throbber
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 57
`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.
`911. 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, 3:2728 (“optical means are formed by a ‘full-body’
`collimator 4); 3:3436. 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

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