`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: November 23, 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.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`This is a Final Written Decision entered in an inter partes review
`instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314. For reasons discussed below, we
`determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,561,690 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’690 patent”) is
`unpatentable.
`
`
`A. Procedural History
`Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a Wac Lighting Co. (“Petitioner”)
`filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims
`1, 5, and 6 (the “challenged claims”) of the ’690 patent. 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) contending that the petition should be
`denied as to all challenged claims.
`On November 25, we instituted inter partes review of claim 1. Paper
`8, “Decision on Institution” or “Dec.”). Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 17, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 24,
`“Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 38, “PO
`Mot. Exclude”). Petitioner opposed (Paper 46, “Opp. PO Mot. Exclude).
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 40, “Pet. Mot.
`Exclude”). Patent Owner opposed (Paper 45, “Opp. Pet. Mot. Exclude). A
`transcript of oral argument held on August 23, 2016 is included in the record
`(Paper 55, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This final written decision
`is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner report the following pending litigation
`matter related to the ’690 Patent: Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Wangs
`Alliance Corporation, Case No. 14-cv-12298-DJC (D. Mass.). Pet. 1; Paper
`5, 2. Patent Owner also identifies Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Troy-CSL
`Lighting, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-11053-WGY (D. Mass.), which has settled.
`Paper 22, 2.
`Petitioner reports that Patent Owner is suing the Petitioner and/or
`other parties under one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,013,988; 6,147,458;
`6,586,890; 6,250,774; 6,788,011; 7,038,399; 7,352,138; 6,094,014; and
`7,262,559, all of which generally relate to light emitting diodes (“LEDs”).
`Petitioner further reports that on the same week as the filing of this petition,
`the Petitioner is also filing additional petitions for inter partes review for six
`other patents asserted by the Patent Owner against the Petitioner: U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,013,988; 6,147,458; 6,586,890; 6,250,774; 7,038,399; and 7,352,138.
`Pet. 1.
`
`
`C. The ’690 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`1. Described Invention
`The ’690 patent describes a light-emitting diode (LED) luminaire that
`is structured to be rugged to transport. Ex. 1001, 1:25–41. Patent Owner
`provides (PO Resp. 3) the following annotated version of Figure 1 of the
`’690 patent which is a cross-sectional view of an example of a luminaire.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a cross-sectional view of an example of a luminaire.
`
`A housing defines an internal space containing at least one LED. In
`use, an “optical means for guiding” guides light from the LED to the exterior
`of the housing. The LED is mounted to a support connected to the housing;
`and is held between a retaining element (claimed “elastic retention means”),
`connected to the housing, and the support. Ex. 1001, 1:48–51, Figure 1.
`The retaining element applies pressure to hold the optical means against the
`support. Ex. 1001, 2:5–14.
`
`2. Claim at Issue
`Claim 1 of the ’690 patent is the only claim at issue and is reproduced
`below with parenthetical letter annotations identifying its various limitations
`for ease of reference:
`
`1. (a) A luminaire comprising
`(b) a housing which defines an internal space containing
`(c) at least one light source formed by a light-
`emitting diode (LED) and (d) optical means for
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`guiding the light emitted by the LED towards outside
`of the housing,
`(e) characterized in that the LED is mounted to a support
`connected to the housing, and
`(f) the optical means is held between a 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,
`(g) wherein the optical means has first and second ends,
`the first end being proximate the support connected
`to the housing and the second end being proximate
`the retaining element.
`
`
`
`D. Ground of Unpatentability
`We instituted trial regarding patentability of claim 1 of the ’690 patent
`based on anticipation by Sharrah.1 Petitioner relies on declaration testimony
`of Eric Bretschneider, Ph.D. Ex. 1007.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Interpretation
`The Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they]
`appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard as the claim interpretation standard to be
`applied in inter partes reviews). Under this standard, we interpret claim
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent 5,871,272, issued February 16, 1999 (Ex. 1004, “Sharrah”).
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
`usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking
`into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that
`may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
`specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and customary meaning.
`See Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be
`given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the
`specification and prosecution history.”); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is
`the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`in question.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A patentee, however, may
`rebut this presumption by acting as his or her own lexicographer, 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).
`
`1. “optical means for guiding the light emitted by the
`LED towards outside [of] the housing.”
`
`a. Preliminary Construction
`In the preliminary stage, the parties agreed that “optical means for
`guiding the light emitted by the LED towards outside [of] the housing,”
`should be construed as a means-plus-function clause (Pet. 4–5, Prelim. Resp.
`11–15), and we did so. Dec. 7. The parties also agree that the Specification-
`described structure associated with the function performed by this claim
`term is collimator 4 shown in Figure 1, reproduced with Patent Owner
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`annotations from page 10 of Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner annotated Figure 1 of the ’690 patent.
`
`
`Petitioner requested that we construe the “optical means…” as “a
`collimator,” not requiring any particular shape. Pet. 4. Patent Owner
`contended that our construction should be “a collimator having a
`symmetrical lateral surface.” Prelim. Resp. 4, 12.
`For purposes of our Decision on Institution, we did not construe
`“optical means…” as narrowly as Patent Owner suggested and adopted the
`construction “a collimator” as our broadest reasonable construction. Dec. 7.
`b. Patent Owner’s Contentions
`Patent Owner continues to argue, in its Response, for a more narrow
`construction requiring the collimator to have a symmetrical lateral surface.
`In support of its argument, Patent Owner notes the following description of
`collimator 4 in the Specification:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`The optical means here comprise a collimator 4 formed by a
`solid mass of a material which transmits light and is
`temperature-resistant, for example polymethylmethacrylate
`(PMMA). The optical means are formed by a “full-body”
`collimator 4 here, but they may alternatively be formed by, for
`example, a conical concave reflector. The collimator 4 has a
`symmetrical lateral surface 5 based on a parabolic or conical
`body of revolution, a planar front surface 6 here, and a base
`surface 7 geometrically opposed to the front surface 6. The
`base 7 is planar here, but this characteristic does not exclude
`other geometries. The lateral surface 5 of the collimator 4
`causes the light emitted by the LED 2 to be concentrated into a
`beam. The beam obtained here is a directional light beam
`consisting of parallel rays. This light beam leaves the
`collimator 4 by the front surface 6 and the direction of said
`beam is perpendicular to the plane defined by this front surface
`6. The emission characteristic of the system comprising the
`LED 2 and the collimator 4 thus has a maximum emission
`direction which in this example is perpendicular to the plane
`defined by the front surface 6 of the collimator 4.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:24–44 (emphasis added).
`According to Patent Owner, the specification expressly links the
`symmetrical lateral surface of the collimator to the recited function, and,
`therefore, the symmetrical lateral surface should be required by our
`construction, relying upon Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc.,
`279 F.3d 1022, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2002) for the proposition that the
`corresponding structure of a means-plus-function term must include “at least
`that structure necessary to perform each of the functions recited.” Patent
`Owner also relies upon B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419,
`1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997) stating that “structure disclosed in the specification is
`‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.”
`Patent Owner argues that the language of the ’690 patent used to
`describe other aspects of the collimator confirms that, while several of its
`features are optional, it must have a symmetrical lateral surface. PO Resp.
`911. In particular, the paragraph describing the collimator repeatedly uses
`permissive language when a feature is optional. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex.
`1001, 3:24–44 (noting material of collimator is “for example
`polymethylmethacrylate”; optical means has “a ‘full-body’ collimator 4
`here, but . . . may alternatively be . . . for example, a conical concave
`reflector”; “The base 7 is planar here, but this characteristic does not exclude
`other geometries”)). But it does not use permissive language when
`describing the symmetrical lateral surface; instead, it states unambiguously
`that “the collimator 4 has a symmetrical lateral surface,” and then goes on to
`link this structural feature to the recited function. Id. at 3:24–40.
`Patent Owner argues that each of the differently shaped collimators
`disclosed in the ’690 patent includes a symmetrical lateral surface. PO
`Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 40–41). The ’690 patent lists the following
`shapes for collimators: ‘full-body’ collimator” (Ex. 1001 at 3:27–28), a
`“conical concave reflector” (id. at 3:29), a “planar front surface” (id. at
`3:31), and “other geometries” (id. at 3:34). Patent Owner created drawings
`(not in the patent itself) to depict its interpretation of the Specification-listed
`collimator geometries, reproduced below from page 12 of Patent Owner’s
`Response. In the Patent Owner-fashioned drawings, the symmetrical lateral
`surfaces are shown in brown, the LEDs are shown in blue, and exemplary
`light rays are shown in red.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`
`
`The above diagrams, drawn by Patent Owner, show light ray diagrams
`corresponding to Specification listed collimators.
`
`PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 31–33). According to Patent Owner, all of
`the differently shaped collimators listed in the ’690 patent rely on
`symmetrical lateral surfaces to guide the light emitted by the LED towards
`outside of the housing. PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:29–40; Ex. 2007 ¶
`41).
`
`Patent Owner argues that absent a symmetrical lateral surface, these
`collimators would not effectively guide the light towards outside of the
`housing, a primary purpose of the invention of the ’690 patent. PO Resp. 12
`(citing Ex. 1001 at 3:40–44 (“The emission characteristic of the system
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`comprising the LED 2 and the collimator 4 thus has a maximum emission
`direction which in this example is perpendicular to the plane defined by the
`front surface 6 of the collimator 4.” ); Ex. 2007 ¶ 30). Patent Owner
`concludes that in the face of the express teachings of the ’690 patent, the
`specific corresponding structure disclosed by the ’690 patent is a collimator
`with a symmetrical lateral surface, rather than a generic collimator. PO
`Resp. 13. Patent Owner refers us to Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales,
`LLC, 671 F.3d 1291, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (specialized A/D converter was
`corresponding structure where disclosure of a “generic A/D converter” was
`“not linked to any claimed function as required by [Federal Circuit]
`precedent”); Bennett Marine, Inc. v. Lenco Marine, Inc., 549 F. App’x 947,
`954 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (corresponding structure was the specific circuit of a
`particular figure rather than the “generic circuit shown in [F]igure 1”
`because only the specific circuit could “perform part of the function required
`by the [means] limitation”); accord Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp.,
`325 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding “the district court defined the
`structure corresponding to the recited function too broadly” where the
`specification linked only a particular element of a larger component to the
`recited function).
`
`c. Petitioner’s Contentions
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s attempt to narrow the
`construction of “optical means for guiding the light emitted by the LED
`towards outside of the housing” is an inappropriate attempt to limit its
`construction to cover only a subset of the optical means described in the
`’690 patent. Pet. Reply 1 (citing PO Resp. 8–9).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`d. Our Construction
`This claim construction dispute is significant to the outcome of this
`case. The dispute centers on whether the Specification-corresponding
`structure requires that our claim construction require a “symmetrical lateral
`surface,” not on whether the particular shape of the collimator is disclosed
`by the ’690 patent.
`The Specification paragraph, above, pointed to by Patent Owner is the
`one that mentions a “symmetrical” lateral surface. All other mentions of the
`collimator refer to a “lateral surface” without the use of the adjective
`“symmetrical.”
`Independent claim 13 (not at issue) is the only other claim that is at all
`illuminating with respect to the structure of the collimator. Claim 13
`requires “optical means comprising a light conductor having a cavity near
`said first end for accommodating the LED.” (emphasis added).
`The Specification does not describe any advantages of one structural
`form of collimator over another. Collimator 4, drawn in Figure 1, is conical.
`Collimator 23, drawn in Figure 2, has a rectangular shape at its output. The
`Specification mentions a few alternative collimator geometries, as Patent
`Owner has illustrated above, without requiring a specific symmetry. Ex.
`1001, 3:24−35. Although Patent Owner has fashioned diagrams that
`demonstrate that various alternative embodiments can be configured to have
`a “symmetrical” lateral surface, we see no reason to incorporate this
`requirement into the claim itself. The “collimator” is the optical means that
`carries the function of collimating light (“the lateral surface 5 of the
`collimator 4 causes the light emitted by the LED 2 to be concentrated into a
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`beam”). Ex. 1001, 3:2728 (“optical means are formed by a ‘full-body’
`collimator 4); 3:3436. Neither the claims nor the specification informs us
`that the recited function of “guiding the light . . . toward outside of the
`housing” can only be accomplished with symmetrical lateral surfaces. The
`only evidence of record on this issue is that the only illustrated embodiment
`of a collimator has a symmetrical lateral surface. There is no other evidence
`on point.
`We conclude that the broadest reasonable construction of the “optical
`means …” clause is “a collimator” which is consistent with the
`Specification. A “collimator” carries out the function required by the
`“optical means,” namely to guide light from the LED out of the luminaire.
`We find that it would be unreasonable to limit the construction of “optical
`means” to having “symmetrical” lateral surfaces when the function of
`guiding light is ascribed to collimators, regardless of the degree of symmetry
`of their lateral surfaces.
`
`
`2. “Retaining Element”
`We did not preliminarily construe “retaining element” in our Decision
`To Institute. The parties agree that a “retaining element” is “a structure that
`fixes the position of another element.” Pet. 5, Pet. Reply 3, PO Resp. 15.
`However, the parties disagree with respect to what “fixes the position of
`another element” means.
`a. Patent Owner Contentions
`Patent Owner contends that focusing ring 290 in Sharrah cannot be a
`retaining element because it can be manipulated to cause movement of the
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`reflector relative to the LED. PO Resp. 15–16.
`According to Patent Owner, the ’690 patent makes clear that the
`retaining element keeps the position of the optical means fixed relative to the
`LED. Ex. 1001, 1:48–51 (“The mounting thus realized involves a placement
`of the optical means on the support of the LED and the use of the retaining
`element connected to the housing for keeping it fixed.”); PO Resp. 15 (citing
`Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 44–47, 49).
`According to Patent Owner, the fixed position provided by the
`retaining element permits the optical means to “occupy an accurate and
`constant position with respect to the emission characteristic of the LED.”
`PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1001 at 1:16–20 and 1:66–2:4 (“The shapes of the
`optical means and those of the support of the LED are advantageously
`adapted such that, under pressure, the contact between the optical means and
`the support of the LED will serve to guarantee a precise and constant
`position which causes the assembly to provide an optimum performance.”),
`4:1–4 (“The placement of the collimator 4 on the support 3 of the LED 2
`renders it possible to ensure an initial positioning which will be maintained
`by the retaining element connected to the housing 1.”)).
`Patent Owner argues that its position accords with a plain meaning of
`“retaining.” PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2009 at 1054 (defining “retain” as “[t]o
`keep or hold in a particular place, condition, or position”); Ex. 2010 at 996
`(defining “retain” as “to hold secure or intact”); Ex. 2007 ¶ 48).
`Further, according to Patent Owner, the agreed definition accords with
`the understanding of one of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶
`44–45 (expressing the opinion that “retaining element” is a structure that
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`fixes the position of another element); Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet
`EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he court’s focus
`remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand the claim terms.” (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323, 1324));
`Universal Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Elecs., Inc., IPR2014-01146,
`Paper 36 at 8 (PTAB Dec. 10, 2015) (evaluating specification for
`understanding of claim term and noting that “terms generally are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill
`in the art, in the context of the entire patent disclosure”)).
`b. Petitioner Contentions
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure
`in the ’690 patent that would limit the definition of a retaining element to a
`structure that can never be manipulated to adjust the relative position of the
`optical means. Pet. Reply 4. Rather, according to Petitioner, as multiple
`disclosures in the ’690 patent explain, the retaining element fixes the
`position of the optical means to prevent “rotary movements” and “play”
`(e.g., Ex. 1001 4:39–59). Thus, Petitioner argues, Patent Owner’s improper
`definition of “retaining element,” which attempts to prohibit a user’s ability
`to cause any manipulation or adjustment of the optical means, is contrary to
`the disclosure of the ’690 patent and should not be adopted.
`c. Our Construction
`We agree with both parties that a “retaining element” is “a structure
`that fixes the position of another element.” We are not persuaded by Patent
`Owner’s argument that our construction should incorporate language that
`prevents all manipulation of the retaining element. First, the claim language
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`addresses the position of the retaining element in connection with the
`housing, optical means, and LED support and addresses the manner in which
`the retaining element functions, i.e., by exerting pressure. Neither the plain
`meaning of “retaining” nor the surrounding language in the claim suggests
`that the recited retention avoids all or some adjustment of the optical means.
`Second, we agree with Petitioner that the Specification describes the role of
`the retaining element to prevent rotation of the collimator during operation.
`However, none of the cited passages from the Specification inform us that
`the retention is permanent or of any particular duration. In our view, just
`because a retaining element can allow manipulation of an optical means
`from one retaining position to another, does not mean that it is not retaining,
`especially in between such manipulations.
`We need look no further than the focus ring of a manual focus camera
`for an apt analogy. When a photographer focuses a multiple-lens lens
`system on an object to be photographed, the lenses are retained in certain
`relative positions with respect to one another until the photograph is taken.
`When the photographer prepares to take a photograph that requires a
`different focal length, the camera’s focus ring is manipulated such that the
`lenses change relative position to bring the photographic object into focus.
`The lenses are held in place at their new alignment until the photograph is
`taken. The fact that the lenses can be manipulated to a new focal length
`does not prevent them from being retained at fixed relative positions at a
`different focal length when they are not being manipulated. The lenses are
`manipulated from one fixed relative position to another fixed relative
`position. They remain in a fixed relative position until they are further
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`manipulated to a new fixed relative position.
`The same is true in Sharrah. The focus ring may permit the spring to
`expand or cause it to compress to a new position. Once that position is
`chosen, reflector 300 is retained at a fixed position relative to the LED. The
`Sharrah focus ring is not prevented from acting as a “retaining element” by
`virtue of it being able to be manipulated from one fixed position to another.
`We therefore conclude that the “retaining element” limitation can be met by
`structures that can be manipulated from one retaining position to another.
`
`
`B. Prior Art Challenge Based on Sharrah
`Petitioner contends that claim 1 is anticipated by Sharrah under
`35 U.S.C. § 102, relying on the supporting testimony of Dr. Bretschneider
`(Ex. 1007). Pet. 20–27.
`
`1. Overview of Sharrah
`Sharrah describes a flashlight having a rotatable lamp head. Ex. 1004,
`Abstract. Sharrah Figure 1 is reproduced below, with Patent Owner’s
`annotation (PO Resp. 20) demonstrating focusing ring 290.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a perspective view showing the external structures of the
`flashlight. Focusing ring 290 engages with threading on the end of the lamp
`head housing. It allows a user to adjust the position of reflector 300 relative
`to incandescent bulb 286 and LED 285. Ex. 1004, 3:6–17. Sharrah explains
`that “[a] coil spring 314 [(see Figure 11, below)] disposed between the lamp
`socket 280 and reflector 300 in coaxial relationship with the incandescent
`lamp element 286 biases the reflector away from the lamp socket so that the
`reflector is urged into contact with the focusing ring 290.” Id. at 3:9–13. To
`function properly, the Sharrah device requires reflector 300 to be movable—
`“rotation of the focusing ring 290 displaces the reflector 300 relative to the
`lamp elements 285, 286.” Id. at 3:13–15. The base of reflector 300 rests
`against spring 314. As focusing ring 290 is adjusted, reflector 300 moves
`closer or further from socket 280, displacing reflector 300 relative to lamps
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`285 and 286.
`Patent Owner provides (PO Resp. 18) the following annotated version
`of the upper portion of Sharrah Figure 11.
`
`
`Figure 11 is a cross-sectional view of a flashlight
`including an incandescent bulb 286 and an LED 285.
`
`Sharrah Figure 13 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 13 is a perspective view of the flashlight
`portion shown in Figure 11.
`
`Sharrah’s flashlight includes focusing ring 290, which changes the
`focusing of the light emitted by incandescent bulb 286 and LED 285. Id. at
`3:6–17. Focusing ring 290 engages with threading “on the end of the lamp
`head housing” and rotates to adjust the position of reflector 300 relative to
`incandescent bulb 286 and LED 285. Id.; see also Ex. 2007, ¶ 54. Focusing
`ring 290 can be seen in Sharrah’s Figure 1, above.
`2. Petitioner Contentions
`Petitioner provides a detailed account of its contention that Sharrah
`anticipates claim 1, at Petition pages 20–27. Petitioner’s argument is
`supported by declaration testimony of Eric Bretschneider, Ph.D. (Ex. 1007,
`Ex. 1014).
`
`a. Element (a)
`According to Petitioner, Sharrah discloses a luminaire. Pet. 20.
`Petitioner cites a Websters Unabridged Dictionary definition and argues that
`a luminaire, by its plain and ordinary meaning, is “a lighting unit consisting
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`of one or more electric lamps with all of the necessary parts and wiring.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1009; Ex. 1007 ¶ 72). According to Petitioner, this limitation is
`met by Sharrah’s LED-containing flashlight. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 1:5–9,
`Figure 1); Ex. 1007 ¶ 72).
`
`b. Element (b)
`According to Petitioner, the Sharrah flashlight includes a lamp
`housing (or “lamp head”). Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:50–52, 5:40–45; Ex.
`1007 ¶ 73). Housing 205 (Figures 2, 11, and 12) defines an internal space
`(Figure 11 space enclosing at least components 280, 285, 286, and 306):
`
`
`
`Sharrah Figure 11.
`
`21
`
`
`Pet. 21–22.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`c. Element (c)
`Petitioner argues that Sharrah discloses that a lamp socket is mounted
`“within the lamp head housing for receiving two lamp elements.” Pet. 22
`(citing Ex. 1004, 2:50–51; Ex. 1007 ¶ 74). Sharrah states that “preferably …
`lamp element 285 is a light-emitting diode (LED).” Id. (citing Ex. 1004,
`2:53–54; Ex. 1007 ¶ 74).
`Petitioner argues that the claimed “optical means” is met by Sharrah’s
`“conical concave reflector.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:24–29; Ex. 1007 ¶
`75). Petitioner notes that the Sharrah LED is inserted through an opening in
`the first reflector, and an incandescent light is inserted through an opening in
`the second reflector. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 3:1–5; Ex. 1007 ¶ 75). The
`reflector is described as incorporating a smaller reflective surface 306 nested
`within a larger reflective surface 304. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 7:11–13; Ex.
`1007 ¶ 75). The larger reflective surface 304 provides a reflective surface
`for the central lamp element 286 and the smaller reflective surface 306
`provides a reflective surface for LED 285. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:13–
`16; Ex. 1007 ¶ 75). Sharrah explains that this configuration prevents the
`minor reflective surface 306 from interfering with the reflection of the light
`from lamp element 286 (the incandescent light) off of major reflective
`surface 304. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 7:17–20; Ex. 1007 ¶ 75). Reflectors are
`able to control the direction of both light sources, directing them out of the
`flashlight without interfering with one another. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 75).
`d. Element (d)
`Petitioner argues that Sharrah discloses that the LED is “mounted in
`the lamp socket.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:34–35; Ex. 1007 ¶ 76). The
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`lamp socket, in turn, is mounted onto a mounting post connected with the
`lamp housing. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 76). Petitioner quotes the following:
`
`
`The Lamp Housing
`Referring now to FIGS. 2, 8 and 9, the details of the lamp head
`200 are seen more clearly. The lamp head includes a housing
`205 that is pivotally connected to the mounting stem 30 of the
`flashlight body 20. The housing 205 includes a pair of
`mounting posts 210 onto which the lamp socket 280 and the
`lamp contact 160 are mounted. The posts 210 project through
`holes formed in the lamp socket and the lamp contact
`respectively. The posts are flared by applying heat and pressure
`to the ends thereof to retain the lamp socket 280 and the lamp
`contact 160 in place. The lamp housing 205 further includes an
`aperture 242 through which the switch 250 projects. Arcuately
`[sic] spaced pairs of parallel ribs 235 are disposed around the
`inner circumference of lamp housing 205 to serve as guides for
`mounting the reflector 300 and positioning relative to the lamp
`elements 285 and 286.
`
`
`
`Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:40–56; Ex. 1007 ¶ 76). Thus, according to
`Petitioner, the LED disclosed in Sharrah is mounted to a support—the lamp
`socket—which is connected to the housing. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 77).
`e. Element (e)
`Petitioner argues that Sharrah discloses that the reflector is held
`between a focusing ring and the LED socket within the lamp housing.
`Figure 2 illustrates the relative positioning of the parts described in the
`passage above, where 290 denotes the focusing ring, number 300 denotes the
`reflector, number 280 denotes the lamp socket, and number 230 denotes the
`lamp housing. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 78).
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sharrah Figure 2.
`
`Pet. 24–25.
`Petitioner notes that Sharrah states that a coil spring is placed between
`the lamp socket – which is the support onto which the LED is mounted – and
`the reflector “so that the reflector is urged into contact with the focusing
`ring.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:12–13; Ex. 1007 ¶ 79). Sharrah also
`describes the focusing ring as being connected to the housing by threading:
`“A focusing ring 290 having internal threads 292 that engage with external
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01291
`Patent 6,561,690 B2
`
`threads 230 on the end of the lamp housing 205 retains the reflector 300
`within the housing.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:6–9; Ex. 1007 ¶ 80