`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`