throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571–272–7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 27
`Entered: January 13, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`JIAWEI TECHNOLOGY (HK) LTD., JIAWEI TECHNOLOGY (USA) LTD.,
`SHENZHEN JIAWEI PHOTOVOLTAIC LIGHTING CO., LTD., ATICO
`INTERNATIONAL (ASIA) LTD., ATICO INTERNATIONAL USA, INC.,
`CHIEN LUEN INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., INC. (CHIEN LUEN FLORIDA),
`CHIEN LUEN INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., INC. (CHIEN LUEN CHINA),
`COLEMAN CABLE, LLC, NATURE’S MARK, RITE AID CORP., SMART
`SOLAR, INC., AND TEST RITE PRODUCTS CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIMON NICHOLAS RICHMOND,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and BARRY L.
`GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner filed a revised petition to institute an inter partes review of claims
`24–35 of U.S. Patent No. 7,429,827 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’827 patent”). Paper 13, 1.
`We instituted an inter partes review of claims 24–30 and 35 of the ’827 patent but
`denied review of claims 31–34. Paper 20 (“Decision” or “Dec.”). Our denial of
`review of claims 31–34 was premised on Petitioner’s failure to offer a construction
`of a term critical to understanding the scope of claims 31–34, “color changing
`cycle,” and consequent failure to meet its burden under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–
`(5). Dec. 16–17. In its Request for Rehearing of claims 31–341 (Paper 22, “Req.
`Reh’g”), Petitioner now offers new arguments, not found in its Petition, directed to
`a “color changing cycle.” For this, and other reasons expressed below, we deny
`Petitioner’s request and do not modify our Decision.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Applicable Standards of Review
`
`An inter partes review may be instituted if it is determined that there is a
`
`“reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an
`abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). In pertinent part, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`states:
`
`The burden of showing a decision should be modified
`lies with the party challenging the decision. The request
`must specifically identify all matters the party believes
`the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place
`where each matter was previously addressed in a motion,
`
`1 Petitioner includes claim 35 in its request, but we consider Petitioner’s inclusion
`of claim 35 to be a typographical error because we instituted review on claim 35.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827 B2
`an opposition, or a reply.
`B. Summary of Our Prior Decision
`
`In general, the challenged claims of the ’827 patent (claims 24–35) recite a
`“lighting device to produce light of varying colour.” Claims 31–34, at issue in this
`Request for Rehearing, further specify that the device produces “a continuous color
`changing cycle.” In our Decision, we separately addressed claims 31–34 from
`claims 27–29 and 35 because of “the differences in scope” between the claims.
`Dec. 15. With respect to claims 31–34, we noted that Petitioner failed to construe
`the term “color changing cycle.” Id. at 16. Indeed, we noted that Petitioner
`provided no cogent discussion of “color changing cycle” or how the limitation is
`taught or suggested by the cited prior art. Instead, Petitioner merely provided
`citations in a claim chart. Finding no discernable discussion of “color changing
`cycle” in the prior art or in the Petition, we determined that Petitioner failed to
`meet its burden to construe the claims and explain how they read on the prior art.
`Id. at 16–17. As a consequence, we denied review of claims 31–34.
`
`C. Petitioner’s Contentions
`
`Petitioner first contends that Patent Owner admitted that the plain and
`ordinary meaning of “cycle” does not require repetition. Req. Reh’g. 6–9. First,
`we did not adopt any construction of the term by Patent Owner. In addition, we
`did not construe “color changing cycle,” let alone construe it to require any
`particular form of repetition. Instead, we simply stated that the term “cycle”
`implied some pattern, and that the prior art to which Petitioner cited admonishes
`patterns. Dec. 16–17. Accordingly, the form of repetition, if any, implied by the
`term “cycle,” was not germane in our reason to deny institution of claims 31–34.
`What was germane was Petitioner’s failure to address the claim term sufficiently.
`Id. at 16 (“Petitioner does not provide a claim construction of ‘color changing
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827 B2
`cycle,’ . . . nor does Petitioner explain how it believes that term reads on what
`Chliwnyj discloses”); id. at 17 (“It is Petitioner’s burden to explain how the
`challenged claims are to be construed and how they read on the prior art”). In view
`of the above, Petitioner’s arguments regarding repetition are unpersuasive.
`At footnote 2 of the Request for Rehearing, Petitioner offers new evidence
`regarding how “cycle” may read on the prior art. Req. Reh’g. 3. We could not
`have misapprehended or overlooked evidence that was not part of the record at the
`time of the Decision, and Petitioner has not shown good cause for considering the
`new exhibit, which existed well before Petitioner filed its Petition, at this stage of
`the proceeding. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (in deciding a request for rehearing, “[e]vidence not
`already of record at the time of the decision will not be admitted absent a showing
`of good cause”).
`At pages 8–12 of the Request for Rehearing, Petitioner offers new
`arguments regarding the construction of “color changing cycle” and new
`arguments regarding how this term may read on the prior art. The proper time to
`have made these arguments was in the Petition, not in the Request for Rehearing.
`Because we could not have overlooked arguments not presented in the Petition,
`Petitioner’s arguments here do not persuade us we overlooked any arguments in
`the Petition.
`At page 12, Petitioner argues that the prior art reference Chliwnyj does not
`teach away from repeating cycles. Our Decision characterized Chliwnyj as
`“admonish[ing] prior art lights that have a perceptible ‘pattern.’” Dec. 16–17. To
`the extent that this passage in our Decision may be mischaracterized, we hereby
`clarify that this passage is not characterizing Chliwnyj as “teaching away” from a
`“color changing cycle.” As Petitioner correctly points out, mere discussion of
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00938
`Patent 7,429,827 B2
`prior art as inferior is not a teaching away. Req. Req’g. 12 (citing In re Gurley, 27
`F.3d 551, 552–553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Notwithstanding, we remain convinced that
`Petitioner’s failures in its Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(5) regarding the
`“color changing cycle” limitation justify our decision to deny review of claims 31–
`34.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that the Board abused its
`discretion by not instituting inter partes review of claims 31–34.
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Mark C. Nelson
`Daniel Valenzuela
`Lissi Mojica
`Kevin Greenleaf
`DENTONS US LLP
`mark.nelson@dentons.com
`daniel.valenzuela@dentons.com
`lissi.mojica@dentons.com
`kevin.greenleaf@dentons.com
`iptdocketchi@dentons.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Theodore F. Shiells
`SHIELLS LAW FIRM, P.C.
`tfshiells@shiellslaw.com
`admin@shiellslaw.com
`
`Marcus Benavides
`THE LAW PRACTICE OF MARCUS BENAVIDES
`marcusb@tlpmb.com
`
` 5

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket