Paper No.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00112
`Patent No. 5,779,334
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER XILINX’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER INTELLECTUAL
`VENTURES’ OBSERVATIONS ON TESTIMONY OF
`DR. BRUCE BUCKMAN
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00112
`Patent No. 5,779,334
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER XILINX’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER INTELLECTUAL
`VENTURES’ OBSERVATIONS ON TESTIMONY OF
`DR. BRUCE BUCKMAN
`
`
`
`Petitioner Xilinx’s Response to Observations on Testimony of Dr. Buckman
`
`Petitioner Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”) hereby responds to Patent Owner
`
`Intellectual Ventures’ (“IV”) observations on the testimony of Dr. Bruce Buckman
`
`as follows:
`
`Response To Observation No. 1: IV-2019 at 46:6-17
`
`Xilinx agrees with Dr. Buckman’s testimony that Lee elements 20 and 21are
`
`video controllers that control Lee element 11, and that Lee element 11 is a light-
`
`shutter matrix system. Xilinx also agrees that Dr. Buckman corrected his
`
`testimony regarding the Lee video controller and that Lee elements 20 and 21 do
`
`not control Lee elements 14R, 14G, and 14B. Given that Xilinx and Dr. Buckman
`
`freely admit that there was a mistake in Dr. Buckman’s original declaration that he
`
`corrected in his deposition, it is unclear why IV insists on bringing this issue to the
`
`Board’s attention.
`
`Response To Observation No. 2: IV-2019 at 39:19-24
`
`Xilinx agrees that Takanashi does not have a physical matrix of
`
`transmissivity (i.e., a light shutter matrix) when the write light is turned off. Xilinx
`
`notes that the observed line of questioning concerns Dr. Buckman’s testimony in
`
`XLNX-1012, ¶ 26, which explains that the Takanashi physical matrix of elements
`
`exists when the write light is turned on, which is why Takanashi helps to invalidate
`
`the challenged claims of the ’334 patent.
`
`–1–
`
`
`
`Petitioner Xilinx’s Response to Observations on Testimony of Dr. Buckman
`
`Response To Observation No. 3: IV-2019 at 36:11-19
`
`Xilinx does not believe that the characteristics of a “Kodachrome slide” are
`
`directly relevant to any issue of significance in this matter, particularly since this
`
`proceeding relates to video projectors. Nevertheless, responding to IV’s statement
`
`that the observed testimony is inconsistent with Dr. Buckman’s discussion on
`
`pages 10-11 of his report (XLNX-1012 ¶ 24), Xilinx notes that those pages discuss
`
`the physical limits of a CRT-based system. In the example given, the CRT-based
`
`system created a matrix of 1800 rows by 1024 columns at 30 frames per second.
`
`Id. As Dr. Buckman notes, there are physical limits on the pixel size that a CRT-
`
`based system can provide. The fact that non-matrix “Kodachrome slides are
`
`subject to similar types of physical limits is irrelevant because such slides are not
`
`typically organized into a matrix of rows and columns . Xilinx also notes that IV
`
`has not raised lack of inherency as one of its arguments in this matter.
`
`Response To Observation No. 4: IV-2019 at 79-22-25
`
`Observation No. 4 relates to an issue in the ’545 proceeding and is not
`
`relevant to any issue here. To the extent the Board considers this testimony, it
`
`should also consider IV-2019 pp. 84-93, where Dr. Buckman explains the observed
`
`testimony in additional detail.
`
`Response To Observation No. 5: IV-2019 at 15:7-25
`
`Dr. Buckman’s testimony correctly describes that a typical video controller,
`
`–2–
`
`
`
`Petitioner Xilinx’s Response to Observations on Testimony of Dr. Buckman
`
`in a typical system, functions (directly or indirectly) in accordance with a typical
`
`video signal. This does not mean that functioning in accordance with a video
`
`signal is a necessary claim requirement, however, particularly since the claim
`
`drafter did not include “video signal” in the claim language.
`
`Response To Observation No. 6: IV-2019 at 74:23-75:8
`
`Observation No. 6 also relates to an issue in the ’545 proceeding that is not
`
`relevant to any issue here. To the extent the Board considers this testimony, Xilinx
`
`notes that IV simply accusing Xilinx of using different terminology between the
`
`two matters. Xilinx does not believe this improper in any way, let alone some kind
`
`of “moving target” strategy that unfairly prejudices IV.
`
`Response To Observation No. 7: IV-2019 at 78:24-79:7
`
`Observation No. 7 addresses the same issue in the ’545 proceeding as
`
`Observation No. 4 and is not relevant here. To the extent the Board considers the
`
`testimony in this proceeding, the Board should also consider IV-2019 pp. 84-93, in
`
`which Dr. Buckman provides additional details regarding the cited testimony. The
`
`Board should also note that at this point in the deposition, Dr. Buckman did not
`
`realize that IV’s line of questioning was based on the incorrect assumption that it
`
`was a mistake for his ’545 and ’334 substitute claim declarations to have
`
`differences on this point. In reality, the ’545 and ’334 declarations are different
`
`because the proposed substitute claims use different slightly different claim
`
`–3–
`
`
`
`Petitioner Xilinx’s Response to Observations on Testimony of Dr. Buckman
`
`language. That Dr. Buckman forgot this fact at his deposition is not surprising,
`
`since his deposition was supposed to cover only the ’334 patent, not the ’334 and
`
`the ’545 patents. Thus, IV is not left to “guess” what Dr. Buckman’s opinion is,
`
`since it knows full well that the cited testimony came as a result of a misleading
`
`question.
`
`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: January 2, 2014
`
`–4–
`
`
`
`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 January 2, 2014
`
`Manner of service FEDERAL EXPRESS
`
`Documents served Petitioner Xilinx’s Response to Patent Owner Intellectual
`Ventures’ Observations on Testimony of Dr. Bruce Buckman
`
`Persons served GEORGE E. QUILLIN
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`3000 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 600
`WASHINGTON DC 20007-5109
`gquillin@foley.com
`Telephone: 202-672-5300
`
`/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
