UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`Case IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT SMITH-GILLESPIE
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`1
`
`
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`Case IPR2013-00112
`Patent 5,779,334
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT SMITH-GILLESPIE
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert in video projection systems by Foley
`
`& Lardner LLP, which represents Intellectual Ventures Management (of which
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC is an affiliate) in this matter.
`
`2.
`
`The documents that I have considered in developing my opinions set
`
`forth in this declaration include: Ex. 1001 (U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334 to Kikinis),
`
`Ex. 1002 (U.S. Patent No. 5,264,951 to Takanashi), Ex. 1003 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,287,131 to Lee), Ex. 1004 (U.S. Patent No. 5,777,796 to Burstyn), Ex. 1005
`
`(Declaration of Dr. Buckman), Ex. 1006 (CV of Dr. Buckman), Ex. 1007 (File
`
`history of U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334), Ex. 1008 (Supplemental Declaration of Dr.
`
`Buckman), Ex. 1009 (Dr. Buckman Book Excerpt), Ex. 2001 (Definitions from the
`
`American Heritage College Dictionary, 10th edition, 2001), Ex. 2002 (Decision
`
`from Related IPR2013-00029), Ex. 2003 (U.S. Patent No. 6,002,207 to Beeteson),
`
`Ex. 2004 (U.S. Patent No. 6,985,253 to Figueroa), Ex. 2005 (Paper by Stahl et al.),
`
`Ex. 2006 (Definition from The Compact Edition of the Oxford English
`
`Dictionary), Ex. 2007 (File History of U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 to Kikinis), Ex.
`
`2010 (Deposition Transcript of Dr. Buckman), Ex. 2011 (Deposition Transcript of
`
`Dr. Buckman from IPR2013-00029), Ex. 2012 (Excerpt from Flat-Panel Displays
`
`and CRTs by Tannas), Ex. 3001 (Definitions from the American Heritage College
`
`Dictionary, 10th edition, 2001), Ex. 3002 (Definition from the Newnes Dictionary
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`2
`
`
`
`of Electronics, Fourth Edition, 2002), the Xilinx Petition (Paper 2), the Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 12), the Board’s Decision Instituting IPR
`
`(paper 14), Patent Owner’s Objection to Evidence (Paper 17), U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,632,545 to Kikinis, U.S. Patent No. 5,784,038 to Irwin (from Related IPR2013-
`
`00029), Declaration of Dr. Buckman (from Related IPR2013-00029), the Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Response (from related IPR2013-00029), the Board Decision
`
`Instituting IPR (from related IPR2013-00029), Transcript from the Deposition of
`
`Dr. Buckman (from related IPR2013-00029), U.S. Patent No. 4,368,963 to Stolov
`
`(which appears on the face of U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334 to Kikinis), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,135,300 to Toide et al. (which appears on the face of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,779,334 to Kikinis), U.S. Patent No. 5,394,204 (which appears on the face of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334 to Kikinis), U.S. Patent No. 5,398,086 to Nakano
`
`(which appears on the face of U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334 to Kikinis), and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,481,320 to Konuma (which appears on the face of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,779,334 to Kikinis).
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated on a per hour basis for my time spent
`
`working on issues in this case. My compensation does not depend upon the
`
`outcome of this matter or the opinions I express.
`
`4.
`
`Additional information may become available which would further
`
`support or modify the conclusions that I have reached to date. Accordingly, I
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`3
`
`
`
`reserve the right to modify and/or enlarge this opinion or the bases thereof upon
`
`consideration of any further discovery, testimony, or other evidence, including any
`
`issues raised by any expert or witness of petitioner Xilinx, or based upon
`
`interpretations of any claim term by the Patent Office different than those proposed
`
`in this declaration.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`My curriculum vitae is Ex. 2009. My experience in the display field
`
`dates back to the late 1980’s when I worked as the lighting specialist in the Flight
`
`Deck Packaging group at Honeywell’s Commercial Air Transport Division.
`
`Initially my work focused on development of early technology liquid crystal
`
`display (LCD) components for flight control panels on commercial aircraft. I later
`
`participated in the technology development and productization of the active matrix
`
`LCD panels for the Boeing 777 program. In the early phases of this program we
`
`performed trade studies aimed at assessing the appropriate technology for
`
`replacing cathode ray tube (CRT) instruments on the flight deck. Technologies
`
`that I evaluated include rear projection micro-display LCD panels and thin-film
`
`transistor (TFT) LCDs. Following my work at Honeywell, I moved to Three-Five
`
`Systems where I worked again as a technical specialist for displays and lighting.
`
`While there, I interfaced with the liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) projection team
`
`(later to become Brillian Corp.) on light engine design (light sources, thermal
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`4
`
`
`
`control) and reflective LCOS optical evaluation (radiometric characterization).
`
`While at Rosen Products I again worked as a senior technical specialist in displays
`
`where I was primarily focused on video system integration for automotive and
`
`aviation LCD display platforms. My work there included specifying and
`
`evaluating video controllers, source equipment, and displays for automotive rear
`
`seat entertainment and aircraft cabin entertainment systems.
`
`6.
`
`I am a named inventor on U.S. Patent No. 7,660,040 and European
`
`Patent No. 1724621A1, which are directed to a reflective material for LCD display
`
`backlighting. I also have a pending patent application (U.S. 13/564,045) for a
`
`“Dual Mode LCD Backlight” which employs a novel dichroic filtering design to
`
`create a single rail, night vision compatible backlight.
`
`7.
`
`I have a bachelor’s degree in Physics from the State University of
`
`New York at Plattsburgh and a bachelor of science degree in mechanical
`
`engineering from Arizona State University. I have additionally studied optics at
`
`the graduate level at the University of Oregon and have studied liquid crystal
`
`display technology at Kent State University (professional short courses).
`
`III.
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT
`
`8.
`
`I have been retained to opine on the patentability of the claims in U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,779,334 (“the ‘334 patent”), and on the claims proposed to be added
`
`to the ‘334 patent.
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`5
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether the inventions recited in those
`
`claims of the ‘334 patent are patentable over the prior art.
`
`10.
`
`This declaration, including the exhibits hereto, sets forth my opinion
`
`on this topic.
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN ANALYSIS
`
`11.
`
`I have been advised that, in construing a claim term, one looks
`
`primarily to the “intrinsic” patent evidence, which includes the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`I have been advised by patent owner’s counsel that “extrinsic” evidence, which is
`
`evidence external to the patent and the prosecution history, may also be useful in
`
`interpreting patent claims. Extrinsic evidence can include dictionaries, treatises,
`
`textbooks, and the like.
`
`12.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims through the eyes of “one of ordinary skill in the art.” I
`
`was told by patent owner’s counsel to consider factors such as the educational level
`
`and years of experience of those working in the pertinent art; the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and publications of
`
`other persons or companies; and the sophistication of the technology. I understand
`
`that the person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific real individual, but rather
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`6
`
`
`
`a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by the factors discussed
`
`above.
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, based on my experience in research and product
`
`development of video projection systems, and my evaluation of the skills and
`
`background that graduates of engineering programs should possess, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of video projection systems is generally one who has a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, optical engineering, and/or physics
`
`along with several years of relevant applied research or industry work experience
`
`in the field of video projection systems.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`14.
`
`For the purposes of my opinion and declaration, I have reviewed the
`
`Board’s decision (Paper No. 14) to institute the present inter partes review. While
`
`I understand and respect the Board’s decision, I respectfully disagree with several
`
`of the assertions made by the Board with respect to the interpretation of Claims 1-6
`
`and 11-14 of the ‘334 patent for the reasons discussed below. Regardless of
`
`whether the Board adheres to the claim construction set forth in its decision or
`
`adopts the claim construction set forth herein, it is my opinion that Claims 1-6 and
`
`11-14 of the ‘334 patent are patentable in view of Challenge #2 included in
`
`Xilinx’s petition and the Board’s decision of June 27, 2013 (Paper No. 14).
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`7
`
`
`
`15. Claims 1-6 and 11-14 of the ‘334 patent require “a light-shutter matrix
`
`system.” In its decision of June 27, 2013, the Board interpreted the phrase “light-
`
`shutter matrix system” to mean “a set of matrices, such as monochrome LCD
`
`arrays or cells of a monochrome LCD array, where each matrix comprises a
`
`rectangular arrangement of elements capable of limiting the passage of light.”
`
`(Paper 14 at 10). The Board’s interpretation of “light-shutter matrix system”
`
`properly specifies that the “matrix system” includes “a set of matrices,” or a
`
`plurality of matrices as opposed to a single matrix. Using Fig. 1 of the ‘334 patent,
`
`as one example, the “LCD unit 120” can represent the claimed “matrix system”
`
`and each of “LCD arrays 117, 118, and 119” can represent the individual matrices
`
`that form the claimed “matrix system.” The Board’s definition references “cells of
`
`a monochrome LCD array.” When asked during his deposition “what is an LCD
`
`cell,” Dr. Buckman responded:
`
`An LCD cell is -- I interpret that as being a -- another way to
`describe pixels. It's a -- it's a part of the spatial light modulator
`that corresponds to a particular position on a two-dimensional
`surface that corresponds to, in the case of a color projector,
`the transmissivity at a particular color.
`
`(Ex. 2011, p. 12, line 24 – p. 13, line 6). I disagree with this definition. In fact,
`
`Dr. Buckman, in having to “interpret” what an LCD cell is, provides an opinion
`
`and not what is universally understood in the industry by the term LCD cell. One
`8
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that an LCD cell refers to a
`
`physical structure comprising a sealed assembly containing liquid crystal fluid
`
`between a pair of glass plates spaced apart from each other by a few microns (i.e.,
`
`cell gap), the glass plates containing the transparent electrodes which form the
`
`pixel array (or matrix), and color filters if present. In an active-matrix LCD array,
`
`the cell would further include thin-film transistors used to hold the applied signal
`
`for each pixel. As an example of the universally understood meaning of LCD cell,
`
`see U.S. Patent No. 3,871,746 (issued March 18, 1975) (Ex. 2013), which defines a
`
`liquid crystal cell in the abstract and throughout the specification. Specifically, the
`
`abstract of U.S. Patent No. 3,871,746 discloses “[a] liquid crystal cell which is
`
`formed from a pair of plates, at least one of which is transparent, and wherein the
`
`space between said plates is filled with a liquid crystal material and wherein said
`
`plates are sealed with a sealant made of tetrafluoroethylene-ethylene-copolymer or
`
`a chlorotrifluoroethylene-ethylene-copolymer.” See also U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,647,157 (Ex. 2014) at, for example, col. 1, lines 11-26. This usage of the term
`
`LCD cell is consistent with usage of the term “cell” in the ‘334 patent.
`
`16. With respect to the interpretation of each individual matrix that
`
`comprises the “set of matrices,” the Board decision states that “each matrix
`
`comprises a rectangular arrangement of elements capable of limiting the passage of
`
`light.” (Paper 14 at 10). In the context of the claims and specification of the ‘334
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`9
`
`
`
`patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a “matrix” that
`
`“comprises a rectangular arrangement of elements capable of limiting the passage
`
`of light” to mean something quite specific. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`appreciate that the claimed system of the ‘334 patent is an electrically addressed
`
`system. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that, in an
`
`electrically addressed system, “a rectangular arrangement of elements capable of
`
`limiting the passage of light” (paper 14 at 10) refers to a matrix in which each of
`
`the elements that form the matrix corresponds to an individual pixel of a display.
`
`Figure 1.10 from page 19 of the book Flat-Panel Displays and CRTs, by Tannas
`
`(Van Nostrand Reinhold 1985) (Ex. 2012), which is reproduced below, illustrates
`
`an example portion of a pixel display having individually addressable pixels:
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`10
`
`
`
`With respect to Figure 1-10, Tannas states on page 21 that:
`
`The array is normally organized in rows and columns.
`The address of a pixel is defined by its row number and
`column number, normally counting from the upper left-
`hand corner as shown in Fig. 1-10. The electronic drive
`controls the state of the pixels according to their
`address.
`
`If the example display from Fig. 1-10 of Tannas were used in the claimed system
`
`of the ‘334 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that each
`
`matrix of the claimed “matrix system” would include a rectangular arrangement of
`
`12 elements corresponding to the 12 depicted pixels.
`
`17. As another example, the well-known video graphics array (VGA)
`
`displays have a resolution of 640 X 480, for a total of 307,200 pixels. If the
`
`claimed system of the ‘334 patent were implemented with VGA resolution, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand this to mean that each matrix in the “set
`
`of matrices” would form a “rectangular arrangement” of 307,200 elements, where
`
`each of the 307,200 elements is individually electrically addressable and
`
`corresponds to a single pixel. In other words, the “red” matrix would have 307,200
`
`elements corresponding to the 307,200 pixels such that each of the pixels can
`
`transmit a red color corresponding to the applied pixel signal. Similarly, the
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`11
`
`
`
`“green” matrix would have 307,200 elements corresponding to the 307,200 pixels
`
`such that each of the pixels can transmit a green color corresponding to the applied
`
`pixel signal, and the “blue” matrix would have 307,200 elements corresponding to
`
`the 307,200 pixels such that each of the pixels can transmit a blue color
`
`corresponding to the applied pixel signal.
`
`18. Claims 1-6 and 11-14 of the ‘334 patent require “a video controller
`
`adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrix system.” In its decision, the Board
`
`stated that:
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`phrase based on the Specification, “video controller
`adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrix system”
`means a component that controls the light-shutter
`matrix system to facilitate the display of video.
`
`Paper 14 at 11. Accordingly, the Board recognized that a “video controller adapted
`
`for controlling the light shutter matrix system,” must “control[] the light-shutter
`
`matrix system ….” However, the language “to facilitate the display of video”
`
`makes the Board’s definition overly broad. Given the Board’s definition, one
`
`could argue that an on/off switch of a video projector system is a component that,
`
`by providing power to the light-shutter matrix system, controls the light-shutter
`
`matrix system to “facilitate[s] the display of video.” Even though it arguably
`
`satisfies the Board’s definition, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider
`12
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`
`
`such an on/off switch to be a video controller. Rather, in the context of the ‘334
`
`patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an LCD video
`
`controller is a complex device that interprets and electronically formats a video
`
`signal to control the light-shutter matrix system such that a desired intensity and
`
`color of light is achieved for each of the pixels of the video display. This view is
`
`supported by the specification of the ‘334 patent, which states (emphasis added):
`
`The LCD array is switched by a controller driven in
`accordance with a video signal, and the emerging
`beams are recombined and focused on a surface to
`produce a dynamic color image.
`
`Abstract. See also col. 2, lines 24-25 (“The LCD array is switched by a controller
`
`following a video signal ….”). The ‘334 patent further goes on to state:
`
`A video signal for the system is delivered from outside
`via link 125 into a controller 122. A great variety of
`different signal formats are known and can be
`implemented, both analog and digital, or any
`combination of several signals can be used. Controller
`122 controls the three monochrome matrices 117, 118,
`and 119.
`
`(Col. 3, lines 36-40; emphasis added). Accordingly, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the “video controller” element, in light of the specification, is a
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`13
`
`
`
`component that controls light-shutter matrices to facilitate the display of video in
`
`accordance with a video signal.
`
`19. Claims 1-6 and 11-14 of the ‘334 patent require “equivalent switching
`
`matrices.”
`
`In the context of the ‘334 patent, “equivalent switching matrices”
`
`should be defined as switching matrices that are virtually identical in effect or
`
`function. The specification of the ‘334 patent supports this interpretation. For
`
`example, at column 2, lines 7-15, the ‘334 patent states:
`
`embodiments, assuming projectors of
`In various
`relatively equal cost, by using a triple monochrome
`LCD structure instead of a color AM-LCD, and pre-
`coloring of light, more light output can be achieved
`than in conventional systems. Systems according to
`embodiments of the invention are also less expensive
`than conventional color LCD systems, because the
`monochrome LCDs used are less expensive than color
`LCDs, and because alignment of components is less
`critical than in conventional LCD projection systems.
`
`Accordingly, the ‘334 patent distinguishes between equivalent monochrome LCDs
`
`versus conventional color LCD systems in which a unique LCD is used for each
`
`color. Therefore, the “equivalent switching matrices” are not the same as
`
`conventional color-specific switching matrices.
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`14
`
`
`
`VI. CHALLENGE #2: ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 5,264,951 to TAKANASHI AND U.S. PATENT NO.
`5,287,131 TO LEE
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent No. 5,264,951 to Takanashi
`
`(“Takanashi”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,287,131 to Lee, which form the basis for
`
`Xilinx’s Challenge #2. I have also reviewed the assertions made by Dr. Buckman
`
`with respect to Takanashi and Lee in his declaration, and I disagree with several of
`
`the assertions made therein. Based on my review, it is my opinion that the
`
`combination of Takanashi and Lee does not render Claims 1-6 and 11-14 of the
`
`‘334 patent unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1-6 and 11-14 of the ‘334 patent require a “light-shutter
`matrix system”
`
`21. On pages 23-24 of its petition, Xilinx provides a claim chart alleging
`
`that Takanashi, at col. 16, lines 6-19 and 28-33, discloses the “light-shutter matrix
`
`system” required by Claims 1 and 11 of the ‘334 patent. In its decision at page 21,
`
`the Board stated that “[p]etitioner has made a threshold showing with respect to the
`
`‘matrix’ aspect of the ‘light-shutter matrix system’ in claims 1 and 11.” However,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the system of Takanashi to
`
`include a “matrix” or a “matrix system.” On page 14 of its decision, the Board
`
`interpreted “light-shutter matrix system” as “a set of matrices, such as
`
`monochrome LCD arrays or cells of a monochrome LCD array, where each matrix
`
`comprises a rectangular arrangement of elements capable of limiting the passage of
`15
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`
`
`light.” (Paper 14 at 10). As discussed, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that, in an electrically addressed system such as the system depicted in
`
`the Tannas book and the system described in the ‘334 patent, “a rectangular
`
`arrangement of elements capable of limiting the passage of light” (paper 14 at 10)
`
`refers to a matrix in which each of the elements that form the matrix corresponds to
`
`an individually addressable pixel of a display. Takanashi fails to disclose such a
`
`configuration.
`
`22.
`
`In its discussion of whether Takanashi discloses a “matrix,” the Board
`
`stated that Takanashi “discloses a two dimensional ‘color image of the object of
`
`display’ projected onto a screen as a result of the operation of the ECB, PL2, and
`
`SLM elements cited by Dr. Buckman.” (Paper 14 at 20). However, the mere
`
`generation of a “two-dimensional color image” in no way implies that a matrix is
`
`involved. For example, a continuous layer of optical material (e.g., a photographic
`
`slide, film frame, overhead projector sheet with writing, etc.) may also produce a
`
`two-dimensional image when a light is projected therethrough, without conforming
`
`to any “matrix,” much less a “light shutter matrix system,” as required by Claims 1
`
`and 11. For instance, it is well known that a traditional reel of film may be
`
`projected to produce a two-dimensional image. Standard film, though, is not a
`
`matrix of light shutter elements, but rather a continuous sheet of photosensitive
`
`material on which an image has been recorded. Indeed, traditional film must
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`16
`
`
`
`undergo a “matrixing” process in order to conform to the matrix layout of digital
`
`projection systems. See, e.g., col. 3, line 33 through col. 4, line 2 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,985,253 to Figueroa (Ex. 2004, filed Dec. 28, 2000) for an example
`
`description of such a matrixing process. Takanashi illustrates and describes that
`
`each device (ECBt, polarizers, and SLMt) is just such a non-matrix structure,
`
`formed of continuous layers of material, rather than any rectangular arrangement
`
`of elements capable of limiting the passage of light. With regard to the SLMt
`
`elements, Takanashi states at col. 2, lines 33-44 (emphasis added):
`
`At first, when the modulator element SLMt illustrated
`in FIG. 3 is formed as an element which has the
`configuration of said (1), it is formed on the substrate
`BP1 by laminating the electrode Et1, the component
`[photo-conductive layer] PCL1 which is sensitive at
`least to the light in the wavelength range of write light
`WL and is not sensitive to the light in the wavelength
`range of read light RL, the component [photo-
`modulation layer] PML in which the condition of
`birefringence changes according to the intensity
`distribution of electric field and the condition of plane
`of polarization of read light RL can be changed, the
`electrode Et2 and the substrate BP2. [Sic].
`
`With regard to the ECBt elements, Takanashi states at col. 8, lines 45-53 (emphasis
`
`added):
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`17
`
`
`
`Further, the transmission double refraction field control
`liquid crystal element ECBt is described. The
`configuration illustrated in FIG. 7 for example, which is
`formed by laminating the transparent electrode 7, the
`liquid crystal layer LCb operating in the birefringent
`mode, the transparent electrode 8 and the substrate 9
`on the substrate 6 can be used as this liquid crystal
`element ECBt. In FIG. 7 the power supply Ee is
`connected to the transparent electrodes 7 and 8.
`
`Accordingly, the elements of Takanashi that are relied upon by petitioner as
`
`disclosing the claimed “light-shutter matrix system” are actually continuous sheets
`
`of material, one of which is a photoconductive layer that, upon exposure to the
`
`write light, facilitates image formation through the spatial light modulator. This is
`
`similar to image formation with traditional film (i.e., a photosenstivie material that
`
`generates an image upon exposure to light). These continuous sheets do not
`
`include any rectangular arrangement of elements capable of limiting the passage of
`
`light and therefore do not constitute a “matrix system.” See also Takanashi at
`
`Figures 3, 8, and 9; col. 3, lines 16-27; and col. 8, lines 18-29, 45-53.
`
`23.
`
`Takanashi does not disclose an addressable pixel array. The devices
`
`of Takanashi are all monolithic devices in which information can neither be written
`
`to as discrete row and column elements, nor be read from as discrete row and
`
`column elements. In fact, Takanashi's devices are all based on a uniform,
`18
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`
`
`continuous photo-conductor structure which responds to incident light beams, the
`
`nature of which are not disclosed, but would have been non-matrix devices such as
`
`a CRT as disclosed in U.S. Patent 4,770,500 (Kalmanash) (Ex. 2015) or other
`
`scanned source such as a monochrome laser device.
`
`24. During his deposition, Dr. Buckman asserted that the system of
`
`Takanashi does include a matrix. (Ex. 2010 at p. 20, lines 22-23). However, Dr.
`
`Buckman’s reasoning in support of this assertion actually illustrates the fact that
`
`Takanashi is not a matrix system. Dr. Buckman asserts that, in Takanashi, “[t]he
`
`matrix is created … by the write light” (Ex. 2010 at p. 23, lines 9-10) and that the
`
`alleged “matrix of transmissivity is not created until the spatial light modulator
`
`however it’s addressed is actually driven.” (Ex. 2010 at p. 24, lines 18-20). Thus,
`
`Dr. Buckman is asserting that there is not a matrix in Takanashi until the spatial
`
`light modulator is driven by the write light, and that the write light somehow
`
`transforms the non-matrix spatial light modulator into the claimed “matrix
`
`system.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that a
`
`device is either a matrix device, or it is not. The characteristics that make a device
`
`a “matrix” device are inherent in the structural components that form the device,
`
`and in no way depend upon whether the device is powered on, or driven. The
`
`structural composition of the spatial light modulator in Takanashi does not support
`
`the assertion that Takanashi is a “matrix system,” which explains why Dr.
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`19
`
`
`
`Buckman is relying on an interpretation that the write light in Takanashi somehow
`
`transforms the (otherwise non-matrix) spatial light modulator into a matrix device.
`
`25. During his deposition, Dr. Buckman also asserted that “[h]ow that
`
`driving light is distributed over the surface, that’s a matrix.” (Ex. 2010 at p. 20,
`
`lines 22-23). However, merely exposing a continuous photoconductive layer to a
`
`write light, as in Takanashi, does not result in or generate a matrix just because the
`
`continuous photoconductive layer happens to be rectangular in shape. Rather, the
`
`Board’s definition requires “a rectangular arrangement of elements capable of
`
`limiting the passage of light.” (Emphasis added). The continuous rectangular
`
`liquid crystal layer of Takanashi does not constitute such an “arrangement of
`
`elements.”
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-6 and 11-14 of the ‘334 patent require a “video controller
`adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrix system”
`
`26. On pages 24-25 of its petition, Xilinx relies upon Lee as disclosing a
`
`“video controller” “to the extent that Takanashi does not contain an adequate
`
`disclosure of the claimed video controller.” Specifically, page 25 of the petition
`
`relies on col. 3, lines 27-33 of Lee as disclosing the claimed “video controller” and
`
`refers to page 29 of Dr. Buckman’s declaration to support the statement that “[t]he
`
`light shutter controlling circuit of Lee is a video controller adapted to control a
`
`light shutter system.” Thus, the Xilinx petition asserts that the “light shutter
`
`controlling circuit 19” of Lee is equivalent to the claimed “video controller.”
`20
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`
`
`(Petition at 24). However, in his deposition testimony of August 7, 2013, Dr.
`
`Buckman admitted that element 19 of Lee (i.e., the light shutter controlling circuit
`
`19) is “[c]learly not a video controller.” (Ex. 2010 at p. 38, line 23). This is in
`
`direct contradiction to the assertion made in Dr. Buckman’s declaration in which
`
`he asserted that “[i]n my opinion, the light shutter controlling circuit [19] of Lee is
`
`a video controller adapted to control a light shutter system.” (Ex. 1005 at 29).
`
`This also contradicts Dr. Buckman’s deposition testimony on June 11, 2013 in the
`
`inter partes review for U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 (hereinafter “the ‘545 patent”),
`
`which is a parent of the ‘334 patent that is directed to similar subject matter. (Ex.
`
`2011 at p. 25, line 15 – p. 26, line 26). I agree that the “light shutter controlling
`
`circuit 19” of Lee cannot be considered a “video controller,” much less a “video
`
`controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrix system,” as required by
`
`Claims 1 and 11 of the ‘334 patent.
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1-6 and 11-14 of the ‘334 patent require “equivalent
`switching matrices”
`
`27. Claim 1 requires “a light-shutter matrix system comprising a number
`
`of equivalent switching matrices equal to the number of beams and placed one
`
`each in the beam paths.” Emphasis added. Takanashi not only fails to disclose a
`
`“light-shutter matrix system” or any type of “matrix,” but also the elements from
`
`Takanashi which allegedly correspond to the claimed “light-shutter matrix system”
`
`are clearly not “equivalent” to one another. Pages 10-11 of Xilinx’s petition allege
`21
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`
`
`that “Takanashi’s combination of ECB elements, polarizers PL, and SLM elements
`
`is a ‘light-shutter matrix system.’” At col. 16, lines 28-34, Takanashi discloses that
`
`“the liquid crystal elements ECB…, the polarizers PL…, [and] the modulator
`
`elements SLM… form” a “wavelength selection filter.” Thus, Xilinx is alleging
`
`that the wavelength selection filters of Takanashi amount to the claimed “light-
`
`shutter matrix system.” With respect to the wavelength selection filters, Takanashi
`
`discloses at col. 18, lines 34-44 (emphasis added) that:
`
`Hereupon, the wavelength selection filter 40 passes
`only specific monochromatic light as described above,
`but the display unit can be deemed to be an application
`three kinds of wavelength
`example which uses
`selection filter 4a, 4b and 4c as shown in FIG. 26
`which pass the primary colors of light R, G and B
`respectively, records the information corresponding to
`each color, R, G and B of the object image into the
`optical component and makes the color display by using
`the three color separation and combination optical
`system.
`
`Accordingly, each wavelength selection filter 4a, 4b, and 4c of Takanashi, which
`
`Xilinx alleges form the claimed light-shutter matrix system, “passes only specific
`
`monochromatic light.” Based on this description, the wavelength selection filters
`
`of Takanashi are not “equivalent” to one another. Rather, Takanashi discloses that
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`22
`
`
`
`its system includes “three kinds of wavelength selection filter[s]” “which pass the
`
`primary colors of light R, G and B respectively.” (Col. 18, lines 38-40). During
`
`his deposition testimony for the IPR in the related ‘545 patent, Dr. Buckman even
`
`acknowledged, with respect to the three sets of ECB, PL, SM elements disclosed in
`
`Takanashi, that the sets of elements “differ from each other in the color of light
`
`that they process.” (Ex. 2011 at 20, lines 12-13).
`
`28.
`
`Such a system of elements is specifically described as different from
`
`equivalent monochrome LCD arrays in the specification of the ‘334 patent. (See
`
`col. 2, lines 3-18). In contrast, Claims 1 and 11 require “a light-shutter matrix
`
`system comprising a number of equivalent switching matrices ….” Takanashi,
`
`which discloses different “kinds of wavelength selection filter[s],” fails to disclose
`
`or suggest such “equivalent switching matrices,” as claimed. (Emphasis added).
`
`The element of “equivalent switching matrices” provides one of the major
`
`advantages of the claimed invention over systems such as Takanashi. At col. 2,
`
`lines 7-18, the specification of the ‘334 patent states:
`
`In various embodiments, assuming projectors of
`relatively equal cost, by using a triple monochrome
`LCD structure instead of a color AM-LCD, and pre-
`coloring of light, more light output can be achieved
`than in conventional systems. Systems according to
`embodiments of the invention are also less expensive
`
`23
`
`4815-8884-4053.2
`
`
`
`than conventional color LCD systems
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
