MasterImage 3D Inc v. RealD Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2015-00876
• Patent #: 7,857,455
• Filed: March 12, 2015
• Petitioner(s): MasterImage 3D, Inc. and MasterImage 3D Asia, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): RealD, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-4 and 7-23

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Combining P And S Rays For Bright Stereoscopic Projection
• Brief Description: The ’455 patent discloses systems and methods for increasing the brightness of stereoscopic (3D) projection systems. The invention uses a polarizing splitting element to separate image-bearing light into two orthogonally polarized paths (e.g., P and S rays), rotates the polarization of one path to match the other, and then directs both paths through a polarization modulator before they are superimposed on a screen, thereby recovering light that would otherwise be lost.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, and 16-22 are obvious over Svardal in view of Bierhuizen

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Svardal (Patent 6,547,396) and Bierhuizen (Patent 6,839,095).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Svardal discloses stereoscopic projection systems, including an external stereoscopic adaptor (Fig. 6) that uses a polarizer and a variable retarder downstream of the projection lens. When used with a Digital Micromirror Device (DMD) that outputs unpolarized light, this system would discard 50% of the light at the polarizer, reducing brightness. Petitioner contended that Svardal also teaches using a Polarization Conversion Assembly (PCA) to perform "polarization recovery" to increase image intensity (Fig. 3). Petitioner asserted that Bierhuizen, which shares a common inventor and assignee with Svardal, explicitly details the necessary components for such a PCA: a polarizing beam splitter (PBS), a half-wave retarder, and a reflector. The combination of Svardal’s Fig. 6 system with a PCA as taught by Svardal and detailed in Bierhuizen would result in a system meeting the limitations of the independent claims, including a polarizing splitting element, a retarder on a secondary path, a reflector, and a polarization modulator.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to improve the brightness of Svardal’s Fig. 6 embodiment. Svardal itself suggests the solution by teaching polarization recovery as a method to increase image intensity. A POSITA would look to well-known implementations of polarization recovery, such as the PCA detailed in the related Bierhuizen patent, and apply it to Svardal’s Fig. 6 system to overcome the 50% light loss, a predictable and desirable improvement.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references because it involved applying a known technique (polarization recovery) using standard optical components to solve the known problem of low brightness in projection systems.

Ground 2: Claims 9, 15, and 23 are obvious over Svardal, Bierhuizen, and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Svardal (Patent 6,547,396), Bierhuizen (Patent 6,839,095), and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) from the ’455 patent specification.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination in Ground 1 to address dependent claims. For claims 9 and 15, which require a "push-pull modulator" comprised of "two pi-cells," Petitioner pointed to the ’455 patent’s own discussion of the prior art "ZScreen." The AAPA explicitly identifies the ZScreen as a push-pull modulator made of two pi-cells. For claim 23, which adds a "second projector," Petitioner argued that the AAPA also discloses using a two-projector system to increase brightness.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to replace the linear polarization modulator in the Svardal/Bierhuizen system with the AAPA’s ZScreen (a circular polarization modulator) to solve the well-known problem of "crosstalk" that occurs when a viewer tilts their head. This modification would be a known design choice to improve viewer experience. The motivation to add a second projector, as taught in the AAPA, is the straightforward and common goal of further increasing image brightness, particularly for large venues.
  • Expectation of Success: Substituting a known type of modulator (ZScreen) to address a known problem (crosstalk) and duplicating a projector system to increase brightness are both predictable design modifications with a high expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner proposed constructions for several key terms, arguing they were critical to the obviousness analysis.

• "uniformly modulate": Proposed as "any transformation in polarization state resulting from polarization modulation is applied equally to all portions of the incoming light." Petitioner noted this term was added during prosecution to overcome prior art, but argued that modulators in the cited art, like Svardal's variable retarder, inherently perform this function.
• "polarizing splitting element": Proposed as "a device that creates primary path and secondary path beams of light energy..." Petitioner asserted this broad construction would cover the PBS within the PCA taught by the prior art combination.
• "polarization modulator": Proposed as "a device that receives light energy and outputs the light energy in at least two alternating states of polarization." This construction was intended to encompass Svardal’s variable retarder.

5. Key Technical Contentions

• Petitioner's primary technical contention was that there is no patentable distinction between performing polarization recovery on light before image formation (as in Svardal’s Fig. 3) and performing it on image-bearing light after image formation and projection (as in the proposed obvious combination and the ’455 patent). Petitioner asserted this was a "distinction without a difference," as the optical principles and components function identically on unpolarized light regardless of whether it already carries an image.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner disclosed that it had filed two earlier IPR petitions against the ’455 patent (IPR2015-00033 and IPR2015-00035) but argued the grounds in this petition were distinct. Petitioner contended that the primary references in the prior petitions were prima facie art under §102(a) or §102(e), which the Patent Owner could potentially antedate. In contrast, the Svardal and Bierhuizen references relied upon in the present petition are prior art under §102(b) and cannot be antedated, presenting a fundamentally different challenge.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 and 7-23 of Patent 7,857,455 as unpatentable.