UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ______________

CIRQUE DU SOLEIL MY CALL, L.L.C. Petitioner

v.

HOLOGRAM USA, INC. Patent Owner

______________

Inter Partes Review No. IPR2015-01084

Patent 8,328,361 ______________

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-i-

Petitioner’s Exhibit List

Exhibit Description

1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,328,361 (the “’361 Patent”)

1002 U.S. Patent No. 5,865,519 (“Maass”)

1003 U.S. Patent No. 5,685,625 (“Beaver”)

1004 U.K. Patent No. 468,705 (“Stableford”)

1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,900,850 (“Bailey”)

1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,573,325 (“Lekowski”)

1007 Expert Declaration – Marshall Monroe

1008 Excerpts of Prosecution History of the ‘361 Patent

1009 U.S. Patent No. 4,927,238 (“Green”)

1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,585,967 (“Monroe”)

1011 U.S. Patent No. 3,549,803 (“Cletus”)

1012 Mitsuru Hayakawa, ILA/D-ILA Super Projectors for the Present and the Future, Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC), 2000.

1013 Jim Steinmeyer, The Science Behind the Ghost (2013)

1014 O. A. Battista, Mylar--The New Synthetic Film, Popular Science, Sept. 1995.

1015 U.S. Patent No. 4,805,895 (“Rogers”)

1016 European Patent Specification Publication EP 0319077B1 (“Piccioni”)

1017 U.S. Patent No. 4,019,656 (“Spears”)

1018 U.S. Patent No. 2,952,182 (“Marks”)

1019 Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary (14th ed. 2001)

1020 The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language (3d ed. 1992)

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-1-

I. INTRODUCTION

Cirque du Soleil My Call, L.L.C.. (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review

of claims 1-20 ( “Challenged Claims”) of US 8,328,361 (Ex. 1001).

II. MANDATORY NOTICES

A. Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))

For purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner identifies (in addition to

Petitioner itself) the following real parties-in-interest: Cirque Jackson I.P., L.L.C.;

Cirque du Soleil (US), Inc.; Cirque du Soleil Nevada, Inc.; Cirque du Soleil Inc.;

Cirque du Soleil Holding, USA; Groupe Cirque du Soleil Inc.; Créations Méandres

Inc.; The Estate of Michael J. Jackson and the following entities related thereto—

PPB, LLC; Triumph International, Inc.; MJ Publishing Trust d/b/a Mijac Music;

and Mijac Music LLC. This identification is made out of an abundance of caution.

It is Petitioner’s view that only Petitioner has control or the opportunity to control

the instant proceeding or otherwise meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a).

B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))

The following may effect, or be effected by, a decision in this proceeding:

Hologram USA, Inc. et al. v. Pulse Evolution Corporation et al, Civil Action No.

2:14-cv-00772 (D. Nev.); Hologram USA, Inc. et al. v. Cirque du Soleil My Call,

LLC et al, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00916 (D. Nev.) (“Litigation”); Hologram

USA, Inc. et al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion, LLC et al, Civil Action No. 2:14-

cv-01695 (E.D. La.); Crypton Future Media, Inc. v. Hologram USA, Inc. et al.,

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-2-

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01247 (D. Del.); IPR2015-00959, directed to claims of

US 7,883,212 (parent of the ’361 Patent); and IPR2015-00962, directed to claims

of US 8,177,368 (divisional of ’212 Patent).

C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))

Lead counsel: David Ben-Meir (Reg. No. 46,152)

Back-up counsel: Mark T. Garrett (Reg. No. 44,699)

D. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))

Email: david.ben-meir@nortonrosefulbright.com

Post: David Ben-Meir, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, 555 South Flower

Street, Forty-First Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071, United States

Phone: 213.892.9202 Fax: 213.892.9494

Petitioner consents to electronic service.

III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’361 Patent is

available for inter partes review, and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from

requesting an inter partes review challenging the Challenged Claims on the

grounds identified in this Petition. The ’361 Patent has not been subject to a

previous estoppel-based proceeding of the AIA, and Petitioner was served with the

original complaint in the Litigation within the last 12 months.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-3-

IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED

A. Claims for which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1))

Review is requested for the Challenged Claims, which are directed to an

apparatus for creating a Pepper’s Ghost illusion, an old phenomena.

B. Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2))

Ground 1: Invalidation of claims 1-4, 7-15 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.

§ 103(a) based on Maass (US 5,865,519 – Ex. 1002), Beaver (US 5,685,625 – Ex.

1003), Stableford (U.K. Patent No. 468,705 – Ex. 1004), Bailey (US 5,900,850 –

Ex. 1005) and Spears (US 4,019,656 – Ex. 1017). The issue dates of these

references render them prior art to the ‘361 Patent (which claims priority to a PCT

application filed April 1, 2004) under at least § 102(b).

Ground 2: Invalidation of claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 under § 103(a) based on

Maass (Ex. 1002), Beaver (Ex. 1003), Stableford (Ex. 1004), Bailey (Ex. 1005),

Spears (Ex. 1017) and Marks (US 2,952,182 - Ex. 1018), the issue date for which

renders it prior art under at least § 102(b).

Ground 3: Invalidation of claims 1-4, 7-15 and 18-20 under § 103(a) based

on Lekowski ( US 5,573,325 - Ex. 1006, the issue date for which renders it prior

art under at least § 102(b)), Stableford (Ex. 1004), Bailey (Ex. 1005) and Spears

(Ex. 1017).

Ground 4: Invalidation of claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 under § 103(a) based on

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-4-

Lekowski (Ex. 1006), Stableford (Ex. 1004), Bailey (Ex. 1005), Spears (Ex. 1017)

and Marks (Ex. 1018).

As explained in detail below, these grounds are not cumulative of each other

and all are required to fully explain the invalidity of the Challenged Claims.

V. REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) AND 42.104(b)(4)

A. Background

1. The ‘361 Patent

The ‘361 Patent is directed to an apparatus for presenting what long been

called the “Pepper’s Ghost” illusion, an optical effect in which a theater audience

sees what appears to be a free-standing, three-dimensional hologram of a person or

object on a stage. Ex. 1001 at 1:13-30. The Background acknowledges that one

known arrangement for creating this illusion is “where a presenter resides behind

an inclined, partially reflective screen, typically a tensioned foil, onto which an

image … is projected.” Id. at 1:18-20. The ‘361 Patent purports to improve how

the screen (also called a “foil” in the ‘361 Patent) of the apparatus, which acts as an

optical beam-splitter, is mounted. See id. at 1:31-43 (describing shortcomings).

The screen is a partially reflective sheet that reflects an image to create the

Pepper’s Ghost illusion for the audience. Id. at 1:13-21.

The Background summarizes a “number of problems” with the Pepper’s

Ghost apparatus, including “uneven tensioning of the foil and wrinkles upon the

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-5-

foil, that may impair the viewed quality of the image projected onto the foil.” Id.

at 1:32-35. In the Brief Summary of the Invention, the inventors propose “the use

of a frame” that “increases the utility of [the] apparatus over the prior art systems,”

(id. at 2:59-62) and “[t]he use of a variable tensioning arrangement [that] allows

wrinkles upon the screen to be minimised, and ideally eradicated to present a

smooth surface for upon which the image can be projected.” Id. at 3:26-29. As the

prior art discussed below reveals, however, the use of frames and variable

tensioning arrangements had been used in the theater/stage and image projection

arts years prior to the ‘361 Patent’s filing.

The ‘361 Patent describes “an image projection apparatus [that] comprises a

projector … a frame … and a partially transparent screen.” Id. at Abstract.

Annotated FIG. 1 below shows box frame 102 that comprises trusses 104 and

support frame 108. FIG. 1 also shows projector 106 and screen 110 attached to the

box frame 102 with tensioning straps 114.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-6-

The box frame is intended to hold the screen between an the box frame’s

upper truss and the level of the stage. Id. at 6:25-32; FIG. 1. “[T]he front edge of

the screen 108 is proximate the front upper cross-piece truss 104a of the box frame

102.” Id. at 6:20-22. Additionally, “the rear edge of the screen is proximate a

stage 109 that lies to the rear of the box frame 102.” Id. at 6:22-24. This

configuration is also described in a second aspect shown in FIG. 5. Annotated

FIG. 5 below depicts box truss framework 500 comprising square upper truss work

502, leg trusses 504, and cross-piece truss 512.

As shown, “a cross-piece truss 512 is fixed to two of the leg trusses 504 such

that it horizontally spans the gap therebetween at a height close to, and typically

slightly below, the level of a stage floor 514.” Id. at 8:24-27. The upper edge of

film 518 is attached to upper truss work 502 via ratchet straps 538. Id. at 8:45-49.

The lower edge of film 518 is attached to cross-piece truss 512 via ratchet straps

532. Id. at 8:37-44.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-7-

Tensioning straps 114, 532, 538 shown in FIGs. 1 and 5 can be tightened or

loosened individually so an even tension can be applied over the screen’s whole

surface. Id. at 6:42-47. Keeping screen 110 under tension is intended to reduce or

eliminate wrinkles in the screen to increase the quality of the reflected image. Id.

at 3:26-29; 6:42-47; 8:50-56.

Annotated FIG. 4 below details a specific clamping arrangement for the

screen. Clamping jaws 116 are used with bolts 122, openings 118, 120 (not

shown), nuts 124, and tensioning straps 114.

Clamps 116 are attached to the top and bottom edges of screen 110 and hold

screen 110 between clamps 116. Id. at 6:35-41. Bolts 122 pass through openings

118, 120 (not shown) in clamps 116 and screen 110 and thread into nuts 124 on the

other side of the screen. Id. How clamps 116 are attached to a free end of each of

tensioning straps 114 is not disclosed. Id. at 6:29-32; FIG. 4. The opposite ends of

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-8-

tensioning straps 114 are attached to trusses 104 and tensioned individually via

friction locking buckle arrangements 128. Id. at 6:35-41.

2. Prosecution History

Of the Challenged Claims, the Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under § 103(a)

as obvious over a combination of Maass (Ex. 1002), Green (Ex. 1009), Beaver (Ex.

1003), Spears (Ex. 0017), and Lekowski (Ex. 1006). Ex. 1008 at 27, 70, 89. In the

Reasons for Allowance, the Examiner noted that the claims reciting “the use of a

tensioning strap and a friction locking buckle arrangement” comprised the

allowable subject matter of the ’361 Patent. Id. at 9.

Independent Claims 1 and 10 are directed to an “image display apparatus,”

and recite an “image source,” “frame,” “light source,” “partially transparent

screen,” “retention members,” an “abrasive coating,” “tensioning straps,” and

“friction locking buckle arrangements.” Ex. 1001 at 9:2-4, 20-37, 65-67; 10:1-2,

18-30. At the time of the initial Office Action, only claims 1-4 were pending in the

application. Ex. 1008 at 89. The Examiner stated that Spears teaches “an abrasive

coating…[that] is sandpaper” that can be used to “improve the grip on the retention

members.” Id. at 91-92. In response, Patent Owner argued that Spears and the

other cited references are in “disparate fields of technology” and that the abrasive

coating of Spears is “not suitable for retaining an item (e.g., foil) under tension.”

Id. at 83-84. Patent Owner also argued that Green teaches away from a

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-9-

combination with Spears because Green teaches the “use of apertures in its screen

that align with pegs for securing the screen.” Id. at 84-85.

The Examiner did not find these arguments persuasive. The Examiner

responded that Spears is analogous art with the other references because it is

“reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was

concerned,” which is a “retention aid.” Id. at 75. The Examiner stated that Spears

teaches “jaw members … [that] have roughened surfaces … to frictionally grip”

and that “frictionally gripping” an item is necessarily “retain[ing] it under some

kind of pulling force” and “under tension.” Id. The Examiner also stated that

combining Spears with Green would allow “retention [to occur over] a larger

surface area … of the screen … and would be less likely to tear at any one of the

pegs” of Green. Id. at 76.

In response, Patent Owner added new claims 5 and 7-21, including

independent claim 10. Patent Owner amended independent claim 1 to state that the

film is “polymeric,” and that “faces of the first and second retention members” are

“oriented parallel to [a] common inclined plane” of the foil, flexible tensioning

means, and the frame. Id. at 56-57. Patent Owner argued that the “pivotal nature

of Spears contact faces would result in damage to a polymeric film.” Id. at 62.

The Examiner then added Lekowski to teach a “polymeric film,” maintained

his previous rejections, and dismissed Patent Owner’s arguments as moot. Id. at

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-10-

30, 33. Patent Owner then amended independent claims 1 and 10 to include

“tensioning straps and corresponding friction locking buckle arrangements.” Id. at

13. Based on these amendments, the Examiner allowed the application. Id. at 9.

B. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))

Petitioner requests that the claim terms be given their broadest reasonable

interpretation (BRI), as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and consistent

with the disclosure. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,

48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).

1. “foil”

Independent claims 1 and 10 recite a “foil.” Ex. 1001 at 9:30, 10:18. The

‘361 Patent does not explicitly define this term. The specification, however, states

that an “inclined, partially reflective screen [is] typically a tensioned foil” (Ex.

1001 at 1:18-19), and later characterizes it as a “polymeric foil” (id. at 6:25-26).

The claim term should be construed therefore as: a flexible material capable of

acting as a beam-splitter, such as Mylar®. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 80, 104, 200.

2. “fixing means”

Claims 3 and 14 recite “fixing means.” Ex. 1001 at 9:42-44; 10:41-43. The

use of “means” gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that this phrase should be

construed under Section 112/6. Both claims 3 and 14 recite that the fixing means

must pass through openings in the screen “so as to clamp the screen between the

first and second retention members” (id. at 9:43-44, 10:42-43), which is the

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-11-

claimed function. See Signtech USA, 174 F.3d at 1356. There is no structure in

either claim sufficient to overcome the presumption that Section 112/6 applies.

The only structure disclosed in the specification that could be argued to perform

either claimed function is a bolt. Id. at 5:16-23 (describing a bolt as the fixing

means associated with language similar to the claim 14 function), 6:35-37 (“bolt

122” associated with language similar to the claim 1 function), FIG. 4 (showing

bolt 122), 8:37-44 (“bolts 528” associated with language similar to claim 1

function), and FIG. 5 (showing bolts 528). Accordingly, the structure

corresponding to the functions of the claimed “fixing means” should be construed

as bolts and their equivalents. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 85, 106.

3. “abrasive coating”

Claims 1 and 10 recite “abrasive coating.” Ex. 1001 at 9:25; 10:23. The

term abrasive coating should be construed in accordance with its ordinary meaning

as: a material that is applied to second material, such that the first material is

bonded to the second material, wherein the first material possesses the quality that

it is specifically intended to mar, scratch, roughen, or otherwise remove third

material from the surface of a target or mating object. Ex. 1019 at 2, 277 (14th ed.

2001); Ex. 1020 at 6, 363 (3rd ed. 1992). The specification does not explicitly

define the term, but does describe it as “typically sandpaper,” consistent with the

ordinary meaning of abrasive. The specification also uses coating in the sense of

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-12-

an intrinsic bonding of one material with another. Ex. 1001 at 6:25-26. A

POSITA therefore would have understood abrasive coating in the context of the

‘361 Patent in accordance with the above construction. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 81-82.

C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

A person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time (“POSITA”), which

for the purpose of this proceeding is assumed to be the April 1, 2004 filing date of

the PCT application and is the timeframe discussed herein unless otherwise stated,

would have had 10‒12 years of training and experience in the field of live

entertainment special effects design and engineering, including their construction,

such as in theaters and theme parks. Ex. 1007. at ¶¶ 53-67. Alternatively, a

POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and 6‒9

years of such experience. Id.

1. Explanation of Skills and Knowledge

A POSITA would have been versed in the technical, aesthetic, production

process, safety, and regulatory concerns involved in the creation and maintenance

of built environments in the theater and entertainment industries. Id. at ¶ 53.

This would have included knowledge of rigging, such as the theatrical fly

system used to suspend and move set material up and down on a stage. Id. at ¶¶

60, 63, 67, 89, 100-107. A POSITA also would have had experience in scrims and

prosceniums, occlusions, stage walls, mullions, selective lighting, and other set

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-13-

dressing elements. Id. at ¶¶ 60, 62, 205. A POSITA would have understood stage

lighting and had an understanding of the science of light, with a basic knowledge

of optics, including reflection, refraction, and behaviors of wavelengths,

electromagnetism, and the human visual spectrum. Id. at ¶¶ 61, 67, 89, 90, 150.

A POSITA would have had knowledge from the fields of set design, the

gaming and casino industry, video games and interactive hardware design, rock ʼn

roll shows and tours, theme parks and expositions, film and television, and military

effects such as heads-up displays and simulators. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 26-48, 58-66.

A POSITA would have had available a myriad of special effects devices and

equipment to use, from scrims to theater fly systems, projectors to video screens,

and sound systems to beam-splitters, and would have been versed in the well-

known methods of operation of each such device or piece of equipment. Id.

2. Set Design Considerations

To incorporate special effects, a POSITA would have understood how to

tailor the design of a particular special effect to the configuration of a particular

theater. Id. at ¶ 60. For example, some auditoriums were mostly flat, with the

audience staring up at the stage. Others, like opera houses, situated the audience

above the stage so it could view the stage and the orchestra below. Some stages

included a subfloor with an under-stage area useful for illusions. Id.

A POSITA would have also accounted for the requirements of the

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-14-

performance and would have used established set design principles and

components based on the needs and constraints of the show and theater. Id.

3. Knowledge of Pepper’s Ghost

A POSITA would have been very familiar with Pepper’s Ghost

configurations. Id. at ¶ 73. These configurations had been used for over 150 years.

Id. at ¶ 28, 49-52. Polymeric film beam splitters have been employed in numerous

Pepper’s Ghost configuration illusions in many of the industries in which a

POSITA would have been familiar, including stage illusions. Id. at ¶ 104.

A POSITA addressing the creation of a Pepper’s Ghost illusion would have

recognized the need to maintain beam splitters as taut as possible. Id. at ¶¶ 150-

151. A POSITA would therefore have looked at available design options for

tensioning a beam splitter. Id. Frames, tensioning straps, and lighting were widely

used in the stage and theater industry to provide a variety of benefits. Id. at ¶¶ 100-

107. Adjustable tensioning mechanisms were used to tension myriad theater

structures, including curtains, fabrics, and projection screens. Id. at ¶ 107. A

POSITA would have recognized the benefits of such tensioning structures with a

flexible beam splitter. Id. at ¶¶ 171-172.

Further, lighting arrangements were provided in many stage productions but

would have been particularly important in Pepper’s Ghost illusions to mask the

beam splitter and adequately contrast the projected image with other real objects

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-15-

on the stage, as a POSITA would have appreciated. Id. at ¶¶ 140-143. Thus, when

looking at design options for a Pepper’s Ghost illusion, a POSITA would have

recognized the benefits of proper illumination. Id.

D. The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under §§ 102(b) or 103(a)

1. Grounds 1 and 2 – Obvious over Maass, Stableford, Bailey, Beaver, Spears and Marks

The Maass reference discloses all of the elements of independent claims 1

and 10, other than certain of the claimed details regarding how the partially

reflective screen is tensioned (Maass discloses the need to tension the screen).

Maass discloses a device for displaying moving images “in the background of a

stage.” Ex. 1002 at Title; Abstract. Maass also discloses that an “object of the

present invention is an apparatus with which film and image presentations can be

made relaxed and the presenter himself can move into the image without thereby

interfering with reproduction of the image on a projection screen.” Id. at 1:53-57.

Such an apparatus may be similar to a “theatre production … ghost trick.” See,

e.g., id. at 1:41-52. The image may be “projected by the image source on to the

reflecting surface … and it is then reflected in the transparent smooth foil in such a

way that it appears to the viewer on the background of the stage.” Id. at 2:9-14.

As shown in the annotated version of FIG. 2 below, Maass discloses the

claim limitations of a light amplifier, a mirror, a reflecting surface, a transparent

smooth foil, a mounting bracket, a winding tube, a stage floor, and a stage ceiling.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-16-

The light amplifier 12 shines an image that is reflected by mirror 14 and

further reflected onto the foil 20 by reflecting surface 18. Id. at 3:51-64. The foil

20 is held “tautly smooth” and “preferably without any inclusions” so “the image is

not distorted.” Id. at 2:49-51. The foil 20 reflects some of the light impinging

upon it from the reflecting surface 18. Id. at 2:52-59. This creates an illusion to

viewers of a moving image appearing in the background of a stage as a virtual

image. Id. at 3:64-67.

As shown in FIG. 5 below, Maass discloses that the image producing

elements of FIG. 2 can be disposed on lattice frames 44. See, e.g., id. at 4:32-57.

Such a lattice framework provides a “desirable embodiment” so the apparatus can

be easily assembled, disassembled, and transported. Id. at 3:20-24.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-17-

As explained below, it would have been obvious to combine elements from

Stableford, Bailey, Beaver, Spears, and Marks with the Maass apparatus because

all of the references relate to one or both key fields to which the ‘361 Patent

directed, i.e., image projection systems and tensioning systems, and disclose

features that a POSITA would have recognized were advantageous to combine

with each other. Ex 1007 at ¶¶ 139, 149, 156, 171, 185, 192. Stableford discloses

a projection screen that “gives increased illumination … is easily assembled or

mounted, and is light in weight.” See, e.g., Ex. 1004 at p. 1, ll. 5-11. Stableford is

analogous art to the ‘361 Patent because Stableford discloses an apparatus relating

to “projection screens such as are used for cinematograph displayers,” similar to

the ‘361 Patent’s apparatus. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:4-9; Ex. 1004 at p. 2, ll. 15-17.

Also, Stableford teaches flexible projection elements that can be held under tension

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-18-

between frames and/or trusses. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 2:48-50; Ex. 1004 at p. 3, ll.

18-19.

In addition, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine elements of

Bailey into the Maass apparatus because Bailey’s tensioning straps provides a

variable tensioning capability that Maass alone does not possess and that a

POSITA would have recognized is advantageous. Ex 1007 at ¶¶ 171-178. Bailey

discloses a large scale, portable display system comprised of flexible foldable strap

members that can be erected as a stage backdrop. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at Abstract.

The flexible display panels can be attached to a beam and tensioned with

tensioning straps. See, e.g., id. at 5:47-52. Bailey is analogous art to the ‘212 in

that Bailey is directed to an “image display system, particularly adapted for use in

conjunction with stage performances” similar to the ‘361 Patent’s apparatus. See,

e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:4-16; Ex. 1005 at 1:57-59. Also, both the ‘361 Patent and

Bailey teach flexible stage display elements that can be held under tension between

frames and/or trusses. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 3:9-25; 6:21-50; Ex. 1005 at 5:58-64.

In addition, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine lighting

elements of Beaver into the Maass apparatus because a POSITA would have

recognized the importance of lighting a stage in a manner that is properly balanced

and illuminates the real objects on it without interfering with or drawing unwanted

attention to the stage illusion. Ex 1007 at ¶¶ 140-45. Beaver discloses an

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-19-

apparatus for presenting optical illusion effects similar to Pepper’s Ghost. See,

e.g., Ex. 1003 at Abstract; 1:34-50. Beaver’s illusion uses a series of projection

screens and inclined mirrors to project images to an audience. See, e.g., id. at 2:44-

67. Just as with the ‘361 Patent’s light source, Beaver achieves contrast between a

projected image and real objects by illuminating objects on a stage area at a desired

light level without illuminating the projection screen. See, e.g., id. at 2:35-39.

In addition, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the gripping

surfaces of Spears with the Maass apparatus because of the friction-enhancing

effects it discloses for retaining and gripping Mass’s foil. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 183-88.

Spears discloses an apparatus for gripping and squeezing collapsible, flexible

tubes. See, e.g., Ex. 1017 at Abstract; 1:13-15. Just as with the ‘361 Patent’s

retention members used to grip the screen, Spears employs opposing jaw members

to grip and squeeze the collapsible tubes. See, e.g., id. at 2:12-26.

Spears is analogous art to the ‘361 Patent because, as the Examiner

articulated during prosecution, while the ‘361 Patent applies its disclosure to the

ultimate objective of creating images using an inclined partially reflective screen,

the disclosure is focused on how to retain the screen under tension. Spears is

similarly directed to a retention device and a POSITA would have considered art

relating to clamping and retention devices even if the application was not

specifically directed to creating stage illusions. See, e.g., Ex. 1017 at 2:12-53,

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-20-

FIGs. 1-3. Both the ‘361 Patent and Spears teach using clamping jaws to retain

and squeeze a flexible material. Id.; Ex. 1001 at 4:22-58; Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 183-88.

As explained below, a POSITA would have looked to Marks because a

POSITA would have perceived the advantage of applying a neutral gray pigment

to Maass’s reflecting surface 18 to reduce halation and produce a more realistic

looking image for the audience. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 190-94. Marks discloses a method

and apparatus for presenting three dimensional projection images to an audience

using a series of projection screens. See, e.g., Ex. 1018 at 1:15-25. Marks’s

illusion integrates a foreground image with a background image containing

complementary objects of a scene into three dimensional images having an

apparent depth effect on a viewer. See, e.g., id. at 2:9-64. The light intensities and

color compositions of the foreground and background images may be adjusted to

synthesize the images and avoid image conflict that would decrease the three

dimensional effect. See, e.g., id. at 4:51-75; 5:1-38. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 190.

Marks is analogous art to the ‘361 Patent because both Marks and the ‘361

Patent are directed to the field of image projection. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:4-10;

Ex. 1018 at 1:15-25. More specifically, both Marks and the ‘361 Patent use one or

more image projectors (e.g., Ex. 1018, elements 32, 33; Ex. 1001, element 106),

one or more reflective elements (e.g., Ex. 1018, element 29; Ex. 1001, element

112), and one or more projection screens (e.g., Ex. 1001, elements 26, 31; Ex.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-21-

1018, element 110) to create three dimensional images or images having depth.

See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1:26-30; Ex. 1018 at 2:9-24, 36-42, 59-64. Additionally,

both Marks and the ‘361 Patent teach using proper lighting intensities to ensure the

integrity of the projected images displayed to the audience. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at

4:20-53; Ex. 1018 at 4:51-66; Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 191-93.

Because only a few of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 differ,

their invalidity is discussed together below.

Claim 1 [1.0] Claim 10 [10.0] An image display apparatus, comprising: Maass

discloses an image projection apparatus. Ex. 1002 at 1:5-7 (“The invention

concerns an apparatus for representing moving images in the background of a stage

or the like using an image source.”), FIGs. 1-5 and 3:36-50 (describing views of

“apparatus”).

[1.1] [10.1] an image source: Maass’s computer controlled light amplifier 12 is

an image source that projects a moving image onto a screen. See Ex. 1002 at 1:8-

16; 3:51-67 (describing light amplifier 12 as an image source that radiates light and

projects a moving image); see light amplifier 12 in FIGs. 1-5.

[1.2] [10.2] a frame: Maass’s winding tube 24 and mounting bracket 22 together

are a frame because they provide structural support for pulling foil 20 under

tension. Id. at 3:58-60, 4:49-51 (describing winding 24 and mounting bracket as

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-22-

supporting the upper and lower ends of the foil 20, respectively); see winding tube

24, mounting bracket 22 in FIGs. 1-3, 5.

[1.3][10.3] a light source…the light source arranged to illuminate at least part

of the apparatus: The phrase “at least part of the apparatus” means “at least part

of the stage.” This interpretation comports with the use and function of the light

source described in the ‘361 Patent: “The apparatus may comprise a light source

arranged to illuminate at least part of a stage.” Ex. 1001 at 4:32-36; see also 7:33-

35 (“A light source 140 is mounted on the box frame 102 and illuminates the prop

138 in order to reduce the effect of any residual light reflected from the board 112

onto the prop.”). The specification also states the light source’s purpose: “in order

that the colour and light levels of the area immediately surrounding the peppers

ghost image, the stage background, can most closely match the colour of the

projection surface background, excluding the area on both which is carrying the

image. Id. at 4:41-45. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 87.

Despite the theatrical environment that Maass is directed to, and although it

would have been an essential and inherent element to any theater or stage

environment, particularly one involving creating an optical illusion for an

audience, Maass does not disclose any light source, separate from the computer

controlled light emitting amplifier 12. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 112, 124-125.

Beaver, however, discloses an illumination system 30 including a light

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-23-

source arranged to illuminate at least part of a stage. Ex. 1003 at 3:55-58 (“an

illumination system 30 for said stage area 28 so that objects on said stage … may

be illuminated at a desired light level ... ;”)

A POSITA would have been motivated to light at least part of Maass’s stage

with Beaver’s illumination system because a POSITA would have recognized the

direct impact that proper lighting of a stage would have on the quality and

believability of the stage illusion. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 135-45. Maass discloses an

embodiment that enables a live presenter to interact with a projected image without

interfering with the image’s projection. Ex. 1002 at 4:23-31. In Pepper’s Ghost

stage illusions that used real objects or actors with the projected image, a POSITA

would have recognized the need for proper lighting that illuminates real objects

without interfering with the projected image and compromising the illusion’s

quality. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 140. One aspect of Pepper’s Ghost illusions was to draw the

attention of the audience away from any visual evidence of the beam splitter to

other parts of the stage. Id. at ¶ 141. Illumination systems accomplished this by

creating an “area of interest” for the audience by shining light on a prop, actor,

and/or certain area of the stage, and by varying brightness levels, colors, and

positions about the stage area. Id. Additionally, light levels would have been

reduced around the edges of the beam splitter to mask them from the audience’s

view. Id. A POSITA would have also recognized that the projected image’s

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-24-

lighting level should be balanced with the other stage lighting to enhance the

illusion’s realization. Id. at ¶¶ 142-143. A POSITA would have recognized that

this balance was important to create a convincing interaction between the projected

image and the real objects or actors on the stage. Id.

A POSITA would have been motivated by these issues to use an

illumination system like Beaver’s (id. at ¶ 144), which discloses that “appropriate

lighting” is key to determining when an actor or other objects on a stage should be

visible to the audience (id.; Ex. 1003 at 4:18-21) and which teaches using an

illumination system that would allow one to contrast a virtual image with real

objects and change that contrast at different instances. Id.; Ex. 1003 at 6:13-19

(“Utilizing selective lighting … to have some of the characters or objects disappear

and others remain, … .”).

[1.4][10.4] an at least partially transparent screen: Maass’s foil 20 is a partially

transparent screen because it is a transparent smooth foil that is sometimes used as

a transparency film. Ex. 1002 at 1:61-63 (describing a transparent smooth foil

connected between the floor and ceiling of a stage); see foil 20 in FIGs. 1-5; see

also id. at 2:60-63.

[1.4.1] [10.4.1] the screen inclined at an angle with respect to a plane of emission

of light from the image source: Maass’s foil 20 is inclined at an angle relative to a

plane of emission of light from light amplifier 12 . Ex. 1002 at 2:28-29 (describing

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-25-

that the foil extends at an angle of about 45° relative to the floor of the stage); see

light amplifier 12, foil 20 in FIGs. 1-3, 5. The “plane of emission” is perpendicular

to the light from the image source (light amplifier 12), and the angle of the plane of

emission of light from Mass’s light amplifier 12 is about 90° relative to horizontal.

See id. FIGs. 1-3, 5; Ex. 1007 at ¶ 88.

[1.4.2] [10.4.2] and the screen having a front surface arranged such that light

emitted from the image source is reflected therefrom: Maass’s foil 20 reflects

some light impinging on its front surface from the light amplifier 12. Ex. 1002 at

2:52-55 (describing that the foil is to reflect between 30 and 50%, preferably 30%,

of the light impinging on it); see light leaving light amplifier 12 and reflecting off

member 18 onto the front surface of foil 20 in FIGs. 1-3, 5; see also id. at 3:61-67.

[1.4.3] [10.4.3] wherein the screen is a polymeric foil: The term “foil” means “a

flexible material capable of acting as a beam-splitter,” such as Mylar®. See V.B.1,

supra. Maass’s foil 20 acts as a projection screen for the image projected by light

amplifier 12. Ex. 1002 at 1:53-67 (describing a transparent smooth foil); see also

id. at 2:48-65. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to use a polymeric foil for

Maass’s foil 20. Most, if not all, transparent foils possessing any tensile strength

can be broadly classified as polymeric. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 80, 126-129. Indeed,

Lekowski discloses a screen used for the same purpose, which is made from

Mylar®, a polymeric material. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 202-203; Ex. 1006 at 2:29-42.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-26-

[1.5] [10.5] the frame being arranged to retain the screen under tension:

Maass’s winding tube 24 and mounting bracket 22 comprise a frame to retain foil

20 under a very high tensile stress. Id. at 4:49-51 (describing that winding tube 24

is fixed to the frame, foil 20 is pulled off the winding tube and attached to

mounting bracket 22, and then tensioned); see foil 20, winding tube 24, mounting

bracket 22 in FIGs. 1-3, 5; see also id. at 3:58-60.

[1.5.1] [10.5.1] such that the tension of the screen can be independently varied at

a plurality of positions along at least one edge of said screen: Maass does not

clearly disclose a way to vary the screen’s tension at a plurality of positions.

Bailey, however, discloses tensioning devices 60 with ratchet-type devices that

allow one to vary tension as needed at a plurality of positions to retain a flexible

stage scenery device under tension “as a generally planar member.” Ex. 1005 at

3:64-67; 6:9-23. Bailey provides this by arranging the tensioning straps at a

plurality of positions along flexible display support member 28, as shown in FIG.

4. Id. at 5:50-52 (“Each of the support members 26 may be secured to the beam 22

at its lower end by a suitable flexible tensioning device 60, for example.”), 6:9-21

(“The tensioning devices 60 may comprise flexible strap, ratchet-type tensioning

devices…to increase tension in the loop formed by the strap”), and FIG. 4.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-27-

A POSITA would have been motivated to use the tensioning straps 60 of

Bailey to provide for variable tensioning along the bottom edge of Maass’s foil,

with the straps interposed along the foil’s edge between the mounting bracket 22

and lattice frame 44. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 173-182. A POSITA would have recognized

the need to vary tension along an edge of the screen to provide a smooth, planar

surface. Id. at ¶ 175. As a POSITA would have recognized, the accuracy of an

image’s reflection depends on the extent to which the reflecting surface was planar.

Id. If the surface was a flexible screen, whether it would have been planar or not

would have depended on whether the screen had been tensioned. Id. More

specifically, a POSITA would have understood that a beam splitter would have to

be held taut at its edges in order to accurately reflect the image. Id. Otherwise, the

light forming the image would have been reflected in various haphazard directions

due to wrinkles, waves or inclusions in the beam splitter, causing distortion of the

image from the beam splitter, and resulting in a subpar audience experience. Id.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-28-

Accordingly, a POSITA would have incorporated the Bailey’s tensioning straps (or

some like them) into the Maass apparatus so that Maass’s foil could be tensioned

to have a smooth planar surface. Id.

A POSITA also would have recognized the benefit of varying tension along

an edge of foil 20 to provide fine-tuning adjustments (id. at ¶ 176), which Bailey’s

tensioning straps would have provided. For example, a POSITA would have

understood that the foil might not be properly dimensioned. Id. A POSITA would

have understood that the foil may expand and contract due to environmental

conditions. Id. These conditions would have included changes in temperature, air

flow and noise, all of which a POSITA would have recognized would affect the

foil tension and cause vibrations. Id. A POSITA would have recognized,

therefore, the advantage of having the flexibility to make slight additional

tensioning adjustments using straps. Id. at ¶¶ 177-178.

[1.6] [10.6] the image source being arranged such that light forming the image

impinges upon the screen: Maass’s light amplifier 12 projects a moving image

onto a mirror and reflecting member 18, which projects the light forming the image

onto the foil 20 where it impinges upon the front surface of the foil 20. Ex. 1002 at

3:61-67 (describing the light amplifier 12 projecting an image onto foil 20); see

light leaving light amplifier 12 and reflecting off member 18 onto the front surface

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-29-

of foil 20 in FIGs. 1-3 and 5; 2:52-55 (describing that light impinges on the foil

20).

[1.6.1] [10.6.1] such that a virtual image is created from light reflected from the

screen, the virtual image appearing to be located behind the screen: Maass’s

light amplifier 12 projects a moving image that is converted by foil 20 to a virtual

image that appears behind foil 20 in the background of a stage. Id. at 3:61-67

(describing that viewers see the moving image projected onto foil 20 as a virtual

image in the background of the stage).

[1.7] [10.7] and the frame comprises first and second retention members:

Maass’s frame includes first and second retention members in the form of the

winding tube and mounting bracket 22 for retaining the top and bottom edges of

the foil, respectively. Id. at 3:32-35 (“Desirably the winding tube is secured to the

upper girder portions by way of brackets while the mounting support which holds

the free end of the foil is fixed to the lower girder portions.”); FIG. 5.

Nevertheless, even if Maass’s winding tube and mounting bracket do not

comprise a frame’s retention members, Stableford discloses retention members that

are part of a frame in the form of stretcher bars e. Ex. 1004 at p. 3, ll. 1-14; FIG. 1.

Stableford’s stretcher bars comprise first and second retention members because

they hold (on both sides of screen b) the projection screen under an even tension.

Id. at p. 1, ll. 50-58; p. 3, ll. 14-19.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-30-

It would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Stableford’s

stretcher bars e into the apparatus of the Maass/Beaver/Bailey combination

discussed in V.D.1 [1.5.1, 10.5.1], supra, because of the even tension the stretcher

bars would have provided across the lower edge of the foil 20. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 154-

166, 179-182. Stableford is analogous art to the ‘361 Patent because both are

directed to tensioning a projection apparatus. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 156. In this

configuration, Bailey’s tensioning straps 60 would have been connected at one end

to Stableford’s stretcher bars e, which hold the lower edge of the foil, and at other

end to Maass’s mounting bracket 22 connected to lattice frame 44 to facilitate the

desired tension. An example of this obvious combination is depicted below:

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-31-

Maass stresses the importance of holding the foil or screen “tautly smooth”

to reduce “distortion effects.” Ex. 1002 at 2:48-52. A POSITA would have

recognized the benefits of using stretcher bars in place of the mounting bracket 22

at the lower end of the Maass foil to better achieve this. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 156. A

POSITA would also have recognized the tensioning benefit, particularly in

conjunction with Bailey’s tensioning straps, provided by Stableford’s stretcher

bars, which by sandwiching the edge of the projection screen more evenly than the

mounting bracket distribute the forces on the lower end of the foil when under

tension. Ex. 1004 at FIG. 4. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 154-156. The stretcher bars have this

advantage because, as a POSITA would have known, they can tension load across

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-32-

the length of the foil’s edge. Id. at ¶¶ 105, 154-156.

A POSITA would have also been motivated to use the sandwich

configuration of stretcher bars e taught by Stableford (Ex. 1004 at FIG. 4) to

provide an evenly distributed frictional gripping area along the edge of the screen

of Maass and continue to retain the screen under tension in the event the screen

may be affected by changing environmental conditions. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 157. It

would have been obvious therefore to substitute the mounting bracket 22 of the

Maass/Bailey combination with Stableford’s stretcher bars, comprising the first

and second retention members of a frame. Id.

[1.7.1] [10.7.1] first and second retention members … having opposing faces

arranged in parallel to sandwich an edge region of the screen therebetween: The

Maass/Beaver/Bailey/Stableford combination discussed in V.D.1 [1.7, 10.7],

supra, sandwiches an edge region of the screen because, as highlighted therein,

Stableford discloses how the stretcher bars e sandwich its projection screen to

facilitate creating an even tension. Ex. 1004 at p. 2, ll. 113-115; p. 3, ll. 1-2

(“bottom edges of the screen strips shall be held between stretcher bars e bolted or

otherwise secured together”); Fig. 1. As Stableford also depicts, stretcher bars e on

opposing sides of the screen are parallel to each other and inherently have

opposing faces that sandwich the screen’s edge. Id. at FIGs. 1 and 4.

[1.7.1.1] [10.7.1.1] and at least one of the faces of the first and second retention

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-33-

members comprises an abrasive coating arranged to contact the screen: The

claim term “abrasive coating” means “a material that is applied to second material,

such that the first material is bonded to the second material, wherein the first

material possesses the quality that it is specifically intended to mar, scratch,

roughen, or otherwise remove third material from the surface of a target or mating

object.” See V.B.3., supra. The Maass/Beaver/Bailey/Stableford combination

discussed at V.D.1 [1.7, 10.7], supra, does not disclose that the retention members’

surface that contacts the screen has an abrasive coating. It would have been

obvious though to apply an abrasive coating to the screen-facing sides of the

retention bars in the Maass/Bailey/Stableford combination because a POSITA

would have recognized the advantage of an abrasive surface (of the abrasive

coating) in having a frictional contact between the stretcher bars e and the edges of

the screen. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 131, 157. A POSITA would have recognized that an

abrasive surface for the screen-facing side of the retention members would

improve the members’ grip on the foil’s edges and ensure that the foil would not

slip away from any part of the retention members’ length, which would have

potentially introduced wrinkles on the screen and caused unwanted image

distortions. Id.

A POSITA would alternatively have been motivated to combine the

roughened, high-friction and abrasive coating on the surfaces of Spears’ squeezing

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-34-

jaws into the apparatus of the Maass/Beaver/ Bailey/Stableford combination. Ex.

1007 at ¶ 184. As discussed above, Spears is analogous art to the ‘361 Patent. Id.

at 185. A POSITA would have been motivated to use Spears’ abrasive coating on

Stableford’s stretcher for the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Id. at ¶ 186.

[1.7.2] wherein the first and second retention members are connected to one or

more flexible tensioning means which extend from the frame: The

Maass/Beaver/Bailey/Stableford/Spears combination discussed at V.D.1 herein,

meets this limitation because in the combination, the stretcher bars e are the

retention members used to retain the lower end of the foil, and they are also

connected to tensioning straps that themselves are connected to the lattice frame

44. The tensioning straps extend from the frame or fixed mounting points of the

Maass structure. Ex. 1002 at FIG. 5; Ex. 1004 at FIG. 1; Ex. 1005 at 5:50-52; FIG.

4. See also [1.5.1, 1.7.1, 10.5.1, 10.7.1], supra.

[1.7.2.1] the flexible tensioning means comprising tensioning straps and

corresponding friction locking buckle arrangements for tightening the tensioning

straps; [10.8] apparatus, comprising: tensioning straps and corresponding

friction locking buckle arrangements for tightening the tensioning straps: The

Maass/Beaver/Bailey/Stableford/Spears combination discussed herein meets the

limitation of having the retention members attached to tensioning straps because in

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-35-

the combination, Bailey’s tensioning straps 60 are attached to Stableford’s stretcher

bars e (which advantageously replace Maass’s mounting bracket 22). Ex. 1005 at

5:50-52; 6:9-23; 8:8-12; FIG. 4. For example, a beam splitter may be large and not

properly dimensioned. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 176. It may also expand and contract due to

environmental conditions. Id. A POSITA would have recognized these potential

issues and the advantage of having the flexibility to make fine tensioning

adjustments. Id. Essentially, using tensioning straps would have allowed a POSITA

to fine-tune the tension force along the screen’s edge to achieve optimal tensioning

under various environmental conditions. Id.

The Maass/Beaver/Bailey/Stableford/Spears combination discussed herein

also meets the limitation of having friction locking buckle arrangements that

correspond to and are for tightening tensioning straps. The combination satisfies

the limitation because the tensioning devices 60 of Bailey “each include a flexible

strap 62 connected at one end to a ratchet type locking mechanism 64 trained

through a connector ring 40.” Ex. 1005 at 6:6-23. A manual actuating lever causes

the strap to be tensioned. Id. Bailey’s locking mechanism 46 and connector ring

40 are a friction locking buckle arrangement. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 170.

[1.8] the foil, flexible tensioning means and the frame lying in a common

inclined plane, with the faces of the first and second retention members being

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-36-

oriented parallel to the common inclined plane and the tension on the foil being

applied in the common inclined plane

[10.9] wherein the foil and the frame reside in a common inclined plane, with

the faces of the first and second retention members being oriented parallel to the

common inclined plane, the retention members being under tension, with the

tension on the retention members and the foil being applied by the tensioning

straps in the common inclined plane

The broadest reasonable interpretation of common inclined plane is “in the

same plane as the angled foil.” This interpretation comports with the use and

function of the tensioning straps described in the ‘361 Patent, where the tensioning

straps 114 are connected to box frame 102 and connected to the screen 110 in the

same plane as the angled screen 110. Ex. 1001 at 6:27-29 (describing the

configuration of screen 110, tensioning straps 114, and frame 102); see screen 110,

tensioning straps 114, truss 104 disposed in the same plane. Id. at FIG. 4; 6:42-47.

In the adjustably tensioned Maass/Beaver/Bailey/Stableford/Spears

combination, foil 20 lies in the same inclined plane as stretcher bars e and lattice

frame 44, and is tensioned in that plane. Ex. 1002 at 4:49-51 (describing that foil

20 is fixed to mounting bracket 22 and tensioned); see foil 20, winding tube 24,

fixing point of mounting bracket 22 in the same inclined plane in FIGs. 1-3, 5.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-37-

A POSITA would have recognized the advantages of configuring the Maass/

Stableford/Bailey/Spears combination of the foil, tensioning means, and the frame

in a common plane. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 158, 182. A POSITA would have understood

that disposing one or more of them in different planes would create stress on the

foil due to moment forces, and which would have been exacerbated when the foil

is under a high tension. Id. A POSITA would have been motivated to configure

the Maas/Stableford/Bailey apparatus to mitigate unnecessary stress on the foil. Id.

See also V.D.1 [1.5.1, 10.5.1, 1.7, 10.7], supra.

Claim 2 [2.0] Claim 13 [13.0] The apparatus according to claim 1 [10], wherein

the abrasive coating is sandpaper.: The Maass/Beaver/Bailey/Stableford/Spears

combination discussed above meets the limitation requiring the abrasive coating to

be sandpaper because Spears discloses that the roughened surfaces of the clamping

side of the retention members can be “a glued-on material such as sandpaper,” or

“[a] coating such as synthetic plastic or rubber composition mixed with sand,

metallic particles, or the like.” Ex. 1017 at 2:30-34. Regardless, it would have

been obvious to a POSITA to have the abrasive coating be sandpaper, given the

prevalence of sandpaper and the ease with which it can be adhered to surfaces that

require high friction. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 187. See also V.D.1 [1.7.1.1, 10.7.1.1], supra.

Claim 3 [3.0] Claim 14 [14.0] The apparatus according to claim 1 [10], wherein

the first and second retention members comprising respective openings

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-38-

therethrough arranged to collocate with respective openings in the screen: The

Maass/Beaver/Bailey/Stableford/Spears combination discussed at [1.5.1, 1.7,

1.7.1.1, 10.5.1, 10.7, 10.7.1.1] meets the limitation of having the retention

members with respective collocated openings and clamping members because

Stableford discloses stretcher bars e that have holes where bolts pass through the

bars to secure the foil to the stretcher bars. Ex. 1004 at p. 3, ll. 1-5, FIGs. 1, 4.

[3.1] [14.1] wherein the openings are arranged to receive a fixing means so as to

clamp the screen between the first and second retention members: The term

fixing means means bolts and their equivalents. See V.B.2, supra. The

Maass/Beaver/Bailey/Stableford/Spears combination discussed above meets the

limitation of having the bolts pass through retention members because Stableford

discloses that stretcher bars e have holes where bolts pass through the bars and the

screen b to secure the screen to the stretcher bars. Ex. 1004 at p. 3, ll. 1-5

(disclosing that stretcher bars e bolted together to secure edges of the screen b) and

FIGs. 1 and 4. These bolts clamp the lower edge of foil between stretcher bars e,

with bolts passing through the foil. Id. See also Ex. 1007 at ¶ 161.

Claim 4 [4.0] Claim 15 [15.0] The apparatus according to claim 1 [10] wherein

the frame is arranged to retain the screen under tension such that the tension of

the screen can be varied at a plurality of positions along at least one edge of the

screen

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-39-

See V.D.1 [1.5.1, 10.5.1], supra.

[4.1] [15.1] such that the screen is substantially wrinkle free: See V.D.1 [1.5.1,

10.5.1], supra. Maass’s foil 20 is substantially wrinkle free. Ex. 1002, 2:50-52

(discussing that the foil 20 is preferably without any inclusions and should be held

very smooth). Furthermore, the Maass/Beaver/Bailey/Stableford/Spears

combination discussed above can achieve a substantially wrinkle free screen by

varying the tensioning of the screen at a plurality of positions along at least one of

its edges. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 174-176. A POSITA would have been motivated to use

Bailey’s tensioning device 60 to provide for variable tensioning along the bottom

edge of Maass foil to achieve Maass’s stated goal of holding the foil without

inclusions, which would render it substantially wrinkle free. Id.

Claim 5 [5.0] Claim 16 [16.0] The apparatus according to claim 1 [10], further

comprising a pigmented reflective member provided in an optical pathway

between the image source and the screen and being operative to reflect only light

from part of the visible spectrum: It would have been obvious for a POSITA to

make reflecting member 18 pigmented in order to reduce unwanted reflections that

cause halation or a fog-like appearance or other distortions of the perceived image.

Ex. 1007 at ¶ 193. It was well-known to a POSITA that a neutral gray layer would

reduce these effects. Id. at ¶¶ 133-134, 193. Moreover, conventional projections

screens in the relevant timeframe were typically already pigmented a neutral gray

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-40-

in order to reduce halation. Id. at ¶ 193. Marks corroborates this knowledge that a

POSITA would have had. Ex. 1018 at 7:44-67; Ex. 1007 at ¶ 193.

Alternatively, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Marks with

the Maass combination apparatus by applying a neutral gray pigment to reflecting

layer 18. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 194. Marks is analogous art to the ‘361 Patent. See

V.D.1, supra. A POSITA would have appreciated the advantage of applying a

neutral gray pigment to reflecting surface 18 (by using a gray projection screen or

painting the surface a neutral gray) to reduce halation and produce a more realistic

looking image for the audience. Ex. 1018 at 7:44-67; Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 193-194.

Claim 6 [6.0] Claim 17 [17.0] The apparatus according to claim 5 [16], wherein

the pigmented reflective member appears grey to a viewer: The claim limitation

“wherein the pigmented reflective member appears gray to a viewer” is indefinite

because viewers’ perceptions, particularly of color, can differ. Perceptions of one

viewer to another, particularly of color, differ. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 195. If the claims are

interpreted to mean that the pigmented reflective member “is grey,” then they are

invalid as obvious to a POSITA. Id. See V.D.1 [5.0, 16.0], supra.

Claim 7 [7.0] Claim 19 [19.0] The apparatus according to claim 1 [10] further

comprising a second light source arranged to illuminate at least part of a stage

lying behind the screen: See V.D.1 [1.3, 10.3], supra. The

Maass/Beaver/Bailey/Stableford/Spears combination meets this limitation because

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-41-

Beaver discloses lights 30 that are disposed in various places, including the sides

of a stage and behind the screen, to illuminate various areas of the stage. Ex. 1003

at 5:58-65 (disclosing light in various areas of the stage that directly illuminate

characters and objects on the stage area 28); and lights 30 in FIGs. 1 and 2.

Claim 8 [8.0] Claim 20 [20.0] The apparatus of claim 1 [10], wherein both faces

of the first and second retention members comprise an abrasive coating: The

Maass/Beaver/Bailey/Stableford/Spears combination meets this limitation because,

in Spears, both faces 24, 26 of its retention members have roughened surfaces 28,

30. Ex. 1017 at 2:27-37. It would have been obvious to have the abrasive surface

on both retention members’ faces because having the abrasive surface on both

faces would have increased the retention members’ grip on the screen. See also

Ex. 1007 at ¶ 188; V.D.1 [1.7.1.1, 10.7.1.1], supra.

Claim 9 [9.0] Claim 18 [18.0] The apparatus according to claim 1 [10], wherein

the image source comprises one of a projector, an LCD, or a television display.

See V.D.1 [1.1, 10.1], supra.

Claim 11 [11.0] The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the first and second

retention members are connected to one or more tensioning means which extend

from the frame.

See V.D.1 [1.7.2], supra.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-42-

Claim 12 [12.0] The apparatus of claim 11, wherein tensioning means are

flexible tensioning means

See V.D.1 [1.7.2], supra.

In sum, claims 1-4, 7-15 and 18-20 are obvious over Maass, Beaver, Bailey,

Stableford and Spears, and claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 are obvious over Maass, Beaver,

Bailey, Stableford, Spears and Marks.

2. Grounds 3 and 4 – The Challenged Claims are Obvious over Lekowski, Bailey, Stableford, Spears and Marks.

Other than certain aspects about using tensioning straps for tensioning the

partially transparent screen and using an abrasive coating on the retention

members’ screen clamping surfaces, Lekowski discloses all of the elements of

claims 1 and 10. Lekowski discloses a device for presenting a multi-sensory show

“composed of live action combined and superimposed with projected images.” Ex.

1006 at Abstract. Lekowski does so using a “projector [that] forms a still and/or

moving image on [a beam] splitter.” Id. Such an apparatus may be used in a

“theatrical presentation.” Id. at 1:11-13. As shown in annotated FIG. 2 below,

Lekowski discloses projector 46, beam splitter 44, one or more mirrors 50, and

front projection screen 54.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-43-

Projector 46 projects an image that is reflected by mirror 50 and further

reflected onto beam splitter 44 by screen 54. Id. at 2:47-52. The image is reflected

toward an audience by beam splitter 44. Id. Various lighting arrangements

illuminate different areas of the stage with varying intensities. Id. at 4:2-5. In

annotated FIG. 3 below, beam splitter 44 is held within frame 51 via retention

clamps 66, 68. Id. at 3:18-20; 34-36. Beam splitter film 45 is held within clamps

66, 68. Id. at 3:34-49; FIG. 3. Lekowski, therefore, discloses all the elements of

claims 1 and 10 other than “tensioning straps” and “abrasive coating.”

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-44-

A POSITA would have found it obvious, however, to modify the image

projection apparatus of Lekowski to include these features. The need to maintain a

beam splitter under tension was known as was the benefit of applying variable

tension through the use of straps. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 100-107, 113-114, 117, 122-123,

211-216. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to have modified

Lekowski to have tensioning straps like Bailey’s to adjust and even the tension of

Lekowski’s beam splitter in the beam splitter’s plane.

A POSITA also would have found it obvious to have an abrasive coating on

the screen-facing sides of the clamps of the screen to maximize the grip on a

material being retained. The use of an abrasive coating to provide such an

enhanced gripping capability was known. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 131-132, 184-189.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-45-

Various prior art, including Maass and Stableford, discussed in Section

V.D.1, supra, discloses the need to maintain a beam splitter under tension.

Lekowski uses clamps 66, 68 to provide variable tension to the disclosed beam

splitter. See e.g., clamp 66 in Ex. 1006 of FIG. 4 above. The flexible display

panels of Bailey can be attached to a truss like Bailey’s beam 22 and tensioned

with tensioning straps. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at 5:47-52. An objective in Bailey is to

keep a flexible display element under tension, a focused concern of the ‘361

Patent. See, e.g., id. at 6:6-23. A POSITA recognizing that Bailey’s tensioning

straps would have provided additional benefits to the system of Lekowski, would

have found it obvious to combine Bailey with Lekowski at least because of an

increased ability to adjust and even the tension of the beam splitter in the beam

splitter’s plane. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 209-224.

a. Lekowski is not cumulative of Maass

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-46-

Lekowski and Maass disclose different image projection structures and

different ways to hold a beam splitter under tension. Maass’s beam splitter is

rolled off a winding tube and attached to a fixed mounting bracket on the stage or a

truss girder. Lekowski’s beam splitter is held within a frame by clamps disposed

on the edges of the beam splitter. Both Lekowski and Maass are necessary to fully

present the state of the art.

Claim 1 [1.0] Claim 10[10.0]

Lekowski satisfies the preamble because it discloses an apparatus for

projecting images in a live theater performance. Ex. 1006 at 1:38-45 (discussing a

multi-sensory theater presentation structure having a projector for projecting an

image superimposed on a live performance); FIG. 2.

[1.1] [10.1]

Lekowski’s projector comprises projectors 46, 48 that project images onto

beam splitter 44, and therefore satisfies the image source limitation. Id. at 2:43-52

(describing projectors 46, 48 as shining light on to beam splitter 44 that is reflected

towards an audience); see projector 46 in Ex. 1006 at FIG. 2.

[1.2] [10.2]

Lekowski discloses frame 51 having members 53, 55, 56, 58. Id. at 3:17-24

(describing frame 51 that supports beam splitter 44); see frame 51, frame members

53, 55, 56, 58 in Ex. 1006 at FIG. 3.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-47-

[1.3][10.3]

The phrase “at least part of the apparatus” means “at least part of the stage.”

See V.D.1 [1.3, 10.3], supra. Lekowski’s lighting illuminates at least part of the

stage. Ex. 1006 at 2:35-38 (describing illumination that allows audience to see

objects and actors on the stage); see also id. at 4:2-5 (describing relative light

intensity levels shining on parts of the stage); Ex. 1007 at ¶ 204.

[1.4][10.4]

Lekowski discloses beam splitter 44 that is a partially transparent screen that

reflects light from the projectors back towards the audience. Ex. 1006 at 2:29-42

(describing beam splitter 44 as a semi-transparent film or partially reflective sheet

of glass); see beam splitter 44, film 45 in Ex. 1006 at FIGs. 2, 3.

[1.4.1] [10.4.1]

Lekowski’s beam splitter 44 is a screen inclined at an angle with respect to a

plane of emission of light from projector 46. Id. at 3:24-28 (describing beam

splitter 44 disposed at an angle with respect to the horizontal plane so that it can

reflect the image from screen 54 toward the audience); see Ex. 1006 at FIG. 2.

[1.4.2] [10.4.2]

Lekowski’s beam splitter 44 is a screen arranged to reflect light from

projector 46 at its front surface. Id. at 2:39-42 (describing beam splitter 44

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-48-

reflecting an image toward the audience which is located on the front side of the

beam splitter); beam splitter 44 in FIG. 2. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 197.

[1.4.3] [10.4.3]

See V.B.1, supra. Lekowski’s beam splitter 44 meets this limitation because

it is a partially reflective polymeric film such as Mylar®. Ex. 1006 at 2:33-42

(describing a semi-transparent polymeric film that can be semi-transparent and

reflects light to the audience); beam splitter 44 in FIG. 2; Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 202-203.

See V.B.1, supra.

[1.5] [10.5]

Lekowski’s frame 51 including its frame members 53, 55, 56, 58, retain a

screen under tension because beam splitter 44 is tensioned using clamps 66, 68

connected to frame 51. Id. at 3:61-65 (describing clamps 68 attached to frame

members to hold film 45 rigidly); see FIG. 3; Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 199-202.

[1.5.1] [10.5.1]

Lekowski discloses a mechanism for varying the tension of the beam splitter

at multiple positions because the clamps 66 as depicted in FIG. 4 and clamps 68

include a bolt (“adjustable fixing means 78”) that can be turned to provide

localized tension. Ex. 1006 at 3:37-49; FIG. 4; Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 201-202. Tension

in the plane of beam splitter 44 is provided through clamp body 70 connected to

clamping member 80. Id. Tension force is generated against the counteracting

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-49-

static member of frame 55. Id. Tension adjustment is made by turning the bolt

clockwise or counterclockwise. Id. Because there are multiple clamping means

70/80 along the edge of the beam splitter, this aspect enables independent

tensioning at a plurality of positions as required by the claim limitation. Id.

[1.6] [10.6]

Lekowski’s projector 46 projects light forming an image that impinges on

the front side of beam splitter 44 and reflects towards the audience. Ex. 1006 at

2:49-52 (describing light from projector 46 reflecting off the beam splitter 44

toward the audience); see projector 46, beam splitter 44 in FIG. 2; Ex. 1007 at ¶

197.

[1.6.1] [10.6.1]

The image projected from Lekowski’s projector 46 appears as a virtual

image located behind the screen to the audience due to light reflecting from beam

splitter 44. Ex. 1006 at 2:38-42 (describing the audience perceiving an image

reflected by beam splitter 44 to be superimposed on a live performance taking

place on the stage 22, which is located behind the beam splitter); see projector 46,

beam splitter 44, stage 22 in FIG. 2; Ex. 1007 at ¶ 197.

[1.7] [10.7]

Lekowski’s frame 51 comprises retention members formed of retention

clamps 66, 68 that sandwich an edge 64 of film 45. Ex. 1006 at 3:34-48

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-50-

(describing clamps sandwiching edge of film 45); FIGs. 3 and 4; Ex. 1007 at ¶ 199.

[1.7.1] [10.7.1]

See [1.7, 10.7], supra. Clamps 66, 68 have fingers (see e.g., 84 and 86 of

FIG. 4) that have parallel opposing faces that face and sandwich the edge 64 of the

film 45. Ex. 1006 at 3:34-48; Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 199-203.

[1.7.1.1] [10.7.1.1]

It would have been obvious, for the same reasons discussed above in the

context of Maass (see V.D.1 [1.7.1.1] [10.7.1.1], supra), to apply an abrasive

coating to the screen-facing sides of Lekowski’s clamps 66, 68 because a POSITA

would have recognized the advantage that an abrasive surface would provide in

having a frictional contact between those clamps and the edges of the screen. Ex.

1007 at ¶¶ 131, 157. A POSITA would have recognized that an abrasive surface

on the clamps’ screen-contacting faces would improve their grip on the foil’s edges

and ensure that the foil would not slip away from any part of the retention

members’ length, which would have potentially introduced wrinkles on the screen

and distortions in the resulting image. Id.; see also V.B.3., supra.

A POSITA would alternatively have been motivated to combine the

roughened, high-friction and abrasive coating on the surfaces of Spears’ squeezing

jaws into Lekowski. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 184, 189. As discussed above, Spears is

analogous art to the ‘361 Patent. Id. at ¶ 185. A POSITA would have been

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-51-

motivated to use Spears’ abrasive coating on Lekowski’s clamps for the same

reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph. Id. at ¶¶ 184-189.

[1.7.2]

Lekowski’s clamps are not flexible tensioning means even though they

generally have a common function. Bailey, however, discloses tensioning devices

60 with ratchet-type devices that allow one to vary tension at a plurality of

positions to retain a flexible stage scenery device under tension “as a generally

planar member.” Ex. 1005 at 3:64-67; 5:50-52; 6:9-23; 8:8-12. Bailey’s

tensioning straps are located at a plurality of positions along flexible display

support member 28, as shown in FIG. 4. Id. at 5:50-52 (“Each of the support

members 26 may be secured to the beam 22 at its lower end by a suitable flexible

tensioning device 60, for example.”); 6:9-21 (“The tensioning devices 60 may

comprise flexible strap, ratchet-type tensioning devices…to increase tension in the

loop formed by the strap”); and FIG. 4; Ex. 1007 at ¶ 173.

It would have been obvious to a POSITA to decouple Lekowski’s clamps 68

(such as the four nearest the ceiling 61 in FIG. 3) from frame 51, attach them to

Bailey’s tensioning straps 60, and attach the tensioning straps’ opposing end to

frame 51. An illustration of Lekowski’s frame configuration combined with

Bailey’s tensioning straps and ratchet devices is shown below. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 214.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-52-

This modification would have provided for additional variable tensioning at a

plurality of positions in at least one direction of Lekowski’s film 45. See Ex. 1006

at FIG. 3; Ex. 1007 at ¶ 214. While clamps 68 of Lekowski are sufficient to hold

the beam splitter under tension, a POSITA would have recognized that Bailey’s

additional variable tensioning would have benefits. For example, a POSITA would

have known that a flexible beam splitter may not be properly proportioned, and

would have known that factors such as temperature, humidity fluctuation, and

vibrations can cause changes in the beam splitter’s tension. Id. at ¶ 212. Therefore,

a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Bailey’s flexible tensioning

straps with Lekowski’s clamps 68 to allow for additional tuning and control over

the tensioning of the beam splitter. Id.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-53-

Alternatively, it would have been obvious to combine Bailey with Lekowski

by first replacing clamps 68 along the beam splitter’s top edge with a single

horizontal clamp. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 216. Such a single clamp would function with

respect to tensioning straps 60 similarly to Bailey’s horizontal support member 26,

by providing multiple access points for additional tensioning straps. Id. A

POSITA would then have connected Bailey’s flexible tensioning straps to

Lekowski’s frame 51, and attached the tensioning straps to the single wide clamp

of Lekowski (modified in accordance with Bailey’s teaching). Id. A POSITA

would have been motivated to modify Lekowski in this fashion because she would

have recognized that a stiff support or retention member used with flexible

tensioning straps—as Bailey teaches (Ex. 1005 at 3:64-67)—would reduce the

individual stresses that may occur at the edge of the flexible beam-splitter with the

intermittent clamping configuration of Lekowski. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 218, 226.

As another alternative, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine

Stableford with the Lekowski/Spears/Bailey combination to create a structure

similar to the modified Lekowski/Spears/Bailey combination for the same reasons

as those discussed in the preceding two paragraphs. Stableford is analogous art to

the ‘361 Patent because both are concerned with tensioning a flexible screen

apparatus. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 219-220. In this Lekowski combination, the difference

would have been that Stableford’s stretcher bars e would have replaced the single

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-54-

wide Lekowski clamp 68 Id. An illustration of Lekowski’s frame configuration

combined with Bailey’s tensioning straps and ratchet devices and Stableford’s

stretcher bars is shown below.

A POSITA would have recognized that the Lekowski/Spears/Bailey/Stableford

combination would have provided the same additional benefits as the modified

Lekowski/Spears/Bailey combination of reducing the individual stresses at the

beam splitter’s edge where the tensioning is applied. Id.

[1.7.2.1] [10.8]

The Lekowski combinations discussed above at V.D.2 [1.7.2] supra, meet

the limitation of having the retention members attached to tensioning straps

because in these combinations, Bailey’s tensioning straps 60 are attached to the

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-55-

applicable retention members (stretcher bars e or clamps 68 depending on the

combination). See also V.D.2 [1.7.2], supra; Ex. 1007 at ¶ 170.

The Lekowski combinations also meet the limitation of having friction

locking buckle arrangements that correspond to and are for tightening tensioning

straps. Each combination satisfies the limitation because the tensioning devices 60

of Bailey “each include a flexible strap 62 connected at one end to a ratchet type

locking mechanism 64 trained through a connector ring 40.” Ex. 1005 at 6:6-23.

A manual actuating lever causes the strap to be tensioned. Id. Bailey’s locking

mechanism 46 and connector ring 40 are a friction locking buckle arrangement.

Ex. 1007 at ¶ 170.

[1.8] [10.9]

The BRI of “common inclined plane” is “in the same plane as the angled

foil.” See Section V.D.1 [1.8., 10.9], supra. The Lekowski combinations

discussed above (see V.D.2 [1.7.2] supra) meet these limitations. A POSITA

would have constructed the combinations to realize the benefits of being in a

common inclined plane and avoid the disadvantages of being otherwise.

Specifically, a POSITA would have recognized that having the foil, tensioning

means, and the frame configured in different planes would have created moment

forces causing unnecessary stress on the tensioned beam splitter. Ex. 1007 at ¶

221. A POSITA would have understood that such stress would likely cause

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-56-

distortion of the foil resulting in undesirable inclusions or even tears. Id. A

POSITA, therefore, would have been motivated to combine Lekowski and Bailey

and, optionally Stableford, to provide tension in a common inclined plane to

mitigate unnecessary stress on the beam splitter. Id.

Lekowski discloses being able to undulate the flexible film beam-splitter for

the purpose of adding other special effects. Ex. 1006 at 4:36‒42. But this is an

option (id. at 4:36 (“[a]dditional special effects may be achieved”) (emphasis

added)) that [does not supplant the rigidly teaching]. Thus, it does not teach away

from the Lekowski/Bailey combination, evidenced in part by its appearance in a

dependent claim. Id. at 4:36 (“[a]dditional special effects may be achieved”)

(emphasis added); 5:44-45 (“[t]he structure of claim 8 further comprising shifting

means for selectively shifting the film.”).

Claim 2 [2.0] Claim 13 [13.0]

The Lekowski combinations discussed herein meet the limitation requiring

the abrasive coating to be sandpaper because Spears discloses that the roughened

surfaces of the clamping side of the retention members can be “a glued-on material

such as sandpaper,” or “[a] coating such as synthetic plastic or rubber composition

mixed with sand, metallic particles, or the like.” Ex. 1017 at 2:30-34. Regardless,

it would have been obvious to a POSITA to have the abrasive coating be

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-57-

sandpaper, given the ease with which it can be adhered to surfaces. Ex. 1007 at ¶

187. See also V.D.1 [2.0, 13.0], V.D.2 [1.7.1.1, 10.7.1.1] supra.

Claim 3 [3.0] Claim 14 [14.0] The Lekowski combinations described in [1.7.2] supra, meet this limitation

of having the retention members with respective collocated openings and clamping

members. For the Lekowski/Spears/Bailey combination, Lekowski’s clamps 68

have openings that collocate with holes in film 45 to allow a screw to pass through

the film 45. Ex. 1006 at 3:47-49. The screw necessarily passes through openings

in the clamp 68 that collocate with respective openings in the screen in order to

adjust the spacing between the fingers to capture the film, similar to the screw and

holes of the clamp 66 depicted in Lekowski’s FIG. 4. Ex. 1007 at ¶ 222.

The Lekowski/Spears/Bailey/Stableford combination described in [1.7.2],

supra, meets the limitation because Stableford’s stretcher bars e have holes where

bolts pass through the bars to secure the foil to the stretcher bars. Ex. 1004 at p. 3,

ll. 1-5; FIGs. 1, 4; Ex. 1007 at ¶ 222.

[3.1] [14.1]

The Lekowski/Spears/Bailey combination meets the limitation of having

bolts pass through the retention members because Lekowski’s clamps 68 have

openings allowing screws 90 to pass through film 45. Ex. 1006 at 3:47-49; Ex.

1007 at ¶ 222. The Lekowski/Spears/Bailey/Stableford combination described in

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-58-

V.D.2 [1.7.2], supra, meets the limitation of having the bolts pass through

retention members because Stableford discloses that stretcher bars e that have

holes where bolts pass through the bars and the screen b to secure the screen to the

stretcher bars. Ex. 1004 at p. 3, ll. 1-5. See also V.D.1 [1.7, 10.7], and V.B.2,

supra.

Claim 4 [4.0] Claim 15 [15.0]

See V.D.2 [1.5.1, 10.5.1], supra.

[4.1] [15.1] such that the screen is substantially wrinkle free;

The beam splitter 44 in Lekowski is held rigidly and substantially wrinkle

free by clamps 66 and 68 which are also attached to frame 51. Ex. 1006 at 3:61-65

(describing that beam splitter is held rigidly within the frame); see rigid beam

splitter 44 in FIG. 2; see also id. at 2:28-34 (describing that beam splitter can be

glass, which is inherently rigid, or polymeric film, which must be held

substantially wrinkle free to act as an effective beam splitter); Ex. 1007 at ¶ 202.

Claim 5 [5.0] Claim 16 [16.0]

It would have been obvious for a POSITA to make Lekowski’s screen 54

pigmented in order to reduce unwanted reflections that cause halation or a fog-like

appearance or other distortions of the perceived image. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 193-194.

See V.D.1 [5.0, 16.0], supra.

Claim 6 [6.0] Claim 17 [17.0]

See V.D.1 [5.0, 6.0, 16.0, 17.0], supra.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-59-

Claim 7 [7.0] Claim 19 [19.0]

See V.D.2 [1.3] [10.3], supra. The Lekowski combinations satisfy this

limitation because Lekowski discloses lights on the stage’s sides with varying light

intensity levels. Id. at 4:2-5 (describing scrim and lighting arrangements that can

make the stage’s lateral zones visible to the audience); see FIG. 2. Regardless, it

would have been obvious to a POSITA to position lighting in the part of the stage

lying behind the screen so as to introduce illumination in selective ways to draw

attention to or away from specific areas, including behind the screen, to support a

presentation. Ex. 1007 at ¶¶ 204-205.

Claim 8 [8.0] Claim 20 [20.0]

The Lekowski combinations meet this limitation. See V.D.1 [8.0, 20.0] and

V.D.2 [1.7.1.1, 10.7.1.1], supra.

Claim 9 [9.0] Claim 18 [18.0]

See V.D.2 [1.1, 10.1], supra.

Claim 11 [11.0] Claim 12 [12.0]

See V.D.2 [1.7.2], supra.

In sum, claims 1-4, 7-15 and 18-20 are obvious over Lekowski, Bailey,

Stableford and Spears, and claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 are obvious over Lekowski,

Bailey, Stableford, Spears and Marks.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-60-

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, claims 1-20 of the ‘361 Patent are

unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Petitioner therefore respectfully requests

that the Board institute the requested inter partes review.

Dated: April 21, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

/David H. Ben-Meir/ David H. Ben-Meir (Reg. No. 46,152) NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: 213.892.9202 Fax: 213.892.9494 david.ben-meir@nortonrosefulbright.com Lead Counsel for Petitioner Cirque du Soleil My Call, L.L.C.

IPR No. IPR2015-01084 Patent 8,328,361

-61-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a), the undersigned

certifies that on April 21, 2015, complete copies of this Petition for Inter Partes

Review and all exhibits were served on Patent Owner at the correspondence

addresses of record listed below (a February 16, 2015 Request for Withdrawal as

Attorney or Agent and Change of Correspondence Address is currently pending

but has not been granted and is therefore not effective) by FEDEX PRIORITY

OVERNIGHT®:

McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP 3100 Interstate North Circle, Suite 150 Atlanta, GA 30339

/David H. Ben-Meir/ David H. Ben-Meir (Reg. No. 46,152) Attorney for Petitioner Cirque du Soleil My Call,

L.L.C.