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
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT SMITH-GILLESPIE
`
`IVI LLC EXHIBIT 2005
`XILINX V. IVI LLC
`IPR Case 2013-00029
`
`1
`
`
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT SMITH-GILLESPIE
`
`IVI LLC EXHIBIT 2005
`XILINX V. IVI LLC
`IPR Case 2013-00029
`
`1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert in video projection systems by Foley
`
`& Lardner LLP, which represents Intellectual Ventures Management (of which
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC is an affiliate) in this matter.
`
`2.
`
`The documents that I have considered in developing my opinions set
`
`forth in this declaration include: Ex. 1001 (U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 to Kikinis),
`
`Ex. 1002 (U.S. Patent No. 5,108,172 to Flasck), Ex. 1003 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,264,951 to Takanashi), Ex. 1004 (U.S. Patent No. 5,287,131 to Lee), Ex. 1005
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 5,784,038 to Irwin), Ex. 1006 (Declaration of Dr. Buckman), Ex.
`
`1007 (the curriculum vitae of Dr. Buckman), Ex. 1008 (the file history of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,632,545), Ex. 2001 (definitions from the American Heritage College
`
`Dictionary, 3d edition, 1997), Ex. 2002 (U.S. Patent No. 6,002,207 to Beeteson),
`
`Ex. 2003 (U.S. Patent No. 6,184,943 to Sellers), Ex. 3001 (definitions from
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary), Ex. 3002 (definition from the Newnes
`
`Dictionary of Electronics, 4th Edition), the Xilinx petition (Paper No. 1), the Patent
`Owner Preliminary Response (Paper No. 8), the Board decision instituting inter
`partes review (Paper No. 11), Ex. 2004 (the transcript from the deposition of Dr.
`
`Buckman), U.S. Patent No. 5,777,796 to Burstyn (Ex. 1004 from IPR2013-00112),
`
`Ex. 2008 (Optics and Nonlinear Optics of Liquid Crystals, chapter 2, Khoo et al.,
`
`2003), Ex. 2010 (U.S. Patent No. 8,054,535 to Sikharulidze), Ex. 2013 (U.S. Patent
`
`2
`
`
`
`No. 6,985,253 to Figueroa), U.S. Patent No. 5,024,524 to Flasck (which is
`
`incorporated by reference into U.S. Patent No. 5,108,172 to Flasck), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,266,037 to Flasck (a parent of which is incorporated by reference into U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,108,172 to Flasck), U.S. Patent No. 4,435,047 to Fergason (which is
`
`incorporated by reference into U.S. Patent No. 5,108,172 to Flasck), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 4,688,900 to Doane (which is incorporated by reference into U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,108,172 to Flasck), U.S. Patent No. 4,368,963 to Stolov (which appears on the
`
`face of U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 to Kikinis), U.S. Patent No. 5,359,345 to Hunter
`
`(which appears on the face of U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 to Kikinis), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,398,086 to Nakano (which appears on the face of U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`to Kikinis), U.S. Patent No. 5,481,320 to Konoma (which appears on the face of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 to Kikinis), and U.S. Patent No. 5,555,035 to Mead
`
`(which appears on the face of U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 to Kikinis).
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated on a per hour basis for my time spent
`
`working on issues in this case. My compensation does not depend upon the
`
`outcome of this matter or the opinions I express.
`
`4.
`
`Additional information may become available which would further
`
`support or modify the conclusions that I have reached to date. Accordingly, I
`
`reserve the right to modify and/or enlarge this opinion or the bases thereof upon
`
`consideration of any further discovery, testimony, or other evidence, including any
`
`3
`
`
`
`issues raised by any expert or witness of petitioner Xilinx, or based upon
`
`interpretations of any claim term by the Patent Office different than those proposed
`
`in this declaration.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`My curriculum vitae is Ex. 2006. My experience in the display field
`
`dates back to the late 1980’s when I worked as the lighting specialist in the Flight
`
`Deck Packaging group at Honeywell’s Commercial Air Transport Division.
`
`Initially my work focused on development of early technology liquid crystal
`
`display (LCD) components for flight control panels on commercial aircraft. I later
`
`participated in the technology development and productization of the active matrix
`
`LCD panels for the Boeing 777 program. In the early phases of this program we
`
`performed trade studies aimed at assessing the appropriate technology for
`
`replacing cathode ray tube (CRT) instruments on the flight deck. Technologies
`
`that I evaluated include rear projection micro-display LCD panels and thin-film
`
`transistor (TFT) LCDs. Following my work at Honeywell, I moved to Three-Five
`
`Systems where I worked again as a technical specialist for displays and lighting.
`
`While there, I interfaced with the liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) projection team
`
`(later to become Brillian Corp.) on light engine design (light sources, thermal
`
`control) and reflective LCOS optical evaluation (radiometric characterization).
`
`While at Rosen Products I again worked as a senior technical specialist in displays
`
`4
`
`
`
`where I was primarily focused on video system integration for automotive and
`
`aviation LCD display platforms. My work there included specifying and
`
`evaluating video controllers, source equipment, and displays for automotive rear
`
`seat entertainment and aircraft cabin entertainment systems.
`
`6.
`
`I am a named inventor on U.S. Patent No. 7,660,040 and European
`
`Patent No. 1724621A1, which are directed to a reflective material for LCD display
`
`backlighting. I also have a pending patent application (U.S. 13/564,045) for a
`
`“Dual Mode LCD Backlight” which employs a novel dichroic filtering design to
`
`create a single rail, night vision compatible backlight.
`
`7.
`
`I have a bachelor’s degree in Physics from the State University of
`
`New York at Plattsburgh and a bachelor of science degree in mechanical
`
`engineering. I have additionally studied optics at the graduate level at the
`
`University of Oregon and have studied liquid crystal display technology at Kent
`
`State University (professional short courses).
`
`III.
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT
`
`8.
`
`I have been retained to opine on the patentability of the claims in U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,632,545 (“the ‘545 patent”), and on the claims proposed to be added
`
`to the ‘545 patent.
`
`9.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether the inventions recited in those
`
`claims of the ‘545 patent are patentable over the prior art.
`
`5
`
`
`
`10.
`
`This declaration, including the exhibits hereto, sets forth my opinion
`
`on this topic.
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN ANALYSIS
`
`11.
`
`I have been advised that, in construing a claim term, one looks
`
`primarily to the “intrinsic” patent evidence, which includes the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`I have been advised by patent owner’s counsel that “extrinsic” evidence, which is
`
`evidence external to the patent and the prosecution history, may also be useful in
`
`interpreting patent claims. Extrinsic evidence can include dictionaries, treatises,
`
`textbooks, and the like.
`
`12.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims through the eyes of “one of ordinary skill in the art.” I
`
`was told by patent owner’s counsel to consider factors such as the educational level
`
`and years of experience of those working in the pertinent art; the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and publications of
`
`other persons or companies; and the sophistication of the technology. I understand
`
`that the person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific real individual, but rather
`
`a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by the factors discussed
`
`above.
`
`6
`
`
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, based on my experience in research and product
`
`development of video projection systems, and my evaluation of the skills and
`
`background that graduates of engineering programs should possess, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of video projection systems is generally one who has a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, optical engineering, and/or physics
`
`along with several years of relevant academic research or industry work experience
`
`in the field of video projection systems.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`14.
`For the purposes of my opinion and declaration, I have reviewed the
`Board’s decision (Paper No. 11) to institute the present inter partes review. While
`
`I understand and respect the Board’s decision, I disagree with several of the
`
`assertions made by the Board with respect to the interpretation of Claims 1-3 of the
`
`‘545 patent. Regardless of whether the Board adheres to the claim construction set
`
`forth in its decision or adopts the claim construction set forth herein, it is my
`
`opinion that Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent are patentable in view of the challenges
`
`included in Xilinx’s petition.
`
`15. Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent are directed to a “video projector
`
`system.” One of ordinary skill in the art in July 1996 would have understood a
`
`“video projector system” to be a projector system that is capable of producing
`
`video, where video refers to the projection of moving images that change fast
`
`7
`
`
`
`enough to be undetectable by the human eye. In my opinion, a projector is not a
`
`video projector if the projector is unable to display moving images such that
`
`changes between images occur fast enough to be undetectable by the human eye.
`
`16. Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent require “a light-shutter matrix system.”
`
`In its decision, the Board adopted the definition of a light-shutter matrix system as
`
`“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.”
`
`(Decision at 8; emphasis added.) This definition, which refers to “limiting the
`
`passage of light,” attributes little or no meaning to the term “shutter” and
`
`effectively replaces the claim term “light-shutter matrix” with the non-claim term
`
`“light-limiter matrix.” While a light-shutter may indeed limit the passage of light,
`
`not everything that limits the passage of light is a light-shutter. For example, any
`
`opaque object limits the passage of light since it blocks all light, but such an object
`
`is not necessarily a shutter. One of ordinary skill in the art in July 1996 would
`
`consider a “light-shutter” to be a component that selectively admits and blocks
`
`light, where the light is blocked through absorption. For these reasons, I would
`
`interpret the claimed “light-shutter matrix system” as a two-dimensional array of
`
`elements that selectively admit and block light. On page 7 of its decision, the
`
`Board cited column 1, lines 64-76 of the ‘545 patent, which states that “[i]n a
`
`preferred embodiment the light-shutter matrices are monochrome LCD [liquid
`
`8
`
`
`
`crystal display] arrays,” as a justification for interpreting anything with an LCD or
`
`liquid crystal material as the “light-shutter matrix system” required by Claim 1.
`
`This interpretation is evidenced by the Board’s statements regarding how Flasck
`
`and Takanashi allegedly disclose such a “light-shutter matrix system.” Regarding
`
`Flasck, the Board stated on page 13 of its decision that “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.” Regarding Takanashi, the Board stated on page 18
`
`of its decision that “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.” Accordingly, the Board appears to regard every LCD or layer
`
`of material containing liquid crystals as a light-shutter matrix. However, this is not
`
`the case. Liquid crystals may exhibit many optical properties and have been used
`
`as polarizers, waveguides, lenses, and gratings, among various other uses. For
`
`example, in the book Optics and Nonlinear Optics of Liquid Crystals 2003 by Dr.
`
`Iam-Choong Khoo et al., the author includes a 100+ page chapter on the Electro-
`
`Optical Properties of Liquid Crystals that states, in part:
`
`An important feature of liquid crystals is that their
`directors can be reoriented by a reasonably low external
`electric, magnetic or optical field, giving rise to a variety
`of
`electro-optic, magneto-optic
`and
`opto-optic
`modulation effects. The applied external field deforms
`the liquid crystal directors from their initial states and,
`thus, alter [sic] the phase or amplitude of the impinging
`light. Once the external field vanishes, the directors may
`
`9
`
`
`
`relax to their initial states or stay in their final states,
`depending on the type of liquid crystal and the physical
`mechanism involved.
`
`Several electro-optical effects in liquid crystals have been
`observed. These include: (i) dynamic scattering, (ii)
`guest-host effect, (iii) field-induced nematic-cholesteric
`phase
`change,
`(iv)
`field-induced
`director-axis
`reorientation, (v) laser-addressed thermal effect, and (vi)
`light scattering by micron sized droplets.
`
`(Ex. 2008 at pg. 100, emphasis added). Accordingly, liquid crystals produce “a
`
`variety of electro-optic, magneto-optic and opto-optic modulation effects,” and the
`
`results of these effects may vary “depending on the type of liquid crystal and the
`
`physical mechanism involved.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not consider
`
`liquid crystals exhibiting any of these optical effects to be a light shutter or part of
`
`a light-shutter matrix system. Thus, it is not reasonable to treat every liquid crystal
`
`display device or device containing liquid crystals as a light-shutter.
`
`17. Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent require “a video controller adapted for
`
`controlling the light-shutter matrices.” In its decision, the Board interpreted the
`
`claimed “video controller” to be “a component that controls light-shutter matrices
`
`to facilitate the display of video.” (Decision at 10). Accordingly, the Board
`
`properly recognized that a “video controller adapted for controlling the light
`
`shutter matrices,” must “control[] light-shutter matrices to facilitate the display of
`
`video.” As discussed in the ‘545 patent (col. 3, lines 13-18), the video controller
`
`10
`
`
`
`operates in accordance with a video signal. This is important because a
`
`“controller” that does not operate in accordance with a video signal is not a “video
`
`controller.” One of ordinary skill in the art in July 1996 would have understood
`
`this claim term to be a component that controls light-shutter matrices to facilitate
`
`the display of video in accordance with a video signal.
`
`18. Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent require “equivalent switching matrices.”
`
`At column 2, lines 1-7, the ‘545 patent distinguishes between equivalent
`
`monochrome LCDs versus conventional color LCD systems in which a unique
`
`LCD is used for each color. At the time of filing the ‘545 patent, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood “equivalent switching matrices” to be
`
`switching matrices that are virtually identical in effect or function. Switching
`
`matrices which are not virtually identical in effect or function are not “equivalent
`
`switching matrices.” Such “equivalent switching matrices” can be interchanged
`
`with one another and still provide the same result.
`
`VI. CHALLENGE #2: ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 5,108,172 TO FLASCK
`
`19.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent No. 5,108,172 to Flasck (“Flasck”),
`
`which forms the basis for Xilinx’s Challenge #2. I have also reviewed the
`
`assertions made by Dr. Buckman with respect to Flasck in his declaration, and I
`
`disagree with several of the assertions made therein. Based on my review, it is my
`
`opinion that Flasck does not render Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent unpatentable.
`
`11
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent are directed to a “video projector
`system”
`
`20. Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent are directed to a “video projector
`
`system.” In order to be a video projector system, the projector must be capable of
`
`operating at video speeds. At the time that the ‘545 patent was filed, video was
`
`displayed at either 30 or 60 frames per second (fps) (33ms or 17ms per frame).
`
`Higher-quality televisions today use frame rates above 200 fps. Video speed is
`
`important with regard to Flasck because the materials that the reference proposes
`
`to use in its reflective image plane modules would not have been fast enough at the
`
`time even for a 30 fps video display. In particular, Flasck proposes to use either
`
`polymer dispersed liquid crystals (PDLC) or electrophoretic material as image
`formation elements in the projection system. See, Flasck at col. 5, lines 21-36.
`
`However, neither of these materials were used in typical video displays at the time.
`
`21. With regard to PDLC devices, these materials were an active area of
`
`research at the time that Flasck was filed as they continue to be today. However,
`
`the response time of PDLC devices was problematic at the time of Flasck. For
`
`example, U.S. Patent No. 5,170,271 to Lackner et al. (“Lackner”), which was filed
`
`the year after Flasck, is directed to a new PDLC implementation with a goal of
`increasing the responsivity of the devices closer to the speed of video. See, Lackner
`
`at col. 1, lines 9-13. At col. 2, lines 6-11, Lackner describes a typical experimental
`
`PDLC system, saying, “The photoactivated rise and decay times (with a constant
`
`12
`
`
`
`bias voltage in typical LCLV operation) were 5-10 ms on-time and 1.5-3 seconds
`
`off-time; thus, the frame time (on-time plus off-time) is very slow compared to a
`
`dynamic television image frame time of less than 33 ms.” (Emphasis added.) In
`
`other words, the combined on/off response time of a PDLC system at the time of
`
`Flasck was at least 1.5 seconds, which is significantly slower than the required
`
`response time for video. Thus, at the time of Flasck, it would not have been
`
`obvious that a display using PDLC materials would be a video display because of
`
`the slow response time.
`
`22.
`
`Electrophoretic materials are still not typically used for video-speed
`
`displays, largely because of their very slow response time. Anyone of ordinary
`
`skill in the art of display technology would know that slow response time is a
`
`major drawback of electrophoretic displays. As just one example of a typical
`
`comment made with respect to the response time of electrophoretic displays, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,054,535 (filed in 2008) states (at col. 1, lines 22-24, emphasis added):
`
`Conventional electrophoretic displays also are typically
`slow to switch, making them unsuitable for applications
`requiring fast switching, such as video displays.
`23. Accordingly, even 18 years after Flasck was filed, it was understood
`
`by those of skill in the art that electrophoretic displays were unsuitable for video-
`
`speed applications. Any one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Flasck
`
`13
`
`
`
`would, therefore, have known that Flasck’s system was unsuitable for a video
`
`display.
`
`24.
`
`Since PDLC and electrophoretic materials are the only examples
`
`given in Flasck for image forming elements, and since neither of these examples
`
`would have been suitable for video, it is not reasonable to interpret Flasck as
`
`disclosing a video projector system.
`
`25.
`
`In his deposition testimony, Dr. Buckman cited the label “TV or
`
`Computer Interface Electronics,” in Flasck’s Fig. 9 as a reason that Flasck’s
`
`projection system would have been a video projector. (Deposition transcript at 16,
`
`lines 19-23). However, at the relevant time, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that the mere labeling of an interface as “TV… Interface
`
`Electronics,” as Flasck does with element 118 in Figure 9, does not imply that the
`
`interface can necessarily be used to carry a video signal. Rather, TV interface
`
`electronics are merely electronic interfaces that are compatible with a TV, such as
`
`a coaxial cable.
`
`26.
`
`For these reasons, it is my opinion that Flasck is not directed to a
`
`“video projector system” as claimed in the ‘545 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent require a “light-shutter matrix
`system”
`
`27. Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent require a “light-shutter matrix system.”
`
`As the name implies, a light shutter is a component that selectively admits and
`
`14
`
`
`
`blocks (or shuts out) light. A light-shutter generally operates by absorbing light
`
`that is not be transmitted. Flasck describes a typical shutter device at col. 4, lines
`
`32-43, stating (emphasis added):
`
`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 40 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.
`28. At the time of filing the ‘545 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood, as did the author of Flasck, that something “utilized as
`
`a shutter” is used “to absorb the light not to be transmitted.” An element that was
`
`not able to selectively shut out or admit light would not have been considered a
`
`light shutter by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time.
`
`29.
`
`Instead of using LCD light shutters, Flasck discloses using PDLC
`
`material as a light-scattering device. U.S. Patent No. 6,266,037 to Flasck (“Flasck
`
`II”), a parent of which is incorporated into Flasck (i.e., U.S. Patent No. 5,108,172)
`
`by reference, describes the wafer based active matrix in more detail, stating with
`
`regard to PDLC use:
`
`When utilizing the PDLC material 52, the refractive
`index of the LC material matches the index of the
`
`15
`
`
`
`polymer matrix when the pixel 44 is activated. When the
`indexes are matched, very little light is scattered and
`most of the light is reflected off the reflector 50 back out
`of the pixel 44 and hence the wafer based active matrix
`30. When a field is not present on the layer 52, the
`indexes do not match and most of the light is scattered.
`The light is still reflected or scattered out of the pixel 44
`and hence the wafer based active matrix 30, but the
`light is dispersed resulting in a black or off pixel when
`projected. Since the scattering is proportional to the field
`applied to the pixel 44, a gray scale can be obtained by
`utilizing a range of voltages.
`(Flasck II at col. 5, line 65 – col. 6, line 10; emphasis added).
`
`30.
`
`From this description, it is evident that PDLCs are not utilized as light
`
`shutters. Rather, the light that passes into the PDLC material passes right back out
`
`through scattering. Indeed, some or all of this light may come back out in the same
`
`direction as it would if it were not scattered, since the scattering associated with
`
`PDLC materials is random. The negligible amount of light that is shut out
`
`(absorbed) in this PDLC device is absorbed regardless of whether the device is
`
`operating in a scattering or non-scattering mode. Therefore, the small amount of
`
`light that is actually blocked by such a device is not selectively blocked or
`
`admitted. Since a light shutter is a component that selectively admits and blocks
`
`light, the only LCD device described in Flasck is not a light shutter, much less a
`
`“light shutter matrix system” as recited in Claim 1.
`
`31. Also, the above-cited section of Flasck identifies problems associated
`
`with a system including something “utilized as a shutter to absorb the light not to
`
`16
`
`
`
`be transmitted.” (Col. 4, lines 30-43). In particular, Flasck describes that, in a
`
`shutter device, “the polarizers and the LC material absorb light, which generates
`
`heat, which is deleterious to the LCD panel.” (Col. 4, lines 36-38). Flasck also
`
`states that shutter devices “exhibit low brightness because of the amount of light
`
`absorbed.” (Col. 4, lines 41-43). Based on this disclosure, a reader of Flasck
`
`would have sought to actively avoid using a “light-shutter matrix system” as was
`
`done in the preferred projection device described in Flasck.
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent require a “video controller adapted
`for controlling the light-shutter matrices”
`
`32. Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent require a “video controller adapted for
`
`controlling the light-shutter matrices.” As discussed herein, Flasck is not directed
`
`to a “video projector system” because systems as described by Flasck were not
`
`capable of producing video at the time that Flasck was filed. It follows that such
`
`systems would not include a “video controller.” As also discussed herein, the
`
`projection devices of Flasck do not include “light-shutter matrices.” It also follows
`
`that devices of Flasck would not include “a video controller adapted for
`
`controlling” such “light-shutter matrices.”
`
`VII. CHALLENGE #3: ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 5,264,951 to TAKANASHI AND U.S. PATENT NO.
`5,287,131 TO LEE
`
`33.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent No. 5,264,951 to Takanashi
`
`(“Takanashi”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,287,131 to Lee, which form the basis for
`
`17
`
`
`
`Xilinx’s Challenge #3. I have also reviewed the assertions made by Dr. Buckman
`
`with respect to Takanashi and Lee in his declaration, and I disagree with several of
`
`the assertions made therein. Based on my review, it is my opinion that the
`
`combination of Takanashi and Lee does not render Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent
`
`unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent require a “light-shutter matrix
`system”
`
`34. With respect to whether Takanashi discloses the claimed “light-shutter
`matrix system,” the Board, on page 18 of the decision, stated that “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.” Page
`
`18 of the Board decision goes on to state that Takanashi “discloses the 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.” However, even if the cited
`
`sections of Takanashi were to disclose a “two-dimensional color image” resulting
`
`from the system of Takanashi, this result would not amount to a teaching or
`
`suggestion of a “light-shutter matrix system.” For example, a continuous layer of
`
`optical material (e.g., a photographic slide, film frame, overhead projector sheet
`
`with writing, etc.) may also produce a two-dimensional image when a light is
`
`projected therethrough, without conforming to any “matrix,” much less a “light
`
`18
`
`
`
`shutter matrix system,” as required by Claim 1. It is well known that a traditional
`
`reel of film may be projected to produce a two-dimensional image. Standard film,
`
`though, is not a matrix of light shutter elements, but rather a continuous sheet of
`
`photosensitive material on which an image has been recorded. Indeed, traditional
`
`film must undergo a “matrixing” process in order to conform to the matrix layout
`of digital projection systems. See, e.g., col. 3, line 33 through col. 4, line 2 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,985,253 (filed Dec. 28, 2000) for an example description of such a
`
`matrixing process.
`
`35.
`
`Takanashi illustrates and describes that each device (ECBt, polarizers,
`
`and SLMt) is just such a non-matrix structure, formed of continuous layers of
`
`material, rather than any “rectangular arrangement of elements into rows and
`
`columns,” as the Board interpreted a matrix to mean. (Decision at 8). Specifically,
`
`Takanashi describes each set of ECBt, polarizers, and SLMt as a “wavelength
`
`selection filter.” (Col. 16, lines 28-34). 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
`
`19
`
`
`
`the condition of plane of polarization of read light RL
`can be changed, the electrode Et2 and the substrate BP2.
`(Sic).
`36. 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 element ECBt. In FIG. 7 the power supply Ee is
`connected to the transparent electrodes 7 and 8.
`37. Accordingly, Takanashi does not disclose a matrix system as
`
`recognized by the Board, much less a “light-shutter matrix system,” as required by
`Claim 1. See also, Takanashi at Figures 3, 8, and 9; col. 3, lines 16-27; and col. 8,
`
`lines 18-29, 45-53.
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-3 of the ‘545 patent require a “video controller adapted
`for controlling the light-shutter matrices”
`
`38. On page 27 of its petition, Xilinx states that “Takanashi teaches
`
`controlling the light-shutter matrix system (e.g., ECB, PL2, and SLM) to encode
`
`the three light beams (R, G, B) with color image information” but goes on to
`
`acknowledge that Takanashi “provides relatively few details regarding how this
`
`control is accomplished.” Page 27 of the petition goes on to rely on col. 3, lines
`
`27-33 of Lee as allegedly disclosing the claimed “video controller” in the form of a
`
`“light shutter controlling circuit 19.”
`
`20
`
`
`
`39.
`
`In the only description in Lee of “light shutter controlling circuit 19,”
`
`Lee discloses at col. 3, lines 26-33 (emphasis added):
`
`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 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.
`40. Accordingly, the “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 to cut off
`
`during the frequency of 2/3. The function of “light shutter controlling circuit 19”
`
`may be better understood by the description of shutter 90, shown in Fig. 3 of Lee,
`
`with which “light shutter controlling circuit 19” of Fig. 2 is designed to be used:
`
`FIG. 3 describes an example of the shutter 90 used as the red
`light filter and the light shutter corresponding to the color
`filter shown in FIG. 2.
`The shutter 90 used as the red light filter includes a negative
`plate provided with a light beam passing part 91 corresponding
`to the color filter through which only the red light can pass and
`a light beam cutting part 92 through which the light beam can
`not pass.
`The area ratio of the light beam passing part 91 to cutting part
`92 is 1:2. Namely, in case of choosing the light source number
`of n, the area ratio of the light beam passing part to cutting part
`is l:n - 1.
`Accordingly, when the negative plate shown in FIG. 3 is
`rotated one revolution, the red light beam passes during the
`frequency of 1/3 while the light beam cuts off during the
`frequency of 2/3. Instead of this manner, the shutter can also be
`
`21
`
`
`
`used as the light filter of the colors green and blue could be
`easily provided.
`(Sic.; col. 4, lines 27-44; emphasis added).
`
`41. Accordingly, Lee’s “light shutter controlling circuit,” as described in
`
`col. 3, lines 27-33, functions
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
