IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ACUITY BRANDS LIGHTING, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LYNK LABS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2016-01133
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,841,855
`Title: LED Circuits and Assemblies
`Filed: April 19, 2012
`Issued: September 23, 2014
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. REGAN ZANE
`REGARDING PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,841,855
`
`Acuity v. Lynk
`Acuity Ex.
`
`1024
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ACUITY BRANDS LIGHTING, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LYNK LABS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2016-01133
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,841,855
`Title: LED Circuits and Assemblies
`Filed: April 19, 2012
`Issued: September 23, 2014
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. REGAN ZANE
`REGARDING PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,841,855
`
`Acuity v. Lynk
`Acuity Ex.
`
`1024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. REGAN ZANE
`
`I, Regan Zane, hereby declare as follows:
`
`Petitioner Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. has retained me to provide my
`
`opinions in support of their Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,841,855. I am being compensated for my time at my standard rate of $290 per
`
`hour. I have no interest in the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`My declaration includes the following sections:
`
`I. Background and Qualifications
`II. Materials Considered
`III. Understanding of the Governing Law
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`V. LEDs
`VI. AC LEDs
`VII. The ‘855 Patent and File History
`VIII. Ng Discloses All of the Limitations of Claims 1 and 4-5
`IX. Alternatively Claims 4-5 are Obvious in View of Ng and Wang
`X. Claims 2-3 are Obvious in View of Ng and Chen
`XI. The Well Known Elements of the Claims
`XII. Conclusion
`
`
`I. Background and Qualifications
`
`1.
`
`I am a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Utah
`
`State University and an Associate Professor at the University of Colorado at
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Boulder in the Department of Electrical, Computer & Energy Engineering. A copy
`
`
`
`of my curriculum vitae is Exhibit 1025 accompanying the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review.
`
`2.
`
`I have a Bachelor of Science degree, a Master of Science degree, and
`
`a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder, all in Electrical Engineering.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently a Utah Science Technology and Research (USTAR)
`
`Professor at Utah State University in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering. I have been on the faculty of Utah State University since 2012.
`
`4.
`
`I am also an Associate Professor at the University of Colorado at
`
`Boulder in the Department of Electrical, Computer & Energy Engineering. I have
`
`been on the faculty of University of Colorado at Boulder since 2001, first as an
`
`Assistant Professor and as an Associate Professor since 2008. I have been on leave
`
`from the University of Colorado at Boulder since 2012.
`
`5.
`
`Prior to my employment at the University of Colorado at Boulder, I
`
`worked for General Electric as a Senior Research Scientist at the Corporate
`
`Research and Development Center in the area of custom integrated circuits for
`
`power management applications, with an emphasis on controllers for energy
`
`efficient lighting systems.
`
`6.
`
`As part of my work at Utah State University and University of
`
`Colorado at Boulder, I have taught various courses to electrical engineering
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`students over the years. These courses have included, among others, Introduction
`
`
`
`to Power Electronics, Power Electronics for Electric Drive Vehicles, Renewable
`
`Sources and Efficient Energy Systems, Introduction to Microelectronics Circuits,
`
`Analog IC Design, and Mixed-Signal IC Design.
`
`7.
`
`As part of my work as a professor, I have engaged in various
`
`research projects and outside interests. My research interests include: (1) energy
`
`efficiency in lighting and building systems, e.g., solid-state lighting and DC power
`
`distribution; (2) design, modeling and control of high efficiency, high frequency,
`
`high power density, and high performance DC-DC, AC-DC, DC-AC power
`
`converters in emerging applications such as bi-directional power converters for
`
`hybrid AC and DC power systems in commercial and military applications, data
`
`centers, micro-grids, grid-integration of renewable energy sources, and electric
`
`vehicles; (3) application of advanced digital control techniques to power electronic
`
`systems such as stability and control of series/parallel combinations in modular and
`
`distributed systems, adaptive tuning in multi-input, multi-output control loops and
`
`online identification of loop stability, converter health, bus or line impedance; (4)
`
`analog and mixed signal integrated circuit design; and (5) low power energy
`
`harvesting and power management in wireless sensors and networking systems.
`
`8.
`
`I have published over 120 peer-reviewed journal articles in the field
`
`of electrical engineering and am named as an inventor on twelve patents, with
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`additional pending, including patents on AC and DC power converters, lighting
`
`
`
`system dimming methods, and new control concepts for AC gas discharge and DC
`
`LED lighting technologies. I have served as lead faculty advisor and graduated
`
`eleven Ph.D. students, including four Ph.D. students specifically in power circuits
`
`for lighting technologies, all of whom now work as leading researchers in the
`
`lighting industry.
`
`9.
`
`I have led research projects with development and hardware
`
`evaluation of numerous printed circuit boards for LED systems. The designs
`
`included LED driver circuits, individual LEDs, and linear 1-D and circular and
`
`rectangular 2-D arrays of LEDs. Applications included general illumination,
`
`backlighting for LCD-TV and specialty lighting. Associated with these projects, I
`
`have studied and discussed with industry the implications of the human eye
`
`response and perception of flicker, color, and motion to lighting system design,
`
`including LED driver operation and physical spatial layout of the LED array.
`
`10.
`
`I received the National Science Foundation CAREER Award in 2004
`
`for my work on energy efficient lighting systems (which included 5 years of
`
`funding support), the Inventor of the Year Award at the University of Colorado in
`
`2006, and the IEEE Power Electronics Society Richard M. Bass Award in 2008 for
`
`outstanding achievement to the field of power electronics based on my work in the
`
`lighting and control areas.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE) and, since January 2006, I have been an Associate Editor of the
`
`IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics.
`
`II. Materials Considered
`
`12.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have considered my knowledge, my
`
`experience, and the following documents, which I understand are exhibits to the
`
`accompanying Petition for Inter Partes Review (denoted as “Ex. 10xx”), as well as
`
`the other materials cited herein and/or in the Petition:
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,841,855 (“Ex. 1001, ‘855 Patent”);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,053,560 (“Ex. 1002, Ng”);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,909,234 (“Ex. 1003, Chen”);
`Citizen Electronics Co., Ltd.’s datasheet for CL-820-U1N CITILEDs
`dated August 6, 2007 (“Ex. 1004, Citizen Datasheet”);
`Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation’s “Surface Mount LED Lamp
`Super Bright 0805” datasheet dated August 30, 2001 (“Ex. 1005,
`Fairchild Datasheet”);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,828,596 (“Ex. 1006, Steigerwald”);
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0285332 (“Ex. 1007, Goon”);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,667,497 (“Ex. 1008, Huang”);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,339,198 (“Ex. 1009, Shen”);
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0247852 (“Ex. 1010, Wang”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,535,028 (“Ex. 1011, “Fan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,271,408 (“Ex. 1012, “Teshima”);
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/450,938 (“Ex. 1013, the ‘938
`Application”) and its prosecution history;
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/287,267 (“Ex. 1014, the Parent
`Application”) and its prosecution history;
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/997,771 (“Ex. 1015, the
`Provisional Application”);
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0069663 (“Ex. 1019, Burdalski”);
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0103913 (“Ex. 1020, Handschy”);
`Lynk Lab’s Initial Infringement Contentions Pursuant to Local Patent
`Rule 2.2 (“Ex. 1021”);
`Defendants’ Initial Non-Infringement, Unenforceability, and
`Invalidity Contentions Pursuant to LPR 2.3 (“Ex. 1022”);
`Lynk Labs, Inc.’s Initial Response to Invalidity Contentions Pursuant
`to Local Patent Rule 2.5 (“Ex. 1023”);
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0206970 (“Ex. 1026, Martin”);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,412,971 (“Ex. 1027, Wojnarowski”); and
`M. Rico-Secades, et. al., “Driver for high efficiency LED based on
`flyback stage with current mode control for emergency lighting
`system,” Industry Applications Conference, Oct. 2004, pp. 1655-1659
`(“Ex. 1028, Rico-Secades”).
`
`
`III. Understanding of the Governing Law
`
`13.
`
`I understand that there are two types of U.S. patent claims: (1)
`
`independent claims, and (2) dependent claims. I understand that independent
`
`claims only include the aspects stated in the independent claim. I further
`
`understand that dependent claims include the aspects stated in that dependent
`
`claim, plus any aspects stated in any other claim(s) from which that dependent
`
`claim depends.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`I understand that anticipation of a claim requires that every element of
`
`a claim be disclosed expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged
`
`as in the claim. With regard to inherency, I understand that an element of a claim
`
`that is not expressly disclosed in a reference may nonetheless be said to be
`
`inherently present when the element is necessarily present in the thing described in
`
`the reference.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that obviousness requires that the claim be obvious from
`
`the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, at the time the
`
`invention was made. In analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to
`
`understand the scope of the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, the scope
`
`and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims,
`
`and any secondary considerations. I also understand that if a technique has been
`
`used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
`
`technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. There
`
`may also be a specific “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to combine any first
`
`prior art reference with a second prior art reference. Such a “teaching, suggestion,
`
`or motivation” to combine the first prior art reference with the second prior art
`
`reference can be explicit or implicit.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17.
`
`I understand that secondary (or objective) considerations can be
`
`relevant to the determination of whether a claim is obvious. Such secondary (or
`
`objective) considerations can include evidence of commercial success of an
`
`invention, evidence of a long-felt need that was solved by an invention, evidence
`
`that others copied an invention, or evidence that an invention achieved a surprising
`
`result. I understand that such evidence must have a nexus, or causal relationship to
`
`the elements of a claim, in order to be relevant to the non-obviousness of the claim.
`
`I am unaware of any such secondary considerations in relation to the claims of the
`
`‘855 Patent.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that “inter partes review” (“IPR”) is a proceeding before
`
`the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) for evaluating the
`
`patentability of an issued patent claim.
`
`19.
`
`In an IPR, I understand that the meaning of claim terms is the
`
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Unless otherwise noted below, and to the
`
`extent such a meaning is apparent, I presumed that the claim terms in the ‘855
`
`Patent take on their ordinary and customary meaning that the term would have to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`20.
`
`In forming my opinions as presented in this declaration, I have
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`applied the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art around the 2007-2008
`
`
`
`timeframe, when U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/997,771 and U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/287,267 were filed. At that time, I was an Assistant Professor
`
`in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and the University of
`
`Colorado at Boulder. By then, I had worked on several lighting research projects,
`
`including developing a solid-state light emitting diode (LED) power supply for
`
`Philips Research. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would be the same for the time frame since 2007-2008.
`
`21.
`
`I believe that in the 2007-2008 time frame a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been someone with a technical background in electronics or
`
`electrical engineering and at least one year of experience working with LEDs or
`
`lighting design.
`
`22.
`
`Furthermore, I believe that my positions as a Senior Research
`
`Scientist at General Electric, as an Assistant Professor at University of Colorado at
`
`Boulder, and as an Associate Editor of IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics
`
`have given me an understanding of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have known before the time of invention.
`
`V. LEDs
`
`23. LEDs were first commercialized in the early 1960s and today are
`
`found in many commercial and residential lighting products, including Christmas
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tree lights, traffic lights, and light bulbs. LEDs have numerous advantages over
`
`traditional lighting sources, such as fluorescent, incandescent, and halogen lamps,
`
`including lower energy consumption, longer lifetime, improved physical
`
`robustness, and smaller size.
`
`24. LEDs come in a variety of standard package shapes and sizes. For
`
`LEDs packaged in circular cases, the package is defined by the diameter. While
`
`the 5 mm diameter case is the most common, other package sizes are available,
`
`such as 1.8 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm, 8 mm, and 20 mm diameters. For surface mount
`
`technology (SMT) LEDs, the packages are rectangular. Common LED SMT sizes
`
`are:
`
`
`
`Package Designator Length (mm) Width (mm) Height (mm)
`1206
`3.2
`1.5
`1.1
`0805
`2.0
`1.25
`0.8
`0603
`1.6
`0.8
`0.6
`0402
`1.0
`0.5
`0.45
`
`25. These standard SMT package sizes existed prior to the invention date
`
`of the ‘855 Patent. As described in U.S. Patent No. 6,667,497, SMT packages
`
`were developed in the early 1980s. (Ex. 1008, Huang, Col. 1, ll. 19-20.) In
`
`addition to Huang, other references including Chen, the Citizen Datasheet, the
`
`Fairchild Datasheet, and Shen all describe the use of LEDs having one or more of
`
`these standard SMT package sizes prior to the date of invention. (Ex. 1003, Chen,
`
`Col. 1, l. 64 – Col. 2, l. 1; Ex. 1004, Citizen Datasheet, Page 2; Ex. 1005; Fairchild
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Datasheet, Page 1; Ex. 1009, Shen, Col. 6, ll. 37-43.) Other references also
`
`
`
`describe LED packages that would meet the size limitations of claims 2 and 3 of
`
`the ‘855 Patent prior to the date of invention. (Ex. 1006, Steigerwald, Col. 3, ll. 6-
`
`10; Ex. 1007, Goon, ¶ 3). In my opinion, these references demonstrate that LED
`
`packages with a length and width of 2.5 mm or less were well known, in fact
`
`common and conventional, before the time of invention of the ‘855 Patent.
`
`VI. AC LEDs
`
`26. While LEDs are commonly driven with a DC source, driving LEDs
`
`with an alternating current (AC) source (“AC LEDs”) has been known for over
`
`thirty years. For example, Teshima discloses “a light-emitting diode circuit
`
`arrangement for ac drive.” (Ex. 1012, Teshima, Col. 7, ll. 25-27.) For example,
`
`Teshima discloses an AC LED as follows:
`
`A pair of light-emitting diodes of opposite polarities relative to each
`other are connected in parallel, and a plurality of such pair
`connections are connected in series. The series connection is directly
`connected to an ac power surce [sic, source] through a protective
`resistor R, without the intervention of a rectifier circuit nor a
`smoothing circuit which is the case in FIG. 4. One of a pair of light-
`emitting diodes 3 emits light for every one half cycle and the other of
`the pair of the light-emitting diodes emits light for every other half
`cycle.
`
`(Ex. 1012, Teshima, Col. 7, ll. 27-36, Figure 8.) For convenience, I refer to this
`
`AC LED method as the “opposing parallel approach.”
`
`27. The opposing parallel approach can be explained with the figure
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`below. Consider an AC source connected across the nodes labeled Port 1 and Port
`
`
`
`2. The AC source will have a sinusoidal signal. During the positive phase of the
`
`sinusoidal signal, i.e., when Port 1 has a positive value relative to Port 2, the green
`
`(right) LED turns on. During the negative phase of the sinusoidal signal, i.e., when
`
`Port 1 has a negative value relative to Port 2, the red (left) LED turns on. In this
`
`example, the red and green LEDs will be alternatively illuminated.
`
`
`
`28. Teshima’s AC LED design shown in Figure 8 is similar to one
`
`described in the ‘855 Patent. Both of these figures are shown below. With
`
`respect to Figure 1, the ‘855 Patent discloses an AC LED as follows:
`
`FIG. 1 discloses an AC-driven LED circuit 10 including a first parallel
`circuit 12 having a first branch 14, and a second branch 16. Branches 14, 16
`connect at first common point 18 and second common point 20. The
`common points 18, 20 provide input and output for an AC driving current
`from a driver 24 for the circuit. The first branch 14 has a first LED 26 and a
`second LED 28, and the second branch 16 having a third LED 30 and a
`fourth LED 32. The first LED 26 is connected to the second LED 28 in
`opposing series relationship with the inputs of the first and second LEDs
`26, 28 defining a first branch junction 34. The third LED 30 is connected to
`the fourth LED 32 in opposing series with the outputs of the third and
`fourth LEDs 30, 32 defining a second branch junction 36. The first and
`second branches 34, 36 are connected to one another such that the output of
`the first LED 26 is connected to the input of the third LED 30 at the first
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`common point 18 and the output of the second LED 28 is connected to the
`input of the fourth LED 32 at the second common point 20. A first cross-
`connecting circuit branch 38 has a fifth LED 40. The first cross-connecting
`circuit branch 38 being configured such that the input of the fifth LED 40 is
`connected to second branch junction 36 and the output is connected to the
`first branch junction 34.
`
`(Ex. 1001, ‘855 Patent, Col. 3, ll. 16-39.) In this arrangement, “LED’s 26 and 32
`
`will provide light only upon one half of an AC wave, pulse or phase, while LEDs
`
`28 and 30 will provide light only upon the opposite wave, pulse or phase.” (Ex.
`
`1001, ‘855 Patent, Col. 3, ll. 40-43.)
`
`29. The similarities can be more easily seen by referring to Teshima’s
`
`Figure 8 and the ‘855 Patent’s Figure 1, which are shown next to each other
`
`below.
`
`Teshima’s Figure 8
`
`
`‘855 Patent Figure 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30.
`
`In the AC LED shown in Teshima’s Figure 8, the LEDs 3 on the left
`
`side of the circuit illuminate during the positive phase of the AC source, while the
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEDs 3 on the right side of the circuit illuminate during the negative phase of the
`
`AC source. In the AC LED shown in the ‘855 Patent’s Figure 1, LEDs 30, 40,
`
`and 28 illuminate during the positive phase of the AC source, while the LEDs 32,
`
`40, and 26 circuit illuminate during the negative phase of the AC source.
`
`31.
`
`The ‘855 Patent explains that LED 40 is used to mitigate flicker as it
`
`illuminates regardless of the phase of the AC source. (Ex. 1001, ‘855 Patent, Col.
`
`3, ll. 40-51.) If this LED is omitted, the ‘855 Patent’s AC LED cross-connecting
`
`circuit branch 38 needs to be maintained to provide a current pathway from LED
`
`30 to LED 28 and from LED 32 to LED 26. If this pathway is maintained using a
`
`circuit line similar to the one shown in Teshima’s Figure 8, the only difference
`
`between these two AC LED designs is the current path through the AC LED.
`
`While Teshima shows a linear flow of current through the AC LED (e.g., left side
`
`versus right side), the ‘855 Patent shows a cross-circuit flow of current through the
`
`AC LED (e.g., right to left versus left to right). In my opinion, Teshima
`
`demonstrates that AC LEDs were well known, in fact common and conventional,
`
`before the time of invention of the ‘855 Patent.
`
`VII. The ‘855 Patent and File History
`
`32.
`
`I have reviewed the ‘855 Patent, the associated file history, and the
`
`applications to which the ‘855 Patent claims priority, and associated file histories
`
`for those applications.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33. The ‘855 Patent has one independent claim, claim 1, and four
`
`dependent claims, claims 2-5. (Ex. 1001, ‘855 Patent, Claims 1-5.) Claim 1 is
`
`directed towards an AC-driven LED assembly that has two discretely packaged
`
`LEDs mounted on a substrate within 3 millimeters (“mm”) from each other.
`
`Claims 2 and 3 further limit the size of each packaged LED. Claims 4-5 further
`
`limit the spatial arrangement of the packaged LEDs with respect to each other.
`
`34. The claims of the ‘855 Patent are provided in the following chart:
`
`1[a] An AC-driven LED assembly comprising:
` 1[b] at least a first and a second LED each discretely packaged,
` 1[c] the LEDs being connected in an AC circuit and
` 1[d] each LED package being mounted to a substrate at a
`distance from the other of preferably approximately 3 mm or less,
`and more preferably 2.0 mm or less.
`2. The AC-driven LED assembly according to claim 1 wherein the
`packaged LEDs each have a length of preferably approximately 2.5
`mm or less, and more preferably 2.0 mm or less.
`3. The AC-driven LED assembly according to claim 1 wherein the
`packaged LEDs each have a width of preferably approximately 2.5
`mm or less, and more preferably 2.0 mm or less.
`4. The AC-driven LED assembly according to claim 1 wherein the
`LED packages are arranged with respect to each other in a linear
`spatial relationship.
`5. The AC-driven LED assembly according to claim 1 wherein the
`LED packages are arranged with respect to each other in an XY
`rectilinear spatial relationship.
`
`
`
`35.
`
`I reviewed U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/997,771 (the
`
`“Provisional Application, Ex. 1015”) to determine if it supports the claims of the
`
`‘855 Patent. I determined that the Provisional Application does not disclose the
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`spatial relationship limitations found in claims 4-5 of the ‘855 Patent. Figure 6 and
`
`
`
`the associated text of the specification disclose the linear spatial relationship found
`
`in claim 4, while Figure 7 and the associated text of the specification disclose the
`
`XY rectilinear spatial relationship found in claim 5. (Ex. 1001, ‘855 Patent, Col. 4,
`
`ll. 49-54, Figures 6-7.) Neither Figure 6 nor Figure 7 are in the Provisional
`
`Application. The Provisional Application also lacks any text describing these
`
`spatial relationships.
`
`VIII. Ng Discloses All of the Limitations of Claims 1 and 4-5
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, Ng discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4-5
`
`of the ‘855 Patent, and claims 2-3 are an obvious modification to Ng’s teachings.
`
`37. Preamble 1[a]: The claims of the ‘855 Patent are directed towards
`
`“[a]n AC-driven LED assembly.” Ng also discloses an AC-driven LED assembly.
`
`Ng’s Figure 1, shown below, depicts a “circuit drawing of the simplest
`
`embodiment of an ‘AC LED’ according to the invention.” (Ex. 1002, Ng, Col. 3,
`
`ll. 22-23, Figure 1.)
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`38. Element 1[b] and 1[c]: The claims of the ‘855 Patent include the
`
`limitations “a first and a second LED” and “the LEDs being connected in an AC
`
`circuit.” Ng discloses an AC driven circuit that includes two LEDs. As shown in
`
`Figure 1 above,
`
` is the standard symbol for an AC voltage source and D- and
`
`D+ are LEDs. Ng also discloses “[a]t least one pair of LEDs … driven by a
`
`voltage source, which may deliver unrectified alternating current.” (Ex. 1002, Ng,
`
`Abstract.) Ng also claims a power source that “supplies unrectified alternating
`
`current to each LED pair.” (Ex. 1002, Ng, Claims 13, 18.) Thus, it is my opinion
`
`that Ng’s figures, specification, and claims all disclose the limitations “a first and
`
`a second LED” and “the LEDs being connected in an AC circuit.”
`
`39. Element 1[b]: Claim 1 of the ‘855 Patent also specifies that the first
`
`and second LEDs are “each discretely packaged.” The specification of the ‘855
`
`Patent distinguishes discretely packaged LEDs from LEDs formed “at the
`
`semiconductor die level.” (Ex. 1001, ‘855 Patent, Col. 1, ll. 31-36.) Patent
`
`Owner made this same distinction during prosecution of the ‘855 Patent
`
`contrasting the discretely packaged LEDs from Burdalski’s “single package
`
`having multiple LEDs.” (Ex. 1017, Page 3.)
`
`40. Ng also notes this distinction: “In most implementations of the
`
`invention, the LEDs in each pair will be normal single-die LEDs. Another aspect
`
`of the invention provides, however, for a multi-die LED such that the LED pair
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`comprises two LED dies mounted with reverse polarity within a single LED
`
`casing.” (Ex. 1002, Ng, Col. 3, 7-11.) Ng’s reference to “normal single-die
`
`LEDs” is another way of specifying discretely packaged LEDs, while Ng’s
`
`reference to “a multi-die LED” is another way of specifying a single package
`
`having multiple LEDs like Burdalski. Not only does Ng note this distinction, Ng
`
`further states that discretely packaged LEDs will be used “[i]n most
`
`implementations.” Id.
`
`41. Ng also depicts discretely packaged LEDs in Figures 6-7 and 11-12.
`
`(Ex. 1002, Ng, Figures 6-7 and 11-12.) Ng’s Figures 6 and 7 are shown below.
`
`Figure 6 shows the “component layout on the PCB base” 300 and Figure 7 shows
`
`“a side view of the arrangement shown in FIG. 6.” (Ex. 1002, Ng, Col. 3, ll. 35-
`
`
`
`38.)
`
`42.
`
`In Figure 6, D- and D+ are the two LEDs and they are depicted as two
`
`separate components each having a circular footprint. In other words, these two
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEDs are each discretely packaged. This is confirmed in the side view of Figure
`
`7, which shows the standard depiction of a circular-cased LED, D-. Moreover,
`
`when describing Figures 6-7, Ng discloses that the distance “d” between the
`
`centers of the LEDs “should be as small as possible” to give the “impression that
`
`the LED pair is a single AC LED.” (Ex. 1002, Ng, Col. 5, l. 65 to Col. 6, l. 3.) It
`
`is my opinion after reviewing Ng’s Figures 6-7 and 11-12, and the associated text,
`
`that Ng discloses two LEDs that are discretely packaged.
`
`43. Ng’s claims also suggest discrete packaging. Ng’s claim 16 is
`
`directed towards a lighting arrangement “in which the LED pair comprises two
`
`LED dies mounted with reverse polarity within a single LED casing.” Thus,
`
`claim 16 is directed towards an integrated package. Claim 16 depends from claim
`
`1. As a result, claim 1 is not limited to an integrated package. Stated another
`
`way, for purposes of claim 1, the LEDs in the LED pair can be discretely
`
`packaged.
`
`44. Thus, it is my opinion that Ng’s specification, figures, and claims all
`
`disclose that the first and second LEDs can be “discretely packaged.”
`
`45. Element 1[d]: The claims of the ‘855 Patent include the limitation
`
`“each LED package being mounted to a substrate at a distance from the other of
`
`preferably approximately 3 mm or less, and more preferably 2.0 mm or less.” In
`
`the same way, Ng discloses closely spaced packaged LEDs mounted on a
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`substrate: “In applications of the invention in which a plurality–in some cases
`
`even dozens–of LED pairs are mounted on a single printed circuit board (PCB)
`
`base, they may be densely mounted, separated by no more than 1 mm.” (Ex.
`
`1002, Ng, Col. 3, ll. 15-18, see also Col. 6, ll. 6-9; Col. 8, ll. 14-17 (“the LEDs
`
`should either just touch, or be no more than 3 mm apart, and preferably no more
`
`than 1 mm apart.”).) Ng’s PCB base is the “mounting substrate for the LED
`
`pairs.” (Ex. 1002, Ng, Col. 2, ll. 40-41.) Thus, it is my opinion that Ng discloses
`
`two packaged LEDs mounted to a substrate 3 mm or less apart.
`
`46. Thus, it is my opinion that Ng discloses all of the limitations of claim
`
`1 and, therefore, anticipates claim 1 of the ‘855 Patent. My opinion that Ng
`
`anticipates claim 1 is further supported by the claim chart listed in Ground 1 of
`
`the Petition.
`
`47. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and is directed towards discretely
`
`packaged LEDs arranged in “a linear spatial relationship.” The ‘855 Patent
`
`provides that “FIG. 6 discloses an AC-driven LED assembly 90 wherein the LED
`
`packages 84 are arranged with respect to each other in a linear spatial
`
`relationship.” (Ex. 1001, ‘855 Patent, Col. 4, ll. 49-51.) The ‘855 Patent’s Figure
`
`6 is shown below.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`48. Ng’s Figure 6, provided above with respect to element 1[b], also
`
`depicts packaged LEDs (D-, D+) arranged in a linear spatial relationship with
`
`respect to each other. (Ex. 1002, Ng, Figure 6.) The ‘855 Patent’s Figure 6 shows
`
`four LEDs in a line, while Ng’s Figure 6 shows two LEDs in a line. Thus, it is my
`
`opinion that Ng discloses all of the limitations of claim 4 and, therefore, anticipates
`
`claim 4 of the ‘855 Patent. My opinion that Ng anticipates claim 4 is further
`
`supported by the claim chart listed in Ground 1 of the Petition.
`
`49. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and is directed towards packaged
`
`LEDs arranged in “an XY rectilinear spatial relationship.” The ‘855 Patent
`
`provides that “FIG. 7 discloses an assembly 100 wherein the LED packages 84 are
`
`arranged with respect to each other in an XY rectilinear spatial relationship.” (Ex.
`
`1001, ‘855 Patent, Col. 4, ll. 51-54.) The ‘855 Patent does not define “XY
`
`rectilinear spatial relationship.” Rectilinear implies that the LEDs are arranged in
`
`straight lines, while “XY” implies that the LEDs are arranged along the X and Y
`
`axes of Cartesian coordinates. The x-axis is the horizontal axis, while the y-axis is
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`the vertical axis.
`
`
`
`50.
`
`The ‘855 Patent’s Figure 7 (left) and Ng’s Figure 10 (right) are
`
`shown below. As seen in Figure 7, the LEDs are arranged in straight lines along
`
`the X and Y axes.
`
`
`
`51. Ng’s Figure 10 “illustrates just one of many different ways in which
`
`more than one LED pair, in this case D11+, D11-, and D21+, D21- may be
`
`mounted on a single base 300.” (Ex. 1002, Ng, Col. 7, ll. 27-29, Figure 10.) As
`
`shown in Ng’s Figure 10, the four LEDs are also in an XY rectilinear spatial
`
`relationship. The X-axis is in the direction from “21” to “11,” while the Y-axis is
`
`in the direction from “D-” to “D+.” While the ‘855 Patent shows two LED pairs on
`
`the same side of the substrate and Ng shows LED pairs on opposite sides of the
`
`substrate, both figures show a straight line relationship of LEDs positioned with
`
`respect to X-Y axes.
`
`52.
`
`Thus, it is my opinion that Ng discloses all of the limitations of claim
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`5 and, therefore, anticipates claim 5 of the ‘855 Patent. My opinion that Ng
`
`
`
`anticipates claim 5 is further supported by the claim chart listed in Ground 1 of the
`
`Petition.
`
`IX. Alternatively Claims 4-5 are Obvious in View of Ng and Wang
`
`53. While it is my opinion that Ng anticipates claims 4 and 5, I note that
`
`Wang explicitly states that closely spaced packaged LEDs can be arranged in a
`
`“linear configuration” or a “rectangular array arrangement.” (Ex. 1010, Wang, ¶
`
`23.)
`
`54.
`
`It is also my opinion that the combination of Ng and Wang renders
`
`obvious claims 4 and 5. Ng and Wang both disclose arranging closely spaced
`
`LEDs. Ng discloses spacing packaged LEDs such that they nearly touch and no
`
`more than 3 mm apart, while Wang discloses spacing packaged LEDs less than 2
`
`mm apart. (Ex. 1002, Ng, Col. 3, ll. 15-18, Col. 6, ll. 6-9, Col. 8, ll. 14-17; Ex.
`
`1010, Wang, Abstract; ¶¶ 12, 13, 17; claims 6, 11, 18.) Arranging LEDs in a line
`
`or in a rectangle is a well known design choice before the time of invention. For
`
`example, Teshima, which issued in 1981, discloses an XY rectilinear spatial
`
`arrangement of LEDs. (Ex. 1012, Figure 2.) Other examples of XY rectilinear
`
`spatial arrangements of LEDs can be found in Martin (Ex. 1026, Figure 1A) and
`
`Wojnarowski (Ex. 1027, Figu
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
