`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`JIAWEI TECHNOLOGY (HK) LTD., JIAWEI TECHNOLOGY (USA) LTD.,
`SHENZHEN JIAWEI PHOTOVOLTAIC LIGHTING CO., LTD., ATICO
`INTERNATIONAL (ASIA) LTD., ATICO INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.,
`CHIEN LUEN INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., INC. (CHIEN LUEN FLORIDA),
`CHIEN LUEN INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., INC. (CHIEN LUEN CHINA),
`COLEMAN CABLE, LLC, NATURE’S MARK, RITE AID CORP., SMART
`SOLAR, INC., AND TEST RITE PRODUCTS CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIMON NICHOLAS RICHMOND,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,362,700 to Richmond.
`IPR Case No. Unassigned
`
`DECLARATION OF PETER W. SHACKLE, PH.D., IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIMS 1-11, 13-15, 24-34, 45-47 of U.S. PATENT NO. 8,362,700)
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`1.
`
`Engagement
`My name is Peter W. Shackle. I have been retained by counsel for
`
`Petitioners as an expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding. I have been
`
`asked to provide analysis and my opinion about
`
`the state of the art of the
`
`technology described in U.S. Patent No. 8,362,700(the ’700 Patent”) and on the
`
`patentability of claims 1–11, 13–15, 24–34, 45–47 (“the challenged claims”) of the
`
`’700 patent.
`
`B.
`2.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`I reside at 112 Aspen Way, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274. I hold a
`
`bachelor’s degree in physics from the University of Birmingham (United
`
`Kingdom) and a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Cambridge (United
`
`Kingdom).
`
`3.
`
`I have over
`
`twenty years’ experience in the field of
`
`lighting
`
`electronics, with particular emphasis on light emitting diode (“LED”) drivers and
`
`electronic ballasts. I am the President of Photalume, a consulting company I
`
`founded in 2012. Before that, I was Director of Power Supply Products at Light-
`
`Based Technologies, and I also served as Chief Technology Officer for Lightech
`
`Electronics, Inc. Additionally, I held vice president positions at Fulham Co, Inc.,
`
`Universal Lighting Technologies, and Robertson Worldwide.
`
`4.
`
`I am an elected senior life member of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`2
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 2
`
`
`
`Electronics Engineers, and I am a member of the Illuminating Engineering Society.
`
`5.
`
`I am a named inventor of fifty-five U.S. patents, and I have three
`
`patent applications pending before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. I have
`
`also authored eight publications in peer reviewed journals and nine publications in
`
`trade journals,
`
`the most recent of which pertains to LED technology. My
`
`curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A.
`
`C.
`6.
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony
`I am being compensated at a rate of $350 per hour to provide analysis
`
`and testimony in this inter partes review proceeding. My compensation is not
`
`contingent on the outcome of any matter or the specifics of my testimony. I have
`
`no financial interest in the Petition.
`
`7.
`
`I have previously provided expert testimony in one other patent-
`
`related matter. My curriculum vitae discloses the details of this activity.
`
`D. Materials and Information Considered
`8.
`My findings, as explained below, are based on my years of education,
`
`research, experience, and background in the fields discussed above, as well as my
`
`investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming my opinions, I have
`
`considered the materials I identify in this declaration and those are listed in
`
`Appendix B.
`
`9.
`
`Additionally, I know of information generally available to, and relied
`
`3
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 3
`
`
`
`upon by, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant times, including
`
`technical dictionaries and technical reference materials (including textbooks,
`
`manuals, technical papers and articles); some of my statements below are expressly
`
`based on such awareness.
`
`10. Due to procedural limitations for inter partes reviews, the grounds of
`
`unpatentability discussed herein are based solely on prior patents and other printed
`
`publications. I understand that Petitioner reserves all rights to assert other grounds
`
`for unpatentability or invalidity, not addressed herein, at a later time. Thus, the
`
`absence of discussion of such matters here should not be taken as indicating there
`
`are no such additional grounds for unpatentability and invalidity of the ’700 patent.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`General
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`A.
`11.
`
`challenged claims of the ’700 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal
`
`principles provided.
`
`12.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Petitioners have the burden of
`
`proving that the challenged claims of the ’700 patent are unpatentable by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that under “a preponderance of the
`
`evidence” standard, Petitioners must show that a fact is more likely true than it is
`
`not.
`
`4
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 4
`
`
`
`13.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be found
`
`patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what was
`
`known before the invention was made.
`
`14.
`
`I understand the information used to evaluate whether a claimed
`
`invention is patentable is generally referred to as “prior art” and includes patents
`
`and printed publications (e.g., books, journal publications, articles on websites,
`
`product manuals, etc.).
`
`15.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the two legal standards is
`
`set forth below.
`
`B.
`16.
`
`Priority Dates for Claimed Subject Matter
`I understand that in order to be considered “prior art,” patents or
`
`printed publications must predate the pertinent priority dates for the subject matter
`
`claimed in the ’700 patent.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a patent is only entitled to a priority date
`
`based on an earlier filed application if the earlier filed application meets the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Specifically, I have been informed that 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶ 1 requires that the specification of a patent or patent application must
`
`5
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 5
`
`
`
`“contain a written description of the invention, and the manner and process of
`
`making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
`
`person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
`
`connected,
`
`to make and use the [invention] .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.” I understand that
`
`the
`
`requirements of this provision are commonly called the written description
`
`requirement and the enablement requirement.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that compliance with both the written
`
`description requirement and enablement requirement must be determined as of the
`
`effective filing date of the application for which priority is sought.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that
`
`to satisfy the written description
`
`requirement a patent’s specification should reasonably convey to a person of skill
`
`in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention as of the
`
`effective filing date of the application.
`
`C.
`
`20.
`
`Claim Construction Standard
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. The claims after being
`
`construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in the prior
`
`art, which for this proceeding is limited to patents and printed publications. I also
`
`understand that, at the same time, absent some reason to the contrary, claim terms
`
`are typically given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`6
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 6
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in other forums, such as in federal courts, different
`
`standards of proof and claim interpretation control, which are not applied by the
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review. Accordingly, any
`
`interpretation or construction of the challenged claims in this proceeding, either
`
`implicitly or explicitly, should not be viewed as constituting, in whole or in part,
`
`Petitioner’s own interpretation or construction, except as regards the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of the claims presented.
`
`D.
`
`22.
`
`Anticipation
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that, for a patent to be “anticipated” by the prior art,
`
`every limitation of the claim must be found, expressly, implicitly or inherently, in a
`
`single prior art reference. I further understand that the requirement of strict identity
`
`between the claim and the reference is not met if a single element or limitation
`
`required by the claim is missing from the applied reference.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that claim limitations that are not expressly described in
`
`a prior art reference may still be there if they are implicit or inherent to the thing or
`
`process being described in the prior art. I have been informed that to establish
`
`inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive
`
`7
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 7
`
`
`
`matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and that it
`
`would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art. I have been
`
`informed that inherency cannot be established just because a certain thing may
`
`result from a given set of circumstances.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`
`information in a particular prior art document
`
`to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`E.
`26.
`
`Obviousness
`I understand that for a single reference or a combination of references
`
`to render obvious a claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art must
`
`have been able to arrive at the claimed invention by altering or combining the
`
`applied references.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim can be found unpatentable as
`
`obvious where the differences between the subject matter taught to be patented and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`when the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field.
`
`Specifically, I understand that the obviousness question involves a consideration
`
`of:
`
` the scope and content of the prior art;
`
` the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`8
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 8
`
`
`
` the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
` whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`
`may be present in any particular case—referred to as “secondary
`
`considerations.”
`
`28.
`
`Such secondary considerations include: (a) commercial success of a
`
`product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a long-felt, but unmet need
`
`for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the solution provided by the claimed
`
`invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (g)
`
`the taking of licenses under the patent by others and (h) the patentee proceeded
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. Secondary considerations are
`
`relevant where there is a connection, or nexus, between the evidence and the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`29.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that in order for a claimed invention to be considered
`
`obvious, there must be some rationale for combining cited references as proposed.
`
`31.
`
`Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating that it would have
`
`been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to create the
`
`9
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 9
`
`
`
`patented invention. Obviousness may be shown by establishing that it would have
`
`been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of prior art. In
`
`determining whether a piece of prior art could have been combined with other prior
`
`art or with other information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art,
`
`the following are examples of approaches and rationales that may be
`
`considered:
`
`(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(B)
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(C) Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(E) Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to
`
`try” (i.e., choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success);
`
`(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of
`
`10
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 10
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`(G)
`
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`prior art reference teachings to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention. I also
`
`understand this suggestion or motivation may come from such sources as
`
`explicit statements in the prior art, or from the knowledge or common sense
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or lead away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`would not work or explicit statement saying the combination should not be made).
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT
`FIELD AND IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`Based on my review of these materials, I believe that the relevant field
`
`33.
`
`for purposes of the ’700 patent is solar powered lights and more particularly but
`
`not exclusively to solar powered lighting that produces a light of varying color.
`
`(’700 patent, Ex. 1001, Col. 1:19-21.)
`
`11
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 11
`
`
`
`34.
`
`As described above, I have extensive experience in the relevant field,
`
`including experience relating to control of LEDs to produce varying colors. Based
`
`on my experience, I have an established understanding of the relevant field.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that a “person of ordinary skill in the art” is one who is
`
`presumed to be aware of all pertinent art as of the relevant timeframe, thinks along
`
`conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. I understand
`
`that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art references. It is my
`
`understanding that the ’700 patent is to be interpreted based on how it would be
`
`read by a person of ordinary skill in the art. It is my understanding that factors such
`
`as the education level of those working in the field, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to
`
`those problems, and the speed at which innovations are made may help establish
`
`the level of skill in the art. I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`not a specific real individual, but rather is a hypothetical individual having the
`
`qualities reflected by the factors above.
`
`36.
`
`I understand the relevant timeframe for evaluating a claim is at the
`
`time of the invention, which is based on the effective filing date of each claim, or
`
`the date at which the subject matter of the claim was first disclosed in an
`
`application in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable the person
`
`skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention. For the purpose of my
`
`12
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 12
`
`
`
`analysis, I am assuming that
`
`the effective filing date of the ’700 patent
`
`is
`
`December 23, 2003. In my opinion, given the relevant field and relevant timeframe
`
`of the ’700 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have: 1) a graduate
`
`degree in electrical or electronics engineering or physics with demonstrable
`
`experience in circuit design, or 2) a bachelor's degree in electrical or electronics
`
`engineering or physics with two years industrial experience and demonstrable
`
`experience in circuit design.
`
`37.
`
`Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field as of 1978 and directed many such
`
`persons over the course of my career.
`
`IV. Technical Background
`38.
`Light is one of many forms of electromagnetic radiation. The nature
`
`of electromagnetic radiation was quantified by James Clark Maxwell in 1865 the
`
`relations that have become known as Maxwell’s equations. See Observer, Tech
`
`Monthly Section, “What are Maxwell’s Equations?,” Sept. 14, 2013 at 27,
`
`available at http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/15/maxwells-equations-
`
`electrify-world. Maxwell developed the theory that describes how a changing
`
`electric field can generate a magnetic field. See id. Similarly a changing magnetic
`
`field generates an electric field. See id. If the variation is sinusoidal, then its rate of
`
`change is also sinusoidal; therefore, a sinusoidally varying electric field will
`
`13
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 13
`
`
`
`produce a sinusoidally varying magnetic field that will,
`
`in turn, produce a
`
`sinusoidally varying electric field. See id. In other words, the excitation reproduces
`
`itself and propagates through space, hence the nature of electromagnetic radiation.
`
`39.
`
`The exact manifestation of electromagnetic radiation is controlled by
`
`its frequency. It is possible to create electromagnetic radiation at frequencies
`
`corresponding to sound,
`
`for example, 3–30 KHz. The lowest
`
`frequencies
`
`commonly used are for AM radio that has a wavelength of around 300 m. It is
`
`much more common to characterize electromagnetic radiation by its wavelength
`
`rather than by its frequency. However, wavelength and frequency are linked by the
`
`speed of light. See David L. DiLaura et al., Illumination Engineering Society, The
`
`Lighting Handbook 1.2, 10th ed., 2011.
`
`40.
`
`Short wave radio transmissions use wavelengths down to 120 m and
`
`television broadcasts use wavelengths from 5 m to 20 cm. Microwaves, for radars
`
`near airports, use wavelengths of approximately a few centimeters down to a few
`
`millimeters. Wavelengths from 1 mm down to 0.75 µm (750 nm) represent the
`
`transmission of heat and are infrared (IR) frequencies. Decreasing the wavelength
`
`further results in radiation that the human eye can detect as light—the deepest red
`
`color has a wavelength of around 780 nm and the deepest violet color has a
`
`wavelength of around 400 nm. See id. at 3.1. The sun gives out radiation at even
`
`shorter wavelengths known as ultraviolet light (UV) that cannot be seen by the
`
`14
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 14
`
`
`
`human eye, but can cause, for example, reddening or even blistering of human
`
`skin.
`
`41.
`
`“For applied lighting, the optical radiation of interest can be divided
`
`into three components: UV, 100 to 400 nm; visible, 400 to 780 nm; and IR, 780 to
`
`1 mm.” See id. For LED lighting, we are concerned primarily with the visible light
`
`wavelengths from approximately 780 nm down to 400 nm. Figure A shows a
`
`spectrum of sunlight. This is the spectrum of light that the human eye can perceive.
`
`Note there is light at every wavelength. See id. at 6.6.
`
`Figure A: Spectrum of daylight in the United States.
`
`42. Although, there are many colors across the spectrum, the human eye
`
`only perceives three primary colors. See id. at 2.5. All other colors are made up
`
`from combinations of these wavelengths. See id. For example, a fluorescent lamp
`
`can emit the primary colors of red, green and blue, plus some yellow. The human
`
`15
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 15
`
`
`
`eye perceives this combination as white light. With solid state (LED) lighting,
`
`LEDs that are respectively red, green, and blue can be combined in specific
`
`proportions and are interpreted by the human eye as white light.
`
`43.
`
`Figure B shows the overlap of red, blue and green light including the
`
`creation of white light when the three colors are added together. See id. at 6.7.
`
`Figure B: White light produced from Red, Green, and Blue light.
`
`44.
`
`To create varying color that can cover the spectrum of colors, one or
`
`more of the LEDs is varied in intensity, and the human eye perceives a varying
`
`color. See id. at 6.8.
`
`45.
`
`The human eye cannot perceive rapid variations in intensity. If a light
`
`is modulated at 50 Hz, most people can perceive a rapid flashing on and off. If this
`
`frequency is increased to 100 Hz most people may not discern the variation. By a
`
`16
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 16
`
`
`
`frequency of 120 Hz, a majority of people cannot perceive the fluctuation but
`
`instead see steady light. Above 200 Hz, essentially no one can detect
`
`the
`
`fluctuation by directly looking at it. See id. at 7.69. Lighting technologists take
`
`advantage of this by using very rapid pulses of light from 400 to 1000 pulses per
`
`second to controllably modulate light. The width of each pulse is varied; this is
`
`pulse width modulation (PWM). See id.
`
`46. When PWM is done, the human eye perceives a light that grows
`
`bright and dim, even though electronic instruments may record that the peak of
`
`each pulse is actually the same. See id. A pulse width modulator is commonly used
`
`to control
`
`the LED intensity. A color spectrum is achieved by continuously
`
`changing the LEDs’ intensity level by varying the level of power to each LED. The
`
`result is a mixture of colors; for example, if red, blue and green light is used, that
`
`combination can produce color changes across the color spectrum.
`
`47.
`
`Light output from a source is measured in lumens. The lumen is a
`
`simple measure of the total energy being emitted as light, over the whole visible
`
`spectrum and in all directions. See id. at 5.9. Commonly light bulbs are sold
`
`according to how many lumens they output; for example, 1000 lumens is a very
`
`bright lamp for indoor purposes. The intensity of light is a measure of how much
`
`light is being emitted per solid angle. See id. at 5.13. Thus intensity does not
`
`depend on the distance from the lamp. You can also increase the intensity in a
`
`17
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 17
`
`
`
`given direction by using a lens or a reflector to direct more light in that direction.
`
`Intensity is measured in lumens per steradian or candela. See id. Intensity is
`
`directly proportional to the amplitude of the electric and magnetic waves that
`
`comprise the light, but the term “amplitude” is not normally used in the lighting
`
`industry.
`
`48.
`
`Since the preceding paragraph involves the first use of the word
`
`“lens” in this declaration, I will clarify that an array or sheet of lenses is often used
`
`to diffuse light coming out of a luminaire. See id. at 8.4. These diffusers are thus
`
`called lenses. In addition when a plane sheet of glass or plastic is used around a
`
`light source, such a structure is referred to as a lens. See id. Such a structure may
`
`be rendered translucent to conceal the shape of a light source within the lens. For
`
`these reasons in the rest of this declaration the terms “lens” and “diffuser” are
`
`treated as equivalents, reflecting common practice in the lighting industry in the
`
`context of luminaires.
`
`49.
`
`In the lighting industry the technology of controllably making lights
`
`brighter and dimmer is very important. Several terms are used to quantify this
`
`process. For example, we have already defined intensity above. When a surface is
`
`illuminated by a light, it gives out light, and the amount of light given out per
`
`steradian per unit area or luminance. See id. at 5.14. The commonplace term
`
`18
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 18
`
`
`
`brightness used to describe the intensity or luminance of light has no mathematical
`
`representation but is defined simply as the perceived luminance. See id.
`
`50. A light sensitive switch comprises at a minimum a) a light responsive
`
`element that can be a photodiode, phototransistor, photovoltaic cells, photoTRIAC,
`
`photoSCR, a phototransistor or any other circuit element
`
`that changes some
`
`parameter of its circuit characteristics in response to light; b) a power switch that
`
`operates to activate or deactivate a circuit in response to a signal from the light
`
`responsive element. Such a switch might be a bipolar transistor, a field effect
`
`transistor, a silicon-controlled rectifier (SCR), an insulated gate bipolar transistor
`
`or any electronic power switch known to those skilled in the art. Each of these
`
`categories has many sub categories, for example, bipolar transistors may be NPN,
`
`PNP, Darlington, etc. There is no requirement for any mechanical switch.
`
`51.
`
`It is possible that one device may comprise the entire function of a
`
`light sensitive switch. A phototransistor will turn on in response to light and turn
`
`off again when the light
`
`is removed. Inside the chip, one can distinguish a
`
`photodiode part and a transistor part, but the product is sold as a single device.
`
`There are other similar devices such as a photoSCR and a photoTRIAC.
`
`Sometimes it may be convenient to have some intermediate circuitry in between
`
`the light responsive element and the power switch. Most commonly this will
`
`comprise amplification or buffering to allow thresholds for switching to be
`
`19
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 19
`
`
`
`adjusted, or incorporating hysteresis (e.g., Schmitt trigger circuits) to make the
`
`switching decisive and free from jitter.
`
`52.
`
`Furthermore,
`
`the light
`
`responsive element might have multiple
`
`purposes inside a product. A photovoltaic cell may be used not only to generate a
`
`signal voltage but may also generate energy for the purposes of the system.
`
`Likewise, a photoresistor that operates on an inverse relationship with light
`
`intensity may be used as a conventional resistor and still provide a function even in
`
`the absence of light.
`
`V.
`53.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AROUND 2000
`Solar powered lights are lighting products that produce light using
`
`stored energy obtained from sunlight. Garden/memorial lights, illuminated wind
`
`chimes and wind indicators represent a particular subset of solar powered lights.
`
`Solar lights may involve a combination of elements such as a photovoltaic cell, a
`
`rechargeable battery, a lamp and ambient light sensing control circuitry used to
`
`determine when to turn the lamp on, and lighting circuitry often using integrated
`
`circuits to determine which colors and patterns to display.
`
`54.
`
`A first key ingredient for solar powered lighting is a compact,
`
`lightweight rechargeable battery. Nickel metal hydride batteries were first released
`
`in 1989 and were soon improved upon by the lithium ion battery, which first
`
`became available in 1991. See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,062,028 to Frost, issued
`
`20
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 20
`
`
`
`October 1991 (generally describing a solar lamp on a ground stake powered by
`
`rechargeable nickel metal hydride batteries).
`
`55.
`
`The second key ingredient
`
`for solar powered lighting is the
`
`availability and effectiveness of photovoltaic cells. By the year 2000, a relatively
`
`small solar cell could generate enough power in one day to keep a discharge lamp
`
`operating for several hours during the night.
`
`56.
`
`Early attempts at making a solar powered light used lead acid
`
`batteries, for example, as described by Doss in U.S. Patent No. 4,841,416, filed in
`
`March 1988 and issued in June 1989. This product used a 12V incandescent lamp.
`
`Also with an incandescent lamp but now with a battery the shape and size of a
`
`nickel metal hydride battery, is the invention described by Frost in U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,062,028, which was filed in August 1989 and issued in October 1991. This
`
`product featured a stake to be driven into the ground and on top of this was a
`
`translucent compartment containing a lamp. A photovoltaic array was mounted on
`
`the top surface. This product could only produce light for a relatively short period
`
`because it still used an inefficient incandescent lamp as the light element.
`
`57.
`
`Other inventors exploited more efficient
`
`light sources to achieve
`
`extended duration of light output. Hung, in U.S. Patent No. 5,055,984, filed in
`
`August 1989, mentions using a gas discharge lamp. An early use of LEDs in a
`
`garden light was described by Ouyang in November 1993 in CN 2145314Y. This
`
`21
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 21
`
`
`
`publication disclosed a LED lighting wind chime product that used LED lights and
`
`could be powered either from a power line step down transformer or from a
`
`battery. (Ouyang, Specification) Clark described a solar powered lamp which used
`
`LEDs for the light source in June 2002 PCT Application No. WO 02/101285.
`
`Clark also described an ambient light sensor providing for the light to come on
`
`only at night or dusk. Such light sensitive circuits are not novel and are well known
`
`in the art. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,211,470 by Frost et al. issued on May
`
`18, 1993 disclosed light sensitive circuitry using a photovoltaic cell, a diode, a
`
`battery, and a transistor. These components were arranged to charge the battery in
`
`the presence of sunlight, and to run the light off the battery in the absence of light.
`
`(See Frost et al., Col. 4:21-40.)
`
`58.
`
`The next technology leap to affect the business of solar powered
`
`lighting was the improvement of LED lamp efficacy. LED devices had been
`
`around since 1962, but in the 1960s and 1970s they were only bright enough to
`
`make indicator lights and low powered displays such as on calculators. However
`
`with continual R&D, in the time interval from 1965 to 1990 the light output per
`
`LED that could be obtained had increased 1000 times so that during the 1990s it
`
`was now possible to make a useful luminaire with an efficacy already many times
`
`that of an incandescent lamp, and outputs of several lumens could be produced
`
`from an LED lamp.
`
`22
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 22
`
`
`
`59.
`
`In October 1993, U.S. Patent No. 5,255,170 issued to Plamp described
`
`a solar powered memorial
`
`light using early LEDs as the light source. This
`
`invention brought together LEDs, photovoltaic cells and batteries.
`
`60.
`
`In 1999, another technology line was evolving as engineers were
`
`realizing it was possible to switch LEDs on and off so rapidly (say 1000 times/sec)
`
`that
`
`the human eye would detect
`
`instead a steady light with a brightness
`
`corresponding to the fraction of time the LED was switched on. By operating a red,
`
`a blue, and a green LED simultaneously, any desired color could be synthesized.
`
`This could be accomplished by using an inexpensive microcontroller, for example,
`
`the Philips 51LPC family has three PWM (pulse width modulator) outputs that can
`
`output pulses with a width under program control.
`
`61.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,924,784 by Chliwnyj, filed on August 15, 1996 and
`
`published on July 20, 1999, successfully combined solar power, a rechargeable
`
`battery and color varying. Chliwnyj specifically disclosed an illuminated
`
`garden/memorial lighting device using solar energy, a rechargeable battery and an
`
`integrated circuit using pulse width modulators to drive the intensity of a plurality
`
`of differently colored LEDs to produce a varying color. This lighting device was
`
`one of the first to incorporate the capability of varying color in a solar battery
`
`powered device. The lighting device was used in a garden setting, e.g., a gravesite
`
`memorial.
`
`23
`
`Jiawei et al. Exhibit 1002 Page 23
`
`
`
`62.
`
`In U.S. Patent No. 6,241,362 by Morrison, filed in July 1999 and
`
`issued in June 2001, Morrison disclosed an ornament that has a microprocessor
`
`driving red, green, and blue LEDs and which uses a battery. The light level coming
`
`from each LED i