throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
`
` Entered: February, 15 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 IPR2016-01455
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`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, 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 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(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, 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 IPR2016-01453 (filed
`concurrently and previously decided) 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
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`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 2:58–3:4.
`Figure 1, below, shows an example operation of conventional A.C.
`dimming devices. Id. at 9:36–37.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`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 voltage, the at least one
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`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
`
`Schie1
`
`Schie
`
`Schie and Dalnodar2
`Lys,3 Dalnodar, and
`Schie
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claim[s] Challenged
`1, 11, 17–19, 26,
`38, and 43–45
`1, 11, 17–19, 26,
`38, and 43–45
`3–5
`
`6
`
`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
`patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,940,733 to Schie et al., filed August 22, 2003, issued
`Sep. 6, 2005 (“Schie,” Ex. 1003).
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,504,400 to Dalnodar, issued Apr. 2, 1996 (“Dalnodar,”
`Ex. 1004).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,211,626 to Lys et al., issued Apr. 3, 2001 (“Lys,” Ex.
`1005).
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`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)).
`Based on the current record, we conclude that no express claim
`construction 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.”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`
`B. Grounds based on Schie (Ex. 1003)
`Each of the challenged grounds presented by Petitioner relies on Schie
`as prior art to the ’679 patent. Below we address the parties’ contentions
`regarding the priority date of the challenged claims of the ’679 patent and
`the priority date of Schie.
`1. Priority Date of the ’679 Patent
`To obtain benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120, a party must establish that an
`earlier U.S. application complies with the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
`with respect to each claim for which benefit is desired. See 35 U.S.C. § 120;
`see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.78; see also Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154,
`1158 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (discussing requirements of claiming benefit of
`priority date of earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120). The test for
`written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the
`specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to
`demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad
`Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy
`35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the written description must convey with
`reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in
`possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
`1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). One shows “possession” of the invention
`by describing the invention using such descriptive means as words,
`structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed
`invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir.
`1997); see also Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., Inc., 181 F.3d 1291,
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`1302–03 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Different claims of [a CIP] application may
`therefore receive different effective filing dates. . . . Subject matter that
`arises for the first time in [a] CIP application does not receive the benefit of
`the filing date of the parent application.”). A prior application, however,
`need not contain precisely the same words as are found in the asserted
`claims. See Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1995);
`Purdue Pharma LP v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`(holding that the disclosure does not have to provide in haec verba support
`in order to satisfy the written description requirement). In addition,
`“[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not
`disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” In re
`Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Lockwood v. Am.
`Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The issue of
`whether the written description requirement has been satisfied is a question
`of fact. Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 865 (Fed. Cir.
`1993).
`The ’679 patent states that it “claims the benefit, under 35 U.S.C.
`§119(e), of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/558,235, filed Mar. 31,
`2004, entitled ‘Methods and Apparatus for Providing Power to Lighting
`Devices’” and
`also claims the benefit, under 35 U.S.C. §120, as a continuation-
`in-part (CIP) of U.S. Non-provisional application Ser. No.
`10/435,687, filed May 9, 2003, entitled “Method and Apparatus
`for Providing Power to Lighting Devices,” which is now U.S.
`Pat. No. 7,038,399, which in turn claims priority to U.S.
`Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/379,079, filed May 9, 2002,
`entitled “Systems and Methods for Controlling LED Based
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`Lighting,” and U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No.
`60/391,627, filed Jun. 26, 2002, entitled “Switched Current
`Sink.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:7–20. Thus, the ’679 patent, filed March 31, 2005, claims
`priority as follows:
`• March 31, 2004, for Provisional Application No. 60/558,235
`(Ex. 1010, “the ’235 provisional”);
`• May 9, 2003, for U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399 (Ex. 1009, “the
`’399 patent”);
`• June 26, 2002, for Provisional Application No. 60/391,627
`(Ex. 1011, “the ’627 provisional”); and
`• May 9, 2002, for Provisional Application No. 60/379,079 (Ex.
`1012, “the ’079 provisional”).
`Petitioner argues that because each of the challenged claims of the
`’679 patent recites a “conventional MR16 socket,” these claims are entitled
`to priority no earlier than March 31, 2004, the date of the ’235 application
`(Ex. 1010), which contains sufficient support for the MR16 claim limitations
`of the ’679 patent. Pet. 3, 16. Petitioner argues that the predecessor ’399
`patent (Ex. 1009) and the ’627 and ’079 provisionals (Ex. 1011, Ex. 1012)
`do not disclose an MR16 socket. Pet. 17, 23–24. Specifically, Petitioner
`contends that the general types of power connections of lighting systems
`discussed in the ’079 provisional (Ex. 1012) and the ’399 patent (Ex. 1009)
`do not disclose “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” as claimed in the ’679 patent,
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`and therefore, the claims of the ’679 patent are not entitled to the May 9,
`2002 filing date of the ’079 provisional. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 47–
`48); see Pet. 18–19 (noting that ’399 patent never refers to an MR16 socket
`in examples of power connectors for light housing shapes and connectors
`types); Ex. 1009, 12:32–46 (describing connector types for light housings).
`Patent Owner argues that the ’399 patent and ’079 provisional provide
`adequate written support for the “conventional MR16 socket” limitations of
`the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 12–18. Patent Owner argues that the
`’399 specification depicts a conventional incandescent light bulb having a
`screw-type base connector, but contemplates other housing shapes and
`connectors, including multi-pin and conventional halogen type sockets.
`Prelim. Resp. 13. The ’399 patent states in full that:
`FIG. 3 illustrates an LED-based lighting unit 200 according to
`one embodiment of the present invention. For purposes of
`illustration, the lighting unit 200 is 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. It should be appreciated,
`however, that the invention is not limited in this respect, as a
`number of other configurations including other housing shapes
`and/or connector types are possible according to other
`embodiments.
` Various examples of power connector
`configurations include, but are not limited to, screw-type
`connectors, wedge-type connectors, multi-pin type connectors,
`and the like, to facilitate engagement with conventional
`incandescent, halogen, fluorescent or high intensity discharge
`(HID) type sockets. Such sockets, in turn, may be connected
`directly to a source of A.C. power (e.g., line voltage), or via a
`switch and/or dimmer to the source of A.C. power.
`Ex. 1001, 13:60–14:10 (emphasis added).
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`Patent Owner argues that “[t]hese disclosures in the ’399 patent—
`including “multi-pin type connectors” and “halogen . . . type sockets”—
`reasonably convey to a personal of ordinary skill the use of conventional
`MR16 bulbs having bi-pin connectors because of its wide acceptance as a
`commonly used and standardized halogen incandescent bulb.” Prelim.
`Resp. 14. Thus, Patent Owner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan
`would have understood the inventors possessed the claims that include a
`conventional MR16 socket, which is widely known as a conventional multi-
`pin type connector for halogen type sockets. Id.
`Patent Owner further contends that the ’079 provisional contains the
`same disclosure as the ’399 patent, stating that “‘[t]he power adapter may be
`an incandescent-style base, halogen-style base, fluorescent style base,
`compact fluorescent-style base, high intensity discharge (HID) style base,
`screw base, wedge base, pin base or other adapter to allow the lighting
`system 200 to be connected to a power system.” Prelim. Resp. 16–17
`(quoting Ex. 1012, 12:24–27). Patent Owner further notes that the ’079
`provisional describes that “[s]uch an adapter may be used to connect an LED
`lighting system to a conventional control system, power system, or socket.”
`Prelim. Resp. 17 (quoting Ex. 1012, 12:27–28). Finally, Patent Owner notes
`that claim 59 in the ’079 provisional, expressly recites that “the power
`connector comprises a halogen-style lamp base.” Prelim. Resp. (quoting Ex.
`1012, 27:2–3).
`In sum, Patent Owner contends that these express disclosures of a
`genus of connectors—including “pin base” and “halogen-style lamp base”—
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that inventor possessed the
`specific MR16 species of connector. Prelim. Resp. 17–18.
`Upon review of the record and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner
`that the ’399 patent and ’079 provisional satisfy the written description
`requirement showing that the inventors possessed the conventional MR16
`socket claimed in the ’679 patent. In this case, the ’079 provisional and ’399
`patent disclose the general types of connectors and housing using terms a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand include the general types
`of lighting of which the MR16 is just one variant. See Ex. 2001, 7.24
`(discussing “standard MR16 lamps” using “a 2-pin or turn-and-lock base”);
`Prelim. Resp. 6 n.6 (providing citations for MR16 bulbs as being well
`known and conventional). The general housing disclosures in the ’399
`patent and ’079 provisional provide sufficient detail necessary to convey to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art that the scope of the claims include non-
`screw type bases such as halogen and pin-type bases and connectors. See
`also Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336,
`1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[I]n some cases, broad or generic disclosures can
`adequately describe particular constituent species.”); Cordis Corp. v.
`Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“A
`specification may . . . contain a written description of a broadly claimed
`invention without describing all species that [the] claim encompasses.”
`(alteration in original)); Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d
`1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (noting that level of detail required to
`establish possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date
`“varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`complexity and predictability of the relevant technology”). The disclosure
`of the type of bulb housing, e.g. halogen, and type of connectors, e.g. pin-
`type, is adequate written description support for the particular type of
`housing claimed in the ’679 patent.
`Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, we do not find that the lack of
`express reference to a conventional MR16 socket in either the ’399 patent or
`’079 provisional indicates that such a socket is new matter or shows that the
`inventor did not possess the inclusion of an MR16 socket. Pet. 17. We are
`also not persuaded by Petitioner’s conclusory declarant testimony, which
`does not address the multi-pin or halogen type bulb disclosures and instead
`observes that the ’079 provisional and ’399 patent do not expressly mention
`or describe an MR16 bulb. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44–48.
`We disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’679 patent priority is
`limited to the ’235 provisional (as new matter) based on the lack of express
`disclosure of the conventional MR16 socket in the ’079 provisional and the
`’399 patent. Pet. 16–17 (discussing new matter in ’235 provisional), 18–34
`(describing lack of express disclosure in ’079 provisional and ’399 patent).
`Finally, we also disagree with Petitioner’s argument that the ’399
`patent and ’079 provisional do not provide adequate written description of
`the “conventional MR16 socket” through incorporation by reference. Pet.
`19–20. To incorporate material by reference, “the host document must
`identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and
`clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents.”
`Adv. Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir.
`2000). We agree with Patent Owner that the ’399 patent and ’079
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`provisional properly incorporate the identified applications and patents with
`particular, clear references to incorporate the entire document. See Ex.
`1009, 1:8–14, 7:46–8:21; Ex. 1012, 1:4–23; see Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d
`1331, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The ’399 patent states that “[t]he following
`patents and patent applications are hereby incorporated herein by reference,”
`and identifies a list of patents/applications by title, number, and filing/issue
`date. Ex. 1009, 7:46–8:21. The ’079 provisional expressly states that “[t]his
`application is related to and hereby incorporates by reference herein the
`entire disclosure of the following U.S. Patent Applications” and provides
`two applications that refer to MR16 lighting and provide a figure showing
`and MR16 type housing and connector. Ex. 1012, 1:4–23; see Pet. 19–20
`(citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 0305; Ex. 1016, Figure 9, 11:32–35 and acknowledging
`the two cited documents refer to MR16 lighting). Accordingly, we find that
`the references incorporated into the ’079 provisional (and ’399 patent) also
`provide sufficient written description support for the “conventional MR16
`socket” limitations of the ’679 patent.
`Petitioner does not challenge the written description support for any
`other limitations of the challenged claims, apart from the “conventional
`MR16 socket” limitation. Pet. 16–24. Patent Owner, however, provides a
`thorough and persuasive chart showing written description support in the
`’399 patent and ’079 provisional for each of the challenged claims of the
`’679 patent. Prelim. Resp. 29–62 (chart with citations to the ’399 patent and
`’079 provisional for claims 1, 3–6, 11, 17–19, 26, 38, and 43–45 of the ’679
`patent).
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`Patent 7,358,679 B2
`
`Based on the foregoing, we find that the priority date of the
`challenged claims of the ’679 patent is the date of the ’079 provisional, May
`9, 2002, as both the ’399 patent and the ’079 provisional provide adequate
`written description support for the “conventional MR16 socket limitation” of
`the challenged claims.
`2. Schie (Ex. 1003) as Prior Art to the ’679 Patent
`Given our finding above that the priority date of ’679 patent is May 9,
`2002, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Schie, with an earliest
`available priority date of August 22, 2002 (Pet. 24–39; Prelim. Resp. 1–2), is
`prior art to the ’679 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Because each of
`Petitioner’s grounds for challenging the ’679 patent relies on Schie (Pet. 3–
`4, 41–67), we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood that it
`would prevail in showing that claims 1, 3–6, 11, 17–19, 26, 38, and 43–45 of
`the ’679 patent are unpatentable.
`
`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, 3–6, 11, 17–19, 26, 38, and 43–45 of the ’679 patent are
`unpatentable.
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`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.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01455
`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
`
`19
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket