
`connected to the transparent electrodes 7 and 8.
`Accordingly, as shown in the quote above, Takanashi does not disclose a
`
`matrix system much less a “light-shutter matrix system,” as claimed in the ‘545
`
`patent. See also, Takanashi at Figures 3, 8, and 9; col. 3, lines 16-27; and col. 8,
`
`lines 18-29, 45-53.
`
`Nothing Xilinx has pointed to in Takanashi may be construed as a “light
`
`shutter.” As shown in the above chart from Xilinx’s petition, Takanashi states at
`
`col. 16, lines 28-34 that the combination of elements (polarizers, “ECBt”s, and
`
`“SLMt”s) “form a wavelength selection filter.” See also, Takanashi at col. 9,
`
`lines 44-49; col. 10, lines 1-7; and col. 14, lines 7-17. Takanashi does not teach or
`
`suggest that this wavelength selection filter is equivalent to any “light shutter,”
`
`much less a “light-shutter matrix system.” Further, Xilinx’s petition does not cite,
`
`and Takanashi does not disclose, any other element or combination of elements
`
`that may be construed as a “light-shutter matrix.”
`
`Lee also does not disclose any “light-shutter matrix system” or “video
`
`controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices,” as recited in the
`
`claims. Lee discloses at col. 3, lines 26-33:
`
`Light shutters 14R, 14G, 14B are disposed in front of the
`respective focusing lens 15R, 15G, 15B. A light shutter
`controlling circuit 19 which successively permits a
`respective unicolor light beam connected to a respective
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`light shutter 14R, 14G, 14B to pass therethrough during
`the frequency of 1/3 and to cut off during the frequency
`of 2/3 is connected to respective light shutter 14R, 14G,
`14B.
`Accordingly, the “light shutters” of Lee “successively [permit] a respective
`
`unicolor light beam connected to a respective light shutter 14R, 14G, 14B to pass
`
`therethrough.” Such single-element shutters cannot be construed as “light-shutter
`
`matrices,” as recited in the claims.
`
`Further, Takanashi and Lee do not disclose “a video controller adapted for
`
`controlling the light-shutter matrices,” as recited in the claims. On page 27 of the
`
`petition, Xilinx provides a claim chart (shown below) acknowledging that
`
`Takanashi does not disclose any “video controller” and purporting to show
`
`correspondence of this element with “control circuit 19” of Lee. However, neither
`
`control circuit 19, nor any other element(s) in Lee can be reasonably construed as
`
`“a video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices.”
`
`4814-7244-4178.5
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00029
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`As can be seen from this chart, rather than controlling a light shutter
`
`switching matrix in accordance with any video images, Lee’s “light shutter
`
`controlling circuit,” as described in col. 3, lines 27-33, functions as a color wheel
`
`that “successively permits a respective unicolor light beam… to pass there-through
`
`during the frequency of 1/3 and to cut off [the light] during the frequency of 2/3.”
`
`However, a circu
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
