PTAB

IPR2015-01352

Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co Ltd v. Luminara Worldwide LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Kinetic Flame Device
  • Brief Description: The ’166 patent relates to devices for simulating a flickering candle flame. The technology centers on a pendulum member assembly which includes a body and a flame silhouette element that moves to create a kinetic, flame-like visual effect.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Schnuckle - Claims 1 and 13 are anticipated by, and claims 2-4, 14, 20, and 22 are obvious over, Schnuckle.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schnuckle (Patent 7,261,455).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Schnuckle, which shares a common inventor with the ’166 patent, discloses all elements of the challenged claims across its various embodiments. For anticipation of independent claims 1 and 13, Petitioner mapped the claims to Schnuckle’s single-channel embodiment (Fig. 12), which allegedly shows a pendulum body, a teardrop-shaped flame element, and a pivot hole for a support rod. For the obviousness grounds against dependent claims, Petitioner asserted that other features—such as a magnetic base (from Schnuckle’s Fig. 7), an elongated and planar body, and a pivot hole larger than its support element—are either explicitly taught in other Schnuckle embodiments or would have been obvious modifications.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the magnetic base from Schnuckle’s Fig. 7 embodiment with the pendulum from its Fig. 12 embodiment. The motivation was to achieve the known advantage of magnetic drive control, allowing for more flexible electronic operation of the flame effect.
    • Expectation of Success: As the combination involved integrating features from different embodiments of the same reference to achieve a predictable function, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Schnuckle and Helmer - Claims 18, 19, and 26 are obvious over Schnuckle in view of Helmer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schnuckle (Patent 7,261,455) and Helmer (Patent 817,772).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Schnuckle teaches the core imitation candle device with a movable pendulum. Helmer, which relates to amusement toys, discloses an alternative suspension mechanism: a rigid wire support shaped with a "low spot or valley" where an oscillating figure rests. Petitioner argued that combining Schnuckle’s pendulum with Helmer’s support wire meets the claim limitations requiring a support member with a low spot where the flame body rests, coupled at both ends to a housing.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references to create a simpler, more robust, and less costly suspension system for Schnuckle's pendulum. Helmer’s wire support was presented as a known, effective, and advantageous alternative to the more complex gimbal structure shown in Schnuckle.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying a well-understood mechanical suspension method from Helmer to the analogous pendulum device in Schnuckle was a predictable design choice that would have been expected to work as intended.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Wiklund and Baba - Claims 1-4, 13, 14, 18, 20, and 22 are obvious over Wiklund in view of Baba.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wiklund (WO 85/03561) and Baba (Japanese Application # 2000-284730).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Baba discloses the core pendulum structure, including a magnetically-driven swing beam with a pivot hole, an attached ornament on its upper portion, and magnets on its lower end. Wiklund, an earlier imitation candle reference, teaches using a "candle-flamelike" bulb atop a similar magnetically-driven pendulum. Petitioner argued the combination of Baba’s pendulum mechanism with Wiklund’s flame-like bulb teaches all elements of the claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these teachings to improve the realism of the flickering flame effect. Baba explicitly teaches that its design produces an "irregular" pendulum movement, which creates an element of surprise for decorative displays. Applying this irregular motion to Wiklund’s imitation candle would produce a more random and natural-looking flicker, a clear design goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining two known magnetically-driven pendulum technologies from the same decorative display field to achieve the predictable result of a more realistic visual effect would have provided a POSITA with a strong expectation of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including the obviousness of claim 7 over Schnuckle and Cornell; obviousness of claims 19 and 26 over Wiklund, Baba, and Meeker; anticipation of claims 1-3 by Sandell; and obviousness of claim 7 over Sandell and Hall.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term "Flame Silhouette Element" should be construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as "a body of material-having a shape that is suitable to generate a flame flickering effect." Petitioner emphasized that the ’166 patent specification explicitly states the element need not be shaped like a flame and can be a simple geometric or arbitrary shape, or even a three-dimensional object.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 7, 13, 14, 18-20, 22, and 26 of the ’166 patent as unpatentable.