PTAB

IPR2014-01448

Sure Fire Electrical Corp v. Yin YongJiang

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Current-Seen Cable
  • Brief Description: The ’279 patent discloses an electrical power cable designed to visually indicate that it is in a live state. The cable combines a main power cord with a plurality of helically intertwisted electroluminescent (EL) cords that are sequentially illuminated by a driver to create the appearance of flowing light, thereby indicating the presence and direction of current.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Gustafsson in view of He - Claims 1 and 7 are obvious over Gustafsson in view of He.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gustafsson ("The Power-Aware Cord: Energy Awareness through Ambient Information Display," Apr. 2005) and He (Patent 6,957,001).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gustafsson discloses the core invention: a translucent power cord with a plurality of helically intertwisted EL wires that are lit in sequence by a driver to simulate current flow. Gustafsson teaches the conceptual system, including a driver, main power conductors, and the visual effect of motion. However, Gustafsson does not disclose the specific structural details of the EL wires themselves. He, an analogous reference in the field of lighted cables, was asserted to supply these missing details, disclosing the precise layered structure of an EL filament (cored cord) as claimed, including a central conductive wire, insulating layer, light-emitting layer (EL powder), and transparent conductive layer.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), seeking to implement the conceptual "Power-Aware Cord" described in Gustafsson, would have been motivated to consult known references like He for the conventional structure of EL wires. Petitioner contended that He was an ideal reference because it not only provided the necessary structural details but also described a nearly identical application: a cable with EL wires helically wound around a core and driven in sequence.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in this combination. The integration involved applying a standard, well-understood EL wire structure (from He) into a system expressly designed to use such wires (from Gustafsson), which Petitioner described as a straightforward merger of familiar elements with predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over He in view of Korodi or Currie - Claims 1 and 7 are obvious over He in view of Korodi or Currie.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: He (Patent 6,957,001), Korodi (Patent 3,942,859), and Currie (Patent 7,121,707).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Korodi and Currie disclose the foundational concept of an illuminated power cord to visually indicate the presence of an electrical potential, using older technologies like fiber optics (Korodi) and LEDs (Currie). He was presented as disclosing a more modern and advantageous illumination system: a flexible cable with a plurality of helically wound EL filaments and a driver to light them in sequence, creating an illusion of flow. The argument was that He teaches all elements of the claimed invention except for the inclusion of a main power-conducting cord within the assembly. Korodi and Currie were argued to supply this missing element.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to improve the basic illuminated power cords of Korodi or Currie by replacing their dated illumination technologies with the superior EL wire system taught by He. He's system offered flexibility, low power consumption, and the dynamic visual effect of flowing light, representing a predictable and incremental improvement over the static illumination of the earlier references. The combination amounted to substituting a known, improved element (He's EL system) for an older one (Korodi's fiber optic or Currie's LEDs) in an existing device.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a predictable design choice. Replacing the aluminum core wire in He's EL cable with the power cord from Korodi or Currie to create an illuminated power cable would have been a straightforward exercise for a POSITA, yielding the claimed invention.

Ground 3: Anticipation by Naghi - Claims 1 and 7 are anticipated by Naghi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Naghi (Patent 6,523,967).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Naghi discloses every element of claims 1 and 7. Naghi describes an EL apparatus for illuminating a portable device, which includes a body with one or more EL members that can be "coiled around" a bendable copper wire (the main cord). Petitioner contended that Naghi's use of "coiled" is interchangeable with "helical." Naghi further discloses a "controller" (the driver) that causes the EL members to "flash, blink, flicker, or light in a predetermined pattern," which inherently teaches sequential illumination. The structure of Naghi's EL wires, comprising a core electrode, dielectric layers, and a transparent conductive layer, was argued to meet the structural limitations of the "electroluminescence cored cords" in the ’279 patent. The entire assembly is contained within a plastic shell, meeting the "outer transparent plastic layer" limitation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • driver: Petitioner proposed construing "driver" as "a circuit or device which controls the functioning of a circuit or component." This broad construction was argued to be consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning and necessary to encompass the controllers disclosed in the prior art.
  • bare metal wire: Petitioner proposed construing "bare metal wire" as "a metal wire or a plurality of metal wires that are combined with each other to share a common electrical signal." This construction was crucial for mapping the multiple thin transmission conductive wires found in He's EL filaments onto the single "bare metal wire" limitation of claim 1.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 7 of Patent 7,671,279 as unpatentable.