Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 46
`
`
`
` 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.
`
`PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`37 C.F.R. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 46
`
`
`
` 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.
`
`PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`37 C.F.R. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On November 25, 2015, we instituted inter partes review of claims 1,
`2, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 31, 33, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 7,352,138 B2 (Ex.
`1001, “the ’138 patent”). Paper 8 (“Dec.”). Patent Owner, Philips Lighting
`North America Corporation, filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 10, “Req.
`Reh’g”), and a Patent Owner Response (Paper 20, “PO Resp.”) in response
`to Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) filed by Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a
`WAC Lighting Co. ( “Petitioner”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 26 (“Pet.
`Reply”). Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude. Paper 34 (“Pet. Mot.
`Exclude”). Patent Owner filed an opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to
`Exclude (Paper 37, “PO Opp. Exclude”) and Petitioner filed a reply (Paper
`40, “Pet. Reply Exclude”). A transcript of an oral hearing held on
`September 20, 2016 (Paper 44, “Tr.”) has been entered into the record.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §318(a). We base our decision on
`the preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`Having reviewed the full record, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims
`are unpatentable for the reasons set forth below.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner reports the following pending litigation matter related to the
`’138 Patent: Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Wangs Alliance Corporation,
`Case No. 14-cv-12298-DJC (D. Mass.). Pet. 1.
`Petitioner notes 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;
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`6,586,890 B2; 6,250,774 B1; 6,561,690 B2; 6,788,011 B2; 7,038,399 B2;
`6,094,014; and 7,262,559 B2, all of which generally relate to light emitting
`diodes (“LEDs”). Id.
`
`B. The ʼ138 Patent
`The ’138 patent discloses a method and apparatus for providing power
`to LED-based light sources, not normally dimmable, from power circuits
`that provide other than standard line voltage, such as a dimmer circuit
`intended to dim an incandescent light. Power sources, such as dimmers for
`conventional lighting, provide other than standard line voltages. Ex. 1001,
`at [57]. The claimed invention allows LED-based sources to be substituted
`for conventional light sources, such as incandescent lights, in environments
`using A.C. dimming devices or controls. Id.
`Figure 1, below, shows an example operation of conventional A.C.
`dimming devices. Id. at 8:38–39.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`Figure 1 shows an example of A.C. dimmer known in the prior art. Id. at
`8:38–39. Figure 1 “shows . . . voltage waveform 302 (e.g., representing a
`standard line voltage) that may provide power to one or more conventional
`light sources.” Figure 1 also shows A.C. dimmer 304 responsive to user
`interface 305 alters the A.C. signals, such that dimmer 304 is configured to
`output waveform 308, in which the amplitude 307 of the dimmer output
`signal may be adjusted via the user interface 305.” Id. at 2:26– 37. The
`Specification also states that “dimmer 304 is configured to output the
`waveform 309, in which the duty cycle 306 of the waveform 309 may be
`adjusted via the user interface 305.” Id. Thus, the output of a dimmer may
`be power related while not being exactly the same as standard AC line
`voltage.
`Figure 3, below, shows one embodiment of the invention using an
`LED-based light source. Id. at 8:48–50
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates an LED-based lighting unit 200 “depicted generally to
`resemble a conventional incandescent light bulb having a screw-type base
`connector 202 to engage mechanically and electrically with a conventional
`light socket.” Id. at 12:35–40. Lighting unit 200 includes LED-based light
`source 104 and controller 204 configured to receive A.C. signal 500 via
`connector 202 and provide operating power to LED-based light source 104.
`Controller 204 includes components to ensure proper operation of the
`lighting unit for A.C. signals 500 that are provided by a dimmer circuit, such
`as those that output duty cycle-controlled (i.e., angle modulated) A.C.
`signals. Id. at 12:53–64. Controller 204 includes rectifier 404, low pass
`filter 408, and DC converter 402. Id. at 12:64–67.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 33 are illustrative and reproduced below (Ex.
`1001, 24:62–28:26):
`1. An illumination apparatus, comprising:
`at least one LED; and
`at least one controller coupled to the at least one
`LED and configured to receive a power-related signal
`from an alternating current (A.C.) power source that
`provides signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage,
`the at least one controller further configured to provide
`power to the at least one LED based on the power-related
`signal.
`
`The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the A.C. power
`2.
`source is an (A.C.) dimmer circuit.
`
`The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the A.C. dimmer
`9.
`circuit is controlled by a user interface to vary the power-
`related signal, and wherein the at least one controller is
`configured to variably control at least one parameter of
`light generated by the at least one LED in response to
`operation of the user interface.
`
`10. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the operation of
`the user interface varies a duty cycle of the power-related
`signal, and wherein the at least one controller is configured
`to variably control the at least one parameter of the light
`based at least on the variable duty cycle of the power-
`related signal.
`
`33. An illumination method, comprising an act of:
`A) providing power to at least one LED based on a
`power-related signal from an alternating current (A.C.)
`power source that provides signals other than a standard
`A.C. line voltage.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability Instituted
`We instituted inter partes review on following grounds of
`unpatentability (Dec. 19–20):
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Hochstein1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Bogdan2 and Hochstein
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Hochstein and Faulk3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 20,
`31, 33, and 34
`1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 20,
`31, 33, and 34
`1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 20,
`21, 31, 33, and 34
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. See 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
`
`
`
` 1
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,661,645 to Hochstein issued Aug. 26, 19097 (Ex. 1003,
`“Hochstein”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,225,759 B1to Bogdan, et al., issued May 1, 2001 (Ex.
`1004, “Chang”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,818,705 to Faulk, issued Oct. 6, 1998 (Ex. 1005,
`“Faulk”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`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)). Any special definition for
`a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`1. “alternating current (A.C.) power source that provides
`signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage”
`and “A.C. dimmer circuit”
`The claim phrase “alternating current (A.C.) power source that
`provides signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage” appears in
`independent claims 1 and 33. We determined that the claim phrase
`“alternating current (A.C.) power source that provides signals other than a
`standard A.C. line voltage” did not require further construction and that
`“other than a standard A.C. line voltage” under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation excludes only standard A.C. line voltages, and is not limited to
`A.C. signals. Dec. 9–10.
`Patent Owner argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation
`requires that there be a plurality of “signals” as the term is plural, requiring
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`“two or more signals.” PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner further argues that
`“standard A.C.” means a sinusoidal signal with a standard frequency and
`amplitude. Id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 26). Patent Owner argues that the plain and
`ordinary meaning of signals is two or more and that the specification
`discloses varying signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 2:24–37, 13:16–23 (describing types of A.C. dimming
`signals); Ex. 2004 ¶ 27). Patent Owner also contends that Petitioner
`conceded that standard A.C. line voltage is a non-varying sine wave by
`reference to the example waveform 302 in Figure 1 of the ’138 patent. PO
`Resp. 9 (citing Pet. 6; Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 2:26–29). Referring the examples in
`the specification, Patent Owner contends that the two examples provided are
`both standard sinusoidal waves with standard amplitudes. Id. (citing Ex.
`1001, 2:29–37; Fig. 1).
`Petitioner did not argue for an express construction of this phrase in
`the Petition, but in reply argues that Patent Owner’s construction is
`inconsistent with the Specification and the use of the term “signals” from the
`context of the claims. Pet. Reply 3. Petitioner asserts that the plain
`language of the claims, in combination with the Board’s clarification that
`this term is not limited to A.C. signals and only excludes “standard A.C. line
`voltage,” is sufficient to understand their scope. Id. Furthermore, claim 1,
`Petitioner avers, only refers to a single “power-related signal” and not a
`plurality of signals. Id. at 4. The claim phrase “signals other than a standard
`A.C. line voltage” defines the source of signals the claimed circuit is
`configured to receive as the “power-related signal.” Id. (citing Ex. 1019
`¶¶ 3–4). Thus, Petitioner argues the “power-related signal” is characterized
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`in the claim as belonging to a group, namely “signals other than a standard
`A.C. line voltage.” Id.
`Upon review of the record, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`contentions related to plural “signals other than a standard A.C. line
`voltage.” To find otherwise, fails to give the term due patentable weight.
`The apparatus of claim 1 and method of claim 33 are directed to the power-
`related signal, singular, provided to the controller of claim 1 and the LED of
`claim 33. This power-related signal is from the “(A.C.) power source that
`provides signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage. Petitioner’s
`interpretation would broaden the claims to cover an A.C. power source that
`is only capable of producing a single non-standard A.C. signal. Although
`the plain reading of the claims invokes the negative limitation to define a
`class of signals from which power is drawn, the plain reading also indicates
`that there must be at least two such signals from which the power-related
`signal is drawn. Under Petitioner’s interpretation, however, the claims
`would encompass A.C. power sources that provide a single non-standard
`A.C. signal, contrary to the plain language of the claim. Accordingly, we
`determine that the claims require the A.C. power source to provide two or
`more signals.
`We agree that Petitioner has stated that signal 302 represents a
`standard A.C. line voltage. PO Resp. 9; Pet. 6; Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 2:26–29
`(“FIG. 1 shows an example of an A.C. voltage waveform 302 (e.g.,
`representing a standard line voltage)”). We also agree that the ’138
`specification gives two examples of a standard A.C. in the United States and
`elsewhere, “120 Volts RMS at 60 Hz” and “220 Volts RMS at 50 Hz”. Ex.
`1001, 1:58–61; Ex. 2004 ¶ 26. Based on the full record, we agree that the
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “standard A.C.” encompasses A.C.
`waves at a standard frequency and amplitude but is not limited to sinusoidal
`waves. Patent Owner cites the figures and description in the specification
`but fails to provide sufficient evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would limit standard A.C. line voltage solely to the sinusoidal examples
`in the specification under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
`We do agree, in part, with Patent Owner’s argument. We find that the
`plain meaning of the claim phrase “signals other than a standard A.C. line
`voltage” recited in claim 1 requires a non-standard A.C. signal. Although
`our prior Decision stated that the signal was not limited to A.C. (Dec. 9–10),
`we clarify on the full record that the signal provided excludes “standard A.C.
`line voltage,” but instead encompasses all manner of “non-standard A.C.
`line voltage.” Thus, the claim’s recitation excluding a “standard A.C. line
`voltage” does not eliminate the requirement that the power source provide an
`A.C. signal.
`Our finding is consistent with the specification which provides
`examples of “standard A.C. line voltage” signals excluded by claims 1 and
`33. Ex. 1001, 1:58–61. It also is supported by the purpose of the invention
`which states that:
`The present invention is directed generally to methods and
`apparatus for providing power to devices on A.C. power circuits.
`More particularly, methods and apparatus according to various
`embodiments of the present invention facilitate the use of LED-
`based light sources on A.C. power circuits that provide either a
`standard line voltage or signals other than standard line voltages.
`Ex. 1001, 2:58–64; Ex. 2004 ¶ 38. Although the purpose of the invention is
`not controlling, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`understand that “signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage” in the
`recited claims refers to “non-standard A.C. voltage” signals to the exclusion
`of “standard A.C. line voltage” in light of the ’138 specification. The point
`of the invention is to provide a way for an LED-based light to respond to the
`non-standard AC voltages that come from a dimmer circuit intended for
`standard lighting, which deforms in some manner the standard AC voltage.
`Although our Decision on Institution stated that the claim phrase
`“alternating current (A.C.) power source that provides signals other than a
`standard A.C. line voltage” did not require further construction and is not
`limited to A.C. signals (Dec. 9–10), based on the fully developed record we
`determine that an “alternating current (A.C.) power source that provides
`signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage” requires a “non-standard
`A.C. signal.”
`Our determination that the A.C. power source provide a non-standard
`A.C. signal is reinforced by the dependent claims 2, 9, and 34, which places
`an additional limitation on the power source, specifically that the source be
`an “(A.C.) dimmer circuit.” Petitioner did not offer a construction of this
`term in the Petition. Patent Owner contends that “(A.C.) dimmer circuit” be
`construed to mean “a circuit that provides an alternating current (A.C.)
`dimming signal.” PO Resp. 10. Patent Owner argues that the plain and
`ordinary meaning of “A.C. dimmer circuit” requires that the source output
`an A.C. signal. Id. at 11–12. Patent Owner also argues that the ’138
`specification consistently refers to the A.C. dimming signal from the dimmer
`circuit as an A.C. signal. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1001 at 1:61–67 (“A
`conventional A.C. dimmer typically receives the A.C. line voltage as an
`input, and provides an A.C. signal output having one or more variable
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`parameters that have the effect of adjusting the average voltage of the output
`signal (and hence the capability of the A.C. output signal to deliver
`power)”), 10:51–52 (“A.C. signal provided by a dimmer circuit”), 11:35–37
`(“configured to monitor the A.C. signal provided by the dimmer circuit”),
`12:30–32 (“circuitry configured to appropriately condition A.C. signals
`provided by a dimmer circuit”), 12:59–63 (“A.C. signals 500 that are
`provided by a dimmer circuit and, more specifically, by a dimmer circuit
`that outputs duty cycle controlled (i.e., angle modulated) A.C. signals”),
`13:2–3 (dimmer “provides the A.C. signal 500”), 13:14–15 (“the dimmer
`circuit outputs an A.C. signal”), 14:8–9 (“a dimmer that controls the A.C.
`signal provided by the dimmer circuit”), 17:4–5 (“an A.C. signal provided
`by a dimmer circuit”)).
`With respect to the A.C. dimmer circuit, Petitioner responds that
`Patent Owner improperly limits the claims to examples in the specification,
`which are merely exemplary, and do not define the term. Petitioner
`contends that the specification broadly states that A.C. dimmer circuits are
`“configured to control power delivered to one or more light sources.” Ex.
`1001, 2:5–24. Petitioner argues that Patent Owner reads the term “A.C.
`signals” into the claim phrase “signals other than a standard A.C. line
`voltage” and improperly reads limitations from the specification. Petitioner
`further argues that “[u]nder the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`claim term, an A.C. input is enough to make a dimmer circuit an ‘A.C.
`dimmer circuit.’” Pet. 10. Accordingly, Petitioner argues that the proper
`construction of “A.C. dimmer circuit” is a “circuit for dimming a light
`source that receives an A.C. signal and controls power delivered to the light
`source.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶ 6).
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`On the issue of whether the claims require A.C. output from the
`“A.C.” dimmer circuit, we find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive.
`Reading the claims in light of the specification, an ordinarily skilled artisan
`would understand “A.C. dimmer circuit” to mean “a circuit that provides an
`A.C. dimming signal.” Based on the specification and intrinsic evidence,
`Petitioner has not shown that the A.C. dimmer circuit construction broadly
`means only receipt of an A.C. signal and the provision of power to a light
`source. Pet. Reply 5. Although Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Zane, admits
`that “A.C. dimmer circuit” is not a term of art (Ex. 1017, 99:24–100:11), we
`do not agree that A.C. dimmer circuit would be understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art to only describe the type of signal received by the
`circuitry. We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Tingler,
`who testified that an “A.C. dimmer circuit” is a dimmer circuit that is
`supplied with an A.C. signal. Ex. 1019, ¶¶ 5–6. The testimony does not
`show that a skilled artisan would understand the recited dimmer circuit,
`given the ’138 specification that addresses A.C. sources and signals, need
`only receive an A.C. input and supply any power to a light source. Such a
`construction is overly broad and would be removed from the context of the
`specification. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`In sum, although we declined to construe A.C. dimmer circuit in our
`Decision on Institution (Dec. 10), on the full record, we determine that the
`term “A.C. dimmer circuit” means “a circuit that provides an alternating
`current (A.C.) dimming signal.” Similarly, we clarify our claim construction
`and determine that the “alternating current (A.C.) power source that provides
`signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage” requires an A.C. signal,
`where the signal is not a standard A.C. line voltage.
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`2. “duty cycle” and “varies a duty cycle”
`Claim 10 recites the term “duty cycle” in the limitation stating that
`“the operation of the user interface varies a duty cycle of the power-related
`signal.” Claim 10 depends from claims 2 and 9, which recite “an (A.C.)
`dimmer circuit” and that “the A.C. dimmer circuit is controlled by a user
`interface to vary the power-related signal.” Ex. 1001, 25:4–5, 25:40–51. We
`determined previously that “duty cycle” is construed as “the ratio of pulse
`duration to pulse period.” Dec. 7–8.
`Patent Owner argues that the Board properly construed the term “duty
`cycle,” but asserts that the term was misapplied with respect to the cited
`prior art. PO Resp. 16. Patent Owner also contends that the “’138 patent
`explains that the claimed ‘variable duty cycle’ means varying the ratio of
`pulse duration to pulse period, where ‘pulse’ is properly understood as a
`half-cycle of a sinusoidal waveform.” PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 35).
`Patent Owner contends that the proper interpretation of varying or adjusting
`the duty cycle is, therefore, “modulating the phase angle.” PO Resp. 17
`(citing Ex. 1001, 2: 2:17–18 (“adjust the duty cycle (i.e., modulate the phase
`angle)”), 9:45–47 (“dimmer circuit that provides a duty cycle-controlled
`(i.e., angle modulated) A.C. signal”), 12:61–63 (“dimmer circuit that outputs
`duty cycle-controlled (i.e., angle modulated)). Patent Owner also contends
`that the use of the “i.e.” to introduce angle modulation with respect to “duty
`cycle” indicates repeated and consistent usage of the term that defines
`varying or adjusting the duty cycle. Id. at 17 (citing In re Abbott, 696 F.3d
`at 1150; SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 1201 (Fed. Cir.
`2013)). Patent Owner also argues that duty cycle controlled A.C. signal by
`angle modulation comports with the primary purpose of the ’138 patent
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`invention which is to substitute LED-based sources for incandescent sources
`controlled by the commonly used A.C. dimming circuits. PO Resp. 17–18.
`Furthermore, each of the A.C. dimmer circuits described by the ’138 patent
`specification also describe a varied duty cycle by modulating the phase
`angle. Id. at 18.
`On the other hand, Petitioner argues, and we agree, that Patent
`Owner’s argument narrows the pulse” from a particular signal, “a half-cycle
`of a sinusoidal waveform,” and is not commensurate with the scope of the
`claims. Pet. Reply 6. We also agree that the claims themselves are not
`restricted to a type of periodic signal. Patent Owner’s contention also
`attempts to limit the broadly recited “varying a duty cycle” to the “only two
`types of A.C. dimmer circuits that the “’138 patent describes as varying the
`duty cycle, both of which modulate a phase angle.” PO Resp. 18. We are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence that there are many types of periodic
`signals that can have variable duty cycles. Pet. Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1019
`¶ 7–9). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that
`“pulse” as used in the construction of “duty cycle” is limited to a half-cycle
`of a sinusoidal waveform. We also determine that “varies the duty cycle”
`does not require additional construction, as the plain meaning of the term
`applies given the construction of “duty cycle” as “the ratio of pulse duration
`to pulse period.”
`3. “illumination apparatus” and “illumination method”
`Our Decision determined that the preamble terms “illumination
`apparatus” and “illumination method” as recited in claims 1 and 33 are not
`limiting on the apparatus and method claimed. Dec. 8. Although the Patent
`Owner indicates that the term “illumination method” requires construction
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`(PO Resp. 6–7), Patent Owner provides no argument or proposed
`construction for the claim term. Thus, the parties do not dispute this
`construction. Accordingly, for the reasons provided in the Decision on
`Institution the terms require no further construction.
`
`B. Level of Skill in the Art
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention, we note that various factors may be considered, including “type of
`problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems;
`rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology;
`and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57
`F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v.
`Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
`Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Neal Tingler, testified that:
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least (i) a
`bachelor degree in electrical engineering and/or physics with at
`least 3 years of industrial experience designing power supply
`circuitry, or (ii) the equivalent relevant industrial experience,
`including circuit design experience, for a person lacking a formal
`degree, which would be about 3-5 years in the industry, or (iii) a
`person of
`substantially higher graduate education
`in
`optoelectronics, such as a Masters or a Doctoral degree. In
`addition, a POSITA would understand legacy lighting circuits
`and circuit requirements such as for incandescent lighting control
`and the corresponding lighting circuitry and requirements for
`powering LED arrays for the application areas generally covered
`by the patents at issue. Finally, a POSITA would be familiar
`with switch mode power supply concepts and their common
`embodiments at the time.
`Ex. 1006 ¶ 10. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Reagan Zane, testifies “that
`the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art defined by Mr. Tingler is
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`lower than the level required to be aware of all pertinent art and think along
`conventional wisdom in the art.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 20. Despite these differences,
`both parties indicate that the level of ordinary skill in the art would not affect
`the proffered testimony. Id.; Pet. Reply 16 n.3. Upon review of the ’138
`patent and cited prior art, we credit Mr. Tingler’s testimony regarding the
`ordinary level of skill in the art.
`
`C. Anticipation by Hochstein (Ex. 1003)
`1. Overview of Hochstein (Ex. 1003)
`Hochstein relates to a power supply for operating light emitting diode
`(“LED”) array traffic signals. Ex. 1003, 1:5–8. Hochstein describes using
`an LED traffic light with a traffic signal controller that provides a “half wave
`rectified a.c. line power” to dim the traffic light at night to reduce glare. Id.
`at 10:38–61. Hochstein also discloses “an apparatus for supplying regulated
`voltage d.c. electrical power to an LED array. The apparatus includes a
`rectifier having an input and an output, the rectifier being responsive to a.c.
`power at the input for generating rectified d.c. power at the output.” Id. at
`3:18–23.
`The Hochstein apparatus provides a boost, buck/boost or buck,
`switch-mode converter to a power-line operated LED array. Id. at 3:34–36.
`It includes an adaptive clamp circuit upstream of a rectifier input for
`preventing leakage current problems. Id. at 3:41–43. One embodiment of
`the Hochstein apparatus is depicted in Figure 5, reproduced below.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 5 depicts regulated voltage, switch-mode power supply 10 with a pair
`of input lines 22 and an optional adaptive clamp circuit 24. Id. at 5:11–15.
`The output of adaptive clamp circuit 24 is connected to an input of an
`electromagnetic interference (“E.M.I.”) filter 28, which prevents conducted
`interference from feeding back into the power lines. Id. at 5:31–35. Lines
`34 and 36 connect to an input of a power factor correction, buck/boost
`converter 38, which includes a power factor correction (“P.F.C.”) integrated
`circuit controller 40. Id. at 41–45. The output voltage of PFC switch-mode
`converter 38 is fed directly to LED array 12, or alternatively through pulse
`width modulated (“P.W.M.”) modulator 46. Id. at 5:66–6.
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner contends that Hochstein discloses the limitations of claims
`1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 20, 31, 33, and 34. Pet. 16–31. Petitioner provides analysis
`and citations to the Declaration of Mr. Tingler (Ex. 1006) to support its
`contentions that the rectifier circuit of Hochstein discloses the challenged
`claim limitations. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 46–81).
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`With respect to independent claims 1 and 33, Patent Owner argues
`that Hochstein does not disclose multiple signals other than a standard A.C.
`line voltage. PO Resp. 21–22. Based on our construction above regarding
`such signals, we agree with Patent Owner. Hochstein discloses a “half wave
`signal.” Pet. 25; Ex. 1003, 10:46–48; see Ex. 2004 ¶ 58.
`Petitioner replies that two identical waveforms other than a standard
`waveform produced at different times (temporal separation) are “signals
`other than a standard A.C. line voltage.” Pet. Reply 7–8. Petitioner has not
`provided sufficient evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that Hochstein discloses multiple signals. Indeed, Petitioner
`states that “Hochstein discloses a half-wave rectified signal connected to the
`controller.” Pet. 7. Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the
`evidence that Hochstein disclose that the same signal that does not vary and
`is sent at different times constitutes two or more signals.
`Petitioner also contends that “[i]n the alternative, the half-wave
`rectified signal of Hochstein may be of either polarity, and thus constitutes
`two separate waveforms or signals.” Pet. Reply. 8 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 10–
`14). Petitioner relies on “de facto” dimming techniques known at the time to
`adjust the voltage applied to the light source to reduce the intensity of the
`light generated. Id. Thus, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`the alleged inventions of the ’138 patent were made . . . would have
`understood that the ‘half-wave rectified’ signal in Hochstein could be either
`positive or negative pulses of a standard A.C. line voltage.” Ex. 1019,
`¶¶ 13–14. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence that Hochstein
`anticipates the limitation that the A.C. power source provide more than one
`signal. Petitioner’s reliance on “de facto” standards does not demonstrate by
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01293
`Patent 7,352,138 B2
`a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand the Hochstein half wave rectified signal is more than one
`signal for dimming purposes under the “de facto” dimming standard.
`Accordingly, we find that Hochstein does not disclose that an A.C.
`power source provides “signals” (more than one) other than a standard A.C.
`line voltage. Thus, Hochstein does not anticipate independent claims 1 and
`33.
`
`Dependent claim 2 depends from independent claim 1. Claim 2, from
`which claims 9–11, 20, and 31 depend, recites “the A.C. p
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
