`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)) .................................. 2
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)) .................... 2
`A.
`Prior Art ................................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Statutory Grounds for the Challenge ....................................................... 3
`IV. THE ’551 PATENT ........................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Technology Background ......................................................................... 3
`B.
`The ’551 Patent ....................................................................................... 5
`C.
`Prosecution History Summary ................................................................ 8
`D.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................... 9
`E.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................. 9
`“lighting fixture” and “light fixture” ........................................... 10
`
`“light source(s)” .......................................................................... 11
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF APPLIED REFERENCES .................................................. 12
`A.
`Braun ..................................................................................................... 12
`B.
`Dowling ................................................................................................. 14
`C.
`Bailey ..................................................................................................... 15
`D.
`Begemann .............................................................................................. 16
`E.
`Lee ......................................................................................................... 18
`F.
`Pederson ................................................................................................ 19
`VI. GROUND 1: BRAUN RENDERS CLAIMS 1-3 OBVIOUS ........................ 20
`A.
`Braun renders independent claim 1 obvious ......................................... 20
`[1.P] ............................................................................................. 20
`
`[1.A] ............................................................................................ 22
`[1.B] ............................................................................................ 23
`[1.C] ............................................................................................ 25
`[1.D] ............................................................................................ 26
`[1.E] ............................................................................................. 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`[1.F] ............................................................................................. 28
`[1.G] ............................................................................................ 30
`[1.H] ............................................................................................ 30
`
`Claim 2 .................................................................................................. 32
`B.
`Claim 3 .................................................................................................. 32
`C.
`VII. GROUND 2: BRAUN, ALONE OR IN VIEW OF DOWLING,
`RENDERS CLAIMS 4 AND 7 OBVIOUS .................................................... 34
`A. Motivation to combine Braun and Dowling.......................................... 34
`B.
`Claim 4 .................................................................................................. 35
`[4.A] ............................................................................................ 35
`
`[4.B] ............................................................................................ 37
`
`Claim 7 .................................................................................................. 38
`[6.P] ............................................................................................. 38
`
`[6.A] ............................................................................................ 38
`[6.B] ............................................................................................ 38
`[6.C] ............................................................................................ 40
`[6.D] ............................................................................................ 41
`[6.E] ............................................................................................. 42
`Claim 7 ........................................................................................ 43
`
`VIII. GROUND 3: THE COMBINATION OF BRAUN, DOWLING, AND
`BAILEY RENDERS CLAIMS 8, 10-13 AND 15-18 OBVIOUS .................. 44
`A. Motivation to combine Braun, Dowling, and Bailey ............................ 44
`B.
`Claim 8 .................................................................................................. 46
`[8.P] ............................................................................................. 46
`
`[8.A] ............................................................................................ 46
`[8.B] ............................................................................................ 46
`[8.C] ............................................................................................ 48
`[8.D] ............................................................................................ 48
`[8.E] ............................................................................................. 49
`[8.F] ............................................................................................. 50
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`C.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................ 51
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................ 52
`D.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................................ 52
`E.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................ 53
`F.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................................ 53
`G.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................................ 55
`H.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................................ 56
`I.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................................ 56
`J.
`IX. GROUND 4: BEGEMANN AND LEE RENDER CLAIMS 1-4
`OBVIOUS ........................................................................................................ 57
`A.
`Rationale for combining Begemann and Lee ........................................ 57
`B.
`Begemann, alone or in view of Lee, renders independent claim 1
`obvious. ................................................................................................. 59
`[1.P] ............................................................................................. 59
`
`[1.A] ............................................................................................ 60
`[1.B] ............................................................................................ 61
`[1.C] ............................................................................................ 63
`[1.D] ............................................................................................ 64
`[1.E] ............................................................................................. 65
`[1.F] ............................................................................................. 67
`[1.G] ............................................................................................ 68
`[1.H] ............................................................................................ 70
`
`Claim 2 .................................................................................................. 70
`Claim 3 .................................................................................................. 71
`Claim 4 .................................................................................................. 72
`[4.A] ............................................................................................ 72
`
`[4.B] ............................................................................................ 72
`
`X. GROUND 5: THE COMBINATION OF BEGEMANN, LEE, AND
`PEDERSON RENDERS CLAIMS 8 AND 10-18 OBVIOUS ....................... 73
`A.
`The motivation to combine Begemann, Lee, and Pederson .................. 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`Claim 8 .................................................................................................. 76
`[8.P] ............................................................................................. 76
`
`[8.A] ............................................................................................ 76
`[8.B] ............................................................................................ 76
`[8.C] ............................................................................................ 78
`[8.D] ............................................................................................ 78
`[8.E] ............................................................................................. 78
`[8.F] ............................................................................................. 79
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................ 79
`C.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................ 80
`D.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................................ 80
`E.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................ 81
`F.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................................ 81
`G.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................................ 82
`H.
`Claim 16 ................................................................................................ 83
`I.
`Claim 17 ................................................................................................ 83
`J.
`Claim 18 ................................................................................................ 84
`K.
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT SUPPORT
`NONOBVIOUSNESS ..................................................................................... 84
`XII. DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS UNDER SECTIONS 314(A),
`325(D), AND 315(D) STRONGLY FAVOR INSTITUTION ....................... 85
`A.
`The Fintiv factors strongly favor institution ......................................... 85
`B.
`General Plastic and Valve Corp. strongly favor institution.................. 86
`C.
`Advanced Bionics strongly favors institution ........................................ 87
`D.
`Early examination stage of the reissue application strongly favors
`institution ............................................................................................... 87
`XIII. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)) ..................................... 88
`XIV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 90
`XV. APPENDIX A: THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........................................... 91
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`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”)
`Declaration of Dr. E. Fred Schubert (“Schubert Declaration”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. E. Fred Schubert (“Schubert CV”)
`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.
`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,
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`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
`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”)
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Exhibit #
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`1044
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`Description
`
`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 (“’342 Reissue History”)
`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)
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA” or “Petitioner”) petitions for
`
`inter partes review (“IPR”) and cancellation of claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-18 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551 (“the ʼ551 patent”) to Yechezkal
`
`Evan Spero, purportedly exclusively licensed to Torchlight Technologies LLC
`
`(collectively “Patent Owner”). EX1052, Amended Complaint, 8.
`
`The ’551 patent purportedly discloses a light fixture of adaptive lighting
`
`using light source (light emitting diode “LED”) combined with controllers and
`
`sensors. §IV.B. However, the alleged invention is merely a collection of techniques
`
`(e.g., LED, digital camera, light feedback, pattern recognition) known before the
`
`earliest possible priority date. §IV.A. Unsurprisingly, Patent Owner admits
`
`repeatedly that a plethora of techniques claimed in the ’551 patent were known in
`
`the art. §IV.B; see generally EX1001; EX1002, ’551 Prosecution History, 333-337.
`
`Indeed, there is nothing new in any of the claim elements or the combinations
`
`thereof.
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. E. Fred Schubert, has over 30 years of experience in
`
`adaptive lighting, automotive lighting, and optical engineering. EX1003, Schubert
`
`Declaration, ¶¶8-20; EX1004, Schubert CV. His testimony supports that the
`
`Grounds demonstrate the challenged claims are unpatentable. EX1003, ¶¶6-7.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board institute review and
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`
`ultimately find the challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A))
`The undersigned and Petitioner certify that the ʼ551 patent is available for
`
`IPR. Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds herein.
`
`On June 7, 2022, Torchlight Technologies LLC filed a complaint against Petitioner
`
`alleging infringement of the ’551 patent. This Petition is filed within one year of
`
`service on Petitioner.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B))
`A.
`Prior Art
`The ’551 patent is not entitled to the July 12, 2002 priority benefit of its
`
`earliest-filed provisional application, but even if it were:
`
`International Publication No. WO 02/04247 (EX1005, “Braun”), published
`
`on January 17, 2002, is prior art under § 102(a);
`
`International Publication No. WO 02/25842 (EX1027, “Dowling”),
`
`published on March 28, 2002, is prior art under § 102(a);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,752,766 (EX1035, “Bailey”), issued May 19, 1998, is prior
`
`art under § 102(b);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,250,774 (EX1006, “Begemann”), issued June 26, 2001, is
`
`prior art under § 102(b);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,298,871 (EX1026, “Lee”), filed June 7, 2002, is prior art
`
`under § 102(e); and
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0048174 (EX1011,
`
`“Pederson”), published on April 25, 2002, is prior art under § 102(a).
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds for the Challenge
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Braun
`
`References
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Braun, Dowling
`
`Braun, Dowling, Bailey
`
`Begemann, Lee
`
`Begemann, Lee, Pederson
`
`Basis
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`§103
`
`Claims Challenged
`1-3
`
`4, 7
`
`8, 10-13, 15-18
`
`1-4
`
`8, 10-18
`
`
`
`IV. THE ’551 PATENT
`A. Technology Background
`LEDs had been widely used long before 2002. EX1003, ¶¶44-49. Various
`
`colored LEDs were available, and high flux LEDs enabled “a viable alternative” to
`
`incandescent lamps. EX1049, Craford; EX1021, Turnbull, 3:10-15. In 1995, LEDs
`
`were listed as light sources in the IESNA Handbook, and standards had been
`
`developed for products containing LEDs. EX1013, IESNA Handbook, 174, 265-
`
`267. It was known that LEDs can be “highly directional,” where intensity can be
`
`adjusted by regulating direct current or the pulse width modulation (PWM) of pulse
`
`current. Id.
`
`By the 1990s, implementing lighting controls (e.g., light feedback) for
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`specific applications had “become an essential element of good lighting design and
`
`an integral part of energy management.” Id., 590-605. For example, photodetectors
`
`were used to evaluate “the light level and send[] a signal to a control unit to dim or
`
`switch the electric lights to maintain a preset target level,” e.g., “in response to the
`
`amount of available daylight.” Id., 323-350, 590-591; EX1022, Lys, Abstract,
`
`40:52-41:7, FIG. 73. Task tuning had been performed such that “the lighting system
`
`can be adjusted, or tuned, to provide local illumination as needed.” EX1013, 592.
`
`Solid-state detectors (e.g., photodiodes) were known to detect spectra ranging
`
`“from the UV to the far IR region,” where cameras having a charge-coupled device
`
`(CCD) array had been used to “capture and digitize electronic images of visual
`
`scenes,” to “determine the luminance at every point in the scene, corresponding to
`
`the pixels of the camera’s CCD array.” Id., 45, 49, 598; EX1009, Schofield,
`
`Abstract, 3:36-56, FIGs. 3, 9; EX1046, Optics I, 71-108; EX1047, Optics III, 14-35.
`
`Known lighting control systems also included memories and processors that
`
`receive input from a sensor, analyze data according to a predetermined set of rules,
`
`and initiate changes for the lighting system. EX1013, 490, 593-596, 600. Various
`
`lighting calculation methods had been used to determine the desire illumination
`
`condition, e.g., “to evaluate the potential glare from luminaires.” Id., 351-422, 287-
`
`289, 306, 109-111.
`
`Putting these together, LEDs had also been used as the “digitally controlled”
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`light sources in smart light bulbs, where the processors control the intensity and/or
`
`the color of individual LEDs in response to electrical signals from a computer
`
`program, a remote control, or detectors. EX1022, Abstract, 5:38-45, 6:62-63, 11:43-
`
`46, 16:44-64, FIG. 6. The smart light bulbs can have a transmitter and/or receiver to
`
`communicate with another device (e.g., another smart light bulb). Id., Abstract.
`
`Additionally, video analytics (or digital image processing), pattern recognition, and
`
`artificial intelligence had been used for data processing and decision making, e.g.,
`
`for object identification. EX1007, Kawashima, Abstract, FIG. 1; EX1014,
`
`Schalkoff, 2-31; EX1036, Hewlett, Abstract. Cameras had been used to collect light
`
`reflected from the object and provide images to the processors that perform video
`
`analytics and/or pattern recognition to determine illumination conditions for the
`
`identified object. EX1007, 1:7-11; 9:53-10:14, FIG. 1; EX1009, Abstract; EX1036,
`
`Abstract. Specifically, facial recognition has been used to identify individuals.
`
`EX1023, Bortolussi, 1:66-2:10, Abstract, FIG. 1; EX1024, Coffin, Abstract, FIG. 6;
`
`EX1025, Breed, Abstract, 4:8-56; EX1038, McKenna, Abstract. Image sensors (e.g.,
`
`CCD cameras) were used to sense light in spatially separated regions. EX1009, 2:6-
`
`15, 2:22-35, Abstract.
`
`B.
`The ’551 Patent
`The ’551 patent allegedly provides “[a]n illuminating device coupled with
`
`sensors or an image acquisition device and a logical controller allow[ing]
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`illumination intensity and spectrum to be varied according to changing user needs,”
`
`where the “digital” light source is LED. EX1001, Abstract, 13:47-50, 13:61-63,
`
`16:39; EX1003, ¶¶50-52. Figure 1 shows a block diagram of the alleged digital
`
`lighting fixture (DLF), which contains logic control electronics unit 7 and sensors 8.
`
`EX1001, 25:34-52, FIG. 1.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1 (annotated).
`
`For example, DLF 16 includes sensor 21 and controller 20. Id., 28:18-55,
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`30:18-28, 38:37-39. DLF 190 includes computer control and communications unit
`
`195, light sensor 196, camera 197, motion detector 200, and controller 195, where
`
`section 222 of light sources provides task-lighting 224. Id., 38:37-39:14, 41:23-30,
`
`40:52-61, FIG. 12. Remote control unit 201 is used to operate and program the
`
`Adaptive DLF. Id., 39:15-16, FIG. 12.
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIGs. 2B, 12 (annotated).
`
`But all the alleged novel features of the DLF/ADLF were known before the
`
`effective filing date of the ’551 patent. EX1003, ¶53; see §§IV.A, V-X. Especially,
`
`the ’551 patent admits that the claimed features were known in the art. For example,
`
`using individually-controlled LED as light source was known. EX1001, 5:60-62,
`
`6:13-16, 6:19-24, 6:34-37. 6:55-56, 6:65-7:7, 7:24-32. Using optics to form
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`directional LED light was known. Id., 17:56-63. Packaging LEDs with electronic
`
`circuitry into an integrated structure was known. Id., 17:66-18:14, 18:46-47. Using
`
`sensors for various measurements and performing data analysis to correct LED’s
`
`power level were known. Id., 26:7-11. Using photodiodes to detect light intensity
`
`and using optical feedback to produce desired lighting effects were known. Id., 7:8-
`
`23, 7:33-45, 8:33-39, 9:7-9, 27:15-20. Projecting LEDs at a desired angle was
`
`known. Id., 30:45-50, 66:64-67, FIG. 2C. Using pattern recognition, artificial
`
`intelligence, image processing, or machine vision system to identify objects (e.g.,
`
`individuals) was known. Id., 41:8-11, 44:37-40, 44:63-45:9, 45:15-22, 48:30-32,
`
`63:9-12, 63:29-56, 64:5-9, 64:46-49, 69:25-29, 83:1-5, 94:28-32. Object (e.g., an
`
`individual) tracking techniques were known. Id., 45:47-50, 45:67-46:6, 57:14-18.
`
`Lighting calculation, design, and practice standards were known. Id., 39:33-38,
`
`41:27-30, 41:43-57, 42:16-21, 71:3-6, 72:23-25, 93:66-94:2. Communication
`
`connections and protocols were known. Id., 47:41-44. Thus, it is unsurprising that
`
`the ’551 patent does not describe the details of implementation, but rather leaves it
`
`to a POSA. The alleged novelty of the ’551 patent is simply a collection of known
`
`techniques, where the combinations were known and obvious. EX1003, ¶54.
`
`C.
`Prosecution History Summary
`The Patent Application No. 13/357,549 (“the ’549 application”) that issued as
`
`the ’551 patent underwent multiple rounds of prosecution. EX1003, ¶¶55-58. In a
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`final rejection maintaining obviousness rejections, the Office pointed out that
`
`“amending the claim to add ‘where one or more light sources are directional’ is not
`
`novel. Directional lighting is universal.” EX1002, 502-539. After the Request of
`
`Continued Examination, the Office allowed independent claim 8 based on US
`
`2012/0287493 to Kuhlman, et al.1 Id., 578-579. The Office allowed independent
`
`claim 1 stating that US 2004/0052076 to Mueller, et al. does not disclose the
`
`claimed “processor” in claim elements [1.F]-[1.H].2 Id., 612. After another Office
`
`Action, the Office issued a Notice of Allowance. Id., 666-673.
`
`D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`For the ’551 patent, a POSA at the time of the alleged invention would have
`
`had a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering,
`
`optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2
`
`years of industry experience in the area of lighting and lighting-control systems. The
`
`POSA may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to
`
`integrate and program controllers and various inputs to control a given light source.
`
`EX1003, ¶¶41-43.
`
`E. Claim Construction
`In an IPR, claims are “construed using the same claim construction standard
`
`
`1 Claim 8 was not examined under Mueller.
`
`2 Claims and claim elements of the ’551 patent are listed in Appendix A.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 (b). If trial is instituted, all claim terms must be given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention, in light of the specification and the prosecution history of
`
`the patent. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(en banc); see also 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`
`Without waiver, Petitioner does not believe any claim terms require specific
`
`construction and thus should receive their plain and ordinary meaning, in the context
`
`of the ’551 patent specification, under Phillips. EX1003, ¶¶59-64.
`
`
`“lighting fixture” and “light fixture”3
`The ’551 patent explains that “[a] Lighting Fixture or luminaire (the terms are
`
`used interchangeably) is a device which is constructed around the lamp to provide
`
`lighting specific to the application.” EX1001, 2:12-16. “A luminaire has apparatus
`
`whereby it is attached to the building structure,” and provides “a wide scope of
`
`applications.” Id., 2:35-42, 11:14-18, 13:5-9, 14:25-30, 49:61-67, 65:36-40, FIGs. 1,
`
`2B-2C, 3B, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13A-13C, 18A-18B, 20A-20B, 21, 24, 25A-25B, 26,
`
`27, 28A-28B, 30-33. According to the ’551 patent, if an LED lamp apparatus “is
`
`independent of the lighting application,” it “is simply a lamp not a lamp and fixture
`
`combination.” Id., 6:19-26. However, if a light system with similar LEDs are
`
`
`3 Claim elements are in italic unless noted otherwise.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,955,551
`designed “to generate an application specific light distribution pattern capable of
`
`providing recommended illuminance levels,” it is a lighting fixture. Id., 8:46-9:3.
`
`Comparing the lighting fixtures in Figures 2A and 2B, the ’551 patent explains that
`
`the alleged novelty of “solid-state lighting fixtures (vs. solid-state lamps)” is the
`
`control of lighting elements and the adjustment of the lighting solution in the
`
`former. Id., 11:8-13, 28:18-29:16, FIGs. 2B, 12. As discussed below, the asserted
`
`references disclose the above features of a “lighting fixtures.” §§VI-X. Therefore,
`
`there is no need to construe “lighting fixture” or “light fixture.”
`
`It is noted that the ’551 patent also refers to an “automotive headlamp” as a
`
`“headlamp fixture.” EX1001, 52:1-7. To the extent that Patent Owner impermissibly
`
`narrows the “light fixture” or “lighting fixture” to automotive headlamp, the asserted
`
`references still renders the challenged claims obvious. §VI-VIII.
`
`
`“light source(s)”
`The ’551 patent explains that a light source “means any system that is capable
`
`of receiving an electrical signal and producing light in response to the signal.”
`
`EX1001, 17:3-6. The ’551 patent considers incandescent, fluorescent, and LED all
`
`as light sources. Id., 16:47-51, 17:6-16, 4:57-64, 5:36-40. However, Patent Owner
`
`proposed to construe “light source” to mean “individual LED” in the Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination No. 90/014,815 (“the ’815 reexamination”) of the ’551 patent.
`
`EX1012, the ’815 Reexamin