`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FEIT ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIGNIFY HOLDING B.V. F/K/A PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: July 24, 2019
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MIRIAM L. QUINN (via video), and
`JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`JOSEPH E. MUTSCHELKNAUS, ESQUIRE
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`1100 New York Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 772-8874
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`C. BRANDON RASH, ESQUIRE
`FORREST A. JONES, ESQUIRE.
`Finnegan
`901 New York Ave, NW
`Washington DC 20001
` (202) 408-4000
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`Steven Cohen, I.P. Counsel
`Signify
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, July 24,
`
`2019, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`Madison Building, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE REPKO: I'm Judge Repko. I'm joined here by
`Judge Jefferson and, remotely, we have Judge Quinn.
` Just a note, that the image projection will not be
`available to Judge Quinn, so, please specify the slide
`numbers when referring to demonstratives.
` Also, please speak directly into the microphone at
`the podium when you're talking.
` At this time, we'd like counsel to step to the
`podium and introduce themselves and anybody with them.
` Let's begin with Petitioner's counsel.
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Joseph Mutschelknaus, lead
`counsel for Petitioner Feit Electric Company.
` JUDGE REPKO: Okay. Thank you. And Patent Owner's
`counsel.
` MR. RASH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Brandon
`Rash from Finnegan on behalf of Patent Owner, Signify. Also,
`with me are Forrest Jones from Finnegan, as well as Stephen
`Cohen, IP counsel with Signify.
` JUDGE REPKO: Thank you.
` Okay. So each side has 30 minutes to present their
`arguments. Petitioner's counsel will begin, followed by
`patent owners.
` Both parties may reserve some rebuttal time. If
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`you have objections, please raise them during your rebuttal.
`We received no objections to the demonstrative exhibits, so
`with that, I'm going to invite Petitioner's counsel to the
`podium, and I need to know whether you plan to reserve any
`time for rebuttal.
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to
`reserve ten minutes for rebuttal.
` JUDGE REPKO: Okay. All right. So you may begin.
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: May it please the Board. I'm
`here today to explain why the challenged claims of the 890
`patent are obvious.
` The `890 patent claims for site controlling a PWM of
`controlling an LED power supply using pulse with modulation
`or PWM.
` This is as a petition establishes and Signify
`doesn't really dispute. This technique was known throughout
`the art long before the `890 patent's earliest priority date.
` This Board has already found much of the features,
`of the `890 patent, to be unpatentable in an earlier IPR
`proceeding.
` In this case, there are three principle issues
`before the Board.
` First, is obviousness of claim 1. Claim 1 wasn't
`challenged the earlier IPR, and uses slightly different
`language than the claims previously held unpatentable.
` Second, is obviousness of certainly patent claims
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`related to failure detection. This failure detection feature
`is found in the very reference called "Biebl" that this Board
`used to hold many of the base independent claims unpatentable
`in earlier IPR proceeding.
` Third, is obviousness of certain entirely
`conventional power supplies that's required by the Board's
`construction of means plus function limitations
`in claim 7.
` I'm going to go through each of these points in
`turn.
` First, starting with claim 1. I have here
`demonstrative slide 2, which shows claim 1. Patent Owner
`argues, and let me know the Judges remotely, if they are
`having a hard time hearing me.
` Patent Owner argues that the principle reference,
`Biebl, lacks an oscillator and an oscillating signal, because
`in Signify's view, an oscillating signal has to be something
`in the nature of a square wave.
` Turning to slide 8, this argument deifies both
`Biebl's express teachings and the plain language of these
`claim terms. So I have here, slide 8.
` So reproduced on this slide is a portion of Biebl's
`figure 7. As can be seen from this portion, Biebl discloses
`a box that it labels "OSC" and (inaudible) from the box is
`signal UD. That signal is a triangle or sawtooth waveform.
` JUDGE REPKO: Are those two separate
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`components, or is that one component there?
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Our contention, Your Honor, is
`that it's one component. (Inaudible) is one box, and so we
`believe that what Biebl is disclosing here is one component.
` And it labels "OSC" as internal oscillator OSC. So
`Biebl explicitly discloses that an oscillator outputs a
`triangle or sawtooth waveform. And Biebl's usage is
`unsurprising, because it's entirely consistent with the plain
`meaning of these terms.
` Also, reproduced in this slide is a dictionary
`definition of the term, "oscillator." It's from the McGraw
`Hill dictionary of technical terms. It defines the term as
`electrical circuit that converts energy to a periodically
`varying electrical output. That's going to be plainly seen
`from Biebl, a sawtooth waveform satisfies that definition.
` And Dr. Zane, Signify's expert, agreed that the --
`that the sawtooth waveform disclosing a Biebl signal use of
`the -- is such a periodically varying electrical outlet.
` JUDGE QUINN: I thought the argument by Patent
`Owner wasn't so much that it wasn't periodic, but that the
`two states that the claims require --
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Mm-hmm.
` JUDGE QUINN: -- are not evident by looking at the
`waveform, as you can do when you have a square waveform.
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: What's your answer?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Yes, Your Honor. I'm glad you
`mentioned that. That's exactly where I was going next.
` Turning to slide 9, we don't believe -- we don't
`believe that interpretation that a -- that the oscillating
`signal has to by itself indicate the first and second state
`as supported by the claims. All the claim says is an
`oscillating signal having a first and second state. As we
`explained in our petition, we believe that this is satisfied
`by virtue of the triangle wave being below or above a
`regulation signal UReg.
` But even taking Signify's argument as true, that
`there has to be -- it has to be a squarewaveform, we
`presented an alternate theory in our petition on pages 22 and
`23 of our petition, that the drive signal, that is the signal
`output from the comparator in Biebl. This is on slide 10,
`Your Honors, is the claimed oscillating signal.
` Here, Signify doesn't dispute that this drive
`signal has a first state and a second state. Instead,
`Signify's only objection to this signal is that it alleges
`that it varies over time, based on the feedback signal use of
`(inaudible). Your Honors, this is exactly how the signal in
`the `890 patent operates.
` I'm turning now to the `890 patent column 3, and
`going to line 20 of column 3. It says, in one embodiment the
`drive signal can be a square wave oscillating between 0 and
`12 volts with a frequency of 20 kilohertz.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
` The PDM control I see varies the (inaudible) with
`of the dry signal in response to a feedback from a first IPM
`point 20. So, again, the `890 patent discloses that this dry
`signal oscillates, and it discloses that it varies based on
`the feedback signal exactly as its disclosed in Biebl.
` So, Your Honors, we don't believe -- we believe
`that Signify's arguments in this regard is totally
`inconsistent with the `890 patents' disclosure.
` JUDGE QUINN: Let me ask you something. I don't know
`if you've relied upon this, but Biebl also states at column
`2, lines 40 to 45, that when it's describing the input of the
`comparator and the frequency generator, it says that other
`pulse waveforms are possible, and it gives an example, the
`sawtooth. Wouldn't that suggest that the use of the triangle
`waveform or a sawtooth are just examples, and that any pulse
`waveform could be used?
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: I agree with that contention,
`Your Honor, that these are examples in Biebl. That other
`waveforms can be used, and what's really important is that
`this signal coming out of the oscillator keeps time that --
`that together in conjunction with the comparator and the
`feedback signal together, comprise the pulse width modulation
`that's used in Biebl.
` Okay. So that represents the entirety of Signify's
`arguments for claim 1. I'd like to move on to claims 22 and
`30.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
` So for these claims, and turning now to slide 11.
`For these claims, Signify argues that the term "monitor"
`means to test or sample on a regular and ongoing basis.
`Outside of the claims, the term monitor is never used in the
``890 patent. For this definition of monitor, Signify sites a
`lay dictionary. Of this lay dictionary has 17 different
`definitions of monitor.
` Of the 17 definitions, the one that Signify picks
`as supporting its construction, is the only one that has any
`sort of temporal requirement at all.
` If you look at other definitions in the same
`dictionary, it's probably more after the context here would
`be 3A, just usually electronic device to record regularly
`control or process or system. Regardless, we provided a
`number of dictionaries with your Petitioner's reply,
`including the IEEE dictionary definition reproduced on slide
`11, that shows that defines monitoring any kind of continuing
`or temporal requirements.
` So we believe that this construction is
`unsupported.
` JUDGE REPKO: So your construction is
`observation of the characteristics of transmitted signals?
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: So we believe -- we don't
`believe that a construction is even necessary, Your Honor.
`But if a construction -- if the Board decides (inaudible), we
`believe that construction would satisfy the -- would be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`within the meaning of the `890 patent, Your Honor.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: Counsel, is there any intrinsic
`evidence you point to -- that supports this construction?
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Well, like I said, the
`monitoring -- the term monitors is never used in the 890
`patent, so we aren't left with a lot of intrinsic evidence to
`look at.
` JUDGE JEFFERSON: What's your response then to
`Patent Owner? I believe Patent Owner refers to an exemplary
`structure that does the monitoring in their circuit. What's
`your response to their argument that that's continuous?
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Yeah. So let me move to that,
`you know, the next slide; slide 12.
` So the structure of this circuit is -- there's no
`meaningful distinction between the structure of the failure
`circuits and the `890 patent and in Biebl. Both of them
`detect a failure in the LED array by detecting a drop in
`downstream voltage from the LEDs. Both of them detect a drop
`using a comparator or up amp, and both of them -- and so both
`of them operate in almost exactly the same manner. The only
`difference is Biebl's addition of a flip-flop at its output,
`that stores the result of the comparator.
` So, Your Honor, this comparator cooperates exactly
`like the up amp, in the `890 patent. And even during --
`that's true. Even during the period after the flip-flop has
`been (inaudible) before it is reset.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
` JUDGE QUINN: It seems to me, counsel, that the issue
`really is not whether monitoring occurs on a continuous basis
`or not. That the -- really, the issue is the indicating that
`Biebl stores that state of the bulk having (inaudible) was an
`interrupt that occurred in the flip fop stores that versus
`the patent that doesn't have any storage capability, but
`still somehow indicates by lighting up or putting some status
`out that something occurred.
` It seems to me, that Patent Owner's putting on a
`emphasis in the word, "when," right? Indicating when the LED
`array is inoperable.
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: But, Your Honor --
` JUDGE QUINN: And --
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
` JUDGE QUINN: So my question to you is, let's say the
`timing of monitoring isn't any way tied to the when
`indication, or are these two separate conditions, there is a
`monitoring step, which let's say for purposes of argument,
`that does occur continuously, because you do have a
`comparator that is constantly comparing the voltages, and
`then you have the indicating which occurs separately from the
`monitoring and can occur at any time.
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: So I'm looking at the language
`of claims 22 -- I guess, 22 does have a separate indicating.
`Claim 30 does not have a separate indicating step, so arguing
`these two claims together, Your Honors. I'm not sure that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`particular argument was framed the way you have in the Patent
`Owner's response, but regardless, would contend that Biebl
`does indicate when the LED is inoperable, by virtue of the
`fact that the flip-flop outputs a signal when such an event
`occurs.
` Now, it'll continue to output that signal until the
`repairs has been made and a technician resets the system, but
`-- and then after it resets it, it'll again indicate when the
`LED array is inoperable as we site in claim 22.
` So with that, Your Honors, I'd like to move on to
`-- that was ground 1. For these reasons, we believe that
`Biebl renders obvious claims 1, 23, and 30 under ground 1.
` I'd like to move onto the means plus function
`claims, and claim 7 as dependent claim 14.
` Going back to --
` JUDGE QUINN: Let me ask you something before you
`move on that monitoring.
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Sure.
` JUDGE QUINN: Is there any argument in the record
`concerning whether the Biebl scanning, and, therefore, the
`monitoring you relied on, occurs on a cluster by cluster
`basis where its claims really go to monitoring the entire
`array?
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: So I'm not aware of any
`argument in the record, Your Honor. And I'm also, you know,
`Biebl's output will indicate that there's an error any place
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`in the entire -- any of the clusters that it's connected to.
`At least, the way I read Biebl. There's a multiplexer that
`goes through and tests each one, and then the flip-flop will
`store an indication that the LED array is inoperable when any
`of them fail.
` So does that answer your question, Your Honor?
` JUDGE QUINN: Yes.
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Okay.
` JUDGE QUINN: So a cluster -- if there's an error
`in a cluster, then the indicator in the entire array has a
`problem?
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Yeah. Exactly, Your Honor.
` JUDGE QUINN: Okay.
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: So moving on claim 7. And I'm
`turning back to slide 2, because it illustrates claim 7.
` So claim 7 is a means plus function claim, and
`among other things, it recites a means for supplying power.
`In a prior proceeding, this Board has stated that the
`structure corresponding to the means for supplying power is a
`Buck boost -- boost Buck or flyback power supply and its
`equivalence, so it regulate currents.
` As initial matter, your Honors, these power
`supplies are and were extremely well known in the `890 patent
`specification claims. They were being used for the regular
`purposes, that is to regulate current. There's nothing
`specific about this particular application to LEDs with pulse
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`width modulation that makes it unique.
` And, again, Biebl in the secondary reference that
`we rely upon -- so before I move on, the claim 7, Signify
`hasn't disputed that Biebl lacks any limitation, except for
`the means for applying power, and Biebl hasn't disputed -- I
`mean, Signify hasn't disputed thatHamp, the secondary
`reference we point to, lacks the boost power supply that
`satisfies the means for supplying power. Instead, Signify's
`sole argument is with combinability of the two references.
`Both of the references we believe are very similar, both
`address a very similar problem.
` They both describe prior art systems as using a
`resistor to control LEDs as voltage from battery -- that
`current to an LED is voltage from a battery varies. Both
`references teach the solution came with the expense of
`variation of temperatures and (inaudible) of powers. And to
`deal with this issue, both describe using pulse width
`modulation to power the LED.
` To provide the pulse width modulation, both offer
`what we believe is a similar topologies.
` So looking to the records, Your Honors, I'm turning
`now to slide 14, and I might have to go into some of my
`rebuttal time, because there's some points I really want to
`make here.
` We believe Dr. Shackle has provided ample
`discussion of the reason why a skilled artisan would turn to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`Hamp. It describes how Biebl has a disadvantage. It runs
`off the car battery, which means when the battery is low the
`light output might be diminished. I'm looking at slide 14.
` Continues on describing the problems of Biebl, and
`says that a skilled artisan around the year 2000 would have
`realized that the solution to this problem was to boost -- to
`up the battery voltage to say 18 volts, and then it describes
`how Hamp well describes how to do this, and that a boost
`circuit is advantageous, because when battery voltage is how
`the boost is able to simply draw more current in order to
`maintain its power (inaudible), and then he ends with his
`conclusion in paragraph 187, that given this desire to adapt
`an LED array to a voltage during power supply, a skilled
`artisan would be motivated to incorporate the power supply
`principles of Hamp into Biebl.
` In its brief, Signify makes much of his contention
`that this combination would have been very difficult. We
`don't believe it's difficult at all, Your Honors. It is the
`combination of a -- three additional components wired exactly
`as they are in Hamp.
` To demonstrate this point, we had to dig into a
`little bit further into the technology. And, again, I only
`have a minute left, but I do want to go into my rebuttal
`time, if that's okay.
` So let me explain the technology with the reference
`to Exhibit 2003, which is a handbook on power supplies. It
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`describes how these power supplies use semiconductor switches
`that turn on and off states. Looking at the introduction
`now.
` JUDGE REPKO: Counsel, what page is that?
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: It's 245, the last paragraph on
`235 begins, the DC/DC converters can be divided into two main
`types, hard switch pulse modulator converters and it
`describes that these are the types. That chapter deals with
`that type of DC/DC converters.
` JUDGE REPKO: Okay. You're into your rebuttal time
`now.
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
` So going on page 246, the last paragraph, the
`introduction that gives the overview of the following
`sections in that paragraph. It first describes that the
`chapter starts with DC/DC choppers, which is what Signify
`claims Biebl is. And then it goes on to say that the DC/DC
`choppers with additional filtering components form PWM DC/DC
`converters. One of those converters is the boost converter.
` So the DC/DC chopper has illustrated here and on
`page -- it's page 5 of the Exhibit, page 246 of the textbook.
`The switch would be what Signify is saying is the Biebl
`transistor, and then the resistor is the variable lobe -- I
`mean, the LED lobe.
` The -- going onto discussion of boost converters.
` JUDGE REPKO: I mean, apart from these
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`similarities, what's the reason why you would modify the
`reference?
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: Well, Your Honor, like I was
`just saying with respect to slide 14, Dr. Shackle explained
`that there was a disadvantage of car batteries that the
`battery -- when the battery is low, the light output might be
`diminished, and that one way to deal with this is with the
`boost circuit as described in Hamp.
` So, like I said, there's the same semiconductor
`switch. It's the addition of the inductor, the diode, and
`the capacitor to make the boost converter which allows the
`voltage to be boosted from a Vin to Vout (phonetic).
` Turning to Hamp, and I have here Hamp's figure 1.
` JUDGE REPKO: So we're talking about car batteries
`here, right? We're moving to -- I saw in the picture, the
`AA batteries. Is that what --
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: So, Your Honor, yes, but both
`of them use batteries as the original power source. Both of
`them are concerned about changes of the battery over time, so
`the combination here is starting with Biebl. That's why
`Dr. Shackle will explain that the limitation relates to --
`that the motivation relates to the car batteries in Biebl.
` So, again, what we're talking about is adding an
`inductor as an L1 diode as shown in CR1 in Hamp, and this is
`-- I'm looking at figure 1 in Hamp. And a capacitor as shown
`in C2 in Hamp's figure 1. And if you look at the LT 1613,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`the transistor is connected right to the switch pin right
`here. And what we're doing with this combination is
`incorporating these three components; an inductor, a diode,
`and a capacitor exactly as they're shown in Hamp for exactly
`the same purpose they're -- Hamp for very similar systems
`that are designed for very similar purposes, and we provided
`a motivation why a skilled artisan would do that.
` That, I'd like to reserve the rest of my time for
`rebuttal. I will address grounds 3 and 4 in rebuttal, only
`to the extent that Signify addresses it in their argument.
` JUDGE REPKO: Okay. And about six minutes for
`rebuttal.
` At this point, we'd like a status update of the
`related matters in the -- or identified in the petition in
`the -- by the parties.
` What's the status of the -- I guess, there was an
`ITC case that was identified?
` MR. MUTSCHELKNAUS: So my understanding is that the
``890 patent is no longer part of the ITC case. It was
`dismissed without prejudice.
` You agree with that description?
` MR. RASH: That's correct, Your Honor.
` JUDGE REPKO: Patent Owner, if you could step to
`the podium.
` MR. RASH: That is correct, Your Honor. There is
`no related proceeding at this point, because the `890 patent
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`was dropped from the ITC case.
` JUDGE REPKO: Okay. Thank you.
` All right. So, Patent Owner, reserve any time for
`rebuttal?
` MR. RASH: I'll reserve five minutes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE REPKO: I'll begin when you start.
` MR. RASH: May it, please, the Board, I would like
`to focus the time that I have with respect to ground 1 on the
`oscillator term. If we could bring up slide 2, please.
` The `890 recites an oscillator, and as our expert
`explained, there are two key requirements that are important
`with respect to Biebl and the alleged oscillator in that
`reference.
` The first requirement is, that there have to be two
`states, and during one of the states you are providing power,
`and during the second state you are not providing power. As
`we will see in the next slide, the sawtooth waveform
`generator does not meet that particular requirement.
` The second feature of the oscillator in the `890
`patent is that it has a regularly repeating signal. In other
`words, it is acting as a, say, a clock for example. Where
`it's regularly repeating over, and over, and over again.
` And, again, we'll see why that distinguishes the
`comparator allegation in Biebl.
` Now, this understanding is consistent with Dr.
`Zane's explanation. It's also consistent with the oscillator
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`in the `890 patent, the excerpt here from the bottom of page 2
`-- or slide 2. It refers to the oscillating signal square
`wave, it's oscillating between 0 and 16 volts. Those are the
`two states with the fixed frequency of 200 to 300 hertz.
` If we go to the next slide --
` JUDGE REPKO: So are these two separate components
`that we see here or one?
` MR. RASH: Those are two separate components, Your
`Honor. There is no question about that. In the petition,
`the petition on page 22 pointed to figure 4a of Biebl, and
`you can see there, it refers to that as a sawtooth waveform
`generator. The only output of that black box is the sawtooth
`waveform.
` In Petitioner's reply, they pointed to 7, and in
`the slides that we saw today from Petitioner, the second
`output was missing, but there's two outputs. One of the
`output, the square wave, is associated with the oscillator.
`The second output is the sawtooth waveform. That's
`associated with the sawtooth waveform generator.
` And we look at the corresponding disclosure in
`Biebl, for example, in column 6 shown theory around line 21
`to 24, it separately describes the oscillator and now that
`works, and it's separate from the operation of the sawtooth
`waveform generator.
` JUDGE REPKO: So why did they draw one box around
`that?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
` MR. RASH: Your Honor, Biebl doesn't explain. It's
`a black box. It's a black functional box. What we do know
`is that there are two separate components in there.
` One that's emitting the sawtooth waveform, and a
`second one that is emitting the square waveform. And what
`is interesting about Biebl is that oscillator is consistent
`with the oscillator in the `890 patent. It has two states,
`there's a transition between the states, and it's a regularly
`repeating signal at a fixed frequency.
` And so if we look at the two specific components
`they've identified. First, the sawtooth waveform generator.
`We can see it from Biebl, figure 5 here, the sawtooth wave
`form, and the problem there is that Petitioner has not
`identified two states where the circuit is providing power
`during one state, and not the other. The most logical two
`states would be a ramp up and a ramp down, because as you can
`see, there's a clear transition between those two states, but
`the Petitioner didn't argue that, because it's undisputed
`that the circuit is providing power and not providing power
`during both ramping up and ramping down.
` What they've done is used this horizontal line to
`say that, oh, well it's changing state at that line, and so
`above that line is one state, and below that state is a
`different -- below that line is a different state --
` JUDGE QUINN: But, counsel, if I -- excuse me. The
`patent describes the low frequency oscillating signal as
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`oscillating between a first state and then a second state. I
`get that the claim say that the signal has a first state and
`a second state, but the specification is broader than that,
`which just means that you're oscillating between those two
`states, and if that's what you mean by that claim language,
`then any period on a oscillating signal, regardless of shape,
`as long as there is a threshold, would oscillate between a
`first state and a second state.
` MR. RASH: The problem with that logic, Your Honor,
`is that if you look at this waveform and say that any
`horizontal line you draw creates a transition between states,
`then you have an infinite number of states. And that --
` JUDGE QUINN: Are you saying that your patent
`excludes -- excuse me. (Noise in the background.)
` Are you saying that the patent somehow excluded
`some waveforms from coming under the claims?
` MR. RASH: It would not -- so, for example,
`Petitioners argue that we've limited it to square waves.
`We've not done that. What we've limited it to is a showing
`of a state where --
` JUDGE QUINN: But what else, other than a square
`wave, would meet your limitation then?
` MR. RASH: Well, for example, a sawtooth waveform
`could be an oscillating signal that is oscillating between
`two states. What there has to be a transition between the
`two states. Here, where they've drawn the horizontal line,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`just above and just below the line, it's in the exact same
`state. It's ramping up, or it's ramping down at the same
`constant rate. And so what's important is that there's a
`transition between the two states.
` Now, in the patent and in Biebl when they refer to
`an oscillator, it's that vertical line you see in a square
`wave. Here, arguably, you could have a transition when the
`square wave transition from ramping up to ramping down. That
`would hypothetically be a transition in state, but, of
`course, that doesn't meet the rest of the claim language.
` JUDG
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
