Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
`
` Entered: 2 February 2017
`
`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 IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and GARTH D.
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
`
` Entered: 2 February 2017
`
`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 IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and GARTH D.
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. (“Petitioner”)
`filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims
`1, 3–6, 11, 17–19, 26–33, 38, and 43–45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,358,679 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’679 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. Patent
`Owner, Philips Lighting North America Corporation, filed a Preliminary
`Response to the Petition. (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary
`Response, and associated evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`unpatentability of claims 1, 3–6, 11, 17–19, 26–33, 38, and 43–45.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner reports the following pending litigation matter related to
`this case: Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Wangs Alliance Corporation,
`Case No. 14-cv-12298-DJC (D. Mass.). Pet. 1. IPR2015-01293 and
`IPR2015-01294 (previously decided), and IPR2016-01455 (filed
`concurrently) are also related to this case. Id.
`
`B. The ʼ679 Patent
`The ’679 patent discloses a method and apparatus “for providing
`controllable power via an A.C. power source to LED-based lighting devices
`having an MR16 configuration.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. The methods and
`apparatus of the ’679 patent’s invention “facilitate the use of LED-based
`light sources on A.C. power circuits that provide either a standard line
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`voltage or signals other than standard line voltages.” Id. at 2:54–57. The
`’679 patent discloses that
`methods and apparatus of the invention particularly facilitate the
`use of LED-based light sources on A.C. power circuits that are
`controlled by conventional dimmers (i.e, “A.C. dimmer
`circuits”). In one aspect, methods and apparatus of the present
`invention facilitate convenient substitution of LED-based light
`sources in lighting environments employing A.C. dimming
`devices and conventional light sources. In yet other aspects,
`methods and apparatus according to the present invention
`facilitate the control of one or more parameters relating to the
`light generated by LED-based light sources (e.g., intensity, color,
`color temperature, temporal characteristics, etc.) via operation of
`a conventional A.C. dimmer and/or other signals present on the
`A.C. power circuit.
`Id. at 2:59–3:4.
`Figure 1, below, shows an example operation of conventional A.C.
`dimming devices. Id. at 9:36–37.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`Figure 1 “shows . . . voltage waveform 302 (e.g., representing a standard line
`voltage) that may provide power to one or more conventional light sources”
`and “a generalized A.C. dimmer 304 responsive to user interface 305.” Id.
`at 2:22–24. “[D]immer 304 is configured to output the waveform 308, in
`which the amplitude 307 of the dimmer output signal may be adjusted via
`the user interface 305.” Id. at 2:24–27. Dimmer 304 may also be
`“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. at 2:27–30.
`Figure 5, below, shows one embodiment of the invention using an
`LED-based light source. Id. at 9:46–48.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`Figure 5 illustrates an LED-based lighting unit 200A that is suitable for
`operation by a dimmer circuit. Id. at 15:35–38. Figure 5 shows adjustable
`light output that may be controlled via a dimmer, with controller 204A. Id.
`Figure 5 “includes an additional adjustment circuit 208 that further
`conditions a signal output from the DC converter 402. The adjustment
`circuit 208 in turn provides a variable drive signal to the LED-based light
`source 104, based on variations in the A.C. signal 500 (e.g., variations in the
`average voltage of the signal) in response to user operation of the dimmer.”
`Id. at 15:41–48.
`The ’679 patent also illustrates an LED-based lighting unit that
`resembles “a conventional MR16 bulb having a bi-pin base connector 202A
`configured to engage mechanically and electrically with a conventional
`MR16 socket.” Id. at 16:13–18. Figure 6A, below, shows an LED-based
`lighting unit. Id. at 9:53–54.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`The “MR16 socket is connected to a source of A.C. power such that the A.C.
`signal 500A received by the unit 200B is a phase-angle modulated signal on
`the order of approximately 12 Volts A.C. (e.g., which may be derived, in
`turn, from a line voltage controlled via a switch and/or dimmer).” Id. at
`16:20–24.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Independent claims 1 and 11 are illustrative of the challenged claims
`and reproduced below (Ex. 1001, 28:25–37, 29:31–45):
`1. An apparatus, comprising:
`at least one LED;
`a housing in which the at least one LED is disposed,
`the housing including at least one connection to engage
`mechanically and electrically with a conventional MR16
`socket; and
`at least one controller coupled to the housing and
`the at least one LED and configured to receive first power
`from an alternating current (A.C.) dimmer circuit, the A.C.
`dimmer circuit being controlled by a user interface to vary
`the first power, at least one controller further configured
`to provide second power to the at least one LED based on
`the first power.
`
`11. An apparatus, comprising:
`at least one LED;
`a housing in which the at least one LED is disposed,
`the housing including at least one connection to engage
`mechanically and electrically with a conventional MR16
`socket; and
`at least one controller coupled to the housing and
`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
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`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.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth proposed grounds
`of unpatentability for the challenged claims of the ’679 patent as follows
`(Pet. 3–4):
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Hochstein1 and Lys2
`Hochstein, Lys, and
`McMorrow3
`Hochstein, Lys, and TNY
`Datasheet4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 11, 17–19, 26, 38,
`and 43–45
`3–6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`27–33
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,661,645 to Hochstein issued Aug. 26, 1997 (Ex. 1003,
`“Hochstein”).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,211,626 to Lys et al, issued Apr. 3, 2001 (“Lys,” Ex.
`1004).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 4,293,796 to McMorrow issued Oct. 6, 1981
`(“McMorrow,” Ex. 1005).
`4 TNY264/266-268 TinySwitch-II Family Datasheet, Power Integrations Inc.
`(Mar. 2001, Rev. A) (“TNY Datasheet,” Ex. 1006).
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`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
`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)).
`1. “alternating current (A.C.) dimmer circuit” and “alternating current
`(A.C.) power source that provides signals other than a standard A.C. line
`voltage”
`The claim phrase “alternating current (A.C.) dimmer circuit” appears
`in independent claims 1 and appears in claim 11 as a limitation on the
`“alternating current (A.C.) power source that provides signals other than a
`standard A.C. line voltage.” Ex. 1001, 28:25–37, 29:31–45. Petitioner
`argues that “alternating current (A.C.) dimmer circuit” should be construed
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`to mean “circuit for dimming a light source that receives an A.C. signal and
`controls power delivered to the light source.” Pet. 13–14. Petitioner relies
`on the ’679 patent specification’s references to standard A.C. dimmer
`circuits (Ex. 1001, 1:65–2:17, Fig. 1) and extrinsic evidence regarding
`conventional A.C. dimmers (Ex. 1009, Fig. 5b, 5:51–6:37; Ex. 1007 ¶ 37).
`Pet. 13–14.
`Patent Owner contends that claim construction for “A.C. dimmer
`circuit” is addressed in the final written decision in related case IPR2015-
`01294. See Wangs Alliance Corp. d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. v. Philips
`Lighting No. Am. Corp, Case IPR2015-01294 at 8–14 (PTAB Nov. 23,
`2016) (Paper 48) (“’1294 FWD”) (addressing construction of claim terms in
`the parent application to the ’679 patent). Prelim. Resp. 1, 3–5. As in
`IPR2015-01294, Patent Owner argues that “every instance of “A.C. dimmer
`circuit” in the [’679] patent’s specification describes an A.C. output from the
`A.C. dimmer circuit. Prelim. Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2002, 12–15).
`Petitioner relies on the same arguments in the Petition in this case as
`the Petition in IPR2015-01294. Compare Pet. 13–14 with Ex. 2001, 21–22;
`Ex. 2003, 4–5, 9–10. In IPR2015-01294, we determined that that the term
`“A.C. dimmer circuit” means “a circuit that provides an alternating current
`(A.C.) dimming signal” and further determined 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. ’1294 FWD at 14. We reach the same result in the present case.
`Based on the specification and intrinsic evidence of the ’679 patent,
`and for the same reasons explained in our Final Written Decision in
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`IPR2015-01294, we disagree with Petitioner that the A.C. dimmer circuit
`requires only receipt of an A.C. signal and the provision of power to a light
`source. See Pet. 14–15, ’1294 FWD at 13–14. The extrinsic testimony and
`references cited by Petitioner do not show that a skilled artisan would
`understand the ’679 patent’s “A.C. dimmer circuit” needs only receive an
`A.C. input but not output an A.C. signal. See id. Petitioner’s construction,
`which does not require an output A.C. signal, is overly broad and removed
`from the context of the specification. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279,
`1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`Based on the forgoing, we determine that “A.C. dimmer circuit”
`means “a circuit that provides an alternating current (A.C.) dimming signal.”
`See ’1294 FWD at 13–14.
`2. “duty cycle” and “varies a duty cycle”
`Petitioner argues that “duty cycle” should be construed as “the ratio of
`pulse duration to pulse period, expressed as a percentage.” Pet. 15–16. In
`IPR2015-01294, we determined that “duty cycle” was “the ratio of pulse
`duration to pulse period.” ’1294 FWD at 15–16. For the same reasons
`explained in our Final Written Decision in IPR2015-01294, we determine,
`for purposes of this Decision, that “duty cycle” is “the ratio of pulse duration
`to pulse period.”
`
`3. “conventional MR16 socket”
`Petitioner argues that the claim term “conventional MR16 socket”
`should be construed to mean “socket that accepts an MR16 bulb having a bi-
`pin base connector.” Pet. 10–13. Based on the record before us, we
`determine that no express claim construction of “conventional MR16
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`socket” is necessary for our determination of whether to institute inter partes
`review of the challenged claims. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be
`construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy.”).
`
`B. Grounds based on 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.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 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 5:41–50. 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
`Each of Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability relies on Hochstein to
`teach the “alternating current (A.C.) dimmer circuit” limitation recited in
`independent claims 1 and 11. Pet. 16–18, 27–32, 38–39. Petitioner argues
`that the half-wave rectified signal in Hochstein meets this limitation by
`disclosing a power supply configured to dim based on a half-wave rectified
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`signal. See Pet. 13, 28–32. In the present case, Petitioner’s argument is
`based on the same erroneous construction for “alternating current (A.C.)
`dimmer circuit” that was presented in IPR2015–01294. See Pet. 13, 28–32;
`Ex. 2001, 21–22; Ex. 2003, 4–5, 9–10; ’1294 FWD at 13–14. Thus,
`Petitioner asserts that Hochstein teaches the A.C. dimmer limitation of the
`challenged claims by disclosing a power supply configured to dim based
`only on a half-wave rectified signal, which is a D.C. signal. See Pet. 13, 28–
`32; Ex. 1003, 10:38–61.
`In IPR2015-01294, we determined that the half-wave rectified output
`signal in Hochstein was a D.C. signal that did not teach the “alternating
`current (A.C.) dimmer circuit” recited in the challenged claims. ’1294 FWD
`at 21–22. In the present case, we find that Petitioner has not shown that
`Hochstein teaches an “alternating current (A.C.) dimmer circuit” as recited
`in independent claims 1 and 11. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
`argument and evidence that the half-wave signal in Hochstein, which outputs
`a D.C. signal from an A.C. input signal is an A.C. dimmer circuit as properly
`construed. Pet. 28–32, 38–39; see supra Section II.A.1 (construing term).
`Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood that
`they would prevail in showing that Hochstein and Lys teach the limitations
`of independent claims 1 and 11, and dependent claims 17–19, 26, 38, and
`43–45.
`Petitioner relies on the same arguments based on Hochstein to teach
`the limitations of dependent claims 3–6 (Hochstein, Lys, and McMorrow)
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`and dependent claims 27–33 (Hochstein, Lys, and TNY Datasheet).5 Pet.
`47–56, 56–65. Because each of the remaining grounds relies on the half-
`wave rectified signal in Hochstein to teach the A.C. dimmer limitation of
`claims 1 and 11, we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood
`that it would prevail in showing that Hochstein, Lys, and McMorrow render
`claims 3–6 obvious, or that Hochstein, Lys, and TNY Datasheet render
`claims 27–33 obvious.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Petition fails to
`establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted grounds that
`claims 1, 11, 17–19, 26, 38, and 43–45 are unpatentable as obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hochstein and Lys; claims 3–6 are unpatentable as
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hochstein, Lys, and McMorrow; and
`claims 27–33 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Hochstein, Lys, and TNY Datasheet.
`
`
`5 With respect to dependent claims 3–6, Petitioner asserts that like
`Hochstein, McMorrow provides a half-wave rectified signal. Pet. 29–30,
`36–37. Petitioner does not expressly rely on McMorrow to teach the
`limitations of claim 1 from which claims 3–6 depend. Id. We find that the
`half-wave rectified signal identified in McMorrow, like the D.C. signal in
`Hochstein, is not an A.C. signal as recited in claim 3–6. See Ex. 2003, 8–9;
`Pet 49.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the petition is denied as to all challenged claims and
`no trial is instituted.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01453
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David Radulescu
`david@radip.com
`
`Angela Chao
`angela@radip.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`C. Brandon Rash
`brandon.rash@finnegan.com
`
`Kenie Ho
`kenie.ho@finnegan.com
`
`16
`
`
`
`
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
