Paper No. ______
`Filed: March 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION d/b/a WAC LIGHTING
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01294
`Patent 7,038,399
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 70
`
`PHILIPS EXHIBIT 2002
`WAC v. PHILIPS
`IPR2016-01453
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’399 PATENT ............................................................ 3 
`
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6 
`
`A. 
`
`“Signals Other Than a Standard A.C. Line Voltage” ........................... 7 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`“Signals” means more than one, two or more, at least
`two, or a plurality. ....................................................................... 8 
`
`“Standard A.C.” means “a sinusoidal wave at a
`standard frequency and amplitude.” ........................................... 9 
`
`B. 
`
`“A.C. Dimmer Circuit” ....................................................................... 10 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “A.C. dimmer
`circuit” requires that it provide A.C., not D.C.,
`signals. ....................................................................................... 11 
`
`The specification consistently and repeatedly refers to
`A.C. dimmer circuit as providing only A.C. dimming
`signals, not D.C. dimming signals. ........................................... 12 
`
`C. 
`
`“Duty Cycle” and “Varies a Duty Cycle” ........................................... 16 
`
`IV.  GROUND 1: HOCHSTEIN FAILS TO ANTICIPATE ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM, AND PETITIONER HAS NOT
`SHOWN THAT IT DOES ............................................................................. 18 
`
`A.  Overview of Hochstein ........................................................................ 19 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Hochstein Fails to Disclose a “Power Source That Provides
`Signals Other Than a Standard A.C. Line Voltage,” as the
`Challenged Claims Require ................................................................. 21 
`
`Hochstein Fails to Disclose an “A.C. Dimmer Circuit,” as
`the Challenged Claims Require ........................................................... 25 
`
`D.  Hochstein Fails to Disclose “the A.C. Dimmer Circuit Is
`Controlled by a User Interface to Vary the Power-Related
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`Signal” and “Variably Control . . . in Response to Operation
`of the User Interface,” as the Challenged Claims Require ................. 28 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`Hochstein Fails to Disclose That “the Operation of the User
`Interface Varies a Duty Cycle,” or to “Variably Control the
`at Least One Parameter of the Light Based at Least on the
`Variable Duty Cycle,” as Claims 7, 8, and 34 Require ....................... 31 
`
`Hochstein Fails to Disclose an “Adjustment Circuit” and
`“Power Circuitry,” as Claims 17 and 28 Require ............................... 36 
`
`V.  GROUND 2: PETITIONER FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE
`COMBINATION OF BOGDAN AND HOCHSTEIN RENDERS
`OBVIOUS ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM .................................................. 37 
`
`A.  Overview of Bogdan ........................................................................... 39 
`
`B. 
`
`Bogdan Is Unavailable as Prior Art in Support of
`Obviousness, and Neither Bogdan nor Hochstein Is Pertinent
`to the Problem the Inventors Sought to Solve ..................................... 41 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Bogdan is not from the same field of endeavor as the
`claimed invention. ..................................................................... 41 
`
`Neither Bogdan nor Hochstein is pertinent to the
`particular problem of the ’399 invention. ................................. 43 
`
`C. 
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show a Motivation to Combine Bogdan
`and Hochstein to Achieve the Claimed Invention, and There
`Is No Motivation to Combine .............................................................. 44 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Petitioner’s purported motivation based on “energy
`efficiency” of LEDs is legally and factually
`erroneous. .................................................................................. 44 
`
`Bogdan and Hochstein address different problems
`with different solutions. ............................................................ 45 
`
`Bogdan and Hochstein teach away from each other. ................ 46 
`
`Petitioner’s motivation theory also fails because it
`provides no reason to modify the alleged combination
`to achieve the claimed invention. ............................................. 48 
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 70
`
`

`
`D. 
`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`There Is No Motivation or Expectation of Success Because
`Petitioner’s Proposed Modifications Would Prevent the
`Combined Circuit from Working for Its Intended Purpose ................ 50 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Petitioner’s first theory of modification fails. ........................... 51 
`
`Petitioner’s second theory of modification fails. ...................... 56 
`
`VI.  GROUND 3: THE PETITION FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT
`HOCHSTEIN AND FAULK RENDER OBVIOUS ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM .............................................................................. 59 
`
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES 
`Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`713 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 48
`
`Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc.,
`795 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 41
`
`Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc.,
`No. 2015-1316, 2016 WL 279984 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2016) ....................... 38, 48
`
`Geo. M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Machine Systems International LLC,
`618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................... 39, 50
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 38
`
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................... 13, 15, 17, 18
`
`In re American Academy of Science Tech Center,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 12
`
`In re Baker Hughes Inc.,
`215 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 14
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 41
`
`In re Buszard,
`504 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 12
`
`In re Ellis,
`476 F.2d 1370 (C.C.P.A. 1973) .......................................................................... 42
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................... 39, 44, 59
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1970) .......................................................................... 28
`
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 43
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................... 13, 17
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................... passim
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 10
`
`PAR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 12
`
`Plas-Pak Industries, Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 F. App’x 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. 39, 50
`
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Superior Fireplace Co. v. Majestic Products Co.,
`270 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Manufacturing Michigan Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................... 46, 50
`
`Texas Instruments Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission,
`988 F.2d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .......................................................................... 28
`
`TMI Products, Inc. v. Rosen Entertainment Systems, L.P.,
` 610 F. App'x 968 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 15
`
`Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 42
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`
`Winner International Royalty Corp. v. Wang,
`202 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 45
`
`BOARD AUTHORITY 
`Ex parte Seyyedy,
`No. 2009-1696, 2009 WL 1212782 (B.P.A.I. May 4, 2009) .............................. 45
`
`Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC,
`IPR2014-00688, Paper 101 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2015) ....................................... 49
`
`STATUTES 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 37
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. 284, 293
`(2011) .................................................................................................................. 38
`
`REGULATIONS 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ................................................................................... 49, 57
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399 to Lys et al.
`
`File History for U.S. Application No. 10,435,687
`(issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,661,645 to Hochstein
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,225,759 to Bogdan et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,818,705 to Faulk
`
`Declaration of Robert Neal Tingler
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Robert Neal Tingler
`
`Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary
`(Steven M. Kaplan, 2004) (definition of “duty cycle”)
`
`McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
`Terms (4th ed. 1989) (definition of “duty cycle”)
`
`Robert W. Erickson, Fundamentals of Power Electronics
`(2d ed. 2001)
`
`Adel S. Sedra, Microelectronic Circuits (4th ed. 1998)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,327,123 to Heimann
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1001
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1002
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1003
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1004
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1005
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1006
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1007
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1008
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1009
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1010
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1011
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013
`
`Application Note 84, Linear Technology Magazine
`Circuit Collection, Volume IV (Apr. 2000)
`
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2001 U.S. Patent No. 7,186,003 to Dowling et al.
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2002 Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary
`(Steven M. Kaplan, 2004) (definitions of “AC”
`(alternating current) and “DC” (direct current))
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2003 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
`Terms (5th ed. 1994) (definitions of “alternating current”
`and “direct current”)
`
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2004 Declaration of Regan A. Zane, Ph.D.
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2005 Curriculum Vitae of Regan A. Zane, Ph.D.
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006 Daniel A. Steigerwald et al., Illumination With Solid
`State Lighting Technology, 8 IEEE J. Quantum Elecs. 2
`(Mar./Apr. 2002)
`
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2007 James E. Mack &Thomas Shoemaker, The Lineman’s
`and Cableman’s Handbook (11th ed. 2006) (excerpt)
`
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2008 Ashley Karl Zeimer, The Effect of DC Current on Power
`Transformers (Oct. 2000) (dissertation, University of
`Southern Queensland), available at
`http://eprints.usq.edu.au/75/1/AshleyKarlZEIMER_-
`_2004.pdf
`
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2009 Harry C. Box, Set Lighting Technician’s Handbook: Film
`Lighting Equipment, Practice, and Electrical
`Distribution (4th ed. 2013) (excerpt)
`
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2010 David Cooper, LED lighting must work with legacy
`dimming technologies, LEDs Magazine, June 2011
`
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2011 James R. Benya, Lighting for Schools (National
`Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2001)
`
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2012 Arpad Bergh et al., The promise and challenge of solid-
`state lighting, 54 Physics Today 42 (Dec. 2001)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board instituted inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,038,399 (“the ’399 patent,” Ex. 1001) on three grounds: (1) anticipation of
`
`claims 7, 8, 17, 28, and 34 based on U.S. Patent No. 5,661,645 (“Hochstein,”
`
`Ex. 1003); (2) obviousness of claims 7, 8, 17, 28, and 34 based on U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,225,759 (“Bogdan,” Ex. 1004) and Hochstein; and (3) obviousness of
`
`claims 7, 8, 17, 18, 28, and 34 based on Hochstein and U.S. Patent No. 5,818,705
`
`(“Faulk,” Ex. 1005). See Paper 9 (“Dec.”) at 21.
`
`Hochstein does not anticipate any challenged claim because (1) Hochstein
`
`does not provide power based on signals (plural) that are other than the standard
`
`A.C. line voltage, and (2) Hochstein does not disclose an “A.C. dimmer circuit.”
`
`As the plain language of the term suggests and consistent with Patent Owner
`
`Philips’ proposed construction, an “A.C. dimmer circuit” must at minimum be a
`
`“circuit” that “dims” using “A.C.” It is undisputed that Hochstein does not dim
`
`using an A.C. signal; rather, the only alleged “dimming” signal in Hochstein is a
`
`single, non-varying, D.C. signal.
`
`Hochstein also does not anticipate claims 7, 8, and 34 because these claims
`
`require that the A.C. dimmer circuit varies the duty cycle, i.e., modulates the phase
`
`angle, of the A.C. dimming signals. Hochstein does not modulate the phase angle,
`
`and the signals in Hochstein do not have a variable duty cycle; indeed, the only
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`dimming signal Petitioner identifies does not vary—it is either on or off.
`
`The challenged claims are also nonobvious over Bogdan and Hochstein.
`
`First, Bogdan is not analogous art, and thus is not available as prior art for
`
`purposes of obviousness. But even if it was, there is no motivation to combine
`
`Bogdan and Hochstein. Petitioner conclusorily asserts a motivation based on the
`
`energy efficiency of Hochstein’s LEDs, but at the time of the invention, the gas
`
`discharge lamps in Bogdan were more efficient and less expensive than LEDs.
`
`And even if there were a motivation to combine, Petitioner identifies no motivation
`
`to combine the Bogdan and Hochstein in a particular way to achieve the claimed
`
`invention, at least not without the benefit of impermissible hindsight. Moreover,
`
`there is neither a motivation to combine nor a reasonable expectation of success,
`
`because the two modifications to the combined references that Petitioner proposes
`
`would not work at all, let alone for either reference’s intended purpose.
`
`As for Ground 3—obviousness based on the combination of Hochstein and
`
`Faulk, Petitioner relies on the same arguments as Ground 1 for all challenged
`
`claims, except claim 18, which depends from the challenged claim 17 in Ground 1.
`
`Because Petitioner does not attempt to use Faulk to cure the deficiencies of
`
`Hochstein with respect to the challenged claims in Ground 1, all challenged claims
`
`in Ground 3 fail for the same reasons as in Ground 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’399 PATENT
`The ’399 patent is directed to making light-emitting diode (“LED”)-based
`
`illumination devices compatible with existing A.C. dimming circuits. Ex. 1001
`
`at 2:50-56; Ex. 2004, ¶ 21. Lighting systems for illumination are generally
`
`powered by an A.C. power source, commonly referred to as a “line voltage,” e.g.,
`
`120 Volts at 60 Hz in the United States, and 220 Volts at 50 Hz in other countries.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:50-53. A.C. dimming circuits receive this A.C. line voltage and, in
`
`response to user operation of a dimmer switch, output an A.C. signal having a
`
`variable parameter (e.g., amplitude or phase angle) that adjusts the average voltage
`
`of the output signal supplied to the lighting system. Id. at 1:53-59. Incandescent
`
`lights, which illuminate through the heating and glowing of a resistive filament, are
`
`inherently compatible with these varying A.C. signals because the change in
`
`average voltage adjusts the intensity of the light, making it brighter or darker. Id.
`
`at 2:33-46. LED lights, however, operate based on D.C. signals, and thus require
`
`special circuitry to be compatible with the varying A.C. signals and mimic the
`
`varying intensity of incandescent lights. Id. at 9:4-13; see Ex. 2004, ¶ 22.
`
`Traditional A.C. dimming circuits provide varying A.C. signals via
`
`operation of a user interface—such as turning a knob or moving a slider, often
`
`mounted on a wall in proximity to the light source (Ex. 1001 at 1:37-45)—in one
`
`of two ways. Id. at 1:64-2:16. In one, the adjustment of the user interface causes
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`the A.C. dimming circuit to increase or decrease the voltage amplitude of the A.C.
`
`signal output, causing the A.C. dimming circuit to provide A.C. signals of varying
`
`amplitude to the light source. Id. at 1:66-2:2. In the other, more common
`
`implementation, however, adjustment of the user interface causes the A.C.
`
`dimming circuit to vary the duty cycle of the output A.C. signal, causing the A.C.
`
`dimming circuit to provide A.C. signals of varying duty cycle to the light source.
`
`Id. at 2:3-8. The varying A.C. signals from these two techniques are illustrated in
`
`Figure 1, as shown below.
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1. Figure 1 shows conventional A.C. dimming circuit 304. Id. at 2:17-
`
`18. An A.C. power source provides a standard A.C. line voltage—i.e., non-
`
`varying sinusoidal waveform 302 of line-voltage amplitude (e.g., 120 Vrms)—to
`
`dimmer 304, and in response to operation of user interface 305, dimmer 304
`
`outputs varying A.C. signals, either waveform 308 of varying amplitude 307 or
`
`waveform 309 of varying duty cycle 306, defined in each half cycle. Id. at 2:18-
`
`29. The variations of amplitude 307 and duty cycle 306 are illustrated by the lines
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`with arrows at both ends in Figure 1. See id. at Fig. 1, 2:18-29. By this operation,
`
`the A.C. dimming circuit converts a standard, non-varying A.C. waveform into a
`
`non-standard, varying A.C. waveform.
`
`The latter technique—varying a duty cycle—is also called “angle
`
`modulation,” based on the adjustable phase angle of the A.C. output signal.
`
`Id. at 2:2-8. The most common A.C. dimmer circuit varies the duty cycle (i.e.,
`
`modulates the phase angle) by “chopping[]off” rising portions of the A.C. voltage
`
`half-cycles (i.e., after zero-crossings and before peaks). Id. at 2:8-12. Other A.C.
`
`dimmer circuits that vary the duty cycle chop off falling portions of the A.C.
`
`voltage half-cycles (i.e., after peaks and before zero-crossings). Id. at 2:13-16.
`
`The invention of the ’399 patent provides duty cycle values that vary over a
`
`significantly wide range, for example, between 25% and 100%.
`
`The ’399 patent discloses illumination devices and methods that make LED
`
`lights compatible with these varying A.C. signals from A.C. dimmer circuits. Id.
`
`at 2:52-56. Figure 6, shown below, illustrates an exemplary circuit that is
`
`compatible with an A.C. dimmer circuit that provides A.C. signals having a
`
`varying duty cycle.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 6. According to claims 7, 17, and 34 of the ’399 patent, the invention
`
`requires at least one LED and at least one controller that is configured to receive
`
`the varying A.C. signals from an A.C. dimmer circuit and provide power to the
`
`LED based on those varying signals. Id. at 25:40-60, 26:38-59, 28:48-50.
`
`Claims 7 and 34 further require that the A.C. dimming signal from the A.C.
`
`dimmer circuit has a varying duty cycle, and that the controller is configured to
`
`variably control the intensity of the LED based on the varying duty cycle.
`
`Id.at 25:40-61; 28:48-50.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Petitioner only proposes a construction for “duty cycle.” This term and four
`
`others—“illumination apparatus [method]”; “signals other than a standard A.C.
`
`line voltage”; “A.C. dimmer circuit”; and “varies a duty cycle”—require
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`
`construction for purposes of the instituted grounds.
`
`“Signals Other Than a Standard A.C. Line Voltage”
`
`A.
`Independent claims 7, 17, and 34 recite “signals other than a standard A.C.
`
`line voltage.” Id. at 25:45, 26:43, 28:33-34. Under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, this term means “two or more signals, each being other than a
`
`sinusoidal wave at a standard frequency and amplitude.” This construction is the
`
`broadest reasonable construction that properly addresses both parts of the term,
`
`namely, that (1) “signals” means a plurality, and (2) “standard A.C.” means a
`
`sinusoidal signal with a standard frequency and amplitude. Ex. 2004, ¶ 26.
`
`Petitioner did not construe this term, and the Board did not address the plurality
`
`required by the word “signals” in the Institution Decision. See Dec. 10-11, 13.
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Philips proposed to construe “alternating
`
`current (A.C.) power source that provides signals other than a standard A.C. line
`
`voltage” to mean “a power source that provides alternating current (A.C.) signals
`
`other than a single sinusoidal wave at a fixed frequency and a fixed amplitude.”
`
`Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”) at 9-10. The Board decided that this broader phrase as a
`
`whole did not require construction except to say that “‘other than a standard A.C.
`
`line voltage’ under the broadest reasonable interpretation is not limited to A.C.
`
`signals.” Dec. 10-11. For purposes of the instituted grounds, Philips believes that
`
`the broader phrase does not need to be construed, provided that the proper
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`construction for “signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage” is applied.
`
`Although there may appear to be no dispute regarding the plain meaning of
`
`“signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage,” the term nonetheless requires
`
`construction because, for this limitation, Petitioner only identifies in Hochstein a
`
`single, non-varying signal—not “signals” plural—other than a standard A.C. line
`
`voltage because Hochstein only teaches one such signal. Accordingly, Philips
`
`proposes a construction here that is substantively what Philips intended with the
`
`construction in its Preliminary Response, but which clarifies the term.
`
`1.
`
`“Signals” means more than one, two or more, at least
`two, or a plurality.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “signals” is “two or more signals.” See
`
`Superior Fireplace Co. v. Majestic Prods. Co., 270 F.3d 1358, 1364, 1373-75
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming construction of “rear walls” to require “at least two
`
`walls”). The specification compels this interpretation because it only discloses
`
`varying signals (plural) other than a standard A.C. line voltage. See In re NTP,
`
`Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“While the Board must give the terms
`
`their broadest reasonable construction, the construction cannot be divorced from
`
`the specification and the record evidence.”). Specifically, the A.C. dimmer circuit
`
`provides either A.C. signals of varying amplitude or A.C. signals of varying duty
`
`cycle. See Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1 (waveform 308 with varying amplitude 307, and
`
`waveform 309 with varying duty cycle 306), 2:17-29, 13:13-20 (describing two or
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`more A.C. dimming signals having duty cycles as low as 25% or 50%); Ex. 2004,
`
`¶ 27. Indeed, the primary purpose of the ’399 patent is to make LED lights
`
`compatible with these A.C. signals (plural) from A.C. dimming circuits that vary
`
`over time to control the intensity of the light source. Ex. 1001 at 2:52-56;
`
`Ex. 2004, ¶ 38.
`
`2.
`
`“Standard A.C.” means “a sinusoidal wave at a
`standard frequency and amplitude.”
`
`The term “standard A.C. line voltage” is a known term of art that means
`
`“a sinusoidal wave at a standard frequency and amplitude.” Petitioner concedes
`
`that the standard A.C. line voltage is a non-varying sine wave by referring to
`
`waveform 302 in Figure 1 of the ’399 patent. See Paper 1 (“Pet.”) at 6 (“signal 302
`
`represents a standard AC line voltage”); Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1, 2:18-21 (“FIG. 1
`
`shows an example of an A.C. voltage waveform 302 (e.g., representing a standard
`
`line voltage) . . . .”). The specification gives two examples of a standard line
`
`voltage at a standard frequency and amplitude, i.e., “120 Volts RMS at 60 Hz”
`
`(common in the United States) and “220 Volts RMS at 50 Hz” (common in other
`
`countries). Ex. 1001 at 1:50-53; Ex. 2004, ¶ 26. None of the “signals other than a
`
`standard A.C. line voltage” described in the ’399 patent, however, are both a
`
`sinusoidal wave and at a standard amplitude. Ex. 1001 at 2:21-29, Fig. 1
`
`(describing waveform 308 with varying amplitude 307 and waveform 309 with
`
`varying duty cycle 306); Ex. 2004, ¶ 26. Varying waveform 308 has amplitudes
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`other than the amplitude of the standard line voltage, and varying waveform 309 is
`
`not a sinusoidal waveform because it has “chopped” half-cycles, as shown in
`
`Figure 1 and as explained further below. See Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1
`
`B.
`“A.C. Dimmer Circuit”
`Claims 7, 17, and 34 also recite “A.C. dimmer circuit” (id. at 25:50, 26:47,
`
`28:37-38), which should be construed to mean “a circuit that provides an
`
`alternating current (A.C.) dimming signal.” Petitioner did not construe the term,
`
`and the Board determined that the term does not require construction. Dec. 11.
`
`This term, however, requires construction because Petitioner incorrectly argues
`
`that a D.C. circuit that provides only a fixed (non-variable) D.C. signal is somehow
`
`an “A.C. dimmer circuit.” Pet. 21-22.
`
`As explained below, Philips’ construction is the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation and is compelled by the repeated and consistent use of this term,
`
`both in the field of powering LED illumination devices and in the specification.
`
`See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(“Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s construction
`
`‘cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence,’ and ‘must be
`
`consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.’ A construction
`
`that is ‘unreasonably broad’ and which does not ‘reasonably reflect the plain
`
`language and disclosure’ will not pass muster.” (citations omitted)).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 70
`
`

`
`1.
`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “A.C. dimmer
`circuit” requires that it provide A.C., not D.C.,
`signals.
`
`As a matter of basic electronics, A.C. circuits are different from D.C.
`
`circuits. Ex. 2004, ¶ 30. Specifically, “A.C.”—short for “alternating current”—is
`
`a standard term of art meaning electric current that reverses direction at regular
`
`intervals. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 at 4 (“AC”: “Abbreviation of alternating current.
`
`Electric current which alternates at regular intervals.”); Ex. 2003 at 71 (“alternating
`
`current”: “Electric current that reverses direction periodically . . . .”); Ex. 2004,
`
`¶ 30. Alternating current is caused by an A.C. voltage that alternates in polarity—
`
`positive and negative. The average voltage over a full A.C. cycle must be close to
`
`zero, i.e., the average voltage in each voltage half-cycle must be approximately
`
`equal with opposite polarity. Id. As Dr. Zane explains, these conditions are
`
`required to maintain the primary benefit of A.C. power distribution, i.e., that A.C.
`
`voltages can be applied directly to transformers to increase or decrease the voltage,
`
`which is not possible with a D.C. signal. Id. In contrast, “D.C.”—short for “direct
`
`current”—is a standard term meaning that the current flows in only one direction.
`
`See Ex. 2002 at 170 (“DC”: “Abbreviation of direct current. 1. A unidirectional
`
`current . . . . DC may fluctuate, pulse, spike, and so on, but its polarity does not
`
`change.”); Ex. 2003 at 583 (“direct current”: “Electric current which flows in one
`
`direction only, as opposed to alternating current.”); Ex. 2004, ¶ 31.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`Moreover, the ordinary usage of “A.C. dimmer” in the field of powering
`
`LED illumination devices is a circuit that provides an A.C. dimming signal.
`
`Ex. 2004, ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 2010 at 1-3). A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not understand an “A.C. dimmer circuit” to include a circuit that dims using only a
`
`D.C. dimming signal, nor has Petitioner provided any examples of a skilled artisan
`
`expressing such an understanding. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (stating that the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`must be “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art” (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re NTP, 654 F.3d at 1288 (finding that the Board erred in
`
`construing term more broadly than a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize); In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding that the
`
`Board erred in construing a term more broadly than one of skill would understand;
`
`“No matter how broadly ‘flexible foam reaction mixture’ is construed, it is not a
`
`rigid foam reaction mixture.”).
`
`2.
`
`The specification consistently and repeatedly refers to
`A.C. dimmer circuit as providing only A.C. dimming
`signals, not D.C. dimming signals.
`
`The ’399 patent repeatedly and exclusively uses “A.C. dimmer circuit”
`
`consistently with its plain meaning to refer to a circuit that provides A.C. dimming
`
`signals. Ex. 1001 at 1:53-59 (“A conventional A.C. dimmer typically receives the
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 70
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`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
`
`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”), 12:27-29
`
`(“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