throbber

`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`FEIT ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent No. 6,586,890
`_____________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PETER W. SHACKLE, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT 6,586,890
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FEIT 1003
`Feit v. Philips Lighting
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,586,890
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. Qualifications .......................................................................................................................... 3
`III. My Understanding of Claim Construction .......................................................................... 9
`IV. My Understanding of Obviousness ................................................................................... 10
`V. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................................................... 14
`VI.
`The ’890 Patent ................................................................................................................. 14
`A. Current regulation for an LED array ................................................................................. 14
`B.
`Indication that the LED array is inoperable ...................................................................... 24
`C. Claims ............................................................................................................................... 26
`VII. Background of the Technologies Relevant to the ’890 Patent .......................................... 30
`VIII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................................... 34
`A. Claim 7: “means for sensing current to the LED array, said current sensing means
`generating a sensed current signal” ........................................................................................... 34
`B. Claim 7: “means for generating a reference signal” ......................................................... 36
`C. Claim 7: “means for comparing the sensed current signal to the reference signal” ......... 37
`D. Claim 7: “means for modulating pulse width responsive to the feedback signal, said pulse
`width modulating means generating a drive signal” ................................................................. 38
`E. Claim 7: “means for supplying power responsive to the drive signal”............................. 39
`F. Claims 14, 22, and 30: “means for indicating the LED array is inoperable”/“the LED
`array is inoperable”/“LED array inoperable signal” ................................................................. 40
`IX.
`GROUND 1: Biebl renders obvious claims 1, 22, and 30. ............................................... 41
`A. Claim 1 .............................................................................................................................. 46
`B. Claim 15 (now cancelled) ................................................................................................. 56
`C. Claim 23 (now cancelled) ................................................................................................. 65
`D. Claims 22 and 30: LED inoperable claims ....................................................................... 68
`X. GROUND 2: Biebl in view of Hamp in further view of the TI Book renders obvious claims
`7 and 14. ........................................................................................................................................ 73
`A. Claim 7 .............................................................................................................................. 76
`B. Claim 14: “means for indicating the LED array is inoperable” ........................................ 96
`XI.
`GROUND 3: Hamp in view of LT1613 renders obvious claim 7. ................................... 98
`A.
`[7.PRE] “A system for supplying power for an LED array” ............................................ 98
`B.
`[7.A] “means for sensing current to the LED array, said current sensing means generating
`a sensed current signal” ............................................................................................................ 98
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`[7.B] “means for generating a reference signal” ............................................................. 100
`C.
`[7.C] “means for comparing the sensed current signal to the reference signal, said
`D.
`comparing means generating a feedback signal” .................................................................... 103
`E.
`[7.D] “means for modulating pulse width responsive to the feedback signal, said pulse
`width modulating means generating a drive signal” ............................................................... 105
`F.
`[7.E] “means for supplying power responsive to the drive signal, said power supplying
`means supplying current to the LED array” ........................................................................... 108
`XII. GROUND 4: Hamp in view of LT1613 in further view of Biebl renders obvious claim
`14.
`109
`XIII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`I, Dr. Peter Shackle, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Feit Electric Co. (“Feit”) for the
`
`above-captioned inter partes review proceeding. I understand that this proceeding
`
`involves U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890 (“the ’890 patent”) titled “LED Driver Circuit
`
`with PWM Output.” I understand that Feit challenges the patentability of claims 1,
`
`7, 14, 22, and 30 of the ’890 patent. I understand that the ’890 patent was
`
`previously challenged in another IPR, IPR2015-01292 (“the ’292 IPR”). The ’292
`
`IPR ended with the Board cancelling the ’890 patent’s claims 15 and 23. (FEIT
`
`1016, 0002.)
`
`2.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed and am familiar with
`
`what appear to be true and accurate copies of the following references:
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1011
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890 to Min et al. (“’890 patent”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890 (“’890 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,400,101 to Biebl et al. (“Biebl”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0033503 to Hamp et al. (“Hamp”)
`Linear Technology LT1613 Data Sheet, Linear Technology
`Corporation, 1997 (“LT1613”)
`Excerpts from Texas Instruments Power Supply Control Products
`(PS): Data Book, 1999 (“TI Book”)
`Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices (Paper 53), Wangs Alliance
`Corporation d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. v. Philips Lighting Holding
`B.V., Case No. IPR2015-01292 (P.T.A.B.), April 22, 2016
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 8), Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a
`WAC Lighting Co. v. Philips Lighting Holding B.V., Case No.
`IPR2015-01292 (P.T.A.B.), November 25, 2015
`Decision on Request for Rehearing of Institution Decision (Paper
`18), Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. v. Philips
`Lighting Holding B.V., Case No. IPR2015-01292 (P.T.A.B.), January
`26, 2016
`Final Written Decision (Paper 64), Wangs Alliance Corporation
`d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. v. Philips Lighting Holding B.V., Case No.
`IPR2015-01292 (P.T.A.B.), November 23, 2016
`Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, Wangs Alliance Corporation
`d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. v. Philips Lighting Holding B.V., Case No.
`17-1530 (C.A.F.C.), June 12, 2017
`Inter Partes Review certificate for Case No. IPR2015-01292 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,586,890, issued February 7, 2018
`Validity Contentions for the ’890 patent, served by Complainant
`Philips Lighting Holding B.V., LED Lighting Devices, LED Power
`Supplies, and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1081
`(I.T.C.)
`Complainants’ Initial Markman Brief, LED Lighting Devices, LED
`Power Supplies, and Components Thereof,
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1081 (I.T.C.), February 13, 2018
`Respondents’ Initial Markman Brief, LED Lighting Devices, LED
`Power Supplies, and Components Thereof,
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1081 (I.T.C.), February 13, 2018
`
`I have also considered all other materials cited herein.
`
`The ’890 patent describes a “driver circuit for light emitting diodes
`
`(LEDs) of the present invention provides power to LEDs using pulse width
`
`modulation (PWM).” (FEIT 1001, ’890 patent, Abstract.) I am familiar with the
`
`technology described in the ’890 patent as of its 2001 priority date.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`5.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights,
`
`and opinions regarding the ’890 patent and the references that form the basis for
`
`the grounds of rejection set forth in the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’890
`
`patent.
`
`6.
`
`As set forth below, in my opinion, claims 1, 7, 14, 22, and 30 of the
`
`’890 patent are obvious. In particular, I find obviousness on four separate grounds:
`
`• Ground 1: Biebl renders obvious claims 1, 22, and 30.
`
`• Ground 2: Biebl in view of the TI Book in further view of Hamp renders
`
`obvious claims 7 and 14.
`
`• Ground 3: Hamp in view of the LT1613 renders obvious claim 7.
`
`• Ground 4: Hamp in view of the LT1613 in further view of Biebl renders
`
`obvious claim 14.
`
`II. Qualifications
`
`7.
`
`I reside at 112 Aspen Way, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274. I hold a
`
`bachelor’s degree in physics from the University of Birmingham (United
`
`Kingdom) and a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Cambridge (United
`
`Kingdom).
`
`8.
`
`I have over 20 years’ experience in the field of lighting electronics,
`
`with particular emphasis on light emitting diode (LED) drivers and electronic
`
`ballasts. I am the President of Photalume, a consulting company I founded in 2012.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Before
`
`that, I was Director of Power Supply Products at Light-Based
`
`Technologies, and I also served as Chief Technology Officer for Lightech
`
`Electronics, Inc. Additionally, I held vice president positions at Fulham Co, Inc.,
`
`Universal Lighting Technologies, and Robertson Worldwide.
`
`9.
`
`I am an elected senior life member of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers, and I am a member of the Illuminating Engineering Society.
`
`10.
`
`I am a named inventor of 61 U.S. patents. I have also authored eight
`
`publications in peer reviewed journals and nine publications in trade journals, the
`
`most recent of which pertains to LED technology. My curriculum vitae is attached
`
`as exhibit 1004.
`
`11.
`
`In 1965, I earned a Bachelor’s degree in physics from the University
`
`of Birmingham in the United Kingdom, graduating at the top of my class. In 1969,
`
`I earned a Ph.D. in Physics from Trinity College in Cambridge, UK.
`
`12. From May 1969 to June 1970, I was a member of technical staff at the
`
`GEC Hirst Research Center in Wembley, UK, where I did research on circuits and
`
`structures for microwave avalanche diodes.
`
`13. From June 1970 to June 1980, I was a member of technical staff at
`
`AT&T Bell laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. There, I did research on solid-
`
`state devices in general and high-voltage integrated circuits in particular. I became
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`a group supervisor in 1979. I invented the first 500 V integrated circuit, for which I
`
`was awarded a prize at the 1981 International Solid State Circuits Conference.
`
`14. From June 1980 to November 1983, I was manager of high-voltage
`
`integrated circuit products at Harris Semiconductor in Melbourne, Florida. There, I
`
`developed high-voltage AC line powered integrated circuits. This work was the
`
`subject of a cover page article in Electronics Design magazine.
`
`15. From November 1983 to April 1987, I was vice president of
`
`engineering for Telmos, Inc. in Sunnyvale, California. There, I developed the first
`
`500 V CMOS technology and put numerous high-voltage IC chips into production.
`
`In 1986, I chaired the Electrochemical Society symposium on high-voltage and
`
`smart power devices. That symposium has since morphed into the conference
`
`series known as the IEEE International Symposium on Power Semiconductor
`
`Devices and ICs (ISPSD), which continues to today and is now on its 30th
`
`anniversary.
`
`16. From April 1987 to August 1991, I was a research department head at
`
`Philips Research Laboratories in Briarcliff, New York. There, I worked on the
`
`application of power IC technology to all products in the Philips family of
`
`companies. I worked on analysis of customer needs and specification of power IC
`
`products to meet those needs. I ran a department of 20 employees that produced
`
`power IC designs, including chips for fluorescent lighting ballasts.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`17. From August 1991 to April 1993, I was manager of ballast integrated
`
`circuit design at Motorola Lighting Inc. in Buffalo Grove, Illinois. There, I worked
`
`on novel ballast circuits suitable for integration into silicon. I also put three
`
`conventional ballast circuits into production.
`
`18. From April 1993 to October 2000, I was engineering manager and
`
`chief technologist at Energy Savings, Inc. in Schaumburg, IL. I worked on
`
`fundamental issues making possible the development of low cost, low profile
`
`electronic ballasts. I personally designed and put into manufacture 60 ballasts in
`
`the first five years. Later, I managed a team of designers and technicians producing
`
`ballast designs while personally prototyping the more difficult designs. ESI ballasts
`
`combine high performance with low cost & small size with capability for
`
`extremely fast product development. I authored multiple inventions involving
`
`microprocessor controlled digital ballasts. My responsibilities in this company
`
`included all fundamental technology issues and patent related activities. I
`
`developed new low cost dimming technology. I personally designed the logical
`
`flow charts for microprocessor ballast software. Under my leadership, shipments
`
`increased from zero to $40M/yr. in seven years.
`
`19. All of the Energy Savings products included a boost front end which
`
`boosted up the power line input to a level of 450V DC. In the first few years these
`
`boost circuits were self-oscillating for a single voltage, and then later the boost
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`circuits became universal voltage under the control of a boost control IC. All of
`
`these products involved PWM power conversion. From October 2000 to May
`
`2002, I was V.P. of Engineering at Robertson Worldwide, Blue Island, IL. I
`
`managed both electronic and magnetic ballast new product development. I
`
`invented a new low cost electronic ballast architecture that still has all the specified
`
`features, marketed as the “World Series” ballasts. I trained engineering staff for
`
`modern electronic ballast development and assembled state of the art ballast
`
`characterization facilities.
`
`20. From May 2002 to August 2004, I was Director of Engineering and
`
`later V.P. of Advanced Technology at Universal Lighting Technologies, Inc.,
`
`Huntsville, AL. I worked on the latest analog and digital technology for electronic
`
`ballasts. Product focus was on low cost IC based products and on sophisticated
`
`microprocessor based products for more complex applications such as dimming
`
`and instant start T5. I ran an operation of 30 people and directly organized a group
`
`of nine, including three Ph.D. level staff. My achievements in this position
`
`included a line of microprocessor based instant start T5 ballasts and being awarded
`
`five patents.
`
`21. From August 2004 to December 2007, I was V.P. of Advanced
`
`Technology at Fulham Co., Inc., Hawthorne, CA. I was responsible for the
`
`technology direction of this fast growing company. My responsibilities included
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`creation of new technologies and development of new products involving
`
`innovative technology. My achievements at Fulham included the creation of the
`
`Racehorse family of high performance products that are the subject of a Fulham
`
`patent application, and the creation of a new charge pump technology for cost
`
`effective instant start T8 ballasts, subject of an issued patent. Nine products were
`
`transferred to China to be manufactured during this time. I managed design of a
`
`four channel LED driver which was transferred to China to be manufactured.
`
`22. From January 2008 to December 2010, I was chief technologist at
`
`Lightech Electronics North America, Inc. in Torrance, California. I operated a
`
`three person laboratory and developed advanced LED drives for this international
`
`company. During this time, I developed phase control dimming LED drives
`
`capable of dimming to 0.1% using TRIAC dimmers. I put eight such products
`
`through UL and into Chinese manufacturing, and three more European products
`
`through ENEC approval and into Chinese manufacturing. I developed a
`
`dramatically new technology for dimmable constant current LED drives with
`
`efficiency of 90%, capable of working at either 120V or 277V. My side
`
`responsibilities involved managing the patent portfolio of Lightech internationally.
`
`I filed two patent applications during this time.
`
`23. During my time at Motorola Lighting, Energy Savings, Robertson
`
`World Wide, Universal Lighting and Fulham Lighting, I either carried out or
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`managed the design of roughly 200 products that involved PWM boost technology.
`
`All of these products were put through UL or VDE and placed into manufacturing.
`
`24. From January 2011 to December 2011, I was Director of Power
`
`Supply Products for a company called Light-Based Technologies. There, I again
`
`managed a three-person laboratory in Torrance, California developing LED drive
`
`application circuits.
`
`25. Since January 2012 to present, I have been president and founder of
`
`Photalume, a consulting company in the field of lighting electronics products,
`
`particularly LED drive circuits and electronic ballast circuits.
`
`III. My Understanding of Claim Construction
`
`26.
`
`I understand that during an inter partes review, claims of an unexpired
`
`patent are to be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification as would be read by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
`
`(“skilled artisan” or “POSA”). In reading the claims in view of the specification, I
`
`understand that a claim interpretation that excludes the preferred (or only)
`
`embodiment disclosed is rarely, if ever, correct.
`
`27.
`
`I understand a special standard applies when interpreting a means-
`
`plus-function claim. Interpreting such a claim, I understand, is a two-step process.
`
`The first step is to determine the function of the means-plus-function limitation.
`
`The second step is to determine the corresponding structure described in the
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`specification. The claim is interpreted as limited to the specification’s structure and
`
`equivalents thereof. To determine whether a structure is equivalent to what the
`
`specification discloses, at least two tests are available: (i) the “function-way-result”
`
`(FWR) test, i.e., whether the accused product performs substantially the same
`
`function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result; and (ii) the
`
`“insubstantial differences” test, i.e., whether the accused product or process is
`
`substantially different from what is patented.
`
`IV. My Understanding of Obviousness
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field at the time the
`
`application was filed. This means that even if all of the requirements of the claim
`
`cannot be found in a single prior art reference that would anticipate the claim, the
`
`claim can still be invalid.
`
`29. As part of this inquiry, I have been asked to consider the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the field that someone would have had at the time the claimed
`
`invention was made. In deciding the level of ordinary skill, I considered the
`
`following:
`
`• the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
`• the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
`• the sophistication of the technology.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`30. To obtain a patent, a claimed invention must have, as of the priority
`
`date, been nonobvious in view of the prior art in the field. I understand that an
`
`invention is obvious when the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that to prove that prior art, or a combination of prior art,
`
`renders a patent obvious, it is necessary to: (1) identify the particular references
`
`that singly, or in combination, make the patent obvious; (2) specifically identify
`
`which elements of the patent claim appear in each of the asserted references; and
`
`(3) explain how the prior art references could have been combined in order to
`
`create the inventions claimed in the asserted claim.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that obviousness can be established by combining
`
`multiple prior art references to meet each and every claim element. I also
`
`understand that to support a combination of multiple prior art references, there
`
`must be a rationale explaining why a skilled artisan would have combined the
`
`references in the manner claimed, accompanied by a reasonable expectation of
`
`success of achieving what is claimed, and how the proposed combination meets
`
`each and every claim element of the claim in question. I also understand that a
`
`proposed combination of references can be susceptible to hindsight bias. When it
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`appears hindsight bias is being used, I understand the modification or combination
`
`is not considered obvious.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion
`
`of obviousness include: combining prior art elements according to known methods
`
`to yield predictable results; simple substitutions of one known element for another
`
`to obtain predictable results; using a known technique to improve similar devices
`
`in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predicable results; choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; known
`
`work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same
`
`field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the
`
`variations are predicable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill
`
`to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art teachings to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that if the proposed combination results in one or more of
`
`the references being unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, a POSA would not
`
`have had a motivation to combine or modify the reference(s).
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`35.
`
`I understand that if the proposed combination changes the principle of
`
`operation of one or more references, a POSA would not have had a motivation to
`
`combine or modify the reference(s).
`
`36.
`
`I understand that teaching away, e.g., discouragement from making
`
`the proposed modification, is strong evidence that the references are not
`
`combinable. I also understand that a disclosure of more than one alternative does
`
`not necessarily constitute a teaching away.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that the combination does not need to result in the most
`
`desirable embodiment, but if the proposed combination does not have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success at the time of the invention, a POSA would not have had an
`
`adequate teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of
`
`a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated or physically combined into the
`
`structure of the primary reference, but whether the claimed invention is rendered
`
`obvious by the teachings of the references as a whole.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that certain objective indicia can be important evidence
`
`regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia include: (1)
`
`commercial success of products covered by the patent claims; (2) a long-felt need
`
`for the invention; (3) failed attempts by others to make the invention; (4) copying
`
`of the invention by others in the field; (5) unexpected results achieved by the
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`invention as compared to the closest prior art; (6) praise of the invention by the
`
`infringer or others in the field; (7) the taking of licenses under the patent by others;
`
`(8) expressions of surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of
`
`the invention; and (9) the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of
`
`the prior art.
`
`V. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`40. Based on the disclosure of the ’890 patent, one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, physics, or an equivalent
`
`field, as well as at least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in circuit
`
`design configuration, LED devices, or comparable industry experience. A person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art with a higher level of education may have fewer years of
`
`academic or industry experience, or vice versa.
`
`VI. The ’890 Patent
`
`A. Current regulation for an LED array
`41. The ’890 patent relates to powering LED arrays in, for example,
`
`automobiles. When powering LED arrays, “LED light output is proportional to the
`
`LED current.” (FEIT 1001, 1:20-21.) “Driving LEDs at other than nominal current
`
`can reduce LED life and produce unpredictable light output.” (Id., 1:27-29.) The
`
`’890 patent claims (incorrectly, as I will show with respect to Biebl, who earlier
`
`described pulse width modulation current limiting of automotive lights.): “At
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`present, LED drivers in vehicles use driver circuits with voltage source outputs,
`
`and current limiting resistors or linear current regulators.” (Id., 1:22-25.) These
`
`approaches have drawbacks: “Current limiting resistors cause power loss, making
`
`the driver circuits inefficient [and] … current regulation is not precise.” (Id., 1:25-
`
`27.)
`
`42. To deal with these issues, the ’890 patent describes “a driver circuit
`
`for … maintaining operation at the LEDs nominal current,” while offering “good
`
`regulation and efficiency.” (Id., 1:39-43.) To maintain nominal current, the ’890
`
`patent “us[es] pulse width modulation (PWM)” and “current feedback to adjust
`
`power to the LEDs.” (Id., 1:63-67.)
`
`43. Pulse width modulation (PWM), which was well known prior to the
`
`’890 patent, is a technique where a digital signal is transmitted as a series of pulses.
`
`The width of each pulse varies according to an input signal.
`
`44. Although PWM can be used to encode a signal, its main use is to
`
`control the power supply to electrical devices. A PWM controller circuit controls
`
`the average value of voltage or current fed to a load by turning the switch between
`
`supply and load on and off at a fast rate. The longer the switch is on compared to
`
`the off periods, the higher the total power supplied to the load. The ratio of the
`
`duration that the switch is on to the total cycle is known as the duty cycle. Various
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`duty cycles are illustrated in the figure below. This operation of PWM controllers
`
`was well known long before the ’890 patent.
`
`
`45. Turning back to the ’890 patent, the ’890 patent illustrates its LED
`
`driver generally in figure 1 and specifically in figures 2A-D. “FIG. 1 shows a block
`
`diagram of a driver circuit for LEDs.” (Id., 1:54-55.) The driver circuit includes a
`
`power supply 52 and a PWM control integrated circuit (IC) 56. “The power supply
`
`52 can be a DC/DC converter such as a buck-boost power supply or other
`
`alternatives, such as a boost, buck, or flyback converter.” (Id., 2:4-6.) It “supplies
`
`power for LED array 54 and is controlled by PWM control IC 56, … [which]
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`provides a high frequency periodic drive signal of varying pulse width.” (Id., 2:8-
`
`9.) PWM control IC 56 varies the pulse width “in response to a feedback signal.”
`
`(Id., 2:8-11.) The feedback signal is generated by a comparator 58 “by comparing
`
`the sensed current signal from current sensor 60 and the reference signal from
`
`reference current source 62.” (Id., 2:14-16.)
`
`(FEIT 1001, FIG. 1.)
`
`
`
`46. Figures 2A-B illustrate an example of a circuit structure disclosed for
`
`the block diagram in figure 1. These schematics contain some errors which, if left
`
`unexplained, obscure the functionality. To explain my interpretation, I need to
`
`address these errors. Figure 2A of the ’890 patent is reproduced below, with
`
`highlighted changes. The interpretation I make herein is not to be construed as an
`
`admission that I believe the claims to be enabled.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`(FEIT 1001, FIG. 2A (annotated).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`47. At the left end of R1A2, I interpret the drawing to include a
`
`connection dot symbol, where the red circle is located. Without this connection,
`
`which joins the LED array onto the current sense resistors, it is not possible for
`
`LED current to flow because otherwise R1A2 only connects to a high impedance
`
`input of an op amp. With this dot put in place, it is now possible for current to flow
`
`through the LEDs and the current sense resistors R1A1 and R1A3.
`
`48. Next, I interpret the drawing to include a dot between the L1A and
`
`Q1A drain. Without this, D?1A appears to be in parallel with the LED array, short
`
`circuiting it. Also capacitor C11A appears to have its negative terminal connected
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`to the power rail containing D1A. Even though the specification recites that the
`
`circuitry could be “anything” (flyback, buck, boost, buck-boost etc.) it is never
`
`stated in the text what the nature of this circuit actually is. So for the reader it is a
`
`decisive step to conjecture that. Even though again, this is never stated in the text
`
`of the ’890 patent, with that dot inserted it then becomes apparent that the circuit is
`
`a boost, albeit an unusual one as will be discussed shortly. L1A is the boost
`
`inductor, however a boost cannot function without a boost diode, and in this case
`
`the boost diode is D4A, which is shown shorted. The short has been highlighted in
`
`red above. In my interpretation here, I imagine that this short is removed, and then
`
`the combination of Q1A, D4A, and L1A together constitute a boost, controlled by
`
`the PWM chip U1 in figure 2B. With this understanding, it can now be seen that
`
`the rail connected to the cathodes of D4A is the high voltage boost rail. It is at a
`
`higher potential than the 12V coming in on the turn pin at top left. With my
`
`interpretation here, C11A does have the correct polarity, because the boost rail is at
`
`higher potential than the 12V of the turn pin. Diode D?1A is now no longer
`
`shorting the LED array, instead it is just a protection device in case of a voltage
`
`surge.
`
`49. Next, I interpret the drawing to include a connection dot at the right
`
`end of R1A2. In order for the boost to be controlled, it is necessary for the leads B
`
`and C to be connected across the current sense resistors and then to the input of a
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`differential amplifier u3-A in figure 2B. With that dot in position, all three of
`
`R1A1, R1A2, and R1A3 constitute the sense resistor. Lead C can connect to the
`
`bottom end of the LED array through R3A because normally no current flows
`
`through R3A, which is only there to limit the current through Zener diode D?1A in
`
`the event of a severe voltage surge condition.
`
`50.
`
`I note that at least some of these modifications are found in the
`
`handwritten drawings that were originally filed. (FEIT 1002, 0028.) Now we need
`
`to understand how the PWM chip U1 in figure 2B can control the current through
`
`the LEDs. Figure 2B of the ’890 patent is reproduced below.
`
`(FEIT 1001, FIG. 2B (annotated).)
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`51. On the left you can see the leads B and C coming in from figure 2A.
`
`Their signal representing the LED current is amplified by op amp U3-A, thus
`
`allowing smaller, lower power resistors to be used fo

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.

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