`
`
`Paper 68
`Entered: November 13, 2020
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`AMP PLUS, INC., dba ELCO LIGHTING,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DMF INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 10, 2020
`____________
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
`DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`ROBERT BOONE, ESQUIRE
`DAN CROWE, ESQUIRE
`ERIN KELLY, ESQUIRE
`Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, LLP
`120 Broadway
`Suite 300
`Los Angeles, CA 90401
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`DAVID W. LONG, ESQUIRE
`BEN DAVIDSON, ESQUIRE
`ErgonicQ LLC
`8200 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 700
`McLean, VA 22202
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`September 10, 2020, commencing at 9:02 a.m., EDT, at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, by video/by telephone, before Walter Murphy, Notary
`Public.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` - - - - -
`JUDGE DENNETT: Hi, this is Judge Dennett. Let me just
`
`-- I'm informed counsel is connected. Just preliminarily, can I
`make sure we have counsel for Petitioner?
`
`MR. CROWE: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Dan
`Crowe.
`
`JUDGE DENNETT: Okay.
`
`MR. CROWE: And I have with me lead counsel, Mr.
`Robert Boone and Ms. Erin Kelly.
`
`JUDGE DENNETT: Okay, thank you. And is counsel for
`Patent Owner also present?
`
`MR. LONG: Yes, Your Honor. This is David Long and I'll
`be doing most of the talking today. With me are Ben Davidson,
`Kevin Laurence and Scott McKewan.
`
`JUDGE DENNETT: Okay. Please, well I was going to say
`please let me know if you lose connection but I'm not sure how
`you do that. We'll go through that in just a moment. Anyway,
`good morning everyone. Welcome to the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board. We have a hearing today involving challenges to claims
`of U.S. patent No. 9,964,266. I'm Judge Dennett. Also present
`are Judge Crumbley and Judge Abraham. I think we've
`established thus far that counsel for both parties can hear us and
`they've introduced themselves. Mr. Walter Murphy is our court
`reporter today. Mr. Murphy, could you confirm that you were
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`able to hear the counsel's name and are able to hear what you're
`going to need to hear?
`
`MR. MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor. I've heard everything
`very well up till right now.
`
`JUDGE DENNETT: Okay. So, a few preliminary matters.
`Thank you so much for your flexibility and your patience in
`dealing with our video hearing. We recognize this is a departure
`from normal and it allows us still to proceed with the case while
`making sure that everyone is staying safe. Feel free to present in
`whatever way you feel most comfortable. There's no need to
`stand but if you want to stand that's perfectly fine.
`Our primary concern is your right to be heard. If you have
`any technical difficulties that you feel would undermine your
`ability to represent your client, please let us know immediately
`and I suppose if you feel like you're not being heard but you
`think you might still be being seen, wave your hand or
`something. You can contact the hearing staff that reached out to
`you with information if somehow you've dropped off the call and
`email them or call them with -- notify us of any technical
`difficulties that you're having. I know we've all become familiar
`with the kind of special panic that happens when you get
`disconnected from the video conference and you don't know if
`things are continuing without you. If you do get disconnected,
`as soon as we are made aware of that we will pause while you
`reconnect. So let that temper your panic a little.
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`
`Please, because we have this, not new technology but new
`use of old technology, please remember that when you're not
`speaking please mute yourself to minimize any interference and
`also please identify yourself at the start of your remarks when
`you are speaking so our court reporter can get an accurate
`transcript.
`We've received the parties' demonstrative exhibits and will
`have those before us and we have access to the complete record.
`When you're referring to a demonstrative or to papers in the
`record please do so clearly by slide number, exhibit number or
`document paper number and page number, any other way that
`you can think of to identify where we should be so that we can
`follow along on our screens and also help us make a complete
`and accurate transcript.
`Also please be aware that members of the public may be
`listening to the oral hearing and we mentioned this before but to
`the extent that there is any confidential information, please let us
`know before you mention the confidential information so we can
`make sure we don't violate any confidentiality orders. If
`possible if you could direct us to where on the slide or a page the
`confidential information is and we can read it to ourselves so
`that it does not become part of the oral record. Both sides will
`have 60 minutes to present their case. You can reserve up to half
`of your time for rebuttal if you would like. After the opening
`argument by Petitioner, Patent Owner will have a chance to
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`present its case and Patent Owner can also reserve time for
`surrebuttal.
`
`So I think we are ready to begin. This is the hearing in
`Inter Partes Review 2019-01094. I will invite Petitioner to begin
`but first of all I want to ask you do you want to reserve any time
`for rebuttal?
`
`MR. CROWE: Yes, Your Honor. We'd like to reserve 20
`minutes.
`
`JUDGE DENNETT: Okay. I will try to -- so you'll have 40
`minutes to argue your case. I will try to give you a -- so as we
`don't have a common clock that we can all see I will try to give
`you a warning at when you reach 35 minutes and we'll go from
`there.
`
`MR. CROWE: Judge Dennett, before we start we can't see
`which is Judge Crumbley and which is Judge Abraham on our
`screens, so we don't know who to respond to.
`
`JUDGE DENNETT: Judge Crumbley is --
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: I’m Judge Crumbley.
`
`JUDGE DENNETT: -- well they both raised their hands at
`exactly the same time. Judge Abraham is in front of the red
`wall, okay?
`
`JUDGE ABRAHAM: Yes, that's me.
`
`JUDGE DENNETT: They're both strikingly handsome so I
`can't tell them apart on that but Judge Abraham is in front of the
`red wall.
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`MR. CROWE: Okay.
`
`JUDGE DENNETT: Does that resolve it?
`
`MR. CROWE: Yes, thank you.
`
`JUDGE DENNETT: Okay. All right. So begin when you
`
`want to.
`
`MR. CROWE: Good morning, Your Honors. Again, my
`name is Dan Crowe. I'm here with my colleagues, Mr. Robert
`Boone who is lead counsel and Ms. Erin Kelly. We are all from
`the Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner law firm and we represent the
`Petitioner AMP Plus. This morning I intend to address the issues
`of claim construction and also the three instituted grounds and
`from time to time I'll be referring to our demonstratives which
`are Exhibit 1045.
`
`So this IPR boils down to whether the challenged claims
`should be narrowed in the manner suggested by the Patent Owner
`which is simply an effort to rewrite the claims at this stage in
`order to avoid invalidation. Patent Owner's argument is largely
`based on this issue of building codes and standards which are
`never identified in the specification and the intrinsic record
`shows that the inventor did not limit his claims to include a
`driver that can only receive what they refer to as building main
`power and he did not limit his claims to include a housing that
`aligns with the junction box that must also receive only building
`main power.
`
`So I'd like to start off with the construction of driver. The
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`claim language itself defines what a driver is and that claim
`language is fully supported by the specification and I'm referring
`now to slide 3 which shows you in the specification where the
`inventor defined the term driver very broadly. An electronic
`device that supplies or regulates electrical energy to the light.
`Patent Owner's expert, Mr. Benya agreed that this passage is how
`the patent defines driver and that's at Exhibit 1038 starting at
`page 97 and that's also cited in our R eply, and the specification
`also broadly defines the type of electrical energy. May be any
`type of power supply including AC or DC, and again the Patent
`Owner's expert agreed that power supplies can receive AC or DC
`and deliver AC or DC and that this passage does not limit the
`type of power received by the driver which could be DC.
`
`Now the Patent Owner alleges that the driver must be
`limited to building main power and turning to slide 5, the Patent
`Owner points to one of the embodiments in which the driver
`receives current from an electrical system of the building or
`structure in which it is installed and this passage simply
`addresses the one embodiment in which the system is installed in
`the structure and specifies that the current comes from the
`electrical system of that structure. However, none of the claims
`require the light system to be installed in a building and both
`parties agree on that.
`
`The Patent Owner also points to a passage in the
`prosecution history that building wiring carrying AC mains may
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`be coupled to the driver and that's at Exhibit 2044 at page 1056
`and again, this describes one embodiment in which the claimed
`system may but is not required to be installed in a building
`having AC mains.
`
`So in sum, turning to slide 7, the intrinsic record shows
`that the invention may be used with any structure having
`electrical power but it's not limited to a residential or
`commercial building having building main power, and turning to
`slide 8 the Patent Owner knows how to draft a claim in
`accordance with its position here today. What we have here are
`passages from a continuation patent, a continuation of the ’266 at
`issue today, has a claim 1 very similar to the claim 1 of the ’266
`and we can see here that the Patent Owner limited claim 1 to
`receiving only AC voltage from a building and so the Board
`should maintain its initial construction for driver and not adopt
`the narrower construction offered by the Patent Owner.
`
`I'd like to turn to the construction of standard junction box
`starting with slide 11. Again, the Patent Owner has suggested –
`
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Before you do that --
`
`MR. CROWE: Yes.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: -- I wanted to jump back to
`something, jump back to your slide 3, and this is the language in
`the specification defining a driver. Should we draw any
`significance from the fact that that second sentence there that's
`in the bubble talks about how suppliers that deliver different
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`types of current but this description right here is completely
`silent about the type of current that is supplied to the driver.
`There's no discussion of that at all, whereas the specification
`went out of the way to talk about what is to define the driver. So
`one way you could read this is that is completely agnostic as to
`anything about the supplier or the other way you could look at it
`is well, this is very open ended as to what is supplied from the
`driver but the specification doesn't really tell us -- this portion of
`the specification doesn't tell us anything about what is supplied
`to the driver so we have to look elsewhere in the specification
`which is what Patent Owner wants us to do and get to the
`building main power from that. I was hoping you could address
`that issue.
`MR. CROWE: Yes, sure. We believe that in all of those
`instances in which the Patent Owner is trying to limit the input
`power to only AC are particular embodiments using very
`permissive language and we asked Mr. Benya, the Patent Owner's
`expert about this and he agreed that people of ordinary skill in
`the art understand that a power supply can receive AC, deliver
`AC, receive AC, deliver DC and so forth, and so in our view --
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: T here's no specific recitation in the
`specification about supplying DC power to a driver; is that
`correct?
`MR. CROWE: I agree with that.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay. All right, you can continue.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`
`MR. CROWE: Thank you. So moving on to standard
`junction box slide 11, again the Patent Owner suggests that
`limiting the standard junction box to one that only receives again
`building main power and of course the claims don't require
`standard junction box, most do not require the system to be
`installed in a building and the phrase building main power is
`never used in the claims, never used in the specification and the
`Patent Owner acknowledges that that building main power could
`be DC but their position appears to be that is must only be high
`voltage DC.
`Turning to slide 12, in cross-examination we had an
`opportunity to ask Mr. Benya where that dividing line would be,
`in other words if the claim covers high voltage DC received by
`the driver but not low voltage DC, where do you have that line,
`and I think it was about seven times that we asked him and those
`instances are accounted in our Reply and he never could provide
`an answer. So we believe, turning to --
`JUDGE DENNETT: Pardon me, just a moment. This is
`Judge Dennett, I just wanted -- I should have said earlier that in
`we had considered the parties' objections to demonstratives and
`we have overruled them. This was -- so I just wanted to mention
`that at this point because this was one of the issues that was
`raised. You may proceed.
`MR. CROWE: Thank you, Your Honor. Turning to slide
`14, we can see the standard junction box is very broadly defined
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`in the specification, certainly not limited to use in a building
`with building main power and then on slide 15, you know, when
`describing this power source, the inventor -- as we discussed a
`minute ago -- consistently used very permissive language and
`you can see the quotes on there always using the word "may,"
`never using "shall" or "must." These are all simply permissive
`statements.
`Now one of the Patent Owner's arguments is that a standard
`junction box is unnecessary for low voltage DC and so I wanted
`to address that. One of the background references that we cited
`in our P etition is the Lynch patent which is Exhibit 1009 which
`discloses the use of a junction box for a compact LED device and
`it describes at column 19 starting at line 4 that building power
`supplies can include batteries run at voltages such as 12 volts
`DC. So we think this does support the notion that a POSITA
`would recognize that even if you had building main power, that
`could be low voltage going to a compact LED device that is
`attached to a standard junction box.
`The Patent Owner also argued in its S urreply that our
`expert, Dr. Bretschneider, had testified in another IPR and in
`that IPR he was discussing a patent called the Love patent and
`Patent Owner argues that he testified very broadly that a junction
`box is not necessary for low voltage and I would invite the, again
`this was in their Surreply so we haven't had a chance to respond
`in writing, but I would invite the Board to look at his testimony
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`Exhibit 2047 starting at page 119 and if you also look at the
`Patent Owner's demonstrative slide 15 they give portions of that
`testimony, but they didn't provide the entire explanation. He
`explained that no junction box was necessary in connection with
`that Love patent, not because it was low voltage DC but because
`the application was for an underwater pool light where junction
`boxes are not used.
`So unlike here where we have the prior art Lynch patent
`that shows junction boxes being used with low voltage DC
`devices, in that other IPR he was involved in there's no evidence
`that there was any junction box in the particular application so
`he did not make a blanket statement that junction boxes are never
`used with low voltage DC and also I would point you to the
`Patent Owner R esponse at page 24 where they quote some
`additional testimony from Dr. Bretschneider about a couple of
`other examples of low voltage DC being used with junction
`boxes.
`And then I want to address this issue of standards. The
`Patent Owner relies heavily on the discussion of standards in the
`prosecution history and the fact that a product that may be
`covered by claim 1 can be installed in a manner that complies
`with certain building standards doesn't mean the claims are so
`limited and even assuming that the Patent Owner is correct that
`the claimed system may be installed in a junction box in a
`residential building in a manner that complies with all building
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`codes, that's an advantage of the invention but there's nothing
`that requires that advantage to limit the claims, and so we
`believe that the Board should maintain its construction of
`standard junction box.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Counsel, my issue with this is less
`about the junction box and more about a use for the word
`standard and I mean my intuition is that it has to mean something
`and so what does it mean in your construction because I mean I
`think there is some intuitive persuasiveness to the fact that, you
`know, a standard junction box means that it is a junction box that
`complies with standards and I don't know, I mean and maybe
`point to me in the record where I'm wrong about this. The only
`evidence that I know of in the record about standards is to
`building standards, not toboat construction standards. So what
`does standard mean if it doesn’t mean building standards?
`MR. CROWE: We don't think the inventor, you know,
`defined that for us. You know, they referenced some building
`standards but, you know, the building standards can vary from
`state to state. So we're not -- that's part of the issue is we're not
`sure what they mean when they standards has to comply with
`building codes. In our view we accept the Board's construction,
`preliminary construction, which means that it has to be some
`industry standard size.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: I mean I guess the follow- up
`question about it, and taking your point that the patent and the
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`patentee does not define what standard but we're supposed to
`interpret these claims and, you know, in light of what a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood and so I think it's
`reasonable to assume that a person of ordinary skill in this art
`would know about using the relevant standards. Is there any
`evidence in the record that there were standards for anything
`other than buildings?
`MR. CROWE: No, nothing in the record. But I think that
`when the patent discusses standards, it's talking about installing
`a light in a building that would comply with that building
`standard. In other words, you know, I think you have to have a
`small amount of space between the ceiling and the junction box
`so that fire won't pass through. I don't believe that they're
`talking about standards in terms of the junction box itself so
`that's when I think you fall back to well, what would a person of
`ordinary skill in the art view when he sees the word standard
`next to the word junction box and I think that that person, she
`would say, you know, that that means a particular size and then
`that's a part of the standard so that you can have -- you can build
`a light that is going to mate with junction boxes that are
`available on the market.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Sure. I mean when I go to Home
`Depot and pull a junction box off the shelf they come in sort of
`five sizes and that's it and there's not a certain variation of that.
`But again, those are all for buildings, right, and so I'm trying to
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`get beyond the building context and to me if there is no standard
`in other applications such as marine applications, then it's
`somewhat hard to say well, when I say standard in connection
`with junction box a person of ordinary skill would understand
`that could be used in a marine application.
`MR. CROWE: Well, when we look at the Imtra 2011
`catalog we do see junction boxes and I think it's reasonable to,
`again, have that same analogy with the building is that I can
`build light devices that have the screw holes a certain width
`apart and I know that they're going to mate with a standard
`junction box, the type of junction box that might be used on a
`yacht.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: And again, I'm not aware of
`anything in the record that shows that there is a standard for that
`yacht, unless I'm missing something.
`MR. CROWE: That's correct.
`JUDGE CRUMBLEY: Okay. All right. Thank you very
`much.
`MR. CROWE: Okay. I'd like to go to ground 1 now,
`anticipation based on Imtra 2011 widely distributed catalog
`including showing recessed LED products. Its our understanding
`that Patent Owner has three arguments regarding Imtra 2011.
`They say that we are improperly mixing and matching products
`from the catalog and they also say it doesn't disclose the driver
`or the plurality of elements. Our position is that they're
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`improperly treating this catalog not as one, but many different
`prior art references and essentially treating each product family
`dismembered from the remainder of the document but the
`document was distributed as we have it in Exhibit 1005 and
`should be read as a whole by a POSITA, and on slide 17 we have
`a recitation of the law for that, you know, and the question is if a
`POSITA would have once envisioned the claimed arrangement by
`reviewing the entire catalog.
`Under the construction initially adopted by the Board I
`don't think there's any argument between the parties that it
`discloses a driver and there's support for that on slides 18 and
`19. If the Board were to adopt the Patent Owner's construction
`for a driver the Imtra 2011 catalog still discloses that.
`On slide 20 it discloses recess lights having AC to DC
`drive electronics. Mr. Benya, Patent Owner's expert, agreed that
`it discloses an LED down light having a driver that accepts AC
`power and again, more support on slide 21 we can see that it
`discloses connecting these recessed LED lights to 120 volts AC
`and we also see on slide 22 that Mr. Benya agreed that yachts do
`have 120 volt power supplies from onboard generators.
`So reading the document as a whole, a POSITA would
`understand that it teaches the type of recessed light described in
`the ’266 patent. In other words, it has a unified casting, it has an
`internal driver, it has an internal LED and that that internal
`driver for the recessed LED light could receive AC power. Now
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`I want to turn, Imtra also discloses a plurality --
`JUDGE DENNETT: Sorry, Judge Dennett again. But I
`mean it is accurate looking at slide 20 isn't it that the drivers that
`Imtra discloses at page 20, of the demonstrative at least, that
`there are only two particular models that have the AC to DC
`drive electronics or are you saying that applies to all of the
`products disclosed in the catalog?
`MR. CROWE: No. That's accurate that it only discusses
`the AC power in connection with those two models but again, the
`POSITA would have to read this document as a whole. This is
`one reference and the reference teaches various types of compact
`recessed LED devices including those that receive low voltage
`DC, including those that receive high voltage AC. So a POSITA
`reading this would understand that it teaches that you can build
`these types of compact LED devices that receive either AC or DC
`and then deliver -- the driver would then deliver the DC power to
`the LED module.
`And then moving to the plurality of elements. On slide 23
`see that the Imtra catalog describes screw mounting holes in the
`main fixture for fixing it to a mounting surface. Again, slide 24
`discloses connecting the light systems with the use of an AC
`junction box. Now the Patent Owner, and I think they have a
`slide on this, criticizes this reference because Dr. Bretschneider
`did not identify a standard junction box that aligns with one of
`the Imtra products and again the claims don't recite a particular
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`size for the lighting device or the standard junction box and the
`Board's construction, initial construction of standard junction
`box, didn't specify any particular size. Imtra discloses screw
`holes in the housing and Dr. Bretschneider testified that a
`POSITA would readily recognize those could be anywhere on the
`flange and that's at paragraph 143 of his declaration, which is
`Exhibit 1002 and we can look at the Imtra catalog at these
`compact devices and we can see that the diameter of them varies.
`The Portland 3.4 inches, Harris 2.86, Sardinia 3.7. So it
`discloses the use of a junction box in connection with compact
`LED devices. These junction boxes, as Your Honor mentioned
`walking down the halls of Home Depot, come in a variety of
`shapes and sizes.
`So the issue is whether the catalog discloses or suggests to
`a POSITA that one could envision the claimed arrangement, you
`know, a lighting device that would be sized to mate with the tabs
`of a standard junction box and so Patent Owner's position
`essentially is that a reference that would disclose recessed LED
`devices of varying diameter would then not suggest building a
`device having another diameter and so that diameter being one to
`match whatever size standard junction box is desired by the
`manufacturer.
`In the interest of time I'd like to jump to ground 3 and that
`starts at slide 27. This brings in the Gifford reference and we
`can see that it illustrates attaching and recessing portions of an
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`overall lighting system to a standard junction box and I just want
`to make it clear, and I think it is, that the Petition is relying upon
`Gifford for showing that you can have an LED system with a
`housing with an integral flange with screw holes that align with a
`standard junction box, not for employing this unnecessary safety
`apparatus that would not be required in the combination.
`So in terms of motivation we know that Im tra discloses
`screw holes in its flange. We know that it discloses that with
`these holes the light can be affixed to a mounting surface. I
`mean that's what the Imtra catalog says, a mounting surface. It
`does not say ceiling and certainly doesn't say it's limited to the
`ceiling and Dr. Bretschneider testified that a junction box
`commonly provides for a mounting surface for lights and I would
`draw your attention to paragraphs 53 through 61 of Exhibit 1002,
`his opening declaration, where he provides background on this
`early implementation of LED devices, low profile devices,
`compact devices and devices that are at least partially recessed
`into a junction box.
`Turning to slide 31, I mentioned the Lynch patent before.
`This is one of those background references which, you know,
`services to document the knowledge that a POSITA would bring
`to reading the prior art.
`So on slide 32, you know, we know and it's known to install
`LED- based systems to a junction box because that provides a
`physical mounting point. Figure 25A of the Lynch reference,
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`which is Exhibit 1009, illustrates at least some of the
`components of the LED-based light including the driver are
`recessed into the junction box and again remember that Lynch
`says the power source could be low voltage DC. Lynch also
`discloses that the lighting system can be installed into existing
`junction boxes previously installed in a building and the Patent
`Owner's expert agrees that junction boxes have long been used as
`a mounting point. So based on the prior art the POSITA would
`know about --
`JUDGE DENNETT: Sorry. Judge Dennett again. So are
`you saying Lynch discloses that you can install the entire
`lighting fixture, the entire lighting system as is claimed within
`the junction box?
`MR. CROWE: No. I think there's a -- yes, there's a dispute
`among the parties with that and I don't think it's material.
`JUDGE DENNETT: Okay.
`MR. CROWE: Dr Bretschneider in his opening declaration
`did take a look at figure 25 and testified that to him a POSITA
`would read that as showing that it's completely installed within.
`On cross- examination they pointed him to Exhibit 27 and he
`admitted that that does not show that it's completely recessed
`within. But then if you look at column 19 of Lynch --
`JUDGE DENNETT: Okay. And that exhibit again is?
`MR. CROWE: Is 1009, so column 19 -- yes, column 19
`starting at line 13 and I believe we had this in our Reply says,
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01094
`Patent 9,964,266 B2
`
`
`"Many of the embodiments described herein can be
`installed into existing junction boxes previously installed in a
`building."
`And so I think that further supports Dr. Bretschneider's
`initial analysis with respect to claim 25 that it says "into." But
`in our view it doesn't necessarily matter because claim 1 doesn’t
`require the entire light fixture to be installed in the junction box.
`You can look at figure 1 of the patent and you can see how the
`twist and lock feature is outside of the junction box.
`So I invite you again to look at the P etition, pages 66 and
`67 that explains why a POSITA would be motivated to find ways
`to attach the Imtra down light to a surface with this basic
`background knowledge and knowing how a junction box is
`commonly used as a mounting surface, and we also describe why
`a POSITA would be motivated to apply the teachings of Gifford
`which shows a housing attached to a junction box and take that
`teaching and apply it to Imtra and so we think it's an obvious
`design choice and I think Dr. Bretschneider testified as to what
`that would look like. You're simply increasing the diameter of
`the flange on the housing of the Imtra product so that it aligns
`with, you know, make the screw holes align with the standard
`junction box that, you know, is s
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
