`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`BoxInterferences(a,uspto. gov
`Tel: 571-272-9797
`
`Entered: March 25, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Anatoli Ledenev
`and
`Robert M. Porter
`Junior Party
`(Patent 7,843,085),
`
`V.
`
`Meir Adest,
`Yoav Galin, Lior Handelsman,
`Amir Fishelov,
`and
`Guy Sella,
`Senior Party
`(Application 13/308,517)
`
`Patent Interference No. 106,112 (JTM)
`(Technology Center 2800)
`
`Before SALLY GARDNER LANE, JAMES T. MOORE, and DEBORAH KATZ,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`DECISION ON MOTIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 41.125
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043356
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`An interference was declared between patent 7,843,085 ("Junior Party" or
`
`"Ledenev")' and application 13/308,517 ("Senior Party" or "Adest" ) 2. Paper 1.
`
`After a conference call, the Board authorized numerous motions to be filed.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 Paper 17. Not all of the authorized motions were filed. Those that were authorized
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`(and some permissively filed under the rules) include:
`
`Ledenev Motion 2 to de-designate junior party claims. Paper 73 (Corrected).
`
`Ledenev Motion 3 to add a Count. Paper 74 (Corrected).
`
`Ledenev Motion 4 to accord benefit. Paper 75 (Corrected).
`
`Ledenev Responsive Motion 12 to de-designate claims. Paper 81.
`
`Adest Motion 2 for benefit. Paper 77.
`
`Adest Motion 4 to add Ledenev patents. Paper 70. (Corrected).
`
`Adest Miscellaneous Motion 1 to exclude Exhibit 2040. Paper 81.
`
`The times for filing opposition and reply have passed. This interference is
`
`ready for decision. Requests for Oral Argument were filed (Papers 124 and 130),
`
`but the panel deems oral argument are unneeded in this case, and those requests are
`
`denied.
`
`1 Ledenev identifies its real party in interest as AMPT, LLC. Paper 8.
`
`2 Adest identifies its real party in interest as Solaredge Technologies, LTD. Paper 10.
`
`-2-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043357
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`II. THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`This interference concerns photovoltaic power systems that are said to be
`
`highly efficient. Ex. 2001, Title. There are many variables that affect a
`
`photovoltaic system, including non-uniformity of panels, partial shade, dirt or
`
`accumulated matter on the panels, damaged panels, and degradation due to age of
`
`the panels. Id. 2:38-44. There are many ways to interconnect panels, converters,
`
`and controllers. Id. 2:45-57.
`
`In Ledenev's description of the technical field of the subject matter, it is said
`
`that certain aspects of the invention may be responsible for the high efficiency and
`
`harvest maximum power from a solar cell, a solar panel, or strings of panels.
`
`These aspects include providing electrical power conversion in a multimodal
`
`manner, establishing a system that can alternate between differing processes, and
`
`differing systems that can achieve efficiencies in conversion that are said to be
`
`extraordinarily high compared to traditional systems. Ex. 2001, 1:18-28.
`
`III. The Interference Count
`
`The Count is a "McKelvey" Count, and recites the subject matter of the
`
`present interference. More specifically, the Count comprises two alternatives —
`
`Application 13/308,517, Claim 253. An efficient method of solar
`energy power harvesting comprising the steps of:
`creating a DC photovoltaic output from a solar panel of a plurality of
`solar panels;
`connecting said DC photovoltaic output to a DC photovoltaic input of
`a photovoltaic DC-DC converter; wherein the photovoltaic DC-DC
`converter includes a buck+boost converter;
`converting said DC photovoltaic input into a converted DC
`photovoltaic output using at least some times a buck mode of the
`
`-3-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043358
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`32
`
`photovoltaic DC-DC converter and at least other times a boost mode of said
`photovoltaic DC-DC converter;
`controlling said photovoltaic DC-DC converter in said buck and boost
`modes while said photovoltaic DC-DC converter converts said DC
`photovoltaic input into said converted DC photovoltaic output;
`controlling transitions of said photovoltaic DC-DC converter between
`said buck and boost mode conversion by using a maximum power peak
`tracking control such that substantially all power of said DC photovoltaic
`input is transferred to said converted DC photovoltaic output;
`connecting said converted DC photovoltaic output as part of a
`converted DC photovoltaic input to a DC-AC inverter; and
`inverting said converted DC photovoltaic input into an inverted AC
`photovoltaic output.
`
`or
`
`Patent 7,843,085 Claim 1. An efficient method of solar energy power
`creation comprising the steps of:
`creating a DC photovoltaic output from at least one solar panel of a
`plurality of solar panels;
`establishing said DC photovoltaic output as at least part of at least one
`DC photovoltaic input to a photovoltaic DC-DC converter for at least one
`DC photovoltaic output;
`substantially power isomorphically converting said at least one DC
`photovoltaic input into a converted DC photovoltaic output;
`substantially power isomorphically maximum photovoltaic power
`point multi mode output controlling operation of said photovoltaic DC-DC
`converter at least some times while said photovoltaic DC-DC converter acts
`to convert said at least one DC photovoltaic input into said converted DC
`photovoltaic output;
`establishing said converted DC photovoltaic output as at least part of a
`converted DC photovoltaic input to at least one DC-AC inverter; and
`
`-4-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043359
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`inverting said converted DC photovoltaic input into an inverted AC
`photovoltaic output.
`
`(Paper 1, 4; Paper 12, 3-4; Ex. 2001, 22:35 56).
`
`IV. Adest Motion 2 (Paper 77) (Benefit)
`
`We take up Adest Motion 2 first in accord with our stated attention to issues
`
`8 of priority in this interference. This motion appears to be unopposed.
`
`9
`
`To be sufficient a motion must provide a showing, supported with
`
`10
`
`appropriate evidence, such that, if unrebutted, it would justify the relief sought.
`
`11 The burden of proof is on the movant. Bd. R. 208(b)3. For benefit, a movant must
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`show at least one constructive reduction to practice of Count 1 as defined in Bd. R.
`
`201 and required by the Standing Order ("SO") ¶ 208.4.1
`
`We have considered all argument in the parties' briefing and all portions of
`
`the evidence pointed out to us in the briefing even if not specifically cited in this
`
`decision. Based on this consideration, we find the evidence of record to support
`
`any findings of fact in this Decision by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`Adest Motion 2 seeks benefit of two provisional applications - 60/908,095
`
`(the "095 application") and 60/916,815 (the "815 application"). Paper 77, 1. The
`
`'095 application was filed March 26, 2007 (Ex. 1006, 1) and the '815 application
`
`21 was filed May 9, 2007. Ex. 1003.
`
`3 "Bd.R. x" is a shorthand for "37 C.F.R. § 41.x". 69 Fed. Reg. 49960, 49961 (12
`Aug. 2004).
`
`-5-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043360
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`1
`
`We accorded Adest benefit of the December 4, 2007 filing date of U.S.
`
`2 Patent Application No. 11/950,271 (the "271 application") for Count 1. Paper 1, 5.
`
`3 Adest asserts that the claims in the '517 application are also entitled to be accorded
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`the benefit of the filing date of both the '095 application (filed March 26, 2007)
`
`and the '815 application (filed on May 9, 2007).
`
`Specifically, Adest asserts that both the '095 application and the '815
`
`application include at least one constructive reduction to practice of Count 1 as
`
`defined in Bd. R. 201 and required by SO ¶ 208.4.1.
`
`We begin with the '095 application.
`
`The '095 application relates also to the field of efficiently harvesting power.
`
`It is said to describe a system and method for reliably and efficiently harvesting
`
`power from distributed power sources such as PV panels, batteries, fuel cells or
`
`other DC sources. The system is said to be built of power converting modules
`
`14 which are directly connected to the power supplies. The modules are then
`
`15
`
`16
`
`connected in series to strings, and the strings may be connected in parallel to
`
`arrays. Inter alia, it is said that the output current from the array may be extracted
`
`17 by an inverter or another load controller. Ex. 1006, Abstract.
`
`18
`
`Adest points us to figures on both pages 39 and 60 of the '095 application.
`
`19 Paper 77, 3.
`
`20
`
`The Figures are reproduced below.
`
`-6-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043361
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JIM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`D2MPPT module
`
`The Figure is an electrical block/schematic diagram of a module
`
`SolarEdge Solution
`
`\\\
`
`• Single S
`• Current ~ urce
`• Soft Swhchmg
`• Input Nonage Independent Loop
`
`—_
`
`r c27H1 uc
`r., . ,
`
`• Single stage
`• Power Source
`MPPT Inoeoer.4ent Loop
`
`The Figure is an electrical block diagram of a solar power system
`
`-7-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043362
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`
`Adest asserts that as a result of these figures and associated description, the
`
`'095 application describes the limitations of Count 1. Paper 77, 3. We examine
`
`this contention below.
`
`An efficient method of solar energy
`power harvesting comprising the steps of
`
`Adest asserts that the '095 application describes an an efficient method of
`
`solar energy power harvesting. Id., 4. We agree. See, e.g. Ex. 1006, 17, lines 1-2
`
`("efficient power harvesting from solar arrays") and 23, ¶ 8 ("transfers the power
`
`efficiently").
`
`creating a DCphotovoltaic output from
`a solar panel of a plurality of solar panels
`
`Adest asserts that the '095 application describes solar panels 1 through 10
`
`14 which each have a respective DC photovoltaic output connected to the input of a
`
`15
`
`16
`
`respective DC-DC buck+boost converter. Paper 77, 5-6. We agree. Note Ex. 1
`
`1006 at 43, 49, 50 (note the tall item outlined like an envelope on the left or right
`
`17 of each figure is a representation of a solar panel).
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`connecting said DCphotovoltaic output to a DC
`photovoltaic input of a photovoltaic DC-DC converter; wherein the
`photovoltaic DC-DC converter includes a buck+boost converter"
`
`According to Adest, the '095 application shows a solar panel output
`
`connected with a DC-DC buck+boost converter, Paper 77, 6-7. citing inter alia
`
`24 Ex. 1006 at 43. We agree and also find that two wires 914 and 916 have a
`
`N
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043363
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`26
`
`potential difference between them due to the energy produced by the solar cells in
`
`the panel attach solar panel 900 to module 902. Ex. 1006 at 44.
`
`We also find that the module 902 includes a DC/DC converter whose
`
`functionality may be incorporated in an IC 904 which extracts current from the
`
`panel at its peak power point by continuously monitoring the current and voltage
`
`provided by the panel and uses MPP tracking algorithms to maintain maximum
`
`possible power output. Ex. 1006 at 44. The generated power is transferred to the
`
`module output terminals 910 and 912. Id. at 44-45
`
`converting said DC photovoltaic input into a converted
`DC photovoltaic output using at least some times a buck mode of the
`photovoltaic DC-DC converter and at least other times a boost mode
`of said photovoltaic DC-DC converter
`Adest asserts, and we find, that the '095 application describes a photovoltaic
`
`DC-DC converter that includes a buck+boost converter. Paper 77, 8, citing Ex.
`
`1006 at 43-45. In discussing the figure on page 43, the '095 application states that
`
`module 902 "contains a control mechanism and PWM controller 906, which
`
`controls a buck converter or a boost converter." Ex. 1006 at 43-44, 50. Moreover,
`
`we observe that "[e]ither the buck or boost converter could be used at any given
`
`time. Id. at 45.
`
`controlling said photovoltaic DC-DC converter in said
`buck and boost modes while said photovoltaic DC-DC converter
`converts said DC photovoltaic input into said converted DC
`photovoltaic output
`
`Adest asserts, and we also find, that the '095 application describes a
`
`photovoltaic DC-DC converter that includes a buck+boost converter. Ex. 1006 at
`
`-9-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043364
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`
`43-45. We also agree that the '095 application describes the buck+boost converter
`
`sometimes using a buck mode and other times using a boost mode. Id. We also
`
`agree that there is description of controller 906 as controlling that buck+boost
`
`converter. Id.
`
`controlling transitions of said photovoltaic DC-DC
`converter between said buck and boost mode conversion by using a
`maximum power peak tracking control such that substantially all
`power of said DC photovoltaic input is transferred to said converted
`DC photovoltaic output
`
`10
`
`Adest asserts that the '095 application describes this limitation. Paper 77, 10.
`
`11 More specifically, Adest asserts that the '095 application describes a photovoltaic
`
`12 DC-DC converter that includes a buck+boost converter. Ex. 1006 at 43-45. Adest
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`also asserts that the '095 application describes the buck+boost converter
`
`sometimes using a buck mode and other times using a boost mode. Ex. 1006 at 45,
`
`50. The buck+boost converter is controlled by integrated circuit 904 and controller
`
`906 using maximum power point tracking. It is reasonable to conclude that the
`
`control of the buck+boost converter by integrated circuit 904 and controller 906
`
`results in substantially all power of said DC photovoltaic input being transferred to
`
`the converted DC photovoltaic output Id. at 39, 44.
`
`connecting said converted DC photovoltaic output as part
`of a converted DC photovoltaic input to a DC-AC inverter
`
`Adest contends that the '095 application discloses this limitation. Paper 77,
`
`13. More specifically, Adest points to the figure on page 50 of the '095
`
`application, where the converted DC power output from the series connection of
`
`-10-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043365
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`1 DC-DC power converter outputs is input to a DC-AC inverter. Ex. 1006 at 50. We
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`find that the figure reveals this connection.
`
`inverting said converted DC photovoltaic input into an
`inverted A C photovoltaic output
`
`Adest finally asserts, that the '095 application describes that the output of
`
`the DC-AC inverter can operate electric appliances or be tied to a power grid, thus
`
`disclosing inverting said converted DC photovoltaic input into an inverted AC
`
`photovoltaic output as recited in Count 1. Paper 77, 13, citing Ex. 1006 at 24 (¶¶
`
`[0021]-[0022]). We agree that the inverter is so described.
`
`Ledenev has not challenged any of Adest's contentions.
`
`Accordingly, as it appears the '095 application describes an embodiment
`
`12 within the Count, we conclude that Adest is entitled to benefit of the '095
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`application filing date of March 26, 2007 for Count 1.
`
`We need not reach this issue as concerns the '815 application, which has a
`
`later filing date, as both provisional applications were filed within a year of the
`
`originally accorded date.
`
`Ledenev cannot now prevail on priority as its earliest conception date (Paper
`
`36) is after the accorded benefit of Adest. Ledenev filed a motion for benefit,
`
`19 Ledenev Motion 4, but that motion seeks benefit of an earlier application filed
`
`20 November 9, 2007, a date that is after the March 26, 2007 date now accorded to
`
`21 Adest. Consequently, we turn to the remaining motions with an eye towards the
`
`shape of the judgment to be entered against Ledenev.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`-11-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043366
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`1
`
`2
`
`V. Ledenev Motion 2 To De-Designate Claims
`
`Ledenev Motion 2 seeks to dedesignate claims 4, 6, 7, 21, and 40-46 of
`
`3 Patent 7,843,085 as corresponding to Count 1. Paper 73. Adest opposes. Paper
`
`4
`
`97. Ledenev replied. Paper 113. That reply included a declaration (Ex. 2040)
`
`5 which spawned a Motion to Exclude (Paper 123), an Opposition to the Motion to
`
`6 Exclude (Paper 131) and a reply thereto (Paper 136). A conference call on Exhibit
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`2040 was conducted February 3, 2020, and a transcript is in the record as Exhibit
`
`1031.
`
`Ledenev asserts Ledenev's currently involved claims 4, 6, 7, 21, and 40-46
`
`should be designated as not corresponding to the Count because each of these
`
`claims is separately patentable from the subject matter defined by the Count, and
`
`because each of these claims is separately patentable from all Adest claims,
`
`including those of Adest's claims that include the term "boundary." Id. 1.
`
`A party seeking to undesignate claims from corresponding to the Count
`
`bears the burden to establish nonobviousness, e.g., a negative. Cf. Pechiney
`
`16 Emballage Flexible Europre v. Ci°yovac Inc., 73 USPQ2d 1571, 1573 (Bd. Pat.
`
`17 App. & Int. 2004) (to demonstrate no interference-in-fact, the moving party bears
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`the burden and must establish a `negative'). A showing of nonobviousness in the
`
`context of a motion for the undesignation of claims includes all of the
`
`considerations for obviousness. The movant must account for the differences
`
`between the Count and the claim which the movant seeks to undesignate, account
`
`for the scope and content of the prior art known to the movant, and the level of
`
`skill in the art. See also SO ¶ 208.1
`
`-12-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043367
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Ledenev asserts that, as the Count relates generally to power harvesting and
`
`power conversion in photovoltaic systems, as of December 4, 2007, a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have been a person with a bachelor's degree
`
`in electrical engineering, plus at least five years' experience with photovoltaic
`
`systems. Id. 2. Ledenev points us to the testimony of Eric Seymour.4 Ex. 2021, ¶
`
`25. As far as we can discern, Adest does not challenge this level or put forth an
`
`alternative level.
`
`We adopt Ledenev's interpretation of the level of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`it is reasonable and supported by testimony that we find credible. Moreover, we
`
`find that the prior art also reflects what one skilled in the art would have known. In
`
`re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (level of skill in the art can be
`
`determined by reference to prior art of record).
`
`Clain 4
`
`We begin with Ledenev Claim 4. It is reproduced below.
`
`Claim 4. An efficient method of solar energy power creation as
`
`described in claim 1 and further comprising the steps of: photovoltaic
`
`boundary condition controlling said photovoltaic DC-DC converter; and
`
`boundary condition DC-DC converting said DC photovoltaic output.
`
`20 Ex. 2001, col. 22,11. 20-25.
`
`4 We find Professor Seymour to be qualified to testify as to the technical subject
`matter of this interference. Ex. 2021, ¶¶ 2-15
`
`-13-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043368
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`It is immediately apparent that the term "photovoltaic boundary condition
`
`controlling" requires interpretation.
`
`Ledenev asserts, and Professor Seymour testifies, that this phrase means:
`
`controlling the converter to effect a boundary-type limitation on converter
`voltage output and/or converter current output during operation of the
`converter to produce power, and to take converter output off the maximum
`power point curve, and inverting that converter output to output AC power."
`
`Ex. 2021, ¶ 36
`
`Adest asserts that this interpretation improperly reads limitations into the
`
`claim. Paper 97, 1.
`
`We turn first to the intrinsic evidence of record. The '085 patent
`
`Specification states, as regard boundary conditions, only this:
`
`As illustrated in FIGS. 7 A, 7B, and 9, boundary conditions
`or safety limits may be set such as the overcurrent limit and
`the overvoltage limit. Thus the converter and/or its control
`circuitry may serve as a safety module or photovoltaic bound-
`ary condition converter functionality control circuitry, may
`achieve a photovoltaic boundary condition modality of photovoltaic
`DC-DC power conversion, and may accomplish the
`step of controlling a photovoltaic boundary condition of the
`photovoltaic DC-DC converter
`
`Ex. 2001, 15:12-20.
`
`Figures 7A, 7B, and 9 are reproduced below.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`041
`
`25
`
`-14-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043369
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`Preset Overcurrent Limit
`
`C
`
`c)
`
`Constant Power @ MPP
`
`Preset Overvoltage Limit
`
`Voltage
`
`Fig. 7A
`
`Figure 7A is a plot of a solar panel output operating condition paradigm
`
`Preset Overcurrent Limit
`
`Y
`C
`
`L
`
`Constant Power ) MPP
`
`Overvoltage Limit
`
`Voltage
`
`Fig. 7B
`
`Figure 7B is a plot of a solar panel output operating condition paradigm
`
`-15-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043370
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`Preset Overcurrent Limit
`
`Constant Power @ MPP
`
`Overvoltage Limit
`
`Voltage
`
`Fig. 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Figure 9 is a plot of combined protective and coordinated process conditions
`
`Photovoltaic boundary conditions is alternatively used with "safety
`
`conditions" in the specification, indicating to us not equal breadth but inclusion.
`
`5 Figures 7A, 7B, and 9 illustrate that safety limits can be a part of that term, but the
`
`6
`
`curved portion of each hard limit boundary is designated as "Constant Power at
`
`7 MPP." This indicates to us that the boundaries can be set for efficiency, reliability,
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
`or other conditions broader than simply a limit or limits. For example, in
`
`discussing Figure 7A, the Specification notes that:
`
`Consider the situation in the morning when the sun
`first strikes a PV panel string with power conditioners (17).
`There may be no grid connection at this point and the inverter
`section may not draw any power. In this case the power
`conditioner (17) might in practical terms increase its output
`
`-16-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043371
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`voltage until the inverter would break. The inverter could
`have overvoltage protection on its input adding additional
`power conversion components or, the power conditioner may
`simply have its own internal output voltage limit. For example
`if each power conditioner (17) could only produce 100 volts
`maximum and there was a string of ten PCs in series the
`maximum output voltage would be 1000 volts. This output
`voltage limit could make the grid-tied inverter less complex
`or costly and is illustrated in FIG. 7 A as a preset or predetermined
`overvoltage limit or value or criteria. Thus embodiments
`can present maximum voltage determinative switching
`photovoltaic power conversion control circuitry and maximum
`photovoltaic voltage determinative duty cycle switch-
`ing (as shown in FIG. 7A as the preset overvoltage limit). This
`can be inverter specific.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17 Ex. 2001, 14:2-21.
`18
`19
`
`To us, then, relying on the intrinsic evidence initially, a boundary condition
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`32
`
`is convincingly a limit set on the operations of the converter and operating the
`
`converter according to that limit. One specifically exemplified limit is overvoltage.
`
`We now turn to Professor Seymour's analysis. He testifies that
`
`38. "boundary-type limitation": One of ordinary skill in the art would,
`upon reading the Ledenev Patent, believe that boundary condition implies an
`upper bound, i.e., where the bound acts to limit a parameter only when it is
`above a certain value (there is no limiting when such is not the case). For
`example, if a boundary is at 400V, then, if the voltage would otherwise be
`410V, it is held at 400V, but if it would be 390V, it is allowed come off the
`boundary and lower to 390V. Such "one-way" (or boundary-type) limiting is
`thus flexible, in a sense. It is in stark contrast to the case where a parameter
`is inflexibly maintained at a certain value regardless of the value that
`parameter would otherwise have in relation to that certain value (e.g., where
`
`-17-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043372
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`voltage is held at 400V not only when it would otherwise be at 41 OV, but
`also when it would otherwise be at 390V). Figs. 7A, 7B and 9 (of Ex. 2001),
`and related disclosure of the Ledenev Patent, in addition to the words of the
`claim itself (including base independent claim 1) compel this interpretation,
`as explained below (see ¶ 41).
`
`41. This text and figures clearly indicate an upper limit (with
`seemingly vertical and horizontal lines representing a forced boundary-type
`limitation control on voltage and current, respectively) as a boundary
`condition. For example, if the voltage is less than the preset voltage limit,
`then the boundary is not implemented; if the voltage rises to (or would
`otherwise be above) the preset voltage limit, then it is implemented.
`Whenever the voltage or current is less than the limit, the limit is no longer
`implemented. This is different from setting a parameter (e.g., voltage) to a
`single value regardless of where that parameter would be in relation to that
`value, because such an inflexible, constant setting of a single value does not
`act as an upper or even lower bound.
`
`42. To expand the construction of claim 4's operative term to include,
`e.g., a single value at which a parameter is limited or maintained (i.e., that is
`neither an upper nor a lower bound to an enclosed range) would be
`unreasonably broad in view of these figures, and in view of the term
`"boundary", which implies an outer border/limit that prevents progress
`beyond that border/limit. These figures are the only figures indicated in the
`Ledenev Patent as showing claim 4's operative term, and they all show a
`flexible boundary instead of an inflexible, unchanging limit at which a
`parameter is set and left.
`
`Ex. 2021.
`
`Professor Seymour's position does not persuade us. First, the Figures are
`
`exemplary. Figure 9 is expressly stated to be "according to one operational
`
`-18-
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`32
`33
`
`34
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043373
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`embodiment of the invention." Ex. 2001, 4:55-56. Second, the Specification
`
`expressly states that there can be varying conditions that place varying limits on
`
`the parameters, such as temperature. Specifically:
`
`As shown in FIGS. 7 A and 7B, voltages of operation
`for maximum power point can vary based upon whether
`the solar source is experiencing hot or cold temperature conditions.
`By permitting MPP to be accommodated through
`impedance transformation apart from any voltage constraint,
`embodiments according to the invention may provide expansive
`panel capability. This may even be such that the converter
`is effectively a full photovoltaic temperature voltage operating
`range photovoltaic DC-DC power converter whereby it
`can operate at MPP voltages as high as that for the MPP in a
`cold temperature of operation as well as the MPP voltages as
`low as that for the MPP in a hot temperature of operation.
`
`Ex. 2001, 12:35-46.
`
`In other words, the evidence of record does not necessarily support Professor
`
`Seymour's position that a boundary condition must enclose a specific area. Nor
`
`must it only set one upper limit. As evidenced by the above, the boundary may
`
`also be variable by temperature and have a lower temperature limit, creating a
`
`curved upper band that varies by operating condition as seen in Figure 7B5.
`
`A further issue underscores a further weakness of assigning the boundary
`
`condition an area of a plot. The axes of any given plot may not necessarily be
`
`5 Other parameters rapidly spring to mind, such as lower voltage limits on
`inverters. See, e.g. Ex. 2007, 3, showing voltage ranges for normal operation of
`PV grid connected systems of 196 V to 253 V.
`
`-19-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043374
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`particular operational parameters, they may be day, date, and time of day or
`
`temperature. All of which might set a "boundary" of enclosed area under
`
`Professor Seymour's interpretation but nonetheless measure only one operational
`
`parameter. We therefore do not accept Ledenev's overly limiting claim
`
`interpretation that the boundary condition in the claim is a "boundary-type" limit
`
`that encloses an area. It certainly may include that, but we find it could reasonably
`
`be read more broadly, i.e. as simple as a band (range) or single limit such as
`
`temperature, voltage, or even time.
`
`Professor Seymour's testimony continues:
`43. "during operation of the converter to produce power" — The word
`"converting" appearing in the term "boundary condition... converting" of
`claim 4 strongly suggests by itself that the boundary-type limitations are in
`effect (i.e., be limiting some electrical parameter) during operation of the
`converter to convert input power (i.e., to produce power). In other words,
`when the limitation is in effect to limit voltage or current, it is not the case
`that the system shuts down operation and ceases to convert power. Figs. 7A,
`7B and 9 of the Ledenev Patent, Ex. 2001 (see above), which are
`diagrammatic descriptions of claim 4, confirm this, as there is nothing
`suggesting system shutoff when such limits are acting to limit voltage or
`current; power is being converted and produced during implementation of
`Ledenev's boundary. Instead, as is clear from these figures, during
`overvoltage limitation, current can be non-zero (and power is being
`processed at such non-zero condition), and during overcurrent limitation,
`voltage can be non-zero (and power is being processed at such non-zero
`condition).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`27 Ex.2021.
`
`-20-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043375
`
`

`

`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`This paragraph is of limited persuasive value. First, the term "during
`
`operation of the converter to produce power" is, quite simply, not in claim 1 or
`
`claim 4. It is only found in Professor Seymour's interpretation of the boundary
`
`condition limitation. Second, it is fair to assume that the origin of the plot, where
`
`the two axes cross, may be any number, including zero.
`
`Consequently, for the multiple reasons noted above, we reject Professor
`
`7 Seymour's claim interpretation that imports the above unrecited limitations, and
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`instead conclude that a boundary condition is a limit set on the operations of the
`
`converter and operating the converter according to that limit.
`
`We next analyze Ledenev's assertion that the Count does not anticipate or
`
`render obvious the subject matter of claim 4. According to Ledenev, nothing in the
`
`12 Count — including its high efficiency operation, its multi mode (or buck+boost)
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`converter, and its maximum power p