throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Date: October 18, 2019
`
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`In this inter partes review, Petitioner, Feit Electric Company, Inc.,
`challenges the patentability of claims 1, 7, 14, 22, and 30 of U.S. Patent No.
`6,586,890 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’890 patent”) owned by Signify Holding B.V.
`(f/k/a Philips Lighting Holding B.V.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 6(b). Petitioner must prove that the claims are unpatentable by a
`preponderance of the evidence. We determine that Petitioner has proven that
`claims 1, 22, and 30 are unpatentable but has not proven that claims 7 and 14
`are unpatentable.
`
`A. Procedural History
`The Petition contained challenges to claims 1, 7, 14, 22, and 30 as
`shown below. Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Biebl
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1, 22, 30
`
`Biebl, TI Book, and Hamp
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`7, 14
`
`Hamp and LT1613
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Hamp, LT1613, and Biebl
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`7
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). We instituted trial. Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”). After institution, Patent
`Owner filed a Response. Paper 15 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply.
`Paper 20 (“Pet. Reply”).
`The Petition is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Shackle. Ex. 1003.
`Patent Owner took cross-examination testimony of Dr. Shackle. Ex. 2016.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`Patent Owner submitted the declaration of Dr. Regan A. Zane with its
`Patent Owner response. Ex. 2014. Petitioner took cross-examination
`testimony of Dr. Zane. Ex. 1020.
`An oral hearing was held on July 24, 2019, and a transcript of the oral
`hearing is available in the record. Paper 27.
`B. The ’890 Patent
`The ’890 patent is entitled “LED Driver Circuit with PWM Output,”
`and was issued on July 1, 2003, from Application No. 10/012,000, which
`was filed on December 5, 2001. Ex. 1001, (21), (22), (45), (54).
`The invention is a driver circuit for light emitting diodes (LEDs) that
`use pulse-width modulation (PWM). Id., Abstract. The ’890 patent’s driver
`circuit purports to overcome the disadvantages of other designs. See
`id. at 1:12–36.
`In particular, LEDs have a long operating life, high efficiency, and a
`low profile. Id. at 1:14–17. This makes them useful light sources for
`automobiles. Id. But small changes in the voltage applied to the LED lamp
`will cause appreciable current changes. Id. at 1:18–20.
`According to the ’890 patent, current source is the preferred driving
`method because LED-light output is proportional to current. Id. at 1:20–22.
`LED drivers in vehicles can use circuits with voltage-source outputs and
`current-limiting resistors or linear-current regulators. Id. at 1:22–25.
`Current-limiting resistors, however, cause power loss. Id. at 1:25–26. This
`makes such driver circuits inefficient. Id. at 1:25–26.
`Also, driving an LED above or below nominal current can reduce its
`life and produce unpredictable light output. Id. at 1:27–29. These driver
`circuits perform unacceptably in higher-power applications, such as rear-
`combination vehicle lights—i.e., stop, turn, or tail lights. Id. at 1:29–34.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`According to the ’890 patent, the disclosed driver circuit provides
`good regulation and efficiency and maintains operation at the LEDs’
`nominal current, among other advantages. Id. at 1:39–43. Specifically, the
`disclosed driver circuit uses current feedback to adjust power to the LEDs.
`Id. at 1:65–67. Figure 1 of the ’890 patent shows a block diagram of the
`driver circuit, which is reproduced below. Id. at 1:54–55.
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’890 patent is a block diagram of an LED driver
`circuit.
`As shown above in Figure 1, at block 50, a tail-lamp input signal is supplied
`to power supply 52. Id. at 2:2–4. Power supply 52 can be a DC/DC
`converter. Id. at 2:4–6. Power supply 52 supplies power for LED array 54.
`Id. at 2:6–8. PWM control IC 56 controls power supply 52 and provides a
`high-frequency periodic drive signal of varying pulse width. Id. at 2:6–11.
`This directs power supply 52 to supply the required power in response to a
`feedback signal. Id. In one embodiment, the drive signal is a square-wave.
`Id. at 2:11–13. Comparator 58 compares the sensed current signal from
`current sensor 60 to the reference signal from reference current source 62
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`and provides the feedback signal. Id. at 2:14–16. The system’s feedback
`mechanism maintains constant LED current while meeting demand, which
`preserves the life of the LEDs and produces predictable light output. Id.
`at 3:27–31.
`Also, power supply 52 provides a full-light mode and a dim mode.
`Id. at 1:65–67. Low-frequency oscillator 64 is involved in placing the driver
`circuit in dim mode. See id. at 2:17–48. For example, oscillator 64 provides
`a low-frequency oscillating signal to power supply 52 and PWM control
`IC 56. Id. at 2:17–19. When the low-frequency oscillating signal is in a low
`state, it (1) blocks the power to the LED array 54 from power supply 52 and
`(2) holds PWM control IC 56 low. Id. at 2:31–35. When the low-frequency
`oscillating signal changes from low to high, PWM control IC 56’s output is
`synchronized to the transition. Id. at 2:35–37. With this feature, a lower
`operating frequency can be used with the dim mode while maintaining stable
`LED current. Id. at 2:37–39.
`In another feature, a bulb-out signal indicates that LED array 54 has
`burned out or become disconnected. Id. at 2:57–60. Other features and
`purported advantages are disclosed in various embodiments. See generally
`id. at 2:61–5:15.
`
`C. The Independent Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 7 are independent and
`reproduced below.
`
`A system for supplying power for an LED array, said
`1.
`system comprising:
`an oscillator generating an oscillating signal, the oscillating
`signal having a first state and a second state; and
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`a power supply operatively coupled to the oscillator, the power
`supply providing output power and being responsive to the
`oscillating signal;
`wherein said power supply supplies the output power to the LED
`array when the oscillating signal is in the first state and
`does not supply the output power to the LED array when
`the oscillating signal is in the second state.
`Id. at 5:17–27.
`7.
`A system for supplying power for an LED array, said
`system comprising:
`means for sensing current to the LED array, said current sensing
`means generating a sensed current signal; means for
`generating a reference signal;
`means for comparing the sensed current signal to the reference
`signal, said comparing means generating a feedback
`signal;
`means for modulating pulse width responsive to the feedback
`signal, said pulse width modulating means generating a
`drive signal; and
`means for supplying power responsive to the drive signal, said
`power supplying means supplying current to the LED
`array.
`Id. at 5:39–53.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The Petition was filed on April 16, 2018. For petitions filed before
`November 13, 2018, we give the claims of an unexpired patent the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2017); see Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting
`Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83
`Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018). Under that standard, we
`generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007). But we need only construe the term to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`1. Claim 1
`Claim 1 recites, in part, “an oscillator generating an oscillating signal,
`the oscillating signal having a first state and a second state.” Ex. 1001, 5:19–
`20.
`
`Petitioner relies on a dictionary that “defines the term [‘oscillator’] as
`‘[a]n electronic circuit that converts energy from a direct-current source to a
`periodically varying electrical output.’” Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1021, 3).
`According to Patent Owner, “An oscillating signal as understood in the art is
`a signal that repeats periodically, such as a sine wave.” PO Resp. 16
`(quoting Ex. 2014 ¶ 90) (emphasis added); see also PO Sur-Reply 5
`(“Petitioner’s Reply appears to concede that an oscillating signal must be
`‘periodically varying,’ . . . .”).
`The Specification supports the construction that an oscillating signal
`is periodically varying. For instance, the Specification states that “the low
`frequency oscillating signal changes from low to high.” Ex. 1001, 2:35–37.
`In another example, “the oscillating signal can be a square wave oscillating
`between 0 and 16 volts with a frequency of 200 to 300 Hertz.” Id. at 4:17–
`20. In these examples, the ’890 patent uses term “oscillating” to describe
`signals having periodic variation or change. Thus, we construe “an
`oscillating signal” as a signal with periodic variation.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`In claim 1, the term “oscillator” is limited by the recited function:
`generating an oscillating signal. Petitioner’s definition from a technical
`dictionary merely adds that an oscillator is (1) an electronic circuit and (2)
`“converts energy from a direct-current source.” Pet. Reply 4 (citing
`Ex. 1021, 3 (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms
`1341–40 (4th ed. 1989))). There is no dispute about a direct-current source.
`The Specification discusses an “oscillator” in terms of its function. See
`Ex. 1001, 2:17–19, 26–27; 44–48. Thus, we determine that “oscillator”
`means an electronic circuit that generates an oscillating signal.
`2. Claims 7, 14, 22, and 30
`To summarize, the parties agree that claim 7’s limitations are in
`means-plus-function format. PO Resp. 2–3. But the parties disagree on the
`corresponding structures. Id. at 3. For instance, Patent Owner contends that
`the corresponding structure is not limited to circuits with particular model
`numbers. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 15. Also, Patent Owner contends that
`Petitioner omits elements from the corresponding structure for several
`limitations. See, e.g., id. at 11, 13; see also PO Resp. 4. As for the “means
`for sensing current” (claim 7) and “means for indicating the LED array is
`inoperable” (claim 14), the parties disagree about the function and the
`structure. PO Resp. 3, 7. Patent Owner proposes an explicit construction for
`“monitoring,” which is recited in claims 22 and 30. PO Resp. 7–8. Petitioner
`does not propose an explicit construction in the Petition. See generally Pet.
`We discuss each of these limitations in the sections that follow.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`“means for sensing current to the LED array, said current sensing
`a.
`means generating a sensed current signal” (claim 7)
`(1) Claimed Function
`Petitioner asserts that the proper construction of the function in the
`recited sensing means is “sensing a current that is supplied to the LED array
`and generating a signal that indicates the present value of the sensed
`current.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner disagrees. See PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner
`contends that “Petitioner’s proposed function seeks to modify the recited
`function by adding two phrases: (1) ‘that is supplied to’ and (2) ‘that
`indicates the present value.’” Id.
`As for the phrase “that is supplied to,” we agree with Patent Owner
`that it “provides no better clarification of the recited function than the
`existing plain language of the claim.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:41–42). For
`instance, claim 7 recites that the sensed current is “current to the LED
`array.” Ex. 1001, 5:41.
`As for the phrase “that indicates the present value,” claim 7 simply
`recites “generating a sensed current signal,” without placing a requirement
`on what the signal indicates. Id. at 5:39–53. Petitioner does not explain why
`claim 7 should be further limited beyond generating this signal. See Pet. 9–
`10. Nor do we find a sufficient reason to do so on this record.
`Thus, we determine that the corresponding function is “sensing
`current to the LED array” and “generating a sensed current signal.” No
`further construction is needed beyond the claim’s plain language.
`(2) Corresponding Structure
`According to Petitioner, “the structure disclosed for the claimed
`‘means for sensing current’ is the resistor R1A1, R1A2, and/or R1A3, and
`the resistor R1B1, R1B2, and/or R1B3.” Id. at 10.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`Patent Owner disagrees. Prelim. Resp. 11. According to Patent
`Owner, Petitioner’s construction is incorrect because both resistor sets—i.e.,
`R1A1, R1A2, and R1A3 or R1B1, R1B2, and R1B3—will perform the
`claimed function, and the construction omits current sensor 60. Id. at 12–13
`(citing Ex. 2006, 15). That is, Patent Owner’s construction encompasses
`three structures in the alternative: (1) current sensor 60, (2) resistor R1A1,
`R1A2, and/or R1A3, or (3) resistor R1B1, R1B2, and/or R1B3.
`Prelim. Resp. 11; see also PO Resp. 4. In this way, Patent Owner’s
`construction is broader than Petitioner’s. Compare Prelim. Resp. 11; PO
`Resp. 4, with Pet. 9–10.
`We agree with Patent Owner that the Patent indicates that either set of
`resistors can perform the claimed function. Prelim. Resp. 12. For instance,
`R1A1, R1A2, and R1A3 appear in the schematic diagram in Figure 2A. This
`diagram shows a first power supply 112 that supplies current to LED array
`114. Ex. 1001, 3:11–12. LED array 114 responds to signals for the STOP
`input 104 or TURN input 102. Id. at 3:12–14. The resistors are between the
`first power supply 112 and LED array 114 to sense current. Id. at 3:31–35.
`By contrast, R1B1, R1B2, and R1B3 appear in the schematic diagram in
`Figure 2C. This diagram shows a second power supply (130) that supplies
`power to LED array 126. Id. at 3:55–56. LED array 126 responds to signals
`for the STOP input 104 or TAIL input 106, depending on the input mode.
`Id. at 3:56–59. Figure 2C shows the resistors connected to the second power
`supply 130. Id., Fig. 2C. So the two sets of resistors perform the same
`function but are connected to different power supplies.
`Thus, the structures disclosed in the Specification as corresponding to
`the claimed function are (1) R1A1, R1A2, or R1A3 or (2) R1B1, R1B2, or
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`R1B3. We need not determine whether current sensor 60 can also be a
`corresponding structure because it is immaterial to our analysis below.
`“means for generating a reference signal” (claim 7)
`b.
`(1) Claimed Function
`Petitioner asserts that the corresponding function for the
`signal-generating means does not need construction and should be given its
`plain meaning. Pet. 10. Patent Owner agrees. Prelim. Resp. 14. We
`determine that the claimed function is “generating a reference signal,” which
`does not require a further construction.
`(2) Corresponding Structure
`Petitioner asserts that “[t]he structure corresponding to the means for
`generating a reference signal is the internal reference in the Unitrode
`UCC2813-3 or ST Microelectronics UC2842 IC or the like as disclosed in
`the ’890 patent.” Pet. 10–11 (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner disagrees. Prelim. Resp. 14. In Patent Owner’s view,
`the corresponding structure is (1) reference current source 62 or (2) the
`internal reference in PWM control IC 118 or 134. Id. Patent Owner contends
`that the corresponding structure is not limited to particular model numbers of
`Unitrode and ST Microelectronics ICs. Id. at 15. Also, Patent Owner
`contends that Petitioner’s construction omits reference current source 62 as a
`corresponding structure. Id. That is, Patent Owner’s construction
`encompasses several structures in the alternative. See id. In this way, Patent
`Owner’s construction is broader than Petitioner’s. Id. at 14.
`Yet Petitioner’s construction is not limited to particular IC models.
`See Pet. 10–11. Rather, Petitioner uses the language “or the like” to include
`other models. Id. And like Patent Owner’s construction, Petitioner
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`acknowledges that “the internal reference of the PWM control IC is the
`generated reference signal recited in claim 7.” Id. at 10.
`We determine that the internal reference in PWM control IC 118 or
`134, which can be the Unitrode UCC2813-3 or ST Microelectronics UC2842
`IC or the like, is the structure in the Specification corresponding to the
`claimed function. We need not determine whether reference current source
`62 can also be a corresponding structure because it is immaterial to our
`analysis below.
` “means for comparing the sensed current signal to the reference
`c.
`signal” (claim 7)
`(1) Claimed Function
`According to Petitioner, the corresponding function for the comparing
`means does not need construction and should be given its plain meaning.
`Pet. 11. Patent Owner agrees. Prelim. Resp. 16; accord PO Resp. 5. Under
`the plain meaning, the function requires two signals: “the sensed current
`signal” and “the reference signal.” Apart from this, the claimed function of
`“comparing the sensed current signal to the reference signal” does not
`require a further construction.
`(2) Corresponding Structure
`Petitioner asserts that the structure that compares the signals “is an
`internal op-amp in the PWM control IC.” Pet. 11 (Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). According
`to Petitioner, “PWM control IC 118 can be an integrated circuit such as a
`UCC2813-3 manufactured by Unitrode, a UC2842 series manufactured by
`ST Microelectronics, or the like.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:17–20) (emphasis
`added).
`Patent Owner disagrees. See PO Resp. 5; Prelim. Resp. 16. In Patent
`Owner’s view, the corresponding structure is (1) comparator 58 or (2) the
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`internal op-amp in PWM control IC 118 or 134. PO Resp. 5; Prelim. Resp.
`16. Patent Owner contends that the corresponding structure is not limited to
`the particular model numbers of Unitrode and ST Microelectronics ICs.
`Prelim. Resp. 18. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s construction omits
`comparator 58 as a corresponding structure. Id. at 17.
`We disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s construction is
`limited to particular IC models. See Pet. 11. Rather, Petitioner uses the
`language “or the like” to include other models. Id. This language is also
`found in the ’890 patent. See Ex. 1001, 3:17–20. And like Patent Owner’s
`construction, Petitioner acknowledges that “[a] skilled artisan would
`recognize that what does the comparing is an internal op-amp in the PWM
`control IC.” Pet. 11.
`We determine that the corresponding structure for the “means for
`comparing” is comparator 58 or the internal op amp in PWM Control IC 118
`or 134. For example, Dr. Shackle reproduces a data sheet from UCC2813-3,
`which is shown below with Dr. Shackle’s annotations. Ex. 1003 ¶ 54.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`
`
`
`The figure above is a block diagram of UCC2813-3 with annotations on the
`internal reference signal and an internal op amp. Id. (reproducing Ex. 1008,
`0045).
`We note that the structure shown above compares two signals, which is
`relevant to our analysis below. Although the above example shows a
`particular model, we agree with Patent Owner that the limitation is not
`limited to particular models. See Ex. 1001, 3:17–20, quoted in Pet. 11.
`“means for modulating pulse width responsive to the feedback signal,
`d.
`said pulse width modulating means generating a drive signal” (claim 7)
`(1) Claimed Function
`According to Petitioner, the corresponding function for the pulse-
`width-modulating means does not need construction and should be given its
`plain meaning. Pet. 11. Patent Owner agrees. Prelim. Resp. 19; accord PO
`Resp. 6. We determine that the claimed function is “modulating pulse width
`responsive to the feedback signal, said pulse width modulating means
`generating a drive signal,” which does not require a further construction.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`
`(2) Corresponding Structure
`Petitioner asserts that “the structure corresponding to the means for
`modulating is the ‘Unitrode UCC2813-3 IC; the ST Microelectronics
`UC2842 IC; or the like.’” Pet. 12 (emphasis added). Patent Owner disagrees.
`Prelim. Resp. 19. In Patent Owner’s view, the corresponding structure is
`PWM control IC 56, 118, or 134. Id. Patent Owner also contends that the
`corresponding structure is not limited to the particular model numbers of
`Unitrode and ST Microelectronics ICs. Id. at 20.
`We disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s construction is
`limited to particular IC models. See Pet. 12. Rather, Petitioner uses the
`language “or the like” to include other models. Id. This language is found in
`the ’890 patent. See Ex. 1001, 3:17–20.
`Also, the internal reference in PWM control IC 118 or 134 is the
`corresponding structure for “means for generating a reference signal.” See
`supra § II.A.2.b. So, consistent with the interpretation of the reference
`signal, the corresponding structure for the pulse-width-modulating means is
`PWM control IC 118 or 134, which can be Unitrode UCC2813-3 IC, the ST
`Microelectronics UC2842 IC, or the like. We need not determine whether
`PWM control IC 56 can also be a corresponding structure because it is
`immaterial to our analysis below.
`“means for supplying power responsive to the drive signal” (claim 7)
`e.
`(1) Claimed Function
`According to Petitioner, the corresponding function for the
`power-supplying means does not need construction and should be given its
`plain meaning. Pet. 12. Patent Owner agrees. Prelim. Resp. 21; accord PO
`Resp. 6. We determine that the claimed function is “supplying power
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`responsive to the drive signal,” which does not require a further
`construction.
`
`(2) Corresponding Structure
`Petitioner asserts that “the structure for the claimed power supply
`means is a DC/DC converter” and notes that the ’890 patent discloses that
`“[t]he 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.” Pet. 12. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:4–6). Petitioner further notes (id.)
`that in a previous inter partes review, the Board construed this term as “a
`buck-boost, boost, buck, and flyback power supply and its equivalents that
`regulate current.” Wangs Alliance Corp. v. Koninklijke Phillips N.V.,
`IPR2015-01292, Paper 64 at 10 (PTAB Nov. 23, 2016) (Final Written
`Decision). In Petitioner’s view, the limitation is obvious regardless of the
`construction. Pet. 12.
`According to Patent Owner, the parties disagree on the structure.
`Prelim. Resp. 21. In Patent Owner’s view, the corresponding structure is “a
`buck-boost, boost, buck, or flyback power supply and its equivalent power
`supplies that regulate current (as opposed to regulating voltage).” Id. at 21–
`22. Patent Owner argues that construing the power-supplying means as any
`“DC/DC converter” is inconsistent with the Board’s previous construction of
`this term. Id. at 22.
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a DC/DC converter”
`encompasses power supplies beyond those listed in the Specification:
`“buck-boost power supply or other alternatives, such as a boost, buck, or
`flyback converter.” Ex. 1001, 2:4–6. The Specification does not identify
`other DC/DC converters as being able to perform the claimed function. See,
`e.g., id. So we determine the corresponding structure for the “means for
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`supplying power” is a buck-boost, boost, buck, flyback power supply, or
`equivalents that regulate current.
`
`
`“means for indicating the LED array is inoperable” (claim 14) /
`f.
`“indicating when the LED array is inoperable” (claim 22) / “generating
`LED array inoperable signal” (claim 30)
`(1) Claimed Function / “inoperable”
`As for the indication in claims 14 and 22 and the signal in claim 30,
`Petitioner asserts that the indication and generated signal is “a signal that
`alerts an individual” and that “the ’890 patent defines an LED array’s
`inoperability with only two possibilities: being burnt out or disconnected.”
`Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:35–39). Petitioner further states that “[t]he
`specification discloses structure that provides a signal that alerts an
`individual when the LED array is burnt out or disconnected.” Id. (emphasis
`added). The most natural reading of this passage is that Petitioner regards the
`italicized text as the corresponding function in claim 14. Id.
`Patent Owner argues that the claim is not limited to “providing a
`signal to alert an individual.” Prelim. Resp. 25–26. Patent Owner offers a
`dictionary definition of “inoperable”—i.e., not functioning. See id. at 25
`(citing Ex. 2013 (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 602 (10th ed.
`2000))).
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s construction incorrectly
`limits the claims to “providing a signal to alert an individual.” Id. at 25–26.
`For instance, block 68 provides a signal indication that LED array 54 has
`burned out or has become disconnected. Ex. 1001, 2:58–60, quoted in
`Prelim. Resp. 26. That is, block 68 alerts the driver circuit in Figure 1, not
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`necessarily an individual. See id. at 2:1–2; Prelim. Resp. 26. Also, the plain
`language of the claim is silent about any individual.
`We also see no reason to limit “inoperable” to Petitioner’s identified
`embodiment where the LED array has been burned out or disconnected. The
`Specification does not use the term “inoperable” in a way that clearly
`indicates that the term is defined or limited to these embodiments.
`Thus, the claimed function for the means recited in claim 14 is
`“indicating the LED array is inoperable,” and we construe “inoperable” in
`claims 14, 22, and 30 to mean “not functioning.” That is, we construe “the
`LED array is inoperable” (claims 14 and 22) as the LED array is not
`functioning, and we construe “generating LED array inoperable signal”
`(claim 30) as a signal that indicates the LED array is not functioning.
`(2) Corresponding Structure
`As for the corresponding structure in claim 14, Petitioner explains that
`the structure corresponding to the indicating means is “second op-amp 122
`and BULB OUT signal 124.” Pet. 13. In Patent Owner’s view, the
`corresponding structure is not limited to second op-amp 122.
`Prelim. Resp. 26. Rather, Patent Owner argues that the patent discloses an
`IC or op-amp as the corresponding structure. Id. We agree with Petitioner.
`For instance, the patent discloses that op amp 122 compares a system-
`input voltage to the downstream voltage signals from the LED arrays (114
`and 126). Ex. 1001, 3:36–39. Op amp 112 provides BULB OUT signal 124,
`which alerts the driver that an LED array has burned out or disconnected. Id.
`Referring to op amp 122, the patent explains that “voltage supply 128
`supplies the op amp ICs.” Id. at 3:40–41 (emphasis added).
`Although the Specification uses the word “ICs” here, the Specification
`does not indicate that any IC could perform the function. So we see no
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`reason that the claim should be interpreted to encompass all ICs. Rather, the
`corresponding structure is op amp 122 because the Specification uses “op
`amp IC” to refer to this structure.
`On this record, we determine that corresponding structure for the
`means for indicating is second op-amp 122 and BULB OUT signal 124.
`“monitoring the LED array” (claim 22) / “an LED monitor” (claim
`g.
`30)
`Claim 22 recites “monitoring the LED array,” and claim 30 recites “an
`LED monitor.” The Specification does not supply a special definition for the
`term “monitoring.” In fact, apart from the claims, the ’890 patent does not
`use the term “monitoring” in the descriptive portion of the Specification. See
`Ex. 1001, 1:1–5:15. Rather, the Specification describes, for example, that op
`amp 122 compares the system voltage to the downstream voltage signals
`from the LED arrays and provides a signal alerting the driver that the LED
`array is burned out or disconnected. Id. at 3:35–40. During trial, the parties
`introduced dictionary definitions to support their different constructions,
`among other evidence.
`Patent Owner argues that “monitoring” and “monitor” should “be
`construed as ‘test(ing) or sample(ing) on a regular or ongoing basis.’” PO
`Resp. 7. In Patent Owner’s view, “This construction is consistent with the
`definition of the term ‘monitor’ understood at the time and in the art.” Id.
`Patent Owner’s dictionary defines monitor as “to test or sample on a regular
`or ongoing basis.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 2012 (The American Heritage College
`Dictionary 881 (3d Ed. 2000))). Patent Owner also argues that its definition
`is consistent with the Specification. Id. According to Patent Owner, the
`Specification explains that the disclosed op-amp ICs test the LED voltage on
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`an ongoing basis. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 3:35–42, 3:35–37; Ex. 2014 ¶ 61–62;
`Ex. 2016, 13:12–14:1, 15:10–16).
`Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s construction. Pet. Reply 9–
`11. Petitioner argues that “under the proper construction, monitoring simply
`means observing or checking; there is no requirement imposed on when that
`check must occur or how long the check transpires for.” Id. at 11. We agree
`with Petitioner.
`To be sure, the claims place no conditions on the monitoring. Nor
`does the Specification place conditions, explicitly or implicitly. Patent
`Owner’s dictionary definition itself (“test(ing) or sample(ing) on a regular or
`ongoing basis”) does not limit the monitoring to particular events that begin
`and end the monitoring. See PO Resp. 7. Rather, the word “ongoing” implies
`that the testing or sampling occurs for an indefinite time period—or at least
`as long as the monitor is functioning. That is, Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction of monitoring is testing or sampling on a regular or ongoing
`basis while the monitor is provided with power. See id. at 20.
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s counterargument. Pet. Reply 14–15.
`If a system had been monitoring for a fault condition (e.g., an inoperable
`bulb), then it would have been reasonable to stop monitoring when the
`condition was initially detected and resume when the condition was
`remedied. Although it is possible that monitoring would have continued
`during the fault condition (e.g., while the bulb was inoperable), there may
`have been no reason to do so. In the field of the ’890 patent (i.e., vehicle
`lights), Petitioner argues that it would have been logical for a technician to
`reset a monitor after replacing a faulty bulb in a vehicle light. Id. Petitioner
`supports this position by pointing to Biebl’s operation and Dr. Zane’s
`testimony, which are discussed in detail below. See id. at 15 (citing
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00921
`Patent 6,586,890 B2
`Ex. 1005, 6:56–59; Ex. 1020, 19:17–23). Thus, Petitioner shows that one of
`ordinary skill would understand that monitors may stop monitoring for
`reasons other than a lack of power.
`Also, Patent Owner narrowly reads the word “ongoing” from a
`general-purpose dictionary to exclude a specific circumstance in a technical
`context. But Petitioner notes that the definition applicable to electronic
`devices does not discuss time or conditions: “A usu. electronic device used
`to record, regulate, or control a process or system.” Id. at 10–11 (citing
`Ex. 2012, 4). And Petitioner points to several other d

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