PTAB

IPR2019-00747

Clear Vu Lighting LLC v. University Of Strathclyde

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Lighting Device
  • Brief Description: The ’264 patent describes a lighting device for inactivating pathogenic bacteria, such as MRSA, by exposing them to visible light. The device includes at least two light-emitting elements: a first element that emits bactericidal visible light and a second element that emits light of a longer or different wavelength, which can also provide general white light illumination.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Powell, Altshuler, and Lighting Handbook - Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 14-21, 25-26, and 28-29 are obvious over Powell in view of Altshuler and Lighting Handbook.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Powell (Application # 2006/0030908), Altshuler (Application # 2007/0239143), and Lighting Handbook (Eighth Ed., 1993).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Powell taught the core structure: a desk lamp with two light sources, one for general-purpose white light and another for "wavelength specific light" to treat skin conditions like acne. However, Powell did not specify the exact bactericidal irradiance needed. Altshuler, in the same field of phototherapy, supplied this missing element by teaching that 405 nm blue light with an irradiance of at least 0.01 W/cm² is sufficient to kill acne-causing bacteria. To meet the "higher illuminance" limitation of claim 1, Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would consult the Lighting Handbook, which recommended illuminance levels of 200-2,000 lux (lx) for desk tasks like reading. Calculations showed this white light illuminance would be higher than the approximately 425 lx produced by the bactericidal blue light at the specified irradiance.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Powell's desk lamp with Altshuler's specific bactericidal parameters for the shared, explicit purpose of effectively treating acne. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of the Lighting Handbook was to ensure Powell's device could function as an effective desk lamp for general lighting, its intended secondary purpose.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because it involved combining known prior art elements for their intended purposes. Altshuler explained the well-understood biological mechanism of bactericidal light, and LEDs capable of producing the required 405 nm light were readily available.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Chung and Altshuler - Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-21, 25-26, and 28-30 are obvious over Chung in view of Altshuler.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chung (WO 2004/033028) and Altshuler (Application # 2007/0239143).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Chung disclosed a phototherapy device for treating conditions like acne that used two different colors of light: a "treatment color" (e.g., blue light) and a "balancing color" (e.g., yellow light) to mitigate discomfort for the user. The combination of these colors could produce the perception of white light. As with the Powell combination, Altshuler supplied the specific bactericidal wavelength (405 nm) and irradiance sufficient to kill bacteria. Petitioner argued that Chung inherently taught the "higher illuminance" limitation because, due to the higher luminous efficacy of yellow light, a yellow "balancing" LED would produce a significantly higher illuminance than a blue "treatment" LED, even if both had the same irradiance.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify the phototherapy device in Chung, which was already intended for acne treatment, by incorporating the specific, more effective bactericidal light parameters taught by Altshuler. This modification would be a predictable improvement to Chung's device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in applying Altshuler's specific teachings to Chung's device, as both relate to phototherapy for acne. The combination was a straightforward application of a known bactericidal specification to an existing therapeutic device.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, primarily by adding a single prior art reference to the combinations above to meet specific dependent claim limitations. These included combinations of Powell/Altshuler with Jones (for a lens, claim 12), Pederson (for a diffuser, claim 13), and Maxik (for motion sensors and wall/roof mounting, claims 22-24 and 27). Similar grounds were asserted based on the Chung/Altshuler combination.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "inactivate": Petitioner argued this term has a defined meaning from the patent’s specification: “bacteria are killed, or damaged so as to reduce or inhibit bacterial replication.” This construction was important as it set a relatively low bar for what the prior art needed to disclose.
  • Means-Plus-Function Claims: For "means for switching" (claims 21, 26) and "means for varying" (claim 25), Petitioner argued they invoked 35 U.S.C. §112, para. 6. The disclosed corresponding structure was identified as a simple switch, and the acts included detecting a person or movement, and boosting between irradiance modes. This construction allowed Petitioner to map the functions to control systems in the prior art, such as the manual percentage-increment controls in Powell or the motion sensors in Maxik.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’264 patent as unpatentable.