UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC,
`(d/b/a ON SEMICONDUCTOR),
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Oral Hearing Held: Friday, June 30, 2017
`______________
`
`
`
`Before: THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC,
`(d/b/a ON SEMICONDUCTOR),
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Oral Hearing Held: Friday, June 30, 2017
`______________
`
`
`
`Before: THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`The above-entitled matters came on for hearing on Friday, June 30,
`2017, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia in Courtroom B, at 1:00 p.m.
`
` A
`
` P P E A R A N C E S
` ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` ROGER FULGHUM, ESQUIRE
` BAKER BOTTS LLP
` 910 Louisiana Street
` Houston, TX 77002-4995
` (713) 229-1707
`
` BRETT J. THOMPSEN, ESQUIRE
` BAKER BOTTS LLP
` 98 San Jacinto Boulevard
` Suite 1500
` Austin, TX 78701-4078
` (512) 322-5463
`
` ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` HOWARD G. POLLACK, ESQUIRE
` NEIL A. WARREN, ESQUIRE
` FISH & RICHARDSON, PC
` 500 Arguello Street
` Suite 500
` Redwood City, CA 94063
` (650) 839-5007
`
` STEPHEN R. SCHAEFER, ESQUIRE
` FISH & RICHARDSON, PC
` 3200 RBC Plaza
` 60 South Sixth Street
` Minneapolis, MN 55402
` (612) 337-2508
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Please be seated.
` So, welcome, everyone. We are here for a final
`hearing in case IPR2016-00809, as well as case IPR2016-00995.
`Both cases have the same caption, Semiconductor Components
`Industries, LLC doing business as ON Semiconductor versus
`Power Integrations, Inc.
` Welcome to the PTAB. And let me introduce the panel
`for the hearing today. I am Judge Giannetti. I will be
`presiding. And on the monitor to my left, we have two judges
`who will be participating remotely. On the left side of the
`monitor we have Judge Fishman. And on the right side of the
`monitor, you see Judge Begley also participating remotely.
` So, let's get appearances of counsel. Who is
`appearing today for the petitioner?
` MR. FULGHUM: Good afternoon, your Honor. Roger
`Fulghum for Petitioner Semiconductor Components Industry,
`LLC. I'm lead counsel. With me today is backup counsel
`Brett Thompsen. Also with us today is senior IP counsel Josh
`Engel and chief IP counsel Rob Tuttle of ON Semiconductor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right. Welcome,
`Mr. Fulghum. Will you be making the presentation for the
`petitioner?
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` MR. FULGHUM: Yes, your Honor, I will be speaking
`for the petitioner on all issues with respect to the '0809
`matter.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Who is appearing today
`for the patent owner?
` MR. POLLACK: Good afternoon. Howard Pollack for
`Patent Owner Power Integrations from Fish & Richardson. With
`me today is Steve Schaefer, who is lead counsel, also backup
`counsel Neil Warren. We have here sitting next to me Jeff
`Sayres, who is going to be helping with the demonstratives
`and, if necessary, calling up exhibits from the record as
`we -- as we discuss the issues. And also from Power
`Integrations, Mr. Cliff Warren.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Welcome. Welcome to all of you.
` MR. POLLACK: And, your Honor, just to --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Mr. Pollack, will you be making
`the presentation?
` MR. POLLACK: Exactly. I will be making the
`presentation on the 809 matter, and when we get to the 995
`matter, that will be Mr. Warren.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. So, now we have your
`appearances. Let's talk about the procedure that we're going
`to follow. There are two cases for argument today, and we
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`will take them in order and take a short recess between the
`two cases.
` Each side in each case has 45 minutes to present
`its case. Petitioner will start, followed by the patent
`owner. The petitioner may reserve time for rebuttal, and you
`can do that either at the beginning of your argument or you
`can just reserve later on the time that's remaining,
`whatever you wish.
` I want to mention demonstratives. Both sides
`have submitted demonstratives, at least for the first
`case, but this applies to both cases. I want you to be aware
`that your demonstratives are not part of the record. The
`official record of this hearing will be the transcript that
`the court reporter will prepare and will be eventually
`entered in the case file.
` Filing of demonstratives is not authorized. The
`panel will decide when the final written decision is prepared
`whether we want any of the demonstratives in
`the record. But for now, the record will be the transcript.
` There were some objections filed to
`demonstratives. We will defer ruling on those objections
`until later. However, you can use the demonstratives as aids
`to argument during the hearing, but just keep in mind that
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`they are not part of the record.
` I want to also mention that because we have remote
`judges participating in this hearing, when you do refer to a
`demonstrative, please give us the slide number. They have
`electronic copies of your demonstratives that you've
`submitted and they will be able to follow along, but it's
`essential that you identify the demonstrative by
`number that you're referring to so that they can follow
`along.
` It's also important that you speak into the
`microphone because we want them to be able to hear what you
`have to say, and that's difficult in a remote location unless
`you speak directly into the microphone.
` All right. Any questions from petitioner? Do you
`have any questions about the procedure we're going to follow
`today or anything else?
` MR. FULGHUM: No questions for petitioner. I
`would like to note that for the 995 matter, Brett Thompsen
`will be making the argument.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. That's fine.
` MR. FULGHUM: But I'd like to speak on any 315(b)
`issues that affect both matters.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right. That's fine.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` Patent owner, any questions before we proceed?
` MR. POLLACK: No questions. Thank you.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Anything from the panel?
`Are we ready to proceed?
` Okay. I think we are ready to go. So, we will
`start with the 2016-00809 matter. Mr. Fulghum, you have 45
`minutes. You can proceed when you are ready.
` MR. FULGHUM: Of that 45 minutes, I'd like to
`reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. I'll try to give you a
`warning when you get close to that.
` MR. FULGHUM: Thank you, your Honor. So, let's
`start -- may it please the Board. Let's move forward. Here
`we have an overview on slide 2 of our argument.
` And moving forward to the next slide, the issue
`that remains in this matter with respect to the content of
`Oda is whether Oda discloses or at least suggests a mode of
`operation that involves a second range of feedback values
`that involves both a variable on-time and a variable
`frequency. And let's step through how that is disclosed or
`at least suggested in Oda.
` Let's start here on slide 3 with figure 1. Figure
`1 is figure 1 of the Oda reference, and we see an important
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`signal Ve. It's an error signal. It's a
`measure of the error voltage coming out of the load, and it's
`provided to two places in the circuit. It's provided to a
`light load detection circuit, 16, which measures that error
`voltage, compares it to Vr2, and uses it to set the
`frequency; and it's also fed into PWM circuit 12 where it's
`compared to Vc and on that basis sets the on-time. So, Ve is
`doing two jobs in terms of setting the on-time and setting
`the frequency.
` Let's move forward to the next slide, slide 4.
`And here on the left-hand side, we see figure 8. On the
`right-hand side, we see figure 3. Let's step through each of
`these.
` In figure 8, which has been annotated, we see
`frequency versus Ve. And we see how Ve passes through three
`different ranges. The first range, which is in blue, is from
`Vmax down to Vr2, and in this range, frequency is fixed, as
`shown, and the on-time varies.
` In the next range, which is in green, which is
`from Vr2 down to a level that we've identified as Vx, we see
`that frequency is varied and on-time continues to vary.
` And then, finally, there's a third range, which
`we've identified in orange, from Vx down to Vmin, and in that
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`range, frequency is fixed again and on-time continues to
`vary.
` How do we know that on-time varies in each of
`those ranges? We know that because if you look at figure 3,
`you'll see a timing diagram that shows how the on-time is
`controlled by the combination of Ve and Vc.
` We see that the on-time, which is shown in row E,
`begins when Vc begins to ramp, and the on-time ends when Vc
`crosses Ve. Thus, as Ve moves or the level of Ve changes,
`anywhere between Vmax and Vmin, Vc is going to cross Ve
`earlier or later in time and, therefore, lengthen or shorten
`the on-time.
` And we'll also see here -- let's compare figure 8
`to figure 3 -- that Ve moves between Vmax and Vmin. And
`between Vmax and Vmin is Vr2 and Vx. Those are subsets and
`within the range.
` Now let's compare the range on the left in figure
`8 to the range in figure 3, row C. Again, Ve is shown as
`moving or able to move between Vmax and Vmin, and as it moves
`between Vmax and Vmin, it's necessarily going to cross Vr2
`and Vx. And when it crosses Vr2 and before it reaches Vx,
`it's going to be in a range of operation in which there is a
`variable on-time and there is a variable frequency. And
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`that's going to satisfy the condition in the wherein clause
`of all the claims that are at issue today. It not only
`suggests it but it, in fact, does disclose it.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: So, let me ask you, Mr. Fulghum,
`are you relying principally on the figures in Oda or do you
`contend that the text of Oda describes
`this operation?
` MR. FULGHUM: We are relying on the figures, and
`the figures are very informative. The text also tells us
`that this is true. And one place to look in the text is in
`paragraph 25.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Now, just focusing on this, let's say there was no
`text in Oda. Would you
`contend that there was sufficient information in the figures
`alone?
` MR. FULGHUM: Absolutely. There is sufficient
`information in these figures. These figure are very
`informative. They would tell a person of ordinary skill in
`the art how the on-time varies. They would tell a person of
`ordinary skill in the art where it varies. They would tell
`us where and in what modes the frequency varies.
` These are very informative figures. They are
`understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`they do tell us what we need to understand concerning the
`variation of on-time and the variation of frequency occurring
`at the same time in that green range.
` That's not to say that the
`text is not informative. And it is. I would draw the
`panel's attention to paragraph 25.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Let me take a look at that.
` MR. FULGHUM: Let's do that. Let's move forward.
`I'm going to move forward to the slide concerning paragraph
`25. And I've now moved forward to slide 5. And
`here's paragraph 25, and what it describes in paragraph 25,
`it reads, "When the current flowing through the choke coil 4
`is discontinuous, a reduction in output current Io causes the
`output voltage Vo to increase."
` Now, when we enter a discontinuous mode, we know
`from paragraphs 24 and 27 that occurs when the output current
`is below Io1. And the region below Io1 includes
`all of the regions: the blue region, the green region, and
`the orange region that we just discussed.
` And that sentence goes on to say in 25, "The error
`voltage Ve starts to decrease, and the PWM circuit 12
`executes control so as to shorten the on-time." That is informative to a person
`of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`that the on-time is changed as Ve is changed. So, as Ve
`falls, the on-time is going to be shortened.
` Moving back to slide 4, we also see that in figure
`3. It matches up exactly. As Ve falls, it is going to cross
`Vc or I should say Vc is going to cross Ve earlier and
`earlier in time, which is going to shorten the on-time. So,
`the text matches the figures throughout Oda.
` In terms of other portions that describe this
`relationship, I would also direct the Board to paragraph 15
`of Oda. Paragraph 15 in the center reads -- and I don't have
`a slide for this but I'll read it into the record. There's a
`mention of Vw in the middle of 15 and it reads, "Vw," which
`is the pulse width that becomes the on-duty corresponding to
`the error voltage Ve, "the PWM circuit provides a pulse width
`signal Vw to a drive circuit 13 which then turns FET2 in the
`main circuit on and off."
` And then there's more discussion -- let me make
`sure I've got this right -- in paragraph 19.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Is there any contest as to the
`translation of that particular paragraph that you read?
` MR. FULGHUM: 25?
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Yes.
` MR. FULGHUM: There is. There is a contest -- the
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`only thing I hear about the difference in the translations,
`and I don't understand there to be a difference or a quibble
`about the two translations -- I know that there is a quibble
`over the fact that paragraph -- no, actually, is it paragraph
`30? Must be paragraph 30. Yeah, there's no quibble about
`25, your Honor. I misspoke. It was paragraph 30 where
`there's some language where there's a quibble over that. So,
`in 25, I'm not aware of it affecting any of the -- any of the
`issues.
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Counselor, this is Judge Fishman.
`Two things: One, please stand a little bit closer to the
`mic; and, secondly, are you aware of anything in Oda that
`suggests there is a minimum pulse width? In other words,
`does the pulse width modulation circuit stop reducing
`at some point under some condition?
` MR. FULGHUM: Your Honor, we found nothing
`in Oda that suggests that. There's nothing to suggest that
`there is a minimum on-time. And it's helpful with regard to
`whether there is a minimum on-time to look at the figures.
`If, for example, you look at figure 8, you'll notice in
`figure 8 that in the region between Vx and Vmin, frequency is
`fixed. And, so, to maintain regulation in that region,
`the on-time has to vary.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` And if the on-time is varying in that region, then
`we know from a comparison with figure 3 that the on-time is
`getting shorter and shorter. So, if the on-time is getting
`shorter and shorter, we know that there cannot be a minimum
`on-time that is somewhere above the Vx level and perhaps
`occurs before we reach Vr2.
` I think the suggestion from the patent owner
`preliminary response and somewhat carried forward into the
`patent owner response that there may be a minimum on-time
`that occurs somewhere in that blue region, but there's no
`suggestion of that in Oda. And that would run contrary to what we see in Oda
`concerning the fact that in
`the third region, between Vx and Vmin, we have to use on-time
`at a very low on-time level in order to maintain the
`regulation.
` JUDGE FISHMAN: To your knowledge does that
`circuit ever hit a maximum on-time such as to end up with a
`steady DC level or a minimum on-time that's zero such that
`you need a steady DC level?
` MR. FULGHUM: You know, in terms of a minimum
`on-time, if you follow the way that figure 3C works, that
`on-time will get very, very small and will approach zero as
`the Ve level goes lower and lower toward Vmin. But as far as
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
` a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` maximum on-time, I do not believe that's disclosed, your
`Honor.
` Okay. Let's move forward to slide 7. And in
`slide 7, we see again a blowup of figure 3C and figure 3E.
`Again, figure 3C shows the ramp of Vc and how it interacts
`with Ve, and below it we see the on-time. And what we've
`done in this annotation is identify Ve values in their same
`colors, blue, green, and orange, between Vmax and Vr2 and
`then between Vr2 and Vx and then between Vx and Vmin.
` The example in figure 3E -- the example in figure
`3E corresponds to Ve level Ve3. And you'll notice as Vc
`crosses Ve3, the on-time ends. If Ve were to fall, the
`on-time would get shorter. If Ve were to rise, the on-time
`would get longer. And, so, what we notice here is Ve is
`always changing. Because Ve is always changing, it
`can change in the green region, which is the variable
`frequency region.
` Okay. Let's talk for a minute about figure 7.
`Figure 7 is on slide 6. Figure 7 shows Ve as a function of
`the output current. So, this is the output current. And,
`again, we see Ve able to move, in this example, from a level
`just below Vmax, again all the way down to Vmin, and it
`crosses Vr2, it crosses Vx, it crosses through the variable
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`frequency region, which was between Vr2 and Vx.
` So, throughout this, we see Ve moving -- and,
`again, let's compare Ve moving over with respect to figure
`3C, and we see Vc again is going to cross Ve earlier and
`earlier in time, which is going to cause the on-time to
`shorten as Ve moves -- as the level of Ve moves down.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Counsel, do you attach any
`significance to the slope or the curve shown in the left-hand
`portion of this drawing?
` MR. FULGHUM: Yeah, I do not, your Honor.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: I know there's been -- I know
`there's been quite a bit of briefing on that, and I wondered what your view was
`on that. Whether
`the fact that that curve seems to
`change seems to be an inflexion point. Is that significant?
` MR. FULGHUM: The inflexion point at Iox-Vx?
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Well, there are a couple of
`different ones. There was one at -- yes, looks like there's
`one at Iox, and there's also one somewhere between -- I can't
`see the -- the numbers between the other two, I -- is it I --
`the print is too small. The two -- the two I subscripts to
`the right of Iox.
` MR. FULGHUM: Sure. Let me unpack that a bit.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`So, what we have is we have a curve. It's Ve versus output
`current. And what the patent owner points to is a constant
`slope that is above and below Vr2. And that corresponds with
`Io2. And patent owner believes that that slope should not be
`constant and there should be some change at that point.
` But let's talk about what Oda tells us about that
`transition. First, Oda tells us in paragraph 30 that below
`Vr2, that Ve falls at a constant rate. And that's exactly
`what we see here. We see Ve falling at a constant rate below
`Vr2.
` We also know that what's shown here is influenced
`by the transfer function of a buck regulator. Figure 1 is a
`buck regulator, and Ve versus Io implicates the entire
`transfer function of that buck regulator. We also know from
`Mohan, the Mohan textbook, that when a buck regulator enters
`discontinuous mode, the transfer function becomes load
`dependent. And that's exactly what we see here.
` I mentioned earlier that there was a discontinuous
`mode and that discontinuous mode begins at current Io1 on the
`X axis. So, when Io1 is reached, the regulator enters a
`discontinuous mode. And when it enters that mode, the
`transfer function becomes load dependent. That causes the Ve
`curve to accelerate downward. So, we see both of those
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`factors occurring with respect to that curve.
` Now, the precise slope above and below Vr2 is
`going to be dependent on several factors. And let's talk
`about what those are. It's going to be dependent upon the
`rate of change of the on-time, the rate of change of the
`frequency below Vr2, and it's also going to be based on the
`transfer function of the buck type regulator.
` In this example -- this is what Oda shows for this
`example for this buck type regulator and the change in those
`parameters.
` Now, we also know that Mr. Bohannon, who's patent
`owner's expert, did not consider as part of his analysis the
`transfer function of the buck type regulator. So, it's
`understandable that he did not appreciate that the transfer
`function of the buck-type regulator would play a significant
`role in the curvature of Ve versus Io.
` Let me -- let me pivot for --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Just so that I can see what
`those numbers are, would you just read the two values to the
`right just along the -- I guess it would be the X axis, the
`output current Io. Those two values of Io, I can't read the
`subscripts. Yes, you're pointing to it with your --
` MR. FULGHUM: Okay. So, the one I'm pointing --
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`let's go left to right just --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Let's go left to right from Iox.
` MR. FULGHUM: Okay. The first one is Io2.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay.
` MR. FULGHUM: Io2. And the one to the right of
`Io2 is Io1. Those are the values.
` Now, if I could, your Honor, I'd like to talk
`about what patent owner believes is occurring here. Patent
`owner believes that when we get to Vr2, Io2, that the on-time
`becomes fixed. The on-time goes from being variable,
`according to patent owner, above Vr2 to becoming fixed at
`Vr2. And we know that that cannot be correct.
` And we know that that cannot be correct because if
`the on-time is fixed below Vr2 -- I'm going to move forward
`in the slides to slide 8 -- if the on-time is fixed below
`Vr2, then it is going to disable changes to the on-time and
`that's going to disable the operation of the feed forward
`feature of the circuit.
` The circuit has a feed forward feature that
`measures the voltage at the input as a current signal and
`then that current signal changes the slope of Vc to account
`for changes to the input voltage. In this way, changes to
`the input voltage can be managed through changes to the
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`on-time.
` This is an important feature of the circuit
`because it allows changes to input to not be bothered by
`changes to the output. Let me say that a different way. It
`allows Ve to continue to do its job of monitoring light load
`conditions at the output without having to worry about
`adjusting for changes at the input.
` JUDGE FISHMAN: Counselor, I'm jumping ahead a bit
`in your presentation, I know, but part of your response is
`that the triangle wave control circuit receives Vi and
`thereby adjusts Vc, and your contention is that's done once and
`only once as a onetime calibration function. What's your
`basis for that assertion?
` MR. FULGHUM: Okay. Let me unpack that a bit.
`Our expert Dr. Madisetti, did testify that it could be
`done as part of a onetime calibration. That is, when you
`change voltage levels abruptly, there would be a onetime
`calibration. But, also, this change can be done
`dynamically. It need not in all cases be a onetime
`calibration. And we can understand why that is, because what
`is occurring in the circuit is we're trying to change on-time
`to adjust on-time as a result of changes to the input
`voltage.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` So, to disable on-time would be to negate and
`nullify a key feature of this circuit in a way that a person
`of ordinary skill would not accept that there's an understanding as to the
`operation of the circuit
`that reads out a portion of the circuit.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: So, what would be an example of
`changing the input voltage? Why would that change?
` MR. FULGHUM: Okay. The input voltage is a DC
`input.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Right.
` MR. FULGHUM: And the input voltage could change
`due to changes to that input voltage. You could think of a
`number of examples why it might change: temperature, the
`value of the battery might change. I agree there's going to
`be long periods of time where that input voltage would not
`change --
` JUGE GIANNETTI: Right.
` MR. FULGHUM: -- and we won't see any change in
`DC, but if the input voltage does change, then we
`know that the slope of Vc is going to be adjusted and that's
`going to modify the on-time.
` If I were to clamp the on-time, which is the
`theory that patent owner has, the
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`on-time, when I go into the green region, I'm going to
`disable the operation of that circuit.
` And I think it's also worthwhile to
`recognize that the patent owner does, in
`fact, in places in its petition, recognize that Ve continues
`to move during the variable frequency range. And we agree
`with that. We agree that Ve moves throughout the variable
`frequency range, the fixed frequency range, all the ranges.
` On page 22 of the patent owner response, the
`patent owner writes, "Figure 8 discloses" -- let me move back
`to figure 8, which is on slide 4 -- "Figure 8 discloses that
`the error voltage Ve may vary at the same time the frequency
`of pulses in the drive signal Vd is being varied." We agree
`with that. And if Ve moves, it's going to cross Vc or Vc is
`going to cross Ve earlier and earlier in time.
` Also, patent owner at various times says that Vi
`is always changing the on-time.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: They say -- just going -- to go
`back to page 22, here's what they say. They say, "Figure 8
`discloses that the error voltage Ve may vary at the same time
`the frequency of pulses in the drive signal Vd is being
`varied." And I think you just read that into the record.
` MR. FULGHUM: I did.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: The next sentence says, "That
`said, that does not mean, as petitioner has argued, that the
`width of the drive signal pulses continues to be reduced
`after the error voltage is dropped below Vr2." Why is that
`not so?
` MR. FULGHUM: Well, it's not so because of figure
`3. It's not so because of the rest of the disclosure. And
`you'll notice, your Honor, when you get to that portion of
`patent owner's response, that's the last they say about it.
`They never tell us how -- patent owner never tells us how --
`let me go back to a drawing of figure 1. They never tell us
`how in this circuit the on-time is clamped or fixed when you
`reach Vr2.
` Every other disclosure, every -- I should say
`every disclosure in the Oda, whether it be text, whether it
`be drawings, shows that on-time continuing to change. And we
`have no explanation for how that on-time is going to be
`fixed. And we know it can't be. We know it can't be because
`it would disable the feed forward feature.
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: Don't they point to other --
`other types of circuits, prior art circuits, where there
`would not be a simultaneous variation of on-time and
`frequencies?
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00809, Patent 6,212,079 B1
`Case IPR2016-00995, Patent 6,538,908 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
` MR. FULGHUM: They do, your Honor. They point
`to --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: And don't they -- don't they
`contend that that was the normal operation and, therefore, it
`doesn't need to be expressly said here?
` MR. FULGHUM: Yeah, that -- that is what they --
` JUDGE GIANNETTI: What's your position on that?
` MR. FULGHUM: That is what they contend. So, they
`point to a couple of references. They point to a reference
`called Billings and a reference called Semmler. And what
`they do there is they take the functionality of those and
`then they import it into Oda. We're not here to talk about
`Billings or Semmler and whether it discloses it; we're
`talking about what Oda discloses.
` And, second, there are a number of references that
`are not part of Mr. Bohannon's consideration that do show a
`variable on-time and a variable frequency. And let me just
`read out some of those for the record. One of them is the
`Nakamura reference. The Nakamura reference in Exhibit 1050
`also shows a variable on-time and a variable frequency. The
`Banba reference, Exhibit 1026; the Smedly reference, Exhibit
`1040; the Balakrishnan reference, that's one of the
`invent
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
