`
`
`EXHIBIT 9
`EXHIBIT 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BoxInterferences@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-9797
`
`Entered: December 31, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Anatoli Ledenev!
`and
`Robert M.Porter,
`Junior Party
`(Patent 8,004,116),
`
`V.
`
`Meir Adest,”
`GuySella, Lior Handelsman, Yoav Galin,
`Amir Fishelov, Meir Gazit, Yaron Binder
`and
`Nikolay Radimov,
`Senior Party
`(Application 13/430,388).
`
`Patent Interference No. 106,054 (JTM)
`(Technology Center 2800)
`
`Before SALLY G. LANE, JAMES T. MOORE,and DEBORAH KATZ,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE,Administrative Patent Judge
`
`DECISION ON MOTIONS
`
`' The real party in interest is identified as AMPT, LLC. Paper 10, 1.
`
`* The real party in interest is identified as Solaredge Technologies, Ltd. Paper5, 1.
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047710
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`37 C.F.R. § 41.125
`
`An interference was declared between application 13/430,388 (“Junior
`
`Party” or “Adest’’) and patent 8,004,116 (“Senior Party” or “Ledev’”’). Paper 1.
`
`The interference was redeclared to correct the accorded benefit dates. Paper 14.
`
`After a conferencecall, the Board authorized numerous motionsto be filed.
`
`Paper 17. Those authorized motions included Ledenev Motion 3 (no interference-
`
`in-fact); Ledenev Motion 4 (designating claims as not corresponding to the count);
`
`Adest Motion 1 (unpatentability of Ledenev claims 1—29); and Adest Motion 2
`
`(motion for benefit).
`
`After a second conference call, the Board authorized Ledenev Motion 7
`
`(unpatentability, all claims). Paper 55. The Board also granted Ledenev Motion 8
`
`seeking permissionto file a reissue application. Paper 103.
`
`The various motions, oppositions, and replies have been filed. The Board
`
`has awaited an initial determination on the fate of reissue application 15/469,087.
`
`In the absence of any such determination being presented to us to date, the Board
`
`has nowelected to proceed with this interference on the present record to prevent
`
`further delay.
`
`Il. THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`This interference concerns photovoltaic power systemsthat 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
`
`2.
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047711
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`the panels.
`
`/d. 2:38-44 There are many waysto interconnect panels, converters,
`
`and controllers. Jd. 2:45-59.
`
`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 maximumpowerfromasolarcell, 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 comparedto traditional systems. Ex. 2001, 1:20-31.
`
`I. 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 13/430,388, Claim 62. An efficient solar energy power
`system comprising:
`a plurality of solar panels, each solar panel of said plurality of solar
`panels having a DC photovoltaic output;
`a plurality of DC photovoltaic inputs, each DC photovoltaic input
`configured to receive power from a respective one of said DC photovoltaic
`outputs of said plurality of solar panels;
`a plurality of buck+boost DC-DC powerconverters, each buck+boost
`DC-DC powerconverter configured to receive said power from a respective
`one ofsaid plurality of said DC photovoltaic inputs, and each buck+boost
`DC-DC powerconverter configured to convert substantially all of said
`poweraccepted by said respective DC photovoltaic input to converted DC
`power;
`a control circuit configured to control each of said buck+boost DC-
`DC powerconverters to convert substantially all of said power accepted by
`said respective DC photovoltaic input to said converted DC power, and
`
`3-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047712
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`wherein said control circuit is configured to control each of said buck+boost
`DC-DC powerconverters into multiple configurations;
`a converted DC poweroutput coupled to said plurality of buck+boost
`DC-DC powerconverters and configured to receive said converted DC
`power;
`a DC-ACinverter configured to receive said converted DC power
`from said converted DC poweroutput; and
`an AC poweroutput configured to receive converted AC power from
`said DC-AC inverter.0
`
`or
`
`Patent 8,004,116 Claim 1. An efficient solar energy power system
`comprising:
`a plurality of solar panels, each said solar panel having a DC
`photovoltaic output;
`a DC photovoltaic input that accepts power from said DC photovoltaic
`output;
`at least one substantially power isomorphic photovoltaic DC-DC
`power converter responsive to at least one said DC photovoltaic input;
`substantially power isomorphic maximum photovoltaic power point
`converter multimodal functionality control circuitry to which said at least
`one substantially power isomorphic photovoltaic DC-DC powerconverter is
`responsive;
`a converted photovoltaic DC power output connected to said at least
`one substantially power isomorphic photovoltaic DC-DC powerconverter;
`at least one photovoltaic DC-AC inverter responsive to said
`photovoltaic DC poweroutput; and
`a photovoltaic AC poweroutput responsiveto said at least one
`photovoltaic DC-ACinverter.
`
`(Paper 1, 4; Paper 7, 3-4; Ex. 2001, 22:48-67).
`
`A “buck” converter is a step-down converter, while a “boost”
`
`converter is a step-up converter. Ex. 2001, 11:28—29 and 44.
`
`-4-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047713
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`IV. Ledenev Motion 7 (Paper 61)(Unpatentability)
`
`We take up Ledenev Motion7 first. We permitted Ledenev Motion7 to be
`
`filed as it was potentially dispositive of the interference. Paper 55, Page 4.
`
`Ledenev Motion 7 challenges the patentability of Adest claims 62—66, 68—
`
`81, 83-94, and 138. Paper 61, 1.
`
`Thecited art in the motionis as follows:
`
`Seki, et al., US Patent 6,636,431, issued October 21, 2003 (hereinafter
`
`“Seki”, Ex. 2017).
`
`Linear Technology Spec Sheet, LTC3780 High Efficiency, Synchronous, 4-
`
`Switch Buck-Boost Controller, LT0413 Rev F 1-30 (2005) (hereinafter
`
`“LTC3780”, Ex. 2018).
`
`Roy,et al., Battery Charger Using Bicycle, EE318 Electronic Design Lab
`
`Project Report, EE Dept., IIT 1-12 (April 2006) (hereinafter “Roy”, Ex. 2019).
`
`Chomsuwan,et al. Photovoltaic Grid-Connected Inverter Using Two-Switch
`
`Buck-Boost Converter, IEEE 1527-1530 (2002) (hereinafter “Chomsuwan”’,
`
`Ex. 2020).
`
`Caricchi,et al., 20kW Water-Cooled Prototype of a Buck-Boost
`
`Bidirectional DC-DC Converter Topology for Electrical Vehicle Motor Drives, 18
`
`Via Eudossiana 00184, 887-892 (1995) (hereinafter “Carrichi’”’, Ex. 2021).
`
`Nino, US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0218876A1, published
`
`October 6, 2005 (hereinafter “Nino”, Ex. 2022).
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047714
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`Linear Technology Spec Sheet, LTC3440 Micropower Synchronous Buck-
`
`Boost DC/DC Converter LT0814 Rev C 1-20 (2001) (hereinafter “LTC3440”,
`
`Ex. 2023).
`
`Midya,et al., Buck or Boost Tracking Power Converter, 2 IEEE Power
`
`Electronics Letters 4, 131-134 (2002) (hereinafter “Midya’’, Ex. 2024).
`
`Viswanathan,et al., Dual-Mode Control of Cascade Buck-Boost PFC
`
`Converter, 35th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference 2178-2184
`
`(2004) (hereinafter “Viswanathan”, Ex. 2025).
`
`Webegin with Adest claim 62. Appendix 3 to Ledenev Motion7 states that
`
`Seki is an anticipatory reference for claim 62, and that Seki in combination with
`
`Chomsuwanrenders claim 62 obvious along with LTC3780 and Chomsuywan.
`
`Paper 61, 27.
`
`Ledenevasserts that, as regards the independent claims (including claim 62):
`
`The Adest independentclaims, claims 62, 78 and 81, generally claim simply
`a converter (specifically, a buck+boost DC-DC powerconverter) thatis
`connected between solar panels on oneside of it and an inverter (that
`converts DC power to AC power) on the other. The solar panels provide DC
`power, the converters convert it, and the inverter turns it into AC. To this
`basic manner of hooking up a converter to deliver AC powerfrom solar
`panels, the independent claimsalso add limitationsrelative to efficiency or
`maximum powerpoint control. Ex. 2012, 914.
`
`Paper61, 3.
`
`Weobserve that claim 62 has several elements, simplified here for sake of
`
`discussion:
`
`- a plurality of solar panels,
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047715
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`- a plurality of DC inputs,
`
`- a plurality of buckt+boost DC-DC powerconverters,
`
`- a control circuit configured to control each of said buck+boost DC-DC
`
`power converters and configured to control each of said buck+boost DC-DC power
`
`converters into multiple configurations;
`
`-aconverted DC poweroutput;
`
`- a DC-AC inverter; and
`
`- an AC poweroutput.
`
`In short, Adest claim 62 claims a control circuit that can reconfigure each of
`
`the powerconverters connected individually to the solar panels, and convert those
`
`controlled DC outputs to AC power through an inverter.
`
`In Appendix 2 of Motion 7, Ledenev assertsthat:
`
`5. Seki discloses Adest’s buck+boost converter (Ex. 2012, p. 62, 2nd row,
`2nd column) in a photovoltaic harvesting application (Ex. 2012, p. 61, 2nd
`row for claim 62, 2nd column,ignoring the claim number column) with an
`ability to convert at efficiencies up to about 98%. It also discloses an
`inverter (inherently) (Ex. 2012, p. 63 (3rd row, 2nd column)), converted
`output stringing (Ex. 2012, p. 68, 5th row, 2nd 15 column), or stringing that
`renders such configuration obvious. Ex. 2012, 9 39-41.
`
`Weare then pointed to Seki Figure 8 (Paper 61, 9-10) as illustrating the
`
`elements of Claim 62. Original Figure 8 is reproduced below:
`
`_7-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047716
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`i~
`
`or] Se
`oe.
`8o. BA
`iFmcceen: ae
`
`BY
`
`83 NE 78 83° 84
`
`FIG. 8
`
`This figure is said to be “topologically the sameasthat of Fig. 7 of the Adest
`
`°815 provisional application” whichis asserted to be the same as claim 62.
`
`Paper 61, 10. Exactly how, though, is unexplained in the briefing and left to us to
`
`decipher.
`
`Asregards Figure 8, Seki states:
`
`Referring to FIG. 8, a symmetrical DC/DC converter 79 according to
`a fourth embodiment of this invention uses FETs 81 as the switchingcircuits
`77 (77a-774d.) illustrated in FIG. 7. Each of the FETs 81 has a body diode 83
`which can be usedasa rectifier.
`Asillustrated in FIG.8, the diode 75 as a high performance diode
`whichis low in forward voltage Vf than the body diode 83 and short in
`recovery time is connectedin parallel to the body diode 83 of each FET 81
`to be oriented in the same direction. With this structure, the symmetrical
`DC/DC converter 79 is operable irrespective of the body diode 83.
`Referring to FIG. 9, a symmetrical DC/DC converter 85 according to
`a fifth embodimentof this invention hasa structure in which the diode
`operation in the DC/DC converter in FIG.8 is realized by synchronous
`rectification so as to improvetheefficiency.
`Specifically, in the fifth embodiment, a diode 21 is connected to one
`end of each FET 81 througha resistor 87 so as to perform analog control in a
`mannersuch that the output of an operational amplifier 89 is not saturated on
`a minusside.
`Asdescribed above, according to the first through the fifth
`embodiments of this invention,it is possible to provide a symmetrical
`
`_8-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047717
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`DC/DC converter operable in a desired energy transfer direction and at a
`desired step-up or a desired step-downratio.
`
`Ex. 2017, 5:59-6:15. We find that Seki thus describes a controlled step up or step
`
`down converter which can operate bidirectionally.
`
`Further, Ledenev points to witness testimony, apparently in the place of
`
`explanatory briefing:
`
`Appendix 2 of the Second Declaration of Eric A. Seymour(Prior Art
`Reference Claim Charts (Adest Claims)) presents Mr. Seymour’s opinion
`that all Adest claims are unpatentable, in the form of a claim chart for each
`of two exemplary piecesofprior art treated as primary references — Seki and
`LTC3780. See also, Ex. 2012, 9928 and 29, pp. 60-103, and Appendix 3 (p.
`105).
`
`As shown in Appendix 1 of Mr. Seymour’s 2nd Declaration (the
`Construction Chart for Adest Claims), Adest’s independent claims —
`claims 62, 78 and 81 — describe a certain type of converter electrically
`connected in a very straightforward manner (which was well knownat the
`time oftheir filing in 2006 as shown,e.g., in Chomsuwan (Ex. 2020, p.
`1527, Fig. 1) to collect solar powerand deliver it to an inverter, which then
`converts it to AC powerso it can be delivered to, e.g., the powergrid.
`Ex. 2012, pp. 47-48 (claim 62)...”
`
`Paper61, 8.
`
`Wediscern from these arguments we have found for claim 62 within
`
`Ledenev Motion 7, the argument and evidence for unpatentability of claim 62 is
`
`that Seki describes a buck+boost converter in a photovoltaic harvesting apparatus
`
`with an efficiency of up to 98%, an inverter (inherently), and converted output
`
`stringing. Ledenev then asserts the skilled artisan would have combined LTC3780
`
`_9_
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047718
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`which describes 98% efficiency, and Chomsuwam, which describes maximum
`
`powerpoint control, would have been obvious becauseall relate to dual mode DC
`
`powerconversion, and the motivation to provide enhancedefficiency. Paper 61,
`
`11. While this may in fact be true, we are left without guidance as to how the art
`
`directs us to the elements arranged as claimed in Adest’s claims. A claim chart in
`
`the motion would have been useful. See, e.g. 37 C.F.R. § 41.121 (e).
`
`In search of further detail within the motion, we lookto the specifically cited
`
`Figure in Chomsuwan.It is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Fig. 1. The proposed system.
`
`Ex. 2020, 1527.
`
`Figure | depicts the proposed system.
`
`It is evident to us that there is a photovoltaic array connected to a
`
`buck+boost converter and thence to an inverter and from there potentially to a
`
`utility.
`
`However,it is not apparent to us, from a careful reading of Ledenev
`
`Motion 7, how Ledenevurgesthat all this ties in to the specific claim language of
`
`claim 62. More specifically, and inter alia, we do not see where Ledenev
`
`-10-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047719
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`Motion 7 asserts the plurality of converters are to be found or where the control
`
`circuit of claim 62, which can reconfigure the converters, are to be found.
`
`Weare pointed, without the benefit of specific argument, to the additional
`
`testimony of witness Eric Seymour, presented as Exhibit 2012. This approach
`
`violates 37 CFR § 106 (b) (3) and the Standing Order 4 106.2, prohibiting the
`
`incorporation of arguments by reference.* In our view, the motion has not made
`
`out a case of unpatentability of claim 62 to this point.
`
`Atthis stage, we must address a procedural point raised by Adest. Adest
`
`asserts that this incorporation by reference by Ledenev is improper. Paper 93, 6.
`
`Adest is correct, for the reasons noted above. Adest further asserts that without the
`
`incorporation by reference, the motion fails to make out a case. Jd. 7-9. We,to this
`
`point in this decision, agree with Adest on this issue.
`
`Ledenev takes issue with the Adest’s assertion that absent incorporation by
`
`reference, it failed to make outa case, at least for the independent claims. More
`
`specifically, Ledenev asserts in reply that:
`
`Sufficient detail as to all independent claim limitations appears explicitly in
`Ledenev Motion7 (see, e.g., p. 11, 1. 2-6, p. 12, 1. 4-6 and p. 13, 1. 20-22
`regarding efficiency; p. 9, |. 13-14 and p. 13, |. 18-20 regarding converter
`control; p. 9, 1. 3-8 and 11, 1. 11-12 regarding solar application; p. 13, 1. 12-
`20 and p. 14, 1. 5-8 regarding converter-to-panel connection; p. 14, 1. 5-8
`regarding inverter limitation; p. 13, 1. 18-19 regarding MPP (found in Adest
`claim 81 only); and p. 13, 1. 18-20 regarding strings of panels (found in
`claim 81 only), all of Ledenev Motion 7, Paper No. 61).
`
`> Adest Opposition 7 notes that, absent this improper incorporation by reference,
`the motion likely fails. Paper 93, 7-9.
`
`-|1-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047720
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`Paper 118, 1. Again, the panelis left to hunt for the meaning to these strings of
`
`evidentiary citations and how oneofordinary skill in the art would tie them to the
`
`specific structures claimed and arrangedin each claim.
`
`Ledenev also points us to Appendix One of Exhibit 2012 for its arguments
`
`concerning construction of the claims. Paper 61,3. Again, these arguments are
`
`not contained in the brief.
`
`Wetherefore determine that the motion doesnot put forth a sufficient
`
`meaningful argumentin the motion itself to establish the elements of
`
`unpatentability of the independent claims.
`
`Continuing, as regards the dependent claims, Ledenevstates:
`
`Anyalleged insufficiently specific treatment in Ledenev Motion 7 of
`certain other dependentclaimsis, respectfully, insufficient reason to ignore
`Ledenev’s motion as to such claims for the following reasons:
`(i) Ledenev Expert Declaration II (Ex. 2012) presents arguments on a
`numbered claim basis, so, respectfully, a reader can still expeditiously gather
`arguments as to all dependent claims beyond Ledenev Motion7 itself.
`(ii) Ledenev’s arguments were lengthy because of requirementsto:
`construe every single limitation of 32 claims; show eachlimitation of each
`of such claims in the art; and rebut the 41 C.F.R. 207(c) presumption; and
`(111) the prior art does indeed render such claims unpatentable, and
`allowing unpatentable claims to issue due to any alleged imperfect rule
`compliance would disserve the public interest.
`
`Paper 118, 1-2.
`
`Wefind statement(1) to be an attempt to bypass the Board’s expressrules.
`
`The content ofthe briefs and the page limitations are set at 37 CFR § 41.106. We
`
`-|2-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047721
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`will not disregard the rules and look “beyond Ledenev Motion7 itself” for
`
`arguments which by rule must have appeared in the brief. Wealso find statement
`
`(11) to be unpersuasive because the Board is always available for requests for relief
`
`from the rules by miscellaneous motion if sufficient justification is given.
`
`Standing Order § 3.1. No request to enlarge the page limits was made with a
`
`persuasive reason. Nor was a request for a conference call to discuss the matter
`
`made. Statement(iii) is unpersuasive because it assumes the burden of proof has
`
`been met, when we cannotdetermine effectively at this stage whetherit has. It is
`
`only the assertion of counsel that they will prevail, which is not evidence thereof.
`
`The arguments concerning the remaining claimssuffer from this same
`
`infirmity.
`
`Ledenev Motion 7 is therefore denied.
`
`V. Adest Motion | — (Paper 49) (Unpatentability)
`
`Adest movesfor judgment against Ledenev on the groundsthat all claims in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,004,116 are unpatentable under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
`
`and second paragraphs,for failing to contain sufficient written description of the
`
`invention, and for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
`
`matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Paper 49, 1.
`
`A. Indefiniteness
`
`1. Legal Principles
`
`“TA] patent is invalid for indefinitenessif its claims, read inlight of the
`
`specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform,
`
`with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”
`
`-13-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047722
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014).
`
`2. Discussion
`
`22
`
`66
`
`“said photovoltaic DC power output,” and “at least
`“saidphotovoltaic output”
`one said DC photovoltaic input”
`Adestfirst asserts that each of Ledenev independent claims 1, 17, and 20 is
`
`indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine its scope
`
`with reasonable certainty. Paper 49,9. More specifically, Adest asserts it is
`
`uncertain whether the claim requires a plurality of solar panels to operate with a
`
`single power converter and inverter, or instead, requires each solar panel to operate
`
`with its own dedicated power converter and inverter. This is said to be because
`
`these claims are replete with ambiguous antecedent problems with respect to
`
`outputs/input for these elements in the phrases, “said DC photovoltaic output,”
`
`“said photovoltaic DC poweroutput,” and “at least one said DC photovoltaic
`
`input.” Jd.
`
`Webegin with claims 1, 17, and 20.
`
`Claim 1 recites as follows:
`
`1. An efficient solar energy power system comprising:
`a plurality of solar panels, each said solar panel having a
`DC photovoltaic output;
`a DC photovoltaic input that accepts power from said DC
`photovoltaic output;
`at least one substantially power isomorphic photovoltaic
`DC-DCpowerconverter responsive to at least one said
`DC photovoltaic input;
`substantially power isomorphic maximum photovoltaic
`powerpoint converter multimodal functionality control
`circuitry to which said at least one substantially power
`
`-[4-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047723
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`isomorphic photovoltaic DC-DC power converteris
`responsive;
`a converted photovoltaic DC power output connected to
`said at least one substantially power isomorphic photovoltaic
`DC-DCpowerconverter;
`at least one photovoltaic DC-AC inverter responsive to said
`photovoltaic DC poweroutput; and
`a photovoltaic AC poweroutput responsiveto said at least
`one photovoltaic DC-ACinverter.
`
`Ex. 2001, 22:48—67.
`
`Claim 17 recites as follows:
`
`17. An efficient solar energy power system comprising:
`a plurality of solar panels, each said solar panel having a DC
`photovoltaic output;
`a DC photovoltaic input that accepts power from said DC photovoltaic
`output;
`first modality photovoltaic DC-DC powerconversion circuitry
`responsive to said DC photovoltaic input;
`second modality photovoltaic DC-DC power conversion
`circuitry responsive to said DC photovoltaic input;
`at least one photovoltaic DC-DC powerconverter responsive
`to at least one said DC photovoltaic mput;
`high efficiency multimodal converter functionality control circuitry to
`whichsaid at least one photovoltaic DC-DC powerconverter is responsive
`and wherein said high efficiency multimodal converter functionality control
`circuitry is configured to switch at least some times between saidfirst
`modality photovoltaic DC-DC powerconversion circuitry and said second
`modality photovoltaic DC-DC powerconversioncircuitry;
`a converted photovoltaic DC power output connected to said at least
`one photovoltaic DC-DC powerconverter;
`at least one photovoltaic DC-AC inverter responsive to said
`photovoltaic DC poweroutput; and
`
`-15-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047724
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`a photovoltaic AC poweroutput responsiveto said at least one
`photovoltaic DC-AC inverter.
`
`Ex. 2001, 25:63—26:21.
`
`Claim 20 reads as follows:
`
`20. An efficient solar energy power system comprising:
`at least one string of a plurality solar panels, at least one of said solar
`panels having a DC photovoltaic output;
`a DC photovoltaic input that accepts power from said DC photovoltaic
`output;
`at least one multiple panel dedicated substantially power maximum
`photovoltaic power point DC-DC powerconverter responsive to at least one
`said DC photovoltaic input;
`maximum photovoltaic powerpoint converter multimodal
`functionality control circuitry to which said at least one multiple panel
`dedicated substantially power maximum photovoltaic power point DC-DC
`powerconverter is responsive;
`a converted photovoltaic DC power output connected to said at least
`one multiple panel dedicated substantially power maximum photovoltaic
`power point DC-DC powerconverter;
`at least one photovoltaic DC-AC inverter responsive to said
`photovoltaic DC poweroutput; and
`a photovoltaic AC poweroutput responsiveto said at least one
`photovoltaic DC-AC inverter.
`
`Ex. 2001, 26:44—-67.
`
`Eachof these claims, generically, claim a solar power system including solar
`
`panels with outputs, some form of control, a DC-DC powerconverter that accepts
`
`powerthrough an input, DC power outputted to a DC-AC converter, and AC
`
`poweroutput.
`
`-16-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047725
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`said DC photovoltaic output” (claims 1,17, and 20)
`“at least one said DC photovoltaic input” (claim 1, 17, and 20)
`
`According to Adest, each of independent claims 1, 17, and 20 is indefinite
`
`because a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine its scope with
`
`reasonable certainty. Adest asserts that it is uncertain whether the claim requires a
`
`plurality of solar panels to operate with a single power converter and inverter, or
`
`instead, requires each solar panel to operate with its own dedicated power
`
`converter and inverter. Paper 49,9.
`
`First, Adest asserts that “said DC photovoltaic output” lacks antecedent basis
`
`in claims 1, 17, and 20. Morespecifically, these claims are said to introduce “a
`
`plurality of solar panels, each [or at least one of] said solar panel having a DC
`
`photovoltaic output” and therefore the scope of the claims includea plurality of
`
`DC photovoltaic outputs, rendering subsequent reference to a singular “said DC
`
`photovoltaic output” ambiguousas to which ofthe plurality of DC photovoltaic
`
`outputs “said DC photovoltaic output”is referring. /d. 9-10.
`
`Second, Adest asserts that “said photovoltaic DC poweroutput” lacks
`
`antecedent basis in claims 1, 17, and 20. Those claims introduce ‘ta DC
`
`photovoltaic output” and “a converted photovoltaic DC poweroutput.” Adest
`
`observesthat “said photovoltaic DC power output” is an ambiguous mix ofthese
`
`two previously introduced distinct elements, and a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art cannot determine with reasonable certainty which,if any, of these different
`
`-|7-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047726
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`outputs is referenced by “said photovoltaic DC poweroutput,” rendering claims 1,
`
`17, and 20 indefinite. Jd. 10-11.
`
`Third, Adest asserts that ‘at least one said DC photovoltaic input” also lacks
`
`antecedentbasis in claims 1, 17, and 20. These claimsintroduce the singular “a DC
`
`photovoltaic input’ and Adest notes that “at least one said DC photovoltaic input”
`
`indicates that the input is selected from amonga plurality of inputs; otherwise,“at
`
`least one” would be superfluous. Accordingly, Adest asserts a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty which inputs are
`
`referenced in the phrase “at least one said DC photovoltaic input,” rendering these
`
`claims indefinite. Jd. 11.
`
`Initially, we are not persuadedthat there is a lack of antecedent basis for the
`
`term “said DC photovoltaic output.” It appears to us each panel has an output, and
`
`that is the antecedentbasis for “said output” whichis referenced by the singular
`
`following “input.” Ex. 2001, 22:49-50 and 51-52. The plurality of panels in the
`
`claim ensures there will be a plurality of these outputs and inputs, at least for
`
`claim 1.
`
`Wealso are not persuaded of ambiguity in the use of the terms “said
`
`photovoltaic DC power output,” “a DC photovoltaic output,” and “a converted
`
`photovoltaic DC poweroutput.” The claim recites a DC photovoltaic output
`
`providing powerto a DC photovoltaic input; providing converted photovoltaic DC
`
`poweroutput and providing that power to an inverter. Ex. 2001; 22:48-67. To the
`
`extent Adest appearts to be arguing that the word ‘“‘converted” wasnot carried
`
`forward to the next elementof the claim,it is apparent to us that one of ordinary
`
`-18-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047727
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`skill in the art would understand the functioning of the system. Wefind this
`
`argument unconvincing.
`
`To the third point, Ledenev asserts that the claims themselves cover one
`
`converter per panel and also one converter per plurality of panels, and such is made
`
`clear by reference to the specification and claim 20. Paper 78, 4. Ledenev
`
`specifically points to claim 25 of the ’116 patent, which describes one converter
`
`per plurality of panels. Jd. Professor Seymour‘sotestifies as well. Ex. 2028, §
`
`11.
`
`But wefail to see why these potential alternatives are, in this instance,
`
`necessarily ambiguous- although they may renderthe claim broad and inclusive of
`
`many embodiments. The use of“at least one” opensthe claim up to the point
`
`where there may, and may not, simultaneously be a plurality of each device
`
`feeding others or receiving feeds from other devices.
`
`Indeed, wecredit the testimony of Eric Seymour’s Third Declaration that
`
`the energy source can be a single panelor a string of panels. Ex. 2028, 911. He
`
`observesthat claim 25 recites a choice of at least one individual panel dedicated
`
`converter andat least one multiple panel dedicated converter. To our way of
`
`thinking, the claim coversall these alternatives and oneof ordinary skill in the art
`
`+ Wefind Professor Seymourto be qualified to testify as to the technical subject
`matter of this interference. Ex. 2012, 9§ 4-8.
`
`-19-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047728
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`could determine whethera particular arrangement falls within the scope of the
`
`claim.
`
`To this end, we find ourselves in agreement with Ledenevthat claim 25,
`
`which is dependent on claim 17 and specifically recites both sets of possibilities, is
`
`instructive as to the claim interpretation. Ex. 2001, 28:40-47. Althoughthe claim
`
`is broad, we are not persuadedthatit is indefinite. We are therefore unpersuaded
`
`by this first group of contentions from Adest.
`
`“substantially power isomorphic”
`
`Adestalso asserts that the term “substantially power isomorphic” has no
`
`meaning in the art and as a consequenceclaims 1—3, 5, 6, 9-11, 18, 19, 21, and 24—
`
`27 are indefinite. Paper 49, 13. Adest relies upon the testimony of Marc E.
`
`Herniter in support ofthis contention.° Professor Hernitertestifies that, despite
`
`consulting the Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, he was unable to
`
`find a definition of “isomorphic” that pertained to power conversion. Ex. 1004,
`
`{| 27-28. Healsotestifies that the specification includes only a brief discussion of
`
`the term, and that discussion would leave one of ordinary skill in the art unsure
`
`whatthe features of a substantially power isomorphic power conversion were, be
`
`they efficiency or other feature. Jd. JJ 32-33.
`
`Ledenev, on the other hand, urges that one of ordinary skill in the art can
`
`easily discern from the specification the definition of substantially power
`
`> Wefind Professor Herniter to be qualified to testify as to the technical subject
`matter of this interference. Ex. 1004, Jj 4-7.
`
`-20-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0047729
`
`
`
`Interference 106,054 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`isomorphic. Paper 78, 11-13. This is said to be because the description
`
`establishes that “substantially power isomorphic” requires conversion without
`
`generating substantial heat, at from 97% efficiency to 99.2% or wire loss
`
`transmission efficiency. Ex. 2001, 13:8-28. We are pointedto the following
`
`passages:
`
`- “It [the system] can even provide a substantially power isomorphic
`
`photovoltaic DC powerconversion that does not substantially change the form of
`
`powerinto heat rather than electrical energy by providing as high as 99.2%
`
`efficiency.” Ex. 2001, col. 13, 1. 16-20.
`
`Professor Seymourtestifies that because isomorphism and low heat
`
`generation both appearforthe first time, in the same sentence, and because both
`
`are presented in an explicatory manner(“provide ... isomorphic ... power
`
`conversion that does not ... change ... power into heat rather than electrical
`
`energy”), a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known with
`
`reasonable certainty that isomorphic conversion results in low heat generation. Ex.
`
`2028, ¥ 32
`
`- The sameparagraph introducing the “isomorphic” term states that “such
`
`operation [isomorphic converter control] can be at levels of 2