`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