UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`PARHELION,INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`STREAMLIGHT,INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`PGR Case No.: To be Assigned
`U.S. Patent No. 10,378,702
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH J. PUCKETT
`
`1
`
`0000241
`
`Parhelion, Inc.
`EXHIBIT
`
`1003
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`PARHELION,INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`STREAMLIGHT,INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`PGR Case No.: To be Assigned
`U.S. Patent No. 10,378,702
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH J. PUCKETT
`
`1
`
`0000241
`
`Parhelion, Inc.
`EXHIBIT
`
`1003
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH J. PUCKETT
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`US. Patent No. 10,378,702 (“the ‘702 patent’’)
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`Declaration of Kenneth J. Puckett
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,062,702 (“Krietzman’’)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,672,513 (“Redpath’’)
`
`US. Patent No. 9,488,331 (“the ’331 patent)
`
`US. Patent No. 7,883,243 (“the °243 patent”)
`
`File History of the ’702 patent(‘‘the file history’’)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,281,815 (“Gustafson”).
`
`US. Provisional Application No. 62/325,917
`
`0000242
`
`
`
`I, Kenneth J. Puckett, do hereby declare andstate as follows:
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`Mybusinessaddress is Laser Product Safety LLC, CARATLaboratory,
`
`8743 NC Highway 751, Durham, North Carolina.
`
`I earned a B.S. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the University of North Carolina, Charlotte in 1988.
`
`I founded
`
`Underwriter’s Laboratories Inc.’s (UL) first Laser and LED Optical Radiation Safety
`
`Testing and Photobiological Safety Testing Laboratory in 1992. My work in support
`
`of
`
`that
`
`effort
`
`included researching the necessary and required optical
`
`instrumentation,
`
`test, and measurement equipment
`
`to build and operate the
`
`Laboratory.
`
`I subsequently served in a variety of roles at UL,
`
`including as
`
`Engineering Managerfor the first engineering section dedicated solely to optical
`
`radiation safety and photobiological safety testing, the Primary Designated Engineer
`
`(PDE)for Optical Radiation Safety and Photobiological Safety for Laser and LED
`
`based products, and the organization’s first Laser Safety Officer.
`
`2.
`
`In addition, I have worked for or collaborated with the following
`
`organizationsin relation to laser technology andsafety:
`
`e The U.S. Department of Commerce on topics related to Laser
`
`Radiation Radiometric Measurementin conjunction with the
`
`University of Colorado, Boulder Colorado;
`
`e The National Institute of Standards and Technology on laser radiation
`
`hazard calculations and safety analyses;
`
`3
`
`0000243
`
`
`
`e The LaserInstitute of America on programsrelated to Fundamentals
`
`of Laser Radiation Safety and Laser Safety Officer Training;
`
`e The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) on workforce
`
`training;
`
`e The Rockwell Laser Institute on programsrelated to Laser Safety
`
`Awareness Training, Principles of Lasers Training, and laser safety
`
`requirements in the manufacturing environment; and
`
`e Laser Professionals Inc., on ANSI Z136.1 laboratory safety control
`
`measures and safeguard implementation.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`II. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`3.
`
`I submit
`
`this declaration in support of Parhelion Incorporated’s
`
`(‘Petitioner’) petition for post-grant review ofU.S. Patent No. 10,378,702 (“the ’702
`
`patent’).
`
`4.
`
`a
`
`I am not an employeeofthe Petitioner or any affiliate thereof.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in connection with this
`
`proceeding at a rate of $300 per hour, plus expenses.
`
`6.
`
`My compensation is in no way dependent upon the substance of the
`
`opinions I offer below, or upon the outcomeofthe Petition for post-grant review (or
`
`the outcome ofthe post-grant review,if trial is instituted).
`
`7.
`
`I have been asked to provide certain opinions relating to the
`
`patentability of the 702 patent. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my
`
`4
`
`0000244
`
`
`
`opinion regarding: (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’702 patent
`
`pertains; (11) whether claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 28 are
`
`anticipated by, and/or would have been obviousover, certain prior art references;
`
`and (iii) whether claims 1, 10, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 31 are adequately
`
`enabled by the specification; and (iv) whether claims 8, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 26 are
`
`adequately enabled by the specification.
`
`8.
`
`I have also reviewed and am familiar with any other patents,
`
`publications, and other materials discussed below.
`
`9.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed the ’702 patent and certain
`
`prior art to the ’702 patentlisted in the exhibits.
`
`10.
`
`Based on myeducation and experience, I believe that I am qualified to
`
`render opinions in the field of laser based structured light illumination, including
`
`heat dissipation properties, and safety properties particularly as applied for human
`
`use in portable devices either alone or as part of a multi-illumination light source.
`
`TI. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘702 PATENT
`
`11.
`
`The ’702 patent is titled “Portable Light with Plane of a Laser Light”
`
`and names RaymondL. Sharrah, Thomas D. Boris, Donald J. Keeley as inventors.
`
`The patent issued August 13, 2019 from an application filed April 20, 2017.
`
`It
`
`claims priority to a provisional application, provisional application number
`
`62/325,917, filed April 21, 2016.
`
`0000245
`
`
`
`12.
`
`I understandthat the specification of a patentis the narrative description
`
`of the invention that precedes the numbered claims at the end of the patent. The
`
`*702 patent specification discusses a flashlight with a selectable white light source
`
`and a laser light source with the laser light source configured to provide structured
`
`light as a planeto create a line of laser light to illuminate objects. In particular, one
`
`use of the device is to provide illumination in environments filled with smoke, mist,
`
`particles, or fog. Ex. 1001, col. 2:15-21.
`
`IV.
`
`THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘702 PATENT
`
`13.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent are the numbered paragraphsat
`
`the end of the patent, and that the claims define the legal scope of the invention.
`
`I
`
`also understand that patent claims may have multiple components or elements, often
`
`called “limitations.”
`
`14.
`
`I understand that there are two types of patent claims, independent
`
`claims and dependent claims.
`
`I understand that independent claims are self-
`
`contained andstand on their own. I also understand that dependent claimsrefer back
`
`to, or “depend from”other claims and includethe limitations ofthe claim from which
`
`they depend. The ’702 patent includes 31 claims. Claims 1, 10, 11, 22, 23, 26, 27
`
`and 31 are independent claims. The claims of the ’702 patent relate to an apparatus
`
`including both a white light source anda laser light source that generates a plane of
`
`laser light.
`
`0000246
`
`
`
`15.
`
`| understand that Petitioner is challenging claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11,
`
`12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, and 31 of the ’702 patent (the
`
`“Challenged Claims’).
`
`V. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`16.
`
`Ihave applied the following legal principals provided to me by counsel
`
`in arriving at the opinionsset forth in this declaration. I understand that many issues
`
`concerning patents are evaluated from the perspective of a “person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art” at the time of the effective filing date of the patent. Accordingly, I will
`
`apply that standard in analyzing those issues.
`
`A. EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF A PATENT
`
`17.
`
`T understandthat a patent claim mayreceivethe filing date of an earlier
`
`patent application if the patent claim is supported by the written description of the
`
`earlier application.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is supported by the
`
`written description of an earlier patent application only when that application
`
`reasonably conveysto one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession
`
`of the full scope of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date of the earlier
`
`application. I have further been informedthat the written description requirement
`
`can be satisfied even if the application does not describe the claimed invention using
`
`the same languageas the claim.
`
`0000247
`
`
`
`B.
`
`STANDARD FOR ANTICIPATION UNDER35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a patent, publication, or device must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`I understand that if a
`
`patent was issued before the effective filing date of a patent claim, it qualifies as
`
`priorart to that claim
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and thus renders the claim invalid, only if all elements of the
`
`claim are disclosed in that prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently.
`
`I
`
`understand that “inherently” means that, although a feature is not explicitly
`
`described,it is necessarily present in the patent. I also understand that whenaprior
`
`art reference discloses a genus, or group of items, it will anticipate the individual
`
`members,or species, of the genus if the genusis of such a defined andlimited class
`
`that one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envision each memberofthe genus.
`
`I also understand that the analysis for anticipation is a two-step process. First, the
`
`language of the disputed claim must be properly construed. Second, a comparison
`
`of the properly construed claim language to the prior art must be made on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`C.
`
`20.
`
`STANDARD FOR OBVIOUSNESS UNDER35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`I understand that a patent may be invalid as obviousif the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`0000248
`
`
`
`as a whole would have been obviousat the time the invention was madeto a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. I understand that it is impermissible to use
`
`hindsight or to use the patent claims as a roadmap in performing an obviousness
`
`analysis.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as: (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness or obviousness, sometimes called secondary considerations.
`
`22.
`
`Iam informed that objective indicia of non-obviousness may include:
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet needin the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of
`
`the patent; (2) commercial success or lack of commercial success of processes
`
`covered by the patent; (3) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise
`
`of the invention by others skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent
`
`by others; and (6) deliberate copying of the invention. I also understand that there
`
`must be a relationship (a nexus) between any such objective indicia and the patent’s
`
`claims.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the obviousness analysis
`
`requires a comparison of the properly construed claim languageto the prior art on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`0000249
`
`
`
`D.
`
`STANDARD FOR ENABLEMENT UNDER35 U.S.C.§ 112
`
`24.
`
`Tunderstand that a claim in a patent is unpatentable if the specification
`
`ofthe application leadingto the patentfails to describe the claimed invention in such
`
`a manneras to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to make and use the
`
`invention without undue experimentation. I further understand that the scope of the
`
`enabling disclosure must be commensurate with the scope of the claim, and that
`
`several non-exhaustive factors that may be considered in determining whether
`
`experimentation is undue include (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2)
`
`the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of
`
`working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the priorart, (6)
`
`the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the
`
`art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.
`
`VI.
`
`SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`
`25.
`
`Ihave been asked to providea briefscientific and technical background
`
`on the technology used to generate a plane of laser light, often knownas a “stripe
`
`light,” so called because whenthe planeoflaser light is projected onto a surface such
`
`as a wall, it formsa line,orstripe, on that surface.
`
`26.
`
`For over 30 years,
`
`laser stripe lights have been used to scan and
`
`demarcate physical objects to generate high resolution scans of 3D objects. The
`
`fundamental work on this process was done at the Carnegie Mellon University
`
`10
`
`0000250
`
`
`
`Robotics Institute in the early 1980s. For high resolution 3D scanning applications,
`
`the process uses a computational ray plane process that sweeps the line across a
`
`surface to stack its contours and generate a map of the 3D object with a resolution
`
`of up to 0.01 mm.
`
`27. At the timeofthe filing of the ’702 patent (and today as well) these 3D
`
`scanning applications used a pulsed periodic Class 3R!
`
`laser set to invisible
`
`wavelengths at uncommonfrequencies (for example, infrared 900nm) because such
`
`frequencies avoid false positive readings from environmental sources and are
`
`invisible to the humaneye.
`
`28.
`
`In addition, laser linesorstripe lights are also used for applications such
`
`as barcode scanners andlaserlevels.
`
`29.
`
`Tomy knowledge,stripe light technology was never applied for rescue
`
`work navigation in the visible spectrum until disclosed by U.S. Patent No. 8,672,513
`
`(“Redpath”) (Ex. 1005). Redpath discloses the use of a diffraction grating to
`
`generate a plane oflight or “stripe light” at visible wavelengths suitable to assist in
`
`navigation in smoke-filled environments. Ex. 1005, col. 2:7-26.
`
`' Lasers are classified by the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health
`(CDRH)into several classes. Under the FDA’s LN50 a Class 3Rlaseris a
`continuous wave laser, which may produceup to five times the emission limit for
`Class 1, or Class 2 lasers. Although the MPEcan be exceeded,the risk of injury is
`low. The laser can produce no more than 5 mW inthevisible region.
`11
`
`0000251
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Stripe lights can be generated with three primary types of lenses, each
`
`with different operating characteristics and use cases. One of the simplest and most
`
`commontypes of lenses that can be used to generate a plane of laser light is the
`
`cylindrical lens. While relatively inexpensive, that lens is suitable only for certain
`
`applications. This is because the cylindrical type lens has a relatively high center
`
`powerintensity as shownin the below photos of a barcode scanning laser. Because
`
`the line has higher powerat its center, such a lens results in a line shapedlike an
`
`elongated ellipse, as shown in the images below. These images were taken from the
`
`website of a supplier of laser line generators used in bar code reader applications.
`
`See
`
`https://picclick.com/660nm-100mW-Focusable-Red-Line-Laser-By-
`
`Cylindrical-Lens-3D-141047086551 .html#&gid=1 &pid=1
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Because of the limitations imposed by the high center power and
`
`ellipsoidal nature of the line, the cylindrical lens is practical for closeup scanning
`
`12
`
`0000252
`
`
`
`(barcode) applications andline level applications (e,g. for a consumer-grade laser
`
`level), but is less suitable for other applications.
`
`32.
`
`The Powell lens and the Diffraction Optical Element, Micro-Electro-
`
`Mechanical (DOE/MEM)are additional lens types that generate a line oflaserlight.
`
`33. A Powell lens has a uniform intensity except at the ends ofthe line of
`
`laser light. The endsofthe line haverelatively higher optical power.
`
`34. A DOE/MEMlensoutputs poweraccording to a Gaussian distribution,
`
`which provides for a straight line with a more even powerdistribution than either a
`
`cylindrical lens or a Powell lens.
`
`35. A conceptual representation of the relative intensity provided by each
`
`type of lens is provided below, with red circles indicating higherintensity:
`
`cc,_-—_a
`Cylindrical lens
`
`Powell lens
`
`="
`
`Ce
`DOE
`
`36.
`
`Asillustrated above, the Powell lens has a uniform intensity except at
`
`the ends, where red circles indicate higher intensities. Accordingly, the ends have
`
`higher optical power. As noted above, the cylindrical lens has higher intensity and
`
`optical power aroundits center. Finally, a DOE/MEM (Diffraction Optical Element,
`
`13
`
`0000253
`
`
`
`Micro-Electro-Mechanical) provides an intensity that follows a gaussian distribution
`
`and is far more uniform along its length than either the Powell or cylindricallens.
`
`37.
`
`Exemplary measurements of the percentage of line center power for
`
`each type of lens are providedin the table and photos below:
`
`
`Center Power Characteristics of 0.460W Blue Laser (450nm) By Lens
`
`Lens Type| Exit
`Optic
`
`Center
`100mm
`
`Power Down| Photo
`center
`
`
`
`
`-_
`
`Cylindrical) 381mw|236.5mw
`lens
`
`a. Powell PL75 Lens 100mm:
`
`14
`
`0000254
`
`
`
`b. Cylindrical Lens 100mm:
`c. DOE Lens 100mm:
`
`0000255
`
`
`
`38. As noted above,the cylindrical lens provides a greater percentage ofits
`
`optical power downits center compared to the Powell and DOE lenses. This limits
`
`the base optical power that can be used to navigate a volume of 3D space with a
`
`cylindrical lens, as explained below.
`
`39.
`
`Inorderto utilize a plane oflaser light to demarcate objects in 3D space
`
`for the humaneye,a stripe light must balance the need for high enoughoptical power
`
`to be useful as a navigation aid with the need to maintain a low enough maximum
`
`poweralong the length of the line to avoid harming the human eye. To meet both
`
`of these requirements, a line of laser light must have around 10mw optical powerat
`
`a 100mmdistance to both adhereto the applicable FDA / CDRH safety requirements
`
`and provide enoughillumination powerto be useful for human navigation and object
`
`identification. This powerlevel allows the optical power to be well below Smwata
`
`distance of 200mm,whichresults in a device safe for the human eye.
`
`40. As explained below, a DOE,due to its uniform powerdistribution, is
`
`best suited for human navigation applications. Also as explained below, a
`
`cylindrical lens is generally unsuitable for such applications.
`
`Al. The table below showsthat a DOEisbest for use for this application
`
`as it has a manageable thermal power usage as well as enough optical power
`
`available for it to distribute over the entire light plane. Dueto the fact that the
`
`16
`
`0000256
`
`
`
`bulk of the powerofthe cylindrical lens is at the center of the laser line, in order
`
`to keep the maximum center power within safe limits for the human eye, a very
`
`low powerlaser must be used. Accordingly, a cylindrical lens will have
`
`approximately 13 times less poweravailable for navigation than a DOEifit
`
`complies with CDRH safety requirements, and thus cannot be used for
`
`applications requiring navigation with the humaneye.”
`
`Parameters for Each Lens Type Needed to Generate 10mw Center Power
`
`
`
`Lens Type Center Power|Comment
`
`
`
`Powell 1220mw|10mw Thermal issue and waste of
`
`powerto left and right;
`possible safety issues.
`
`DOE
`
`256mw
`
`10mw
`
`Optimal usage of poweras
`taught in the Redpath patent
`(Ex. 1005).
`
`
`
`Cylindrical 19.5mw|10mw Not enough powerfor area
`
`
`lens
`and starvation ofleft and right
`of line.
`
`2? Although a Powell lens can be madeto generate a laser line with 10mw center
`power, dueto the characteristics of the lens, very high powerlevels are needed,
`and much of the poweris wastedat the periphery ofthe laser line away from the
`field of view of the user. In addition, the powerofthe ends of the line may exceed
`safe levels if the user looksin their direction. The high power requirements also
`require a far larger device in order to generate the additional power required and
`dissipate the additional heat generated by the higher powerlaser. Accordingly, a
`Powell lens is not a good choice for a navigation application.
`17
`
`0000257
`
`
`
`42. As noted above,
`
`lines with uniform power suitable for navigation
`
`cannotbe generated effectively with a cylindrical lens. This problem is exacerbated
`
`when a deviceis intended to be used in smoke-filled environments.
`
`43.
`
`The performance of laser lines in smoke-filled environments can be
`
`evaluated with turbidity tests by passing the laser lines through water containing
`
`particulate matter.
`
`44.
`
`Turbidity tests for each of the three types of lenses discussed above
`
`were performed according to NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit ) Standard EPA
`
`180.1 (ISO 7027).
`
`45.
`
`Turbidity measures were taken using a standard NTU 300certified
`
`solution. Both a DOElens according to the prior art Redpath patent and a
`
`commercial cylinder lens for a 35mw CW laser were evaluated. A red laser was
`
`chosen for ease of photography. The photograph below illustrates the optical bench
`
`setup for thetest:
`
`
`
`18
`
`0000258
`
`
`
`46. A comparison of the optical output of each lens through the NTU 300
`
`solution follows. The image on the right illustrates how the ellipsoidal center
`
`weighted power of the cylindrical
`
`lens propagates poorly through a turbid
`
`environment. In contrast, as shown ontheleft, a DOE lensperthe prior art Redpath
`
`patent penetrates far moreeffectively.*
`
`
`
`47.
`
`Inthe real world, these differences have substantial consequences. Due
`
`to the high concentration of its powerin a centerellipsoid, muchofthe optical output
`
`of the cylindrical lens on the right is directed back towardsthe lens (and the user) in
`
`turbid or smokey environments. Accordingly, a cylindrical lens, even if it
`
`is
`
`3 The DOElensin the turbid environmentalso clearly reveals the plane of laser
`light generated byastraight-line generatorlens.
`19
`
`0000259
`
`
`
`configured at a powerlevel to operate safely in a smoke-free environment, can cause
`
`blinding light to shine into a user’s eyes when used in a smokey environment, while
`
`a DOEcanoperate safely in such an environment.
`
`48.
`
`Insummary,there are at least five interrelated parameters that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art must vary and experiment with whendesigninga straight-
`
`line generating laser device, as depicted in the Venn Diagram below.
`
`
`
`Continuous Wave (CW)
`
`49.
`
`First, (Power):
`
`there must be enough optical powerfor the laser to be
`
`effective for use in 3D space by the human eye. Second (Thermal): the housing and
`
`other components must be designed to manage and dissipate the heat generated by
`
`the laser. Third (Safety):
`
`the laser power cannot exceed the maximum for human
`
`use pursuant to FDA\CDRH requirements. Fourth (Line Profile): the light plane lens
`
`mustbe sufficiently uniform to providerelatively equal illumination alongits length.
`
`20
`
`0000260
`
`
`
`Fifth (Photo Chemical):
`
`the wavelength must meet photo chemical wavelength
`
`safety measures at 400-600nm with all other parameters under consideration.
`
`50. With respect to the thermal issues mentioned above,a laser light source
`
`must have a sufficient meansto dissipate the heat generated by the laser in use.
`
`51.
`
`This is usually accomplished by a dedicated heat sink structure,
`
`typically made of aluminum. A standard aluminum heat sink has thermal
`
`conductivity of 285 W/m-K,and any laser device must have space to accommodate
`
`a heat sink that is thermally coupled to the laser diode and has sufficient capacity to
`
`dissipate the heat generated by the diode. Because a laser diode is at most 30%
`
`efficient it must dissipate at least 70% of its consumed poweras heat. Because of
`
`this, heat sinks take up a substantial amount of space in laser devices, particularly
`
`for the relatively high-powered devices suitable for 3D navigation, such as Class 3R
`
`lasers.
`
`52.
`
`In addition, laser diodes generate far more heat than LEDs, which
`
`generally dissipate substantially less than 50% of their poweras heat. Accordingly,
`
`a laser diode must have a heat sink that is substantially larger than that used for a
`
`comparable LED.
`
`21
`
`0000261
`
`
`
`VII. ANALYSIS
`
`A. PERSON OF ORDINARYSKILL IN THE ART
`
`53.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made would have had:
`
`(1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering (or a related field); and (2) either a master’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering (or a related field) or five years’ experience working to design and
`
`develop portable illumination devices and/or portable lasers.
`
`B. EFFECTIVE FILING DATE
`
`54.
`
`The ’702 patent claims priority to an earlier application designated as
`
`U.S. Provisional No. 62/325,917, which was filed on April 21, 2016. Claims8, 18,
`
`20, 21, 24, and 26 of the ’702 patent describe a “flexible” stalk and/or a
`
`“rotatable” or “rotating” laser light source. But these features are not described in
`
`the earlier patent application. Accordingly, they are not entitled to claim the earlier
`
`priority date, and their effective filing is April 20, 2017, the filing date of the ’702
`
`patent’s application. However, becauseall prior art relied on by the Petitioner is
`
`older than the earliest priority date, and because the level of skill in the art did not
`
`change substantially between April 21, 2016 and April 2017, my analysis does not
`
`draw a distinction between the twosets of claims, and I use April 21, 2016 as the
`
`effective filing date of the Challenged Claims.
`
`22
`
`0000262
`
`
`
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`55.
`
`In my opinion, a person ofordinary skill in the art would construe the
`
`term “cylindrical lens” as “a lens with a cylindrical surface that both receives a laser
`
`beam and emits the same laser beam as a plane oflight.” This definition is consistent
`
`with the technical discussion above, where I explained the three types of lenses that
`
`can generate a line of laser light on a flat surface. It is also consistent with the ’702
`
`patent’s specification andfile history.
`
`56.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe the
`
`term “planeoflaser light” as “laser light that creates a straight line on objects upon
`
`which it impinges.” This definition is consistent with the technical discussion above
`
`where I explained the history of stripe lights.
`
`It is also consistent with the 702
`
`patent’s specification andfile history.
`
`D. ANTICIPATION
`
`GROUND 1
`
`In my opinion, U.S. Patent No. 6,062,702 (“Krietzman’’) anticipates claims1,
`
`2,5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, 27, and 28. Krietzman describes a portable
`
`illumination device that includes a light bulb and a laser diode, and allows the user
`
`to select between operation of one or both of those illumination sources. Ex. 1004
`
`at col. 5:22-25, col. 5:44-64, col. 6:45-46, and col. 7:6-9.
`
`23
`
`0000263
`
`
`
`57.
`
`It also describes several lens types that can be used with the laser diode.
`
`Ex. 1004 at col. 4:5-14. The lenses include “straight-line generator lenses,” which
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand generate a plane oflaserlight.
`
`58. Krietzman also describes the use of several types of switches, and
`
`explains that other types of switches known to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`can be used as well. Ex. 1004, at col. 4:20-38.
`
`59. Claim1requires a portable light comprising “a light body for receiving
`
`a source ofelectrical power.” _Krietzman describesthis feature:
`
`e
`
`“within the upper chamber 41a are the two ends 150a & 150b of the
`
`two rowsofbatteries powering the flashlight are connected at the rear
`
`via the rear contact strip 65.” Ex. 1004, col. 6:23-25.
`
`60.
`
`Claim 1 requires “a white light source supported by said light body and
`
`selectively energizable for producing white light.” Krietzman describesthis feature:
`
`e
`
`“the laser diode 100 may be activated independently or in concert with
`
`the light bulb 201” (Ex. 1004, col. 6:45-46), and “the light bulb 201
`
`produces a generalized wide spectrum illumination.” Ex. 1004, col.
`
`7:35-36.
`
`61.
`
`Claim 1 requires “a laser light source supported by said light body and
`
`selectively energizable for producing laser light, wherein said laser light source
`
`includes a cylindrical lens configured for receiving light from a laser emission
`
`24
`
`0000264
`
`
`
`elementand for transmitting the receivedlight as a planeoflaserlight, the cylindrical
`
`lens receiving laser light at a first part of a cylindrical surface thereof and emitting
`
`the plane of laser light from a second part of that cylindrical surface, whereby the
`
`laser light source is configured to emit a plane oflaser light.” Krietzman describes
`
`this feature:
`
`e
`
`“the laser diode 100 may be activated independently or in concert with
`
`the light bulb 201.” Ex. 1004;
`
`e
`
`“Material choice for the discreet elements 64a & 64k include...
`
`straight-line generator lenses... .”” Ex. 1004 at col. 6:66-67.
`
`62. As described above in the technical background, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand that Krietzman’s straight-line generator lenses
`
`necessarily produce a plane of laser light. This is because, as discussed above, in
`
`order to generate a straight line of laser light on a two-dimensional surface such as
`
`a wall, a laser must necessarily generate a plane of laser light. The intersection of
`
`the plane oflaser light with the wall is what formsthe line of laser light on the wall.
`
`63. After reviewing Krietzman’s description of straight-line generator
`
`lenses, a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately understand that the
`
`reference to straight-line generator lenses meant: (1) cylindrical lenses; (2) Powell
`
`lenses; and (3) diffraction optical elements, as described above in paragraphs 30-33.
`
`Accordingly, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would at once
`
`25
`
`0000265
`
`
`
`envisage these three species of lenses after seeing the reference to the genus of
`
`straight-line generatorlenses.
`
`64.
`
`Claim 1 requires “receiving laser light at a first part of a cylindrical
`
`surface thereof and emitting the plane of laser light from a second part of that
`
`cylindrical surface.” This limitation attempts to describe the waythat all cylindrical
`
`lenses work. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore understandthat a
`
`cylindrical lens necessarily, or inherently, works this way.
`
`65.
`
`Claim 1 requires “a switch supported bysaid light body for selectively
`
`energizing said white light source from the source of electrical power, and for
`
`selectively energizing said laser light source from the source ofelectrical power.”
`
`Krietzman describes this feature:
`
`e
`
`“electrical connection means is selected from the group of on/off
`
`switches consisting of momentary, push button, pressure sensitive,
`
`rotating, rotating momentary, variable resistance switches consisting of
`
`rotating, pressure sensitive, or momentary rotating.” Ex. 1004, claim
`
`14.
`
`e
`
`“the laser diode 100 maybe activated independently or in concert with
`
`the light bulb 201.” Ex. 1004, col. 6:45-46.
`
`66.
`
`Thus, in my opinion, Krietzman anticipates claim 1.
`
`26
`
`0000266
`
`
`
`67. Claim2 states: “the portable light of claim 1 wherein the laser emission
`
`element comprises a laser diode.” Krietzman describes this feature. Specifically, it
`
`describes a removable solid state laser diode 100, (held in place within a circular
`
`diode guide 12 formed within the housing). Ex. 1004, col. 2:46-48. Thus, in my
`
`opinion, Krietzman anticipates claim 2.
`
`68.
`
`Claim 5 states: “the portable light of claim 1 wherein said switch is
`
`operable so that only one of said white light source and said laser light source is
`
`active at a given time.” Krietzman describesthis limitation: “[t]he laser diode 100
`
`may beactivated independently or in concert with the lightbulb 201.” Ex. 1004, col.
`
`6:45-46. Thus, in my opinion, Krietzman anticipates claim 5.
`
`69. Claim6requires “the portable light of claim 1 wherein said white light
`
`source and said laser light source emit light in substantially the same direction.”
`
`Kreitzman describes this limitation in Figures 3A and 3C, which illustrate a white
`
`light source andlaser light source that emit light in substantially the samedirection.
`
`Thus, in my opinion, Krietzman anticipates claim 6.
`
`Claim8requires “the portable light of claim 1 wherein said laser light
`
`source is supported by a shaped optical element of said white light source or is
`
`supported by a receptacle of said light body or is supported at a distal end of a
`
`flexible stalk supported by said light body.” Krietzmandescribes this limitation in
`
`Figs. 3A and 3C and through its description that the planar face supports the laser
`
`27
`
`0000267
`
`
`
`lens elements 64a-64k: “within the planar face 50 are a plurality of discreet elements
`
`64a & 64k.” Ex. 1004, col. 7:31-32. Thus, in my opinion Krietzman anticipations
`
`claim 8.
`
`70.
`
`Claim 10 requires “a light body for receiving a source of electrical
`
`power.” Krietzmandescribesthis limitation: “within the upper chamber41a are the
`
`two ends 150a & 150b of the two rows of batteries powering the flashlight are
`
`connectedat the rear via the rear contact strip 65.” Ex. 1004, col. 6:23-25.
`
`71.
`
`Claim 10 requires “a white light source supported by said light body
`
`and selecti
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
