[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
The next case is number 23151, Home Depot USA versus Link Light Pink.

[00:00:10] Speaker 02:
Okay, Ms.

[00:00:10] Speaker 02:
Nall.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court, Jennifer Lebrock-Nall for Appellant Home Depot.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
The issue before the panel is whether substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that the petition failed to show Claim 2 of the 149 patent was unpatentable

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
As I'll explain based on the evidence that is undisputed here on appeal and the arguments of the dispute as briefed by the parties, there is no evidence that supports the board's determination.

[00:00:45] Speaker 01:
I'll start with the undisputed evidence as shown in the response.

[00:00:49] Speaker 03:
Can you just help me with the claim language?

[00:00:51] Speaker 03:
I don't even understand what the claim means when you're talking about a driver being configured to receive forward voltages.

[00:00:59] Speaker 03:
And maybe, I don't know if it's either easier to use the patents

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
Figures 25 or 26 or prior art figure, I found figure 5 of Dease to be helpful, but I thought the driver was what received the mains voltage or whatever outside voltage is coming in and that the driver then sent it through

[00:01:24] Speaker 03:
whatever the rest of the circuit was, and the forward voltage is just the rate that's needed to turn on and off diodes.

[00:01:32] Speaker 03:
And so I don't understand how it even makes sense to think of the driver as receiving forward voltage.

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
Your Honor is absolutely correct in the way you've described it.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
And I think we could look at Figure 5 or the patent to discuss it, but looking at Figure

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
Figure four is at page 10 of the responsive brief.

[00:01:56] Speaker 01:
It's a version of figure five.

[00:02:00] Speaker 01:
In Deese, there's one place that the circuit receives power.

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
It's AC mains.

[00:02:04] Speaker 01:
That's undisputed.

[00:02:05] Speaker 01:
Claim one was found unpatentable over Deese.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
And the driver there receives AC mains.

[00:02:11] Speaker 01:
That is undisputed on appeal.

[00:02:13] Speaker 03:
And so can I just stop you there?

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
Because this science is very, very hard.

[00:02:18] Speaker 03:
I've done my best to understand, but this electronic stuff is among the hardest for me.

[00:02:23] Speaker 03:
So in figure four, the mains comes in to the driver.

[00:02:27] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:02:28] Speaker 03:
And then what happens from there to activate the LEDs?

[00:02:35] Speaker 03:
Does it somehow

[00:02:39] Speaker 03:
convert it or do something to it to make it the right forward voltage to activate some or all of the LEDs?

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
So a circuit is a circle, and you have to be connected from the positive of the input voltage to the negative.

[00:02:56] Speaker 01:
And when you go across the circuit, it goes from whatever the input voltage is, like 120 volts mains, to zero, which is ground.

[00:03:06] Speaker 01:
And as it flows, voltage

[00:03:09] Speaker 01:
dissipates maybe heat through your signal or maybe over your driver and and All along a little bit of the voltage is used up as it goes through the circuit.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
So it goes from 120 to zero So in DC and in the 149 patent you have an input voltage come in you have some it's not discussed but you have some

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
dissipation over the wire as it gets to the driver, then you have a dissipation like a voltage drop across the driver, and then you have a voltage drop across the LED circuit, and then you have the voltage drop

[00:03:48] Speaker 01:
of any resistors or any other circuits before it gets to ground.

[00:03:51] Speaker 03:
So for- Can I just, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I want to make sure I understand.

[00:03:55] Speaker 03:
And the forward voltage comes into this as the rate that's needed to power something.

[00:04:03] Speaker 03:
What is that something?

[00:04:05] Speaker 01:
So a forward voltage for an LED, there's a range at which it works.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
And the forward voltage is the minimum amount needed to turn on the LED.

[00:04:14] Speaker 01:
And here it's the whole,

[00:04:16] Speaker 01:
The whole LED arrays, it's not just a single LED which has a very small forward voltage, it's the whole LED array.

[00:04:23] Speaker 03:
And either the patent or DS or both have a way of working with part or all of the array and all the array needs more forward voltage maybe than part of the array?

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
Yes, exactly.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
So it's undisputed that if you have the full array, all 12, it would need more forward voltage than if you have the partial array 1 through 11, which would need more forward voltage than the partial array 1 through 10.

[00:04:50] Speaker 03:
I know determination is the wrong word for electrical stuff, but is all of that happening after

[00:04:58] Speaker 03:
See, I have a problem with what the driver is.

[00:05:00] Speaker 03:
Is that happening within the driver?

[00:05:02] Speaker 03:
Is it happening after the driver?

[00:05:03] Speaker 03:
It's certainly not happening before it comes into the driver.

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
There's no determination.

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
So the amount in electrical engineering, V equals IR, Ohm's law, voltage equals current times resistance.

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
So the amount of the voltage that drops depends on the amount of current and the amount of resistance.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
And so there's no determination of the forward voltage.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
If you are below the forward voltage of the LED, it doesn't turn on.

[00:05:39] Speaker 01:
And if you are significantly above the forward voltage of the LED, there's a breakage point where the LED will burn out, right?

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
can have the forward voltage.

[00:05:51] Speaker 03:
So are there things in there and things, I'm going to be as precise as possible, but it's going to be completely precise.

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
Are there things in that driver that can either boost or lower that to make sure the LED is operating as efficiently as possible?

[00:06:06] Speaker 01:
No, not in the 149 patent and not in D's.

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
That is not something that is done.

[00:06:10] Speaker 01:
You have to design circuits so that you don't burn out your LEDs.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
So in D's, what they've done is

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
it's a traffic light and you don't want to have your traffic light not working during brown out conditions.

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
Black out, you have no power, there's nothing you can do.

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
But brown out, there's a droop.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
Instead of 120 volts, you get slightly less, variable less.

[00:06:35] Speaker 01:
And so in D's, what they did is in 120 volts, you get all 12 arrays.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
But if there's a droop between 107 and 97 volts that's received, the D circuit

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
so it shorts out and removes LED array 12.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
And so the circuit is different, it requires less minimum voltage to turn on, and if it droops more, underneath 97 volts of the input,

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
It shunts another LED array.

[00:07:04] Speaker 01:
11 is removed.

[00:07:05] Speaker 03:
But it's still working because it's just lessening the note.

[00:07:09] Speaker 03:
The whole light's still working.

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
In the lowest range, below 97.

[00:07:14] Speaker 01:
I understand.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
I'm not being precise for your electrical engineering, but I'm trying to understand this in lay terms.

[00:07:19] Speaker 03:
That's all very helpful.

[00:07:21] Speaker 03:
And it gets back to my original question, which is, does it make any sense to talk in terms of

[00:07:28] Speaker 03:
forward voltage coming into the driver.

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
It sounds like that relevant forward voltage which is enough to power the circuits has nothing to do with what's coming in from the mains or any other power source.

[00:07:42] Speaker 03:
It's forward voltage is relevant to the operation of the circuit within and so is claimed to just nonsense.

[00:07:55] Speaker 03:
I know you don't want to call it nonsense.

[00:07:57] Speaker 03:
Is it

[00:07:59] Speaker 03:
My guess, what I'm taking away from this, I'll put my cards on the table so the others can respond, is it seems like the board said, well, you didn't show where forward voltage is coming into the driver, which maybe you didn't, because that doesn't make any sense.

[00:08:13] Speaker 03:
Where voltage doesn't come into the driver at all, the mains voltage comes into the driver and the forward voltage concept is relevant after it comes into the driver.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
And your honor, that might be what the board meant.

[00:08:27] Speaker 01:
It's hard to say because in appendix page 50, there's only three lines.

[00:08:30] Speaker 01:
We don't exactly.

[00:08:31] Speaker 03:
I understand.

[00:08:31] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you this.

[00:08:32] Speaker 03:
And we didn't get a claim construction in all of claim two.

[00:08:35] Speaker 03:
What if claim two was properly understood as

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
where the driver is configured to receive sufficient mains voltage to power or to work at two different AC forward voltages.

[00:08:59] Speaker 03:
Does that make more sense?

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
I think that is the way that we interpret it, and that does make sense.

[00:09:04] Speaker 03:
Well, that's the problem.

[00:09:05] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:09:05] Speaker 03:
That's why I read your brief, and I thought, well, of course it has to work that way.

[00:09:09] Speaker 03:
That's not what it says, though.

[00:09:13] Speaker 03:
You definitely didn't show the specifics of this.

[00:09:15] Speaker 03:
I think you're trying to make sense of the claim and say, of course, ours does that if that's what the claim means.

[00:09:22] Speaker 03:
I agree with you.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
But if the claim just means the driver's configured to receive forward voltage, if that doesn't exist in the real world, then do you really care whether this claim's valid or not?

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
Your honor, this is the only remaining claim at the district court, and we need to know what it means.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
If it means that, we just do need to know so that when the case is unstated, the district court could deal with that.

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
And you're right, we would not, as Home Depot would be fine if that's the interpretation.

[00:09:52] Speaker 01:
Very hard to understand from the claims.

[00:09:54] Speaker 03:
Claim one, which this is dependent from, talks about a driver configured to receive an AC voltage from a mains power source and provide a voltage and a current.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
And that makes sense.

[00:10:07] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:10:08] Speaker 03:
You get the driver, it's getting the mains voltage.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
And I think probably I would agree with you that you're trying to make sense of this in the only way that it works electrically is that claim two means where

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
the mains power coming in is sufficient to use to configure two different AC forward voltages.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
And if that's the case, your position is, well, of course, these shows that because it shows power coming in, mains power coming in, and its system operates at at least two different rubber voltages.

[00:10:44] Speaker 01:
Yes, your honor.

[00:10:45] Speaker 01:
That's exactly right.

[00:10:46] Speaker 03:
So either the your view, I'm sorry, I'm taking up all of your time, but either your view is the proper understanding of this is a slight reinterpretation, which you obviously show, or

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
if they're just talking about forward voltage coming into the driver, that's basically an impossibility and it doesn't matter.

[00:11:06] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:06] Speaker 00:
But in that circumstance, just to follow up, we're in the IPR, so you don't have written description, enablement, indefiniteness at your fingertips, right?

[00:11:16] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:18] Speaker 00:
So either we construe it in a way that makes some sense, and then we look at Ds in that context, or we say,

[00:11:25] Speaker 00:
too bad you're in the wrong form, go back to the district court, and I presume you have defenses in the district court that would get into if we were to adopt Judge Hughes' second choice, which is nonsense.

[00:11:38] Speaker 00:
That's the way nonsense would be adjudicated.

[00:11:42] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:43] Speaker 01:
Although they do dispute that the claim construction was right below, and so they would probably in the district court try and

[00:11:53] Speaker 01:
try and find a way to get around whatever the PTAB decided to try and get a different claim construction.

[00:12:01] Speaker 01:
So there is a dispute about this.

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
And this court does have precedent where if there is an indefiniteness issue, which I agree that is one definite interpretation of this claim, that if there is a way to interpret it, that you can resolve the claim, that it should be resolved.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
Okay, so let me follow up.

[00:12:25] Speaker 03:
You think we have the authority to say, look, if you're just looking at the plain language of this claim, it makes no sense.

[00:12:33] Speaker 03:
The only way to understand it is the way we articulated it.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
That makes it definite and makes sense.

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
And if we do that, what do we do?

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
Do we send it back to the board or is it

[00:12:45] Speaker 03:
Undisputed on the record that that D these would show this if it was the driver Receives main voltage that's sufficient to Have two different AC for our voltages, which we could we just say that from just the record and looking at these Or do we have this in it back to the board to make that fact-binding?

[00:13:08] Speaker 01:
Your honor every fact here is undisputed.

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
It's undisputed that DS receives a

[00:13:13] Speaker 01:
All of its voltage at the driver, it's undisputed that there are multiple configurations with multiple forward voltages.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
The only dispute that I believe exists is whether or not the driver has to receive exactly the forward voltage amount, or if it's a comprising claim and it can receive more than it.

[00:13:32] Speaker 02:
So your construction would be that the driver has to receive sufficient voltage to output two different forward voltages.

[00:13:41] Speaker 01:
the driver has to receive sufficient voltage, not at the same time, Your Honor, that has to be configured to operate such that it, at some points in time, outputs two different... It receives sufficient voltage that it can output two different forward voltages.

[00:14:00] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
I mean, one more question, and this is going to sundown, but

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
If you're, let's just make this easy for me.

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
If you're plugged into a wall and you're getting electricity from the wall in a standard 120 volt and it's coming in the driver, it's never gonna be receiving forward voltages at different amounts.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
It's gonna be receiving 120 and it's by the operation in the driver and after, if there's an after, that the forward voltage is different.

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
So it's not.

[00:14:36] Speaker 03:
Again, I'm getting back to the, like, I don't understand how this would actually work that a driver would receive outside power that's at different forward voltage rates.

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
It receives whatever power rate it's plugged into, either 120 or maybe if it's, you know, commercial or something, it could be higher, but.

[00:14:52] Speaker 01:
You're exactly correct.

[00:14:53] Speaker 01:
But if you think about forward voltage is a characteristic of the light bulb, like a 60 watt light bulb uses 60 watts.

[00:15:02] Speaker 01:
And when you screw it in,

[00:15:04] Speaker 01:
The lamp is plugged in, it gets 120 volts, but it only gets that 60 watts of power, just like the forward voltage is the characteristic, the 60 watts.

[00:15:12] Speaker 01:
And when you plug it in, it's getting the 120, but it's only using, the light bulb's only using its forward voltage.

[00:15:19] Speaker 01:
It can be slightly more.

[00:15:23] Speaker 01:
The minimum amount to turn it on, if it's on, is the forward voltage.

[00:15:26] Speaker 02:
So is it the case that if the driver received only a minimum voltage, that it wouldn't be outputting a minimum voltage because the voltage drops at the driver?

[00:15:39] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:15:44] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:15:44] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
Mahoney.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
We'll give you two minutes, Ms.

[00:15:46] Speaker 02:
Mahoney.

[00:15:47] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
Mr. Schreiner?

[00:15:57] Speaker 04:
Good afternoon, your honors.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
My name is Steve Schreiner.

[00:16:01] Speaker 04:
I'm from Carmichael IP on behalf of the patent owner link.

[00:16:05] Speaker 04:
I'm here with my colleagues Jim Carmichael and Steve McBride.

[00:16:08] Speaker 04:
Let me go ahead and address the what seems to be the focal point of the question so far.

[00:16:14] Speaker 04:
And that's, what does claim two mean?

[00:16:16] Speaker 04:
Claim one recites that you have a driver and the driver has a voltage input and the driver has a voltage output.

[00:16:23] Speaker 04:
And in claim one, it recites that the driver, the source for the driver input is AC mains.

[00:16:30] Speaker 04:
Now what claim two is talking about is the magnitude of the voltage input to the driver.

[00:16:36] Speaker 04:
Claim two is saying that the value or the magnitude

[00:16:40] Speaker 04:
that's received by the driver is at least two AC forward voltages.

[00:16:45] Speaker 02:
But if the driver only received a minimum voltage, it couldn't output a minimum voltage, right?

[00:16:51] Speaker 04:
No, it could.

[00:16:51] Speaker 04:
A driver can have a step up or step down functionality.

[00:16:55] Speaker 04:
In fact, if you look in Deese, Deese provides a specific example where the driver receives 120 volts and it outputs 180 volts.

[00:17:04] Speaker 04:
site to that passage of yeast, which is in the record.

[00:17:09] Speaker 04:
This is Appendix 1269, Collabay Lines 57 through 59.

[00:17:15] Speaker 04:
It states the DC voltage across lines 112 and 116 will be approximately 170 volts for an input supply voltage of 120 volts AC.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
So what that is describing is a driver that receives 120 volts, but it outputs 170 volts to the LED array.

[00:17:33] Speaker 02:
So the purpose of the driver is to change the voltage and to convert from AC to DC, and it also changes the voltage.

[00:17:41] Speaker 04:
The driver doesn't necessarily have to change the voltage.

[00:17:45] Speaker 04:
It can change the voltage.

[00:17:46] Speaker 04:
It can step the voltage up if that's required for the particular LED array configuration that's connected at the output, or it can step the voltage down if that's required for the LED configuration connected at the output.

[00:17:58] Speaker 02:
You know, a good example... What's the purpose, in your view, then, of having a claim that says

[00:18:05] Speaker 02:
that the driver receives the minimum voltage.

[00:18:09] Speaker 02:
What does that accomplish?

[00:18:10] Speaker 02:
What's the point here?

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:18:12] Speaker 02:
That helps us to construe the plan.

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
What's the point?

[00:18:16] Speaker 04:
Okay, first let's talk about the forward voltage.

[00:18:21] Speaker 04:
This is part of the answer.

[00:18:25] Speaker 04:
The forward voltage is a single value as defined as advocated by Home Depot before the board and as adopted by the board.

[00:18:34] Speaker 04:
It is the minimum voltage difference across the LEDs to carry current.

[00:18:38] Speaker 04:
It is not a range as my friend just suggested.

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
And so what the driver does, the driver receives a voltage input.

[00:18:48] Speaker 02:
Just to address my question, what is the point of a claim that says the driver receives a minimum voltage?

[00:18:55] Speaker 02:
In other words, should we construe the claim as meaning that the driver receives at least the minimum voltage, or are we saying that it receives exactly the minimum voltage?

[00:19:06] Speaker 04:
As construed by the board, the claim is saying that the driver receives the forward voltage as defined by the board.

[00:19:20] Speaker 04:
What's the point of that?

[00:19:21] Speaker 04:
The point of that is that the driver, in that case, as claimed,

[00:19:25] Speaker 04:
The driver is receiving a voltage input value that equates to the voltage output, that is the forward voltage, for the connected LED array.

[00:19:35] Speaker 04:
So it's receiving the voltage required to turn that LED on.

[00:19:39] Speaker 02:
By your own description of a driver, it could receive a larger voltage and convert it to a weight, convert it to a minimum voltage.

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
What is the point, in your view, of having it receive exactly the minimum voltage?

[00:19:54] Speaker 04:
Well, one example would be so that the driver doesn't have to have a bunch of additional circuitry to step the voltage down.

[00:20:00] Speaker 04:
So, for example, if it's a 112 to 120 volt input, if that were the case,

[00:20:04] Speaker 04:
and the output voltage is a much lower forward voltage, then that driver is going to have to have step-down circuitry to reduce 120 volts down to, let's say, 6 volts or 10 volts or whatever it is.

[00:20:18] Speaker 04:
But the claim recites that the driver is receiving the forward voltage of the connected LED array, so it doesn't have to be any step-down or step-down.

[00:20:27] Speaker 03:
So if the LED, the connected LED, operates at

[00:20:33] Speaker 03:
90 voltage and 120 voltage.

[00:20:35] Speaker 03:
There's two different ones.

[00:20:37] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:20:38] Speaker 03:
How does it work that you receive two different voltages from the power source?

[00:20:44] Speaker 04:
because the circuit can be configured so that the power source provides, I think your example was 90 and 120 volts.

[00:20:53] Speaker 04:
The claim doesn't say that it's receiving 120 volts from the wall.

[00:20:59] Speaker 04:
We're using that as an example to give us a little bit of context.

[00:21:03] Speaker 03:
So your assumption is that because

[00:21:06] Speaker 03:
I mean, practically speaking, if you're plugging this into the wall, and let's just assume we're using a 120, you're not receiving two different voltages, you're receiving 120.

[00:21:17] Speaker 03:
And so is that not right?

[00:21:20] Speaker 03:
If I plug something into a wall, it's receiving 120.

[00:21:23] Speaker 04:
Normally, if you plug something into the wall, you'll receive 120.

[00:21:27] Speaker 03:
So is your view that this claim has some intermediary between the wall and this driver that can step down and send two forward voltages?

[00:21:38] Speaker 04:
First point is,

[00:21:41] Speaker 04:
You can plug into AC mains that has value other than 120 volts.

[00:21:45] Speaker 04:
Like we know that worldwide, the value of AC mains changes.

[00:21:48] Speaker 04:
So it's not necessarily 120 volts.

[00:21:50] Speaker 03:
Yeah, but the AC mains generally don't have two different options.

[00:21:54] Speaker 03:
They either have, and here, you know, you asked me have 120 and 240 in different countries.

[00:21:58] Speaker 03:
There's different things, but they're all one, aren't they?

[00:22:02] Speaker 04:
And there could be intermediate circuitry, as your honor suggested, that converts that AC mains voltage.

[00:22:09] Speaker 03:
That's the only way.

[00:22:09] Speaker 03:
Let's just assume we're talking about to simplify things.

[00:22:12] Speaker 03:
If it makes a difference, you can tell me why, but I don't think it does.

[00:22:15] Speaker 03:
That we're talking about plugging into a standard 120 voltage.

[00:22:18] Speaker 03:
In order for this to make sense, there would have to be intermediate circuitry that would take that 120 and change it to two different forward voltages to send that one to the driver talked about here.

[00:22:31] Speaker 04:
That's correct, but that doesn't clear is that that doesn't correspond to the claim language.

[00:22:38] Speaker 03:
Well, but that's the problem is like when I'm looking at your, your, your claim and your diagrams, it doesn't show me where.

[00:22:47] Speaker 03:
when it's the driver they're receiving, what it's receiving the power from.

[00:22:52] Speaker 03:
And so in order to make sense, I have to figure out how to make sense.

[00:22:57] Speaker 03:
This doesn't make sense.

[00:22:58] Speaker 03:
Can I ask you this?

[00:22:59] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:23:00] Speaker 03:
If there is no intermediary between the 120 volt plugged into the wall and the driver, does this make any sense that the driver would receive two different four voltages?

[00:23:11] Speaker 03:
It would just be receiving 120.

[00:23:13] Speaker 04:
I don't think so.

[00:23:14] Speaker 04:
I think the claim does make sense.

[00:23:15] Speaker 03:
I mean, look, can you listen really carefully and I don't want any additional things that if all this means is you have you're getting power from mains power from the wall at 120 and there's nothing between the wall and the driver.

[00:23:34] Speaker 03:
Is that driver receiving two different AC forward voltages?

[00:23:40] Speaker 04:
In that hypothetical, no, but it doesn't correspond to the claim language.

[00:23:43] Speaker 04:
The claim language does not require a voltage input value of 120 volts.

[00:23:49] Speaker 04:
The specification gives a number of examples of different voltage inputs.

[00:23:53] Speaker 03:
But where in your diagrams does it talk about that it's either receiving this from some kind of intermediary that changes it or that it's somehow changing, there's some power outlet out there that's capable of transmitting it to different forward values?

[00:24:07] Speaker 04:
Yeah, the problem with this discussion is this is all about

[00:24:10] Speaker 04:
indefiniteness in section 112.

[00:24:12] Speaker 04:
And that was not an issue before the board.

[00:24:14] Speaker 03:
Yes, but in order for us to determine whether this claim was shown invalid or not, we have to have to have an understanding of the proper construction of the claim.

[00:24:26] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:24:26] Speaker 03:
And I don't understand if we're just talking about what on this face of this and with your diagrams, what this driver is receiving if not Maine's power.

[00:24:37] Speaker 04:
It's connected to mains power, but the magnitude of the voltage input to the driver corresponds to at least two different forward voltages.

[00:24:48] Speaker 02:
How is that happening?

[00:24:53] Speaker 02:
If it's just receiving 120, how is it that it's receiving only minimum voltage?

[00:25:01] Speaker 04:
It's not limited to receiving 120.

[00:25:02] Speaker 04:
There's plenty of specification support describing multiple different AC mains inputs to the driver.

[00:25:10] Speaker 04:
I mean, the claim makes sense.

[00:25:11] Speaker 04:
Look, we know that the forward voltage corresponds to the voltage needed to drive the output.

[00:25:17] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you this.

[00:25:18] Speaker 03:
I don't think this is what you said.

[00:25:20] Speaker 03:
It may be what you meant.

[00:25:21] Speaker 03:
Are you saying these devices are capable of

[00:25:26] Speaker 03:
receiving at least two different forward voltages because you could use them in the US, you could use them in Germany, you could use them in different countries that have all different forward voltages, or you're saying that it's capable of receiving two different forward voltages from a standard voltage in one country.

[00:25:44] Speaker 03:
The former makes sense to me, but it's not remotely what you see.

[00:25:48] Speaker 04:
The driver is configured to be able to receive

[00:25:52] Speaker 04:
at least two forward voltages, and we know that those forward voltages correspond to the voltages needed to drive two LED arrays.

[00:26:03] Speaker 04:
If you just look at the claim language, it does make sense.

[00:26:05] Speaker 03:
I understand what you're saying, but one, how does your patent show that?

[00:26:11] Speaker 03:
And also, how does that make sense in the real world?

[00:26:14] Speaker 04:
That's a Section 112 issue.

[00:26:15] Speaker 03:
I don't care.

[00:26:16] Speaker 04:
You have to answer my question, even if it's not an issue before us.

[00:26:21] Speaker 04:
The claim makes sense.

[00:26:23] Speaker 04:
Let's look at claim one.

[00:26:25] Speaker 04:
Claim one states that the driver is configured to receive an AC voltage from a mains power source.

[00:26:30] Speaker 04:
So that's a voltage input from a source.

[00:26:32] Speaker 04:
And it may provide a voltage and current to the at least one LED circuit.

[00:26:36] Speaker 04:
That's a voltage output from the driver.

[00:26:38] Speaker 04:
Now what does claim two say?

[00:26:40] Speaker 04:
Claim two adds on that the driver is configured to receive at least two different AC forward voltages.

[00:26:45] Speaker 04:
And we know, so that's talking about the voltage input to the driver.

[00:26:49] Speaker 04:
It receives a magnitude that is the forward voltage of the LED array connected on the other side.

[00:26:56] Speaker 03:
Give me a real world example of what that means.

[00:27:00] Speaker 04:
I think we're drifting into an enabled inquiry, and that's not the problem.

[00:27:04] Speaker 03:
Again, I don't care whether it's not an issue here.

[00:27:07] Speaker 03:
Give me a real world example that helps me understand how this claim works, if that's what you're saying.

[00:27:13] Speaker 04:
The device could be connected to an AC mains that exactly equals the forward voltage of a LED connected array.

[00:27:25] Speaker 04:
Or it could have a switch to receive two different mains inputs corresponding, that is equating to the forward voltages.

[00:27:32] Speaker 02:
Where's the switch?

[00:27:34] Speaker 04:
We're talking about hypotheticals here, so I'm giving you a hypothetical answer.

[00:27:44] Speaker 02:
Answer my question.

[00:27:45] Speaker 02:
You talked about a switch.

[00:27:46] Speaker 02:
Are you talking about a switch in the driver that switches between?

[00:27:49] Speaker 04:
It could be a switch in the driver.

[00:27:51] Speaker 04:
It could be a switch before the driver.

[00:27:52] Speaker 02:
Well, if it's in the driver, then it's not receiving the minimum voltage.

[00:27:57] Speaker 04:
The claim makes sense.

[00:27:59] Speaker 04:
The problem is that we're drifting away from the clamp construction that Home Depot advocated.

[00:28:03] Speaker 04:
They advocated the forward voltage.

[00:28:06] Speaker 03:
The claim doesn't make sense because in any real world understanding that I can think of, the voltage that comes in is one voltage.

[00:28:16] Speaker 03:
Is there a world out there in any country where you can go over to your wall and flip between 120 and 240?

[00:28:25] Speaker 04:
Yes, certainly.

[00:28:25] Speaker 04:
There are systems, there are devices called universal voltage regulators and that can receive multiple different AC mains voltage inputs, 120, 240, etc.

[00:28:35] Speaker 04:
We talk about 120, that's typical for houses, but the US also has 240.

[00:28:39] Speaker 03:
That's an intermediary device.

[00:28:42] Speaker 04:
that can receive both of them.

[00:28:43] Speaker 04:
That could be part of the driver.

[00:28:47] Speaker 02:
But if it's part of the driver, then the driver's not receiving it.

[00:28:51] Speaker 04:
It's creating it.

[00:28:52] Speaker 04:
The driver can receive... Our job on appeal from a board decision in an IPR is not to

[00:29:05] Speaker 04:
evaluate indefiniteness.

[00:29:07] Speaker 04:
But if we are going down this path, then I think the case law is that the court should attempt to make sense of the claim.

[00:29:15] Speaker 04:
And we know what a forward voltage is.

[00:29:17] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:29:18] Speaker 03:
And if that's what we're going to do, what's wrong with the construction that I was discussing with your friend that it should really be read as the driver is configured to receive power from the mains that can make sufficient or operate or whatever you want to use at least two different forward AC voltages.

[00:29:40] Speaker 03:
Isn't that what is the most logical reading of this?

[00:29:43] Speaker 03:
I don't know.

[00:29:44] Speaker 04:
I don't think so.

[00:29:44] Speaker 04:
Because that's redefining it as a range.

[00:29:47] Speaker 04:
No, not a range.

[00:29:49] Speaker 03:
Two different ones.

[00:29:49] Speaker 03:
I'm not talking about a range.

[00:29:51] Speaker 04:
Let's look at the prior arc.

[00:29:55] Speaker 04:
So let's look at D's to put this in context.

[00:29:57] Speaker 04:
So I just discussed an example from D's where D's describes that it's outputting a forward voltage, the LED arrays, that's 170 volts.

[00:30:08] Speaker 04:
And its input is 120 volts.

[00:30:10] Speaker 04:
The input of the driver is 120 volts.

[00:30:12] Speaker 04:
So in that case, even under your honor's construction, the driver is not receiving the forward voltage of the connected LED arrays, because the driver is only receiving 120, but the LED array forward voltage is 160.

[00:30:25] Speaker 03:
But my re-articulation was receiving exactly that, which makes no sense to me, because it receives one voltage.

[00:30:32] Speaker 03:
It was sufficient.

[00:30:33] Speaker 03:
Stop.

[00:30:33] Speaker 03:
Don't interrupt me.

[00:30:34] Speaker 03:
It was sufficient.

[00:30:36] Speaker 03:
it was receiving sufficient voltage to do two different forward voltages.

[00:30:42] Speaker 03:
And so even if the driver is receiving 120, if that's sufficient through the use of the driver to bump it up to 170, that would meet the rearticulation.

[00:30:54] Speaker 04:
Respectfully, no, because the forward voltage in that example in these is 180.

[00:30:58] Speaker 04:
It's not 120.

[00:30:59] Speaker 04:
The forward voltage... But the 120 would be sufficient

[00:31:04] Speaker 03:
to create a 180 forward voltage.

[00:31:06] Speaker 04:
It has to be, because that's the way... But the 120 itself is not the forward voltage.

[00:31:10] Speaker 03:
That's why you have the driver to make this... But that's why I've re-articulated the claim understanding, and you're not living with that.

[00:31:17] Speaker 03:
I understand you don't want that.

[00:31:18] Speaker 03:
I really don't... You're out of time.

[00:31:21] Speaker 03:
I'm done.

[00:31:23] Speaker 02:
Is there anything in the specification that explains what's meant by this, by claim two?

[00:31:29] Speaker 04:
Figure 30c is an example that shows an embodiment of claim 2.

[00:31:39] Speaker 02:
Figure 30c would be... Where does the specification describe this as an embodiment of claim 2?

[00:31:55] Speaker 02:
Yeah, one point I would add is... Where does the specification describe this as an embodiment of financial?

[00:32:02] Speaker 04:
Figure 30C is Appendix 74.

[00:32:06] Speaker 04:
And... Let me find the specification where it's described.

[00:32:23] Speaker 04:
Okay, figure...

[00:32:26] Speaker 04:
30 is discussed.

[00:32:27] Speaker 04:
This is appendix 99, column 18, lines 27 through 32.

[00:32:36] Speaker 04:
And so what figure 30 is, it's actually a series of figures that shows an input to a driver and then eventually an output to LED arrays connected at the output side.

[00:32:49] Speaker 04:
And if you look at figure 30C, this again is appendix 74, you see that the inputs to the driver

[00:32:56] Speaker 04:
There's 120 volt AC, there's 240 volt AC, and then there's other voltage inputs to the driver.

[00:33:07] Speaker 04:
So this is describing an LED driver that has multiple different voltage inputs.

[00:33:11] Speaker 04:
And those voltage inputs can correspond.

[00:33:14] Speaker 02:
And where does it show that the driver receives two different forward voltages?

[00:33:21] Speaker 04:
On the left-hand side, it's showing 120 volt AC and 240 volt AC.

[00:33:27] Speaker 04:
So these are multiple different inputs to the driver.

[00:33:30] Speaker 02:
Well, how does that identify those as four voltages?

[00:33:32] Speaker 02:
That's just the plug gives you.

[00:33:33] Speaker 02:
Well, no, that's the point.

[00:33:34] Speaker 04:
That's the point.

[00:33:35] Speaker 04:
And the embodiment of the claim, the driver is connected.

[00:33:40] Speaker 04:
In the case of 120 volts input,

[00:33:42] Speaker 04:
the driver is connected to an LED array that has a forward voltage of 120 volts.

[00:33:47] Speaker 04:
That's what it needs.

[00:33:49] Speaker 02:
So what it's describing is a situation in which the minimum voltage is the same as the output voltage from the wall.

[00:33:57] Speaker 04:
As defined as the forward voltage.

[00:34:02] Speaker 02:
No, no.

[00:34:04] Speaker 04:
I can't give you a yes.

[00:34:05] Speaker 04:
I just need to qualify, Your Honor.

[00:34:07] Speaker 04:
as defined by Home Depot and the board as the minimum voltage.

[00:34:12] Speaker 04:
Link does not agree with that construction.

[00:34:14] Speaker 02:
Link... You're not answering my question.

[00:34:16] Speaker 02:
Sure, your honor.

[00:34:17] Speaker 02:
You're saying that 30 C so there's an embodiment of claim two because it shows a situation in which the wall output is the minimum voltage and it shows two different wall outputs.

[00:34:29] Speaker 04:
Is that right?

[00:34:31] Speaker 02:
It shows two different... Yes or no?

[00:34:34] Speaker 03:
it should as as as I described it the answer is yes okay I just want to add you may have just answered this question but but I just want to make clear this diagram which shows 120 or 240 right

[00:34:53] Speaker 03:
Does this just mean that you're saying this LED array has circuitry sufficient to be plugged into either a 120 or a 240 and that it will run through different things because they have all these AC one, AC four, AC, but not at the same time?

[00:35:12] Speaker 04:
The claim does the claim to the claim itself.

[00:35:15] Speaker 04:
This is the issue of simultaneity that the, that the Home Depot brought up.

[00:35:19] Speaker 04:
The board didn't address simultaneity.

[00:35:21] Speaker 03:
The board didn't do anything beyond two or three barebone sentences, which is the problem here.

[00:35:27] Speaker 03:
But my question is, how do we know these are forward voltages and not mains voltages?

[00:35:34] Speaker 03:
It sounds to me like this is just saying whatever this figure 30C shows is this LED array can be used in both types of situations.

[00:35:44] Speaker 03:
which is fine, but that doesn't sound like forward voltage.

[00:35:47] Speaker 03:
All it sounds to me is that it can be used with a main voltage of 120 to generate a forward voltage of 120 or a mains voltage of 240

[00:35:58] Speaker 03:
to generate a forward voltage of 230.

[00:36:01] Speaker 03:
That does not seem to be what the board understood and why they rejected the petitioner.

[00:36:06] Speaker 04:
Your honor is correct that that would be an example of how the claim could be implemented.

[00:36:10] Speaker 04:
I think the board did understand, because what the board said was, remember the burden is on the petitioner here to validate the claim.

[00:36:17] Speaker 04:
The burden is not on the patent.

[00:36:19] Speaker 04:
And what the board said, the board states, this is appendix 50.

[00:36:29] Speaker 04:
I'm just going to pull out the final written decision myself.

[00:36:34] Speaker 04:
Appendix 50, the board states, whatever the value of AC mains voltage received at lines 118 slash 120 in these, that voltage is still AC mains voltage.

[00:36:48] Speaker 04:
While the forward voltage in the array may vary if the value of AC mains voltage varies, neither petitioner

[00:36:56] Speaker 04:
nor Dr. Lebby explain how the forward voltage of the LED array is received by the driver.

[00:37:03] Speaker 04:
So the board is making the point that, yeah, petitioner Home Depot, you've explained that these has three LED array configurations, and each one can require a forward voltage to power it.

[00:37:15] Speaker 04:
But that does not show that the driver receives as a voltage input the forward voltage.

[00:37:21] Speaker 02:
Your problem is that your explanation of figure 30C

[00:37:25] Speaker 02:
just shows that they're receiving mains voltage of 120 or 240, it doesn't say anything about that being forward voltage.

[00:37:34] Speaker 02:
And there's no explanation in the specification that that's forward voltage.

[00:37:38] Speaker 04:
I mean, the specification discusses forward voltage elsewhere.

[00:37:42] Speaker 04:
Let me see if I can find the... I think we're out of time.

[00:37:50] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:37:51] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:37:51] Speaker 02:
I mean, we're out of time.

[00:37:53] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:37:54] Speaker 02:
You have to sit down.

[00:37:55] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:37:56] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:37:56] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:38:02] Speaker 02:
Since now I have two minutes.

[00:38:03] Speaker 01:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:38:04] Speaker 01:
There's just a couple of things that I want to point out from counsel's argument.

[00:38:09] Speaker 01:
Figure 30C, as your honors noticed, is not an embodiment of claim two, because what it shows is

[00:38:17] Speaker 01:
240 volts and 120 volts going into a driver.

[00:38:22] Speaker 01:
And so as an electrical engineering fact, if you put voltage into a circuit, there will be a voltage drop across the circuit.

[00:38:30] Speaker 01:
So it cannot be that it is exactly the forward voltage of the circuit in the 149 patent because there is a voltage drop across the driver.

[00:38:40] Speaker 01:
And there is no embodiment in the 149 patent that has

[00:38:45] Speaker 01:
exactly a forward voltage going into a driver.

[00:38:48] Speaker 03:
Do you think this is showing a device that's capable of being plugged into either a 120 or 240 outlet?

[00:38:56] Speaker 01:
Not at the same time, but yes.

[00:38:57] Speaker 03:
No, I mean, I don't understand how that's a possibility, but that's what this is, apparently, but it's talking about mains voltage when it's talking about 120, 240, not forward voltage.

[00:39:08] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:39:09] Speaker 03:
Can I just ask you this?

[00:39:11] Speaker 03:
What do you want us to do with this case?

[00:39:13] Speaker 03:
Because I think if we understand the literal, if we take the literal interpretation of claim two, it makes no sense that there is no such thing as forward voltage being received by the driver in exactly

[00:39:28] Speaker 03:
The same manner that is being used in the device, because as you say it drops.

[00:39:33] Speaker 03:
But if you want it, but if we.

[00:39:36] Speaker 03:
And so, if that's the case and you didn't prove that because you can't prove an impossibility, so we could just affirm.

[00:39:44] Speaker 03:
Or do you want us to go through the kind of arduous work of trying to come up with what this claim actually means when there's no really good explanation.

[00:39:53] Speaker 03:
It certainly is not figure 30C.

[00:39:55] Speaker 03:
They didn't point us to anything in the specification.

[00:39:58] Speaker 03:
And it seems like if we do that, then we're either going to be forced to do that and send it back to the board or do that and then explain why there's no disputed facts that de-shows all of that.

[00:40:11] Speaker 01:
We respectfully request that you have an opinion that addresses what it means, because this is the only remaining claim for the district court on this patent, and it is a pending claim that we have to know what it means

[00:40:25] Speaker 03:
And we don't know from the board decision what, why... I guess I'm asking why can't we make you go to the district court and file a indefiniteness or enablement or whatever motion and let them resolve it in a proper form instead of us?

[00:40:40] Speaker 01:
You can, you could certainly do that.

[00:40:42] Speaker 01:
We... I know you don't want to go through the work, but... It's more than going through the work.

[00:40:48] Speaker 01:
In the district court, it takes a lot of money and time to get to

[00:40:54] Speaker 01:
indefiniteness and enablement and it is not something that district courts are easily are willing to do very easily here it is a very hard claim to understand and and

[00:41:08] Speaker 01:
I think that what we have shown in the petition is that whatever claim two means.

[00:41:13] Speaker 03:
What if we write an opinion that affirms and said, this is our understanding, but we don't understand how this is actually possible?

[00:41:21] Speaker 03:
Doesn't that help you with the district court?

[00:41:23] Speaker 01:
That would be amazing, your honor.

[00:41:24] Speaker 01:
Yes, that would help us with the district court.

[00:41:26] Speaker 01:
Whatever it means, though, was disclosed and decent was shown in the petition.

[00:41:30] Speaker 01:
And we respectfully request that the court issue an opinion explaining

[00:41:36] Speaker 01:
what happens here.

[00:41:38] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:41:39] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:41:39] Speaker 02:
Thank you both, Chancellor.

[00:41:40] Speaker 02:
The case is submitted.

[00:41:42] Speaker 02:
That dates to our final case this morning, which is... I don't have anything.

[00:41:46] Speaker 04:
No, I don't have anything.

[00:41:48] Speaker 04:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:41:48] Speaker 04:
I had one example from the specification.

[00:41:50] Speaker 02:
No, no, no, no.

[00:41:51] Speaker 02:
You don't have any time.

[00:41:53] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:41:54] Speaker 04:
Thank you.