`
`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-1012
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC,
`
`and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Petitioner V. Led Tech Development, LLC
`
`Patent Owner, Case IPR2014-00590, Patent 6,095,661, PTAB Institution Order
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 23
`Entered: September 3, 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 IPR2014-00590
`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-1012 Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`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 Petition1 (Paper 20, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes
`review of claims 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36–38, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, and 52 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,095,661 (Ex. 1101, “the ’661 Patent”). 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-
`319. LED Tech Development LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 21.
`
`On July 22, 2014, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer, pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.321(a), 42.107(e), disclaiming claims
`27, 28, 38, 42–47, and 49 of the ’661 Patent. Prelim. Resp. 1, 3–5; Ex.
`2005. Accordingly, only claims 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 51, and 52 remain at
`issue in this proceeding (“the remaining challenged claims”). Prelim. Resp.
`1, 3–5.
`
`We determine that the Petition is not barred as untimely under 35
`U.S.C. § 315(b). We also decline to reject the Petition, taking into account
`whether the Petition presents the same, or substantially the same, prior art or
`arguments previously presented to the Office pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`On this record, we determine that, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), Petitioner
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 31
`is unpatentable, but Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in showing that claims 33, 34, 36, 37, 51, and 52 are unpatentable.
`
`
`1 “Petition” and “Pet.” refer to the Second Corrected Petition, filed May 29,
`2014.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner previously filed, on September 23, 2013, a petition for inter
`partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–13, 15, 17–31, 33, 34, 36–38, 40–49, 51,
`and 52 of the ’661 Patent. IPR2013-00610, Paper 4 (Sept. 23, 2013) (“the
`’610 Petition”). In that proceeding, we instituted review as to claims 1, 2, 4,
`6–13, 15, 17–26, 29, 30, 40, 41, and 48 of the ’661 Patent, and denied
`review of claims 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36–38, 42–47, 49, 51, and 52. IPR2013-
`00610, Paper 10 (March 7, 2014). Subsequently, pursuant to Patent Owner’s
`request and in view of Patent Owner’s request to cancel the claims on which
`we instituted review, we entered judgment as to claims 1, 2, 4, 6–13, 15, 17–
`26, 29, 30, 40, 41, and 48. IPR2013-00610, Paper 15 (Apr. 29, 2014).2
` This proceeding also is related to IPR2013-00611, in which Petitioner
`sought, concurrent with the ’610 Petition, inter partes review of claims 1–6,
`9–16, and 19–39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,488,390 B1, a continuation of a
`division of the application that issued as the ’661 Patent.
`Petitioner indicates that Patent Owner asserted the ’661 Patent against
`Petitioner in LED Tech Development, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd., No. 12-1325 (D. Del.), filed October 15, 2012, now dismissed without
`prejudice. Pet. 2. Petitioner further states that all other known court
`proceedings involving the ’661 Patent have been dismissed. Id. n.1.
`
`
`2 Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 5) requesting that this Petition
`be joined with the proceedings of IPR2013-00610. However, in response to
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Joinder (Paper 12), Petitioner filed a Reply
`(Paper 18, “Reply Opp.”), withdrawing the Motion for Joinder and
`acknowledging that joinder is moot because judgment has been entered in
`IPR2013-00610. Reply Opp. 1, 5.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR22014-005990
`
`Patennt 6,095,6661
`
`
`
`
`
`CC. The ’6611 Patent (EEx. 1101)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’661 Patent reelates to meethods andd apparatuss for controolling and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ering a lighht-emittingg diode (“LLED”) lighht source foor a portabble battery
`pow
`
`
`
`ered flashllight. Ex. 1101, col. 1, ll. 6–8,
`50–52.
`pow
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’6661 Patent, rreproducedd below, deepicts LEDD flashlightt
`
`
`100.
`
`
`
`ding case 1100 includflashlight rates LED Figuure 1 illustr
`
`
`
`
`
`10, batteryy 120,
`
`
`power supply aand contro
`
`PSCC”) 1330, switch
`
`circuit 1400, a
`l circuit (“
`60. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`pluraality of LEEDs 150, annd feedbacck circuit 1
`
`col. 7, ll. 117–22. In
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`one eembodimeent, the onee or more LLEDs havee a characteeristic coloor spectrumm
`
`
`
`
`outpput that varries based oon the appllied currennt. Id. at cool. 4, ll. 399–44; col. 66,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ll. 377–44; col. 11, ll. 52–663. PSCCC 130 appli
`
`
`
`es electricaal power frfrom batteryy
`
`
`
`
`
`50. Id. at col. 7, ll. 337–41. PSCCC 130 prrovides a ppulse train,
`to LEDs 1
`120
`hich pulse
`in w
`
`
` frequencyy, pulse widdth, or pul
`
`
`se shape/hheight, and//or the
`a relativelyy
`
`
`
`nummber of LEDDs that are driven, is
`
`controlledd in order t
`o provide
`
`
`consstant light ooutput leveel even as bbattery volltage declinnes. Id. at
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 7, ll.
`
`
`
`
`49–553. In an eembodimennt, feedbacck circuit 1
`
`60 measurres battery
`voltage,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and iincreases ppulse widthh, frequenccy, or heighht as batterry voltage
`or power
`
`
`
`
`
`decliines. Id. att col. 8, ll. 7–9. In annother embbodiment,
`
`
`0 feedback ccircuit 160
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`meassures the ccurrent goinng throughh LEDs 1500, and makkes approppriate
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`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
`Independent claims 31 and 34, reproduced below with disputed terms
`emphasized, are illustrative of the claims at issue:
`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.
`
`
`34. An illumination source, comprising:
`(a) a light-emitting diode (LED) housing comprising one or
`more LEDs; and
`(b) an electrical control circuit that selectively applies pulsed
`power from a DC voltage source of electric power to the
`LEDs to control a light output color spectrum of the one or
`more LEDs and maintain a predetermined light output level
`of the LED units as a charge on the DC voltage source
`varies.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Time Bar Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner was served with a complaint
`
`alleging infringement on October 15, 2012, in LED Tech Development, LLC
`v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications
`America, LLC, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 12-1325 (D. Del.), more
`than one year before the filing of this Petition on April 7, 2014. Prelim.
`Resp. 14. Petitioner asserts that the prior district court proceeding was
`dismissed without prejudice on November 22, 2013, and that there is no
`applicable time bar. Pet. 2–3.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the facts of the present case are
`distinguishable from Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
`2002) and Bonneville Assocs., Limited Partnership v. Barram, 165 F.3d
`1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999), relied upon in Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v.
`Automated Creel Systems, Inc., Case IPR 2013-00584, slip op. at 12–13
`(PTAB Dec. 31, 2013) (Paper 16), and Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GmbH & Co.
`KG, Case IPR2012-00004, slip op. at 14–16 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2013) (Paper
`18). Prelim. Resp. 17; see id. at 15–16.
`
`In the PTAB decisions cited by Patent Owner, the Board adopted the
`Federal Circuit’s determination that the dismissal of an action without
`prejudice leaves the parties as though the action had never been brought.
`We agree. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments to the
`contrary. Because we agree with the reasoning set forth in Shaw Industries
`and Macauto, we determine that the § 315(b) bar does not apply to this
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`B. Arguments Advocating Exercise of Discretion to Reject the Petition
`Patent Owner asserts that this Petition is essentially a re-filed version
`
`of the ’610 Petition, in which we denied institution of inter partes review as
`to claims 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36–38, 42–47, 49, 51, and 52 of the ’661 Patent.
`Prelim. Resp. 7. Patent Owner contends that this Petition relies on the same
`cited prior art as the ’610 Petition, and a modified version of the same expert
`declaration. Id.; see id. at 2. Patent Owner further asserts that Petitioner did
`not request rehearing of our decision denying institution of claims 27, 28,
`31, 33, 34, 36–38, 42–47, 49, 51, and 52 in IPR2013-00610. Id. at 7; see id.
`at 3.
`Patent Owner contends that inter partes review should not be an open-
`
`ended process that can be gamed by a petitioner, in which a petitioner
`iteratively can supply a few more missing parts to a puzzle in subsequent
`petitions based on clues supplied from the decision on the first petition.
`Prelim. Resp. 8–9. Patent Owner asserts:
`[t]here would appear to be little-to-no purpose for the rehearing
`process provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), with its abuse-of-
`discretion standard of review, if all that a [] [p]etitioner needs to
`do is file one petition after another, under a de novo standard of
`review for each petition, until the Board may accede to each
`and every altered and re-altered argument a multi-petitioner
`pays to put before the Board. Indeed, the opportunity afforded
`by 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) might appear to make logical sense
`only in the context of the finality imposed by 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(d).
`Id. at 9. Patent Owner further asserts that “it was an oversight that the
`current law does not appear to expressly require successive IPR petitions re-
`challenging previously challenged and denied claims to provide newly
`discovered art.” Id. at 11; see id. at 2, 10–12.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`Patent Owner urges the Board to interpret 35 U.S.C. § 314(d)
`regarding final and nonappealable decisions to deny summarily successive
`IPR petitions for review of any claims that are attacked with the same art
`previously submitted. Prelim. Resp. 11; see id. at 2, 10–12. Patent Owner
`argues that doing so would not only safeguard patent owners from abusive
`use of the inter partes review process, but also promote judicial efficiency
`by further encouraging petitioners to use rehearings. Id. Lastly, Patent
`Owner asserts that, with considerations of efficiency and the policy of 37
`C.F.R § 42.1, permitting inter partes review to proceed in the present case
`logically would entail the complete absence of any limit to the number of
`inter partes reviews that Petitioner may file against the ’661 Patent, with
`implications for the Board’s resources and Patent Owner’s resources. Id. at
`13–14.
`
`We exercise our discretion pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) on a case–
`by–case basis. Although the challenges to the claims in this Petition are
`based on the same prior art presented in the ’610 Petition, certain disclosures
`of LT1300 (Ex. 1104) relied upon in this Petition were not relied upon in the
`’610 Petition (i.e., pulse width modulation (PWM) signal applied to the
`shutdown (SHDN) pin (pin 3)). Because this Petition relies on certain
`disclosures of LT1300 that were not relied upon in the ’610 Petition, we
`decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to reject the
`Petition.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`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).
`
`8
`
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`There is a “heavy 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) (citations omitted).
`
`1. “Maintain a Predetermined Color Spectrum” (Claim 31)
`Patent Owner asserts that the proper construction of “maintain a
`
`predetermined color spectrum,” in light of the ’661 Patent Specification is
`“to keep substantially constant the color spectrum selected or set by the
`designer or user in her or his choice of LEDs and choice of LED current.”
`Prelim. Resp. 27; see id. at 22, 33. Patent Owner’s proposed construction is
`based on the following disclosure from the ’661 Patent Specification:
`[c]ircuit 730 then controls the current of transistor 755 by well-
`known techniques such as a current mirror, and the pulse width
`or frequency to transistor 750 as described above (in one
`embodiment, a lookup table is used to choose a predetermined
`pulse width based on the user selected or set color, and the
`current is determined by another corresponding lookup table is
`used to choose an appropriate current).
`Id. at 27 (quoting Ex. 1101, col. 12, ll. 17–24, emphasis added in
`Prelim. Resp.); see id. at 22.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Owner
`does not direct us to, and we do not identify, a definition for “maintain a
`predetermined color spectrum,” set forth in the ’661 Patent Specification
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Instead, Patent
`Owner’s arguments import limitations into the claims from the ’661
`Specification. In particular, Patent Owner imports “to keep substantially
`constant” into the meaning of “maintain,” and “selected or set by the
`designer or user in her or his choice of LEDs and choice of LED current”
`into the meaning of “predetermined.” We decline to import limitations from
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`the ’661 Patent Specification into the claim. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
`1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We further note that Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction does not elaborate on the term “color spectrum.” In the absence
`of a clear, deliberate, and precise definition in the ’661 Patent Specification
`for “maintain a predetermined color spectrum,” the claim phrase carries its
`ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`A relevant definition of the term “maintain” is “to keep in a specific
`state, position, etc.” RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY 819
`(1992) (Ex. 3001). Similarly, a relevant definition of “predetermined” is:
`“to settle or decide in advance.” RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE
`DICTIONARY 1062 (1992) (Ex. 3002). Finally, a relevant definition of the
`term “spectrum” is “[t]he set of frequencies, wavelengths or related
`quantities, involved in some process; for example, each element has a
`characteristic discrete spectrum for emission and absorption of light. A
`range of frequencies within which radiation has some specified
`characteristic, such as audio-frequency spectrum, ultraviolet spectrum, or
`radio spectrum.” MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND
`TECHNICAL TERMS 1786 (1989) (Ex. 3003).
`
`On the basis of these definitions of “maintain,” “predetermined,” and
`“spectrum,” and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that the
`ordinary and customary meaning of “maintain a predetermined color
`spectrum” is “to keep the color range of frequencies or wavelengths in a
`state of the color range of frequencies or wavelengths settled in advance.”
`This construction is consistent with the ’661 Patent Specification. See Ex.
`1101, col. 4, ll. 23–44; col. 11, l. 52–col. 12, l. 30; col. 13, ll. 15–39.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`2. “Maintain a Predetermined Light Output Level” (Claim 34)
`Patent Owner asserts that the proper construction of “maintain a
`
`predetermined light output level” in light of the ’661 Patent Specification is
`“to keep substantially constant the light output level selected or set by the
`designer or user in her or his choice of LEDs and choice of LED current.”
`Prelim. Resp. 26; see id. at 22, 33. Patent Owner’s proposed construction is
`based on the following disclosures from the ’661 Patent Specification:
`(1)“[i]n one embodiment, five selectable pulse widths are predetermined and
`selected by SW1, which is a five-way exclusive dual-pole-single throw
`switch” (citing Ex. 1101, col. 14, ll. 17–20); and (2) “[i]n one embodiment,
`it is desired to have an average LED illumination intensity of at least ten
`times the ambient light” (citing Ex. 1101, col. 14, ll. 35–36). Prelim. Resp.
`at 22.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive. Patent Owner does not
`direct us to, and we do not identify, a definition for “maintain a
`predetermined light output level,” set forth in the ’661 Patent Specification
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Similar to our
`previous discussion in Section II.A.1., Patent Owner’s seeks to import “to
`keep substantially constant” into the meaning of “maintain,” and “selected or
`set by the designer or user in her or his choice of LEDs and choice of LED
`current” into the meaning of “predetermined.” We decline to import
`limitations from the ’661 Patent Specification into the claim. See Van
`Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Rather, in the absence of a clear, deliberate, and
`precise definition in the ’661 Patent Specification for “maintain a
`predetermined light output level,” the claim phrase carries its ordinary and
`customary meaning.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`On the basis of the relevant definitions of the terms “maintain” and
`“predetermined,” discussed above in Section II.A.1., for purposes of this
`Decision, we determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of
`“maintain a predetermined light output level” is “to keep the light output
`level in a state of the light output level settled in advance.” This
`construction is consistent with the ’661 Patent Specification. See Ex. 1101,
`col. 2, ll. 24–40; col. 3, ll. 23–60; col. 8, ll. 9–13.
`3. Additional Claim Terms or Phrases
`Petitioner proposes claim constructions for several claim terms or
`
`phrases, with corresponding citations to the ’661 Patent Specification to
`support each proposed claim construction. Pet. 5–11. The claim terms or
`phrases, Petitioner’s proposed construction, and corresponding disclosure in
`the ’661 Patent Specification are detailed in the following table:
`Claim Term
`Proposed
`or Phrase
`Construction
`“[A]n object,
`such as a flat
`disk, structured
`to mount one or
`more LEDs.”
`Pet. 7–8.
`
`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 (quoting Ex. 1101, col. 1,
`ll. 50–58).
`“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 power is
`removed, ‘wherein the LEDs have a
`proportion of on-time that increases as
`remaining battery power decreases.’” Pet. 8
`(citing Ex. 1101, col. 4, ll. 3–5).
`
`“A light-
`emitting
`diode (LED)
`housing”
`
`“Selectively
`applies . . .
`[power]”
`
`“Alternately
`applying and
`removing
`[power].” Pet. 8
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 12
`
`
`
`“Pulsed”
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`Pulses have “pulse width,” “frequency,”
`“[P]eriodic
`and “height.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1101, col.
`changes from
`8, ll. 7–8; col. 15, ll. 19–20). Pulses are
`off to on or from
`formed by turning on and off “I/O” pins.
`on to off.” Pet.
`Id. (citing Ex. 1101, col. 8, ll. 39–42).
`9.
`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. Patent Owner does not contest the
`proposed claim constructions listed in the table. See Prelim. Resp. 24–25.
`Accordingly, for purposes of our Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s
`constructions of the claim terms or phrases listed in the foregoing table as
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of each of these terms or phrases.
`4. Remaining Claim Terms or Phrases
`All remaining claim terms and phrases recited in the challenged
`claims are given their ordinary and customary meanings, consistent with the
`Specification, as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art,
`and need not be construed explicitly for purposes of this Decision.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends the remaining challenged claims are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 on the following specific grounds (Pet. 4):
`Reference[s]3
`Basis
`Claim[s]
`LT1300
`§ 102(b)
`31, 33, 34, 36, and 51
`LT1300 and Garriss
`§ 103(a)
`37
`LT1300 and Hochstein
`§ 103(a)
`52
`
`1. Unpatentability of Claims 31, 33, 34, 36, and 51
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as Anticipated by LT1300
`Petitioner contends that claims 31, 33, 34, 36, and 51 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by LT1300. Pet. 4, 18–19, 27–35.
`
`a. LT1300 (Ex. 1104)
`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. 1104, 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 circuit an ideal candidate for many current
`
`
`3 The Petition relies on the following references: Dale Eagar and Steve
`Pietkiewicz, Applications of the LT1300 and LT1301 Micropower DC/DC
`Converters, Linear Technology Application Note 59. (1994) (Ex.
`1104)(“LT1300”); U.S. Patent No. 5,010,412 (issued Apr. 23, 1991, filed
`Dec. 27, 1988) (Ex. 1105) (“Garriss”); U.S. Patent No. 5,783,909 (issued
`July 21, 1998, filed Jan. 10, 1997) (Ex. 1107) (“Hochstein”); The Petition
`also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Mark Horenstein (Ex. 1103); M.
`Schauler et al., GaN based LED’s with Different Recombination Zones,
`Internet Journal of Nitride Semiconductor Research, Vol. 2, Art. 44 (1997)
`(Ex. 1112); and U.S. Patent No. 5,424,927 (issued Jun. 13, 1995, filed Sept.
`2, 1993) (Ex. 1113) (“Schaller”).
`
`
`
`14
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 14
`
`
`
`11. LT13000 further ddescribes aa high efficciency LEDD
`
`
`
`IPR22014-005990
`
`Patennt 6,095,6661
`
`es. Id. at 1
`operrated devic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`driveer used in aapplicationns ranging from LCDD backlightts to speciaal
`
`flashhlights thatt preserve ffull night vvision. Id.
`
`
`
`at 11–12.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 220 of LT1300, reprodduced beloww, depicts
`backlight
`
`driveer.
`
`LED
`
`). Id. at 1––2, 11. Whhen SHDNN
`
`
`ropower T1300 micrcluding LTD driver incklight LEDFiguure 20 illustrates back
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DC/DDC converrter integraated circuitt, a voltagee source, eiight (8) LEEDs, FB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pin ((pin 4), andd shutdownn (SHDN)
`pin (pin 3
`
`
`
`
`pin iis set to higgh (H), thee LEDs are set to “offf”; when SSHDN pin iis set to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`low (L), the LEEDs are sett to “on”; aand, when
`
`
`a pulse wiidth modullated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(PWWM) signal is applied to SHDN pin, the LEEDs are seet to an “addjustable
`
`
`
`
`lightt level.” Idd. at Fig. 200; see id. aat 2, 4, 10.
` The high
`
`efficiencyy LED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`driveer providess constant LED drivee current wwhen “on” ((20 mA), cconstant
`
`
`LEDD current wwith input vvoltage rannge (1.8V tto 10V), hiigh overall efficiencyy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(87%%), and smmall size. Idd. at 12. TThe LT13000 circuit reegulates th
`
`e voltage
`
`
`on thhe FB pin ((pin 4) to 33.3V. Id. AA voltage
`
`experiencced across
`
`
`of 0.8V is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`R2, wwhen subtrracting 2.55V correspoonding to tthe knee vooltage of thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`LT1004-2.5. IId. The 0.88V and thee value of RR2 (i.e., 39
`in Fig. 20
`9 shown
`
` (i.e., 20 mmA). Id.
`
`
`
`
`set thhe output ccurrent levvel throughh the LEDs
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`
`b. Independent Claim 31
`For purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`arguments, supported by the claim charts and other evidence, explaining
`how LT1300 describes the subject matter recited in independent claim 31.
`Pet. 27–31. For example, Petitioner contends that “a light-emitting diode
`(LED) housing comprising one or more LEDs and a source of electrical
`power,” as recited in claim 31, is described by LT1300’s LED driver for
`driving up to eight LED lamps in applications including LCD backlights and
`flashlights. Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1104, 11–12; Fig. 20; Ex. 1103 ¶ 95).
`Petitioner further contends that “a control circuit that selectively applies
`power . . . to the one or more LEDs to substantially maintain a
`predetermined color spectrum of the one or more LEDs as a voltage . . .
`varies over a range that would otherwise vary the light output color
`spectrum,” is described by LT1300’s shutdown (SHDN) pin that accepts a
`pulse width modulated (PWM) signal that will produce pulsed power at the
`output, and LT1300’s description of “LED constant current with input
`voltage range (1.8 V to 10V).” Id. (citing Ex. 1104, 2–3, 11–12); see id. at
`28–29 (citing Ex. 1104, 2, 11; Fig. 20; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 95, 97). Petitioner
`explains that “a circuit that maintains constant current in an LED will
`inherently maintain the color spectrum of the LED.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex.
`1101, col. 11, ll. 52–63; Ex. 1112); see id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1101, col. 11,
`ll. 52–col. 12, l. 4; Fig. 6; Ex. 1112; Ex. 1103 ¶ 19).
`
`Patent Owner argues that “‘maintaining a predetermined . . . color
`spectrum’ means a selected particular color spectrum, as opposed to an
`arbitrary random color spectrum, which is what the Petitioner asserts is
`inherent in the LT1300 reference.” Prelim. Resp. 35. Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`acknowledges that LT1300 provides a constant current, but asserts that
`LT1300 “does not describe or suggest any aspect of color spectrum.” Id.
`As discussed previously in Section II.A.1., we do not construe
`“maintain a predetermined color spectrum,” to include a selected particular
`color spectrum. Rather, the ordinary and customary meaning of “maintain a
`predetermined color spectrum,” is “to keep the color range of frequencies or
`wavelengths in a state of the color range of frequencies or wavelengths
`settled in advance.” Consequently, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
`arguments that the LEDs disclosed by LT1300, and intended for applications
`ranging from LCD backlights to special flashlights that preserve full night
`vision, emit “an arbitrary random color spectrum.” Instead, as evidenced by
`the ’661 Patent and Garriss (Ex. 1105), the color range of frequencies or
`wavelengths emitted from LEDs is predetermined (i.e., settled in advance).
`See, e.g., Ex. 1101, col. 6, ll. 22–52 (discussing various colored LEDs for
`specialized purposes, such as long wavelength LEDs, 660nm or longer,
`short-wavelength blue LEDs, ultraviolet (UV) LEDs, infrared (IR) LEDs,
`etc.); Ex. 1101, col. 9, ll. 45–48 (discussing standard high-efficiency colored
`LEDs of red, yellow, green, and/or blue); Ex. 1105, col. 2, ll. 11–17
`(disclosing LEDs that emit monochromatic light). Furthermore, Patent
`Owner acknowledges that we may “construe ‘maintain a
`predetermined . . . color spectrum’ . . . to mean whatever color spectrum
`results from the LT1300 circuit . . . .” Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (emphasis added
`Prelim. Resp.). Thus, we may determine that LT1300’s LEDs emit light of a
`color range of frequencies or wavelengths settled in advance based on the
`constant current applied by the circuit. Id.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`Accordingly, on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim
`31 is anticipated by LT1300.
`c. Dependent Claim 33
`Claim 33 depends from claim 31, and further recites “the one or more
`LEDs comprise one or more LEDs each one having a characteristic color
`spectrum output that varies based on applied current.” Petitioner asserts in
`the claim chart, “LEDs have a characteristic color spectrum output that
`varies based on applied current. ([Ex. ]1103 ¶ 19) Therefore the LT1300
`disclosure of LEDs discloses this limitation.” Pet. 31. Petitioner’s
`supporting evidence, however, does not provide a sufficient factual basis to
`demonstrate that LT1300’s LEDs have a characteristic color spectrum output
`that varies based on applied current. The supporting evidence discussed in
`paragraph 19 of Dr. Horenstein’s Declaration discloses the relationship
`between current and color spectrum for Gallium Nitride (GaN) based LEDs.
`Ex. 1103 ¶ 19 (citing Ex. 1101, Fig. 6; col. 11, ll. 52–63; Ex. 1112).
`Petitioner’s supporting evidence does not demonstrate that LT1300 discloses
`GaN based LEDs or LEDs that otherwise have the aforementioned
`relationship between applied current and characteristic color spectrum
`output.
`Therefore, on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner does
`not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that LT1300
`anticipates claim 33.
`d. Independent Claim 34 and Dependent Claims 36 and 51
`Petitioner contends that LT1300 describes “an electrical control
`circuit that selectively applies pulsed power . . . to the LEDs to . . . maintain
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Exhibit LG-1012 Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00590
`Patent 6,095,661
`a predetermined light output level of the LED units as a charge on the DC
`voltage source varies,” as recited in claim 34, based on the following
`disclosures: (1) shutdown (SHDN) pin (pin 3) accepts a pulse width
`modulated (PWM) signal that will produce pulsed power at the output to
`control light level (Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1104, 2, 3, 11; Ex. 1103 ¶ 97); see
`id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1104, 11, Fig. 20; Ex. 1103 ¶ 97)); and (2) shutdown
`(SHDN) pin (pin 3) accepts a PWM signal to provide an adjustable light
`level (id. at 32, 34 (citing Ex. 1104, 11)). Petitioner further presents the
`following arguments in the claim charts:
`[f]or any set light level, the output will produce fixed width
`pulses of constant current to maintain a predetermined light
`output level as the DC voltage source varies. The cons
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
