UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YECHEZKAL EVAN SPERO,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551 B2
`
`DECLARATION OF E. FRED SCHUBERT, PH.D., IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,955,551
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`VWGoA EX1003
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`SUMMARY OF GROUNDS ............................................................................ 2
`II.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............................................................................. 2
`III.
`IV. QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 3
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED .......................................................................... 9
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 12
`A. My Understanding of Claim Construction ............................................ 13
`B.
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................... 13
`C. My Understanding of Obviousness ....................................................... 14
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 18
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’551 PATENT ............................................................ 19
`A.
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 19
`B.
`The ’551 Patent ..................................................................................... 23
`C.
`Prosecution History Summary .............................................................. 27
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 29
`“lighting fixture” and “light fixture” ........................................... 30
`
`“light source(s)” .......................................................................... 31
`
`IX. SUMMARY OF THE APPLIED REFERENCES .......................................... 32
`A.
`Braun ..................................................................................................... 32
`B.
`Dowling ................................................................................................. 34
`C.
`Bailey ..................................................................................................... 35
`D.
`Begemann .............................................................................................. 36
`E.
`Lee ......................................................................................................... 38
`F.
`Pederson ................................................................................................ 40
`X. GROUND 1: BRAUN RENDERS CLAIMS 1-3 OBVIOUS ........................ 41
`A.
`Braun renders independent claim 1 obvious ......................................... 41
`[1.P] ............................................................................................. 41
`
`[1.A] ............................................................................................ 43
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`[1.B] ............................................................................................ 45
`[1.C] ............................................................................................ 48
`[1.D] ............................................................................................ 49
`[1.E] ............................................................................................. 51
`[1.F] ............................................................................................. 54
`[1.G] ............................................................................................ 56
`[1.H] ............................................................................................ 57
`
`Claim 2 .................................................................................................. 60
`B.
`Claim 3 .................................................................................................. 61
`C.
`XI. GROUND 2: BRAUN, ALONE OR IN VIEW OF DOWLING,
`RENDERS CLAIMS 4 AND 7 OBVIOUS .................................................... 63
`A. Motivation to combine Braun and Dowling.......................................... 63
`B.
`Claim 4 .................................................................................................. 65
`[4.A] ............................................................................................ 65
`
`[4.B] ............................................................................................ 67
`
`Claim 7 .................................................................................................. 68
`[6.P] ............................................................................................. 69
`
`[6.A] ............................................................................................ 69
`[6.B] ............................................................................................ 69
`[6.C] ............................................................................................ 71
`[6.D] ............................................................................................ 72
`[6.E] ............................................................................................. 74
`Claim 7 ........................................................................................ 76
`
`XII. GROUND 3: THE COMBINATION OF BRAUN, DOWLING AND
`BAILEY RENDERS CLAIMS 8, 10-13 AND 15-18 OBVIOUS .................. 77
`A. Motivation to combine Braun, Dowling and Bailey ............................. 77
`B.
`Independent Claim 8 ............................................................................. 79
`[8.P] ............................................................................................. 79
`
`[8.A] ............................................................................................ 80
`[8.B] ............................................................................................ 81
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`[8.C] ............................................................................................ 85
`[8.D] ............................................................................................ 86
`[8.E] ............................................................................................. 88
`[8.F] ............................................................................................. 90
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................ 91
`C.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................ 93
`D.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................................ 93
`E.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................ 95
`F.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................................ 95
`G.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................................ 99
`H.
`Claim 17 ..............................................................................................100
`I.
`Claim 18 ..............................................................................................104
`J.
`XIII. GROUND 4: BEGEMANN AND LEE RENDER CLAIMS 1-4
`OBVIOUS ...................................................................................................... 105
`A.
`Rationale for combining Begemann and Lee ......................................105
`B.
`Begemann, alone or in view of Lee, renders independent claim 1
`obvious. ...............................................................................................108
`[1.P] ........................................................................................... 108
`
`[1.A] .......................................................................................... 110
`[1.B] .......................................................................................... 111
`[1.C] .......................................................................................... 114
`[1.D] .......................................................................................... 115
`[1.E] ........................................................................................... 116
`[1.F] ........................................................................................... 119
`[1.G] .......................................................................................... 121
`[1.H] .......................................................................................... 123
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................125
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................126
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................127
`[4.A] .......................................................................................... 127
`
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`[4.B] .......................................................................................... 128
`
`XIV. GROUND 5: THE COMBINATION OF BEGEMANN, LEE AND
`PEDERSON RENDERS CLAIMS 8 AND 10-18 OBVIOUS ..................... 130
`A.
`The motivation to combine Begemann, Lee and Pederson .................130
`B.
`Independent Claim 8 ...........................................................................133
`[8.P] ........................................................................................... 133
`
`[8.A] .......................................................................................... 134
`[8.B] .......................................................................................... 134
`[8.C] .......................................................................................... 136
`[8.D] .......................................................................................... 136
`[8.E] ........................................................................................... 137
`[8.F] ........................................................................................... 140
`
`Claim 10 ..............................................................................................140
`C.
`Claim 11 ..............................................................................................141
`D.
`Claim 12 ..............................................................................................142
`E.
`Claim 13 ..............................................................................................143
`F.
`Claim 14 ..............................................................................................144
`G.
`Claim 15 ..............................................................................................145
`H.
`Claim 16 ..............................................................................................147
`I.
`Claim 17 ..............................................................................................147
`J.
`Claim 18 ..............................................................................................148
`K.
`XV. OBJECTIVE INDICIA DO NOT SUPPORT PATENTABILITY. ............. 149
`XVI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 152
`XVII. APPENDIX A: THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ......................................... 153
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`I, E. Fred Schubert, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained on behalf of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`
`(“VWGoA” or “Petitioner”) for the above-captioned inter partes review
`
`proceeding to provide my expert opinions and expert knowledge. I understand that
`
`this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551 (“the ’551 patent”) titled
`
`“Detector Controlled Illuminating System,” to Yechezkal Evan Spero, and that
`
`Torchlight Technologies, LLC has purported to be the exclusive licensee of the
`
`’551 patent. EX1052, Amended Complaint, 8. I understand that the Petition
`
`submitted by Petitioner challenges claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-18 (“the challenged
`
`claims”) of the ’551 patent.
`
`2.
`
`The ’551 patent describes, generally, light fixtures with light emitting
`
`diodes (“LEDs”). I am familiar with, and have worked on, the technology
`
`described in the ’551 patent as of its earliest possible priority date, July 12, 2002.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent technical review,
`
`analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the ’551 patent and the references that
`
`form the basis for the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition for inter
`
`partes review of the ’551 patent filed by Petitioner.
`
`4.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed and am familiar with all
`
`the documents cited in this declaration. I have reviewed and am familiar with the
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`’551 patent and its file history. I confirm that to the best of my knowledge, the
`
`accompanying exhibits are true and accurate copies of what they purport to be, and
`
`that an expert in the field would reasonably rely on them to formulate opinions
`
`such as those set forth in this declaration.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated at my customary rate of $500 per hour for my
`
`work on this case. My compensation is not dependent upon my opinions, my
`
`testimony, or the outcome of this case.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF GROUNDS
`6.
`I understand that the Petition for inter partes review of the ’551 patent
`
`filed by Petitioner asserts the following Grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`References
`Braun (EX1005)
`
`Basis Claims Challenged
`§103
`1-3
`
`Braun, Dowling (EX1027)
`
`Braun, Dowling, Bailey
`(EX1035)
`
`Begemann (EX1006), Lee
`(EX1026)
`
`Begemann, Lee, Pederson
`(EX1011)
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`4, 7
`
`8, 10-13, 15-18
`
`1-4
`
`8, 10-18
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`7.
`In my opinion, the challenged claims of the ’551 patent would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in view of the
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`combinations of prior art references Petitioner asserts in the context of common
`
`knowledge and industry practice at the time of its filing.
`
`IV. QUALIFICATIONS
`8. My qualifications for forming the opinions set forth in this report are
`
`summarized here and explained in more detail in my curriculum vitae, which is
`
`submitted as EX1004 and incorporated herein. My curriculum vitae also includes a
`
`list of my publications and the cases in which I have testified at a deposition,
`
`hearing, or trial during the past 10 years.
`
`9.
`
`I am currently an active, tenured, full professor in the Department of
`
`Electrical, Computer and Systems Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
`
`(RPI), located in Troy, New York.
`
`10.
`
`I received a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering (“Diploma
`
`Degree”) from the University of Stuttgart, Germany, in 1981. I received a Ph.D.
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering (“Doctorate Degree”) from the University of
`
`Stuttgart, Germany, in 1986.
`
`11. Starting in 1985, I worked in industry at AT&T Bell Laboratories in
`
`Holmdel, New Jersey and Murray Hill, New Jersey, for ten years. For the first two
`
`years, I was a Post-Doctoral Member of the Technical Staff, and subsequently
`
`became a Principal Investigator and Member of Technical Staff.
`
`12.
`
`In 1995, I joined academia. My first position was at Boston University
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`located in Boston, MA, where I worked as a full professor for seven years. In 2002,
`
`I joined Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), located in Troy, New York, where
`
`I served in several leadership positions. From 2002 to the present time, I have
`
`served as an active, tenured, full professor in the Department of Electrical,
`
`Computer and Systems Engineering. From 2002 to 2015, I served as Head of the
`
`Future Chips Constellation and as a distinguished professor, the Wellfleet Senior
`
`Constellation Professor. From 2009 to 2010, I served as the founding Director and
`
`Principal Investigator of the Smart Lighting Engineering Research Center that was
`
`funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation in the amount of $40 million over
`
`10 years. From 2002 to 2012, I served as a professor in the Department of Physics,
`
`Applied Physics and Astronomy.
`
`13.
`
`I am named as a co-inventor on more than 35 U.S. patents, and have
`
`co-authored more than 300 publications. I authored the books “Doping in III-V
`
`Semiconductors” (1993), “Delta Doping of Semiconductors” (1996) and the first,
`
`second and third editions of “Light-Emitting Diodes” (2003, 2006 and 2018); the
`
`latter book is known as a standard textbook in the field of LEDs1, and the book has
`
`
`1 In this field, the term “LED” is sometimes used to refer to just the LED
`
`chip and is sometimes used to refer to the larger package including the LED chip.
`
`The precise meaning is usually apparent from the context.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`been translated into Russian, Japanese and Korean. My publications have been
`
`well recognized by the technical community, as illustrated by about 40,000
`
`citations received by my publications.
`
`14.
`
`I have received several awards for my technical contributions. They
`
`include: Senior Member IEEE (1993); Literature Prize of Verein Deutscher
`
`Elektrotechniker for my book “Doping in III-V Semiconductors” (1994); Fellow
`
`SPIE (1999); Alexander von Humboldt Senior Research Award (1999); Fellow
`
`IEEE (1999); Fellow OSA (2000); Boston University Provost In-novation Award
`
`(2000); Discover Magazine Award for Technological Innovation (2000); R&D 100
`
`Award for RCLED (2001); Fellow APS (2001); RPI Trustees Award for Faculty
`
`Achievement (2002 and 2008); honorary membership in Eta Kappa Nu (2004); 25
`
`Most Innovative Micro- and Nano-Products of the Year Award of R&D Magazine
`
`(2007); and Scientific American 50 Award (2007).
`
`15. My general expertise is in the field of electrical engineering and
`
`applied physics, including semiconductor materials, processing and devices. My
`
`specific expertise is in the field of light-emitting diodes (LEDs), including the
`
`structure, packaging and manufacture of LEDs. My work has included the design,
`
`growth, fabrication, manufacturing, and testing of semiconductor devices, as well
`
`as the employment of these devices in a variety of applications. In addition, I have
`
`extensive expertise in LED lighting systems including “smart lighting systems.”
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`Indeed, I have contributed to establishing the field of smart lighting. A pioneering
`
`research article titled “Solid-state light sources getting smart” (Science Magazine,
`
`Volume 308, Issue 5726, pages 1274-1278, year 2005), which I co-authored, has
`
`been cited more than 3,500 times. Smart lighting recognizes that LED lighting
`
`systems allow for new, unprecedented functionalities including changing the color
`
`temperature of smart light sources, changing the hue of smart light sources,
`
`communicating with lighting sources, and controlling the light polarization of
`
`lighting sources. My expertise in LED lighting systems also includes LED drivers,
`
`LED controllers, LED power-supply systems, and the reliability of LED lighting
`
`systems.
`
`16.
`
`I have been working in the field of semiconductor microelectronic and
`
`optoelectronic devices, including light-emitting diodes (LEDs), for more than 25
`
`years. I have conducted and directed research in this field, have conducted and
`
`directed development in this field and have published numerous papers, patents
`
`and books on the topic of LEDs. My research and development activities have
`
`related to the packaging, reliability, life-testing, heat-flow, and encapsulation of
`
`LEDs. Specific LED-related research topics, on which I have personally worked
`
`and published, include the following:
`
`• The roughening, texturing, and patterning of surfaces in GaN LEDs in
`
`order to enhance light extraction;
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`• The encapsulation of LED chips in an LED package using a
`
`transparent resin, such as silicone, and the control of the refractive
`
`index of the transparent resin by the inclusion of TiO2 nanoparticles;
`
`• The heat flow and thermal management in LED packages;
`
`• New approaches for the electrostatic discharge protection of packaged
`
`LEDs without the use of Zener diodes;
`
`• The optimization of the spatial distribution of phosphor in LED
`
`packages, including the analysis of remote-phosphor distributions;
`
`• The reliability of LED packages, including lifetime testing under (i)
`
`elevated temperatures, (ii) enhanced humidity and (iii) over-current
`
`conditions;
`
`• Delamination effects of optical thin films under stress conditions
`
`occurring in optoelectronic packages;
`
`• The design, fabrication and testing of LED packages with particular
`
`attention to the spatial phosphor distribution;
`
`• The design and testing of LED packages, with particular attention to
`
`the thermal management of packaged LEDs; and
`
`• The occurrence of trapped optical modes inside LED packages.
`
`17.
`
`I have made pioneering contributions to the following technical fields:
`
`delta-doping, resonant cavity light-emitting diodes, high electron mobility
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`transistors, photonic-crystal light-emitting diodes, crystallographic etching of GaN,
`
`ohmic contacts (such as delta-doped ohmic contacts and non-alloyed ohmic
`
`contacts), omnidirectional reflectors, low-refractive index and low-k materials,
`
`high-refractive index and high-k materials, silicon integrated circuit technology,
`
`anti-reflection coatings, light-emitting diodes, LEDs with remote phosphors,
`
`efficiency droop in LEDs, and solid-state lighting.
`
`18. Furthermore, I pioneered what is now known as the “remote
`
`phosphor” distribution in white LEDs; the associated research article (entitled
`
`“Strongly enhanced phosphor efficiency in GaInN white light-emitting diodes
`
`using remote phosphor configuration and diffuse reflector cup”) has been cited
`
`more than 350 times.
`
`19. At RPI, I regularly teach a course on LEDs, which includes extensive
`
`discussions on the efficiency of LEDs and the use of LEDs in smart lighting
`
`systems. I have guided graduate students and postdoctoral researchers conducting
`
`research on LEDs including the packaging of LEDs. My work in industry (at
`
`AT&T Bell Laboratories) involved LEDs and lasers, including topics such as
`
`minimizing the cost of device-packaging processes.
`
`20. As Director and Principal Investigator of the Smart Lighting
`
`Engineering Research Center, funded by the US National Science Foundation, I
`
`directed research on LEDs for use in intelligent or “smart” lighting systems. Such
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`smart lighting systems have functionalities that go beyond lighting and include, for
`
`example, the tuning of the color temperature, spatial control of illumination
`
`intensity, and communication with lighting sources. Under the Research Center, I
`
`started a research effort on traffic lights that not only send visual signals to drivers
`
`(red, yellow, and green light) but also digitally communicate their state to
`
`approaching cars (stop or go) through the light emitted by the traffic light source.
`
`The novel technology may be able to reduce red-light violations, thereby avoiding
`
`collisions and fatalities that are still far too common.
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`21.
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training,
`
`knowledge, and experience that are relevant to the ’551 patent. Furthermore, I have
`
`specifically considered the following documents, in addition to other sources cited
`
`in this Declaration:
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551 B2 to Spero (“the ’551 patent”)
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551 B2 (“’551
`Prosecution History”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. E. Fred Schubert
`WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 02/04247 to Braun, et al.
`(“Braun”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,250,774 to Begemann, et al. (“Begemann”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,079,862 to Kawashima, et al. (“Kawashima”)
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued August 19, 2022 for
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`Exhibit #
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,094 to Schofield, et al. (“Schofield”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,144,159 to Lopez, et al. (“Lopez”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0048174 to
`Pederson (“Pederson”)
`File History of Ex Parte Reexamination Request No. 90/014,815
`filed on July 30, 2021 for U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551 (“the ’815
`reexamination”)
`The IESNA Lighting Handbook, Illuminating Engineering
`Society of North America, 9th Edition, 2000,
`ISBN 0-87995-150-8 (“IESNA Handbook”)
`Schalkoff, Pattern Recognition, statistical, structural and neural
`approaches, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1992.
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 01/70538 (“Stam PCT”)
`John Vaglica and Peter Gilmour, “How to Select a
`Microcontroller,” IEEE Spectrum, November 1990.
`(Accessible at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/62226)
`Ata Khan, “Workhorses of the Electronic Era,” IEEE Spectrum,
`October 1996.
`(Accessible at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/540088)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,498,440 to Stam, et al. (“Stam ’440”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,803,579 to Turnbull, et al. (“Turnbull”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,528,954 to Lys, et al. (“Lys”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,681,032 to Bortolussi, et al. (“Bortolussi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,429 to Coffin, et al. (“Coffin”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,856,873 to Breed, et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,298,871 to Lee, et al., (“Lee”)
`WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 02/25842 to Dowling, et al.
`(“Dowling”)
`Intentionally left blank
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`Description
`
`Intentionally left blank
`Westermann, “History and Scientific Back-up,” 48th Session of
`GRE, EUREKA Project 1403, Informal Document No. 30, April
`30, 2002 (“Westermann”)
`Intentionally left blank
`Assessment of Headlamp Glare and Potential Countermeasures,
`Survey of Advanced Front Lighting System (AFS) Research and
`Technology, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
`(2005) (“NHTSA Survey”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,585,395 to Luk (“Luk”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,181,429 to Sieber (“Sieber”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,752,766 to Bailey, et al. (“Bailey”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,485 to Hewlett (“Hewlett”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,712,167 to Gordin, et al. (“Gordin”)
`Stephen McKenna and Shaogang Gong, “Tracking Faces”
`Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
`Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, Killington, VT, Oct.
`14-16, 1996, pp. 271-276 (“McKenna”)
`WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 00/19705 (“Iddan”)
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`U.S. Patent No. 5,038,261 to Kloos (“Kloos”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,501,536 to Fredricks (“Fredricks”)
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`Handbook of Optics, vol. I. (Michael Bass et al. eds., 2nd ed.
`1995), ISBN 0-07-047740-X (“Optics I”)
`Handbook of Optics, vol. III. (Michael Bass et al. eds., 2nd ed.
`2001), ISBN 0-07-135408-5 (“Optics III”)
`File History of Reissue Application No. 16/858,342 filed on
`April 24, 2020 for U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551 (“the ’342 reissue
`
`Exhibit #
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`1044
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`application”)
`M. George Craford, “LEDs Challenge the Incandescents,” IEEE
`Circuits and Devices, vol. 8(5), 24-29 (1992) (“Craford”)
`Intentionally left blank
`Scheduling Order, Torchlight Techs. LLC v. Daimler AG, et al.,
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00751 (D. Del.), filed August 26, 2022
`(ECF No. 24)
`First Amended Complaint, Torchlight Techs. LLC v. Daimler
`AG, et al., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00751 (D. Del.), filed
`August 26, 2022 (ECF No. 24)
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`
`
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS
`22.
`I have also relied upon various legal principles (as explained to me by
`
`Petitioner’s counsel) in formulating my opinions. My understanding of these
`
`principles is summarized below.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed the following legal principles apply to analysis
`
`of patentability. I also have been told that, in an inter partes review proceeding, a
`
`patent claim may be deemed unpatentable if it is shown by a preponderance of
`
`evidence that the claim is anticipated by one prior art reference under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102, or rendered obvious by one or more prior art references under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that documents and materials, such as printed
`
`publications or patents, that qualify as prior art can be used to render a patent claim
`
`as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`I understand that once the claims of a patent have been properly
`
`25.
`
`construed, the second step in determining anticipation or obviousness of a patent
`
`claim requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior
`
`art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`A. My Understanding of Claim Construction
`I understand that during an inter partes review proceeding, claims are
`
`26.
`
`to be construed in light of the specification as would be read by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSA”) at the time of the purported priority
`
`date. I understand that claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as would be understood by a POSA in the context of the entire disclosure. A claim
`
`term, however, will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his/her
`
`own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the claim term in the
`
`specification. In this case, the claim term will receive the definition set forth in the
`
`patent.
`
`B. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that a POSA is presumed to be aware of all pertinent art,
`
`27.
`
`thinks along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary
`
`creativity—not an automaton.
`
`28.
`
`I have been asked to consider the level of ordinary skill in the field that
`
`someone would have had at the time the alleged invention was made. In deciding
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2023-00336
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`the level of ordinary skill, I considered the following:
`
`• the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
`• the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
`• the sophistication of the technology.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the relevant time for considering whether a claim
`
`would have been obvious to a POSA is at the time of the alleged invention, which I
`
`have been told to assume to be July 12, 2002 for the ’551 patent.
`
`30. All of my statements and opinions during my technical analysis below
`
`are to be understood as based on how a POSA would have understood or read a
`
`document at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`C. My Understanding of Obviousness
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if the claimed
`
`31.
`
`invention would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`I understand that this means that even if all of the elements of the claim cannot