MasterImage 3D, Inc.v.RealD Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2015

11864198 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 16
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 13, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

MASTERIMAGE 3D, INC. and
MASTERIMAGE 3D ASIA, LLC,
Petitioner,

v.

REALD INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2
____________

Before JAMESON LEE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
On October 7, 2014, Petitioner (“MasterImage”) filed a Petition
requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–11, 14–21, and 23–27
of U.S. Patent No. 7,905,602 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’602 patent”). Patent
Owner (“RealD”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”)
on January 29, 2015. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
35 U.S.C. § 314(a) which provides:
THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
that the information presented in the petition filed under section
311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
determine that MasterImage has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing in showing the unpatentability of any of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–11, 14–
21, and 23–27 of the ’602 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter
partes review for any of these challenged claims of the ’602 patent.
A. Related Proceedings
MasterImage and RealD together identify the following related cases
involving the ’602 patent: (1) RealD Inc. v. MasterImage 3D, Inc., No.
2:14-CV-02304 (C.D. Cal.); (2) RealD Inc. v. Volfoni, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-
02303 (C.D. Cal.); and (3) In the Matter of Certain Three-Dimensional
Cinema Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-939 (USITC).
Pet. 1; Paper 6.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

3

B. The ’602 Patent
The ’602 patent relates to polarization conversion of light for
stereoscopic projection, and is titled: “Polarization Conversion Systems for
Stereoscopic Projection.” Ex. 1001, [54]. Each of independent claims 1 and
15 is drawn to “[a] polarization conversion system” (Ex. 1001, 7:59–8:11;
8:51–67); independent claim 20 is directed to “[a] projection system
utilizing polarized light for encoding stereoscopic images” (id. at 9:15–
10:3); and independent claim 25 is directed to “[a] method for stereoscopic
image projection” (id. at 10:15–27).
Each of independent claims 1, 15, 20, and 25 requires receiving light
and splitting it, according to polarization, into a portion directed to a first
light path and another portion directed to a second light path, and rotating or
transforming the polarization of light in the second light path. Each of
independent claims 1, 15, 20, and 25 further requires a telephoto lens pair on
the first light path. Each of claims 1 and 25 specifies that the polarization of
light in the second light path is made into the same polarization as that of the
light in the first light path, and also requires translating selectively the
polarization states of the light from the first and second light paths into a
first output state of polarization and a second output state of polarization.
Claim 15 requires a reflector element in the second light path, “to
direct the second light path toward substantially similar locations on a
projection screen as the first light path.” Id. at 8:51–67. Similarly, claim 20
requires the first light path to form an image on the projection screen, and a
reflector element in the second light path, to direct “light on the second light
path toward the projection screen.” Id. at 9:15–10:3.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

4

According to the Summary portion of the Specification, the disclosed
polarization systems “present a brighter screen image in cinematic
applications utilizing polarized light for three-dimensional viewing.”
Ex. 1001, 1:65–2:3.
Figure 2 of the ’602 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 2 illustrates a schematic diagram of polarization conversion
system 100 for cinematic projection according to one embodiment of the
’602 patent. Id. at 2:37–39. Polarization conversion system 100 is shown,
that includes polarizing beam splitter (“PBS”) 112; polarization rotator 114,
such as a half-wave plate; reflecting element 116, such as a fold mirror; and
polarization switch 120, arranged as illustrated. Id. at 3:5–10. System 100
may receive images from a conventional projector with projection lens 122.
Id. at 3:10–12.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

5

The operation of polarization conversion system 100, shown in
Figure 2, is described as follows in the Specification:
In operation, ray bundles A, B, and C emerge randomly
polarized from the lens 122 and are projected toward a screen
130 to form an image. In this embodiment, a PBS 112 is
inserted in place of the polarizer shown in FIG. 1. The
PBS 112 transmits P-polarized light 124, and reflects
S-polarized light 126. The P-polarized light 124 passes through
the polarization switch (bundles A, B, and C) and is rotated by
the polarization switch in alternating frames, same as bundles
A, B, and C in FIG. 1.
The S-polarized light 126 reflected by the PBS 112
passes through a polarization rotator 114 (e.g., a half-wave
plate, preferably achromatic in some embodiments) and is
rotated to p-polarized light 128. The new p-polarized light 128
passes to a fold mirror 116. The fold mirror 116 reflects the
new p-polarized light 128 and passes it to polarization
switch 120. The polarization switch 120, acting on p-polarized
ray bundles A', B', and C', rotates the polarization of the ray
bundles in alternating frames, in synchronization with the
rotation of bundles A, B, and C. The position of bundles A', B',
and C' at the screen may be adjusted (e.g., by adjusting the tilt
of the fold mirror 116) to closely or exactly coincide with the
positions of bundles A, B, and C at the screen.
Ex. 1001, 3:13–34. The Specification explains that, because nearly all of the
light from the projector lens is imaged at the screen with a single
polarization state, the resulting image “is approximately two times brighter
than the image at the screen for the system in FIG. 1 [depicting prior art].”
Id. at 3:34–39. The Specification further explains:
In the polarization conversion system 100 of FIG. 2, the
optical path of ray bundle A' is longer than that of ray bundle A
(similarly B'-B and C'-C) resulting in a magnification difference
between the images produced by A', B', C' and A, B, C. This
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

6

magnification difference may be unacceptable to an audience,
especially for wide angle and short-throw projection systems.
Ex. 1001, 4:42–48 (emphasis added). As a solution to that problem, the
Specification describes adding a telephoto lens pair as illustrated in Figure 4.
Id. at 4:58–59.
Figure 4 is reproduced below.

Figure 4 illustrates the insertion of telephoto lens pair 340 in the first light
path, that acts only on light in the first light path and not light in the second
light path, to allow, typically, “control of magnification, distortion, and
imaging properties.” Id. at 5:50–56. In that regard, the Specification states:
“If a telephoto or reverse telephoto lens is used for controlling magnification
in one optical path, the radial distortion and keystone distortion of the final
image can be tuned by laterally displacing the individual elements or pair of
elements from the optical axis.” Ex. 1001, 5:63–67.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

7

C. Illustrative Claims
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 15, 20, and 25 are the only
independent claims and are reproduced below:
1. A polarization conversion system comprising:
a polarization beam splitter (PBS) operable to receive
randomly-polarized light bundles from a projector lens, and
direct first light bundles having a first state of polarization
(SOP) along a first light path, and direct second light bundles
having a second SOP along a second light path;
a polarization rotator located on the second light path, the
polarization rotator being operable to translate the second SOP
to the first SOP;
a polarization switch operable to receive first and second
light bundles from the first and second light paths respectively,
and to selectively translate the polarization states of the first and
second light bundles to one of a first output SOP and a second
output SOP, wherein the polarization switch comprises first and
second polarization switch panels, the first polarization switch
panel receiving light from the first light path, and the second
polarization switch panel receiving light from the second light
path; and
a telephoto lens pair located on the first light path.

15. A polarization conversion system; comprising:
a polarization beam splitter operable to direct light on
first and second light paths;
a polarization rotation element located on the second
light path;
a reflector element located on the second flight path;
a polarization switch located on the first light path and on
the second light path after the reflector element, wherein the
reflector element is operable to direct the second light path
toward substantially similar locations on a projection screen as
the first light path, and wherein the polarization switch
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

8

comprises first and second polarization switch panels, the first
polarization switch panel receiving light from the first light
path, and the second polarization switch panel receiving light
from the second light path; and
a telephoto lens pair located on the first light path.

20. A projection system utilizing polarized light for encoding
stereoscopic images, comprising:
a projector comprising a projection lens operable to
output randomly-polarized light;
a polarization conversion system optically coupled to the
projection lens, comprising:
a polarization beam splitter operable to
direct light on first and second light paths;
a polarization rotation element located on
the second light path;
a reflector element located on the second
light path;
a polarization switch located on the first
light path and on the second light path, wherein the
first light path forms an image on a projection
screen, and wherein the reflector element directs
light on the second light path towards the
projection screen, and further wherein the
polarization switch comprises first and second
polarization switch panels, the first polarization
switch panel receiving light from the first light
path, and the second polarization switch panel
receiving light from the second light path; and

a telephoto lens pair located on the first light path.

25. A method for stereoscopic image projection, comprising:
receiving randomly-polarized light from a projector;
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

9

directing first state of polarization (SOP) light on a first
light path;
directing second SOP light on a second light path;
transforming the second SOP light on the second light
path to first SOP light;
selectively translating the first SOP light on both light
paths to one of a first output SOP and a second output SOP; and
wherein the first SOP light passes through a telephoto
lens pair located on the first light path.

Ex. 1001, 7:59–8:11, 8:51–67, 9:15–10:3, 10:16–28 (emphases
added).
D. Prior Art Relied Upon
MasterImage relies on the following prior art:
Reference Date Exhibit No.
Silverstein US Pat. No. 7,559,653 B2 07/14/2009 Ex. 1002
Tani US Pat. No. 6,190,013 B1 02/20/2001 Ex. 1003
Liptoh US Pat. No. 4,792,850 12/20/1988 Ex. 1004
Wentz US Pat. No. 4,515,441 05/07/1985 Ex. 1005
Stupp Edward H. Stupp & Matthew
S. Brennesholtz, Projection
Displays, John Wiley & Sons
Ltd. (1999)
12/31/1999 Ex. 1007
APA
1
alleged “Admitted Prior Art”

1
MasterImage asserts that inventors of the ’602 patent admitted that wire
grids were known at the time of filing of the ’602 patent. Pet. 55–56.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

10

MasterImage also relies on the Declaration of Matthew S.
Brennesholtz, executed on September 29, 2014. Ex. 1011.
E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Basis References Claims
§ 103(a) Silverstein and Stupp 1, 2, 4, 6–11, 14–21, and 23–27
§ 103(a) Liptoh,
2
Tani, and Stupp 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14–17, 20,
21, and 25–27
§ 103(a) Liptoh, Tani, Stupp, and APA 8, 18, and 23
§ 103(a) Liptoh, Tani, Stupp, and Wentz 9, 19, and 24

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
Principles of Law
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In
re Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
PTO regulation”); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claim terms also are given their ordinary and
customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the

2
Petitioner refers to Liptoh as “Lipton.” See, e.g., Pet. 3.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

11

art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If an inventor acts as his or her own
lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the specification with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs
Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and then
only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). MasterImage
proposes an interpretation for these terms: (1) “polarization beam splitter,”
(2) “rotator,” and (3) “polarization switch panel.” Pet. 5. The proposed
constructions, however, are entirely functional. When a claim limitation is
defined in purely functional terms, it raises difficult questions. Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Here, the ’602 patent has not defined these terms in purely functional terms
and the parties have not provided sufficient reasons to regard each as a
purely functional limitation. On this record, we see no reason to accord each
term a purely functional meaning. Rather, on this record, each of these
terms identifies a structural device known to and recognizable by one with
ordinary skill in the art. No additional construction of these terms is
necessary.
“telephoto lens pair”
MasterImage proposes to construe “telephoto lens pair” as “a lens pair
consisting of an air-spaced positive element with a negative element which
allows control of magnification, distortion, and imaging properties of light.”
Pet. 5–6. RealD proposes to construe “telephoto lens pair” according to its
plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

12

skill in the art in the context of the Specification, and identifies such
construction as “an optical device used for overlaying images.” Prelim.
Resp. 18. We are not persuaded by RealD’s proposed construction, because
it is entirely functional and does not account for the specific language “lens
pair” which, at a minimum, requires a pair of optical elements.
We understand, as pointed out by RealD, that claim 12, which
depends indirectly from claim 1, recites “wherein the telephoto lens pair
comprises a positive lens and a negative lens separated by air.” Ex. 1001,
8:44–45. We also recognize the doctrine of claim differentiation, under
which when a dependent claim adds a limitation relative to the independent
claim on which it depends, there is a rebuttable presumption that the
independent claim does not require that limitation. Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v.
Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That
doctrine, however, is only an aid to interpretation and not determinative. See
Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Dakocytomation Cal., Inc., 517 F.3d 1364, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, as we discussed above, the meaning of “telephoto
lens pair,” at the very least, must include a first and a second lens, to account
for the term “lens pair.”
On this record, we construe “telephoto lens pair” as “an optical device
including a positive lens element and a negative lens element.” That
construction is consistent with the application of the doctrine of claim
differentiation, because claim 1 would not require any particular placement
of the two lens elements relative to each other. We see no need to specify
further what the device is capable of doing or how the two lens elements are
configured relative to each other.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

13

“light”
RealD asserts that the term “light,” in the context of the ’602 patent,
should be construed as “image light.” Prelim. Resp. 14. In that regard,
RealD points out, for example, that claim 1 recites that the polarization beam
splitter is “operable to receive” light from a projector lens, and asserts that
because the light in claim 1 is coming from a projector lens, it must be
image light. Id. RealD further notes that claim 6, which depends from claim
1, specifically refers to transmission of an image frame from a projector. Id.
at 14–15. That requirement of claim 6, according to RealD, means “light” in
claim 1 is image light, and RealD further explains how the Specification of
the ’602 patent provides written description support for construing “light” as
image light. Id. at 15. For reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded
by RealD’s arguments and determine that RealD’s proposed construction is
overly restrictive. Instead, we do not construe “light” as being limited to
image light. The term “light” is sufficiently broad to encompass raw or non-
image light used as a source of illumination.
First, even RealD does not contend that the inventors of the
’602 patent acted as their own lexicographers in defining a new meaning for
the term “light.” Second, the question is not whether it is reasonable, in the
context of the ’602 patent, to regard “light” as referring only to image light,
or whether the Specification provides written description support for
regarding “light” as image light. The rule of claim construction we apply is
“broadest reasonable interpretation” in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b). Third, even if we accept that dependent claim 6 requires image
light, that does not work in RealD’s favor, because, under the doctrine of
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

14

claim differentiation, the reference to image frame in claim 6, but not
claim 1, would suggest that independent claim 1 is would not be so limited.
In the field of stereoscopic projection, raw or non-image light, e.g.,
white light, as a source of illumination is not an irrelevant element. Indeed,
there would be no image light, in the absence of a raw or non-image source
of illumination light. MasterImage points to nothing in the Specification
that indicates only image light can be subject to polarization conversion.
Independent claims 1 and 15 are directed only to a “polarization conversion
system,” and are not limited to polarization conversion of image light.
Moreover, claim 1 recites merely that its polarization beam splitter “is
operable” to receive light from a projection lens; no projector or projection
lens actually is required. Claim 15, in that regard, mentions nothing about
either a projector or a projection lens. MasterImage may not assert credibly
that polarization conversion has application only for image light, because it
cites Silverstein and Tani, both of which describe polarization conversion of
non-image light.
Although independent claim 20 requires a projector comprising a
projection lens operable to output randomly polarized light, RealD does not
contend that a projector may not output randomly polarized raw or
non-image source light through its projection lens or point to any such
restriction in the Specification. Similarly, although claim 25 is directed to a
method for stereoscopic image projection and recites a step of receiving
randomly polarized light from a projector, nothing requires the image
content to be derived from the light from the projector. Instead, potentially,
it may be derived elsewhere.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

15

We note also that under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation,
it is not a contest of which interpretation is more reasonable. If two
competing interpretations are both reasonable, we adopt the broader
construction. Even if RealD’s proposed construction is reasonable, it still
would not be the proper construction, if there is a broader reasonable
interpretation, as here. It is inappropriate to read limitations into the claims
from the Specification, if the limitations are not required by the claims. In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Finally, we note that
that the Specification contains cautionary language urging that the claims
not be construed according to narrow characterizations in the disclosure, but
should be measured on the merits based on limitations in the claims, in light
of the disclosure. Ex. 1001, 7:35–56.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by RealD’s
contention that in the challenged claims, “light” should be construed as
limited to image light. Other than that, there is no need to construe the term
“light.”
“projector” / “projector lens” / “projection lens”
RealD asserts that the terms “projector,” “projector lens,” and
“projection lens,” in the context of the Specification of the ’602 patent, mean
“a projector transmitting or outputting ‘image light.’” Prelim. Resp. 16
(emphasis added). That proposed construction is overly narrow, if it
requires the transmission or outputting of image light from the projector.
RealD does not contend that a projector is capable of transmitting or
outputting only image light or incapable of transmitting or outputting raw or
non-image illumination light. It is unreasonable to regard “projector,”
“projector lens,” or “projection lens” as always and only transmitting or
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

16

outputting image light as urged by RealD. These elements merely are
capable of transmitting or outputting image light. No other construction is
necessary.
B. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–11, 14–21, and 23–27
as Obvious over Silverstein and Stupp
Silverstein is directed to a stereoscopic imaging apparatus. Ex. 1002,
Abst. Figure 2 of Silverstein is reproduced below.

Figure 2 is a block diagram of stereoscopic imaging apparatus 200 according
to a disclosed embodiment in Silverstein. Ex. 1002, 6:44–45. Illumination
source 210 splits light, by polarization, into a left channel and a right
channel. Id. at 7:26–29. The left channel leads to modulation apparatus
220l; the right channel leads to modulation apparatus 220r; and the two
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

17

together form intermediate image 64, which is projected onto display
surface 40 by projection lens 62. Id. at 7:29–34. Silverstein indicates that
Figure 2 provides the basic model for all embodiments. Id. at 7:39–40.
Figure 3 of Silverstein is reproduced below.

Figure 3 of Silverstein is a block diagram of a polarized light providing
apparatus. Ex. 1002, 6:46–47. Figure 3 shows polarized light providing
apparatus 110 that could be used as illumination source 210, such as that in
Figure 2, to provide left and right channels outputting light having different
polarization states. Id. at 7:51–56. Specifically, Silverstein states:
Light from a light source 20 is uniformized by a uniformizing
element 22 that spatially distributes or homogenizes the light to
provide a more uniform illumination field. The uniformized
light is directed to a shutter 116 and a polarizer 96 that
transmits light having one polarization, such as p-polarization
in one embodiment, to one modulation channel, labeled R for
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

18

the right channel in FIGS. 2 and 3, as a substantially polarized
illumination beam 66. Polarizer 96 reflects light having the
orthogonal polarization (s-polarization in this example) for the
other modulation channel. A mirror 98, or reflective
polarization sensitive coating, then directs the light having
orthogonal polarization to the other modulation channel,
labeled L in FIGS. 2 and 3. Lens 34 directs the polarized light
into the appropriate modulation channel.
Id. at 7:56–8:3 (emphases added).
Figure 16 of Silverstein is reproduced below.

Figure 16 of Silverstein illustrates an alternative embodiment making use of
switchable polarization rotating element 70. Ex. 1002, 7:12–14. The Figure
shows the embodiment extending from light source 110 to intermediate
image 64. It is understood that the remainder of stereoscopic imaging
system 200 is as shown in Figure 2.
Half-wave plate 72 is used to change the polarization state of a portion
of the light from light providing apparatus 110. Id. at 16:23–25. “[A]
switchable polarization rotating element 70 is employed to switch
polarization states rapidly, alternating between left- and right-eye
polarization states at sufficient speed in cooperation with images formed on
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

19

modular panel 60 that, in turn, cooperates with color scrolling element 140.”
Id. at 16:17–22. A composite illustration including Figures 2, 3, and 16
extending from light source 20 at one end to projection screen 40 on the
other end, as shown by MasterImage, is reproduced below.
3
Pet. 13.

3
The illustration is a fair representation of the complete embodiment of
Figure 16, given that Figure 16 covers only the components from a light
source to an intermediate image, and that Figure 3 illustrates an apparatus
that can be used as light source 210 in Figure 2. Ex. 1002, 7:51–56.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

20

The above-reproduced illustration shows the full embodiment of
Silverstein’s Figure 16, extending from light source 110 to display
surface 40. Polarizer 96 splits light from illumination source 20 into an “L”
channel and an “R” channel, and, in one embodiment, s-polarized light is
confined to the “L” channel and p-polarized light is confined to the “R”
channel. Ex. 1002, 7:59–8:3.
MasterImage identifies Silverstein’s polarizer 96 as a polarizing beam
splitter that receives randomly polarized light, and directs first light bundles
having a first state of polarization along a first light path, and second light
bundles having a second state of polarization along a second light path.
Pet. 14, 23, 29, 32. MasterImage identifies Silverstein’s half-wave plate 72
as a rotator or polarization rotation element, which is located on the second
light path and translates the polarization state of the light on the second light
path. Id. at 15, 23, 29, 33. MasterImage states:
In Fig. 16, Silverstein discloses that a half-wave plate 72
is used to change the state of a portion of the light from the
light providing apparatus 110. Ex. 1002, Silverstein, 16:16-35.
It would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the “portion of light” referenced in Silverstein is one of the
L or R channels. A person of skill in the art would place the
half-wave plate 72 in only one channel so that after the
operation of the half-wave plate, both the L and R channels
would have the same state of polarization, thereby increasing
the brightness of the image projected onto the screen 40. Ex.
1011, Brennesholtz Decl. ¶ 29. It would also be obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art since the system described utilizes a
switchable polarization rotating element 70, which would be
understood to require a single state of polarization for
operation. Ex. 1011, Brennesholtz Decl. ¶ 29; Ex. 1002,
Silverstein, 16:16-35.
Id. at 15.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

21

MasterImage identifies and relies on Silverstein’s switchable
polarization rotating element 70 to meet the requirement of selectively
translating light from both light paths to a first output state of polarization
and a second output state of polarization (id. at 33–34), and on a
modification of Silverstein’s switchable polarization rotating element 70 to
meet the polarization switch requirement of independent claims 1, 15, and
20 (id. at 15–17, 24–25, 29–30). The proposed modification is to use two
separate polarization switch panels, one for light from each path. Id. at 17,
25, 30.
Each of independent claims 1, 15, 20, and 25 requires a telephoto lens
pair located on the first light path. Each of claims 2, 4, 6–11, 14, 16–19, 21,
23, 24, 26, and 27, by way of its dependency, also requires the same
limitation. MasterImage identifies and relies on projection lens 62 to meet
that requirement. Id. at 17–19, 26–27, 30–31, 34–35. There are, however,
two projection lenses 62 shown in the above composite illustration presented
by MasterImage, and MasterImage does not identify expressly which is the
one upon which it relies. From the arguments of MasterImage, we recognize
that it is referring to projection lens 62 that is located more to the right-hand
side of the illustration, just beyond intermediate image 64, i.e., second
projection lens 62, because MasterImage states: “In Silverstein, the purpose
of lens 62 is so that image 64 ‘can be magnified to the large screen size by a
single projection lens 62.’ Ex. 1002, Silverstein, 13:38–41; Ex. 1002,
Silverstein, Fig. 2.” Id. at 17.
MasterImage asserts that because light from both first and second
light paths pass through second projection lens 62, that projection lens is on
the first light path. Pet. 27. The assertion is unpersuasive. In the context of
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

22

the systems and methods of the ’602 patent, both as claimed and described,
there is a distinction between the first light path and the second light path.
Claim 25 specifies that from light received from a projector, a portion
having a first state of polarization is directed to a first light path, and light
having a second state of polarization is directed to a second light path.
Ex. 1001, 10:15–27. Each of claims 1, 15, and 20 requires a polarization
beam splitter that splits light and directs light having a first state of
polarization onto a first light path, and light having a second state of
polarization onto a second light path.
Also, the Specification describes the purpose of placing a telephoto
lens pair on the first light path is to address issues created by unequal lengths
of the first and second light paths. Ex. 1001, 4:58–59. In the context of the
’602 patent, it would be unreasonable to regard a merging of the first and
second light paths as a continuation of either the first light path or the second
light path, in part because once the paths are merged the ’602 patent’s
disclosure regarding compensating for the difference in path lengths would
not apply. In Silverstein, however, the light from the first and second light
paths is merged between condensing lens 38 and intermediate image 64
prior to reaching second projection lens 62. Although the rule of broadest
reasonable interpretation applies to construe claims, the key word is
“reasonable.” We reject MasterImage’s reading of “on the first light path,”
as applied to the teachings of Silverstein, as unreasonably broad.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that MasterImage has not
shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that any
one of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–11, 14–21, and 23–27 is unpatentable as obvious
over Silverstein and Stupp.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

23

C. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14–17, 20, 21, and 25–27
as Obvious over Liptoh, Tani, and Stupp
Tani is directed to a polarized beam splitter, and a projector and
illumination optical system including the polarized beam splitter. Ex. 1003,
1:14–18. It is an object of Tani to provide an illumination optical system
that can illuminate a specimen brightly with visible light having an aligned
polarization direction. Id. at 2:39–42. To provide an image for projection
onto a screen, the output of the polarized beam splitter is used as
illuminating light on liquid crystal panels on which the image has been
formed. Id. at 1:38–63. As a result, the amount of light emerging from the
liquid crystal panels is increased to make the image projected on the screen
brighter. Id. at 14:45–51. Tani increases polarized illumination brightness
by converting p-polarized light that is split from illumination light, into
s-polarized light, and outputting that together with the original s-polarized
light split from the illumination light. Id. at 13:20–67.
Tani’s Figure 10 is reproduced below.

Figure 10 illustrates Tani’s illumination optical system. Ex. 1003, 6:44–45.
It includes light source 101 and parabolic mirror 102. Id. at 12:64–67.
Parabolic mirror 102 reflects light from light source 101. Id. at 13:1–14.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

24

PBS includes multilayered films 3 and transparent prisms 400. Id. at 14:57–
62. Illumination light from light source 101 is split by the PBS first into
p-polarized light and s-polarized light. Id. at 14:62–67. The p-polarized
light then is passed through a half-wave plate to convert its polarization to
result in s-polarized light. Ex. 1011 ¶ 51 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 10).
Liptoh is directed to a light modulator for producing a stereoscopic
image. Ex. 1004, Abst. Figure 6 of Liptoh is reproduced below.

Figure 6 shows a schematic layout of a video projector according to Liptoh,
in which light modulator 20 is installed in front of projection lens 19 of
projector 18. Id. at 10:28–31. Liptoh states, with respect to Figure 6, that
video source 5, driver unit 17, cables 9 and 9’ and the push-pull modulator
are of the same type, and serve the same function as in the Figure 3
embodiment. Id. at 10:36–38.

IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

25

Liptoh’s Figure 3 is reproduced below.

Figure 3 illustrates Liptoh’s use of a push-pull modulator that includes two
large liquid crystal cell devices and linear polarizer 3. Ex. 1004, 5:53–59.
Specifically, the modulator includes liquid crystal cells 15 and 16 and linear
polarizer 3, and is placed in front of display screen 2 of monitor 1. Id. at
6:29–32. Operation of the modulator is explained as follows:
Driver 17 observes the sync pulses of the video signal
output by source 5, and triggers the drive voltages to cells 15
and 16 in synchronization with the sync pulses so that the
polarized light emerging from cells 15 and 16 will be in
synchronization with the video fields produced by source 5.
Conventional video signals include sync pulses of the type
suitable for this purpose.
Id. at 6:45–51.
To meet the requirements of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14–17, 20, 21,
and 25–27, MasterImage proposes to substitute or replace Liptoh’s linear
polarizer 3 with Tani’s PBS. Pet. 39–40. In that regard, MasterImage states:
“One would be motivated to do so, because replacing the absorptive linear
polarizer 3 of Lipto[h] with the polarization arrangement of Tani would
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

26

recapture much of the light lost by linear polarizer 3 of Lipto[h]. Ex. 1011,
Brennesholtz Decl. ¶ 52.” Id. at 40.
Each of independent claims 1, 15, 20, and 25 requires a telephoto lens
pair located on the first light path. Each of claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16,
17, 21, 26, and 27, by way of its dependency, also includes the same
limitation. MasterImage identifies and relies on Liptoh’s projection lens 19
to meet the requirement. Id. at 42–43, 48–49, 53–54.
We find no explanation, however, in the Petition, as to why projection
lens 19 of Liptoh, even if it is regarded as a telephoto lens pair, can be
deemed as properly located on the first light path. As is shown in Liptoh’s
Figure 6 reproduced above, projection lens 19 is upstream of modulator 20.
That means Tani’s PBS, when it is substituted for linear polarizer 3 within
modulator 20, is located downstream of projection lens 19. On that basis,
projection lens 19 is outside of any first or second light path to which the
PBS directs light. MasterImage provides no adequate explanation as to how
this teaches the limitations recited in the challenged claims.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that MasterImage has not
shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that any
one of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14–17, 20, 21, and 25–27 is unpatentable
as obvious over Liptoh, Tani, and Stupp.
D. Claims 8, 18, and 23 as Obvious
over Liptoh, Tani, Stupp, and APA
Claim 8 depends from claim 1, claim 18 depends from claim 15, and
claim 23 depends from claim 20. Each of claims 8, 18, and 23 adds the
requirement that the polarization beam splitter includes a wire grid layer.
MasterImage relies on APA to account for that limitation. Pet. 55–56. The
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

27

arguments and evidence in that connection, however, do not cure the
deficiencies discussed above with regard to independent claims 1, 15, and
20, from which claims 8, 18, and 23 respectively depend. Thus, we
determine that MasterImage has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it
would prevail in establishing that any one of claims 8, 18, and 23 is
unpatentable as obvious over Liptoh, Tani, Stupp, and APA.
E. Claims 9, 19, and 24 as Obvious
over Liptoh, Tani, Stupp, and Wentz
Claim 9 depends from claim 1, claim 19 depends from claim 15, and
claim 24 depends from claim 20. Each of claims 9, 19, and 24 adds the
requirement that the polarization beam splitter includes a multi-dielectric
layer. MasterImage relies on Wentz to account for that limitation. Id. at 57–
58. The arguments and evidence in that connection, however, do not cure
the deficiencies discussed above with regard to independent claims 1, 15,
and 20, from which claims 9, 19, and 24 respectively depend. Thus, we
determine that MasterImage has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it
would prevail in establishing that any one of claims 9, 19, and 24 is
unpatentable as obvious over Liptoh, Tani, Stupp, and Wentz.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, MasterImage has not shown a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6–11, 14–21, and 23–27 of the ’602 patent on any alleged
ground of unpatentability.
IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

28

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
the ’602 patent; and
FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.

IPR2015-00038
Patent 7,905,602 B2

29

FOR PETITIONER:
Evan Finkel
Roger R. Wise
evan.finkel@pillsburylaw.com
roger.wise@pillsburylaw.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:
Brian McCormack
William D. McSpadden
brian.mccormack@bakermckenzie.com
william.mcspadden@bakermckenzie.com