throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 56
`Filed: February 22, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SURE-FIRE ELECTRICAL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`YONGJIANG YIN and SHENZHEN EL LIGHTING CO. LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JENNIFER S. BISK, and PETER P.
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background
`Sure-Fire Electrical Corp. (“Petitioner”)1, filed an Inter Partes Review
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1 and 7
`
`
`1 Along with Petitioner, Best Buy Stores, L.P. and BestBuy.com
`(collectively “Best Buy”), filed the Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper
`1). On May 1, 2015, Patent Owner and Best Buy jointly filed a motion to
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`(the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent 7,671,279 B2 (Exhibit 1001, “the
`’279 Patent”). Petitioner relied on the following references: US 6,957,001
`B2 (iss. Oct. 18, 2005) (“He”) (Ex. 1004); US 3,942,859 (iss. Mar. 9, 1976)
`(“Korodi”) (Ex. 1005); and Anton Gustafsson and Magnus Gyllenswärd, The
`Power-Aware Cord: Energy Awareness through Ambient Information
`Display, CHI 2005, 1423–26 (Apr. 2–7, 2005) (“Gustafsson”) (Ex. 1003).
`Yongjiang Yin and Shenzhen El Lighting Co. Ltd. (collectively “Patent
`Owner”), filed a Patent Owner’s preliminary response thereto (Paper 10,
`“Prelim. Resp.”).
`On March 4, 2015, we instituted an Inter Partes review of claims 1
`and 7 based upon Petitioner’s assertion that claims 1 and 7 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for obviousness over Gustafsson and He (Paper 13
`(“Inst. Dec.”)).
`In response to Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.71(d) filed March 18, 2015 (Paper 15) (“Req. for Reh’g”), we modified
`our inter partes review based on Petitioner’s assertion that claims 1 and 7
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for obviousness over He and
`Korodi (Paper 25 (“Dec. on Req. for Reh’g”)).
`Accordingly, we instituted trial for both challenged claims, claims 1
`and 7, on the grounds of unpatentability below.
`
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Gustafsson and He
`
`Claims 1 and 7
`
`terminate proceedings between them (Paper 21). We granted that
`termination (Paper 24); thus, Best Buy is no longer a party to this review.
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`He and Korodi
`
`Claims 1 and 7
`
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s
`Response (Paper 27 (“PO Resp.”)) and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
`Owner’s Response (Paper 38 (“Pet. Reply”)).
`An oral hearing was held on January 11, 2016, a transcript of which
`has been entered into the record (Paper 54 (“Tr.”)).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons given herein, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Patent Owner and Petitioner both identify, as a related matter, the co-
`pending district court case asserting the ’279 Patent, in Shenzhen EL
`Lighting Technology Co., LTD et al. v. Sure-Fire Electrical Corp. et al., No.
`1:14-cv-00727-PAB (D. Colo.) (Pet. 7; Paper 8, 1, § II).
`
`C. ’279 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’279 Patent, titled “CURRENT-SEEN CABLE,” issued on March
`2, 2010 (Ex. 1001). The ’279 Patent describes an electroluminescence
`power or signal cable (id. at Abstract, 1:15–29). According to the ’279
`Patent, a purpose of the invention is to provide a current-seen cable which
`combines an electroluminescence cable and various power or signal cords,
`having a simple structure and a visual indicator of its live state (id. at 1:33–
`37).
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`Specifically, the ’279 Patent describes a cable which includes a main
`power or signal cord and a plurality of electroluminescence cords (id. at
`Abstract, 1:41–43).
`Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1, reproduced above, is a schematic diagram of an example
`configuration (id. at 2:15–16). In Figure 1, electroluminescence cored bars
`(or electroluminescence cored cords) 1, 2, 3 are made of metal foil strip 8
`(see Fig. 2) or metal foil wire 9 (see Fig. 3) coated with insulating medium
`layer 10, layer 11 (which is a mixture of fluorescent powder and binder), and
`transparent conductive layer 12 (Ex. 1001, 4:9–16, Fig. 1). An insulated
`power cord forms a central axis, and includes live wire 4, zero phase wire 6,
`and insulation layer 13 (id. at 4:18–20). Bare metal wire 5 intertwists
`helically the insulated power cord (id. at 4:20–21). Electroluminescence
`cored bars 1, 2, 3 intertwist helically on the central axis so that transparent
`conductive layer 12 is in contact with bare metal wire 5 (id. at 4:21–25).
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`The whole cable is encapsulated by transparent plastics layer 7 to form a
`current-seen cable (id. at 4:25–27).
`Metal base strips for each of electroluminescence cored bars 1, 2, 3
`are connected to AC output line of outputs 32, 31, 30 of AC drivers 28 via a
`wire (id. at 4:38–48). Bare metal wire 5, as a central axis, is connected to
`another AC (alternating current) output line of outputs 32, 31, and 30
`connected to AC drivers 28 (id. at 48–50). Input power ends of driver 28 are
`connected to live wire 4 and zero phase line 6 of the power (id. at 4:50–53).
`In another embodiment, three electroluminescence cords 40, 41, and
`42 are intertwisted helically, forming an electroluminescence cable (id. at
`6:10–12). A main cord is arranged in the central axis of the formed
`electroluminescence cable or lateral to the electroluminescence cable (id. at
`6:18–20).
`
`
`D. Claims
`Both of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 7, are independent claims.
`Claims 1 and 7 are reproduced below:
`1.
`A current-seen cable, includes a driver, a main cord, a
`bare metal wire, a plurality of electroluminescence cored bars
`or electroluminescence cored cords and an outer transparent
`plastic layer, wherein said a plurality of electroluminescence
`cored bars or electroluminescence cored cords are arrayed
`abreast and are intertwisted helically in sequence to form an
`electroluminescence cable, the bare metal wire is arranged in
`the center of the current-seen cable or lateral to the current seen
`cable and is in contact with a conductive layer of each
`electroluminescence cored bar or electroluminescence cored
`cord; a metal base strip of each electroluminescence cored bar
`or a conductive wire of each electroluminescence cored cord
`and the bare metal wire are connected to each corresponding
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`end of a multi-group AC output of the driver respectively; the
`main cord is arranged in the centre axis of the current-seen
`cable or lateral to the current-seen cable; said current-seen
`cable, said bare metal wire and said main cord are encapsulated
`in the outer transparent plastics layer; every
`electroluminescence cored bar or electroluminescence cored
`cord is driven by the driver and emits light in sequence when
`the main cord and the driver are live.
`
`7. A current-seen cable, includes a driver, a main cord
`surrounded by an insulation layer, a plurality of
`electroluminescence cored cords which comprise a conductive
`wire surrounded by an insulating coat, an electroluminescence
`powder coat coated on said insulating coat and a transparent
`conductive layer coated on said electroluminescence powder
`coat, and an outer transparent plastic layer, wherein said
`plurality of electroluminescence cored cords are arrayed abreast
`and are intertwisted helically in sequence to form an
`electroluminescence cable; the main cord is arranged in the
`center of the electroluminescence cable or lateral to the
`electroluminescence cable; said electroluminescence cable and
`said main cord are encapsulated in the outer transparent plastic
`layer; every electroluminescence cored cord is driven by the
`driver and emits in sequence when the main cord and the driver
`are live.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 7:20–40, 8:8–23).
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1277–1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert.
`granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 84 U.S.L.W. 3218 (U.S.
`Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,”2 and “the standard
`was properly adopted by PTO regulation”).
`
`1. “said plurality of electroluminescence cored cords are
`arrayed abreast and are intertwisted helically in sequence”
`In our analysis in the Decision to Institute, we interpreted the
`limitations “intertwisted” and “abreast” (Inst. Dec. 7–8). We agreed with
`Patent Owner that intertwisted should be interpreted as “twisted together”
`and “abreast” as “beside one another with bodies in line” (id.; Prelim. Resp.
`25). Therefore, we interpreted “said plurality of electroluminescence cored
`cords are arrayed abreast and are intertwisted helically in sequence” as the
`electroluminescence cored cords are set beside one another in line and
`twisted together (Dec. 7–8). Neither party contests this construction (see
`e.g., PO Resp. 4) and we discern no reason to deviate from this construction.
`
`2. “emits light in sequence” and “emits in sequence”
`Claim 1 recites “every electroluminescence cored bar or . . . cord is
`driven by the driver and emits light in sequence when the main cord and the
`driver are live,” and claim 7 recites “every electroluminescence cored cord is
`driven by the driver and emits in sequence when the main cord and the
`driver are live” (Ex. 1001, 7:37–40, 8:21–23 (emphasis added)).
`In the Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner contends “emits light
`in sequence” should be interpreted as “emits and dies light of each
`electroluminescent cored bar or cord in succession, one after the other” (PO
`Resp. 43) (emphasis added). Patent Owner points to various portions of the
`’279 Specification as supporting this interpretation (id. at 44–47; Ex. 1001,
`
`
`2 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`1:10–12, 1:40–2:8, 4:38–5:17) as well as discussion in the prosecution
`history (PO Resp. 48–49; Response to Office Action dated June 22, 2009
`(Ex. 1002)).
`Petitioner counters the ’279 Patent does not support Patent Owner’s
`interpretation and Patent Owner’s interpretation is not the broadest
`reasonable construction (Pet. Reply 17–20). Specifically, Petitioner asserts
`Patent Owner relies almost exclusively on a description of one embodiment,
`although not every embodiment describes the process of “emits and dies
`light in sequence” (id. at 17–18). Instead, Petitioner contends, several other
`embodiments are not limited to “emits and dies” light in sequence (id. at 18
`(emphasis added)). Additionally, Petitioner argues the prosecution history
`does not support the interpretation of “emits light in sequence” as “emits and
`dies light in sequence” because the portions relied upon by Patent Owner are
`directed to distinguishing claim 7 over the cited prior art and do not provide
`an interpretation or even discuss the limitation “emits light in sequence” (id.
`at 18–19). Petitioner further argues no reason exists to introduce extrinsic
`evidence, such as expert testimony, to interpret this limitation (id. at 20).
`We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction.
`Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). An inventor may rebut the presumption by providing a definition of
`the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the
`absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
`Cir. 1993).
`Initially, we note Patent Owner chose not to recite “emits and dies” in
`its claims, but instead, recited only “emits.” Patent Owner has not proffered
`any evidence or argument as to why “emits and dies” used in the ’279 Patent
`Specification, would have been abbreviated to “emits” in recitation of the
`claims. Nor is the term “emits” defined explicitly in the ’279 Patent
`Specification. Thus, we begin with the assumption that the term “emits”
`does not include “and dies,” as that comports with the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the word “emits”
`Thus, taking the plain and ordinary meaning at the time of the
`invention, we interpret “emits light in sequence” as “throws off or gives off
`or out light in a continuous or connected series” and interpret “emits in
`sequence” as “throws off or gives off or out, in a continuous or connected
`series” (see e.g., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 377, 1065 (10th
`ed. 2000)). Patent Owner has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument
`that “emits light in sequence” and “emits in sequence” should be read more
`narrowly than the plain and ordinary meaning as suggested by Patent Owner.
`Specifically, Patent Owner’s assertion that the Specification supports the
`proposed interpretation of “emits light in sequence” as “emits and dies light
`in sequence” is misplaced. The Specification of the ’279 Patent does not
`explicitly define “emits light in sequence” as “emits and dies light in
`sequence.” Nor is any explicit definition provided for “emits light in
`sequence” or “emits in sequence.” Patent Owner would have us import
`limitations disclosed in several of the embodiments, including Embodiment
`1, to interpret “emits” as “emits and dies light in sequence” or “emits and
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`dies in sequence” (PO Resp. 44–47). However, as noted by Petitioner (Pet.
`Reply 17–20), the Specification of the ’279 Patent describes several other
`embodiments which do not limit the term “emits light in sequence” or “emits
`in sequence” to “emits and dies light in sequence” or “emits and dies in
`sequence.” For example, the Specification of the ’279 Patent describes, in
`the Description of the Invention and in Embodiments 3 and 6–8, emitting
`light “section by section” (id. at Abstract, 5:37–41, 6:39–42, 57–61).
`Indeed, these embodiments along with Embodiment 4 do not describe that
`the cable emits and dies light (id. at 5:19–7:18). Moreover, the Specification
`describes emitting light may be in a variety of forms (id. at 1:63–67).
`Patent Owner additionally asserts “Patent Owner specifically
`disclaimed emission of light over the full length of the cable, but rather
`limited the patent to segment by segment illumination along the length of the
`cable,” thereby limiting the phrase “emits light in sequence” (PO Resp. 43).
`Patent Owner identified pages 9–10 of the Response to Office Action filed
`September 18, 2009 (Ex. 1002, 25–26), as providing this disclaimer (PO
`Resp. 48–49). However, we agree with Petitioner that the statements in the
`Response to Office Action do not disclaim subject matter, nor do these
`statements provide an explicit definition of “emits,” “emits light in
`sequence, and “emits in sequence.” Indeed, the discussion, limited to claim
`7, discusses the object of the invention and distinguishes the invention as
`recited in claim 7 over the cited prior art, Baumberg et al. (US 5,869,930)
`(Resp. to OA 9–10). This discussion does not qualify as “clear and
`unmistakable” disavowing statements as required to meet the “demanding
`standard for finding a disclaimer.” Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., No.
`2015-1246, 2016 WL 363410, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2016).
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`We, therefore, determine the term “emits light in sequence” and
`“emits in sequence” used in the claims, should not be interpreted as “emits
`and dies light of each electroluminescent cored bar or cord in succession,
`one after the other,” but instead, should be interpreted giving the terms their
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by an ordinarily skilled
`artisan at the time of the invention, in light of the Specification.
`It follows, we determine the construction of “emits light in sequence”
`is “to throw off or give off or out light in a continuous or connected series”
`and “emits in sequence” is “to throw off or give off or out, in a continuous or
`connected series” (see e.g., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 377,
`1065 (10th ed. 2000)).
`
`B. Obviousness over He and Korodi
`Petitioner argues claims 1 and 7 of the ’279 Patent are obvious over
`He and Korodi (Pet. 34–49).
`
`1. Overview of He (Exhibit 1003)
`He describes a color-changing and multi-colored electroluminescence
`cable (Ex. 1004, Abstract). A plurality of electroluminescent filaments are
`insulated from each other and helically wound on the outer side of the axis
`(id.).
`
`Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1, reproduced above, is a schematic diagram illustrating the
`structure of an individual electroluminescent filament of He (id. at 3:25–27).
`As illustrated, the electroluminescent filament comprises color polymer
`casing tube disposed on transmission wires 5 and 5’, and the outer surface of
`conductive layer 4 (id. at 3:54–56). Transmission wires 5 and 5’ are wound
`at intervals on conductive layer 4 (id. at 3:52–53). Conductive layer 4 is
`coated on light emitting layer 3, which is coated on medium insulating layer
`2 (id. at 3:50–51). Medium insulating layer 2 is coated on core wire 1 which
`is led out as an electrode (id. at 3:46–47).
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`Figure 2 is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 2, reproduced above, is a schematic diagram of an embodiment
`of the electroluminescent cable (id. at 3:28–30). Electroluminescence cable
`12 comprises a transparent polymer casing tube 11 disposed on the outer
`side of a group of electroluminescent filaments 10 (id. at 4:21–23). The
`group of electroluminescent filaments includes individual
`electroluminescent filaments 8 insulated from each other and helically
`wound on the outer side of core wire 9 which acts as a central axis (id. at
`4:16–19). Each of the electroluminescent filaments 8 connects with
`programmable electronic elements that control each electroluminescent
`filament 8, respectively, to emit light according to a predetermined program
`that controls color, saturation, luminance, and other aspects (id. at 4:25–39).
`When the electroluminescent filaments are activated, each
`electroluminescent filament will emit light in sequence so the light-emitting
`cable can emit changeable colors and brightness (id. at 4:39–42).
`
`
`2. Overview of Korodi (Exhibit 1005)
`Korodi describes a safety power conductor that includes light-emitting
`means used for signaling the location of the conductor and the presence of
`an electrical potential in the conductor with respect to ground (Ex. 1005,
`Abstract). A power cord, to be used as domestic extension cords, heavier
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`industrial cords, or cords used in inaccessible areas, comprising a conductor,
`having an insulated covering, is illuminated laterally by light that is emitted
`when current is applied (id. at Abstract, 1:15–19, 1:56–62, 3:39–44).
`Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1, reproduced above, is a side view of an embodiment of
`Korodi’s invention. As shown in Figure 1, electrical line or cable 1 has a
`pair of parallel electrical conductors 2 and 3 separated and insulated by
`insulating covering 4 (id. at 2:55–59). Insulating covering 4 is at least
`partially transparent to light, and that transparent zone extends between
`optical fibers 10 in channel 19 and the external surface of the cable covering
`(id. at 2:55–59, 3:32–44). This structure permits transmission of light from
`bulb 9, via optical fibers 10, to the exterior of the cable along its length (id.
`at 3:32–38). The conductor, including the light-emitting means, signal
`location of the conductor and presence of an electrical potential in the
`conductor with respect to an electrical base or ground (id. at Abstract).
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`3. Analysis
`a. “emits light in sequence” and “emits in sequence”
`Petitioner asserts He teaches using programmable electronic circuitry
`(the driver) to light electroluminescent (or electroluminescence) wires in
`sequence when the main cord and driver are live (Pet. 42). Petitioner
`specifically points to He’s disclosure that color, saturation, luminance, and
`other aspects are controllable such that each filament of the cable will emit
`light in sequence (id. (citing Ex. 1004, 4:38–42)).
`Patent Owner argues He’s sequence limitation relates to blending
`multi-colored electroluminescent filaments for creating various colors and
`brightness, in contrast to the ’279 Patent’s spatio-temporal sequence that
`does not energize the electroluminescent filaments simultaneously (PO
`Resp. 50).
`We do not agree He requires blending of colors as asserted by Patent
`Owner. Patent Owner points to He’s description that describes its system
`has control over color, saturation, and luminance, and contends, as a result,
`that He’s multi-colored electroluminescent filaments are blended together,
`rather than distinct (Ex. 2015 ¶ 54). However, He discloses “the color,
`saturation, luminance and other aspects are controllable. Through the
`control of the programmable electronic elements, each filament of the cable
`will emit light in sequence such that the light-emitting cable can be formed
`with changeable colors and brightness” (Ex. 1004, 2:17–21) (emphasis
`added). Moreover, Patent Owner’s proffered Declarant, Dr. Robert T.
`Weverka, testifies that even blending to achieve a color such as purple,
`would require turning the electroluminescent filaments on or off to achieve
`colors such as turning off a green filament (Ex. 1016, 112:5–114:1). Thus,
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`we find He teaches the color, saturation, luminance and other aspects of the
`electroluminescence cable are controllable through control of the
`programmable electronic elements which in turn, control each filament of
`the cable to emit light in sequence (id. at 4:35–42). Therefore, we find He
`teaches every electroluminescence filament emits light in sequence.
`Accordingly, we find He teaches or at least suggests the
`programmable electronic elements (driver) control each electroluminescent
`filament respectively by controlling color, saturation, and luminance, so
`each electroluminescent filament may emit or not emit light according to a
`predetermined program (Ex. 1004, 4:26–30). As He describes controlling
`the color of the cable, we find an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found
`it obvious upon reading He, that the cable may change from, for example,
`red to blue. As a result, we find specific electroluminescent filaments would
`emit light depending on the color, the specific electroluminescent filament
`emits. In the example, one filament may emit red light and be on when the
`cable emits red light, but that filament will not emit light when the cable is
`to emit blue light. Instead, a second filament will emit blue light.
`Furthermore, we agree with Petitioner and find no evidence in the
`record that any reason has been articulated or evidence shown, why an
`ordinarily skilled artisan would not possess the skill to modify He’s ability
`to control each electroluminescent filament which emits light in a sequence,
`to control each electroluminescent filament to be on or off, and to control
`each electroluminescent filament to emit light in a continuous or connected
`series. Indeed, we are not persuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`found it “uniquely challenging” or “difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
`art” to exercise control over the filaments, to turn the electroluminescent
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`filaments on or off in a continuous or connected series (a sequence), to
`achieve a particular lighting effect, given He’s teaching of control of the
`electroluminescent filaments. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
`Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor are we persuaded the
`modification represented an unobvious step over the prior art. See id.
`Accordingly, we find He teaches each electroluminescent filament throws
`off or gives off or out light in a continuous or connected series.
`Thus, we find He teaches or at least suggests “every
`electroluminescence cored bar or electroluminescence cored cord is driven
`by the driver and emits light in sequence when the main cord and the driver
`are live,” as recited in claim 1 and “every electroluminescence cored cord is
`driven by the driver and emits in sequence when the main cord and the
`driver are live,” as recited in claim 7.3
`
`
`b. Obvious to Combine
`Petitioner states He provides an illuminated electroluminescent cable
`“that fits seamlessly with the illuminated power cords disclosed in Korodi”
`(Pet. 35). According to Petitioner, He discloses a cable with EL wires
`intertwisted helically on a metal core wire and circuitry for driving the wires
`such that light appears to flow through the cable (id.). Petitioner then asserts
`
`
`3 Even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered interpretation of “emits
`and dies light of each electroluminescent cored bar or cord in succession,
`one after the other,” we conclude, based on the findings and reasoning set
`forth above, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to
`modify He to set the predetermined program to control each
`electroluminescent filament to “emit and die” light in succession, one after
`the other.
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found replacing the aluminum core
`wire in He with a power cord, thereby “creating an improved illuminated
`cable using EL wires that light in sequence to indicate the presence of
`current,” to be obvious (id. at 36). Petitioner further contends that
`combining the teachings of He and Korodi would have been the merger of
`familiar elements according to their established functions, known methods,
`and predictable results (id.).
`Patent Owner argues (i) He and Korodi are non-analogous art (PO
`Resp. 33–34); (ii) Petitioner provides no articulation of any motivation to
`combine the teachings of He and Korodi beyond conclusory statements
`(Prelim. Resp. 30); (iii) the proposed combination would render both
`references inoperable, Petitioner provided no evidence that the teaching of
`He and Korodi are “readily compatible” or evidence the teachings would
`have been a predictable variation of devices, and the proposed combination
`would not result in the claimed invention disclosed in the ’279 Patent (PO
`Resp. 33–34); and (iv) He teaches against combination with Korodi (id.).
`Patent Owner initially argues He and Korodi are non-analogous art
`(PO Resp. 37–40). A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness
`determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed
`invention. Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314,
`1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In
`re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Two separate tests define the
`scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
`endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not
`within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
`involved.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325 (citations omitted).
`Patent Owner contends He discloses multi-colored EL wires being
`blended to produce an array of different colors along the length of the cable
`unlike the ’279 Patent which requires that only one EL wire is live at any
`one given time (PO Resp. 34–35, 38–39). Patent Owner further argues the
`differences between He and the claimed invention and asserts Petitioner has
`failed to indicate why an ordinarily skilled artisan would look to He (id.).
`Patent Owner additionally argues Korodi does not teach or suggest use of
`the light to communicate direction of current flow (id. at 39–40).
`We determine He and Korodi are analogous art to that of the ’279
`Patent. Moreover, Patent Owner does not even sufficiently articulate from
`what field of endeavor Patent Owner believes applies to each of the ’279
`Patent, He, and Korodi (see PO Resp. 37–40).
`Nonetheless, even in light of Patent Owner’s assertions as to what the
`references teach, we agree with Petitioner that the ’279 Patent, He, and
`Korodi are from the same field of endeavor –– the field of lighted cables
`(Pet. Reply 15). Specifically, we find He is related to color-changing and
`multi-colored electroluminescent cables –– lighted cables (Ex. 1004,
`Abstract). We further find Korodi is related to electrical cables that include
`light-emitting means capable of transmitting light (Ex. 1005, Abstract, 2:55
`– 3:4). The ’279 Patent is directed to a current-seen cable that emits light to
`indicate the live state of the cable (Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:33–37). Moreover,
`Patent Owner’s own Declarant, Dr. Weverka, agrees all three references are
`from the field of lighted cables (Ex. 1016, 44:10–12, 104:12–14, 123:16–
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`21). Accordingly, we determine He, Korodi, and the ’279 Patent are from
`the same filed of endeavor and thus, are analogous art.
`Patent Owner further argues Petitioner has not articulated a
`motivation to combine He with Korodi (PO Resp. 40). Patent Owner’s
`Declarant, Dr. Weverka states as He teaches use of multi-colored EL
`filaments to produce a variety of colors, and Korodi teaches the use of a
`central lighting source to show existence of a potential, an ordinarily skilled
`artisan would not have been motivated to combine the references to produce
`a current seen cable that produces the visual of current flow across the length
`of the power cable (Ex. 2015 ¶ 77).
`Patent Owner does not directly address the specific teaching and
`combination as asserted by Petitioner. Petitioner’s justification for
`combining He’s and Korodi’s teachings is not that Korodi be physically
`inserted into He (Pet. 36–38, 41). The test for obviousness is not whether
`the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
`structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must
`be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is
`what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
`those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
`1981) (citations omitted).
`Nonetheless, we find Petitioner has articulated reasoning with a
`rational underpinning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`been motivated to combine the teachings (Pet. 34–36; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 98–104).
`Specifically, Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`been motivated to combine the teachings of He and Korodi because “such a
`modification is both a predictable variation and an incremental
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01448
`Patent 7,671,279 B2
`
`improvement” (Pet. 35). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled
`artisan would have found it obvious and “straight-forward” to replace the
`aluminum core wire in He with a power cord to create an improved
`illuminated cable using electroluminescent wires that light in sequence (id.

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