UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`COMARCO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. ______
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHANIEL J. DAVIS IV, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,492,933 CHALLENGING
`CLAIMS 1 AND 2 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321, 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Apple Ex. 1010
`
`
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`COMARCO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. ______
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NATHANIEL J. DAVIS IV, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,492,933 CHALLENGING
`CLAIMS 1 AND 2 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321, 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`Apple Ex. 1010
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`I, Nathaniel J. Davis IV, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I am presently a Professor and Department Head in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Air Force Institute of Technology,
`
`Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
`
`2.
`
`I have prepared this Declaration in connection with Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933 (“the ’933 Patent”),
`
`which is to be filed concurrently with this Declaration.
`
`3.
`
`In the course of preparing this Declaration, I reviewed the ’933 Patent, its
`
`prosecution file history, and its parent applications. I have also reviewed the prior art
`
`references and related documents discussed and/or referenced in this Declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I have been retained by Apple as an expert in the field of electrical and
`
`computer engineering, and related technologies, including electrical circuitry. I am
`
`being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $450 per hour for my time. My
`
`compensation does not depend in any way on the substance of my conclusions and is
`
`not affected by the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`5.
`
`I have no financial interest in Apple. I similarly have no financial interest in the
`
`’933 Patent or the owner of the ’933 Patent, and I have had no contact with the
`
`named inventor of the ’933 Patent.
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`II. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
`6. My curriculum vitae is attached to this Petition as Apple 1017. Since 2005,
`
`I have served as a Professor and Department Head in the Department of Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering at the Air Force Institute of Technology (“AFIT”),
`
`Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in Ohio. AFIT is the Air Force’s graduate school
`
`of engineering and its institution for technical professional continuing education.
`
`AFIT is a component of Air University and Air Education and Training Command
`
`(one of the U.S. Air Force’s ten major commands) and is committed to providing
`
`defense-focused graduate and professional continuing education and research to
`
`sustain the technological supremacy of America’s air and space forces. AFIT offers
`
`master’s and doctoral degree programs in computer engineering, computer science,
`
`electrical engineering, and other fields.
`
`7. My responsibilities as a professor include teaching courses in the field of
`
`electrical and computer engineering (including graduate-level courses) and conducting
`
`research in these areas. As department head, I am responsible for the academic and
`
`research direction as well as the administration of the 38-faculty department.
`
`8.
`
`I serve as a consultant and researcher for several nationally known companies
`
`and institutions. I am currently a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”). I am also a member of the IEEE Computer
`
`Society. My research efforts at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`(“Virginia Tech”) (from 1989 to 2005) resulted in grants and equipment donations
`
`totaling more than $5 million. During my previous tenure as a professor at AFIT
`
`from 1985 to 1989, I worked on research projects totaling $2.8 million. These efforts
`
`focused on computer architecture, digital design, computer networks, and embedded
`
`microprocessors (among others).
`
`9.
`
`Throughout my tenure as an electrical and computer engineering professor,
`
`I have taught undergraduate and graduate courses in these same subject areas,
`
`including courses relating to electrical and computer engineering. I have taught
`
`courses which provided a broad-based introduction to the computer engineering field,
`
`as well as advanced courses that dealt with state-of-the-art and emerging computer
`
`architectures, including computer architecture, high-performance uniprocessors,
`
`massively parallel processing systems, computers embedded within larger systems,
`
`distributed computing systems, and computer-communications networks. I have also
`
`advised dozens of undergraduate and graduate students on theses, dissertations, and
`
`projects, many of which have involved the design of computer-enabled hardware.
`
`For example, while at Virginia Tech, I served as faculty adviser to a group of graduate
`
`and undergraduate students designing a low-power, low-cost satellite, a prototype of
`
`which was successfully launched into orbit.
`
`10.
`
`I attended Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg,
`
`Virginia from 1972 to 1977 and received Bachelor of Science and Master of Science
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`degrees in Electrical Engineering in 1976 and 1977, respectively. From 1982 to 1985,
`
`I attended Purdue University to pursue a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, which I
`
`received in 1985.
`
`11.
`
`From 1981 to 1982, I was an instructor in the Department of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at AFIT. From April 1988 to December 1988, I was an
`
`adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering
`
`at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. From 1985 to 1989, I was an assistant
`
`professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at AFIT, on
`
`tenure track to have been effective October 1, 1989. From 1989 to 2005, I held the
`
`position of associate professor and then professor (beginning in 2002) in the Bradley
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Virginia Tech, and from 2000
`
`to 2004, I held the position of assistant department head.
`
`12.
`
`In 1987, I revised the technology assessment portion of the U.S. Army’s Joint
`
`Tactical Fusion Program Management Office’s Preplanned Product Improvement
`
`Implementation Plan. The topical areas in the technology assessment included:
`
`interconnection networks, parallel computer architectures, VLSI circuit design
`
`capabilities, application algorithm development, and mass storage devices. I have also
`
`worked on computer network design research and development projects for, among
`
`others, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the Navy, and the
`
`Commonwealth of Virginia State Police.
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`From 2010 to 2014, I was a member of the Air Force High Performance
`
`13.
`
`Computing Review Panel, tasked to evaluate proposals for use of Air Force and
`
`Department of Defense supercomputer resources (the panel disbanded in 2015). In
`
`2007, I was a member of the Army Science and Technology Basic Research Review
`
`panel. Under the direction of the Director for Research and Laboratory Management
`
`for the Department of the Army, this panel reviewed all basic research projects being
`
`conducted by Army laboratories and recommended the continuance or termination of
`
`each project.
`
`14.
`
`From December 2011 to August 2012, I was a member of the Mission Support
`
`Panel for the Air Force Chief Scientist’s Cyber Vision 2025 Cyber S&T strategy team.
`
`This team, spanning all Air Force major commands and its research and development
`
`community, was instrumental in the development of education and training strategies
`
`and priorities for the next decade that will improve the cyber workforce and its
`
`operational capabilities within the Air Force.
`
`15.
`
`From January 2013 to May 2013, I also served on the Education and Training
`
`Team for the Air Force Chief Scientist’s Global Horizons Study. The purpose of the
`
`study was to identify, forecast, and capitalize on global trends in education and
`
`training that will impact the Air Force in the next decade.
`
`16.
`
`I am a program evaluator for electrical and computer engineering programs for
`
`ABET, Inc., the recognized accreditor for college and university programs in applied
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`science, computing, engineering, and technology. I was nominated for this position
`
`by my engineering professional society, the IEEE. As a program evaluator, I evaluate
`
`university programs in electrical or computer engineering and, on behalf of ABET,
`
`make determinations as to whether these programs meet the criteria for accreditation.
`
`Since 2007, I have completed assessment visits to seven different universities.
`
`17.
`
`I am also an active member of the national Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering Department Heads Association, which helps advance the field and
`
`improve communication with the profession, industry, and government.
`
`18.
`
`In January 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued patent 7,877,621
`
`B2, “Detecting software attacks by monitoring electric power consumption patterns,”
`
`for which I am named a co-inventor. This patent describes detected malicious attacks
`
`launched against a mobile computing device by monitoring the device’s power
`
`consumption for anomalous behavior.
`
`19.
`
`I have authored or co-authored more than 70 technical articles in archival
`
`journals and conferences. I have co-authored two book chapters. The topics of my
`
`publications include high-performance computer architectures, mobile device
`
`architecture, and interconnection networks.
`
`20. My more than thirty years of experience with electronic devices, computer
`
`hardware, architectures, and networks in academic and practical situations have given
`
`me a detailed appreciation of the technology involved with the ’933 Patent. The
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`experience has particularly prepared me to draw conclusions concerning the
`
`purported validity of the ’933 Patent.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`21.
`I am not an attorney, and I have not been asked to offer my opinion on the
`
`law. For the purposes of this Declaration, I have been informed about certain aspects
`
`of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My understanding of the law is
`
`summarized below.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`A.
`I understand that claim construction is a matter of law and that the final claim
`
`22.
`
`constructions for this proceeding will be determined by the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“the Board”).
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a claim term of an unexpired patent in an inter partes review is
`
`to be given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Accordingly, for the purposes of my analysis in this
`
`proceeding, I have applied the broadest reasonable construction of the claim terms as
`
`they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the relevant art in light of the
`
`specification as of the priority date of the ’933 Patent. I understand that this claim
`
`construction standard differs from the legal standard used for construing claim terms
`
`in the course of litigation in a district court. Accordingly, I reserve the right to offer
`
`opinions relating to claim construction under that standard that may differ from those
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 7
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`under the applicable standard here, in the event that I am called to testify in
`
`connection with litigation in a district court.
`
`Priority
`
`B.
`I understand that a patentee may prove a date of invention earlier than the
`
`24.
`
`filing date of the patent if the claimed subject matter was disclosed in a related, earlier
`
`patent application. I understand that a patent claim is entitled to the benefit of the
`
`filing date of an earlier, related application only if the earlier application provides
`
`adequate disclosure of the patent’s claims. I understand that to provide such adequate
`
`disclosure, the earlier-filed application must describe the later-claimed invention in
`
`sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art could clearly conclude that the
`
`person invented the claimed subject matter. I understand that while the earlier
`
`application need not describe the claimed subject matter in the same terms as found
`
`in the claims at issue, the prior application must convey with reasonable clarity to
`
`those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession
`
`of the invention. It is also my understanding that claims of a patent that contain new
`
`matter that is not adequately disclosed by an earlier filed application do not receive the
`
`benefit of the earlier filing date.
`
`Anticipation
`
`C.
`I understand that a patent claim is anticipated—and therefore not patentable—
`
`25.
`
`if all of the elements of the claim are disclosed by a single prior art reference.
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 8
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`I understand that anticipation does not require that a prior art reference
`
`26.
`
`expressly disclose each and every claim element using the same terminology as recited
`
`by the claims. I understand that a claim is anticipated if each and every element as set
`
`forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art
`
`reference. I understand that a claim limitation is inherently disclosed if it is not
`
`explicitly present in the written description of the prior art, but would necessarily be
`
`embodied or met by an apparatus or method as taught by the prior art.
`
`D. Obviousness
`I understand that a claim is invalid for obviousness if the differences between
`
`27.
`
`the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art. In determining whether a claimed invention is obvious,
`
`I understand that one should consider (i) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(ii) the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art, (iii) the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art, and (iv) whether the claimed invention would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of those differences.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that if one of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable
`
`variation of an apparatus or method prompted by market forces or design incentives,
`
`such a variation is obvious. I understand that if a technique has been used to improve
`
`one device, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
`
`application is beyond ordinary skill. Stated differently, I understand that the proper
`
`question is whether one of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by
`
`developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to combining the
`
`teachings of the prior art.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that where there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, it is obvious
`
`to pursue the known options within the grasp of one of ordinary skill. In this
`
`situation, I understand that the result is likely the product not of innovation but of
`
`ordinary skill and common sense. I also understand that the combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`than yield predictable results. I also understand that the obviousness determination
`
`should consider whether a certain combination would have been obvious to try.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that contemporaneous development of similar variations of a
`
`device or method by other parties is indicative of obviousness.
`
`31.
`
`In establishing obviousness, I understand that one must avoid the temptation
`
`to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue and guard against
`
`slipping into the use of hindsight. The prior art itself, and not the applicant’s
`
`achievement, must establish the obviousness of the combination.
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`I understand that a reference may be combined with other references to
`
`32.
`
`disclose each element of the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103. I understand that a
`
`reference may also be combined with the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, and that this knowledge may be used to combine multiple references.
`
`I further understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to know the
`
`relevant prior art. I understand that the obviousness analysis may take into account
`
`the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`employ.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill is not an automaton and may be
`
`able to fit together the teachings of multiple prior art references employing ordinary
`
`creativity and the common sense that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond
`
`their primary purposes. I understand that a patent which claims predictable uses of
`
`old elements according to their established functions to achieve predictable results
`
`may be found invalid as obvious.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that art that is analogous to the subject matter of the patent may
`
`properly be used as an obviousness reference. I understand that prior art is analogous
`
`if it is from the same field of endeavor or if it is reasonably pertinent to the particular
`
`problem the inventor is trying to solve.
`
`35.
`
`It is my understanding that there is no rigid rule that a reference or
`
`combination of references must contain a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 11
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`combine references. But I understand that the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation”
`
`test can be a useful guide in establishing a rationale for combining elements of the
`
`prior art. This test poses the question as to whether there is an express or implied
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art elements in a way that
`
`realizes the claimed invention, and it seeks to counter impermissible hindsight
`
`analysis.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that certain objective factors, sometimes known as “secondary
`
`considerations,” are relevant in determining whether a claimed invention would have
`
`been obvious. I understand that such secondary considerations as “commercial
`
`success, long felt but unsolved needs, [and] failures of others” may be evidence of
`
`non-obviousness. If such factors are present, they must be considered in determining
`
`obviousness. I understand that there must be a connection between the evidence
`
`showing any secondary considerations and the claimed invention if the evidence is to
`
`be given any weight in the obviousness inquiry.
`
`37.
`
`It is my understanding that a strong showing of commercial success can be an
`
`indication of non-obviousness, if that commercial success can be directly attributed to
`
`a novel feature of the claimed invention. In addition, merely specifying sales figures
`
`alone—such as the number of units sold—is not sufficient to establish commercial
`
`success. Other evidence needs to be present, such as evidence that the sales represent
`
`a substantial share of a definable market, that the introduction of the claimed
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 12
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`technology resulted in a growth in market share, that the introduction of the claimed
`
`technology in defendant’s products led to a replacement of earlier products sold by
`
`others, or that the profitability per unit is out of the ordinary in the industry.
`
`38.
`
`It is my understanding that evidence of a persistent problem or need in the art
`
`that was resolved by the patented invention can be an indication of non-obviousness.
`
`Once again, however, there must be a connection between a novel feature of the
`
`claimed invention and the resolution of the “persistent problem.”
`
`39.
`
`It is my understanding that evidence that others have tried and failed to solve
`
`the problem or provide the need resolved by the claimed invention is an indication of
`
`non-obviousness. Once again, there must be a connection between a novel feature of
`
`the claimed invention and the resolution of the need.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that any assertion of the above secondary considerations must be
`
`accompanied by a connection between a novel feature of the claimed invention and
`
`the evidence offered; otherwise, the evidence does not actually tend to show that the
`
`invention was non-obvious. I also understand that even where evidence of non-
`
`obviousness exists, it may not be compelling enough to overcome a strong showing of
`
`obviousness in light of the prior art.
`
`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`41. All electronic devices, including computers and mobile devices, require electric
`
`power to operate. Most electronic devices are designed to operate on power that
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`meets certain parameters, such as maximum or minimum voltage, maximum or
`
`minimum current, polarity, or voltage regulation. If a device receives power that does
`
`not meet these parameters, the device may not work properly, may be damaged,
`
`and/or may create a safety hazard. Apple 1001 at 1:61-67; see also Apple 1012 at
`
`1:56-2:2; Apple 1014 at 1:49-53.
`
`42. Electronic devices typically receive power from batteries and/or an electrical
`
`power distribution system. Batteries—systems of two or more electrochemical cells
`
`that convert stored chemical energy into electrical energy—can be internal or external
`
`to a device, and can be single-use or rechargeable from another power source.
`
`Batteries provide power in a form called direct current (“DC”). Power distribution
`
`systems are used to transmit electrical power from a location where it is generated or
`
`stored to consumers. For example, in the United States, a typical power distribution
`
`system delivers alternating current (“AC”) to homes and offices at a voltage of 120 V
`
`and a frequency of 60 Hz. As another example, in Europe, a common power
`
`distribution system delivers AC current at a voltage of 220 V and a frequency of 50
`
`Hz. A recently commercialized alternative system distributes power as DC current at
`
`a voltage of 24 V, facilitating two-way transmission of power (e.g., transfer of power
`
`generated by solar panels at a home or office to the power distribution system). An
`
`automobile can serve as a power distribution system, delivering power from its engine
`
`and battery as DC power via its cigarette lighter outlet. Similarly, many airplanes can
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`serve as a power distribution system, allowing passengers to access DC power
`
`through a connector near their seats.
`
`43. Because the form of power provided by an electrical power distribution system
`
`may not meet the parameters of an electronic device, many electronic devices require
`
`the use of a power supply. Power supplies receive power from a power source and
`
`output a specific form of power to the electronic device to power the device or
`
`recharge its batteries. See, e.g., Apple 1001 at 1:28-67; Apple 1013 at 1:27-34; 1:47-
`
`2:22. One common use of a power supply is to convert power from AC to DC.
`
`Because batteries produce DC power, most battery-powered electronic devices are
`
`designed to operate on DC rather than AC power. Thus, a power supply must be
`
`used to convert AC power to DC power for an electronic device to receive power
`
`from a source of AC power such as a wall outlet.
`
`44. A power supply can also alter other aspects of the electrical power output
`
`delivered to the electronic device, including voltage, current capacity, polarity, and
`
`voltage regulation. For example, a DC-to-DC power supply may include components
`
`to convert the DC power available via the common automobile cigarette lighter
`
`power source to DC power at a specific voltage. See, e.g., Apple 1001 at 1:28-67.
`
`45.
`
`Some power supplies are physically integrated into the devices they power.
`
`Others are external to the device and are connected to the device by a cable—which is
`
`often detachable—that delivers the output current to the device. There are many
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 15
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`common names for external power supplies, including adapter, power adapter,
`
`AC adapter, AC/DC adapter, AC/DC converter, power brick, and wall wart. When
`
`used with battery-equipped devices, external power supplies are often referred to as
`
`chargers or rechargers.
`
`46.
`
`Small or portable electronic devices have historically used external power
`
`supplies because of several advantages they provide over internal power supplies.
`
`These advantages include weight and size reduction, heat reduction, electrical noise
`
`reduction, configuration versatility, and ease of replacement (as power supplies are
`
`more prone to failure than other circuitry due to power spikes and their internal
`
`generation of waste heat). In addition, external power supplies make it easier for a
`
`device to receive power from many different power sources, such as AC power from
`
`a wall outlet, DC power from an outlet in an automobile, and DC power from an
`
`outlet in an airplane. It is inefficient and technologically challenging to design an
`
`internal power supply that is capable of accepting power from all of these sources and
`
`convert it to a form that meets the specification of the design; a simpler and more
`
`efficient alternative is to couple the device with external power supply equipment that
`
`is configured to accept power from one or more of these power sources. See, e.g.,
`
`Apple 1001 at 1:27-2:10.
`
`47. Although they provide many advantages, external power supplies can present
`
`compatibility problems. See, e.g., Apple 1001 at 1:51-67; Apple 1012 at 1:56-2:21;
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 16
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`Apple 1005 at 2:49-58. As discussed above, for a device to work safely and properly,
`
`the power supply must output power that meets the power requirements of the device
`
`or its batteries. Failure to do so can damage the device or the power supply and may
`
`create a safety hazard. See Apple 1001 at 2:29-41; Apple 1012 at 1:56-2:2. As an
`
`example, a device’s internal batteries can overheat or catch fire if they receive power
`
`that does not meet certain parameters. See, e.g., Apple 1001 at 1:51-67. Thus, many in
`
`the art have worked on ways to ensure that electronic devices only draw power from a
`
`power supply meeting certain output specifications. Apple 1014 at 1:65-2:6.
`
`48. One early solution to this problem was to design different physical form factors
`
`for the connector between the power supply and the device to make the device
`
`physically incompatible with other power supplies. See Apple 1015 at 1:25-50.
`
`Figs. 3A-3F from prior art reference Burrus, below, provide several examples of such
`
`form factors.
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 17
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`
`Apple 1015, Figure 3
`
`
`
`49. Although the approach of designing different physical form factors for the
`
`connector had become very common by the early 1990s, it was an imperfect solution
`
`for several reasons. First, it did not adequately protect against mismatched power
`
`supply equipment: the shape of a physical connector can be easily duplicated, and
`
`thus users could not assume from the shape of the connector that a power supply was
`
`appropriate for an electronic device. Second, this approach led to a proliferation of
`
`incompatible form factors that prevented some power supplies that did provide
`
`power in an acceptable form for a device and that would otherwise be compatible
`
`from being used with that device.
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 18
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`50. Another solution was to configure the power supply to send a signal to an
`
`electronic device that identified the power supply and/or its output capabilities.
`
`Apple 1001 at 2:11-28; Apple 1014 at 2:10-15. The power supply could send this
`
`signal over a power output line linking the device and the power supply by switching
`
`the supply voltage on and off using a certain pulse ratio, pulse length, or pulse count.
`
`Id. Alternatively, the electronic device could receive this signal over a separate data
`
`line linking the device and the power supply equipment. Apple 1003 at 5:17-33;
`
`Fig. 4. Figure 4 from prior art reference Allen illustrates one embodiment of this
`
`“data line” approach, wherein power is output to the electronic device via power lines
`
`38 and a data signal is output to the electronic device via data line 42. Id. This data
`
`line was typically bundled with the power output line in a single cable bundle. Id. In
`
`either implementation, the device could be configured to use the information
`
`provided by the signal to manage power consumption—for example, to disable
`
`charging of internal batteries. Id.; Apple 1001 at 2:11-28.
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 19
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`
`Apple 1003, Figure 4
`
`
`
`51. This data line approach could be implemented in extremely simple ways. For
`
`example, the circuitry in the output connector of a cable connecting power supply
`
`equipment to an electronic device could tie the data line to ground, sending a signal to
`
`the electronic device identifying characteristics of the power supply equipment and
`
`indicating to the electronic device that its batteries should not be charged. Apple
`
`1001 at Fig. 2A. Furthermore, the proliferation of inexpensive, compact, and
`
`powerful off-the-shelf components made possible much more sophisticated
`
`communication between a power supply and an electronic device over a data line. By
`
`the mid-1990s, integrated circuits such as erasable programmable read-only memory
`
`(“EPROMs”) had become small enough to be embedded in the output connector of a
`
`cable or in the body of a cable. E.g., Apple 1005 at 3:54-4:27; Apple 1007 at 10:16-46.
`
`Apple 1010 – Page 20
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,492,933
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D.
`
`These embedded EPROMS could be programmed to provide identifying information
`
`relating to the power supplies. Around the same time, those skilled in the art were
`
`using similar architecture to enable communication between electronic devices and
`
`other types of peripherals, such as media players, remote control devices, and network
`
`devices. E.g., Apple 1007 at Abstract.
`
`52. By 2002, the use of a data line to identify and control power supply equipment
`
`had become even more common and considerably more sophisticated. For example,
`
`some solutions contemplated establishing a data line between the power supply and
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
