IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 42299.43
`Customer No.:
`27683
`Real Party in Interest: Xilinx, Inc.
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`In re patent of Kikinis
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334
`
`Issued: July 14, 1998
`
`Title: ENHANCED VIDEO
`PROJECTION SYSTEM
`
`Declaration of A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D. under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Directed to Petitioner’s Reply
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Dr. A. Bruce Buckman, am making this declaration at the request of
`
`Xilinx in IPR2013-00112 of U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334 (“the ’334 Patent”) to
`
`Kikinis.
`
`2.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration explaining why the ’334 patent is
`
`invalid. That declaration is marked as XLNX-1005, and sets forth my experience,
`
`qualifications, publications, materials considered and compensation. I also provided
`
`a supplemental declaration that provides additional information regarding my
`
`qualifications. (See XLNX-1008.)
`
`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
`
`-1-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 42299.43
`Customer No.:
`27683
`Real Party in Interest: Xilinx, Inc.
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`In re patent of Kikinis
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334
`
`Issued: July 14, 1998
`
`Title: ENHANCED VIDEO
`PROJECTION SYSTEM
`
`Declaration of A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D. under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Directed to Petitioner’s Reply
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Dr. A. Bruce Buckman, am making this declaration at the request of
`
`Xilinx in IPR2013-00112 of U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334 (“the ’334 Patent”) to
`
`Kikinis.
`
`2.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration explaining why the ’334 patent is
`
`invalid. That declaration is marked as XLNX-1005, and sets forth my experience,
`
`qualifications, publications, materials considered and compensation. I also provided
`
`a supplemental declaration that provides additional information regarding my
`
`qualifications. (See XLNX-1008.)
`
`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
`
`-1-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`declaration. 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-1013 and XLNX-1014) as well as XLNX-1015, 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.
`
`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 ’334 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
`
`-2-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`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 or cells of a monochrome LCD
`array, where each matrix comprises a
`rectangular arrangement of elements
`capable of limiting the passage of light.
`
`IV Proposed Construction
`A two-dimensional array of
`elements that selectively admit and
`block light.
`
`7.
`
`I generally agree with the Board’s preliminary construction of
`
`“light-shutter matrix system.” In particular, I agree that a light shutter, in the context
`
`of the ’334 patent, is an element that is “capable of limiting the passage of light.”
`
`8.
`
`IV does not propose an alternative construction, but it does provide a
`
`long discussion of how it interprets the ’334 patent on this point. I disagree with
`
`several of IV’s points, as described below.
`
`9.
`
`IV argues that I have provided an opinion on “LCD cell” that is
`
`inconsistent with the specification. Not so. In my deposition testimony, I explained
`
`that the term LCD cell in the context of the ’334 patent refers to the entire LCD
`
`device. Ex. 2010 at 49:22-51:1. The fact that the words “cell” and “pixel” are
`
`interchangeable in some contexts and not in others is not relevant to my opinions.
`
`10. With respect to the “matrix system” claim element, IV argues that a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art “would appreciate that the claimed system of
`
`the ’334 patent is an electrically addressed system.” (Response, Paper No. 26 at 12.)
`
`-3-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`I disagree. As I discuss below, all LCD display devices create images using a
`
`continuous thin layer of liquid crystal material. LCD display devices use
`
`electromagnetic fields to organize the liquid crystal into a matrix of pixels arranges
`
`in rows and columns. Each individual pixel is a “light shutter” element that is
`
`capable of limiting (or blocking) the passage of light.
`
`11.
`
`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.
`
`12.
`
`I have reviewed the Tannas reference that IV cites on pages 12-15 of its
`
`Response. I generally agree that the Tannas reference describes one or more ways to
`
`make a “matrix” system display. I do not agree, however, that the cited portions of
`
`Tannas describe all possible ways to implement a light-shutter matrix system.
`
`Below, I describe other ways to make a pixelated light-shutter matrix system.
`
`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.
`
`13.
`
`I agree with the Board’s proposed construction of “video controller
`
`adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices.” Specifically, I agree that the
`
`-4-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`“video controller” of the ’334 patent is a component that controls the light shutter
`
`matrices to facilitate the display of video.
`
`14.
`
`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 ’334
`
`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. (XLNX-1014 at 210:23-212:6.) Thus, I disagree that the claims require the
`
`video controller to act “in accordance with a video signal.”
`
`C.
`
`“equivalent switching matrices”
`
`Board Preliminary Construction
`Switching matrices that are
`corresponding or virtually identical in
`function or effect
`
`IV Proposed Construction
`Switching matrices that are virtually
`identical in function and effect
`
`15.
`
`I agree with the Board’s proposed construction of “equivalent
`
`switching matrices” as being “switching matrices that are corresponding or virtually
`
`identical in function or effect.”
`
`-5-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`16.
`
`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.” (See IV-2001.) 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).
`
`17.
`
`IV argues that “the ’334 patent distinguishes between equivalent
`
`monochrome LCDs versus conventional color LCD systems in which a unique LCD
`
`is used for each color.” I disagree. The ’334 patent actually distinguishes between
`
`using a single AM-LCD to display all colors of the video image (the prior art) versus
`
`shining beams of pre-colored light through separate LCDs, one for each light color
`
`beam (what is described in the specification).
`
`IV. OPINIONS REGARDING CHALLENGE NO. 2: OBVIOUSNESS BY
`TAKANASHI AND LEE
`
`18. My opening report explained why the ’334 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 ’334
`
`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 ’334 patent are invalid.
`
`-6-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`A.
`
`19.
`
`Takanashi discloses a light-shutter matrix system
`
`IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie assert that the ’334 patent is non-obvious
`
`because Takanashi does not satisfy the “light-shutter matrix system” limitation. I
`
`disagree.
`
`20.
`
`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
`
`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 encodes 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, causing the liquid crystal elements change their state in response to the
`
`write light. This allows the system to display an image through 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
`
`-7-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`inject noise into the system or ruin the image). The read light is then directed to
`
`project the displayed image to the viewer.
`
`21. A person having ordinary 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 (XLNX-1015 at 310-31). 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 ’334 patent, which use electrical circuits to
`
`encode the SLM). Both OASLMs and EASLMS have several similarities. Most
`
`notably, both types of SLMs create an 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.” The continuous liquid crystal layer changes states in response to this
`
`charge “image,” just as in the OASLM. In either instance, visible light passing
`
`through the continuous liquid crystal layer will receive the image encoded by the
`
`electric charge.
`
`-8-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`22.
`
`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.
`
`23. One common example of a write light for an OASLM is a cathode ray
`
`tube (“CRT”). (XLNX-1015 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. (IV-2012, 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
`
`-9-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`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.)
`
`24. A prior art video projection system using CRTs to drive OASLMs is
`
`illustrated below:
`
`(XLNX-1015 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
`
`-10-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`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.’” (Response, Paper No. 26 at 21.) 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
`
`-11-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`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 23.) I
`
`disagree. As 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. Thus, these
`
`pixels are a “rectangular arrangement of elements capable of limiting the passage of
`
`light” as required by the Board’s construction.
`
`26. Mr. Smith-Gillespie also argues that creating the light shutter matrix
`
`using an OASLM does not result in a “physical” matrix. (XLNX-1013 at
`
`81:20-83:2, 84:19-85:19; XLNX-1014 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
`
`-12-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`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.
`
`B.
`
`Lee discloses a video controller
`
`27. 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. (XLNX-1013 at 59:17-60:8; XLNX-1014 at
`
`206:9-212:7.) Circuits 20 and 21 in Lee are one example of a video controller,
`
`because it they include a “liquid crystal display LCD driver 20” and an “image
`
`controlling circuit 21”. (XLNX-1003 at 3:46-52.)
`
`C.
`
`28.
`
`Takanashi discloses equivalent switching matrices
`
`IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie also assert that Takanashi does not teach
`
`“equivalent switching matrices.” I disagree.
`
`29. 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
`
`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.
`
`-13-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`30.
`
`IV and Mr. Smith-Gillespie argue that the red, green, and blue SLMs
`
`are not “equivalent” because they operate on different color wavelengths. I disagree.
`
`The ’334 patent teaches that each of the light-shutter matrices operates on a different
`
`color. (XLNX-1001 at 3:15-18.) Thus, the fact that light-shutter matrices operate on
`
`different colors does not make them non-equivalent.
`
`31.
`
`IV argues that “the specification of the ’334 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 this argument is “probably not accurate.” (XLNX-1014 at 221:2-222:15.)
`
`32.
`
`IV also argues that the three SLMs in Takanashi are not “equivalent”
`
`switching matrices because they are not “corresponding in effect or function” as
`
`required by the Board’s construction. (Response, Paper No. 26 at 33.) I disagree.
`
`The SLMs in Takanashi correspond to one another. Each of the Takanashi SLMs
`
`takes in a read light and a write light and uses those lights to create an image. This is
`
`a “corresponding effect or function.” IV also argues that the “equivalent switching
`
`matrices” must be “essentially interchangeable.” (Id. at 34.) I disagree—the ’334
`
`patent does not contain this limitation. I agree with the Board that the Takanashi
`
`SLMs “correspond to each other and, apart from allowing different colors of light
`
`-14-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`(red, green, or blue) to pass through, appear to function in the same manner.”
`
`(Decision, Paper No. 14 at 21.)
`
`33.
`
`IV attempts to distinguish Takanashi on the grounds that it uses
`
`“wavelength selection filters” that remove all wavelengths of light which are not
`
`desired, and that one could not use those wavelength-specific devices in the claims
`
`of the ’334 patent. (Response, Paper No. 26 at 34-36.) This is not a valid distinction,
`
`however, because the claims require wavelength-specific elements, such as “parallel
`
`beams of light of different colors” (claim 1), which can be created by shining white
`
`light through “three color filters (claim 2).” Thus, Takanashi’s use of color-specific
`
`elements is not a distinction; in fact, it satisfies elements of the claims.
`
`34.
`
`Finally, IV argues that Takanashi does not have “equivalent switching
`
`matrices” because the red, green, and blue components in Takanashi are not
`
`completely interchangeable. (Response, Paper No. 26 at 36.) I disagree for two
`
`reasons. First, Takanashi does not teach that the actual liquid crystal elements (i.e.,
`
`the elements that actually block the light) are different in the red, green, or blue
`
`elements. Instead, only the polarizers and/or color filters are different. Thus, in
`
`Takanashi, the actual “switching matrices” (the liquid crystal elements) are the same
`
`across the red, green, and blue components. Second, as discussed above, the
`
`Takanashi “wavelength selection filter” is a combination of color filters, polarizers,
`
`and SLMs. It is this combination that is color specific. The same is true in the ’334
`
`-15-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
`
`patent—the combination of the color filter and the monochrome LCD array is also
`
`color specific. Thus, full interchangeability is not required by either the claims or the
`
`specification. The fact that the Takanashi components perform the same function
`
`and have the same effect on different colors of light is sufficient to make them fall
`
`within the scope of “equivalent switching matrices” in the ’334 patent.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`35.
`
`For the reasons stated herein, in my deposition testimony, and in my
`
`opening report, it is my opinion that the ’334 patent is invalid as obvious in view of
`
`Takanashi and Lee.
`
`36.
`
`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 imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Executed: October 21, 2013
`
`By:
`
`Dr. A. Bruce Buckman
`
`-16-
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`
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
