Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`___________________
`
`
`XILINX, INC, Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 5,632,545
`Issue Date: May 27, 1997
`Title: ENHANCED VIDEO PROJECTION SYSTEM
`
`
`_____________________
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00029
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONER XILINX’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`___________________
`
`
`XILINX, INC, Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 5,632,545
`Issue Date: May 27, 1997
`Title: ENHANCED VIDEO PROJECTION SYSTEM
`
`
`_____________________
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00029
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`PETITIONER XILINX’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial PresentationTrial Presentation
`
`Of PetitionerOf Petitioner
`
`Xilinx, Inc.Xilinx, Inc.
`IPR2013-00029
`
`
`
`By:By:
`
`
`David McCombsDavid McCombs
`
`Thomas KingThomas King
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLPHaynes and Boone, LLP
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`OverviewOverview
`
`Technical Summary
`Flasck: Obviousness Under The Board’s
`Constructions
`– Video Speeds
`– Video Controller
`Flasck: Obviousness Under IV’s
`Constructions
`Obviousness In View Of Takanashi
`Rebuttal
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`‘545 Patent‘545 Patent
`
`‘545 Patent
`
`I3 I. staurces. ene cac
`fer each enter tr: he prnjected,
`adapted to prcI-vicle each a separate
`light beam;
`the
`—1ens system in the path er
`separate light beams. adapted fer
`fecusiag the beams:
`
`
`
`| . E's vidcn prcrjcete-r system
`cc-Inprising:
`
`.- utter mains system
`_
`eemprising a number cut" equivalent
`switching, matrices equal ten the
`number at beams and placed me
`each in. The beam paths;
`
`Ipl-l:
`H vln’m Ct‘mtm er
`eenlmlling the Ii gin-shutter
`matrices: and
`
`an eptleal ccrmbinatical system
`adapted fer emnbining the several
`beams inte a single cempbsite beam
`fer prc-jecticrn en a surface In
`rev-idle a videe: dis lav:
`
`wherein each beam passes [hm-ugh a
`calm filter be Eran: being pure-ecs- std
`by a light—switching matrix.
`
`a TILllTIbETfl
`
`individual malnr titers
`
`equal Ie the number nl‘ beams. in the
`callers tcn be prejeeied. and placed
`
`c-ne each in each beam path:
`
`l'nl'
`
`.5 ml: Inn-I...
`“1- ll!" III
`
`'Ji'frlI-II'I'I- (ill-Intr- ll-
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`FlasckFlasck
`
`l. A video projector system
`comprising:
`
`1g tsources, one cac
`for each color to be projected,
`adapted to provide each a separate
`light beam;
`
`a ens system in the pat oft c
`separate light beams, adapted for
`focusing the beams;
`
`a 1g t—s otter 111:5!th system
`comprising a number of equivalent
`switching matrices eclual to the
`number of beams and placed one
`each in the beam paths;
`
`a v1- co contro cr an *
`
`controlling the light—shutter
`matrices; and
`
`by a light—switching matrix.
`
`an optical combination system
`adapted for combining the several
`beams into a single composite beam
`for projection on a surface to
`provide a video display:
`
`a number of individual color filters
`
`equal to the number of beams, in the
`colors to be projected, and placed
`one. each in each bearn path;
`
`wherein each beam passes through a
`color filter before being processed
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IV argues that Flasck cannot operate atIV argues that Flasck cannot operate at
`
`video speeds because it uses PDLCvideo speeds because it uses PDLC
`
`“[T]he 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.”
`
`[Paper No. 17 at 24]
`(citing the Lackner patent, Ex. 2011)
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IV argues that the Lackner referenceIV argues that the Lackner reference
`
`proves that PDLC was too slow for videoproves that PDLC was too slow for video
`
`“The response-time results for each of
`four other papers, . . . are described in
`Lackner, with each either failing to
`achieve full illumination in the required
`timeframe or having a response time too
`slow for a video applications [sic].”
`[Paper No. 17at 24]
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Lackner teaches that PDLC operates atLackner teaches that PDLC operates at
`
`video speedsvideo speeds
`
`“The photoactivated rise and decay
`times . . . were 5-10 ms on-time and 1.5-
`3 seconds off-time.
`. . .
`The response of the PDLC-type film layer
`to a square voltage pulse was much
`faster, with rise and decay times of less
`than 1 ms and 15 ms.”
`
`[Ex. 2011 at 2:6-16]
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert admits that the PDLCIV’s expert admits that the PDLC
`
`response times run at video speedsresponse times run at video speeds
`
`“If that were achievable on a matrix-type
`device, then it would be possible to at
`least achieve acceptable response times.
`I don't believe these are matrix-type
`devices.”
`
`[Ex. 1014 at 148:14-17]
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Lackner describes PDLC-based videoLackner describes PDLC-based video
`
`projection systemsprojection systems
`
`“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 . . . .Three active
`matrix cells were used for red, blue and
`green channels of full color projection
`TV. ”
`
`[Ex. 2011 at 2:39-49]
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert was not aware of theIV’s expert was not aware of the
`
`Lackner PDLC video projection systemsLackner PDLC video projection systems
`
`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.”
`
`[Ex. 1014 at 150:24-151:9]
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IV’s argues that it would not be obviousIV’s argues that it would not be obvious
`
`to use a video controller with Flasckto use a video controller with Flasck
`
`“Rather, such incorporation [of a video
`drive circuit] would be very
`unpredictable and highly improbable
`given the fact that Flasck teaches away
`from the use of a “light-shutter matrix
`system,” fails to include such a “light-
`shutter matrix system” in its projection
`devices, and is directed to a projection
`device that is incapable of operating at
`video speeds.”
`
`[Paper No. 17 at 35-36]
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert admits that all videoIV’s expert admits that all video
`
`projection systems have video controllersprojection systems have video controllers
`
`Q. Is it your testimony that any real video
`projection system in 1996 would have had a
`video controller?
`A. Yes. That was my testimony yesterday, I
`think.
`Q. Yes. And is that still your testimony today?
`A. Yes.
`
`[Smith-Gillespie, Ex. 1015 at 206:8-13]
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IV argues that its expert did not make aIV argues that its expert did not make a
`
`broad admission on video controllersbroad admission on video controllers
`
`“Xilinx’s assertion that IV’s expert
`admitted that “any real video projection
`system in 1996” “would have a video
`controller” is selective and incomplete.
`. . .
`Immediately after that testimony, IV’s
`expert clarified that: not ‘every video
`projection system would include a,
`quote, video controller adapted for
`controller the light shutter matrices.’”
`[Paper No. 43 at 5 (emphasis in original)]
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert admitted that liquid crystalIV’s expert admitted that liquid crystal
`
`display projectors have video controllersdisplay projectors have video controllers
`
`“Q You don't know one way or the other
`whether a video controller for -- adapted for
`controlling light shutter matrices existed in
`1996?
`A. That's correct.
`. . .
`[D]o you think they would have existed in
`Q.
`1996?
`A. Uh, they're really separate -- normally
`they're commercial off-the-shelf devices that
`would take in video and then pass it along to
`some other device in the system that would
`drive the -- the liquid crystal displays.”
`[Ex. 1015 at 208:24-209:13]
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert admitted that active matrixIV’s expert admitted that active matrix
`
`LCD projectors have video controllersLCD projectors have video controllers
`
`“Q. Okay. So you're aware of video projection
`systems in 1996, right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And you're aware of video projection
`systems that used matrix, active matrix LCDs in
`1996, right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. And you're aware of -- and those
`video projection systems that used active
`matrix LCDs in 1996, those systems would have
`had some kind of module that controlled the
`light shutter matrices inside the system, right?
`A. That's correct.”
`
`[Ex. 1015 at 211:17-212:3]
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Construction Of “Light-Shutter MatrixConstruction Of “Light-Shutter Matrix
`
`System”System”
`
`Board 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.
`
`IV Construction
`A two-dimensional array of elements that
`selectively admit and block light
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`“Light-Shutter Matrix System” is“Light-Shutter Matrix System” is
`
`broader than “liquid crystal display”broader than “liquid crystal display”
`
`“there are many ways to implement light
`shutter devices besides LCDs.
`[Ex. 1001 at 4:2-3].
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IV argues that it’s construction is basedIV argues that it’s construction is based
`
`on the American Heritage Dictionaryon the American Heritage Dictionary
`
`“In addition to this being the plain and
`ordinary meaning of the terms “light,”
`“shutter,” and “matrix,” evidence to
`support this interpretation was provided
`in the patent owner preliminary
`response filed on January 23, 2013. In
`particular, The American Heritage
`College Dictionary (Ex. 2001, hereinafter
`“AH Dictionary”) was quoted in response
`to support patent owner’s proposed
`claim construction.”
`
`[Paper No. 17 at 8]
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IV’s construction is based on theIV’s construction is based on the
`
`Beeteson patentBeeteson patent
`
`IV Construction
`A two-dimensional array of elements that
`selectively admit and block light
`
`Beeteson Patent
`“Shutter 22 has a two-dimensional array of
`individually addressable shutter elements for
`alternately admitting and blocking passage of
`light.”
`
`Ex. 2002 at 11:43-55
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IV does not dispute the Board’s findingIV does not dispute the Board’s finding
`
`that Beeteson is irrelevantthat Beeteson is irrelevant
`
`“[W]e do not see how the disclosure of
`Beeteson is relevant to interpreting
`“light-shutter matrix system” in the
`context of the claims of the ‘545 patent.”
`[Paper No. 6 at 8]
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Flasck image plane modules do “block”Flasck image plane modules do “block”
`
`light under IV’s constructionlight under IV’s construction
`
`[Ex. 1013 paragraph 23]
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IV argues that Flasck only “reflects” orIV argues that Flasck only “reflects” or
`
`“scatters” light“scatters” light
`
`“It is thus apparent from Flasck II that, in
`all modes of operation, the light entering
`the image plane modules is either
`reflected or scattered, and that no light
`is blocked as in a shutter-based system.”
`[IV Opp. at 33]
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert argues that “blocking” lightIV’s expert argues that “blocking” light
`
`means “absorbing” lightmeans “absorbing” light
`
`“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.”
`
`[Ex. 2005 at 8]
`(IV’s expert does not cite any support for this sentence)
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`The Board decision evidence shows thatThe Board decision evidence shows that
`
`liquid crystal also scatters lightliquid crystal also scatters light
`
`“One way in which the applied voltage
`controls the light transmission of the
`device is by varying the light scattering
`in the liquid. . .”
`
`[Paper No. 6 (quoting Ex. 3002)]
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`IV argues that Flasck “teaches away”IV argues that Flasck “teaches away”
`
`from the ‘545 patentfrom the ‘545 patent
`
`“A reference may be said to teach away
`when a person of ordinary skill, upon
`reading the reference, would be
`discouraged from following the path set
`out in the reference, or would be led in a
`direction divergent from the path that
`was taken by the applicant. DePuy Spine,
`Inc. v. Medtronic SofamorDanek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009).”
`[Cited by IV in Paper No. 17 at 27]
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`IV omits the next sentence of DePuyIV omits the next sentence of DePuy
`
`“A reference does not teach away,
`however, if it merely expresses a general
`preference for an alternative invention
`but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or
`otherwise discourage’ investigation into
`the invention claimed.”
`DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1327.
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`Flasck does not “teach away”Flasck does not “teach away”
`
`“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, . .
`. only about fifteen per cent or less of
`the light directed to the LCD panel is
`transmitted therethrough for
`projection.”
`
`[Ex. 1002 at 4:30-44]
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘545 patent has a similar teachingThe ‘545 patent has a similar teaching
`
`“[I]n a conventional color AM-LCD only
`2-5% of light is transmitted when a cell is
`one, and near 0% when the LCD cell is
`off. This fact dictates that most light is
`converted into heat in the LCD.”
`[Ex. 1001 at 1:35-45]
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`“Video Controller Adapted For“Video Controller Adapted For
`
`Controlling The Light-Shutter Matrices”Controlling The Light-Shutter Matrices”
`
`Board Construction
`A component that controls light-shutter matrices
`to facilitate the display of video.
`
`IV Construction
`A component that controls light-shutter matrices
`to facilitate the display of video in accordance with
`a video signal.
`
`29
`
`
`
`
`IV’s construction reads in a limitationIV’s construction reads in a limitation
`
`from the specificationfrom the specification
`
`[Paper No. 17 at 14]
`
`30
`
`
`
`
`Flasck teaches a “TV or computerFlasck teaches a “TV or computer
`
`interface”interface”
`
`“The information encoding is provided
`by an electronic interface 118 coupled to
`the reflective image plane modules”
`
`[Ex. 1002 at 7:32-24, Fig. 9]
`
`31
`
`
`
`
`IV argues that “TV or ComputerIV argues that “TV or Computer
`
`Interface” does not imply a video signalInterface” does not imply a video signal
`
`“[T]he mere labeling of an interface as a
`‘TV or Computer Interface Electronics’
`does not imply that the interface can be
`used to carry a video signal. Rather, TV
`interface electronics are merely
`electronic interfaces that are compatible
`with a TV. The cables and other
`connections that were commonly called
`TV interfaces at the time of Flasck were
`not exclusively used for video.”
`[Paper No. 17 at 18]
`
`32
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert admits that Flasck disclosesIV’s expert admits that Flasck discloses
`
`a video signala video signal
`
`“Q . When a person of ordinary skill in
`the art sees the words TV or computer
`interface electronics, . . . wouldn't they
`think that it's probably carrying a video
`signal?
`A. . . . I guess I would have to lean
`towards saying if it were me, I would
`have an idea of what it is.”
`
`[Ex. 1014 at 155:1-10]
`
`33
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert admits that Flasck disclosesIV’s expert admits that Flasck discloses
`
`a video signala video signal
`
`Cont’d.
`“Q. And what would that idea be?
`A.
`It would be a connector and some
`electronics to accept a signal.
`Q. A video signal, right?
`A. A video signal.”
`
`[Ex. 1014 at 155:11-15]
`
`34
`
`
`
`
`Takanashi Discloses A Light-ShutterTakanashi Discloses A Light-Shutter
`
`Matrix SystemMatrix System
`
`[Ex. 1003, Fig. 16]
`
`35
`
`
`
`
`IV argues that Takanashi is not a matrixIV argues that Takanashi is not a matrix
`
`because it is “continuous”because it is “continuous”
`
`“Takanishi illustrates and describes that
`each device . . . is just such a non-matrix
`structure, formed of continuous layers of
`material, rather than any rectangular
`arrangement of elements into rows and
`columns.”
`
`[Paper No. 17 at 38]
`
`36
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert admits that even “activeIV’s expert admits that even “active
`
`matrix” LCD displays are “continuous”matrix” LCD displays are “continuous”
`
`“Q. Okay. And then the liquid crystal
`layer itself is just a continuous layer
`across the entire display, right?
`A. That's correct.”
`
`[Ex. 1014 at 20:2-5]
`
`37
`
`
`
`
`Video systems like Takanashi displayedVideo systems like Takanashi displayed
`
`pixelated images in rows and columnspixelated images in rows and columns
`
`[Ex. 1016 at 555-56]
`
`38
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert does not dispute that LeeIV’s expert does not dispute that Lee
`
`discloses a video controllerdiscloses a video controller
`
`Q. Did you see where Dr. Buckman
`corrected his opinion to identify element
`20 in Lee as a video controller?
`A. Okay. I don't recall that, but I read
`through it and knew that he was pointing
`to something else. So whether it was
`that or one of the other 21 or 22, I'm not
`sure.
`
`[Ex. 1014 at 99:2-20]
`
`39
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert does not dispute that LeeIV’s expert does not dispute that Lee
`
`discloses a video controllerdiscloses a video controller
`
`Cont’d:
`“Q. Okay. I see that your declaration
`doesn't have a response to Dr.
`Buckman's testimony in that point; is
`that right?
`A. No, I didn't respond to that.
`Q. All right. So that's just not an
`opinion that you've expressed in your
`declaration, if you have one on that
`point?
`A.
`I don't have one on that point, I
`guess.”
`
`[Ex. 1014 at 99:2-20]
`
`40
`
`
`
`
`Construction of “equivalentConstruction of “equivalent
`
`switching matrices”switching matrices”
`
`Board Construction in ‘334 IPR
`Switching matrices that are corresponding or
`virtually identical in function or effect.
`
`IV Construction
`Switching matrices that are virtually identical in
`function and effect.
`
`MW Dictionary Definition of “Equivalent”
`“corresponding or virtually identical esp[ecially] in
`effect or function.”
`
`[Cited in Paper No. 17 at 15]
`
`41
`
`
`
`
`In the ‘334 action, The Board modifiedIn the ‘334 action, The Board modified
`
`IV’s proposed constructionIV’s proposed construction
`
`“We disagree with Patent Owner’s
`proposed interpretation, however,
`because it removes the word
`corresponding from the dictionary
`definition.”
`
`[IPR2013-112 Paper No. 14 at 12]
`
`42
`
`
`
`
`In the ‘334 action, the Board found aIn the ‘334 action, the Board found a
`
`threshold showing of “equivalentthreshold showing of “equivalent
`
`switching matrices”switching matrices”
`
`“Petitioner has made a threshold
`showing with respect to the alleged
`switching matrices, which correspond to
`each other and, apart from allowing
`different colors of light (red, green, or
`blue) to pass through, appear to function
`in the same manner.”
`[IPR 2013-00112, Paper No. 14 at 21]
`
`43
`
`
`
`
`IV argues that the ‘545 specificallyIV argues that the ‘545 specifically
`
`distinguishes the Takanashi systemdistinguishes the Takanashi system
`
`“Such a system of filters is specifically
`described as different from equivalent
`monochrome LCD arrays in the
`specification of the 545 patent. (See
`Col. 2, lines 1-12)
`
`[Paper No. 17 at 47]
`
`44
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert admits that IV’s argument isIV’s expert admits that IV’s argument is
`
`incorrectincorrect
`
`“It's not as specifically described in the
`‘334 patent. It's different than the
`system described in the ‘334 patent.”
`[Ex. 1015 at 220:3-20]
`(testimony applied to both the ‘545 and ‘334 patents)
`
`45
`
`
`
`
`IV argues that the ‘545 patent identifiesIV argues that the ‘545 patent identifies
`
`advantages over the type of system usedadvantages over the type of system used
`
`by Takanashi:by Takanashi:
`
`“[T]he specification of the ’545 patent
`identifies several advantages that are
`realized in a system which uses
`equivalent switching matrices, such as a
`“triple monochrome LCD structure,” over
`systems such as Takanashi which utilize a
`“color AM-LCD” configuration.”
`[Paper No. 17 at 48]
`
`46
`
`
`
`
`IV’s expert admits that this argument isIV’s expert admits that this argument is
`
`also incorrectalso incorrect
`
`“Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that that
`last portion of the sentence where it says
`over systems such as those described in
`Takanashi isn't really accurate?
`A. Again, it's going back to the '334
`patent comparison between LCD types.
`And Takanashi is not a typical LCD. So
`yeah, that's probably not accurate.”
`[Ex. 1015 at 221:25-222:15]
`
`47
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 4 (substitute)Claim 4 (substitute)
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`The video projector system of claim 1 wherein the
`light-shutter matrices are monochrome LCD
`arrays, and wherein the video projector system
`further comprises:
`a heat containment system, wherein the heat
`containment system comprises an enclosure that
`isolates the 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 adapted to filter heat from the
`separate light beams as the separate light beams
`pass through the heat filter glass and exit the heat
`containment system; and
`
`Prior Art
`Reference
`Flasck
`
`Rodriguez/
`Edmonson
`
`Rodriguez/
`Edmonson
`& Flasck
`Rodriguez/
`Edmonson
`
`48
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 4 (substitute)Claim 4 (substitute)
`
`Cont’d
`
`Claim Limitation
`
`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;
`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.
`
`Prior Art
`Reference
`Rodriguez/
`Edmonson
`
`Lee &
`Miyashita
`Miyashita
`
`Lee
`
`49
`
`
`
`
`IV’s substitute claims do not respond toIV’s substitute claims do not respond to
`
`a ground of unpatentabilitya ground of unpatentability
`
`“Scope. A motion to amend may be
`denied where:
`(i) The amendment does not
`respond to a ground of
`unpatentability involved in the
`trial.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i)
`
`50
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of MiyashitaFigure 3 of Miyashita
`
`51
`
`
`
`
`IV argues that item 32 of Miyashita isIV argues that item 32 of Miyashita is
`
`not a “video controller”not a “video controller”
`
`“One of ordinary skill would not consider
`Miyashita’s ‘control unit 32’ to be a
`video controller.”
`
`[Paper No. 33 at 4]
`
`52
`
`
`
`
`Item 32 of Miyashita includes a videoItem 32 of Miyashita includes a video
`
`controllercontroller
`
`[Ex. 1011, Fig. 2]
`
`53
`
`
`
`
`Trial PresentationTrial Presentation
`
`Of PetitionerOf Petitioner
`
`Xilinx, Inc.Xilinx, Inc.
`IPR2013-00029
`
`
`
`By:By:
`
`
`David McCombsDavid McCombs
`
`Thomas KingThomas King
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLPHaynes and Boone, LLP
`
`54
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In re patent of Kikinis
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545
`
`Issued: May 27, 1997
`
`Title: ENHANCED VIDEO
`PROJECTION SYSTEM
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IPR2013-00029
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 42299.41
`
`Customer No.:
`
`Real Party in Interest: Xilinx, Inc.
`
`27683
`
`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 December 5 , 2013
`
`Manner of service FEDERAL EXPRESS
`
`Documents served Petitioner Xilinx’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument
`
`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
