`
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BoxInterferences@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-9797
`
`Entered: March 25, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Anatoli Ledenev
`and
`Robert M. Porter
`Junior Party
`(Patent 7,843,085),
`
`Vv.
`
`Meir Adest,
`Yoav Galin, Lior Handelsman,
`Amir Fishelov,
`and
`GuySella,
`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.E.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”)?. Paper 1.
`
`After a conference call, the Board authorized numerous motionsto befiled.
`
`Paper 17. Not all of the authorized motions were filed. Those that were authorized
`
`(and somepermissively 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 | to exclude Exhibit 2040. Paper 81.
`
`The timesfor 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 unneededin this case, and those requests are
`
`denied.
`
`OoOoNDHDWABP|]NY
`OeeeSTSOoOHSNDWBWOBPWHHOYK&S
`
`' Ledenev identifies its real party in interest as AMPT, LLC. Paper8.
`? Adestidentifiesits real party in interest as Solaredge Technologies, LTD. Paper 10.
`
`2.
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043357
`
`
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM)— Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`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
`
`the panels.
`
`/d. 2:38-44. There are many waysto interconnect panels, converters,
`
`and controllers. /d. 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
`
`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, 1:18-28.
`
`Il. The Interference Count
`
`The Countis a “McKelvey” Count, and recites the subject matter of the
`
`OoOoNDHDWABP|]NY
`SSSeS|SeS|S|NoOAFPWONYKKO&O
`
`harvest maximum powerfromasolarcell, a solar panel, or strings of panels.
`
`17
`
`present interference. Morespecifically, the Count comprises twoalternatives —
`
`Application 13/308,517, Claim 253. An efficient method ofsolar
`energy powerharvesting comprising the steps of:
`creating a DC photovoltaic output from a solar panelof 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 modeof the
`
`3.
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043358
`
`
`
`OoOonw7TNnWN
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM)— Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`photovoltaic DC-DC converter and at least other times a boost modeof 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 stepsof:
`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-ACinverter; and
`
`_4-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043359
`
`
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM)— Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`inverting said converted DC photovoltaic input into an inverted AC
`photovoltaic output.
`
`(Paper 1, 4; Paper 12, 3—4; Ex. 2001, 22:35—56).
`
`SoSHaSaDHABRWN
`NONYOEeEeEEEiREHillel-F&FOoAHANDWABPWHHNKYBS
`
`IV. Adest Motion 2 (Paper 77) (Benefit)
`
`Wetake up Adest Motion 2 first in accord with our stated attention to issues
`
`of priority in this interference. This motion appears to be unopposed.
`
`To be sufficient a motion must provide a showing, supported with
`
`appropriate evidence, such that, if unrebutted, it would justify the relief sought.
`
`The burden of proof is on the movant. Bd. R. 208(b)°. For benefit, a movant must
`
`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
`
`Wehave consideredall 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 preponderanceof 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 wasfiled March 26, 2007 (Ex. 1006, 1) and the ’815 application
`
`wasfiled May 9, 2007. Ex. 1003.
`
`> “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
`
`We accorded Adest benefit of the December4, 2007 filing date of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 11/950,271 (the “’271 application’) for Count 1. Paper 1, 5.
`
`Adestasserts that the claims in the ’517 application are also entitled to be accorded
`
`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 | as
`
`defined in Bd. R. 201 and required by SO 4] 208.4.1.
`
`Webegin with the ’095 application.
`
`The ’095 application relates also to the field of efficiently harvesting power.
`
`It is said to describe a system and methodfor reliably and efficiently harvesting
`
`powerfrom distributed powersources such as PV panels, batteries, fuel cells or
`
`other DC sources. The system is said to be built of power converting modules
`
`whichare directly connected to the power supplies. The modules are then
`
`connectedin series to strings, and the strings may be connectedin parallel to
`
`arrays. Inter alia, it is said that the output current from the array may be extracted
`
`by an inverter or another load controller. Ex. 1006, Abstract.
`
`Adest points us to figures on both pages 39 and 60 of the ‘095 application.
`
`Paper 77, 3.
`
`The Figures are reproduced below.
`
`OoOoNDHDWABP|]NY
`OeeeSTSOoOHSNDWBWOBPWHHOYK&S
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043361
`
`
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`D*MPPT module
`
` Solariape Teshnolopies Gnaidertial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`+ Single stage
`«Power Source
`*MPPT ingependent Loop
`
`The Figure is an electrical block diagram of a solar power system
`
`-7-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043362
`
`
`
`—_ a)
`
`—NR
`
`SoOHHNQNNnAPWWYN
`SeSeS|—_—SaNHaAfpW
`NNR—-Cooo
`YYNYNY&Wwbs
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM)— Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`Adestasserts 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 ofsolar energy
`powerharvesting comprising the steps of
`
`Adestasserts that the ’095 application describes an an efficient method of
`
`solar energy powerharvesting. /d., 4. We agree. See, e.g. Ex. 1006, 17, lines 1-2
`
`(“efficient power harvesting from solar arrays’) and 23, 4 8 (“transfers the power
`
`efficiently”).
`
`creating a DC photovoltaic outputfrom
`a solar panel ofa plurality ofsolar panels
`
`Adest asserts that the 095 application describes solar panels | through 10
`
`which each have a respective DC photovoltaic output connected to the input ofa
`
`respective DC-DC buck+boost converter. Paper 77, 5—6. We agree. Note Ex. |
`
`1006 at 43, 49, 50 (note the tall item outlined like an envelope ontheleft or right
`
`of each figure is a representation of a solar panel).
`
`connecting said DC photovoltaic output to a DC
`Photovoltaic input ofa photovoltaic DC-DCconverter, wherein the
`Photovoltaic DC-DC converter includes a buck+boost converter”
`
`According to Adest, the 095 application showsa solar panel output
`
`connected with a DC-DC buck+boost converter, Paper 77, 6—7. citing inter alia
`
`Ex. 1006 at 43. We agree andalso find that two wires 914 and 916 have a
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043363
`
`
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM)— Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`potential difference between them due to the energy producedbythe solar cells in
`
`the panel attach solar panel 900 to module 902. Ex. 1006 at 44.
`
`Wealsofind that the module 902 includes a DC/DC converter whose
`
`functionality may be incorporated in an IC 904 which extracts current from the
`
`panelat its peak power point by continuously monitoring the current and voltage
`
`provided by the panel and uses MPPtracking algorithms to maintain maximum
`
`possible power output. Ex. 1006 at 44. The generated poweris transferred to the
`
`module output terminals 910 and 912. Jd. at 44-45
`
`converting said DCphotovoltaic input into a converted
`DC photovoltaic output using at least some times a buck modeofthe
`Photovoltaic DC-DC converter and at least other times a boost mode
`ofsaid photovoltaic DC-DC converter
`Adest asserts, and wefind, 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 observethat“[e]ither the buck or boost converter could be used at any given
`
`time. /d. 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
`
`Adestasserts, and wealso 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
`
`43-45. Wealso agreethat the ’095 application describes the buck+boost converter
`
`sometimes using a buck mode and other times using a boost mode. /d. We also
`
`agree that there is description of controller 906 as controlling that buck+boost
`
`converter. /d.
`
`CMANBPWDNHN
`
`SESESFeSReeieeOielelelCoOoSNWNASPWONOYKCO
`
`controlling transitions ofsaid photovoltaic DC-DC
`converter between said buck and boost mode conversion by using a
`maximum powerpeaktracking control such that substantially all
`powerofsaid DC photovoltaic input is transferred to said converted
`DC photovoltaic output
`
`Adestasserts that the ’095 application describesthis limitation. Paper 77, 10.
`
`Morespecifically, Adest asserts that the 095 application describes a photovoltaic
`
`DC-DCconverter that includes a buck+boost converter. Ex. 1006 at 43-45. Adest
`
`also asserts that the ’095 application describes the buck+boost converter
`
`sometimes using a buck mode andother 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 powerpoint 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 /d. at 39, 44.
`
`ow)-©
`
`yoNYNY&Wwbs
`
`connecting said converted DC photovoltaic output as part
`ofa 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
`
`—_—
`
`DC-DC powerconverter outputs is input to a DC-ACinverter. Ex. 1006 at 50. We
`
`find that the figure reveals this connection.
`
`inverting said converted DC photovoltaic input into an
`inverted AC photovoltaic output
`
`Adestfinally asserts,
`
`that the ’095 application describes that the output of
`
`the DC-AC inverter can operate electric appliancesor 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 (|
`
`SoOHSNDDHABWLH
`
`NONONONOeSHeHSESeSeSSEOlSlESlewoNYOFEFCoSODODONQDoanBPWONHKFCO
`
`[0021 ]-[0022]). We agree that the inverter is so described.
`
`Ledenevhasnot challenged any of Adest’s contentions.
`
`Accordingly, as it appears the ’095 application describes an embodiment
`
`within the Count, we conclude that Adest is entitled to benefit of the ’095
`
`application filing date of March 26, 2007 for Count1.
`
`Weneednotreach 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 asits earliest conception date (Paper
`
`36) is after the accorded benefit of Adest. Ledenev filed a motion for benefit,
`
`Ledenev Motion 4, but that motion seeks benefit of an earlier application filed
`
`November9, 2007, a date that is after the March 26, 2007 date now accordedto
`
`Adest. Consequently, we turn to the remaining motions with an eye towards the
`
`shape of the judgmentto be entered against Ledenev.
`
`-11-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043366
`
`
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM)— Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`V. Ledenev Motion 2 — To De-Designate Claims
`
`Ledenev Motion 2 seeks to dedesignate claims 4, 6, 7, 21, and 40-46 of
`
`Patent 7,843,085 as corresponding to Count 1. Paper 73. Adest opposes. Paper
`
`97. Ledenev replied. Paper 113. That reply included a declaration (Ex. 2040)
`
`which spawned a Motion to Exclude (Paper 123), an Opposition to the Motion to
`
`Exclude (Paper 131) and a reply thereto (Paper 136). A conference call on Exhibit
`
`2040 was conducted February 3, 2020, and a transcript is in the record as Exhibit
`
`1031.
`
`OoOoNDHDWABP|NY
`NONONONOHeHSHEeSeSeSSESEllSlSlWweNYOF&CoOODOOoNDDBwnFPWHHNOKYOS
`
`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
`
`claimsis 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.”/d. 1.
`
`A party seeking to undesignate claims from corresponding to the Count
`
`bears the burden to establish nonobviousness,e.g., a negative. Cf Pechiney
`
`Emballage Flexible Europre v. Cryovac Inc., 73 USPQ2d 1571, 1573 (Bd. Pat.
`
`App. & Int. 2004) (to demonstrate no interference-in-fact, the moving party bears
`
`the burden and mustestablish a ‘negative’). A showing of nonobviousnessin the
`
`context of a motion for the undesignation of claims includesall of the
`
`considerations for obviousness. The movant must accountfor the differences
`
`between the Countand the claim which the movant seeks to undesignate, account
`
`for the scope and contentof the prior art knownto the movant, and the level of
`
`skill in the art. See also SO 4 208.1
`
`-12-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043367
`
`
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM)— Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Ledenevasserts that, as the Count relates generally to power harvesting and
`
`power conversion in photovoltaic systems, as of December4, 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. /d. 2. Ledenev points us to the testimony of Eric Seymour.* Ex. 2021, 4
`
`25. As far as we can discern, Adest does not challenge this level or put forth an
`
`alternative level.
`
`Weadopt 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.Jn
`
`re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (level of skill in the art can be
`
`determined byreference to prior art of record).
`
`Claim 4
`
`Webegin with Ledenev Claim 4. It is reproduced below.
`
`Claim 4. An efficient method of solar energy power creation as
`
`described in claim | 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.
`
`OoOoNDWNWABP|]NY
`ryCoCOSNDBAFPWONHNKFOC
`
`20
`
`Ex. 2001, col. 22,Il. 20-25.
`
`* Wefind Professor Seymourto 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
`
`—_—
`
`OmenNnABRWbd
`
`SS==NoFS©
`
`13
`
`It is immediately apparentthat the term “photovoltaic boundary condition
`
`controlling” requires interpretation.
`
`Ledenevasserts, and Professor Seymourtestifies, 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
`powerpoint curve, and inverting that converter output to output AC power.”
`
`Ex. 2021, || 36
`
`Adestasserts that this interpretation improperly reads limitations into the
`
`claim. Paper 97, 1.
`
`Weturn first to the intrinsic evidence of record. The ’085 patent
`
`Specification states, as regard boundary conditions, only this:
`
`Asillustrated 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/orits 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 powerconversion, 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.
`
`-|4-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043369
`
`
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM) — Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`Preset Overcurrent Limit
`
`Constant Power @ MPP
`
`Current
`
`Preset Overvoltage Limit
`
`
`
`
`
`Voltage
`
`Fig. 7A
`
`Figure 7A is a plot of a solar panel output operating condition paradigm
`
`Current
`
`Constant Power @ MPP
`
` Preset Overcurrent 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 Lirnit
`
`|
`
`Constant Power @ MPP
`
`
`
`Current
`
`
`
`Preset Overvoltage Limit
`
`
`Voltage
`
`Fig. 9
`
`Figure 9 is a plot of combined protective and coordinated process conditions
`
`Photovoltaic boundary conditionsis alternatively used with “safety
`
`conditions” in the specification, indicating to us not equal breadth but inclusion.
`
`Figures 7A, 7B, and 9 illustrate that safety limits can be a part of that term, but the
`
`curved portion of each hard limit boundary is designated as “Constant Powerat
`
`MPP.” This indicates to us that the boundaries can beset for efficiency,reliability,
`
`or other conditions broader than simply a limit or limits. For example, in
`
`discussing Figure 7A, the Specification notesthat:
`
`Consider the situation in the morning when the sun
`first strikes a PV panel string with powerconditioners (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
`
`OoOonw7TNnWN
`
`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 wasa string of ten PCsin series the
`maximum output voltage would be 1000 volts. This output
`voltage limit could make the grid-tied inverter less complex
`or costly andis 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 shownin FIG. 7A asthe preset overvoltage limit). This
`can be inverter specific.
`
`Ex. 2001, 14:2-21.
`
`To us, then, relying on the intrinsic evidenceinitially, a boundary condition
`
`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.
`
`Wenowturn to Professor Seymour’s analysis. Hetestifies 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 boundacts to limit a parameter only whenitis
`above a certain value (there is no limiting when suchis not the case). For
`example, if a boundaryis at 400V,then, if the voltage would otherwise be
`410V,it is held at 400V,but if it would be 390V,it is allowed comeoff the
`boundary and lowerto 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
`
`
`
`OoOonw7TNnWN
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM)— Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`voltage is held at 400V not only whenit would otherwise be at 410V, 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 4] 41).
`
`2k 2k ok
`
`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.
`Wheneverthe voltage or currentis 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 expandthe construction of claim 4’s operative term to include,
`e.g., a single value at which a parameteris limited or maintained(i.e., that is
`neither an upper nor a lower bound to an enclosed range) would be
`unreasonably broad in view ofthese 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
`parameteris set andleft.
`
`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-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043373
`
`
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM)— Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`embodimentof 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 shownin 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 wherebyit
`can operate at MPP voltages as high as that for the MPP ina
`cold temperature of operation as well as the MPP voltagesas
`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 bandthat varies by operating condition as seen in Figure 7B’.
`
`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
`
`> 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 mightset a “boundary” of enclosed area under
`
`Professor Seymour’s interpretation but nonetheless measure only one operational
`
`parameter. Wetherefore 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 wefind 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 ofthe 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 (1.e., be limiting someelectrical parameter) during operation of the
`converter to convert input power(i.e., to produce power). In other words,
`whenthe limitation is in effect to limit voltage or current, it is not the case
`that the system shuts downoperation 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; poweris 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 poweris being
`processed at such non-zero condition), and during overcurrent limitation,
`voltage can be non-zero (and poweris being processed at such non-zero
`condition).
`
`27
`
`Ex. 2021.
`
`-20-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043375
`
`
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM)— Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`This paragraphis 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 assumethat the origin of the plot, where
`
`the two axes cross, may be any number, including zero.
`
`Consequently, for the multiple reasons noted above, wereject Professor
`
`Seymour’s claim interpretation that imports the above unrecited limitations, and
`
`instead conclude that a boundary condition is a limit set on the operations of the
`
`converter and operating the converter according to that limit.
`
`Wenext analyze Ledenev’s assertion that the Count does notanticipate or
`
`render obvious the subject matter of claim 4. According to Ledenev,nothing in the
`
`Count — includingits high efficiency operation, its multi mode (or buck+boost)
`
`converter, and its maximum powerpoint (MPP) control — explicitly indicates or
`
`inherently requires claim 4’s boundary control limitation. Paper 73, 7. On its
`
`surface, this statement appears to be correct.
`
`Adesttakes issue with this statement, asserting that maximum powerpoint
`
`limitations themselves are a boundary condition. This contention is based upon the
`
`testimony of Marc E. Herniter.° Ex. 1023. Dr. Hernitertestifies that maximum
`
`powerpoint (MPP)“controls the DC-DC converter using the Perturb and Observe
`
`(P&O) method (the claimed ‘photovoltaic boundary condition controlling said
`
`OoOoNDHDWABP|]NY
`OeeeSTSOoOHSNDWBWOBPWHHOYK&S
`
`° We find Dr. Herniter to be qualified to testify as to the technical subject matter of
`this interference. Ex. 1023, 4{§]4—8(h) and Exhibit 1007.
`
`-) |-
`
`AMPT-ITC 0043376
`
`
`
`Interference 106,112 (JTM)— Ledenev v. Adest
`Decision on Motions
`
`photovoltaic DC-DC converter’) to adjust the input voltage that results in the input
`
`voltage, current, and power being boundedto (or within a close range of) the
`
`maximum powerpoint (the claimed ‘boundary condition DC-DC converting said
`
`DC photovoltaic output’).”/d., | 105, citing Ex. 2001 at 7:4-49 (claim 1)..
`
`Welookto the cited portion of the reference:
`
`As one skilled in the art would appreciate, there are numerous
`circuit configurations that may be employedto derive
`MPPinformation. Some may be based on observingshort
`circuit current or open circuit voltage. Anotherclass of solutions
`may be referred to as a Perturb and Observe (P&O)
`circuit. The P&O methods may be used in conjunction with a
`technique referred to as a "hill climb" to derive the MPP. As
`explained below, this MPP can be determined individually
`meaning for each source, for adjacent sources, or for entire
`strings to achieve best operation. Thus a combined system
`embodiment mayutilize individually or multiple or panel
`(understood to include any source level) dedicated maximum
`photovoltaic power point converter functionality control circuitries
`(16).
`
`Ex. 2001, 7:4-17.
`
`Weare not adequately
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
