Xilinx, Inc. V Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2014

08686809 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 49
571-272-7822 Entered: March 10, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

XILINX, INC.
Petitioner

v.

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
Patent Owner
____________

Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

2
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”) filed a Petition (Paper 2) (“Pet.”)
seeking inter partes review of claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 (“the
’545 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319. On March 12, 2013, the
Board granted the Petition and instituted an inter partes review of all claims
on two grounds of unpatentability (Paper 11) (“Dec. on Inst.”).
Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures I LLC
(“IV”) filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 22) (“PO Resp.”), and Xilinx
filed a Reply (Paper 27) (“Pet. Reply”). Along with its Patent Owner
Response, IV filed a Motion to Amend (Paper 23) (“Mot. to Amend”),
proposing substitute claim 4 if the Board determines claim 2 to be
unpatentable, and substitute claim 5 if the Board determines claim 3 to be
unpatentable. Xilinx filed an Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Paper 26)
(“Pet. Opp.”), and IV filed a Reply (Paper 33) (“PO Reply”).
IV also filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 35) (“Mot. to Exclude”)
certain testimony of Xilinx’s declarant, A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D. Xilinx
filed an Opposition to the Motion to Exclude (Paper 42) (“Exclude Opp.”),
and IV filed a Reply (Paper 43) (“Exclude Reply”).
An oral hearing was held on December 9, 2013, and a transcript of the
hearing is included in the record (Paper 48) (“Tr.”).
The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
For the reasons that follow, we determine that Xilinx has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-3 of the ’545 patent are
unpatentable, and we deny IV’s Motion to Amend.

Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

3
A. The ’545 Patent
The ’545 patent relates to a “color video projector system” having
“separate light sources for producing separate beams of light which are
passed each first through color filters to provide separate color beams before
being processed by video-controlled light shutter matrices and then
combined into a single beam projectable to provide a full-color video display
with superimposed color spots.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. The patent describes
how prior art video projector systems, such as color Liquid Crystal Display
(LCD) projectors, were expensive and had difficulty providing adequate
light levels. Id. at col. 1, ll. 9-19. Later systems based on “active matrix
color LCD’s (AM-LCD’s)” were less expensive, but still had limited
brightness and resolution. Id. at col. 1, ll. 20-31. The ’545 patent addresses
these problems by “pre-coloring” the input light and “using a triple
monochrome LCD structure instead of a color AM-LCD.” Id. at col. 2,
ll. 1-12. The resulting arrangement, according to the ’545 patent, provides
better light output because less light is absorbed than in a color AM-LCD,
and results in better resolution due to the superposition of color spots on the
display. Id. It also is less expensive because monochrome LCDs are less
expensive than color LCDs, and precise alignment of the components is less
critical than with a color AM-LCD. Id.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

4
Figure 1, the sole figure of the ’545 patent, is reproduced below.

Figure 1 depicts a video projector system comprising, inter alia, (A) lamps
132-134, which emit light; (B) condenser lens system 115, which focuses the
three light beams emitted by the lamps; (C) red/green/blue filters 112-114,
through which the respective light beams pass; (D) monochrome LCD arrays
117-119 in LCD unit 120; (E) controller 122, which controls the arrays; and
(F) mirror and prism system 111, which combines the separate beams into a
single beam for projection onto surface 101. Id. at col. 2, l. 50-col. 3, l. 22.

Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

5
B. Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 of the ’545 patent is the only independent claim:
1. A video projector system comprising:
individual light sources, one each for each color to be
projected, adapted to provide each a separate light beam;
a lens system in the path of the separate light beams,
adapted for focusing the beams;
a number of individual color filters equal to the number
of beams, in the colors to be projected, and placed one each in
each beam path;
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;
a video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter
matrices; and
an optical combination system adapted for combining the
several beams into a single composite beam for projection on a
surface to provide a video display;
wherein each beam passes through a color filter before
being processed by a light-switching matrix.

C. Prior Art
The pending grounds of unpatentability in this inter partes review are
based on the following prior art:
1. U.S. Patent No. 5,108,172, issued Apr. 28, 1992
(“Flasck”) (Ex. 1002);
2. U.S. Patent No. 5,264,951, issued Nov. 23, 1993
(“Takanashi”) (Ex. 1003); and
3. U.S. Patent No. 5,287,131, issued Feb. 15, 1994
(“Lee”) (Ex. 1004).

Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

6
D. Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
This inter partes review involves the following grounds of
unpatentability:
Reference(s) Basis Claims
Flasck 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1-3
Takanashi and Lee 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1-3

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Interpretation
Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), the
Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable construction in light
of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There is a “heavy presumption” that a
claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, a “claim
term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own
lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in
either the specification or prosecution history.” Id. “Although an inventor is
indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention,
this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Also, we must be careful
not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into
the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

7
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be
read into the claims from the specification”).

1. “Video Projector System” and “Video”
The preamble of claim 1 recites a “video projector system.” We did
not interpret the preamble in the Decision on Institution. IV argues in its
Patent Owner Response that “video projector system” should be interpreted
to mean “a system enabling the projection of video, meaning the projection
of moving images that change fast enough to be undetectable by the human
eye,” citing an encyclopedia description of “analog video” and testimony
from Dr. Buckman as support. PO Resp. 7-8 (citing Ex. 2007 at 166, Ex.
2004 at 12:17-20). Xilinx does not disagree with IV’s proposed
interpretation. See Tr. 11:14-24.
“In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential
structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to
the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d
801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). “Conversely, a preamble is not
limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the
claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for
the invention.’” Id. (citation omitted). IV proposes an interpretation for the
preamble in claim 1, but does not explain why the language is limiting. We
are not persuaded that the preamble recites essential structure for the claim.
Rather, the body of the claim recites six components that define a
structurally complete system. Further, although the body of the claim refers
to “projection on a surface to provide a video display,” it does not refer
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

8
specifically to the “video projector” language of the preamble. Reading the
claim as a whole, we conclude that the preamble is not limiting.
The body of claim 1, however, recites the term “video” in two
contexts: (1) a “video controller,” and (2) an “optical combination system
adapted for combining the several beams into a single composite beam for
projection on a surface to provide a video display.” Thus, regardless of what
is recited in the preamble, the system must be capable of providing a “video”
display on a projection surface. In the context of claim 1, we agree with IV
that the term “video” should be given its ordinary and customary meaning.
See Ex. 2007 at 166; Ex. 2004 at 12:16-20. Applying the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the Specification, we
interpret “video” to mean a sequence of images that change fast enough to
be undetectable by the human eye.

2. “Light-Shutter Matrix System”
In the Decision on Institution, based on the arguments presented by
Xilinx in its Petition and by IV in its Preliminary Response, we interpreted
the term “light-shutter matrix system” in claim 1 to mean a set of matrices,
such as monochrome LCD arrays, where each matrix comprises a
rectangular arrangement of elements capable of limiting the passage of light.
Dec. on Inst. 6-9. Xilinx agrees with this interpretation. Pet. Reply 3-4. IV
argues that the interpretation is incorrect, and that “light-shutter matrix
system” instead should be interpreted to mean “a two-dimensional array of
elements that selectively admit and block light.” PO Resp. 13. As explained
below, we are persuaded that our original interpretation should be modified
slightly.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

9
We begin with the language of the claims. Claim 1 recites 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.” Thus, the “light-shutter matrix system” is made up of “equivalent
switching matrices.” The claims also refer to these matrices as
“light-switching matri[ces]” (claim 1) and “light-shutter matrices” (claim 2).
Although the language is slightly different, the terms appear to be used
interchangeably in the claims and Specification of the ’545 patent, and we
conclude that they are referring to the same thing. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 1,
ll. 48-67. Dependent claim 2 further recites that “the light-shutter matrices
are monochrome LCD arrays.” Therefore, based on the surrounding
language of the claims, we know that the “light-shutter matrix system” is
comprised of multiple equivalent matrices, and that one example of such a
matrix is a monochrome LCD array.
The Specification of the ’545 patent unfortunately does not shed much
light onto the meaning of “light-shutter matrix system,” as it largely contains
the same language as the claims. In the exemplary embodiment depicted in
Figure 1, light passes through red/green/blue filters 112-114 and then
through “three monochrome LCD arrays 117, 118, and 119” of LCD unit
120. Id. at col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 7. The three light beams are combined into
a single beam and projected onto a surface. Id. at col. 3, ll. 4-12. Video
controller 122 receives a “video signal” and “controls” monochrome LCD
arrays 117-119. Id. at col. 3, ll. 13-20. The Specification does not describe
in detail how the LCD arrays are operated or how they are controlled. It also
makes clear that the invention is not limited to the use of LCD arrays.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

10
See id. at col. 4, ll. 2-3 (“there are many ways to implement light shutter
devices besides LCD’s”).
The parties do not argue that “light-shutter matrix system” as a whole
is a term of art. As we did in the Decision on Institution, we look for
guidance to how a skilled artisan would have understood the individual
terms “light-shutter” and “matrix.” See Dec. on Inst. 7-8. “Shutter” is
defined as a “mechanical device that limits the passage of light; esp[ecially]:
a camera attachment that exposes the film or plate by opening and closing an
aperture.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1084 (10th ed.
1993) (Ex. 3001). An LCD is an example of something that limits the
passage of light. See S.W. AMOS ET AL., NEWNES DICTIONARY OF
ELECTRONICS 186 (4th ed. 1999) (Ex. 3002) (“One way in which the applied
voltage controls the light transmission of the device is by varying the light
scattering in the liquid which is specially chosen because of its
long-molecule construction.”). “Matrix” is defined as “something
resembling a mathematical matrix esp[ecially] in rectangular arrangement of
elements into rows and columns.” Ex. 3001 at 716.
IV does not dispute that “shutter” and “matrix” should be given their
ordinary meanings, but argues that the dictionary definitions referenced
above are not the correct ones to use. PO Resp. 9-10, 12-13. As to the term
“shutter,” IV argues that the Board was inconsistent in disregarding the
definition IV submitted with its preliminary response—“a mechanical device
of a camera that opens and closes to control the duration of exposure of a
plate or film to light” (Ex. 2001 at 1264)—based on its reference to a
camera, when the dictionary definition cited by the Board (Ex. 3001 at 1084)
also applies to cameras. PO Resp. 9-10; see Dec. on Inst. 8-9. There is an
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

11
important difference between IV’s definition and the definition cited above,
however. IV’s dictionary defines a shutter as part “of a camera.” Ex. 2001
at 1264. The definition cited above, by contrast, provides a general meaning
and then, by using the word “esp[ecially],” gives an example pertaining to a
camera. Thus, the general definition cited above is the appropriate one to
use given the technology of the ’545 patent, which does not involve
cameras. Moreover, although the above dictionary definition is broader than
IV’s dictionary definition, we must determine the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification, and we are not persuaded by IV’s
arguments that the definition cited above is unreasonable.
As to the term “matrix,” IV provides the following dictionary
definitions: “[a] rectangular array of numeric or algebraic quantities subject
to mathematical operations,” and “[s]omething resembling such an array, as
in the regular formation of elements into columns and rows.” Id. at 838.
IV contends that, based on this definition, a “matrix” is merely a
two-dimensional array (i.e., rows and columns), and need not be in a
“rectangular” form specifically. PO Resp. 12-13. We agree that IV’s
dictionary definition of “matrix” is the appropriate one under the
circumstances, particularly because the dictionary definition cited above
recites a “rectangular” arrangement as an example, not a requirement.
See Ex. 3001 at 716. Thus, we are persuaded to modify our interpretation to
eliminate any requirement of a “rectangular” shape.
Finally, IV argues that the Board’s interpretation in the Decision on
Institution is incorrect because liquid crystals have many different optical
properties, such that not every liquid crystal layer or LCD can be considered
a light shutter. PO Resp. 10-12. We agree in part. Dependent claim 2 and
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

12
the Specification of the ’545 patent indicate that a monochrome LCD array
is an example of a light-shutter matrix. See Ex. 1001, col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 7.
IV is correct, though, that the LCD array must still be used as a shutter (i.e.,
used to limit the passage of light) and not for some other optical effect.
Thus, we are persuaded to modify our interpretation to state that the device
selectively limits the passage of light, rather than being merely capable of
doing so.
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light
of the Specification, we interpret “light-shutter matrix system” to mean a set
of matrices, such as monochrome LCD arrays, where each matrix comprises
a two-dimensional array of elements that selectively limit the passage of
light.

3. “Equivalent Switching Matrices”
Claim 1 recites that the light-shutter matrix system comprises “a
number of equivalent switching matrices equal to the number of beams and
placed one each in the beam paths.” We did not interpret “equivalent
switching matrices” in the Decision on Institution. However, in related Case
IPR2013-00112 involving U.S. Patent No. 5,779,334 (“the ’334 patent”), a
continuation-in-part of the ’545 patent, we interpreted the phrase in similar
claims to mean switching matrices that are corresponding or virtually
identical in effect or function. IPR2013-00112, Paper 14 at 12.
IV argues that “equivalent switching matrices” should be interpreted
to mean “switching matrices that are virtually identical in effect or
function.” PO Resp. 15-16. In support of its interpretation, IV cites a
dictionary definition of “equivalent” as “corresponding or virtually identical
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

13
esp[ecially] in effect or function.” Id. (citing Ex. 1017 at 392-93). We agree
with IV that “equivalent” in claim 1 should be given its ordinary and
customary meaning, and that the dictionary definition of “equivalent” is
indicative of that meaning. We also note that the dictionary definition is
consistent with the Specification of the ’545 patent, which describes “three
monochrome LCD arrays 117, 118, and 119” for the colors red, green, and
blue. See Ex. 1001, col. 2, l. 65-col. 3, l. 1. IV’s proposed interpretation,
however, omits the word “corresponding” from the dictionary definition.
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the
Specification, we interpret “equivalent switching matrices” to mean
switching matrices that are corresponding or virtually identical in effect or
function.

4. “Video Controller Adapted for Controlling the
Light-Shutter Matrices”
Claim 1 recites a “video controller adapted for controlling the
light-shutter matrices.” In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted the
phrase to mean a component that controls light-shutter matrices to facilitate
the display of video. Dec. on Inst. 9-10. IV argues that the Board’s
interpretation is too broad in view of the Specification of the ’545 patent,
which provides: “A video signal for the system is delivered from outside via
link 125 into a controller 122. . . . Controller 122 controls the three
monochrome matrices 117, 118, and 119.” PO Resp. 13-14 (citing Ex.
1001, col. 3, ll. 13-18) (emphasis omitted). We disagree. The portion of the
Specification cited by IV describes an exemplary embodiment of the
invention and does not define explicitly the phrase “video controller adapted
for controlling the light-shutter matrices.” See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 16-18.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

14
Indeed, the Specification states that “[t]here are many ways adequate
controllers may be implemented.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 5-6. The claims also do
not recite a “video signal,” and we see no basis to import a “video signal”
requirement into the claims based on the exemplary embodiment’s use of a
video signal. Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims
in light of the Specification, we interpret “video controller adapted for
controlling the light-shutter matrices” to mean a component that controls
light-shutter matrices to facilitate the display of video.

B. Claims 1-3 are Unpatentable Over Flasck
With respect to the alleged obviousness of claims 1-3 over Flasck, we
have reviewed Xilinx’s Petition, IV’s Patent Owner Response, and Xilinx’s
Reply, as well as the evidence discussed in each of those papers. We are
persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-3 are
unpatentable over Flasck under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Pet. 12-23;
Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 17-30.

1. Flasck
Flasck discloses a projection system comprising three “reflective
image plane modules,” where each module “operates on a single color
component, red, green or blue.” Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 57-64. The color
components are “combined on a screen or before projecting on the screen to
form the full color projection image.” Id.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

15
Figure 11 of Flasck is reproduced below.

As shown in Figure 11, three light sources 144/146/148 transmit light
through blue, green, and red filters 124/126/128, respectively. Id. at col. 7,
ll. 60-66. Electronic interface 118 provides information to reflective image
plane modules 92/104/112, which encode information onto the light beams.
Id. at col. 5, ll. 9-16; col. 7, ll. 32-34. Combining prism 150 then combines
the light beams into one encoded beam, which passes through lens system
154 and is projected onto screen 98. Id. at col. 7, l. 66-col. 8, l. 5.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

16
Figure 2C of Flasck, reproduced below, depicts a side view of the
reflective image plane modules.

As shown in Figure 2C, incoming light passes through aperture 42 of
mirrored wall 40, passes through wafer based active matrix 46, reflects off
of back wall 44, reflects again off of back surface 48 of mirrored wall 40,
and is directed to projection lens 50 for projection onto a screen (not shown).
Id. at col. 5, ll. 9-43. Flasck describes wafer based active matrix 46 as
follows:
The light has the information imparted to or encoded on it by
the wafer based active matrix 46 as it is reflected from the
wafer based active matrix 46. . . .
The wafer based active matrix 46 is a wafer based active
matrix having a specular reflective back surface to reflect light
therefrom. The wafer based active matrix is covered by an
LCD or similar characteristic material, such as an
electrophoretic material.
Id. at col. 5, ll. 14-25.

Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

17
2. Analysis
There is no dispute that Flasck teaches the majority of the limitations
of claim 1. For example, Flasck teaches “individual light sources” (light
sources 144/146/148), a “lens system” (lenses 34/36/50), and “color filters”
(filters 124/126/128). See Pet. 13-15. IV argues that Flasck fails to teach or
suggest three limitations of claim 1: a “video projector system,” a
“light-shutter matrix system,” and a “video controller adapted for controlling
the light-shutter matrices.” PO Resp. 16-36. IV does not argue that Flasck
fails to teach or suggest the additional limitations of dependent claims 2 and
3.

a. Video Projector System
IV contends that Flasck’s projection system is not a “video projector
system” because it is not described explicitly as projecting “video” and is
not capable of operating at video speeds (i.e., projecting images that change
fast enough to be undetectable by the human eye). PO Resp. 16-25. IV’s
argument is not persuasive because, as explained above, we do not interpret
the preamble of claim 1 to be limiting. See supra Section II.A.1.
To the extent IV’s argument applies to the “video” display on a
projection surface recited in the body of the claim, we also do not agree.
Flasck refers repeatedly to “video” projection in its discussion of the prior
art, and is addressed to a purported improvement on that video projection
art. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 24-38; col. 4, ll. 6-43. For instance, in
discussing the prior art, Flasck describes a “video or computer signal
source” provided to a “video drive circuit,” which sends drive signals, such
as “red video, blue video, [and] green video,” to an LCD. Id. at col. 4,
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

18
ll. 6-21. Further, electronic interface 118 in Flasck, which provides
information encoding to reflective image plane modules 92/104/112, is
labeled as “TV or Computer Interface Electronics” in Figure 9. Id. at col. 7,
ll. 32-34; Fig. 9. Although Flasck does not describe the particular content of
the “information encoding” provided by electronic interface 118, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the “TV or Computer
Interface Electronics” label that the system was meant to be used with an
incoming television signal, which is a type of video signal. Indeed, IV’s
declarant, Robert Smith-Gillespie, testified that he would have understood
the “TV or Computer Interface Electronics” label in Flasck to mean “a
connector and some electronics to accept a . . . video signal.” Ex. 1014 at
155:1-20. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
the Flasck projection system to provide a “video” display.
IV cites another patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,537,436 (Ex. 2009)
(“Bottoms”), as evidence that “cables and other connections that were
commonly called TV interfaces at the time of Flasck were not exclusively
used for video.” PO Resp. 18-19. The portion of Bottoms cited by IV,
however, describes a particular type of system for integrated telephone, data,
and video communication using a telephone cord connection to a television,
where “only sequences of still pictures can be transmitted to the television”
due to the low bandwidth of the telephone cord. See Ex. 2009, col. 16,
ll. 10-25. We do not see any indication that Flasck operated in a similar
manner to the Bottoms system and, therefore, do not view Bottoms as
indicative of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
the “TV or Computer Interface Electronics” label in Flasck. Also, the fact
that some systems of the time were not capable of operating at video speeds
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

19
does not mean that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood
Flasck to project video.
IV’s argument that Flasck’s projection system would not have been
capable of operating at video speeds also is not persuasive. Flasck discloses
a “wafer based active matrix . . . covered by an LCD or similar characteristic
material, such as an electrophoretic material,” where “[o]ne preferable LCD
material is a solid light modulating material having bodies of LC [liquid
crystal] material suspended therein.” Ex. 1002, col. 5, ll. 22-28. IV argues
that the “solid light modulating material having bodies of LC material
suspended therein” in Flasck refers to polymer dispersed liquid crystal
(PDLC), and that the response time for PDLC-based devices of the time
would have been too slow for video. PO Resp. 23-24. As support, IV cites
another patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,170,271 (Ex. 2011) (“Lackner”), filed in
1991, describing various PDLC research papers of the time, including one
pertaining to a PDLC device with a “5-10 ms on-time and 1.5-3 seconds
off-time,” resulting in a “frame time (on-time plus off-time) [that] is very
slow compared to a dynamic television image frame time of less than 33
ms.” See Ex. 2011, col. 1, l. 62-col. 2, l. 11.
As Xilinx points out, however, other papers cited in Lackner describe
much lower switching times, and demonstrate that television signals could
have been displayed using active matrix PDLC technology of the time. See
Pet. Reply 8-9; Ex. 2011, col. 2, 39-52 (“Three active matrix cells were used
for red, blue and green channels of full color projection TV.”); col. 2,
ll. 53-65 (citing a paper entitled “A Frame-Sequential Color-TV Projection
Display”). Mr. Smith-Gillespie, IV’s declarant, also acknowledged that,
based on Lackner’s description of the other papers, it was possible at the
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

20
time to use PDLC in a video display system “[a]t least in the lab.” Ex. 1014
at 150:18-152:4. Thus, we are not persuaded by IV’s argument that Flasck’s
system, using a PDLC, was incapable of operating at video speeds. We are
persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Flasck teaches a system
that projects on a surface to provide a “video” display.
1

b. Light-Shutter Matrix System
Xilinx identifies the combination of reflective image plane modules
92/104/112 in Flasck as a “light-shutter matrix system.” Pet. 15. According
to Xilinx, the combination comprises light-shutter matrices because each
reflective image plane module has a wafer based active matrix that encodes
information onto the light beam. Id.; see Ex. 1002, col. 5, ll. 14-26 (“[t]he
wafer based active matrix is covered by an LCD or similar characteristic
material”).
Based on its proposed interpretation of “light-shutter matrix system,”
IV argues that a light shutter is an element that selectively admits and blocks
light through absorption. PO Resp. 30-33. According to IV, a device like
the one disclosed in Flasck, which reflects or scatters incoming light, does
not block light through absorption. Id.; see Ex. 2005 ¶ 16. As support, IV
cites U.S. Patent No. 6,266,037 B1 (Ex. 2012) (“Flasck II”),
2
which

1
We also note that the same analysis applies even if the “video projector
system” preamble of claim 1 were interpreted as IV suggests. Thus,
regardless of whether the claim requires a “video projector system” or
providing a “video” display, Flasck teaches the projection of video.

2
Flasck II is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/023,475,
which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 07/392,859, which is
incorporated by reference in Flasck. See Ex. 1002, col. 5, ll. 16-20.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

21
describes Flasck’s wafer based active matrix in greater detail. PO Resp.
32-33. Figure 4 of Flasck II is reproduced below.

Figure 4 depicts the structure for an individual pixel in the wafer based
active matrix, including glass layer 56, activating electrical contact layer 54,
LCD material layer 52, reflector 50, capacitor 48, and substrate segment 32.
Ex. 2012, col. 5, ll. 28-58. Flasck II describes the operation of the wafer
based active matrix as follows:
When utilizing the PDLC material 52, the refractive
index of the LC material matches the index of the polymer
matrix when the pixel 44 is activated. When the indexes are
matched, very little light is scattered and most of the light is
reflected off the reflector 50 back out of the pixel 44 and hence
the wafer based active matrix 30. When a field is not present
on the layer 52, the indexes do not match and most of the light
is scattered. The light is still reflected or scattered out of the
pixel 44 and hence the wafer based active matrix 30, but the
light is dispersed resulting in a black or off pixel when
projected. Since the scattering is proportional to the field
applied to the pixel 44, a gray scale can be obtained by utilizing
a range of voltages.
Id. at col. 5, l. 65-col. 6, l. 10 (emphases added). According to IV, based on
the additional detail provided by Flasck II, the light entering the reflective
image plane modules in Flasck is reflected or scattered, not blocked, and,
therefore, the reflective image plane modules do not constitute a
“light-shutter matrix system.”
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

22
As explained above, we do not agree with IV’s proposed
interpretation and instead interpret “light-shutter matrix system” to mean a
set of matrices, such as monochrome LCD arrays, where each matrix
comprises a two-dimensional array of elements that selectively limit the
passage of light. See supra Section II.A.2. We do not interpret the claims as
requiring absorption. Nor do we see any reason why the reflection and
scattering in Flasck does not constitute limiting the passage of light. We
find Dr. Buckman’s testimony regarding the operation of Flasck persuasive
on this point:
Light enters the pixel from the top, passing through the
transparent glass and electrical contact layers. If the pixel is
activated by a charge in capacitor 48, then the light passes
through the liquid crystal layer, reflects off the reflective layer,
and passes back through the LCD, electrical contact, and glass
layers. If the pixel is deactivated (i.e., if capacitor 48 does not
have a charge), then the LCD layer scatters the light (i.e., it
blocks the light from traveling along its original destination
pathway by redirecting it into other directions).
Ex. 1013 ¶ 23 (citations omitted). Light at “on” pixels in the reflective LCD
arrangement of Flasck passes through the LCD material and reflects off of
the back reflector and out of the pixel, whereas light at “off” pixels is
scattered. In both the reflective LCD arrangement of Flasck and the
transmissive LCD arrangement described in the Specification of the ’545
patent, light at certain pixels is prevented from continuing in its original
direction. Therefore, we are persuaded that the wafer based active matrices
in Flasck selectively limit the passage of light, and are light-shutter matrices.
IV also argues that Flasck teaches away from a “light-shutter matrix
system.” PO Resp. 25-30 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 28-31). IV points to Flasck’s
description of a prior art transmissive LCD projection system developed by
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

23
Seiko Epson Corp. Id. Flasck discloses that in that system, three LCD
panels, each with a polarizer on either side of LC material, were “utilized as
a shutter to absorb the light not to be transmitted,” such that “[b]oth the
polarizers and the LC material absorb light which generates heat, which is
deleterious to the LCD panel.” Ex. 1002, col. 4, ll. 25-38. The use of
polarizers and LC material also resulted in “low brightness because of the
amount of light absorbed.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 38-43. Therefore, according to
IV, Flasck discloses disadvantages to using light shutters and teaches away
from the use of a “light-shutter matrix system,” as recited in claim 1. PO
Resp. 25-30.
IV’s argument is not persuasive. “A reference may be said to teach
away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As explained above, we do not
interpret “light-shutter matrix system” to require light absorption, and
conclude that Flasck’s wafer based active matrix embodiment is a
“light-shutter matrix system” as properly interpreted. Thus, there is no need
to modify Flasck or combine it with any other teaching to achieve a
“light-shutter matrix system,” as the reference already teaches the limitation
and does not discourage its use. Further, Flasck’s disclosed embodiment is
meant to solve heat and brightness problems associated with prior art
transmissive LCD projection systems. We are not persuaded that Flasck’s
description of systems with those problems amounts to teaching away from
the subsequently disclosed solution.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

24
We are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Flasck
teaches a “light-shutter matrix system,” as recited in claim 1.

c. Video Controller Adapted for Controlling the Light-Shutter Matrices
As stated in the Decision on Institution, Flasck does not disclose,
expressly or inherently, a “video controller adapted for controlling . . .
light-shutter matrices.” Dec. on Inst. 14-15. Xilinx, however, contends that
the limitation would have been obvious based on Flasck’s disclosure of a
prior art projection system. Pet. 19-21. In describing the prior art projection
system depicted in Figure 1, Flasck discloses a “video or computer signal
source” coupled to “video drive circuit 20,” which “generates the required
drive signals coupled over a line 22 to the LCD 16.” Ex. 1002, col. 4,
ll. 9-14. The “drive signals cause the pixels of the LCD 16 to block or
transmit light to impart the required information onto the light transmitted
through the LCD 16.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 17-21 (emphasis added). Xilinx’s
position is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the
use of such a video drive circuit in the location of electronic interface 118
(“TV or Computer Interface Electronics”) as the “predictable use of prior[]
art elements according to their established functions.” Pet. 20-21. Given the
similarities in function between video drive circuit 20, which provides drive
signals to drive an LCD, and electronic interface 118, which provides
“information encoding” to the reflective image plane modules (containing an
LCD material), we are persuaded by Xilinx’s analysis.
IV argues that Flasck teaches away from the use of a “light-shutter
matrix system” and, therefore, does not teach or suggest a video controller
adapted for “controlling the light-shutter matrices,” as recited in claim 1.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

25
PO Resp. 34-36. According to IV, incorporating a video controller into the
location of electronic interface 118 would have been unpredictable and
improbable given Flasck’s teachings. Id. As explained above, we are
persuaded that Flasck teaches a “light-shutter matrix system,” and does not
teach away from such a system. Thus, IV’s argument regarding a video
controller “controlling the light-shutter matrices” is unpersuasive.
We are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Flasck
would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a “video
controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices” to control the
disclosed reflective image plane modules to facilitate the display of video,
and that claim 1 would have been obvious over Flasck.

d. Conclusion
Based on the record evidence, in light of the arguments presented,
Xilinx has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1, as well
as claims 2 and 3 depending therefrom, would have been obvious over
Flasck.

C. Claims 1-3 are Unpatentable Over Takanashi and Lee
With respect to the alleged obviousness of claims 1-3 over Takanashi
and Lee, we have reviewed Xilinx’s Petition, IV’s Patent Owner Response,
and Xilinx’s Reply, as well as the evidence discussed in each of those
papers. We are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims
1-3 are unpatentable over Takanashi and Lee under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See
Pet. 23-30; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 31-44, 49-58.

Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

26
1. Takanashi
Takanashi discloses a “spatial light modulator and a display unit in
which the spatial light modulator is applied.” Ex. 1003, col. 1, ll. 8-10.
Figure 17 of Takanashi is reproduced below.

As shown in Figure 17, light source LS emits light, which is linearly
polarized by polarizer PL1 and separated into red, green, and blue
components by three-color separation optical system 11. Id. at col. 16,
ll. 1-14. Each respective light beam then passes through a liquid crystal
element (e.g., ECBtr for red light), polarizer (e.g., PL2r for red light), and
spatial light modulator element (e.g., SLMtr for red light), which
“modulate[s]” the respective light beam through the use of incoming “write
light WL.” Id. at col. 16, ll. 6-28; col. 1, l. 18-col. 5, l. 25; Figs. 1-3. The
light beams then are recombined by three-color combination optical system
12, and the combined light passes through another polarizer PL3 and
projection lens PJL, which projects the combined light onto a screen (not
shown). Id. at col. 16, ll. 29-42.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

27
Takanashi discloses a particular projection system using spatial light
modulators and prisms, as shown in Figure 16 reproduced below.

In Figure 16, light emitted by light source LS is incident on dichroic prism
DP, which separates the light into red, green, and blue components before
being transmitted to the ECB, PL, and SLM elements. Id. at col. 15,
ll. 30-43. For example, green light “is transmitted through the liquid crystal
element ECBtg and the polarizer PLg and [is] incident on the modulator
element SLMrg.” Id.

2. Lee
Lee discloses a “projection color liquid crystal display (LCD) system
us[ing] a large reflecting liquid crystal (LC) panel as a screen.” Ex. 1004,
Abstract.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

28
Figure 2 of Lee is reproduced below.

Figure 2 depicts an LCD projection system comprising white light sources
26, focusing lenses 15R/G/B, red/green/blue color filters 28R/G/B, light
shutters 14R/G/B, diffusing lenses 12R/G/B, and LC panel 11. Id. at col. 3,
l. 14-col. 4, l. 26. The system is controlled by a number of components.
Lamp voltage controlling circuit 18 controls the intensity of the light emitted
by light sources 26. Id. at col. 3, ll. 14-19. Light shutter controlling circuit
19 “successively permits a respective unicolor light beam connected to a
respective light shutter 14R, 14G, 14B to pass therethrough during the
frequency of 1/3,” and prevents the light beam from passing through during
the other 2/3 of the time. Id. at col. 3, ll. 27-33. LC panel 11 is controlled
by frame inducing circuit 22, image controlling circuit 21, and LCD driver
20 in the following manner:
The LC panel 11 is successively connected to a liquid
crystal display LCD driver 20 to drive the panel; an image
controlling circuit 21 to supply a driving signal based on a color
information of respective color with the driver 20; and a frame
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

29
inducing circuit 22 to induce the respective light shutter 14R,
14G, 14B and image controlling circuit 21.
Id. at col. 3, ll. 46-52. Red, green, and blue light beams are successively
projected through light shutters 14R/G/B, and successively reflected from
LC panel 11 according to a “color driving signal” supplied by image
controlling circuit 21 and used by LCD driver 20 to drive LC panel 11. Id.
at col. 3, ll. 53-61. The light beams are projected and reflected so quickly
that a person viewing LC panel 11 sees a composite image rather than
successive colors. Id. at col. 3, ll. 62-66.

3. Analysis
Xilinx relies on Takanashi as allegedly teaching the “light-shutter
matrix system” and “optical combination system” limitations of claim 1, and
relies on Lee as allegedly teaching the remaining limitations. Pet. 23-28.
There is no dispute that Takanashi and Lee teach the majority of the
limitations of claim 1. For example, Lee teaches “individual light sources”
(white light sources 26), a “lens system” (focusing lenses 15R/G/B), and
“color filters” (filters 28R/G/B). See id. at 24-26. IV argues that Takanashi
and Lee fail to teach or suggest three limitations of claim 1: a “light-shutter
matrix system,” “equivalent switching matrices,” and a “video controller
adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices.” PO Resp. 36-49. IV does
not argue that Takanashi and Lee fail to teach or suggest the additional
limitations of dependent claims 2 and 3.

a. Light-Shutter Matrix System
Xilinx identifies “Takanashi’s combination of ECB elements,
polarizers PL2, and the SLM elements” as a “light-shutter matrix system.”
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

30
Pet. 24, 26-27. Specifically, Xilinx contends that the ECBtr, PL2r, and
SLMtr components shown in Figure 17 above are a switching matrix used to
process the red beam of light, and the corresponding components are
switching matrices for the green and blue light beams. Id. (citing Ex. 1006
¶¶ 42-44).
IV argues that Takanashi lacks the “matrix” aspect of a “light-shutter
matrix system.” PO Resp. 37-39. IV contends that the spatial light
modulator SLM is not a “matrix” in the form of rows and columns because it
is a continuous layer of material, citing Takanashi’s disclosure that the SLM
is “formed as an element.” Id. at 38-39 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 33-44).
IV further argues that, even though Takanashi discloses projecting a
two-dimensional color image, a continuous layer of optical material, such as
a “film frame” or “overhead projector sheet with writing,” can produce a
two-dimensional image despite not being in “matrix” form. Id. at 37-38;
see Ex. 1003, col. 16, ll. 38-42; Figs. 17, 20.
Xilinx responds with testimony from Dr. Buckman comparing the
“optically-addressed” spatial light modulator (OASLM) of Takanashi with
an “electrically-addressed” spatial light modulator (EASLM), such as an
LCD array of the type disclosed in the Specification of the ’545 patent. See
Pet. Reply 12-13 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 27-33). An OASLM uses a read light
and a write light. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 27-28. The write light is directed at a
photosensitive material in the SLM, which creates an electric charge that
changes the state of the adjacent liquid crystal layer. Id. An image is
created by shining the write light at some points and not others. Id. The
read light passes through or reflects off of the SLM, taking on the same
image as the write light by virtue of the liquid crystal layer. Id. Similarly, in
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

31
an EASLM, an electric charge is created at particular points by electric
circuitry (e.g., transistors and capacitors) adjacent to the liquid crystal layer.
Id. ¶ 28. Dr. Buckman’s testimony is supported by textbook descriptions of
OASLMs and LCDs (an example of an EASLM), and we find it persuasive.
See Ex. 1016 at 310-31; Ex. 3002 at 186.
We are not persuaded by IV’s argument that the SLM in Takanashi is
not a “matrix” because it has a continuous liquid crystal layer. See PO Resp.
37-39. Mr. Smith-Gillespie acknowledged during his deposition that the
LCD arrays in the Specification of the ’545 patent have continuous liquid
crystal layers. Ex. 1015 at 174:4-11. In both the LCD array of the
exemplary embodiment of the ’545 patent and the OASLM described in
Takanashi, the “light-shutter” (i.e., what actually limits the passage of light)
is the liquid crystal layer itself, and the liquid crystal layer operates the same
way by changing state in response to an electric charge. Only the
mechanism for encoding the image is different—in the LCD array, the
charge image is created by the electric circuitry, whereas in Takanashi, the
charge image is created by the write light hitting the photosensitive material.
Thus, the fact that Takanashi has a continuous liquid crystal layer is
immaterial. What matters is whether that layer, like the layer in the LCD
array of the ’545 patent, is configured as a “matrix” (i.e., a two-dimensional
array) of elements that selectively limit the passage of light.
We conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood the SLM in Takanashi to be
configured as a “matrix.” Takanashi discloses a two-dimensional “color
image of the object of display” projected onto a screen, but does not state
explicitly that its input write light is in the form of a two-dimensional array.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

32
See Ex. 1003, col. 16, ll. 38-42; Figs. 17, 20. According to Dr. Buckman,
the reason for this is that an SLM “was a commonly-known device . . . in the
early 1990s.” Ex. 1013 ¶ 27. Dr. Buckman states that typical OASLMs
create images by “organizing the continuous liquid crystal layer into a
pixelated matrix of rows and columns” where each pixel “permits or limits
the passage of light according to the electric field near that location.” Id.
¶ 29. Dr. Buckman further testifies that using a cathode ray tube (CRT) was
one known way of providing a write light with an OASLM, and that the
write light for an OASLM would “usually” be from a CRT. Id. ¶¶ 29-32.
A CRT shines a moving light beam at an OASLM to create an image made
up of individual pixels in rows and columns. Id. ¶ 30.
Dr. Buckman’s testimony regarding the operation of OASLMs and
CRTs is supported by two textbooks, and we find it persuasive. See id.
¶¶ 30-31; Ex. 1016 at 331 (OASLMs used with CRTs), 552-55; Ex. 1019 at
24-25 (CRT scan addressing). We are persuaded that a person of ordinary
skill in the art, reading the OASLM disclosure of Takanashi and being aware
of how OASLMs typically operated, would have understood that the write
light in Takanashi is pixelated (i.e., organized into rows and columns).
Shining such a write light at the OASLM in Takanashi configures the
continuous liquid crystal layer into a “matrix” of elements that selectively
limit the passage of light, just as the circuitry in an EASLM configures a
continuous liquid crystal layer into a “matrix” of elements. Takanashi,
therefore, teaches the “matrix” aspect of the “light-shutter matrix system”
recited in claim 1.
IV also argues that Takanashi’s system cannot be considered a
“light-shutter” because, as described in Takanashi, the combinations of
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

33
ECB, PL2, and SLM elements each form a “wavelength selection filter.”
PO Resp. 39 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 9, ll. 44-49). IV does not elaborate on
this argument or explain sufficiently why Takanashi’s system is not a
“light-shutter” under the Board’s interpretation. Regardless, we are
persuaded for the above reasons that the OASLM liquid crystal layer in
Takanashi limits the passage of light (similar to an EASLM liquid crystal
layer that limits the passage of light).
We are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Takanashi
and Lee teach a “light-shutter matrix system,” as recited in claim 1.

b. Equivalent Switching Matrices
IV argues that Takanashi does not teach a light-shutter matrix system
comprising “equivalent switching matrices.” PO Resp. 46-49. IV asserts
that each of the combinations of ECB, PL2, and SLM elements in Takanashi
is a particular “kind” of wavelength selection filter that “passes only specific
monochromatic light.” Id. at 46-47 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 18, ll. 34-44).
According to IV, this type of filter system is different from the “triple
monochrome LCD structure” disclosed in the Specification of the ’545
patent and does not provide the same advantages, such as increased
brightness and quality at reduced cost. Id. at 47-49. IV contends that Xilinx
fails to address how Takanashi provides those advantages. Id. at 48.
We first note that none of the purported advantages described in the
Specification of the ’545 patent are required by the claims. Claim 1 merely
requires that the light-shutter matrix system be made up of “equivalent
switching matrices,” which we interpret to mean switching matrices that are
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

34
corresponding or virtually identical in effect or function. See supra Section
II.A.3.
Further, IV is correct that each combination of elements in Takanashi
passes only light of a particular color (red, green, or blue), see, e.g., Ex.
1003, col. 18, ll. 35-44, but that does not mean that the elements are not
corresponding or virtually identical in effect or function. The SLMs are
referenced in Takanashi with the same abbreviation (e.g., “SLMrr,”
“SLMrg,” and “SLMrb” in Figure 16), and each uses a write light to encode
an image onto a read light. See id. at col. 15, l. 22-col. 16, l. 42; Figs. 16,
17. There does not appear to be—and IV does not point to—any difference
between the devices apart from the difference in light color. We are
persuaded that the combinations of elements are “virtually identical” or, at
minimum, “corresponding.” Importantly, claim 1 does not require that the
matrices be identical, just that they be “equivalent.” IV’s position requires
them to be identical.
Further, as Xilinx points out, Mr. Smith-Gillespie acknowledged that
the distinction made in the Specification of the ’545 patent was between a
triple monochrome LCD structure and a color AM-LCD, not between a
triple monochrome LCD structure and an OASLM of the type described in
Takanashi. See Pet. Reply 15; Ex. 1015 at 219:23-222:15 (referring to Ex.
1020 ¶ 28). Thus, IV’s purported distinction in terms of functionality and
advantages is incorrect.
We are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Takanashi
and Lee teach “equivalent switching matrices,” as recited in claim 1.

Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

35
c. Video Controller Adapted for Controlling the Light-Shutter Matrices
IV argues that Takanashi and Lee do not teach a “video controller
adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices,” as recited in claim 1.
PO Resp. 40-46. Before analyzing whether the limitation is taught by the
references, we summarize the history of the parties’ arguments.
In its Petition, Xilinx argued that, although Takanashi does not
describe explicitly how it controls the light-shutter matrices to encode an
image, video controllers controlling light-shutter matrices were well-known
in the art at the time. Pet. 27. Xilinx then cited light shutter controlling
circuit 19 in Lee as a “video controller,” and argued that incorporating it into
the system of Takanashi would have been an obvious modification. Id.
During his subsequent deposition, Dr. Buckman testified that light
shutter controlling circuit 19 controls light shutters 14R/G/B as a “color
wheel,” successively allowing red, green, and blue light to pass through,
each 1/3 of the time. Ex. 2004 at 23:25-24:14. Dr. Buckman testified that a
color wheel controller is not a “video controller.” Id. at 25:6-10.
IV then filed its Patent Owner Response, arguing that light shutter
controlling circuit 19 is not a “video controller” based on Dr. Buckman’s
admission, and that it would not have been obvious to combine the two
references because Takanashi uses a write light signal and Lee uses
electronic signals. PO Resp. 40-46.
In its Reply, Xilinx admitted that Dr. Buckman was mistaken in his
original declaration, and argued that “[t]he actual video controller in Lee is
the LCD driver 20 and the image controlling circuit 21.” Pet. Reply 14.
Xilinx also served, with its Reply, a reply declaration from Dr. Buckman
where he testified that “[c]ircuit 20 in Lee is one example of a video
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

36
controller.” Ex. 1013 ¶ 35. IV then deposed Dr. Buckman again and
questioned him about the various components in Lee. See Ex. 2016 at
6:23-20:19.
3

At the oral hearing, IV argued that it would be prejudiced if Xilinx is
permitted to change its position regarding what it alleges to be the “video
controller” in Lee because IV had no opportunity to respond after Xilinx’s
Reply. See, e.g., Tr. 34:12-36:14, 50:23-51:8.
As an initial matter, we are cognizant of the fact that Dr. Buckman’s
opinion regarding what he believed to be a “video controller” in Lee
changed from the time of the Petition (on which the Board instituted a trial)
to his deposition. Under the circumstances, Dr. Buckman’s changed opinion
goes to his weight and credibility, and we give his testimony on the issue
little weight. Nevertheless, the Board’s mandate in an inter partes review is
to “issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any
patent claim challenged by the petitioner.” 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). We do so
based on the entire record before us. Thus, we must determine based on the
existing record whether claim 1 is patentable over Takanashi and Lee, which
includes an inquiry into whether the references teach the “video controller”
limitation.
After reviewing the entirety of the record, we are persuaded, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Takanashi and Lee teach a “video
controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices,” as recited in
claim 1. As explained above, we interpret the phrase to mean a component

3
It appears that IV filed an exhibit list as numbered Exhibit 34, and filed
Exhibits 2014-2016 as numbered Exhibits 35-37. Exhibits 2014-2016 will
be renumbered, and Exhibit 34 will be renumbered as Exhibit 2017.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

37
that controls light-shutter matrices to facilitate the display of video. See
supra Section II.A.4. Lee discloses that image controlling circuit 21
“suppl[ies] a driving signal based on a color information of respective color
with the driver 20,” and “LC panel 11 is successively connected to . . . LCD
driver 20 to drive the panel.” Ex. 1004, col. 3, ll. 46-52. Thus, Lee teaches
that LCD driver 20 and image controlling circuit 21 control LC panel 11 and
cause it to display video.
As to the combination of Takanashi and Lee, Xilinx contends that the
SLM components in Takanashi discussed above are a “light-shutter matrix.”
See supra Section II.C.3.a. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that a working video projector system, like the one described in
Takanashi, must have something to control the display of the video. The
SLMs in Takanashi must be controlled by something; if they were not, they
could not produce a dynamic projected image. Further, Mr. Smith-Gillespie
testified that “any real video projection system in 1996 would have had a
video controller,” and that devices existed at the time to “take in video and
then pass it along to some other device in the system that would drive . . . the
liquid crystal displays.” Ex. 1015 at 206:8-11, 209:6-22. Based on Lee’s
disclosure of components that control an LCD panel (an example of an
SLM) to facilitate the display of video, the need for something to control the
operation of the SLMs in Takanashi, and Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s testimony
regarding the existing knowledge at the time, we are persuaded that it would
have been obvious to include a component in Takanashi’s system that
controls the SLMs to facilitate the display of video. Doing so would have
been within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have amounted to
combining known elements according to their established functions, yielding
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

38
predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-18
(2007).
We are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Takanashi
and Lee teach a “video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter
matrices,” as recited in claim 1, and that claim 1 would have been obvious
over Takanashi and Lee.

d. Conclusion
Based on the record evidence, in light of the arguments presented,
Xilinx has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1, as well
as claims 2 and 3 depending therefrom, would have been obvious over
Takanashi and Lee.

D. IV’s Motion to Amend
In its Motion to Amend, IV proposes substitute claim 4, “contingent
on Claim 2 being found unpatentable,” and substitute claim 5, “contingent
on Claim 3 being found unpatentable.” Mot. to Amend 1. We determine
that claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable and, therefore, reach the merits of IV’s
motion.
As the moving party, IV bears the burden of proof to establish that it
is entitled to the relief requested. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Entry of the
proposed amendments is not automatic, but only upon IV’s having
demonstrated the patentability of those claims.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

39
Proposed substitute claims 4 and 5 include all of the limitations of
claims 2 and 3, respectively, and add new limitations.
4
Mot. to Amend. 1-3.
Specifically, claims 4 and 5 add the following:
a heat containment system, wherein the heat containment
system comprises an enclosure that isolates components in the
heat containment system from other components of the video
projector system, and wherein the heat containment system
includes:
the individual light sources;
heat filter glass adapted to filter heat from the
separate light beams as the separate light beams pass
through the heat filter glass and exit the heat containment
system; and
a fan in communication with an outside
environment, wherein the fan is adapted to force heat
generated by the individual light sources and heat filtered
by the heat filter glass into the outside environment;
a second controller adapted to control the individual light
sources and the fan; and
a control link adapted to connect the video controller to
the second controller to provide individualized variable control
of each of the individual light sources.
Id.

1. Written Description Support
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(1), a motion to amend in an inter
partes review must set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the
patent for each claim that is added or amended.” In its motion, IV explains
how the subject matter of its proposed substitute claims have written

4
Substitute claim 4 also corrects claim 2 to recite “video projector system,”
as in parent claim 1, rather than “video projection system.”
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

40
description support in the specification of U.S. Patent Application No.
08/686,809 (“the ’809 application”), which issued as the ’545 patent, as
filed. Mot. to Amend 3-7 (citing Ex. 1008). Regarding the added
limitations, IV relies on Figure 1 of the ’809 application and its
accompanying description of heat containment system 131, lamps 132-134,
heat filter glass 123, fan 136, controller 130, and control link 124. Id. (citing
Ex. 1008 at 10-11, 18). IV also cites support in the ’809 application for the
other limitations of the claims. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1008 at 18). We conclude
that IV has made a sufficient showing that proposed substitute claims 4 and
5, as a whole, have written description support in the disclosure of the ’809
application as filed.

2. Claim Interpretation
The patent owner bears the burden in a motion to amend to show a
patentable distinction of each proposed substitute claim over the prior art.
See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Accordingly, a “patent owner should identify
specifically the feature or features added to each substitute claim, as
compared to the challenged claim it replaces, and come forward with
technical facts and reasoning about those feature(s).” Idle Free Sys., Inc. v.
Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 at 7 (June 11, 2013). This
includes “construction of new claim terms, sufficient to persuade the Board
that the proposed substitute claim is patentable over the prior art of record,
and over prior art not of record but known to the patent owner.” Id.
In its Motion to Amend, IV argues that all of the claim limitations in
the proposed substitute claims should be interpreted “in accordance with
their plain and ordinary meaning.” Mot. to Amend 4. IV does not provide a
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

41
proposed interpretation for any term. Given the number of additional claim
limitations in claims 4 and 5, and the language used in the claims, we are not
persuaded that IV has met its burden to demonstrate patentability.
Specifically, IV failed to provide an interpretation for “second controller
adapted to control the individual light sources and the fan” and “control link
adapted to connect the video controller to the second controller to provide
individualized variable control of each of the individual light sources,” and
only addressed the phrases for the first time in its Reply. See PO Reply 2-3.
We conclude that interpreting both phrases is critical to determining whether
the proposed substitute claims are patentable, and that IV failed to meet its
burden by not addressing them in its Motion.
In any event, as explained below, even if IV’s arguments regarding
claim interpretation and patentability in its Reply are considered, IV has not
met its burden of showing that the proposed substitute claims are patentable.

a. “Second Controller Adapted to Control the
Individual Light Sources and the Fan”
Xilinx contends that “second controller” should be interpreted to
mean “one or more control circuits separate from the video controller.”
Pet. Opp. 7; see Ex. 1012 ¶ 21. IV contends, in its Reply, that the full phrase
“second controller adapted to control the individual light sources and the
fan” means “a controller, other than the video controller, that controls a fan
and individual light sources.” PO Reply 2-3; see Ex. 2015 ¶ 17. The
Specification of the ’545 patent does not describe a “second controller”
specifically, but discloses that controller 130 controls lamps 132-134 and fan
136, and “control link 124 is provided between controllers 122 and 130.”
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

42
See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 52-55; col. 3, ll. 35-38; Fig. 1. Thus, controller 130
is distinct from controller 122, which controls the LCD arrays. See id. at
col. 3, ll. 17-18. “Controller” also appears to be used in accordance with its
ordinary meaning of something that controls. Thus, applying the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, we interpret “second
controller adapted to control the individual light sources and the fan” to
mean something separate from the video controller that is adapted to control
the individual light sources and fan.

b. “Control Link Adapted to Connect the Video Controller to the Second
Controller to Provide Individualized Variable Control of Each of the
Individual Light Sources”
Xilinx contends that “control link” should be interpreted to mean “an
electronic connection between the video controller and another controller.”
Pet. Opp. 7; see Ex. 1012 ¶ 23. IV does not propose a specific
interpretation, but argues in its Reply that
[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
“individualized variable control” implemented via the “control
link” is a direct result of the connection between the “video
controller” and the “second controller” and that the
“individualized variable control” occurs as a result of
information in a video signal that is received by the video
controller.
PO Reply 5; see Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 20-21. We disagree with IV’s reading of the
claim. The Specification of the ’545 patent has only one sentence regarding
a control link: “[a] control link 124 is provided between controllers 122 and
130, and this link is used in some embodiments for some limited variable
control of light output from each of the three light sources individually.”
See Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 35-38. Thus, as described in the Specification, the
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

43
control link connects the two controllers, and is “used” for controlling the
light output from the three light sources. The Specification provides no
detail as to how the control link is “used” or how “some limited variable
control” of the light sources is accomplished. Further, we do not see
anything in the claims or Specification requiring the control to be the “direct
result” of the connection, or that the control occurs as a result of information
in a “video signal” received by the video controller, as IV suggests.
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification,
we interpret the full phrase “control link adapted to connect the video
controller to the second controller to provide individualized variable control
of each of the individual light sources” to mean a connection between the
video controller and second controller through which individualized variable
control over each of the individual light sources is provided.

3. Patentability Over the Prior Art
We first note that IV’s Motion to Amend does not account sufficiently
for the basic knowledge and skill set possessed by a person of ordinary skill
in the art. IV asserts that proposed substitute claims 4 and 5 are “patentably
distinct over both the prior art of record and the prior art known to [IV],”
relying on the testimony of Mr. Smith-Gillespie. Mot. to Amend. 7-8 (citing
Ex. 2005). In its Motion, however, IV addresses only the three references
involved in this inter partes review: Flasck, Takanashi, and Lee. Id. at
8-15. The proposed substitute claims recite a number of standard
components known in the art to be used with video projector systems, such
as heat filter glass, fans, and controllers, as IV acknowledges. See, e.g., id.
at 9, 11; Ex. 1002, col. 8, ll. 50-56; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 50-55. IV does not
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

44
address, in any meaningful way, the level of ordinary skill in the art and
what was previously known, or at least within the ordinary creativity and
skill set of a person of ordinary skill in the art, regarding these components
in general. At least some explanation should have been provided as to why a
skilled artisan, applying his or her own knowledge and creativity, would not
have found the proposed substitute claims obvious. IV has failed to
demonstrate the patentability of the proposed substitute claims on that basis
as well.
Again, though, even if IV’s arguments regarding patentability in its
Reply are considered, we are not persuaded that IV has met its burden to
show that proposed substitute claims 4 and 5 would have been nonobvious
over the prior art. Xilinx, in opposing IV’s motion, cites the following
additional prior art references:
1. U.S. Patent No. 5,136,397, issued Aug. 4, 1992
(Ex. 1011) (“Miyashita”); and
2. U.S. Patent No. 5,692,821, filed June 28, 1996, issued
Dec. 2, 1997 (Ex. 1009) (“Rodriguez”).
Pet. Opp. 6. Xilinx asserts that claims 4 and 5 are unpatentable over Flasck,
Rodriguez, Lee, and Miyashita.
5
Id. at 8-12. Xilinx argues that Rodriguez,
Lee, and Miyashita teach all of the added limitations in claims 4 and 5, and
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the
Flasck projector system to include the added limitations. Id. Xilinx’s

5
Xilinx also cites a third reference, U.S. Patent No. 5,313,234 (Ex. 1010)
(“Edmonson”), and argues that the claims are unpatentable over Flasck,
Edmonson, Lee, and Miyashita. Pet. Opp. 12-15. We need not reach the
merits of this argument, as we agree with Xilinx’s arguments regarding
Flasck, Rodriguez, Lee, and Miyashita.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

45
arguments are supported by the testimony of Dr. Buckman. See Ex. 1012
¶¶ 24-32.

a. Rodriguez
Rodriguez is directed to a “thermal management system[] for use
within a projection system.” See Ex. 1009, col. 1, l. 14-col. 2, l. 49; col. 6,
ll. 4-7. Figure 4 of Rodriguez is reproduced below.

Figure 4 depicts duct 32, which is housed within a “compact integrated
liquid crystal display projector” (shown in Figure 1). Id. at col. 6, ll. 4-7.
The interior surface of duct 32, including cooling fins 33, is “coated with a
thermal radiation absorbent coating.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 10-17. Duct 32 also
includes cooling fan 72, a transparent port filled with infrared filter 38, and
light source 30 (shown in Figures 2A and 2B). See id. at col. 3, ll. 55-60;
col. 6, ll. 34-42.

b. Miyashita
Miyashita is directed to a “liquid crystal video projection system”
comprising, inter alia, a liquid crystal panel, heat sensor, variable-speed
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

46
cooling fan, and control module. Ex. 1011, col. 2, ll. 26-36. Figure 3 of
Miyashita is reproduced below.

Figure 3 depicts the components of liquid crystal video projector 30,
including control unit 32 and other devices that communicate with each
other via input/output (I/O) port 93, such as projection lamp power
controller 72 and fan motor controller 76. Id. at col. 5, ll. 21-41. As shown
in Figure 2, control unit 32 includes picture controller 42. Id. at col. 4,
l. 61-col. 5, l. 1.

Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

47
c. Analysis
We agree with Xilinx regarding the teachings of the additional prior
art references, and agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
had reason to combine them in the manner proposed by Xilinx and Dr.
Buckman. See Pet. Opp. 8-12; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 24-32. Specifically, Rodriguez
teaches a “heat containment system, wherein the heat containment system
comprises an enclosure that isolates components in the heat containment
system from other components of the video projector system” (the system
depicted in Figure 4), including a light source (light source 30), a “heat filter
glass adapted to filter heat from the separate light beams as the separate light
beams pass through the heat filter glass and exit the heat containment
system” (infrared filter 38), and a “fan in communication with an outside
environment, wherein the fan is adapted to force heat generated by the
individual light sources and heat filtered by the heat filter glass into the
outside environment” (cooling fan 72). See Pet. Opp. 9-11; Ex. 1009, col. 3,
ll. 55-60; col. 6, ll. 4-42. Miyashita teaches a “second controller” (the
combination of projection lamp power controller 72 and fan motor controller
76) adapted to control a light source and fan, and a “control link adapted to
connect the video controller to the second controller” to control a light
source (I/O port 93 link permitting control unit 32 to communicate with
projection lamp power controller 72 and fan motor controller 76). See Pet.
Opp. 11-12; Ex. 1011, col. 5, ll. 21-41. Flasck and Lee teach the use of three
individual light sources instead of one, and Lee teaches individualized
variable control of the light sources. See Pet. Opp. 10-11; Ex. 1002, col. 7,
ll. 60-66; Ex. 1004, col. 3, ll. 14-19 (“three unicolor light sources . . . are
connected to a lamp voltage controlling circuit 18 so as to change the light
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

48
intensity emitted from a respective light source”); Ex. 1014 at 157:22-158:5
(testimony from Mr. Smith-Gillespie acknowledging that Lee “provide[s]
individualized variable control of each of the individual light sources”).
IV makes three arguments. First, IV contends that the references may
not be combined because (1) Flasck uses a heat absorbing glass and has “no
suggestion . . . of a need to remove heat to the outside environment,” and
(2) Lee teaches away from using a heat containment system because its
system eliminates the need for a cooling device. PO Reply 3. We disagree.
Flasck discloses the problem of overheating in LCD projectors, and
expressly states that its heat absorbing plate is “optional.” See Ex. 1002,
col. 4, ll. 36-38; col. 8, ll. 54-56. The fact that Flasck discloses one potential
solution does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have had reason to use a different (potentially better) solution instead.
Likewise, the fact that Lee allegedly solves the overheating problem in its
particular system in one way does not mean necessarily that it teaches away
from other solutions, such as the heat containment system taught by
Rodriguez, as explained by Xilinx. See Pet. Opp. 8-9.
Second, IV argues that Miyashita does not teach the claimed “second
controller.” PO Reply 3-4. IV cites an annotated figure in Dr. Buckman’s
declaration where Dr. Buckman indicated his opinion that a number of
components shown in Figure 3 of Miyashita constitute a “second controller.”
Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 1012 at 29). IV contends that a “fan motor,” cited in that
figure, cannot be part of a “controller” for a fan. Id. As explained above,
however, we conclude that the combination of projection lamp power
controller 72 and fan motor controller 76 constitutes a “second controller.”
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

49
Third, IV argues that Miyashita does not teach the claimed “control
link” because control in the Miyashita system is not the direct result of the
connection between devices, and because control unit 32 is not a “video
controller.” PO Reply 4-5. We do not agree with IV’s reading of the claims
and instead interpret the full “control link” phrase to mean a connection
between the video controller and second controller through which
individualized variable control over each of the individual light sources is
provided. Miyashita teaches that I/O port 93 is a connection between control
unit 32 and projection lamp power controller 72 for a single light source, and
Lee teaches that more than one light source may be controlled. See Ex.
1011, col. 5, ll. 21-41; Ex. 1004, col. 3, ll. 14-19. Further, Miyashita’s
control unit 32 includes picture controller 42, which “provides control to set
the level of the picture attributes of color, hue, brightness, contrast, and
sharpness (peaking),” and is a “video controller” under the Board’s
interpretation. See Ex. 1011, col. 4, ll. 61-64. Regardless, the use of a
“video controller” would have been obvious based on Flasck, as explained
above. See supra Section II.B.2.c. IV’s arguments regarding the claimed
“control link,” therefore, are not persuasive.
Based on the foregoing discussion, IV has not met its burden to
demonstrate that claims 4 and 5 would have been nonobvious over Flasck,
Rodriguez, Lee, and Miyashita. Because we agree with Xilinx regarding the
teachings of Rodriguez and Miyashita, and conclude that IV has not met its
burden to demonstrate patentability over these references in combination
with the other prior art involved in this inter partes review, we need not
address Xilinx’s other arguments in its Opposition. See Pet. Opp. 1-4.

Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

50
E. IV’s Motion to Exclude
IV moves to exclude Dr. Buckman’s reply declaration directed to the
challenged claims of the ’545 patent (Exhibit 1013) and Dr. Buckman’s
declaration directed to IV’s proposed substitute claims (Exhibit 1012).
6

Mot. to Exclude 1. IV identifies where in the record it objected to Exhibits
1012 and 1013, and identifies a supplemental declaration from Dr. Buckman
(Exhibit 1021) submitted by Xilinx as supplemental evidence in response to
the objection. Id. at 2.
7
As the moving party, IV bears the burden of proof
to establish that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that
Dr. Buckman’s testimony is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of
Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a).
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge,
skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form
of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence
or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

6
The original copies of the declarations, filed on September 12, 2013,
contained errors caused by a conversion to Portable Document Format
(PDF). Paper 31. The Board granted permission to file corrected versions,
which Xilinx did on September 23, 2013. Id. The copies filed on September
12, 2013 will be expunged.

7
The parties are reminded that objections to evidence, and supplemental
evidence in response to an objection, are “served” on the opposing party, not
“filed,” under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.64(b) and 42.64(c). Under the circumstances,
because the documents would have been filed as exhibits with the parties’
motion to exclude papers regardless, we will maintain the documents in the
record rather than expunging them.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

51
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.
IV makes two arguments. First, IV contends that Dr. Buckman is not
qualified to offer expert testimony in this proceeding because, although he
has experience in electrical engineering and optics in general, he does not
have “‘special skill, knowledge, or experience’ concerning the pertinent art
at issue in this proceeding: video projection and liquid crystal displays.”
Mot. to Exclude 4-5 (citing Shreve v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 166 F. Supp. 2d
378, 393 (D. Md. 2001)). IV argues, for instance, that Dr. Buckman has not
taught about video projection in particular, has not published any papers on
LCDs or testified in a legal proceeding about LCDs, has not constructed a
video projection system or LCD, and is not aware of the “standard reference
works” for video projection and LCDs. Id. at 5-6.
We are not persuaded that Dr. Buckman is unqualified to offer
testimony in this proceeding. Dr. Buckman states that he has over forty
years of experience in the field of optics, and was a professor of electrical
engineering for thirty-five years. Ex. 1021 ¶ 3. He taught optics courses
that addressed many of the standard optical components described in the
’545 patent and cited prior art references (e.g., spatial light modulators, color
filters, polarizers, prisms, lenses), designed and built systems using these
components, and authored a textbook entitled “Guided-Wave Photonics.”
Id. ¶¶ 5-8. Dr. Buckman testifies that he has significant experience with
spatial light modulators and electrical devices that control spatial light
modulators. Id. ¶¶ 11-12. IV does not explain sufficiently why video
projection is so specialized a field that an individual with such experience in
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

52
the field of optics would not be qualified to opine on the issues in this
proceeding. Nor does IV give a persuasive reason why Dr. Buckman cannot
testify about LCDs, when LCDs are an example of the broader category of
spatial light modulators.
Second, IV argues that Dr. Buckman’s opinions are unreliable
because he changed his opinion about the alleged “video controller” in Lee
three times. Mot. to Exclude 9-12. IV points to testimony from Dr.
Buckman in this proceeding and in related Case IPR2013-00112 involving
claims of the ’334 patent that similarly recite a “video controller.” Id.
IV asserts that Dr. Buckman’s declarations should be excluded in their
entirety because “Dr. Buckman’s ever-shifting opinions in this case are
unreliable.” Id. at 11-12.
As explained above, we agree with IV that Dr. Buckman’s change in
opinion regarding the alleged “video controller” in Lee impacts his
credibility and the weight to be given his testimony on that issue. See supra
Section II.C.3.c. We are not persuaded, however, that the change makes the
entirety of his testimony unreliable and inadmissible. IV does not explain
sufficiently how Dr. Buckman’s single admitted mistake impacts the
remainder of his testimony dealing with other prior art references and other
aspects of Lee. Indeed, as Xilinx points out, courts have recognized that an
expert’s mistake or changed opinion goes to the expert’s credibility, not the
admissibility of the entire testimony. See Exclude Opp. 14-15; Deputy v.
Lehman Bros., Inc., 345 F.3d 494, 506-07 (7th Cir. 2003). Challenges to a
witness’s credibility and the weight to be accorded his or her testimony are
not appropriate in a motion to exclude. See Rules of Practice for Trials
Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

53
Trial and Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,633
(Aug. 14, 2012) (“Issues relating to credibility and the weight of the
evidence may be raised in responses and replies. To the extent a party seeks
to exclude the evidence in dispute, a party is to raise the issue in a motion to
exclude.”); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,765, 48,767
(Aug. 14, 2012). The Board is capable of assessing a witness’s testimony
and the bases for that testimony, or lack thereof, when weighing all of the
evidence in a proceeding.
IV has not met its burden to demonstrate that Dr. Buckman’s
declarations (Exhibits 1012 and 1013) are inadmissible.

III. ORDER
Xilinx has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
(1) claims 1-3 are unpatentable over Flasck under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); and
(2) claims 1-3 are unpatentable over Takanashi and Lee under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that claims 1-3 of the ’545 patent are cancelled;
FURTHER ORDERED that IV’s Motion to Amend is denied;
FURTHER ORDERED that IV’s Motion to Exclude is denied; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the copies of Exhibits 1012 and 1013
filed on September 12, 2013 are expunged from the record of the instant
proceeding.
Case IPR2013-00029
Patent 5,632,545

54
PETITIONER:

David L. McCombs
Thomas B. King
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
ipr.thomas.king@haynesboone.com

PATENT OWNER:

George E. Quillin
Paul S. Hunter
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
gquillin@foley.com
phunter@foley.com