throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

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