`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 64
`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 IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`This is a Final Written Decision in an inter partes review issued
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §318(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
`For reasons discussed herein, and in view of the trial record, we determine
`that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 15
`and 23 of the ’890 patent are unpatentable. However, Petitioner has not
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 7 and 31 of the ’890
`patent are unpatentable
`
`A. Procedural History
`This is a final written decision in an inter partes review. Wangs
`Alliance Corporation d/b/a Wac Lighting Co. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(Paper 2, “Pet.”) to institute inter partes review of claims 7, 15, 23, and 31
`(the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890 B2 (“the ’890
`Patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`On November 25, 2015, we entered a Decision to Institute a trial
`(Paper 8, “Dec. Inst.”) on claims 15 and 23. Following Petitioner’s Request
`for Rehearing (Paper 11, Reh’g Req.”), we expanded the scope of trial to
`include claims 7 and 31. Paper 18, “Reh’g. Dec.”
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 32, “PO Resp.”) arguing Petitioner’s challenge to claims 7
`and 31 only. Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 40, “Pet. Reply.” Petitioner
`filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence. Paper 50, “Mot. To Exclude.” Patent
`Owner opposed. Paper 54, “Opp. Motion To Exclude.” Petitioner filed a
`Reply in support of its Motion to Exclude. Paper 58, “Reply Mot. To
`Exclude.” Patent Owner filed a Notice of New Arguments. Paper 52,
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`“Motion New Arg.” Petitioner opposed. Paper 57, “Opp. Mot. New Arg.”
`Patent Owner filed a Revised Motion for Observations.” Paper 55, “Rev.
`Mot. Obs’n.” Petitioner responded. Paper 59, “Pet. Resp. Obs’n.” A
`transcript of oral argument held Aug. 23, 2016, is of record as Paper 62
`(“Tr.”).
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`Petitioner reports the following pending litigation matter related to the
`’890 Patent: Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Wangs Alliance Corporation,
`Case No. 14-cv-12298-DJC (D. Mass.). Pet. 1.
`Petitioner further reports that the 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; 6,250,774; 6,561,690; 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”). Id. Petitioner indicates filing additional petitions for inter
`partes review petitions challenging U.S. Patent Nos. 6,013,988; 6,147,458;
`6,586,890 B2; 6,250,774 B1; 7,038,399 B2; and 7,352,138 B2. Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`C. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted trial based on the following grounds (Reh’g Dec. 3):
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Biebl1
`
`Biebl and ST Micro2
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. §
`102(a)
`35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)
`
`Claim(s) challenged
`15, and 23
`
`7, 15, 23, and 31
`
`
`
`D. The’890 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`1. Described Invention
`The ’890 Patent describes a driver circuit for supplying power to light
`emitting diodes (LEDs). Ex. 1001, 1:6–7. It explains that the electrical
`characteristics of LEDs are such that small changes in the voltage applied to
`a LED cause appreciable changes in current flowing through it. LED light
`output is proportional to LED current, and, therefore, a controlled current
`source is the preferred method of driving LEDs. Id. at 1:18–22.
`Figure 1 of the ’890 Patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent 6,400,101 B1, issued June 4, 2002 (Ex. 1003, “Biebl”).
`2 ST Micro Data Sheet for UC2842/3/4/5 and UC3842/3/4/5 (Ex. 1005, “ST
`Micro”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a driver for LEDs incorporated
`into a tail light assembly of a vehicle.
`
`Power supply 52, providing a regulated current, includes a DC to DC
`converter (e.g. buck-boost power supply, boost, buck, or flyback converter).
`A PWM signal from PWM control IC 56 controls power supply 52 by
`providing a periodic drive signal of varying pulse width to control power
`supply 52 in response to a feedback signal related to current flowing through
`LED array 54. Comparator 58 compares sensed current from current sensor
`60 with a reference signal from current reference 62. The output of
`comparator 58 controls the pulse width of the drive signal. Id. at 2:1–27.
`2. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner and Patent Owner arguments focused on claims 7
`(reproduced below) and 13.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`7. A system for supplying power for an LED array, said
`system comprising:
`means for sensing current to the LED array, said current
`sensing means generating a sensed current signal;
`means for generating a reference signal;
`means for comparing the sensed current signal to the
`reference signal, said comparing means generating a
`feedback signal;
`means for modulating pulse width responsive to the
`feedback signal, said pulse width modulating means
`generating a drive signal; and
`means for supplying power responsive to the drive signal,
`said power supplying means supplying current to the
`LED array.
`
`Petitioner relies on the testimony of Robert Neal Tingler, Ph.D.,
`presented as a Declaration. Ex. 1006.
`
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Construction
`1. Claim Construction Standard
`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
`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
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`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).
`
`2. “Means for Supplying Power Responsive to the Drive Signal, said
`Power Supplying Means Supplying Current to the LED Array”
`
`We preliminarily construed “means for supplying power responsive to
`the drive signal, said power supplying means supplying current to the LED
`array” as a means plus function clause. We found that structures described
`in the Specification corresponding to the recited function include
`“buckboost, boost, buck, and flyback power suppl[ies]” and equivalents .
`Dec. Inst. 7–8.
`Petitioner argues for a broader construction, suggesting that the
`corresponding structure is a “power supply with at least one transistor or
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`switch for receiving a drive signal.” Pet. 8.
`Patent Owner argues that the function described by the means plus
`function clause is “supplying power responsive to the drive signal” and
`“supplying current to the LED array.” PO Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001 at
`Abstract, 1:65–67 (“The power supply uses current feedback to adjust power
`to the LEDs . . . .”), 2:1–13 (“a buck-boost power supply or other
`alternatives, such as a boost, buck, or flyback converter”), Figs. 1, 2A-D; Ex.
`2001 at 61–62, 64–69; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner agrees that the
`Specification-described structure performing the function is “a buck-boost,
`boost, buck, or flyback power supply.” Id.
`According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s proposed construction is
`inconsistent with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 because a “power supply with at least
`one transistor or switch for receiving a drive signal” is not limited to the
`structures disclosed in the specification and could cover almost any power
`supply, including those not disclosed in the ’890 specification or equivalents
`thereof. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 32–34). According to Patent
`Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the power
`supplies listed in the Specification have specific circuit topologies and
`components. PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 1008, ¶ 17; Ex. 2001 at 61–62, 64–65;
`Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 32–33).
`We agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed
`construction goes beyond what is disclosed in the ’890 Specification because
`power supplies “with at least one transistor or switch for receiving a drive
`signal” would cover distinctly different topologies that the ’890 patent
`neither discloses nor links to the recited functions. Id. (citing Ex. 2001, 64
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`(Fig. 3–8, Cuk converter), 65 (Fig. 3–10, push-pull converter), 66 (Fig. 3–
`11, half-bridge converter), 67 (Fig. 3–12, full-bridge converter), 68 (Fig. 3–
`13, transformer-isolated Cuk converter), 68–69 (Table 3-1, Comparison of
`Converter Topologies); Ex. 2006 ¶ 34).
`Patent Owner notes that in a District Court proceeding Petitioner
`advocated a narrower view of the corresponding structure. PO Resp. 7
`(citing Ex. 2002, 15 (proposing that the corresponding structure for “means
`for supplying . . .” is “[a] buckboost, boost, buck, or flyback power supply;
`with a transistor Q1A, inductor L1A, and diode D4A; or transistor Q1B,
`inductor L1B, and diode D4B”)). According to Patent Owner, [c]laims
`should not be construed one way for purposes of noninfringment and another
`way for purposes of invalidity, as Petitioner urges here. PO Resp. 7 (citing
`Source Search Techs., LLC v. LendingTree, LLC, 588 F.3d 1063, 1075 (Fed.
`Cir. 2009) (“[I]t is axiomatic that claims are construed the same way for
`both invalidity and infringement.” (citation omitted))).
`The parties agree that the disputed claim term is a means plus function
`clause, and we construe it as such. We find that the function associated with
`this term is supplying a regulated current, consistent with the focus of the
`’890 patent. The structures associated with this function are enumerated in
`the Specification as a list of alternative power supplies including “a buck-
`boost power supply or . . . a boost, buck, and flyback converter.” Ex. 1001,
`2:4–6. According to the ’890 Patent, these listed power supplies are
`consistent with the stated goal of regulating current flowing through the
`LEDs, as opposed to regulating voltage across them. Ex. 1001, 1:41–43.
`Petitioner’s proposed construction (“a power supply with at least one
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`transistor or switch for receiving a drive signal”) is unreasonable in that it
`embraces power supplies beyond the function set forth in the means plus
`function clause and beyond the specific list of power supply types
`enumerated in the Specification. We therefore confirm our preliminary
`construction. The means plus function clause embraces the enumerated
`power supplies and a range of equivalents appropriate for means plus
`function clauses.
`Although it is informative that Petitioner advocated a different
`construction in District Court, we do not attribute much weight to this
`evidence. Rather, we rely more heavily on the intrinsic evidence from the
`’890 patent itself. It would be unreasonable to construe a claim term to be
`inconsistent with the Specification’s specifically enumerated structures and
`the language of the claims. We construe the disputed term so as to embrace
`a buck-boost, boost, buck, and flyback power supply and equivalents that
`regulate current.
`
`
`B. Claims 15 and 23
`Claims 15 and 23 do not include the means plus function clause
`discussed above and are broader in scope than are claims 7 and 31 in that
`they are not limited to particular power supplies. In its Response, Patent
`Owner argued only against Petitioner’s challenge to claims 7 and 31. It did
`not present arguments with respect to claims 15 and 23. At Oral Argument,
`Patent Owner confirmed that it does not contest Petitioner’s challenge to
`claims 15 and 23. Tr. 19.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s presentation at Petition pages 22–27,
`which provides a detailed read of claims 15 and 23 on Biebl and establishes
`that Biebl describes all of the limitations of claims 15 and 23. We find that
`the Petition, with the support of the Declaration testimony of Dr. Tingler
`establishes by a preponderance of the evidence of record that claims 15 and
`23 are unpatentable based on Biebl.
`
`
`C. Claims 7 and 31
`Claims 7 and 31 are limited to particular power supplies because of
`the recitation of the means plus function clause. Petitioner relies upon the
`combination of Biebl and ST Micro to meet the limitations of these claims.
`1. Overview of Biebl
`Biebl Figure 8 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`Figure 8 shows a block diagram of an
`LED drive circuit. Ex. 1003, 5:51–52.
`
`
`Biebl describes a drive circuit that controls the operation of a switching
`transistor T that connects a battery node UBatt in series with an LED array.
`The “on” time of the transistor is controlled by the width of pulses applied to
`its base by a comparator. Pulse width is controlled by a feedback signal
`indicative of current flowing through the LEDs, determined by integrating a
`voltage across a shunt resistor RShunt.
`2. Overview of ST Micro
`ST Micro is a datasheet describing a current mode PWM (pulse-width
`modulator) controller. Internally implemented circuits include an under
`voltage lockout featuring start-up current less than 1 mA, a precision
`reference trimmed for accuracy at the error amp input, logic to insure latched
`operation, a PWM comparator which also provides current limit control, and
`a totem pole output stage designed to source or sink high peak current. The
`output stage, suitable for driving N-Channel MOSFETs, is low in the off-
`state. A block diagram of the controller is set forth below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`A block diagram of the ST Micro PWM controller. Ex. 1005, p. 1.
`
`
`
`One of its illustrated uses is shown in Figure 11, reproduced below.
`
`Figure 11 illustrates an application (exemplary use) of a
`UC3844 PWM controller to control a flyback regulator.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`In Figure 11 of ST Micro, the PWM Controller is shown controlling a
`“flyback regulator.”
`
`3. ST Micro a Reference
`Patent Owner argues that ST Micro (Ex. 1005), asserted by Petitioner
`to be “prior art under § 102(b)” and “published and made publicly available
`in October 1998” (Pet. 3, 13), is not properly citable against the ’890 patent.
`PO Resp. 52–57.
`Patent Owner correctly notes that to qualify as a printed publication, a
`document “must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in
`the art” prior to the critical date. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir.
`2009). The determination of whether a reference is a ‘printed publication’
`involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding
`the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. According to Patent
`Owner, Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing that Exhibit 1005
`was “disseminated or otherwise made accessible to persons interested and
`ordinarily skilled in the subject matter.” PO Resp. 52–53.
`Petitioner introduced testimony purporting to show that Exhibit 1005
`is available as prior art. Dr. Tingler asserts that “the ST Micro Datasheet
`was published and made publicly available at least as of the copyright date
`of October 1998,” based on his “many years of experience reading and
`working with datasheets.” Ex. 1006, ¶ 89.
`Patent Owner challenges Dr. Tingler’s ability to provide this
`testimony because at the time of alleged publication, Dr. Tingler was a
`college sophomore. PO Resp. 53. Patent Owner notes that Dr. Tingler
`claims no personal knowledge of Exhibit 1005 and claims no knowledge of
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`datasheet publication practices. PO Resp. 53. We are unpersuaded by this
`argument. Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the law requires
`that Dr. Tingler’s knowledge of data sheets must have existed as of the
`alleged date of publication.
`During trial Petitioner introduced Declaration testimony of two
`former engineeers at ST Microelectronics, Duane Laurent (Ex. 1012) and
`Joel Hanna (Ex. 1013) in order to attest to the status of ST Micro. Pet.
`Reply. 20. Patent Owner challenges these declarations because neither
`declarant claims ever having responsibility for datasheet publication or
`testifies to any personal remembrance of Exhibit 1005. PO Resp. 54 (citing
`Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 2, 3, and 5; Ex. 1013 ¶ 4). Patent Owner points out that Mr.
`Hanna had barely started at ST Microelectronics when Exhibit 1005 was
`allegedly published (PO Resp. 54 cting Ex. 1013 ¶ 4), and that Mr. Laurent’s
`work focused on engineering and product development—his declaration lists
`no responsibility for development or publication of any datasheet (Id. citing
`Ex. 1012 ¶ 2).
`Patent Owner argues that the Tingler Declaration refers to the
`“October 1998” date as a “copyright date.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 88. Although there
`is no copyright notice on the document, we find that “October 1998”
`represents a likely publication date. Dr. Tingler states that “I have
`experience working with products and datasheets from ST Microelectronics
`in particular. Based on my experience, it is my opinion that the ST Micro
`Datasheet was published and made publicaly available at least as of the
`copyright date of October 1998.” Id. at ¶ 89.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`Further, according to Dr. Tingler, the controller referred to in ST
`Micro is referred to in the ’890 Patent as the “PWM Control IC” used in the
`preferred embodiment. Id. at ¶ 89 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:17–27).
`We credit the intrinsic evidence of the ’890 patent, which issued from
`an application filed December 5, 2001. It refers to the UC2842 series
`manufactured by ST Microelectronics. Ex. 1001, 3:17–27. This citation
`supports a finding that ST Micro was disseminated before the filing on the
`application (Dec. 5, 2001) on which the ’890 patent issued. The date set
`forth on the ST Micro document is “October 1998.” Ex. 1005, 1. This date
`is more than three years prior to the application date of the ’890 patent. It
`appears contrary to reason that a commercial producer of integrated circuits
`would create, but not publish data sheets for its products for three years. On
`the contrary, it would want to encourage sales of its products.
`Mr. Laurent testifies that he gained personal knowledge of ST’s
`standard procedures regarding datasheets during the course of his
`employment. He further testifies that it was standard ST procedure for
`datasheets made available to the public, to indicate the date (for example, a
`month and year) when the datasheet was published. Each datasheet was
`made available to the public no later than one or two months after this date.
`Ex. 1012 ¶ 4. Mr. Laurent also identified that the UC numbers appearing on
`ST Micro are commercial designations for this family of ICs and that such
`designations are commonly used by ST and in the broader semiconductor
`industry. Id. at ¶ 6. Mr. Laurent notes that Exhibit 1005 bears the date
`“October 1998” in its lower left corner of its first page. He states that based
`on his employment with ST Microelectronics he developed personal
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`knowledge of ST’s practices regarding datasheets and that the “October
`1998” date indicates that this datasheet became available to the public no
`later than two months after October 1998. Id. at ¶ 7.
`Mr. Hanna testifies that he gained personal knowledge of ST’s
`standard procedures regarding datasheets during the course of his
`employment. He states that it was standard ST procedure for datasheets
`made available to the public, to indicate the date (for example, a month and
`year) when the datasheet was published. Ex. 1013 ¶ 6. Each datasheet was
`made available to the public no later than one or two months after this date.
`Id. Each datasheet accompanied sales of its corresponding product (for
`example, an integrated circuit), in either printed or in electronic format. Id.
`at ¶ 7. He also testifies that the “October 1998” date on the datasheet
`indicates that this datasheet became available to the public no later than two
`months after October 1998. Id. at ¶ 9.
`Given all of these facts and circumstances, we find that ST Micro is a
`typical commercial datasheet of the type design engineers are familiar with.
`Even though Mr. Hanna dnd Mr. Laurent did not have personal or direct
`knowledge of this particular datasheet, we are persuaded that it is authentic
`and likely distributed on or about the date indicated on its front page in
`accordance with the established business practices of ST. The ’890 patent
`application was filed December 5, 2001, about three years after the date
`printed on the cover sheet of ST Micro. It is unlikely that this datasheet
`would not have been widely distributed to design engineers who might have
`use for the described product. We conclude that ST Micro was available to
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`those of ordinary skill at the critical date of the ’890 patent, and is, therefore,
`citable against it.
`
`4. Petitioner’s Contentions
`Petitioner contends that claims 7 and 31 are obvious over Biebl and
`ST Micro. Pet. 31–50.
`Petitioner relies upon Biebl as describing a circuit for supplying
`power to an LED array. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003, Figure 8; Ex. 1006 ¶ 92).
`Petitioner relies upon ST Micro as describing a commercially available
`control circuit that uses pulse width modulation to drive a load. Pet. 31.
`According to Petitioner, both Biebl and the ST Micro Datasheet disclose
`sensing current and comparing sensed current to a reference in order to
`generate a feedback signal that is used to modulate pulse width of a drive
`signal that drives one or more transistors in order to power the load. Pet. 31.
`Petitioner acknowledges that ST Micro does not explicitly disclose
`driving an LED array. Pet. 32. Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill,
`in view of Biebl, would be motivated to implement the UC2842 according to
`the ST Micro Datasheet in order to drive an LED array. According to
`Petitioner, utilizing PWM to drive LEDs was known at the time of
`invention. Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 96).
`5. Patent Owner’s Contentions
`Patent Owner argues that the combination of ST Micro and Biebl does
`not render claims 7 and 31 unpatentable. PO Resp. 8–57.
`According to Patent Owner, there is no motivation to combine ST
`Micro and Biebl to achieve the claimed invention in that they describe
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`different and incompatible PWM control mechanisms. PO Resp. 10 and 17–
`24.
`
`Patent Owner provides an annotated verson of ST Micro Figure 11,
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Patent-Owner annotated ST Micro Figure 11.
`
`
`Patent Owner notes that as shown in ST Micro’s Figure 11, relied
`upon in the Petition, the ST Micro PWM controller is being used to control a
`power supply that has a flyback topology (circuit arrangement), but regulates
`voltage, not current. PO Resp. 12. The primary and secondary sides of a
`transformer are annoted by green and red color, respectively. Output voltage
`is regulated by controlling voltage on the primary side of the power supply
`by controlling current in the primary of the transformer using MOSFET Q1
`using the “error amplifier” configuration of UC3844. PO Resp. 12−13. A
`Patent Owner-annotated version of ST Micro Figure 1, reproduced below,
`shows the error amplifier configuation.
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner notes that Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Tingler,
`acknowledged that this circuitry utilizes voltage feedback. PO Resp. 14. In
`contrast, Biebl uses a DC chopper topology, as depicted in a Patent Owner
`annotated copy of Biebl Figure 8, reproduced below. PO Resp. 14–15.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 Figure 8 as annotated by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 15.
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner notes that Biebl’s DC chopper uses a control circuit to
`turn transistor T on and off, either providing the battery voltage UBatt or no
`voltage, 0 volts, to the LEDs between the LED-Anode and LED CATHODE
`pins. PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2006, ¶¶ 54–55). By turning on and off
`transistor T, the DC chopper provides pulsed current to the LEDs. Id. at
`¶ 55; Ex. 2008 at 13:5–9. According to Patent Owner, Dr. Tingler
`acknowledged that Biebl provides a pulsed current through the LEDs. PO
`Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 at 2:53–56 (“The current flowing via the LEDs is
`pulsed in this way (FIG. 4b). The square-wave pulses have a pulse width
`which corresponds to a fraction of Tp.”).
`
`
`
`
`Biebl Figure 4(b) provides an explanation of the peak
`current and mean value.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 at Fig. 4b (pulsed current iLED); Ex. 2006 ¶ 55.
`In contrast to ST Micro’s application shown in Figure 11, which regulates
`voltage, Biebl, regulates the mean value of current flowing through the
`LEDs. PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 59–60; Ex. 2008 at 13:10–14:4).
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that in addition to having different and
`incompatible power supplies, ST Micro and Biebl use different and
`incompatible PWM control mechanism. PO Resp. 17–23. Thus, according
`to Patent Owner, it is a misleading simplification for Petitioner to argue that
`ST Micro and Biebl 1) both use PWM to control current, and 2) disclose
`sensing current. PO Resp. 17–18 (citing Pet. 31). Patent Owner explains
`that ST Micro uses a “current mode control” (PO Resp. 18), while Biebl uses
`a “direct duty cycle control” (PO Resp. 22). According to Patent Owner, Dr.
`Tingler admitted on cross-examination that the use of “current mode” in the
`context of PWM control is completely different from Petitioner’s misuse
`“current mode” to refer to LEDs. Specifically, when referred to the
`statement that “LEDs are current mode devices,” Mr. Tingler conceded that
`it was “poorly phrased,” and that he actually meant that “LEDs are current
`control devices” and “[t]hat by driving a constant current through them, you
`can achieve a consistent light output.” PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2008,
`39:10–40:15). These very different modes of control would not, according
`to Patent Owner, suggest combining these circuits. Patent Owner argues that
`the Petition ignores these differences and fails to provide the required
`“articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” that a finding of
`obviousness requires. PO Resp. 24–25.
`Motivation to combine aside, Patent Owner argues that the
`combination of ST Micro and Biebl does not disclose each limitation of
`claims 7 and 31. PO Resp. 29–43.
`According to Patent Owner, the combination of ST Micro and Biebl
`fails to disclose the “means for supplying power” (or “power supply”)
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`required by claims 7 and 31. PO Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 76–78).
`Moreover, according to Patent Owner, ST Micro does not disclose “sensing
`current to the LED array” as required by claims 7, 15, and 23 (from which
`claim 31 depends). PO Resp. 29–30.
`Assuming the combination of Biebl and ST Micro, Patent Owner
`argues that Biebl does not disclose the claimed “means for supplying power”
`(buck-boost, boost, buck, or flyback power supply or equivalent power
`supply that regulates current). PO Resp. 30. Patent Owner argues that the
`Biebl chopper does not meet this limitation and Petitioner has not argued
`that the Biebl chopper is equivalent to any of the enumerated power supplies
`in the ’890 Specification. PO Resp. 31. Similarly, Patent Owner argues, ST
`Micro does not disclose any of the Specification-listed “means for supplying
`power” (claim 7) or “power supply” (claim 31). PO Resp. 32.
`According to Patent Owner, Dr. Tingler conceded that one of ordinary
`skill would not use the ST Micro flyback regulator to power an LED because
`it regulates voltage (not current). PO Resp. 33–34 (citing Ex. 2008, 44:9–
`45:13).
`Patent Owner argues that ST Micro does not disclose “sensing current
`to the LED array” as reqauired by the claims at issue. PO Resp. 37–43.
`Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill would not have been
`motivated to achieve the claimed invention based on by using UC2842 to
`drive an LED array as a load. Nor would one of ordinary skill have had a
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so, absent hindsight. PO Resp.
`43–57.
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner fails to demonstrate how one
`of ordinary skill would have combined ST Micro and Biebl. PO Resp. 35.
`6. Analysis
`We are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a motivation for
`one of ordinary skill to apply the ST Micro to pulse width control the power
`supply of Biebl. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that making the
`proffered combination of references meets the limitations of the claims at
`issue.
`
`In response to the incompatibilites between Biebl and ST Micro
`argued by Patent Owner, Petitioner argues in its Reply that Patent Owner
`does not present any evidence that combining the Biebl and ST Micro
`references would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
`ordinary skill in the art” at the time of the invention. Pet. Reply 6.
`Petitioner argues that the combined teachings of the two references would
`have suggested to one of ordinary skill to implement ST Micro to drive the
`Biebl LED load. Pet. Reply 7–10. Petitioner argues that one of ordinary
`skill would have been familiar with both current and voltage regulation and
`would have understood how to implement ST Micro. Petitioner points to a
`patent owned by Patent Owner and that issued prior to the’890 patent that
`discloses a flyback converter that regulates current to drive an LED load.
`Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1018 ¶ 9).
`Additionally, Petitioner points to a patent assigned to
`STMicroelectronics that discloses a regulator with two operating modes, one
`as a voltage regulator and the other as a current regulator, as enabled by
`separate control loops. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1018 ¶ 9, Ex. 1022 at 2:5–
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01292
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`31, 3:19–34). Finally, Petitioner points to yet another patent that discloses a
`flyback converter that regulates both current and voltage. Id. (citing Ex.
`1018 ¶ 9, Ex. 1023, 3:33–38; 3:58–60). Further, Petitioner provides reply
`argument as to why one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`combine ST Micro and