Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2021

IPR2020-01283 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9
571-272-7822 Date: March 9, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

LG ELECTRONICS, INC. AND HISENSE CO., LTD.,
Petitioner,
v.
POLARIS POWERLED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Patent Owner.

IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314
I. INTRODUCTION
LG Electronics, Inc. and Hisense Co., Ltd. (collectively “Petitioner”)
filed a Petition (Paper 3, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims
1, 2, 4–7, 9, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent 8,223,117 B2, issued July 17, 2012,
(Ex. 1001, “the ’117 patent”). Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC
(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”).
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
Institution of inter partes review is authorized when “the information
presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018).
Upon considering the evidence presented and the arguments made, we
determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Real-Parties-in-Interest
Petitioner identifies LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.,
Hisense Co., Ltd., Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Co. of America Corp.,
Hisense Int’l Co., Ltd., Hisense Int’l (HK) Co., Ltd., Hisense Int’l (Hong
Kong) America Investment Co. Ltd., Hisense USA Corp., and Qingdao
Hisense Electronics Co. Ltd. as the real-parties in interest. Pet. 76.
B. Related Matters
The parties advise that the ’117 patent is currently involved in the
following proceedings:
Polaris PowerLED Techs., LLC v. Hisense Elecs. Mfg. Co. of Am.
Corp. et al., No. 8:20-cv-00123 (C.D. Cal.);
Polaris PowerLED Techs., LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc. et al., No. 8-20-cv-
00125 (C.D. Cal.);
Pet. 76; Paper 5, 1.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

3
Petitioner advises that ’117 patent was at issue in Polaris PowerLED
Techs., LLC v. VIZIO, Inc., et al., No. 8:18-cv-01571 (C.D. Cal.), which has
been dismissed. Pet. 76; Paper 5, 1.
Two prior petitions for inter partes review were filed against the ’117
patent: IPR2018-01262 and IPR2020-00043. Pet. 10, 76; Paper 5, 1. The
Board denied institution in both cases. Pet. 10.
Petitioner also concurrently filed a second petition for inter partes
review of the ’117 patent in LG Elecs., Inc. et al. v. Polaris PowerLED
Techs., LLC, IPR2020-01337 (PTAB). Paper 5, 1.
C. The ’117 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’117 patent is titled “Method and Apparatus to Control Display
Brightness with Ambient Light Correction” and generally relates to
“adjusting the brightness level to compensate for changes in ambient
lighting” for “a visual information display system.” Ex. 1001, code (54),
1:19–22. The ’117 patent discloses an embodiment having a fully
automated brightness adjustment mode that takes into account both ambient
lighting conditions and user preference for brightness, as well as an
embodiment allowing the user to switch between an automatic mode and a
manual mode, which only takes into account user preference for brightness.
Id. at 1:60–2:6, 2:17–30, 6:37–41.
In a fully automated mode, the ’117 patent describes a user input, such
as a dimming control, and a light sensor, which detects the ambient light
level and generates a corresponding light sensor output. Id. at 4:45–52, 5:3–
5, 5:15–20, Figs. 1, 2. In one embodiment, a multiplier outputs a combined
signal that is the product of the user input and a scaled light sensor output.
Id. at 5:20–22, Fig. 2. The product is added to a dark level bias, which is
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

4
used to maintain the brightness above a predetermined level when the
ambient light level decreases to approximately zero, and adjusted to generate
a brightness control signal for a display driver. Id. at 2:57–60, 4:49–51,
5:22–27, 5:39–41, Fig. 2.
D. Illustrative Claim
Among the challenged claims, claims 1 and 15 are independent.
Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 15, and 16 of the ’117 patent.
Pet. 1. Independent claim 1, reproduced below with brackets noting
Petitioner’s identifiers, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. [1.Pre] A brightness control circuit with selective ambient
light correction comprising:

[1.A] a first input configured to receive a user signal
indicative of a user selectable brightness setting;

[1.B] a light sensor configured to sense ambient light and
to output a sensing signal indicative of the ambient light level;

[1.C] a multiplier configured to selectively generate a
combined signal based on both the user signal and the sensing
signal; and

[1.D] a dark level bias configured to adjust the combined
signal to generate a brightness control signal that is used to
control a brightness level of a visible display such that the
brightness control signal is maintained above a pre-determined
level when the ambient light level decreases to approximately
zero.
Ex. 1001, 12:28–43.
E. Prior Art
Petitioner relies on the following references (see Pet. 19–20), as well
as the Declaration of Ralph V. Wilhelm (Ex. 1002).
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

5
Reference Exhibit Patent/Printed Publication
Yanagiuchi 1003 Japan Published Application No. H10-122071 to
Yanagiuchi, published Nov. 16, 1999, filed May
1, 1998
Toffolo 1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,337,675 B1 to Toffolo et al.,
issued Jan. 8, 2002, filed Oct. 30, 1997
Fujimaki 1009 Japan Published Application No. H11-004005 to
Fujimaki, published July 28, 2000, filed Jan. 11,
1999
Ottenstein 1012 U.S. Patent No. 5,270,818 to Ottenstein, issued
Dec. 14, 1993, filed Sep. 17, 1992
Henry 1039 U.S. Patent No. 6,198,234 B1 to Henry, issued
Mar. 6, 2001, filed June 9, 1999

F. Asserted Grounds
Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 15, and 16 are unpatentable
based upon the following grounds (Pet. 19–20):
Ground Claim(s)
Challenged
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 16 103(a) Yanagiuchi
2 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 15, 16 103(a) Yanagiuchi, Toffolo
3 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, 16 103(a) Fujimaki
4 1, 2, 7, 9, 15, 16 103(a) Ottenstein, Fujimaki
5 6 103(a) Yanagiuchi, Henry
6 6 103(a) Yanagiuchi, Toffolo,
Henry
7 6 103(a) Fujimaki, Henry

III. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standards
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

6
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17–18 (1966).
A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that
each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550
U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a
skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled
artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’”
Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359,
1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. A motivation to
combine the teachings of two references can be “found explicitly or
implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of
multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the
time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background
knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.”
Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376,
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

7
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be
supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’”).
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012)); see also Intelligent Bio-
Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the
IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify
‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge
to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). Therefore, to prevail in an
inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how the proposed combinations
of prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. At this
preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the
Petition shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail
in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been
obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art.
B. Discretion to Deny Institution of Inter Partes Review Under 35
U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d)1
Patent Owner contends that the current Petition should be denied
under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) as an improper follow-on petition under General

1 Petitioner concurrently filed IPR2020-01337, challenging claims 1, 2, 4–7,
9, 15, 16, and 18 of the ’117 patent. In that proceeding, Petitioner filed a
Notice Ranking Petitions for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
8,223,117 (Paper 4), and Patent Owner filed a Response to the Ranking
Paper (Paper 10). We do not reach the issue of whether more than one
petition is necessary for Petitioner’s challenges to the ’117 patent because
we determine Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

8
Plastic Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB
Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential) and Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc.,
IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) “Valve I”),
based upon prior petitions IPR2018-01262 and IPR2020-00043 and
concurrently filed petition IPR2020-01337. Prelim. Resp. 1–12. Patent
Owner also contends that the current Petition should be denied under 35
U.S.C. § 325(d) under the Advanced Bionics, LLC. v. Med-El
Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8–9 (PTAB
Feb. 13, 2019) (precedential) framework. Id. at 12–16. Given that we
determine that Petition has not established a reasonable likelihood of
showing that at least one of the claims challenged in this Petition or in
concurrently filed petition IPR2020-01337, we need not reach the issue
whether to exercise discretion to deny institution of inter partes review
under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had
at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, optics or a
related field, and approximately three years of experience with field of
visual displays, circuit design, and related technologies.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex.
1002 ¶¶ 19–21). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in
the art or oppose Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See
generally Prelim. Resp.

showing that at least one of the claims challenged in either proceeding is
unpatentable. Our Decision on Institution in IPR2020-01337 is issuing
concurrently with this Decision.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

9
Petitioner’s proposed definition is unopposed and is consistent with
the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See
Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that
specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the
prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not
shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755
F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s level of
ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.
D. Claim Construction
Because this inter partes review is based on a petition filed after
November 13, 2018, we construe each claim “in accordance with the
ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent,”
the same standard used to construe the claim in a civil action. 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b) (2019). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim
limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining
the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution
history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1312–1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). There is a “heavy
presumption,” however, that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary
meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
Cir. 2002). “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

10
Petitioner applies the following constructions, which were previously
construed by the Eastern District of Texas and/or the Central District of
California. Pet. 17–19.
Term Construction
“a first input configured to receive a
user signal indicative of a user
selectable brightness setting” (claim
1)
“first input actually programmed or
implemented with hardware or
software to receive a user signal
indicative of a user selectable
brightness setting” (Ex. 1038, pp.
7–8)
“a multiplier configured to
selectively generate a combined
signal based on both the user signal
and the sensing signal” (claim 1) /
“selectively multiplying the input
signal with a sense signal to
generate a combined signal, wherein
the sense signal indicates an
ambient light level” (claim 15)
“combined signal includes, but is
not necessarily limited to, the
product of the user signal and the
sensing signal” (Ex. 1037, p. 29)
(Eastern District of Texas)

“multiplier configured to” means
the multiplier must be “actually
programmed or implemented with
hardware or software” (Ex. 1035, p.
12) (Central District of California)
“a dark level bias configured to
adjust the combined signal to
generate a brightness control signal
that is used to control a brightness
level of a visible display” (claim 1) /
“adjusting the combined signal with
a dark level bias” (claim 15)
“dark level bias” means “a value
that causes a deviation from the
combined signal, where the value is
a voltage value of an electrical
signal or value of a software
variable” (Ex. 1038, p. 342)

“a dark level bias actually
programmed or implemented with
hardware or software to adjust the
combined signal to generate a
brightness control signal that is used
to control a brightness level of a

2 Petitioner’s citation does not refer to this construction. It appears the
citation should be to Ex. 1035, p. 28.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

11
visible display” (Ex. 1035, p. 34)
“approximately zero” (claims 1, 15) “zero or a level close enough to zero
that a light sensor would measure
zero or a corresponding sending
signal would round to zero” (Ex.
1035, p. 35)
“an overdrive clamp circuit coupled
to the brightness control signal to
limit its amplitude to a predefined
range” (claim 6)
“to limit its amplitude to a
predefined range” means “limit the
absolute value of the brightness
control signal’s amplitude to be less
than a predefined level” (Ex. 1037,
p. 30)
“second input configured to receive
a selection signal to selectively
operate the brightness control
circuit in an auto mode or a manual
mode” (claim 9)
“second input actually programmed
or implemented with hardware or
software to receive a selection
signal to selectively operate the
brightness control circuit in an auto
mode or a manual mode” (Ex. 1038,
pp. 7–8)

Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response “applies Petitioner’s
constructions.” Prelim. Resp. 1.
At this stage in the proceeding, we need only construe the claims to
the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review.
See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). After reviewing the parties’
arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly
construe any term for purposes of this Decision.
E. Grounds 1 and 2: Obviousness Over Yanagiuchi, and Yanagiuchi in
combination with Toffolo
Petitioner contends claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 15, and 16 would have been
unpatentable over Yanagiuchi and relies on the Declaration of Ralph V.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

12
Wilhelm (Ex. 1002) in support. Pet. 20–46. Petitioner analyzes Grounds 1
and 2 together. Id. For the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that
the evidence sufficiently supports Petitioner’s arguments and, therefore,
Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
respect to these grounds.
1. Yanagiuchi (Ex. 1003)
Yanaguichi is titled “Automatic Dimmer for LCD Displays” and is
generally directed to “[a]n automatic dimmer for controlling the luminance
of an LCD display device based on ambient illuminance.” Ex. 1003, code
(54), claim 1. Yanagiuchi seeks “to provide an automatic dimmer for an
LCD display device which enables a user to set the LCD luminance
changing curve so that the LCD luminance can be performed along this
curve.” Id. ¶ 3. Figure 1, reproduced below, shows a schematic diagram of
an automatic dimmer:

Figure 1 depicts LCD screen in an LCD display 1, and “a cathode
fluorescent lamp (CFL) generating backlight for the LCD device 2, where
the background luminance (LCD luminance) is controlled by PWM control
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

13
of the pulse width of the CFL drive waveform (CFL drive voltage).” Id. ¶ 6.
Figure 1 also includes non-volatile memory 3, such as E2PROM, which is
“used to store a luminance changing curve indicating the relationship
between ambient illuminance and LCD luminance,” control panel 4, “for
inputting discrete points to specify the luminance changing curve,”
photosensor 5, “for detecting the ambient luminance,” microcomputer 7,
which “stores the inputted luminance changing curve 51 in E2PROM 3,
determines the PWM value based on the current ambient illuminance using
the linearly approximated luminance changing curve 51, and outputs the
result,” and unit 8 “for converting PWM values to a duty between 0 and 100
(%).” Id. ¶¶ 6–8.
Figure 2 of Yanagiuchi is reproduced below.

Figure 2 “is an example of a luminance changing curve, where solid
line 51 is the luminance changing curve set by the present invention, dashed
line 52 is a linear luminance changing curve of the prior art, the horizontal
axis is the ambient luminance A (LUX), and the vertical axis is the pulse
width of the CFL drive waveform based on LCD luminance, that is, the
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

14
PWM value determining the CFL drive voltage.” Id. ¶ 6. “The luminance
changing curve 51 is specified by start point (Amin, P1), one or more
breakpoints (A1, P1), (A2, P2), and an end point (Amax, Pmax).” Id.
Yanagiuchi states that “[t]he luminance changing curve 51 desired by
the user (FIG. 2) using the control panel 4 is linearly approximated and
stored via the microcomputer 7 in E2PROM 3.” Id. ¶ 8. “[T]he
microcomputer 7 retrieves the ambient illuminance Aa detected by the
photosensor 5 . . . and the PWM value Pa in response to the ambient
illuminance [Aa] is calculated” using the following equation:
Pa = (Aa- A1) · (P2-P1)/(A2-A1) + P1
Id. ¶¶ 7–8. Then, “the drive voltage waveform (or power) with a pulse
width corresponding to the PWM value Pa is applied to the CFL 2 to
generate backlighting for the LCD display at the luminance desired by the
user.” Id. ¶ 8.
2. Toffolo (Ex. 1006)
Toffolo is titled “Display System With Automatic and Manual
Brightness Control” and generally relates to “[a] display system provid[ing]
automatic and manual brightness control.” Id. at codes (54), (57).
Specifically, a “brightness controller” varies the luminance of a display
between minimum and maximum luminance values, based on sensed
ambient light. Id. at 1:21–40.
In an embodiment, “display system 20” includes “automatic input
circuit 30” with “first user input device 32,” “second user input device 34,”
and “photo sensor 36 for sensing the level of ambient light, or ‘illuminance,’
near the display 22.” Id. at 1:58–2:4.
Figure 1 of Toffolo, reproduced below, shows “display system 20.”
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

15

Figure 1 depicts “display system 20” for controlling the brightness of
“display 22” in an embodiment of Toffolo, including “first input device 32,”
“second input device 34,” “photosensor 36,” and “display 22.” Id. at 1:58–
2:4, 49–50.
In operation, the “first user input device 32” is used to select a
point “A” corresponding to “the illuminance at which display 22
displays its maximum luminance.” Id. at 2:30–34. The “second user
input device 34” is used to select at point “B” corresponding to “the
luminance of the display 22 which is displayed at the minimum
illuminance detectable.” Id. at 2:38–40. Toffolo explains that
When the photosensor 36 detects that the level of ambient light
is below point B, the display 22 is displayed at a minimum
luminance level, which is selected by the second user input
device 34. When the photosensor 36 detects that the ambient
light level is at or above that indicated at point A, as selected by
user input device 32, the display 22 is displayed at a maximum
luminance level, which is preferably the maximum luminance
level that can be displayed by the display 22. When the
photosensor 36 detects that ambient light level is between points
A and B, the display 22 is displayed as a function of the
illuminance between the light levels indicated at points A and B.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

16

Id. at 2:49–61.
Figure 2 of Toffolo, reproduced below, shows how the display
luminance of the “display 22” varies based on sensed illuminance for
selected values of “A” and “B.” See id. at 2:14–28.

Figure 2 depicts a graph showing the relationship between luminance
of “display 22” on the y-axis and illuminance as sensed by “photo sensor
36” on the x-axis. Id.
3. Independent Claims 1 and 15
Petitioner identifies the disclosures in Yanagiuchi and Toffolo that it
contends teaches the limitations in independent claims 1 and 15. See Pet.
20–39, 45–46. Petitioner primarily relies on Yanagiuchi. Id.
Limitation 1[A] recites “a first input configured to receive a user
signal indicative of a user selectable brightness setting.” Ex. 1001, 12:30–
31. Claim 15 recites a similar limitation. Id. at 13:36–37. Petitioner
contends Yanagiuchi teaches this limitation. Pet. 29–32, 45. In particular,
Petitioner contends the “user signal” is disclosed by “signals representing
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

17
digitized representations of user settings (Amin, P[1]3), (A1, P1), (A2, P2), and
(Amax, Pmax), defining the luminance changing curve 51.” Id. at 31 (citing
Ex. 1003, Figs. 2, 5(a)–5(b), ¶¶ 6, 7). Petitioner further contends:
The user signal is “indicative” of several “user selectable
brightness setting[s].” A first setting is a “breakpoint” (A2, P2),
reflecting, at least in part, Yanagiuchi’s solution to the problem
that users could not set luminance values “between the min-max
values.” Ex. 1003, ¶¶ [0003], [0006]. A second setting is the
“start point” (Amin, P1), which solves the problem that users
could not set the “minimum value min on the luminance
changing curve.” Id. The signals representing these user-defined
points are indicative” of these user selectable brightness settings
because they define the brightness curve by at least providing a
start point, end points, and breakpoints. Ex. 1002, ¶ 102.

Pet. 31–32 (alteration in original).
Limitation 1[D] recites “a dark level bias configured to adjust the
combined signal to generate a brightness control signal that is used to
control a brightness level of a visible display such that the brightness control
signal is maintained above a pre-determined level when the ambient light
level decreases to approximately zero.” Ex. 1001, 12:38–43. Claim 15
recites a similar limitation. Id. at 14:4–9. Petitioner contends that
Yanagiuchi teaches limitation 1[D]. Pet. 35–39, 46. Specifically, Petitioner
contends that P1 in Yanagiuchi teaches the “dark level bias.” Id. at 35.
Petitioner contends that Yanagiuchi “adds P1 to the combined signal as
shown in the following expression, thereby adjusting the combined signal to

3 Petitioner states (Amin, Pa), but Yanagiuchi discloses (Amin, P1) (see Ex.
1003 ¶¶ 6, 7, Fig. 2), and further below in the Petition, Petitioner correctly
refers to (Amin, P1), so we presume this is a typographical error. Pa refers to
the PWM value for ambient illuminance Aa. Ex. 1003 ¶ 7.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

18
generate a ‘brightness control signal’ (Pa).” Id. at 35–36. Petitioner
provides the following color coded expression:

Id. The expression and corresponding color coding is Pa (pink) = (Aa (green)
– A1 (red)) · (P2 – P1)/(A2 – A1) (red) + P1 (purple).4 Petitioner further
contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
this expression is for the segment of Yanagiuchi’s Figure 2 shown below in
red:

4 Petitioner does not specify, but based on Petitioner’s contentions, the red
appears to refer to the “user signal,” the green to the “sensing signal,” and
the “pink” to the “brightness control signal.”
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

19
Pet. 35–36. Annotated Figure 2, as provided by Petitioner, depicts
luminance changing curve 51, where the line between breakpoints (P1, A1) to
(P2, A2) is colored red. Id.
Patent Owner argues, among other things, that Petitioner has not
sufficiently shown that Yanagiuchi teaches limitations 1[A] and 1[D]
because: (1) Petitioner improperly contends that P1 is both a “user [input]
signal,” and a “dark level bias”; and (2) Petitioner does not explain how P1
can be both a “signal” and a “value.” Prelim. Resp. 19–27, 35–47. Patent
Owner contends that the “user [input] signal,” and “dark level bias,” are
separate claim limitations that are distinct and cannot be the same structure.
Id. at 35–38. Patent Owner also identifies certain portions of and Figures in
the Specification of the ’117 patent, as well as dependent claims 2–4, to
support its arguments that these are distinct limitations. Id. at 38–41.
We focus our analysis on the claim limitations that are dispositive for
purposes of this Decision. On the record before us, we determine that
Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
demonstrating that Yanagiuchi discloses limitations 1[A] and 1[D], and,
accordingly, has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in
demonstrating that claims 1 and 15 are unpatentable over Yanagiuchi, or the
combination of Yanagiuchi and Toffolo.
As discussed above, Petitioner relies on “signals representing
digitized representations of user settings (Amin, P[1]) (A1, P1) (A2, P2) (Amax,
Pmax)” to teach the “user [input] signal indicative of a user selectable
brightness setting.” Pet. 31. Yanagiuchi describes these as “discrete points
[input via the control panel by the user] to specify the luminance changing
curve 51.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 7. As Petitioner explains, “[a] first setting is a
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

20
‘breakpoint’ (A2, P2), reflecting, at least in part, Yanagiuchi’s solution to the
problem that users could not set luminance values ‘between the min-max
values.’” Pet. 31. Petitioner further explains “[a] second setting is the ‘start
point’ (Amin, P1), which solves the problem that users could not set the
‘minimum value min on the luminance changing curve.’” Id. In other
words, Petitioner asserts that P1 is the point on luminance changing curve 51
that corresponds to minimum ambient luminance Amin, and is set by the user.
See Ex. 1003 ¶ 6, Fig. 2. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner
improperly relies on P1 as disclosing both the “user [input] signal” and the
“dark level bias.”
“Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the
claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the
patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Gaus
v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); HTC Corp. v.
Cellular Commc’n. Equip. LLC, 701 F. App’x 978, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(“The separate naming of two structures in the claim strongly implies that
the named entities are not one and the same structure.”).
Claims 1 and 15 recite the “user [input] signal” and the “dark level
bias” as separate and distinct elements of the claimed “brightness control
circuit” and method. Claim 1 recites “a first input configured to receive a
user signal indicative of a user selectable brightness setting,” with “a
multiplier configured to selectively generate a combined signal based on
both the user signal and the sensing signal,” and “a dark level bias
configured to adjust the combined signal to generate a brightness control
signal . . .” Ex. 1001, 12:30–43. Claim 15 recites similar limitations in
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

21
method form. Id. at 13:36–14:9. In other words, the dark level bias adjusts
a combined signal that is generated based on both the user signal and the
sensing signal.
The Specification of the ’117 patent supports that the “user [input]
signal” is a distinct, separately identifiable element from the “dark level
bias.” For example, as Patent Owner explains, the equations accompanying
Figures 4, 8, and 9 of the Specification show these as separate elements. See
Prelim. Resp. 38–41. Patent Owner provides an annotated version of Figure
4 and its accompanying equation, set forth below:

IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

22
Id. at 39. Figure 4 depicts a schematic diagram of one embodiment of a
brightness control circuit with a multiplier circuit to combine a light sensor
output with a user adjustable PWM logic signal. Ex. 1001, 4:23–25. Patent
Owner’s annotated version of the equations of Figure 4 highlight the user
signal in red, the dark level bias in green, and the sensing signal in blue.
Prelim. Resp. 39. In reference to Figure 4 and its equations, the
Specification explains:
The term “dutycycle” corresponds to the duty cycle of the user
adjustable PWM logic signal. The term “VCC” corresponds to
the logic high output from the input buffer circuit 410. The term
“ISRC” corresponds to the sensor current signal. The first major
term within the brackets corresponds to a scaled dark bias level
of the brightness control signal in total ambient darkness. The
second major term within the brackets introduces the effect of
the visible light sensor 402. The network of resistors 412,420
416, 418 helps to provide the dark bias level and to scale the
product of the sensor current signal and the user adjustable
PWM logic signal.

Ex. 1001, at 7:24–35 (emphasis added).
Patent Owner provides similar support and annotations for Figures 8
and 9, which likewise support that the “user [input] signal” and “dark level
bias” are distinct components. Prelim. Resp. 40–41.
Similarly, Figures 1 and 2 distinguish between the user input
(DIMMING CONTROL) and the dark level bias. Figure 2, reproduced
below, depicts an embodiment of a brightness control circuit with ambient
light correction and is reproduced below. Ex. 1001, 4:19–20.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

23

The Specification states:
FIG. 2 is a block diagram of another embodiment of a
brightness control circuit with ambient light correction. A light
sensor output (LIGHT SENSOR) is adjusted by a scalar circuit
(k2) 102 and then provided to a multiplier circuit 106. A user
input (DIMMING CONTROL) is also provided to the multiplier
circuit 106. The multiplier circuit 106 outputs a signal that is
the product of the user input and Scaled light sensor output. A
Summing circuit 104 adds the product to a dark level bias
(DARKLEVEL BIAS) that has been adjusted by scalar circuit
(k1) 100. An output of the summing circuit 104 is adjusted by
scalar circuit (k3) 108 to generate a bright ness control signal
(BRIGHTNESS CONTROL) for a display driver 112.

Id. at 5:15–27 (emphasis added). The Specification goes on to state that “In
FIG. 2, the scaled dark level bias is added to the output of the multiplier
circuit 106 to provide the predefined level of brightness in this case. This
feature may be desired to prevent a user from using the brightness control
circuit to turn off a visual information display system.” Id. at 5:38–43
(emphasis added). We note this is different than one of the problems
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

24
Yanagiuchi seeks to solve – namely, where “the user cannot set . . . the
minimum value min on the luminance changing curve . . . [so] there is no
degree of freedom in luminance control.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 3.
The Specification does not indicate that the “user [input] signal” and
the “dark level bias” may be the same thing. In addition, Petitioner does not
offer evidence or argument suggesting that the general presumption that
these different terms have different meanings would not apply to the claim
terms “user [input] signal” and “dark level bias.” Even Petitioner’s own
description of the ’117 patent, including Figures 2, 4, 8, and 8, describe the
“user [input] signal” and “dark level bias” as distinct components. See Pet.
3–7. Similarly, the constructions submitted by Petitioner for the claim
limitations also indicate that these are distinct components. See id. at 17–18.
Further, dependent claim 3, which recites “wherein the multiplier
multiplies a sum of the user signal and the sensing signal by the dark level
bias to generate an output signal corresponding to the brightness control
signal,” likewise supports that the user signal and dark level bias are distinct
components. Ex. 1001, 12:48–51. Additionally, with reference to Figure 3,
the ’117 patent states “[t]he brightness control signal near zero lux is a
function of a dark bias level and also depends on the user setting.” Id. at
6:10–12. In other words, dark level bias and user setting (or input) are
distinct components.
Thus, we determine that the claim language, figures, and written
description of the ’117 patent demonstrate that the “user [input] signal” and
“dark level bias” are separate components. Petitioner has not provided any
explanation or argument as to why these separate claim elements can be
satisfied by P1 in Yanagiuchi. Therefore, Petitioner has not provided
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

25
sufficient explanation or argument as to its reliance on Yanagiuchi’s “start
point” as disclosing two separate and distinct claim elements, i.e., the user
(input) signal and the dark level bias.
Moreover, in so relying, Petitioner’s contentions lack sufficient
explanation and consistency in other ways. For example, Petitioner asserts
that the “user signal” is disclosed by “signals representing digitized
representations of user settings (Amin, P[1]), (A1, P1), (A2, P2), and (Amax,
Pmax). Pet. 31. However, Yanagiuchi discloses that these are points stored in
memory. E.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 4, 6; see Prelim. Resp. 20–21. For the dark level
bias, Petitioner’s construction states that “dark level bias” means “a value
that causes a deviation from the combined signal, where the value is a
voltage value of an electrical signal or value of a software variable.” Pet. 18.
Petitioner does not explain how P1 can be both “signals representing
digitized representations of user settings” and “a value that causes a
deviation from the combined signal, where the value is a voltage value of an
electrical signal or value of a software variable.”
We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not sufficiently
explain why any of the points (Amin, Pa), (A1, P1), (A2, P2), and (Amax, Pmax)
are signals. For example, Mr. Wilhelm testifies that “[t]he user signal is a
signal indicating points set by the user including, for example, user signal
may reflect one or more of the points (Amin, Pa), (A1, P1), (A2, P2), and (Amax,
Pmax) which collectively define the luminance changing curve 51.” Ex. 1002
¶ 101. This testimony is not sufficiently supported on this record. Telemac
Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(holding that conclusory statements offered by experts are not evidence). As
discussed above, Yanagiuchi describes that these are points are stored in
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

26
memory that are input by the user via the control panel. E.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 4,
6; Fig. 1. Nowhere does Yanagiuchi describe, nor does Petitioner provide
sufficient explanation, that these are “signals.”
Petitioner thus fails to meet the burden required to support institution
of inter partes review of independent claims 1 and 15, and, for the same
reasons, dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 16 based on obviousness by
Yanagiuchi or Yanagiuchi and Toffolo5. Harmonic, 815 F.3d at
1363(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions
to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for
the challenge to each claim”) (internal quotations omitted)); cf. Intelligent
Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1369 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)) (addressing
“the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the
‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”).
Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it
would prevail on these grounds of unpatentability.
F. Ground 3: Obviousness Over Fujimaki
Petitioner, alternatively, contends claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 15, and 16
would have been unpatentable over Fujimaki. Pet. 47–59. For the reasons
that follow, we are not persuaded that the evidence sufficiently supports
Petitioner’s arguments and, therefore, Petitioner has not established a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to this ground.
1. Fujimaki (Ex. 1009)
Fujimaki is titled “Dimming Method and Display Device,” and is
generally directed to “a display device using a dimming method that is able

5 Petitioner does not rely on Toffolo to teach the “user [input] signal” or the
“dark level bias.” See Pet. 29–32, 35–39.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

27
to control display luminance according to the ambient illuminance using a
control mode based on user preferences.” Ex. 1009, codes (54), (57).
Fujimaki provides that “a user with a general preference for brighter
illumination may set the minimum brightness higher” and “a user with a
general preference for darker illumination may set the minimum brightness
lower.” Id. ¶ 9.
Figure 1, depicted below, is a block diagram of a liquid crystal
device.

Figure 1 shows liquid crystal display device 1 with dimmer device 2,
fluorescent lamp 3 for panel illumination whose luminance is controlled by
dimmer device 2, a liquid crystal display panel 4 illuminated by lamp 3, and
control panel 5. Id. ¶ 18. “The LCD 4 is controlled by a control circuit 7 via
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

28
a display driver 6.” Id. Dimmer device 2 includes “ambient light sensor 21
for detecting the ambient illuminance surrounding the liquid crystal display
device, a minimum luminance input key 22 for setting the minimum
luminance of the lamp 3,” and “a control circuit 7 for outputting
predetermined drive pulse signals (duty output) 7S based on signals supplied
by the ambient light sensor 21 and the input key 22.” Id. ¶ 19.
Figure 2, reproduced below, “is a graph showing the control line for
lamp luminance calculated by the control circuit 7.” Id. ¶ 22.

Figure 2 depicts ambient illuminance on the x-axis and duty (%) on
the y-axis. Id. ¶ 23. “[T]he standard control line P(a0) in [Figure 2] divides
the ambient illuminance into six ranges (a minimum illuminance range
Amin, illuminance ranges A1 to A4, and a maximum illuminance range
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

29
Amax) in five equal ascending steps S1 to S5.” Id. “Each of these
illuminance ranges is assigned a minimum duty a(min), intermediate duties
a(1) to a(4), and a maximum duty a(max) which increase equally in steps.”
Id. Control circuit 7 performs calculations using the following equation to
change the lamp luminance in the steps shown:
Ln = Lmin + (Lmax – Lmin)/N)n, where:
Ln: Duty of nth step (n = 1, 2, 3 . . .)
Lmin: Minimum duty (setting)
Lmax: Maximum duty
N: Variable number of steps ( = 1, 2, 3 …)
Id. ¶¶ 22, 23. Fujimaki explains that “the user can operate a minimum
luminance input key 22 to set a minimum luminance for the lamp
luminance.” Id. ¶ 25; see also id. ¶ 30. “Control lines corresponding to
minimum luminances may be stored beforehand in the memory, and the
control line corresponding to an inputted minimum luminance may be
retrieved from memory and used.” Id. ¶ 26.
2. Independent Claims 1 and 15
Petitioner identifies the disclosures in Fujimaki that it contends
teaches the limitations in independent claims 1 and 15. See generally Pet.
49–54.
Limitation 1[A] recites “a first input configured to receive a user
signal indicative of a user selectable brightness setting.” Ex. 1001, 12:30–
31. Claim 15 recites a similar limitation. Id. at 13:36–37. Petitioner
contends that Figure 1 of Fujimaki shows “the user signal indicates user
selectable brightness settings such as ‘a changeable range defined by a
minimum luminance inputted by the input means.’” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1009
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

30
¶ 8). Petitioner also relies on claim 1 of Fujimaki, which recites “an input
means for setting and inputting a luminance range changeable by the
luminance control means.” Id. at 50 (citing ¶¶ 8, 21, 23 (luminance range
“Lmax-Lmin”)).
Limitation 1[B] recites “a light sensor configured to sense ambient
light and to output a sensing signal indicative of the ambient light level.”
Ex. 1001, 12:32–34. Claim 15 recites a similar limitation. Id. at 13:36–37.
Petitioner contends that Fujimaki’s ambient light sensor 21 teaches this
limitation. Pet. 50. Petitioner contends that “[t]he ambient light sensor
outputs a sensing signal indicative of ambient light level (e.g., corresponding
to a sensed, nth step) to control circuit 7.” Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 19, 23 (“nth
step (n = 1, 2, 3)”), ¶ 32 (“the signal detected by the ambient light sensor 21
is retrieved”)).
Limitation 1[C] recites “a multiplier configured to selectively generate
a combined signal based on both the user signal and the sensing signal.” Ex.
1001, 12:35–37. Claim 15 recites a similar limitation. Id. at 14:1–3.
Petitioner contends that Fujimaki teaches a “multiplier [that] generates a
combined signal based on both the user signal (luminance range (Lmax –
Lmin)) (id. ¶ [0023]), and the sensing signal (represented by ‘n’ – the nth
step of ambient illuminance) (id.).” Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 155–
156). Petitioner identifies the disclosure in the context of Fujimaki’s
calculation:
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

31

Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 157). Specifically, Petitioner identifies (Lmax –
Lmin) in Fujimaki’s calculation as teaching the “user signal,” (colored in
red) and n in Fujimaki’s calculation as teaching the “sensing signal” (colored
in green). Id. Petitioner contends that “when sensing signal falls within the
range A2 [of Figure 2], ‘duty b(2) is generated as drive pulse signal (duty
output).’” Id. (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 28).
Limitation 1[D] recites “a dark level bias configured to adjust the
combined signal to generate a brightness control signal that is used to
control a brightness level of a visible display such that the brightness control
signal is maintained above a pre-determined level when the ambient light
level decreases to approximately zero.” Ex. 1001, 12:38–43. Claim 15
recites a similar limitation. Id. at 14:4–9. Petitioner contends Lmin
corresponds to the “dark level bias,” because it “corresponds to a minimum
amount of display luminance, which is shown as either of a(0) or b(0) in
[Figure] 2.” Pet. 52. Petitioner contends that “Fujimaki discloses the
microcomputer of the control circuit 7 adjusts the combined signal by adding
Lmin to the combined signal (Lmax – Lmin) x n.” Id. at 53. Petitioner
provides the following annotated calculation:
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

32

Id. Petitioner identifies (Lmax – Lmin) in Fujimaki’s calculation as teaching
the “user signal,” (colored in red), n in Fujimaki’s calculation as teaching the
“sensing signal” (colored in green), and Lmin in Fujimaki’s calculation as
teaching the “dark level bias” (colored in purple). Id. Petitioner, therefore,
contends that “[t]he dark level bias, Lmin, is a value that is retrieved from
memory and added to the combined signal to maintain the brightness control
signal, Ln, above a predetermined level when a sensed amount of ambient
light approaches zero.” Id. at 54.
Patent Owner contends that “(Lmax-Lmin) x n” does not disclose the
claimed “combined signal.” Prelim. Resp. 58. Patent Owner contends
“Fujimaki is clear and unambiguous that ‘n’ represents the step number and
not the ‘sensing/sense signal’ indicative of the ambient light level.” Id. at
58–59. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s contentions as to Fujimaki’s
calculation are “a gross misunderstanding of Fujimaki.” Id. at 59–60; see id.
at 61–62. In addition, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not shown
multiplication of the “[user/input] signal” and a “[sensing/sense] signal,” as
required under Petitioner’s construction. Id. at 59.
We focus our analysis on those claim limitations that are dispositive
for purposes of this Decision.6 On the record before us, we determine that

6 In particular, we limit our analysis to limitation 1[C]. However, we note
that Petitioner’s contentions as to Fujimaki also appear to have similar
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

33
Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
demonstrating that Fujimaki discloses limitation 1[C], “a multiplier
configured to selectively generate a combined signal based on both the user
signal and the sensing signal,” and, accordingly, has not shown a reasonable
likelihood it will prevail in demonstrating that claims 1 and 15 are
unpatentable over Fujimaki.
Fujimaki clearly identifies what each element in the calculation
depicted in Figure 2 represents:
Ln = Lmin + (Lmax – Lmin)/N)n, where:
Ln: Duty of nth step (n = 1, 2, 3 . . .)
Lmin: Minimum duty (setting)
Lmax: Maximum duty
N: Variable number of steps ( = 1, 2, 3 …)
Ex. 1009 ¶ 23. Fujimaki further explains:
To simplify the explanation, the standard control line P(a0) in
[Figure 2] divides the ambient illuminance into six ranges (a
minimum illuminance range Amin, illuminance ranges A1 to
A4, and a maximum illuminance range Amax) in five equal
ascending steps S1 to S5 (lx). Each of these illuminance ranges
is assigned a minimum duty a(min), intermediate duties a(1) to
a(4), and a maximum duty a(max) which increase equally in
steps.

Id. (emphasis added). Fujimaki provides further explanation of the process.
Id. ¶¶ 29–37. In particular, Fujimaki states that “the signal detected by the
ambient light sensor 21 is retrieved.” Id. ¶ 32. “Then, it is determined . . .
whether or not the ambience illuminance is a value within the currently set

problems with the “user signal” and “dark level bias” as discussed above
with respect to Yanagiuchi.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

34
ambient illuminance range. In other words, as shown in FIG. 2, it is
determined whether or not the detected ambient illuminance is a value
within an illuminance range higher than or a value within an illuminance
range lower than the currently set ambient illuminance range.” Id. “When
the ambient illuminance is in an illuminance range lower than the setting . . .
the illuminance range is lowered by one increment and the corresponding
duty is selected based on control line P(a0) or P(b0).” Id. ¶ 33. “When the
ambient illuminance is in an illuminance range higher than the setting . . .
the illuminance range is raised by one increment and the corresponding duty
is selected based on control line P(a0) or P(b0).” Id. ¶ 34. “Afterwards . . .
the drive pulse signal (duty output) 7S for the selected duty is outputted to
drive the lamp.” Id. ¶¶ 33, 34.
Petitioner provides insufficient explanation as to how “n” teaches the
“sensing signal.” Petitioner identifies “n” as the “sensing signal” in its
annotated depiction of Fujimaki’s calculation, but Petitioner also asserts that
the sensing signal is “represented by ‘n’ – the nth step of ambient
illuminance,” which indicates that “n” is not the sensing signal, but instead,
some representation of it. Pet. 51 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 1002
¶ 157. We agree with Patent Owner that “n” in Fujimaki does not teach the
“sensing signal.” See Prelim. Resp. 59–62. Fujimaki discloses that “n”
corresponds to the pertinent step for which you are calculating the duty cycle
for, and that step represents a range of ambient illuminance. Ex. 1009 ¶ 23.
Petitioner’s proposed construction of limitation 1[C] requires that the
“combined signal includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the product of
the user signal and the sensing signal.” Pet. 17 (emphasis added).
Petitioner has not shown that Fujimaki’s calculation teaches “the product of
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

35
the user signal and the sensing signal.” At most, Petitioner has shown that
Fujimaki’s calculation teaches the product of the user signal and n, which, as
discussed above, is not the sensing signal. Nor does Mr. Wilhelm’s
testimony provide any insight. Aside from the same annotated depiction
asserting, without explanation, that n is the “sensing signal,” Mr. Wilhelm
does not address or explain how Fujimaki’s calculation teaches “the product
of the user signal and the sensing signal.” E.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–164. Mr.
Wilhelm testifies that “I understand that the phrase ‘includes, but is not
necessarily limited to’ [in the proposed construction for this term] includes
[Fujimaki’s calculation.]” Id. ¶ 157. But Mr. Wilhelm does not provide
testimony that Fujimaki’s calculation teaches the “combined signal is “the
product of the user signal and the sensing signal.” Mr. Wilhelm’s testimony
simply states that “Fujimaki discloses the combined signal is generated
based on the user signal and sensing signal.” Id. ¶ 156; see also ¶¶ 155, 164.
Petitioner thus fails to meet the burden required to support institution
of inter partes review of independent claims 1 and 15, and, for the same
reasons, dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 16 based on obviousness by
Fujimaki. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail on this ground of unpatentability.
G. Ground 4: Obviousness over Ottenstein and Fujimaki
Petitioner, alternatively, contends claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 15, and 16 would
have been unpatentable over Ottenstein and Fujimaki. Pet. 59–68. For the
reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that the evidence sufficiently
supports Petitioner’s arguments and, therefore, Petitioner has not established
a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to this ground.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

36
1. Ottenstein (Ex. 1012)
Ottenstein is titled “Arrangement for Automatically Controlling
Brightness of Cockpit Displays,” and is generally directed to “[a]n automatic
brightness control [that] provides automatic compensation for the effects of
ambient light on a display.” Ex. 1012, codes (54), (57). Figure 1,
reproduced below, depicts a control diagram of the preferred embodiment
embedded in a target display.

Figure 1 depicts “microprocessor 10 that interfaces with two ambient
light sensors 12, 13 . . . [and] also interfaces with selectable auto mode/-
manual mode switch 14 and two pilot selected brightness settings, DPU
Brightness (BRT) 15 and DPU Raster 16.” Id. at 2:21–27. “There are three
rocker switches on the display 9 which control symbol brightness, raster
brightness and overall brightness.” Id. at 2:30–33.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

37
2. Independent Claims 1 and 15
Petitioner identifies the disclosures in Ottenstein and Fujimaki that it
contends teaches the limitations in independent claims 1 and 15. See Pet.
39–68.
Limitation 1[A] recites “a first input configured to receive a user
signal indicative of a user selectable brightness setting.” Ex. 1001, 12:30–
31. Petitioner contends that Figure 1 of Ottenstein “shows the first input of
the microprocessor 10 receives the user signal from the connection points for
DPU Brightness 15 and DPU Raster 16.” Pet. 60.
Limitation 1[B] recites “a light sensor configured to sense ambient
light and to output a sensing signal indicative of the ambient light level.”
Ex. 1001, 12:32–34. Claim 15 recites a similar limitation. Id. at 13:36–37.
Petitioner contends that Ottenstein’s ambient light sensors 12 and 13 teach
this limitation. Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1012, 1:29–32, 4:2–9).
Limitation 1[C] recites “a multiplier configured to selectively generate
a combined signal based on both the user signal and the sensing signal.” Ex.
1001, 12:35–37. Claim 15 recites a similar limitation. Id. at 14:1–3.
Petitioner contends that Ottenstein discloses this limitation, as shown in
annotated Fig. 1, reproduced below:
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

38

Pet. 62. Petitioner’s annotated Figure 1 depicts sensing signal in green, user
signal in red, and multiplier in blue. Id.
Limitation 1[D] recites “a dark level bias configured to adjust the
combined signal to generate a brightness control signal that is used to
control a brightness level of a visible display such that the brightness control
signal is maintained above a pre-determined level when the ambient light
level decreases to approximately zero.” Ex. 1001, 12:38–43. Claim 15
recites a similar limitation. Id. at 14:4–9. Petitioner contends that Ottenstein
discloses limitation 1[D] in two ways. First, Petitioner contends:
Ottenstein discloses the brightness control signal is maintained
above a predetermined level when the ambient light level
decreases to approximately zero by maintaining the sensing
signal at least “10% of full scale.” Ex. 1012, 3:65-4:5. A POSA
would understand that this first way could be implemented using
two techniques. Ex. 1002, ¶ 239. In a first technique, a POSA
would recognize that when the sensing signal decreases to
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

39
approximately, “say less than 10%” of a sensed amount of
ambient light, then the sensed signal should be replaced with a
dark level bias that is 10% of full scale brightness. Ex. 1012, 4:2;
Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 240-241. In a second technique, the POSA would
also know that the dark level bias can be added to the ambient
light signal. Ex. 1012, 4:1.

Pet. 63. Second, Petitioner contends
Ottenstein discloses maintaining the brightness control signal
above a predetermined level by multiplying the user signals with
a harmonization signal. Specifically, Ottenstein shows this
multiplication in FIG. 1 by multiplying the user signal (e.g., from
DPU Brightness 15 and DPU Raster 16) and the harmonization
signal from harmonization gain pot 17. Ex. 1012, col. 3:38-44.
Ottenstein discloses the harmonization gain pot 17 is “a
potentiometer used to calibrate the cathode voltage at the
manufacturing site.” Ex. 1012, 2:46-48. Just like the ’117
patents’ teachings regarding VCC, Ottenstein’s harmonization
gain pot 17 supplies minimum voltage to the systems to ensure a
minimum amount of brightness. Ex. 1001, 9:38-10:20; 2:31-36
(disclosing use in CRT displays); Ex. 1012, 2:46-53 (explaining
harmonization gain pot and user signals output by the
microprocessor is used to produce cathode voltage 25). Thus,
Ottenstein describes a dark level bias in the same way as the
alleged invention in the ’117 patent. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 247-250.

Id. at 63–64. Petitioner also contends that “[i]t would have been obvious to
a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to modify the vehicular display of
Ottenstein (a non-CRT cockpit display) to include a minimum luminance
value [like Lmin in Fujimaki] that achieves the at least 10% of full scale
described in Ottenstein.” Id. at 64–65. Petitioner contends that a person of
ordinary skill in the art “would know that this provides a display that allows
for changes to the brightness of a display ‘that are aligned with a user’s
overall preference.’” Id. at 65.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

40
Patent Owner argues that Ottenstein does not teach the limitation 1[D]
“because Ottenstein unequivocally states that the automatic brightness
control of Fig. 1 on which Petitioners rely does not operate at very low
ambient light levels ‘when the ambient light decreases to approximately
zero.’” Prelim. Resp. 68–69 (Ex. 1012, 3:65–68); see also id. at 72–73.
According to Patent Owner, Ottenstein uses a “night mode”, which is an
inversion of the color scheme that allows easier visibility at night. Id. at 69–
70; see also id. at 73. Patent Owner also argues that Ottenstein states that it
does not operate below 500 foot-Lamberts, “which is the brightness of an
overcast daytime afternoon.” Id. at 71 (citing Ex. 1012, 4:19–31); see also
id. at 73. Patent Owner further argues that Ottenstein’s “harmonization gain
pot 17” does not teach the “dark level bias” because the harmonization gain
pot 17 is described as “a pentiometer used to calibrate the cathode voltage at
the manufacturing site.” Id. at 74 (citing Ex. 1012, 2:46–48) (emphasis
omitted). Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner has not provided
sufficient motivation to combine Ottenstein with Fujimaki. Id. at 78–79.
We focus our analysis on those claim limitations that are dispositive
for purposes of this Decision. On the record before us, we determine that
Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
demonstrating that the combination of Ottenstein and Fujimaki discloses
limitation 1[D] and, accordingly, has not shown a reasonable likelihood it
will prevail in demonstrating claims 1 and 15 are unpatentable over
Ottenstein and Fujimaki.
First, Petitioner asserts that Ottenstein discloses that it will maintain
the sensing signal at least “10% of full scale” when the ambient light level
decreases to approximately zero. Pet. 63. We disagree. Ottenstein states:
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

41
Further for very low ambient light levels, a night mode should be
used in place of auto mode. Thus the automatic brightness
control need not and should not operate at low ambient light
levels, say less than 10% of maximum. The sensed ambient
brightness level should be limited so that it is always at least 10%
of full scale.

Ex. 1012, 3:66–4:4. We agree with Patent Owner that Ottenstein does not
disclose that the sensing signal is maintained above a certain level; rather,
Ottenstein refers to the bottom of the ambient light range that should be used
in auto mode before switching to night mode. See Prelim. Resp. 73.
Moreover, Petitioner contends that maintaining the sensing signal at this
level would be implemented using one of two techniques: (1) “the sensed
signal should be replaced with a dark level bias that is 10% of full scale
brightness” or (2) “the dark level bias can be added to the ambient light
signal.” Pet. 63. However the claim recites “a dark level bias configured to
adjust the combined signal . . .” Ex. 1001, 12:38 (emphasis added). Both of
the constructions advanced by Petitioner for this limitation also require a
“deviation from the combined signal” or “a dark level bias . . . to adjust the
combined signal.” Pet. 18 (emphasis added). Neither of Petitioner’s two
proposed implementations teach adjusting the combined signal; rather,
Petitioner proposes either replacing the sensed signal or adding the dark
level bias to the ambient light signal. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown
that either of the two proposed techniques teach limitation 1[D].
Petitioner alternatively relies on Ottenstein’s harmonization signal
from harmonization gain pot 17 to teach the “dark level bias.” Id. at 63–64.
However, as Petitioner acknowledges, Figure 1 of Ottenstein shows that the
user signal (e.g., from DPU Brightness 15 and DPU Raster 16) is multiplied
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

42
by the harmonization signal from harmonization gain pot 17. See Id. at 63–
64; Ex. 1012, Fig. 1. However, as with Petitioner’s first alternative
discussed above, multiplying the user signal by the harmonization signal
does not teach “a dark level bias configured to adjust the combined signal
. . .” Ex. 1001, 12:38 (emphasis added). Petitioner also has not sufficiently
explained how the harmonization gain pot 17 corresponds to VCC in the
’117 patent. Although Petitioner cites to testimony from Mr. Wilhelm, this
testimony does not elaborate on what is stated the Petition. As Patent Owner
points out, VCC, by itself, is not a “dark level bias” in any of the disclosed
embodiments. See Prelim. Resp. 74–77. Therefore, Petitioner also has not
shown that the harmonization signal teaches limitation 1[D].
Finally, Petitioner relies on the combination of Ottenstein with
Fujimaki, “to modify Ottenstein with the predetermined level described in
Fujimaki to ensure the user can continue to view their display screen in dark
conditions.” Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 48, Ex. 1002 ¶ 251). In light of
Ottenstein’s disclosure discussed above that “the automatic brightness
control need not and should not operate at low ambient light levels,” we
agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not provided sufficient rationale
for the combination to support the conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 418.
Petitioner thus fails to meet the burden required to support institution
of inter partes review of independent claims 1 and 15, and, for the same
reasons, dependent claims 2, 7, 9, and 16 based on obviousness by the
combination of Ottenstein and Fujimaki. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to
demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on this ground of
unpatentability.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

43
H. Grounds 5–7: Obviousness over Yanagiuchi and Henry; Yanagiuchi,
Toffolo, and Henry; and Fujimaki and Henry
Petitioner contends that claim 6 would have been unpatentable over
Yanagiuchi and Henry (Ground 5), Yanagiuchi, Toffolo, and Henry (Ground
6), and Fujimaki and Henry (Ground 7). For the same reasons as set forth
above for Grounds 1, 2, and 3, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail on these grounds of unpatentability.
IV. CONCLUSION
After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the
Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not
established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least
one claim of the ’117 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not
institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set
forth in the Petition.
V. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that inter partes review is not instituted for any claim of
the ’117 patent.
IPR2020-01283
Patent 8,223,117 B2

44
FOR PETITIONER:
Andrew R. Sommer
Vivian S. Kuo
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
sommera@gtlaw.com
kuov@gtlaw.com

Matias Ferrario
Jonathan Lewis
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
mferrario@kilpatricktownsend.com
jvlewis@kilpatricktownsend.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:
Russell Tonkovich
FEINBERG DAY KRAMER ALBERTI LIM
TONKOVICH & BELLOLI LLP
rtonkovich@feinday.com

Bridget A. Smith
LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
smith@lowensteinweatherwax.com