`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`FEIT ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00921
`Patent No. 6,586,890
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,586,890
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`Identification of challenge .............................................................................. 2
`A.
`Citation of prior art ................................................................................ 2
`B.
`Statutory grounds for the challenge ...................................................... 3
`III. Grounds for standing ...................................................................................... 3
`IV. Overview of the ’890 patent ........................................................................... 3
`A.
`Current regulation for an LED array ..................................................... 3
`B.
`Indication that an LED array is inoperable ........................................... 7
`C.
`Claims .................................................................................................... 8
`Claim construction .......................................................................................... 8
`Claim 7: “means for sensing current to the LED array, said current
`A.
`sensing means generating a sensed current signal” ............................. 9
`Claim 7: “means for generating a reference signal” ..........................10
`Claim 7: “means for comparing the sensed current signal to the
`reference signal” .................................................................................11
`Claim 7: “means for modulating pulse width responsive to the
`feedback signal, said pulse width modulating means generating a
`drive signal” ........................................................................................11
`Claim 7: “means for supplying power supplying power responsive
`to the drive signal” ..............................................................................12
`Claims 14, 22, and 30: “means for indicating the LED array is
`inoperable”/“the LED array is inoperable”/“LED array inoperable
`signal”..................................................................................................13
`VI. Level of ordinary skill in the art ................................................................... 14
`VII. GROUND 1: Biebl renders obvious claims 1, 22, and 30. .......................... 14
`A.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................20
`[1.P] “A system for supplying power for an LED array” ........ 20
`1.
`[1.A] “an oscillator generating an oscillating signal, the
`2.
`oscillating signal having a first state and a second state” ...... 21
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`[1.B] “a power supply operatively coupled to the oscillator,
`the power supply providing output power and being
`responsive to the oscillating signal;” ....................................... 24
`[1.C] “wherein said power supply supplies the output power
`to the LED array when the oscillating signal is in the first
`state and does not supply the output power to the LED array
`when the oscillating signal is in the second state.” ................. 26
`Claim 15 (now cancelled) ...................................................................28
`[15.P] “A method of supplying power to an LED array” ........ 28
`1.
`[15.A] “sensing current to the LED array and generating a
`2.
`sensed current signal;” ............................................................ 29
`[15.B] “generating a reference signal;” .................................. 30
`[15.C] “comparing the sensed current signal to the reference
`signal;” ..................................................................................... 30
`[15.D] “generating a feedback signal based on the difference
`between the sensed current signal and the reference signal;” 31
`[15.E] “generating a pulse width modulated drive signal
`based on the feedback signal;” ................................................ 32
`[15.F] “supplying current to the LED array in response to the
`pulse width modulated drive signal.” ...................................... 34
`Claim 23 (now cancelled) ...................................................................35
`[23.P] “A circuit for supplying power to an LED array” ........ 35
`1.
`[23.A] “a power supply 52, the power supply 52 supplying
`2.
`current to the LED array 54 and being responsive to a drive
`signal;” ..................................................................................... 35
`[23.B] “a current sensor 60 for sensing current to the LED
`array 54, the current sensor 60 generating a sensed current
`signal;” ..................................................................................... 35
`[23.C] “a reference current source 62 for generating a
`reference signal;” ..................................................................... 36
`[23.D] “a comparator 58 for comparing the sensed current
`signal to the reference signal, the comparator 58 generating
`a feedback signal;”................................................................... 36
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`6.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`[23.E] “a PWM control IC 56 responsive to the feedback
`signal, the PWM control IC 56 generating the drive signal;” . 36
`Claims 22 and 30: LED inoperable claims .........................................37
`D.
`VIII. GROUND 2: Biebl in view of Hamp in further view of TI Book renders
`obvious claims 7 and 14. .............................................................................. 40
`A.
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................43
`[7.P] “A system for supplying power for an LED array” ........ 43
`1.
`[7.A] “means for sensing current to the LED array, said
`2.
`current sensing means generating a sensed current signal;” .. 43
`[7.B] “means for generating a reference signal” .................... 45
`[7.C] “means for comparing the sensed current signal to the
`reference signal, said comparing means generating a
`feedback signal” ....................................................................... 49
`[7.D] “means for modulating pulse width responsive to the
`feedback signal, said pulse width modulating means
`generating a drive signal” ....................................................... 51
`[7.E] “means for supplying power responsive to the drive
`signal, said power supplying means supplying current to the
`LED array” ............................................................................... 52
`Claim 14: “means for indicating the LED array is inoperable” .........55
`B.
`IX. GROUND 3: Hamp in view of LT1613 renders obvious claim 7. .............. 56
`A.
`[7.P] A system for supplying power for an LED array .......................56
`[7.A] “means for sensing current to the LED array, said current
`B.
`sensing means generating a sensed current signal” ...........................57
`[7.B] “means for generating a reference signal” ................................58
`[7.C] “means for comparing the sensed current signal to the
`reference signal, said comparing means generating a feedback
`signal”..................................................................................................60
`[7.D] “means for modulating pulse width responsive to the feedback
`signal, said pulse width modulating means generating a drive
`signal”..................................................................................................61
`[7.E] “means for supplying power responsive to the drive signal,
`said power supplying means supplying current to the LED array”....63
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`X. GROUND 4: Hamp in view of LT1613 in further view of Biebl renders
`obvious claim 14. .......................................................................................... 65
`XI. Ground 2 and Grounds 3-4 are noncumulative of each other. ..................... 65
`XII. Philips is estopped from arguing that features of the independent claims
`are absent from Biebl. ................................................................................... 67
`A.
`The patent owner is estopped under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3). ............68
`B.
`The patent owner is collaterally estopped. ..........................................68
`XIII. The Board should not apply its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37
`C.F.R. § 42.108(a) to deny institution because the prior petition on the
`’890 patent was filed by a different petitioner on different claims. ............. 70
`XIV. Mandatory notices ........................................................................................ 73
`XV. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890 to Min et al. (“’890 patent”)
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890 (“’890 patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Peter Shackle in support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Peter Shackle (“Shackle Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,400,101 to Biebl et al. (“Biebl”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0033503 to Hamp et al. (“Hamp”)
`Linear Technology LT1613 Data Sheet, Linear Technology
`Corporation, 1997 (“LT1613”)
`Excerpts from Texas Instruments Power Supply Control Products
`(PS): Data Book, 1999 (“TI Book”)
`Declaration of Laura Simpson showing authenticity and public
`availability of Texas Instruments Power Supply Control Products
`(PS): Data Book (FEIT 1008)
`Declaration of Terri Yager showing authenticity and public
`availability of Linear Technology LT1613 Data Sheet (FEIT 1007)
`Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices (Paper 53), Wangs Alliance
`Corporation d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. v. Philips Lighting Holding
`B.V., Case No. IPR2015-01292 (P.T.A.B.), April 22, 2016
`Institution Decision (Paper 8), Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a
`WAC Lighting Co. v. Philips Lighting Holding B.V., Case No.
`IPR2015-01292 (P.T.A.B.), November 25, 2015
`Decision on Request for Rehearing of Institution Decision (Paper
`18), Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. v. Philips
`Lighting Holding B.V., Case No. IPR2015-01292 (P.T.A.B.),
`January 26, 2016
`Final Written Decision (Paper 64), Wangs Alliance Corporation
`d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. v. Philips Lighting Holding B.V., Case No.
`IPR2015-01292 (P.T.A.B.), November 23, 2016
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`
`Description
`
`Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, Wangs Alliance Corporation
`d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. v. Philips Lighting Holding B.V., Case No.
`17-1530 (C.A.F.C.), June 12, 2017
`Inter Partes Review certificate for Case No. IPR2015-01292 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,586,890, issued February 7, 2018
`Validity Contentions for the ’890 patent, served by Complainant
`Philips Lighting Holding B.V., LED Lighting Devices, LED Power
`Supplies, and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1081
`(I.T.C.)
`Complainants’ Initial Markman Brief, LED Lighting Devices, LED
`Power Supplies, and Components Thereof,
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1081 (I.T.C.), February 13, 2018
`Respondents’ Initial Markman Brief, LED Lighting Devices, LED
`Power Supplies, and Components Thereof,
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1081 (I.T.C.), February 13, 2018
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`
`Petitioner Feit Electric Company, Inc. (“Feit Electric”) petitions for inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 7, 14, 22, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`
`(“the ’890 patent”). The ’890 patent appears to be assigned to Philips Lighting
`
`Holding B.V. (“Philips”).
`
`This Petition shows, with respect to individual grounds, that each of the
`
`asserted claims is obvious. In particular, claims 1, 7, 14, 22, and 30 are obvious
`
`over a prior art reference called Biebl, alone for claims 1, 22, and 30, and in view
`
`of other references for claims 7 and 14. Claims 7 and 14 recite means-plus-
`
`function language that is interpreted below. The structure recited in claims 7 and
`
`14 is obvious on two alternative, noncumulative theories: one with Biebl as the
`
`primary reference and one with a different reference called Hamp as the primary
`
`reference.
`
`In addition, Philips is subject to estoppels that preclude many of the possible
`
`arguments that Philips could raise in this inter partes review. In particular, the ’890
`
`patent was subject to a prior IPR, case no. IPR2015-01292 (“the ’292 IPR”). The
`
`’292 IPR has a final adverse judgment. This Petition will show that judgment
`
`estops Philips from arguing that much of the claim features are absent from Biebl.
`
`Finally, this Petition will explain that the Board should not apply its discretion
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) to deny institution because the
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`’292 IPR was filed by a different petitioner on different claims.
`
`
`
`For these reasons, the Board should hold the ’890 patent’s claims 1, 7, 14,
`
`22, and 30 to be unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`Identification of challenge
`
`A. Citation of prior art
`
`To support the proposed grounds, Petitioner cites the following prior art
`
`references, each of which are prior art given the ’890 patent’s earliest priority date
`
`of December 5, 20011:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,400,101 to Biebl et al. (“Biebl”) was filed on April
`
`1, 2000, making it prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`• Texas Instruments Power Supply Control Products (PS): Data Book
`
`(“TI Book”) was published at least by April 2000, making it prior art
`
`under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (FEIT 1009, ¶¶ 4-8.)
`
`• U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0033503 to Hamp et al. (“Hamp”)
`
`was published on October 25, 2001, filed on March 9, 2001, and
`
`claims benefit of a provisional application filed on March 28, 2000,
`
`1 In the concurrent ITC litigation, Philips has not asserted a date of invention
`
`before the ’890 patent’s filing date. If Philips alleges earlier invention, Feit Electric
`
`reserves the right to establish an earlier effective date as prior art.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`making it prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e).
`
`
`
`• Linear Technology LT1613 Data Sheet (“LT1613”) was published at
`
`least by July 12, 2001, making it prior art under at least pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). (FEIT 1010, ¶ 6.)
`
`B. Statutory grounds for the challenge
`
`Petitioner requests review of claims 1, 7, 14, 22, and 30 on four grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Biebl renders obvious claims 1, 22, and 30.
`
`Ground 2: Biebl in view of the TI Book in further view of Hamp renders
`
`obvious claims 7 and 14.
`
`Ground 3: Hamp in view of the LT1613 renders obvious claim 7.
`
`Ground 4: Hamp in view of the LT1613 in further view of Biebl renders
`
`obvious claim 14.
`
`III. Grounds for standing
`
`The undersigned and Petitioner certify that the ʼ890 patent is available for
`
`inter partes review. Petitioner certifies that it is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting this inter partes review on the grounds identified herein.
`
`IV. Overview of the ’890 patent
`
`A. Current regulation for an LED array
`
`The ’890 patent relates to powering LED arrays in, for example,
`
`automobiles. When powering LED arrays, “LED light output is proportional to the
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`LED current.” (FEIT 1001, ’890 patent, 1:20-22.) “Driving LEDs at other than
`
`
`
`nominal current can reduce LED life and produce unpredictable light output.” (Id.,
`
`1:27-29.) The ’890 patent claims (incorrectly, as will be shown herein): “At
`
`present, LED drivers in vehicles use driver circuits with voltage source outputs,
`
`and current limiting resistors or linear current regulators.” (Id., 1:22-25.) These
`
`approaches have drawbacks: “Current limiting resistors cause power loss, making
`
`the driver circuits inefficient [and] current regulation is not precise.” (Id., 1:25-27.)
`
`To deal with these issues, the ’890 patent describes “a driver circuit for …
`
`maintaining operation at the LEDs nominal current,” while offering “good
`
`regulation and efficiency.” (Id., 1:41-43.) To maintain nominal current, the ’890
`
`patent “us[es] pulse width modulation (PWM)” and “current feedback to adjust
`
`power to the LEDs.” (Id., 1:63-67.) Pulse width modulation is a technique where a
`
`digital signal is transmitted as a series of pulses. (FEIT 1003, Shackle Decl., ¶ 43.)
`
`The width of each pulse varies according to an input signal. (Id., ¶ 44.) The ’890
`
`patent illustrates the driver generally in FIG. 1 and specifically in FIGs. 2A-D.
`
`“FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a driver circuit for LEDs.” (’890 patent,
`
`1:55-56.) The driver circuit includes a power supply 52 and a pulse width
`
`modulation (PWM) control integrated circuit (IC) 56. “The power supply 52 can be
`
`a DC/DC converter such as a buck-boost power supply or other alternatives, such
`
`as a boost, buck, or flyback converter.” (Id., 2:4-6.) It “supplies power for LED
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`array 54 and is controlled by PWM control IC 56, [which] provides a high
`
`
`
`frequency periodic drive signal of varying pulse width.” (Id., 2:6-11.) PWM
`
`control IC 56 varies the pulse width “in response to a feedback signal.” (Id., 2:8-
`
`11.) The feedback signal is generated by a comparator 58 “by comparing the
`
`sensed current signal from current sensor 60 and the reference signal from
`
`reference current source 62.” (Id., 2:14-16.)
`
`
`
`FIGs. 2A-B illustrate an example of a circuit structure disclosed for the
`
`block diagram in FIG. 1. Starting in FIG. 2A, a “power supply 112 supplies current
`
`to [an] LED array 114.” (Id., 3:11-12.) A transistor 116 “switches the … power
`
`supply 112 rapidly in response to a drive signal from a [] PWM control IC 118,”
`
`which is illustrated in FIG. 2B. (Id., 3:15-17.) “[R]esistors between the … power
`
`supply 112 and the … LED array 114 are used for LED current sensing.” (Id.,
`
`3:30-34.) The sensed current signal feeds back into the PWM control IC 118 via
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`op-amp 120 in FIG. 2B.
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`
`Current sensor
`
`Power supply
`
`
`
`“PWM control IC 118 can be an integrated circuit such as a UCC2813-3
`
`manufactured by Unitrode, a UC2842 series manufactured by ST Microelectronics,
`
`or the like.” (Id., 3:17-20.) “PWM control IC 118 varies the pulse width of the
`
`drive signal in response to a feedback signal from … op amp 120.” (Id., 3:23-25.)
`
`“The output of op amp 120 … is compared to an internal reference of the PWM
`
`control IC.” (Id., 3:25-27.) A skilled artisan would recognize that what compares
`
`the feedback signal from op-amp 120 to the internal reference is an internal op-
`
`amp in the PWM control IC. (Shackle Decl., ¶ 54.)
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`
`PWM control IC, including
`an internal reference signal
`and op-amp
`
`
`
`B. Indication that an LED array is inoperable
`
`The ’890 patent describes that its driver can detect when the LED is
`
`inoperable. (’890 patent, 2:58-60.) A “[b]ulb out signal … provides a signal
`
`indication that the LED array has burned out or has become disconnected.” (Id.,
`
`2:25-60 (reference number omitted).) This is illustrated in FIG. 2A, reproduced
`
`below. In FIG. 2A, an “op amp 122 compares a system input voltage signal to the
`
`downstream voltage signals from first LED array 114.” (Id., 3:35-39.) Op-amp 122
`
`provides a BULB OUT signal 124, alerting the driver that an LED array is burnt
`
`out or disconnected. (Id.)
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`
`Op-amp
`
`
`
`C. Claims
`
`The ’890 patent has four independent claims: claims 1, 7, 15, and 23. Claims
`
`7, 15, and 23 are similar, but claim 7 is a means-plus-function claim, claim 15 is a
`
`method claim, and claim 23 is a device claim. Claim 1 uses somewhat different
`
`language. Each of the independent claims describes driving an LED array with a
`
`pulse width modulation circuit. Claims 14, 22, and 30 depend from claims 7, 15,
`
`and 23, and recite indicating that the LED array is inoperable.
`
`V. Claim construction
`
`Various terms need construction as set out below. Petitioner reserves the
`
`right to advance different or additional constructions and to challenge the claims
`
`under § 112. For the Board’s convenience, Markman briefs from the corresponding
`
`ITC litigation are attached. (FEIT 1018; FEIT 1019.)
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`Construing a means-plus-function limitation is a two-step process.
`
`
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular, Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001). First, the function is determined. Id. (citation omitted). Second, the
`
`corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents are
`
`determined. Id. To determine whether a structure is equivalent to what the
`
`specification discloses, at least two tests are available: (i) the “function-way-result”
`
`(FWR) test, i.e., whether the accused product performs substantially the same
`
`function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result; and (ii) whether
`
`the accused product or process is substantially different from what is patented. See
`
`Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prod. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608, 609 (1950).
`
`A. Claim 7: “means for sensing current to the LED array, said current
`sensing means generating a sensed current signal”
`
`For the function, the proper construction of this claim term is “sensing a
`
`current that is supplied to the LED array and generating a signal that indicates the
`
`present value of the sensed current.” The specification states that “[t]he power
`
`supply 52 supplies power for LED array 54.” (’890 patent, 2:6-8.) As Figure 1
`
`shows, the power supplied to the LED array flows from the power supply 52 to the
`
`“[current] sense” 60, and then to the LED array. The current that is sensed by the
`
`means for sensing current is therefore current that is supplied to the LED array by
`
`the power supply.
`
`For the corresponding structure, the ’890 patent states: “In the embodiment
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`shown, resistors between the first power supply 112 and the first LED array 114
`
`
`
`are used for LED current.” (Id., 3:30-33.) The resistors between the power supply
`
`112 and the LED array are shown in the ’890 patent’s FIGs. 2A and 2C. Figure 2A
`
`shows resistor R1A1, R1A2, and/or R1A3, and Figure 2C shows resistor R1B1,
`
`R1B2, and/or R1B3. Thus, the structure disclosed for the claimed “means for
`
`sensing current” is the resistor R1A1, R1A2, and/or R1A3, and the resistor R1B1,
`
`R1B2, and/or R1B3.
`
`B. Claim 7: “means for generating a reference signal”
`
`The function recited in this claim element does not need construction and
`
`should be given its plain meaning.
`
`As for the structure, the ’890 patent discloses that the “PWM control IC 118
`
`varies the pulse width of the drive signal in response to a feedback signal from first
`
`op amp 120.” (Id., 3:23-25.) “The output of op amp 120 … is compared to an
`
`internal reference of the PWM control IC.” (Id., 3:25-27 (emphasis added).)
`
`Thus, the internal reference of the PWM control IC is the generated reference
`
`signal recited in claim 7. The ’890 patent discloses that “PWM control IC 118 can
`
`be an integrated circuit such as a UCC2813-3 manufactured by Unitrode, a
`
`UC2842 series manufactured by ST Microelectronics, or the like.” (Id., 3:17-20.)
`
`The structure corresponding to the means for generating a reference signal is the
`
`internal reference in the Unitrode UCC2813-3 or ST Microelectronics UC2842 IC
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`
`or the like as disclosed in the ’890 patent.
`
`C. Claim 7: “means for comparing the sensed current signal to the
`reference signal”
`
`The function recited in this claim element does not need construction and
`
`should be given its plain meaning.
`
`As for the structure, the ’890 patent discloses that “[t]he output of op amp
`
`120 … is compared to an internal reference of the PWM control IC.” (Id., 3:25-27
`
`(emphasis added).) A skilled artisan would recognize that what does the comparing
`
`is an internal op-amp in the PWM control IC. (Shackle Decl., ¶ 54.) The ’890
`
`patent discloses that “PWM control IC 118 can be an integrated circuit such as a
`
`UCC2813-3 manufactured by Unitrode, a UC2842 series manufactured by ST
`
`Microelectronics, or the like.” (’890 patent, 3:17-20.) Thus, the structure
`
`corresponding to the means for generating a reference signal is the internal op-amp
`
`in the Unitrode UCC2813-3 or ST Microelectronics UC2842 IC or the like as
`
`disclosed in the ’890 patent.
`
`D. Claim 7: “means for modulating pulse width responsive to the
`feedback signal, said pulse width modulating means generating a
`drive signal”
`
`Again, the function recited in this claim element does not need construction
`
`and should be given its plain meaning.
`
`As for the structure, the ’890 patent again discloses that the “PWM control
`
`IC 118 varies the pulse width of the drive signal in response to a feedback signal.”
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`(Id., 3:23-25.) The specification further discloses that “[t]he first PWM control IC
`
`
`
`118 can be an integrated circuit such as a UCC2813-3 manufactured by Unitrode, a
`
`UC2842 series manufactured by ST Microelectronics, or the like.” (Id., 3:17-20.)
`
`Therefore the structure corresponding to the means for modulating is the “Unitrode
`
`UCC2813-3 IC; the ST Microelectronics UC2842 IC; or the like.”
`
`E. Claim 7: “means for supplying power supplying power responsive to
`the drive signal”
`
`The function recited in this claim element does not need construction and
`
`should be given its plain meaning.
`
`As for the structure, the ’890 patent discloses that the power supply “can be
`
`a DC/DC converter.” (’890 patent, 2:4-6.) The entire quotation is: “The power
`
`supply 52 can be a DC/DC converter such as a buck-boost power supply or other
`
`alternatives, such as a boost, buck, or flyback converter.” (Id.) This passage labels
`
`“buck-boost power supply or other alternatives” as examples, using the phrase
`
`“such as.” Thus, the structure for the claimed power supply means is a DC/DC
`
`converter.
`
`In the prior Board decision on a different record in the ’292 IPR, the Board
`
`construed the structure as “a buck-boost, boost, buck, and flyback power supply
`
`and its equivalents that regulate current.” (FEIT 1014, 10.) As established below,
`
`regardless of the construction, the limitation is obvious.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`F. Claims 14, 22, and 30: “means for indicating the LED array is
`inoperable”/“the LED array is inoperable”/“LED array inoperable
`signal”
`
`The ’890 patent is focused on the use of LED arrays in vehicles, such as the
`
`tail lights of cars. (’890 patent, 1:10-33.) The specification specifically states that
`
`the “means for indicating” “alert[s] the driver that an LED array is burnt out or
`
`disconnected.” (Id., 3:35-39.) In the context of this description, “the driver” in this
`
`passage is a human operator of the vehicle, rather driver circuitry. (Shackle Decl., ¶
`
`85.) Thus, the indication that the alert is inoperable recited in claims 14, 22, and 30
`
`is a signal that alerts an individual. Moreover, the ’890 patent defines an LED
`
`array’s inoperability with only two possibilities: being burnt out or disconnected.
`
`(’890 patent, 3:35-39.) Thus, the claimed indication that the LED array is
`
`inoperable should be construed as “providing a signal to alert an individual that the
`
`LED array is burnt out or disconnected.”
`
`For the means-plus-function limitation recited in claim 14, the ’890
`
`specification discloses circuitry to communicate the status of the broken tail light
`
`by providing a signal to an individual. The specification discloses structure that
`
`provides a signal that alerts an individual when the LED array is burnt out or
`
`disconnected. That structure is second op-amp 122 and BULB OUT signal 124.
`
`(FEIT 1001, 3:35-39 (“Second op amp 122 compares a system input voltage signal
`
`to the downstream voltage signals from first LED array 114 and second LED array
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`126 and provides a BULB OUT signal 124, alerting the driver that an LED array is
`
`
`
`burnt out or disconnected.”).) In this way, the structure for the interpretation of
`
`claim 14 is “second op amp 122” and “BULB OUT signal 124.”
`
`VI. Level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the filing
`
`dates of the asserted patents would have a B.S. degree in electrical engineering,
`
`physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-4 years of academic or industry
`
`experience in circuit design configuration, light emitting diode (“LED”) devices, or
`
`comparable industry experience. (Shackle Decl., ¶ 40.) A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art with a higher level of education may have fewer years of academic or
`
`industry experience, or vice versa. (Id.)
`
`VII. GROUND 1: Biebl renders obvious claims 1, 22, and 30.
`
`Biebl describes a “drive circuit” that “is suitable for an LED array,
`
`comprising a number of clusters of LEDs.” (FEIT 1005, Biebl, Abstract.) Just like
`
`in the ’890 patent, Biebl explains that, in prior art systems, “resistors are used for
`
`current limiting when driving light-emitting diodes (LEDs).” (Id., 1:9-11.) The
`
`resistor “produces particularly high power loss, particularly if the battery voltage
`
`… is subject to major voltage fluctuations (as is normal in motor vehicles).” (Id.,
`
`1:11-17.) “The power loss in the series resistor is converted into heat, which leads
`
`to additional heating—in addition to the natural heating from the LEDs.” (Id.,
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`1:31-33.) In addition to heat and power loss, “another problem is the fluctuating
`
`
`
`supply voltage, as is frequently the case in motor vehicles (fluctuation from 8 to 16
`
`V with a 12 V power supply system…). Fluctuating supply voltages lead to
`
`fluctuating forward currents…, which then result in different light intensities and,
`
`associated with this, fluctuations in the brightness of the LEDs.” (Id., 1:45-53.)
`
`Addressing the same issues described in the ’890 specification, Biebl
`
`proposes the same solution recited in the ’890 claims. Biebl discloses a “pulsed
`
`LED drive” that provides “pulsed current regulation for LEDs.” (Id., 2:24-26.)
`
`Biebl’s FIG. 8, reproduced below, shows a block diagram of an LED drive
`
`circuit.”2
`
`
`2 The discussion that follows sometimes refers to Figure 4A for simplicity. It
`
`should be understood that discussion of the components in Figure 4A also applies
`
`to the equivalent components in Biebl’s Figure 8. (Biebl, 5:42-44.)
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`
`Feedback signal that
`modulates pulse width
`
`Mo