PaperNo._
`Filed: June 16, 2016
`
`Filed on behalf of: W angs Alliance Corporation
`By: David C. Radulescu, Ph.D., Reg. No. 36,250
`Angela Chao, Reg. No. 71,991
`RADULESCU LLP
`Empire State Building
`350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6910
`New York, NY 10118
`Tel: 646-502-5950
`david@radulescullp.com
`angela@radulescullp.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`W ANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION DIB/ A WAC LIGHTING CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01294
`U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399
`
`PETITIONER'S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER'S
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 31
`
`PHILIPS EXHIBIT 2003
`WAC v. PHILIPS
`IPR2016-01453
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Overview ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`Patent Owner's Proposed Claim Constructions are
`Incorrect and Have Already Been Rejected by the Board ................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`"Signals Other Than a Standard A.C. Line Voltage" ............................ 2
`
`"A. C. Dimmer Circuit" .......................................................................... 4
`
`"Duty Cycle" and "Varies a Duty Cycle" .............................................. 6
`
`III. Hochstein Anticipates Claims 7, 8, 17, 28, and 34 ............................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`Hochstein Discloses a Power Source that Provides
`Signals Other than a Standard A. C. Line Voltage ................................. 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The A. C. Power Source Provides "Signals" Other Than a
`Standard A.C. Line Voltage ......................................................... 7
`
`The "Defacto" Dimming Standard of Hochstein Discloses the
`Use of Multiple Signals Because Half Wave Rectified Signals
`Can be Either Polarity .................................................................. 8
`
`Hochstein Discloses an AC Dimmer Circuit ......................................... 9
`
`Hochstein Discloses a User Interface ................................................... 11
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D. Hochstein Discloses a Variable Duty Cycle ........................................ 13
`
`E.
`
`Hochstein Discloses Adjustment Circuitry and
`Power Circuitry .................................................................................... 15
`
`IV. Hochstein in Combination with Bogdan Renders Claims 7,
`8, 17, 28, and 34 Obvious ................................................................................ 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Hochstein and Bogdan are Analogous Art ........................................... 17
`
`A POSA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine
`Bogdan and Hochstein to Arrive at the Claimed
`Invention ............................................................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`Energy Efficiency is a Motivation to Combine ......................... 20
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Hochstein and Bogdan Do Not Teach Away from One Another
`.................................................................................................... 21
`
`Combining the Teachings in the Prior Art, Rather than the
`Components, Renders the Challenged Claims Obvious ............ 23
`
`V. Hochstein in Combination with Faulk Renders Claims 7, 8,
`17, 18, 28, and 34 Obvious .............................................................................. 24
`
`Vl. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 24
`
`Vll. Word Count Certification ................................................................................ 24
`
`ll
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 31
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 17
`
`DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H Patrick Co.,
`464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 20
`
`In re Fulton,
`391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 22
`
`Hew/en-Packard Co. v. MCM Portfolio,
`LLC, Case No. IPR2013-00217, 2014 WL 3885936 (PTAB Aug. 6,
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 19
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 21
`
`In re Keller,
`642 F.3d 413 (CCPA 1981) ................................................................................ 23
`
`KSR Int'/ Co. v. Telejlex Inc.,
`550 u.s. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 16, 20,23
`In re MouUet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 23
`
`In re Wood,
`599 F.2d 1032 (CCPA 1979) .............................................................................. 18
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 16, 17
`
`111
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`I. Overview
`
`Claims 7, 8, 17, 28, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399 (''the '399 patent")
`
`(Ex. 1001) are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,661,645 ("Hochstein") (Ex. 1003)
`
`and are rendered obvious by U.S. Patent No. 6,225,759 ("Bogdan") (Ex. 1004) in
`
`view of Hochstein. These claims as well as claim 18 are rendered obvious by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,818,705 ("Faulk") (Ex. 1005) in view of Hochstein. The Patent
`
`Owner's ("Philips") Response ("Response") fails to demonstrate otherwise.
`
`Philips's Response fails to demonstrate that the prior art does not anticipate or
`
`render obvious the challenged claims for at least three reasons. First, the Response
`
`relies upon improper claim constructions that read limitations from the specification
`
`into the claims. Second, the Response misreads the disclosure of the prior art and
`
`misapplies it to the claim language, relying upon Philips's incorrect claim
`
`constructions. Third, the Response relies upon an overly rigid framework regarding
`
`the motivation to combine prior art references, apparently requiring that the circuits
`
`disclosed in the prior art be wired together and function exactly as in the
`
`specification of the '399 patent in order to render the claims of the '399 patent
`
`obvious.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`II. Patent Owner's Proposed Claim Constructions are Incorrect and Have
`Already Been Rejected by the Board
`
`Philips proposes claim constructions for three of the four claim terms that it
`
`proposed in its Preliminary Response, despite the Board's rulings in its Decision on
`
`Institution that these claim terms do not require construction beyond the
`
`constructions in that Decision. Each of Philips's proposed constructions is
`
`incorrect, as they attempt to avoid the prior art by reading limitations from the
`
`specification into the claims.
`
`A.
`
`"Signals Other Than a Standard A.C. Line Voltage"
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Philips proposed a construction of the claim term
`
`"alternating current (A.C.) power source that provides signals other than a standard
`
`A.C. line voltage." Preliminary Response at 9. In its Institution Decision, the
`
`Board determined that this is a negative limitation that does not narrow the signal
`
`output of the A.C. power source, but "excludes only standard A.C. line voltages."
`
`Institution Decision at 10 (internal quotations omitted). The Board explicitly
`
`determined that this claim term does not require further construction. !d. at 10-11.
`
`Philips now proposes a different construction for a portion of that term,
`
`"signals other than a standard A. C. line voltage," arguing that ''the Board did not
`
`address the plurality required by the word 'signa~' in the Institution Decision."
`
`Response at 7 (emphasis in original). Philips argues that this construction should be
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`''two or more signals, each being other than a sinusoidal wave at a standard
`
`frequency and amplitude." /d. This construction should be rejected, because it
`
`removes this claim term from the remaining context of the claims. Despite not
`
`presenting an argument regarding the term "signals" in its Preliminary Response,
`
`Philips now has determined that "[a ]lthough there may appear to be no dispute
`
`regarding the plain meaning of 'signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage,"'
`
`there is now a need to construe the term because "Petitioner only identifies in
`
`Hochstein a single, non-varying signal." !d. at 8 (emphasis in original).
`
`The plain language of the claims, in combination with the clarification from
`
`the Board that this term is not limited to A. C. signals and only excludes "standard
`
`A. C. line voltage," is sufficient to understand their scope. 1 The intrinsic record does
`
`not provide any special definition of the term "signals other than a standard A.C.
`
`line voltage," and the Board should decline to adopt one.
`
`Should the Board determine that further construction is required, the intrinsic
`
`record is clear that the claimed circuit is configured to receive a single signal from
`
`the A. C. power source. Claim 7 requires "at least one controller coupled to the at
`
`least one LED and configured to receive a power-related signal from an alternating
`
`1 As this is a negative claim limitation, the "broadest reasonable
`interpretation" of"signals other than a standard A.C. line voltage" is the
`interpretation which excludes more types of signals. In other words, a narrower
`reading of "signals" leads to a broader claim scope. The Board already correctly
`construed this term to only exclude A.C. line voltage. Institution Decision at 10-11.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`current (A.C.) power source that provides signals other than a standard A.C.line
`
`voltage ... )."2 The claims refer to a singular "power-related signal" and not a
`
`plurality of such signals. The "signals other than a standard A. C. line voltage,"
`
`which are not recited or used elsewhere in any challenged claim, only defme the
`
`class of signals to which the "power-related signal" belongs. Ex. 1019, ~ 3-4. That
`
`is, the power-related signal must be a signal selected from a group of signals
`
`characterized by the claim language as "other than a standard A. C. line voltage."
`
`Thus, there is no requirement in the claims, when properly construed, that an A. C.
`
`power source provides two distinct signals to the claimed controller. To require
`
`otherwise would narrow this claim term in contravention of its broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation.
`
`B.
`
`"A.C. Dimmer Circuit"
`
`At the institution phase, Philips proposed that this term should be construed
`
`as "a circuit that provides an alternating current (A.C.) dimming signal."
`
`Preliminary Response at 13. The Board declined to adopt this limiting construction,
`
`instead holding that this term does not require additional construction. Institution
`
`Decision at 11. Nevertheless, Philips attempts to narrow this phrase to mean that
`
`the A.C. dimmer circuit must output an A.C. signal. Response at 10-15. Dr. Zane
`
`2 The challenged method claim, 34, has a similar limitation, re-written in
`method format.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`admits that the term "A. C. dimmer circuit" is not a term of art. Ex. 1017, 99:24-
`
`100:11. The specification and prosecution history of the '399 patent do not import a
`
`special defmition of this term. Thus, the Board should continue to decline to
`
`construe this term.
`
`If the Board is inclined to construe this term, the proper construction is
`
`"circuit for dimming a light source that receives an A. C. signal and controls
`
`power delivered to the light source." Ex. 1019, '1[6. Philips attempts to limit
`
`the claim to the examples in the specification, yet the '399 patent clearly
`
`discloses the waveforms shown being output from the dimmer circuit in
`
`Figure 1 are exemplary. Ex. 1001 at 1:64-2:16. The specification discusses
`
`A. C. dimmer circuits, in particular implementations, as being "configured to
`
`control power delivered to one or more light sources ... " Id. Further, if the
`
`patentee intended to limit the output signals of the dimmer circuit to A. C.
`
`signals, it would have claimed an "alternating current (A.C.) power source
`
`that provides A. C. signals other than a standard A. C. line voltage," yet it did
`
`not. Philips's attempt to read a limitation from the specification into the
`
`claim should be rejected. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of this
`
`term, a dimmer circuit that is supplied with an A. C. signal is an "A. C. dimmer
`
`circuit." Ex. 1019, '1['1[5-6.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`C.
`
`"Duty Cycle" and "Varies a Duty Cycle"
`
`The Board already construed the term "duty cycle" to mean ''the ratio of pulse
`
`duration to pulse period," which Philips agrees was a proper construction. Response
`
`at 16. Thus, no further construction is required. Yet Philips attempts to further limit
`
`the claim term by re-defming the term ''pulse" to mean "a half-cycle of a sinusoidal
`
`waveform." Response at 16. This additional narrowing construction is facially
`
`incorrect. The definition proposed by Philips limits the claim to a half-cycle of a
`
`sinusoidal waveform. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim
`
`is that it is not limited to sinusoids; the specification provides no such limitation.
`
`There are many other types of periodic signals that can have variable duty cycles
`
`besides sinusoids such as, e.g., square waves and sawtooth waves. Ex. 1019, '1[7-9.
`
`For this reason, Philips's proposed re-construction of the term "duty cycle" should
`
`be rejected.
`
`III. Hochstein Anticipates Claims 7, 8, 17, 28, and 34
`
`Each of Philips's arguments is based upon an overly narrow claim
`
`construction, an overly narrow reading of the disclosure in Hochstein, or both.
`
`A. Hochstein Discloses a Power Source that Provides Signals Other
`than a Standard A.C. Line Voltage
`
`Philips argues that Hochstein does not disclose this claim element because the
`
`power source in Hochstein does not disclose "signals other than a standard A. C. line
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`voltage." As stated above in Section II.A, this is based upon an erroneous
`
`narrowing of the claim. As Hochstein discloses a half-wave rectified signal
`
`connected to the controller, it discloses all that is required by the claims. However,
`
`for the reasons stated below, this disclosure can be found in Hochstein regardless of
`
`whether the Board adopts Philips's or claim construction.
`
`1.
`
`The A.C. Power Source Provides "Signals" Other Than a
`Standard A.C. Line Voltage
`
`If Philips's claim construction is adopted by the Board, A.C. power source in
`
`Hochstein provides signals other than a standard A. C. line voltage because it
`
`produces a half-wave rectified signal more than once. For example, the apparatus in
`
`Hochstein can enter "dim mode" by producing a half-wave rectified signal, which is
`
`a signal other than a standard A. C. line voltage. It can then enter full power mode,
`
`wherein a standard A. C. line voltage is provided by the A. C. power source.
`
`Thereafter, it can enter dim mode a second time and produce a second half-wave
`
`rectified signal. Simply because these two signals have the same or similar
`
`waveform does not mean they are the same signal, and the claim does not require
`
`two different signals to be provided temporally. Two identical waveforms other
`
`than a standard A. C. line voltage, produced with temporal separation, are "signals
`
`other than a standard A. C. line voltage."
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`2.
`
`The "Defacto" Dimming Standard of Hochstein Discloses the
`Use of Multiple Signals Because Half Wave Rectified Signals
`Can be Either Polarity
`
`In the alternative, the half-wave rectified signal of Hochstein may be either
`
`polarity, and thus constitutes two separate waveforms or signals. Ex. 1019, mf 10-
`
`14.
`
`Hochstein discloses a "defacto" dimming technique for traffic lights using
`
`half-wave rectified signals that, like the amplitude and angle modulated signals in
`
`the examples of the '399 patent, "have the effect of adjusting the average voltage
`
`applied to the light source(s), which in turn adjusts the intensity oflight generated
`
`by the source(s)." Ex. 1001,2:31-33. Such "defacto" standard dimming
`
`techniques for traffic signals were well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention. Ex. 1019, '1[14. For instance, this defacto
`
`dimming technique disclosed in Hochstein is described by McMorrow (Ex. 1020).
`
`Id. McMorrow explains that this technique involved sending more than one signal
`
`from the A. C. triac dimmer circuit to the traffic lights, as shown in Fig. 2 below,
`
`which shows two half-wave rectified signals, in FIGS. 2C and 2D, where, for
`
`instance, one signal-the signal of FIG. 2C-is sent to the red light and a different
`
`signal-the signal of FIG. 2D--is sent to the yellow and green lights:
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`(A)
`
`(8)
`
`(C)
`
`(D)
`
`FIG.-2.
`
`Ex. 1020, Fig. 2; 4:29-39; Ex. 1019, 1[1[ 13-14.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the alleged inventions of
`
`the '399 patent were made ("POSA") 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, W 13-14. Thus, Hochstein discloses "signals
`
`other than a standard A.C.line voltage," even under the narrow construction of this
`
`term proffered by Philips.
`
`B. Hochstein Discloses an AC Dimmer Circuit
`
`Philips attempts to limit the term "A. C. dimmer circuit" through claim
`
`construction to exclude the signal generated by Hochstein, a half-wave rectified
`
`signal. Philips argwnent is improperly driven by its litigation position and its claim
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`construction should be rejected as discussed in Section II.B above. Under the
`
`proper, broadest reasonable construction, and as Dr. Zane admitted, the half-wave
`
`rectified signal in Hochstein is "derived from anAC voltage." Ex. 1017, 132:18-
`
`133:1. At Institution, the Board stated that it was persuaded that "Hochstein
`
`discloses an A. C. power source that provides a signal to dim the LED device in
`
`response to a change in the signal." Institution Decision at 14.
`
`While Philips is correct that the signal that dims the LED device in Hochstein
`
`is a type of D.C. signal, the claims of the '399 patent do not require that the A.C.
`
`dimmer circuit output an A. C. signal. See supra Section II.B. Under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of this claim term, an A.C. input is enough to make a
`
`dimmer circuit an "A. C. dimmer circuit." The dimmer circuit in Hochstein is
`
`connected to the A. C. power on the power input lines 22 to the power supply 10.
`
`Ex. 1003, 11:16-21; Ex. 1006, ~55. Thus, the A.C. dimmer circuit in Hochstein
`
`receives an A. C. signal. Further, the dimmer output disclosed in Hochstein is "half
`
`wave rectified a.c. line power." Ex. 1003, 10:38-6. The half-wave rectified signals
`
`in Hochstein-like the amplitude and angle modulated signals in the examples of
`
`the '399 patent-are used to control power delivered to the light source. Ex. 1001,
`
`2:31-34.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`C.
`
`Hochstein Discloses a User Interface
`
`Despite not proposing a construction for the term ''user interface," Philips
`
`repeats its overly narrow argument from its Preliminary Response that Hochstein
`
`does not disclose a user interface because it does not disclose "turning a knob or
`
`moving a slider" as stated in the specification (but not the claims) of the '399 patent.
`
`Response at 30. Hochstein discloses that its circuit is designed to receive signals
`
`from traffic signal controllers that utilize A. C. triac dimmer circuits as described
`
`above, and specifically designed to combat the leakage current problem generated
`
`by such controllers. Ex. 1003, 5:15-20. These controllers are programmed to send
`
`dimming signals. /d., 11:24-27. Furthermore, Hochstein discloses that "users
`
`expect the LED retrofit lamps to operate normally without added modifications to
`
`the housing or traffic controller." Ex. 1003, 10:32-34. A person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have understood that these traffic signal controllers contain user
`
`interfaces used to set up the traffic light systems, including keyboards and displays.
`
`Ex. 1019, mf 15-16.
`
`Dr. Zane, in opining that Hochstein does not disclose a user interface,
`
`admitted that he relied upon an example from the specification of the '399 patent in
`
`forming his opinion, despite the broad defmition of ''user interface" in the
`
`specification, including the fact that specific examples of user interfaces are non-
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 31
`
`

`
`limiting. Ex. 1017, 151:14-152:12. Regarding non-limiting examples ofuser
`
`interfaces, the specification of the '399 patent states:
`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`The term ''user interface" as used herein refers to an
`interface between a human user or operator and one
`or more devices
`that enables communication
`between the user and the device(s). Examples of
`user interfaces that may be employed in various
`implementations of the present invention include,
`but are not limited to, switches, potentiometers,
`buttons, dials, sliders, a mouse, keyboard, keypad,
`various types of game controllers (e.g., joysticks),
`track balls, display screens, various
`types of
`graphical user interfaces (GUis), touch screens,
`microphones and other types of sensors that may
`receive some form of human-generated stimulus
`and generate a signal in response thereto.
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:26-37.
`
`The Board has already concluded that Hochstein discloses a user interface
`
`because the Hochstein dimming functions are described in relation to a user.
`
`Institution Decision at 14. The Board is correct that, although Hochstein does not
`
`disclose a knob or slider, Hochstein nevertheless discloses a user interface as
`
`defined by the '399 patent. Hochstein explicitly states that "users expect the LED
`
`retrofit lamps to operate normally without added modifications to the housing or
`
`traffic controller." Ex. 1003, 10:32-34 (emphasis added). Further, the '399 patent
`
`explicitly discloses a sensor as an example of a user interface. Ex. 1001, 7:35-36.
`
`Hochstein states that, "traffic signals are dimmed at night to reduce glare and, of
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`course, power consumption." Ex. 1003, 10:37-38. A POSA would have understood
`
`Hochstein's disclosure to mean that, in order for this dimming to take place, there
`
`must be either a sensor (such as a sensor to detect when it is night by sensing
`
`ambient light) or a user interface by which an operator can pre-program dimming
`
`times or send dimming commands. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 11:24-27 ("The control
`
`signal is directed to the power supply regulator circuit 38, where it causes the output
`
`voltage of the switchmode power supply 10 to be reduced in response to the
`
`dimming command.") (emphasis added); Ex. 1019, mf 15-16. Therefore, Hochstein
`
`discloses a user interface.
`
`D. Hochstein Discloses a Variable Duty Cycle
`
`The Board has already construed "duty cycle" to mean "the ratio of pulse
`
`duration to pulse period." Institution Decision at 8. As discussed above, Philips
`
`attempts to narrow this definition further by relying upon extrinsic evidence for the
`
`term "pulse." There is nothing in the intrinsic evidence, however, that requires the
`
`duty cycle to be analyzed on a pulse-by-pulse basis. The specification of the '399
`
`patent contemplates this, stating that the duty cycle can be modified by chopping out
`
`portions of A.C. voltage cycles, which includes two pulses. Ex. 1001, 2:4-6.
`
`Philips argues that because a portion of each pulse is not altered, there can be
`
`no change in the duty cycle. Response at 32. However, Philips fundamentally
`
`misunderstands the scope of the claims; what is varied is the duty cycle of the
`
`13
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`power-related signal. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, claim 7. By removing half of the pulses
`
`of the standard AC line voltage to create a half-wave rectified waveform, Hochstein
`
`discloses that the duty cycle is reduced by half. Ex. 1019, W 17-18. To avoid this
`
`inevitability, Dr. Zane strains the definition of"duty cycle," stating that the duty
`
`cycle for the positive pulses is 100% and there is no duty cycle for the negative
`
`pulses that have been chopped out. Ex. 2004,, 78; Ex. 1017, 161:16-162:7.
`
`However, Dr. Zane inexplicably reduces the "pulse period" to the length of the
`
`pulse. A POSA would have understood that the period of a signal is measured by
`
`using the smallest amount of time it takes for the function to repeat itself. Ex. 1019,
`
`, 17. The Board has construed the term "duty cycle" to mean "the ratio of pulse
`
`duration to pulse period." Institution Decision at 8. As shown below, the period of
`
`a half-wave rectified signal isn't only the length of the pulse, but the length of time
`
`it takes the function to repeat itself:
`
`v
`
`c
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`Ex. 1019, '1[17. If the length were collapsed to the width of the pulse, as Dr. Zane's
`
`analysis requires, then every duty cycle would always be 100%. /d. Since a half
`
`wave rectified signal has half of the pulses chopped out, the duty cycle of the
`
`power-related signal in Hochstein is varied, from 100% (full light mode) to 50%
`
`(dim mode). Id.; Ex. 1006, '11'1!48-51, 60-61.
`
`Even ifPhi1ips's improper construction is adopted, it would have been well-
`
`known by a POSA that when an A. C. signal-which pulses both in the positive
`
`polarity and in the negative polarity-is being modulated by a triac, the modulation
`
`of positive and negative half cycles may differ. See, e.g., Ex. 1018, Fig. Sb; 5:51-
`
`6:37; Ex. 1019, '1[18. Thus, a half-wave rectified signal can have a variable duty
`
`cycle even when only every other pulse is altered. Ex. 1019, '1[18.
`
`E. Hochstein Discloses Adjustment Circuitry and Power Circuitry
`
`Philips also argues that Hochstein does not disclose an "adjustment circuit"
`
`and ''power circuitry" as required by claims 17 and 28. Response at 36. Philips's
`
`position is entirely dependent on its argument that there is no varying power-related
`
`signal in Hochstein. Philips argues that because the "adjustment circuit" and
`
`"power circuitry" variably control intensity and provide power "based on the
`
`varying power-related signal," and that because it argues no such signal exists in
`
`Hochstein, these claim elements cannot be met. Response at 36-37. However, as
`
`explained above in Section III.D, the half-wave rectified power-related signal in
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`Hochstein is a varying power-related signal, as it represents a power that is varied
`
`from its fulllOO% operating point to its 50% operating point. Ex. 1006, mf 60-61.
`
`Thus, Philips's argument should be rejected.
`
`IV. Hochstein in Combination with Bogdan Renders Claims 7, 8, 17, 28, and
`34 Obvious
`
`Philips does not dispute that the combination of Bogdan and Hochstein
`
`discloses every element of claims 7, 8, 17, 28, and 34. Philips instead argues that
`
`these two references are not analogous art and cannot be combined despite the fact
`
`that both references disclose solutions related to dimming existing lighting systems
`
`that run on A. C. line voltage in retrofit applications. Because the scope of
`
`analogous art is to be construed broadly, a POSA3 at the time of the invention would
`
`have been motivated to combine Hochstein and Bogdan. Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`
`616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("The Supreme Court's decision in KSR . ..
`
`directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly.").4
`
`3 Petitioner is applying the POSA defined by Mr. Tingler throughout this
`declaration. Philips has proposed a level of skill in the art that is higher than that
`proposed by Mr. Tingler and, thus, applying Philips's proposed POSA would not
`change this analysis, as persons having a greater level of education, training, or
`experience in the field will more readily appreciate technical details that may be
`more challenging for persons having a lower level of skill.
`4 Additionally, Philips presents no evidence of any secondary considerations
`of non-obviousness.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`A. Hochstein and Bogdan are Analogous Art
`
`Despite the broad definition of the "field of invention" in the '399 patent as
`
`being "directed generally to methods and apparatus [sic] for providing power to
`
`devices on A.C. power circuits," (Ex. 1001, 1:25-27), Philips takes the position that
`
`Hochstein and Bogdan, both of which provide power to devices on A.C. power
`
`circuits, are not in the same field as the '399 patent. The Board has already held
`
`that Bogdan and Hochstein are analogous because they "solve similar problems for
`
`dimming non-traditional light sources." Institution Decision at 17.
`
`Philips first argues that Hochstein and Bogdan are not analogous art and are
`
`dissimilar because Hochstein powers LEDs and Bogdan powers gas discharge and
`
`incandescent lamps. Response at 42. Philips also argues that the '399 patent and
`
`Bogdan pertain to different functions, namely, powering LED illumination signals
`
`(the '399 patent) and encoding/decoding A. C. waveforms on existing power circuits
`
`(Bogdan). Because Philips misapplies the law of analogous art, these arguments
`
`should be rejected.
`
`The scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly. Wyers, 616 F.3d at
`
`1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A reference qualifies as analogous if it is "from the same
`
`field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed." I d. at 123 7 (emphasis
`
`added). Each of Bogdan, Hochstein, and the '399 patent are in the same field of
`
`endeavor and, therefore, constitute analogous art. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that prior art toothbrush was analogous to claimed hair
`
`brush); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979) (confining the field of
`
`endeavor to the scope explicitly stated in the background of the invention). Both
`
`Hochstein and the '399 patent disclose systems and methods by which LED lights
`
`are powered, and dimmed, from an A. C. line. Hochstein, Bogdan and the '399
`
`patent relate to dimming applications in lighting. Ex. 1006, '1['1[88, 91-101.
`
`Additionally, each of Hochstein, Bogdan, and the '399 patent rely on standard A.C.
`
`line voltage as their input. Ex. 1017, 177:10-178:8 ("AC1 and AC3 [of Bogdan] are
`
`correlating back to Figure 1 as well, and so these would be the AC utility at the
`
`input"); 179:4-7 ("So from my understanding of Hochstein, you know, this would
`
`be connected either to the standard AC utility, or it would be connected to the half-
`
`wave rectifi[er]."). Thus, Hochstein and Bogdan are analogous art because they
`
`receive standard A. C. line voltage inputs and are used for dimming applications.
`
`That the '399 patent and Hochstein relate to LED applications and Bogdan relates to
`
`gas discharge lamps does not remove them from the same field of endeavor.
`
`Further evidencing the analogous nature of Hochstein and Bogdan is the fact
`
`that both are cited together as relevant art to several other patents. See, e.g., U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 9,192,011, "Systems and methods of applying bleed circuits in LED
`
`lamps" (Ex. 1021); 9,265,119, "Systems and methods for providing thermal fold-
`
`back to LED lights" (Ex. 1022); 9,326,346, "Method and device for remote sensing
`
`18
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 31
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,038,399
`IPR2015-01294
`
`and control of LED lights" (Ex. 1023); 9,161,415, "Method and device for remote
`
`sensing and control of LED lights" (Ex. 1024). Each of these patents relates to
`
`LEDs, indicating that B