`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 10
`
`
` Entered: October 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SANTA’S BEST,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VARIABLE LIGHTING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`____________
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Santa’s Best (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`No. 6,285,140 B1 (“the ’140 patent”).1 Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Variable Lighting
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response. Applying the
`standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`one challenged claim, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter
`partes review of all challenged claims.
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’140 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’140 patent describes a variable-effect lighting system that
`
`comprises a lamp assembly and a programmable lamp controller. Ex. 1001,
`2:14–19. Exemplary applications of the lighting system include Christmas
`tree light strings, temperature-sensitive lights, night lights, and jewelry. Id.
`at 2:60–62.
`
`Figure 2a of the ’140 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`1 We terminated the proceeding with respect to Polygroup Limited (MCO)
`(“Polygroup”). Paper 9.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2a is a schematic circuit diagram of a variable-effect lighting system.
`Id. at 3:10–14. Variable-effect lighting system 110 comprises lamp
`assembly 111 and programmable lamp controller 112 for setting the color of
`light produced by lamp assembly 111. Id. at 13:22–27. The lamp assembly
`comprises a string of multi-colored lamps 114 connected in parallel with
`AC/DC converter 116. Id. at 13:29–32. Each lamp 114 comprises a
`bicolored LED having a first illuminating element for producing a first color
`of light, and a second illuminating element for producing a second color of
`light different from the first color. Id. at 13:33–37. Programmable
`controller 112 includes microcontroller 20, which is programmed with
`several conduction angle sequences for setting the firing angle of
`semiconductor switches 122, 123 to control the color display generated by
`the lamps 114. Id. at 14:12–19.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 6, and 10 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of
`
`the claims at issue:
`1.
`A variable-effect lighting system comprising:
`a lamp assembly comprising a plurality of multi-coloured
`lamps in parallel with a DC voltage source, each said multi-
`coloured lamp comprising a first illuminating element for
`producing a first colour of light, and a second illuminating
`element for producing a second colour of light different from the
`first colour; and
`a programmable lamp controller coupled to the lamp
`assembly for selling a conduction angle of each said illuminating
`element according to at least one predetermined pattern, each
`said predetermined pattern being stored in a memory of the
`controller, the lamp controller including a first electronic switch
`coupled to the first illuminating element and a second electronic
`switch coupled to the second illuminating element.
`
`D. References
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Kazar
`US 5,008,595
`Apr. 16, 1991
`Smith
`US 4,675,575
`June 23, 1987
`Gomoluch WO 91/19411
`Dec. 12, 1991
`Minato
`JP H11-16683
`Jan. 22, 1999
`Sato
`US 5,751,111
`May 26, 1998
`Lys
`US 6,528,954 B1 Mar. 4, 2003
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 10072
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`
`2 Exhibit 1007 is the certified English translation of the Japanese patent
`application and the Japanese language original application. Pet. ix.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`
`E. Grounds Asserted
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the claims of the ’140 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the following combinations of references:
`References
`Claim(s)
`Kazar and Gomoluch
`1, 2, 4, 5
`Kazar, Gomoluch, and Minato
`3
`Kazar, Sato, and Gomoluch
`6–9
`Kazar, Lys, and Gomoluch
`10–13
`Smith and Gomoluch
`1, 2, 4, 5
`Smith, Gomoluch, and Minato
`3
`Smith, Sato, and Gomoluch
`6–9
`Smith, Lys, and Gomoluch
`10–13
`
`
`
`F. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following litigation
`
`involving the ’140 Patent: (1) Variable Lighting LLC v. Kmart Corp., Case
`No. 1:15-cv-00426-RGA (D. Del.); and (2) Variable Lighting LLC v.
`Polygroup Services N.A., Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00183-RGA (D. Del.). Pet.
`71; Paper 6, 2. Petitioner also identifies the following additional proceeding:
`Variable Lighting LLC v. Polygroup Ltd., Case No. 1:16-cv-00162 (D. Del.).
`Pet. 71.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claims of an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under
`that standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`1. “variable-effect lighting system”
`
`This term appears in the preamble of independent claim 1. Petitioner
`asserts we should construe this term to mean “a lighting system where one of
`the lighting effects—e.g., the color of the light—can be changed.” Pet. 6.
`Petitioner contends this construction is consistent with the ordinary use of
`the term and the use of the term in the ’140 patent. Id. at 6–7.
`
`The ’140 patent describes variable-effect lighting systems as
`frequently including a control system to control the color of light emanating
`from the fixture. Ex. 1001, 1:9–14. The ’140 patent further describes the
`color display generated by the bicolored lamps can be selected, and lists
`exemplary preferred color displays. Id. at 4:46–65. Accordingly, for
`purposes of this Decision, we construe “variable-effect lighting system” as
`“a lighting system where one of the lighting effects, such as the color of
`light, can be changed.”
`
`2. “conduction angle of each said illuminating element”
`
`This term appears in all challenged claims. Petitioner asserts this
`term should be construed as “a portion of a whole period of a periodic
`waveform at which the illuminating element conducts current—i.e., when
`the lighting element turns on.” Pet. 7–8. Petitioner contends that, although
`the ’140 patent does not define a “conduction angle,” the patent does explain
`“that controlling the ‘conduction angle of the LEDs’ changes ‘the color
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`display generated by the bicoloured lamps.” Pet. 8 (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:46–
`48). Petitioner argues that by controlling when LEDs turn on and off during
`each period of the periodic waveform, the color display in the ’140 patent
`can be controlled to change the color, the color intensity, a color pattern, a
`rate of color change, or a combination thereof. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:49–
`65).
`The ’140 patent describes that a selected conduction angle sequence
`
`sets the firing angle of the semiconductor switches. Ex. 1001, 14:12–16.
`The ’140 patent further describes that a signal sent to a semiconductor
`switch causes the corresponding LED to conduct current and illuminate, and
`removal of the signal (current) causes the LED to extinguish. See id. at
`14:20–41. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we construe
`“conduction angle of each said illuminating element” as “the portion of a
`whole period of a periodic waveform during which the illuminating element
`conducts current and is illuminated.”
`
`3. “a pair of commonly-coupled light-emitting diodes”
`
`Petitioner proposes a construction for “a pair of commonly-coupled
`light-emitting diodes,” which appears in claims 4, 8, and 13. Pet. 8–9. For
`purposes of this Decision, we do not find it necessary to construe this term.
`See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`B. Ground 1: Obviousness Over Kazar and Gomoluch
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are unpatentable as
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kazar and Gomoluch. Pet. 11–26.
`For the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded, based on the current
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`record, that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`on this ground.
`
`1. Overview of Kazar and Gomoluch
`
`Kazar describes an ornamental and decorative light display that uses
`light emitting diode (LED) lamps that operate from a direct current power
`source. Ex. 1004, 2:66–67. The LEDs may be constructed of two or more
`individual diodes, such as bicolor red/green diodes, that can also produce the
`colors yellow, orange, and amber. Id. at 2:47–57. The decorative lighting
`system allows the user to select individual lights to be constantly illuminated
`or flash in response to an oscillating voltage source, and allows multicolor
`patterns to be generated using bicolor LEDs. Id. at 3:3–12.
`
`Kazar is described in the background section of the ’140 patent. Ex.
`1001, 1:29–45. In particular, the ’140 patent describes Kazar as follows:
`[Kazar] teaches a light display comprising strings of bicoloured
`LED packages connected in parallel across a common DC
`voltage source. Each bicoloured LED package comprises a pair
`of red and green LEDs, connected back-to-back, with the
`bicoloured LED packages in each string being connected in
`parallel to the voltage source through an H-bridge circuit. A
`control circuit . . . allows the red and green LEDs to conduct each
`alternate half cycle, with the conduction angle each half cycle
`being determined according to a modulating input source
`coupled to the control circuit. As a result, the bicolour LEDS can
`be forced to illuminate continuously, or to flash. Further, the
`colour of light produced by each bicolour LED can be
`continuously varied between two extremes.
`
`Id.
`Gomoluch describes a lighting control system, such as a lighting
`
`control system for Christmas tree lights. Ex. 1006, 1:1–3. In one
`embodiment, the lighting control system comprises a microprocessor
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`connected to a pattern and program store, and tri-color LEDs, which
`comprise red and green light emitting diodes. Id. at 2:29–32, 3:8–10. A
`desired lighting pattern, and the rate at which the pattern changes, may be
`selected using rotary switches. Id. at 3:27–30. The microprocessor
`determines which pattern sequence is required and calls up a predefined bit
`pattern stored in the read-only memory (pattern and program store). Id. at
`3:29–32.
`
`2. Claim 1
`
`Petitioner contends that the limitations recited in claim 1 are taught
`by Kazar. Pet. 13–22. Petitioner further contends that, to the extent Kazar
`does not disclose a programmable lamp controller and storing a
`predetermined pattern “in a memory of the controller,” these limitations are
`taught by Gomoluch. Id. at 16–17, 20–21.
`
`We have reviewed the information provided by Petitioner and
`determine, based on the record before us and for purposes of this Decision,
`that Petitioner makes a sufficient showing to demonstrate a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on its challenge based on the combination of Kazar
`and Gomoluch. In particular, Petitioner sufficiently establishes that Kazar
`teaches a lamp assembly that comprises a plurality of multi-colored lamps in
`parallel with a DC voltage source, each multi-colored lamp comprising a
`first illuminating element for producing a first color of light and a second
`illuminating element for producing a second color of light different from the
`first color. Id. at 13–16. We observe that Petitioner’s assertions regarding
`these limitations are consistent with the description of Kazar provided in the
`background of the ’140 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:29–45. Petitioner also
`sufficiently establishes that the claimed programmable lamp controller is
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`taught by the combination of Kazar and Gomoluch. Pet. 16–22. Petitioner
`adequately identifies the programmable lamp controller with both Kazar’s
`circuit configuration, which uses Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) to control
`the color produced by the device and which includes a user programmable
`Programmable Array Logic (PAL) integrated circuit, and Gomoluch’s
`microprocessor. Id. at 16–19. Petitioner adequately identifies Kazar’s
`setting a 50% duty cycle (conduction angle of 180º) with the claim recitation
`of “setting a conduction angle of each illuminating element according to at
`least one predetermined pattern.” Id. at 18–19. Petitioner adequately
`identifies the “predetermined bit pattern being bits stored in a memory of the
`controller” with Kazar’s use of integrated circuits to control the pattern in
`which the LEDs are lit and Gomoluch’s predefined bit pattern stored in read-
`only memory. Id. at 19–21. Petitioner adequately identifies Kazar’s
`transistor pairs with the claimed first and second electronic switches. Id. at
`21–22.
`
`Petitioner also presents a sufficient rationale at this stage to support
`its contention that one of skill in the art would have combined Kazar and
`Gomoluch. Petitioner contends the combination would not have amounted
`to anything more than use of a known technique (programming a controller)
`to improve similar devices in the same way. Pet. 12 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)); see also Pet. 16, 21. Petitioner
`reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art would have enhanced Kazar with
`Gomoluch because of the advantages of Gomoluch’s ability to
`programmably control the color pattern of LEDs and that such a
`modification would have been predictable. Pet. 12.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that claim
`1 would have been obvious over Kazar and Gomoluch.
`
`3. Claims 2, 4, and 5
`
`
`Petitioner contends dependent claims 2, 4, and 5 are unpatentable as
`obvious over Kazar and Gomoluch. Pet. 22–26. We have reviewed the
`information provided by Petitioner and determine, based on the record
`before us and for purposes of this Decision, that Petitioner adequately
`supports its contention that the combination of Kazar and Gomoluch teaches
`the limitations recited in these claims. In particular, Petitioner adequately
`establishes the combination of Kazar and Gomoluch teaches “one pattern is
`selectable according to a user-operable input to the controller,” as recited in
`dependent claim 2. Id. at 22–24. Petitioner also adequately establishes that
`Kazar teaches the claimed pair of commonly-coupled light-emitting diodes
`recited in claim 4 and the H-bridge recited in claim 5. Id. at 24–26.
`Therefore, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in establishing that claims 2, 4, and 5 would have
`been obvious over Kazar and Gomoluch.
`
`C. Ground 2: Obviousness Over Kazar, Gomoluch, and Minato
`
`Petitioner contends dependent claim 3 are unpatentable as obvious
`over Kazar, Gomoluch, and Minato. Pet. 26–27. We are persuaded, based
`on the current record, that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on this ground.
`
`Minato describes a light-emitting display device comprising a first
`light-emitting diode having a first luminescent color and a second light-
`emitting diode having a second luminescent color. Ex. 1007, 2. Minato
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`further describes a circuit for controlling the luminescent color of the light-
`emitting display device in which a control generation part, such as a
`temperature detection circuit, may be used to change the luminescent color.
`Id. ¶¶ 30–31.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we find that Petitioner adequately
`shows the combination of Kazar, Gomoluch, and Minato teaches the “lamp
`controller includes a temperature sensor for selecting the at least one
`pattern,” as recited in claim 3. Pet. 26–27. Petitioner also provides a
`sufficiently persuasive rationale at this stage for combining the teachings of
`Minato with Kazar and Gomoluch through its assertion that a person of skill
`in the art would have recognized advantages in controlling the color pattern
`of LEDs based on external input, a position supported by testimony of its
`expert, Mike Wood. Id. at 27. Accordingly, we are persuaded that
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`establishing that claim 3 would have been obvious over Kazar, Gomoluch,
`and Minato.
` D. Grounds 3 and 4: Obviousness Over Kazar, Sato, and Gomoluch
`and Obviousness over Kazar, Lys, and Gomoluch
`Petitioner contends claims 6–9 are unpatentable as obvious over
`
`Kazar, Sato, and Gomoluch. Pet. 28–34. Petitioner further contends claims
`10–13 would have been obvious over Kazar, Lys, and Gomoluch. Pet. 34–
`41. We are persuaded, based on the current record, that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on these grounds.
`
`Sato describes an all-night emergency light that includes a small light
`bulb, such as a transparent incandescent bulb or a neon bulb. Ex. 1008,
`5:16–19. Sato describes the light bulb is turned on when the level of
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`ambient light falls below a predetermined threshold value and is turned off
`when the level of ambient light exceeds the predetermined threshold value.
`Id. at 5:32–36.
`
`Lys describes a current control for a lighting assembly, which may be
`an LED system or LED lighting assembly. Ex. 1009, 5:46–48. A modular
`LED is described for illumination within an environment. Id. at 31:59–60.
`The modular LED may be worn on a body, such as when embodied as an
`article of jewelry. Id. at 34:5–8. Lys further describes that the
`microprocessor that controls the LEDs may be responsive to any electrical
`signal, such as detectors of ambient temperature or light. Id. at 16:44–61.
`
`Independent claims 6 and 10 recite substantially the same limitations
`as independent claim 1, with the exception of the preambles. Petitioner
`persuasively relies on Sato to teach the “night light” recited in claim 6 and
`on Lys to teach the “jewelry piece” recited in claim 10. Pet. 28, 35.
`Petitioner advances substantially the same arguments discussed in Section
`II.B that Kazar and Gomoluch teach the remaining limitations of claims 6
`and 10. See id. at 29–32, 36–39. We are persuaded that Petitioner
`adequately supports its contention at this stage of the proceeding that the
`combination of Kazar, Sato, and Gomoluch teaches the limitations of claim
`6 and that the combination of Kazar, Lys, and Gomoluch teaches the
`limitations of claim 10. Petitioner also provides a sufficiently persuasive
`rationale at this stage of the proceeding for combining the references. See
`id. at 28–29, 35–36.
`
`Dependent claims 7 and 11 recite substantially the same limitations
`as dependent claim 2, and dependent claims 8 and 13 recite substantially the
`same limitations as dependent claim 4. Petitioner similarly relies on the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`combination of Kazar and Gomoluch to teach these limitations. Id. at 32–
`33, 39, 41. For the same reasons discussed previously, Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge.
`Petitioner also persuasively supports its contention that Sato teaches the
`ambient light sensor recited in claim 9 for inhibiting conduction of the
`illuminating elements when an intensity of the ambient light exceeds a
`threshold. Id. at 33–34. Additionally, Petitioner persuasively supports its
`contention that Lys teaches the claimed temperature sensor recited in
`dependent claim 12. Id. at 40.
`
`We are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in establishing that claims 6–9 would have been
`obvious over the combination of Kazar, Sato, and Gomoluch. We further
`are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in establishing that claims 10–13 would have been obvious over
`the combination of Kazar, Lys, and Gomoluch.
`
`E. Grounds 5–8: Obviousness Based on Smith and Gomoluch
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are unpatentable as obvious
`over the combination of Smith and Gomoluch. Pet. 41–70. Petitioner
`contends dependent claim 3 would have been obvious over Smith,
`Gomoluch, and Minato. Id. at 55–57. Petitioner contends claims 6–9 would
`have been obvious over Smith, Sato, and Gomoluch. Id. at 57–64.
`Petitioner also contends claims 10–13 would have been obvious over Smith,
`Lys, and Gomoluch. Id. at 64–70. We are persuaded, based on the current
`record, that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`on these grounds.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`Smith describes a light bulb assembly incorporating bi-color light-
`
`emitting diodes, which can be driven from DC power supplies. Ex. 1005,
`1:8–11, 2:51–52. Control circuitry is provided to drive the light-emitting
`diodes or light strings to make possible a wide variety of sequencing,
`including blinking, alternating between two colors, and sequencing between
`two or more colors. Id. at 6:55–61. Smith further describes selecting
`predetermined duty cycles for the output signal. Id. at 26:1–7.
`
`We have reviewed the information provided by Petitioner and
`determine, for purposes of this Decision, that Petitioner persuasively
`supports its contention that the combination of Smith and Gomoluch teaches
`or suggests the variable lighting system recited in claim 1. Petitioner applies
`Gomoluch in a similar manner as that described in Section II.B. We are
`persuaded, for the same reasons discussed in that section, that Gomoluch
`teaches a programmable lamp controller and storing a predetermined pattern
`“in a memory of the controller.” See Pet. 47–50. Petitioner also sufficiently
`establishes that Smith teaches the remaining limitations. See id. at 41–52.
`For example, Petitioner persuasively shows that Smith teaches the claimed
`lamp assembly comprising a plurality of multi-colored lamps in parallel with
`a DC voltage source, each lamp including first and second illuminating
`elements for producing first and second colors. Id. at 41–42. We also credit
`the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Wood, that Smith’s half wave
`rectification produces a pulsed DC voltage source from the AC source. Ex.
`1003, ¶¶ 191–195; see also Ex. 1005, 40:52–64. Petitioner also persuasively
`shows that Smith teaches a lamp controller, including first and second
`electronic switches, for setting a conduction angle of each illuminating
`element according to a predetermined pattern. Pet. 46–49, 51–52.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`Additionally, we determine Petitioner’s stated rationale for combining Smith
`and Gomoluch—use of a known technique to improve a similar device in a
`similar way (a predictable modification)—is sufficiently persuasive at this
`stage. See id. at 42–43; see also id. at 48, 50.
`
`Petitioner also sufficiently shows that Smith and Gomoluch teach the
`limitations recited in dependent claims 2, 4, and 5. In particular, Petitioner
`persuasively establishes that Smith teaches the limitations recited in
`dependent claims 4 and the 5, and that the combination of Smith and
`Gomoluch teaches the limitation recited in dependent claim 2. Pet. 52–55.
`With respect to dependent claim 5, we credit Mr. Wood’s testimony that
`Smith’s Figure 39 is an H-bridge. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 230–232.
`
`For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood in prevailing in establishing that
`claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 would have been obvious over Smith and Gomoluch.
`
`Petitioner’s arguments that claims 3 and 6–13 are unpatentable as
`obvious based on the combination of Smith and Gomoluch, with additional
`art to address specific limitations, substantially parallel the arguments made
`for those grounds based on the combination of Kazar and Gomoluch.
`Compare Pet. 26–41, with id. at 55–70. We have reviewed those arguments
`and are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing at this stage
`for essentially the same reasons we explain above. Therefore, we conclude
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood in prevailing in
`establishing that: (i) claim 3 would have been obvious over Smith,
`Gomoluch, and Minato; (ii) claims 6–9 would have been obvious over
`Smith, Sato, and Gomoluch; and (iii) claims 10–13 would have been obvious
`over Smith, Lys, and Gomoluch.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`its challenges to claims 1–13 on the ’140 patent as set forth above.
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final
`determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims or the
`construction of any claim term.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted on the following grounds:
`(1) Obviousness of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 over Kazar and Gomoluch;
`(2) Obviousness of claim 3 over Kazar, Gomoluch, and Minato;
`(3) Obviousness of claims 6–9 over Kazar, Sato, and Gomoluch;
`(4) Obviousness of claims 10–13 over Kazar, Lys, and Gomoluch;
`(5) Obviousness of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 over Smith and Gomoluch;
`(6) Obviousness of claim 3 over Smith, Gomoluch, and Minato;
`(7) Obviousness of claims 6–9 over Smith, Sato, and Gomoluch; and
`(8) Obviousness of claims 10–13 over Smith, Lys, and Gomoluch.
`FURTHER ORDERED that no review is instituted based on any
`
`other grounds of unpatentability; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37
`C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial commencing
`on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01066
`Patent 6,285,140 B1
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`John H. Curry
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`jasone-ptab@skgf.com
`jcurry-ptab@skgf.com
`
`William W. Cochran
`COCHRAN FREUND & YOUNG LLC
`billc@patentlegal.com
`
`Dustin B. Weeks
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`dustin.weeks@troutmansanders.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Padmaja Chinta
`Andrew Berks
`CITTONE & CHINTA LLP
`pchinta@cittonechinta.com
`andrew@berksiplaw.com
`
`
`18