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
`
`
`
`Reply Report Of Dr. A. Bruce Buckman
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00029
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Reply Report Of Dr. A. Bruce Buckman
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00029
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 2
`
`A. “Light-Shutter Matrix System” ................................................................ 2
`
`B. “Video Controller Adapted For Controlling The Light-Shutter
` Matrices” .................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`IV. OPINIONS REGARDING CHALLENGE NO. 2: OBVIOUSNESS IN
`
`VIEW OF FLASCK ........................................................................................ 5
`
`
`C. “Equivalent Switching Matrices” ............................................................ 5
`
`A. Flasck Teaches A Video Projection System ............................................ 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Flasck Discloses A “Light-Shutter Matrix System” ................................ 9
`
`
`V. OPINIONS REGARDING CHALLENGE NO. 3: OBVIOUSNESS BY
`TAKANASHI AND LEE .............................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Takanashi Discloses A Light-Shutter Matrix System ........................... 12
`
`B. Lee Discloses A Video Controller ......................................................... 19
`
`C. Takanashi Discloses Equivalent Switching Matrices ............................ 19
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 20
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Xilinx in IPR2013-00029
`
`of US Patent No 5,632,545 (“the ’545 Patent”) to Kikinis.
`
`2.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration explaining why the ’545 patent is
`
`invalid. That declaration is marked as XLNX-1006, and sets forth my experience,
`
`qualifications, publications, materials considered and compensation.
`
`3.
`
`As described in my prior declaration, I have over forty years of
`
`experience in the field of optics, including thirty-five years of experience as a
`
`professor in the electrical engineering department of the University of Texas at
`
`Austin. During this time, my teaching and research have focused on a wide range of
`
`topics in field of optics.
`
`4.
`
`The list of materials I have considered is set forth in my opening report.
`
`In addition, I have reviewed the Board decisions, IV’s Oppositions, the Declarations
`
`of Mr. Smith-Gillespie, and all exhibits cited thereto in both the ’545 and ’334 IPRs.
`
`I have also reviewed the deposition of Mr. Smith-Gillespie (XLNX-1014 and
`
`XLNX-1015) as well as XLNX-1016, which contains excerpts from Spatial Light
`
`Modulator Technology (Uzi Efron ed., Marcel Dekker 1995). I have also reviewed
`
`the other exhibits cited in this report.
`
`-1-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`5.
`
`This declaration addresses a variety of issues that have arisen since I
`
`submitted my original declaration. This includes issues raised by (1) the Board’s
`
`Decision to institute review; (2) IV’s Opposition; and (3) the testimony of Mr.
`
`Smith-Gillespie. For the reasons set forth below and in my other declarations, it is
`
`my opinion that the ’545 patent is invalid.
`
`III.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`6.
`
`The Board’s Decision addresses several claim construction issues.
`
`Although the Board addressed these terms at IV’s request, it did not adopt IV’s
`
`proposed constructions. The following is my response to the constructions proposed
`
`by IV and the preliminary constructions adopted by the Board.
`
`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.
`7.
`I generally agree with the Board’s preliminary construction of
`
`IV Proposed Construction
`A two-dimensional array of
`elements that selectively admit and
`block light.
`
`“light-shutter matrix system.” In particular, I agree that a light shutter, in the context
`
`of the ’545 patent, is an element that is “capable of limiting the passage of light.”
`
`8.
`
`IV’s proposed construction is problematic for several reasons. First, in
`
`practice, light-shutter elements (e.g., a pixel in an LCD) do not simply “admit” or
`
`-2-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`“block” light; frequently, the elements allow just some of the light through to create
`
`a “grayscale” effect. Thus, “limiting” is a better description of what light shutters do
`
`than is “blocking.” Second, IV’s proposed “admit and block” construction attempts
`
`to backdoor in a significant limitation on what it means to “block” light.
`
`Specifically, IV’s expert, Mr. Smith Gillespie, opines that a light shutter must block
`
`light through absorption only, and not through scattering. [Ex. 2005, ¶ 16] I
`
`disagree. The ’545 patent does not contain a limitation on how the light shutters
`
`(e.g., LCD elements) limit, or for that matter, block, the passage of light. Some LCD
`
`elements (including some of the prior art references at issue here) block light by
`
`scattering it rather than absorbing it. Even the Board’s description of LCD
`
`technology describes liquid crystal elements as “scattering” light rather than merely
`
`absorbing it. Thus, to the extent that IV’s proposed construction is limited to light
`
`shutter matrix systems that block light by absorbing it, I disagree.
`
`9.
`
`The Board’s preliminary construction limits the phrase “matrix
`
`system” to a “rectangular arrangement.” I do not object to this proposed
`
`construction, although I note that other reasonable constructions may be broader. A
`
`broader interpretation of “matrix system” would not impact my analysis.
`
`-3-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“Video Controller Adapted For Controlling The Light-Shutter
`Matrices”
`
`Board Preliminary Construction
`A component that controls light-shutter
`matrices to facilitate the display of
`video
`
`IV Proposed Construction
`A component that controls light-shutter
`matrices to facilitate the display of video
`in accordance with a video signal.
`I agree with the Board’s proposed construction of “video controller
`
`10.
`
`adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices.” Specifically, I agree that the
`
`“video controller” of the ’545 patent is a device that controls the light shutter
`
`matrices to facilitate the display of video.
`
`11.
`
`IV’s proposed construction requires the video controller to act “in
`
`accordance with a video signal.” I disagree with this construction because it adds a
`
`limitation to the claims. As a practical matter, all LCD video projection systems in
`
`the mid-1990s used a video controller to control the operation of the LCD and to
`
`display video. But this “video controller” component was not responsible for
`
`processing the incoming video signal. Instead, the video signal went to a video
`
`decoder that converted the video signal into a different format. Nothing in the ’545
`
`patent requires these two functions to be performed in the same component. Mr.
`
`Smith-Gillespie and I agree that in 1996, the video-signal-decoding and the
`
`light-shutter-matrix controlling functions were not generally performed on the same
`
`chip. [Ex. 1015 at 210:23-212:6.] Thus, I disagree that the claims require the video
`
`controller to act “in accordance with a video signal.
`
`-4-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`“Equivalent Switching Matrices”
`
`Board Preliminary Construction
`Switching matrices that are
`corresponding or virtually identical in
`function or effect [From ’334 initial
`decision]
`12.
`
`IV Proposed Construction
`Switching matrices that are virtually
`identical in function and effect.
`
`I agree with the Board’s proposed construction (in the ’334 matter) of
`
`“equivalent switching matrices” as being “switching matrices that are corresponding
`
`or virtually identical in function or effect.”
`
`13.
`
`I note that both the Board’s construction and IV’s proposed
`
`construction depend on the Merriam Webster definition of the word “equivalent” as
`
`“corresponding or virtually identical esp. in effect or function.” [Ex. 1017] The
`
`Board’s proposed construction uses the entire definition, whereas IV’s construction
`
`omits the word “corresponding.” I agree with the Board. In my opinion, switching
`
`matrices may be equivalent to one another by having corresponding functions or
`
`effects (even if they are not strictly or virtually identical).
`
`IV.
`OPINIONS REGARDING CHALLENGE NO. 2:
`OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF FLASCK
`14. My opening report explained why the ’545 patent is invalid in view of
`
`the Flasck reference. IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie raise several arguments for why
`
`Flasck does not invalidate the claims of the ’545 patent. I disagree with those
`
`arguments for the reasons set forth below. Based on the analysis set forth herein and
`
`in my original report, it is my opinion that the claims of the ’545 patent are invalid.
`
`-5-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Flasck Teaches A Video Projection System
`15.
`
`IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie assert that Flasck does not teach a “video”
`
`projection system because it allegedly uses materials that were too slow for video
`
`speeds in 1996. I disagree.
`
`16.
`
`IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie first assert that because Flasck uses
`
`“polymer-dispersed liquid crystal” (“PDLC”) technology, it was incapable of
`
`operating at video speeds in 1996. IV and Mr. Smith give an example from U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,170,271 to Lackner, that allegedly teaches that PDLC technology had a
`
`1.5-3 second off-time, which is too slow for video speeds. [Ex. 2011 at 2:6-11] I
`
`disagree with this reading of Lackner. Lackner cites several different uses of PDLC
`
`technology. The 1.5-3 second PDLC off time that Lackner describes applies only to
`
`the “photoactivated . . . decay times” (i.e., the decay times when the liquid crystal is
`
`activated by a photoresponsive element that is exposed to light) of a particular
`
`PDLC system. Lackner also describes other uses of PDLC material having much
`
`faster response times. For example, the same material that had a 3-second
`
`photoactivated decay time has a 15 ms electrically activated decay time, which is
`
`more than fast enough for video speeds.1 [Id. at 2:11-14] Other examples from
`
`
`1 The lower limit of “video” speed is beyond the scope of this report because it
`relates to how humans perceive rapidly changing images. By way of reference,
`movies in 1996 operated at 24 frames per second (41.667ms per frame) and
`television operated at 30 frames per second (33ms per frame). 5 frames per second
`
`-6-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Lackner have 10ms on and 36ms off times [Id. at 2:26-39], an on time of 35ms and a
`
`decay time of 25ms, [Id. at 2:39-52], and 5ms on and 2ms off times [Id. at 2:53-65]
`
`These last two examples actually used PDLC technology to make functional
`
`projection displays, as shown below:
`
`In Kunigita et al., “A Full-Color Projection TV Using LC/Polymer
`Composite Light Valves,” . . . a low voltage PDLC-type film was used
`in an active matrix display with a poly-Si thin film transistor and a
`storage capacitor for each pixel. Three active matrix cells were used
`for red, blue and green channels of full color projection TV.
`. . .
`In Lauer et al., “A Frame-Sequential Color-TV Projection Display”, . . .
`a PDLC active matrix display was made with CdSe thin film
`transistors. The time response characteristics were fast enough for
`sequential three-color filtering effects at 50 Hz (6.67 ms for each
`color).”
`[Ex. 2011 at 2:39-65] This passage shows that, contrary to IV and Mr.
`
`Smith-Gillespie’s arguments, PDLC technology was fast enough in 1996 to
`
`create video projection displays.
`
`17.
`
`IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie also argue that electrophoretic materials
`
`(which are mentioned in Flasck as an alternative to PDLC) were too slow in 1996 to
`
`be used in video projectors. I disagree. In 1996, some electrophoretic materials
`
`
`is considered too slow for “video” speeds. Between 5 and 24 frames per second, the
`application may still be considered “video” (depending on the circumstances).
`
`-7-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`were fast enough to be used in video applications. . 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.” [Ex. 1018 at 6:12-14] Thus, electrophoretic technology was, in fact, another
`
`option for use in the Flasck system, even if some electrophoretic materials were too
`
`slow for video.
`
`18. Finally, IV and Mr. Smith Gillespie argue that the “TV or Computer
`
`Interface Electronics” described in Flasck does not indicate the use of a video
`
`controller. I disagree. The reference to a TV or computer interface implies to me
`
`that the projection system is designed to operate at video speeds. Nothing in Flasck
`
`suggests that it would use a TV or Computer interface for anything other than its
`
`standard use to display video images.
`
`19.
`
`IV identifies a patent to Bottoms [Ex. 2009] that allegedly receives still
`
`images from a telephone line and displays them on a television. IV argues that the
`
`Bottoms patent shows that the Flasck television interface does not necessarily
`
`include a video controller. I disagree. Every practical video projection system has a
`
`video controller. Even the Bottoms patent include a video card and a television
`
`(which presumably have their own control circuitry) In my opinion, a person having
`
`skill in the art would understand that a video projection system having a TV
`
`interface would have the controllers / chips necessary to display video.
`
`-8-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Flasck Discloses A “Light-Shutter Matrix System”
`20.
`
`IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie argue that Flasck does not disclose a
`
`light-shutter matrix system because the PDLC elements in Flasck scatter light
`
`instead of absorbing it. I disagree.
`
`21. Absorption and scattering are two different ways to block light. When
`
`light is absorbed, the photons are received into a substrate or other material and
`
`converted to heat energy. In contrast, when light is scattered, photons are redirected
`
`in random directions. Either way, the original photons are blocked from their
`
`original destination pathway.
`
`22. Mr. Smith-Gillespie asserts that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`1996 would consider a ‘light-shutter’ to be a component that selectively admits and
`
`blocks light, where the light is blocked through absorption.” [Ex. 2005 at ¶ 16] I
`
`disagree. But the ’545 patent does not require a light-shutter to limit or block the
`
`passage of light in a particular way. Indeed, the ’545 patent does not say anything
`
`regarding the distinction between absorption and scattering. The Board’s
`
`construction does not require light to be limited through absorption only. Even IV’s
`
`construction does not require light to be “blocked” through absorption only. And the
`
`Board’s initial decision notes that a liquid crystal display operates “by varying the
`
`light scattering in the liquid.” [Board Op. at 8 (quoting Newnes Dictionary of
`
`-9-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Electronics at 186 (Ex. 3002))] Thus, I disagree that a light shutter matrix must
`
`block or limit light through absorption.
`
`23.
`
`IV and Mr. Smith Gillespie point to another patent by Flasck, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,266,037 (Flasck II, Ex. 2012) as evidence that the Flasck system does
`
`not block light. I disagree—in fact, the Flasck II reference shows precisely how the
`
`reflective image plane modules in Flasck block light. Figure 4 of Flasck II is a
`
`diagram showing that each pixel in the “reflective image plane module” is made
`
`from several different layers. [Id., Fig. 4] These layers are described in Flasck II at
`
`5:48-6:10. An annotated version of Figure 4 (as informed by the specification) is
`
`shown below:
`
`Electrical contact
`layer 54
`
`Reflective layer 50
`
`Glass layer 56
`
`LCD material
`layer 52
`
`Capacitor 48
`
`
`
`[Ex. 2012, Fig. 4, 5:48-6:10] This diagram represents a part of a single pixel in the
`
`reflective image plane module. Light enters the pixel from the top, passing through
`
`the transparent glass and electrical contact layers. [Id.] If the pixel is activated by a
`
`charge in capacitor 48, then the light passes through the liquid crystal layer, reflects
`
`off the reflective layer, and passes back through the LCD, electrical contact, and
`
`-10-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`glass layers. [Id.] If the pixel is deactivated (i.e., if capacitor 48 does not have a
`
`charge), then the LCD layer scatters the light (i.e., it blocks the light from traveling
`
`along its original destination pathway by redirecting it into other directions) [Id.]
`
`The LCD layer can also be configured to block some light while permitting other
`
`light to reflect, thus creating a grayscale effect. Flasck II teaches that these pixels
`
`are arranged into a “wafer based active matrix 30. This arrangement of pixels is a
`
`light-shutter matrix under any definition because it (a) is capable of limiting light
`
`and (b) selectively admits and blocks light (it also happens to have a rectangular
`
`arrangement, as show in Flasck II, Figure 2). Thus, Flasck (as informed by Flasck II,
`
`which it incorporates by reference) teaches the light-shutter matrix of the ’545 patent
`
`under any of the proposed constructions.
`
`24.
`
`IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie argue that Flasck’s use of the word
`
`“shutter” to distinguish between his invention and prior art methods proves that he is
`
`not using a “light shutter matrix.” I disagree. Flasck does not use the term “light
`
`shutter matrix.” Instead, he uses the word shutter to describe prior art systems that
`
`absorb light and generate heat. The ’545 patent makes the same point at 1:43-45, but
`
`does not use the word “shutter.” It is my opinion that the ’545 patent and Flasck are
`
`using different words to describe the same concept (i.e., that standard color active
`
`matrix systems convert large amounts of light into heat, potentially damaging the
`
`liquid crystal elements). Moreover, both patents propose new systems to solve these
`
`-11-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`heat problems. Thus, in my opinion, the discussion of a “shutter” in Flasck does not
`
`have any bearing whatsoever on whether the teachings of Flasck disclose a
`
`“light-shutter matrix system” as that term is used in the ’545 patent.
`
`V.
`OPINIONS REGARDING CHALLENGE NO. 3:
`OBVIOUSNESS BY TAKANASHI AND LEE
`25. My opening report explained why the ’545 patent is invalid in view of
`
`the Takanashi and Lee references. IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie raise several
`
`arguments for why Takanashi and Lee do not invalidate the claims of the ’545
`
`patent. I disagree with those arguments for the reasons set forth below. Based on the
`
`analysis set forth herein and in my original report, it remains my opinion that the
`
`claims of the ’545 patent are invalid.
`
`A. Takanashi Discloses A Light-Shutter Matrix System
`26.
`
`IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie assert that the ’545 patent is non-obvious
`
`because Takanashi does not satisfy the “light-shutter matrix system” limitation. I
`
`disagree.
`
`27. Takanashi discloses several different ways to create an image using a
`
`liquid crystal device called a “spatial light modulator” (“SLM”). Takanashi does not
`
`describe the inner workings of its SLM in detail because it was a commonly-known
`
`device in in the early 1990s. In general, the Takanashi SLM operates using two
`
`different types of light—a “read light” and a “write light.” These lights typically
`
`-12-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`have different wavelengths. In operation, both the read light and the write light
`
`shine on the spatial light modulator. The write light encodes an image on the SLM,
`
`which then encode that same image on the read light. (In a video projector system,
`
`the read light is visible to humans, whereas the write light may not be in the visible
`
`spectrum). The encoding process works because the SLM is photosensitive to the
`
`write light, such that the liquid crystal elements change their state in response to the
`
`write light. This allows the system to encode an image on the SLM by controlling
`
`the write light. When the read light passes through or reflects off of the SLM, it
`
`takes on the image encoded by the write light. The SLM is typically not
`
`photosensitive to the read light wavelength (this is essential because otherwise the
`
`read light would inject noise into the system or ruin the image). The read light is
`
`then directed to project the displayed image to the viewer.
`
`28. A person having skill in the art in 1995 would consider the SLM in
`
`Takanashi to be an “optically addressed” SLM or “OASLM.” OASLMs are
`
`described in Spatial Light Modulator Technology (Uzi Efron ed., Marcel Dekker
`
`1995) at 310-331. [Ex. 1016] The “optical” addressing refers to the fact that the
`
`write light controls the image encoded on the SLM (as opposed to electrically
`
`addressed SLM (“EASLMS”), such as those described in the specification of the
`
`’545 patent, which use electrical circuits to encode the SLM). Both OASLMs and
`
`EASLMS have several similarities. Most notably, both types of SLMs create an
`
`-13-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`image by controlling a continuous liquid crystal layer. An OASLM controls the
`
`liquid crystal by shining the write light at a photosensitive material (i.e., a material
`
`that takes on an electric charge in response to light). By shining the write light at
`
`some areas and not others, an “image” of electric charge is created on the
`
`photosensitive material. The continuous liquid crystal layer changes states in
`
`response to this charge “image.” Similarly, in an EASLM, electric circuitry such as
`
`transistors and capacitors are used to generate an electric charge “image” in the
`
`continuous liquid crystal layer. In either instance, visible light passing through the
`
`continuous liquid crystal layer will receive the image encoded by the electric charge.
`
`29.
`
`In practical applications, EASLMs and OASLMs are also similar in
`
`that they create images out of rows and columns. In either type of projection system,
`
`images are created by organizing the continuous liquid crystal layer into a pixelated
`
`matrix of rows and columns. Each pixel in the liquid crystal matrix permits or limits
`
`the passage of light according to the electric field near that location. The electric
`
`field is also organized into rows and columns. In a typical EASLM, the liquid
`
`crystal rows and columns correspond to the locations where electric fields are
`
`created by the electrical elements fabricated on or in the glass. In OASLM systems,
`
`the liquid crystal rows and columns correspond to the locations where electric fields
`
`are created by the write light hitting the photosensitive elements.
`
`-14-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 16 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`30. One common example of a write light for an OASLM is a cathode ray
`
`tube (“CRT”). [Ex. 1016 at 331] A CRT in an OASLM system works similarly to a
`
`CRT in a standard television. The CRT shines a moving light beam at the OASLM.
`
`This light beam moves in a scanning pattern across the SLM (e.g., sweeping from
`
`left to right across one row, then sweeping across the next row, and so forth). This
`
`method is called “raster scanning.” During the scanning process, the CRT paints an
`
`image made up of rows and columns. This process is described in the Tannas
`
`reference cited by Mr. Smith-Gillespie in the ’334 IPR. [Ex. 1019, Lawrence E.
`
`Tannas, Flat-Panel Displays and CRTs (1985)] Tannas explains that CRT
`
`televisions use a method called “scan addressing” to display a video image. [Id. at
`
`24] To display an image according to a typical NTSC signal, the CRT must scan
`
`over 480 rows and 320 columns, “for a total of 153600 usable addressable pixels.”
`
`[Id.]
`
`31. A prior art video projection system using CRTs to drive OASLMs is
`
`illustrated below:
`
`-15-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 17 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[Ex. 1016 at 555] This system was built for the U.S. Navy. It was capable of
`
`displaying an image of 1800 rows by 1024 columns at 30 frames per second
`
`(interlaced). [Id. at 556] This system is similar to the Takanashi system in that it
`
`uses read light (from the arc lamp) split, using light filters, into red, green and blue
`
`colors before it reaches three light valves (OASLM’s) and write light (from the 3
`
`CRTs, each one dedicated to one of the colors) to create an image using OASLMs.
`
`At any instant of time, the write light emanating from each CRT is coming primarily
`
`from a single spot on that CRT surface, where the electron beam in that CRT is
`
`striking that surface. One of ordinary skill in the art could then trace the write light
`
`-16-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 18 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`rays leaving that point on the CRT surface through the optics directing that light onto
`
`the OASLM, determining the location of the write light spot on the OASLM. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that this spot of write light on the
`
`OASLM cannot be made infinitely small, but rather has a lower limit on its size
`
`dictated by the optics in the system. This lower limit on spot size dictates how close
`
`together different light spots can be placed, and hence dictates an upper limit on the
`
`number of rows and columns one can obtain using raster scanning techniques. The
`
`results obtained with this system and quoted above show that it was adequate for
`
`video projection.
`
`32.
`
`IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie make several arguments for why Takanashi
`
`does not disclose a “light-shutter matrix system.” First, they argue 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.’” [IV Opp. at 37] I disagree. As explained
`
`above, in Takanashi, the write light (which is usually from a CRT) organizes the
`
`liquid crystal elements in the Takanashi SLM into an XY matrix of pixels organized
`
`into rows and columns. This is a light shutter matrix—the “light shutter” is the
`
`liquid crystal, and the matrix is the XY organization of the liquid provided by the
`
`write light. IV argues that the Takanashi structure is not a matrix because it uses
`
`structures “formed of continuous layers of material, rather than any ‘rectangular
`
`arrangement of elements into rows and columns.’” [Id. at 38] I disagree. As
`
`-17-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 19 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`explained above, the write light organizes the liquid crystal layer into a
`
`two-dimensional array of rows and columns. Each pixel in this array is individually
`
`controlled by the write light to limit (or permit) the passage of light. This makes it a
`
`light-shutter matrix.2
`
`33. Mr. Smith-Gillespie also argues that creating the light shutter matrix
`
`using an OASLM does not result in a “physical” matrix. [Ex. 1014 at 81:20-83:2,
`
`84:19-85:19, Ex. 1015 at 180:13-181:11] I find this argument to be based on a
`
`misunderstanding of what “physical” means. The CRT creates a spot of light using a
`
`physical process and physical components, which alters the physical properties of
`
`the photoconductor and the liquid crystal at a particular spot (i.e., row and column
`
`intersection) on the OASLM, which finally alters the physical process of read light
`
`propagation through the OASLM. The matrix thus created in the OASLM liquid
`
`crystal from all the available rows and columns is every bit as physical as the liquid
`
`crystal matrix created by the arrangement of conducting lines, transistors, and
`
`capacitors in an EASLM. Matrices created both ways are physical; the methods for
`
`creating them require different structures to make an SLM, but both structures are
`
`physical.
`
`
`2 I note that IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie made additional arguments regarding the
`Takanashi reference in the ’334 proceeding. I reserve the right to provide a more
`detailed response to IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s arguments, as appropriate, in the
`’334 proceeding.
`
`-18-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 20 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`34.
`
`IV also argues that Takanashi does not have a “light shutter.” [IV Opp.
`
`at 39] I disagree. The liquid crystal element in Takanashi is a “light shutter”
`
`because it limits / blocks the passage of light. IV argues that Takanashi uses a
`
`“wavelength selection filter instead of a “light-shutter.” I disagree. This is simply a
`
`dispute over terminology—the “wavelength selection filter” of Takanashi also
`
`happens to be a “light shutter matrix” because it is capable of limiting (or, under IV’s
`
`proposed construction, “blocking”) the passage of light in response to the write light
`
`signal.
`
`B.
`
`Lee Discloses A Video Controller
`35. As explained in my opening report, Takanashi does not disclose a video
`
`controller. I agree with Mr. Smith-Gillespie, however, that any practical video
`
`projection system in the mid-1990s would have a video controller adapted for
`
`controlling the light shutter matrices. [Ex. 1014 at 59:17-60:8, Ex. 1015 at
`
`206:9-212:7)] Circuit 20 in Lee is one example of a video controller.
`
`C.
`
`Takanashi Discloses Equivalent Switching Matrices
`36.
`
`IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie also assert that Takanashi does not teach
`
`“equivalent switching matrices.” I disagree.
`
`37. As explained in my opening report, Takanashi teaches to use a separate
`
`SLM for each of the primary colors in the system—red, green, and blue. These
`
`separate SLMs are equivalent switching matrices because they are corresponding or
`
`-19-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 21 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`identical in function or result. They each encode a light image from a write light onto
`
`a read light beam (an identical function and result), where each read-light beam
`
`corresponds to one color.
`
`38.
`
`IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie argue that the red, green, and blue SLMs
`
`are not “equivalent” because they operate on different colors. I disagree. The ’545
`
`patent teaches that each of the light-shutter matrices operates on a different color.
`
`[Ex. 1001 at 3:15-18] Thus, the fact that light-shutter matrices operate on different
`
`colors does not make them non-equivalent.
`
`39.
`
`IV argues 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 which utilize a ‘color AM-LCD’ configuration.” I
`
`disagree, because Takanashi does not use a “color AM-LCD” configuration; instead,
`
`it uses a triple monochrome LCD structure. I note that Mr. Smith-Gillespie agrees
`
`that IV’s argument is “probably not accurate.”3 [Ex. 1015 (Smith Gillespie Tr. at
`
`221:2-222:15)]
`
`VI.
`CONCLUSION
`40. For the reasons stated herein, in my deposition testimony, and in my
`
`opening report, it is my opinion that the ’545 patent is invalid as obvious in view of
`
`Flasck and in view of Takanashi and Lee.
`
`3 This testimony refers specifically to Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s report in the ’334 matter, which copies portions of IV’s
`argument from the ’545 Opposition nearly verbatim.
`
`-20-
`
`XLNX-1013
`Page 22 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`41.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true
`
`and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonmen
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
