UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRLAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`PARHELION, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`STREAMLIGHT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`PGR Case N0.: To be Assigned
`US. Patent No. 10,378,702
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH J. PUCKETT
`
`1
`
`0000241
`
`Parhelion, Inc.
`EXFHBFF
`
`1003
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRLAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`PARHELION, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`STREAMLIGHT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`PGR Case N0.: To be Assigned
`US. Patent No. 10,378,702
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH J. PUCKETT
`
`1
`
`0000241
`
`Parhelion, Inc.
`EXFHBFF
`
`1003
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH J. PUCKETT
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`0000242
`
`
`
`I, Kenneth J. Puckett, do hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`My business address is Laser Product Safety LLC, CARAT Laboratory,
`
`8743 NC Highway 751, Durham, North Carolina.
`
`I earned a BS. 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 Manager for 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
`
`organizations in relation to laser technology and safety:
`
`0 The US. Department of Commerce on topics related to Laser
`
`Radiation Radiometric Measurement in conjunction with the
`
`University of Colorado, Boulder Colorado;
`
`0 The National Institute of Standards and Technology on laser radiation
`
`hazard calculations and safety analyses;
`
`3
`
`0000243
`
`
`
`o The Laser Institute of America on programs related to Fundamentals
`
`of Laser Radiation Safety and Laser Safety Officer Training;
`
`0 The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) on workforce
`
`training;
`
`0 The Rockwell Laser Institute on programs related to Laser Safety
`
`Awareness Training, Principles of Lasers Training, and laser safety
`
`requirements in the manufacturing environment; and
`
`0 Laser Professionals Inc., on ANSI Zl36.1 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 ofUS. Patent No. 10,378,702 (“the ’702
`
`patent”).
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`I am not an employee of the 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 outcome of the Petition for post-grant review (or
`
`the outcome of the 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; (ii) whether claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23, 27, and 28 are
`
`anticipated by, and/or would have been obvious over, certain prior art references;
`
`and (iii) whether claims 1, 10, ll, 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 ’7 02 patent and certain
`
`prior art to the ’702 patent listed in the exhibits.
`
`10.
`
`Based on my education 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.
`
`111. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘702 PATENT
`
`11.
`
`The ’702 patent is titled “Portable Light with Plane of a Laser Light”
`
`and names Raymond L. 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 understand that the specification of a patent is 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 plane to 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 paragraphs at
`
`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 and stand on their own. I also understand that dependent claims refer back
`
`to, or “depend from” other claims and include the 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 and a laser light source that generates a plane of
`
`laser light.
`
`0000246
`
`
`
`15.
`
`I 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.
`
`I have applied the following legal principals provided to me by counsel
`
`in arriving at the opinions set 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.
`
`I understand that a patent claim may receive the 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 conveys to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession
`
`of the filll scope of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date of the earlier
`
`application. I have further been informed that the written description requirement
`
`can be satisfied even if the application does not describe the claimed invention using
`
`the same language as the claim.
`
`0000247
`
`
`
`B.
`
`STANDARD FOR ANTICIPATION UNDER 35 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
`
`prior art 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 when a prior
`
`art reference discloses a genus, or group of items, it will anticipate the individual
`
`members, or species, of the genus if the genus is of such a defined and limited class
`
`that one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envision each member of the 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.
`
`STANDARD FOR OBVIOUSNESS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a patent may be invalid as obvious if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`0000248
`
`
`
`as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to 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: (l) 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.
`
`I am informed that objective indicia of non-obviousness may include:
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet need in 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 language to the prior art on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`0000249
`
`
`
`D.
`
`STANDARD FOR ENABLEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a claim in a patent is unpatentable if the specification
`
`of the application leading to the patent fails to describe the claimed invention in such
`
`a manner as 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 prior art, (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.
`
`I have been asked to provide a brief scientific and technical background
`
`on the technology used to generate a plane of laser light, often known as a “stripe
`
`light,” so called because when the plane of laser light is projected onto a surface such
`
`as a wall, it forms a line, or stripe, 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
`
`ofup to 0.01 mm.
`
`27. At the time of the filing of the ’702 patent (and today as well) these 3D
`
`scanning applications used a pulsed periodic Class 3R1 laser set to invisible
`
`wavelengths at uncommon frequencies (for example, infrared 900nm) because such
`
`frequencies avoid false positive readings from environmental sources and are
`
`invisible to the human eye.
`
`28.
`
`In addition, laser lines or stripe lights are also used for applications such
`
`as barcode scanners and laser levels.
`
`29.
`
`To my knowledge, stripe light technology was never applied for rescue
`
`work navigation in the visible spectrum until disclosed by US. Patent No. 8,672,5 13
`
`(“Redpath”) (EX. 1005). Redpath discloses the use of a diffraction grating to
`
`generate a plane of light or “stripe light” at visible wavelengths suitable to assist in
`
`navigation in smoke-filled environments. Ex. 1005, col. 2:7-26.
`
`1 Lasers are classified by the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health
`(CDRH) into several classes. Under the FDA’s LN50 a Class 3R laser is a
`continuous wave laser, which may produce up to five times the emission limit for
`Class 1, or Class 2 lasers. Although the MPE can be exceeded, the risk of injury is
`low. The laser can produce no more than 5 mW in the visible region.
`
`11
`
`000025 1
`
`
`
`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
`
`common types 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
`
`power intensity as shown in the below photos of a barcode scanning laser. Because
`
`the line has higher power at its center, such a lens results in a line shaped like 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— l 00mW-Focusable-Red—Line—Laser-By-
`
`Cylindrical-Lens-3D-14104708655 l .html#&gid= l &pid=l
`
`
`
`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 and line 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 of laser light.
`
`33. A Powell lens has a uniform intensity except at the ends of the line of
`
`laser light. The ends of the line have relatively higher optical power.
`
`34. A DOE/MEM lens outputs power according to a Gaussian distribution,
`
`which provides for a straight line with a more even power distribution 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 higher intensity:
`
`{E}:{Il ~fl
`5‘
`Powell lens
`‘5’
`
`,- .__
`
`-.___,
`
`Cylindrical lens
`
`I:I
`DOE
`
`36. As illustrated 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 around its center. Finally, a DOE/MEM (Diffraction Optical Element,
`
`13
`
`000025 3
`
`
`
`Micro-Electro-Mechanical) provides an intensity that follows a gaussian distribution
`
`and is far more uniform along its length than either the Powell or cylindrical lens.
`
`37.
`
`Exemplary measurements of the percentage of line center power for
`
`each type of lens are provided in the table and photos below:
`
`Center Power Characteristics of 0. 460W Blue Laser 450nm B Lens
`
`
`Lens Type Exit
`Optic
`
`Center
`100mm
`
`Power Down Photo
`center
`
`17-91mw
`
`Cylindrical 381mw 236.5mw
`lens
`
`a. Powell PL75 Lens 100mm:
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`0000254
`
`
`
`b. Cylindrical Lens 100mm:
`
`c. DOE Lens 100mm:
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`000025 5
`
`
`
`38. As noted above, the cylindrical lens provides a greater percentage of its
`
`optical power down its 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.
`
`In order to utilize a plane of laser light to demarcate objects in 3D space
`
`for the human eye, a stripe light must balance the need for high enough optical power
`
`to be useful as a navigation aid with the need to maintain a low enough maximum
`
`power along 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 power at
`
`a 100mm distance to both adhere to the applicable FDA / CDRH safety requirements
`
`and provide enough illumination power to be useful for human navigation and object
`
`identification. This power level allows the optical power to be well below 5mw at a
`
`distance of 200mm, which results in a device safe for the human eye.
`
`40. As explained below, a DOE, due to its uniform power distribution, is
`
`best suited for human navigation applications. Also as explained below, a
`
`cylindrical lens is generally unsuitable for such applications.
`
`41. The table below shows that a DOE is best 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. Due to the fact that the
`
`16
`
`000025 6
`
`
`
`bulk of the power of the 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 power laser must be used. Accordingly, a cylindrical lens will have
`
`approximately 13 times less power available for navigation than a DOE if it
`
`complies with CDRH safety requirements, and thus cannot be used for
`
`applications requiring navigation with the human eye.2
`
`Parameters for Each Lens T e Needed to Generate 10mw Center Power
`
`Lens Type
`
`Laser
`Power
`
`Required
`
`Center Power Comment
`
`Powell
`
`1220mw
`
`10mw
`
`Thermal issue and waste of
`
`
`
`DOE
`
`256mw
`
`10mw
`
`Cylindrical
`lens
`
`19.5mw
`
`10mw
`
`power to left and right;
`possible safety issues.
`
`Optimal usage of power as
`taught in the Redpath patent
`(Ex. 1005).
`
`Not enough power for area
`and starvation of left and right
`of line.
`
`2A—lthougha Powell lens can be made to generate a laser line with 10mw center
`
`power, due to the characteristics of the lens, very high power levels are needed,
`and much of the power is wasted at the periphery of the laser line away from the
`field of view of the user. In addition, the power of the ends of the line may exceed
`safe levels if the user looks in 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 power laser. Accordingly, a
`Powell lens is not a good choice for a navigation application.
`
`17
`
`000025 7
`
`
`
`42. As noted above,
`
`lines with uniform power suitable for navigation
`
`cannot be generated effectively with a cylindrical lens. This problem is exacerbated
`
`when a device is 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
`
`1801 (ISO 7027).
`
`45.
`
`Turbidity measures were taken using a standard NTU 300 certified
`
`solution. Both a DOE lens 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 the test:
`
`
`
`18
`
`000025 8
`
`
`
`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 on the left, a DOE lens per the prior art Redpath
`
`patent penetrates far more effectively.3
`
`
`
`47.
`
`In the real world, these differences have substantial consequences. Due
`
`to the high concentration of its power in a center ellipsoid, much of the optical output
`
`of the cylindrical lens on the right is directed back towards the lens (and the user) in
`
`turbid or smokey environments. Accordingly, a cylindrical lens, even if it
`
`is
`
`3 The DOE lens in the turbid environment also clearly reveals the plane of laser
`light generated by a straight-line generator lens.
`
`19
`
`000025 9
`
`
`
`configured at a power level 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 DOE can operate safely in such an environment.
`
`48.
`
`In summary, there are at least five interrelated parameters that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art must vary and experiment with when designing a straight-
`
`line generating laser device, as depicted in the Venn Diagram below.
`
`
`
`Continuous Wave (cw;
`
`49.
`
`First, (Power):
`
`there must be enough optical power for 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
`
`must be sufficiently uniform to provide relatively equal illumination along its length.
`
`20
`
`0000260
`
`
`
`Fifth (Photo Chemical):
`
`the wavelength must meet photo chemical wavelength
`
`safety measures at 400-600nm with all other parameters under consideration.
`
`5 0. With respect to the thermal issues mentioned above, a laser light source
`
`must have a sufficient means to 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 power as 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 power as heat. Accordingly,
`
`a laser diode must have a heat sink that is substantially larger than that used for a
`
`comparable LED.
`
`21
`
`000026 1
`
`
`
`VII. ANALYSIS
`
`A. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL 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
`
`US. Provisional No. 62/325,917, which was filed on April 21, 2016. Claims 8, 18,
`
`20, 21, 24, and 26 of the ’7 02 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, because all 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 two sets 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 of ordinary 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 of light.” 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 and file history.
`
`56.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe the
`
`term “plane of laser 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 and file history.
`
`D. ANTICIPATION
`
`GROUND 1
`
`In my opinion, US. Patent No. 6,062,702 (“Krietzman”) anticipates claims 1,
`
`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 of laser light.
`
`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.
`
`
`Claim 1 requires a portable light comprising “a light body for receiving
`
`a source of electrical power.” Krietzman describes this feature:
`
`0
`
`“within the upper chamber 41a are the two ends 150a & 150b of the
`
`two rows of batteries 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 describes this feature:
`
`0
`
`“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
`
`
`
`element and for transmitting the received light as a plane of laser light, 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 of laser light.” Krietzman describes
`
`this feature:
`
`0
`
`“the laser diode 100 may be activated independently or in concert with
`
`the light bulb 201.” EX. 1004;
`
`0
`
`“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 of laser light with the wall is what forms the 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: (I) 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 generator lenses.
`
`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 way that all cylindrical
`
`lenses work. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand that a
`
`cylindrical lens necessarily, or inherently, works this way.
`
`65.
`
`Claim 1 requires “a switch supported by said 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 of electrical power.”
`
`Krietzman describes this feature:
`
`0
`
`“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.
`
`0
`
`“the laser diode 100 may be 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.
`
`
`Claim 2 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 describes this limitation: “[t]he laser diode 100
`
`may be activated independently or in concert with the lightbulb 201
`
`Ex. 1004, col.
`
`6:45-46. Thus, in my opinion, Krietzman anticipates claim 5.
`
`69.
`
`
`Claim 6 requires “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 and laser light source that emit light in substantially the same direction.
`
`Thus, in my opinion, Krietzman anticipates claim 6.
`
`
`Claim 8 requires “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.” Krietzman describes 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.” Krietzman describes this limitation: “within the upper chamber 41a are the
`
`two ends 150a & 150b of the two rows of batteries powering the flashlight are
`
`connected at 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 selectively energizable for producing white light.” Krietzman describes this
`
`limitation: “the laser diode 100 may be activated independentl
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
