EXHIBIT 2115
`
`EXHIBIT 2115EXHIBIT 2115
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Final Report
`
`Polarizing Beamsplitter Study for 3D
`Cinema
`
`Submitted to:
`RealD
`
`Submitted by:
`Creative Display Systems, LLC
`5909 Sea Lion Place, Suite A
`Carlsbad, California 92010
`(760) 476-0339
`(760) 476-0620FAX
`
`July 27th, 2006
`
`This data is furnished to RealD and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed in
`whole or in part for any purpose other than for evaluation. If a purchase order is
`awarded to this offerer as a result of or in connection with the submission of such
`data, RealD will have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose this data to the extent
`provided in such purchase order. This restriction does not limit RealD’s right to use
`information contained in such data if it is obtained from another source.
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-1
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................... i
`1.
`Introduction and Objectives ................................................................................................................ 1
`2. Assumption in Existing Projector ....................................................................................................... 1
`3. Specific Requirements.......................................................................................................................... 1
`4. Proposed Configurations ..................................................................................................................... 1
`4.1
`Simplified Model of the Projection Lens........................................................................................ 2
`4.2
`Use of a Wire-Grid Polarizer (WGP) and a Weakly Powered Fold Mirror.................................... 3
`4.3
`Use of Cube Polarizing Beamsplitter (PBS) with Either Dielectric Thin-Film Coating or
`Embedded WGP, and a Weakly Powered Concave Mirror........................................................................ 9
`4.4
`Embedded WGP ........................................................................................................................... 14
`4.5 Mechanical Configuration ............................................................................................................ 15
`5. Summary Comparison ....................................................................................................................... 16
`6. Recommendation ................................................................................................................................ 19
`7. Price ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
`8. Delivery................................................................................................................................................ 19
`
`
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`i
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-2
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`1. Introduction and Objectives
`
`This report provides results of a feasibility study for an optical apparatus that can efficiently convert the
`unpolarized output light from a typical DLP projector to two polarized beams and recombine after proper
`light manipulation. The apparatus could be added to an existing DLP projector, like the Christie CP2000,
`to provide 3D viewing with the use of a ZScreen in each path which has the same polarization states. Such
`beam separation and recombination can provide much higher brightness on the screen for 3D viewing.
`
`The purpose of this study is to develop the basic concepts and practical opto-mechanical configuration with
`sufficient analysis to prove that the concepts are fundamentally sound and can meet the requirements in
`obtaining higher on-screen brightness while maintaining the original display qualities.
`
`In this feasibility study, we will analyze two configurations for using a polarizing beamsplitting (PBS)
`device to increase the output of a DLP cinema projector system with the use of two ZScreens, which are
`active circular polarization rotators, for creating a 3D projection system. The result of this study will define
`the engineering issues and the viability of the design and manufacturing of such apparatus for the intended
`application.
`
`The study’s conclusion is that the basic approach provided by RealD will yield the desired objectives;
`performance, practicality and affordability. During discussions between RealD and CDS it was determined
`that to fully understand the requirements and their impact on end item performance, it would be best to
`design and build a prototype system. After this is complete and evaluated then a final production
`configuration would be defined. This study provides a recommendation on the characteristics of this
`prototype and timeline for development, price and delivery.
`
`2. Assumption in Existing Projector
`
`• Projection lens light cone size at lens front surface: 75mm (W) x 50mm (H)
`
`• Projection lens front clearance: 3mm min.
`
`•
`
`Image pixel count: 2048 x 1080 (~1.85:1 aspect ratio)
`
`• Pixel pitch: 13.8µm square
`
`• Projection lens FOV: 30
`
`o
`
` full angle
`
`• Output light: Unpolarized, ~10k lumens
`
`• Projected screen size: 25 x 13.5m (1.85:1 aspect ratio)
`
`• F/#: 2.4
`
`3. Specific Requirements
`
`• Pixel offset between two paths: ±0.5 pixel in the middle and ±1 pixel at the edge
`
`• Light throughput increase: 70% increase
`
`4. Proposed Configurations
`
`Two different configurations are studied and will be described and discussed in the following sections.
`Both configurations utilize a polarizing beamsplitting device, either a wire grid polarizer (WGP) or a PBS
`cube with dielectric thin-film coating embedded in between two right angle glass prisms. The reflected
`path will have a fold mirror to reflect light towards the screen. A brief description of a simplified model of
`the projection lens is provided in Section 4.1, followed by the discussion of the two configurations.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`1
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-3
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`4.1 Simplified Model of the Projection Lens
`
`
`
`Short of knowing the exact prescription of the projections lens, in order to estimate the size of the
`components in the following configurations, a simplified model is used based on the available lens function
`data. The first order properties of the projector is derived in Eq.(1) below based on information in Section
`3.
`
`Pixel
`
`pitch
`
`at
`
`screen
`
`Magnificat
`
`ion
`
`M
`
`=
`
`
`
`m25
`
`=
`
`=
`
`2048
`pitch
`Pixel
`
`2.12
`
`mm
`
`Pixel
`
`pitch
`
`at
`
`DMD
`
`at
`
`screen
`
`=
`
`2.12
`
`mm
`
`.0
`
`
`
`mm0138
`
`=
`
`884
`
`Focal
`
`length
`
`,
`
`f
`
`=
`
`Half
`
`imager
`
`width
`
`tan(
`
`Half
`
`FOV
`
`)
`
`=
`
`(*5.0
`
`2048
`
`
`
` )0138.0*
`
`
`
`
`
` )15tan(
`
`o
`
`=
`
`7.52
`
`
`
`Eq. (1)
`
`DMD
`
`width
`
`=
`
`2048
`
`.0*
`
`
`
`mm0138
`
`=
`
`
`
` mm3.28
`
`DMD
`
`height
`
`=
`
`1080
`
`.0*
`
`
`
`mm0138
`
`=
`
`9.14
`
`mm
`
`Based on Eq. (1), a paraxial lens with the following properties is assumed and utilized in the model shown
`in Figure 1. The ray trace showing the ray footprint of 75x50mm at the lens front surface is shown in
`Figure 2.
`
`• Focal length of 57.2 mm and NA of 0.21.
`
`• Object size of 28.3 x 14.9 mm for a 2048 x 1080 pixel DLP.
`
`• Light cone size of 75 x 50mm at the front surface of the projection lens
`
`
`
`Simplified paraxial
`projection lens &
`aperture stop
`
`Imager
`
`Projection lens light
`cone 75 x 50mm
`
`52.7 mm
`
`100mm
`
`Figure 1 Diagram of the simplified paraxial projection lens
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`
`
`2
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-4
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 Footprint of ray bundles at the projection lens front surface showing the
`expected 75x50mm size.
`
`
`
`Now that a paraxial model of the projection lens is shown with the correct properties, the PBS model can
`be built properly as described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
`
`4.2 Use of a Wire-Grid Polarizer (WGP) and a Weakly Powered Fold Mirror
`
`In this configuration, a WGP is utilized to divide the unpolarized beam into P and S-polarized beams in the
`vertical direction. As shown in Figure 3, the screen is set at a distance about 46.5m away from the
`projector so that the screen width corresponding to the imager width is 25m,. As shown in Figure 4, the P-
`polarized transmitted beam will go through the ZScreen, which is assumed to include a linear polarizer for
`cleanup. The ZScreen is a π-cell that can convert the P-polarized light to a circularly polarized light. A 3D
`view of the configuration is given in Figure 5 that provides a more clear view of the vertical fold.
`
`For the reflected path, similarly, the WGP reflects the S-polarized portion of the unpolarized incident beam.
`It then goes through a half wave plate to convert it to P-polarized light then on to a second ZScreen which
`converts the now linearly P-polarized light to a circularly polarized light. The concave mirror has a radius
`of curvature of 250m, so designed to minimize the pixel offset between the two paths. The reflected beam
`has a slight toe-in angle of 0.184º so that its beam center will coincide with that of the straight through
`beam.
`
`The assumed projection lens F/number is 2.4 at the object plane. Since the magnification is 884, as given
`in Eq.(1), the F/number and the depth of field at the screen are
`
`F
`
`=′
`/#
`
`
`
`MF /#*
`
`=
`
`*4.2
`
`884
`
`=
`
`2122
`
`Depth
`
`of
`
`field
`
`=
`
`λ
`(*
`
`F
`
`′
`
`)/#
`
`2
`
`=
`
`.0
`
`00055
`
`(*
`
`2122
`
`)
`
`2
`
`=
`
`2477
`
`mm
`
`
`
`Eq. (1)
`
`The toe-in angle results in a tilt of the image plane for the reflected path. The largest depth difference at
`the edge of the field-of-view (FOV) between the two paths is about 21.7mm, which is far less than the
`depth of field of the projection lens as given in Eq.(2). As such, the two images should appear in good
`focus. In the case when a flat fold mirror is utilized, the two images has a lateral shift of about 10mm, as
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`3
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-5
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`shown in Figure 6, which is less than 1 pixel wide. The geometric relationship of the angles and distances
`is shown in Figure 7. Both the lateral shift and the depth difference between the two images from the two
`paths are shown in Figure 8.
`
`The WGP is available with the maximum size of 180mm round in diameter. The beam footprint for the
`WGP is shown in Figure 9 for a WGP of 140(H) x 110(V) dimension, which is well within the available
`size.
`
`The high transmission model of the WGP has an average transmittance and reflectance of about 88%. The
`published data is given in Figure 11. As such, assuming a 94% reflectance for the fold mirror, the expected
`throughput efficiency for polarized light output prior to reaching the ZScreen; with 100% unpolarized light
`input is 86%, which has a gain of almost 100% when compared to the use of a typical linear polarizer made
`of stretched plastics, which has about 45% transmittance for unpolarized input light.
`
`Table 1
`
`Estimated size of components for a wire-grid polarizer configuration.
`
`Part Description
`
`45º WGP reflective polarizer
`1 Fold mirror (M1)
`
`2 ZScreens
`
`Sizes
`
`140 x 110mm
`240 x 180mm
`
`160 x 100mm
`
`
`
`46.5m
`
`o
`(H)x8.1
`
`o
`(V)
`
`15
`
`25x13.5m
`
`Figure 3 Configuration 1 with a 45º wire-grid polarizer and 1 fold mirror.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`
`
`4
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-6
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`140mm
`
`Mirror M1
`240x180mm
`R=250m
`
`
`
`3mm
`
`ZScreen
`160(H) x 100(V) mm
`
`Halfwave Rotator
`160(H) x 100(V) mm
`
`P-pol. path
`
`o
`Toe-in angle = 0.184
`
`
`
`275mm
`
`P-pol. Path straight-
`through
`
`DMD plane
`26.26x14.22mm
`
`Lens front aperture
`75(W) x 50(H) mm
`Paraxial lens
`f=52.7mm
`
`Polarizer 140(H) x
`110(V)mm
`
`ZScreen
`160(H) x 100(V)mm
`
`
`
`Figure 4 The attachment configuration with a WGP, a concave fold mirror with
`R=250m and 2 ZScreens.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`5
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-7
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`Figure 5 3D view of the attachment module.
`
`
`
`21.7mm
`
`
`
`
`
`10mm
`
`Half height =
`6750mm
`
`Figure 6 Lateral shift and image plane difference between the transmitted and reflected
`paths are both 32mm.
`
`The distances of 21.7mm in Figure 6 for the longitudinal shift between the toe-in path and the straight path
`o
`
`is derived in Figure 7 and is calculated from the toe-in angle of 0.184
`screen center to the edge of the screen in height as below.
`
` and the distance of 6.75m from the
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`6
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-8
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`d
`
`=
`
`L
`
`θ
`tan(
`)
`
`=
`
`6750
`
`*
`
`
`
` )184.0tan(
`
`=
`
`7.21
`
`mm
`
` Eq( 2)
`
`
`
`φθ
`=+
`
`90
`
`d =
`
`L
`
`φ
`tan(
`)
`
`
`
`ф
`
`
`
`
`
`ф
`
`L
`
`d
`
`
`
`Figure 7 Geometric relationship between toe-in angle and longitudinal shift in focal
`plane, d.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`7
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-9
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13mm
`
`21.7mm
`
`10mm
`
`Top of screen
`
`Center of screen
`
`Bottom of screen
`
`21.5mm
`
`2mm
`
`
`
`Figure 8 Ray trace diagrams showing the reduced lateral shifts between the two paths.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`8
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-10
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 9 Footprint diagram showing the beam bundle on a 140(H)x110(V)mm WGP.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 10 Published performance of the WGP with an averaged transmittance and
`reflectance of about 88%.
`
`4.3 Use of Cube Polarizing Beamsplitter (PBS) with Either Dielectric Thin-
`Film Coating or Embedded WGP, and a Weakly Powered Concave
`Mirror
`
`In this configuration, a cube PBS is utilized to divide the unpolarized beam into P and S-polarized beams,
`as shown in Figure 12. The transmitted beam will go through a ZScreen, which is a π-cell that can convert
`the S-polarized light to a circularly polarized light. The ZScreen is assumed to have a built-in linear
`polarizer that can act as a clean-up polarizer. Otherwise, a WGP can be inserted between the PBS cube and
`the ZScreen for cleanup.
`
`For the reflected path, similarly, the PBS reflects the S-polarized portion of the unpolarized incident beam.
`It then goes through a half wave plate to convert it to P-polarized light then on to a second ZScreen which
`converts the now linearly P-polarized light to a circularly polarized light. A fold mirror with a radius of
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`9
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-11
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`curvature of 250 meters, which is rotated to give a slight toe-in angle of 0.23º, so that its beam center will
`coincide with that of the straight through beam as indicated in Figure 13. The weakly powered mirror also
`reduced the magnification slightly so that the lateral shifts between the two paths, at the top and bottom
`edges, are also reduced to less than 8mm as shown in Figure 13
`
`The toe-in angle results in a tilt of the image plane from the reflected path. As indicated in Figure 13, the
`largest depth difference at the edge of the field-of-view (FOV) between the two paths is about 21mm,
`which is much less than the depth of field of the projection lens. As such, the two images should appear in
`good focus. The largest lateral shift is 8mm, which is less than 1 pixel pitch. A list of components and their
`sizes are provided in Table 2. Some of their estimated costs are given as well. A 3D model is shown in
`Figure 13.
`
`
`
`130mm
`
`Mirror M1
`220x168mm
`R=250m
`
`15mm
`
`ZScreen.
`140(H)x90(V)mm
`
`S-pol.
`
`Toe-in angle
`o
`
`= -0.23
`
`
`
`260mm
`
`Straight-through
`
`DMD plane
`26.26x14.22mm
`
`Paraxial lens
`F=52.7 mm
`
`Lens front aperture
`75(W)x50(H)mm.
`
`PBS
`130(H)x90(D)x90
`(W)mm
`
`ZScreen
`
`Figure 11 Configuration with a cube PBS, either with a dielectric thin-film coating or an
`embedded WGP
`
`
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`10
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-12
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`(a) Center of screen
`
`
`
`(b) Top of screen
`
`
`
`(c) Bottom of screen
`
`21mm
`
`21mm
`
`8mm
`
`Half screen height
`= 6750mm
`
`Half screen height
`= -6750mm
`
`1.5mm
`
`Figure 12 Lateral shift and focal plane shift between the two paths at the top, center and
`bottom edge of the screen.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`
`
`11
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-13
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`Figure 13 3D model of cube PBS configuration.
`
`Table 2
`
`Estimated sizes and costs of components for a PBS configuration
`
`Part Description
`
`Cube PBS
`1Fold mirror (M1)
`2 ZScreens
`
`Sizes
`130x90x90mm
`220x168mm
`140x90mm
`
`
`
`
`
`An example of PBS coating performance in TP and TS is shown in Error! Reference source not found.,
`which is a topographical view of TP and TS vs. angle of incidence (AOI) and wavelengths. As one can see,
`this example shows performance up to about ±12º. TP can be as high as 97-99% over a substantial area on
`the map while TS is less than 0.02% over half of the map, which makes the extinction ratio above 5,000
`over the overlapped region. The weighted averaged curves over for TP and RS are given in Figure 15.
`Comparing to those in Figure 10 for the WGP, cube PBS appears to have higher performance. The tradeoff
`would be the weight, thermal loading, availability and cost. However, given the two beams are combined
`at the screen the variation in polarization efficiency over the aperture may be a non-issue assuming there is
`no depolarization or absorption. The glass material must have low stress bi-faineance to ensure little or no
`transmission looses especially over temperature. As opposed to WGP being a commercially available part
`that one can purchase at a reasonable price and delivery schedule, using a cube PBS would involve a whole
`development project in order to realize the advantages.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`12
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-14
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 14 Design performance, TP and TS, of a PBS with dielectric thin-film coating on
`glass prism.
`
`
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`13
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-15
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`Tp
`
`Rp
`
`Rs
`
`Ts
`
`
`
`100
`
`95
`
`90
`
`85
`
`80
`
`75
`
`420
`
`430
`
`440
`
`450
`
`460
`
`470
`
`480
`
`490
`
`500
`
`510
`
`520
`
`530
`
`540
`
`550
`
`560
`
`570
`
`580
`
`590
`
`600
`
`610
`
`620
`
`630
`
`640
`
`650
`
`660
`
`670
`
`680
`
`Figure 15 Weighted averages of TP and RS for a cube PBS with dielectric thin film
`coating.
`
`
`
`4.4 Embedded WGP
`It is feasible to embed the WGP in between two right angle glass prisms. Due to refraction of the edge
`rays, the prism would reduce the beam size at the diagonal plane, as shown in Figure 16. The required
`WGP size of 120mm x 100mm is smaller than the bare WGP size of 140mm x 110mm as given in Table 1.
`Due to the fragility of the wire grid coating, special care needs to be taken in assembling the WGP in
`between the prisms. Such assembly can protect the fragile wires during operation.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`14
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-16
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 16 Size of WGP, shown in ray trace footprint, needed as embedded between 2
`glass prisms. The rectangle is 120 mm x10mm.
`
`
`
`4.5 Mechanical Configuration
`
`To implement the image combiner, CDS will incorporate a combination of off-the-shelf and custom
`designed components. A modified gimble mount will be used to align the two images, and a plunger
`mechanism on the back of the fold mirror will modify the shape of the mirror surface to introduce optical
`power with the upper channel. The plunger will pull on the center of the round mirror to introduce about
`10 waves of power on the mirror. The details of the exact interface to the will be done in the prototype
`phase. From our initial investigation it appears the front structure of the projector is robust enough to hold
`the assembly.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`15
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-17
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`Figure 17 Side view of image combiner mechanism.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 18 Front view of image combiner mechanism.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`16
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-18
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`Figure 19 Back view of image combiner mechanism. Note plunger mechanism.
`
`
`
`5. Summary Comparison
`
`A summary of the 3 approaches is shown in Table 3. Some compared parameters are clarified in the notes.
`At this time, all three approaches look feasible in providing desired desirable geometry, weight, and
`efficiency. Further study will be needed to analyze the other performance factors, such as brightness and
`color uniformity. However this is most likely done with the prototype.
`
`Table 3 Comparison summary of 3 approaches.
`
`
`
`WGP
`
`Cube PBS/ thin-film
`coating
`
`Cube PBS/
`embedded WGP
`
`Volume(1)
`Relative Cost(2)
`Weight(3)
`Efficiency(4)
`
`Lateral shift
`
`Focal plane shift
`
`Risk(5)
`
`
`
`Notes:
`
`140x140x275mm
`
`130x130x260mm
`
`160x160x340mm
`
`1
`
`1Kg
`
`~86%
`
`10mm
`
`21mm
`
`Low
`
`1.3
`
`~4Kg
`
`~92%
`
`8mm
`
`21mm
`
`High
`
`1.5
`
`~4Kg
`
`~86%
`
`8mm
`
`21mm
`
`Medium
`
`1. The volume includes the space needed for the attachment of the beamsplitting device (WGP or
`PBS), the fold mirror, and the two ZScreens.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`17
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-19
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`2. Relative cost includes the estimated material costs of beamsplitting device (WGP or PBS) and the
`fold mirror. Development cost of a thin-film PBS coating is not included. Cost of actuators for
`deforming the mirror is not included.
`
`3. Weight includes the beamsplitting device (WGP or PBS) and the fold mirror. ZScreen weight is
`not included. Actuator weight is not included. Weight of mechanical mounts is not included.
`
`4. Efficiency includes the beamsplitting device (WGP or PBS) and the fold mirror (~94%).
`
`5. Risk is mostly associated with the available beamsplitting device. For WGP, it is related to the
`protection of the WGP. For the cube PBS, it is the risk in successfully completing a thin-film
`coating over a large area with desired performance. For embedded WGP, it is the risk in
`assembling the WGP in between two prisms. Another major risk is how to control the spherical
`power on the fold mirror.
`
`Three different configurations are studied above:
`
`1. Use of a wire grid polarizer (WGP) plus a weakly power fold mirror;
`
`2. Use of a cube PBS plus a weakly power fold mirror;
`
`3. Use of an embedded WGP in a cube PBS plus a weakly power fold mirror.
`
`All 3 cases are shown to be feasible in meeting the requirements of:
`
`1. > 70% increase in light throughput;
`
`2. < 1 pixel pitch offset between two combined beams
`
`3. < $3K of optical component cost;
`
`The major risks involved in the three configurations are:
`
`1. The delicacy of WGP in the case of using a bare WGP.
`
`2. The complexity and difficulty involved in developing a large area PBS dielectric thin film coating.
`
`3. The complexity and difficulty involved in embedding a WGP in between two large right angle
`prisms.
`
`4. The complexity and difficulty in controlling the radius of curvature of the fold mirror, which may
`require the use of actuators to actively control the mirror shape.
`
`5. Thermal loading on optical and mechanical components that may affect the system performance
`over time.
`
`6. Development schedule involved in developing a high performance PBS coating.
`
`The choice of configuration to implement will require careful tradeoff considerations of the performance,
`cost and schedule.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`18
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-20
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`6. Recommendation
`
`Given the information above CDS’ recommendation is to build the prototype using the WGP along with a
`way to deform the fold mirror to reduce the magnification between the two paths. It is thought that the
`prism approaches are both of higher risk (with or w/o the WGP). Also the non-recurring design, schedule
`and recurring cost could be prohibitive and concerns regarding life issues due to the heat from the projected
`light.
`
`Although the WGP will have to be housed in a sealed mount it has no issues with heat and performance is
`acceptable with probably no need for clean up polarizer.
`
`7. Price
`
`The pricing for prototype system is $102,000.
`
`The terms are as follows:
`
`25% at time of order
`
`50% at final design review
`
`25% at delivery
`
`8. Delivery
`
`Delivery of the image combiner is 16 weeks after receipt of order.
`
`CDS Final Report 06-1000
`
`
`Use or disclosure of proposal data is subject to the
`restrictions on the title page of this proposal
`
`19
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2115-21
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035