`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 48
`
`
`
` 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 IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On November 25, 2015, we instituted inter partes review of claims 7,
`8, 17, 18, 28, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’399
`patent”). Paper 9 (“Dec.”). Patent Owner, Philips Lighting North America
`Corporation, filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 11, “Req. Reh’g”), and a
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 21, “PO Resp.”) in response to Petition
`(Paper 1, “Pet.”) filed by Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a WAC Lighting
`Co. (“Petitioner”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 27 (“Pet. Reply”).
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude. Paper 36 (“Pet. Mot. Exclude”).
`Patent Owner filed an opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper
`39, “PO Opp. Exclude”) and Petitioner filed a reply (Paper 42, “Pet. Reply
`Exclude”). A transcript of an oral hearing held on September 20, 2016
`(Paper 45, “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
`’399 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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`6,586,890 B2; 6,250,774 B1; 6,561,690 B2; 6,788,011 B2; 7,352, 138 B2;
`6,094,014; and 7,262,559 B2, all of which generally relate to light emitting
`diodes (“LEDs”). Id.
`
`B. The ʼ399 Patent
`The ’399 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. Ex. 1001, at [57]. The claimed
`invention allows LED-based sources to be substituted for other 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 8:30–31.
`
`
`Figure 1 shows an example of A.C. dimmer known in the prior art. Id. at
`8:30–31. Figure 1 “shows . . . voltage waveform 302 (e.g., representing a
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`standard line voltage) that may provide power to one or more conventional
`light sources.” Id. at 2:18–21. 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
`2:23– 35. 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 8:35–36.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 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 12:32–37. 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 12:50–60. Controller 204 includes rectifier 404, low pass
`filter 408, and DC converter 402. Id. at 12:61–64.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Claims 7, 8, 17, and 28 are illustrative and reproduced below (Ex.
`1001, 25:41–67, 26:28–59, 27:52–56).
`7. 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,
`wherein the A.C. power source is an A.C. dimmer
`circuit,
`wherein the A.C. dimmer 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, and
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`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.
`
`The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the at least one
`8.
`parameter of the light that is variably controlled by the at
`least one controller in response to operation of the user
`interface includes at least one of an intensity of the light, a
`color of the light, a color temperature of the light, and a
`temporal characteristic of the light.
`
`17. 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,
`wherein the A.C. power source is an A.C. dimmer
`circuit,
`wherein the A.C. dimmer 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, and
`wherein the at least one controller includes:
`an adjustment circuit to variably control the at least
`one parameter of light based on the varying power-related
`signal; and
`power circuitry to provide at least the power to the
`at least one LED based on the varying power-related
`signal.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`
`28. The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the adjustment
`circuit includes drive circuitry including at least one
`voltage-to-current converter to provide at least one drive
`current to the at least one LED so as to control the at least
`one parameter of the generated light.
`
`
`
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability Instituted
`We instituted inter partes review on the following grounds of
`unpatentability (Dec. 20–21):
`
`
`Reference[s]
`Hochstein1
`Bogdan2 and Hochstein
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Hochstein and Faulk3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`7, 8, 17, 28, and 34
`7, 8, 17, 28, and 34
`7, 8, 17, 18,
`28, 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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (stating that
`
`
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
`PTO regulation”). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard,
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). 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).
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner have proposed constructions for various
`terms. See Pet. 3–5; Prelim. Resp. 4–15. We need not construe every term
`proposed by the parties if such constructions are not helpful in our
`determination of whether to institute trial.
`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 7, 17, and 34. 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.10–11.
`Patent Owner argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation
`requires that there be a plurality of “signals” as the term is plural, requiring
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`“two or more signals.” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner further argues that
`“standard A.C.” means a sinusoidal signal with a standard frequency and
`amplitude. Id. at 8–10 (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. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 2:17–29, 13:13–20 (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 ’399 patent. PO Resp. 9 (citing Pet. 6; Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 2:18–21).
`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, 2:21–29; 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 2–3. 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 the scope of the claim phrase. Id.
`Furthermore, claim 1, Petitioner avers, only refers to a single “power-related
`signal” and not a plurality of signals. Id. at 3–4. 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”
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`is characterized in the claim as belonging to a group, namely “signals other
`than a standard A.C. line voltage.” Id. at 4.
`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.
`Independent claims 7 and 17 are directed to the power-related signal,
`singular, provided to the controller. 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, 2:18–21
`(“FIG. 1 shows an example of an A.C. voltage waveform 302 (e.g.,
`representing a standard line voltage)”). We also agree that the ’399
`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, 1:50–53; Ex. 2004 ¶ 26. Based on the full record, we agree that the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “standard A.C.” encompasses A.C.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`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. 10–
`11), 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 7 and
`17. 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, 2:50–56; Ex. 2004 ¶ 38. Although the purpose of the invention is
`not controlling, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`of “standard A.C. line voltage” in light of the ’399 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. 10–11), 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 claims 7, 17, and 34, which place 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; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–31. 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 ’399
`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 1:53–59 (“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
`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
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`power)”), 10:45–46 (“A.C. signal provided by a dimmer circuit”), 11:32–33
`(“configured to monitor the A.C. signal provided by the dimmer circuit”),
`12:27–30 (“circuitry configured to appropriately condition A.C. signals
`provided by a dimmer circuit”), 12:57–60 (“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”),
`12:67 (dimmer “provides the A.C. signal 500”), 13:11–12 (“the dimmer
`circuit outputs an A.C. signal”), 14:5–6 (“a dimmer that controls the A.C.
`signal provided by the dimmer circuit”), 17:2–3 (“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. Pet. Reply 4–5.
`Petitioner contends that the specification broadly states that A.C. dimmer
`circuits are “configured to control power delivered to one or more light
`sources.” Pet. Reply 5 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:64–2:16). 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. Reply 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).
`On the issue of whether the claims require A.C. output from the
`“A.C.” dimmer circuit, we find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive.
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`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 4–5. 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 ’399 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, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`2. “duty cycle” and “varies a duty cycle”
`Claims 7 and 34 recite the term “duty cycle.” Claim 7 recites that
`“the operation of the user interface varies a duty cycle of the power-related
`signal,” and that “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.” Ex. 1001 at 25:56–60. Claim 34 recites
`“the operation of the user interface varies a duty cycle of the power-related
`signal” and “variably controlling the at least one parameter of the light based
`at least on the variable duty cycle of the power-related signal.” Id. at 28:47–
`49. We determined that “duty cycle” is construed as “the ratio of pulse
`duration to pulse period.” Dec. 8–10.
`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 “’399 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, “modulates a phase angle.” PO Resp. 16 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 2: 8–10 (“adjust the duty cycle (i.e., modulate the phase angle)”),
`9:39–41 (“dimmer circuit that provides a duty cycle-controlled (i.e., angle
`modulated) A.C. signal”), 12:58–60 (“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
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`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 ’399 patent
`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 ’399 patent
`specification also describes 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 ’399 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.”
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`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. 8–9. Although the
`Patent Owner indicates that the term “illumination method” requires
`construction (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
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`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
`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 ’399
`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.
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`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.
`
`
`
`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 5:66–6:1.
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner contends that Hochstein discloses the limitations of claims
`7, 8, 17, 28, and 34. Pet. 16–31. Petitioner provides analysis and citations
`to the Declaration of Mr. Robert Tingler (Ex. 1006) to support its
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399 B2
`contentions that the rectifier circuit of Hochstein discloses the challenged
`claim limitations. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 42–85).
`Patent Owner contends that Hochstein fails to disclose “a power-
`related signal from an alternating current (A.C.) power source that provides
`signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage,” as recited in independent
`claims 7, 17, and 34. Ex. 1001 at 25:44–46, 26:41–43, 28:31–34. Based on
`the construction for “signals” discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner.
`Hochstein discloses a single “half wave signal.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1003, 10:46–
`48; see Ex. 2004 ¶ 54.
`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. Petitioner has not
`provided sufficient evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that Hochstein discloses multiple signals. Indeed, Petitioner
`acknowledges that Hochstein discloses a half-wave signal that is indicative
`of a dimming command. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner has
`not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Hochstein discloses 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