`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 20
`Entered: March 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION D/B/A WAC LIGHTING CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request for Reconsideration
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c, d)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner requests reconsideration (Paper 10, “Rqst.”) of our
`Decision to Institute (Paper 8, “Dec.”).
`Claim Construction
`Patent Owner’s request is directed to our preliminary claim
`construction of “guiding the light emitted by the LED toward outside of the
`housing.” Rqst. 3. It urges that our preliminary construction (Dec. 8) of this
`claim phrase as “a collimator” is too broad, arguing that we overlooked
`description of specific structure described in the specification that a
`collimator should have for performing the recited function (guiding light).
`According to Patent Owner, our construction should be limited to specific
`structure of a collimator described at 3:29−36 of Ex. 1001, namely — a
`“symmetrical lateral surface.” Rqst. 2 (citing Ex. 1001 at 3:29). Patent
`Owner argues that this more specific structural arrangement is “necessary to
`perform the recited function,” and thus the Board’s construction is legally
`erroneous. Id.
`The claim drafter chose to describe the function of guiding light using
`a “means plus function” clause. For purposes of the Decision to Institute,
`we preliminarily construed this means-plus-function clause as corresponding
`to the structures disclosed in the specification for carrying out the specified
`function and its equivalents.
`We are not persuaded by the evidence of record as of the date of our
`Decision to Institute that the construction of the means-plus-function clause
`is limited to the structure described in an embodiment without any range of
`equivalents whatsoever. Thus, we are not inclined at this stage of the
`proceeding to limit that range of equivalents.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`
`Constructions made at the institution stage are preliminary in nature
`and the parties are able to argue (and support those arguments with
`evidence) during trial that that a particular construction should be adopted
`for purposes of our final written decision.
`Analysis of Sharrah
`Patent Owner argues that because of our erroneous claim construction,
`it follows that our analysis of Sharrah is flawed. Rqst. 6. Given that we
`maintain our construction of “guiding the light emitted by the LED toward
`outside of the housing” as set forth in our Decision to Institute, our analysis
`of Sharrah for purposes of that decision remains unchanged at this time.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the requested relief is denied.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David Radulescu
`Angela Chao
`RADULESCU LLP
`david@radulescullp.com
`angela@radulescullp.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Denise W. DeFranco
`C. Brandon Rash
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`denise.defranco@finnegan.com
`brandon.rash@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`4
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
