`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES’ PATENT OWNER OBSERVATIONS ON
`TESTIMONY OF DR. BRUCE BUCKMAN
`
`4850-9150-7990.2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent Owner Observations on
`Testimony of Dr. Buckman
`
`
`As permitted by the Board in Paper 37, Patent Owner has the following
`
`observations on the November 12, 2013, cross-examination testimony of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Declarant, Dr. Buckman, Exhibit 2019:
`
`1.
`
`On page 46, lines 6-17, Dr. Buckman testified that elements 20 and 21 of
`
`Lee control element 11 in Figures 1 and 2:
`
`Q: What light shutter matrix system do elements 20 and 21 of Lee
`control?
`
`A: Elements 20 and 21 of Lee control number 11 in figures 1 and 2.
`
`Q: How many of those LC panels do these elements 20 and 21 control?
`
`A: They control a single light shutter matrix system which adds in Lee's
`time multiplexing scheme of producing color as 3, but it acts as 3 at
`separate times during its operation because of the time multiplexing
`that I described to you earlier that is effected by the color wheel and
`its rotation.
`
`Lee elements 20 and 21 are referred to in the Lee specification as LCD driver 20
`
`and image controlling circuit 21. (Col. 3, lines 46-52.) Lee element 11 is referred
`
`to in the Lee specification as LCD panel 11. (Id.) In the testimony above, Dr.
`
`Buckman refers to Lee 11 as a “single light shutter matrix system.” However, in
`
`Dr. Buckman’s initial Declaration (Exhibit 1005), he says that “Lee notes using a
`
`‘light shutter controlling circuit 19’ for controlling light shutters 14R, 14G, and
`
`14B in order to modulate the light beams.” (Ex. 1005, p. 24.) Dr. Buckman’s
`
`newly identified video controller in Lee (i.e., elements 20 and 21) does not control
`2
`
`4850-9150-7990.2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent Owner Observations on
`Testimony of Dr. Buckman
`
`the light shutters 14R, 14G, and 14B, which Buckman originally identified as the
`
`claimed “light shutter matrix” and on which the Board granted the trial. (Id.)
`
`2. On page 39, lines 19-24, Dr. Buckman admits that Takanashi does not have
`
`a matrix when the write light is off.
`
`Q:
`
`So when the write light is off, is there or is there not a physical matrix
`to the Takanashi system?
`
`A: There's no variation in the optical properties of the liquid crystal with
`respect to position, so when the drive is off, no matrix of
`transmissivity is created.
`
`This testimony further strengthens the argument in the Patent Owner Response that
`
`Takanashi does not meet the Board’s definition of a “light shutter matrix system”
`
`requiring “a rectangular arrangement of elements capable of limiting the passage
`
`of light.” (Paper 26, pp. 26-27, emphasis added.) The above admission also
`
`supports the argument that Takanashi does not disclose “equivalent switching
`
`matrices,” since the alleged “matrix of transmissivity” in Takanashi ceases to exist
`
`in the off state.
`
`3.
`
`On page 36, lines 11 to 19, Dr. Buckman acknowledges that the light-written
`
`film of a Kodachrome slide does not use a matrix:
`
`A:
`
`That [transparent foil on an overhead projector] could be an
`exception, yes, that's – one that's not using a matrix.
`
`4850-9150-7990.2
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent Owner Observations on
`Testimony of Dr. Buckman
`
`
`Q: Any others? Any other examples?
`
`A: None that I can think of as we sit here well, okay, a -- a Kodachrome
`35-millimeter slide projector, same basic idea.
`
`This is a change from Dr. Buckman’s arguments on page 11 of his declaration
`
`(Ex. 1012), which allege that any write light would form a “matrix” because the
`
`“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.” Since the same limits
`
`are present in Kodachrome slide processing, Dr. Buckman’s admission further
`
`supports the argument that Takanashi’s disclosure of a continuous-film SLM is not
`
`an inherent disclosure of a “light-shutter matrix.”
`
`4. On page 79, lines 22-25, Dr. Buckman discusses how the “second
`
`controller” box that he drew to annotate Fig. 3 of Miyashita in his ‘545 Declaration
`
`is incorrect because it included too many elements:
`
`Q: So how is the drawing in the -- with regard to the ‘545 patent, how is
`the drawing in Exhibit 2017 wrong? How is that incorrect?
`
`A: Well, it -- it calls out a lamp control circuit, that's correct. It calls out
`a -- a fan control circuit, that's correct. It has a box for the -- excuse
`me -- the second controller that appears to go around everything,
`including some hardware, which is -- which is not correct.
`
`Thus, Dr. Buckman agrees with Patent Owner’s argument in IPR2013-00029,
`
`Patent Owner Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend, pp. 3-4, that the “large
`
`box” drawn to annotate Fig. 3 of Miyashita does not correspond to a controller.
`4
`
`4850-9150-7990.2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent Owner Observations on
`Testimony of Dr. Buckman
`
`5.
`
`On page 15, lines 7-25, Dr. Buckman admits that a video controller must
`
`operate based on or in accordance with a video signal:
`
`Q: Can a video controller work without receiving a video signal?
`
`A: A video controller would have to receive some -- some result of
`processing a video signal. It might not receive the raw video signal.
`It would – it would have to receive something -- I think the proper
`word would be based on the raw video signal.
`
`Q: So without receiving something based on the raw video signal, the
`video controller would not work? Is that what you're saying?
`
`A: The raw video signal would be something that contains the
`information in the image, in the set of images, to be processed. The
`controller might have to act on those to produce the signals necessary
`to – to drive the display. So it's at least -- it's based on – and all -- by
`"based on" here, anything that's based on that enumerates one element
`that influences the final result to the extent that that's what "based on"
`means and that's how I'm using it here. It would be -- it would be
`based on a video signal.
`
`(Emphasis added.) Dr. Buckman’s testimony agrees with Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed claim construction for “video controller” that it is a “component that
`
`controls light-shutter matrices to facilitate the display of video in accordance with
`
`a video signal.” (Patent Owner Response, Paper 26, pp. 15-17.)
`
`6.
`
`On page 74, line 23 to page 75, line 8, Dr. Buckman was asked about the
`
`change in annotations of the figures of Lee between this proceeding and the related
`
`IPR proceeding:
`
`4850-9150-7990.2
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent Owner Observations on
`Testimony of Dr. Buckman
`
`
`Q: Why the change in annotation between the annotated figures of Lee in
`this proceeding, Exhibit 1011, and the annotation of Lee in the other
`proceeding, Exhibit 2017?
`
`A: At one stage of editing, we decided to change these control links that
`we had identified as control links to control lines. Apparently that
`didn't get propagated everywhere in the two declarations. The page
`54, those three wires should be control lines and the discussion should
`have combining control lines from a second controller to individual
`light sources.
`
`The change in annotations of the same figure from one declaration to another is yet
`
`another example of the “moving target” provided by Petitioner in the two related
`
`IPR proceedings.
`
`7.
`
`On page 78 line 24 to page 79, line 7, Dr. Buckman indicated that the
`
`opinions in his filed declaration were not ones that he was “ready to state”:
`
`Q: When did you change your mind about Miyashita not showing a
`second controller?
`
`A:
`
`I didn't actually change my mind. It was in the -- it was in the
`presentation. These works were both works in progress at the time, so
`they weren't opinions that I had deemed ready to state and stated
`as my opinions after study to anybody. There was a change that I
`made that was supposed to propagate to the other document.
`
`(Emphasis added.) Dr. Buckman’s testimony is that his submitted declarations
`
`were not in fact his opinion. Patent Owner is left to guess what is and what is not
`
`Dr. Buckman’s opinion and when the opinions were formed or not formed.
`
`
`
`4850-9150-7990.2
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent Owner Observations on
`Testimony of Dr. Buckman
`
`Dated: December 18, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/George E. Quillin/
`George E. Quillin
`Registration No. 32,792
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`4850-9150-7990.2
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00112
`Patent Owner Observations on
`Testimony of Dr. Buckman
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner
`
`Observations on Testimony of Dr. Buckman are being served on counsel of record
`
`by filing these documents through the Patent Review Processing System as well as
`
`delivering a copy via commercial overnight courier directed to the counsel of
`
`record for the Petitioner at the following address:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David L. McCombs, Esq.
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 18, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/George E. Quillin/
`George E. Quillin
`Registration No. 32,792
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`4850-9150-7990.2
`
`8
`
`
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
