Paper No.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`XILINX, INC, Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 5,632,545
`Issue Date: May 27, 1997
`Title: ENHANCED VIDEO PROJECTION SYSTEM
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00029
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`XILINX REPLY BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`XILINX, INC, Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 5,632,545
`Issue Date: May 27, 1997
`Title: ENHANCED VIDEO PROJECTION SYSTEM
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00029
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`XILINX REPLY BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Disputed Issues Of Fact ................................................................................... 2
`
`III. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`“light-shutter matrix system” ................................................................ 3
`
`B.
`
`“video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter
`matrices” ................................................................................................ 5
`
`C.
`
`“equivalent switching matrices”............................................................ 6
`
`D.
`
`“video projector system” ....................................................................... 7
`
`IV. Challenge No. 2: Flasck Renders Obvious All Claims. ................................. 7
`
`A.
`
`Flasck Teaches A “Video Projection System” ...................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`Flasck Teaches a “Light-Shutter Matrix System” ...............................10
`
`V.
`
`Challenge No. 3: Takanashi and Lee Render Obvious All Claims ..............12
`
`A.
`
`Takanashi Teaches A Light-Shutter Matrix System ...........................12
`
`B.
`
`Takanashi And Lee Teach A Video Controller...................................13
`
`C.
`
`Takanashi Teaches Equivalent Switching Matrices ............................14
`
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The evidence in this trial establishes that the claims of the ’545 patent are
`
`obvious. It is undisputed that the prior art teaches the core claim elements, namely,
`
`combining multiple light beams together (each light beam having a separate light
`
`sources, color filters and liquid crystal element) to form a composite image suitable
`
`for projection. Beyond these undisputed core elements, the prior art also teaches
`
`the remaining disputed limitations, as set forth below. IV’s arguments to the
`
`contrary are not persuasive for the reasons described below. Indeed, in many
`
`instances, IV’s own expert has conceded that its arguments are incorrect.
`
`The primary disputes in this trial relate to the term “light-shutter matrix
`
`system.” IV attempts to distinguish the prior art because they use allegedly
`
`different types of liquid crystal display devices than those described in the
`
`specification (for example, liquid crystal elements that block light through
`
`scattering rather than through absorption, or liquid crystal elements that create a
`
`liquid crystal matrix using optical addressing instead of electrical addressing).
`
`These specification-based distinctions find no support in the claim language, and
`
`thus do not salvage the validity of the ’545 patent.
`
`The other notable dispute is whether the Flasck reference discloses a “video”
`
`projection system. IV asserts that Flasck uses a type of liquid crystal material
`
`(called “PDLC”) that would have been too slow for video display systems in 1996.
`
`
`
`–1–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`But IV’s own evidence shows that PDLC projection televisions existed before
`
`1996, as even IV’s expert, Mr. Smith-Gillespie, now concedes:
`
`Q And the Kunigada reference is a discussion of a PDLC display
`technology, right?
`
`A Yes.
`
`Q And, in fact, it looks like they made a full color projection TV
`using PDLC technology, right?
`
`A That's what it says.
`
`Q And that's not something you were aware of when you were
`testifying about PDLC technology earlier today, right?
`
`A Apparently not.
`
`Q Okay. So this example shows that people before 1996 did, in
`fact, use PDLC to make a video display system, right?
`
`A At least in the lab.
`
`Q At least in the lab?
`
`A Yes.
`
`[Ex. 1014 (Smith-Gillespie Tr. at 150:21-151:11)]
`
`Finally, IV’s opposition raises many additional issues that are also addressed
`
`below. But none of IV’s arguments in favor of validity change the conclusion that
`
`the claims are obvious in light of the prior art.
`
`II. Disputed Issues Of Fact
`
`The following factual issues are disputed:
`
`1. Does Flasck disclose a video projection system?
`
`2. Does Flasck disclose a light-shutter matrix system? (Only disputed if the
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`Board adopts IV’s proposed construction.)
`
`3. Does Takanashi disclose a light-shutter matrix system?
`
`4. Does the combination of Takanashi and Lee disclose a video controller?
`
`5. If not, would the video controller element nevertheless have been
`
`obvious to a person having skill in the art in 1996?
`
`6. Does Takanashi disclose equivalent switching matrices?
`
`III. Claim Construction
`
`There are three disputed terms. Two of them, “light-shutter matrix system”
`
`and “video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices,” were
`
`construed in the Board’s Initial Decision. IV’s Opposition requests construction of
`
`an additional term, “equivalent switching matrices,” which the Board construed in
`
`its decision to institute the ’334 IPR. IV’s brief also discusses the preamble term
`
`“video projector system,” but does not actually propose a construction.
`
`As explained below, Xilinx agrees to the Board’s preliminary constructions
`
`and disagrees with IV’s proposed constructions.
`
`A.
`
`“light-shutter matrix system”
`
`Board Preliminary Construction
`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.
`Xilinx agrees with the Board that a “light-shutter matrix system” in the
`
`IV Proposed Construction
`A two-dimensional array of elements
`that selectively admit and block light.
`
`context of the ’545 patent contains elements that are “capable of limiting the
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`passage of light.”1 Dr. Buckman’s testimony also supports the Board’s
`
`construction. [Ex. 1013, ¶¶ 7-8]
`
`IV’s brief does not argue in favor of its construction except to note that it
`
`comes from the American Heritage Dictionary (AH Dictionary). [Opp. at 8] But
`
`IV’s construction actually comes almost verbatim from the Beetson patent, which
`
`states that that “[s]hutter 22 has a two-dimensional array . . . for alternatively
`
`admitting and blocking passage of light.”) [Ex. 2002 at 11:43-55] The Board
`
`already rejected IV’s Beetson argument once, stating that it “do[es] not see how
`
`the disclosure of Beetson is relevant to interpreting “light-shutter matrix system.”
`
`[Decision at 8] IV’s Opposition provides no reason to depart from this decision.
`
`IV also criticizes the Board’s construction for relying on the Merriam
`
`Webster (“MW”) definition of “shutter” instead of the American Heritage (“AH”)
`
`definition. [Opp. at 9-10] According to IV, both definitions refer to camera
`
`shutters, so it was “inconsistent” for the Board to rely on one while rejecting the
`
`other. IV’s argument misses the important distinction, however. The MW
`
`definition provides a general sense of shutter (the one the Board used), followed by
`
`the typical example of a shutter (camera shutter). The AH definition does not
`
`
`1 With respect to the “rectangular arrangement” aspect of the Board’s construction,
`Xilinx does not object to the construction because it does not impact the outcome
`of the trial. Xilinx notes, however, that other reasonable constructions exist that
`may be broader than the Board’s construction. [Ex. 1013 ¶ 9] Because the
`meaning of “matrix” does not change the outcome of this trial, Xilinx is not
`advocating for a broader construction at this time.
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`provide a general sense and instead defines “shutter” as part of a camera. The
`
`Board properly relied on the general definition from the MW dictionary rather than
`
`the camera-specific sense of “shutter” from the AH dictionary.
`
`IV next argues that the Board’s construction improperly read “shutter” out of
`
`the claims because “[w]hile a light-shutter may indeed limit the passage of light,
`
`not everything that limits the passage of light is a light-shutter.” [Opp. at 10] IV
`
`then gives the example of an “opaque” object as something that “limits” light
`
`without being a “shutter.” Id. But IV’s “opaque” example doesn’t prove
`
`anything, since no one is arguing that every opaque object is a “light-shutter”
`
`under the Board’s construction.
`
`IV also argues that the Board’s construction is improperly broad because
`
`“the Board appears to regard every LCD or layer of material containing liquid
`
`crystals as a light-shutter matrix.” [Opp. at 11-12] This criticism is also
`
`unfounded—liquid crystal does not become a “light shutter” simply because it is
`
`liquid crystal—it becomes a “light-shutter” when it is configured to limit the
`
`passage of visible light, for example, as part of a display system.
`
`B.
`
` “video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter
`matrices”
`
`IV Proposed Construction
`Board Preliminary Construction
`A component that controls light-shutter
`A component that controls light-
`matrices to facilitate the display of video
`shutter matrices to facilitate the
`in accordance with a video signal.
`display of video.
`Xilinx and Dr. Buckman agree that the claimed “video controller” is “a
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`component that controls light-shutter matrices to facilitate the display of video.”
`
`[Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 10-11] IV asserts that the claimed video controller must also act “in
`
`accordance with a video signal.” This construction seeks to improperly read in a
`
`limitation from the specification.
`
`IV’s construction relies on the ’545 specification at column 3, lines 13-18,
`
`which states “[a] video signal for the system is delivered from outside via link 125
`
`into a controller 122.” But this language from the specification does not—and, as
`
`a matter of patent law, cannot—limit the claims. Instead, IV’s reliance on this
`
`language only highlights that its construction is improper. See, e.g., 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.”).
`
`C.
`
`“equivalent switching matrices”
`
`Board Preliminary Construction
`Switching matrices that are
`corresponding or virtually identical in
`function or effect.
`IV’s Opposition requests construction of “equivalent switching matrices.”
`
`IV Proposed Construction
`Switching matrices that are virtually
`identical in function and effect.
`
`[Opp. at 15-16] The Board did not specifically address this term in its initial
`
`decision, but it did construe it in the’334 IPR. [IPR2013-00112, Initial Decision at
`
`12] Xilinx agrees with the Board’s construction in the ’334 IPR, as does Dr.
`
`Buckman. [Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 12-13]
`
`IV asserts that “equivalent switching matrices” are those that are “virtually
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`identical in function and effect.” IV relies on definition 3 of “equivalent” in the
`
`MW dictionary, which reads “corresponding or virtually identical esp. in effect or
`
`function. [Opp. at 15]2 As the Board noted in the ’334 Decision, however, IV’s
`
`construction omits the word “corresponding” from its proposed construction. IV’s
`
`thus construction violates the BRI principle, because it seeks to impose a narrow
`
`construction (virtually identical) when a broader reasonable construction
`
`(corresponding or virtually identical) is available.
`
`D.
`
`“video projector system”
`
`IV also discusses the phrase “video projector system” in its claim
`
`construction section. [Opp. at 7-8] The gist of IV’s argument is that a video
`
`projector system must be able to show moving images at sufficient speeds such
`
`that the change is undetectable to the human eye. [Opp. at 7] It’s unclear whether
`
`IV is proposing a specific construction or just flagging the issue for later. Either
`
`way, however, this term does not need construction because all of the prior art
`
`references—Flasck, Takanashi, and Lee—run at video speeds.
`
`IV. Challenge No. 2: Flasck Renders Obvious All Claims.
`
`The Board’s Decision found that, as a threshold matter, Xilinx’s Petition
`
`established that the ’545 patent is obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,208,172 to
`
`Flasck (“Flasck”) [XLNX-1002] IV’s Opposition makes three arguments for why
`
`
`2 IV did not submit the MW definition of “equivalent” into the record in the ’545
`matter. Xilinx has submitted this definition as Ex. 1017.
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`Flasck purportedly does not render obvious the ’545 patent. None of IV’s
`
`arguments have merit.
`
`A.
`
`Flasck Teaches A “Video Projection System”
`
`IV first argues that Flasck uses technology that is too slow for “video” and
`
`thus Flasck is not a “video projection system.” [Opp. at 16-25] IV specifically
`
`points to the suggestion to use polymer dispersed liquid crystal (“PDLC”)
`
`materials disclosed in U.S. Patent Nos. 4,435,407 and 4,688,900 as being too slow
`
`to be used in a video projection system in 1996.3 Id. [Opp. at 23-24]
`
`In arguing that PDLC materials were too slow for use in video system, IV
`
`points to a Lackner patent [Ex. 2011], which describes a PDLC material having a
`
`1.5-3 second switching time—much longer than the 33ms switching speed that
`
`Lackner associated with video speeds (i.e., 30 frames per second). [Opp. at 24]
`
`But, as Dr. Buckman explains, this discussion is limited to a specific PDLC that is
`
`photoactivated (i.e., activated with light). [Ex. 1013, ¶ 16] Lackner teaches that
`
`when this PDLC was activated with electricity, the response time was 1-15 ms,
`
`which is well under the cutoff for video speeds. [Id.] At his deposition, Mr.
`
`
`3 IV also argues that electrophoretic materials (an alternative to PDLC materials)
`were too slow flow video speeds in 1996. Dr. Buckman’s declaration explains that
`by 1996, a person having skill in the art would have known of electrophoretic
`materials that operated at video speeds. [Ex. 1013, ¶ 17] For example, U.S. Patent
`No. 5,402,145 describes an electrophoretic system using “a unique TFT
`arrangement can be achieved and the panel can be written at very fast rates
`approaching those of video.” [Id.; Ex. 1018 at 6:12-14]
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`Smith-Gillespie admitted that Lackner contains several examples of PDLC
`
`material that operated at video speeds before 1996. [Ex. 1014 at 146:21-152:4]
`
`Most notably, Lackner teaches that scientists had actually made a
`
`functioning projection television using PDLC technology before 1996. [Ex. 2011
`
`at 2:39-65; Ex. 1013 (Buckman) ¶ 16] As noted above, when confronted with this
`
`evidence at his deposition, IV’s expert acknowledged that Lackner describe a
`
`functional active matrix PDLC projection television. [Ex. 1014 at 150:21-151:11]
`
`Mr. Smith-Gillespie admitted that he was unaware of this working PDLC
`
`television before he was confronted with them at his deposition. [Id. at 151:2-5]
`
`Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s admissions dispose of IV’s argument that PDLC technology
`
`was too slow for use in a video projection system.
`
`Finally, IV claims that the references to “TV or Computer Interface
`
`Electronics” do not necessarily refer to a system that uses a video controller,
`
`receives video signals, or that operates at video speeds. IV bases this argument on
`
`an obscure system that receives signals from a telephone line and converts them to
`
`still images on a television. [Opp. at 18-19, citing Ex. 2009] Notably, Mr. Smith-
`
`Gillespie did not provide testimony in support of this argument. He did, however,
`
`admit that a person having skill in the art in 1996 would understand the reference
`
`to “TV or Computer Interface Electronics” in Flasck to refer to “a connector and
`
`some electronics to accept a signal,” which he later admitted was a “TV signal” or
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`a “video signal.” [Ex. 1014 at 153:23-155:20] Mr. Smith-Gillespie further agreed
`
`that “any real video projection system in 1996 would have had a video controller.”
`
`[Id. at 206:8-11] Dr. Buckman agrees that Flasck refers to a standard video
`
`interface and not to the boutique system described in IV’s Opposition. [Ex. 1013
`
`¶¶ 18-19]
`
`Based on this evidence, Flasck teaches a “video projector system” that, e.g.,
`
`is capable of running at video speeds.
`
`B.
`
`Flasck Teaches a “Light-Shutter Matrix System”
`
`IV does not dispute that, under the Board’s construction, Flasck teaches a
`
`“light-shutter matrix system.” IV does argue, however, that Flasck is missing this
`
`limitation under its proposed construction.
`
`IV argues that Flasck “teaches away” from systems that “admit” or “block”
`
`light when it notes that a Seiko prior art projector system uses an LCD panel
`
`(which includes two polarizers as well as a liquid crystal layer) as a “shutter,” thus
`
`converting most light into heat “which is deleterious to the LCD panel” and
`
`transmitting only 15 percent or less of the light for projection. [Opp. at 26, Ex.
`
`1002 at 4:25-43] This passage does not “teach away” from the ’545 patent—to the
`
`contrary, the ’545 patent actually makes the same point as Flasck regarding the
`
`undue heat absorption in other prior art LCD display systems. [Ex. 1001 at 1:42-
`
`45 (“[I]n a conventional color AM-LCD only 2-5% of light is transmitted when a
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`cell is on, and near 0% when the LCD cell is off. This fact dictates that most light
`
`is converted into heat in the LCD.”)] Thus, far from teaching away, the quoted
`
`language actually shows that Flasck and the ’545 patent were trying to solve the
`
`same problem—they simply describe that problem using different terminology.
`
`[Ex. 1013 (Buckman) ¶ 24]
`
`IV also argues that Flasck’s reflective image plane modules do not “admit”
`
`or “block” light under IV’s proposed construction, but instead “reflect” or “scatter”
`
`it. [Opp. at 30-33] IV distinguishes light scattering from absorption based on the
`
`testimony of Mr. Smith-Gillespie, who argues that a “‘light-shutter’ [is] a
`
`component that selectively admits and blocks light, where the light is blocked
`
`through absorption.” [Ex. 2005 at 8] Even if the Board adopts IV’s proposed
`
`construction, Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s testimony regarding absorption should not be
`
`credited. Nothing in the claims, the specification, or even IV’s proposed
`
`construction requires light to be “blocked” only through absorption or prohibits
`
`blocking light through scattering. Dr. Buckman explains how the other Flasck
`
`patents cited in Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s report actually disclose admitting and
`
`blocking light using reflection and scattering. [Ex. 1013, Buckman ¶¶ 22-23]
`
`Moreover, the Board’s Initial Decision states that a liquid crystal display operates
`
`“by varying the light scattering in the liquid.” [Board Op. at 8 (quoting Newnes
`
`Dictionary of Electronics at 186 (Ex. 3002))] Thus, even under IV’s proposed
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`construction, Flasck discloses a light-shutter matrix that selectively admits and
`
`blocks light.
`
`V. Challenge No. 3: Takanashi and Lee Render Obvious All Claims
`
`The Board’s initial decision also found that, as a threshold matter, the claims
`
`of the ’545 patent are obvious in view of Takanashi and Lee. IV raises several
`
`arguments in opposition to this Challenge, none of which have merit.
`
`A. Takanashi Teaches A Light-Shutter Matrix System
`
`IV first argues that “none of the elements of Takanashi can be reasonably
`
`construed as a ‘matrix system’ of any kind, much less a ‘light-shutter matrix
`
`system.’” [Opp. at 37] IV specifically argues that Takanashi cannot be a matrix
`
`system because it uses “continuous layers” of material rather than any “rectangular
`
`arrangement of elements into rows and columns.” [Id. at 38] But this is a
`
`distinction without a difference—all sides agree that the embodiment of a light-
`
`shutter matrix system described in the specification of the ’545 patent uses a
`
`continuous liquid crystal layer. [Ex. 1013 (Buckman) ¶ 28; Ex. 1015 (Smith-
`
`Gillespie) at 174:4-11 (“Q Is the liquid crystal layer in the '334 and the '545
`
`patents a continuous layer? A Yes, it is.”)]
`
`Dr. Buckman explains that both Takanashi and the systems described in the
`
`’545 patent organize these continuous liquid crystal layers into physical light-
`
`shutter matrices. [Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 28, 33)] Takanashi uses a read-light/write-light
`
`liquid crystal system that persons in the art call an “optically addressed spatial light
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`modulator” or “OASLM.” [Id., ¶¶ 27-28] In an OASLM system, an image is
`
`encoded in the liquid crystal layer using a “write light.” [Id.] This write light
`
`(typically from a cathode ray tube) is focused on a layer of photosensitive material,
`
`creating an electric charge pattern corresponding to the image to be displayed.
`
`[Id., ¶¶ 27-30] In a typical OASLM system, this electric charge pattern is
`
`organized into rows and columns. This row/column image charge pattern on the
`
`photosensitive material causes the liquid crystal layer to organize itself in a row
`
`and column arrangement of the desired image.4 [Id.] This is different than a
`
`camera film, which typically does not receive pixelated light, and thus does not
`
`take on a row/column matrix form. Dr. Buckman’s testimony describes a prior art
`
`OASLM video projection system that is very similar to Takanashi and which
`
`displayed images of 1800 rows by 1024 columns at 30 frames per second. [Ex.
`
`1013, ¶ 31] Thus, a person having skill in the art would understand that Takanashi
`
`discloses a standard OASLM system and would understand that such an OASLM
`
`system organizes the liquid crystal layer into a physical light-shutter matrix (i.e., a
`
`row/column array of liquid crystal elements). [Ex. 1013 (Buckman) ¶¶ 27-34]
`
`Takanashi And Lee Teach A Video Controller
`
`B.
`
`4 The other type of spatial light modulator is an “electrically addressed SLM” or
`“EASLM.” EASLMs create light shutter matrices in the liquid crystal layer using
`electrical components in or on the LCD glass. [Ex. 1013 (Buckman) ¶¶ 27-29]
`Even if they are arranged in a matrix formation, these components are not “light
`shutter matrices” because they are not used to limit or selectively block the passage
`of light; that function is performed by the liquid crystal components. [Id.]
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`IV also argues that Lee does not control a video controller adapted for
`
`controlling light-shutter matrices. [Opp. at 40-46] IV is correct that the Petition
`
`mistakenly points to the “light-shutter controlling circuit 19” as being the video
`
`controller. That was an error, as Dr. Buckman freely admitted at his deposition.
`
`[Ex. 2004 at 25:6-10] That mistake doesn’t mean that Lee does not disclose a
`
`“video controller” however. The actual video controller in Lee is the LCD driver
`
`20 and the image controlling circuit 21. [Lee at 3:46-58; Ex. 1013 (Buckman) ¶
`
`35] These circuits control the images formed by the LCD panel, and thus are a
`
`“video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices.” IV’s
`
`opposition does not address the LCD driver or the image controlling circuit, even
`
`though it is an obvious part of the Lee reference. And IV’s expert does not express
`
`an opinion on whether Dr. Buckman is correct that elements 20 and 21 in Lee
`
`disclose a video controller. [Ex. 1014 at 99:2-20] Mr. Smith-Gillespie does admit,
`
`however, that “any real video projection system in 1996 would have had a video
`
`controller.” [Ex. 1015 at 206:8-11] Thus, a person having skill in the art would
`
`understand that Takanashi would be used with a video controller, of which one
`
`example is disclosed in Lee.
`
`C. Takanashi Teaches Equivalent Switching Matrices
`
`Finally, IV argues that Takanashi does not disclose equivalent switching
`
`matrices because the Takanashi “light-shutter matrix system ‘passes only specific
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`monochrome light.’” [IV Opp. at 47 (quoting Ex. 1003 (Takanashi at 18:35-36)]
`
`This is not a proper distinction between Takanashi and the ’545 patent. As Dr.
`
`Buckman explains, both Takanashi and the ’545 patent teach that each light shutter
`
`matrix in the system must operate on a different color of light. [Ex. 1013, ¶¶ 37-
`
`38] Moreover, claim 1 specifically requires the system to use different color filters
`
`for each of the light shutter matrices, which Takanashi indisputably does.
`
`IV nevertheless argues that Takanashi uses a “system of filters [that] is
`
`specifically described as different from equivalent monochrome LCD arrays in the
`
`specification of the ’545 patent.” [Opp. at 47] But IV’s expert has conceded that
`
`this argument is incorrect. [Ex. 1015 at 219:23-220:20]5 IV further contends that
`
`“the specification of the ’545 patent identifies several advantages that are realized
`
`in a system which uses equivalent switching matrices . . . over systems such as
`
`Takanashi.” Once again, however, IV’s expert conceded that this argument is
`
`“probably not accurate.” [Ex. 1015 at 220:23-22:15] Thus, the Board should not
`
`credit IV’s argument that Takanashi does not use equivalent switching matrices.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the claims of the ’545 patent are
`
`obvious and should be cancelled.
`
`
`5 Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s testimony refers to paragraph 28 of his report in the ’334
`IPR, which is a nearly verbatim copy of IV’s arguments on pages 47-49 of the ’545
`Opposition. [See Ex. 1020 (¶ 28 of Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s ’334 declaration)] Thus,
`Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s admissions apply with equal force to both documents.
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,632,545
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Customer No. 27683
`Telephone: 214/651-5533
`Facsimile: 214/200-0853
`Attorney Docket No.: 42299.41
`
`
`Dated: September 12, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`–16–
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`XLNX-1001
`
`September 12, 2013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 to Kikinis
`
`XLNX-1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,108,172 to Flasck
`
`XLNX-1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,264,951 to Takanashi
`
`XLNX-1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,287,131 to Lee
`
`XLNX-1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,784,038 to Irwin
`
`XLNX-1006
`
`Declaration of A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D. Under 37 C.F.R. §
`1.68
`
`XLNX-1007
`
`Curriculum vitae of A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D.
`
`XLNX-1008
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`XLNX-1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,692,821 to Rodriguez, Jr. et al.
`
`XLNX-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,313,234 to Edmonson et al.
`
`XLNX-1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,136,397 to Miyashita
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`Declaration of A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D. under 37 C.F.R. §
`1.68 directed to the proposed substitute claims
`
`XLNX-1013
`
`Declaration of A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D. under 37 C.F.R. §
`1.68 directed to reply
`
`XLNX-1014
`
`Deposition Transcript Of Robert Smith-Gillespie Vol. 1
`(August 29, 2013)
`
`XLNX-1015
`
`Deposition Transcript Of Robert Smith-Gillespie Vol. 2
`
`XLNX-1016
`
`Excerpts from Spatial Light Modulator Technology (Uzi
`Efron ed., Marcel Dekker 1995)
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List (09/17/2012)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of US 5,632,545
`
`
`
`XLNX-1017
`
`Excerpts from the Merriam Webster Dictionary of
`“Equivalent”
`
`XLNX-1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,402,145
`
`XLNX-1019
`
`Lawrence E. Tannas, Flat-Panel Displays and CRTs (1985)
`
`XLNX-1020
`
`Excerpt From The Declaration Of Robert Smith-Gillespie In
`The ’334 IPR.
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 42299.41
`Customer No.:
`27683
`
`Real Party in Interest: Xilinx, Inc.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`In re patent of Kikinis
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`Issued: May 27, 1997
`
`Title: ENHANCED VIDEO
`PROJECTION SYSTEM
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.205, that
`
`service was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service September 12, 2013
`
`Manner of service FEDERAL EXPRESS
`
`Documents served Petitioner’s Reply In Support Of Petition
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List (09/12/2013)
`
`Exhibits XLNX -1013 through XLNX -1020
`
`Persons served GEORGE E. QUILLIN
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`3000 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 600
`WASHINGTON DC 20007-5109
`gquillin@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Registration No. 32,271
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
