U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TECHNICAL CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC.,
`NICOR INC.,
`AMAX LIGHTING,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`
`LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORP.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,672,518
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES AND CERTIFICATION ................................... 1
`II.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF FOR EACH CLAIM
`CHALLENGED ............................................................................................. 3
`III. THE ’518 PATENT ........................................................................................ 3
`A.
`The Technology .................................................................................... 3
`B.
`The ’518 Patent .................................................................................... 4
`C.
`Prosecution History of the ’518 Patent ................................................ 8
`IV. THE PRIOR ART ......................................................................................... 12
`A.
`Soderman ............................................................................................ 12
`B.
`Zhang .................................................................................................. 14
`C. Wegner ............................................................................................... 15
`D.
`Silescent S100 LP2 ............................................................................. 16
`E.
`Barnett ................................................................................................ 17
`F.
`Van Elmpt ........................................................................................... 18
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 19
`V.
`VI. SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ......................... 20
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 12, AND 14 ARE RENDERED
`OBVIOUS BY SODERMAN IN LIGHT OF WEGNER ........................... 20
`A.
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................... 20
`B.
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................... 27
`C.
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................... 29
`D.
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................... 30
`E.
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................... 32
`F.
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................. 32
`G.
`Claim 12 ............................................................................................. 32
`H.
`Claim 14 ............................................................................................. 33
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VIII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 4, 5, AND 13 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS
`BY SODERMAN IN LIGHT OF WEGNER AND SILESCENT .............. 34
`A.
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................... 34
`B.
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................... 35
`C.
`Claim 13 ............................................................................................. 36
`IX. GROUND III: CLAIM 10 IS RENDERED OBVIOUS BY
`SODERMAN IN LIGHT OF BARNETT AND/OR VAN ELMPT........... 37
`X. GROUND IV: CLAIMS 1, 3, 5-8, 11, 12, AND 14 ARE RENDERED
`OBVIOUS BY ZHANG IN LIGHT OF WEGNER ................................... 41
`A.
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................... 41
`B.
`Claim 3 ............................................................................................... 48
`C.
`Claim 5 ............................................................................................... 49
`D.
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................... 51
`E.
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................... 51
`F.
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................... 53
`G.
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................. 53
`H.
`Claim 12 ............................................................................................. 54
`I.
`Claim 14 ............................................................................................. 55
`XI. GROUND V: CLAIMS 4 AND 13 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS BY
`ZHANG IN VIEW OF WEGNER AND SILESCENT ............................... 56
`A.
`Claim 4 ............................................................................................... 56
`B.
`Claim 13 ............................................................................................. 57
`XII. GROUND VI: CLAIM 10 IS RENDERED OBVIOUS BY ZHANG
`IN LIGHT OF BARNETT AND/OR VAN ELMPT .................................. 58
`XIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 62
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., Inc.,
` 181 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...........................................................................42
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
` 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................19
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
` 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................19
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..................................................................................... 37, 58
`
`MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
` 474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................29
`
`Polaris Wireless, Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc.,
` IPR2013-00323, Paper 9 at 29 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2013) ........................................ 8
`
`SAP America, Inc. v. Pi-Net International., Inc.,
` IPR2014-00414, Paper 11 at 13-14 (PTAB Aug. 8, 2014) ................................... 8
`
`Statutory Authorities
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................. 3
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.24 ......................................................................................................64
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103(a) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4) ..............................................................................................64
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(b) ..............................................................................................64
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-42.80 ............................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100-42.123 ....................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`Additional Authorities
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,670,021 ............................................................................................. 9
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,722,227 ...........................................................................................14
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,828,465 ............................................................................................. 9
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,980,736 ...........................................................................................12
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,993,034 ........................................................................................15
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 ................................................................................ passim
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,672,518 ....................................................................................1, 64
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,967,844 ....................................................................................1, 42
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`Ex. 1012
`Ex. 1013
`Ex. 1014
`Ex. 1015
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Ex. 1021
`Ex. 1022
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,672,518
`Declaration of Dr. Zane Coleman in Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,672,518 (“Coleman
`Decl.”)
`Provisional Application 61/248665 (’968 Patent)
`Original Application 12/775310(’968 Patent)
`Original claims of Application 12/775310 (’968 Patent)
`Office Action (’968 Patent)
`Reply to Office Action (’968 Patent)
`Notice of Allowance (’968 Patent)
`Notice of Allowance (’518 Patent)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,670,021 (“Chou”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,828,465 (“Roberge”)
`Roberge Provisional Appl. No. 60/916,053
`U.S. Patent No. 7,980,736 (“Soderman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,722,227 (“Zhang”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,993,034 (“Wegner”)
`Silescent S100LP2 Installation Instructions and Cut Sheet
`(“Silescent”)
`Declaration of Daryl Soderman in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 (“Soderman
`Decl.”)
`Reply to Office Action – November 13, 2014 (’844 Patent)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0113244
`(“Barnett”)
`International Publication No. WO 2010/004503A1 (“Van
`Elmpt”)
`U.S. Application No. 13/476,388 (the “’388 application”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 (“’968 Patent)
`Progress Lighting’s Guide to Green Lighting (“Progress
`Lighting Catalog”)
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/979,068
`(“Zhang Provisional”)
`
`v
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES AND CERTIFICATION
`
`Real Party-in-Interest.1 The petitioners are Technical Consumer Products,
`
`Inc., Nicor Inc., and Amax Lighting (collectively, “Petitioners”). Petitioners are the
`
`real parties-in-interest.
`
`
`
`Related Matters.2 The instant petition concerns U.S. Patent No. 8,672,518
`
`(the “’518 Patent”) (Ex. 1001). Petitioners intend to file substantially identical
`
`petitions for review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,967,844 (the “’844 Patent”) and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,201,968 (“’968 Patent”). This petition is substantially similar to the
`
`petition filed by Generation Brands LLC against the ’844 Patent, which was
`
`instituted on February 6, 2017 (IPR2016-01546, Paper No. 11). Generation Brands
`
`and the owner of the ’844 patent, Lighting Science Group Corp. (“LSG”), settled
`
`and jointly moved for dismissal on March 13, 2017. (IPR2016-01546, Paper No.
`
`13).
`
`
`
`LSG, the owner of the ’518 Patent, asserted the patent in the following civil
`
`actions against the following defendants in the Middle District of Florida: 6:16-cv-
`
`00343-PGB-TBS (Hyperikon, Inc.) (now dismissed); 6:16-cv-00344 (U.S.A. Light
`
`& Electric, Inc.) (now dismissed); 6:16- cv-00413 (Nicor, Inc.); 6:16-cv-00679 (Sels
`
`
`1 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).
`
`2 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2).
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Inc.) (now dismissed); 6:16-cv-00680 (Eel Company Ltd.) (now dismissed); 6:16-
`
`cv-00681 (GlobaLux Lighting LLC) (now dismissed); 6:16-cv-01084 (Hubbell Inc.
`
`et al.) (now dismissed); 6:16-cv-1256 (Satco Products d/b/a Nuvo Lighting); 6:16-
`
`cv-01255 (Technical Consumer Products, Inc.); 6:16-cv-02188 (Halco Lighting
`
`Technologies, LLC); 6:16-cv-01320 (Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a WAC
`
`Lighting Co.); 6:16-cv-01321 (Amax Lighting); 6:16-cv-01087 (American De Rosa
`
`Lamparts, LLC); 6:16-cv-01228-RBD-GJK (Titch Industries, Inc. et al) (now
`
`dismissed); 6:16-cv-00677-RBD-GJK (Sunco Lighting, Inc.) (now dismissed); 6:16-
`
`cv-00678-RBD-GJK (Panor Corporation d/b/a Maxxima) (now dismissed). LSG
`
`also asserted the ’518 Patent in the Northern District of California against Shenzhen
`
`Jiawei Photovoltaic Lighting Co., Ltd. et al. (5:16-cv-03886).
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)): Lead
`
`Counsel: Jason G. Harp (Reg. No. 42,634), SCHIFF HARDIN LLP, 233 South
`
`Wacker Drive, Suite 6600, Chicago, IL 60606, jharp@schiffhardin.com, 312-258-
`
`5500.
`
`Back-Up Counsel: Steven H. Noll (Reg. No. 28,982), SCHIFF HARDIN
`
`LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600, Chicago,
`
`IL 60606,
`
`snoll@schiffhardin.com, 312-258-5500. Petitioners consent to service by email.
`
`Filing Fees (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.103(a) and (42.15(b)): The required fees are
`
`submitted herewith. If any additional fees to be paid by the Petitioner are due during
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`this proceeding, the Office is authorized to charge such fees to Deposit Account No.
`
`04-1679 (Customer ID NO. 85459).
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)): Petitioners certify that,
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), the ʼ518 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the
`
`ʼ518 patent on the grounds identified.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF FOR EACH CLAIM
`CHALLENGED
`
`The Office should institute IPR under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.1-42.80 and 42.100-42.123, and cancel claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14 of the ’518 patent
`
`as unpatentable as set forth herein. Petitioner’s detailed statement of the reasons for
`
`relief request is set forth in Section VII, below.
`
`III. THE ’518 PATENT
`A. The Technology
`Low profile lighting fixtures. Lighting fixtures come in a variety of shapes and
`
`sizes. One option is a low profile ceiling fixture. Low-profile fixtures generally sit
`
`close to the ceiling and do not protrude substantially into the room. Low-profile
`
`fixtures are commonly constructed of metal and glass in a wide variety of forms or
`
`trims, reflecting a wide variety of aesthetic choices.
`
`Heat sink. Some low-profile lighting fixtures are illuminated by light emitting
`
`diodes (“LEDs”). LEDs produce heat. That heat must be dissipated. LED heat is
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`commonly dissipated by means of a heat sink – one or more pieces of thermally
`
`conductive material (e.g. metal) that draws heat away from the LEDs and dissipate
`
`it.
`
`
`
`Retrofit applications. LED fixtures are provided both as new work LED
`
`fixtures and old work, retrofit installations. In retrofit applications, the most
`
`common source of power is the female Edison socket up in the can fixture.
`
`The ’518 Patent
`
`B.
`The ’518 Patent generally concerns heat dissipation in a low-profile LED
`
`lighting fixture. Ex. 1001 at Abstract, 1:20-27. The luminaire of the ’518 Patent
`
`generally includes an LED, a heat spreader, a heat sink, and an optic for focusing or
`
`diffusing light into the illuminated area. Id. at 1:47-53. The LED generates heat; the
`
`heat spreader transfers the heat to a heat sink; and the heat sink dissipates the heat
`
`into the air. Id. at 1:62-2:1. The fixture’s outer trim functions as a heat sink, keeping
`
`the fixture cool with a low-profile.
`
`The ’518 Patent specifically pertains to a luminaire and accessory kit
`
`combination. Id. at 2:42-43. Here, the luminaire includes a heat spreader, heat sink,
`
`LED light source, power supply, a power supply, and an electrical power supply line.
`
`Id. at 2:43-48. And the accessory kit includes one or two pre-wired jumpers
`
`configured to electrically engage with the plug-in connector of the electrical supply
`
`line. Id. at 2:48-59. Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1. A luminaire and accessory kit in combination, the
`combination comprising:
`a luminaire, comprising:
`a heat spreader; a heat sink disposed in thermal
`communication with the heat spreader; a light source
`comprising a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs)
`disposed in thermal communication with the heat
`spreader; a power supply electrically connected to the
`light source;
`an electrical supply line having a first end connected to
`the power supply, and a second end connected to a plug-
`in connector; and, an optic disposed in optical
`communication with the LEDs; and
`an accessory kit, comprising:
`at least one of: a first pre-wired jumper comprising a pair
`of insulated electrical wires having a first plug-in
`connector electrically connected at one end and an
`Edison base electrically connected at the other end; and,
`a second pre-wired jumper comprising a pair of insulated
`electrical wires having a second plug-in connector
`electrically connected at one end and cut wire ends at the
`other end;
`wherein the plug-in connector of the first pre-wired
`jumper and the second pre-wired jumper are each
`configured to electrically engage with the plug-in
`connector of the electrical supply line.
`
`
`Id. at Claim 1. Figures 11 and 12 of the ’518 Patent illustrate an embodiment of
`
`the luminaire:
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 12, the LED light source 120 is in thermal communication with
`
`the heat spreader 105. The heat spreader 105 transfers heat to heat sink 110. An outer
`
`optic 115 spans the heat spreader 105. See generally id. at 5:37-44. Figure 11 shows
`
`a power conditioner 165 mounted on the top of the heat spreader 105 to supply
`
`voltage to the LEDs 120. The power conditioner 165 is configured to fit at least
`
`partially within the interior space of a nominally sized light can fixture or nominally
`
`sized junction box.3
`
`
`
`Figure 31 illustrates an embodiment of the accessory kit:
`
`
`3 Figure 12 shows the alternative embodiment of placing the power conditioner 140
`
`or 160 on the underside of the heat spreader.
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 31, the wire pair 521 of the first pre-wired jumper 520
`
`electronically connects with the Edison base 540. Id. at 11:1-5. Here, the pre-
`
`connected Edison base simplifies installation in a can-type light fixture that already
`
`has an Edison screw receptacle pre-wired in place. Id. at 11:16-19. Whereas, in a
`
`J-box retrofit arrangement, open wire ends 527 of second pre-wired jumper 525 are
`
`pigtailed on to twist-on wire connectors 510, and appropriately sized hardware 515
`
`may be used to secure the luminaire to the J-box via pre-formed mounting holes. Id.
`
`at 11:19-24. Further, the accessory kit may contain springs 505 to secure the
`
`luminaire and to deflect and slidably engage with an interior surface of a can-type
`
`light fixture. Id. at 11:27-30, 60-65.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Prosecution History of the ’518 Patent
`
`C.
`The ’518 Patent is based on U.S. Application No. 13/476,388 (the “’388
`
`
`
`application”) filed on May 21, 2012. The ’388 application is a continuation-in-part
`
`of U.S. Application No. 12/775,310 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968) which claims
`
`the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/248,665 (“’665
`
`Provisional,” Ex. 1003) filed October 5, 2009.4 The ’518 Patent issued on March
`
`18, 2014.
`
`
`4 The claims of the ’518 Patent are not entitled to the benefit of the priority date of
`
`the ’655 Provisional. Raising a priority issue involves “identifying, specifically, the
`
`features, claims, and ancestral applications allegedly lacking § 112, first paragraph,
`
`written description and enabling disclosure support for the claims based on the
`
`identified features.” Polaris Wireless, Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc., IPR2013-00323,
`
`Paper 9 at 29 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2013); see also SAP America, Inc. v. Pi-Net Int’l.,
`
`Inc., IPR2014-00414, Paper 11 at 13-14 (PTAB Aug. 8, 2014). The “accessory kit”
`
`subject matter of the claims first appeared in Figures 31-34 of the ’388 continuation-
`
`in-part application filed May 12, 2012. Compare Ex. 1022 at Figs. 1-30 and cols. 9-
`
`10 with Ex. 1001 at Figs. 1-35 and cols. 9-13. Because the ’665 Provisional fails to
`
`disclose or support the “accessory kit” subject matter, the claims of the ’518 Patent
`
`cannot benefit from the filing date of the provisional. Thus, the priority date that the
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The prosecution history of the ’968 Patent is relevant to this Petition. U.S.
`
`Application No. 12/775,310 originally contained twenty claims. Ex. 1005 (Original
`
`Claims). In the first and only office action, the Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and
`
`10-16 as anticipated by Roberge et al. (WO 2008/137732)5 (“Roberge”) and
`
`rejected claims 1-3, 7-10, and 17-20 as anticipated by Chou (U.S. Appl. Pub. No.
`
`2009/0086474)6 (“Chou”). Ex. 1006 (Office Action mailed October 12, 2011). No
`
`claims were allowed. Id. at 1.7
`
`In response, Applicants amended independent claims 1 and 17 to define the
`
`shape of the heat sink as “substantially ring-shaped” and “ring-shaped,”
`
`
`claims may be entitled to is May 12, 2012, the date of the filing of ’388 application,
`
`or later.
`
`5 The International PCT Publication WO 2008/137732 is equivalent to the disclosure
`
`in U.S. Pat. No. 7,828,465 to Roberge et al. filed May 2, 2008 and issued Nov. 9,
`
`2010. Ex. 1011.
`
`6 U.S. Appl. Pub. No. 2009/0086474 is equivalent to the disclosure in U.S. Pat. No.
`
`7,670,021 to Chou filed May 20, 2008 and issued March 2, 2010. Ex. 1010.
`
`7 Claim 17 was renumbered to claim 20 upon issuance of the ’968 Patent.
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`respectively.8 Ex. 1007 (Reply to Office Action) at 2, 5. Applicants further amended
`
`the independent claims to recite that the LEDs “are disposed on the heat spreader
`
`such that the heat spreader dissipates heat from the LEDs.” Id. at 2, 5. Applicants
`
`amended claim 17 to add a 0.25 height/diameter ratio limitation (a limitation
`
`previously found anticipated by Roberge and Chou in the Examiner’s rejection of
`
`claim 1). Id. at 5.
`
`As to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Roberge, Applicants did not
`
`contest that Roberge discloses the claimed height/diameter ratio of 0.25 but pointed
`
`instead to Fig. 3B and argued that the heat sink in Roberge is not “ring-shaped.” Id.
`
`at 7 (Remarks). Applicants did not point to the portion of Roberge disclosing that
`
`
`8 Applicants also amended the claims to require that the LEDs be “disposed on” the
`
`heat spreader, id. at 2, 5 (Amended Claims), and then analogized the Roberge “bezel
`
`plate” to a heat spreader, and found the Roberge heat sink “not disposed around and
`
`coupled to an outer periphery of the heat spreader,” id. at 7 (Remarks). Petitioner is
`
`unsure what to make of the discussion. The bezel of Roberge has little to do with
`
`heat management.
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the heat sink can instead have a “diameter” and may be “round.” Id. at 7; Ex. 1011
`
`at 24:21-24 (“diameter”); Ex. 1012 at ¶112 (“round”).9
`
`As to the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1 and 17 over Chou, Applicants
`
`pointed to “heatsink 14” and argued it (i) is not substantially ring-shaped and (ii)
`
`causes Chou to not meet the 0.25 H/D ratio limitation. Id. at 8. Applicants did not
`
`point to the thermally conductive trim 12 of Chou, which is a heat sink of a shape
`
`and profile nearly identical to the trim of Fig. 12 (110) of the ’968 Patent.
`
`
`
`Without further comment, the Examiner allowed all claims on the basis of
`
`“[a]pplicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks.” Ex. 1008 (Notice of
`
`Allowance) at 2.
`
`
`
`With respect to the application leading to the ’518 Patent, the Examiner issued
`
`a notice of allowance for the as-filed claims10 without a prior art rejection. The
`
`Examiner explained that the claims were allowed because the prior art failed to teach
`
`the specific luminaire and accessory kit combination. Ex. 1009 at 8-9.
`
`
`9 The Roberge provisional was incorporated by reference in the Roberge ’465 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1011 at 1:7-15.
`
`10 On July 29, 2013, the Applicant had voluntarily requested some amendments to
`
`the claims originally filed on May 21, 2012 to capture originally disclosed but
`
`unclaimed subject matter.
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`It is worth noting that the “accessory kit” subject matter of the claims of the
`
`’518 Patent first appeared in Figures 31-34 of the ’388 continuation-in-part
`
`application filed May 12, 2012. Compare Ex. 1022 at Figs. 1-30 and cols. 9-10 with
`
`Ex. 1001 at Figs. 1-35 and cols. 9-13.
`
`IV. THE PRIOR ART
`As set forth below, several prior art references accomplish exactly the same
`
`goal in exactly the same manner as the ’518 Patent: dissipating heat from a low
`
`profile LED fixture by using the fixture’s own trim or periphery as a heat sink. In
`
`addition, the prior art also teaches an accessory kit to create a version of the
`
`luminaire that is easily installed in both new (box) and retrofit (can) environments.
`
`Soderman
`A.
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,980,736 (“Soderman”) (Ex. 1013), which issued on July 19,
`
`2011 upon an application filed November 13, 2007, likewise discloses a low profile
`
`ceiling fixture that dissipates heat to the surrounding air via a ring-shaped trim. Ex.
`
`1013 at Figs. 1, 5. An illustration of the Soderman fixture is as follows:
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013 at Figs. 1 and 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`Soderman dissipates LED heat as follows: The LEDs 14 in the illumination
`
`assembly 12 are attached to the lower surface of a mounting assembly 18. Id. at 3:5-
`
`22, 6:14-17, 6:38-45, 8:5-10, Figs. 1, 5, 6. Heat generated by the LEDs spreads
`
`through the mounting assembly out to a surrounding cover 20. Id. at 7:36-41. The
`
`cover is ring-shaped; it is round with a hole through the middle. Id. at Fig. 5 (20),
`
`7:43-46. It is made of thermally conductive material. Id. at 6:49-59, 7:11-24. The
`
`cover dissipates the heat into the surrounding air. Id. at 6:38-45, 7:37-41.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Zhang
`
`B.
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,722,227 (“Zhang”) (Ex. 1014), which issued on May 25, 2010
`
`
`
`upon an application filed on October 10, 2008 claiming priority to provisional
`
`application 60/979068, filed on October 10, 2007, likewise discloses a low-profile
`
`ceiling fixture that dissipates heat to the surrounding air via a ring shaped trim. Ex.
`
`1014 at Figures 2 & 3. An illustration of Zhang is as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Zhang dissipates heat as follows: The LEDs and a driver are mounted onto a
`
`thermally-conductive “trim cup” (112) at the top of the fixture. Id. at 8:10-12, 9:44-
`
`48. The trim cup spreads the LED-generated heat to a peripherally surrounding
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`baffle/heat sink/trim combination (98, 100, 52). Id. 7:63- 8:1, 9:37-47, Fig. 5. The
`
`baffle/heat sink/trim combination is shaped like a top hat. The trim portion of the
`
`top hat is ring-shaped. Id. at Fig 5 (item 52). The trim portion dissipates the heat into
`
`the air. Id. at 7:9-13, 7:31-34.
`
`C. Wegner
`U.S. Patent No. 7,993,034 (“Wegner”) (Ex. 1015), filed on September 22,
`
`
`
`2008, discloses an LED luminaire with an Edison base adaptor for mounting the
`
`luminaire into an existing recessed can light fixture. Ex. 1015 at Fig. 14-16. An
`
`illustration of Wegner is as follows:
`
`Ex. 1015 at 10 (Figs. 15 and 16).
`
`For purposes of the Petition, the relevant portion of Wegner is the adaptor kit
`
`1520 comprising a plug-in connector 1520c at one end and a screw-in Edison plug
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1520b at the other end. Id. 10:46-60. The plug-in connector 1520c connects to a
`
`corresponding connector on the Wegner fixture, and the Edison plug 1520b screws
`
`into the existing light socket. Id. at 10:40-44; see also Fig. 14.
`
`Silescent S100 LP2
`D.
`The Silescent S100 LP2 Installation Instructions and Cut Sheet (Ex. 1016)
`
`(collectively “Silescent”), publicly distributed on or before June 2009, likewise
`
`discloses a low-profile ceiling fixture that dissipates heat to the surrounding air via
`
`a ring-shaped trim. See Declaration of Daryl Soderman in Support of Generation
`
`Brands LLC’s Petition for IPR of U.S Pat. No. 8,201,968 (“Soderman Decl.”) ¶3
`
`(Ex. 1017). Illustrations of Silescent are as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`Silescent is substantially identical to Soderman’s preferred embodiment
`
`because Silescent is a commercial embodiment of Soderman. Ex. 1017 at ¶6 (Mr.
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Soderman is the co-founder of Silescent Corp.). The Silescent product literature adds
`
`two details that are implied but not expressly disclosed in the Soderman patent. First,
`
`Silescent includes actual dimensions: 0.8” (H) by 7.9” (W), a ratio of 0.101. Id. at 2.
`
`Second, Silescent discloses an AC/DC power conditioner that fits into “Any UL
`
`Approved Junction Box.” Id. at 4, Figs. 3, 5.
`
`Barnett
`
`E.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0113244 (Ex. 1019), published
`
`on August 22, 2002, discloses an LED package made up of an anode, a cathode, an
`
`LED die, a lens, and a viscous or silicone material to fill the cavity defined by the
`
`lens, the cathode, and the anode. Ex. 1019 at Abstract. An illustration of Barnett is
`
`as follows:
`
`Id. at Fig. 1A.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`For the purposes of this Petition, the relevant portion of Barnett is the
`
`mounting mechanism to mechanically couple the LED package to the anode: a
`
`“socket, bayonet, or screwing like fashion.” Id. at Abstract (emphasis added).
`
`F. Van Elmpt
`International Patent Publication No. WO 2010/004503A1 (Ex. 1020),
`
`published on January 14, 2010,11 generally discloses a light output device
`
`comprising a heat sink, a substrate containing a light emitting element, and an optic.
`
`Ex. 1020 at Abstract. An illustration of Van Elmpt is as follows:
`
`
`11 Supra note 4. Because the claims of the ’518 Patent are not entitled to the benefit
`
`of the priority date of October 5, 2009, and because the earliest priority date that
`
`may apply is May 21, 2012, Van Elmpt is prior art.
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,672,518
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Id. at Ex. 1020. Most pertinently, Van Elmpt discloses that the optic is mounted to
`
`the heat sink via a bayonet type mechanism. Id. at Abstract; p.2, ll.4-18; Figs. 3A,
`
`
`
`4A.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in an inter partes review of an unexpired patent is given the “broadest
`
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2146 (2016). Claim terms are 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 Tran