`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952
`Issued: Oct. 16, 2012
`Application No.: 13/189,865
`Filing Date: July 25, 2011
`
`For: Intelligent User Interface Including A Touch Sensor Device
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FILED VIA PRPS
`
`DECLARATION OF PAUL BEARD IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,288,952
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For ease of reference, Mr. Beard refers to this declaration as being in support of
`
`“’952 Petition” challenging claims 1-4, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22-24, 26, 27, and 38-40.
`
`Apple Inc., et al.
`Exhibit 1003
`Apple Inc., et al. v. Global Touch Solutions, Inc.
`IPR2015-01175
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 001
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................... 1
`
`II. MY EXPERIENCE WITH PORTABLE, BATTERY-POWERED
`DEVICES IN THE MID-1990S ...................................................................... 6
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOVERNING LAW ..................................... 9
`
`Invalidity by Anticipation or Obviousness ........................................... 9
`A.
`Interpreting Claims Before the Patent Office ...................................... 11
`B.
`Relevant Time Period for the Obviousness Analysis .......................... 11
`C.
`D. Materials Relied on in Forming My Opinion ...................................... 12
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 12
`
`A. Use of a Signal Switch in a User Interface ......................................... 12
`B.
`Use of a Microchip to Control the Battery and Device ....................... 13
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 18
`
`V.
`
`PERSPECTIVE APPLIED IN THIS DECLARATION ............................... 19
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’952 PATENT .......................................................... 20
`
`A. Disclosure of the ’952 Patent .............................................................. 20
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ʼ952 Patent ............................................... 23
`
`VII. THE PRIOR ART .......................................................................................... 24
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`Beard .................................................................................................... 24
`Rathmann ............................................................................................. 32
`Danielson ............................................................................................. 36
`
`VIII. MOTIVATIONS TO COMBINE THE PRIOR ART ................................... 38
`
`A. Motivation to Combine Beard with Rathmann ................................... 38
`B. Motivation to Combine Beard and Rathmann with Danielson ........... 43
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................ 47
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard ..................................................................................... 47
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 002
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`B.
`
`“energy consuming load” .................................................................... 47
`
`X. GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY ..................................................................... 49
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 38, 39,
`and 40 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the ground that
`they are all rendered obvious by Beard in view of Rathmann. ........... 49
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 49
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 61
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 63
`4.
`Claim 16 .................................................................................... 66
`5.
`Claim 17 .................................................................................... 68
`6.
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 70
`7.
`Claim 22 .................................................................................... 72
`8.
`Claim 23 .................................................................................... 74
`9.
`Claim 24 .................................................................................... 76
`10. Claim 26 .................................................................................... 78
`11. Claim 27 .................................................................................... 91
`12. Claim 38 .................................................................................... 94
`13. Claim 39 .................................................................................... 96
`14. Claim 40 .................................................................................... 97
`Ground 2: Claims 4 and 14 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`on the ground that they are rendered obvious by Beard in view
`of Rathmann and Danielson ................................................................ 98
`1.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 98
`2.
`Claim 14 .................................................................................. 100
`
`B.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 003
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`I, Paul Beard, resident of Bigfork, Montana, hereby declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to provide my opinion
`
`concerning the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952 (Ex. 1001, “the ’952 patent”)
`
`in support of its Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,288,952
`
`(“’952 Petition”). I have not previously been employed or retained by Apple in any
`
`capacity.
`
`2.
`
`From 1980 to 1983, I attended the University of Manchester (U.K.)
`
`where I received a B.Sc. (Honors) degree in Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineering.
`
`3.
`
`From 1978 to 1989, I was employed by British Telecom (BT) in
`
`England. I received a series of promotions culminating in my eventual position as
`
`Head of Group for BT’s ISDN voice and data terminals. These terminals were
`
`portable electronic devices with microcontroller chips.
`
`4.
`
`From 1989 to 1991, I was employed as a member of technical staff for
`
`VMX Inc., where I designed a world-wide approved subscriber line interface
`
`circuit.
`
`5.
`
`From 1991 to 1994, I was the Vice President of Systems Engineering
`
`at DSP Group, where I architected a low-cost, fixed-point digital signal processing
`
`chip.
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 004
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`6.
`
`From 1994 to 1998, I was the Chief Architect and a Fellow of Norand
`
`Corporation, a developer of portable, wireless, pen-based data-entry devices that
`
`were battery-powered.
`
`7.
`
`From 1998 to 2000, I founded a wireless (radio frequency) product
`
`development company called Alation Systems based on my invention of a new
`
`type of radio frequency modulation scheme. I sold Alation Systems to Cypress
`
`Semiconductor in 2000.
`
`8.
`
`From 2000 to 2005, I was the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of
`
`Wireless Systems at Cypress Semiconductor. I directly reported to the CEO, and
`
`was the only Engineering Fellow in the entire company. During my time at
`
`Cypress, I invented the technology underlying the 2.4 Ghz wireless mouse as
`
`described in U.S. Patent No. 8,442,437. Cypress’s WirelessUSB line of radio
`
`frequency chips is based on this technology, and the technology is also widely used
`
`in portable, battery-powered electronic devices such as microphones, electronic
`
`toys, mice and keyboards.
`
`9. WirelessUSB was a major commercial success, and received four
`
`international electronics product awards, including a prestigious EDN (Electrical
`
`Design News) innovation award. I also designed two Cypress radio and wireless
`
`integrated circuits (IC), the CYRF6951 and CYRF6961.
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 005
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`10. From 2005 to the present, I have been employed by Horizon Hobby,
`
`Inc., of Champaign, Illinois (http://www.horizonhobby.com/). Horizon Hobby is
`
`the preeminent global manufacturer of electronic radio control (RC) model
`
`airplanes, drones, helicopters, radios and cameras. I was previously the Vice
`
`President of Engineering, and was promoted earlier this year to CTO.
`
`11.
`
`I am responsible for the overall technical design and development of
`
`Horizon Hobby’s products, all of which are portable battery-powered electronic
`
`devices. Many of these products employ technologies that I personally developed,
`
`such as the Spektrum 2.4 Ghz radio frequency control system. Horizon Hobby’s
`
`products typically include a model, such as a drone, and a portable, battery-
`
`powered electronic controller with a display and user interface that allows the
`
`operator to control the drone.
`
`12.
`
`I continued to work for Cypress Semiconductor as the CTO of
`
`Wireless Systems on a part-time basis at Cypress’s invitation until 2013.
`
`13. From 2009 to the present, I have been the CTO of Unmanned Systems
`
`Inc., for whom I invented the “Longshot” IP-based low-latency network for real-
`
`time control of unmanned aerial vehicles over the Internet.
`
`14.
`
`I founded Oscium Corporation in 2010, where I am also the CTO.
`
`Oscium makes personal electronic oscilloscope, logic analyzer, and spectrum
`
`analyzer devices that plug into iPads, iPhones, and iPods. These portable devices
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 006
`
`

`

`
`are now sold all over the world, including in numerous European and Asian
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`countries, and in Australia.
`
`15.
`
`I am a named inventor on 68 issued U.S. patents, and have
`
`approximately 30 patent applications currently pending with the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Many of my issued patents are directed to
`
`various technologies relating to portable electronic devices that operate on
`
`batteries, including battery chargers and packs, intelligent batteries, power
`
`supplies, power management, microprocessors and control circuits, radio-
`
`frequency circuitry, control circuitry, visual displays, and portable data collection
`
`devices. I have also made significant inventions in other areas including live TV
`
`replay (e.g., a digital video recorder (DVR), U.S. Patent No. 6,172,712) and
`
`internet radio (U.S. Patent No. 7,194,520).
`
`16.
`
`I have received several awards for my contributions to electronic
`
`battery-powered model devices. In 2008, I was the British Model Flying
`
`Association Innovator of the Year, and also received the Oleg Antanov Diploma
`
`from the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI). In 2010, I was inducted
`
`into the International RC Helicopter Association Hall of Fame. I have been
`
`referred to as the “Father of Spread Spectrum” in Model Aviation. In 2012, I was
`
`inducted into the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) Hall of Fame.
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 007
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`17. My portable electronic product experience includes power sources,
`
`power savings and power management, user interfaces, touch sensors, input
`
`devices, switches, intelligent batteries, audio signal circuitry, and radio frequency
`
`circuitry. My years of industry experience, including many customer feedback and
`
`redesign cycles, enable me to engage in product and user interface analysis from a
`
`purely technical design perspective as well as an applied “actually-works-in-the-
`
`field” perspective.
`
`18. Further, my expertise with microcontrollers and control circuitry has
`
`allowed me to design dedicated circuits that seamlessly support the customer
`
`experience. As a result, I have held several technical advisory positions for equity
`
`and other compensation.
`
`19.
`
`I was a founder of and technical advisor to PortalPlayer, Inc., for
`
`which I designed the PortalPlayer dual ARM7TDMI RISC chip. That chip was
`
`chosen by Apple as the MP3 encoder chip for the first-generation Apple iPod
`
`portable music player. Other portable, battery-powered electronic device
`
`companies that I have provided with technical advisory expertise over the course
`
`of my career include Mattel (for whom I designed a “Barbie” camera for shooting
`
`and instantly printing photographs), NEC (for whom I designed a low-power
`
`architecture for notebook computers), and Fisher-Price (for whom I designed the
`
`radio for an “RC Racer” car).
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 008
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`20.
`
`In summary, I have extensive technical experience relating to all
`
`aspects of creating portable electronic devices with user interfaces that run on
`
`battery power.
`
`21. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1004. My work in this
`
`matter is being billed at a rate of $500 per hour, with reimbursement for necessary
`
`and reasonable expenses. My compensation is not in any way contingent upon the
`
`outcome of any inter partes review. I have no financial or personal interest in the
`
`outcome of this proceeding or any related litigation.
`
`II. MY EXPERIENCE WITH PORTABLE, BATTERY-POWERED
`DEVICES IN THE MID-1990S
`22. There were three major technical problems that I solved for Norand in
`
`1994 and 1995 in connection with the development of Norand’s Pen*KeyTM line of
`
`devices, including the Norand Pen*KeyTM 6100 and Norand Pen*KeyTM 6300,
`
`which were portable and battery-powered. The Pen*KeyTM was a handheld,
`
`wireless data collection terminal. It was designed for use with the intelligent
`
`battery pack described in U.S. Patent No. 5,898,290 (Ex. 1005, “Beard”).
`
`23. The first problem in the development of the Pen*KeyTM devices
`
`related to power consumption. All of Norand’s Pen*KeyTM devices included
`
`batteries, a touch screen display, switches, and control circuitry that controlled the
`
`operation of the device in response to user input. Because these devices were
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 009
`
`

`

`
`required to support all-working-day use on a single battery charge, power
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`conservation was a key design consideration.
`
`24. For some device components, such as switches, power usage was not
`
`a design concern because low current switches were widely available, commonly
`
`used in the industry, and superior to conventional, typically high current
`
`mechanical switches in terms of power consumption, size, reliability, and
`
`susceptibility to corrosion.
`
`25. For other components, such as the central processing unit, power
`
`usage was a major design concern. The mid-1990s was the era of the desktop PC.
`
`My initial challenge in designing the Pen*KeyTM devices was that the integrated
`
`circuits available at that time were unsuitable for battery-powered, mobile devices
`
`because the circuits consumed too much power. I resolved that issue by applying a
`
`variety of innovative engineering techniques to lower the power consumption of
`
`the central processing unit, including the method of lowering clock frequency and
`
`voltage when the device was not in use for which I received U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,376,848.
`
`26. The second problem related to data loss on startup. We discovered the
`
`issue during Norand’s testing of the Pen*KeyTM 6100 devices. These devices
`
`occasionally sustained file system damage as a result of insufficient battery-power.
`
`A common scenario involved devices that had begun to turn on in response to a
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 010
`
`

`

`
`user start-up or activation signal, but had insufficient remaining battery power to
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`actually complete the process. In that case, file system damage resulted from the
`
`battery dying when the device had only partially completed its startup function.
`
`27. Users of the devices often had no way of knowing how much battery
`
`capacity remained in a given device, and thus could not prevent this problem from
`
`occurring even if made aware of the device’s potential vulnerability.
`
`28.
`
`I realized that adding a user-triggered indicator that let a user check
`
`battery capacity without having to turn on the device would be a good solution for
`
`this problem. A system implementing my insight resolved this file system damage
`
`issue for Norand’s Pen*KeyTM products.
`
`29. The third problem related to data loss on shutdown. To avoid data
`
`loss, most portable devices of the era required the user to save, gracefully exit all
`
`programs, and turn off the device before replacing a battery—a time-consuming
`
`and annoying process.
`
`30.
`
`I realized that device activation and deactivation could be handled in a
`
`more user-friendly fashion by including “pre-removal” sensing circuitry. Instead of
`
`having to save, exit all programs, and turn off the device, a user could deactivate
`
`the product by simply removing the battery. When the sensing circuitry detected
`
`that the user had begun to remove the battery, the device could interrupt normal
`
`processing to save data and perform essential shutdown tasks in the short period of
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 011
`
`

`

`
`time before battery power was lost. When power was restored to the device with
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`the insertion of a battery, the previously saved information could then be restored
`
`during the device activation process.
`
`31.
`
`I patented my invention relating to capacity indicators and pre-
`
`removal circuitry in United States Patent No. 5,898,290, entitled “Battery Pack
`
`with Capacity and Pre-Removal Indicators” (Ex. 1005, “Beard”).
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOVERNING LAW
`A.
`Invalidity by Anticipation or Obviousness
`32.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious
`
`in view of the prior art. I further understand that invalidity of a claim requires that
`
`the claim be anticipated or obvious from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art (“POSITA”), at the time the invention was made.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that anticipation of a claim requires that every element of
`
`a claim be disclosed expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged
`
`as in the claim. In analyzing obviousness in light of the prior art, I understand that
`
`it is important to understand the scope of the claims, the level of skill in the
`
`relevant art, the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior
`
`art and the claims, and any secondary considerations.
`
`34.
`
`I also understand that “if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would im-
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 012
`
`

`

`
`prove similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its ac-
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`tual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 417 (2007). There may also be a specific teaching, suggestion or motivation
`
`to combine a prior art reference with another prior art reference. Such a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine the prior art references may be explicit or
`
`implicit in the prior art.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent
`
`to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston
`
`Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“As we
`
`have explained, Wolff teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, and the record did
`
`not contain substantial evidence for the jury to conclude otherwise. The only quali-
`
`fication to this statement of fact is that all of the limitations are found in two sepa-
`
`rate embodiments pictured side by side in the patent, not in one embodiment.
`
`However, ‘[i]f a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation,
`
`§ 103 likely bars its patentability.’”) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 401).
`
`36.
`
`I understand that assessing the invalidity of a claim as either anticipat-
`
`ed or obvious involves comparing the limitations of a claim to the disclosures in
`
`the prior art. I have applied this concept throughout this declaration. To the extent I
`
`also have shared insights or memories of my own work in the field in the mid-
`
`1990s, I have not compared my insights or memories to the claim limitations for
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 013
`
`

`

`
`purposes of assessing invalidity, but instead have compared the claims to the prior
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`art references discussed below, from the perspective of a POSITA at the time of
`
`the alleged invention.
`
`B.
`37.
`
`Interpreting Claims Before the Patent Office
`I understand that Inter Partes Review is a proceeding before the
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office for evaluating the validity of an issued
`
`patent claim. I understand that claims in an Inter Partes Review are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the patent’s specification.
`
`I understand that a patent’s “specification” includes all the figures, discussion, and
`
`claims within the patent document. I understand that the Patent Office will look to
`
`the specification to see if there is a definition for a claim term, and if not, will
`
`apply the broadest reasonable interpretation from the perspective of a POSITA at
`
`the time the invention was made. I present a more detailed explanation of the
`
`interpretation of certain terms in the ’952 patent in the section titled “Claim
`
`Construction” below.
`
`C. Relevant Time Period for the Obviousness Analysis
`38.
`I also understand that the earliest patent application filing leading to
`
`the ’952 patent was made on October 9, 1998. I have therefore analyzed
`
`obviousness as of that day or somewhat before (approximately 1996-1998),
`
`understanding that as time passes, the knowledge of a POSITA will increase.
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 014
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`D. Materials Relied on in Forming My Opinion
`39.
`In forming my opinion, I have relied on the ’952 patent’s claims,
`
`disclosure, and file history, on the prior art exhibits to the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ’952 patent, any other materials cited in this declaration, and my
`
`own experience, expertise, and knowledge of the POSITA in the relevant
`
`timeframe.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`40. The ’952 patent involves several common concepts in electronics that
`
`were well known to those working with portable electronic devices in the mid-
`
`1990s, including the application of certain types of switches, microchips, and
`
`batteries. Below, I explain how the technical context of the ’952 patent informs my
`
`opinion on the level of skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`A. Use of a Signal Switch in a User Interface
`41.
`In the 1960s and 1970s, mechanical switches that functioned as a user
`
`interface were commonly found in portable electronic devices. But by the mid-
`
`1980s1, new signal switches, such as touch sensors or carbon-coated membrane
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Ex. 1008 at 11-13 (1989 Sony WM-701C Service Manual); Ex. 1009 at
`
`11-12 (1987 Sony WM-DDIII Service Manual); Ex. 1010 at 1, 6, 10, 21, 25 (Tan-
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 015
`
`

`

`
`type switches, had begun to replace traditional mechanical switches in such
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`devices. The benefits that signal switches offered over traditional mechanical
`
`switches—in particular, their reduced size, reduced vulnerability to corrosion, and
`
`increased reliability2—began to outweigh their costs.
`
`42.
`
` By the time of the alleged invention in the mid- or late-1990s, I
`
`observed that many Asian manufacturers such as Panasonic and MuRata had begun
`
`supplying signal switches to the U.S. market, and competition had further driven
`
`down the cost of these components. As a result, I observed that signal switches
`
`proved very popular with designers of portable battery-powered electronic
`
`equipment such as myself and my colleagues at Norand, DSP Group, and VMX
`
`Inc., and elsewhere.
`
`43.
`
`In short, the use of signal switches in the user interfaces of portable
`
`electronic devices was well-known in the art well before October 1998.
`
`B. Use of a Microchip to Control the Battery and Device
`
`
`
`dy Pocket Scientific Computer PC-6 Service Manual); Ex. 1011 at title page, 44
`
`(1987 Tandy Computer Catalog).
`
`2 See, e.g., Ex. 1012 at 1:48-60 (U.S. Patent No. 4,818,827); Ex. 1013 at 1:16-18,
`
`2:3-6 (U.S. Patent No. 5,747,757); Ex. 1014 at 1:22-26 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,743,386); Ex. 1015 at 1:9-14 (U.S. Patent No. 5,294,762).
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 016
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`44. Also well before October 1998, portable battery-powered devices
`
`commonly included microchips that were used to control the battery and the
`
`device. Microchips are commonly referred to by other names, such as chips,
`
`processors, microcontrollers, or control circuits.
`
`45. The Pen*KeyTM devices that I designed at Norand are one example of
`
`battery-powered devices that used such circuitry, but, in my experience, many of
`
`the era’s bestselling portable devices also employed such a design.
`
`46. The case for using microchips to control batteries and device
`
`functionality was (and remains) compelling, and had led to their widespread
`
`adoption by the time of the alleged invention of the ’952 patent. Programmable
`
`intelligence in microchips allowed designers to create portable electronic devices
`
`that responded to commands input via the switch, including responses using audio,
`
`visual, or audiovisual indicators. Use of a microchip also enabled efficient control
`
`of the battery and prolonged the battery-life of the device, a vital technical and
`
`business concern.
`
`47. The use of microprocessors for control was further promoted by the
`
`establishment of battery industry standards, the Smart Battery System (“SBS”)
`
`specifications. An initial draft of these specifications was first announced by
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 017
`
`

`

`
`Duracell, Inc. (“Duracell”) and Intel Corporation (“Intel”) in 1994,3 and Version
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`1.0 of the specifications was officially released by a consortium including
`
`Duracell, Intel, Toshiba Battery, National Semiconductor Corporation, and other
`
`battery and microchip manufacturers
`
`in February 1995. Industry players
`
`recognized the growing importance of “smart” batteries. The purpose of the
`
`consortium was to exchange information among members and develop standards
`
`for these batteries. SBS included a “System Management Bus (SMBus)
`
`Specification,”4 which specified a communication interface between the microchip
`
`and the rest of the portable electronic device, and a “Smart Battery (SB) Data
`
`Specification,”5 which specified a data protocol to be used for SMBus
`
`communications. As “open” specifications,
`
`the SBS specification drafts
`
`incorporated significant industry feedback6 and over a dozen portable device
`
`3 See, e.g., Ex. 1016 (Apr. 21, 1994 Press Release, “Duracell and Intel Announce
`
`‘Smart Battery’ Specifications for Portable Computers”); Ex. 1017 at 2 (Mar. 2,
`
`1995 EDN Access Article, “Smart-Battery Technology: Power Management’s
`
`Missing Link”).
`
`4 See, e.g., Ex. 1016 (Apr. 21, 1994 Press Release).
`
`5 See, e.g., Ex. 1016 (Apr. 21, 1994 Press Release).
`
`6 See, e.g., Ex. 1016 (Apr. 21, 1994 Press Release); Ex. 1018 at 76 (Oct. 2, 1995
`
`Infoworld Article, “New Battery Technologies Mix Brains and Chemistry”).
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 018
`
`

`

`
`manufacturers had signed on to the standard by early 1995.7 Official SBS
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`specifications remain the industry standard today.8
`
`48. SBS was designed to solve a common problem with portable electron-
`
`ic devices of the early 1990s: users often ran out of battery power unexpectedly.
`
`Devices of that era relied on system power consumption data to estimate their re-
`
`maining battery capacity. Not only did that approach require the device to be
`
`turned on before remaining battery charge could be estimated, the resulting esti-
`
`mates were often incorrect:
`
`Many products that attempt to answer the question [of remaining bat-
`tery charge] use the system’s hardware to account for the battery’s
`charge state. This approach is destined to fail when different batteries
`are used because the battery’s characteristics and history are associat-
`ed with the system, not the battery.
`
`Ex. 1021 at 2 (Feb. 15, 1995 Smart Battery Data Specification, Version 1.0).
`
`49.
`
`In contrast, SBS batteries each maintained their own charge infor-
`
`mation. See id. (“The Smart Battery fixes this problem by maintaining its own in-
`
`
`7 See, e.g., Ex. 1019 at 32 (Jan. 24, 1995 PC Magazine Article, “Batteries That
`
`Think”).
`
`8 See, e.g., Ex. 1020 at 1-2 (PMBus Webpage, “PMBus Ancestry: PMBus and the
`
`Technologies Preceding It”).
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 019
`
`

`

`
`formation.”). An SBS-type intelligent battery equipped with a microchip, battery,
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`and user interface can provide the user with an accurate indication of battery
`
`charge.9 A device powered by such a battery could also perform intelligent power
`
`management of its components because the microprocessor had access to the same
`
`accurate information about remaining battery capacity.10 Leading manufacturers of
`
`microchips, including Microchip Technology, Inc., quickly announced support for
`
`SBS.11
`
`50.
`
`In short, with the publication and increasing adoption of the SBS
`
`standards, the business and technology environment for portable electronic devices
`
`favored using a microchip to control the battery, user interface, and other compo-
`
`nents of a device well before October 1998. The SBS standards were closely
`
`watched by those in the battery industry. I, and others in the industry, understood
`
`9 See, e.g., Ex. 1021 at 2-3 (Feb. 15, 1995 Smart Battery Data Specification) (“The
`
`Smart Battery provides the user with accurate state of charge information along
`
`with an accurate prediction of the remaining operating time.”) (emphasis added
`
`throughout unless otherwise indicated).
`
`10 See, e.g., id. at 4 (“SMBus Host-to-Smart Battery communications are per-
`
`formed: … [t]o enable power management based on “real” information supplied
`
`by the battery.”).
`
`11 See, e.g., Ex. 1017 at 2 (Mar. 2, 1995 EDN Access Article).
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 020
`
`

`

`
`that because SBS involved major industry players such as Duracell and Intel, they
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`would be highly influential in smart battery development. Smart battery developers
`
`would have naturally looked to the SBS specification when developing products.
`
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`51. The purported invention of the ’952 patent reflects an understanding
`
`of several basic principles of electronics and electrical engineering as they apply to
`
`product design, and knowledge of industry practices in 1998 including the use of
`
`signal switches and the use of microchips as control circuitry for switches and
`
`batteries.
`
`52. Based on those factors, in my opinion a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in October 1998 would have had, at a minimum:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`a Ph.D. in electrical or electronics engineering; or
`
`a Masters-level degree in electrical or electronics engineering and
`
`1 year of experience designing portable, battery-powered electronic devices
`
`controlled by microprocessors that used touch sensors or other signal
`
`switches; or
`
`c.
`
`a Bachelors-level degree in electrical or electronics engineering and
`
`2 years of experience designing portable, battery-powered electronic devices
`
`controlled by microprocessors that used touch sensors or other signal
`
`switches.
`
`18
`
`Exhibit 1003, Page 021
`
`

`

`
`This description is approximate, and a higher level of education or skill might
`
`Inter Partes Review of USP 8,288,952
`
`make up for less experience, and vice-versa.
`
`V.
`
`PERSPECTIVE APPLIED IN THIS DECLARATION
`53.
`
`I believe that I would qualify as a person of at least ordinary skill in
`
`