`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
