trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01291, Paper No. 55
`September 20, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION D/B/A WAC LIGHTING CO.
`Petitioner
`vs.
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`Patent Owner
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`- - - - - -
`Oral Hearing Held: August 23, 2016
`
`
`Before: GLENN J. PERRY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON,
`MIRIAM L. QUINN (via video), Administrative Patent Judges
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`August 23, 2016 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany
`Street, Alexandria, Virginia in Courtroom A, at 1:32 p.m.
`
`REPORTED BY: KAREN BRYNTESON, RMR, CRR,
`
`FAPR
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01291, Paper No. 55
`September 20, 2016
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION D/B/A WAC LIGHTING CO.
`Petitioner
`vs.
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`Patent Owner
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`- - - - - -
`Oral Hearing Held: August 23, 2016
`
`
`Before: GLENN J. PERRY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON,
`MIRIAM L. QUINN (via video), Administrative Patent Judges
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`August 23, 2016 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany
`Street, Alexandria, Virginia in Courtroom A, at 1:32 p.m.
`
`REPORTED BY: KAREN BRYNTESON, RMR, CRR,
`
`FAPR
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID C. RADULESCU, Ph.D., ESQ.
`MICHAEL SADOWITZ, ESQ.
`Radulescu LLP
`The Empire State Building
`350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6910
`New York, New York 10118
`646-502-5858
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DENISE W. DeFRANCO, ESQ.
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`
`Two Seaport Lane
`Boston, MA 02210-2001
`617-646-1600
`
`KENIE HO, ESQ.
`C. BRANDON RASH, ESQ.
`CARA REGAN LASSWELL, ESQ.
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
`Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`202-408-4000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:32 p.m.)
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Good afternoon. You
`may be seated. We're back on the record.
`And this afternoon we have three cases, IPR
`2015- 01291 is first. Each slide is allotted 20 minutes.
`And, actually, we're going to wait to make sure we get
`Judge Quinn back on the line.
`Good afternoon, Judge Quinn. Can you hear
`us? Very good. So we will get started.
`Let me get the timer set up. You can begin
`when ready.
`MR. RADULESCU: Thank you, Your Honor,
`again, David Radulescu for the Petitioner.
`And here again I have a very brief introduction
`and overview of the patent, the grounds for granting of the
`petition, the identification of the issues before the Board,
`and also a summary of the prior art.
`We start with the '690 patent. And, in fact, we
`have a highlighted version of claim 1 side-by-side with
`figure 1, color coded, to match the elements in the figure to
`the elements in the claims. And the elements that are at
`issue here, of course, you know, relate to this optical means
`shown in pink, which is, in fact, positioned between this
`retaining element shown in light or faint blue and a support
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`shown in light green with the LED light source on top of the
`support, and then the optical means or collimator
`sandwiched between the retaining element and the support.
`There are two additional components in the
`figure that I want to identify and call to your attention
`upfront. And that is the spacer, which is identified as
`element 11 in the figure on slide 4, and also the adhesive
`tape identified by, you know, reference numeral 12.
`With respect to the spacer, that is the elastic
`material. And that is the material that exerts some pressure
`down from the retaining element into the collimator. There
`is also, of course, disclosure in the specification of that
`elastic material is encompassing a spring, specifically at
`column 4, lines 30 to 38 of the patent.
`And then the purpose of adhesive tape 12 is to
`stick the retaining element to the metal housing shown in
`yellow. So we use tape to stick it, and we use the elastic,
`the spacer or the elastic material to assist in exerting
`pressure down on to the optical means, which keeps the
`optical means attached to the support.
`We have one piece of prior art, the Sharrah
`reference, shown here on slide 5, and the grounds for
`granting of the petition is based on anticipation of claim 1
`by Sharrah, okay?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`The issues before the Board, and we broke
`them down into a couple, the first of which is whether
`Sharrah discloses each and every element of claim 1. And
`there is two specific limitations that are the subject of the
`briefing.
`
`And the first is the optical means for guiding
`the light emitted by the LED towards the outside of the
`housing. There is a claim construction issue built into that,
`and also a disclosure issue in Sharrah that we will get into
`shortly.
`
`The second issue is this optical means is
`required in the claim to "be held between the retaining
`element connected to the housing and the support for the
`LED by pressure exerted by the retaining element and the
`support for the LED." That's the second limitation that I
`will be addressing shortly as well.
`And then the remaining issue before the Board
`is whether, from our perspective, Dr. Bretschneider's
`testimony should deserve more weight than Dr. Teich's,
`given his admittedly lack of the necessary experience in
`LED lighting design; of course, to be contrasted with
`quantum physics and photonics and those other very
`complicated branches of the physical sciences.
`From here we go to a summary of the prior art.
`And, again, on slide 7 I have claim 1 and all its elements
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`on the left-hand side, and we have Sharrah charted out on
`the right-hand side. And there are two disputed elements as
`I mentioned earlier, element 1- D and 1- F that I will get into
`briefly.
`
`The prior art, the Sharrah reference, and we
`look specifically at figure 11, again, it is color coded in the
`way that Petitioner is reading the claims on to this
`flashlight. And specifically we see the support in green
`underneath.
`We see an LED in red positioned on top of the
`support. We see an optical means shown in purple, light
`purple, which is the collimator. And then we see this
`retaining element that we label in light blue, which is the
`part that presses the optical means collimator down on to
`the spring shown in the middle of this figure in
`cross-section, and there is the reference to P for pressure,
`you know, that is associated with that spring, and so we
`have this retaining element that is effectively screwed
`around to go up and down and, as a result, cause the
`collimator or reflector or optical means to move up and
`down for purposes of focusing, okay?
`That's the summary of what the prior art
`shows. The issues in connection with the optical means,
`and specifically we have the Board construing optical means
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`simply as a collimator. That's it. It is required to be a
`collimator, which obviously is used for directing light.
`And we note that the Patent Owner doesn't
`argue that Sharrah doesn't disclose a collimator. In fact,
`they admit that there is a collimator disclosed in Sharrah.
`Their argument is just based on claim construction.
`They are arguing that, oh, there was an error in
`interpreting the term "collimator" in the Institution decision
`and that you need to add in this additional restriction that
`that collimator must have a symmetrical lateral surface.
`And that's their argument, and I will let them
`discuss more of it. At this point I will point out that, you
`know, they are focused on that particular surface in a
`preferred embodiment. You will hear them talking about
`linking language and, therefore, this symmetrical lateral
`surface needs to be imported into the construction of
`collimator.
`
`And you should also ask them why aren't they
`importing any other surfaces? The front surface of that
`collimator, I believe there is also a bottom surface, there is
`other surfaces that are described in the specification that
`help perform the function of directing the light out.
`There is a front surface and there is an
`opposed base surface. But, in any event, let's now start
`with their construction.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`And our point is that even under their
`erroneous construction, Sharrah discloses the so- called
`collimator with a symmetrical lateral surface.
`And we have on slide 10 Dr. Teich's deposition
`testimony asking him what about this symmetrical lateral
`surface, what does that mean? And we have him admitting
`that if you have symmetry about a plane, yeah, symmetry
`about a plane is another kind of surface that will
`characterize a symmetrical lateral surface or symmetry
`about multiple planes, in fact, correct, that's his answer in
`deposition.
`
`And, of course, if we go to the right- hand side
`of column or slide 10, what we have highlighted in red on
`the collimator 306 is a symmetrical lateral surface. So
`using their requirement that you must also have a
`symmetrical lateral surface, we will, and coupled with Dr.
`Teich's deposition testimony that we're fine with symmetry
`about a plane, we're going to identify what you see on slide
`10 as the symmetrical lateral surface, a short side on the
`left of that center line through -- through the LED, and then
`on the right-hand side we similarly draw it up and we have
`symmetry for at least that portion of the reflector.
`And, as a result, very simply, we have
`anticipation of this element by Sharrah.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`The other point to make is that, again, with
`respect to this requirement of symmetry, and we look at
`slide 11, we had our expert provide a CAD drawing of
`figure 6 from the patent, because the patent is difficult to
`sort of see some of these views. And so, as a result, on
`slide 11, we have figure 6. And then we had a CAD version
`of it shown on the right-hand side of slide 11, to show there
`is symmetry even in that type of CAD drawing.
`We go further because there were arguments
`made by Philips, and that's the next slide, that somehow this
`reflector, this optical means has to guide light optimally.
`They argued in response that it is not a collimator with the
`symmetrical lateral surface unless you guide light optimally
`out of the flashlight.
`And so we were stuck and modeling that
`reflector, and that's why we did the CAD drawing, and you
`will see that there is other parts in this record where we, in
`fact, modeled the light coming out of the flashlight. We
`saw that it was symmetrical about that cup. And, in
`addition, the efficiency of the light coming out of that type
`of design was also calculated to respond to Philips'
`argument that we need an optimally, you know, reflecting
`optical means.
`And the calculation for efficiency shows that
`there is about 90 percent efficiency with that design. And
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`as Dr. Bretschneider explained, and it is summarized on
`slide 12, that your typical optical efficiencies for fixtures
`and luminaires are in the range of 80 to 85 percent. And he
`knows because he designs them, including outdoor street
`lights.
`
`And he points out that in typical, typical
`reflectors, you have loss associated with light even incident
`on a flat plate. And you, in fact, lose about 8 percent of
`your light when light goes through a flat plate due to
`Fresnel loss.
`So this 90 percent efficiency for the Sharrah
`reflector, the Sharrah collimator, is clearly good. And, in
`fact, higher efficiencies than what you would normally get.
`We have another argument by Philips that the
`reflector is not held between the focusing ring 290 and the
`support for the LED. You know, rather, the reflector is
`between the focusing ring 290 and the socket of the
`incandescent light bulb.
`So what this argument is, is the part
`highlighted in yellow, Philips tries to argue is actually two
`parts; that, in fact, you have got a part that is supporting the
`socket for the incandescent bulb and you have got a
`separate part that is supporting the LED.
`And as a result of these two separate
`components, you are not meeting this limitation. And our
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`response to that is that, in fact, the socket for the LED 285
`and the socket for the incandescent bulb 286 are the same
`object. And Patent Owner's expert admitted that at
`Exhibit 1013, at page 110, lines 4 to 7 as summarized on
`slide 13.
`
`We then have another slide to discuss, and that
`is slide 14. This is the issue of does the optical means, is it
`held by pressure? And our position is that when the
`focusing ring is not moved by the user, the function of the
`spring in Sharrah is identical to the elastic retainer that I
`mentioned earlier in the '690 patent. It applies pressure,
`which keeps the optical means in the fixed position.
`And, in fact, there is no requirement that the
`focusing ring is permanently fixed. There is no requirement
`in the claim that the focusing ring somehow has to be
`permanently fixed.
`And as the Board indicated in its Institution
`decision at page 14, you know, moving the reflector from
`one steady-state position to another is enough, okay? And
`eliminating mechanical play, which is what the purpose of
`this spring is, and you know that it is there to eliminate
`mechanical play, because it is a flashlight. And you don't
`want the beam moving around on the wall, if this reflector
`is not fixed and in a steady-state position.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`Then the last slide that I am going to go
`through, this is some of the testimony that we got from Dr.
`Teich. And we will go to slide 17.
`The important one, I mentioned earlier, he is
`an expert in quantum physics. He is an expert in photonics.
`His resume at slide 16, in fact, talks about optical
`heterodining, talks about statistics, and point processes,
`avalanche photodiodes, carrier clustering, quantum
`photonics. And it goes on and on. That's not what this
`technology is directed to.
`This technology is directed to a light,
`otherwise more complicatedly known as a luminaire. And
`we have at slide 17, a very simple question and answer
`confirming that this is not really the guy that should have as
`much credibility as Dr. Bretschneider. His testimony
`should be discounted in connection with his lack of
`experience.
`We asked him: Do you have experience
`studying the characteristics of luminaires prior to your
`involvement with these patents?
`JUDGE PERRY: Counsel, aren't we dealing
`with simple mechanics here, springs and pressure?
`MR. RADULESCU: We are dealing with
`springs and pressures, but there is a position by Philips that
`this collimator has to have a very special symmetrical
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`lateral surface that optimally, you know, directs the light
`out. And that's where these efficiencies came into play.
`And I agree with you, but, in any event, we
`have an expert whose answered to the question does he have
`any experience, experience studying the characteristics of
`luminaires, any characteristics, I guess it is mechanical or
`optical, his answer was no. I think I did not.
`Do you have -- the follow-up question is:
`"Question: Do you have any industry
`experience with luminaires?"
`Broad, open- ended, any. And the answer was:
`"I have not worked on luminaires per se in industry. But let
`me ask what you mean by luminaire."
`And I will just end my presentation at this,
`unless you have more specific questions.
`Thank you very much.
`JUDGE PERRY: Thank you.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you.
`MS. DeFRANCO: I am Denise DeFranco on
`behalf of Patent Owner, Philips. I had not intended to
`spend any of my time talking about the relative credibility
`of the two experts, but since Mr. Radulescu spent so much
`time on it, I simply want to say, please read Dr. Teich's
`transcript between pages 11 and 25, 14 pages of testimony
`that relates to his experience, including the response to his
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`question of what do you mean by a luminaire. It will be
`illuminating to you Dr. Teich's expertise is.
`And their argument about his expertise not
`being in luminaires is synonymous with something like this:
`You are a civil engineer, but you have never put up
`plasterboard before? Therefore, you don't know how to
`build a house. It is non sequitur.
`Dr. Bretschneider, I will note, is a chemical
`engineer and has never, ever taken a college level course in
`optics or photonics for credit. Let's just leave it at that.
`Now let's go to the merits of the argument.
`Slide 3, please.
`There are three limitations that are not met by
`the Sharrah patent; the retaining element limitation, the
`optical means limitation, and the requirement that the
`optical means be held by, on the support of the LED.
`Now I would like to start with the retaining
`element limitation. Slide 4, please. It is very important
`that you understand the issue between the parties here,
`okay?
`
`The claim term is "retaining element." The
`parties agree what that term means. It is a structure that
`fixes the position of another element. Here the other
`element is the optical means.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`The context for that claim term is that the
`optical means is held between a retaining element and the
`support for the LED. Now, Patent Owner, we, do not
`dispute that the reflector of Sharrah is held between the
`focusing ring and the lamp socket. There is no issue there.
`The issue is, is the focusing ring a retaining
`element per the parties' agreed construction? Does it fix the
`position of another element? Does it fix the position of the
`reflector relative to the LED, in particular?
`Now, slide 5.
`The petition said that the focusing ring meets
`the retaining element limitation because the reflector is held
`between -- in place between the focusing ring, which keeps
`the reflector in place, and a lamp socket.
`So basically they are focusing on keeping the
`reflector in place. Because the Sharrah reflector does that,
`they say, therefore, it is a focusing ring.
`But -- slide 6 -- Sharrah says the exact
`opposite about its focusing ring. It says that the focusing
`ring displaces the reflector. That means it moves the
`reflector. It is not fixed.
`And Dr. Teich, our expert, explained in
`response that the Sharrah focusing ring does not fix the
`position of the optical means relative to the LED. And he
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`said that the focusing ring of Sharrah is, in fact, antithetical
`to the '690 patent.
`If you re-read the '690 patent, the whole point
`of '690 is keeping that optical means fixed in position
`relative to the LED.
`Slide 7.
`And I am going to walk you through those
`parts of the '690 patent that talk about keeping the optical
`means fixed relative to the LED. The '690 patent explains
`that the optical means operates on principles of physics,
`physical optics. Recall, that's what Dr. Teich is an expert
`in.
`
`And he says that the geometry gives optical --
`optimal performance, so long as it, the optical means holds
`a constant and accurate position with respect to the
`emission characteristics of the LED. And they talk of the
`importance of the mounting of the optical means with
`respect to the LED, that it must be guaranteed.
`Slide 8 goes on and explains that mechanical
`play must be eliminated between, again, the optical means
`and the support for the LED. It talks about preventing
`relative movements. We're talking about relative
`movements between the optical means and the LED.
`The emphasis of the '690 patent and what its
`retaining element does is it fixes the optical means with
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`respect to the LED. Now, Dr. Teich explained in his
`declaration -- and I will direct you to paragraph 71 -- what
`fixes means in that definition. And he is relying on the '690
`disclosure to say what it means.
`It means that it eliminates mechanical play
`between the optical means and the support. It means
`prevent relative movement between the optical means and
`the support. He says, it means ensuring the initial
`positioning of the optical means relative to the support.
`Fixes does not mean fixed temporarily or fixed
`until it is moved. It means fixed, not moving.
`Next slide, please.
`More citations to the '690 patent that shows
`that the thesis, the importance of the retaining element in
`'690 is to not move the optical means with respect to the
`LED.
`
`Slide 10, again, the Sharrah focusing ring is
`antithetical to that because it is -- the whole point of it is to
`move the optical means relative to lamp element. That's
`what Sharrah itself says.
`Now let's turn to --
`JUDGE PERRY: Counsel, when the focusing
`ring is not being operated, doesn't it fix the optical means
`in a certain position?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`MS. DeFRANCO: You could say that it is
`temporarily fixed, but the claim doesn't -- the claim
`"retaining element" as described in the patent is not
`something that temporarily fixes it. It fixes it, holds it in
`its constant initial position, I just showed you the quotes
`from the spec that said that, and it says that the initial
`positioning is maintained. That's what the retaining
`element does.
`So as construed, as agreed between the parties,
`as agreed by the experts, fixes does not mean temporarily
`fixed. It means -- excuse me, they don't agree temporarily
`fixed. They agree with the definition of retaining element.
`But they, they think it could be temporarily fixed. And we
`disagree with that because of the description throughout the
`specification of the '690 patent as to what that retaining
`element does.
`It is not a temporary fix. It is fixing the
`position constantly and maintaining the initial positioning.
`Now, in the reply they go on to criticize --
`excuse me, I missed a slide. I would like to go to slide 11.
`In their reply, they say that Philips hasn't
`pointed to anything that would suggest that the retaining
`element can never be manipulated to a relative position.
`Well, they are shifting the burden. They have
`done this a bit in many of the IPRs here today.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`They are again trying to shift the burden to us
`to show that it can't be manipulated. But we're just
`applying the definition described in the patent, which is that
`it is fixed in position from the initial placement.
`Now, in their reply they also make arguments
`that are inconsistent with their opening position. In their
`reply, they say: Oh, nobody said you can't move it. It can
`move a little bit. But that's not what the petition said in the
`opening papers.
`In the opening papers on slide 12 it shows that
`the petition said that the exertion of pressure eliminates the
`mechanical play. Back in their opening papers they talked
`about eliminating mechanical play. Now they are saying
`mechanical play is okay. So those are inconsistent
`positions.
`
`Slide 13.
`Their Petitioner's expert did the same thing.
`In his opening declaration, Petitioner's expert said that
`exertion of pressure eliminates mechanical play. In his
`reply deposition, he says mechanical play is okay.
`So the bottom line is the Sharrah patent fails
`to meet the retaining element limitation. The focusing ring
`is antithetical to the '690 patent, which talks about the
`retaining element retaining the fixed position of the optical
`means relative to the LED.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`So now I would like to turn to the second
`limitation --
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Before you move on,
`counsel, in the Sharrah patent, if I set it up initially, put in
`all the elements together and never focus, and never focus,
`is it fixed?
`
`MS. DeFRANCO: No, Your Honor, I don't
`believe it is fixed.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Why not?
`MS. DeFRANCO: Because it is threaded and it
`can be moved, and it is there to be moved. It is not fixing
`the position. It is -- it is movable. It is adjustable. It is
`not fixed.
`
`I do agree with you, Your Honor, that the
`focusing ring -- excuse me, yeah, the focusing ring holds
`the optical means by pressure against the lamp socket of the
`Sharrah flashlight.
`But the question is is that focusing ring a
`retaining element? And, in fact, it is not a retaining
`element because it is -- it moves. The whole point of it is
`to move. It is threaded.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Well, without going
`into what the whole point is, at least by name it tells us the
`goal is to focus.
`MS. DeFRANCO: Exactly.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Or if I have initially set
`a focus, and I have maintained -- I do nothing else to
`change that focus, would you then agree that it is fixed?
`MS. DeFRANCO: Your Honor, I don't agree
`that it is fixed within the meaning of the '690 patent. The
`focusing ring rotates, you understand that when the focusing
`moves, the focus changes, right? The optical means is
`being moved relative to the LED, so that you can either
`have a narrow beam or a wide beam.
`The focus, the focus point of the LED vis- à-vis
`the reflector is not fixed. It is intended to move relative to
`one another. So I disagree, Your Honor.
`I do agree that it is held by pressure, but the
`agreed construction is "fixes the position of another
`element." And the focusing ring of Sharrah does not fix the
`position.
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you.
`JUDGE QUINN: So, counsel, you want us to
`construe "retaining element," that word, that phrase,
`"retaining element" --
`MS. DeFRANCO: Yes.
`JUDGE QUINN: -- to be something that is
`permanently attached, such that it could not be moved, there
`is no intent to be moved, and if you did move it, then it no
`longer retains?
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`MS. DeFRANCO: I think that's a fair
`characterization, that fixes means fixes the initial
`positioning. Again, I will direct you to Dr. Teich's
`declaration at paragraph 71 where he emphasizes that what
`fixes means, the parties agreed construction is fixes. But
`what does fixed mean in the context of the '690 patent?
`The '690 patent talks about fixing the optical
`means relative to the LED, fixing the initial position.
`That's a quote. I am not making up the initial position,
`fixes the initial position or keeps the initial position
`constant. I will find the exact language.
`It is column 4, lines 1 through 4, explains that
`the retaining element ensures the initial positioning of the
`optical means on the support, ensures, excuse me, ensures
`the initial positioning of the optical means on the support is
`maintained.
`Another quote from the patent. "It prevents
`relative movements between the optical means and the
`support. And it eliminates mechanical play between the
`optical means and the support."
`So I would like to turn to the optical means, if
`that's okay with you all. We agree that there is two issues
`in connection with the optical means, both a claim
`construction issue and whether or not the Sharrah patent
`meets it.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`Slide 14.
`Petitioner's position is that the optical means
`is simply a collimator; whereas Patent Owner's position that
`it is a collimator with a symmetrical lateral surface.
`Slide 15.
`The statute tells us that means- plus- function
`claims have to be construed to cover the function recited in
`the claim and the structure disclosed in the spec for
`performing that function. We don't have any dispute what
`the function is. It is guiding the light towards the outside
`of the housing.
`Nobody argued that it has to be optimally
`guided, nobody. Not Patent Owner, not Petitioner. It
`doesn't have to be optimally guided. It has to be guided
`towards the outside of the housing. That's the express
`language in the claim.
`And the issue is whether or not it has the
`structure that is specifically identified and linked in the
`specification to the structure recited, excuse me, for
`performing that function.
`Slide 16.
`The petition says that the structure is a
`collimator. And they point to lines 24 through 39 of
`column 3, which says the optical means is a collimator.
`And it gives a couple of examples, a full body collimator,
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`or a concave conical reflector, but that portion of the spec
`doesn't say anything about the function of guiding the light.
`Slide 17, please.
`It is the very next sentences that follow what
`the Petitioners cite that actually links the function recited
`in the claim to the structure. And that is the symmetrical
`lateral surface, 5, this lateral surface 5 of the collimator
`causes the light emitted by the LED to be concentrated in
`the beam. And the beam leaves the collimator by the front
`surface.
`
`Next slide. So what does Petitioner say in
`reply? Slide 18.
`First of all, Petitioner admits that the very
`language that we rely on is the only place in the
`specification where the structural feature performing the
`function is described. Okay?
`One place that you need to look at to see what
`the spec discloses as the function or, excuse me, the
`structure disclosed in the spec for performing the function.
`It is exactly the language that we're citing.
`What does the reply do? It misquotes the
`specification. The Petitioner argues in reply that the
`specification states that "the lateral surface of the
`collimator causes the light emitted by the LED to be
`concentrated into the beam." That's a misquote.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690
`
`
`Why is it a misquote? The actual language is
`set forth on the bottom of 18. It says the lateral surface 5.
`What is the lateral surface 5? In the preceding two
`sentences, it said it is symmetrical lateral surface 5. It is
`the symmetrical surface that causes the light to be guided to
`the outside of the housing.
`JUDGE PERRY: Counsel, isn't that quote
`simply explaining how collimator 4 functions?
`MS. DeFRANCO: 5?
`JUDGE PERRY: Didn't you agree earlier that
`the function is collimating, carrying light to the -- guiding
`light to the outside?
`MS. DeFRANCO: Yeah, the function --
`JUDGE PERRY: Doesn't this particular
`embodiment, isn't this s
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
