Filed on behalf of Intellectual Ventures
`By: George E. Quillin
`Paul S. Hunter
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`3000 K Street, N.W., Suite
`600 Washington, D.C. 20007
`Tel: (202) 672-5300 Fax:
`(202) 672-5399
`gquillin@foley.com
`
`Paper No.
`Date Filed: December 5, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`
` PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`4850-9998-3383.1
`
`
`By: George E. Quillin
`Paul S. Hunter
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`3000 K Street, N.W., Suite
`600 Washington, D.C. 20007
`Tel: (202) 672-5300 Fax:
`(202) 672-5399
`gquillin@foley.com
`
`Paper No.
`Date Filed: December 5, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-00029
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`
`
` PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`4850-9998-3383.1
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00029
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`In accordance with the Board’s scheduling order, Patent Owner Intellectual
`
`Ventures submits the following demonstrative exhibits for use at the hearing scheduled
`
`for Monday, December 9, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/George E. Quillin/
`George E. Quillin
`Registration No. 32,792
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4850-9998-3383.1
`
`
`
`1
`
`Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. 5,632,545
`
`IPR2013-00029
`
`Demonstratives
`Patent Owner
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`December 9, 2013
`
`
`
`2
`
`Challenges
`
`• Challenge #1: Claims 1-3 anticipated by
`Flasck under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`– [DENIED by Board, Paper 11.]
`
`• Challenge #2: Claims 1-3 unpatentable
`over Flasck under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`• Challenge #3: Claims 1-3 unpatentable
`over combination of Takanashi and Lee
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Challenge #2: Flasck
`
`• Claim 1 of the ‘545 patent recites:
`
`• Flasck, however, specifically,
`teaches away from the use of
`“light shutters”…
`
`
`
`4
`
`Challenge #2: Flasck
`
`• Flasck says “shutter” systems
`have “a number of problems”:
`
`(Col. 4, lines 25-43.)
`
`
`
`5
`
`Challenge #2: Flasck
`
` Claim 1 of the ‘545 patent also recites:
`
` The claimed “video controller” must:
`(1) control light-shutter matrices,
`(2) control the matrices to facilitate the display of video, and
`(3) control the matrices in accordance with a video signal.
`
`(See, ‘545 patent, col. 3, lines 13-18, and Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s declaration, Ex. 2005 at ¶ 17).
` The Board held:
`
`
`
`(Institution of Trial, Paper 11, page 14.)
` Patent Owner submits that Flasck does not
`teach a “video controller” as required by
`claim 1. (Patent Owner Response, p. 36)
`
`
`
`6
`
`Challenge #2: Flasck
`
` The Board found:
`
`(Institution of Trial, Paper 11, page 14.)
` However, the Board found the following
`persuasive:
`
`(Institution of Trial, Paper 11, page 15.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`Challenge #2: Flasck
`
` Thus, the Board found:
`Electronic interface 118 in Flasck is not a “video
`controller” as claimed.
`
` However, the use of a “video drive circuit”
`(note different term than the claim
`language) “in the location of electronic
`interface 118” would be a “predictable use
`of prior art elements.”
`(Paper 11, pp. 15-16.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`Challenge #2: Flasck
`
` Would it have been “predictable”?
`The only mention of “electronic interface 118” in
`Flasck:
`
`(col. 7, lines 32-34.)
`The only mention of “video” in Flasck:
`
`(col. 4, lines 6-16.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`Challenge #3: Takanashi + Lee
`
` Regarding the “video controller adapted
`for controlling the light-shutter matrices”
`in claim 1, the Board states:
`
`(Paper 11, pages 18-19.)
`
` The Board was “persuaded by the
`analysis set forth in the petition and
`accompanying declaration” regarding
`Takanashi and Lee.
`(Paper 11, page 19.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`Challenge #3: Takanashi + Lee
`
` Petitioner’s Dr. Buckman now admits “19”
`in Lee is not a “video controller”:
`
`(Deposition of Buckman, Oct. 8, 2013, Ex. 2016, page 7, lines 4-10.)
`
`
`
`Challenge #3: Takanashi + Lee
`
`11
`
`(Deposition of Buckman, Oct. 8, 2013, Ex. 2016, page 7, lines 11-22.)
`
`
`
`Chronology of Buckman’s
`Positions on Lee
`
`12
`
`
`
`Chronology of Buckman’s
`Positions on Lee
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`Challenge #3: Takanashi + Lee
`
`Takanashi + Lee do not show
`claimed “video controller”
`
`Lee, Fig. 3
`
`
`
`15
`
`Challenge #3: Takanashi + Lee
`Takanashi never mentions:
`“light shutter”
`
`“matrix,” “matrices,” or “matrix
`
`system”
`“switch,” “switching” or
`“switching matrix”
`“video” and “controller”
`
`
`
`
`
`Lee never mentions:
`“matrix,” “matrices,” or “matrix
`
`system”
`“switch,” “switching,” or
`“switching matrix”
`“video” and “controller”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Motion to Amend
`
` Proposed claim 4 requires:
`– a heat containment system, wherein the
`heat containment system comprises an
`enclosure that isolates components in the
`heat containment system from other
`components of the video projector system,
`and wherein the heat containment system
`includes:
` the individual light sources;
` heat filter glass … ; and
` a fan in communication with an outside
`environment, wherein the fan is adapted to
`force heat generated by the individual light
`sources and heat filtered by the heat filter
`glass into the outside environment;
`
`
`
`17
`
`Motion to Amend
` For the claimed “heat containment
`system,” Buckman combines Flasck,
`Rodriguez, Lee, and Miyashita: (pp. 18-28,
`Buckman Declaration re Proposed Substitute Claims, Ex. 1012)
` However, Lee states at 3:67 to 4:7:
`
`“a heat containment system, wherein the heat
`containment system comprises an enclosure that
`isolates components in the heat containment system
`from other components of the video projector system”
`
`
`
`18
`
`Motion to Amend
`
` Proposed claim 4 requires:
`
`– a second controller adapted to control the
`individual light sources and the fan; and
`
`– a control link adapted to connect the
`video controller to the second controller to
`provide individualized variable control of
`each of the individual light sources.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Motion to Amend
`
` For the claimed “second controller,”
`Buckman modifies Miyashita, Fig. 3, as
`shown below: (p. 29 of Buckman Declaration re Proposed
`Substitute Claims, Ex.1012):
`
`
`
`20
`
`Motion to Amend
`
` In a deposition for the ‘334 IPR, Dr.
`Buckman acknowledges that the Miyashita
`figure he submitted in this ‘545 IPR is
`“incorrect.”
`
`(Nov. 12, 2013, Deposition of Dr. Buckman in the
`‘334 IPR, Ex. 2020 in this IPR, p. 78, lines 14-17.)
`
`
`
`21
`
`Motion to Amend
`
` For the claimed “control link,” Buckman
`modifies Lee, Fig. 1, as shown below: (p. 54 of
`Buckman Declaration re Proposed Substitute Claims, Ex. 1012):
`
`“a control link adapted to connect the video controller
`to the second controller to provide individualized
`variable control of each of the individual light sources.”
`
`
`
`22
`
`Motion to Amend
`
` In a deposition for the ‘334 IPR, Dr.
`Buckman acknowledges the annotated Lee
`figure he submitted is “incorrect.”
`
`(Nov. 12, 2013, Deposition of Dr. Buckman, Ex.
`2020, p. 74, line 23 – p. 75, line 14.)
`
`
`
`23
`
`Summary
`
` Challenge #2: Flasck
`– Flasck teaches away from use of “shutters.”
`– No evidence of a “video controller” in Flasck
`other than non-patent, non-printed publication
`witness testimony.
`
` Challenge #3: Takanashi and Lee
`– Takanashi fails to show a “video controller.”
`– Petitioner admits that the basis argued in the
`IPR Petition for finding a “video controller” and
`“light shutter matrices” in Lee is incorrect.
`
` Motion to Amend (if needed)
`– Petitioner’s expert admits in a related
`proceeding that the evidence against the
`claim amendments in ‘545 IPR is incorrect.
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS is being served on counsel of record by filing this document
`
`through the Patent Review Processing System as well as delivering a copy via commercial
`
`overnight courier directed to the counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following address:
`
`David L. McCombs, Esq.
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/George E. Quillin/
`George E. Quillin
` Registration No. 32,792
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Dated: December 5, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4837-7543-5543.1
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
