`
`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-1011
`
`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, PTAB Institution Order
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: 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.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications
`
`America, LLC; and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively
`
`“Petitioner”) filed a petition (“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 2, 4, 6–13, 15, 17–31, 33, 34, 36–38, 40–49, 51, and 52 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,095,661 (Ex. 1001, “the ’661 Patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`
`Patent Owner, LED Tech Development, LLC, did not file a preliminary
`
`response to the Petition. We conclude that, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
`
`respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner indicates the ’661 Patent is at issue in the following
`
`concurrent district court litigations: LED Tech Dev., LLC, v. The Coleman
`
`Co. Inc., No. 12-1259 (D. Del.); LED Tech Dev., LLC, v. Samsung Elecs.
`
`Am., Inc.., No. 12-1325 (D. Del.); and LED Tech Dev., LLC, v. Fujitsu
`
`America, Inc. No. 12-1443 (D. Del.). Pet. 2. Petitioner is a party to LED
`
`Tech Dev., LLC, v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 12-1325 (D. Del.). Id.
`
`Petitioner concurrently filed a petition for inter partes review of claims 1–6,
`
`9–16, and 19–39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,448,390 B1 (Case IPR2013-00611),
`
`which is a continuation of a division of the application that issued from the
`
`’661 Patent. Id.
`
`C. The ’661 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’661 Patent relates to methods and apparatus for controlling and
`
`powering a light-emitting diode (“LED”) light source for a portable battery
`
`powered flashlight. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 6–9, 50–52.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`Figure 1 of the ’661 Patent, reproduced below, depicts LED flashlight
`
`100.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates LED flashlight 100 including case 110, battery 120,
`
`power supply and control circuit (“PSCC”) 130, switch circuit 140, a
`
`plurality of LEDs 150, and feedback circuit 160. Id. at col. 7, ll. 17–22.
`
`Flashlight includes a LED housing including a first plurality of LED units
`
`that each emit light and have a reflector for collimating the emitted light
`
`forwardly therefrom generally along an LED optical axis. Id. at col. 1, ll.
`
`55–60; col. 2, ll. 45–49. In an embodiment, the LED optical axes of the
`
`plurality of LED units are substantially parallel to one another. Id. at col. 2,
`
`ll. 1–3, 58–61. In another embodiment, the optical spread angle of the
`
`plurality of LED units in the flashlight are substantially equal to one another.
`
`Id. at col. 2, ll. 10–12; col. 3, ll. 1–4. In yet another embodiment, the one or
`
`more LEDs have a characteristic color spectrum output that varies based on
`
`the applied current. Id. at col., 4, ll. 39–44; col. 6, ll. 37–44; col. 11, ll. 52–
`
`63. PSCC 130 applies electrical power from battery 120 to LEDs 150. Id. at
`
`col. 7, ll. 37–41. PSCC 130 provides a pulse train, in which pulse
`
`frequency, pulse width, or pulse shape/height, and/or the number of LEDs
`
`that are driven, is controlled in order to provide a relatively constant light
`
`output level even as battery voltage declines. Id. at col. 7, ll. 49–53. In an
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`embodiment, feedback circuit 160 measures the light output of LEDs 150
`
`(e.g., using a photodiode or other suitable light detecting device) and
`
`provides a signal that allows PSCC 130 to adjust the light output to a desired
`
`level. Id. at col. 7, l. 54–59; col. 11, ll. 48–51. In another embodiment,
`
`feedback circuit 160 measures the overall ambient light and provides a
`
`signal that allows generation of pulses to compensate for lack of light. Id. at
`
`col. 7, ll. 65–67. In yet another embodiment, feedback circuit 160 measures
`
`battery voltage, and increases pulse width, frequency, or height as battery
`
`voltage or power declines. Id. at col. 8, ll. 7–9. In another embodiment,
`
`feedback circuit 160 measures the current going through LEDs 150, and
`
`makes appropriate adjustments to pulse width or frequency in order to
`
`maintain constant or desired light output. Id. at col. 8, ll. 9–13. In still
`
`another embodiment, feedback circuit 160 measures color balance, which is
`
`used to change the current (i.e., height) of each pulse and thus the color
`
`spectrum to control or maintain color balance. Id. at col. 12, ll. 1–4. By
`
`controlling the amount of current (the height of each pulse), the color
`
`spectrum of the output light can be adjusted and by simultaneously
`
`controlling the pulse width and/or frequency, the intensity can be controlled.
`
`Id. at col. 12, ll. 5–14.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`
`Claims 1 and 31, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claims at
`
`issue:
`
`
`
`
`
`1. A flashlight, comprising:
`(a) a flashlight housing, the housing being suitable for at least
`one of receiving therein and mounting thereon at least one
`DC voltage source;
`(b) a light-emitting diode (LED) housing connected to the
`flashlight housing, the LED housing comprising a first
`
`4
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`plurality of LED units that each emit light and have a
`reflector for collimating the emitted light forwardly
`therefrom generally along an optical axis of one of the
`plurality of LED units, the first plurality of LED units
`including at least seven individual LED units; and
`(c) a first electrical circuit that selectively applies pulsed power
`from the DC voltage source to the LED units, wherein the
`pulses have a frequency high enough that light produced by
`the LED units has an appearance to a human user of being
`continuous rather than pulsed, and the pulses have at least
`one characteristic that is controlled by the first electrical
`circuit in order to maintain an average predetermined light
`output level of the LED units as a voltage on the DC voltage
`source varies; wherein the flashlight is of such compact size
`and low weight as to be suitable for single-handed portable
`operation by a user, the flashlight further having a purpose
`of providing general-purpose illumination.
`
`
`31. An illumination source, comprising:
`(a) a light-emitting diode (LED) housing comprising one or
`more LEDs;
`(b) a source of electrical power; and
`(c) a control circuit that selectively applies power from a source
`of electric power to the one or more LEDs to substantially
`maintain a predetermined color spectrum of the one or more
`LEDs as a voltage of the source of electric power varies over
`a range that would otherwise vary the light output color
`spectrum.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the Leahy-Smith
`
`America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329 (2011), the
`
`Board interprets claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light
`
`of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There is a “heavy
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`However, a “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee
`
`acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.” Id.
`
`“Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to
`
`describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994).
`
`1. “Reflector for Collimating the Emitted Light Forwardly
`Therefrom Generally Along an Optical Axis”
`
`
`
`Each of independent claims 1, 12, and 17 recites a “reflector for
`
`collimating the emitted light forwardly therefrom generally along an optical
`
`axis.” Pet. 6. Petitioner asserts that the ’661 Patent discloses a flat reflective
`
`disk on which the LEDs are mounted, without disclosing any other
`
`reflectors. Id.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’661 Patent, reproduced below, includes annotations
`
`added by Petitioner (Id.):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`Annotated Figure 1 indicates locations for the optical axis and the flat
`
`reflective disk. Petitioner asserts the flat reflective disk is mounted
`
`perpendicular to the optical axes of the mounted LEDs, with the light
`
`reflected forwardly at angles less than 90 degrees off the optical axis of the
`
`respective LED. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Upon reviewing the
`
`Specification of ’661 Patent, we do not identify a clear, deliberate, and
`
`precise definition for “a reflector for collimating light forwardly therefrom
`
`generally along an optical axis.” Petitioner further asserts that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation should encompass the flat disk given that it is the
`
`only reflector described in the ’661 Patent. Pet. 7. Petitioner’s assertions
`
`regarding the disclosure of Figure 1 are reasonable. Petitioner concludes
`
`that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a reflector for collimating
`
`light forwardly therefrom generally along an optical axis” includes “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.”
`
`Id. Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the’661 Patent
`
`Specification. Therefore, for purposes of our decision, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “a reflector for collimating the emitted light
`
`forwardly therefrom generally along an optical axis” includes “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.”
`
`2. “Selectively Applies”
`
`
`
`Each of independent claims 1, 12, 21, 31, and 34 recites “selectively
`
`applies power” or “selectively applies pulsed power.” Pet. 8. Similarly,
`
`independent claim 17 recites “selectively applying power.” Ex. 1001, col.
`
`17, ll. 34–35. The ’661 Patent discloses that “the LEDs have proportion of
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`on-time that increases as remaining battery power decreases.” Pet. 8 (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 3–5). On this basis, Petitioner asserts that in the context
`
`of the ’661 Patent, “selectively applies . . . power” means power is selected
`
`to be applied and not applied at intervals. Pet. 8. Petitioner concludes the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “selectively applies . . . power” should
`
`include “alternately applying and removing power.” Id. at 8–9. Upon
`
`reviewing the Specification of the ’661 Patent, we do not identify a clear,
`
`deliberate, and precise definition for “selectively applies.” Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction is consistent with the ’661 Patent Specification. See
`
`also Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 20–23. Nevertheless, because each of claims 1, 12,
`
`17, 21, 31, and 34 already recites “power,” the inclusion of “power” in
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is superfluous. Accordingly, for purposes
`
`of our decision, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “selectively
`
`applies” includes “alternately applying and removing.”
`
`
`
`Petitioner also presents contentions of unpatentability contingent on a
`
`broader construction of “selectively applies” that includes “continuous
`
`application.” Pet. 15, 28. We decline to extend the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “selectively applies” to include “continuous application”
`
`because this construction would negate the effect of the term “selectively.”
`
`See Merck & Co., Inc., v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358,
`
`1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the
`
`terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so”); see also Bicon,
`
`Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“claims are
`
`interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim”).
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`3. Additional Claim Terms or Phrases Addressed by Petitioner
`
`
`
`Petitioner proposes claim constructions for several additional claim
`
`terms or phrases, with corresponding citations to the ’661 Patent
`
`Specification to support each proposed claim construction. Pet. 6–9.
`
`
`
`The additional claim terms or phrases, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction, and corresponding disclosure in the ’661 Patent Specification
`
`are detailed in the following table:
`
`Claim Term
`or Phrase
`
`“A light-
`emitting diode
`housing”
`
`“Predetermined
`light output
`level”
`
`“Pulses” or
`“pulsed”
`
`Proposed
`Construction
`“[A]n object,
`such as a flat
`disk, structured
`to mount one or
`more LEDs.”
`Pet. 6–7.
`
`“[A]n output
`level
`determined by
`the
`characteristics
`of the control
`circuit.” Pet. 8.
`
`“[P]eriodic
`changes from
`off to on or
`from on to off.”
`Pet. 9.
`
`Specification Disclosure
`
`The “present invention” has an “LED
`housing including a first plurality of
`LED units that each emit light and
`have a reflector.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex.
`1001, col. 1, ll. 50–58).
`
`“The [’661] [S]pecification
`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.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1001,
`col. 3, ll. 44–60)
`Pulses have “pulse width,”
`“frequency,” and “height.” Pet. 9
`(citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 7–8; col.
`15, ll. 19–20). Pulses are formed by
`turning on and off “I/O” pins. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 39–42).
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`“Measuring a
`[battery]
`voltage” or
`“battery
`voltage
`measuring
`circuit”
`
`“[[A] circuit]
`comparing a
`signal derived
`from the battery
`voltage to a
`reference
`voltage.” Pet.
`10.
`
`Feedback circuit 160 may perform the
`function of voltage measurement. Pet.
`9 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 7–9). A
`“feedback circuit is disclosed in
`Figure 4 [in which the] battery voltage
`is measured by generating a signal
`based on the battery voltage that is
`compared to a constant voltage (from
`circuit 432). The lower the voltage,
`the longer the derived signal takes to
`reach the reference voltage, which
`results in an increased pulse width.”
`Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 9–
`14).
`
`
`
`As evidenced by the cited disclosures, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`constructions of the claim terms or phrases listed in the table are consistent
`
`with the ’661 Patent Specification. Accordingly, for purposes of our
`
`decision, the broadest reasonable interpretation of each of the foregoing
`
`claim terms or phrases listed in the table includes Petitioner’s construction.
`
`4. Remaining Claim Terms or Phrases
`
`All remaining claim terms or phrases recited in claims 1, 2, 4, 6–13,
`
`15, 17–31, 33, 34, 36–38, 40–49, 51, and 52 are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) on the following specific grounds (Pet. 4):
`
`Reference[s]1
`Van Antwerp
`
`LT1300, or
`LT1300 and Garriss
`
`LT1300 and Garriss
`
`Mallory and Garriss, or
`Mallory, Garriss, and Sakai
`
`Mallory, Garriss, and Hochstein, or
`Mallory, Garriss, Hochstein and
`Sakai
`
`21, 22, and 31
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§ 102(b) 21–24, 31, and 34
`§ 102(b)
`or
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a) 33, 34, 36, 37, 51, and 52
`1, 2, 4, 6–10, 12, 13, 15,
`17–19, 21–24, 26, 29, 30,
`40–42, 45, and 47
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`11, 20, 25, 27, 28, 38, 43,
`44, 46, 48, and 49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The petition relies on the following references: U.S. Patent No. 4,514,727
`(Ex. 1004) (“Van Antwerp”); Eagar et al., Applications of the LT1300 and
`LT1301 Micropower DC/DC Converters, Linear Technology Application
`Note 59. (1994) (“LT1300”); U.S. Patent No. 5,010,412 (Ex. 1005)
`(“Garriss”); U.S. Patent No. 4,499,525 (Ex. 1006) (“Mallory”); U.S. Patent
`No. 5,783,909 (issued July 21, 1998, filed Jan. 10, 1997) (Ex. 1007)
`(“Hochstein”); and U.S. Patent No. 4,698,730 (Ex. 1009) (“Sakai”). The
`petition also relies on the Declaration of Mark Horenstein (Ex. 1003);
`Schauler et al., GaN based LED’s With Different Recombination Zones,
`2 Internet Journal of Nitride Semiconductor Research Art. 44 (1997)
`(Ex. 1008); and U.S. Patent No. 5,424,927 (Ex. 1011) (“Schaller”).
`
`11
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`1. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Ground of Unpatentability over Van Antwerp
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 21–24, 31, and 34 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Van Antwerp. Pet. 13–15, 25–27.
`
`a. Van Antwerp (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`
`Van Antwerp describes apparatus for automatically controlling the
`
`brightness of various displays by automatically adjusting for changes in
`
`ambient light. Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 19–24. Van Antwerp explains that LED
`
`display brightness is affected by fluctuations in power supply voltage,
`
`making it desirable for an automatic brightness control apparatus to hold the
`
`display brightness at a constant level, unaffected by power supply changes.
`
`Id. at col. 5, ll. 19–24.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Van Antwerp, reproduced below, depicts automatic
`
`brightness control apparatus 10.
`
`Figure 1 illustrates automatic brightness control apparatus 10 implemented
`
`as an integrated circuit on a single chip housed in eight (8) pin, dual in-line
`
`package (“DIP”) 11. Id. at col. 2, ll. 46–49; col. 3, ll. 30–33. Automatic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`brightness control apparatus 10 includes photodiode 12 connected to current
`
`amplifier 14, which is connected to operational amplifier 22. Id. at col. 3,
`
`ll. 30–35, 40–47. The output of operational amplifier 22 is control voltage
`
`VC, which indicates the relative light level striking photodiode 12. Id. at col.
`
`4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 1. Output of operational amplifier 22 is input to the
`
`positive input terminal of first comparator 26. Id. at col. 3, ll. 47–49.
`
`Reference voltage VR is provided to the negative input terminal of second
`
`comparator 40. Id. at col. 3, ll. 57–60. PIN 5 of DIP 11 is connected to the
`
`negative input terminal of third comparator 54, the positive input terminal of
`
`second comparator 40, the negative input terminal of first comparator 26,
`
`and the collector terminal of NPN transistor 56. Id. at col. 3, l. 66–col. 4,
`
`l. 3. A voltage equal to one-half of power supply voltage VCC is applied to
`
`the positive input terminal of third comparator 54. Id. at col. 4, ll. 3–6.
`
`Automatic brightness control apparatus 10 holds the brightness of the
`
`display at a constant level by pulse width modulation of its output, on PIN 7,
`
`to the display whose brightness is to be controlled. Id. at col. 5, ll. 24–27.
`
`The development of the pulse width modulated output starts with a free
`
`running ramp oscillator. Id. at col. 5, ll. 28–30.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of Van Antwerp, reproduced below, depicts free running
`
`ramp oscillator.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`Figure 3 illustrates free running oscillator including external capacitor 104
`
`connected between PIN 5 and PIN 6, and external resistor 106 connected
`
`between PIN 5 and PIN 8, with supply voltage VCC applied to PIN 8. Id. at
`
`col. 5, ll. 39–42. Capacitor 104 is charged through resistor 106 toward the
`
`value VCC until its voltage just exceeds one-half VCC. Id. at col. 5, ll. 43–44.
`
`At the voltage just exceeding one-half VCC, the output of third comparator
`
`54 results in the Q output of latch 70 causing NPN transistor 56 to turn on.
`
`Id. at col. 5, ll. 44–54. With NPN transistor 56 on, capacitor 104 is
`
`discharged therethrough until the voltage at PIN 5 goes just below reference
`
`voltage VR. Id. at col. 5, ll. 54–56. At VR, the output of second comparator
`
`40 results in the Q output of latch 70 turning NPN 56 transistor off. Id. at
`
`col. 5, ll. 57–65. With NPN transistor 56 turned off, capacitor 104 again will
`
`be charged through resistor 106, and the process will be repeated with
`
`resulting ramp waveform 108 on PIN 5. Id. at col. 5, ll. 65–68; see id. at
`
`col. 7, ll. 3–23. Ramp waveform 108 and control voltage VC are input to
`
`first comparator 26 to cause the output of pulse width modulated logic
`
`output signal 110. Id. at col. 6, ll. 9–19.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 of Van Antwerp, reproduced below, depicts first comparator
`
`26 from Figure 1 and pulse width modulated logic output signal 110.
`
`Figure 4 illustrates the input of ramp waveform 108 to the negative input
`
`terminal of first comparator 26, the input of control voltage VC to the
`
`positive input terminal of first comparator 26, and the output of waveform
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`110. Id. During the time the value of ramp waveform 108 is less than the
`
`control voltage VC, the output of first comparator 26 is high. Id. at col. 6,
`
`ll. 19–22. During the time the value of waveform 108 is greater than control
`
`voltage VC, the output of first comparator 26 is low. Id. at col. 6, ll. 22–24.
`
`If power supply voltage VCC decreases, the peak to peak ramp voltage of
`
`waveform 108 drops, and therefore, the duty cycle of output waveform 110
`
`increases. Id. at col. 6, ll. 24–27. Referring to Figure 1, the output of first
`
`comparator 26 is input to NAND gate 64, the output of which is input to
`
`output driver 100 whose output is provided to PIN 7. Id. at col. 4, ll. 7–8,
`
`27–29; col. 7, ll. 52–54. The output of output driver 100 on PIN 7 is the
`
`output of automatic brightness control apparatus 10. Id. at col. 4, ll. 29–32.
`
`The output “on time” (of output driver 100) is the time when ramp voltage
`
`108 is less than control voltage VC, which also corresponds to the time when
`
`the output of first comparator 26 is high, (i.e., logic signal 110 is high). Id.
`
`at col. 5, ll. 24–27; col. 6, ll. 17–22; col. 7, ll. 54–56. Output (from output
`
`driver 100) is a totem pole output which will sink 20 ma or source up to 50
`
`ma. Id. at col. 7, ll. 57–59. If automatic brightness control apparatus 10 is
`
`used in a battery controlled system, and if the battery voltage drops, control
`
`apparatus 10 increases its duty cycle and causes the controlled display to
`
`maintain a constant light output. Id. at col. 8, ll. 6–10.
`
`b. Claims 21–24
`
`
`
`For purposes of this Decision, the Board is persuaded by Petitioner’s
`
`arguments, supported by the claim charts and other evidence, explaining
`
`how Van Antwerp describes the subject matter recited in independent claim
`
`21. Pet. 13–15, 25–26. For example, Petitioner contends that “a light-
`
`emitting diode (LED) housing comprising one or more LEDs,” as recited in
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`claim 21, is described by Van Antwerp’s instrument panel that provides a
`
`housing on which the LEDs are mounted. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 5,
`
`ll. 17–19). Petitioner further contends that “a control circuit that selectively
`
`applies power . . . to the LEDs” is described by Van Antwerp’s disclosure of
`
`“the automatic brightness control apparatus 10 holds the brightness of the
`
`display at a constant level by pulse width modulation of its output, on PIN 7
`
`of DIP 11, to the display whose brightness is to be controlled.” Pet. 25
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, col. 5, ll. 24–28). In addition, Petitioner contends that “the
`
`control circuit substantially maintaining a light output characteristic of the
`
`LEDs as a voltage of the voltage source varies” is described by Van
`
`Antwerp’s disclosure that “[i]f the automatic brightness control apparatus is
`
`used in a battery controlled system and the battery voltage drops, the control
`
`apparatus increases its duty cycle and causes the display that it is controlling
`
`to maintain a constant light output.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 8, ll. 6–
`
`10). These positions are reasonable.
`
`
`
`In addition, the Board is persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments,
`
`supported by the claim charts and other evidence, explaining how Van
`
`Antwerp describes the subject matter recited in dependent claims 22–24.
`
`For example, Petitioner contends that Van Antwerp’s description of
`
`increasing the duty cycle (i.e., pulse width) of the pulses as the DC voltage
`
`varies to maintain the brightness of the LED display describes “increasing
`
`one or more pulse characteristics selected from the group consisting of (1) a
`
`pulse width . . . as the voltage of the DC voltage source decreases,” as
`
`recited in claim 23. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 8, ll. 6–10). Petitioner
`
`further contends that “measuring a voltage and adjusting one or more pulse
`
`characteristics selected from the group consisting of: [] a pulse width . . . ,”
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`as recited in claim 24, is described by the following descriptions in Van
`
`Antwerp: (1) a comparator that compares a control voltage VC and ramp
`
`voltage waveform 108; and (2) “[i]f the power supply voltage VCC decreases,
`
`the peak to peak ramp voltage of waveform 108 will drop, and therefore, the
`
`duty cycle of the output will increase.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 6, ll. 6–
`
`28). These positions are also reasonable.
`
`
`
`Thus, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`its assertion that Van Antwerp anticipates claims 21–24.
`
`c. Claim 31
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that “an electrical control circuit that selectively
`
`applies power . . . to one or more LEDs to substantially maintain a
`
`predetermined color spectrum of the one or more LEDs as a voltage of the
`
`source of electric power varies over a range that would otherwise vary the
`
`light output color spectrum,” as recited in claim 31, is addressed by its
`
`analysis of independent claim 21. Pet. 27 (incorporating the analysis of
`
`claim 21 at Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 8–10; col. 5, ll. 17–19, 24–28;
`
`col. 8, ll. 6–10)). Petitioner’s analysis of claim 21 does not address
`
`sufficiently the aforementioned limitation recited in claim 31. Instead,
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of claim 21 addresses the broader limitation
`
`“substantially maintaining a light output characteristic of the LEDs.”
`
`Pet. 25. On the record before us, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that Van Antwerp anticipates
`
`claim 31.
`
`d. Claim 34
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that Van Antwerp describes “an electrical control
`
`circuit that selectively applies pulsed power . . . to the LEDs to control a
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`light output color spectrum of the one or more LEDs . . . as a charge on the
`
`DC voltage source varies,” as recited in claim 34. Petitioner asserts that Van
`
`Antwerp’s control circuit “modifies the pulse height due to changes in
`
`battery voltage and will thus inherently control the characteristic color
`
`spectrum of the LEDs.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26).
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s supporting evidence, however, does not provide a
`
`sufficient factual basis to demonstrate that Van Antwerp’s control circuit
`
`modifies the pulse height (i.e., pulse current). We do not credit Declarant,
`
`Dr. Mark Horenstein’s statement that “the height of the pulses in Van
`
`Antwerp decrease[s] with decreasing battery voltage . . . because the output
`
`at pin 7 from the Van Antwerp integrated circuit is powered from the
`
`battery” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 26), because it is not supported by Van Antwerp’s
`
`description. Rather than describing that the output at PIN 7 is powered from
`
`the battery, Van Antwerp describes that the output at PIN 7 is from an output
`
`driver 100 comprising a totem pole output which will sink 20 ma or source
`
`up to 50 ma. Ex. 1004, col. 7, ll. 57–59. The output “on time” of output
`
`driver 100 is modulated. Id. at col. 6, ll. 17–22; col. 7, ll. 54–56. If used in
`
`a battery controlled system, and if the battery voltage drops, control
`
`apparatus 10 increases its duty cycle. Id. at col. 8, ll. 6–10. Thus, in contrast
`
`to Petitioner’s assertion, Van Antwerp only describes a control circuit that
`
`modifies the “on time,” (i.e., pulse width, duty cycle) due to changes in
`
`battery voltage, and not a control circuit that modifies the pulse height due to
`
`changes in battery voltage. Therefore, on the record before us, Petitioner
`
`does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that
`
`Van Antwerp anticipates claim 34.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`2. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) Grounds of Unpatentability
`over LT1300 or LT1300 and Garriss
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 21, 22, and 31 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) over LT1300, or unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over LT1300 and Garriss. Pet. 15–16, 28–31. Petitioner further contends
`
`that claims 33, 34, 36, 37, 51, and 52 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over LT1300 and Garriss. Id. at 16–17, 31–34.
`
`a. LT1300 (Ex. 1005)
`
`LT1300 describes configuring an LT1300 micropower DC/DC
`
`converter integrated circuit as a constant current source that possesses good
`
`power conversion efficiency, and can be shut down to a state of practically
`
`no current draw. Ex. 1005, pp. 1–2, 11. LT1300 explains that these benefits
`
`coupled with the LT1300 circuit’s ability to operate over a wide input
`
`voltage range, make the LT1300 an ideal candidate for many current
`
`operated devices. Id. at p. 11. LT1300 further describes a high efficiency
`
`LED driver used in applications ranging from LCD backlights to special
`
`flashlights that preserve full night vision. Id. at pp. 11–12.
`
`Figure 20 of LT1300, reproduced below, depicts backlight LED
`
`driver.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1011 Page 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00610
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`Figure 20 illustrates backlight LED driver including LT1300 micropower
`
`DC/DC converter integrated circuit, a voltage source, and eight (8) LEDs.
`
`Id. at pp. 1–2, 11. The high efficiency LED driver provides constant LED
`
`drive current when on (20 mA), constant LED current with input voltage
`
`range (1.8V to 10V), high overall efficiency (87%), and small size. Id. at
`
`p. 12. The LT1300 circuit regulates the voltage on the FB pin (pin 4) to
`
`3.3V. Id. A voltage of 0.8V is experienced across R2, when subtracting
`
`2.5V corresponding to the knee voltage of the LT1004-2.5. Id. The 0.8V
`
`and the value of R2 (i.e., 39 shown in Fig. 20) set the output current level
`
`through the LEDs (i.e.
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
