`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of:
`
`Lebens et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No.:
`
`6,095,661
`
`
`
`Issue Date:
`
`August 1, 2000
`
`Appl. Serial No.:
`
`09/044,559
`
`Filing Date:
`
`March 19, 1998
`
`Title:
`
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AN L.E.D.
`
`FLASHLIGHT
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 6,095,661 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Part 2 of 2
`
`Prosecution History of the ’661 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the
`references to achieve the subject matter recited in claim 11, 20, 25, and 48
`(i.e., measuring light output and adjusting one or more pulse characteristics
`based on the measured light output), as discussed previously in Section
`II.B.4.b. Claims 43, 44, and 46 do not depend from claims 11, 20, 25 or 48.
`Claims 43, 44, and 46 ultimately depend from claim 1. Independent claim 1,
`and intervening dependent claims 8 and 40, do not recite limitations directed
`to measuring light output and adjusting one or more pulse characteristics
`based on the measured light output. Petitioner’s reasoning does not explain
`why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings
`of the references to achieve the subject matter recited in claim 43, 44, and
`46, namely, a control circuit that increases a pulse frequency.
`
`On the record before us, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 43, 44, and 46 would
`have been obvious over Mallory, Garriss, and Hochstein.
`d. Claims 27, 28, and 38
`Dependent claims 27, 28, and 38 each recites “a feedback circuit that
`
`controls the pulses so that light intensity produced by the LEDs, as perceived
`by the human user, is substantially constant across a greater range of battery
`power than a corresponding range for which light intensity is equally
`constant without the feedback circuit.” Petitioner contends that the
`limitations recited in claims 27, 28, and 38 are addressed by its analysis of
`claim 11. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 3, ll. 24–33; col. 4, ll. 51–54); Pet.
`55–56. Petitioner’s analysis of claim 11, however, does not address the
`limitations recited in claims 27, 28, and 38. Therefore, on the record before
`us, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`
`
`
`
`37
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 650
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`assertion that claims 27, 28, and 38 would have been obvious over Mallory,
`Garriss, and Hochstein.
`
`e. Claim 49
`Dependent claim 49 recites that “the control circuit maintains an
`
`average predetermined light output level of the LED units by . . . adjusting a
`pulse energy.” Similar to Petitioner’s assertions regarding the recitations of
`claims 42, 45, and 47, previously discussed in Section II.B.3.c., Petitioner
`asserts that increasing the pulse width inherently increases the pulse energy.
`Pet. 55 (incorporating the analysis of claim 18 at Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 16)). For the same reasons as those explained previously in Section
`II.B.3.c., Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`on its assertion that claim 49 would have been obvious over Mallory,
`Garriss, and Hochstein.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`We conclude, on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1, 2, 4, 6–13, 15, 17–26,
`29, 30, 40, 41, and 48 are unpatentable. We further conclude, on the record
`before us, there is a not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail
`in showing that claims 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36–38, 42– 47, 49, 51, and 52 are
`unpatentable.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the Petition is granted as to claims 1, 2, 4, 6–13, 15,
`17–26, 29, 30, 40, 41, and 48 of the ’661 Patent, and that pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review of the ’661 Patent is instituted hereby
`
`
`
`
`38
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 651
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`on the following unpatentability grounds:
`
`(1) claims 21–24 under § 102(b) over Van Antwerp;
`(2) claims 1, 2, 4, 6–10, 12, 13, 15, 17–19, 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, 40, and
`41 under § 103(a) over Mallory and Garriss;
`(3) claims 11, 20, 25, and 48 under § 103(a) over Mallory, Garriss,
`and Hochstein;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for inter partes review as to
`
`claims 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36–38, 42–47, 49, 51, and 52 is denied;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`identified above, and no other grounds set forth in the petition as to claims
`1, 2, 4, 6–13, 15, 17–26, 29, 30, 40, 41, and 48 are authorized;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of the ’661 Patent is instituted hereby commencing on the
`entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4, notice is given hereby of the institution of a trial; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board
`is scheduled for 1:00 PM Eastern Time on April 10, 2014. The parties are
`directed to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,765–
`66, for guidance in preparing for the initial conference call, and should be
`prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the Scheduling Order entered
`herewith and any motions the parties anticipate filing during the trial.
`
`
`
`
`39
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 652
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`PETITIONER:
`W. Karl Renner
`Kevin E. Greene
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`IPR29855-00181P1@fr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Eduardo E. Drake
`Fantastic IP Consulting, LLC
`Eduardo@fantasticipconsulting.com
`
`Jonathan M. Rixen
`jrixen@lemairepatent.com
`
`
`
`
`
`40
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 653
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11
`571-272-7822
`Date: March 7, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LED TECH DEVELOPMENT, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`_______________
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JENNIFER S. BISK, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 654
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`A. DUE DATES
`
`This order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution of the
`proceeding. The parties may stipulate to different dates for DUE DATES 1 through
`3 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE DATE 4). A notice of the stipulation,
`specifically identifying the changed due dates, must be promptly filed. The parties
`may not stipulate to an extension of DUE DATES 4-7.
`
`In stipulating to different times, the parties should consider the effect of the
`stipulation on times to object to evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)), to supplement
`evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)), to conduct cross-examination (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.53(d)(2)), and to draft papers depending on the evidence and cross-
`examination testimony (see section B, below).
`
`The parties are reminded that the Testimony Guidelines appended to the
`Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,772 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`(Appendix D), apply to this proceeding. The Board may impose an appropriate
`sanction for failure to adhere to the Testimony Guidelines. 37 C.F.R. § 42.12. For
`example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be
`levied on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a
`witness.
`
`1. DUE DATE 1
`The patent owner may file—
`a. A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120), and
`
`
`b. A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121).
`The patent owner must file any such response or motion to amend by DUE
`DATE 1. If the patent owner elects not to file anything, the patent owner must
`arrange a conference call with the parties and the Board. The patent owner is
`
`2
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 655
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00610
`
`Patent 6,095,661
`cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be
`deemed waived.
`
`
`
`2. DUE DATE 2
`The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and opposition to
`the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
`
`3. DUE DATE 3
`The patent owner must file any reply to the petitioner’s opposition to patent
`owner’s motion to amend by DUE DATE 3.
`
`4. DUE DATE 4
`a. The petitioner must file any motion for an observation on the cross-examination
`testimony of a reply witness (see section C, below) by DUE DATE 4.
`b. Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R § 42.64(c)) and
`any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a)) by DUE DATE 4.
`
` 5. DUE DATE 5
`a. The patent owner must file any reply to a petitioner observation on cross-
`examination testimony by DUE DATE 5.
`b. Each party must file any opposition to a motion to exclude evidence by DUE
`DATE 5.
`
`6. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply for a motion to exclude evidence by DUE DATE 6.
`
`7. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE DATE 7.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 656
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`B. CROSS-EXAMINATION
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date—
`1. Cross-examination begins after any supplemental evidence is due. 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.53(d)(2).
`2. Cross-examination ends no later than a week before the filing date for any paper
`in which the cross-examination testimony is expected to be used. Id.
`
`
`
`C. MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`A motion for observation on cross-examination provides the petitioner with a
`mechanism to draw the Board’s attention to relevant cross-examination testimony
`of a reply witness, since no further substantive paper is permitted after the reply.
`See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). The
`observation must be a concise statement of the relevance of precisely identified
`testimony to a precisely identified argument or portion of an exhibit. Each
`observation should not exceed a single, short paragraph. The patent owner may
`respond to the observation. Any response must be equally concise and specific.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 657
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 1………………………………………………… June 09, 2014
`
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2…………………………………………………. September 08, 2014
`
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner response to petition
`
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`
`DUE DATE 3………………………………………………… October 07, 2014
`
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4………………………………………………… October 28, 2014
`
`Petitioner’s motion for observation regarding
`
`cross-examination of reply witness
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5………………………………………………… November 12, 2014
`
`Patent owner’s response to observation
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`
`DUE DATE 6………………………………………………… November 18, 2014
`
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7………………………………………………… December 2, 2014
`
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 658
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`PETITIONER:
`W. Karl Renner
`Kevin E. Greene
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`IPR29855-00181P1@fr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Eduardo E. Drake
`Fantastic IP Consulting, LLC
`Eduardo@fantasticipconsulting.com
`
`Jonathan M. Rixen
`Lemaire Patent Law Firm PLLC
`jrixen@lemairepatent.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 659
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No..
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.:
`Filing Date:
`Title'
`
`Lebens et al,
`6,095,661
`August 1, 2000
`091044,559
`March 19, 1998
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AN LED, FLASHLIGHT
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 28955-0018IP1
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`P.0. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PETITIONER'S POWER OF ATTORNEY IN AN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., hereby appoints the following practitioners as its
`
`attorneys to transact all business in the United States Patent & Trademark Office associated with the inter
`partes review of the above-captioned patent:
`
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Kevin E. Greene, Reg, No, 46,031
`
`and all practitioners associated with PTO Customer Number 26171.
`
`I have the authority to execute this document on behalf of Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd.,
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`By: -
`
`Name:
`
`Title:
`
`Date:
`
`Youngmo Koo
`
`Senior Engineer
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 660
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.:
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.:
`Filing Date:
`Title:
`
`Lebens et al.
`6,095,661
`August 1, 2000
`09/044,559
`March 19, 1998
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AN L.ED. FLASHLIGHT
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 28955-00181P1
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PETITIONER'S POWER OF ATTORNEY IN AN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Petitioner, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., hereby appoints the following practitioners as its
`attorneys to transact all business in the United States Patent & Trademark Office associated with the inter
`partes review of the above-captioned patent:
`
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No, 41,265
`Kevin E. Greene, Reg. No. 46,031
`
`and all practitioners associated with PTO Customer Number 26171.
`
`I have the authority to execute this document on behalf of Samsung Electronics America, Inc..
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`By:
`
`Name:
`
`Title:
`Date:
`
`y
`
`:_
`
`_
`
`Everette Snotherly
`
`Director & Senior Counsel
`/
`'
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 661
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.:
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.:
`Filing Date:
`Title:
`
`Lebens et al.
`6,095,661
`August 1, 2000
`09/044,559
`March 19,1998
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AN L.E.D. FLASHLIGHT
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 28955-0018IP1
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PETITIONER'S POWER OF ATTORNEY IN AN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Petitioner, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, hereby appoints the following
`practitioners as its attorneys to transact all business in the United States Patent & Trademark Office
`associated with the interpartes review of the above-captioned patent:
`
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Kevin E. Greene, Reg. No. 46,031
`
`and all practitioners associated with PTO Customer Number 26171.
`
`I have the authority to execute this document on behalf of Samsung Telecommunications America,
`
`LLC.
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
`
`By:
`Name:
`Title:
`Date:
`
`C
`.__________________W_____
`Richard C. Rosalez
`Senior Leqal Counsel, Litigation
`l114l(3
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 662
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In re Patent of: Lebens et al.
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,095,661 Attorney Docket No.: 29855-0018IP2
`Issue Date:
`August 1, 2000
`Appl. Serial No.: 09/044,559
`Filing Date:
`March 19, 1998
`Title:
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AN L.E.D.
`FLASHLIGHT
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 6,095,661 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 663
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(A)(1) ............................ 1 I.
`
`A.
`
`  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .................................. 1 
`
`B.
`
`  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................ 1 
`
`C.
`
`  Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ......................... 2 
`
`D.
`
`  Service Information ..................................................................................... 3 
`
`
`
`  PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................... 3 II.
`
`
`
`  REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................ 3 III.
`
`A.
`
`  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................... 3 
`
`B.
`
`  Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); Relief Requested ......................... 4 
`
`C.
`  Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ................................... 5 
`“reflector for collimating the emitted light forwardly therefrom generally
` 
`along an optical axis” ............................................................................................. 5 
`“a light-emitting diode (LED) housing” .......................................................... 7 
` 
`“predetermined light output level” .................................................................. 8 
` 
`“selectively applies . . . [power]”..................................................................... 8 
` 
`“pulses” / “pulsed” ........................................................................................... 9 
` 
`“measuring a [battery] voltage” / “battery-voltage-measuring circuit” .......... 9 
` 
`“adjusting a pulse energy” / “increasing a pulse energy” ............................. 10 
` 
`“machine-vision imaging device” ................................................................. 11 
` 
`
`IV.
`
`  SUMMARY OF THE ’661 PATENT ........................................................... 11 
`
`A.
`
`  Brief Description ........................................................................................ 11 
`
`V.
`
`
`  SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’661 PATENT
`12 
`
`VI.
`  THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’661 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ........................................ 13 
`i
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 664
`
`

`

`  MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR VII.
`
`WHICH INTER PARTES REVIEW IS REQUESTED ........................................... 27 
`
`A.
`
`
`  [GROUND 1] – Claims 31, 33, 34, 36 and 51 are Anticipated by LT1300
`27 
`
`B.
`
`  [GROUND 2] – Claim 37 is Obvious over LT1300 in View of Garriss ... 35 
`
`C.
`
`
`  [GROUND 3] – Claim 52 is Obvious over LT1300 in View of Hochstein
`36 
`
`D.
`  [GROUND 4] – Claims 42, 45 and 47 are Obvious over Mallory in View
`of Garriss .......................................................................................................... 37 
`
`E.
`  [GROUND 5] – Claims 27, 28, 38, 44 and 49 are Obvious over Mallory in
`View of Garriss in Further View of Hochstein ................................................ 50 
`
`
`
`  CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 60 VIII.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 665
`
`

`

`EXHIBITS
`
`
`SMSG-1101 U.S. Patent No. 6,095,661 to Lebens, et al. (“’661 Patent”)
`
`SMSG-1102
`
`Prosecution History of the ’661 Patent
`
`SMSG-1103 Declaration of Dr. Mark N. Horenstein (“Horenstein Declaration”)
`
`SMSG-1104 Linear Technology Application Note 59, “Applications of the
`LT1300 and LT1301 Micropower DC/DC Converters” (“LT1300”)
`
`SMSG-1105 U.S. Patent No. 5,010,412 (“Garriss”)
`
`SMSG-1106 U.S. Patent No. 4,499,525 (“Mallory”)
`
`SMSG-1107 U.S. Patent No. 5,783,909 (“Hochstein”)
`
`SMSG-1108 Declaration of Todd Reimund (concerning publication of LT1300)
`
`SMSG-1109
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. et al. v. LED Tech. Development, LLC,
`IPR2013-00611 (Paper 2, Sept. 25, 2013) (“Prior Petition”)
`
`SMSG-1110
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. et al. v. LED Tech. Development, LLC,
`IPR2013-00610 (Paper 10, Mar. 7, 2014) (“Prior Decision”)
`
`SMSG-1111
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. et al. v. LED Tech. Development, LLC,
`IPR2013-00611 (Paper 8, Mar. 7, 2014) (Decision instituting IPR
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,488,390)
`
`SMSG-1112 M. Schauler et al, GaN based LED’s with different recombination
`zones, MSR Internet Journal of Nitride Research, Volume 2
`Article 44
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 666
`
`

`

`SMSG-1113 U.S. Patent No. 5,424,927 (“Schaller”)
`
`SMSG-1114 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Horenstein
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 667
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,095,661
`
`PAGE 1
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications
`
`America, LLC and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively “Petitioner” or
`
`“Samsung”) petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36–38, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51 and
`
`52 (“IPR Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,095,661 (“the ’661 Patent”). As explained
`
`in this petition, review should be instituted as there exists a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Samsung will prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged herein.
`
`The ’661 Patent discloses and claims a “flashlight,” and more generically, an
`
`“illumination source” and related methods for providing a constant output from an
`
`LED lamp. (SMSG-1101, Abstract) The flashlight “maintains an average
`
`predetermined light output level” by “selectively applying” pulsed power to the
`
`LED lamp and by elongating the pulses as the flashlight battery voltage decreases.
`
`(SMSG-1101, Abstract)
`
` MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`I.
` Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications
`
`America, LLC and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., are the real parties-in-interest.
`
` Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner previously filed a Petition for IPR of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15, 17-
`
`31, 33, 34, 36-38, 40-49, 51 and 52 of the ’661 Patent on September 23, 2013.
`
`(SMSG-1109) In the Decision of March 7, 2014 (“Prior Decision”), the Patent
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 668
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,095,661
`
`PAGE 2
`
`Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”) ordered the Prior Petition granted as to claims
`
`1, 2, 4, 6–13, 15, 17–26, 29, 30, 40, 41 and 48. (SMSG-1110) This petition seeks
`
`institution of a majority of the claims for which the Board denied institution,
`
`addressing the deficiencies identified by the Board in the Prior Petition.
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any disclaimers or reexamination certificates for
`
`the ’661 Patent. Petitioner was a named defendant in a litigation concerning the
`
`’661 Patent, styled LED Tech Dev., LLC, v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., et al., No.
`
`12-1325 (D. Del.), now dismissed.1 That case was originally filed on October 15,
`
`2012 and was dismissed without prejudice on November 22, 2013. Further,
`
`Petitioner has successfully sought IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,488,390, which claims
`
`priority to the application that lead to the ’661 Patent. (See SMSG-1111)
`
` Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-6830
`F: 202-783-2331
`renner@fr.com
`
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL
`Jeremy J. Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-6830
`F: 202-783-2331
`monaldo@fr.com
`
`
`1 All other known litigations involving the ’661 Patent have also been dismissed.
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 669
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,095,661
`
`PAGE 3
`
` Service Information
`
`Please address all correspondence and service to counsel at the address
`
`provided in Section I(C). Petitioner also consents to electronic service by email at
`
`IPR29855-0018IP2@fr.com.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`
`II.
`Petitioner authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 06-1050 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and
`
`further authorizes any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
` REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`III.
` Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’661 Patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR. The present Petition is being filed
`
`after an original complaint against Petitioner in the district court litigation, but
`
`which was dismissed without prejudice on November 22, 2013, and thus there is
`
`no applicable time bar. In addition, the present Petition is being filed no later than
`
`one month after the institution date of the IPR resulting from the Prior Decision
`
`(entered March 7, 2014) and is being filed with a motion for joinder. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.122(b). Moreover, the IPR Claims were not earlier subject to a final decision
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1).
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 670
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,095,661
`
`PAGE 4
`
` Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b); Relief
`Requested
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of the IPR claims on the grounds in
`
`the following table and requests that each IPR Claim be found unpatentable.
`
`’661 Patent Claims
`Ground
`Ground 1 31, 33, 34, 36 and 51
`Ground 2 37
`
`Ground 3 52
`
`Ground 4 42, 45, 47
`
`Ground 5 27, 28, 38, 44 and 49
`
`Basis for Rejection
`Anticipated under § 102 over LT1300
`Obvious under § 103 over LT1300 in
`view of Garriss
`Obvious under § 103 over LT1300 in
`view of Hochstein
`Obvious under § 103 over Mallory in
`view of Garriss
`Obvious under § 103 over Mallory in
`view of Garriss, in further view of
`Hochstein
`
`
`An explanation of how the IPR Claims are unpatentable under the statutory
`
`grounds identified above is provided in the form of detailed descriptions and claim
`
`charts, identifying where each claim element can be found in the cited prior art and
`
`demonstrating the relevance and combinability of that prior art where appropriate.
`
`Additional explanation and support for each ground of rejection is set forth in
`
`Exhibit SMSG-1103, the Horenstein Declaration (“Horenstein Declaration”).
`
`The ’661 Patent issued from Application No. 09/044,559, which was filed
`
`on March 19, 1998. Accordingly, the IPR Claims are entitled to priority no earlier
`
`than March 19, 1998. Mallory, Garriss and LT1300 each qualify as prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and Hochstein qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Mallory was filed on December 16, 1981 and issued on February 12, 1985. Garriss
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 671
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,095,661
`
`PAGE 5
`
`was filed on December 27, 1988 and issued on April 23, 1991. Hochstein was filed
`
`on January 10, 1997 and issued on July 21, 1998. LT1300 was published in 1994
`
`by Linear Technology. (See SMSG-1103 ¶91; SMSG-1108)
`
` Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`For purposes of IPR, a claim is interpreted by applying its “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). As such, the words of the IPR Claims are given
`
`their ordinary meaning as understood by one of skill in the art unless that meaning
`
`is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP § 2111.01. Petitioner submits, for the
`
`purposes of this Petition only that, the other than the limitations enumerated below
`
`the terms in the IPR Claims should be given their plain meaning.
`
`Note that for the present proceeding, the unpatentability of the parent claims
`
`from which the IPR Claims depend is also addressed. To Petitioner’s knowledge,
`
`no court has construed any term of the ’661 Patent. The following terms from
`
`the’661 Patent have been interpreted in the Prior Decision as follows, and those
`
`interpretations are used in this Petition as well:
`
`
`“reflector for collimating the emitted light forwardly
`therefrom generally along an optical axis”
`
`Claim 1recites a “reflector for collimating the emitted light forwardly
`
`therefrom generally along an optical axis” (the “Reflector Limitation”). The
`
`purpose of the reflector in many flashlights, and the ’661 Patent is no exception, is
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 672
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,095,661
`
`PAGE 6
`
`to generally reflect light that is cast toward the back or side of the flashlight, and
`
`thus to cause that reflected light to thereafter travel forward out of the front of the
`
`flashlight. (SMSG-1103 ¶38) At the time of effective filing date of the ’661 Patent,
`
`a typical prior art flashlight used an approximately parabolic shaped reflector.
`
`(SMSG-1113, 4:26-27; SMSG-1103 ¶38) An example of such a reflector is
`
`depicted in the Schaller reference (SMSG-1113, “reflector 14” in Fig. 2A; see also
`
`Fig. 17A, both reproduced below), which was the primary reference relied upon by
`
`the Examiner during prosecution:
`
`
`
`However, the ’661 Patent does not disclose a traditional parabolic reflector.
`
`Instead, as shown by the following annotated version of Fig. 1 of the ’661 Patent,
`
`that patent merely discloses a flat reflective disk on which the LEDs are mounted,
`
`
`
`without disclosing any other reflectors:
`
`
`
`Flat
`reflective
`disk.
`
`Optical Axis
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 673
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,095,661
`
`PAGE 7
`
`The flat reflective disk is mounted perpendicular to the optical axes of the
`
`mounted LEDs. (SMSG-1103 ¶74) As such, it does not channel light along the
`
`optical axes. (SMSG-1103 ¶74) Rather, light is reflected forwardly at angles less
`
`than 90 degrees off the optical axis of the respective LED. (SMSG-1103 ¶74)
`
`Thus, consistent with the specification of the ’661 Patent, the “broadest
`
`reasonable” interpretation of the Reflector Limitation should be broad enough to
`
`encompass the flat disk given that it is the only reflector described in the ’661
`
`Patent. Accordingly, in this Petition, “a reflector for collimating light forwardly
`
`therefrom generally along an optical axis” should include “an object, such as a flat
`
`disk, that reflects at least some light forwardly at an angle less than 90 degrees
`
`relative to the optical axis of the respective LED.” (See SMSG-1110, pp. 6-7)
`
` “a light-emitting diode (LED) housing”
`
`
`Claims 1, 31 and 34 contain the limitation “a light-emitting diode (LED)
`
`housing” (the “LED Housing” limitation). From the text of the claims, the “LED
`
`housing” includes one or more LEDs. In addition, the “LED housing” of claim 1
`
`also includes a reflector. This is consistent with the disclosure in the specification,
`
`which discloses a plurality of LEDs mounted to a flat disk-shaped reflector, as
`
`shown, for example, in Fig. 1. The written description further describes the
`
`“present invention” as having an “LED housing including a first plurality of LED
`
`units that each emit light and have a reflector.” (SMSG-1101, 1:50-58)
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1002 Page 674
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,095,661
`
`PAGE 8
`
`Accordingly, the “broadest reasonable” interpretation of the LED Housing
`
`limitation should include “an object, such as a flat disk, structured to mount one or
`
`more LEDs.” (See SMSG-1110, pp. 9-10)
`
`“predetermined light output level”
`
`
`Claims 15 and 34 contain the limitation “predetermined light output level.”
`
`The specification consistently uses the term “predetermined light output level” to
`
`refer to the light output level generated by the control circuit, without regard to
`
`what precise amount that may be. (SMSG-1101, 3:44-60) Accordingly, the
`
`“broadest reasonable” interpretation of “predetermined light output level” should
`
`include “an output level determined by the characteristics of the control circuit.”
`
`(See SMSG-1110, pp. 9-10)
`
`“selectively applies . . . [power]”
`
`
`Claims 1, 31 and 34 contain the limitation “selectively applies [pulsed]
`
`power.” In the specification of the ’661 Patent, power is alternately applied and
`
`removed from the LEDs. As the voltage lowers, the control circuit increases a
`
`percentage of time power is applied vs. the time the power is removed, “wherein
`
`the LEDs have proportion of on-time that increases as remaining battery power
`
`decreases.” (SMSG-1101, 4:3-5) Accordingly, the “broadest reasonable”
`
`interpretation of “selectively applies . . . [power]” should include “al