UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Lynk Labs, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,297,705
`Filing Date: February 22, 2021
`Issue Date: April 5, 2022
`Title: Multi-Voltage and Multi-Brightness LED Lighting Devices and Methods of
`Using Same
`
`PGR2023-00016
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 11,297,705
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`Page
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Compliance with Formal Requirements .......................................................... 1
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(1)-(4) ........................ 1
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest .................................................................. 1
`2.
`Related Matters ........................................................................... 1
`3.
`Lead and Backup Counsel .......................................................... 2
`4.
`Service Information..................................................................... 2
`Proof of Service on the Patent Owner ................................................... 2
`B.
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................. 3
`C.
`Standing ................................................................................................. 3
`D.
`Timing ................................................................................................... 3
`E.
`Fees ........................................................................................................ 3
`F.
`III. Statement of Precise Relief Requested ............................................................ 4
`A.
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 4
`B. Grounds ................................................................................................. 4
`IV. This Petition is Proper Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 324(A) and 325(D) .................... 5
`A.
`The Becton Dickinson Factors Favor Institution Under § 325(d) ........ 5
`The 705 Patent ................................................................................................. 6
`A.
`Summary of the 705 Patent ................................................................... 6
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History and Examiner’s Error .............. 10
`C.
`Effective Filing Date and PGR Eligibility Under AIA § 3(n)(1). ....... 11
`1.
`The Effective Filing Date of Claims 1-20 of the 705 Patent
`Is No Earlier than February 22, 2021. ...................................... 13
`Claims in the 341 Patent With An Effective Filing Date
`After March 16, 2013. ............................................................... 19
`Claims in the 001 Patent With An Effective Filing Date
`After March 16, 2013. ............................................................... 20
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 23
`Claim Construction.............................................................................. 24
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`“forward voltage” ...................................................................... 24
`1.
`“switch” / “selectable by a user switching the switch”............. 26
`2.
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 3, 10 AND 17 ARE INVALID UNDER
`SECTION 112 ............................................................................................... 28
`VII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 15, 17, AND 19 ARE ANTICIPATED BY
`BRUNING ..................................................................................................... 30
`A.
`Bruning Overview ............................................................................... 30
`B. Analysis ............................................................................................... 31
`1.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 31
`2.
`Claim 17: The LED lighting system of claim 15, wherein
`the switching of the switch provides at least two different
`DC forward voltages to at least one of the first operating
`LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit. ............ 43
`Claim 19: The LED lighting system of claim 15, wherein
`the switching of the switch changes light output of the
`LED lighting device. ................................................................. 44
`VIII. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, AND 19 ARE
`RENDERED OBVIOUS BY BRUNING IN VIEW OF EVANICKY ........ 45
`A.
`Bruning Overview ............................................................................... 45
`B.
`Evanicky Overview ............................................................................. 45
`C.
`Combination Rationale ........................................................................ 47
`D. Analysis ............................................................................................... 52
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 52
`2.
`Claim 2: The LED lighting system of claim 1, wherein the
`switch has at least two positions. .............................................. 54
`Claim 3: The LED lighting system of claim 1, wherein the
`switching of the switch provides at least two different DC
`forward voltages to at least one of the first operating LED
`circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit. ..................... 55
`
`3.
`
`3.
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Page
`Claim 5: The LED lighting system of claim 1, wherein the
`switching of the switch changes light output of the LED
`lighting device. .......................................................................... 55
`Claim 7: The LED lighting system of claim 1, further
`comprising a driver electrically coupled to the switch and
`at least one of the first operating LED circuit or the at least
`one additional LED circuit. ....................................................... 55
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 55
`Claim 9: The LED lighting system of claim 8, wherein the
`switch has at least two positions. .............................................. 57
`Claim 10: The LED lighting system of claim 8, wherein
`the switching of the switch provides at least two different
`DC forward voltages to at least one of the first operating
`LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit. ............ 57
`Claim 12: The LED lighting system of claim 8, wherein
`the switching of the switch changes light output of the
`LED lighting device. ................................................................. 57
`10. Claim 14: The LED lighting system of claim 8, further
`comprising a driver electrically coupled to the switch and
`at least one of the first operating LED circuit or the at least
`one additional LED circuit. ....................................................... 57
`11. Claim 15 .................................................................................... 57
`12. Claim 16: The LED lighting system of claim 15, wherein
`the switch has at least two positions. ........................................ 59
`13. Claim 17: The LED lighting system of claim 15, wherein
`the switching of the switch provides at least two different
`DC forward voltages to at least one of the first operating
`LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit. ............ 59
`14. Claim 19: The LED lighting system of claim 15, wherein
`the switching of the switch changes light output of the
`LED lighting device. ................................................................. 59
`IX. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, AND 19 ARE
`ANTICIPATED BY DOHENY .................................................................... 59
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Page
`A. Doheny Overview................................................................................ 59
`B. Analysis ............................................................................................... 60
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 60
`2.
`Claim 2: The LED lighting system of claim 1, wherein the
`switch has at least two positions. .............................................. 71
`Claim 5: The LED lighting system of claim 1, wherein the
`switching of the switch changes light output of the LED
`lighting device. .......................................................................... 71
`Claim 7: The LED lighting system of claim 1, further
`comprising a driver electrically coupled to the switch and
`at least one of the first operating LED circuit or the at least
`one additional LED circuit. ....................................................... 72
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 72
`Claim 9: The LED lighting system of claim 8, wherein the
`switch has at least two positions. .............................................. 74
`Claim 12: The LED lighting system of claim 8, wherein
`the switching of the switch changes light output of the
`LED lighting device. ................................................................. 74
`Claim 14: The LED lighting system of claim 8, further
`comprising a driver electrically coupled to the switch and
`at least one of the first operating LED circuit or the at least
`one additional LED circuit. ....................................................... 74
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 74
`9.
`10. Claim 16: The LED lighting system of claim 15, wherein
`the switch has at least two positions. ........................................ 75
`11. Claim 19: The LED lighting system of claim 15, wherein
`the switching of the switch changes light output of the
`LED lighting device. ................................................................. 75
`X. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, AND 19 ARE
`RENDERED OBVIOUS BY VAN WINKLE .............................................. 76
`A. Van Winkle Overview ......................................................................... 76
`B. Analysis ............................................................................................... 77
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Page
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 77
`Claim 2: The LED lighting system of claim 1, wherein the
`switch has at least two positions. .............................................. 90
`Claim 5: The LED lighting system of claim 1, wherein the
`switching of the switch changes light output of the LED
`lighting device. .......................................................................... 91
`Claim 7: The LED lighting system of claim 1, further
`comprising a driver electrically coupled to the switch and
`at least one of the first operating LED circuit or the at least
`one additional LED circuit. ....................................................... 92
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 92
`5.
`Claim 9. ..................................................................................... 94
`6.
`Claim 12. ................................................................................... 94
`7.
`Claim 14. ................................................................................... 94
`8.
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 94
`9.
`10. Claim 16: The LED lighting system of claim 15, wherein
`the switch has at least two positions. ........................................ 95
`11. Claim 19: The LED lighting system of claim 15, wherein
`the switching of the switch changes light output of the
`LED lighting device. ................................................................. 96
`XI. GROUND 6: CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, AND 19 ARE
`RENDERED OBVIOUS BY BRUNING IN VIEW OF LEE ...................... 96
`A.
`Bruning Overview ............................................................................... 96
`B.
`Lee Overview ...................................................................................... 96
`C.
`Combination Rationale ........................................................................ 97
`D. Analysis ............................................................................................. 100
`1.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................... 100
`2.
`Claim 2: The LED lighting system of claim 1, wherein the
`switch has at least two positions. ............................................ 103
`Claim 3: The LED lighting system of claim 1, wherein the
`switching of the switch provides at least two different DC
`
`4.
`
`3.
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`v
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`5.
`
`4.
`
`forward voltages to at least one of the first operating LED
`circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit. ................... 103
`Claim 5: The LED lighting system of claim 1, wherein the
`switching of the switch changes light output of the LED
`lighting device. ........................................................................ 103
`Claim 7: The LED lighting system of claim 1, further
`comprising a driver electrically coupled to the switch and
`at least one of the first operating LED circuit or the at least
`one additional LED circuit. ..................................................... 104
`Claim 8 .................................................................................... 104
`6.
`Claim 9. ................................................................................... 105
`7.
`Claim 10. ................................................................................. 105
`8.
`Claim 12. ................................................................................. 105
`9.
`10. Claim 14. ................................................................................. 106
`11. Claim 15 .................................................................................. 106
`12. Claim 16. ................................................................................. 107
`13. Claim 17. ................................................................................. 107
`14. Claim 19. ................................................................................. 107
`XII. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 107
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 11,297,705 to Miskin, et al. (“705 patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Dean Neikirk
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 11,297,705 to Miskin, et al.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0070914 (“Bruning”)
`PGR2022-00009, Paper 5 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response) (February 28, 2022)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,932,341 to Miskin et al. (“341 patent”)
`PGR2022-00009, Paper 10 (Decision Granting Institution of
`Post-Grant Review) (May 25, 2022)
`WO2005/084080
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2017/0354005 (Ser. No. 15/685,429)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2014/0153232 (Ser. No. 14/172,644)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0035510 (“Doheny”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0206305 (“Van Winkle”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0163529 (“Evanicky”)
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/217,215
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/997,771
`US 2012/0069560 (publication of 13/322,796)
`US 2009/0174337 (publication of 12/287,267)
`WO 2010/138211 (publication of PCT/US2010/001597)
`US 2019/0182919 (publication of 16/274,164)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,537,001 to Miskin et al. (“001 patent”)
`Petitioner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in Lynk Labs, Inc.
`v. The Home Depot USA, Inc. et al., 1:21-cv-5021-VMC (N.D.
`Ga.) (Dkt. No. 36) (Oct. 6, 2021)
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit No.
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`Description
`Patent Owner’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief in Lynk
`Labs, Inc. v. The Home Depot USA, Inc. et al., 1:21-cv-5021-
`VMC (N.D. Ga.) (Dkt. No. 40) (Oct. 27, 2021)
`001 Patent Prosecution History
`Patent Owner’s Amendments and Arguments/Remarks on June
`13, 2019
`479 Patent Prosecution History
`Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection on October 2, 2018
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0081009 (“Shteynberg”)
`783 Patent Prosecution History
`Patent Owner’s Amendments and Arguments/Remarks on
`August 22, 2019
`EP0515664B1 to Krakower (“Krakower”)
`Excerpt from “IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
`Standards Terms,” Seventh Ed. (2000) with definition of “driver”
`783 Patent Prosecution History
`Patent Owner’s Amendments and Arguments/Remarks on June
`16, 2020
`PGR2022-00009, Paper 20 (Patent Owner’s Response) (August
`17, 2022)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0022999 (“Lee”)
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`viii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Home Depot U.S.A., Inc (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for post-grant
`
`review of claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 11,297,705 (EX1001, “the 705 patent”).
`
`II.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS
`A. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(1)-(4)
`1.
`Real Party-In-Interest
`Petitioner identifies Home Depot Product Authority, LLC as a real party-in-
`
`interest (“RPI”).
`
`In an abundance of caution, Petitioner also identifies as potential RPIs the
`
`following suppliers of certain products that have been accused in district court of
`
`infringing related patents: King of Fans, Inc., Air Cool Industries, New Bright
`
`Technology, Leedarson Lighting, ETI, and Globe Electric. These suppliers have
`
`not controlled or participated in the drafting of this Petition, and none has
`
`consented to being named an RPI. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that any
`
`individual supplier will ever be able to exert sufficient control over this proceeding
`
`that would support a finding that they are the RPI.
`
`Related Matters
`2.
`Petitioner identifies the following administrative proceedings that may
`
`affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding:
`
`PGR2022-00009
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01541
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel
`3.
`Lead counsel is Brian Erickson, Reg. No. 48,895, of DLA Piper LLP (US),
`
`303 Colorado St., Suite 3000, Austin, TX 78701; brian.erickson@dlapiper.com,
`
`512-457-7059 (phone), 512-457-7001 (fax).
`
`Backup counsel are Jennifer Librach Nall, Reg. No. 57,053, of DLA Piper
`
`LLP (US), 303 Colorado Street, Suite 3000, Austin, TX 78701;
`
`jennifer.nall@us.dlapiper.com, (512) 457-7249 (phone), (512) 721-2249 (fax) and
`
`Chris Katsantonis, Reg. No. 78,388, of DLA Piper LLP (US), 444 West Lake
`
`Street, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60606; chris.katsantonis@us.dlapiper.com, (312)
`
`368-2184 (phone), (312) 236-7516 (fax).
`
`Service Information
`4.
`Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the
`
`designation of lead and back-up counsel above. Petitioner consents to electronic
`
`service to lead and back-up counsel and to:
`
`HomeDepot-Lynk-IPR@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Proof of Service on the Patent Owner
`B.
`According to the assignment records at the USPTO, the 705 patent is
`
`currently owned by Lynk Labs, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “PO”).
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`2
`
`

`

`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of this Petition
`
`and supporting evidence is being served electronically by agreement of the parties
`
`and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6 & 42.105(b).
`
`Power of Attorney
`C.
`Powers of attorney are being filed, with designation of counsel, in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.10(b).
`
`Standing
`D.
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §42.201, Petitioner certifies that the 705 patent
`
`is available for post-grant review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting a post-grant review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition.
`
`Timing
`E.
`Under 37 C.F.R. §42.202, “[a] petition for a post-grant review of a patent
`
`must be filed no later than the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of
`
`a patent or of the issuance of a reissue patent.” Petitioner is filing this Petition
`
`within nine months of the 705 patent’s issue date (April 5, 2022), and this Petition
`
`is therefore timely.
`
`Fees
`F.
`The undersigned authorizes the Director to charge the fee specified by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(b) and any additional fees that might be due in connection with this
`
`Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-3266.
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`3
`
`

`

`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Prior Art
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability:
`
` U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0070914 to Bruning et al. (“Bruning”),
`
`published June 13, 2002
`
` U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0022999 to Lee et al. (“Lee”), published
`
`February 2, 2006
`
` U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0163529 to Evanicky et al.
`
`(“Evanicky”), published November 7, 2002
`
` U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0035510 to Doheny et al. (“Doheny”),
`
`published February 1, 2018
`
` U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0206305 to Van Winkle (“Van
`
`Winkle”), published July 19, 2018
`
`Each reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) (AIA).
`
`Grounds
`B.
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Dean Neikirk (“Neikirk
`
`Declaration”) (EX1002), requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims of the 705
`
`on the following grounds:
`
` Ground 1: Claims 3, 10 and 17 are invalid under Section 112.
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`4
`
`

`

` Ground 2: Claims 15, 17, and 19 are anticipated under Section 102
`
`by Bruning.
`
` Ground 3: Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19 are obvious under
`
`Section 103 over Bruning in view of Evanicky.
`
` Ground 4: Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 are anticipated under
`
`Section 102 by Doheny.
`
` Ground 5: Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 are obvious under
`
`Section 103 over Van Winkle.
`
` Ground 6: Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19 are obvious under
`
`Section 103 over Bruning in view of Lee.
`
`IV. THIS PETITION IS PROPER UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 324(A) AND
`325(D)
`A.
`The Becton Dickinson Factors Favor Institution Under § 325(d)
`This PGR is appropriate under Becton Dickinson and Section 325(d).
`
`None of the combination of Bruning and Evanicky (Ground 3), Doheny
`
`(Ground 4), Van Winkle (Ground 5), or the combination of Bruning and Lee
`
`(Ground 6) were considered during prosecution. None of these bases for invalidity
`
`are cumulative of the references discussed by the examiner, over which the
`
`Challenged Claims issued. EX1003, 135.
`
`While Bruning and Petitioner’s Petition in PGR2022-00009 challenging the
`
`705 patent’s parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,932,341 (“341 patent”) (which
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`5
`
`

`

`includes grounds similar to Grounds 1 and 2 herein), were made of record, the
`
`examiner did not discuss either. Nor did the examiner consider the Board’s D.I. in
`
`PGR2022-00009, wherein the Board found Petitioner more likely than not to
`
`prevail on those grounds that are similar to Grounds 1 and 2 herein. EX1007, 47
`
`(anticipated over Bruning), 43-44 (invalid under Section 112). The examiner erred
`
`by failing to substantively discuss these bases for invalidity, which are clearly
`
`meritorious. See Sections VI, VII.
`
`Under these circumstances, the factors set out in Becton, Dickinson and Co.
`
`v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17-18 (PTAB December
`
`15, 2017) (precedential) either favor institution or are neutral.
`
`V.
`
`THE 705 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the 705 Patent
`The 705 patent relates to a lighting system with a switch that connects
`
`multiple circuits. EX1001, Abstract. The 705 patent discloses four embodiments.
`
`EX1002, ¶21.
`
`The first embodiment is an “unconnected” embodiment, wherein an LED
`
`package contains two “single-voltage” LED circuits, each having a predetermined,
`
`fixed forward voltage of, e.g., 6V. EX1001, Figs. 1-3, 11-12, 4:3-15, 4:32-36,
`
`4:58-61, 7:13-15, 9:61-10:54, 11:56-12:13. Because the LED circuits are
`
`“unconnected,” a manufacturer or “packager” can “wire” them to connect or
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`6
`
`

`

`configure them into one of either the second or third embodiments. Id., 7:28-33.
`
`The 705 patent refers to these unconnected LED packages as a “multi-voltage
`
`and/or multi-brightness LED lighting device.” Id., 9:61-62. This phrase in the 705
`
`patent specification refers to the potential of the unconnected LED package to be
`
`manufactured into one of either the second or third embodiments. Id. The phrase
`
`does not disclose a hybrid implementation that provides both multi-voltage and
`
`multi-brightness functionality. EX1002, ¶22.
`
`The second embodiment is a “serial or parallel” embodiment, in which an
`
`LED device is manufactured to have one of multiple forward voltages. EX1001,
`
`Figs. 4-5, 4:16-31, 4:37-57, 4:62-67, 10:55-11:3. In this embodiment, an
`
`unconnected LED package of the first embodiment is “wired” or “connected” into
`
`either a serial or parallel configuration during manufacture. If the two 6V LED
`
`circuits are wired in parallel, the LED device will have a 6V forward voltage. Id.,
`
`Fig. 4, 10:55-61. If the two 6V LED circuits are wired in series, the LED device
`
`will have a 12V forward voltage. Id., Fig. 5, 10:62-11:3. The LED package can
`
`route the LED circuits to external contacts allowing an “LED package user to
`
`wire” the device into a “series or parallel” circuit. Id., 6:25-67. The manufacturer
`
`then connects the configured LED device to a “standardized” driver of the
`
`appropriate “known specified voltage.” Id., 8:7-15. Thus, in the disclosed
`
`embodiment that uses 120V LED circuits, if the LED device is configured for
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`7
`
`

`

`120V operation, the manufacturer will connect the device to a 120V power supply.
`
`Id., Fig. 4 (120VAC per LED circuit, connected in parallel, using 120VAC power
`
`source), Fig. 5 (120VAC per LED circuit, connected in series, using 240VAC
`
`power source). In the serial or parallel embodiment, the voltage supplied to each
`
`individual LED circuit is always the same (e.g., 6V) and, therefore, the brightness
`
`of the individual LED circuits and the LED device does not change. Id., 4:29-31
`
`(“the brightness would be approximately the same with either forward voltage
`
`drive selection of the multi-voltage LED device.”), 4:55-57 (same), 5:16-18
`
`(same). No “switch” is disclosed for use with the serial or parallel embodiment.
`
`EX1002, ¶23.
`
`The third embodiment is an “additional circuit” embodiment, wherein
`
`additional LED circuits can be connected in parallel such that the LED device
`
`emits multiple levels of brightness. EX1001, Figs. 6-9, 7:1-12, 7:34-49, 8:16-45,
`
`11:4-49. In this embodiment, a manufacturer starts with an unconnected LED
`
`package of the first embodiment that includes at least two LED circuits, each
`
`having a single forward voltage of, e.g., 6V. A switch can connect one or more
`
`“additional” 6V LED circuits in parallel to the same 6V power source. Adding
`
`additional LED circuits in parallel will increase the brightness of the overall LED
`
`device, but will not change the voltage applied to any LED circuit. EX1002, ¶24.
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`8
`
`

`

`The fourth embodiment includes a “dimmer switch,” and is disclosed in two
`
`sentences at the end of the summary of the invention. EX1001, 9:22-30. The
`
`summary of the invention ends with six paragraphs discussing a driver for an AC
`
`LED circuit. EX1001, 8:15-9:30 (discussing drivers with frequencies). These
`
`paragraphs were copied from U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/217,215 (“the 215
`
`provisional”), which, as shown below in Sections V.C.1.a-b., relates solely to AC
`
`driven LED circuits. The 215 provisional copied these two sentences from a
`
`statutory prior art Miskin application to AC driven LED circuits. EX1008. The
`
`705 patent discloses that the dimmer switch causes the driver to change the
`
`“voltage and/or frequency” of its output. EX1001, 9:22-30. Because the driver
`
`can change its “frequency,” a POSITA would have understood this disclosure to
`
`refer to an AC voltage, consistent with the preceding paragraphs. EX1002, ¶25.
`
`The 705 patent does not disclose that any of the second, third, or fourth
`
`embodiments could be combined. For example, both the parallel or serial
`
`embodiment and the additional circuit embodiment use “single-voltage” LED
`
`circuits that are driven by a “predetermined forward voltage.” EX1001, 4:3-15. In
`
`contrast, the dimmer switch embodiment includes an LED driver that changes the
`
`voltage or frequency of the output to LED circuits. EX1001, 9:22-30; EX1002,
`
`¶26.
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`9
`
`

`

`Finally, the 705 patent also discloses a full-wave bridge rectifier can be used
`
`to convert AC to DC, but does not disclose any connection of that disclosure to any
`
`of the four embodiments discussed above. EX1001, Fig. 10, 7:16-27, 11:50-55;
`
`EX1002, ¶27.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History and Examiner’s Error
`B.
`The examiner rejected claims 1-20 as being obvious over U.S. Pat. App.
`
`Pub. No. 2003/0179585 to Lefebvre in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
`
`2004/0201988 to Allen. EX1003, 126-34 (April 27, 2021 rejection). In response,
`
`the applicant argued that Lefebvre “fails to show a switch electrically connected
`
`between a DC voltage output (of an LED driver) and at least one of a first
`
`operating LED circuit or at least one additional LED circuit.” Id., 182-83 (June 22,
`
`2021 applicant argument). The applicant further argued that “[p]lacing a switch
`
`after an LED driver is more efficient,” safer, and allows for smaller switches. Id.
`
`The examiner then allowed the claims. Id., 188 (July 15, 2021 Notice of
`
`Allowance). EX1002, ¶28
`
`The examiner erred by failing to locate Evanicky, Doheny, Van Winkle, and
`
`Lee and not considering the Board’s D.I. in PGR2022-00009 where similar claims
`
`from the 705 patent’s parent were challenged over Bruning and Section 112.
`
`Bruning anticipates claims 15, 17, and 19, as shown below in Ground 2, and the
`
`combinations of Bruning with Evanicky or Lee render claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`10
`
`

`

`17, and 19 obvious as shown below in Grounds 3 and 6. Although Bruning is of
`
`record, neither the examiner nor the applicant discussed it individually or in
`
`combination with Evanicky or Lee.
`
`The reason why the examiner overlooked Bruning is unknown. But the
`
`examiner may have overlooked the combination because of the large number of
`
`references submitted by the applicant, and because the applicant did not submit
`
`Bruning until October 2021, after the examiner had already indicated in July 2021
`
`that the claims would be allowable. EX1003, 1595, 188.
`
`Effective Filing Date and PGR Eligibility Under AIA § 3(n)(1).
`C.
`The 705 patent is eligible for PGR if the 705 patent, or any of its priority
`
`applications, contains or contained at any time a claim with an effective filing date
`
`on or after March 16, 2013. See AIA § 3(n)(1).
`
`The 705 patent issued from application no. 17/181,802, which was filed after
`
`March 16, 2013 with claims of priority to applications filed before March 16,
`
`2013. EX1001, codes (22), (63), (60) (claiming priority to application nos.
`
`61/217,215 (EX1014), 60/997,771 (EX1015), 13/322,796 (EX1016), 12/287,267
`
`(EX1017), PCT/US2010/001597 (EX1018) (collectively, the “Pre-AIA
`
`Applications”)). EX1002, ¶30. Thus, the 705 patent issued from a “transitional
`
`application” and is eligible for post-grant review if that transitional application or
`
`EAST/198950636
`
`11
`
`

`

`any application to which it claims priority contains or contained at any time a
`
`claim with an effective filing date after March 16, 2013. AIA § 3(n)(1).
`
`“It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit
`
`of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier
`
`application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112.” In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). To satisfy the
`
`written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the di