Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: March 12, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Xilinx, Inc. filed a petition (“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review
`
`of claims 1-3 of Patent 5,632,545 (the “‘545 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 311 et seq. Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures I LLC filed a preliminary
`
`response (“Prelim. Resp.”) to the petition. We have jurisdiction under 35
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`U.S.C. § 314. For the reasons that follow, the Board has determined to
`
`institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a):
`
`THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent as anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 11-
`
`12. We grant the petition as to claims 1-3 on certain grounds as discussed
`
`below.
`
`
`
`A. The ‘545 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ‘545 patent, entitled “Enhanced Video Projection System,” issued
`
`on May 27, 1997 based on Application 08/686,809, filed July 26, 1996.
`
`The ‘545 patent relates to a “color video projector system” having
`
`“separate light sources for producing separate beams of light which are
`
`passed each first through color filters to provide separate color beams before
`
`being processed by video-controlled light shutter matrices and then
`
`combined into a single beam projectable to provide a full-color video display
`
`with superimposed color spots.” Abstract. The patent describes how prior
`
`art video projector systems, such as color Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)
`
`projectors, were expensive and had difficulty providing adequate light
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`levels. Col. 1, ll. 9-19. According to the patent, “using a triple monochrome
`
`LCD structure instead of a color [active matrix LCD] AM-LCD, and pre-
`
`coloring of light,” results in a less expensive projector with better light
`
`output and better image quality. Col. 2, ll. 1-12.
`
`Figure 1, the sole figure of the ‘545 patent, is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts an exemplary 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`B. Exemplary Claim
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘545 patent is exemplary of the claims at issue:
`
`1. A video projector system comprising:
`
`individual light sources, one each for each color to be
`projected, adapted to provide each a separate light beam;
`
`a lens system in the path of the separate light beams,
`adapted for focusing the beams;
`
`a number of individual color filters equal to the number
`of beams, in the colors to be projected, and placed one each in
`each beam path;
`
`a light-shutter matrix system comprising a number of
`equivalent switching matrices equal to the number of beams
`and placed one each in the beam paths;
`
`a video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter
`matrices; and
`
`an optical combination system adapted for combining the
`several beams into a single composite beam for projection on a
`surface to provide a video display;
`
`wherein each beam passes through a color filter before
`being processed by a light-switching matrix.
`
`
`
`C. The Prior Art
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`
`1. Patent 5,108,172, issued Apr. 28, 1992 (“Flasck”) (Ex.
`1002);
`
`2. Patent 5,264,951, issued Nov. 23, 1993 (“Takanashi”)
`(Ex. 1003);
`
`3. Patent 5,287,131, issued Feb. 15, 1994 (“Lee”) (Ex.
`1004); and
`
`4. Patent 5,784,038, filed Oct. 24, 1995, issued July 21,
`1998 (“Irwin”) (Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Flasck;
`
`Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Flasck;
`
`Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Takanashi in view of Lee; and
`
`Claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Takanashi in view of Lee and Irwin.
`
`
`
`E. Claim Interpretation
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the America
`
`Invents Act (AIA), the Board will interpret 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. 48756, 48766 (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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`appearing in the written 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) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the
`
`specification.”).
`
`We construe certain claim limitations as follows:
`
`
`
`1. “Light-Shutter Matrix System” (Claim 1)
`
`Independent 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.” Patent Owner argues that given its
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, “light-shutter matrix system” means a set
`
`of light-shutter matrices where each matrix 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.” Prelim. Resp. 5. As support for its
`
`proposed interpretation, Patent Owner cites dictionary definitions of the
`
`terms “shutter” (“a mechanical device of a camera that opens and closes to
`
`control the duration of exposure of a plate or film to light”) and “matrix”
`
`(“an array, as in the regular formation of elements into columns and rows”).
`
`Id. at 2. Patent Owner also argues that another patent’s disclosure of a
`
`“shutter” as having “a two-dimensional array of individually addressable
`
`shutter elements for alternately admitting and blocking passage of light”
`
`supports Patent Owner’s view of the claim term’s plain meaning. Id. at 5-6
`
`(citing Patent 6,002,207 (“Beeteson”) (Ex. 2002), col. 11, ll. 43-55).
`
`Petitioner does not propose a definition for “light-shutter matrix system.”
`
`The specification of the ‘545 patent does not explicitly define “light-
`
`shutter matrix system,” but provides some guidance as to the meaning of the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`term. The patent states that “[i]n a preferred embodiment the light-shutter
`
`matrices are monochrome LCD arrays” where “[r]ed, green, and blue filters
`
`are used to provide red, green, and blue beams to an LCD matrix system.”
`
`‘545 patent, col. 1, ll. 64-67. The patent further discloses that in the
`
`embodiment shown in Figure 1, light passes through “three monochrome
`
`LCD arrays 117, 118, and 119” of LCD unit 120, but does not describe the
`
`function or operation of the arrays. Id., col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 7; see also id.,
`
`col. 4, ll. 2-3 (“there are many ways to implement light shutter devices
`
`besides LCD’s”). Thus, based on the claim language and specification of
`
`the ‘545 patent, a light-shutter matrix system is simply a set of light-shutter
`
`matrices, one example of which is a monochrome LCD array. This is further
`
`confirmed by claim 2, which depends from claim 1 and recites that “the
`
`light-shutter matrices are monochrome LCD arrays.”
`
`Other than giving an example of a monochrome LCD array, however,
`
`the specification does not explain what is meant by a “light-shutter matrix.”1
`
`We therefore look to the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as it would
`
`be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. A “shutter” is a
`
`“mechanical device that limits the passage of light.” See Merriam-Webster’s
`
`Collegiate Dictionary at 1084 (10th ed. 1993) (Ex. 3001).2 A liquid crystal
`
`display (LCD) is something that limits the passage of light. One dictionary,
`
`
`1 The claims refer to the matrices of the “light-shutter matrix system” as
`“light-shutter matrices,” “switching matrices,” and “light-switching
`matri[ces].” Although the language is slightly different, the terms appear to
`be used interchangeably in the claims and specification of the ‘545 patent.
`See, e.g., ‘545 patent, col. 1, ll. 48-67. Consequently, we conclude that the
`claims are referring to the same thing in each case.
`2 Copies of the dictionary definitions cited herein have been entered as
`Exhibits 3001 and 3002.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`for example, describes the operation of an LCD as follows:
`
`A display system consisting essentially of a very thin layer of
`liquid sandwiched between two conducting glass plates
`between which the control voltage is applied. 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.
`The conducting areas of the plates are such that, by applying
`voltages to certain of the leads, specified areas of the display
`can be illuminated by light transmitted through the device or
`reflected at the rear glass plate. Thus a seven-segment pattern
`can be used to give a numerical display.
`
`Newnes Dictionary of Electronics at 186 (1999) (Ex. 3002) (emphasis
`
`added). A “matrix” is “something resembling a mathematical matrix
`
`esp[ecially] in rectangular arrangement of elements into rows and columns.”
`
`Ex. 3001 at 716. Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in
`
`light of the specification, “light-shutter matrix system” in the context of the
`
`‘545 patent means a set of matrices, such as monochrome LCD arrays,
`
`where each matrix comprises a rectangular arrangement of elements capable
`
`of limiting the passage of light.
`
`We disagree with Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “light-
`
`shutter matrix system” for two reasons. First, the dictionary definition of
`
`“shutter” provided by Patent Owner is not applicable to the technology of
`
`the ‘545 patent, as it defines the term 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 Prelim. Resp. 2-3 (citing Ex. 2001) (emphasis added). Claim 1
`
`relates to a video projector system projecting light, not a camera exposing a
`
`film to light. Second, we do not see how the disclosure of Beeteson is
`
`relevant to interpreting “light-shutter matrix system” in the context of the
`
`claims of the ‘545 patent. Beeteson does not use the term “light-shutter
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`matrix system.” Moreover, Beeteson describes a specific “shutter 22,” not a
`
`“shutter” in general, and is not indicative of how a person skilled in the art
`
`would understand the term generically. See Beeteson, col. 11, ll. 43-55.
`
`For purposes of this decision, we interpret “light-shutter matrix
`
`system” to mean a set of matrices, such as monochrome LCD arrays, where
`
`each matrix comprises a rectangular arrangement of elements capable of
`
`limiting the passage of light.
`
`
`
`2. “Video Controller Adapted for Controlling the
`Light-Shutter Matrices” (Claim 1)
`
`Independent claim 1 recites a “video controller adapted for controlling
`
`the light-shutter matrices.” Patent Owner argues that the phrase means
`
`“something that directs or regulates display of video images at least in part
`
`by controlling matrices of light shutters,” citing two other patents as
`
`allegedly indicative of the ordinary and customary meaning of the term
`
`“video controller.” Prelim. Resp. 6-8 (citing Beeteson, col. 11, ll. 54-55, and
`
`Patent 6,184,943 (“Sellers”) (Ex. 2003), col. 4, ll. 11-24). Petitioner does
`
`not propose a definition for “video controller” or the full phrase in which it
`
`appears.
`
`The specification of the ‘545 patent does not explicitly define “video
`
`controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices,” but rather
`
`describes controller 122 in broad terms. A “video signal for the system is
`
`delivered from outside via link 125 into a controller 122,” controller 122
`
`then “controls the three monochrome matrices 117, 118, and 119,” and the
`
`three beams exiting the monochrome LCD matrices are combined into a
`
`single composite beam “for projection on a surface to provide a video
`
`display.” ‘545 patent, col. 3, ll. 13-18; id., col. 1, ll. 58-61; see also id., Fig.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`1 (“LCD Controller with Live Video Capability”); id., col. 2, ll. 9-12 (“three
`
`video-controlled color beams”); id., col. 4, ll. 5-6 (“[t]here are many ways
`
`adequate controllers may be implemented”). Applying the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the phrase based on the specification, “video
`
`controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices” means a
`
`component that controls light-shutter matrices to facilitate the display of
`
`video.
`
`We see no need to look to other patents to interpret the term as Patent
`
`Owner suggests, particularly because the cited patents do not use the full
`
`phrase of claim 1 or indicate that “video controller” is a generic term of art.
`
`Indeed, Beeteson describes a specific system where “a video image based on
`
`the input video signal is . . . projected” and Sellers describes specific “video
`
`controller circuitry 20.” See Beeteson, col. 11, ll. 43-55; Sellers, col. 4, ll.
`
`11-24.
`
`For purposes of this decision, we interpret “video controller adapted
`
`for controlling the light-shutter matrices” to mean a component that controls
`
`light-shutter matrices to facilitate the display of video.
`
`
`
`3. Other Terms
`
`All other terms in claims 1-3 are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning and need not be further construed at this time.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its preliminary response to determine whether
`
`Petitioner has met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), namely, that
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`“the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`
`
`
`A. Grounds Based on Flasck
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-3 are anticipated by Flasck under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in the alternative, unpatentable over Flasck under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 12-23. We conclude that Petitioner has established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1-3 are
`
`unpatentable over Flasck under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons explained
`
`below.
`
`Flasck discloses a video projector system comprising three “reflective
`
`image plane modules” where each module “operates on a single color
`
`component, red, green or blue.” Flasck, col. 2, ll. 57-64. The color
`
`components are “combined on a screen or before projecting on the screen to
`
`form the full color projection image.” Id. Figure 11 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`Three light sources 144/146/148 transmit light through blue, green, and red
`
`filters 124/126/128, respectively. Id., col. 7, ll. 60-66. Electronic interface
`
`118 provides information to reflective image plane modules 92/104/112,
`
`which encode information onto the light beams. Id., col. 5, ll. 9-16; id., col.
`
`7, ll. 32-34. Combining prism 150 then combines the light beams into one
`
`encoded beam, which passes through lens system 154 and is projected onto
`
`screen 98. Id., col. 7, l. 66-col. 8, l. 5.
`
`Figure 2C of Flasck, reproduced below, depicts a side view of the
`
`reflective image plane modules:
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 2C, incoming light passes through aperture 42 of
`
`mirrored wall 40, reflects off of back wall 44 (which has attached thereto or
`
`is formed of wafer based active matrix 46), reflects again off of back surface
`
`48 of mirrored wall 40, and is directed to projection lens 50 for projection
`
`onto a screen (not shown). Id., col. 5, ll. 9-43. Flasck describes wafer based
`
`active matrix 46 as follows:
`
`The light has the information imparted to or encoded on it by
`the wafer based active matrix 46 as it is reflected from the
`wafer based active matrix 46. . . .
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`The wafer based active matrix 46 is a wafer based active
`matrix having a specular reflective back surface to reflect light
`therefrom. The wafer based active matrix is covered by an
`LCD or similar characteristic material, such as an
`electrophoretic material.
`
`Id., col. 5, ll. 14-26 (emphasis added).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to identify anything in Flasck
`
`corresponding to a “light-shutter matrix system.” Prelim. Resp. 11-12.
`
`Petitioner’s claim chart and annotated Figure 11 of Flasck, however, make
`
`clear Petitioner’s contention that the combination of the three reflective
`
`image plane modules 92/104/112, each having an active matrix 46, is a
`
`“light-shutter matrix system” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 6, 15. Petitioner
`
`further relies on the Declaration of A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D., who testifies
`
`as to the same. Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 22). Patent Owner also argues
`
`that active matrix 46 in Flasck is not a light shutter matrix because a
`
`“shutter” selectively admits and blocks light from passing through, whereas
`
`active matrix 46 only reflects light. Prelim. Resp. 12-13. As explained
`
`above, “light-shutter matrix system” in claim 1 means a set of matrices, such
`
`as monochrome LCD arrays, where each matrix comprises a rectangular
`
`arrangement of elements capable of limiting the passage of light. Flasck
`
`discloses that active matrix 46 is “covered by an LCD,” which is one
`
`example of a matrix capable of limiting the passage of light. See Pet. 15;
`
`Flasck, col. 5, ll. 24-26; ‘545 patent, col. 1, ll. 64-67, claim 2. Further, as
`
`described in Flasck, the light passes through the LCD as it reflects off of the
`
`“specular reflective back surface” of active matrix 46. Flasck, col. 5, ll. 21-
`
`26. Petitioner therefore has made a threshold showing that Flasck discloses
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`a “light-shutter matrix system.”3
`
`With respect to the “video controller” of claim 1, however, Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated that Flasck expressly or inherently discloses the
`
`limitation. Claim 1 requires a “video controller adapted for controlling the
`
`light-shutter matrices,” which, as explained above, means a component that
`
`controls light-shutter matrices to facilitate the display of video. Petitioner
`
`identifies electronic interface 118 in Flasck as the recited “video controller.”
`
`Pet. 15-16 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 23). Electronic interface 118 (called “TV or
`
`Computer Interface Electronics” in Figure 9 and “Interface” in Figure 11) is
`
`mentioned in only one sentence in Flasck: “The information encoding is
`
`provided by an electronic interface 118 coupled to the reflective image plane
`
`modules 92, 104, and 112.” Flasck, col. 7, ll. 32-34. Flasck does not
`
`describe the particular content of the “information encoding” provided by
`
`electronic interface 118 or indicate that the operation of the reflective image
`
`plane modules is in any way controlled by its receipt. Moreover, the fact
`
`that one component provides information to another does not necessarily
`
`mean that it controls the other component. Petitioner therefore has not
`
`shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its proposed anticipation
`
`ground.
`
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood, however, that claim 1 is
`
`obvious over Flasck. See Pet. 19-23. In describing the prior art projection
`
`
`3 Patent Owner also argues that Flasck, in describing various prior art
`projector systems, teaches away from the use of a “light-shutter matrix
`system.” Prelim. Resp. 14-16 (citing Flasck, col. 4, ll. 30-43). As explained
`above, however, we conclude that Petitioner has made a threshold showing
`that Flasck discloses a “light-shutter matrix system” (i.e., the combination of
`the three reflective image plane modules 92/104/112, each having an active
`matrix 46) in columns 5-7 describing a preferred embodiment. See Pet. 15.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`system depicted in Figure 1, Flasck discloses a “video or computer signal
`
`source” coupled to “video drive circuit 20,” which “generates the required
`
`drive signals coupled over a line 22 to the LCD 16. . . . The drive signals
`
`cause the pixels of the LCD 16 to block or transmit light to impart the
`
`required information onto the light transmitted through the LCD 16.”
`
`Flasck, col. 4, ll. 9-21 (emphasis added). Petitioner asserts that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the use of a video drive circuit in
`
`the location of electronic interface 118 as the “predictable use of prior[] art
`
`elements according to their established functions,” relying on the analysis of
`
`Dr. Buckman in support. Pet. 20-21 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 24-25).
`
`With respect to the remaining elements of claim 1, which are not
`
`disputed by Patent Owner, Petitioner has made a threshold showing that they
`
`are disclosed by Flasck as well. See id. at 12-19. Petitioner also contends
`
`that dependent claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable over Flasck. Id. at 21-23.
`
`As to claim 2, which requires the light-shutter matrices to be “monochrome
`
`LCD arrays,” Flasck discloses that a reflective image plane module as
`
`disclosed in the reference “can be utilized as part of a monochrome
`
`projection system” or can be one module of “a three lens color projection
`
`system embodiment” where the three modules process red, green, and blue
`
`light, respectively. Flasck, col. 6, l. 65-col. 7, l. 8; id., col. 5, ll. 43-47.
`
`Petitioner argues that each monochrome light beam in Flasck therefore is
`
`associated with one LCD array in a reflective image plane module, and a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in such a case
`
`to use a monochrome (as opposed to multi-color) LCD array. Pet. 21-23
`
`(citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 29). As to claim 3, Petitioner argues that Flasck discloses
`
`three light sources and red, green, and blue light beams provided to active
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`matrices 46. Id. at 17-18 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 30). Petitioner has met its
`
`burden as to claims 2 and 3.
`
`We are persuaded by the analysis set forth in the petition and
`
`accompanying declaration that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail on its assertion that claims 1-3 are unpatentable over Flasck
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood
`
`of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1-3 are anticipated by Flasck under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and the petition therefore is denied as to that ground.
`
`
`
`B. Grounds Based on Takanashi
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-3 are unpatentable over Takanashi in
`
`view of Lee under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 23-30. Alternatively, Petitioner
`
`contends that claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable over Takanashi in view of Lee
`
`and Irwin under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Id. at 30-32. We conclude that
`
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`
`assertion that claims 1-3 are unpatentable over Takanashi in view of Lee
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons explained below.
`
`Takanashi discloses a “spatial light modulator and a display unit in
`
`which the spatial light modulator is applied.” Takanashi, col. 1, ll. 8-10.
`
`Figure 17 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`
`
`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., 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 spatial
`
`light modulator (e.g., SLMtr for red light), which “modulate[s]” the
`
`respective light beam through the use of incoming “write light WL.” Id.,
`
`col. 16, ll. 6-28; id., col. 1, l. 18-col. 5, l. 25; id., Figs. 1-3. The light beams
`
`are then recombined by three-color combination optical system 12 and the
`
`combined light passes through another polarizer PL3 and projection lens
`
`PJL, which projects it onto a screen (not shown). Id., col. 16, ll. 29-42.
`
`Petitioner contends that “Takanashi’s combination of ECB elements,
`
`polarizers PL2, and the SLM elements” is a “light-shutter matrix system” as
`
`recited in claim 1, relying on the analysis of Dr. Buckman. Pet. 24, 26-27
`
`(citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 42-44). Dr. Buckman testifies that “[o]ne of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have recognized that the ECBtr, PL2r, and SLMtr
`
`elements combined are a switching matrix used to process only red beams,”
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`and likewise would have understood the ECB, PL2, and SLM elements for
`
`green and blue to be switching matrices for green and blue beams. Ex. 1006
`
`¶ 42. Patent Owner argues that Takanashi does not disclose the “matrix”
`
`aspect of a “light-shutter matrix system” because “each device (ECBt,
`
`polarizers, and SLMt) is a single element, formed of continuous layers of
`
`material, rather than any matrix of elements.” Prelim. Resp. 19-20.
`
`Takanashi, however, discloses a two-dimensional “color image of the object
`
`of display” projected onto a screen as a result of the operation of the ECB,
`
`PL2, and SLM elements cited by Dr. Buckman. See Takanashi, col. 16, ll.
`
`38-42; id., Figs. 17, 20. Thus, Petitioner has made a threshold showing that
`
`the alleged light-shutter matrices in Takanashi have a plurality of elements
`
`allowing a two-dimensional image to be projected. Patent Owner also
`
`argues that Takanashi does not disclose the “shutter” aspect of a “light-
`
`shutter matrix system.” Pet. 20. We do not find this argument persuasive
`
`for reasons similar to those explained above regarding Flasck. Takanashi
`
`discloses in each combination a liquid crystal element ECB, and an LCD
`
`array is an example of a light-shutter matrix according to the ‘545 patent.
`
`See Takanashi, col. 16, ll. 6-20; ‘545 patent, col. 1, ll. 64-67, claim 2.
`
`Petitioner also has made a threshold showing with respect to the
`
`“video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices” recited
`
`in claim 1. Petitioner contends that Takanashi discloses light-shutter
`
`matrices encoding three color light beams with information, but “provides
`
`relatively few details regarding how this control is accomplished.” Pet. 27;
`
`see Takanashi, col. 16, ll. 20-42. According to Petitioner, however, video
`
`controllers controlling light-shutter matrices were well known in the art at
`
`the time. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 45-48). Petitioner relies on the “light
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`shutter controlling circuit 19” disclosed in Lee and argues that incorporating
`
`it into the system of Takanashi would have been an obvious modification.
`
`Id.; see Lee, col. 3, ll. 27-33 (“[a] light shutter controlling circuit 19 which
`
`successively permits a respective unicolor light beam connected to a
`
`respective light shutter 14R, 14G, 14B to pass therethrough”).
`
`With respect to the remaining elements of claim 1, which are not
`
`disputed by Patent Owner, Petitioner has made a threshold showing that they
`
`are rendered obvious by the combination of Takanashi and Lee. See Pet. 23-
`
`30. Petitioner has met its burden as to dependent claims 2 and 3 as well.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Petitioner contends that “monochrome LCD arrays” are
`
`disclosed by Lee and suggested by Takanashi’s use of separate liquid crystal
`
`elements for red, green, and blue light. Id. at 28-29 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 53-
`
`57). Regarding claim 3, Petitioner argues that Lee discloses three light
`
`sources and red, green, and blue filtered light beams, and incorporating such
`
`features into Takanashi would have been an obvious modification. Id. at 29-
`
`30 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 58).
`
`We are persuaded by the analysis set forth in the petition and
`
`accompanying declaration that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`will prevail on its assertion that claims 1-3 are unpatentable over Takanashi
`
`in view of Lee under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Petitioner also contends that dependent claims 2 and 3 are
`
`unpatentable over Takanashi in view of Lee and Irwin, arguing that Irwin
`
`discloses the additional features of the dependent claims. As explained
`
`above, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
`
`respect to claims 2 and 3 based on the combination of Takanashi and Lee.
`
`Petitioner’s obviousness ground based on Takanashi, Lee, and Irwin
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`therefore is cumulative, and the petition is denied as to that ground.
`
`
`
`C. Conclusion
`
`We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`
`of prevailing on the following grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`
`Petition:
`
`Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Flasck; and
`
`Claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Takanashi in view of Lee.
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`III. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the petition is granted as to claims 1-3 of the ‘545
`
`patent;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ‘545 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`
`identified above and no other grounds are authorized; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board
`
`is scheduled for 1:00 PM Eastern Time on April 11, 2013. The parties are
`
`directed to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,
`
`48765-66 (Aug. 14, 2012), for guidance in preparing for the initial
`
`conference call, and should come prepared to discuss any proposed changes
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`to the Scheduling Order entered herewith and any motions the parties
`
`anticipate filing during the trial.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David L. McCombs
`Thomas B. King
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue